Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 1

message: What does "President of Congress" mean?  There were two Houses in the Confederate Congress, surely he wasn't President of both? RickK 02:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: President of Congress

message: Move here
::resulting a relatively moderate founding document. This moderation came from the commonly accepted notion in the Southern states that slavery had become obsolete, while the explicit protection of slavery allowed each state to decide for itself a timetable for phasing out slavery into more modern labor.
Article I - Section IX-3 says
::No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
And it's unclear from the context that this restriction applies only to the Confederate Congress.  
Can someone cite something that shows that the Confederacy did have the intention of allowing states to ban slavery. 
Roadrunner 06:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the emphasis the CSA placed on state's right, I think it can be safely assumed that they simply did not think the rights included in the constitution could be binding for the states as well. This is even clearer to me when you consider that even in the USA this is a newer development, and much was brought forth against it. How much more controversial (or rather unacceptable) must it have seemed to the Southern states.--Laca 01:58, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavery and states rights

message: Confederacy is not only a word for "Confederate Stateds of America". It's also word for organisation of people (in Poland), kind of government etc.. Shouldn't confederacy be a disambiguation page?! Szopen 06:46, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think so. Capital-C "Confederacy" usually means the CSA, but we don't have the ability to have it be different from "confederacy", and it's not that hard to fix the links. Stan 16:05, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: This is speculation with regard to the banning of the slave trade in the Confederate constitution.
:This provision ensured the practice of slave labor would not expand, and would encourage states to actively pursue transition to a modern labor force.
Its not clear that it wouldn't cause slave labor not to expand.  People were actively talking about invading Cuba and the Carribean.
Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages! jengod 22:42, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
:Yes, that is what the Golden Circle_(Slavery) was supposed to be.  The drama from those times still lingers on in Cuba today, which is why they are so cagey around American policy, aside from the Spanish war, which was merely the fruition of Golden Circle policies.  Doughface 08:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banning the slave trade

message: Shouldn't this place have a nation template ("Name, capital, population", a map of the nation, etc)..Even if its not considered a "country" for NPOV reasons, even Taiwan follows this template. I think this article should as well. Comrade Tassadar 04:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nation Template

message: Shouldn't this place have a nation template ("Name, capital, population", a map of the nation, etc)..Even if its not considered a "country" for NPOV reasons, even Taiwan follows this template. I think this article should as well. Comrade Tassadar 04:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nation Template

message: So, people keep seeming to change this motto. I've looked on Google and I frequently see very poor translations of it. I'll tell you why - they say "God will vindicate" and "God defends" and some such things. But this is incorrect, as Deo vindice is not a nominative phrase. It has no such word as "is" and no verb as such - rather, it is a phrase in the ablative- ablative of means if memory serves. So it's "With God our defender" or "With God as our defender" - from the words Deus and vindex.  If it were "God vindicates" it would be Deus vindicabit and were it "God defends" it would be Deus defendit or vindicit.
* You are right about Deo. Vindice is harder to translate - I think Protector might be better than Defender -- or perhaps Vindicator or Champion or Deliverer or Justifier
** vindico : to avenge, punish, liberate, deliver, protect
** Vindicate (to justify, to avenge) has a remarkable etymon. Vindicius (aka Vindex) was a slave of the Vitelli, who informed the Senate of the conspiracy of the sons of Junius Brutus to restore Tarquin, for which service he was rewarded with liberty (Livy, ii. 5); hence the rod with which a slave was struck in manumission was called vindicta, a Vindicius rod (See Manumit ; and to set free was in Latin vindicare in libertatem. One way of settling disputes was to give the litigants two rods, which they crossed as if in fight, and the person whom the praetor vindicated broke the rod of his opponent. These rods were called vindiciae, and hence vindicate, meaning to “justify.” To avenge is simply to justify oneself by punishing the wrongdoer.
** In addition, the motto, "Victoria Liberatis Vindex", is traditionally translated "Victory Vindicates Liberty
**--JimWae 06:29, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
** but http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederateseal.htm is a must see - it contains a speech by one of the eventual designers during a vote on what motto to have 
**:".. in the selection of the word 'vindex,' which signifies an assenter, a defender, protector, deliverer, liberator, a mediator and a ruler or guardian. 'Vindex' also means an avenger or punisher.
**:"... Under God as the asserter of our rights, the defender of our liberties, our protector against danger, our mediator, our ruler and guardian, and, as the avenger of our wrongs and the punisher of our crimes..."
** Under God, Our Vindicator?
**--JimWae 07:18, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
I think that "With God our vindicator" is perfect. I'll change it right away
--Gaidheal nan Stàitean Aonaichte 22:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confederate motto 

message: The nation taxo-box lists these dates: 
*Independence
* - Declared
* - Recognized
But there is no date for the cessation of its independence. Would Lee's surrender be the appropriate date?  Davis' resignation capture? Any suggestions? -Willmcw 23:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the CSA still exist as a Country? 

message: The map is inaccurate namely because it is the present day map with an outline of Confederate states, as opposed to a world map of the time. I'm unsure of the exact specifics of what the map would be, so perhaps someone else would like to take a shot? 24.10.139.96 07:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Inaccuracy 

message: JimWae - Please cease and desist your edits to replace "secession" with "declared their secession," "declared their separation" or any other variation thereof. These changes do not have the consensus of the other editors on this article. They also conflict with the Princeton and American Heritage Dictionary definitions of the word secession, not to mention the wikipedia article. This has been pointed out to you. A proper, fitting, NPOV section has also been added to this article that documents and links to the Texas v. White decision per your desire to cover that topic. You therefore have no basis to pursue your changes any further. Please make your edits in a manner consistent with this discussion or show cause why you believe the issue should be revisited. You may consider this a warning before administrator notification is sought. Rangerdude 03:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that take on things, Jim, is that "declared their secession" etc. itself connotes a POV aimed at diminishing the act of secession. It also ascribes to an unsourced definition of secession that is in clear in conflict with what the dictionaries say on  secession (quoted above). Those dictionary definitions both apply to what the South did in general and contain secondary definitions specifying the confederacy by name as a secessionist act. Since your personal definition and the dictionary's are in conflict, the burden is on you to come up with a reason why we should discard them and take yours instead. As to your claim that I "want to say it is POV to state a clear fact," this is pure and utter nonesense. What you are stating is NOT clear fact but rather a convoluted wording premised upon your endorsement of a Supreme Court opinion that factually happened but is also nevertheless a POV onto itself. Curiously, despite all your efforts to load this and the other articles with semantical hairsplitting, you seem unusually averse to actually specifying that Supreme Court opinion in the article's text and letting the reader make up his mind for himself about it, which is what we're supposed to do. From day 1 I have been agreeable to stating the clear fact that Texas v. White happened and specifying what Texas v. White was. In fact, I repeatedly invited and urged you to write a couple of NPOV sentences detailing Texas v. White and any other relevent material within the article itself. You ignored each of these invitations and chose not to. I suppose could have simply left it at that, taking your inaction as an indicator that properly inserting Texas v. White into the article didn't merit the effort. But in complete fairness to your indicated position of including it, I composed and added a section on Texas v. White covering the basis of your argument and more in a neutral and succinct manner. You have yet to even acknowledge this contribution or consider it as a reasonable alternative to your single-minded and unilateral insistence of introducing the cumbersome and etymologically incorrect "declared their secession" phrasing at every opportunity possible. Rangerdude 05:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know how consensus is judged on this page, but my earlier remarks were to the effect that the CSA never successfully seceded. -Willmcw 04:35, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Understood and thank you for the clarification. My point is that the verb "seceded" or "to secede," as defined by the dictionaries and wikipedia's secession article, is perfectly proper under its use here. All of this "declared there secession" stuff is unnecessary hairsplitting that reduces the overall quality of the article through awkward language and has a POV effect of minimizing the south's secession (which only started a little thing called the Civil War) to a simple declaration on paper. Since the dictionaries are consistent with the use of secession/seceded as it appears here, I see no reason to alter it. Now, JimWae has indicated that he wanted to include something about Texas v. White. That is fine by me, and as you have seen I was fully accomodating of that request going so far as to write the paragraph myself when he refused to do so after being invited repeatedly. If JimWae doubts that Texas v. White is properly covered in the section I added, I invite him to propose additions to it. But right now all I see is cumbersome and weasily language that is apparently premised upon Texas v. White (and thus POV in itself) without saying so. Rangerdude 05:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Secession/Declared secession

message: Could someone please explain the phrase, "it received material support from Britain." Unless there is evidence of cash, weapons etc supplied by the British government, which I have never heard about, this is misleading. Osomec 2 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)
:What little navy the CSA had was purchased from Britain.  I think there may have been some other aid, but I don't know for sure. -- Nik42 07:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't material aid. It is a commercial transaction under the conventions of neutrality. The statement has stood for nearly a month without meaningful evidence being produced, so I am deleting it.Osomec 06:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was misleading. The aid was more of the "wink wink nudge nudge" variety. The British government did not openly give material aid. British citizens did, and the government turned a blind eye to it until Adams made it clear they could not dance the line of neutrality in it and allow the ship-building to continue. Bulloch, et al, had to move their secret dealings to France and for a time were successful in getting things built there on the sly, and even almost had the King of France support them openly, but things changed....plange 02:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aid from Britain?

message: Let's list the states which inscribe this flag.  --VKokielov 06:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's list 

message: I'm from the North, so perhaps it's a bias - but I'm having trouble finding a credible source that has linked Kentucky with secession from USA and been annexed by CSA.  --Mrmiscellanious 21:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I too was surprised at first to see this.  But I agree with the article as it stands.  The point is that the CSA government claimed Kentucky as part of its territory.  Whether the government and population of Kentucky ever considered themselves to have seceded is a somewhat different issue.  There is more detail on the particular history under Border states (Civil War). -- 67.174.231.120 07:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kentucky situation was basically one of loyalties that split the state in half. Two competing governments were set up, and Kentucky raised several units of troops for both sides in the war. That both governments claimed them is accordingly not surprising. Rangerdude 08:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Russellville Convention • CQ 04:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kentucky? 

message: A table in the article has Missouri "Admitted C.S.A." on August 19, 1861.  This precedes the (disputed) secession ordinance of October 31, 1861.  So is that August date a typo?  It does not match up with the Missouri Secession article either.  -- 67.174.231.120 07:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly the Confederate Congress passed a resolution saying that Missouri would be accepted contingent upon their legislature seceding or something to that effect in August. When the Neosho government voted to secede in late October they were seated right away. Rangerdude 08:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missouri Admission? 

message: Not to stir up the issue again (...), but in 1865, GA Gov Joseph E. Brown threatened to secede from the CSA...  Trekphiler 05:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard that too.Cameron Nedland 02:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Georgia Secession? 

message: I took the liberty of removing one external link.  It is an issue of today and has nothing at all too do with the history of the Confederate States of America.  As a historian I feel it is important to maintain a historical outlook on any historical topic and not push today's agenda's via the same.  Best, --Bumpusmills1 12:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link, which had nothing to do with the actual history. 

message: Did times zone exist in 1865? -Will Beback 06:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time zones 

message: FYI this article belongs to the :Category: Confederate States of America, which in turn belongs to :Category:Short-lived states. The criteria for that category is: "Countries, recognized or not, that controlled territory but existed for less than five years." That all seems appropriate. -Will Beback 20:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: One of the greatest misunderstandings about the Confederacy was that the issue was never over slavery. President Lincoln was quoted on many occasions stating that if he could keep the southern states, and slavery, and avoid a war, he would.  This sentence is rather deceptive, and since it's wedged in rather awkwardly, I can't help but wonder if it was put in there by an apologist for the Confederacy.  It sounds like it's trying to say One of the greatest misunderstandings about the Civil War was that slavery was never the issue.  This is not an article about the causes of the Civil War, this is an article about the Confederate States of America.  Also to say that "the issue" was never slavery is extremely deceptive.  Not only was moral opposition to slavery a factor in the cultural differences that led to the war, it created a different economic order in the South that in turn led to other differences.  Furthermore, slavery was abolished just about everywhere after the Civil War, and although the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves, it did turn slavery into an issue.  Slavery was not the only issue that led to the Civil War, to say that it was never an issue is absurd.  I say this sentence should be removed as being inaccurrate, POV, and out of place in this article.  Rhesusman 16:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Sentence 

message: In an official correspondence from Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamine to Dudley Mann, special envoy to the Holy See, dated February 1, 1864, Benjamin rejected Mann’s assertion that the Pope’s addressing a letter "to the Illustrious and Honorable Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America" was a recognition of the C.S.A. as an independent nation.  Benjamin noted that the Pope's reference to the war as an intestine or civil war rather than a foreign war in the letter showed that his address to Jefferson Davis as "President of the Confederate States" was only a formula of politeness.  I will change the article to reflect this.
* A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, including the Diplomatic Correspondence 1861-1865.  Vol. II.  Compiled and edited by James D. Richardson. Nashville:  United States Publishing Company, 1906.  p. 623
Nicholas F 01:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope Pius IX's Letter to Jefferson Davis and Recognition

message: I'm posting this here because Rjensen keeps deleting a carefully worked out text on Ernst Raven, the consul appointed by Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the confederacy. You can see from the article and discussion history that this topic has been worked on for many many months leading to the current language. That text is factually accurate and presented in a way that is neutral to both sides. It's also got a valid first hand source from the confederate government records proving beyond any doubt that Raven was appointed consul in 1861.
:Ernst II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, ruler of the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the brother-in-law of Queen Victoria, appointed Ernst Raven as consul to the Confederate government in 1861. Raven was granted diplomatic exequatur on July 30 1861.  There is a question under international law whether this act amounted to de jure or merely de facto recognition of the Confederate government. 
I restored it because this text is balanced and factually true. Yet every time I see this article Rjensen keeps coming along and deleting it without ANY discussion. This is inappropriate and its just plain wrong. Rjensen needs to explain himself and work as part of the team on this article - not change it back after long standing compromises are made. - MightyMo
::I delete this because 1) it is original research and 2) it is false.  The Duke was a famous friend of the US, hailed by American diplomats./ More to the point is the leading diplomatic historian who explicitly reports: "In asking for the exequatar, Raven's government made clear that its request did not imply or extend diplomatic recognition." [The British Foreign Service and the American Civil War  
By Eugene H Berwanger, U of Kentucky Press 1994  p 111] it is online at   A third reason might be added--it is recent neo-Confederate deliberate myth.
:::You are saying that the Trent Affair had nothing to do with Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and that cotton had nothing to do with British interests, while pretending the Golden Circle_(Slavery) had nothing to do with the French interest because of the Mexican Empire?.  Don't make omissions because they seem unpleasant to you.  You have an agenda to rewrite the past of the CSA, but Wikipedia's job is to present as wide a view as possible.  This means NPOV, not slanting one way or the other.  Give each issue its proper due, nothing more or less.  Why is it in your POV interest to diminish the knowledge of the CSA's diplomatic or worth status?  Please, no Union revisionism and no Confederate fantasies.  Just keep it straight and don't advance any particular side.  You obviously have an agenda, but please keep it at home and don't bring it here.  You risk offending others, just as you would be offended if a Neoconfederate edited with an agenda on the Union article.  Relax.  Doughface 06:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. I am saying there is NO RELIABLE SOURCE that says Confederacy was recognized by Saxe, and there is a reliable source that explictly denies it. I am also saying there is no reliable source that says the Golden Circle ever existed (seems to be a confusion with a group called the Knights of the Golden Circle). My agenda is keeping false history nd hoaxes off Wiki. Rjensen 06:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not supposed to disrupt the Wikipedia to make a point.  (See WP:POINT)  There are opposite theories to yours, while Wikipedia attempts to give each side a say and not one or the other.  You are trying to advance the singular position of one history book, but the article already described the vague nature of diplomatic recognition.  You are staking a POV claim of definitiveness, where it does not explicitly apply.  Unofficial recognition was more than relevant in the international affairs of the Confederacy, which is what almost prompted a war between the Union and the UK.  It turned out that neither side was willing to go to war over it.  The simple matter of fact is that the British Royal Family was in fact involved in the issues, while the British Parliament was as well.  The extent with which the Saxonian duchy dealt with the CSA, is restricted by the nature of its extended relationship via the British Empire and nothing more or less.  This was plainly a British/French affair and when you add a House of Windsor relative into the situation, it is obvious that this person was acting only in British interests as a "neutral power broker" (or something like that).  You are a little off kilter with this deletion-frenzy.  The Golden Circle was a political manifesto, a dream that some adventurers attempted and failed to create, with its own background in the Mexican War (some say as far back as Drake and English piracy on the Spanish Main).  The anti-imperial sentiment in New England during the Spanish-American War was convinced that the Spanish war was a revival of this in the Union government, as it had been during the Polk Presidency.  These are not controversial observances on the matters, but your blatant rewrites and omissions only obscure very well researched and hard-labored articles.  This is hard to find subject-matter, due to the taboos about the Confederacy.  Rest assured, the Golden Circle was an important topic in the Election of 1860.  It even led to war.  To pretend like the concept had no currency, is just ignorant of the entire antebellum South and American imperialism on the whole.  Doughface 07:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all original research. please give me a reliable source. (I have already cited one that completely rejects the recognition theory). Rjensen 07:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it that your one source outweighs all others, including the common belief of it being otherwise to your own take, as supported by your singular source?  The article already stated the unofficial recognition and the tentative status with which the Saxon duchy had shown diplomatic recognition.  You are attempting to choose a side.  Why not merely add your cited source, along with the previous details?  It is better than erasing what you diagree with.  Doughface 07:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ernst Raven 

message: The notion that Saxe-Coburg-Gotha officially recognized the Confederacy is rejected by all historians. It's a hoax invented by neo-confederates in the 1990s. Rjensen 07:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide a source for this statement of yours.  Pray tell, does it come from Morris Dees?  You assert that ALL historians agree with your view, but you've only provided one source and one historian.  Doughface 07:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the story is not mentioned in any of the books cited in the bibliography. Where did Doughface find the story? Rjensen 08:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please rephrase that, because it is hard to understand what you just wrote.  Doughface 08:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What reliable sources did Doughface use re Saxe- issue??? Rjensen 08:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the sources every other editor has had?  I am only defending the long and hard work they did, while you wish to supplant their efforts instead of add meaningful quality.  Add your info, but do not erase the other information.  Learn how to make your edits coexist with other edits.  Review common objections to your revisionist edits, here and elsewhere in relation to the Civil War.  I have witnessed several complaints about your editing from others.  Doughface 08:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition hoax 

message: Why is this rather obscure general (who doesn't even have a Wikipedia article) included in the list of Confederate military leaders? I can build a case that he (and a few others on the list) should be replaced with more prominent omissions. Scott Mingus 12:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyree H. Bell???? 

message: The North said they did not. SCOTUS (in Texas v. White) said they did not. No country recognized their declarations of secession. Saying without qualification that the Confederate States seceded is to take a POV. This has been discussed at length repeatedly. Quit putting this crap back in. We can say "they declared their secession", "they seceded[1]", even "the seceding states", but to say outright that they seceded - especially in the first instance in which the topic is broached - is POV. I can understand falling into short-hand usage after the issue has been qualified, and I know many academics do not make any distinction, but NPOV has priority--JimWae 06:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no knowledge of the "Readmittance" clause in the Republican/Union occupied states (districts) formerly independent parts of the CSA?  Go to school, not Revisionist GOP parties.  Hell, I'm Republican and accept that they did secede.  I don't have any interest in skewing the viewpoint to favour that there was no CSA.  I would insult you, but this is an encyclopedia and we are supposed to be professional.  IP Address 06:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I only felt like you were trolling.  Let's not play this legalistic perception bullshit.  Call a spade a spade.  IP Address 06:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be civil. Jim, do you have a few cites that state point blank that the CSA states did not secede? IP, do you have cites from scholarship or Union sources that say they did? Our POVs do not matter here. What do sources tell us? --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe that you lot are off your rockers.  This is taught in all schools across the nation, from grade school to university level!  Oh my God!  How dare you screw around like this?!  What a waste of time!  Stop trolling!  IP Address 12:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please be civil. Yes, it can seem like some sort of game. But where there are emotional issues involved, insisting on documentation is the only way to resolve them. I've been asked on the Martin Luther page to cite even the doctrine of salvation by grace, which is taught even to our kindergarteners. *roll eyes* Yet these are the easiest to cite. I'm betting that northern sources even called the CSA states seceded. I don't know absolutely for certain. The simplest way to end that argument is to cite sources. So, please, don't throw around emotional language. Just go and find a few sources. --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is common knowledge about the Civil War even from Third World Countries, is that the CSA was a secessionist movement that failed.  It is not about civility, it is about obstinate stupidity.  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_dense  IP Address 13:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Nevertheless, the canons of English Wikipedia do not allow for common knowledge. I've tried to argue for it, but lost that debate. So, that leaves us with documenting the obvious. So, please, humor us and keep the insults in the real world. O.K.? --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Without getting into any of the content issues, it's clear that IP Address is engaged in  multiple unprovoked uses of obscene language on this talk page, and is in a poor ethical position to quote wiki policy. No matter how strongly felt the contention, using this space as a platform for indiscrete language is inappropriate and unacceptable. To his or her credit, he or she redacted the worst four-letter offense (acknowledging error), but other epithets remain. If IP Address wishes to post using unacceptable language, I encourage that user to please post elsewhere than Wikipedia. BusterD 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I will look up sources, but my gut reaction to this is that it's POV-pushing to say they didn't secede based on the fact that the US didn't recognize it, because of course they didn't, that's why there was a war. But I guess the old adage is true, history writing belongs to the victor. If they didn't secede then why the whole rigamarole of re-admitting them to the Union? -plange 17:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, agendas are plastered out openly.  It is wrong to say yes means yes and no means no.  IP Address 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, I am not saying we should say they did not secede. I am saying it is a POV issue & wikipedia cannot take sides. In 1861 Lincoln & the Republicans said the secession was legally void, and in 1869 SCOTUS said the same. To assert they seceded is to assert that they were wrong. I am aware that the vast majority of people go along with the oversimplification that "they seceded", and so it appears in a great number of history books. Secession is a process, and if it were accomplished, then they would have seceded - but they failed. If some group of people takes control of the Queen Elizabeth and presents it to Kim Song Yung, we do not say they have transferred title - at least not until at least a few nations recognize it as a transfer of title. West Virgina seceded, the Republics of Slovakia seceded, Ireland seceded, several previously Russian states seceded, and about half of Quebec wants to secede, but the Confederacy did not achieve secession. As the decision in Texas v. White 1869 says: secession is either a legal process or one achieved by winning a revolution - the Confederacy did neither. --JimWae 23:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a disservice to readers to portray the situation in an flat, overly-simplified manner. The legal pronouncements by SCOTUS have bearing on any future attempts as secession.  --JimWae 00:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If and when someone finds any historians who declare they seceded, be sure they are discussing it as an issue and not just talking short-handedly about the events. Is this even a topic for historians?  It seems, to me at least, that only legal and political science scholars would qualify as authorities in this area. --JimWae 00:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historians uses "secede" and "secession". For a sample of the scholarship see David Potter's Pulitzer prize book, with a chapter on "The Lower South Secedes" and look at the use of "secession" in the many books and articles he cites here . Rjensen 01:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Secession usage. Lincoln in formal papers in 1861 always said something like "the so-called seceding states." by 1862 he let that drop. Secretary of State Seward called them seceding states: In formal instruction to the US minister to Britain in 1861 Seward wrote: "You will indulge in no expressions of harshness or disrespect, or even impatience concerning the seceding States, their agents, or their people. But you will, on the contrary, all the while remember that those States are now, as they always heretofore have been, and, notwithstanding their temporary serf-delusion, they must always continue to be, equal and honored members of this Federal Union, and that their citizens throughout all political misunderstandings and alienations, still are and always must be our kindred and countrymen." (end Seward quote) Rjensen 02:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please remember, no OR - we need to cite from books written on the subject, not interpret original documents ourselves. That's for historians, and though you might be one, we (both sides) have to go from published books. -plange 02:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The SCOTUS did not say people may not use the word secede. They did not say it was POV. No one said so. Where did that POV notion come from anyway?? Rjensen 09:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jim, do you have a cite from a historian that says the states did not secede? Rjensen's cites establish what we all have sensed: that in general usage, the states are talked about as having seceded. If so, then we can cite both historical sources. If not, would it work for you if we craft a line that says something like: the Supreme Court later ruled secession unconstitutional? --CTSWyneken(talk) 12:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another citation: "As a protest against the election of Abraham Lincoln, who had received not a single southern electoral vote, secession was a fact - to be reinforced, if necessary, by the sword." Shelby Foote "The Civil War: A Narrative", p.3 -plange 15:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia cannot say the Confederate States seceded 

message: The article keeps mentioning diplomatic exchanges between the CSA and the "Vatican". No such country existed in the 1860's. The Pope was the ruler of the Papal States, which by 1863 comprised all the city of Rome and the surrounding areas. The Papal States ceased to exist in 1870 and the Vatican was formed in 1929. --Marcdein 12:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Vatican, as the Palace where the Pope resides, is an acceptable synecdoche for the Pope, in the same way that Sublime Porte is an acceptable synecdoche for the Ottoman Sultan.  However it is a bit misleading, and does seem to depart from common usage, both of the time and of historians. john k 21:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vatican? 

message: Any thoughts on having a disambiguation page as well? I wholly agree that this should be the primary link, but those trying to find information on the similarly named book or movie might find it useful. 72.139.185.19 21:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Latest revert not sure if reasoning is right. See this paragraph in WP:OR - Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
:to elaborate, what I think this means is, if a letter is deposited at, say, Duke's special arhives that says "yesterday I visited the Prime minister and had lunch with him. Afterwards we strolled through the park" we can say that the person writing the letter had lunch with the prime minister on that date, but we can't infer anything else from that, like that since they took a walk afterwards it must mean they liked each other and had a great time at lunch. I didn't read the part that was removed to see if it met or did not meet this criteria, but just saw your reasoning and wanted to be sure you were deleting it for the right reasons plange 19:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: however, if a secondary source states that the person writing the letter did like the Prime minister, then that's what we'd use to cite that claim.plange 19:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The material on the Pope was original synthesis based on a very narrow range of primary sources, with no reliance on the scholarly literature. Is that against Wiki rules or is it merely bad editing? It was a trivial episode that gets more attention than about 75 major issues--like the food supply, conscription, manpower, Congress, women, bread riots, state governors, Mexico, Canada, attacking New York City, espionage, status of slaves, banking, bond issues, news media, schools, finance, inflation, taxes-in-kind, or internal politics, etc etc. Just drop the paragraphs on how the Pope addressed a letter--historians rarely mention the episode at all (there was of course no Papal ambassador sent to Richmond, which is what recognition would involve.)Rjensen 19:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plange is correct, this material is "source-based research" and not "original research" according to Wikipedia guidelines. There is no requirement that only scholarly literature be used in Wikipedia. The incidents cited are facts and should be used, although Rjensen does have a point that the write up was too long.  My concern is that there are enough people who have heard about the Papal "recognition" that the article should convey at least a summary of what this was about and the fact that not even the Confederate Secretary of State regarded it as official recognition.  Otherwise it is highly likely that this event will become an urban legend fueled by other websites that will place the event out of context as "proof" that the Papacy recognized the CSA.  Nicholas F 00:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely this information is discussed in secondary sources?  There are books about Confederate diplomacy in Europe, aren't there? john k 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I Suggest one sentence to the effect the Pope wrote a friendly letter but Richmond (and all historians) agreed it did not even begin to reach "recognition."  And please use scholarly sources--editors inependent interpretation of primary documents is seldome acceptable when there are serious scholars who have addressed the issue (like Owsley). Rjensen 17:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's a standard secondary source: "After seeing ... the pope himself, Mann held in his hands a reply addressed to “Illustrious and Honorable Sir, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.” Mann took this to be recognition of the Confederacy: “The hand of the Lord has been in it, and eternal glory and praise be to his holy and righteous name.” Judah Benjamin assured him it was only a polite formula with no meaning because no diplomatic action followed." from Jefferson Davis, Unconquerable Heart. by Felicity Allen, University of Missouri Press. 1999. Page  441. Rjensen 18:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, this would seem to confirm what was on the page before, or, at least, what was on it when I saw it - Mann thought it meant recognition, but Benjamin realized it didn't, and no historians or anybody else thinks it does.  john k 21:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's about it--and it deserves one sentence. Rjensen 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The whole section on diplomacy is deeply amateurish.  I tried editing it a couple days ago, but it seemed to have been written someone who's never actually read any specific discussions of the Confederacy's diplomatic efforts.  I tried to fix the most glaring errors (notably, that Napoleon III had created a Mexican Empire in 1861, and that Britain almost recognized the Confederacy on a couple of occasions), but it probably needs a wholesale rewrite.  Before I came a long, it mentioned this whole Mann incident, but did not mention Mason or Slidell, or, I think, Palmerston or Russell. john k 23:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "but did not mention Mason or Slidell" Wow, that's a glaring ommission. The Trent Affair was a major deal and almost caused a war between the US and Britain... I must confess I haven't read this article yet, have only been keeping an eye on changes. I guess it's time to dig in plange 23:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It didn't mention Mason and Slidell either in context of the Trent affair or as the Confederate emissaries to Britain and France, respectively.  It mentioned the Trent affair, but didn't explain what it was at all.  It included the following sentence: Britain considered recognizing the Confederacy during the Trent Affair and began preparations to offer mediation along with France (due to Emperor Napoleon III's project, the Mexican Empire). Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert helped block recognition. Recognition was again considered following the Second Battle of Manassas when the British government were preparing to mediate in the conflict, but both nations backed away after the Battle of Antietam and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. john k 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest revert