Talk:Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War

message: This article makes it all seem as if the south seceeded because only because of slavery. This is somewhat one sided and needs to be fixed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.23.143 (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsigned is right to a degree. The South seceded because they felt that the election of Lincoln threatened their way of life and their rights, particularly the right to hold slaves, but he hadn't even taken office. There was much clash over culture and politics before this, about slavery and about many other things. They wanted slavery to expand BECAUSE they wanted their way of life to endure. Saying it was only about slavery would be a mistake, their way of life was under attack. Candykilobyte 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery sole reason? 

message: Does anyone know of a source that states that Lee agreed to take over the US Army as long as Virginia didn't seceed?  Leobold1 (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't say that I've ever seen one.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: General Winfield Scott was 75 and Robert E. Lee was offered the posision by the pres.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.130.182 (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: (Secede). But no. He did not. He specifically stated that, save in the defense of his native state, he would never again draw his sword. Don't have a particular source handy right at this moment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.201.18 (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee Accepts? 

message: Not that anyone watches this page anyway, and I may just be wasting my time typing this out for others to read, but....anyone who reads this please comment and let help with some citations on this article. Not only are citations needed, but some of the sentence structure is horrible. For example: "Buchannan decides to keep Fort Sumpter in Charlston Harbor". As if to presume it can be moved. I understand the meaning, but the sentence needs to be more clear. There are others, but lets start with what we have.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation tag and such 

message: Should the 3/5 compromise be included as an event that led to the civil war? It was one of the initial compromises to avoid debate of slavery, similarly to the ascending events like the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850. ~ Nondoleo (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Three-Fifths Compromise 

message: The initialism CSA is used in the article but not defined.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.132.22 (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSA 

message: We need a cutoff and perhaps April 15, 1861 works. This article does not cover the war itself. Rjensen (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I deleted most items for events after April 15. In order to keep a few events related to secession and the initiation of the war, I had added too many other events related to hostilities or the conduct of the war. I intended to bring this up to the Battle of Bull Run/Manassas mainly in order to capture these few items in context and without omissions for the events of the April 15–July 21 period and because there was still some hope that a war could be avoided or cut short. It was becoming apparent that there were too many entries, however, and I was having second thoughts about all the entries for this period. I think the few entries after April 15 that deal with the limited topics of secession and initiation of the war may still be appropriate so I have left them in. If anyone objects to this and really thinks all entries after April 15 should be deleted, I would not argue with the deletion although at this time I prefer to leave the items at the end of the list and leave any deletions to someone else. I will add a few more notes for the 1860 and 1861 items and cite individual pages from Long for these later items to finish my revisions. Donner60 (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: much improved--good work! some of the items are much too detailed for a timeline (esp when there is a Wiki article linked to entry), such as 1654 entry.  Need much more on colonial era. 1814 entry should be dropped (no link to slavery--South NO ONE ever referenced Hartford as their model). Suggest dropping 1830/Walker  Trim 1833 tariff entry; add more on Amistad case; Rjensen (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw your point immediately on the 1654 entry and it was an easy edit to delete the last three of the five sentences. I got the 1814 entry from the Wagner et al Civil War Desk Reference time line. I will look at McPherson and a couple of other sources to see if they say anything enlightening about it which might make it worth keeping if edited. A number of sources mention tariffs, sometimes at length, but specific points for a timeline are not always present in the sources. Some of the Wikipedia links are to articles that are not very detailed. I will look at whether I can revise any of the tariff points to make them more relevant or whether a few of these should be dropped altogether as you suggest. A problem for me in adding colonial era entries and more the Amistad case is that most of the information available to me is from Wikipedia itself. I have a large Civil War library but only a few books on the colonial period before the Revolution. Borrowing from another Wikipedia article is ok, of course, if it is sourced but some of the articles are not referenced. Relying on another Wikipedia article alone (which you do not suggest) would be bad practice even if Wikipedia policy did not discourage it. I will dig around a little more on the colonial period and the Amistad. Perhaps I can find an old book online if my current library will not yield more information. I think I can find at least a few more entries on the Virginia law and practice on slavery in sources already cited. Since Virginia was a populous state and a leader in some of the slavery laws, it would not seem to be out of line to add entries for Virginia as representative of colonial law and practice. I did hesitate to add a few more Virginia entries that I had available because I wondered whether so many entries dealing with events in one state might be criticized as not representative. I can see that there are a few entries other than those you specifically mention that might be shortened. I find this is some times easier to do in a later edit than in the first draft. A few events are so detailed that their importance may be lost if they are cut down to a few words and a reference but these are likely to be few in number. Compromise of 1850 is probably such an entry. That does not mean I cannot look at whether even these might be shortened. I did not start this article but since I have revised and added to it substantially, I need to consider whether I have kept a few old entries which should be revised further or even dropped. I hope to get the revisions and further references done within a few days. I am responding after making only one change this time because it may take a little longer than one day to complete. Thanks for your suggestions. Donner60 (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Another comment. I added the 1830 Walker death item because it is in the Civil War Desk Reference. It seemed a bit speculative to me but since noted authors used it, I supposed there must be something to it. On the other hand, without another source or some more detail, I understand why it might be an item that could be dropped. I suppose it could be added as a brief sentence to the previous item, but that only would seem to de-emphasize it and shorten it up a little, not to provide any explanation for why his death is described as "mysterious" (other, I suppose, than the apparent implication either that he was a young man or there was something suspicious in the surroundings when he was found). Donner60 (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutoff needed for "events leading to " the war

message: :Moved from Milhist assessment requests for reference, Woody (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: B-Class assessment

message: I have reviewed entries that cite Wagner and Long and Bowman through 1860 and made some revisions. I will review others as promptly as possible. Donner60 (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have finished review of entries that cite Bowman and reviewed those that cite McPherson and Eicher and have revised some. Donner60 (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have placed this message near the top of the revised article on the temporary page - just below the note concerning revision and caution on possible deletion. I used bold font to distinguish it from the apparently standard message above it and the text of the article which starts below it: Any entries supported by citation to sources subject to possible copyright question (almost all of them; there are 8 pre-1923 sources) have now been reviewed, checked against sources and many of them have been revised since this article was moved to this temporary page - except 3 JSTOR sources published after 1923 cited in one entry each, which were initially reviewed. All 3 entries which have these citations also have citations to other sources. Donner60 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to be sure that the review was complete and satisfactory, I confirmed the JSTOR citations, reviewed pre-1923 citations, added citations to some entries (mainly pre-1923 additions), and made a few corrections and revisions. I added the following revised note in bold near the top of the page: "All entries have been checked against the supporting citations and many of them have been revised since this article was moved to this temporary page. The editors who have worked on this article in recent months believe there should be no objection to restoring this entire article to the main pages." Donner60 (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review and revision 

message: This is more a timeline of slavery in the United States. I don't think it helps those interested in the topic (the Civil War) to talk about the 17th century.
This sure differs from the sidebar "Events leading to the American Civil War" (see at Origins of the American Civil War).
These are not events:
* A "Society" is not an event.
* The cotton gin.
* Harriet Tubman
I could go on. deisenbe (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: It should say Timeline of Events Leading to the 1st American Civil War, for posterity. 84.118.60.112 (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petition to change the title