Talk:Maryland in the American Civil War

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

Maryland C‑class Mid‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article creation

I merely copied the excellent text from the History of Maryland article to get this started. Scott Mingus 04:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV'ish sentence removed

I removed the following as being more POV than fact (and not relevant to Maryland itself):

Meanwhile, the states of Arkansas and Tennessee, seeing how federal troops acted in the pro-South Union state on April 19, seceded on May 6.

There were many other things at play in those states (Arkansas was already seizing arsenals for one.) The Arkansas secession ordinance does not mention the events in Maryland and neither does Tennessee's. Unless someone can identify a resolution passed at their state conventions that refers to events in Maryland the claim would appear unsupported. Red Harvest (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class if not higher. --dashiellx (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Slave???

I removed the line: "When the Civil War came, Maryland was overwhelmingly pro-slave;" I do not believe this statement to be accurate. Having "Southern sympathies" is not "pro-slave". Nor is there a citation supporting this statement. Maryland in 1860-1861 was a very dynamic state with many view points represented.--talk) 11:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be extremely biased to the Southern point of view. There is no mention made, for example, of Barbara Fritchie or the Confederate invasion of the state and the extreme lack of support it received. And while state residents joined the US Army in a 4-1 advantage over rebelling against the country, all of the focus is on those who rebelled. Snschulze (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)snschulze[reply]

= I agree, this whole article is littered with subtleties suggesting Maryland is really a Southern state. Every line feels like "Maryland would have been Confederate, but it was just that..." blah blah. You have to include other things - like the fact the most historians think it wouldn't have seceded. That Delaware was similarly placed under martial law. Maryland is a border state!

I think it's more even-handed now, overall, but feel free to pick up any lingering signs of bias. ---Asteuartw (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

biased line?

The line: "According to the best extant records, up to 25,000 Marylanders traveled south to fight for the Confederacy while about 60,000 Maryland men served in all branches of the Union military. However, many of those Union troops signed up largely because they were promised home garrison duty." Seems somewhat biased, especially since it is not cited. The second sentence should probably be deleted entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.100.188 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's gone now. Maryland was certainly divided in its loyalties but it is clear that the great majority fought for the Union. ---Asteuartw (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing the line, no citation. However, it is in fact true. I will attempt to find a citation. --dashiellx (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many citations needed!

There remains a sizable lack of citations. I have requested citations where there are numbers given as well as unsupported statements were made. Much of this content needs to be verified by reliable sources, and some would seem like biased assertions unless otherwise supported. Raisin212k 11:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raisin212k (talk • contribs)

I have taken a good crack at this. There are still some citations needed but overall it's in pretty good shape. ---Asteuartw (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I repaired some citations in this article that were broken. Citation_templates said that the use of citation templates is contentious. Does anyone know why it is controversial? The citations in this entry are inconsistent. Some have templates. Some do not. Sepideh (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 49 cites to Livermore, p. 550. That book has only 150 pages (see https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b41545), and I can't from quick skimming identify the source of this info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.153.109 (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Info and Missing Info

For some reason, information describing Merryman, Taney, and the arrests of government officials was included twice. I eliminated the first mention since the second mention is more chronologically correct. There are a lot of problems with this whole area of discussion. The discussion about habeas corpus is incomplete since it never mentions when and why it was suspended in the first place. It claims that official "formed a plan to disable the railroad bridges into the city", leaving out the important part about the plan actually being executed. It doesn't mention that Merryman actually burned bridges or that he was indicted for treason a few months after his arrest, making the article's claim that he was "held without trial" very incomplete. The article presents Taney's rationale but fails to mention Lincoln's justification. The article also fails to identify Taney's pro-Southern biases or the controversy over his decision -- both then and now. Much work need to be done. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Maryland in the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maryland in the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]