Talk:Names of the American Civil War/Archive 1

message: Disambiguation of the name is usually appropriate and necessary in Wikipedia discussion of the American Civil War, due to Wikipedia's international audience.  However, it needs to be clear in this article specifically that the popular name (as endorsed by NPS) is "the Civil War", not "the American Civil War."  The vast majority of (A)CW discussion and study takes place within the United States, and Americans simply don't commonly include the word "American" in the name, similar to how Britons refer to the events of 1642-1651 as simply "the Civil War." --VT hawkeye 04:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely U.S. Civil war is far more accurate than American Civil War? Markb 09:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hm, for the article to say that all Southerners accepted the outcome immediately after the war shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the South.  I'm changing that right now -- "all Southerners" didn't necessarily accept the result in 1966, much less 1866.  Perhaps the term "War of Southern Independence" fell into disuse because Southerners recognized they failed, but there's a huge gap between recognizing the result and accepting it.  As for your other point, this isn't really the place to debate whether the CW fits into the generic category of civil wars; it's most commonly called the Civil War, and an article about naming the conflict needs to reflect facts on the ground. VT hawkeye 04:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''American Civil War'' vs. ''Civil War'' 

message: Added it, forgot to log in, logged in, and added the notation for my credit. Sorry.... Ezratrumpet 04:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musick addition 

message: This site says that "Shiloh" was the Southern name for the battle, while "Pittsburg Landing" was the Northern name.  That's the way I've always heard it.  --JW1805 23:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shiloh 

message: Let's try to agree on limiting more entries to the War name section to those for we have some historical or literary references to cite. OK? I mean I could add U.S. War III (1812 and Mexico were I and II) and say "many people say that", but we need a higher standard for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. I have encountered no historical references to the Revolution as the [First] War of Secession. Hal Jespersen 23:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  --JW1805 (Talk) 05:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  more entries 

message: I removed the Copperheads sentence, but it was restored .  Just from reading the Copperheads article, it seems like it was more of a political party, or political movement, than a generic name for "Northerners who sympathized with the Southern cause".  Any comments?  --JW1805 (Talk) 06:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Copperheads were real enough--they were an important faction inside the Dem party--which they controlled in some states (Ohio, Indiana). Strong certainly disliked them, and they were a major Democratic faction in his New York City. Rjensen 06:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copperheads 

message: There should be an adjective to differentiate this civil war from other civil wars. This is a separate issue from what the adjective should be. Dropping the adjective to avoid picking an adjective is not the best solution.--Gbleem 19:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjective or no adjective 

message: American is a common adjective form meaning from or of the United States. While it probably wasn't thought out when first used it could be thought of as an abreviation of United State of American. I'm a "United States of American," doesn't role off my tongue but American is vague. I'm not sure we can fix the U.S. vs. American thing however I think there is a trend to use U.S. as an adjective and American as a noun. I am an American. The U.S. Military. The U.S. government. I think the title of the film "An American President"  suggests an exception for using American to describe people. How do I explain American car or American music? Maybe we americans don't know who we are. I suppose American works well for cultural things that don't stop at the boarder. In the case of the Civil War I lean towards United States as an adjective because of the political nature and that it involved the relationship among the states. United States of America is probably better since United States is an abreviation of the country name. If one thinks there should be an adjective, and I do but that is a separate issue, then I support "United States of America Civil War". --Gbleem 19:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  "American" is an adjective (American Revolution, American Football).  "U.S." is used for proper nouns (U.S. Government, U.S. Army). Jrkarp 22:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American vs. United States 

message: Few other secession movements are called civil wars so I don't see why this one is.  For instance, the American Revolution wasn't called "The Second Brtiish Civil War", so why is this war called "The American Civil War"?
Cameron Nedland 20:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to imply that the American Revolution could properly be regarded as a "civil war." I was describing the politics of 1861 as I understand it. It included a contest between North and South to shape both domestic and world opinion of the conflict. As for Lincoln's views, he was constrained by the presence of slave-holding states in the Union (MO, KY, MD, DE) and his desire to keep them there. It would not serve his turn to allow that there was any resemblance between the rebellion of 1861 and that of 1776. In 1861 he sought to emphasize what Americans of all states had in common, and he remained convinced for months that most Southerners were still Unionist. Meanwhile Southern leaders strove to claim the mantle of George Washington and sought to beat the Union just as he had beaten the Empire. Each side went into the war with assumptions about the fellow-enemy that did not prove valid. So the war changed, and it kept grinding on. (The latest survey I've read: Fellman, et al. This Terrible War ). -- Alarob 22:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secession Movement 

message: This was deleted " The War (or parodied in the non-rhotic Virginia accent as "The Wawah"),  "The Waw" or "The Wawah" is a fairly common mock pronunciation of "The War" here in Virginia (Richmond being the "capital of the Confederacy" ought to lend this a little weight.   Should it be added back in? MPS 22:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of humorous parodies that don't make it into encyclopedia articles. Simply because people pronounce things with regional accents is no reason to include them as unique terms. How about Der Var, spoken by the the German immigrant veterans? Hal Jespersen 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the removal.  That's just too silly for an encyclopedia article.  --JW1805 (Talk) 02:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you that it is a colloquialism, but I think calling someone (e.g. Bush, Kofi Anann) "Der Fuhrer" in a German accent is loaded with cultural connotations that compares them to Hitler's authoritatianism. This is similar to loaded cultural connotations of referring to the Civil War as "The War" and pronouncing it "The Wawah" to stress that somone's views on The War are distinctively Southern POV and perhaps antiquated/discredited. Wikipedia documents Der Fuhrer because of these connotations, and it would do well to at least mention "The Wawah" somewhere. MPS 16:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Concur with the removal.  I'm in Virginia (grew up in the Richmond suburb of Midlothian, actually), and the pronunciation I think you're specifying (phonetic spelling of accent/dialect being a notoriously difficult task) doesn't have anywhere near the currency or common sense of meaning of your German example, not even locally.  The Google link you offered gave some rather scattershot results as well.  The concept needs to be more solid to be included in Wikipedia.  VT hawkeyetalk to me 01:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wawah 

message: This edit, drops the "Miss" from "Miss Mildred Lewis Rutherford", and has the summary "POV (no aristocratic titles in U.S.) and wf". Is "Miss" an aristocratic title? Ewlyahoocom 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Miss" as an aristocratic title? 

message: I removed the two recent additions. The first (on War of Northern Aggression) was redundant with the preceding sentence. The second (on War for States' Rights) did not need explanations of Dred Scott; the purpose here is to catalog names in enduring use, not justify them, particularly newly emerged ones. By the way, on ACW pages, we spell it "defense." Hal Jespersen 14:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 22 edit 

message: In concert with my addition of a link to this page at the beginning of the ACW page, I just added in the Motivations section as the page failed to make note of the actual reasons that people wished to use different names for the war, focusing solely on the fact that they have. I find the motivations to be far too important to leave unmentioned. Any input or modifications would be appreciated.AlexMc 08:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: new material has to be based on identified reliable sources. Speculation doesn't count. Rjensen 08:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may not have provided a source, but there was nothing remotely speculative about it, and while you're within your "Wikipedia rights" to remove something that's not sourced, it's a shame that you're being a dick about including information that everyone who knows the subject knows. What's your motivation here? It's like removing a statement saying that "the sky is blue" because it's not sourced.AlexMc 09:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I redid it at the end of the War Between the States section and used a source. Since the source is affirmed by an organization that advocated the use of the term, I'm sure you can agree that it's "reliable."AlexMc 09:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivations 

message: I have reverted some additions about the French name and someone else has done the same about Japanese, but I am having some second thoughts. Would it be useful to have a section with a bulleted list for names in other languages? For one thing, I have seen little indication that Wikipedia articles in one language pay attention to other languages. For example, World War II does not list non-English names for the war, even though it was a conflict between people of many languages. My other concerns are that we would be getting uncited information that I would have little opportunity to verify and that we would be subjected to the same sorts of editor conflicts about whether names were justified or not. As an example of the latter, I noticed that the German version of American Civil War is titled Sezessionskrieg and that has a warning label at the top that says the name is under dispute. I would hate to see those disagreements proliferate in this article. Other opinions? Hal Jespersen 14:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Hlj: the article should have a section on the main foreign language terms.Rjensen 14:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, to be more clear, I have strong reservations about the approach, as I describe above, and am asking for other opinions, not soliciting support for the idea of listing alternative names. (Another concern that I just remembered is that we might not be able to deal with any alternative character sets needed for those names. Don't know...) Hal Jespersen 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with having a list of foreign-language translations.  The real aim of this article, as I see it, is to describe the various names used for the war in colloquial and political discussion through the past 150 years and the conflicting points of view associated with them.  That historical conflict has operated almost completely in English and among English speakers, with rare crossover to other languages (as in German above), as it's a primarily American topic.  Keep the foreign-language controversies on their own WPs. VT hawkeyetalk to me 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other languages 

message: I'm not sure if this is correct, but I think I remember hearing the Civil War being referred to as the "War of Southern Secession" - has anyone else heard this before? I live in New England, so it could just be a Northern thing. Retroviseur 13:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War of Southern Secession? 

message: United States Civil War is a redirect to American Civil War. Apparantly, a lot of pages use that name, although I've never heard it before. Is that term acceptable, and if so, shouldn't it be mentioned here? -LtNOWIS 08:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "United States Civil War" is occasionally used in libraries, (to be consistent with their catalogs) but is not usually found in books or talks. Rjensen 11:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States Civil War 

message: User:Fix Bayonets! has reverted changes to this article without responding to basic objectionns stated clearly above. This is not admirable behavior. I would appreciate advice from fellow editors as to how to proceed. -- Alarob 21:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a nice weekend. -- Alarob 23:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: War for States' Rights?: Revert

message: I have not watched this article for a couple of weeks because I was getting sick of all the bickering and incessant and mostly irrelevant editing back and forth. Taking a look today, I will have to say that you have really gutted a lot of the value of this article in the section about War between the States. Go back to look at the version of August 15 and you will see that it is a clear and thorough discussion of how this term, which was not used frequently during the war, was promoted through public relations campaigns by the UDC in reaction and opposition to other Northern names. There are good references at the bottom of the article to support this explanation, although I will have to admit that it was placed in the article prior to the recent frenzy on Wikipedia for in-line citations.
The current version of the section not only omits this interesting history and claims without verification that the term was used frequently during the war, but it has been reformatted into a bulleted list. Bulleted lists are rarely used in formal writing and I have seen a number of discussions in the context of featured article reviews that rejected articles making use of them. There is no requirement that Wikipedia articles be really, really short to maintain reader interest. Perhaps you are thinking of USA Today; I guess the bullets makes sense in that context. In an article like this one, the use of bold headings for the different names make it very simple for readers to skip from one section to another if they lose interest. And the article is not nearly long enough to warrant breaking it into sub articles.
I would like to propose that we return to a section similar in content and format to the one found in the article on August 15. I am bringing it up here in the Talk page to see whether I am completely wasting my time, because I do not wish to be nit picked with hundreds of edits as we have seen in the last month and a half. If I restore that version, I will do so with adequate in-line citations. Please make your views known below. Hal Jespersen 00:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WBTS section gutted

message: A term for the Mexican-American War? I found several references to Guerra de la Agresión Norteña as one of the names for the American Civil War. Only one reference linked it to the Mexican-American War, and it added the comment that the term is "more commonly used in the southern United States to refer to the American Civil War." Spanish Wikipedia has nothing on the subject. 
P.S. Bedford restored the passage and sourced it with a web page. It's the same page I saw in Spanish. I am concerned that we will be perpetuating a myth unless we find a better source than this. -- Alarob 03:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While in graduate school, we saw a documentary about the Mexican-American War, and one of the Mexican PhD.s kept refering to it as such.  If I could remember the name of the documentary. that would help?  Would IMDB be of any help?--Bedford 03:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All IMDB references to "War of Northern Aggression" pertain to our Civil War. It's possible that the Ph.D. coined the term himself. Personally, I think it's an appropriate name, but my opinion doesn't count. We need to establish that the name has been in circulation. Otherwise I would say it does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Let's take it out unless/until we find documentation that it is a recognized term in Mexico. -- Alarob 21:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried emailing the professor, but the email bounced back, saying no such coutns now exists, so I guess that professor no longer works there.  DO what you wish with it; anyone who is experienced with wikipedia knows to check talk pages to see the other info that may becontained but can't be on the main article page.--Bedford 22:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War of Northern Aggression 

message: I forgot to describe the edit (sorry) so will describe it here: I removed an external link to an article by Walter E. Williams titled "The Civil War was not about slavery." It was irrelevant to the subject of naming the Civil War. (The word "slavery" occurs nowhere else in the article.) -- Alarob 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link on 10/3 

message: I removed the reference to the Gettysburg Address in the section explaining the commonality of the term "Civil War."  Without supporting evidence, it's a very poor example as it's not at all clear that Lincoln intended the term "civil" to be used as anything more than another adjective (and not the proper name of the conflict).  Using the same statement, one could equally claim that he was labeling the conflict the "Great Civil War."  And that's clearly not the case.  Further, without a citation it's clearly original research which is an obvious no-no in Wikipedia.  If the assertion that Lincoln used the term on several occassions and used it as the name of the conflict then I'm sure that a suitable source or two can be cited.  --ElKevbo 22:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense--the Gettysburg address is not original reearch it's common knowledge at the 8th grade level.  The idea that Lincoln did NOT mean to use the word "civil war" when it appears in every text, seems to be original research--and rather pointless at that. Lincoln often used the term--for example in the 1863 annual message: " DECEMBER 8, 1863. Incidents occurring in the progress of our civil war have forced upon my attention the uncertain state of international questions touching...." and "It is easy to see that under the sharp discipline of civil war the nation is beginning a new life." all in standard editions of Lincoln. Rjensen 01:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lincoln used it a lot: 
Ray Basler ed. Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings 1946.   
*1st Inaugural (1861) p 588: In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in 
mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. 
*p 610 PROCLAMATION OF A NATIONAL FAST-DAY AUGUST 12, 1861 "And whereas, when our own beloved Country, once, by the 
blessing of God, united, prosperous and happy, is now afflicted 
with faction and civil war, it is peculiarly fit for us to recognize 
the hand of God in this terrible visitation"
*p 727 "PROCLAMATION FOR THANKSGIVING OCTOBER 3, 1863 "
"In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity..."
*p 762 PROCLAMATION OF THANKSGIVING OCTOBER 20, 1864 
"the great trial of civil war into which we have been brought by our adherence as a nation to the cause of Freedom and Humanity,"
*p 782 ANNUAL MESSAGE TO CONGRESS DECEMBER 6, 1864 
"the steady expansion of population, improvement and governmental institutions over the new and unoccupied portions of our country have scarcely been checked, much less impeded or destroyed, by our great civil war, which at first glance would seem to have absorbed almost the entire energies of the nation."Rjensen 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's all very nice but do any scholars state that he meant the term to be used as a proper noun?  For us to state that he did so is still original research.  It was certainly a civil war but was it a Civil War?  --ElKevbo 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [regarding Hlj statement "The philosophy of Wikipedia is for us to report the judgments of professional historians who read those primary sources in complete context, not for us to quote snippets and draw our own conclusions. It is unfortunately difficult for us to do that in this case because the subject is so trivial that it has had little serious academic treatment."]: Agreed. Under such circumstances, all we can do is present documentable usages, with appropriate cross-reference(s) to other historical data. As to the issue of triviality, I agree that there are other ACW articles which we could and should be working on, instead of wasting time on this issue. However, because certain editors (excluding yourself) make extraordinary claims (e.g., usage of terms "War for Independence," "...States' Rights," etc., are "not historical" and are merely the inventions of "partisans of a particular point of view"), such extraordinary claims require response.--Fix Bayonets! 22:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gettysburg Address 

message: I think we are forming a consensus about this article. 
*It nitpicks. It belabors the obvious.
*It's too long. (OK, maybe we don't all think it's too long.) 
*And it makes inappropriate use of primary sources. Sometimes highly selective use. 
FWIW here's my assessment of some of the subsections:
*War for State's Rights is weak and ought to be deleted. It is one term among many, and belongs in a list, not at the head of a subsection. 
::STRONGLY OPPOSE.--Black Flag 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED I oppose any attempt to delete, marginalize, or reduce.--Fix Bayonets! 21:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. Although the current article gives a few instances of the expression "states' rights", it offers no evidence that it was ever used as a name for the war. Everyone acknowledges that some Southerners were fighting for the concept of states' rights, but that does not mean that the term is ever used as a name for the war that would be recognized without further explanation. Otherwise, we would hear instances of "My uncle Billy was killed in the War for States' Rights," "Bobby is spending this weekend with his War for States' Rights reenactor friends," "I got a subscription to War for States' Rights magazine." This term belongs in a list with other descriptive phrases, but does not deserve a lengthy explanation as a name for the war, because it is not one today and there is no evidence from secondary sources that it ever was one. Hal Jespersen 21:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Support All caps, bold and various colors of response notwithstanding, I see no reference to this phrase in any of the standard sources. I challenge those who oppose to provide documentation that ANY major historian used this phrase as a primary term in the 19th century. Undue weight requires this is (if a section) a small section max. BusterD 00:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I also wonder why the title used by the publishers of the "Official Record" was not in this article until recently. Seems official, pretty well documented (far better than "...State's Rights") BusterD 01:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of a list or a brief explanation of the various terms that do not deserve their own full subsection. The ones that are more common should remain as sections. Scott Mingus 00:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the list interesting, particularly considering the source. I'd like to see such a comprehensive list, then appropriate weight given to most important terms. BusterD 01:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BusterD, this makes so much sense to me. If you scour the primary sources, as well as period newspapers, there are many titles / names given to the war, and there are quite a few regional differences. In my home area (southern Ohio), a lot of the letters and diaries refer to the War of the Rebellion, which seems to have been a very common phrase, more so even than the Civil War. Where I now live (south central PA), the Civil War is more common in old writings. Likewise, there is support in certain areas of the South for other phrases, including the common War Between the States. While not wanting to trivialize the name of this horrific conflict that saw dozens of my and my wife's ancestors directly involved, it seems like the 21st Century minds should be able to come up with a decent compromise without a revert war. Scott Mingus 13:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Although you might be inclined to make such an assumption, you would be wrong in so doing.--Black Flag 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose.  There are plenty of pre-War and War era documents that solidly support the notion that Southerners viewed the war as a States' Rights issue.  The "fact" that you've found a Harvard professor that suggests otherwise is hardly adequate grounds for your argument.  Or did we just imagine that John C. Calhoun preached the doctrine of nullification</U>?  Furthermore, you suggest Watkins and other soldiers use of the term 'WFSR' is anecdotal. Lincoln's use of the term "civil war" (Gettysburg) was anecdotal as well. And Lincoln's term was preceded by an indefinite article.  You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the significance of Lincoln's failure to use a definite article in his famous "glad I wasn't defeated on Tuesday" Gettysburg  speech.--Fix Bayonets! 17:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. We can disagree on the validity of Gienapp's interpretation. The question is what Southerners called the war. It has nothing to do with Calhoun, who died 11 years before the war began. 2. I agree that Lincoln's use of (lower-case) "civil war" is irrelevant to this article and need not be mentioned. One step at a time. For the same reason, the Watkins quotes are irrelevant here (although it is an excellent memoir and valuable to read). 3. I am not a rocket scientist. Maybe that's why I don't get the part about Lincoln and the definite article. Are you suggesting that the war should not be called "the" Civil War? -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  You blanked the entire WFSR section, which included historical references.  You did so without consensus, in violation of WP:CON.  I restored it, and respectfully request that before your blank this section again, that we use informal mediation to resolve this issue.  Just because you disagree with this subsection does not give you adequate reasons for blanking it in its entirety.--Fix Bayonets! 01:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He actually moved the subsection into a member of a list of other terms. Since none of the historical references were relevant to the subject of the article (the name of the war, versus adjectives that describe the war or the anecdotal motivations of people who fought the war), I do not believe the article is any worse for this change. Alarob asked for citations regarding the name of the war, received none, waited patiently, and achieved consensus by the silence of those who could not provide the relevant citations. I support his modification. Hal Jespersen 02:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you and Hlj are both mistaken.  I had provided 5 references: 3 primary and 2 secondary.  You apparently hold the position that the 5 references are not acceptable.  I and others have disagreed.  I want you to demonstrate how exactly it is that you have consensus. --Fix Bayonets! 02:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is my opinion that your edits to the "War Between the States" section were good, in general.  However, with respect to your edits to the "War for States' Rights" section, I believe that the primary source references/citations should remain.  I think we can all agree that primary sources are a crucial foundation of historical evidence.  By inclusion, Wikipedia readers can draw their own conclusions from the evidence presented.  For this reason, unless their is clear consensus to the contrary, I am restoring the primary quotes and citations, without inclusion of any conclusions or further comments regarding same.  In order to do so, I had to restore the subsection... though I left it demoted to the last entry. I believe that such treatment is an equitable remedy. --Black Flag 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus? 

message: The late Harvard historian William E. Gienapp (in his sourcebook The Civil War and Reconstruction: A Documentary Collection (W.W. Norton, 2001) ) discusses the idea of a "war for state's rights" as originating after the war among ex-Confederate leaders and writers. The same writers during the war spoke of Southern independence and the defense of Southern institutions and Southern civilization -- concepts closely linked to slavery, although not identical with it. Whenever state's rights were invoked, it was in the context of mounting a defense of these Southern institutions. 
After the war, even though most whites (North and South) continued to oppose any form of racial equality and to assume their own racial superiority, public opinion even in the South had turned decidedly against slavery. Ex-Confederates accepted this state of affairs and emphasized those elements of their cause that could appeal to a post-war audience. One of these was concern about the greatly increased power of the federal government, which had grown more assertive during the war. "State's rights" was not a new-made issue; it caused South Carolina to face off against President Andrew Jackson in 1830-32. But it was not as important to Confederates during the war as it became after the war. 
So it is no wonder that the name or phrase "war for state's rights" only appears in postwar memoirs. This is not a reason for denying it a subsection. But if we continue to imply that this was a name used during the war, we will be guilty of misleading readers. Given that we have located only one use of the name "War for State's Rights" before 1900 (by Baylis), plus one use of the phrase, without capitals (by Watkins), I once again recommend deleting the subsection and placing "War for State's Rights" among the Other names for the war.
In the absence of countervailing evidence (which has been sought over the past several months, but not found), I will go ahead with the change sometime in the next 24 hours. I would like to also improve the Other names section, using ideas that have been tossed around on this page. -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose.  There are plenty of pre-War and War era documents that solidly support the notion that Southerners viewed the war as a States' Rights issue.  The "fact" that you've found a Harvard professor that suggests otherwise is hardly adequate grounds for your argument.  Or did we just imagine that John C. Calhoun preached the doctrine of nullification</U>?  Furthermore, you suggest Watkins and other soldiers use of the term 'WFSR' is anecdotal. Lincoln's use of the term "civil war" (Gettysburg) was anecdotal as well. And Lincoln's term was preceded by an indefinite article.  You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the significance of Lincoln's failure to use a definite article in his famous "glad I wasn't defeated on Tuesday" Gettysburg  speech.--Fix Bayonets! 17:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. We can disagree on the validity of Gienapp's interpretation. The question is what Southerners called the war. It has nothing to do with Calhoun, who died 11 years before the war began. 2. I agree that Lincoln's use of (lower-case) "civil war" is irrelevant to this article and need not be mentioned. One step at a time. For the same reason, the Watkins quotes are irrelevant here (although it is an excellent memoir and valuable to read). 3. I am not a rocket scientist. Maybe that's why I don't get the part about Lincoln and the definite article. Are you suggesting that the war should not be called "the" Civil War? -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  You blanked the entire WFSR section, which included historical references.  You did so without consensus, in violation of WP:CON.  I restored it, and respectfully request that before your blank this section again, that we use informal mediation to resolve this issue.  Just because you disagree with this subsection does not give you adequate reasons for blanking it in its entirety.--Fix Bayonets! 01:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He actually moved the subsection into a member of a list of other terms. Since none of the historical references were relevant to the subject of the article (the name of the war, versus adjectives that describe the war or the anecdotal motivations of people who fought the war), I do not believe the article is any worse for this change. Alarob asked for citations regarding the name of the war, received none, waited patiently, and achieved consensus by the silence of those who could not provide the relevant citations. I support his modification. Hal Jespersen 02:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you and Hlj are both mistaken.  I had provided 5 references: 3 primary and 2 secondary.  You apparently hold the position that the 5 references are not acceptable.  I and others have disagreed.  I want you to demonstrate how exactly it is that you have consensus. --Fix Bayonets! 02:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is my opinion that your edits to the "War Between the States" section were good, in general.  However, with respect to your edits to the "War for States' Rights" section, I believe that the primary source references/citations should remain.  I think we can all agree that primary sources are a crucial foundation of historical evidence.  By inclusion, Wikipedia readers can draw their own conclusions from the evidence presented.  For this reason, unless their is clear consensus to the contrary, I am restoring the primary quotes and citations, without inclusion of any conclusions or further comments regarding same.  In order to do so, I had to restore the subsection... though I left it demoted to the last entry. I believe that such treatment is an equitable remedy. --Black Flag 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More about state's rights

message: The closing sections of this article stray from the topic of naming the war. I believe at least one additional article (on naming battles, and another on naming of military units and combatants) could be generated. 
These sections do not contain information that a reader could reasonably expect to find under the title "Naming the American Civil War." Should the information be merged with existing articles, or should new ones be started? -- Rob C (Alarob) 19:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on naming of battles fits well enough because it shares a common theme -- lingering resentments on the two sides prevent a common name from achieving 100% acceptance. In one case, it is a war, in the other it is a series of major battles. I doubt that creating yet another article will be very useful for the average reader. (If this section is really unacceptable here, it could make its home in Battles of the American Civil War.) As to naming the combatants, the justification to keep it here is less compelling, but this is another instance of an article that would be too trivial to maintain a separate existence. The material was originally in American Civil War and it was moved here to make the main article a bit more manageable. If it is really unacceptable here, it should be moved back into the main article, not separated into its own. Hal Jespersen 19:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straying off topic 

message: The second paragraph (on how political scientists define a civil war) seems likely to confuse readers, and strikes me personally as pedantic. Can we find some clearer, but still neutral way of stating that some people do not agree that this was, strictly speaking, a "civil war"? For that matter, there is disagreement on whether it is really more properly described as a war over "a secession movement," as the passage now states. 
I agree that this should be dealt with briefly and near the beginning. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An anonymous user deleted the passage and was reverted. I support the removal and have repeated it. I would welcome a discussion here. -- Rob C (Alarob) 21:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to retrieve the deleted passage? Perhaps it could simply be rewritten, and reinserted appropriately.Historian932 (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining a civil war