Talk:American Civil War/Archive 6

message: While the Bleeding Kansas incident was important in the origins of the war, by 1864 Kansas was firmly in the Union camp. (For example, they voted 75% for Lincoln in the election of that year.)  Therefore having a special color for Kansas in that map is unnecessary and confusing.  I would suggest simply making it dark blue like the other Union states. MarcusGraly 21:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kansas in 1864 map

message: This section should include notes about memorials, fraternal groups, location in american culture (i.e. books, movies, documentaries), veterans affairs, and such. --Xtreambar 19:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it shouldn't.  The article's too long to take more than one or two.  That said, it certainly would make an interesting separate article, and should be linked to in the aftermath section.  MrZaiustalk 11:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aftermath

message: Current article length: 85131 bytes, stripping the external links, see also, infobox and headers, after I cut about 8k this morning. The intro could definitely use a bit of work, in terms of length.  Anything else sitting around that could be cut or trimmed? MrZaiustalk 11:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be worse, really.  85k is in the "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" range per Wikipedia:Article size.  Any cuts past the ones made this morning probably wouldn't work very well, intro included.  That said, it might be possible to trim another couple of kilobytes out of the causes of the war without losing much content. MrZaiustalk 22:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Shortening is good up to a point, but there is a diminishing point of returns.Jimmuldrow 00:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A little more trimming might be a good thing. As far as causes is concerned, the articles for Abolitionism, Slavery, John Brown and Origins total 229K, so these were distilled to a more compact format to a large degree, although maybe a bit more could be done. Over-trimming might be a bad thing, though.Jimmuldrow 03:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I beileve I gave my opinion on this above, but the causes of the war section seems to be more Causes of Succession. Maybe that should be a seperate article. The last paragraph points at the cause, but gets tooo easily buried amongst the other stuff. Reading down, it even says "was the final tirgger for succession" refering to Lincoln's election. That admits that while successiona and the causes of the war maybe be closely linked (in that succession was a contributing factor to the Union reaction), they are not one and the same. I'm not the most fimilar with Wikipedia's tags, but  seems to fit that section in my opinion. Walkingghost (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TooLong

message: It's messed up on the page. Section 2 and down aren't indented and don't disappear when you click "hide" to the left of the title ("Table of Contents"). I have no idea how to fix it or request to fix it, so please someone else step in here. --Georgethedecider 03:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting the ToC on a 23 section page on the right below two infoboxes is a bad mistake. I've left it on the right, but above the other boxes. (This is not a fix for the length of the article, which needs at least ruthless summarization of every existing section, and moving any material not otherwise covered into existing or new "Main articles".) --Jerzy•t 16:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying float left. Revert if it looks too messy. It might actually work here with the warbox. At resolutions greater than 1024x768 it looks okay. IMHO. I do agree that having the toc so far down looks wrong, but I've been the page advocate for TOCRight. BusterD 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  A more radical change than i was willing to hazard, but looks good to me.--Jerzy•t 00:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Contents 

message: :My friend brought up a nice idea for wikipedia (and i'm posting it here because it would really help war articles).  There needs to be a "For Dummies" section, or possibly an "In a Nutshell" section.  You may say the first paragraph is like that, but really the first paragraph just gives you an introduction.  It may seem very un-encyclopedia-like, but i think it would stilll be useful to the millions of people just going to wikipedia to get a general understanding of things.  The whole civil war may be too hard a subject to cover, because of how broad it is.  But it would be very helpful for people researching individual battles, to have a small section explaining the whole thing, because reading the entire article gets confusing when all you want to know are the bacics (as I already have figured out from doing several projects on myself).  There is just too much info on small details that get in the way. G man yo 04:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that most of us spending time editing Wikipedia are dummies. :-) The standard for what is called the lead (or "lede," as some journalists write) section -- the one or more paragraphs that precede the first section header -- is that it is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, not simply an introduction. There is some sentiment that a future printed version of Wikipedia may consist only of such lead sections, so they have to summarize the salient points of the article. Now I will be the first to say that many Wikipedia articles violate the standard currently, but I think it is a worthy goal and it is one that I have been attempting to adhere to in the articles I write or upgrade. Hal Jespersen 18:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: ummm...then why have an encyclopaedia...wat makes this civil war so much more complex then any other civil war that occurred or is occurring. Simple: Post War(causes), War(size, death), Outcome. The problem with this article is that it’s all Propaganda and that’s why it doesn’t make any sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.211.138 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Dummies 

message: Can someone please put the following into the article, I don't know where to put it.  I got it from notes in my history class and I think it might be useful (FYI, I have some  tags in there):
 The Lead-up → North vs. South
(blank cell...)                	1800        	1860
U.S. Population                	5,000,000   	31,000,000
Urban population               	7%          	20%
Slave Population               	888,000     	1,305,233
Immigrants per year            	10,000      	250,000
Immigrants % Population        	2%          	33%
(value of) Manufactured Product	$100 million	$1 trillion
Inventions Patented            	4           	4,478 (hence the above)
Miles of RR track              	0 mi        	31,000 mi
Cotton Production              	73,000 bales	3,841,000 bales
hrs of labor per bale          	601hrs      	303hrs
303hrs
x3,841,000 bales
1,163,823,000 hrs = 48,492,625 days = 132,856 yrs!!  (citation needed for all)
Thank you! Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 23:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  insert please 

message: ===Long-term economic factors===
 Comparison of North and South 
                       	North              	South
U.S. population        	22,000,000         	9,000,000
White population       	22,000,000         	5,500,000
Slave population       	N/A                	3,500,000
Soldiers               	2,200,000          	1,064,000
Railroad miles         	21,788 (71 percent)	8,838 (29 percent)
Manufactured items     	90 percent         	10 percent
Firearm production     	97 percent         	3 percent
Bales of cotton in 1860	Negligible         	4.5 million
Bales of cotton in 1864	Negligible         	300,000
Exports before the war 	30 percent         	70 percent
First, I don't think it should be "U.S. Population"--Possibly "Total" Population instead?
Second, this table proposes that ALL members of the North were white, which logically COULDN'T have been the case.
Third, should it be "Exports as a percentage of GDP of each"?  Or "Exports, relative to total US Exports"?
Just a few issues like those that I was confused on.
Also, where is the source for this/these? 
Thanks.
TrevorRC 12:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data discrepancy 

message: Comparison of North and South 
                       	North              	South
U.S. population        	22,000,000         	9,000,000
White population       	22,000,000         	5,500,000
Slave population       	N/A                	3,500,000
Soldiers               	2,200,000          	1,064,000
Railroad miles         	21,788 (71 percent)	8,838 (29 percent)
Manufactured items     	90 percent         	10 percent
Firearm production     	97 percent         	3 percent
Bales of cotton in 1860	Negligible         	4.5 million
Bales of cotton in 1864	Negligible         	300,000
Exports before the war 	30 percent         	70 percent
First, I don't think it should be "U.S. Population"--Possibly "Total" Population instead?
Second, this table proposes that ALL members of the North were white, which logically COULDN'T have been the case.
Third, should it be "Exports as a percentage of GDP of each"?  Or "Exports, relative to total US Exports"?
Just a few issues like those that I was confused on.
Also, where is the source for this/these? 
Thanks.
TrevorRC 12:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Long-term economic factors

message: ---
There is a mention of Lee's Maryland Campaign that frames it as an "invasion of the north."  Can this be changed to "invasion of Union controlled territory?"  From a letter written by Lee to Davis:
"If it is ever desired to give material aid to Maryland and afford her an opportunity of throwing off the oppression to which she is now subject, this would seem the most favorable."
At the time of the Civil War, Maryland was considered part of the South (and some still believe it is), so Union controlled makes more sense in this context.  Here is a link to the letter:
http://aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=8
---
::Maryland was not part of the South, it was a so-called "border-state", in that it formed the cross-over between North and South, an area in which both cultures mixed. It was not part of the Confederacy, and therefore Union territory. Lee invaded it, thereby invading the Union. 82.176.216.87 12:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maryland 

message: Over on the table in the right of the page under where it says commanders under the union side, there should be all the commanders including George McClellan and General Burnside due to the fact that Grant did not come in until after Gettysburg.
: One of the disadvantages of these summary boxes is that one is required to greatly simplify information in order to fit. To be correct, the Union generals listed should be Winfield Scott, George B. McClellan, Henry W. Halleck, and Ulysses S. Grant. These men were the generals in chief of the Army; I don't know enough about the command history of the US Navy off the top of my head. (Burnside was one of the commanders of the Army of the Potomac, not the U.S. Army.) On the Confederate side, it is murkier. Robert E. Lee is remembered as the premier general, but he was only in command of a single army from June 1862 until the spring of 1865, when he became general in chief. The box is correct if it is interpreted to be the commanders at the conclusion of the war. Hal Jespersen 23:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Winfield Scott and Winfield Scott Hancock were generals during the Civil War, the former general-in-chief until November 1861.  Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaders 

message: There is vandalism on the front page showing that the Civil War happened in 2000-2006 instead of 1861–1865. Gautam Discuss 18:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: As important as it may be, I think 477 words (including "For Ken Chowder he is "at certain times, a great man", but also "the father of American terrorism." [58] -- a blog site http://files.blog-city.com/files/M06/158072/b/chowder.pdf)
on it in an article on the Civil War is quite excessive. --JimWae 06:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one doubts that the raid was an important event leading to the war, but it was not part of the war. We already have Origins of the American Civil War and Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War. We should try to keep the "causes" section in this article as short as we can.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone be upset if the top half of the John Brown sub-article was moved to the main article on John Brown?Jimmuldrow 18:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Brown's raid 

message: At reference 134 - it is noted that Davis kept Bragg after two retreats but McClellan was replaced with expedience. This is untrue to a fault. McClellan's disastrous handling of the Peninsula campaign prohibited any early Northern victory. While perhaps a master of organization, McClellan was a constant liability to Lincoln, who replaced him as soon as he had a suitable replacement. McClellan only remained commander as long as he did because the other Northern generals were strategically and tactically bankrupt in mindset.
At reference 98 - That Neely article is in dispute with a number of articles on total war, in particular, with Walter. Neely's article, while well researched, is an opinion piece, and cannot be used a definition of war strategy. It is contended by most historians currently that the civil war was NOT a total war and that the Northern nor Southern generals did NOT grasp the concept of total war. Total war involves dehumanization and demonization of your opponent. The two combatants were if anything sympathetic at times. 
Please clean this up - - - this article is mostly factually correct, but at critical points, there is quite a bit of revisionist bias. Often the assumption is made in this article that the South never had a chance. This cannot be made as fact, only as speculation, and contested speculation at that.
I Snow I 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Factor/Leadership 

message: The Legacy section used to have text about continuing controversies over erecting statues of Lincoln in the South, the predominance of statues of Confederate generals, and the retention of Confederate flags within state flags (and on license plates). Though "hot-topics", these are all relevant to an understanding of the legacy of the conflict --JimWae 20:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That kind of discussion is probably more appropriate for the neo-Confederate article. But this article should link to the neo-Confederate article as well.Verklempt 22:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that neo-Confederate is the best place for all of that material, as many folks support the display of the CSA statues and flags who are not necessarily so gung-ho as to be classed with "neo-Confederates". Is there another article on the legacy of the war, or on the place of CSA memoribilia in the modern South? One of those might be better.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rank and file supporters may not qualify as Neo-Cs, but usually the major agitators in the most notorious controversies are the neo-C groups.Verklempt 01:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statues & flags 

message: Below is a proposed new format for this template.  It is based on Template:World War I and Template:World War II.  This template will appear in the collapsed mode, unless overridden when it is placed on a specific page.  This will be less bulky and more in line with other active templates and will allow it to be placed on most related pages in a less conspicuous manner.  I removed the categories from the template (except the main ACW category) since categories do not appear on most other templates; I left the main category and all of the other categories are on that link anyway.  I also removed most of the people leaving only the top 11 for each side (an arbitrary number, and I don't really know if I have the correct 11 on there).  I also removed "Prisons" due to spacing.  Other than as stated above, I did not alter any of the content (if I did, it was unintentional).  Please feel free to change/add/delete the content.  If there are no objections, I will replace the current template with this one after awhile.  Please do not agree or disagree on this page, rather please place comments on the template talk page for consistency's sake.--Old Hoss 04:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed reformatting of template 

message: It seems to me that, however good this article has been judged by a most respectable community, it needs some repair. For, outside the United States of America, the term "American Civil War" is very misleading. There have been many "American Civil Wars" -- everywhere from Uruguay to Quebec. To call the United States of America Civil War, "the American Civil War" may sound definitive in some Wichita classroom, but the term is wholly overbroad from a non-United States of America reader. If Wikipedia purports to be accurate, then it is the job of Wikipedia writers and editors to overcome the erroneous terminology -- doubtless learned from well-meaning but lackadaisacal classroom texts -- and correct even the very name of this horrendous, historical struggle. It was the United States Civil War. It was not the American Civil War.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avidbrowser (talk • contribs).
:Sorry, but "American Civil War" is by far the most common name for the conflict in the English language. For Wikipedia to shun this name in favor of some lesser-used one, all in the name of making some kind of political statement, would be a fundamental violation of the principle of NPOV. 68.40.65.164 05:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 92% of the people in this country believe in God and heaven. By your logic, this means that it would be completely neutral to put "God is real and atheism is false" on the atheism page.AlexMc (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It is also a rather silly argument in this context as, unlike many other uses of "America" where this semantic argument works, "The Civil War" of any country (where this naming convention is used) would be named for the sovereign juristiction in which it ocurred e.g. (making some up) The Canadian Civil War, The Mexican Civil War etc.  the only time where "America" is used to identify a single sovereign nation is in the case of the USA. Dainamo 14:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's even know as American Civil Warr in other countries and lenguages. Here in Spain is named Guerra Civil Americana or Guerra de Secesión. It's a strongly nationalist name, but there are lots of this kind of things in History. --81.32.24.74 15:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: IMHO the War of Secession</B> is the most widely used over the World. 
The use of American Civil War is an acceptance of the Union point of view, the same way as calling the 1975 Fall of Saigon: the 'Liberation of Vietnam', would be an acceptance of the North Vietnamese point. The Second American Revolution following the Confederacy point.
Lagoonfish 06:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In Spain is usually known as Guerra de Secesión (War of Secession), although Guerra Civil Americana (American Civil War) and Guerra Civil Estadounidense (US Civil War) are sometimes used as well.--89.100.213.192 01:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The American Revolutionary War isn't called "The British Civil War", how is this any different?  It's one country trying to become independent of another.Cameron Nedland (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who thinks about it knows that it was not a civil war, but rather, as was said, a war of Secession or a Second American Revolution. Morte42 (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, this is the same circular logic that others have used, that seceding in a defacto sense (ie the raising of armies, control of cities, setting up a new government etc) means that the moment the hostilities of a civil war starts, its no longer a civil war, because there are "two countries" at war. This is bumpkis, and would essentially rob the term of its meaning. More to the point, all of this dicussion is water under the bridge, since its been decided, after excruciatingly long debate (highlighted above and in the talk archives) that this will be the title of the page. SiberioS (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I never stated that it needed to be changed, just that by direct definition, it is incorrect. Morte42 (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of war 

message: Many of the principal officers, blue and gray alike, had attended West Point during roughly the same period of time and had fought alongside each other during the Mexican War. Knowing how the other guy operated was not as much an advantage when HE knew how YOU operated as well. knoodelhed 08:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth mentioning 

message: I'm not in love with this line:
The Union, comprising free states and border states and led by President Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party, opposed the expansion of slavery[1][2][3] into territories owned by the United States, which increased Southern desires for secession.
While the Republican Party undeniably opposed the extension of slavery into the territories, I don't know that this view was shared by the entire Union. It would be rather suprising to me if the border states, which were pro-slavery, were opposed to the extension of slavery. I'm not sure that the whole Union side, border states included, was bound by any goal other than that of preventing the South from seceding. Funnyhat 05:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for "reading the necessary texts," see Notes at the end of the article.Jimmuldrow 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's hard to claim this "history [was] written by the victors" when everyone has the ability to edit it.  With that in mind, it's unclear exactly what you think we should do to give this entry a more NPOV.  If primary sources are missing, and you've already written a dissertation on the subject, it would be much simplier to enter the material yourself rather than rely on someone else locate, read and enter sources de novo.  I can assure you that new entries won't be reverted if they are supported by verifiable references.  Again, without specific suggestions for article improvement, we can't use reason to debate your concerns.  Regards, AlphaEta 14:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If more primary source material was added for the reasons given by Southern leaders of secession at the time secession began, I don't think "Southern Sympathisers" would like it. The article does include short quotes from two Southern declarations of reasons for secession.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are multiple issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed.
#The lead should be condensed down into four or five paragraphs. While summarizing content, see if there is some information that can be trimmed to help cut the intro down. See WP:LEAD for more guidelines.
#"Brown believed that the South was on the verge of a gigantic slave uprising and that one spark would set it off." Consider rewording "one spark would set it off", unless he said that, and if so, add a citation for the quote.
#In the "End of the war 1864–1865 section", move one of the images as text shouldn't be sandwiched between two images.
#In the "Anaconda Plan and blockade, 1861" and "Threat of international intervention" sections, some information is duplicated about the blockade runners. Reword as it only needs to be covered once due to the length of the article.
#The inline citations should be better formatted to include author, title of newspaper/journal/website used, as well as accessdate. Consider using the citation templates at WP:CITET for inline citations #6, 8, 34, 41-3, 59, 61-2, 73, 88, 110, 123, 132, 139. (based on this revision)
Needs inline citations:
#"Lincoln did not propose federal laws against slavery where it already existed, but he had, in his 1858 House Divided Speech, expressed a desire to "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction"." 
#"Both North and South assumed that if slavery could not expand it would wither and die."
#"In 1862 he added emancipation because it permanently removed the divisive issue that caused secession."
#"Since fewer than 800 of the almost 4 million slaves escaped in 1860, the fugitive slave controversy was not a practical reason for secession"
#"Brown's raid, says historian David Potter, "was meant to be of vast magnitude and to produce a revolutionary slave uprising throughout the South.""
#"The Charleston Mercury read that on the issue of slavery the North and South "are not only two Peoples, but they are rival, hostile Peoples.""
#"Buchanan asserted, "The South has no right to secede, but I have no power to prevent them.""
#"In his inaugural address, he argued that the Constitution was a more perfect union than the earlier Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, that it was a binding contract, and called any secession "legally void"." Citation for "legally void" part.
#"Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents on the grounds that the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government."
#"With the scale of the rebellion apparently small so far, Lincoln called for 74,000 volunteers for 90 days."
#"It was in this battle that Confederate General Thomas Jackson received the nickname of "Stonewall" because he stood like a stone wall against Union troops."
#"McClellan and Lee fought at the Battle of Antietam[99] near Sharpsburg, Maryland, on September 17, 1862, the bloodiest single day in United States military history."
#"Lee's army suffered some 28,000 casualties (versus Meade's 23,000)."
#"Grant was tenacious and, despite astonishing losses (over 66,000 casualties in six weeks), kept pressing Lee's Army of Northern Virginia back to Richmond." (for casualty numbers)
#"The fall of Atlanta,[115] on September 2, 1864, was a significant factor in the reelection of Lincoln as president."
#"The 13th amendment,[134] ratified December 6, 1865, finally freed the remaining 40,000 slaves in Kentucky, as well as 1,000 or so in Delaware." (for slave numbers)
#"Entry into the war by Britain and France on behalf of the Confederacy would have greatly increased the South's chances of winning independence from the Union."
#The second paragraph in "Analysis of the outcome" needs a source.
#"About 190,000 volunteered, further enhancing the numerical advantage the Union armies enjoyed over the Confederates, who did not dare emulate the equivalent manpower source for fear of fundamentally undermining the legitimacy of slavery." (for 190,000 number)
Although the article has plenty of sources, the inline citations I request above are mostly for quotes and verifying numbers of troops, casualties, etc. If you disagree that any of the statements don't need citations, then make mention of it here. If possible, if there is another citation that is being used for another statement that covers one of the above, feel free to use that. If some books are not available to you, consider using online sources to address these issues. If there are great strides in addressing the above issues, I may extend the seven days as this article has a lot of work put in it and I don't want to delist it for these few problems. If these are not addressed within seven days, the article may be delisted. However, if it is improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. If that is the case, let me know once you have renominated it and I'll rereview the article for you. If you have any questions or need help in clarification of what I listed above, let me know on my talk page. Although the above review may look overwhelming, the points I raise for the best of intentions in further improving the article. I'll be sending out messages to the WikiProjects of this page and several of the main contributors to help ensure that everyone is aware of the hold and can hopefully work together in further improving the article. Regards, --Nehrams2020 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

message: I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I've already fixed two of the citations for you, so I'll finish the rest as it shouldn't be too difficult to fix (I think I must have messed up the numbering anyway, I meant the ones that are just web links). You did an excellent job in improving the article by adding the citations. This article should seriously consider going to FA eventually after you've had a few outside editors give the article a good copyedit. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Regards, --Nehrams2020 07:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: I can't agree with the decision to delete this information.  The circumstances leading to the decision of the Union to defend Sumter and the CSA to attack it are not simply details of another battle, but is the culmination of the long preceding section on the origins of the war.  Since this occurred in the midst of a short deadline GA review, and since the revert seems to have been made in good faith, I did not immediately restore it.  However I will do so absent some logical explanation for the deletion. Tom (North Shoreman) 15:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of Long Section Regarding Fort Sumter

message: I have to agree with previous posters that this article would have one believe that the war was fought exclusively over the issue of slavery.  While slavery was a major, it was not the only factor, and was not the ONLY major factor.
The issue of tariffs on imported goods was a HUGE factor in the war.  This factor was almost certainly an equal factor to slavery in the war.  The issue of States Rights is mentioned, but only skirted around.  
I don't want to sound rude or insulting, but without a larger write up of the taxation and tariff issues, this article is a farse and is extremely biased almost to the point of out right propaganda.
Please expand some information on the tariff issue!
:First, please sign your notes. Second, when you boil it all down, if there had been no slavery, there would have been no war. In THAT sense, slavery was the only cause for the war. Many will say "states rights" was the over-riding issue. Well what did the "states" want the "right" to do? Answer: keep slaves. And really, they also wanted the "right" to see slavery expanded into the new territories. No, it wasn't chiefly about "states rights" at all. The only MAJOR cause for the war was slavery. Period.K. Scott Bailey 20:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is generally accepted in professional historical circles, that the war was caused by the growing difference in culture and organization of North and South ever since the late 18th century. The subject of slavery then served as the catalyst for the war to start. If you read pre-war documents by both sides on the North-South conflict, the issue of slavery is always present, either as a main subject or as an indirect, subsidiary one: the Southern lifestyle as inferior/superior, the spread of slavery as the subject of the states' rights discussion. While it was certainly not the ONLY cause, it was definitely the one that was SEEN by the parties involved as the most important. It would be unhistoricist and thus unprofessional to deny that, and almost like "the Whig interpretation of history" to project backwards underlying causes we view with a modern eye, and calling them 'causes'. 82.176.216.87 13:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, I find it very hard to believe that citizens of the northern states would volunteer to face death, and kill fellow countrymen all for the sake of freeing black people, especially when taking into consideration that racism toward blacks was evident throughout the northern states later on and well into the 20th century.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.143.164 (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except, oddly enough, that they did, though not for wholly altruistic reasons. Many in the north believed that slavery imperiled free laborers, and undermined the wages and position of craftsmen. Indeed, why pay a white man a wage when you could buy a black to do it (what little factories existed in the south were often staffed by bondsmen; ie slave labor rented out to factories)? With the Dred Scott decision throwing open the possibility of slavery and slaves being able to not only move into the territories, but also back into the Northern free states, you can see the reason why slavery was feared, even by those in the working class (notably, the precursors to modern trade unions enthusiastically supported the Union effort and feared the possibility of white indentured servitude coming back). SiberioS (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Read my response to your similar point above; where are they in the record? Why aren't they listed among war dead as soldiers, in the pension rolls, and why then did Davis issue executive orders to wack David Hunter and others (notably Benjamin Butler in this order )for raising a unit from former slaves? Why did it take to the waning days of the war for the Confederacy to issue and order to raise black troops if they had been fighting all along? And why was there so much hostility to it? Simple. Because there weren't any enlisted black soldiers in the Confederacy. The idea of arming slaves went counter to the whole entire argument of what the South's society was based on, and could also create havoc if slaves were not to be obedient. SiberioS (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery sole cause of war?? 

message: This topic seems to have been written by a biased Northern educated individual that left out lots of facts.
The South had over 70,000 Black troops, BOTH SLAVES AND FREEMEN (Free blacks that too owned slaves!) Also the North had slaves (which was neglected to mention) and the North controlled the slave trade (Rhode Island and New York were main ports of importing slaves) and weren't friendly to them either. There were black codes in the North and that is the reason for the "underground" railroad! If they were so accepting, there wouldn't have been a need for an underground railroad! There needs to be a little more fact checking before posting on a subject of such debate and research by school children. 
As well as, the South had a Black cabinet member, I don't remember his name, but he was a great friend of Jefferson Davis and even drove his funeral carriage when J. Davis died.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.126.141 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add those "facts" in. See how long they last.K. Scott Bailey 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the border states had slavery was mentioned more than once, including the first paragraph. The Northern role in the slave trade happened decades before the war. Also, the article mentions that civil rights and voting rights were not the issue.Jimmuldrow 16:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. The topic starter didn't get a single one right. 82.176.216.87 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not exactly accurate is an understatement. There were no black troops (and we're not including the slaves that were taken by commanding officers to the front, or forced to maintain plantations) fighting in the Confederacy, and while the idea was proposed in the waning days of the war, no serious action was taken on it due to the collapse of the Confederacy. By that point, the Union had already fielded numerous companies of black soldiers, much to the incense of Souther politicians (Davis issued an executive order to summarily execute David Hunter, one of the few openly abolitionist Union Generals, for having the temerity to try and enlist former slaves). Sorry Lost Cause supporters, wrong again. SiberioS (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? There are numerous reports of African American Confederate soldiers. Morte42 (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? Please cite me where in the Official Record of the War anything more than a handful of black slaves/freemen being involved in battles (never in an enlisted form) for the Confederacy. Outside of the "propaganda" unit of the Louisiana Native Guard (which, ironically, neither saw combat nor material support from the Confederacy, and was made up almost entirely of freedmen). On the other hand, the Union, fielded some 200K (around 209,145 according to the records of the African American Civil War Memorial), all of whom were listed and accounted for. There is no such documentary record for black "Confederate" soldiers because there weren't any. I point you to this blog post, by a civil war historian, that illustrates the thread bare conspiracy theory info that holds together the black confederate myth.  24.88.79.249 (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the facts??? 

message: This article should be retitled "U.S. Civil War", to prevent confusion with civil wars in Latin America.66.10.94.35 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed a number of times over the last few years and the consensus has always been that: (1) "American Civil War" is the most widely used name (in English) for the conflict; (2) the chance that a person searching for information about a civil war in some Latin American country would do so by searching for "American Civil War" is vanishingly small. Wikipedia attempts to name articles by the most logical and publicly accessible names, not necessarily the name that is most theoretically correct. As an aside, calling something the "U.S. Civil War" would probably bring objections from those who believe that the Southern states were no longer in the United States when the war began. Hal Jespersen 23:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The word "American" in the title is not distinguishing enough

message: Great article.  Don't usually trust wiki for a lot of things, but this is pretty factual.  Keep it up. Mark 07:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: The Fort Zachary Taylor and also the Florida in the American Civil War article say Fort Taylor too remained in Union hands - that makes 4, not 3.--JimWae 07:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fort Taylor 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?] Got them all.
*Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?] Known problem with the script, caused by flags in the infobox.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] Got the dates.
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings. Caused by – in date ranges, known problem with script.
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
**Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
*The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. Appears in a quote, shouldn't be changed.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,  — Rlevse • Talk •  01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sorted what I could.  This is a fine example of where the script can prove useful, but also where it makes mistakes. Carre 16:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review script

message: I'm curious as to why the section on states rights has been completely removed - is it really possible to have an article about the Civil War without at least mentioning the issue? Arthurrh 00:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well without making my eyeballs go batty, I couldn't find it either in this article or in the origins article. I tried the search function in my browser and couldn't see the data, can you point me to it? Shouldn't there at least be a mention of it in the causes section, even if it points to another article? Accurate argument or not, it was certainly a perceived issue of the war. Arthurrh 01:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in the fourth paragraph down under Causes. I pasted the larger, original version to the Origins article just now.Jimmuldrow 03:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Arthurrh 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more states rights 

message: I believe we used to have a link to a primary source for Lincoln's call for troops (such as http://www.civilwarhome.com/lincolntroops.htm ). I do not see it here anymore. Have we abandoned all primary sources? It could prevent mistakes like people thinking 4 more states seceded in response to a declaration of war by Congress. A declaration of war by Congress would have set precedent for acknowledging the CSA as a separate country, no? --JimWae 22:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone zapped a lot of the links a few days ago.Jimmuldrow 00:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry! That was a foolish thing to write, I'll admit. I was merely trying to tighten the construction, and I used a couple of poor choices. I'm so excited this page is finally moving forward. Good work guys! BusterD 13:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: I'm seeing old and steady hands make small but significant improvements. It's clear we pretty much agree with what's here, because we're not fighting over it. It's so nice to see so many respected and long-time vandal-fighting, ACW-interested wikipedians collaborate under Jimmuldrow's example and leadership. The article has never looked so almost anorexic. And it's mostly pretty tight stuff. I'll be sweeping through with some mechanical fixes, and then a sweep of last minute copy-edits, but we have reason to be proud of where we are this morning. I think it needs better graphics, especially the lede graphic in the infobox. I'll fiddle today and maybe come up with some options. Good work, folks! BusterD 14:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks:)Jimmuldrow 23:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is getting a bit exciting 

message: what was the names of the states the join the civil war  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.174.22 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name of states 

message: You know, it's really sad to see this page become more biased instead of less. At one point there was a line at the beginning of this article that said something along the lines of "This is the most common name for this war, but some disagree on the accuracy, blah blah (link to name page)". Why in the world was this removed? I agree with titling this page the "American Civil War" because that's what people know it as, but without something at the beginning clarifying the historical inaccuracy of this name (or at least the disagreement over this), it's just blatantly biased. The fact is that the only reasonable name for this war is The War Between the States. I agree with calling it Civil War because people expect that, but it's an absurdly biased pro-north name and this site is supposed to be NEUTRAL in theory. It's no different than calling it the War of Northern Aggression. There needs to be SOMETHING at the beginning of this article that links to the disagreement about naming page and whoever stops people from editing this stuff needs to not let it get deleted in the future. To be honest, if this site were really neutral, the name of the page would be The War Between the States (American Civil War), but at least keep the damned explanation link in, even if it's something tiny like (disagreements over name) with not further explanation, but it absolutely has to be right at the beginning.  AlexMc (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using your circular logic, no civil war is a civil war then. The moment a secessionist/autonomous/or nationalist group initiates hostilities thus creating a civil war, it is not a civil war because the country has been split (in a defacto sense) into two. The states, and indeed the Confederacy were defacte, dejure, and historically part of the United States up until hostilities (both politically and militarily) started. Your argument, of separate countries, would be better applied to the various Indian wars, where the United States claimed, but in fact had no defacto or historical precedence, to territories that were held by various Indian nations. SiberioS (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: X, regardless of what you've "heard it called" i think everyone can agree that right now in 2007 in te United States (whether in the North or South) "The Civil War" is the most common term.  "The American Civil War" is likely more common outside the U.S., but in any case the title of an article should make it as easy as possible to find.  do you really think people type "war of northern aggression" into the search box?  secondly you state that "the south and north were no longer the same country...etc etc"  thats pro-cofederacy POV.  SJMNY (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Between the States 

message: i deleted this section because you or some else added the same exact text above. SJMNY (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes of Civil war in America 

message: Im looking to relate the animosity between the North and the South, through the causes of the civil war, to the book, 
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Any ideas? And I'm counting this as a interview so please put the important citing information.
Xaedra (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relating to Huckleberry Finn