Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Floyd's intentions

You say ‘Previously John B. Floyd, U.S. Secretary of War under President James Buchanan (and soon to become a Confederate general), had moved arms south out of northern U.S. armories. Using the rationale "to economize War Department expenditures", Floyd and Congressional elements persuaded Buchanan not to install the cannons in the then-ungarrisoned southern forts.’

Floyd persuading Buchanan? Other way round surely. The article on Floyd says 'He [Floyd] also ordered heavy ordnance to be shipped to the Federal forts in Galveston Harbor, Texas, and the new fort on Ship Island off the coast of Mississippi. In the last days of his term, he apparently had an intention to send these heavy guns, but his orders were revoked by the president.' Valetude (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Buchanan was famously a man without much conviction, a "pasty-faced" pro-slavery northern Democrat embroiled in a corrupt administration. The source for Floyd's action is attributed to Floyd in Freehling, William W. "The Road to Disunion: secessionists triumphant 1854-1861" (2007) ISBN 0-19-505814-3 vol. 1. p.105-106. I thought it unnecessary to explore Floyd's department's corruption under the Buchanan administration, perhaps in this case apart from Buchanan himself personally.

Some of Floyd's inept command behavior at the Battle of Fort Donelson is attributed to his believing he would be hung as a traitor if caught by the Federals. (Kendall D. Gott, "Where the South lost the war". 2003.) Floyd had been acquitted of wrong-doing by a Congressional Committee including his sponsors, but with them having vacated their seats, he did not relish his prospects in a hearing before loyal men. By 1863 the political general had cleared his name sufficiently to receive the command of the Virginia State Line, but the General Assembly abolished the Virginia State Line on March 31, 1863.

If Floyd was acting on his own, and as the crisis worsened Buchanan found himself accused of betraying the Union by force of arms, Buchanan would have "revoked" Floyd transferring additional armament south. Floyd also had sent armament to Fort Pulaski and detailed three enlisted men to garrison it. In the crisis, Buchanan said secession was illegal, but force to preserve the union was illegal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I mostly agree but after Jan 1 1861 Buchanan changed 180 degrees and his administration took a strong unionist position. That is attributable to several very conservative northern Democrats who were staunch nationalists, the most important was Stanton (who later became Lincoln's highly effective secty of war). Rjensen (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The flag.

Once again an attempt to rewrite history with the "Blood-stained Banner", without any sources. Confederates served under one banner, so history articles at WP should picture the flag of its time, the "First national flag with 13 stars", 1861-1865. Jefferson Davis was the last Confederate citizen, the only man not included in the general amnesty. Heritage Auction offered the original Stars-and-Bars flown by Jefferson Davis at Beauvoir “since 1865” – that is 1867-1908 until his death.

David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the “Bood stained banner” was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB. In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy”.

The alternate image description for the Blood-Stained-Banner suggests the BSB is in use “since 1865”, yet in Jefferson Davis' Short History of the Confederate States of America, p.503 it is said that the Confederacy “disappeared” since 1865, in the words of Jefferson Davis. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As indicated by the comment in the infobox, there's an established consensus of editors to use the first national flag with 13 stars in the infobox for this article. Like the comment says, see Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 10#RFC Infobox flag choice, and also on that same page the two sections above it, i.e. "Infobox flag" and "Flag choice.1". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The only attempt is to be sure the correct National Flag of the CSA is shown and displayed as the Official of the Confederate States of America at that time. The 3rd National was approved by both Houses and signed into law by President Jefferson Davis on March 4, 1865. This act makes it the Official Flag of the Confederate States of America according to the laws of the C.S. Constitution. Regardless, if some "never" saw it, it is still the Official Flag of the CSA. unsigned by Barrowscv.

You offer no sources to counter current scholarship. You dismiss a Confederate general officer, the Confederate Veterans official historian of the Confederate Armies. You depend on your own interpretation of primary sources contrary to the understanding of E.M. Coulter of the University of Georgia. The "Blood-Stained-Banner" which you style the 3d National Flag was passed by a rump session of the Confederate Congress without a quorum present, in the last days of the Petersburg-Richmond siege. Unlike the 2d National Flag which flew only over the Confederate Capitol in Richmond and resembled a surrender flag, the 3d National, Blood-stained-banner was never manufactured as the government abandoned the capital and disbursed --- the Confederacy "disappeared" in the words of Jefferson Davis. Jefferson Davis did not use the 3d National "Blood-stained-banner" though general amnesty had pardoned every other secessionist of the rebellion, he alone by name was not made a U.S. citizen, and yet he did not fly the BSB at his home in Mississippi --- he flew the First National Flag.

The BSB is the banner of a neo-Confederate organization of the current day made up of U.S. citizens pursuing their freedom of speech who would secede from the Union today by ballot box with a Constitutional Amendment, I suppose, since the Articles of Confederation for perpetual Union has been superseded by the Constitution to form "a more perfect" Union than the first perpetual one, --- and 600,000 paid the price of the first secessionist misunderstanding during the "late unpleasantness" as Grandmother used to say of "the War" (the Civil War, not WWI or WWII). Neo-Confederates are not an historical association representing the historical Confederate States of America 1861-1865, and their WP:POV which is WP:FRINGE should not determine the flag convention in the info box of this article or any other. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with the Infobox flag is required if there is to be a consensus here. I am at the 3RR limit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

CSA animated map -- issue

The Golbez map "File:CSA states evolution.gif" has been replaced, and it is now archived at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/1/1d/20131107113320%21CSA_states_evolution.gif. The article currently displays a revision which does not work. Can anyone revert the inoperable one presenting a question mark back to the operating map by Golbez? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there any support for updating the information on the animated map? It provides a really nice visual depiction of the history, but some of its text is incorrect. Kentucky and Missouri are said to have seceded and joined the Confederacy, which isn't quite true (and is contradicted by the article itself). West Virginia's situation could be clarified a bit too.

I think the map can be made more accurate without marring its admirable simplicity and clarity. My suggestions might run as follows...

Date	State	Current Text	Proposed Change
10/31/1861	Missouri	Missouri secedes	Missouri CSA supporters declare secession
11/20/1861	Kentucky	Kentucky secedes	Kentucky CSA supporters declare secession
11/28/1861	Missouri	Missouri joins Confederacy, but never under CSA control	CSA claims Missouri as state (new color: light green)
12/10/1861	Kentucky	Kentucky joins Confederacy, but never under CSA control	CSA claims Kentucky as state (new color: light green)
5/13/1862	West Virginia	(none)	WV Union supporters declare secession from VA
6/20/1863	West Virginia	West Virginia splits from Virginia, admitted to Union	West Virginia admitted to Union

Rob (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Span of control

Army morale

The final sentence tacked onto a paragraph in 'Span of control' reads, "Nevertheless Confederate Army morale held strong until 1865, and the many land battles were intensely fought with high casualties."

Confederate Army morale did not hold strong, as desertions increased both homeward and directly into Federal lines, and recruitment efforts to enforce the draft met with increasing resistance in those shrinking regions where Confederate armies still maintained control. It is true Confederate artillery saw much effective service in the final months in Virginia, but Sherman's march was remarkable for limited casualties compared to Grant's. The sentence should be removed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Texas v. White

Texas v. White, the Supreme Court’s holding on the legitimacy of secession, is treated both in Span of Control and Diplomacy. The case has nothing to do with how much territory or population the Confederacy controlled during its existence, it should be removed from 'Span of control', and it should remain at Diplomacy where some of the legal aspects of the issue are addressed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Danville, infobox disruption -

Danville, Virginia is not sourced by scholarship as a capital of the Confederacy. The legislature met in Montgomery, then Richmond, then dissolved. Jeff Davis issued some proclamations from Danville on his escape route south along with others from North Carolina. Neither place in Virginia or North Carolina had a convened session of legislature, neither were capitals of the historical Confederacy. The sobriquet comes from a newspaper clipping meant to compliment Jefferson Davis' hostess during his stay, calling her home the temporary White House of the Confederacy, as it was Mr. Davis' temporary residence there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian is exactly right. Rjensen (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Indian Territory on map

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't believe that Indian Territory was ever part of the Confederacy. I also don't remember it being claimed as such. I am aware that much of the territory was occupied by Confederate forces, but I think it should be like other maps, where Confederate-occupied territories have different colors. Dustin (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A brief recap of the Confederate claim to the Arizona territory (assuming that's what you're asking about) is given in the article, with links to more detailed information. They did make the claim; the territory is shaded a different color on both maps to reflect that, so I think it should be OK as is.Rob (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I know, but they colored Indian Territory as though it were an actual state which seceded. Dustin (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Indian Territory was never formally ceded into the Confederacy by American Indian councils, but like Missouri and Kentucky, the Five Civilized Nations received representation in the Confederate Congress and their citizens were integrated into regular Confederate Army units. As the article explains over half of the American Indian troops participating in the Civil War from the Indian Territory supported the Confederacy; troops and one general were enlisted from each tribe.

On July 12, 1861, the Confederate government signed a treaty with both the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indian nations, leaving an open invitation to the others. The Confederacy could not deliver on its promise to trade in cotton due to the effectiveness of the Union blockade, and it could not supply the promised arms. June 19, 1862 the U.S. enacted a measure to secure Freedom to all persons within the Territories of the United States, Sess. 2, ch 111, 12 Stat. 432. Union forces occupied the Indian Territory and Confederate forces could not remove them. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah -- Dustin's talking about the fourth map. I was looking at the first (globe) and second (animated). (The third is a railroad map.) The use of color on the fourth map (with territories & states identical) is definitely inconsistent with the earlier maps. I wouldn't object to a different shade for the two territories there (Arizona and Indian), if anyone with imaging skills wants to update them.Rob (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I will add that on the globe, Indian Territory should, I think, be colored either in light green or in its own color because of the ways in which it was unique from the actual Confederate states that formally seceded. Dustin (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Dustin, light green as those territories are represented in some fashion in both Congresses. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, do you have any idea who makes the maps? I don't know if I should just mention this to the original creator of the file or... Dustin (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I left a mention on the creator's talk page here. Dustin (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Which color? That of West Virginia or of Arizona, Missouri, and Kentucky?—SPESH531Other 01:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think TheVirginiaHistorian would prefer light green. I personally think a color change is necessary. Dustin (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I'm just a map maker. Whatever changes come to consensus, I'll change it.—SPESH531Other 02:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that there is little question that the map needs to be changed, but we must reach a consensus. So far, very people have participated in this discussion, so I am not sure that would count for consensus. Dustin (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I am certain about the need to change the color as sourced in the article narrative. The map is to illustrate the text. The consensus is found at this thread in the deliberation over the course of a week's time, a fair amount of opportunity for participation in WP-time for those with an interest. Since Dustin has the lead here, I would defer to him, perhaps suggesting a variation of green, such as aqua-marine, since there were Confederate treaties with only two of the five nations and Congressional representation for only those two in the event. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Spesh531: I would do what TheVirginiaHistorian has suggested; the proper amount of time has given for others to join in the discussion, so I don't think much else is going to happen. The color on the current map improperly represents the discussed area, so I think it is time that the change is made. If people get angry (for whatever reason), you won't be the one responsible, so I ask that you make the change. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

When I said I'm only a map maker two days ago, I swore I changed the file. I edited (my personal) file two days ago, but apparently I forgot to change Indian Territory to light green. So changing it to an aqua-marine would be better to use then?—SPESH531Other 15:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let's give it a try. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The nations that were the Chickasaw and Choctaw signed with the CSA. I kept those territories light green, and made the Cherokee, Creek and Seminole a somewhat bluish light green. It looks odd because a distinction like this is never really made, but according to text, this is what the map would look like. Boundaries are based on this map.—SPESH531Other 18:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry; I missed the recent comments. To Spesh531, thanks for editing the file. We would be best off changing the caption too, however. Dustin (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I really need to keep up; thanks for updating the caption and everything. I think we can officially close this discussion! Dustin (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Span of Control 'who?' tag.

Tag: In Span of Control there is a 'who?' tag at ...Reconstruction which some scholars [who?] treat as an extension of the Civil War.

Answer: One such scholar is Eric Foner in his Reconstruction: America's unfinished revolution:1863-1877, (1988) winner of the Francis Parkman Prize, with an introduction by the editors, Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris.

Proposal: ...Reconstruction which some scholars such as Eric Foner treat as an extension of the Civil War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest most scholars treat it that way-- see Fateful Lightning: A New History of the Civil War and Reconstruction by Allen C. Guelzo, (2012); Ordeal By Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction by James McPherson and James Hogue (2010); Chicago in the Age of Capital: Class, Politics, and Democracy during the Civil War and Reconstruction by Jentz and Schneirov, (2012). Rjensen (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

What about Jim Crow and segregation? Are they extensions of the Civil War, or merely unfortunate results of same? Shouldn't they be addressed in some manner in this article? My inclusion at an earlier date was removed for "lack of citation." Having lived through it is not accepted, nor is common knowledge accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tresmegistus (talk • contribs) 04:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Tresmegistus (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree and disagree. Modern scholars see Reconstruction as an extension of the American Civil War, as in Reconstruction: America's unfinished revolution: 1863-1877 by Eric Foner. But I am not sure how still later Jim Crow and segregation fits into this article of the historic Confederacy 1861-1865.

On your article edit, suggesting "Percentage of territory was never equal to percentage of population. The percent stated undoubtedly refers to territorial control.", the atlas is of congressional districts, with nearly equal apportionment in each district the percent of congressional districts is equivalent to percent of population. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Congressional districts are, indeed, of nearly equal population. However, those districts are of vastly different sizes. Some districts consist of an entire state (e.g. Alaska), others of less than a square mile. Percentage of territory cannot have been equivalent to percentage of population. There are currently 6 districts in the Atlanta area, while there are 8 districts for the rest of Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tresmegistus (talk • contribs) 23:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed (and you beat me to it, I was composing a note along the same lines). The 73% and 34% numbers are sourced to Martis, and I unfortunately don't have access to the book so I don't know if Martis is discussing percent of territory, or population, or congressional districts. But whichever it is, we cannot extrapolate from one of those values to either of the others. (Not even between congressional districts and population. Within a state, the districts may have similar population, but between states, not as much. Florida's two districts had 70,000 each; Louisiana's six districts had 118,000 each. You can't apportion congressmen in fractions, so rounding creates differences in district size between states.)

In short: The percentages should ::only:: reflect what Martis uses them for, and should not be applied to other quantities.Rob (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Someone (me?) should refer to the source (i.e. Martis). Will attempt to do so.Tresmegistus (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The atlas is widely held in public libraries, it is in print, and it is relatively inexpensive $60 new, $20 used. The maps referenced do not show territory regained under Confederate control, anywhere at any time. Territory under Confederate control is also consistently reduced as counted in Congressional Districts in charts found in accompanying text. Martis refers both to percent of Congressional Districts and to percent of populations. Milledgeville was the capital of Georgia, not Atlanta, and nowhere was the concentration of population comparable to 21st century Atlanta except New Orleans at the 2-CD of Louisiana, mapped as Federal occupied continuously from Confederate First Congress, second session, intersession April-August 1862, then subsequently for the duration.

Before the proportional representation of the present day, representatives were assigned by population increments of 50,000 or 75,000 depending on the census reapportionment, so each district was much more closely numbered to the others than in the present day. Representatives were apportioned in fractions, rounding up, increasing the number of the House of Representatives every decennial census where populations increased, independent of the total number of the of Representatives in the House.

Of course in states with declining populations such as antebellum Virginia, -- most of whose out-migration went to Ohio, Indiana Illinois, Kentucky and Missouri -- the number of representation shrank-- not at a proportion of 435 as in the modern day House (since the 1929), but then, directly related to the population in increments of 75,000. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion of the statistic that the territory and population of the Confederacy shrank by the same percentage is ridiculous on its face, yet it stands because of what? Instead of just naming a citation to justify this, please provide the exact quote from the source that substantiates the claim.Tresmegistus (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The statistic stands because there is no counter source, and your anachronistic error has been explained to you. The statistic stands because that is what the source says. It is true that enslaved populations counted as 3/5 fled from adjacent CDs in Confederate "control" wherever Union armies marched, so Martis calculation relative to population inflates Confederate span of control as it actually was on the ground. The passage now reads,

Confederate control over its claimed territory and population in Congressional Districts steadily shrank from 73% to 34% during the course of the Civil War due to the Union's successful overland campaigns, its control of the inland waterways into the South, and its Union blockade of the Southern seacoast.[n]

I copyedited the passage to modify "claimed territory and population..." to read, "claimed territory and population in Congressional Districts..." Hope that answers your concern. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

100% of the slaves were counted in the 1860 census reports. The 3/5 business was a mathematical routine to apportion numbers of Congressmen to each state and was never published or used otherwise. Rjensen (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Pre-capitalist society"

What does this mean? The Confederate States, slavery aside, clearly practised capitalism (i.e., wage labour and capitalist forms of exchange). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DublinDilettante (talk • contribs) 05:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The argument is that the very rich slave owners minimized capitalism (and denounced free labor). They ruled their plantations as autocratic dictators. They supported very few capitalist enterprises (they put their $$$$ into more slaves and fresh cotton land). They avoided cities and industry. See Marxist historian Eugene Genovese's work. Rjensen (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Jensen but it also occurred to me that the economic circumstances in the South in 1861 might be clearer to most readers if "pre-industrial" were used instead. The link for pre-capitalist leads to Pre-industrial societies. That word would fit in with the proposition that the South's lack of industry was a disadvantage. Just a thought for what it's worth. Donner60 (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Pre-industrial makes a kind of sense, since the plantation system was agricultural/extractive -- even though there were mechanical devices, cotton gins the size of barns, and even though railroads and steam boats were harnessed to expedite transport. There is also the shear scale of production, far beyond local needs implied by the term "pre-capitalist". There were also capitalistic aspects, monetary investments and banking, in the plantation to manufacturing enterprises surrounding the cotton industry. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"Invasion" as pov

Hello, I think the use of the word "invasion" is appropriate in some, though not all, circumstances. It was certainly viewed as "invasion" by the CSA and even the Union commanders viewed it as such, as when McClellan headed his correspondence as "Army of Occupation". Dubyavee (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The territory belonging to the United States in the southern states was not invaded by the U.S.G. An advancing Union army may occupy an area previously controlled by rebels. The term "invasion" requires the pov that there were two countries, when rebellion requires success before it is recognized. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this premise, it is not one that even historians of the war endorse, they use "invasion" profusely in reference to Union troops entering southern territory. Expunging the word from texts is modern POV. James McPherson uses "invasion" often, as in this interview-

"The reason why industrial and population superiority was a necessary condition is that, to win the war, the North had to invade, conquer, occupy the South and destroy its capacity to wage war." [1]

As I say, "invade" is not pov and is appropriate in many contexts. Dubyavee (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dubyavee. It's not a legal issue here but standarfd terminology used in military histories. The term is used by the RS and that should settle it. For example a 1904 book Sherman: A Memorial in Art, Oratory, and Literature --highly favorable to him-- has chapters entitled "Preparations for the invasion of Georgia" and ."Sherman's army of invasion"; Scholars like McPherson, Albert E. Castel, William C. Davis also Englishman John Keegan use the term as did Sherman himself. Here's a twist: Connelly (2000) says of the Confederate generals: "Beauregard ordered Hood to invade Tennessee" (they considered Tennessee part of the Confederacy). Rjensen (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"The term is used by the RS and that should settle it." What does "RS" mean? Scipio Edina (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Source[s]. --Golbez (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Golbez Scipio Edina (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to use "invasion" if Rjensen, McPherson and Keegan say so, but whenever Confederates mounted counter-attacks, reconnaissance in force, incursions and raids, they inevitably resulted in greater loss of territory and lesser control over slave and free populations. Somehow I thought that "invasion" conveyed a meaning asserting expansion, not contraction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not a topic that I have a detailed academic knowledge of, but is there a question of formality or register of speech? For example, I understand Abraham Lincoln was careful never to refer to the Confederate States of America as such in formal communications as President, but presumably did so in private conversation. Likewise, does McPherson refer to "the North" and "invasion" in his academic writing (rather than "the Union", &c.) rather than when delivering speeches/talks? I don't know if the NPOV policy extends this far, but if there is language that can be used which definitely does not convey a POV, and language which has the potential to reflect a POV, is it not preferable to use the former? Scipio Edina (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dubyavee and Dr. Jensen. Other words, including: expedition, incursion, advance, offensive, attack, campaign, drive, march, strike, movement, and even others with either more limited or more general meaning can be used in certain circumstances. Yet "invasion" is sometimes simply the clearest and best word to describe the movement of one army into territory defended or occupied by another. Although it could be part of a POV when used with other POV words and phrases, it need not be more than a good description. Here are some quotes from McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford History of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. ISBN 978-0-19-503863-7 showing McPherson's use of the word for actions by both Union and Confederate armies, and one other quote of interest about Lincoln's consistent viewpoint on the southern states remaining in the Union.

"Two days after Bull Run, Lincoln penned a memorandum on future Union strategy....Union troops in Virginia were to be reinforced, thoroughly trained, and prepared for a new invasion...." McPherson, p. 350.

"But the formidable difficulties of a Missouri command...impending Confederate invasions from Arkansas and Tennessee...." McPherson, p. 350.

"The strategic value of the river network radiating from Cairo had been clear from the outset. This southernmost city in the free states grew into a large military and naval base. From there, army-navy task forces launched invasions up the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers (southward) and down the Mississippi in 1862." McPherson, p. 392.

"For defense against river-brone invasions the Confederacy relied mainly on forts." McPherson, p. 393.

"Van Dorn had dazzled Johnston with visions of an invasion through Missouri to capture St. Louis and then to descend on Grant's forces from the north." McPherson, p. 404.

"Most southerners probably agreed with Davis about this - especially if they lived in Virginia or western Tennessee or Mississippi or Louisiana, which unlike Georgia were threatened by invasion in 1862." McPherson, p. 433.

"Banks had to contend not only with Jackson's army but also with a hostile civilian population - a problem confronted by every invading Union army...." McPherson, p. 456.

"With 2,500 men Forrest and Morgan had immobilized an invading army of forty thousand." McPherson, p. 514.

"He [Bragg] planned to take the remaining 34,000 to Chattanooga, for where he would launch an invasion of Kentucky." McPherson, p. 515.

"Buell missed a chance to wipe out one-third of the rebels who had invaded Kentucky; Bragg and Smith failed to clinch their invasion with a smashing blow that might have won Kentuckians to their side." McPherson, p. 520.

"...for with scarcely a pause Lee was leading his ragged but confident veterans across the Potomac for an invasion of the North." McPherson, p. 534.

"Van Dorn and Price were preparing to invade Tennessee." McPherson, p. 534.

"Lee's invasion of Maryland recoiled more quickly than Bragg's invasion of Kentucky." McPherson, p. 545.

"After the battle of Corinth in October, Grant had launched an invasion southward along the Mississippi Central Railroad to capture Vicksburg." McPherson, p. 577.

"This time the Virginian dazzled Davis and Seddon with a proposal to invade Pennsylvania with a reinforced army and inflict a crushing defeat on the Yankees in their own backyard." McPherson, p. 647.

"But Price could not stop the blue invaders who advanced toward Little Rock from two directions in midsummer." McPherson, p. 668.

"Lincoln never deviated from the theory that secession was illegal and southern states therefore remained in the Union." McPherson, p. 699.

"Sherman's invasion force consisted of three "armies" under his single overall command...." McPherson, p. 744.

"...some of Early's soldiers....went the Union invaders one better...." McPherson, p. 757.

"In September 1864, Price coordinated an invasion of Missouri with guerrilla attacks behind northern lines...." McPherson, p. 784.

"Using troops drawn from the Army of the Gulf and from Thomas's force in Tennessee, General E. R. S. Canby was to invade southern Alabama through Mobile." McPherson, p. 825. Donner60 (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

very well done Donner60! Rjensen (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"Union invaders", "blue invaders" is neutral without carrying any pejorative context in American historiography? So Civil War scholars give us "invasion" meaning "march" without any other connotation or pov? I fear I have read too much into the term. On inspection, Keegan uses "march" p.272 and "advance" p.260 to describe Sherman's Atlanta campaign, a "movement" against Confederate forces and destruction of infrastructure. He uses "invasion" to describe Lee's offensive Gettysburg campaign.

Online we can find that invasion means generally a) invading a country or region with an armed force, with synonyms meaning occupation or annexation. b) Invasion means incursion by a large number, with synonyms rush and influx. c) Invasion means unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain, with synonyms infringement and interruption.

I guess I was thinking of the first general definition, related to occupation or annexation. "Invasion" may not be read as a neutral term by the international reader. Alternatively reliable sources of the American Civil War make a "raid" into an "invasion". That in itself seems imprecise not to say careless somehow, but it may be satisfactory for the general reader, who does not need the distinction and who otherwise will see the neutral use of the term "invasion" in the npov way WP editors intend. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

McPherson, in a book length treatment, uses “Union invaders” and “blue invaders” to assume the voice of the Confederate point of view, and to be even handed, vice versa. It reflects the scholarly evenhandedness considering the different Northern and Southern meanings of "freedom" found in his Battle Cry of Freedom. But in an encyclopedic article, this usage reflects the moral equivalency of Lost Cause historiography in my view. Objectively, it would be a disservice to the reader to summarize Confederate operations in Kentucky as equivalent to Union operations in Tennessee using a common term such as "invasion" to describe their respective operations against armies or places. All military movements are not equivalent, they are not all the same in purpose, size, force or sustainability.

Though I understand editors see no negative connotation to the term "invasion", I’m still uncertain that the encyclopedic article should assume the voice of one side then the other as might be appropriate in a book length treatment of the subject. Rather than an even-handed approach, a neural presentation throughout might be in closer alignment to WP policy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the need to draw this out. All words have understood definitions, and there is nothing explicit or implied in the definition of "invasion" that requires foreign territory to be involved. This is pure blogger spin, and if McPherson and other well-recognized authorities use the word invasion, both for Confederate and and Union activities, it goes well beyond Wiki's NPOV policy for anyone here to redefine the meaning and use of the word "invasion". Dubyavee (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but no need for name calling. I concede the indiscriminate use of "invade" here by editor consensus. But as to the "pure blogger spin" accusation:

The term "invasion" as commonly used does involve foreign territory. To look at three commonly used sources in the English language: at Merriam-Webster in·vade. to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force. Oxford Dictionary (American English) Invasion. An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force: the Allied invasion of Normandy; in 1546 England had to be defended from invasion. Cambridge Dictionary Invasion. an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country.

No where do standard sources say, "An invasion is a military operation to put down an internal rebellion". And the RS, John Keegan uses "invasion" to describe rebel army offensive operations into territory not claimed by its government, regions held by them to be in a foreign nation. I do understand the consensus here is to use "invasion" interchangeably with various forms of "military operations" as you, Rjensen and Donner60 propose, and I agree not to disrupt it. Okay. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Your point about a "raid" often being called an "invasion" rather than the narrower, more accurate word "raid" is a good one. Also, your point that "invasion" is commonly used in reference to foreign invasions is also well put. I do read "foreign country" as an example not as a requirement of the definition itself in the item you cite, however. I agree that the point is not just spin. Without the usage background, avoiding "invasion" might be better as more precise and in order to avoid misunderstanding that it recognizes the Confederacy's claim to separate nationhood. But because of the use of the word in reliable sources by reputable Civil War historians, as I noted in a quick run-through of McPherson's book, I think the horse is out of the barn when it comes to the use of "invasion" to refer to movement of Civil War armies into territory held by the other side (I know, a cliche) and so it is not necessary to be technical with respect to the occasional use of the word "invasion" here. I would grant that there is a little prospect for confusion by a few language purists or POV pushers but I think that as long as the word is used in an otherwise neutral context, and is not overemphasized, it is not wrong and there will be little, if any, confusion from its use. Donner60 (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Boutwell article

I read the online version of the very short paper by George S. Boutwell. "Why Jefferson Davis Was Never Tried."Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol.38 pp.347-49. online here first line It is a recollection 40 years later about a discussion among the attorneys for Jefferson Davis held in early 1869. The talk involves speculation on what Jefferson Davis would say about the situation – his lawyers had to make a decision because Davis could not be reached. The situation was that the federal government was about to drop the case, and whether or not the lawyers should agree with the government or wait until they could reach Jefferson Davis. They decided to agree with the government, and the prosecution was dropped and the case against Davis ended. The Boutwell article adds nothing new to this article and can be ignore. Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Ironically it calls into question his own argument that prosecution would likely not succeed and instead vindicate Davis if pursued. For as Boutwell says, he was in disagreement with the opinion of the four men of Davis' counsel who "thought quite sure that if he were to be tried before Judge Underwood his conviction would be inevitable with such a jury as could be counted on, and that it would not be wise to expect anything from an appeal to the Supreme Court as then constituted." It is revealing that he states several times that he (Boutwell) believed Davis would have agreed with him to insist on trial if he could have been contacted, yet never claims in the piece that Davis stated this to him afterward--Davis lived for over two decades after the event. Boutwell notes at the end that he penned this piece after all of the other participants were deceased. Red Harvest (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Louisiana's Secession Convention

I've found LA's convention journal here https://archive.org/details/officialjournal00loui It is only half as long as it looks because it is published in English, then French. Looking at the text version I found "slave" 62 times. Much of that is in the first dozen pages of proposed resolution/ordinance wording which reveals the causes. Considering that the Ordinance was adopted by page 18 that says a lot about what had them concerned. I did find "tariff" under discussion...but instead of complaining about tariffs, a rep offered this: "that the people of Louisiana are opposed to the abolition of the tariff system and equally so to its reduction below a revenue standard." For reference, the port of New Orleans collected roughly 2/3 of the tariffs in the South (although NOLA was only about 4% of the national tariff collection figure.) LA also benefitted from some protectionist tariffs such as that on sugar if memory serves. Red Harvest (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The following article http://www.youngsanders.org/youngsanderssecession.html published by the Louisiana History Association in 1978 is not written about the causes but reviews the convention and has a little to say about the election to select delegates. Among the interesting aspects is that the immediate secessionists were aided by having the slave headcount adjusted into their delegate representation. And while the article does not go into causes it begins with the following: "This exercise is not addressed to the substantive causes of secession: that is, the southern belief, whether right or wrong, that slavery was vital to the regions economic and social well-being; and the conviction, right or wrong, that Republican ascendancy posed a mortal threat to slavery. Instead, this essay is concerned with the unique course, and the paradox, of secession by Louisiana." The author is Charles_P._Roland. Red Harvest (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like that makes seven out of seven of the first ordinances deem slavery, its protection and expansion, to be the governing factor for secession. I'm looking through Coulter to see if he concisely says the same thing, so we are not reliant on original research. Also, making points by original documents makes for a slogging read and an over-long encyclopedia article.

Coulter adds that white status in society was grounded in the racial caste system, that without slavery, the poor white would be thrown into direct wage competition with the freedman. And the poor white was not expected to do well in that competition. In the best of circumstances, he would be disadvantaged in business, craftsmanship, farming and courtship, or alternatively, he would suffer Haitian-like butchery in a race war at the worst. (Though one white Southerner could whip twenty Yankees, and because Yankees were a race intermixed with immigrants, they ranked below the Chinese according to one Coulter source.)

Racial terror is one of the factors that Coulter (1950) ascribes to sustaining Confederate morale throughout the war, and it helped explain non-slave holder support of the Confederacy throughout the South in his view. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No doubt that slogging through primary sources is a painful way to make a point, and open to charges of original research if much is given other than the quotes, but it can become necessary when an editor charges bias against all secondary sources that don't support his/her POV. One thing it does though when it amounts to governmental journals, orders etc., is make the source material itself nearly indisputable (aside from typos or other forms of error.) I've had occasion to quote the text of specific orders (e.g. Gen. Order #11 in Missouri) to correct bogus claims of the order's content that came from wild, poorly researched works.

Racial terror/servile insurrection was a big factor/common theme. IIRC Charles Dew's Apostles of Disunion highlights it in addresses made by the secession commissioners. Related to this is the "horror" of elevating negroes to the point they might serve on juries, racial equality! Yep, a few seconds thumbing through and I just found my favorite quote along that line in the book: "or to submit to the degradation of being reduced to equality with them, and all its attendant horrors." (p. 77) The other biggy was "racial amalgamation" or as AL's commissioner to TN put it, "the sacred purity of our daughters." Anti-miscegenation laws would severely limit this until overturned in 1967. Red Harvest (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)