Talk:Confederate States Army

message: Haha, the army of a country that Lasted for less time then the Annoying Orange and "States Rights to do what?...."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:DB80:A101:6C7C:48F3:B718:7A7B (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wayhey! 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: , that rather idiotic (if not downright racist) "boy" was introduced in this recent edit by  (it used to be "bodyservant"). Since you're improving this article, please have a closer look at their various copy edits--I see a bunch of things wrong with em, including the "correction" of quotations from primary sources. I do not know what they were thinking. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the notice, Drmies, I was shocked when I saw that. It's late here and my eyes are getting bleary, but I'll take a look tomorrow. I'm a bit obsessive-compulsive and working on several articles at once, as well as replies to a friend's blog posts. Most of the work is in checking sources or in finding them, as I'm sure you know, but it's my pleasure and curse both. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahem 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dunbar's Guerillas. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Hog Farm (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dunbar's Guerillas" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: From second paragraph of CSA article lede - "Convinced that white supremacy and the institution of slavery were threatened...the Confederacy declared its secession." I don't see what was controversial about adding this here. Konli17 (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the addition of this text above. The sources, and consensus as established on the main page, makes it clear that what you said was the purpose of that CS. Garuda28 (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems correct.  Just read A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

text: White supremacy was a given in the United States in toto, this seems to be a contemporary spin to me, as it infers that white supremacy was not a concern in any other part of the US. African-Americans were not citizens, which is why we needed the 13th-15th amendments to the constitution, they could not vote in any state. Slavery was the issue. If it is put in then it should be phrased in such a way to let uninformed readers understand. If you look at Union (American Civil War) it doesn't even mention African-Americans and their position in society. Dubyavee (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Dubyavee, I was tending to agree with you then I re-read the section titled "Slavery_and_white_supremacism", which puts it into perspective. A common question is why non-slaveholding whites fought for the Confederacy, and that section gives the answer. The intro just reflects the article. Mobi Ditch (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. The status of race relations in the loyal states is irrelevant to why the folks in the CSA decided to revolt.  As you note, the reason why non-slaveholding whites supported the CSA is firmly rooted in maintaining their status as superior to blacks in the Southern social and economic hierarchy. The number of new single issue users and IPs disrupting the page and ignoring this discussion is interesting and disturbing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: "The number of new single issue users and IPs disrupting the page and ignoring this discussion is interesting and disturbing." We can probably thank Trump and the Republican outrage machine for that—white supremacists and historical revisionists feel empowered now, and the removal of monuments to Confederate generals has them riled. I daresay most white Southerners (I'm a Southerner) still believe that the Civil War was about states' rights rather than the issue of slavery. For them, it's a matter of the "right" of southern states to chart their own course; they're completely oblivious of the inherent contradiction in upholding the principle that states should have had this "freedom", which entailed the enslavement of other human beings, while denying freedom to those people who were enslaved. They simply won't acknowledge that this principle of "freedom" they hold as sacrosanct was for white people only, or else they openly declare that it was justified. Carlstak (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Firstly, a disclaimer, I'm not an expert on the topic - I've just sat down to think about whether the wording could be improved. I can see why people may find the existing sentence provocative, even though it is factually accurate, as it (correctly) implies that regardless of individual motivations, soldiers essentially fought against the Union army to uphold white supremacy. While this isn't a problem (the truth sometimes does provoke reactions), I think placing the army's purpose (upholding slavery) in the context of the CSA's attempted secession retains the truth of the statement and partly explains why it was fighting to protect racism, making it clearer that the statement isn't about the motivation of every individual soldier, but the army as an institution. This also better reflects the sentence in the CSA lead. Do others agree this is an improvement? Jr8825 • Talk 17:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK with me, but there are smarter editors than me around here. Mobi Ditch (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

text: While I think that the "white supremacy" issue is important to keep in the article, maybe it doesn't need to be in the intro. It's a source of considerable irritation to nameless editors, who delete it regularly. Mobi Ditch (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for consensus 

message: When was the title 'Confederate States Army' first applied? Valetude (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of army 

message: Many of the officer - especially the more senior were prior members of the United States Army, and had to resign their commission, to follow their state, or their convictions in joining the Confederate Army. What of the Enlisted - did any mid-grade to senior enlisted have prior service in the United States Army? Wfoj3 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enlisted Member