Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/Archive 1

message: Very informative article overall. Just a few tiny nits though. The first section refers to the eve of the Civil War. But to me, "eve" implies immediately before, like say the late 1850s, but I think (but really can't tell for sure) that this refers to some period before then.
:I'll play around with the text. Please tell me if it's satisfactory when I'm done. 172 03:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just a big one; it's a colossal oversimplification. But this might be the case for any topic that could be brought up in the overview. Any short overview of a subject of this nature can merely lay the groundwork for the rest of the article, establishing some key points for a hueristic function. The overview's there to help general readers understand where the article's going as they read. 172 03:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: You're right about the usage of the anachronistic term "Northwest." However, I doubt that I'd favor replacing the term with "Midwest." The literature on the subject tends to stick with the regional terms contemporaneous with the period. I'll add some {now known as...) notes whenever this matter comes up in the text if you think that it is necessary. 172 03:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks for mentioning this. I wanted to emphasize many commonly overlooked realities of the era, and this was high up on the list. While I wanted the article to be as suggestive as possible to general readers, I wanted to avoid the extreme shortcomings of the standard, simplistic "North vs. South" write-ups found online. 172 03:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Though very simplistic, the "four regions" reference works for 1860 in the overview. Do you think that it would suffice if I added a note in parenthesis reminding readers of the great deal of economic, political, demographic, cultural, etc. diversity within the regions themselves? Would a reminder in the overview saying that we're speaking very broadly be helpful as well? 172 03:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long is an "Eve"? 

message: Everybody today likes to argue about why the war was fought, and wants to pick out the ONE reason. The problem with that is there is NO ONE reason that the war was fought. To some extent, everyone is right, and everyone is wrong.
#Slavery: Yes, large plantation owners with many slaves were afraid of losing them. Some of these people were evil racist bigots, and others were good people who inherited a mess and were desperately trying to keep their businesses operating. These people, as large wealthy business owners, had a lot of influence and loudly supported secession.
#States rights: Most of the people who fought for the south didn't care much about slavery one way or the other. There was a strong feeling both in the south AND the north, that the states should be "independent", with only a figurehead federal government. These people didn't see themselves as Americans or Confederates, they thought of themselves as Kentuckians, or Georgians, or Alabamans. They had long complained about the northern states domination of the economy, and there was a general feeling that the northerners controlled the federal government.
:The question of why people fought for each side are not necessarily connected to what caused the war.  I think most historians would agree that states' rights was a convenient excuse rather than a genuinely held principle.  Furthermore, the idea that northerners controlled the federal government is insane.  The south had had things all its way for pretty much the entire history of the republic (and certainly almost entirely for many years before the 1860 election with such dough head presidents as Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan), and, in fact, would have continued to be able to prevent pretty much anything they didn't like from getting passed by a Congress in which the Democrats would still have controlled the Senate, and the Republicans not had a majority in the House. john 19:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So what?  Tariffs were low in 1860, and the south could've prevented the Republicans from increasing it if they hadn't seceded.  Also, Louisiana sugar planters, for instance, were actually entirely dependent on high tariffs.  Many southern planters, in fact, had supported the high-tariff Whig party for many years. john 19:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Err...this is, as far as I am aware, nonsense.  Southerners were allied to the Democratic Party, which was the party of northern immigrants.  Republicans were in many areas tied to former Know Nothings, and were often suspected of nativism. john 19:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Oh, come on. john 19:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: At any rate, you have not cited a single actual historian here, just your encounter with the facts.  Let me note to you the work of Eric Foner on the Republican Party (Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men), of William Freehling on southern secessionism, or even just take a look at McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom.  Libertarian/Neo-Confederate polemic should have no place in an encyclopedia article. john 19:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is VERY biased 

message: Initial states to secede	% Slavesin Population	% of White FamiliesOwning Slaves
South Carolina          	57                   	47
Georgia                 	48                   	38
Florida                 	44                   	35
Alabama                 	45                   	35
Mississippi             	55                   	49
Louisiana               	47                   	31
Texas                   	30                   	29
States seceding later   	% Slavesin Population	% of White FamiliesOwning Slaves
Virginia                	31                   	27
North Carolina          	33                   	29
Tennessee               	25                   	25
Arkansas                	28                   	20
Had Confederate factions	% Slavesin Population	% of White FamiliesOwning Slaves
Kentucky                	20                   	24
Missouri                	10                   	13
Remained in Union       	% Slavesin Population	% of White FamiliesOwning Slaves
Maryland                	13                   	165
Delaware                	2                    	4
And the purpose of posting this chart here is what now??? Rangerdude 05:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing of Secession 

message: The word radical is used 32 times in this article, most often in regard to Republicans, Free-soilers,...
Which of the following does it NOT refer to, and which DOES it refer to?
* those who believed all men have a right to liberty
* those opposed to slavery
* those who wanted slavery abolished immediately
* those who wanted a program to have slavery abolished voluntarily 
* those opposed to fugitive slave laws
* those who thought blacks should be citizens with equal rights
* those opposed to expansion of slavery to territories
?
--JimWae 01:36, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
::Jim - "Radical Republicans" was a term used both in the 1860's and today by historians to distinguish a specific wing of the Republican Party. When applied to abolitionists, I suppose it would refer the John Brown types who used violence and intimidation Rangerdude 05:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect. The notion of a Radical Republicans faction was present before the 1860 Chicago nominating convention. One of the reasons they picked Lincoln was  because he came from the moderate faction. Rangerdude 19:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who are the radicals? 

message: Jim, Benjamin Wade was not a Free Soiler - he was a Whig.  I think you've in other situations been a bit too adamant about replacing whig with free soiler.  The anti-slavery wing of the Whig Party was seen as "radical," but shouldn't be called Free Soilers.  I'll add that I think you're right in some of your marginal notes that what is being said about non-extension doesn't make any sense, and I think that stylistically you've made some improvements.  I'll add that the use of Radical was overly broad in the older version.  I note one instance that you didn't change, where it refers to Seward and Cameron as radicals - Seward was certainly a moderate, and Cameron was a corrupt former Democrat who was mostly a Republican because he hated Buchanan afaicr.  Seward was perhaps seen as somewhat too radical given some remarks he had made (the irrepressible conflict speech, notably), but he was not from a distinctly different branch of the party than Lincoln - both had remained Whigs long after the party had ceased to be viable, for instance.  I think that we can probably work this out to come to a workable compromise here. john k 19:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free-Soilers vs. Radicals 

message: An editor removed this image, with the edit summary:
*Remove famous 1863 photo that has nothing to do with the defense of slavery or the origins of the Civil War - the overseer who inflicted these scars was NOT given this authority and was FIRED
I guess the presumptions in including this are that depictions like this affected the origins of the war and that it helps readers understand the punishments possible under the slave system. If the caption is wrong we can fix it. Certainly in any system unauthorized punishments take place. -Willmcw 11:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this image last year to Slavery in the United States, where it makes more sense to be included.  Since this article is about the origins of the Civil War, and this photo was taken after the war had already started, an actual photo used by pre-war abolitionists would be more appropriate.  Research the history of the photo and I think you will find that it was primarily used in propaganda and should be noted as such.  Why else would the picture have been made?  Certainly not to put in a family album.  It really made no sense where it was, anyway, under the section, "the defense of slavery".  Any images in that section should be examples of southern propaganda that tried to say how great slavery was, not northern propaganda trying to show how abhorrent slavery was.  H2O 07:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: In the above paragraph I changed the wikilink "History of Slavery in the United States" to "Slavery in the United States" consistent with the current title of the article. Simesa (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the explanation. It certainly looks like propaganda, and its date after the commencement of fighting would make it less relevant for this page. The only exceptin would be if similar images were distribut4ed before the war, but I'm not aware of any. -Willmcw 08:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: In the above paragraph I changed the wikilink "History of Slavery in the United States" to be "Slavery in the United States" consistent with the article's current title. Simesa (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I will act vigorously to keep that photo in the article. The caption does not state that all southern whites were involved in such beatings. The caption states that the photo was distributed by abolitionists after it was taken in 1863 to illustrate their view of slavery. The picture is being used because it is famous. Unfortunately, few examples of southern brutality against slaves were not photographed, making it easier for neo-Confederate apologists to this day to perpetuate the myth that chattel slavery in North America was a benign, paternalistic institution. 172 | Talk 00:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, to prevent the spread of the myth that slavery was entirely benign, let's misuse a photo to promote a different myth, that slavery was entirely brutal and participated in by all of southern white society.  "slaveowners made up only a small share of the South's population, involvment in the institution of slavery cut across class lines in Southern society.  Poor whites served as slave "overseers" and "patrollers" and were given the authority to keep blacks in bondage through violence and issue summary punishment against escapees."  I still don't understand why you insist on placing this photo in this particular article, when I have no problem whatsoever with it in the history of slavery article, other than that you have a particular POV to push.  The fact that thousands of Confederate soldiers suffered and died for a cause they believed in, to me says there is an alternative view.  I am not saying they were right, just that their viewpoint ought to be fairly represented.  I am not a neo-Confederate, just a student of genealogy and I'd like to see that my ancestors receive balanced treatment.  H2O 03:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo ties into the discussion of the abolitionist campaign against slavery. A more 'neutral' photo would not illustrate that point. By the way, I'm sorry if this subject is sensitive to you because of your family history. Nevertheless, we cannot deny that slavery was underpinned by violence. Slaves did not stay on the plantation voluntarily. Slaves were denied freedom of movement, assembly, and self-defense through violence. Whites spent great amounts of time, money, and energy on the most persistent problem of slave control-- running away. With few exceptions, all white persons were authorized to apprehend any African unable to present a permission slip when going off the plantation. Masters had legal immunity should they exercise violence against slaves. In areas of heavy slave concentration, whites were often required to serve on 'slave patrols' to police the community every day all day. The entire social system rested on the threat of carte blanche violence against African slaves. I mention these facts not to make moral judgments about your ancestors, but rather because they are essentially relevant statements of historical reality. Again, I am not being polemical; I cannot say that I have any more of a perceptive critical eye cast toward my own society than most white Southerners showed toward their own society more than 150 years ago. First, the norms, customs, laws, traditions, and value systems of the antebellum South were vastly different from our on society and culture, as American citizens in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, based on free labor and equality before the law. Second, violence underlies all social systems, even our own; in this sense, quite poignantly Max Weber defines "the state" as the that set of institutions of society exercising the monopoly of the exercise of legitimate violence. In sum, I can note the fact that slavery rested on violence without casting aspersions against your dead ancestors. 172 | Talk 08:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: this page focuses too much on the historical revisionist take on the civil war as a war to free slaves.  Many disagree.  This was really a war about economics, slavery was just caught in the middle. Slave compromises and slave state issues were merely means to an end and that was seeking a balance between two growing views on federal power and economic control.  The northern states wanted more centralization with more economic protectionism while the south favored decentralization of power and more free trade.  This is the real version of history that has had to make room for the populist view no given on this page (which it should simply for the fact that it is taught in history classes nationwide rather than being factual itself.  nevertheless the economic explination needs to be given more attention. (Gibby 06:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is not correct to say that "many" disagree and think it was a war about economics.  It's hard to think of a professional historian or a university press book in the last 10 or 20 years who takes that position.  It is held by amateurs who have not read the monographs or the primary sources. If you want a serious economic interpretation you have to go back 75 years to Charles and Mary Beard. But that is not actually what these amateur revisionists do. They make up stories about the tariff -- and never seem to read the thousands of speeches and editorials that were issues in 1860-61. The business interests in the northeast depended on southern cotton and did not want war at all. The North wanted "centralization"? not true. The South wanted free trade? yes and that's what it had. The South put through the Walker tariff of 1847 and lowered it. In 1861 by becoming a foreign country the South started a tariff on imports from the North--that's where 80% of its goods came from--it was the biggest increase in taxes and tariffs in American history, so they were not all that adverse to it. Rjensen 07:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blame is not the issue. Causation is. Not a single prominent Confederate said he seceeded because of the tariff (after all the tariff in 1860 was a low one written by southerners.) So it's false to say it was a major reason for secession. Be clear about the numbers: In 1859, the south paid maybe $5-10 million in tariffs, far less than it got in federal services like Army and Navy. This business about the tariff-cause was introduced by amateur historians a few years ago to further their 2000-agenda, not to explain 1861. Rjensen 05:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was taught in Jr High school in the mid 1970s that tariffs were an important factor in the cause of the war.   There were many causes, slavery was the trigger. H2O 23:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was taught differently in grad school in the early 1970s. 172 | Talk 00:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What grad school did you attend? H2O 00:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I wonder if it wasn't postwar ex-Confederates like Alexander Stephens who created this "resistance to centralization" myth as part of their political strategy to resist the 14th amendment?  Certainly it is true that Southern political leaders before the war had no hesitation in asserting national supremacy over states when it served to protect slavery.  Witness the enthusiastic Southern support for the Dred Scott decision's nationalization of slavery, and the complaint in nearly every secession document against "Northern nullification" of the Federal fugitive slave law, not to mention the Southern insistence that territorial sovereignty did not include the right of territories to ban slavery. In every case, Southern arguments about centralization were adopted if (and only if) they served to protect slavery.  In the postwar period anti-centralization arguments served the dual purpose of disassociating the Confederate cause from an institution now universally condemned, and allowing for resistance against federal protections for the rights of former slaves.  As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address, more than a month before the war started, "One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute."  Or as the Mississippi secession declaration states, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world."  As RJensen notes, virtually no qualified professional historian who has done a thorough investigation of the era's documents believes that slavery was not one of the central causes of conflict. --Gutta56 01:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes--and it would help if people read a few history books before they write encyclopedia articles explaining the true history of the war.  Start with Donald, McPherson or Fellman (in the readings) 
Rjensen 02:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 
I suggest you read a book or two. The best is Potter (1976) and also Pressly.  Then tell us what you think. Rjensen 06:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mis focus missed points 

message: According to the article, the "first" reason for the war (the one that needs to be presnted first) was abolitionism - it does not seem to matter that one must first understand the issues involved with what they wanted to abolish --JimWae 05:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Number 1 reason 

message: OK, I know North and South are cap'd, but what about southern, etc.? How about southerners? I'm confused, and in editing this article, I see others are also since there is no consensus, at least in this article. Civil Engineer III 16:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The style I use in the ACW articles I have edited is to capitalize Southerner and Southern when they are used to refer to the American South or the Confederacy. (I use the non-capitalized southern to refer to other geographic areas, such as "He grew up in southern Pennsylvania.") Hal Jespersen 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: *This article is way too long.
*It needs more notes.
*Is it really neccessary to call Republicans "homogenizers, imperialists, and cosmopolitans" and call abolitionist rhetoric "propaganda"?
*The article assumes that the readers already know the "basic" facts about the Civil War. For instance, the Dread Scott decision section contains no information about the case itself.
65.185.190.240 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few comments 

message: I've found the following to be accurate but am unsure of its necessity:
*As early supporters of Henry Clay's American System, he and Clay put themselves in opposition to political forces in their own home states and probably cost Clay the Presidency. A federal tax system inspired by the work of Alexander Hamilton and later developed into the "National System" by German-American economist Friedrich List, the purpose was to develop American heavy industry and international commerce. Since iron, coal, and water power were mainly in the North, this tax plan was doomed to cause rancor in the South where economies were agriculture-based.
Could the editor who offered the text explain the reason behind the addition and offer a reference from whence the information can be traced?  Further, the improper deletion of this material without offering the editor who supplied it a 'valid' reason for doing so is akin to vandalism and lacking "Good Faith" toward others; a violation of Wikipedian standards and general overall good manners. Let the Editor who offered time to offer reasons - as I have done here and with  added to allow inclusion of reference used. If user 172 has a valid reason for deletion please provide us your wisdom on this matter. --Northmeister 01:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's several in the linked American System article.  Restored section, will source and review shortly. MrZaiustalk 05:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source needed for following 

message: An unregistered editor has twice reverted, without any effort at documentation, the statement “Historians generally agree that economic conflicts were not a major cause of the war” by changing it to “some historians assert”.  I invite him/her to back up their proposed change.  Historians such as Catton, Potter, Fehrenbach, Donald, Nevins, McPherson, Holt, Richards, Freehing, Morrison, Cooper et al offer detailed studies that do not attribute economic issues as a significant cause of the war.  What historians do you rely on?
Further the editor has twice added this claim, “except the most fundamental issue as to where economic (hence political) power would ultimately reside in the U.S. which underlay the Nullification Crisis”.  The Nullification Crisis was over the tariff issue and had ended over a quarter century before the war and is mentioned earlier, in chronological order, in the article.  Please provide your documentation that historians still considered this tariff issue as a major cause of the war.
Finally in the Nullification Crisis section of the article the editor makes the claim that “There is evidence plain Southern white folk feared such changes, as well.”  The editor’s reference is simply another Wikipedia article section which is very clearly not referring to the Nullification Crisis. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Good references should be required.Jimmuldrow 00:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's difficult to respond to a recollection of an unnamed source, but I'll try. The source seems to treat "North" and "South" as monoliths with clearly defined boundaries even before the war. But the standardization of railroad gauges (track widths) did not occur until well after the Civil War, so different regions within the North and South did not connect to one another either. This did not mean that there was no commerce between them, and rail was not the only nor even the most important method of shipping goods. E.g., the Mississippi-Missouri-Ohio river system saw a huge commercial traffic between states that later went to war. So "the two economies" had imprecise boundaries, were internally complex, and were not inherently incompatible. -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Issues 

message: I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have failed the article at this time. The main reason for not passing this article is the lack of inline citations, especially for the length of the article. Some sections are entirely unreferenced, which is not allowable for this article to be passed as a GA. The article should be trimmed down somewhat if possible, maybe by splitting off some sections or better summarizing information. The cleanup tag that has recently been added to one of the sections is also grounds for not passing the article. Although the article has failed several FACs, it would be best to take it there again rather than trying for GA again, due to its length. If you do not agree with this review, you can seek an alternate revew at Wikipedia:Good article review. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 07:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA failed 

message: Maybe I shouldn't start a new heading for this, but does the picture of Henry Wilson need to be so large. Though it is quite humourous, I think humour belongs in uncyclopedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.23.143 (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large picture