Talk:American Civil War/Archive 2

message: I think it would be beneficial if we mentioned the Wide Awakes and their contribution to the Southern Fear of Lincoln/Republicans abolishing slavery.  There is already a nice page written up on it, it would only take a small blurb and would illustrate the growing tensions between the North and South on the topic of slavery. 
--Grimlockbash
--69.182.79.218 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wide Awakes

message: "Map of the division of the states during the Civil War. Dark blue represents Union states; light blue represents Union states that permitted slavery; red represents Confederate states; Unshaded represents areas that had not yet become states."
That map is a map of the modern USA with states colored in.  Someone please fix this. Ken Arromdee 21:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: I don't much care for this infobox.  For one thing, it just has too many flags.  We should just pick two (either the two used at the beginning of the war, or the two at the end).  Links to Flag of the United States and Flags of the Confederate States of America can be provided for anyone who wants more information.  Also, the color scheme isn't very pleasing to the eye.  What about something more like the one at War of 1812?  --JW1805 20:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Was the turning point Gettysburg, Antietam or what?
Cameron Nedland 02:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, do your own homework! —Cleared as filed. 22:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  When is the turning point? 

message: Considering that this was a civil war, like the American Revolutionary War, shouldn't the warbox list the combatants as being the United States versus something like "Confederate Rebels" or "Southern Rebels." The American Revolutionary War article lists the conflict as being between "American Patriots" and the British Empire, not the United States versus the British Empire.
I understand the history of the Confederacy and the desire to legitimatize it as a political entity, but the fact of the matter is that it was never a recognized government, just as the American government was not fully internationally recognized until after the War of 1812, really. Just as it would be silly to characterize the War of Independence as being between the United States and Great Britain, I think that it is inaccurate to characterize the American Civil War as being between the Confederate States and the United States.
If nobody offers any insight into this, I'll change the template soon.
See American Revolutionary War Talk:American Revolutionary War to see the origin of this discussion.--AaronS 00:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that the South already had a coherent state organization in the federal system, which was at the time even more powerful in relative terms than it is today. The Confederacy established a government with all of the trimmings of a normal government, mostly mimicking the United States. We have an article under Confederacy... describing its organization. While the United States and most of the rest of the world did not acknowledge the Confederacy at the time, I think on Wikipedia, in order to avoid POV, it is best to used the self-ascribed label--perhaps a footnote can explain that this might not be considered a "real state." But isn't POV to ascribe conditions definitively anyway? Also "rebels" is perhaps an even more dicey term because of the different historical associations it has in this case. Tfine80 01:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, they were recognized by Ernst II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. But that's not the point. And it's not about giving them "legitimacy." The point is that this is what they called themselves. And it's a lot easier to label them that and discuss why they might not be considered a real state than it is to come up with our own label which we will never find consensus for. Why start a fight about what to call them if you can just insert a footnote saying that most countries in the world did not recognize them. Tfine80 03:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combatants as listed in the warbox template 

message: Shouldn't there be a section in the "Division of the country" section on the North?  Nowhere in the article does it list all the Union states.  Seems odd. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something missing? 

message: Somehow I doubt that this article is truly unsourced, given the large amount of books and other references, any number of which may and probably have been cited.  I defer to HLJ and others here, but I, for one, think that the unsourced tag is absolutely unnecessary and would suggest that it be removed. --Martin Osterman 14:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced? 

message: Not sure if this is the place, but, can we devise reference to notable units of the war? I'm thinking, in particular, 54h MA Colored Volunteers, Pickett's division, 69h New York, Jackson's "Foot Cav", 71t PA Vols ("CA Rgt"), the like.  Comment?  Trekphiler 10:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article is turning into too much of a kitchen sink to include an ever-expanding list like this. If you want a separate article like List of ..., go ahead, but it would be more interesting to write/improve the articles about the units, not merely list them. Hal Jespersen 13:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: I'm deleting the parts about African Americans and Immigrants and putting those under the Population Advantage.
Cameron Nedland 02:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages of the North 

message: Given that there have been civil wars in several American countries, shouldn't the title be changed to something more accurate? Markb 10:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you clarify this a bit?  I'm not familiar with civil wars occuring in other "American countries" -- the term's a contradiction in and of itself since America is made up of states (and America is a country). --Vortex 14:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He's probably referring to the use of American to apply to the two continents, not the U.S.A. Although there may be a tiny degree of truth to that, "American" used without a qualifier (North, South, Central) is almost universally understood to mean the U.S.A. I also cannot think of any other conflict that could be confused with the American Civil War. Some name like the "South American Civil War" would not be possible under the definition of Civil War anyway. And since there are probably 1,000 articles pointing to this name, I don't think any change is justified.
Let me see, how about:
Salvadoran Civil War
Paraguayan Civil War
Colombia
Guatemala
Chiapas
All 'American' civil wars. To describe the US civil war as 'American', is confusing and inaccurate. If I refered to 'The European civil war', the 'African civil war' or the Asian civil war, which conflict would I mean? Wikipedia is an encylopidia used globally,  authors should not assume users will have the same view of the world as themselves.  As to the other articles, I thought that a 'move' also changed those references? 
Markb 16:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So what you're suggesting is that the American Civil War article should be used instead as a list to list all Civil Wars that have occurred in America?  I would disagree with that, since each civil war is referred to by the name of the country that it happened in (e.g. Mexican Civil War).  See, though America may refer to a continent, most people don't go for American Civil War if they're looking for a civil war in Columbia.  Instead, they're going to look at Columbian Civil War.  The name before the war gives an indication of where it happened, which is the primary reason that I don't agree with you.  Give me more convincing and clear-cut evidence and I'll reconsider.  (As for the suggestion that this is not a 'global' thing... Google "American Civil War" and see how many articles in that search turn out to be for wars other than this one.  I think that you'll pretty much find that scholars around the globe call the civil war that happened in the United States the "American Civil War".) --Vortex 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep as named.  While I agree that the name "American Civil War" isn't as accurate as it could be, it's the most common name of the war.   We're not here to improve the names people use, but reflect their current use.  --A D Monroe III 23:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We already have an article called Naming the American Civil War. If Mark can actually find a documented source that makes this criticism, he can add it there. Tfine80 23:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  I wasn't aware of Naming the American Civil War, so now understand.  To Vortex My only suggestion was to rename to U.S. civil war,if you want to make a list of civil wars in America, go ahead. As to the concept of "the name before the war gives an indication of where it happened", then U.S. is far more accurate than just America, in the same way that English Civil War is more helpful than European Civil War, Northern Hemisphere Civil War or Global Civil war - get the idea? Markb 09:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  My apologies for taking your idea the wrong way. :)  I've been locked into finals at my university and have become a bit fuzzheaded due to the copious amounts of information I'm trying to cram into my brain in a limited amount of time.  I think the U.S./America question could be debated for years to come, truthfully, even though I'm not quite sure why it is the way it is.  I only know that most scholars have chosen to name it the American Civil War, and I tend to follow precedents. :)  I think that part of it is the fact that people shorten the name (they refer to the United States of America as just America), and the colloquism has stuck since then. --Vortex 16:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: America/American is used to mean USA probably tens if not hundreds of thousands of times in the English Wikipedia, reflecting its ubiquitous usage as such in English. Meanwhile it is used to refer to "the American continent" (a minority geographical classification btw) in a handful of places most of which are probably contained within the title of the article on the OAS. And yet every day someone else comes along to help prevent that evil gut-wrenching soul-crushing ambiguity by trying to replace all of the former usage. Yeah right it's not a crusade. Here's an easier approach: North America/South America/The Americas. Teach your kid those. problem solved. 69.108.48.80 12:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There are, at the time or writing, 867,919 articles in the English Wikipedia. You state that at least 200,000 of these articles contain the use of America/American to mean USA. I doubt it, but look forward to your proof, something I doubt we'll see from an anonymous poster. Markb 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure that's what I "state"? maybe you should look again. But indeed adding 175961 +  53089 give us 229050 candidates. So I'm rather confident we can find tens if not hundreds of thousands of uses of the term therein in the manner described. 69.108.48.80 05:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, let's calm down.  I think we're missing the point of an encyclopedia.  Yes, American English could be improved, but we're not going to improve it here.  Historians and history books most often refer to the war in question as the American Civil War, as does the public using Wikipedia.  Perhaps there is little justification for using that name, but it's used anyway.  Our job as Wikipedia editors isn't to correct human knowledge, but to reflect it.  The names of the Indian Wars and American Revolutionary War could be equally improved, but right or wrong, those are their names.  When the public stops using these names for these wars, we must also stop using them.  Until then, we must use them.  --A D Monroe III 13:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: IMO the name of anything on wikipedia should be what the most common usage is in the language of the wiki (en for en of course, etc.), regardless of what may actually or academically be considered "correct."  An encyclopedia is meant to be a useful reference, not to obfuscate and confuse by the use of some sort of convention that has been arrived at by committee.  I also posted a comment on Talk:Naming the American Civil War, but here goes on this one as well:  American is used the world over, in its variations in the particular language, when one wants to refer to a U.S. citizen, it is also used in the adjective form to describe things from or about the U.S.  So calling it the American Civil War should not be a big deal.  I say leave it as is and have everything else redirect here.  --Easter Monkey 03:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As an interesting observation, I just noticed that on the Manual of Style National varieties of English subsection that American Civil War is the specific example used to illustrate when American English should be used...--Easter Monkey 03:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to U.S. Civil War? 

message: Someone just edited in an external reference to http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/chron/civilwar.html, which is a pretty interesting chronology of the war. Browsing it casually, I can see that a lot of the material came from Wikipedia (uncited), which would normally make it a bogus external reference, but it is organized in an interesting way. Does anyone know what this site is supposed to be? If you go to the top-level URL, you get a lot of Roman history references, but nothing to lead you to the American Civil War topics buried beneath. Just wondering who/why ... Hal Jespersen 16:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin library? 

message: Can somebody name the last man killed in the war? (Include it?)  Trekphiler 08:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see a) how you verify a name or make a case for one person or the other or b) how it would especially notable anyway.  --Easter Monkey 09:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The weird thing is that the Confederates actually won it and it was 300 Confederate cavalry against 500 Union infantry. Don't know the name tho.Cameron Nedland 01:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KIA? 

message: There are at least 5 articles here, and they will eventually have to be split. This is such a huge topic!
*1. Causes of Civil War. It already has its own article, and this section is in no way integrated into the article. So it can be merged into main "causes".
*2. Battle History, which is what this covers.
*3 Other military topics (logistics, manpower, technology, naval)
*4. Homefront issues, USA and CSA. Politics, Economics, society.
*5. International affairs, diplomacy
*6. Long term implications
*7. Bibliography and maybe historiography.
Rjensen 11:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is an overstatement to suggest that this article is primarily focused on the battle history; there are many additional topics included. It is interesting to note a parallel set of articles on Wikipedia: American Revolution is a broad set of topics and American Revolutionary War is a separate article. I find it hard to imagine that our audience of reviewers would be able to agree on the name for the era that encompasses the war; it has been difficult enough to agree on the name of the war itself. One of the problems I see in the organization of articles and subarticles in Wikipedia is that there are a number of people who are unwilling to see their key ideas relegated to a subarticle, so the main articles keep growing, even when topics have been reorganized. An interesting data point, however: I recently had some free time to browse through the Encyclopedia Britannica in printed form and note that they cover the entire American Civil War era in a single large article. (They also have a series of smaller articles in what they call their "micropedia" volumes that include some important biographies and a few of the large battles in more detail, although considerably less detailed than we have here.) Hal Jespersen 18:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple articles here--will eventually need to split them 

message: Yes I think there should be a separate article on the historiography and bibliography of the war.  That would mean a "reference" section of maybe 20 titles will remain in the main article, to get people started. 55 years ago the Randall-Donald textbook had an 85 page annotated bibliography, and the literature has more than doubled since then. Rjensen 01:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate bibliography-historiography article 

message: The text stated that Delaware never considered secession, but this is incorrect; see 1861 and here. I have fixed the text. Deville 23:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delaware seceding 

message: I suggest rewording this in line with the Iraqi Civil War by deeming it an Insurgency. For as you see the Confederate Insurgents declared war on the Union.
King Legit
::we have a whole article on naming the CW that explores such questions. Rjensen 01:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confederate Insurgency 

message: 'Campaign on Missisipi' is a Polish Wikipedia Feature Article. Strangly, it is not linked to en version and I cannot find anything that would look similar. Any suggestions? Lead of the Polish article translates at: Campaign on Missisip - series of battles over control of the Missisipi river valley during the American Civil War in North America, from February 1862 to July 1863.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting. Although I can't read it, from the various images and links, it looks pretty decent. What sort of suggestions are you soliciting? That someone translate it? It is somwhat similar to the first half of Western Theater of the American Civil War, although that article is more army-oriented. Hal Jespersen 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant suggestions whether there is an existign article on en on the same subject that is not connect to pl via interwiki, and if not, whether anybody can create a stub at least (I could help with some translations). It's kind of strange for pl wiki to have a FA on American history, and for en wiki not to have even a stub on the subject.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:pl:Kampania na Missisipi]]

message: This is sort of a question here ... not an argument OK? I seem to recall hearing about a compromise that was proposed at one point that the South didn't accept. Sombody proposed that slavery would be allowed in all territories south of the missouri/arkansas border except california and forbidden north of there forever. Or something close to that. somebody named "Kellog" or however you spell that breakfast cereal company. --Nerd42 01:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there were a lot of compromises proposed but none that had approval of both north and south. By December 1860 the possibility of any successful compromise was near zero. Rjensen 01:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this section kind of seems to indicate that there weren't any - wouldn't saying that neither side accepted them because they weren't gentlemen enough be kinda POV? --Nerd42 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! I tried to fix it. Rjensen 02:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Failure to Compromise" section 

message: In the infobox, the "Result" section used to say "...Southern states reannexed..."  But this has been changed to "reconstructed".  I think it should be changed back to "reannexed" (or something similar), since "reconstruction" is a nebulous term, and didn't really occur (if at all) until some time after the war.  While the southern states were unquestionable "reannexed" at the end of the war.  Also, reconstruction may not be a term familiar to many non-Americans, or non-historians, and it may seem confusing.  Everybody knows what "annexed" means.--JW1805 (Talk) 23:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result of the war 

message: The opening section was recently changed to include "...The Union led by President Abraham Lincoln and General Ulysses S. Grant won a decisive victory,..." with the italics added.  I don't think this clause should be included.  If we mention Lincoln, we would have to mention Davis.  And Grant in no way "led the Union".  He did "lead the US Army" only near the end of the war.  There were many other Union generals who contributed to the victory.  No point in singling him out here, I don't think.  --JW1805 (Talk) 23:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the opening works. "Reconstruction" was the term used then (starting in 1861) and now by all historians and textbooks and reference books. See the article Reconstruction.  Reannexation did not happen and the term was never used. As for Grant he was commander in chief of all US forces in 1864-65 and is unanimously given credit with Lincoln.  Davis gets mentioned but later of course.  To say he helped the Union to victory would be too sarcastic, I think. Rjensen 00:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When dealing with military history we give the commanding general the credit for winning the war.  Americans at the time and ever since have given Grant the credit, as well they should. Who else but Grant should get credit? Sherman? Thomas? McClellen? People expect the opening to be a capsule summary and not mentioning any soldier would seem very odd. So why does one editor keep eliminating Grant? He needs to explain this strange choice. Rjensen 01:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enouigh: I will trim elsewhere to make room for this important fact. Rjensen 01:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you brought up length.  Significance is another: Lincoln and Grant had charge of the war, made the plans and won it. Those are the facts that people need to know. If someone spends 60 seconds on the article we want them to know about Lincoln and Grant.  Rjensen 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks like we have 1 for inclusion, and 3 against, so I went ahead and removed the Grant reference again.  Rjense, unless you can get somebody else to agree with you, we should leave it out.  It just isn't necessary.  --JW1805 (Talk) 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening section 

message: Many have mentioned a willingness to see some significant changes on this essential English-language page. This should be a page that other language wikipedias use as reference. It should reflect the community of wikischolars assembled, and I see a bunch of folks out there.
Rjensen correctly notes that this article needs to be broken down into separate articles, and suggests one possible method of breakdown. I'd like to look at this from a slightly different vantage: Once separate articles are written, imagine what's left on this page to form a core around which those subjects can be linked.
That being said, I'm going to offer my opinions. What follows are merely my suggestions. I relish discussion on this page on this subject.
IMHO, I think we should have a first-rate graphic next to the contents, pushing the warbox further down. I believe that the introductory statement might be made even longer, perhaps three or four paragraphs which contain links to a number of top-quality peripheral articles as described above. 
Next, Rjensen is also correct about the historiography not belonging at the beginning of the article. Something does belong there, and what's there now does serve, but isn't optimal. This section belongs after the narrative summary, or in another article, IMHO.
Division of the country is so rough, but is essential to this article. IMHO, the entire Union might be described, followed by how each state (or group of states) secceeded. The narrative summary is clearly essential, and isn't terrible as is. It should be much tighter (about 1/2 as long). More graphics here, especially a few easy maps.
Analysis of why the north won is mere punditry, and few of us are truly qualifed to to draw those conclusions. Lately it has become a bulletin board for northern partisans. Not essential. Move to new article or delete.
Battle table? Better at the Battles article. Fold in Major Land Battles and Naval Actions with narrative history. Not necessary. Just my opinion. Civil War Leaders and soldiers deserves its own article. Question of Slavery should be covered in Causes, and integrated into the narrative. 
Foreign Diplomacy deserves its own article, but needs to be tightened and illustrated in this article, it's essential. Aftermath is crucial, needs tightening and illustration.
Historiography that's currently serving as "Multiple explanations" should go after the aftermath, and needs a better title.
References are a big problem with this article. Half the last two hundred or so lines of this page are just not necessary. Only references necessary for creating the article are required. A separate article on bibliography and/or historiography might serve. Non-essential ending links might be shuttled over to a links article (I don't like it either, but we need to agree to some cutoff point).
Anybody else have an opinion on this important (and too long neglected) subject?
BusterD 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I pasted in the overview. I also subtly changed the lead paragraph. Hence another suggestion: this page discusses a controversial subject. We should say so from the very beginning, and perhaps create a "Controversies of the ACW" article (which would soon overawe this article in size) to syphon off some of the heat. We should certainly integrate discussion of controversy with this article. "Strong views are like tigers." We should definitely display this tiger, but not let it out of the cage. BusterD 12:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree with plan. BUT I suggest that "reasons North won" is essential part of article-- and one of main reasons people will wuse it.  It is not "mere punditry" but is instead based on solid scholarship.  References: the Further Reading books are essential for guiding people to further reading. Anyone who goes to a library or bookstore will be overwhelmed by hundreds and thousands of titles.  The list now is quite compact. The idea is not that someone will read all the books, but they will browse and see if their local library has any. Small libraries will only have a few of the books. Rjensen 01:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it hard to disagree with your points. But lately the "reasons" section has gotten fat with just junk (heck I even added to the collage myself). I just think a group of responsible folks should create a map of what this page should look like, and a strategy for maintaining the look and feel. Once that group has some success, they could should maintain standards of sorts, and shuffle off most changes to the sub articles, which by that time will be much richer themselves. BusterD 13:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with all of Buster's points, but was too lazy to make comments on individual entries. I support the idea of moving the battle table to the article Battles of the American Civil War and to get rid of sections that consist primarily of lists of names; these invite repeated additions for favorite people and battles and there is little justification to keep any one out. I also would support a separate article entitled American Civil War Bibliography into which virtually all of the lengthy end matter can be moved. There is no reason that an encyclopedia article needs more than a half-dozen recommendations on other books to read; check out a printed encyclopaedia as an example. It is ironic that this article no longer has a section entitled References and no footnotes, meaning that the article is (gasp) unsourced. (I am not recommending that we merely rename the existing grab bags of books, but that we be careful and disciplined about listing which books were actually used in writing the article.) Hal Jespersen 02:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need multiple items in a reading list to help users who use small libraries. After a couple thousand edits there is no way that "references" tells us what sources each editor used. The reading list is about right for a topic so important. Rjensen 02:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the "Why the North Won" section needs some serious NPOV surgery.  Also agree that there are too many unnecessary references listed (do we really need Strange & Fascinating Facts and a cookbook?). --JW1805 (Talk) 02:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: you're right about those cookbooks. (Anyone interested in that would do much better browsing at a bookstore.) Let's look at those NPOV issues here--what problems do people see? Rjensen 02:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should be on this page? What would a featured article look like? 

message: Somebody added a long section of the Air War (balloons) -- with far more attention than is given signals, railroads, artillery, cavalry or infantry combined. Any objections to spinning it off to new article? Rjensen 07:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the balloons to Aerial warfare. Rjensen 13:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Air War--spin off? 

message: I created this, based on the World War II template. What do you think? (In case you're wondering how I selected the entries, they were based entirely on my memory. They are obviously changeable.) Hal Jespersen 19:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation box 

message: The article had two parallel sections on Origins, or historiography. I merged them together. Rjensen 21:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historiography 

message: Does this even belong in the article?
:A small, but militant, abolitionist movement existed in the North--a matter of a few thousand advocates. Their insistence that slavery was a sin and slave owners were deeply guilty angered the South, as shown by the reaction to the overwhelmingly popular (in the North) book and play by Harriet Beecher Stowe, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" that stereotyped slave owners as heartless Simon Legrees. Historians have looked at many slave owners and decided that they felt neither guilt nor shame (Berringer 359-60[1]), but were angry at what they considered "un-Christian" hate speech from abolitionists
* the source (which requires registration) gives ONE historian who says yes & one who says "not so much" - not a case of historianS "deciding"
* did historians "look at" them in their graves to determine their "feelings"?
* was hate-speech a term even used then - could they have considered it "hate speech" 
* other parts of the same paragraph also need work
**abolitionists are portrayed as concerned primarily with shaming the south - when Northerners  themselves were forced to make moral decisions because of the fugitive slave laws
** reaction to being portrayed as cruel Simon Legrees does not show they were also angry because Northerners thought ALL slavery was wrong
** talking twice in the same sentence about the "small" number of abolitionists (--a matter of a few thousand advocates) is dismissive
** the whole paragraph is anti-abolitionist
--JimWae 21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Slave-owners feel guilty? 

message: From 1770s a debate took place between gradualist and immediatist anti-slavery reformers. Gradualists said the transition from slavery to freedom should be characterized by a series of intermediary steps (apprenticeship, colonization, etc.). Gradualists dominated the early antislavery thinking. However, during the 1830s, the idea of immediate emancipation superseded gradualism. Immediatists all advocated total, unconditional, and uncompensated emancipation. Some immediatists were cautious saying the commitment to emancipation had to be made right now but the implementation might take years. ("immediate emancipation gradually achieved.")  They all agreed sinful slave owners had to immediately repent.  See David Brion Davis, "The Emergence of Immediatism in British and American Antislavery Thought," MVHR 49:209-30 (September 1962). Rjensen 19:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immediate vs gradual emancipation 

message: :The States' rights debate cut across the issues. Southern politicians argued that the federal government had no power to prevent slaves from being carried into new territories, but they also demanded federal jurisdiction over slaves who escaped into the North; Northern politicians took reversed, though equally contradictory, stances on these issues.
I believe the above paragraph is ambiguous. Does it mean that Northen politicians reversed both positions, claiming that the federal government could prevent slave ownership in the territories but did not need to return run away slaves? or does it mean that they reversed only the first position regarding the territories? It is my understanding that Lincoln's position was that the federal government could prohibit slavery in the territories, but was still bound by the fugative slave clause of the constitution. Thus, this is a request both for a fact check and for a clarification of the existing wording. --24.30.122.32 20:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good points--text is ambiguous. Republicans said Feds could prohibit slavery in territories but GOP was split on fug slave issue--Lincoln said yes but many said no.  Democrats said people in territories had to decide, not Washington; Dems supported Fug Slave law. Rjensen 22:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State's Rights section 

message: A civil war is defined as two groups within a society fighting for control of the government.  That did not happen between 1861-65.  The desire was for the South to create its own nation.  Before somebody jumps, I am not a neo-Confederate, but details do matter.  —This unsigned comment was added by 66.156.25.14 (talk • contribs) 21:47, April 3, 2006 .
*See Naming the American Civil War.  --JW1805 (Talk) 22:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: a civil war is defined by whom? ans: the reference books, which all call the 1861-5 conflict a civil war. Rjensen 00:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yet few of the journals of the day used the phrase "civil war" until the conflict was well underway. As described in the naming article, most Northern journals referred to the "rebellion," and individual Confederates seemed to have little issue being characterized during the war as "Johnny Reb." I personally believe the conflict is best defined as an unsuccessful separatist rebellion. In most matters I must defer to Rjensen's scholarship, but a seasoned wiki-veteran recently reminded me that all naming "triggers" are best kept off the main page and onto the naming page, to prevent unnecessary edit wars from erupting. With all the random vandalism on this article, we don't need the extra reversions. BusterD 01:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Civil war is defined by reference books.  Society is defined by reference books.  According to every definition I've ever seen, including the WP def, a civil war involves two or more groups within a society struggling for control of the government/nation/state/etc. The North and South were the same "society" no matter the regional, cultural differences that existed and have persisted to this day.  The struggle happened to take the form of one group trying to form its own nation.  That doesn't make it any less a civil war.  What it was popularly defined as in 1865, 1965, or 2006 is not relevant.  A lot of people who are paid to study such things and who quite clearly have given this a lot more thought than you or I, academics, historians, the editors of Webster's and the Oxford English Dictionary, all say that what happened in the U.S. between 1861 and 1865 is defined as a "civil war."  Agreed though that frontpage discussion should be kept to the naming article, but this is also a valid forum for it as well I think, after all the interested parties are certainly watching both anyway.  --Easter Monkey 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: IMHO the best reference for the term civil war is Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: "...We are now engaged in a great civil war testing whether...", but I'm of the opinion that Lincoln was both framing the issue in a favorable political light and acknowledging the changing fraternal character of the conflict during that particular graveyard speech. That Lincoln had no idea how important these words would become is precisely why I must accept Lincoln believed the conflict had become civil war.  BusterD 22:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Context is important.  Witness Lincoln's speech at his first inaugural, delivered two and a half years before his address at Gettysburg: "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war." (opening of the second to last paragraph).  By the time November, 1863 rolled around, that the conflict was indeed a "civil war" was something that had been long ingrained in Lincoln's mind.  As it was the election of Lincoln that broke the dam on secession, certainly everybody involved, both North and South, were eager to hear what he had to say on March 4, 1861.  There can be no doubt that the description "civil war" was one not unfamiliar to everybody that mattered.  --Easter Monkey 02:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the war... 

message: I just added a much longer introduction. I spent some time on this. I feel the statements made are non-controversial, but are strong summaries of events described. I'd be glad to answer any objections, comments critiques here. I have said on this page that I'd be making a few changes in the intro, this is my first try.  BusterD 23:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's pretty good!  nice job. I recommend dropping all of the links (we want people to read summary straight through and not go wandering off). It needs to mention Lincoln, Davis, Grant & Lee or it's too impersonal. Rjensen 01:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A minor point perhaps: IMO brilliant prose does not contain contractions.  (teehee, I almost wrote "...doesn't contain...") --Easter Monkey 04:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some problems with the new version, but I think we can work with it. Although, putting so much detail in the intro is inevibly going to lead to POV edits like this. The older version was pretty uncontroversial. This version is pretty vague and simplistic (Grant raised the Army? I think McClellan would have something to say about that....) --JW1805 (Talk) 17:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: on second reading I have problems. It does not summarize what happened. Readers needs to know 1) cause  2) military  3) non-military  4) leadership 5) ending  Rjensen 13:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with BusterD.  Lets discuss it here.  --JW1805 (Talk) 17:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The summary has to summarize the whole war in a few sentences. Many readers will only read the summary. It will NOT do to speculate and analyze. Summary must cover all the basic facts concisely. Simple stuff? well yes that's one good way to start. as for links: NO we do not want people jumping off the summary. Everything gets linked later on. Rjensen 17:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've found yourself in a minority here, Dr. Jensen. The current intro gives a solid precise of event with no specifics and details (those go in the article). The new intro is superior in every way to the old one, save sheer econmy of size. I'm responding to critique in peer review that says this article needs a longer intro. I'm trying to respond correctly to that critique.  BusterD 18:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Problems explained in detail:  formed of eleven southern states' governments which moved to secede from the Union after the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States. This tells too little; it fails to mention any causes and talks about states—war was fought by Confederacy not 11 states
*The older version was superior: "The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a civil war between the United States of America, called the Union, and the Confederate States of America, formed by eleven Southern states that had declared their secession from the Union. "  It mentioned the CSA, without taking a position on whether secession was legal or not.  --JW1805 (Talk) 18:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: the summary should NOT include material that is not in the article (like the romantic-Napoleon), and should NOT cover Reconstruction--a wholly separate article.  Rjensen 18:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request to hold fire on the new introduction 

message: I'ver seen this sentenced dumped into a few articles
:The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s had its neoabolitionist roots in the failure of Reconstruction.
It seems POV to say the CRM had neoabolitionist roots - ambiguously suggesting there were no other roots. It also has little or no relationship to the rest of the article or at least would require unpacking to include it --JimWae 19:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How much of the Civil rights movement was a continuation of the abolitionist/neo-ab/NAACP agenda? quite a lot. There was a lot of emphasis on the linkage esp in the 100th anniversary of the war Rjensen 19:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A summary has to summarize the main points of the article. It can NOT introduce new material or new theories. It should not deal with the aftermath or legacy of the war--but with the war itself. Much of the article deals with causes so that has to be included.  Much of the article deals with the military history so that has to be included. Rjensen 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[neoabolitionist]] roots ? 

message: :::A summary has to summarize the main points of the article. It can NOT introduce new material or new theories. It should not deal with the aftermath or legacy of the war--but with the war itself. Much of the article deals with causes so that has to be included.  Much of the article deals with the military history so that has to be included. Rjensen 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost comment

message: *current at time of my comment Revision as of 18:25, 5 April 2006
*my attempted intro:  Revision as of 18:04, 5 April 2006
I mean, there are two bold faced ACW's for heck's sake. So a well-considered intro is bad, but a written on the fly and not even proofread is superior? Am I all by myself here? Or are we back to "Rjensen's way or the highway"... BusterD 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. This article must have a more professional tone. Tfine80 21:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Aha. The one beginning "The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a total war between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a civil war between ..." That one's a mess. Hal Jespersen 23:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I realize that the current version is a compromise so that we can hash out details here, but working just from this point forward:  I'd like to see The Union won a decisive victory... as well as The causes of the war... expanded for the purposes of the introduction.  How, where, when, why, who, these are the most important things.  IMO the intro as is does not go into the reasons the rest of the article exists.  Why make readers wait to see names like Lincoln, Lee, Grant, etc. and places like Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Vicksburg, etc. and their significance in the conflict?  As it is right now, the only battles that you can click a link to without scrolling down are Gettysburg, Fort Hindman and Stones River: with the notable exception of Gettysburg of course, we've not exactly featured the turning points right up front.  Also, we should incorporate the titles of the sections from the greater causes section.  These are the most important aspects of the article and should be featured in some way in the intro.  --Easter Monkey 04:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone BESIDES Rjensen think the current intro is ok? 

message: The actual end of slavery was with ratification of the 13th amendment, not with the end of the Civil War. 69.118.97.26 23:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it is reasonable to consider the end of slavery an outcome of the war. It's hard to imagine a situation in which the 13th Amendment could have passed without the war. -Will Beback 03:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By May of 1865 99% of slaves were free except a small number in Kentucky who were freed in December when the 13th Amdt went into effect.Rjensen 03:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Nenack's assesment.--JohnFlaherty 04:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavery ended with the Civil War?

message: I believe the picture of the sunken road in front of Marye's heights is likely from the Battle of Fredericksburg (December 1862) NOT the battle of Chancellorsville.  Chancellorsville is approximately 15 miles west of Fredericksburg.  While there were some minor skirmishes in the town of Fredericksburg associated with the battle of Chancellorsville, I believe none of them took place at the sunken road, whereas the sunken road was the nexus of the battle of Fredericksburg.  Also, note that the deciduous trees have no leaves in the picture.  It was taken in the winter (December), not in June, when Chancellorsville was fought.  If anyone else can confirm, the caption should be updated.
: The Battle of Chancellorsville included an assault by Sedgwick's corps on Marye's Heights. The Library of Congress entry for this photo says it was taken May 3, 1863, so the caption is correct. Hal Jespersen 19:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another consideration: The Union photographer (Russell) who took this could not have been behind the wall in December 62. Hal Jespersen 19:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fredericksburg Picture 

message: I sort of think the "Foreign diplomacy" section is unnecessary for this article, and more properly belongs in the Confederate States of America article.  It isn't really about the war.  --JW1805 (Talk) 21:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Diplomacy was the Confederacy's best hope to win the war. Why it failed is an important part of the history of the war. Rjensen 21:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Foreign diplomacy 

message: I cleaned up some spam in the into.  Apperently, some one was bored and hates Wikipedia.
Keep the wiki projects strong! (204.110.45.191 18:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam cleanup 

message: Just to let you guys know, the United States article is on featured article candidates list, so you can cast your vote there- or not.--Ryz05 19:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US article on featured candidate

message: I'm sorry, I just don't see why a picture of a whipped slave should go on this page. I understand it, but isn't it just a little too in-depth?
The Ronin 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: Minor complaint about the Peace Monument picture at the end.  It's at Chickamauga Battlefield.  Lookout Mountain Battlefield has a couple of cannons, but no statues.
146.7.214.100 19:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lookout Mountain Picture 

message: For the External Links section, it might be useful to add links to the two manuals of military surgery (1861 and 1863) recently made available online at 1861 S.D. Gross version used by the Union Army and 1863 version used by the Confederate States Army
A Koopman 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil War Medicine 

message: Like battles of other wars all the battles that took place during this war should have the flag of the country next to the name. see battle of gettysburg(Griffjam 02:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: I suggest talk has gotten long, and there's a clear break of discussion above 6 June. Archive might end at this point, keeping the fresh discussion for the new talk. BusterD 20:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest we create second talk archive