Talk:American Civil War/Archive 5

message: I recently read an essay describing modern history's narrow view of John Brown and his achievements/acts. By the word 'achievements', you can see that I am biased. I'm Kansan, and I rather admire the old man. After all, who wouldn't dream of having that beard? But anyway, I would like to ask if anybody else would like to contribute and help me write either a more extensive write up of his actions here in this article (so long as they have major reprecussions in Bleeding Kansas) or that we create another article for him. T.z0n3 01:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me, I was retarded and didn't read. John Brown has a good article, but Bleeding Kansas is hardly even mentioned in this article. And John Brown isn't given much real place. Oughtn't they get a bit more of the article? T.z0n3 01:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "causes" section is definitely a bit muddled and repeats itself in places.  Probably more of the Bleeding Kansas article should be summarized there, though it would help if it were better organized in general. -- Beland 22:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Brown Edit Request

message: I added this:
:"Yet, in April 1862, Wilmington, NC; Charleston, SC; and New Orleans were still open, enabling the Confederates to import four hundred thousand muskets in 1862-63, when the Confederate Army was losing one hundred thousand each year,  unquestionably lengthening the war."
I rely on Fuller's Military History of the Western World.  Trekphiler 08:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Fuller book is not considered reliable for specific details--it's a general history of wars over 2000 years. Rjensen 08:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is he wrong on the principle? Trekphiler 08:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fuller is a good read and good at describing the strengths of people like Lee and Grant. a big picture man. There has been a lot of research on blockade and Fuller never read that kind of detail. So he copied his info from somewhere. In any case there is a lot of solid research on the blockade that should be used first.--esp  Stephen Robert Wise, “Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running during the Civil War” COntrary to Fuller, we know New Orleans was blockaded by June 1861 see . Rjensen 08:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to take it out again. I don't have the knowledge to support it independently. Trekphiler 09:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anaconda minus J.Lo

message: In the "Long-term economic factors" section I found the graph to be confusing. Having "CSA" as an item on the graph doesn't make sense. It essentially says "CSA is 100% of CSA". I finally twigged it was a comparative graph to compare the 100% CSA to the other economic advantages the Union held. Wouldn't it be better to remove the CSA bar and change the title to something like "Propotional economic advantage of Union over Confederacy" ?
--Nickj69 08:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the label "RR Miles" is not helpful since the measure is not in miles (its in %) and RR is confusing - I know there's a limit to screen real estate but how about "Railroad (by length)" --Nickj69 08:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long-term economic factors (graph) 

message: Victors do get to write history, but it is sad to see how true it is.  Topics omitted from this article that could provide readers with a better understanding of the Civil War than their political educations include -- the great effort that Lincoln made to appease slave owners -- the role cotton played in industrializing economies (England, America, India, other developing countries) -- the tremendous demand for labor in and the exorbidant cost of transportation to the new world -- how the Confederacy expected to win and nearly did (outlast Lincoln vs. fall of Atlanta) -- how photography captured the horror of battle forever and forgot the misery of defeat -- Grant's experience in supplies and logistics prior to the army -- Lee's requirement that his men cease fighting vs. Forrest's plan to continue a guerilla war -- and of course, the various flavors of justsice, dispensed by the victors, the vanquished, and the victims. It's wonderful that someone is working to incorporate all the various topics of different popular encyclopedias, but it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not sold by door-to-door salesmen in small towns throughout the American Midwest.  So it isn't necessary to exihibit so much anit-Southern bias in the presentation of the topic.69.255.0.91 14:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Southern Bias 

message: Hello, editors of ! I am currently working on an essay on Wikipedia, part of which will feature a comparison of articles of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Brittanica. To ensure that I send reviewers articles that have not been recently vandalized or have not been involved in an edit war, I would like, by December 31st, a revision of this article to be listed at User:Chrisisme/Research-permalinks that is not vandalized and/or is generally at peak quality. Thank you! Chrisisme 20:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permanent Link for Wikipedia Research 

message: In the "Eastern Theater, 1861-63" there is a photo with the caption: "Confederate dead behind the stone wall of Marye's Heights, Fredericksburg, Virginia, killed during the Battle of Chancellorsville, May 1863."
This makes no sense. The action at Mayre's Heights occurred at the Battle of Fredricksburg in December of 1862. The Battle of Chancellorsville occurred in the Spring of 1863, and was, I would estimate, 15-30 mile away from the site of Mayres Heights.
I did not correct it because I have no way of authenticating whether the photo is actually the wall at Mayre's Heights (which it appears to be) or at Chancellorsville (which I doubt).
Ed Smith
Chattanooga, TN
: In the Battle of Chancellorsville, May 1863, troops from John Sedgwick's corps assaulted Marye's Heights, lightly held by troops under Jubal Early, achieving much better results than Ambrose Burnside's army did in December 1862. This action is known by some as the Second Battle of Fredericksburg, although most historians include it as a part of Chancellorsville, as they also do for the actions at Salem Church. Hal Jespersen 16:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Photo Caption 

message: Because many of the same issues seem to arise again and again (like Naming above), and since often many of these issues have been discussed ad nauseum in talk archives, and since those archives while prominently displayed are often not investigated before some new user gets offended about the choices made, I suggest we establish a few modest guidelines to help the page grow in progressive ways, instead of herky-jerky motion (though I admit a certain amount of hither and thither is inevitable). Further, I think we should post them at the top of this page and keep them there when archiving talk. I can commend the utility of the practice as established at Template talk:American Civil War Menu. Since the editors (including myself) have established some basic "notability" (I use that term loosely and unofficially) and style guides, these guides have helped keep our effort to that project coherent, while allowing changes. The guidelines on this article would by necessity be much less restrictive, but could assist this important and improving pagespace by clearly stating intention to new editors. BusterD 21:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we post some demi-permanent guidelines at the top of this talk page? 

message: The 'American Civil War' is more appropriately called the 'War of Southern Independence'.  The Southern States had legal and reasonable complaints for secession.  The Northern States has threatened secession several times prior to this point.  This war had little to nothing to do with slavery and had more to do with rights of States.  Many do not realize that slavery was not fully abolished in the Northern States until after the conclusion of the 'Civil War'.  Many also donot realize that many Northern States that abolished slavery had also made it illegal for African Americans to live in those same states, thus the reason the 'Railroad' for slaves went to Canada.  African Americans caught in these Northern States were severely punished by beatings and expulsion from these states.  Many Northern States had no love for African Americans.  Another little known fact is that the North had accepted the secession of the South and even acknowledged their newly formed government prior to attacking them.  This more appropriately redefines this war as an Invasion vs. a Civil War. 
Realizing that to the victors goes the spoils; I still wish that history would be recorded with at least some facts, rather than all fiction.
Raymond (unsigned comment left by 66.82.9.83, 15:06, 11 November 2006, BusterD 15:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Naming comment

message: I haven't been active in the wikipedia for very long, especially on this page, and I'm absolutely appalled by all the vandalism.  Is it always this bad?  --Clay
:It's on and off, it usually depends on the article's subject. Popular subject = lots of vandalism. That's my opinion at least. The admins of Wikipedia do a great job of blocking vandals, and it usually works to a point. I say to a point, because people find ways around a block: other computers, other user names, etc. Overall, Wikipedia is a fun place, try not to let the vandals get to you too much. RobJ1981 06:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is becoming more rampant, especially on the more popular pages. I monitor some 2,100 Civil War-related pages, and see vandalism on some really obscure articles, but the vast majority is concentrated on 5-6 major topics. Scott Mingus 11:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I HATE VANDALISM!!! 

message: In a 4 to 1 vote, this article has been delisted from the Good Articles list, for a multitude of reasons. It might be faster to just check the review, archived here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 8 than for me to summarize it, each person voting against it seems to of had a different reason for it to fail each time :/. Homestarmy 20:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really surprised that this has happened, since the causes for this war have been hotly debated and contested for years; even the so-called experts disagree.  Not to mention that the causes listed are, by their nature, subjective.  Due to the inflammatory nature of the causes, as a result of disagreements over what did or did not cause the war, they can never be neutral in content. --Clay 12:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Nearly all present-day historians interpret history from the biased accounts of the historians from the late 19th century when the only historical perspective that was important was that of the North.  For decades Confederate Veterans consistently upheld the reasons for the war in their publication "The Gray Book."  This book, since it was from the POV of the South, was immediately dismissed, especially because it didn't concede that Slavery was the main cause or even a cause of the war.  Even still today the Southern POV is discounted especially when it veers away from the Northern POV, which is consistently accepted as the only true history.  Any historical account that holds slavery as being the primary reason or a direct cause of the war will always be inaccurate and subjective.--Clay 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: President Davis never mentioned slavery in either of his inaugural addresses as the reason for secession; although his more Senior, but less wise, Vice-President, Alexander Stephens, never took the hint that it wasn't in the best interest of the CSA to link its purpose for existing to slavery by mentioning it in his addresses. --Clay 17:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to the note that was given with the new GA nomination of this article, i'd just like to point out that you've done nothing wrong by re-nominating it. Homestarmy 18:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review over

message: I don't want to be too contrarian here, particularly given my fuss about recent major edits/deletions in the Abraham Lincoln article, but don't you think this article is going overboard on the causes of the war? After all, there is an entire subarticle on that subject, Origins of the American Civil War, which itself is 83K, and which is listed as the "main article" for this topic. Shouldn't this section primarily be a summary of that article, rather than trying to plow new ground? The subsection of this article on Causes is almost 5000 words long (30K of text without markup), which seems excessive for a topic that already has a lengthy subarticle. Hal Jespersen 01:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: Does anyone know if William C. Davis ever finished his trilogy on the Civil War, The Imperiled Union? In the intro to Deep Waters of the Proud, he said the third volume would be called Rebuke the Raging Winds, but I can't find it anywhere online... Brutannica 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: William C. Davis trilogy

message: For many months, we've been formatting this article with the TOCright template. Then a user comes along and changes it, and when I revert to existing style, says this choice is "arbitrary." I have no stake in this and see the page as far more attractive with the TOC right as not. I've certainly not going to get into an edit war over it. What's consensus? BusterD 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't really worth talking about here.  Said user has been removing TOCrights from all articles without reasoning (Rather than going to Templates for Deletion...), so it's not like there's a reason specific to the layout of this article being proposed for removal. SnowFire 04:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOCright? 

message: As I can tell, this is a comprehensive and well referenced article worthy of GA. Wiki-newbie 21:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passing

message: Can anyone tell me the number of American Civil War battles that took place; the number won by the north and the number won by the south; and the number that were inconclusive?
Thanks,
Larry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.136.180.237 (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The battles that we track (versus the 9000+ small actions and skirmishes) are listed in Battles of the American Civil War. Victories are (incompletely) listed in :Category:Union victories of the American Civil War and there are pointers in that category file to the Confederate victories and the inconclusive battles as well. Hal Jespersen 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of battles won by the south and won by the north 

message: I'm very new at this and don't know much about the civil war, but I noticed on the 3-picture collage near the top of the page that the captions say to match the title of the picture "clockwise."  I'm looking at the pictures, and shouldn't it be counterclockwise?  I could be wrong.
: Unless you have a very unusual clock, you are wrong. Notice that you have to start at the upper right. Hal Jespersen 16:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Mistake in captions? 

message: Table of Contents, it was so annoying that it was under the infobox on the right, this looks much better
Nyet.
Mustafarox 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I edited the Table of Contents thing. 

message: It's just a stub, but it already exists, see :io:Usana Civila Milito. Thank you. :io:User:Joao Xavier 00:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add io:Usana Civila Milito

message: These CSA nostalgists are grasping at straws and it is a national embarrassment that they cling to their offensive federation and army.  What a lame ruse, this preserve out culture excuse for the Confederacy. Dogru144 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Preserve their ''culture?''

message: The main cause of the Civil War was the fact that the North (Union) was becoming industrialized, but could not meet the prices produced by England.    Southern farmers could get equipment shipped from England cheaper than products built here in the US (kinda like today's auto market).    So the North placed tariffs on products built overseas, making them more expensive than products built here, forcing the South to purchase Northern built equipment at a higher price.
It wasn't until the Union was beginning to lose the war that they promised all black men that fought in the war their freedom, so as to increase their numbers of soldiers.   Notice, they were not promising all blacks freedom.....only the ones who fought for the Union.
Slavery was not an issue until the war was almost over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.170.230 (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am always astonished by the argument embodied in this section head. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of US history can see what it plainly obvious--that slavery was by far the most signifcant issue of the time, and for several decades preceding. The evidence is voluminous and overwhelming.Verklempt 21:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil War was over Tariffs, not Slavery 

message: Howdy!
I would like to point out if it already has not been done so that this article needs to be corrected to reflect the facts.
(1). Civil War is an incorrect term applied to this war to deliberately skew the facts of the conflict. For example, for this to be an actual Civil War the South would of had to plan on making Washington its new capital. The Confederacy had no such plans of moving its capital to Washington, nor did it have any plans to conquer the Northern States.
The Confederacy sought independence from the Northern States for various reasons; in no way did they seek to rule the North and abolish the Union government.
Thus the correct term should be "The War Between the States" which was what this conflict was called until around the 1920's when the text was changed to reflect the new and very false term of "Civil War". I have US War Department books and registers at home that are from the 1870's - 1890's that reflect what the United States as well as the Confederate States both  considered the conflicts description to be, which was "War Between the States"!
I can present evidence to back this up.
::And Confederate President Jefferson Davis, among other Confederate leaders refered to it as the Civil War.  The term far predates the 1920's. Edward321 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, thecorrect term is The War of the Rebellion; but Wikipedia should stay with the one in common use; as is policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 4 states listed are the only 4 to list their reasons in State Declarations of Causes for Secession. All listed slavery as one of those reasons. (see my previous linkage).  In their Ordinances of Secession  Alabama, Texas, and Virgiana said they were joining or wished to form an organization of 'slave-holding States'.  The Confederate flag included stars for all slave states, even those that did not secede, and the Confedracy tried to invade and annex those slave states that did not secede. Edward321 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  The Confederacy not only never banned slavery, banning it was grossly illegal by their own Constitution. .Edward321 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Just because Delaware, Kentucky and Mississippi did not ratify it, until later did not prevent the 13th amendment from becoming law for all of the United States.  Their slaves were freed at that time.Edward321 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  This says that Lincoln considered preserving the Union a higher priority than ending slavery.  It says nothing about why Confederate political leaders attmpted to secede. Edward321 01:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  By that logic, the Roman Empire never surrendered to the barbarians, thus it still exists.  Besides, accepting a formal surrender from the Confederate government would be granting it legitimacy, which the Lincoln administration never did.  Edward321 01:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  The Pope only wrote a letter saying he would pray for peace.  That's far from recognizing the CSA. Edward321 01:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'd rather like to meet these 145+ year old black Confederate veterans.  Edward321 01:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Then please provide such 'evidence'.  Edward321 01:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Your knowledge of US history appears to derive from neo-Confederate propaganda. Suggest you read a bit more widely, focusing on recent works by professional historians instead.Verklempt 00:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Civil War - Full of Historical Errors... 

message: Rjensen, this tag should be here; even if the regular editors know that the article is too long, if the tag is there, more experienced editors may come in and help as well. If the tag is not there, however, it won't be categorized as such, and the article will remain in its extended status for longer that otherwise. Ahudson 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "toolong" tag 

message: The British never entered the war as a nation, but many individuals served in both armies, most of them in the Confederate Army. There were never many of them but they were noted for their previous military service and often became leaders. One member of a Union unit wrote home:
The Corporal of our detachment is an Englishman and celebrates today as the anniversary of 'Inkerman'2 and wears his medals on his jacket, including the Victoria Cross with silver bars3, possibly the greatest honour an Englishman can earn. He was Sergeant Major in the Rifle Brigade and I can assure you he is by far the best soldier in our company. I find it worthy of mention that there are about 20 Englishmen in our Company (about a fifth) and although we are small in proportion, every Sergeant is English excepting the Quartermaster Sergeant who is Scots.
British nationals in the Union Army won 67 Congressional Medals of Honor4 during the Civil War. Many who fought for the Confederacy were undocumented, but a number of senior officers were British. As ever in fields of battle, there was a generous representation from Ireland, including General Patrick Cleburne of the Confederate Army, born in Cork, commanding a division in the Army of Tennessee. He too had served in the British Army, the 41st Regiment of Foot, in which he reached the rank of Corporal.
Dab182 14:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Threat of international intervention

message: I looked very briefly through a few random Wikipedia history articles that are currently Featured Articles. Many of them were more than 32kb, and the Byzantine Empire article is longer the the American Civil War article at 113kb. The Alcibiades article is almost as long at 89kb, and the same is true of the Demosthenes article at 86kb. The Columbine High School Massacre article was about a much smaller incident than the civil war and is a Featured Article at 67kb. This is from checking a few random samples that represent a small fraction of those listed.Jimmuldrow 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this article really too long?

message: *This article has been Kept as a Good article per the now archived Good article review. IvoShandor 13:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: There is no need for this part, so I have erased . Lokinjo 14:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncle Tom's cabin 

message: John Brown's first fame, before the Pottawatomie killings, was his defense of Ossawatomie, Kansas, from Missouri Border Ruffians. Forgive my spelling, if I've gotten it wrong. I know there was a musical, "Ossawatomie Brown," or of some similar title, made just weeks later, celebrating his valiant defense against the raid. It seems relevant to the section on Brown and Kansas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.253.23.172 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Brown's Initial Fame -- There was a broadway musical 

message: I added a citation request for the claim that most scholarship regarded him as a bloodthirsty madman. Two sources, both available online, were provided. One is an anonymous book review  in Publisher Weekly, which is where the claim is taken from word by word, and which cites books by S.B.Boyer and R.O.Oates as an example showing that. The other is an article by Ken Chowder , which, while calling Brown "the father of American terrorism", also cites those same works by Boyer and Oates as ones where "John Brown the hero re-emerged". "Boyer, in particular, clearly admired him: at bottom Brown "was an American who gave his life that millions of other Americans might be free". Chowder also cites and quotes a number of other historians who have a more favourable opinion of Brown, e.g. Paul Finkelman. He takes time to refute the arguments that Brown was a madman. So that article actually appears to disprove the statement from the book review that has been included in the article. Thus, I think that the text should be changed to a more balanced version. 
And BTW, in case I am making that impression - I, personally, do not approve of killing unarmed civilians, not even for the cause of the abolition of slavery. :)  --Anonymous44 03:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous44 is mixing two somewhat different issues--1) was Brown a zealous, bloodthirsty terrorist , and 2) is that good or bad. Historians nearly all agree "yes" on point #1, and disagree on point #2. Note that Chowder did not merely mention terrorism in passing; that is his title and main theme. (#3 is whether he was mad/insane--that seems to be open to debate but is not the main issue.) Chowder set the paradox:  "Americans still revere him as a martyr and loath him as a fanatical murdered. What was he?" Wiki is supposed to let the readers decide for themselves. Rjensen 12:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clever :), but let's be frank. First of all, you know very well that these terms are so emotionally loaded that they eventually do mean "it is bad", and indeed the current wording presents glorifiers as the opposite of those who use these terms. "Zealot" is OK, but the rest can be expressed in words that do not include personal judgement. "Madman" is part of the statement you're including, so it is part of the main issue. "Bloodthirsty" is also a very emotional term and it is hard to define rationally, but appears to suggest a groundless desire to kill and cruelty for cruelty's sake - and of course, ascribing these qualities is also very subjective and open to debate. Finkelman's statement "Brown is simply part of a very violent world" does not mean the same thing as "he was a bloodthirsty madman". Chowder does speak of terrorism, but the overall spirit of his article is certainly very different from the current statement. As is this interview with that same Stephen B. Oates, who argues that Brown "was a success, a tremendous success because he was a catalyst of the Civil War" and that "this man who often, so often maligned as a demented dreamer was in fact one of the most perceptive human beings of his generation", also stating that Brown did believe slavery was wrong (rather than being a crazy sadist using abolitionism as a pretext to kill, as the current wording implies). So I will try to modify the text, precisely to let Wiki readers get an idea of the different viewpoints and emphases - and decide for themselves. --Anonymous44 12:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I cleaned up the too-complex footnote system and kep all the text (except an ambiguous qualifier by Reynolds.) Reynolds and Oakes ASSUME that the North would win the war and the slaves would not be butchered by the millions. The problem is that nobody knew how the war would come out in 1859. Most antislavery people (like Lincoln) supported a peaceful end that they thought containment (no expandsion) would bring, as happened in nearly every other slave society (except Haiti). If the South had won its independence Oates and Reynolds would be denouncing Brown for keeping slavery alive. Rjensen 14:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Was Brown "bloodthirsty" -- that what his supporters say. Oates titles his book "To Purge This Land With Blood" and says Brown believed God was calling him to a special mission...to destroy slavery by the sword. And he lived out of the Old Testament, the old testament was full of stories were God chooses somebody to save the chosen people, and did so by the sword. The Old Testament was full of blood and plunder and swords and warfare and killing. And Brown believed, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,"...." That's bloodthirsty rhetoric, I suggest. When Brown decided to execute his 5 captives at Pottawatomie, he did not merely shoot each one in the head. He and his boys flayed at them with swords, cutting hacking and mutilating--they cut off the fingers and arms, for example, and cut open the face. (Villard p 160 at ) If anyone dislikes blood, they should steer clear of Brown. Rjensen 15:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. None of our business to discuss that anyway. --Anonymous44 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Brown 

message: The lead for this article seems unwieldy. The first paragraph is perfect, but then it digresses into a chronological overview. Could the last part be made very, very concise? Alternatively it could be dropped all together and made a one paragraph lead, such as at World War II. Goodnightmush 00:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the lead is a tad verbose, the MOS guidelines for an article of this length is three to four paragraphs, so shortening it to one would not be appropriate. Hal Jespersen 00:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, but the guidelines are just that, guidelines. If it is necessary to adhere to that minimum length, a rewrite of the lead to  something more along the lines of the one at World War I would be more appropriate, no? Goodnightmush 01:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The opening should be longer. It should be concise, complete coverage of the entire war that a person can understand. Many readers only read the opening and we have to help them. Rjensen 02:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. But, per WP:LEAD it should be an overview of the article that could stand on its own. This lead reads as though it were the lead to a "Timeline of the American Civil War", not an article about the war itself. It is too much chronology and too little general information, implications, etc. Goodnightmush 03:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorten the Lead? 

message: That part should be its own article. Uncle  Tom's cabin shouldn't be there..., and the Civil War article is getting WAY too long. Lokinjo 20:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erasing  "Uncle Tom's" Cabin