Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 3

message: the data sets are new (released in 2006), and are by far the richest set of economic data relating to the Confederacy. They are even available online (and also on paper) and a rich resource indeed for the CSA. Rjensen 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if you are correct in every specific, the issue of undue weight applies. I think this should boil down to one hyperlink (which you should have added yourself). IMHO BusterD 13:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the great fature of Wiki is that it can carry this kind of very useful information. People interested in economics and business issues will find it invaluable; everyone else can ignore it without getting harmed or annoyed. Rjensen 08:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Indiscriminate collection"??? Please don't be insulting. Some editors work hard to add fresh new material. Rjensen 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, didn't intend any insult.  Actually, it is a real wikipedia policy.  See  Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information.  --JW1805 (Talk) 04:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: apology accepted. My point is that it was NOT an "indiscriminate" lumping of info. I sat down one night and went through the Carter datasets and picked only those I thought would be of most value to Wiki users of this article. (there are tens of thousands of data sets in that vast collection.) Rjensen 05:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  important economic data sets 

message: The map of the Confederacy includes West Virgina as under Confederate control.  Does this need to be changed?  omg ShiftPlusOne 04:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The map is correct. There was no state of West Virginia as separate political entity from Virginia until June 1863, some two years into the war.  Up until that point it was Union-occupied (or liberated, depending on your point of view) Virginia.  Furthermore, the CSA never relinquished its claim (see title of the map), with both the C.S. Congress and the Virginia legislature passing resolutions reasserting the borders of Virginia in response to the creation of the Union state of West Virginia.  Nicholas F 05:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  I guess i failed to notice the 'areas claimed' part... omg ShiftPlusOne 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: West Virginia on Map

message: An edit on Jan 14th completely changes the meaning of the sentence on surrender.  Originally it stated that the fighting came to an end after the surrender, because "there was no guerrilla warfare afterwards."  The new sentence states that the guerilla warfare ended with the surrender.  The original statement points out that the people of the South did not turn to guerilla tactics, but instead honored the surrender.  The new statement makes it sound like the South waged guerilla tactics the entire war, which is patently untrue.
Reverting.--Bridgecross 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guerilla warfare 

message: If I knew how to fix this page I would, can someone more experienced clean up all this drivel with "Jeffrey Bell" and the Skull and Bones as the flag. IS there no one monitoring this?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.236.209 (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rampant Vandalism 

message: This article is very one sided and shows the confederacy from a northern viewpoint! The war was not over slavery it was over southern independence, taxation, and the rights of the states and people. The north was only using slavery to justify thier senseless invasion of the south. I am a black man and my ancestor was a free black confederate who recieved equal pay, a voice, and kindness while serving in the confederacy. Trust me he didn't sighn up to defend slavery either, he sighned up to defend his famly, friends, home, and country, the Confederate States of America.69.19.14.15 17:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My god a black Southerner who knows the truth, thank god for people like you. A couple months ago I stopped reading this article, because all it does is p*** me off with its Northern bias.  No matter what truth a Southerner interjects here it gets edited out or changed to the point that it nolonger resembles what we placed originally.  This article is entirely subjective from the Northern point of view. --Clay 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then if the war wasn't over slavery and instead over state's rights, how come the Confederate constitution actually removed several key state powers (such as actually being able to decide if a state was to be free or slave) and exchanged them for fairly weak ones all the while when it specifically mentions slavery on a very large number of occassions?  Individuals may very well have had good intention to serve the cause, but you better believe that the Southern states were overwhelmingly pushed into the war by the ever-present slavocracy that refused any form of question of their all sacred institution and threatened seccession on every possible occassion otherwise.  What you fail to realize is that, even with a Republican majority in the Congress and a Republican President, Southerners still held more than enough power to prevent any form of constitutional amendment to ban slavery or any other viewed way of Southern life.  Also, considering that when the Confederacy attempted to raise a black company in Richmond during 1865, it caused a public riot even though the South needed all the troops it could possibly get, so I'm severely doubting that your granddad actually served Confederate government in any military fashion. RPH 22:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The South probably did fight to preserve slavery, but, still we need to put the principle of regional self-determination into account. Think about IRA and East Timor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wooyi (talk • contribs) 22:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  There are no 'powers that be' on wikipedia. That is both the greatest strength and the weakness. The 'states' rights' argument has a lot of flaws in it. The biggest is the fact that, pre-war and pre-succession, the southern states opposed expressions of non-slave-states rights when they threatened or tended to weaken the slave power. The whole fugitive slave law history is rife with that. They were perfectly willing to trample states rights when it suited them. "States rights" was a fig leaf, just like today when politicians say one thing and everyone knows they really mean something else. DMorpheus 15:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "States' Rights" is a loaded term, as it can mean lots of things. But regional self-determination is different. When IRA fought for Irish independence, it never say they fight for any "Ireland's rights" but rather outright independence. Wooyi 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right its a loaded term. But Ireland is not a comparable situation. Ireland has never been a region of England. The IRA claimed they were fighting to restore the independence of Ireland. The south was never an independent entity separate from the rest of the USA. Whether the individual states were is an interesting argument and is not nearly as clear-cut as some would have us believe. DMorpheus 18:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANGRY!! 

message: I hate to argue with the masters at Wikipedia, but the Confederate States of America actually WERE recognized by a foreign entity... The Papal States of Italy. In fact, the Vatican newspaper referred to Jefferson Davis as "His Excellency, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America." In 1866, while Davis was imprisoned at Fort Monroe, Pope Pius IX  actually sent Davis a signed photograph, along with a crown of thorns that he wove with his own two hands. I don't know how to do it, but I want to mark this article for review by an expert. Let's keep this article unbiased... I sense a strong bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.18.179.64 (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been raised before, please look in the archives.  CS Secretary of State Judah Benjamin addressed this directly in his official correspondence and rejected the interpretation that the salutation that Pope Puis IX used in his letter to Jefferson Davis (which is what the Vatican newspaper would have been quoting) constituted recognition and viewed it as nothing more than form of politeness.  Nicholas F 06:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pope sent a photograph? recognition = Pope sending an ambassador. No one sent an ambassador. Rjensen 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Although there are other ways of bestowing recognition besides sending an ambassador, referring to Jefferson Davis as the President of the CSA in a newspaper isn't one of them.Nicholas F 06:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pope 

message: Somewhere on wikipedia there needs to be an article that deals more thoroughly with Causation in history & then this article needs to link to it. Many things could be pointed to as a 'cause' if all that is necessary is establishing some powerful chain of events leading up to some other event. The Industrial Revolution and the Rise of Capitalism could be considered causes of the American Civil War - as they led to economic visions that differed from that of Jeffersonian agrarianism, and to political visions that included a federal government actively supporting the development of infrastructure to enable industry & commerce. --JimWae 07:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Cause'' 

message: I came to the article after seeing it listed on the WP:GAN page.  At first glance, the most obvious thing I noted was the maps.  The main map which shows the country nicely (though not all disputes in detail) is buried near the bottom of the article in the Geography section.  It or one like it would be very helpful in the infobox or otherwise near the top of the article.  Also the locator map in the infobox only shows the "core" states and excludes Arizona, Indian territory, and (I believe) West Virginia as well.  It would be better for it to deal with the broader claims I think, since they were as legally valid as the rest (Missouri and Kentucky are closer cases) and core state borders make a poor proxy for actual control given how much territory was under Northern occupation from early in the war.  Eluchil404 09:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map points 

message: I reversed a section that referred to six cities in which it was ambiguously stated that some of them had significant CSA sympathies.  Of these six, two were never claimed even by the CSA to be part of the CSA (Baltimore and Washington) so discussing their loyalties under the geographic section of the CSA (or any other part of this article) seems irrelevant -- especially since the rioting in Baltimore is covered extensively. Also to bring up this one example of Baltimore is misleading -- although it did register a high number of voters for Brechkinridge in the 1860 election, it also had many social and economic characteristics that tied it with the North. St. Louis, Louisville, and Wheeling were outside of the black belts of their respective states and Union sentiment predominated.  This leaves only Alexandria.  Perhaps a better way to bring in some of the information is to include a section discussing the differences in Big City CSA (including Nasville, New Orleans, etc,) versus the rural CSA. Tom 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities With CSA Sympathies 

message: Unfortunately, I had to fail this article under the good article criteria found at: WP:WIAGA.  The BIG issue is the poor referencing here.  There are two referencing issues:
#References are missing in many places in the article.  Many sections are entirely unreferenced.
#No less than 3 referencing styles are used (in-line links, in-line footnotes, and Harvard referencing).  Pick a style and stick to it.  While no one style is prefered over any other, using a single style is a must.  See citation guidelines and citation templates and how to attribute sources for more information.  If these issues can be addressed, please feel free to renominate.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Failed

message: I deleted the following italicized section from the main article because of its poor formatting (an outline inserted within a narrative) and its location in the article (in a section titled “Constitution”).  The information is preserved in the event someone, or the original editor, wishes to resubmit it either as a narrative with its own section header or in an actual table.  I would suggest if the tabular method is chosen that it restrict itself to the more objective factors (i.e. those expressed as ratios).  Also in the population numbers the 3,000,000 plus slaves were certainly an advantage to the CSA, and the 100,000 white southerners (not counting southerners in the non-seceding border states) and 150,000 southern blacks who fought for the north would also be an additional northern advantage.
 
A. North's advantages over the South
1. Potential fighting and working force: 20 million citizens a) Population: 2.5:1 b) Free male population (ages 18-60): 4.4:1 2. Wealth produced: 3:1 a) Factory production: 10:1 b) Textile goods produced: 14:1 c) Iron production: 15:1 d) Coal production: 38:1 e) Farm acreage: 3:1 f) Draft animals: 1.8:1 g) Livestock: 1.5:1 h) Wheat production: 4.2:1 i) Corn production: 2:1
3. Transportation--superior in every respect
a) Railroad mileage: 7:1 b) Naval tonnage: 25:1 c) Merchant ship tonnage: 9:1 B. South's advantages over the North 1. Fighting a defensive war. Local support and familiarity with terrain 2. Positive goal: seeking independence 3. Short communication lines and friendly population 4. United public in contrast to the North. Nonslaveholders eager to volunteer to fight 5. Experienced officer corps--many veterans of the Mexican-American War joined the Confederacy 6. Cotton (24:1 advantage over North)--necessary for textile factories of England and France III. Early Strategies of the Opposing Sides Tom (North Shoreman) 15:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bit suprised you stated that the slaves were never advantage to south certainly they were of some minimal help but when the union forces came near they used to run to the union  lines and were never returned since they were called "Contrabands" and also they certainly did rebel since nobody except those exempt from the draft were there in south to stop the rebellion during the civil war most of these rebellions resulted in blood loss, so alhtough they did certqainly help but the disadvantages weigh more and hence it cannot be stated that they wer an advantage for confedracy. the only two advantags that the confedracy had that it didn't hqad to invade hence fighting home and didn't have to transport troops and the other most of thier officers were west point graduates so excellent millitary leadership.--Missionimpossible 03:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Respective Advantages of North and South

message: Why did you remove the part where I said that the confederacy was a country at the beggining of the article?
:#Please sign your posts. In addition, please get a screen name (It literally takes all of about a minute).
:#Please add your posts at the BOTTOM of the page.
:#I don't think I was the one that removed your posts, but from what I can see, there is no reason to include that claim. No coutry formalized relations with the confederacy, but some sold it arms. The US (and other countries) do that now, but we don't necessarily recognize their governments as the countries. Do you have a source for your claim? Since it is likely to be challenged, I recommend adding a reputable reference to your claim. To quote the box below, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." — BQZip01 — talk 04:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was one of the editors who reverted your statement that the CSA was a country. Obviously the United States considered the CSA as merely a group of rebels, no other nation recognized the CSA as an independent nation, the CSA (unlike the USA) failed to militarily establish its independence, and the whole issue of the extent of CSA nationalism existed within the population is a matter of debate.  Presenting a disputed conclusion that you have reached as fact is not appropriate in the introduction to the article. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello, The CSA was most certainly a country and a nation.  Whether or not it was a state, first depends upon the usage of the word state.K1ng l0v3 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confederacy a country