Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/Archive 2

message: Shouldn't this article have a section explaining and interpreting the declarations of secession by the individual southern states?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.231.252 (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern Declarations of Secession 

message: :With the outcry over developments in Kansas strong in the North, defenders of slavery— increasingly committed to a way of life that abolitionists and their sympathizers considered obsolete or immoral— shifted to a militant pro-slavery ideology that would lay the groundwork for secession upon the emergence of Abraham Lincoln
This will not do. There was a militant pro-slavery ideology in the 1830's; its roots can be traced back to 1807. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  And now for one of the reasons 

message: Hi everyone,  I'm a PhD student who's been involved in producing Shmoop, a new educational website, and I think we have a very strong piece on the Causes of the Civil War.  I'm biased, of course, but I think it would add something of value to add here as an external link.  However, I obviously have a COI problem here and I don't want to violate the spirit of Wiki's COI rules.  I do think we have a lot of good stuff, though, so if any of the other editors here agree that we'd be worthy of linkage, I'd propose adding this to External Links:
*Shmoop US History: Causes of the Civil War
Hopefully I'm not out of line for proposing this; if I am, I'm sure you'll tell me.
Cheers, Nate
Portlandnate (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's okay by me.  If someone else objects, they can delete.  67.88.206.99 (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed External Link 

message: not one mention  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tariffs are mentioned in the second sentence of the article; mentioned again under "Free labor vs. pro-slavery arguments" (1.4.3); discussed at some length under the "Nullification Crisis" section; and discussed some more in "Sectional battles over federal policy in the late 1850s" (10.2) and "Elections of 1860" (10.4). -- 139.76.64.66 (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tariffs 

message: There were some plans laid down over a year ago (see part 1 above).  There wasn't much discussion and not much followup.  Absent any objections, I am going to start working on the general outline and principles proposed above.  One of the first things needed is to get the lede down to four paragraphs and it seems like the easiest way to start that is to move the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs into the body of the article. 
Other than two possible new subsections covering the Early Republic era and the Gag Rule debates, it seems like very little new info. is needed -- most of the emphasis should be, IMO, on rearrangement, elimination of duplication, and using Summary Style to move material into already existing articles.
Thoughts? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Today I trimmed some material from the Nullification Crisis section.  Other than duplications, I eliminated some references to Clay and Calhoun's personal careers.  I also moved a quote from Calhoun out of the states' rights section and into this section.  I have also made the article more chronological by moving the entire section to immediately after the Missouri Compromise section.  Most of the economic and political issues discussed in the sections now following Nullification are more related to the 1840s and 1850s than the 1820s and 1830s. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Still proceding (slowly) with the above proposal, I have rewritten the Gag Rule section and moved it up in the article in its proper chronological place. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure for clarity and make encyclopedic? -- Part 2 

message: This article is evidently biased. Esepcially the "non slavery related causes" section. Its title implies other reasons for secession from the Union, but includes little more than a defense of the Union, and more slavery statements.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Neutrality, no pro-slavery information....
Undoubtedly there are is no pro-slavery information that says it's ethical or moral, but I think that there is the element of the argument that was made in the 1850's by anti-slavery northerners and by Jefferson himself in "Letters on the State of Virgina", saying that the integration of liberated slaves would be a long and painful process and that some other solution had to be found -- hence, Liberia. It's all pretty awful any way you look at it, but as time passed it clearly became more and more difficult to escape, not only for the slaves but for their owners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindwanderweg (talk • contribs) at 22:07, 24 November 2006
:#On the contrary, the range of Southern opinion did include arguments that slavery was ethical, moral, and the cornerstone of enlightened civilization. The argument rested on belief in the supposed racial superiority of white people, comparisons with Roman civilization, some IMO specious but widely accepted biblically based arguments, and so forth. 
:#Please sign your posts with ~~~~ -- Rob C (Alarob) 23:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the "wild statement" probably covers Deuteronomy 22:22 (King James version): "If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. " Rjensen (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality?? 

message: Some bozo here wrote: "To say the war was fought over slavery is just ludicris, few people, if any, would have made that arguement anywhere before 1863." Fact is the exact opposite, not least down south.
The last couple of decades, white supremacists have been rewriting Civil War history. They have been quite successful selling lies like black Confederate soldiers. Not only is there no documentation of black Confederacy soldiers, it goes against the foundation of the slave south.
The very accurate point made then by opponents of this legislation was, as one Georgia leader stated, "If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong." Southern newspaper editors blasted the idea as "the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down," a "surrender of the essential and distinctive principle of Southern civilization." Take especial note of "the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down."
And what was that "essential and distinctive principle of Southern civilization"? Let's listen to the people of the times. The vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, said on March 21, 1861, that the Confederacy was "founded . . . its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based on this great physical, philosophical and moral truth." 
What was the "very doctrine" which the South had entered into war to destroy? Let's go to the historical documents, the words of the people in those times. When Texas seceded from the Union in March 1861, its secession declaration was entirely about one subject: slavery. It said that Thomas Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" - were "the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color . . . a doctrine at war with nature . . . and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law."
"Freedom is not possible without slavery," was a typical endorsement of this underlying truth about the slave South. Without slavery, white nonslaveholders would be no better than black men. 
If you are going to dispute that slavery was the main cause you must first present facts. Of course you can't. You have no fact. But go ahead if you think you have any. Just don't post personal opinions. They are worthless if you can't back them up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisionism 

message: These were just an unholy mess--someone had already corrected "recognize the legitimate city of secession" but what the heck is "kept a port of Ford in the center of the Confederacy's second-largest port"? Rjensen, PLEASE learn how to proofread! 
The header for the would-be new section, "Causes of secession", hardly summarizes the actual content of it (which, since it was originally most of the intro to the article as a whole, ranges over most of the history of the U.S. for the first half of the 19th Century rather than specifically discussing the secession crisis that directly precipitated the war). Maybe the intro needs to be tightened up or re-written, but this is certainly not the way to do it. 184.36.97.61 (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the article is all about the causes of secession. The lede needs to link that to the Civil War which it now does. Rjensen (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits of 19 August 2010 

message: A very disappointing article. I'm not American, but it seems to me that the infighting has kept any coherent or complete representation of fact from filtering through. Here's what I didn't see (before just giving up): No mention of where the money backing the Republicans came from. Or why. No explicit mention of the near civil war of 1832. Or the influence of British antislavery movements. No mention of the difficulties the West had with getting infrastructure built, caused by a Southern desire to limit northern Western expansion for demographic reasons. Civil Wars, such as in Lebanon decades ago, very frequently result from a demographic shift that takes a majority group into relatively powerless minority status. This is not exactly emphasized. Economic changes for the South, caused by mechanization (cotton gin) making cotton far more profitable... one could go on and on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.45.143 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Money backing Republicans - mainly from the North's advantage in manufacturing. Near civil war in 1832 - also 1820, 1850 and 1854. Difficulties in getting infrastructure built - apparently the "slave power" felt threatened. The cotton gin - made slavery more profitable. None of this is mentioned? Are you sure about that?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles on Wikipedia regarding the Civil War are a prime example why it is considered by scholars as a poor source of information. Not too long ago, a self proclaimed "Virginia historian" wrote a textbook based purely on internet and Wikipedia research. When the book was published it contained numerous errors which "the author" got from Wikipedia and the so called historian soon became a laughing stock. Even YouTube has a video mading fun of "Professor Wikipedia". If you want to know about history, please stick to sources produced by professionals which are vetted by other professionals. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.179.45 (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disppointing 

message: Was [sic] Pearl Harbor the originS of U.S. entry into WW2? Was [sic] Germany's invasion of Poland the originS of WW2?--JimWae (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed Pearl Harbor is always mentioned and so is the German invasion of Poland. Always. The problem is that people interested in the Civil war as a MILITARY action are not given the links that caused the military action. Here's the text that somehow bothers JimWae: The origins of the American Civil War in an immediate sense was the Battle of Fort Sumter in April 1861 when the Confederate army bombarded and forced the surrender of a U.S. fort in South Carolina. Historians explain why the battle took place by showing how, with South Carolina leading the way, seven states had declared their secession from the U.S. and joined to form the Confederate States of America the ("Confederacy"). The U.S. government in Washington always insisted secession was impossible and under newly elected President Abraham Lincoln was determined to resist Confederate efforts to seize U.S. military facilities. Historians debating the origins of the war focus on the causes of secession; the main explanation is slavery, especially Southern anger at the attempts by Northern antislavery political forces to block the expansion of slavery into the western territories. Southern slave owners held that such a restriction on slavery would violate the principle of states' rights. What JimWae is interested in is only the POLITICAL history of the war, but even then it is problematic for when the war started in April 1861 slavery was not in fact the decisive issue in the military or political action: both sides had slavery and neither government had any intention of changing that. Leaving the war out seems a serious weakness, and of course EVERY history of the war gets Sumter in there. Rjensen (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not, of course, against mentioning Sumter in the lede, but ORIGINS "begin" before first battles--JimWae (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You have *immediately* a syntactical problem also "The origins... was the Battle of Fort Sumter". The subject title is plural. Even if you could solve that, first battles are not the "origin" of fighting--JimWae (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

text: And the previous "The origins of the... War resulted in full-scale fighting..." is void of substance. This article is not ABOUT what happened IN the war, but about its origins. Only some of what happened IN its battles belongs here. The battles are not the primary focus, though the first one does belong in the lede - but is not the originS, and is misplaced in the first sentence.--JimWae (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The "civil war" has multiple meanings: a) it was a political conflict with deep roots; b) it was a shooting war that originated with the firing on Ft Sumter. Most (but not all) historians focus on a); plenty of historians and most popular readers focus on b). I think the lede should include both AND should show how the yare linked, which is what I tried to do. JimWae is primarily concerned with syntax/ plural-singular. So try this: The origin of the fighting war comprised the firing on Ft Sumter AND the immediate response to that firing in both North and  South. All the historians cover that. Rjensen (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not disagreeing on what is COVERED. We are disagreeing on calling the first battle of ANY war its origin/originS.--JimWae (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First battles as origins??? 

message: If editors have access to JSTOR, they can read the essay by Bestor that undergirds the original article subsection.
The editor offers these as support for the paraphrases below: Bestor, 1964, pp. 20-25 and Holt, 2004, pp. 34–35.
“These were the theory that an equal number of free and slave states had to be carved from the territories...”  Where do Bestor and Holt make this claim about equal number of states required by “the theory”?
“...the theory that Congress could prohibit slavery from territories and new states...” From “new states”? Are you certain of this?
“...the theory that Southerners carried the rights of their slaves with them into the territories, including a right to slavery...”  “carried the rights of slaves...?  The slaves had rights? Careful, this may incite a servile war!
“...the Popular Sovereignty theory that the people of a territory could decide the slavery issue by a majority vote.” Where do Bestor and Holt make this statement about direct democracy in the decision making process? What role did territorial legislatures play?
I object to the cannibalization of existing sections without careful examination of the sources. The “Origins” article on the Civil War appears to be a dumping ground for all sorts of material, the bulk of which lacks citations. Please don’t contribute to enlarging this oversized, albeit rather entertaining, recycing bin.   36hourblock (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territories and the US Constitution 

message: The interpretation of the insults as sexual innuendo is already clearly in the section of the article and is so prominent I think it may be showing undue weight. The words I removed are unsourced and heavily pov - the rape is figurative and Butler was not singled out on that. Sumner said slavery was Butler's mistress, which is quite a different thing from accusing Butler of being a pimp. Edward321 (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to see this in terms of a challenge to honor. Sumner used the term "rape" which has a double meaning (both sexual attack and more generally to to seize and take away by force, says Webster's 3rd). "pimp" is the term used by historians see  Rjensen (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It still seems undue emphasis to me, but the view is now sourced and the author of the view clearly cited. Edward321 (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex, honor and Sumner-Brooks 

message: The second paragraph of this section says, "In 1850 there were around 350,000 slaveholders in a total free Southern population of about six million." By my calculations this means about 6% of free Southerners were slave owners. The following paragraph says, "Yet, while the proportion of the white population consisting of slaveholders was on the decline on the eve of the Civil War—perhaps falling below around a quarter of free southerners in 1860..." My reading is that the slave owning section of the free southern population decreased from 6% to something very close to 25%. Since there is no reference provided for either percentage, I have no idea which (if either) should be considered correct. Slickjack (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: it's garbled. if you say About 350,000 persons owned slaves, you get a small %.  If you say About 350,000 families owned slaves, you get a much higher %. Rjensen (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern Culture Section - Unsupported Internal Conflict 

message: I'm not one to hang tags on sections (since I too frequently see them thrown on every few words in a paragraph, and sometimes in error), but this section appears to be a good candidate for one.  There are no notes given in the entire section at present.  I attribute this to it being a very old section. I went back through 8 years or so of edit summaries without finding when it was created.  
It appears to be more of discussion of academic historian opinion at given times, rather than popular/political/participant opinion--which differed by section.  I've read enough Southern participant accounts in the era to question the accuracy of the claim:   "In the first decades after the fighting, histories of the Civil War generally reflected the views of Northerners who had participated in the conflict."  I don't doubt that it is true on some level, but I'm not sure what particular type/level they are referring to.  General histories of the war?  First hand accounts/biographies by participants? 
What I'm trying to say is I'm not sure if the general picture given is accurate or not, but it also isn't clear to me what it is specifically referring to at times.  My interest is typically drawn more to the campaigns/operations, first hand accounts, and strategic considerations rather than general histories so I am not well equipped to tackle this one.
I am also confused as to how this section fits with the rest of the article--it seems general and unconnected to the specificity of the rest. Red Harvest (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: the article is mostly historiography--that is, what explanations people have offered for what happened 9as opposed a narrative of event). I added some cites--let me highly recommend Tom Pressly's excellent book. Rjensen (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, this was needed. Older material didn't carry as much burden of notes/cites when written.  A few general references listed at the bottom was enough at times.  It isn't so easy anymore. Red Harvest (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onset of the Civil War and Compromise section unreferenced 

message: When we list the reasons for the civil war, and number then 1..N, where does slavery appear in this list.  Putting Slavery as the number one reason is a debatable point.  It's sometimes put as reason number 3.  
Unfortunately, it is part of human nature to write history such that the victor gets to write the history, and declare his side on the moral right. (Perhaps this is why we don't like to admit that the settling of the USA involved the death of half a trillion natives).  This likely has led to pushing slavery into the primary reason, because yes, as a nation we somehow moved from voluntary indentured servitude, to involuntary slavery which is repulsive.
What were the other issues?  
(1) Money was a major issue, and money implied cotton.  The North had the factories and the banks, and therefore was making lots of money from cotton and exports (The US was producing 60% of the worlds cotton goods). Import-taxes were seen as a tax burden on the south, since the North's exports were not taxed.  (The Morril Tarriff of 1861, increased the import tariff by up to 70%.)  While they were very low before the increase, a disparity in taxation, causes ill feelings.  When the southern representatives walked out in protest, the Northern representatives seized the opportunity to pass the bill that they knew would not pass in their presence, and increased their taxation.    The first time South Carolina threatened succession, was Vice President Calhoun (from South Carolina), in regards to the Tariff of 1828 (The Tariff of Abominations) against president John Quincy Adams.   V.P. Calhoun threatened succession, and the tariff was modified. 
(2) The morals of the north and the south differed/Southern Pride.  People in the north had more education.  They also has looser morals.  Even the religions had a divide between the Northerns and the Southerns (currently, only "Southern" Baptist's religion is the only divide).  This contributed towards a pride in being southern.  The south was actually spending less on education, and children in the south were dropping out of school earlier especially women.  The south was in debt.  Their roads were not as well maintained. Slavery was also in the decline in the south.  The north had wage slavery, which did not provide any social security for the elderly, sick or injured workers.  There was a law in Virginia which made the slave holder responsible for the social security of his slaves. (Shockingly, the last of the Lott "slave cottages" in Virginia, provided free lodging for decedents of the slaves at that location, until the mid-1960's).  This was in contrast to the wage slavery in the north.  The story projected about large plantations, is also an exaggeration, most slaveholders held 5 slaves, with only one percent of the population holding much more.
The Petticoat affair in 1830-1831, which was exposed by Vice President Calhoun's wife (whom lead an anti-Peggy parade), added to the illusion of a divide between the morals of the North and the South.              
(3) Vice President Calhoun...  The man was unyielding, and negotiated by force.  He threatened to leave the Union, in order to alter a tariff! And it worked!   This man, as a hero figure, convinces people to rebel against the federal government.   His wife led the anti-peggy parade (for morality)!  Other Unitarians of the time were also rebelling against authority, but Calhoun did it from the inside!
(4) States Rights.  States Rights was a dispute about if federal laws can be overridden or NULLIFIED by the states.  Do Federal Taxes need to be enforced?  We see this today, in the form of the federal marijuana laws being ignored by some of the states (but not nullified).  While today, people like to focus on the fact that States Rights circle back to slavery, the initial reason was TAXES/Tariffs.   Huge import taxes forced the south to buy goods from the north instead of Europe, especially the Tariff in 1861, which raised the tax 70%!.   These taxes angered southerns.  (http://www.ket.org/civilwar/causes.html).  
(5) Because it worked.   The first time V.P. Calhoun, South Carolina, threatened succession, there was a negotiation, and a compromise.  So, they tried it again.   The next time, the government sent troops.    
If we want to rewrite history such that it appears that the north was in the moral right....then we'd better remove the US Supreme Courts Dred Scott decision from history as well (Anyone of African decent, is not a US citizen, and not entitled to the protection of law). You might also want to erase some of Charles Stewart Parnell's speeches (he came to the US with his mistress, from England/Ireland).    Truth be told, you did not want to be a black man or women anywhere in the US in the mid 1800's.    
During this time, the Whig Party ended and the Republican Party started, with Abraham Lincoln.
The states voted for presidents during the 1860 elections, and were divided into regions.  Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee voted for the Constitutional Union Party (which supported National rule, over States Rights).  To list slavery as the number one cause, is an oversimplification.  The nation was divided, but after the war, and years after, we have come together and the issue of states rights has been decided to take a back seat to Federal Laws, and taxes, and Tariffs.
( http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm )
75.107.140.75 (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon seems to have his own secret history of the war that resembles the fringe ideas put forward by neo-Confederates. One might call that un-American but it is merely un-Wikipedian.  We rely on the reliable secondary sources and in the last half-century or so no scholats have endorsed these fringe views. The second problem is that the Confederates back in 1860-61 did not see these as the causes of the war.  They talked endlessly about the Northern threat to their way of life. The men busy fathering illegitimate babies with slave women did not boast about their moral superiority in front of their legal wives. The Southern way of life was identical to the North except when slavery came up. That was the rub. (About the tariff, by the way, that was a Northern grievance because southerners controlled Congress and set the tariffs too low.) Rjensen (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments against : Slavery as the number one cause of the Civil War  or an Oversimplification. 

message: Under "Historical tensions and compromises," the first section ("Early Republic") starts by saying, "At the time of the American Revolution, the institution of slavery was firmly established in the American colonies."  This assertion might be revised.
While England allowed the colonies to legislate for themselves, it stipulated that the colonies' laws could not be repugnant to law in England.  Through the 1700s, the legal status of slavery in England became increasingly doubtful, and the Somerset decision of 1772 finally established that slavery was so "odious" that it was not consistent with English common law and that it could only be established by a statutue of Parliament.  Since there was no prospect of such a statute, the American colonies were on notice from 1772 on that their laws establishing slavery could be at any time be noticed as repugnant to English law.
In this light, institution of slavery was not firmly established in the American colonies as a legal matter, until independence took the colonies out of the reach of English legal authorities.
It is not clear how important this threat to American slavery may have been in the colonies' push for independence.  The conflict with England brought the matter to a head, however, as during the war for independence British armies liberated about a third of the African-American population that had been held in slavery, mainly in the South.  It appears that slavery might have ended in the English colonies much earlier had they not become independent.
Taking the points above into account, it would be ideal for an expert to revise the beginning of the "Early Republic" section.  The revised text might go along lines such as the following: "Among the differences between England and its American colonies was the legal status of slavery.  As of the Somerset court decision of 1772, slavery was illegal in England but was still supported by laws that the individual American colonies had adopted.  Independence resolved a potential conflict over slavery by taking the colonies out of the reach of English legal authorities."Jsryanjr (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: well that's a fringe view held by a few people. The British had a very hard time getting rid of slavery in their colonies -- even Canada (1833). The British armies did NOT liberate more than 1% of the slaves during the war....they hauled far more off to slavery in the West Indies.  As for the Somerset case you are misreading the ruling: " Mansfield ruled Somerset must be "discharged" — set free — although not on the basis that slavery was illegal in England, as the abolitionists had argued. Mansfield's judgment was made on the narrow base that Great Britain had no precedent allowing for the forced re-capture of an escaped slave for sale outside the country." [Patricia Bradley, 1985] Rjensen (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery and Independence 

message: Though starting from an earlier period, this paragraph is less about History and more about Geography and Demographics; I recommend we move it into that section. AlwaysLiberty (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. A narrative on the history has to start somewhere.  This paragraph describes the conditions at the start of this history. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the article already had the geography section when I arrived, I was thinking that a discussion of geography (and demographics, as there is some of that content as well) of the regions involved in the conflict was the beginning of the narrative, as it provides setting and backdrop for the events that occurred.  Seems like a good place to start to me, but perhaps it shouldn't be its own heading equal to history?  We could change the section into a subheading of history. AlwaysLiberty (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content speaks of demographics/population migration patterns and should be moved to correct section 

message: Even expanding the section heading to include demographics as well as geography, discussion of history does not belong in the section.  To wit:
We should move these paragraphs to a more appropriate section, or strike them if they duplicate material already in those sections.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwaysLiberty (talk • contribs) 06:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly the section could use a better title.  The bigger problem is that the article lead is flawed -- it doesn't present a summary of the actual article.  This section apparently attempts to remedy that by serving as an introduction to the article.  IMO this section should be eliminated and merged with the lead. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't had time to finish reading the article (I'm just making suggestions as I go along, and reading as I have time), so I hadn't presumed to speak of the lead yet.  The main reason I singled these paragraphs out was that they seem to summarize later sections of the article (e.g. the Missouri Compromise has its own section a little later) while only being peripherally relevant to the section head, but I'm not sure they are sufficiently summarized for the lead. AlwaysLiberty (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraphs don't belong in section 

message: At Historical revisionism (negationism) an editor has removed the text about Confederate historical revisionism - see their reason at Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism). Clearly needs input. Doug Weller (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure they don't have some points.  Mostly I'm thinking that's not a 'negationism' denying of factual events.  Markbassett (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confederate historical revisionism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Origins of the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Origins of the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150713102827/http://civilwarcauses.org/benningva.htm to http://civilwarcauses.org/benningva.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150213033216/http://civilwarcauses.org/reasons.htm to http://civilwarcauses.org/reasons.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Origins of the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106090007/http://www.npg.si.edu/col/amistad/index.htm to http://www.npg.si.edu/col/amistad/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html to http://www.multied.com/elections/1860Pop.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Origins of the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html to http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/Background/BackgroundElection.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Like a lot of other scholarship on this, the current description of the Dred Scott decision attributes to CJ Taney something he wrote to describe the view's of another. The section also doesn't grasp the actual holding(s) of the case. I already re-wrote the majority opinion subsection on the Dred Scott page ([]. Lukacris (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dred Scott Summary 

message: Have you missed something that was extremely obvious to anyone in the Midwest in the 1800s--If the Confederacy had become an independent nation they would have had total control over the Lower Mississippi River and with it could have held hostage commerce in the Midwest.  Trains could not have made up the difference then, and even today the Mississippi continues to be important for transportation of goods and natural resources. Since Lincoln went down the River twice with goods when he was young he was naturally and fully aware of its strategic importance. The outcome of our nation would have been profoundly different had we let the South control it.   Source--this is a "self-evident truth"--one of those things people take so for granted they rarely even need to talk about it. Books are vitally important sources but reason is also needed.  205.167.120.201 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing something? the strategic importance of the Mississippi River 

message: Sir Walter Scott's novels were wildly popular across the American antebellum South and some historians are now crediting them with helping to launch the US Civil War. rumjal ````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs) 23:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walter Scott's Waverly Novels 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ACW causes. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Hog Farm (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ACW causes" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Slavery in the South and West. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  BDD (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Slavery in the South and West" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Causes of the Civil War. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 29#Causes of the Civil War until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm  Talk 05:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Causes of the Civil War" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]