This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
How is calling the truth that the Civil War was started primarily for slavery POV? Most of the Deep Southern states themselves said that was their motivation in declarations passed and issued by their legislatures. It's not a point of view or an opinion; it's a fact. Rogue 9 19:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Waiting for an explanation. If I don't get one, I'm returning the section to it's factual state. Rogue 9 22:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
This section is weak.
The introduction as it was (before 2005-5-5), had almost as many inaccuracies as facts, and bore too much anti-South hatred. I am not from the South, but there is simply no reason for such hatred and distortion of historical reality. What is needed is something neutral and intelligent. As it stands now, the section reads like a comic book or a badly written 140-year-old political tract.
It was so badly organized and so poorly written, that is was largely unreadable.
The current section (2005-5-5) is greatly expanded, very thorough, very fair, and can eventually be integrated (he he) with a stronger Introduction.
That makes no sense. You are aggressively insisting on your own POV, and expecting people to understand you.
Southerners said they were fighting to maintain the independence they won at secession. This is clearly explained in the emendation to the section.
You are insisting that anything that is not your POV is POV. Thus, when you read anything neutral, you see only POV.
This is irrelevant. Once again, this is your novel argument that wars are named for results. It is POV.
From the viewpoint of other nations, it was a war that would decide whether the South would be independent or be part of the Union. Read Lord Acton.
In the greater context that this article is about a War, it seems out of balance that so much attention is given to the names of the conflict. Maybe a separate article would be appropriate for all this detail about naming convenions. Vaoverland 08:33, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
The term "southern partisans" is used in a very redundant manner in the naming section. It's in there about half a dozen times in a row, beginning several successive sentences. This sounds choppy and poorly written. Somebody should clean it upRangerdude 04:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The American Civil War was not a real civil war, because in such a war the opposing sides fight to control the nation's government. The Confederacy did not want to take over Washington and the Union, instead they wished to secede (a right which was given to them in the constitution), and govern themselves much like the American colonies wished to do with Britain in the Revolutionary War. Also, the war was not a war between the states because Florida was not at war with New York or anything of that matter. It was a war between the nation of the United States of America and the nation of the Confederate States of America. In the end the Confederacy was wholly abolished and reinstalled into the Union, but that does not change the fact that it was indeed a nation and it was fighting for it's independance. The best terms to describe the war though they are guilty of being biased on both sides are names such as The War for Southern Independance, and The War of the Rebellion, or even The War of Northern Aggression, because though it is extremely biased it is a far more accurate term than The Civil War or The War Between the States. I have left a very basic sentence explaining the problems with the current name, because the article was presenting the war as a certified civil war when in fact it wasn't. -Joe
The map is inaccurate, and needs to be replaced.
It is anachronistic: it shows states which did not exist 1861-1865. It does not show the Confederate Territory of Arizona which had seceded from the larger Territory of New Mexico. It also shows West Virginia as if separate from the beginning, when in fact it was part of Virginia and the Confederacy until Lincoln declared it had seceded from Virginia in 1863.
---s'not much, the map is still anachronistic, but its color scheme is more appropriate.(blue and gray, instead of red and blue) not good for an encyclopedia to take sides on an ongoing culture war...
From the article:
I think this is misleading on several counts:
I don't see any point in trying to discuss the various aspects of Reconstruction here, it should just be mentioned and have its own article. RickK 02:01, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The North did indeed break from all conventions of civilized warfare, which can be evidenced by anyone with a basic understanding of the history of the war in Sherman's tactics, but also in the lesser known, but far more notorious actions of General Benjamin Butler who issued a right-to-rape order in the city of New Orleans horrifying the European nations and yielded protests. I have a quotation from his Order Number 28 here: As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subjected to repeated insults from the women calling themselves "ladies" of New Orleans in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall by word, gesture or movement insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her advocation. --Joe
Rogue 9 I will point you to the quotation from Wikipedia's own article on Total war which states "US Army General William Tecumseh Sherman's 'March to the Sea' during the American Civil War destroyed the resources required for the South to make war. He is considered one of the first military commanders to deliberately and consciously use total war as a military tactic." Are you implying that a right to rape in the city of New Orleans issued by General Butler was not an act of total war?
Why on earth was this moved from its correct name? Tannin
Just so, Ark30inf. Its name (rightly or wrongly) is American Civil War, and proper names are always capitalised. We might as well write George w. bush. I was going to wait to see if CGS had a reason for the move, but on reflection, I don't see how there could be one, so I moved it back. (Sorry CGS.) Tannin 13:33, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I don't see it as a proper noun. It was the civil war of the Americans, how is it a proper noun? Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words. BTW, I was I who moved it. CGS 14:27, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC).
Think of it this way: all wars have a name (which is, of course, a proper noun). Some wars have two or three names: e.g., World War II, Second World War, Great Patriotic War - all three are names for the same war. Similarly, the First World War, World War 1 and the Great War. I could call WW2 the war against Hitler and Tojo if I wanted to, but note that this is not capitalised, as it's not the actual name of the war, just a term I made up. So, if I were to call the American Civil War (which is its internationally accepted proper name) ... er ... the US slavery war, that's fine too - but note that it is not capitalised because it's not the war's name. Same rule as for people. I write George W Bush with capitals (because that is his name) but the guy in the top job in lower case because, although it's the same person I'm talking about, I'm not using his actual name. Make sense? Tannin
I'm amazed by some people's ignorance in here. The Civil War was NOT STARTED because of slavery. Slavery was NOT the core issue. If you really want to know why, yes, it was states rights. It was primarily the TARIFFS that prompted South Carolinas succession. (hence their naming a tariff "Tariff of Abominations" The Confederacy did NOT secede because of slavery, they seceded because they believed the Federal Government was oppressing them on the counts of Tariffs and votes. Please, for the love of history, make sure your facts are right. Agiamba
Recent changes were made to boil down the wars causes to, of course, the slavery issue. The changes diminished the role of States Rights as a concept that stood on its own and instead indicated that it was merely a reflection of the slavery issue. I am not opposed to indicating the role of slavery, which was critical, but I am opposed to dismissing other causes. I'm not in favor of "boiling down" as opposed to providing more information in this case. The Civil War was the most complex political eruption in US history. It is impossible to distill such a complex event down to the sentence "slavery war", at least w/o choosing the point of view that that the rest of the issues are not real, a point of view that is disputed.
One cannot rationally deny the role of slavery in the conflict (though many do). But you can't rationally ignore the complexities either. For example, the people of my home State elected a generally pro-Union secession convention, the major State newspaper was pro-Union. That convention voted NOT to secede and dismissed. It only reconvened, and the newspaper only altered its position, after Lincoln's call for troops. The convention, and the newspaper, stated that the primary trigger for the change was the call to supress the seceded States. If you were to say that the Southern States seceded over the slavery you would be correct for Deep South states, but not as correct for the States of the Upper South which were responding to the administration's actions. Arkansas', though very involved with the slavery issue, specifically seceded in response to "coercion", definitely a States Rights issue. Was it inclined towards its fellow Southern states due to the slavery issue? Yes, but it had declined to secede until the call for troops. Also there is the matter of changing motives of the South. If you asked why Alabama went to war in 1861 the slavery motive would be high as stated in their secession resolution. But if you ask why Alabama was fighting in 1864 then independence would have been high.
Similarly, the United States did not enter the war to end slavery. A few abolitionists certainly did, but not the United States as a matter of policy. Lincoln definitely stated that he would not interfere with slavery if that would keep the Union together. The primary immediate cause of the war in the north was the firing on the flag at Fort Sumter which, due to patriotism and pride, demanded a response. If you say that the war in 1861 was fought by the north over slavery you would be closer to wrong. But if you said that in 1864 the north was fighting to end slavery then you would be closer to right because Lincoln made it so and changed the northern reason for war with the Emancipation Proclamation.
Oddly enough, as the war became more slavery related for the Union, it became less slavery related for the South. As I said, complex event.
I'm mentioning this here because I think that recent edits dismiss much of the complexity in an effort to boil down the war to the lowest common denominator. I think that does the reader a disservice and plays into the stereotypical view of the war. So I wanted to give fair warning. When I get a chance soon I will attempt to put some of this complexity into the article in a fair and neutral way.User:Ark30inf 23:40, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- 14:38, Oct 18, 2003 <- what was there before (perhaps simplistic)
- 13:00, Oct 23, 2003 <- what I found (revisionist Southern denial)
- 13:29, Oct 23, 2003 <- what I left (Mmm... good!)
- But there is no question that the salient issue in the minds of the public and popular press of the time, and the histories written since, was the issue of slavery. Slavery had been abolished in most northern states, but was legal and important to the economy of the Confederacy, which depended on cheap agricultural labor.
- There is little question that the salient issues in the minds of the public and popular press of the time, were those of slavery, state sovereignty (for the South), and [reservation of the union (for the North). Slavery had been abolished in most northern states but was vitally important to the economy of the Confederacy. which depended on cheap agricultural labor. The dichotomies between how slavery was perceived and the nature of the union were at the heart of the conflict.
- There is little question that the salient issue in the minds of the public and popular press of the time, and the histories written since, was the issue of slavery. Slavery had been abolished in most northern states, but was legal and important to the economy of the Confederacy, which depended on cheap agricultural labor. State sovereignty (for the South) and preservation of the Union (for the North) have both also been cited as issues, but both were reflections of the slavery issue, i.e., could the Federal government force southern states to end slavery or could the southern states leave the Union to preserve slavery?
The cause of the secession and the cause of the war are not the same. Considering the two to be equivalent is a major source of disagreement on the issue.
People will continue to disagree because "cause" has 2 meanings. The North did not make the abolition of slavery its "cause" for some time. There were other issues that contributed to the secession, but slavery was the major issue and also the reason for other issues. Lincoln was berated in England for not declaring the end of slavery a "cause" - and for exempting areas from the Emancipation Proclamation --JimWae 23:15, 2005 September 1 (UTC)
Can anyone give a source on the emancipation of the serfs in Russia being a cause of the US Civil War? I have never heard of this. Of to google it myself. Rmhermen 15:18, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
The Southern States economy was certainly based on what became know as "King Cotton." The problem with this is that the South needed the Northern resources such as ships to transport the cotton to the north and the textile mills of the North to process the cotton. Many of the Northern States had abolished slavery but still(hypocritically)depended on it none the less. England had outlawed slavery in 1805 but bought slave produced cotton from the Southern States during the war. The financial backers and owners of both ships and mills became rich from the slave produced Southern cotton. Many Northerners depended on jobs created by the import of southern cotton. Many citizens of the north feared the release of slaves and the impact it would have on their jobs. Look at the riots that occurred in New York City after the announcement of the conscription of 80,000 men. It finally took Union troops to quell the riots. The quota was never met and the local government eventually paid the fee of $300 each to the Federal Government. It was also possible for men of wealth to buy substitutes which many did.
On the issue of States Rights or Slavery being the root of the war I offer this thought. I am from the South and have greatly researched my genealogy and have found that my ancestors served on both sides and even switched sides during the war. Less than 2% of Southerns owned 5 or more slaves. (A slave owner of 20 or more slaves was exempt from service.) Census records bare out the fact that the majority of Southerners were poor dirt farmers with out slaves. It's difficult for me to imagine that these men(who owned no slaves), some even barefoot, would leave their wives and families behind as my great-great-grandfather did to go fight and risk death for the right of some rich plantation owner to get richer through slavery. Slavery is unequivocally wrong yet still exists by some name in the world today.
The United States stills suffers issues with States Rights today. The Federal governent taxes the citizens then withholds our tax dollars unless we submit to what can only be called blackmail. For example: no seat belt law no speed limit law--none of our money back for road repair and construction.
I would argue that you did not research well enough. The Secession conventions were overwhelmed by planters. SC at the time had more slaves than whites. MS and Florida were almost fifty--fifty slave to white. The slave population in Texas was growing exponentially. Many white southerners from various social standings feared the idea of a growing free black population. The South seceded because of slavery. It was not a major factor; it was the major factor. However, your family like many other Southern families fought out self defense. Lincoln had made it clear, even before Fort Sumter, that he aimed to get the seceded states back into the Union. So you could argue that the South fought the war over the contention that they had the legal right to secede. But the South seceded because of slavery. Don't argue with us; argue with Alexander H. Stephens and the Cornerstone Speech (March 21, 1861). Don't argue with us; argue with secession declarations of SC, AL, MS, Fl, LA, TX, and GA. Have you read these? If you are into learning the truth and not winning a debate or saving face, I would suggest that you add these and other primary documents to your reading list.
Maybe if some of you did research on what the actual people fighting the war believed they were fight for instead of assuming that they were fighting to satisfy your own ideologies and points of view then there'd be no cause for this argument.
Ulysses S. Grant, Union general (a slaveholder until, the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery was ratified after the war): "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."
Seriously, how many of you truly believe all those thousands of Confederate soldiers were rich plantation owners? Most were poor yeomen among whom, according to studies done by Civil War historian James McPherson, two-thirds of them claimed to be fighting for patriotism, about the same figure of the Union soldiers claiming the same thing. Both claimed to fight to defend what their ancestors gave them. The Union soldiers claimed it was the Union, while the Confederates claimed it was the right of self-government.
There has never been a war in history done for the sake of ideologies. Wars are fought for power and money. When the Confederacy conceded the southern states drastically lowered their tariffs causing their ports to become very lucrative to the European powers, and thereby stole much of the economy from cities such as New York, who then began to clamor for the closing of the southern ports first by war and afterwards by tarrif laws. --Joe
Hi, would those Wikipedians with knowledge of the Civil War please take a look at Financial motivations behind the American Civil War and weigh in at Votes for deletion? It strikes me as interesting, but I can't tell if it's BS or not. Thanks, Tualha 00:38, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Regarding removal of the history table--you do agree that the Civil War was part of U.S. history, right? :) What bothers so much about having it included? Someday there may be other specific events in the table--the Great Depression, World War II. I'm not ultra-hung-up on it, but there will be a big fat hole in the history series without the American Civil War section... jengod 09:53, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)
Military Developments in the War was missing. Feel free (I'm sure you already do) to murderize it. :) Stargoat 06:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Being a non-American person (I live in Poland), highly interested in the American affairs, think you should give more emphasis to the TRAGEDY of this war; after all, it was a massive tragedy for all Americans, with some 600,000 dead (ca. 300,000 on each side), thousands more maimed and wrecked for life, crying widows and children, lots of property destroyed, and lots of hatred remaining (probably) till this day. "Civil War" certainly isn't a thing Americans should be proud of; there was a similiar, and equally unnecessary event in 17th-century Poland, when the civil war between Polish and Ukrainians (Kossacks) erupted, with the effects similiar to those of the US Civil War (aka War Between The States). -- Critto PS. As for a foreigner, I find it senseless for me to declare myself on either side of the US Civil War.
Being unfamiliar with this topic, I had a hard time following the article. It would be really helpful if, upon mention of each new general, it were mentioned which side they were fighting on. moink 23:07, 22 Jun 2004
This article leaves the impression that the first shot of the Civil War was the South Carolinians firing on Fort Sumter on April 12, AFTER Lincoln was inaugurated. The first shot was actually fired on January 9, 1861, BEFORE Lincoln was Inaugurated. The South Carolinians fired upon, hit, and damaged the Union Naval Vessel "The Star of the West". Plese see: Star of the West
In both the case of firing on the Star of the West and firing on Fort Sumter there were no casualties. The first death in the Civil Was was the the Battle of Baltimore, which is also not mentioned in the article. pjm July 28, 2004
I do not see anywhere in the article an account of the seceding states seizing federal properties & forts. Nor of what steps Buchanan did or did not take in response to the secessions.--JimWae 10:35, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
This may have already been mentioned but is it accurate to refer to the events of the various "Indian Wars" as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide?" Granted cases of the attempted destruction of whole tribes are recorded but on the whole the attempts of the U.S are better characterized as "ethnic minimilization," by herding Natives onto reservations, and "culturacide" by force-educating Indian youth out of their "savage" ways. I don't dispute that it was horrible, just don't think the point was to wipe the Indians, as a racial or ethnic group, from the earth. It would seem much more accurate to refer to the goverments attempts to culturally intergrate Natives into our society. Also if you guys are still arguing about the name you could call it "the War Between the States (American Civil War)" t.W.B.t.S was what it was called at the time and immediatley thereafter.
America is the one nation in the post-industrial world to be successful at genocide. We Americans did a far better job of wiping the Native Americans off the face of the planet and isolating those who did survive in harsh, forbidding living areas, than Hitler did with the Jews. No other nation has been so successful at destroying an entire people as we have. --Joe
Is that picture under the narrative summary of events, really of Jefferson Davis? It looks more like Robert E. Lee?
What exactly is the reasoning behind the green states in the image in the article? -- Decumanus 04:42, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
Should the unheaded older talk section be archived (before June this year)? I find the "contents" section to be near the bottom of the page, disrupting things. --[[User:Tomf688|tomf688]] 19:53, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the American_Civil_War article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add ((User:LinkBot/suggestions/American_Civil_War)) to this page. — LinkBot 10:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can anyone provide at least a partial list of battles in the naval blockade? I want to create a campaign box for this, and the only battle I currently know of is the Battle of Hampton Roads. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 17:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Spot the syntax errors, factual errors, half-truths, & empty words in the latest version:
--JimWae 06:19, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
Admittedly longer, but could add more on tariffs perhaps. Shall we vote on which version to work with? --JimWae 06:42, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
For more than 30 years arguments between the North and South had been growing. One of these quarrels was about taxes paid on goods brought into this country from foreign countries. This kind of tax is called a tariff. In 1828 Northern businessmen helped get the "Tariff Act" passed. It raised the prices of manufactured products from Europe which were sold mainly in the South. The purpose of the law was to encourage the South to buy the North's products. It angered the Southern people to have to pay more for the goods they wanted from Europe or pay more to get goods from the North. Either way the Southern people were forced to pay more because of the efforts of Northern businessmen. Though most of tariff laws had been changed by the time of the Civil War, the Southern people still remembered how they were treated by the Northern people.
In the years before the Civil War the political power in the Federal Government, centered in Washington D.C., was changing. The Northern and Mid-Western States were becoming more and more powerful as the populations increased. The Southern States were losing political power. Just as the original thirteen colonies fought for their independence almost 100 years earlier, the Southern States felt a growing need for freedom from the central Federal authority in Washington D.C. They felt that each State should make its own laws. This issue was called "State's Rights". Some Southern States wanted to secede, or break away from the United States of America and govern themselves.
Another quarrel between the North and South, and perhaps the most emotional one, was over the issue of slavery. Farming was the South's main industry and cotton was the primary farm product. Not having the use of machines, it took a great amount of human labor to pick cotton. A large number of slaves were used in the South to provide the labor. Many slaves were also used to provide labor for the various household chores that needed to be done. Many Northerners thought that owning slaves was wrong, for any reason. Some of those Northerners loudly disagreed with the South's laws and beliefs concerning slavery. Yet slavery had been a part of the Southern way of life for well over 200 years. The Constitution of the United States guaranteed the right to own property and protected against seizure of property. A slave was property. The people of the Southern States did not like the Northern people telling them that owning
Courtesy of U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service
So their are more then just slavery issues. States right (also know as federal control), and economic issues as well, which need to be noted.--Boothy443 08:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is this the whole truth? Britain fought in the Crimean War ( 1854 to 1856), it was the world power and it was further into the Industrial Revolution (by almost any measure (eg see Isambard Kingdom Brunel)) in 1854 than the Northern States were in 1861. It did not tap its entire economy because it did not need to, But neiter did the Northern States. I thought that one of the reasons that the South lost was because it was not industrialized to any significatnt degree. Philip Baird Shearer 21:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Leaving aside the South, which clearly wasn't an industrial powerhouse, the *North* wasn't especially industrialised either. You can see this by checking e.g. Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. The US as a whole was about equal to Russia in 1860. If that qualifies as "industrialized" then the Crimean War must be the first war between industrialized opponents. Angus McLellan
Why isn't all the bickering over the causes of the war under Origins of the American Civil War? In fairness, all of slavery, tariffs, sectional differences, states' rights, blah, blah, blah, all had a role. Isn't American Civil War about the war, not its causes? Shouldn't the curious be directed elsewhere to argue the causes? Perhaps a simple statement, "The causes of the war are complex, including all slavery, tariffs, sectional differences, and states' rights, and are discussed more fully under Origins of the American Civil War".
Just my $0.02.
dino 21:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Section deleted as being unfixably wrong. The civil war is sometimes claimed as the first modern war but this is certainly not the consensus. The rest of the first paragraph is vague and/or inaccurate, for example medieval wars almost always targetted the economy. The ACW was not the first use of rifled artillery (Crimean War), nor of the land mine (Renaissance). The Crimean War was almost nothing but trench warfare. Telegraphs were used in the Crimea if not before, railways in the 1848 revolution in Germany and the war in Italy in 1859. All conventional navies were certainly not made obsolete by Hampton Roads. The US blockade was not very large scale compared to the British blockades of US, French, German and Italian coasts in the period 1812 onwards. Also the US had not signed the Declaration of Paris so why is it mentioned ? Angus McLellan 5 March 2005.
I don't object to this change, but a better solution would have been to create a new article on the subject and just retain a sentence or two in this big page. Same for 'Origins of the War', which already has a separate page, but more and more creeps in here. How many objections would there be if I did this? big_hal 15:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There actually were two new states admitted during the war--West Virginia in 1863 and Nevada in 1864. (A lot of people forget Nev., but its nickname is the "Battle-born State.") So we need a third U.S. flag image to show one more star. Funnyhat 03:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's been added. Afro Squirrel
It has been suggested that the present first (intro) paragraph is both too detailed and lacking in details. The following (with a slight change again) has been proposed in a talk page as a new introduction. The present content about what the soldiers were called could be a 3nd intro paragraph. I think the intro paragraphs for a war should properly identify the sides, the years, and basically what it was about. The present (single) intro paragraph is a bit of a simplification that slides into the assumption of a POV that was at issue - whether the states actually did secede, which was a legal issue at the time and which SCOTUS has ruled was not legal. It strongly suggests that there indeed were only 23 states in the USA during the Civil War (then also introduces too early a less relevant detail about the 2 states that joined the Union during the war). It also says little or nothing about what the war was about. Thus it does not clearly identify either the sides or any issues. --JimWae 05:22, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
A discussion is going on at Talk:Abraham Lincoln#Did the South really secede?
- Pioneer-12 19:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
According to the military records of the U.S. Government, the American Civil War was officially "The War of the Rebellion of the States." Does anybody agree that this should be included in the article?Afro Squirrel 8:33, 13 June 2005 (UTC)
The first Confederate flag was called the 'bonnie blue'. It was a blue background with a white star in the center.
Did you guys mix up the casualties for Gettysberg and Antietam? Antietam was the bloodiest battle and you have Gettysberg as the bloodiest.- B-101 19:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I've created a List of notable victims of the American Civil War. Feel free to add to it. BRIAN0918 20:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The comments about California, Arizona & the areas in the West seem to have a southern slant to them, if they are not themselves innacurate.
The Narrative Summary mentions the pro-US factions in the South, but neglects the pro-CS factions in the North, mostly known as Copperheads. For balance I think it would be good to have this information added to the Narrative Summary.
Why is there no mention of the party affiliation of the South during this time? It was majority slave-holding Democrats who wanted this secession. And no mention of the anti-slave Republicans and their role in the North. There's a reason they're called Dixicrats.
Someone added the above text. Umm, the Taiping Rebellion in China, (1851–1864) which killed 20 million? Is there any cite for this? Or where in the scheme of things the American Civil War landed?
Just wondering. Is the American Civil War second to the Taiping Rebellion? Napoleon's invasion of Russia? Uhh, probably not that one either.
dino 20:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I've recently been trying to do more research on the Civil War because I've tended to have a feeling that it has actually been connected with contemporary American foreign interventionism. The theory I've got is that the Civil War was primarily about racism; that not only did the South need cheap black slave labour, but that even back then they saw any ethnic group other than themselves as literally less than human, and thus resented/did not understand the Union wanting to go to war (at least partly) for the sake of the black population's welfare. In terms of where I believe this ties in with the present, I once read an account by Jimmy Carter of him growing up in or spending time in Georgia in the 1960s, and he implied that the level of inherent racism among the population there was virtually identical to what it had been when Lincoln was in office. That led me to believe that Vietnam and the other international conflicts since could well have been at least partially motived by Southern racism; that Southern factions within the government either simply wanted an excuse to commit attrocities against other ethnic groups, (the talk during Vietnam of going off to "kill the gooks," for instance) or felt that because other ethnic groups were in their minds less than human, there should be nothing wrong with taking their natural resources. (a la Iraq)
I've tended to wonder though if this was the cause not only of the Civil War, but of just about all of America's foreign interventionism; the idea that the Civil War was the first conflict between those in the country who were racists and those who weren't. Extending that theory, to me it makes sense that the foreign interventionist conflicts could have been partly caused by Southern resentment of the fact that they no longer had moral/legal sanction to kill members of the African-American population domestically, and thus felt driven to extend their genocidal impulses beyond their own borders.
Am I completely off here, or do people think I might be onto something?
Petrus4 10:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this hadn't been mentioned in the main article after so many edits. What do people think of the new section? Should it be moved further up in the article, perhaps after the battles? Tfine80 18:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
A state cannot and could not legally secede from the Union without a vote from Congress and approval of the President. The American Civil War was indeed a civil war since it involved armed conflict within a single country. The Southern states attacked the rightful government and were soundly defeated, restoring the proper order. The Confederate States of America never became a seperate country in reality and could never form legitimately without the consent of the United States of America.
Since the Southern states failed in their attempt to form a seperate nation, the Civil War is an entirely appropriate name.
bb