Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Confederate States of America. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Texas into CSA: POV

Cosmos1795 adds as "a minor historical correction", sort of like House Speaker Rayburn of Texas and his "just a little housekeeping bill". "(On March 2 four of seven Texas delegates to the Provisional Confederate Congress, already in session, arrived in Montgomery, Alabama to add their signatures to the Confederate Constitution, which had been adopted on February 8.)" The contribution should be deleted from the article.

This is pushing a POV, not a minor correction. The Texas constitutional practice required a plebiscite to confirm convention resolutions. Cosmos1795 disagrees with them, believing that resolutions of legislatures or conventions suffice, regardless of participation by the people, even when the assemblies themselves certify in their resolution that they have no authority without a ratifying plebiscite. Texans disagreed with Cosmos1795, and do not count their "secession" until the date of the referendum.

Secession being an illegal act without concurrence of 3/4 of the states in the Union, in the event secessionists were without even 3/4 of slave-holding states -- lacking DE, MD, KY, MO. The issue is confused to some who wish states could be removed from a federal republic without the people, when Virginian delegates to the Confederate Congress voted before the Virginia referendum ratifying secession, the Virginian delegation lacking any restraint at all, for the "honor" of the thing, one supposes -- the Texans had at least followed the outward forms of legal and constitutional process.

Better to stay out of the POV dating thicket, and return to the more encyclopedic style before Cosmos1795 edits. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It is very true that, of the Lower South states, only Texas put the question up for final approval by the popular vote. And as a Texan, I am proud of that fact. However, I respectfully submit -- and I mean that sincerely -- that it is simply POV on your part to assert that secession was an "illegal act" without the concurrence of 3/4 of the other states to do so. Yes, I hasten to add of course, this is a talk page and POV is lots of what it is all about, but it might still be interesting to hear your own rationale for this particular point of view! TexasReb (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Very well. First of all, I take it you agree to removing Cosmos1795 edit because Texas secession was not deemed completed by Confederates UNTIL referendum for TX? Second, Part A, rights of the people: as it took ¾ of the people in states to get into a new constitutional union, it takes ¾ to get out of it; all states (TX) enter on equal footing as the first states (VA). This supposes a compact theory of government between the American people and the people of Texas; a contract with two parties cannot be dissolved without both parties consent.

Part B, states rights: If getting out requires the same mechanism as a state got in, the pact/contract was formed between the US and Texas by a majority vote in Congress and a majority vote in TX Convention. Then Texas cannot lawfully secede until a simple majority in Congress votes for its secession. Have you a third view that does NOT include a compact theory of union between the parties, Congress and the states?

Third, even secessionists in the event had the ¾ in mind for lawful constitutional establishment; the existing Constitution could begin operation out from under the Articles Congress when ¾ ratified, and in the event, the Articles Congress dissolved itself before NC (?) and RI ratified. The banner behind the Charleston secessionist banner had ALL slave states. The Confederate Congress sought ¾ by spending a million dollars each to secure secession in MO and KY, and it seated full state delegations from both for the duration. (??) In short, secession in 1861 failed as a lawful enterprise in every state either by right of the American people or by states rights. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. And I congratulate you for not resorting to the argument many use when advancing this point of view. That is, the Texas v. White case which is inapplicable as in not only was it decided after the fact, but it didn't address the direct issue of secession at all. Rather it concerned bond sales and to arrive at their conclusion, it was necessary to "prove" Texas had never left the Union. However, this was only "dicta" and of no legal binding. With all that said, I hope that you acknowledge that the rationale laid out above (which is well thought out and expressed even though I disagree with it), is -- again -- POV on your part. Just as my reply/response is on mine. Now then, to address your arguments, and my presentation is really quite simple, common-sensical, and brief, with limited legalise! LOL...

The "compact theory" actually supports the case for secession, especially of a constitutional republic where each member state (recognized as sovereign, originally by the Treaty of Paris and later by Congress itself) only cedes specific and limited powers to the central government. In the compact originally articulated by the Constitution (of blessed memory! *sighs*), there was no provision/article/section prohibiting secession. Further, this point is backed up by the existence of the 10th amendment.

It simply defies all historical "logic" to believe that the individual sovereign states would have entered into a "compact" -- after having just "seceded" from England -- which they knew aforehand they could never get out of. That would have gone against the most basic ideal of the DOI. That is "government derives its powers from the consent of the governed." Which leads to the next point...

The right of self-determination cannot be settled on the battlefield (And yes, I realize you did not explicitly say it did). But more importantly, a "compact" in the sense of that formed by the individual states was voluntary and each had the right to withdraw from it and resume their sovereign status if the other members of the compact begin to violate its provisions (either expressed or implied). In this instance, because of the North's numerical superiority, they controlled the House of Representatives and used that power -- in the words of the Texas ordinance -- "as a weapon to strike down the interests and prosperity of the Southern people." In one example of this, the Southern states -- with about 25% of the country's population -- paid somewhere between 75 - 80% of the tax monies...which was in turn used by the northern states to subsidize their own interests.

I realize my response is summative, so here is one that might express it in more specific detail and that some might find worth reading: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/

Finally, I hope we can both agree that this is a subject that has been debated since Day One and will likely never get settled, and that there are good and reasonable arguments on both sides. :-) TexasReb (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course secession is illegal. That's why wars are fought over it. Being illegal does not mean it's illegitimate, it simply means that it's illegal. The secession of the colonies from Great Britain was illegal. The secession of East Pakistan from Pakistan was illegal. The secession of Texas from Mexico was illegal. These all led to wars that legitimized their independence. Want out of a country, you'll either need unanimity from the rest of the country and your own population and also negotiations, trades, free exchanges, etc.... or fight a war. The former is possible; Czechoslovakia did it. --Golbez (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a very good point! However I would like to state that -- at least IMHO -- there was a notable difference in the examples you cite in comparison to what the Southern states of the U.S. did in 1861. That is, the American colonies "belonged" to England, and the colony of Texas "belonged" to Mexico. On the other hand, the federal government did not own any state. Rather, all the sovereign states were just that, and the ones which were the building blocks of the compact republic to begin with.

Also, I realize I used the term "seceded" to describe what the colonies did as per England. That was a bit of a mistake on my part; the real point on my part was to emphasize it doesn't make much sense to believe the colonies would have later banded together into a Union that they knew aforehand they could never get out of, especially when they had just declared their independence from England and fought a war over it. The more accurate description is that the American colonies revolted and rebelled. In contrast, the Southern states "seceded", which is generally defined as formally withdrawing from a federal union/alliance/compact. There is nothing rebellious about it, and even the northern powers acknowledged this in private (when it came down to whether or not to try Jefferson Davis on treason charges).

Just to add (in the for what it is worth department! LOL), I always liken the pre-War United States as something akin to joining a voluntary private club. By extension, while it might require 3/4 (or whatever) of the active members to vote another applicant in? Well, it would also be taken for granted that the same majority would not be required to allow the said member to resign and go his/her own way if that be their choice. I submit this applies to the whole concept of the United States. Secession might be (and may very well have been, who knows?) unwise, foolish, and rash...but that it was illegal/unconstitutional would go against the whole concept of Union...

Anyway, again, you made some very good points and, other than the above quibbles, I really don't disagree with what I perceive of the thrust of your basic premise! Good job! TexasReb (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It "makes no sense to believe," why? They actually tried to have a situation where they were still sovereign and the central authority was weak, and the Articles of Confederation failed. So they tried again, this time with a stronger central government. At this point the memory of the revolution was over ten years old. So it's a stretch to say that you know how they thought and couldn't possibly surrender some things to the federal system. They hadn't "just declared" independence, at that point it had been thirteen years. (I'm trying not to ascribe any motives or ideas to them at all, simply saying why you shouldn't. You could well be right, but for different reasons. :)) --Golbez (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Texas Reb and Golbez. Well spoken, let me take exception. The “perpetual” union of the Articles is “more perfect-ly” formed in the Constitution. The specific and limited powers ceded by the people in the states to the national government were those of – nationhood, war, peace, commerce with each other and the world. Patrick Henry warned the north might tax slavery into nonexistence, the choice was made eyes wide open -- Union. There is no express mechanism called out in the constitution to change the nature of that supremacy of Union -- all state law and jurisprudence “to the contrary notwithstanding” (Article VI) -- and just in case, as though they had "just" had their own revolution, all federal and STATE executives, legislators and judges swear before their God to uphold the Union's supremacy (Article VI, also Virginia-born Sam Houston :))

War should not be the arbiter of disunion, but the constitutional amendment process would allow for it – (not unanimous, only three-fourths.) The American colonies did not “belong” to George III as his Sherwood Forest; charters guaranteed and were reaffirmed after the Interregnum --- Americans had the rights of Englishmen as though they were still in England --- with direct parliamentary representation as affirmed in common law since the days of Magna Carta. But over twenty years, British government compromised ever increasing numbers of rights (see DOI for enumeration), so war came. In the twenty years leading up to 1861, the slave power dominated all three branches of national government. Only at the terrorist highjacking of democratic forms in Bleeding Kansas did northern representatives unite across party lines to deny Kansas entry as a slave state. (Texas referendum was delayed until after Kansas admittance as a free-soil state -- see Golbez animated map of secession sequence).

And, if Governor Perry can lead Texas secession, shouldn't the pipeline from Canada terminate at New Orleans, not Houston? Really. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks in turn for the always good reply, VH. However, I think what it is going to boil down to is to all just agree to disagree! After all, the legality/constitutionality of secession was not settled then and isn't ever going to be. And not for the least of reasons being that no power on earth -- military or thru a legal process -- will ever stop a people's right to self-determination. Jefferson Davis, in his memoirs, said as much when he spoke the truth of that "The principle for which we contend is bound to re-assert itself, even though it may be in another time and another form."

In any event, I stand by my basic points. For one, the original assertion that a noteable difference in Southern secession and what was done in the colonies during the American Revolution and Texas during our Revolution (and believe me, being a super-proud 4th generation native Texan I don't say this lightly! LOL), was actual rebellion against a central government that yes, I maintain, "owned" the respective colonies in a way that the federal government never owned any of the sovereign states.

Yes, you are correct that there were some "special" rights granted colonists. But that fact doesn't change that they were still considered citizens and sworn to loyalty, to the mother government. In this case, respectively, British and Mexican. On the other hand, allegiance was not owed to the federal government by the citizens of any sovereign state. It was just a given back in "those days" a persons first loyalty was to their state. The notion of a federal government was pretty much an abstraction...in a way that is difficult to grasp, today.

In fact, if we are honest with ourselves and our true feeling and sentiments, even today? Well, please answer honestly, all y'all. Is your first loyalty to your home state/region -- where your home and kin are...or the federal government? When it comes to emotional considerations like this, things like 3/4 of this or that mean very little.

In closing, I just want to "quote" the preamble of the Confederate States constitution:

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

Note that the phrase is actually stronger in the CSA constitution than in the original Constitution (again, largely written by Southern men) The point being that the use of the term "permanent" actually states but a truism. That is, no people of independent character ever enter into a compact that they didn't desire to be permanent. BUT...that fact does not negate that the said members of the compact do not retain their right to get out of it. And that leads also to that the taxes imposed on the Southern states were not in order to "tax slavery out of existence"; hell, the northern merchants made a great fortune off the slave trade. No, it was intended to fill their coffers with money to subsidize their own interests!

Thanks to the both of you for a civil and intelligent discussion! TexasReb (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

did the southern states have a "right" to get out of the Union? if so they had the same right to get back in. Each one repealed the ordinance of secession in 1865. They seem to have figured it had been a poor idea because it allowed a foreign country to invade and half destroy them. Rjensen (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL I realize which side you take, Rjensen. And that is fine; no problem if that is the way you feel. But on the flip side of your query? If -- according to outlook (if I read it right, and tell me if I don't), if the northern states (i.e. those states which kept the name "United States" only by default) -- controlled by Lincoln and his administration -- maintained they never had a right to leave to begin with, then there should have been no restrictions on re-admission at all, right? After all, they never left...

Repealing the ordinances of secession? It was difficult to do anything BUT if it is done at the point of a bayonet and duress and force. Such is nothing but coercion, a money-making venture, power-grabbing... and a beneath contemptible one...

Anyway, you are just arguing from result. Let's take it from the other side, ok? What wrong had the South ever done the North? TexasReb (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

coercion? That's what the Confederacy was all about. slavery is a pretty strong form of coercion. Republicanism means government is based on the consent of the governed (including slaves....and germans in texas). The Constitution gives the federal government the duty to guarantee each state a republican form of government, and that was indeed the main justification (by both moderates like Lincoln & Johnson and Radicals) for Reconstruction. What harm the Confederacy had done?--well it tried to destroy the nation, which is a dangerous move in an era of nationalism. Rjensen (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Rejensn, slavery is a strong form of coercion. But please spare the lecture. Still though, if you are going to give it, why was the slave trade a purely northern commodity? Who brought the slaves over to begin with, and who sold them to the slave-merchants? Please check out this link and the sub-links associated before presuming to take a tone of moral/historical superiority:

http://www.slavenorth.com/

http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm

The Southern states tried to destroy the nation? This is ridiculous. The Southern states which formed the CSA -- in two "waves" of secession -- had no desire/plans at all to "destroy" the "nation." In other words, no plans to invade the north, no plans to overthrow the government of the former Union. The only thing they wished was a peaceful political separation from the northern states and to go their own way in peace. In fact, they sent reps to the Lincoln administration for that express purpose. That is, negotiate a peaceful separation and a mutually beneficial economic/defense alliance. Instead? Because the north needed to keep the South as its "cash-cow", Lincoln chose to invade and conquer a people who tried every possible means of settlement aforehand.

Finally, to make clear, I make no excuses nor apologies about which side I take, from a constitutional point of view; and emotional one. In other words I am an unreconstructed Southerner and make no bones about it. BUT...that is qualified by saying I have nothing but the greatest respect for those who take an opposite viewpoint...providing that don't attempt to turn it all into a morality play. VH and Golbez didn't do that. However, you seem to be trying to. TexasReb (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@ TexasReb. First, I'd like to agree with a fundamental point you made earlier of local "patriotism". Planning for 1976 bi-centennial July 4th, many national parks and landmarks such as Colonial Williamsburg expected a great turnout to commemorate nationalism, but most people celebrated as they always do, with LOCAL celebrations and backyard barbecues. You are correct in that sensibility, for sure.

"Nationalism" for the country 'United States' began in the Revolution and exploded after the Second War of Independence, the War of 1812. You, as did Jefferson Davis, premise much of your reasoning on the Articles of Confederation, regardless of the Constitution, and Blackstone not applied to Congress, but to each state legislature as interpreted by William and Mary law professor St. George Tucker and Virginia Justice Spencer Roane, regardless of the US Supreme Court. However, mere disagreement is not grounds for nullification according to say, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves.

As it relates to this article, Constitutionally, the states ceded and Congress accepted the USG property within state boundaries such as Fort Sumter. Lincoln was constitutionally empowered to collect legislated revenues in every port of entry to the US as defined by Congress. Again, there is no interruption of mutual contractual obligations without BOTH parties agreeing to it.

Self-determination apart from a government can be justified only after a long train of abuses against individual rights. No slaves were interfered with in the South by the USG, there is no justification without actual substantial harm done over a substantial period of time, not great harm for a short time in the case of the Nisei, not lesser harm for a longer time in the case of segregated transportation. But in every case, violence against the state and its collateral damage on populations on a frenzied whim is unjustified. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Virginia Historian. Thanks for your opening sentiments and observations, and your always well-thought out and civil replies on the main subject. Sometimes on this subject, mutual courtesy is a rare finding! LOL But anyway...

Again, this particular issue/question is going to be one that -- in the end -- we will just have to agree to disagree on. Quite obviously, you and I both have read the writings and opinions and historical papers related to the subject and simply formed different viewpoints as to which one makes the better case. And, important to mention, very likely our own natural personal biases and outlooks influence it all. But just to address a couple of your points...

No, I am not basing most of my position upon the AOC, and neither did Jefferson Davis (who was a moderate, actually!). Just out of curiosity, have you ever read his Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government? It is not easy nor entertaining reading, but it provides about the best and most well thought out and meticulously presented case for the constitutionality of secession that ever was, and incorporates literally hundreds of the precedent rulings, cases, and opinions of his predecessors. But I digress! LOL

Anyway, the case you present regarding Ft. Sumter was the excuse Lincoln needed to provoke the South into making a military move, and thereby unite a previously very skeptical North into accepting his already formed plan to invade the South to keep its tax money. But, backtracking, all that is dependent upon the primary question of whether or not secession itself was "legal." And we have already laid out our respective cases on that one. We might come up with more arguments...but in the end it will come down to not only a subjective viewpoint, but one that never has been settled and never will. Still...

I just repeat, the states were sovereign entities and recognized as such from the very beginning. Sovereignty, by definition, is not something that is divisible, although certain powers related can be delegated by compact to a centralized authority created by other sovereign powers doing the same, for mutual benefit, not necessarily love of one another. And really, that was the case from the start, that is, the states banding together into a new sort of federation which was born from the practical realization that none were strong enough -- militarily or economically -- to compete with the "states" of Europe. That they (the states) would have entered into a compact which stipulated that in order to get out of it, would require the consent of the other parties, just doesn't add up given the history of the American Revolution itself and all the writings and justifications related to our nations founding.

But to come back to square one? I respectfully (and I mean that sincerely!), submit that your argument against secession in your last paragraph really comes down to POV, not anything in the constitution. And I hasten to add, that is fine and I respect it. In a nutshell, it is predicated upon that slavery was the singular issue involved. It would be foolish to say that slavery was not an issue at all...but it is equally foolish (no disrespect intended in the least!), to predicate that it was the only issue. Of the 11 Confederate states, only four mentioned slavery as a primary cause of secession. Further, none of the four did so without either listing other causes, or binding it up with much larger considerations. The point being, that a guarantee of slavery's continued existence is misplaced. Assuming any justification at all is needed to resume sovereign powers, just one example of "abuse" would be the fact the Southern states -- with 25% of the population, were paying about 80% of the tax money into the central government, and getting almost nothing back in return! *whew*

I have rambled enough! As always, I enjoyed the exchange, and certainly respect a worthy opponent! TexasReb (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Tariffs

Hmmmm. two quibbles. 1. 'from the start' does not apply under the Constitution, as it, Congressional law and Treaties are the supreme law under the new regime; states 'sovereignty' of the Confederation would in any case be limited to the borders of states, not federal territories, an issue in slave power expansion of -- slavery. 2. Tax revenues to the national government came primarily from land sales, secondarily from import duties for most of the 1800s, the national debt was paid off by 1824. I'm not sure how the 80% figure applies. I believe cotton accounted for 80% of export value ... but isn't that distinguished from national revenues? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Federal taxes? No: in 1860 the Feds took in $56 million in revenue of which $53 million was tariffs. The South imported very little and therefore paid only a small share of the tariffs. Much of the $$ was spent on the Army in the Southwest & seacoast defenses, as well as river and harbor expenses (such as Mississippi River). Rjensen (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for your figures, Rjensen? That the Southern states did not pay an extremely disproportionate percentage of the revenues to the federal government just doesn't stand up to historical facts. For one thing, the Southern ports were the busiest in the country. Which is one reason why Lincoln ordered a blockade of the Southern ports as one of his first acts of aggression when the Gulf states seceded. In a nutshell, the whole reason for the tariffs imposed on the South to begin with was to force the said states to buy their needed implements from northern manufacturers rather than trade with Europe; the South was the northern merchants cash-cow and they wanted to keep it that way. Even Lincoln said as much to Horace Greely when asked why not just let the South go in peace.

But regardless, between the years of 1831 - 1860, the Southern states -- with 25% of the population, paid -- depending on the year -- anywhere from 60 - 80% of the total taxes/tariffs to the federal government. And -- again depending on the year -- got back something like 10 - 20% of the total.

No. Federal taxes came 90% from tariffs on good imported to New York and other Northern cities. The Southern ports (except Baltimore) were used for exporting cotton etc; they had a small import trade from Europe and only foreign imports paid tariffs. There was no tax on exports like cotton. For example the biggest port was New Orleans; it shipped a lot of cotton to Europe but it never developed much of an import trade from abroad because its goods came from the North, not from Europe. See George D. Green (1972). Finance and Economic Development in the Old South: Louisiana Banking, 1804-1861. Stanford UP. p. 71. Rjensen (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in that most of the federal revenues were spend on defense, but such only tells part of the story. That is to say, of that spent domestically? Well, the vast majority (due to the North's control of the House of Representatives where budget bills originate), of those monies were spent on canals, roads, railrods, etc, in the North which greatly benefited northern industry and interests. Here is a good link:

http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill%20Tariff.html

Yes, I realize the source is biased (just as we are! LOL), but the figures are based on solid sources, including official government figures of the era. TexasReb (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As always, VH, good to be able to discuss with a worthy opponent! So here is my reply in turn...

First of all, Mike Scruggs is good enough to reference my cousin W&M professor Ludwell H. Johnson’s work. However I fear the Lost Cause is not mainstream scholarship. And the piece rambles outside the topic’s reasonable chronological bounds and without making connections past and future -- it's not just bias, it is too polemical for scholarly use here.

I am not exactly sure what you mean when you say "The Lost Cause" is not "mainstream scholarship." Are you speaking of a specific work; or are you referring to a general presentation of the Southern side of the War? If it is the latter? Then, for lots of folks? Any work/article/etc is going to come across as "biased" and/or "polemic." But in reality? What it really amounts to is that one slanted history has evolved -- by virtue of force of arms -- the one considered "mainstream." Thus, anything to the contrary is considered "screwy."

The reason being that...well, let's be honest about it all. Written history is biased by it very nature. The winners write it and, over time, the said become the accepted version by a sort of "social osmosis". (I take responsibility for that term). For instance, I make no excuses at all that I present a very biased viewpoint. But so do those on the other side when they dismiss it...they just often don't recognize it as being so because that is all they ever knew. You are an honest and intelligent man, Virginia, can you really say you don't present/advance opinions that reflect your own historical prejudices? There is nothing wrong with that at all...and I freely admit I do.

The article fails to link how protective tariff cut SC exports 25% in 1828; I’m skeptical. The inter-regional deal was northeasterners would gain protection for their manufacturing --- but lose control of national finance with the end of the Second US Bank. That would enhance the power of South and West state banks and secure the financial base of the Democratic (pro-slavery) party nationally. The Morrill Tariff was passed in 1861, only after withdrawal of Southern delegations, especially the Senate --- not May 1860. The voting statistic of 1-40 southern representatives makes me wonder, which 40? and, were there not 64 representatives from slave states in May 1860? The chronology is messy.

Shouldn't be anything necessarily suspicious about it, VH. In lots of cases on a vote in Congress, some members are not going to be present. Also, the source might depend upon how "Southern" is defined. Remember, it said "Southern", not "slave", and that can be an important distinction.

There are lots more sites than that one. Here is another which seems quite "neutral", far as these things go:

http://www.kosmosonline.org/2011/01/29/did-tariffs-really-cause-the-civil-war-the-morrill-act-at-150/.

My go-to source for basic understanding of the South is Louisiana State University’s multivolume History Vol VI is “The Growth of Southern Nationalism 1848-1861" (1952) by Avery O. Craven. In his view, the threat to secede was predicated on Lincoln’s election --- and so-called "black Republicans" (code word -- much?) proposed restriction of slavery in the US territories -- which had been governed by Congress with restrictions since the Articles of Confederation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course it was predicated on Lincoln's election -- I concur -- but that does not negate that there were more reasons for doing so than simply slavery. Only four states mentioned it at all. So far as the term "Black Republicans" goes? Noting coded about it at all in terms of regional differences. C'mon, VH. By today's standards almost anyone -- North or South -- would be considered a hopeless racist. The real reason the northern powers did not want slavery in the territories (and I agree this was the flash-point), was because they didn't want blacks in the territories. About the only difference in northern and Southern attitudes was that the South was just less hypocritical about it all...

Anyway, once again, enjoyed it! TexasReb (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The Lost Cause is a school of historiography which explains the late unpleasantness in terms of states rights alone, reducing all questions of slavery to the race question, and all questions of constitutional law to lone state resolutions (no pun intended), with or without popular referendum, state constitutional convention or US constitutional amendment. The votes in the Electoral College constitutionally elected Lincoln president, and he did the South, no harm. But at his March inauguration Lincoln promised to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act as well as he could enforce the ban on the international slave trade.

My explicit bias is for constitutional governance protecting human rights, a democratic republican government with a regime of frequent elections by the widest possible franchise. It is not force of arms that makes credible winners; only winners of free elections are legitimate. Were any southern rights violated by the US Government of Lincoln's administration, prior to open rebellion, or indeed were there any exingencies which Lincoln used during the rebellion which Jefferson Davis did not also avail himself (suspending habeas corpus, draft)? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

As always, good to exchange with you VH! No, the only thing what you call the "Lost Cause" argument attempts to do, is counter the latter day myth that the sole cause of the War was over slavery as a moral issue. I think we both know -- except for a small abolitionist minority -- it wasn't. It was an economic controversy and it really came down to much more than slavery as a solitary issue. I have said before, that to say slavery played no role would be crazy on my part, but to say it was not bound up in larger issues is equally abbreviated.

Who can argue against "human rights"? I am not sure what you mean here as in terms of the standards of the day ala' North vs. South.

You said Lincoln did the South no harm. No, but he was controlled by interests that did intend just that. So I am flipping the question. What wrong had the South done the North that would justify an invasion of states that only wanted to go their own way in peace? This is the only reason why the states of the Upper South seceded at all. Not over slavery, but fear that that Lincoln's policies foreshadowed a radical change in the way the country would be change from a true federal republic, in to an empire. As Alexander Stephens (vice-president, CSA...and also a friend of Lincoln's) put it:

If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity.

Why could things not have been worked out peacefully, as the South wanted it to...and even negotiate a mutually beneficial economic/military alliance?

There was no "rebellion". Even the northern powers that be, privately admitted such. Salmon Chase wrote to Edwin Stanton: “If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North; for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion…His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We can not convict him of treason.”

So far as the free election aspect you bring up, well, VH, we are probably going to just go back to square on and have to agree to disagree. I believe in free elections as well, but where we obviously part company is over the question (and it will never be "solved") of whether or not a sovereign state has the power to secede from a voluntary compact without having first gained permission from fellow members? This notion (of course, only IMO) negates any ideals of that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. But anyway, again, it is always good to be able to discuss/debate with one who presents their argument in a civil and articulate way! Have a good evening! TexasReb (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The "free soil" argument was powerful in the North esp the republican party. They wanted no rich slaveowners in the territories because they had the $$$$ to buy up the best land and work it with slaves--leaving zip for free men. The Republicans sponsored & passed the Homestead Act in 1862 after the South had blocked it for years, and it opened up the West to free men (both black and white--and women could be homesteaders too). See Eric Foner. Free Soil... (1970) Rjensen (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

As I have said before -- and I don't think anyone really disagrees -- that history is not an objective subject and we are all either influenced and/or drawn by/to the same bias we later write about ourselves. But Eric Foner really is wayyyy out there. But that's ok, however I do think it is important to note he is a Marxist and freely admits one of his goals is (simplistically put) to get Americans to re-think that their (our) history is anything to be proud of. And that many consider his interpretations of history to be quite bizarre. I haven't read the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" book, but I have read reviews, and many of them do -- in a nutshell - indicate that his own anti-South bias has come up against his ideological tendency to present American history (North or South) as a continuous theme of racism, discrimination, and oppression. But ok, I haven't actually read it myself, so I am just saying this fellow might not be the best one to make the point! LOL

As it is? I am much more inclined to believe what Lincoln said in 1854 -- as part of the "Great Debates" -- as most representative of general northern opinion of the time as concerns the reason for opposition to slavery in the western territories:

"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them." -- Abraham Lincoln

Being as Lincoln was running for president and needed the support of northern voters to win, and the financial help of northern industrial interests for sure, it would seem to stand to reason he would appeal to the overall sentiment and racial prejudices of his potential electorate.

Another thing to note -- and Jefferson Davis brought this up in his memoirs -- the latter day argument that "rich Southern slave-owners" could have bought up all the land in the West, didn't hold water (no pun intended) simply because the climate and terrain was not condusive for the existence of the type of system that existed in the southeast so far as plantation agriculture goes. It had pretty much reached its natural geographic limits somewhere around the 100th parallel. Thus, there was really no land to work with slaves, at all. TexasReb (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon had all come in free soil, with no slave state to balance in the Senate. At first the politics of the Democratic party protected the slave power, as western Senators were all Democratic. The point of bleeding Kansas was for domestic terrorists to make the territory a slave state against the wishes of the majority, homesteaders primarily from New England as you correctly surmise. The point of expanding slavery into the territories was to rebalance the Senate for slave-power control, “rule or ruin”. The violence in Kansas was such an outrage despite presidential endorsement, for the first time, the North voted across party lines to reject admitting Kansas as a slave state. When Kansas entered free soil, Texas referendum voted to ratify secession. Later Civil War destroyed effective slave power after 1863. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Tag: verification needed for Stephen’s quote.

Answer: the quote is in character for Stephens, and consistent with characterizations of his dispute with Davis found in other sources.

circumstances: the pages 258,259 are not in the linked book excerpt Rable (1994) The Confederate Republic: a revolution against politics p. 258, 259 -- therefore it is not easy to verify online.

Query: what prompts the lack of assumed good faith on the part of this previous editor (not me)? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: remove tag. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Tag: citation for rectangular battle flag use in 20th C.

Previous editor did not want to directly refer to the 20th century use of the rectangular battle flag by the Ku Klux Klan and popular media depiction of the KKK as using it. What sort of citation for this widely known fact needs to be provided?

It seems useful to make a distinction between the CSA and the KKK's use of the "st. andrew's cross" flag, as one was ended in 1865, the other was under surveillance by the FBI as a domestic terrorist organization in the 20th century. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove tag. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Tag: which was southern Unionists favorite candidate in 1860

Answer: Bell of the Constitutional Union party, the party of “old men” in the South. It was not Lincoln or Douglas. Where Unionists were strongest in border states, Bell carried Virginia, Kentucky Tennessee, Douglas only Missouri. Maryland voted 45.1 for Bell, 45.9 for Breckinridge.

Concern: citation needed because Bell was quick to support secession after Sumter.

Answer: Freehling says Bell was the candidate of choice for southern Unionists. -- Bell did object to coercion, (Davis claimed a defensive war). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: enumerate unionist candidates, provide citation for each sentence as requested. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Current map

The current map has a few issues:

The CSA never claimed the northern half of New Mexico Territory.
I'm unsure if they claimed the Neutral Strip; I'd like to know.
The map is potentially anachronistic, as it includes Arizona Territory as part of the CSA, but lacks West Virginia, yet there was generally the same amount of control over both.
The article said it was the CSA in 1862; demonstrably false, as West Virginia did not exist until 1863. Someone changed it to 1863, which is how I noticed it. I reverted but in retrospect I should go self-revert it back to 1863, as that's at least more factually accurate.
If this map is "dark green = CSA control, light green = CSA claim but USA control", it fails, because it lacks the nuance of, for example, Northern Virginia being in Union hands, southern Louisiana being lost in early 1862, etc. If you're going to consider West Virginia as not being under C.S. control, then you must do the same for Northern Virginia and Southern Louisiana.
If this map is "dark green = area fully joined CSA, light green = CSA claimed but never had legitimacy from area government", it fails, because (ignoring the issue of New Mexico Territory) West Virginia should be dark green. Just because the U.S. admitted West Virginia doesn't change the fact that its legitimate government in Richmond joined the C.S. If West Virginia is light green because it was admitted to the U.S. then by that logic the entire map is light green, as the U.S. never surrendered any claims over the rebel states.
My suggestion for the map is to be blatant about its anachronisms, as we do with empire maps: Show the full extent of the "legitimate" claim of the C.S. (that is, those states whose legitimate state governments joined it; I'm not saying the C.S. was itself legitimate, but I'm saying, in opposition to the splinter/shadow governments that claimed jurisdiction in Missouri and Kentucky) as dark green, and the remainder of C.S.-claimed territory as light green. So that would render...
- The core states dark green.
- Indian Territory ... needs to be discussed but I can go with dark green.
- Neutral Strip, unknown.
- Arizona Territory, light green (The Mesilla government was not the legitimate U.S. government of the territory)
- West Virginia, dark green (as per above)
- Missouri and Kentucky, light green (as their secessions were purely by splinter governments)
This way we avoid any issue of control or deciding what year this map takes place in.

Thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I updated the map to include the claimed territories. If anything, you could have it as of the beginning of 1862, where most of what is now West Virginia was under union control, half of Missouri and Kentucky was under confederate control, and I believe the area of modern-day southern Arizona/New Mexico was under CSA control. General Stand Watie was fighting in the Indian Territory. I cannot find anything on the Neutral Strip.—SPESH531 Other 00:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

On the northern half of the New Mexico Territory, New Mexico Campaign by the confederates to gain control of the area. The confederate government saw Arizona territory as the southern area of USA's Arizona and New Mexico. Very few people lived in the Neutral Zone, but I would go with this for the map:

Show northern Arizona/New Mexico light green with the Neutral Zone dark green or,
Show northern Arizona/New Mexico and Neutral strip grey.

Also, maybe show West Virginia as a green a little darker then the light green, but not dark green. Missouri and Kentucky should be light green due to splinter governments. West Virginia was held by confederates from the Battle of Fort Sumter to the summer of 1861, so I believe it should be in light green (a separate proposal from the beginning of the paragraph). I'm throwing what is true and throwing out certain proposals as part of different versions is to be used. —SPESH531 Other 01:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that if you're going purely with control on the ground, the map becomes a lot more complicated. Again, you'd have to lighten Northern Virginia and, depending on when the map takes place, Southern Louisiana; just because there were battles in northern New Mexico doesn't mean they claimed it (otherwise, Gettysburg and Antietam mean Pennsylvania and Maryland would be green). And yes, the Arizona Territory was the southern half of the USA's New Mexico Territory (USA's Arizona Territory didn't exist at first), that has nothing to do with the northern half. If we can't go with pure control-on-the-ground, and I don't suggest we try, then another method must be decided upon. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not going for actual control. The definite's are:

Missouri and Kentucky are light green
Indian Territory is dark green
Northern New Mexico territory is grey

The "to be determined" issues are:

Color of West Virginia (specifically the fact of it being shown as a US state, in turn light green, or part of CS Virginia, in turn dark green
Color of Arizona territory (this was an organized territory under the Confederacy)
Neutral Zone (was it claimed by the Confederacy?)

Is this correct of for the current consensus and the issues that need to be solved? —SPESH531 Other 06:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternately, more light green and grey

Indian Territory might be grey, -- in that its cotton could not be got to market through blockade, and the promised Confederate arms were not delivered and so the initially promising Confederate prospects there collapsed in 1862. The U.S. government did legislate to abolish slavery there early, but I am not sure of the extent of actual control on the ground, so grey.
Arizona Territory might be light green, -- although it may have been organized on a map, its Confederate government was in absentia just as Missouri, Kentucky and West Virginia’s.
West Virginia, Missouri and Kentucky light green in that while all suffer indigenous guerrilla activity, and all have in absentia Confederate governments, -- but all are firmly, democratically self-governing under U.S.G. control after 1861 with representation in the U.S. Congress.
Northern and eastern Virginia, central Tennessee and New Orleans dark green -- they lose their representation in 1863, because the districts are so disrupted by Confederate activity too few voters turn out as a percent of the 1860 elections, so U.S. Congress does not seat the otherwise duly elected representatives from those places. Places not represented in 1863 U.S. Congress (Martis, 1989 p.117) can remain dark green. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Arizona Territory should probably be light green; the Mesilla government was as legitimate as the Neosho and Bowling Green governments, even though the Confederacy held slightly more power there for slightly longer. Neutral Strip should probably not be included, because no one really cared about it. :P Mississippi and Kentucky should remain light green. Indian Territory... I'll go with dark green for that. So the real question is West Virginia. And I say stick with dark green. What are the arguments for making it light green? That it wasn't under full Confederate control? Neither was Northern Virginia or Southern Louisiana. That it was admitted to the U.S.? That applies to the entire confederacy, nothing special about West Virginia. And it seceded with its legitimate Richmond government, until the U.S. declared a new government in Wheeling, but that didn't un-secede it for purposes of this map. I would say light green should apply to areas that the C.S. claimed but didn't really secede, and WV did secede. From both. ... Maybe it should get another shade of green to show that it seceded from the U.S. and then seceded from the C.S., the only area to do so. --Golbez (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

MO, KY, and WV are all regions with “Ordinances of Secession” for the people living there -- whether or not states can legitimately secede-- and they are represented in the Confederate Congress. And they are represented in the U.S. Congress – all should be light green,

The same color key comes not because editors chose which states could secede, or what is “territory under control” --, but because sources show the people in each territory are represented in both Congresses. And northern & eastern VA, middle TN, and southern LA are not represented in both Congresses as of 1863, so they are dark green --simpler and sourced for Mar 1863-Mar 1865 when the entire TN delegation returns to U.S. Congress). Sourced solution is better than offhand judgment call. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And I'm saying, instead of picking a specific arbitrary date, have an anachronistic map showing the greatest extent of CSA claim and control. --Golbez (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

West Virginia being an in between green seems reasonable (in response to your above remark. There is a reason why WV left the confederacy, as they were pro union. Is the map now usable?—SPESH531 Other 23:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

West Virginia did not leave Virginia because it was Unionist. Pierpont himself told Lincoln on Dec. 30, 1862 "The Union men of WestVa were not originally for the Union because of the new state." The telegram is in the Library of Congress. West Virginia was created as a political maneuver by Unionists. Most of the state is made up of Confederate counties. West Virginia was more solidly of the Confederacy than either Kentucky or Missouri. At least 9 counties organized votes under the Richmond government on May 28, 1863. There were even 200 write-in votes for Confederate candidates polled in Wheeling on that same date, which was even higher than the secessionist vote in Wheeling in 1861, small though it was. I am unaware of any organized county votes in either Missouri or Kentucky, though I may be mistaken on that. Dubyavee (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Dubyavee is correct that there were no county votes in Missouri and Kentucky. Confederate representatives were either directly appointed by the Confederate governor of the state in exile, or elections were held in army camps among the state regiments for uncontested slates of representatives nominated by the absentee governors.

Golbez is proposing his unsourced determination that Virginia seceded and that West Virginia seceded from Virginia. But simpler is better, sourced is better. I would like to side-step the legitimacy of secession issue. A map of Congressional District control is available from Martis 1994, p.43 which shows even as of the Confederate Congress, first congress, first session, Feb 18 1862, western Virginia congressional districts 14, 15 and 16 (panhandle and those along the Ohio River, about 2/3 what will be WV) are under Union control.

Instead of a map of congressional districts, let's represent states only in Confederate Congress in March 1863 as dark green, – and states with representation both in US and CS congresses in light green: MO, KY, WV (Martis, 1989 p.117). Simpler - states- and sourced -Martis 1989, 1994- is better. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Except until March 3, 1863, Virginia and Tennessee had representatives in the federal house. So you're picking a specific date then - March 4, 1863? Also, my "unsourced" determination that Virginia seceded? Am I misunderstanding that you're saying me saying Virginia seceded is unsourced? --Golbez (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

But the few loyal representatives from western, northern and eastern Virginia cannot be represented in a state map, they must be represented in a congressional district map, just as those loyal representatives in southern Louisiana and middle Tennessee would have to be represented in Congressional maps.

If you want a state map of A: March 1861 to march 1863, then a state map B: March 1863 to March 1865, then Map A: has LA, TN, VA, MO and KY in light green without picturing WV. Then Map B has WV, KY and MO in light green. But I thought the issue just related to one state map, after March 1863, showing WV, KY and MO light green. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do we have to pick a timeframe? Be anachronistic. Show the largest extent of the claimed area and the reasonably controlled area of the Confederacy. Color WV and AZ dark green, color MO and KY light green. Problem solved. If we pick 1863 then people will ask, why not 1861? Why not 1865? And those will be valid questions, since 1863 is not the largest extent of the CSA. March 1863 seems like a random date chosen to satisfy a particular set of desired data. What is the justification for choosing it? We have to choose one for the lead image, we might as well choose all. It's not like the Confederacy existed in one form for 50 years like the Soviet Union did; it never held any form longer than a couple of years, so to pick one to represent it is difficult, if not impossible. --Golbez (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Aside. Are you saying states can legally secede, -- but that they cannot is settled U.S. constitutional law. The first Virginia secessionist convention voted not to secede, the second did so under gunpoint by the former governor who had made seizures on his own secessionist authority to commit acts of war against the United States, unauthorized by Virginia, seizing armament at federal arsenals at Harper's Ferry and Gosport Naval Yard. In the event there was no statewide referendum to leave the union taken in a regular manner -- only votes taken in army camps vive voce with out-of-state troops around Richmond in numbers akin to regular Virginia turnouts.

Are you saying Virginia was properly represented by Confederate army camps apart from its regular polling places? I would like to side-step the question as moot. Those fighting for secession were in rebellion 1861-spring 1865, then it ended. Are you supporting a Confederacy "since 1865" supposing the U.S.G. to be illegitimate in Virginia today? That is fringe and unlike you, and beside the question of how to color the map in question for this article. Which comes down to whether we use Martis as a source for the states and congressional districts, or no source, for VA, TN, LA, MO, KY from Mar 61- Mar 63 and --- MO, KY, WV from Mar 63 - Mar 65. States is simpler than congressional districts, two sources to cover both U.S.A. and C.S.A. is better than no source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm making no statement that states can legally secede. That Richmond claimed to secede is undisputed fact, and is not at all "unsourced". I am not required to waffle and hedge every statement that I make; I can be reasonably sure that I can talk about "when Virginia seceded from the union" on this talk page and not have to source that. --Golbez (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It is commonly held that Gettysburg was the "high watermark of the Confederacy", July 1863 that is the answer to any who might ask as to the date. MO, KY and WV can all be pictured as the same light green.

On the other hand, western Virginia approximated by 1863 West Virginia ("let's be anachronistic" and use a state map outline versus a Congressional district map and leave out consideration other parts of VA, LA, and TN) western Virginia was never reasonably considered to be under Confederate control Lee lost there at Cheat Mountain Sep 61. Western Virginia was never under Confederate control any more than Missouri or Kentucky,-- which you concede -- for all three regions as mapped in our source (Martis 1994, p.43) , even as of its first secession of its first congress -- indigenous guerrilla activity and Confederate raids in all three places notwithstanding.

There needs be no resolution about loyalist West Virginia "seceding" from a "seceded" Virginia, that's my point. MO, KY and WV can all be pictured as the same light green as sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Just saw your post. "Western Virginia was never under Confederate control any more than Missouri or Kentucky." I must point out that the Confederacy did have nominal control of the lower 1/3 of West Virginia toward the southeast. At least 8 counties had a civilian vote in May 1863 in Confederate elections. Senator Carlile names 13 counties in a bill in Feb. 1863 as still being under Confederate control-"Boone, Logan, Wyoming, Mercer, McDowell, Pocahontas, Raleigh, Greenbrier, Monroe, Pendleton, Fayette, Nicholas, and Clay, now in the possession of the so-called confederate government.", and various West Virginia counties between 1862-1863 were placed under martial law by the Confederate government. Dubyavee (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected at the county level. At the time I was arguing for using state maps versus Congressional District maps and therefore losing the input of the county level. In spite of that, the outcome was that Golbez colored WV a shade closer to Confederate control than Missouri or Kentucky, which sort of makes your point in a visually graphic manner, he captured the nuance. The result is entirely satisfactory although I disagreed with his rationale at the time. In the event, Golbez does better than I can imagine, again. I guess that's why he's the cartographer. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Revision of History Section

Concerning the revisions in the history section (this is primarily to The Virginia Historian) I just wanted to get your side of why you reverted my earlier edits. I know from past conversations with you that you are a reasonable and intelligent man, so I sure you will want to discuss this. You state in your "reason" box it was to restore a "correct representation of the Thomas citation."

With all due respect, TVA, I suggest you did not thoroughly examine the placement and reasons for the changes I made, nor exactly which paragraph the Thomas citation referred to. As it was, I did not touch the section where Thomas was cited at all (which was ref.#9) and the citation itself remained intact. Please check this out for your own verification.

On the contrary, the section I did some revisions on was in next paragraph and in no instance was Thomas used as a reference for the content. Instead I did it for the following reasons (none of which disputed the basic premise of Unionist sentiment rather, just to better explain and clarify and do some date and voting result modifications):

1.To make an important distinction between secessionist and Unionist sentiment as expressed in the Elections of 1860 as opposed to the actual vote for secession in 1861. They were two different things, and I wanted to clarify.

2. Unlike implied in the previous version, there was no Unionist sentiment in South Carolina expressed at either the election, or the later vote on secession.

3. As allude to in point 1., the opening line of the original seems to suggest the actual vote on secession was in 1860. However this was true only in South Carolina (addressed above). All others were in 1861. The earlier version seemed to blend everything that occurred into the year 1860, which was only the election.

4. Concerning the election itself, the actual voting "extremes" (i.e lowest and highest percentages of "pro-Union) candidates were tallied and do not match the "source" given. This was corrected.

5. Speaking of the source cited (ref.#10), there are many things that seem a bit askew with it as well. Although I did not eliminate nor "tag" it, I would ask you to take a look at it yourself. For one thing, the "author" is not indicated (whether person or URL) at the top, as is usual; the only link cited to support the "body" of the text is a link to the wikipedia article: Election of 1860. Second, the actual "content" does not only not always match the election tallies, the words within it do not appear in the link provided (the wiki aricle). Instead, they seem to be some kind of personal opinion/interpretation. I will post it below just go ahead and post it right here, rather than you having to go look it up:

"The first six signatory states establishing the Confederacy counted about one-fourth its population. They voted 43% for pro-Union candidates. The four states which entered after Fort Sumter held almost half its population. They voted 53% for pro-Union candidates. The three big turnout states voted extremes. Texas at 5% population voted only 20% pro-Union candidates. Kentucky and Missouri with one-fourth the Confederate population as claimed, voted a combined 68% for the pro-Union Lincoln, Douglas and Bell. See Table of election returns at United States presidential election, 1860."

(As a side note, I wonder why Texas is grouped with Kentucky and Missouri and referred to as the "Big Three"? What is that? LOL).

6. Finally, in the re-write, I did remove the adjective "white" when used to qualify "seccesionist," Not only is it redundant (as only whites could vote in 1860 anyway, secessionist or Unionist -- or North or South for that matter), it strongly comes across as just reflecting a personal bias/hostility on the part of the paragraph writer. And to repeat: Thomas was never cited in the revised passage by the original editor at all; in fact, the wiki article he linked to -- Election of 1860 -- did not even cite any works by Thomas in their list. Thus, I hope that clears up that aspect at least. :-)

In closing, I just want to add I hope this was just a misunderstanding that can be easily discussed and cleared up. I am going to revert back to my earlier revisions one more time, for the above stated reasons. I hope you will carefully read and consider them in that light. If -- on the other hand -- you decide to revise again in turn, please state your own reasons here first (as I did before making another change). In that case, we can follow Wiki policy and see if we can come to an amicable agreement and/or compromise before any additional revisions are made by either of us. After all, I know neither of us wants to engage in an "edit" war, and will follow proper rules and protocal to avoid one. After all, if we can't agree can -- as a last resort -- take it to a Moderator and no hard feelings! Will that work? Thanks TVH. It is always productive to exchange with you, even when we disagree! :-) Best Regards! TexasReb (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your as always courteous and well-written reply...and I just wanted to address a few of your points (taken one by one below)...

"The earlier version seemed to blend everything that occurred into the year 1860, which was only the election." --- But Thomas uses the election to gauge the political sentiment of the South before the secessionist conventions.

But again, Thomas was not cited in the passage in question -- which concerned election results only -- not his interpretation of political sentiment. Had he been used as a source, then it might have been different (in any event, there are many different interpretations of political sentiment in the South). In this case however another "source" was used for the election itself, and as noted above, it never mentioned Thomas either (see Elections of 1860 article).

My major exception was to the first edit. You changed a description of the political south 1860-1861 into a description of the 1861 secessionist conventions. The Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas in his Norfolk Doctrine during his southern campaign swing explained that he would go to war to preserve the Union -- versus Bell who believed secession was illegal, but he would not fight for Union. Thomas reports there was Unionist support in every southern state, for the secessionist convention, a member of the South Carolina Supreme Court stood as a Unionist and was not elected. There were others.

Ok, I can see your point on this in some ways. But as I hope I explained properly, earlier(in both the explanatory post, and on the "reason for changes" in the edit), that I thought it would be a useful and important contribution to make a distinction between the results of the 1860 Election, and the actual secession vote, as regards Unionist sentiment in the South. But again, Thomas was not cited in this, and too, no one ever questioned the actual existence of Unionist sentiment in the South. Plus, I agree with your assessment of the stands of the candidate involved...which is another reason I take a bit of issue with the citation (ref.#10), as in it lumps all three of them into a broad "pro-Union" category that only tells part of the whole story. But most importantly, it does not seem to follow proper rules for source citation; rather, just the contributors' personal interpretation and link to an wiki article at the end.

At the same time -- in looking back over it all -- I again acknowledge your general point as concerns my first edit. If the writer of that paragraph (and it is unclear who the original editor was) had simply noted it referred to presidential voting sentiment only...then I would have done the revision passage in a different order. So I stand corrected on that one to a large degree. I will make that correction!

Hard to follow all your points, Texas was one of the three largest turnout percentages, "The three big turnout states voted extremes." Texas alone extremely few for the Unionist candidates. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, to clarify, Texas was not one of the "Big Three" (sounds like a super-small athletic conference, doesn't it? LOL) in terms of total Southern voting turnout. In fact, even according to the source referred to by the editor in question, that state would have been Virginia (as in replacing Texas). Texas would have been better grouped with the other original Confederate states in terms of sub-regional percentages of participants. Unless, of course, the conclusion advanced by the said editor was to, perhaps intentionally inflate the percentages supporting "Unionist" candidates in the Lower South (of which Texas was considered a part at the time)? For evidence, note that the "citation" provided seems (at least in my opinion) to carefully exclude Texas from the original Confederate states? No, instead, it (again only IMO) deflects/manipulates by using the phrase "first six signatory states" and places Texas into another category (which in itself is inaccurate). While such wording is technically correct (as to voting by the first six), it (conveniently, perhaps? )fails to take into account that Texas had already been admitted into the Confederacy by the "orginal six signers", even before Texas delegates arrived. Thus, the Texas reps were already afforded seats on voting and input as concerns the final formation of the particulars and constitution of the provisional CSA government.

Ok, I am going to sign off and hit the sack! Thanks again for your reply, and I will make the corrections mentioned earlier as to your very valid points sometime in the next day or so! Best Regards! TexasReb (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. As to a little housekeepng measure, as Sam Rayburn used to say.

While the Confederate Congress was happy to seat Texas representatives and let them vote, they themselves had the integrity not to vote until the referendum of the people was held in regular order in Texas. One may conclude they believed the people were sovereign as a matter of principle. That the Virginia delegation took their seats and voted before their irregular referendum implied something else was sovereign for those men. The Confederate Congress also seated and allowed to vote, representatives from Missouri and Kentucky who were merely secessionist Governor appointees or "elected" from uncontested slates in army camps, and those representatives made up a permanent pro-Davis voting bloc for the duration (Martis).

Whereas when Confederates disrupted 1862 elections in U.S. congressional districts in eastern Virginia, middle Tennessee and southern Louisiana, their representatives were not seated, the voter turnout was too low to fairly represent the people there as determined by the U.S. Congress. --- You may have detected a not so much a bias of admiration, but a distinction made for the Texas delegation to the Confederate Congress who would not be stampeded in the frenzy of the moment, they awaited the results of referendum to go forward -- then they saw themselves as the legitimate representatives, not of a legislative faction, not of a secessionist party, but of the people of Texas. And that was qualitatively different from other "seceding" states. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Done! Please take a look and give your input. Thanks! TexasReb (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I like the use of footnote to account for statistical information which otherwise would slow down the flow of the narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

hey stop. all this speculation about 1860 Unionist voting is original research and is not based on the LARGE scholarly literature. second, it is only remotely related to the topic of the article. Rjensen (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

But, Emory M. Thomas volume, The Confederate Nation: 1861-1865 was published in the New American Nation Series, edited by Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris. I thought that made it mainstream, and the title seemed to tie into the article subject. Blurbs on the cover from T. Harry Williams, C. Vann Woodward and Eric Foner. I thought I was on safe ground. What did I miss? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thomas is fine. Unsourced speculation about "Unionists" is not useful in this article, and is not allowed by OR rules. (Thomas give one sentence in the whole book to Unionist voters, end of p 49) Rjensen (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, texas-reb, Wikipedia does not allow speculation. The stuff on Unionists is not based on any reliable secondary source and is argumentative and rather irrelevant. It is bad history. Rjensen (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Double checking the material at issue, it seems the passage reference was linked to "Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis. By Daniel W. Crofts. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989." Is that the source which does not pass muster? I am completely willing to defer to Rjensen, I'm just not sure where the exact problem lies.

Thomas notes that there was a "revolution" in the Confederate South, it was a South unlike that before or after (Thomas 1979 paper, p.146), and "Overt Unionism in the Confederacy, too, tended to be strongest in those subregions, mountains, and swamps inhabited almost exclusively by nonplanters." (Thomas 1979 paper, p.234) I thought that the disjunction between the "before" Confederacy was useful in explaining the "revolution" of the Confederacy. And the representation of the South including Unionists, even during the Confederacy, is well documented, and it was reflected in the 1860 voting geography for Unionist Lincoln and Douglas and Bell.

Was I leaving out Freehling, "Road to Secession: secessionists triumphant 1854-1861"? I'll have to go back to him to refresh my memory. I am not persuaded to the Lost Cause, or that the Solid South is an unchanging monolith. I am happy to defer, just don't yet understand the point of the deletion if what is called for is a tag, "needs citation", in the place where it is needed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

as many historians have shown (including Crofts, who was a student of mine and thanks me in his book page xxv), "unionist" meant something different in 1860 versus 1861. Crofts says "Most" Breckenridge supporters in the Upper South denied their man was a disunionist. (Crofts p 79). Candidate Bell and many other Constitutional Unionists of 1860 joined the Confederacy in 1861. Crofts says Unionism first appeared as a force in late December 1861, well after the election (Crofts p 104). In any case, the issue of support for the Confederacy should be focused on 1861 when the debate was real, not in 1860 when there was no Confederacy. Rjensen (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen? Regarding your latest post, Now you sound a bit more reasonable. I too agree that Unionism made its real appearance in 1861. However, what I believe you may be presuming is that I was the one who original post in question. No, I didn't. You would have to go back from the start of the edits to understand the dilemma I was faced with in that that regard (this too can be read in our earlier exchanges). As he pointed out and I knew to be true as well, Breckinridge was not a secessionist and Bell later threw his support to the Confederacy. And further, the reason most of those favoring eventual secession supported Breckinridge was because he best represented their views on the question of slavery in the territories -- which was the real flashpoint, so to speak -- not because he advocated secession, because he didn't; right up 'til the end he urged compromise. So, yes, I agree there.

And I did not agree at all with the original writers' turning the whole thing into a Unionist vs. Secessionist position, as at time, ALL candidates were for "preserving the Union", albeit varying in how far they were willing to go to do so.

BUT? The problem I was faced with either was either re-writing the whole passage, or just do the best I could to correct what I could. Soooo, some of the content are not my words at all, but those of the original writer. I kept them in because I didn't want to change them up completely (out of proper editing rules and respect. Again, the whole thing down to either just delete everything and re-write completely (as in what we all seem to agree on/about) or just do find a middle ground.

And hey, I would have not the least bit of objection to a total re-write if all y'all agree. We would just have to agree what the wording would be.

Now then, speaking of the deletion part? Well, let's get the unpleasant aspect over with. Here it is....

LOL You know, Rjensen? Things might have gone a little better from the start if you would discuss first, before taking it upon yourself to delete whole paragraphs. You came across (at least IMO) -- after the fact -- lecturing on Wiki rules, and then using your own POV as to what is what is "speculation" "irrelevant" and "argumentive" in deciding what to delete. I wouldn't have taken umbrage if you had not presumed to address me in a condescending manner, as per your opening your earlier post with "sorry Reb, Wikipedia does not allow speculation".

Well, believe it or not? I know that! But you don't even bother to state why, or, what portions of the passage in question, you consider to be speculation. Do you just assume I will roll over and play dead and be humbled when given your decree of judgment? Sorry, but I have seen this sort of "Grand-Pooba" persona -- not intending personal insult -- from you not only in past exchanges with me, but with others. I hasten to add, not always and not all the time...but often enough there sure seems to be something to it. Further, another constant seems to be that you often delete -- for whatever reason you have in mind -- under the vague heading of....wellll, in addition to the ones mentioned above, that the sources are "unreliable" or "original research", devoid of "reliable secondary research" and etc.

Now then, with all that said, I know where you stand and you know where I do on that particular aspect, so perhaps we can have a productive and civil conversation/discussion/debate? Agreed? I definitely believe we can. If so, to start I would like to pose the following questions to you.

1. Have you gone back thru and taken a look at the evolution of the revisions and re-writes, and then read over my summary of why I did so? The latter is the first post on this topic, and was written in response to The Virginia Historian who, also, had some concerns of his own. We talked it out like gentlemen and came to an amicable compromise. He acknowleged some of my points, while raising some points of his own that I agreed with, and did my best to correct.

Anyway, if you haven't, I would ask that you read our entire exchange on this issue. BYW -- it you don't want to take the time to go thru the revision history post by post, then I am furnishing the original version -- not sure who the contributing editor was -- which prompted me to make some changes and do some re-writes (reference is offset and italics, so you can better see it and its content.

"In no states were the secessionist whites unanimous, in every state there were substantial numbers casting Unionist votes in 1860. There were minority views everywhere and the upland plateau regions in every state had strongholds of Unionist support, especially western Virginia and eastern Tennessee. South of the Mason–Dixon Line, voter support for the three pro-Union candidates (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) in 1860 ranged from 37% in Florida to 71% in Missouri.

Reference: The first six signatory states establishing the Confederacy counted about one-fourth its population. They voted 43% for pro-Union candidates. The four states which entered after Fort Sumter held almost half its population. They voted 53% for pro-Union candidates. The three big turnout states voted extremes. Texas at 5% population voted only 20% pro-Union candidates. Kentucky and Missouri with one-fourth the Confederate population as claimed, voted a combined 68% for the pro-Union Lincoln, Douglas and Bell. See Table of election returns at United States presidential election, 1860.

2. How do you come to the conclusion that anything I wrote was "original research"?

3. What content within is "speculation"?

4. Which sources cited are "not reliably secondary"?

5. Please explain how a mention of Unionism in the South is "largely irrelevant", when was in fact an intrinsic part of the progress of secession, and numerous books and articles have been written on this topic? Now, if you say it does not belong within this particular section (History), I might, might, agree. BUT...keep in mind I, personally, was not the original writer; I merely sought to clarify/expand/improve on what was already there. In any event, the material is highly relevant and should be somewhere.

6. Please explain your objection to the material on the grounds that it is "argumentive"? I don't understand this reasoning at all. I mean, the whole broad topic -- the War Between the States, or Civil War if one prefers -- is in and of itself "argumentive. It was then and it is now. There is not a single facet of it all -- whether the broad topic or its particulars -- that is not subject to argument and debate. Hell, this is even evidenced here by the constant changes/discussion/debates on the talk page (this one here is living proof). So to isolate this one, as if it is an anomaly, just -- with all due respect -- doesn't make sense.

Anyway, I freely admit I made a mistake in my first "edit" (for reasons TVH pointed out), so the last version was an attempt to correct. But I stand by my reasons and basics as to general intent and content in initiating the process itself.

Finally, I hope we can resolve any issues between your position and mine in the same congenial and respectful fashion as was done with TVH, which is how all editors should approach it; we are all fellow editors and should keep that in mind. And, further, according to Wiki guidelines as well, assume good faith, as I am sure you well know. Regards! TexasReb (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

this has very little to do with CSA is the maion problem,. Calling candidates "pro-union" (is that same as Unionist?) is misleading; it's all speculation because it's unsourced. Argumentative = assumes that "Unionist" in summer 1860 was the same as Unionist in Jan=-March 1861. The "numerous books" don't seem to get mentioned. Unionism is very important in early 1861 but that's not what got deleted. Only the 1860 election stuff which says close to zero (less than zero re So Car) and does not reflect any major scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your previous reply at 6:16. Feels just like I dropped by during your office hours. Your point on the historiography makes sense now, though something in the article could be made of the disjunction between union sentiment before and after the secessionist crisis -- a paragraph? The nationalism which grew up nationwide following the War of 1812 through the 1860 elections still persisted after the "revolution" of the Confederacy in the South, in the geography where there were few planters, "unionism" persisted, --- even in the regime of universal draft and conscription patrols. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen? Did you not see what I wrote earlier? I agree with you on that (pro-Union appellation being unsourced). But how much plainer and clearer can I make it than that I was not the one who originally applied that label as per certain candidates in the elections of 1860! I agree totally that the real "hot-topic" issue was the question of slavery in the territories and popular sovereignty, not preservation of the Union. After all, even Breckinridge wanted to "preserve the Union" BUT...the problem I was faced with was either a total re-write or keeping in the original editors applying "pro-Union" to the other three candidates. And as I said, I would not in the least be opposed to a total re-write of the election portion (if we can all agree on the wording). Or even deleting it entirely if that be the consensus. The only thing I am saying is that your "issue" should not be with me, but with the original contributor who ascribed the labels. Am I wrong on that...? Anyway, now that the major theme is over, here a few more replies to some of the things you brought up in your last missive.

Numerous books not mentioned? I am not quite sure what you are driving at, but surely you don't deny that there are not quite a few books out there on Southern Unionism...? Is that what you are saying?

So far as the election of 1860 saying close to zero? I talked about that above. I would not be opposed to a total re-write, or even deletion. Although I would -- in thinking on it a bit more -- be cautious about the latter option, and it does have a direct connection to the formation of the CSA, as it was the election results that really triggered the outright secession.

What part of the election paragraph -- even though as I said above I would have no problems with major changes -- do you find to not "reflect major scholarship"? Pray explain that...? Although, again, I was only attempting to correct as best I could certain aspects of the original without a total deletion and re-write without prior consultation with fellow editors (I don't operate that way, if you get my drift), I would still appreciate what you, specifically, mean, by saying it "doesn't reflect any major scholarship"? I mean, what is the basis of comparison you are using as stacked up against other information presented in other sections of the whole article? I will withhold comment until you reply, or 12 hours passes! LOL

Ok, enough of all this. Fried catfish and okra and black-eyed peas await this Southern boy! *thumbs up* Regards to all! TexasReb (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to blame anyone for the aweful paragraph. I just want it removed. It assumes readers are stupid and are unaware that unanimous elections are very rare indeed. The major scholarship on 1860-61 (Potter, Nevins, McPherson, Crofts, Stampp etc) is simply overlooked. Just say that the various candidates got X% of the southern vote in 1860, and that most Breckenridge voters supported secession in 1861 and the great majority of Bell & Douglas & Lincoln men voted against secession. When Secession actually came, most of these "unionists" supported the Confederacy. Rjensen (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Rjensen has a solution.

Another consideration on terminology: It may be, a "southern unionist" in November 1860 is a Union patriot, and a "southern unionist" in November 1863 is a Confederate defeatist, then the "southern unionist" in November 1866 is a voter for Grant to the northerner, a scallywag to the unreconstructed confederate. Are there analytical categories which can be consistently applied in the south across this six year period for those in the South not persuaded to rebellion, --- since "unionist" seems to fail?

Those conscripts deserting defeated and failing Confederate armies were not only made up of men who did not want to fight, but also those who did not believe in the war from first to last. They voted with their feet, and their numbers were not inconsiderable in the tens of thousands. Is there no scholarship explaining their numbers? --- since "unionist" seems to fail? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen? Maybe you don't want to blame anyone for the "aweful" paragraph, but you sure did initially come across as doing so...and in a misdirected way, I might add. And, to boot, IMHO, not having done much in the way of back-checking to see what things from start to finish. And what is additionally irritating is that -- as it is obvious you visit this article often -- that you never did anything about that paragraph aforehand. No, it was me that came in and attempted to "clean it up". Yet you came in seemingly placed the blame on me for the whole thing (at least at first). Where were you all the time, earlier?

But ok, ok, enough of this pointless bickering and snapping on both parts. It serves no useful purpose. Anyway, I am not going to delete the whole paragraph, but I am going to go back and start the process by doing a little gradual eliminating of wording, etc, that wrongly tie the "Unionist" definition during the elections of 1860 to the actual secession vote in 1861. Like I say, I am going to do it piecemeal...and hope y'all will join in as well, in assisting. Thanks! And best regards to both of you! TexasReb (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Revisions

Ok, y'all go take a look and give input. Any objections and/or what else needs done? Thanks in advance! Hope y'all are enjoying your Sunday! TexasReb (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, first exception (hey. one out of two. if you bat .500 in the majors, you're doin great). "deleted "plateau" adjective. Not all Southern states where some portions went for candidates other than Breckinridge had "plateau" regions." The source makes the "plateau" point because in the areas with fewer planters, there were more Bell and Douglas votes, and there are plateaus in Georgia and Alabama, for instance. The source did not find concentrations of Bell and Douglas votes in flat lands given over to cotton as you may surmise, rather they were to be found in the plateaus of each souther state. These plateau regions were also notable for resistance to Confederate conscription and sustained union sentiment, and populations for recruitment of early reconstruction government.

You may disagree with the source, find another source and we will figure out a way to express the combination. But the information should not be removed without a counter-source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point, I guess I was thinking of plateau in the wrong way. Now, if it just refers to "highland", then yes, I would agree. Although I think there are exceptions. For instance, some counties in north Texas voted against secession (as most residents of this particular region were from the Upper-South states), but it was very much lowland and made for farming and cotton was big. BUT...it wasn't plantation country but rather, small farmers. However, yeah, the only other area of noteable Unionist vote in Texas was in the Hill country of central Texas where there was a large concentration of German immigrants. Do you think I should restore the term? Or perhaps we could use another designation, such as "highlands"...? What say you? TexasReb (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The source says "plateau", but I've also seen "uplands" in this context, up from the coastal plain, different in soil and climate, without necessarily being "highlands" geographically. The Appalachian Plateau also surrounds the Appalachians of KY, TN, AL, GA, NC, VA so the term sort of does double duty in a sense. I'd like "uplands and plateaus" if you think it will better serve the general reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

How about something like this as the qualifier (this is not set in concrete, but just a general idea to toss out): "...mostly in the uplands and plateau areas of the South...? Reason I use "mostly" is that -- as mentioned earlier -- north Texas was not upland at all. And there might have been other areas of the South that generally opposed secession, that might not have been either.

Want me to edit and then y'all see what you think...? Or want to hash it out further here before any further changes are made? Just let me know! Thanks! TexasReb (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Option c. "...mostly in the uplands and plateau areas of the South..." looks good to me. I appreciate the chance to comment on your revisions. Thanks.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Done! When you get a chance, please let me know what you think (and by all means please add/change on your own if you see something that needs it!). TexasReb (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)