Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Size

I think the changes are excellent. However, at the same time the article itself is still gigantic (more than 80 kilobytes). I'm going to weed through the article; something tells me that there's content somewhere that should (a) be on another page or (b) doesn't really enhance the quality or focus of the page. Please remain patient with my changes. --Alex S 03:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

172, Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia. It's not constructive to revert the changes I make and just list the edits as minor edits - I reverted back to before you'd edited. In the future, please discuss changes that are only reversions or at least leave a summary tagline. --Alex S 03:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When you cited the temperance movement as an example of "conservative nostalgia," it gives the impression that you're looking at the era from the standpoint of the values of our own era. But you simply cannot refer to some reformists of the 1830s and 1840s, as "more liberal" than others, given the way in which you're using the terms. You changes seemed to be an example of a very common set of confusions. It may seem paradoxical today that the same people who opposed the oppression of a racial minority also favored discrimination against a religious minority. However, the Puritan-oriented population of much of the North was sympathetic to anti-slavery, temperance, nativism and unsympathetic to the hard-drinking Irish Catholics. Politicians, of course, realized that it might have been possible to join the support of Republican, Know-Nothings, and temperance groups to form a winning political combination. Thus, it happened that nativism and anti-slavery worked in conjunction when the Republican Party was founded in 1854 more often than in opposition. I've reverted some of your changes because you cannot understand the rise of abolitionism without understanding temperance, nativism, and free labor. It's hardly a stretch to say that we're often dealing with flip sides of the same coin. 172 09:21, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Here's what I think would be helpful:

1. Include that information more directly in the article so that the reader can understand that too.
2. Try to move most of the discussion about the changing aspects of U.S. society to another page, (United States social history) so that you can just link to that page when the concept you're trying to illustrate becomes too involved.

Also, I'm still concerned about the length issue. More than 80 kilobytes is just ridiculous. --Alex S 02:11, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hm. It seems I have similar issues with this article as well. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War. I agree with Alex and think we should work on expanding the summary on this page and combining that with the timeline to create a proper parent article for the detail. Hopefully the process of creating the 20-30KB summary/timeline article will better inform us as to where the detail should go. For example; I just read every word in this article (it took me over 50 minutes) and saw that many of the "for more detail" links where to stub articles. I imagine that at least some of the detail could go there but much of it will likely have to go to daughter/sub-series articles. --mav 18:54, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For starters, I moved the 7kb timeline to a different page - it's a great idea but took up a lot of space. I like the idea of subpages but I'm not exactly sure which subpages are needed and how they would be organized. I think we should also consider parallel pages about U.S. history in general - some of the party and ideological info could be moved to pages about the history of those subjects in the United States in general. 172, what do you think? -Alex S 19:20, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This isn't going to work. Actually, the article is light on backgrounding. The stuff you say can go in a "United States social history" article, e.g., is actually central to a lot of the arguments of the various competing interpretations. If this article were split, it would be best to divide it into parts one through X. We have article series split in such a way. 172 23:59, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All right then, sounds good to me. Just curious, what articles are split up that way? I'd like an idea of how the format would look. --Alex S 15:28, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Part 1... is a bad idea. The format of New Imperialism and Cold War is less bad. I was going to start on the summary/parent article today, but now think that we should all work together on this. How should we proceed? --mav

I think that Part I etc. would be basically like that structure. After all, the article is already organized into neat topical sections like "The question of slavery in the West," "The reactionary South," etc. --Alex S 19:56, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think you are right. Should we go ahead and break-up the article along those lines (all the heading 2s get their own page)? That would result in 8 articles - too extreme IMO. A max of four would be better, IMO. But where to cut and what to name those articles is an issue that we need to work out. --mav'

How does this sound:

• The main page of the series will be sections 1 (expanded) and 9
• Part I - Sections 2 and 3, maybe entitled "Cultural and political background of the Civil War"
• Part II - Sections 4 and 5 "Slavery in the South and West"
• Part III - Sections 6 through 8, "The Coming of the Civil War"

That would make Part III considerably larger than the other sections, but I think that it's important to keep the actual events leading up the Civil War in a section together. I also have some questions about historiography, since there's so much of it in this article - should it maybe have its own section? Or it's own section at the bottom of each page? Just musing. Anyway, whadday'all think? --Alex S 20:21, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - just add "American" before each "Civil War." Part III can be reduced in size, if needed, by moving some of the detial to specific subjects. Not sure what to do with the historiography... I for one don't much care for analysis like that since it reads more like a thesis than encyclopedic prose (I instead prefer to do my own analysis after being presented the facts). Much of it could be condensed - but that can be taken care of later. --mav

Hey Mav - You got it right when you said "I instead prefer..." for a change. If this article isn't your thing, find something else to do. 172 04:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article can be his thing even if he'd like to make some changes to it. After all, that's the beauty of Wikipedia. --Alex S 05:05, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done. Now that this page has been broken down into manageable bites I think it'll be easier to edit as well as read. --Alex S 01:05, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alex and Mav: Don't get caught off guard, but I'm going to have to revert the article to the version up before all these divisions were taking place. The feedback about the article from everyone else was resoundingly positive. But the recent changes just add to the confusion. This article simply cannot be restructured. As the article proceeds, it relates historians' competing interpretations and the thematic build up to the chronological narrative history. This organization makes the article impossible to restructure, given the build up from the top of the article to the bottom. 172 05:11, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The same content is there - it is just divided-up onto different pages (just like a book divides things up - people don't get confused by that). When the summary gets expanded, Alex's format should be restored. I would do this myself now, but I'm house sitting and the computer I'm using does not have a word processor on it. --mav

This "summary" you speak of has to be the one on the History of the United States page; this is the page consisting of the summaries of its component daughter articles. But you seem to be working toward something along the lines of the New Imperialism series. This style of organization will not work for this article - and I'll work against it. BTW, if either of your are losing sleep over the existence of one single, additional article among the countless plethora of articles that take up more than 32 KB, a spit along the lines of the PRC history series (i.e. "Parts 1 through X") is acceptable. 172 11:29, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just don't name them "Part"-anything (but I see that the PRC articles are not like that). How is that so different from what Alex did anyway? Oh well - that would be OK with me so long as the summary is kept here - it can be expanded later (like when I have access to a word processor). If that is done, then I will withdraw my objection to the FA status of this article and will nominate the series myself. --mav

What do you mean by summary? You mean the executive summary on the History of the United States page, right? You don't mean turning the Origins of the American Civil War page into a parent article consisting of executive summaries of component articles - that is, something along the lines of the New Imperialism page, right? Yesterday it sure looked a New Imperialism style break up to me. BTW, the PRC history section used to be divided by parts; now there's '49- '76 and '76-present. 172 07:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Summaries, et al

That executive summary is too short to properly summarize an 80KB article. An intermediate-sized summary is needed. But for now the format of the PRC history page will do as a compromise - at least the technical issues with size will have been addressed. I suggest three such parts. --mav

Please forget about an intermediate-sized summary. Instead, work on the summary in the History of the United States page and think of suggestions for the overview in the Origins of the American Civil War article. Meanwhile, I'll continually reiterate that creating a New Imperialism-style series is futile without adding substantially more content. If we created a satisfactory series along these lines, the sum of the KB taken up by the component daughter articles would be likely well over 80 KB. Since I'm the one well versed in all the contending schools of thought on the subject, I'll probably have to be the main author of a series that meets NPOV standards. However, this would completely go against your original intentions of shortening the content. Right now, a single article (or a single article divided into parts) works in favor of brevity since it poses little need for reiteration; it establishes and builds on facts and themes as the article proceeds.

Firstly, thanks for producing such a magnificent article. I am greatly pleased by its generosity of (multiple) contexts. Secondly, I agree that for a "NI-style" summary to work, much more content is needed -- and I hope that someday that content appears. (Once there are >200kb of content on the origins of the Civil War, something better than 10 long sequential pages will be necessary just to make sense of it all!) For now, 3 or 4 sequential pages - for purely technical reasons - sounds like an acceptable idea (NB: it's possible to have a 30-page document with one title; that is impossible on this wiki, alas). I'm going to go ahead and take a stab at breaking it up, just as an exercise in being bold, and b/c I want to get this off the 'featured status disputed' list; I won't object if one of you reverts me and tries a different division. +sj+ 05:29, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

Alright, instead of replacing the current article, I've split it into four pieces, starting here. Feedback appreciated. I was pleased to find that the first para on each page made (to my eyes) a natural pre-heading intro paragraph, in addition to fitting nicely below the headings in the single-page version. +sj+ 08:25, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

(There's another note on Talk:Origins of the American Civil War.) This is by far the best division of a long article that I've seen since discovering WP a year and a half ago. It makes the dividing lines very clear and reader friendly. It's also a relief to get some backing on opposing a NI-style summary; I totally concur with your assessment above. BTW, since the division template doesn't pose any technical problems (passing users only see the first article in the set of pages), perhaps it renders all long articles obsolete. Should we start applying it to the otherWikipedia:Longpages right now? 172 21:29, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And, finally, changes implemented. Perhaps 4/4 should have the intro paragraph above the TOC? Or, better yet, an extra 2 sentences... +sj+ 21:24, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

Great idea. Thanks again! 172 21:30, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, this article ought to be on the bottom of the list of our priorities in the History of the United States series. Both the executive summary and the main body of the text (of the origins article) perhaps come closest to a finished product in the US history series. The world's not coming to a crashing end if there's one additional long article, so why not work on filling the gaps in the other articles for now? 172 08:28, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can you go ahead and split this article up someway so that we can begin to resolve the FA issue with the size? How about leaving the first 20-30KB here (as-is) and creating two additional 20-30KB articles to make a series. At the bottom of the first page there would be a "Continued at ..." link. You could also create a seriesbox to further bind the articles together. If you do that, then I will withdraw my objection. I would do it myself but 1) I don't want to do work that is just going to get reverted and 2) I think you should get correct credit for the two new articles since you wrote most of it. Is this a good compromise? --mav 06:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't care about credit, which belongs to the historians being referenced, not to any of the people with user accounts on Wikipedia. The credit also goes to the site owner, Jimbo Wales. I'm just afraid that you'll turn around and call for my de-adminship next time I disagree with you, which will be quite easy if you use the same set of reasoning that you seem to be using with respect to the featured articles. Anyway, enough with this nonsense. I've always been willing to talk about splitting up the article. But hopefully you've given up the idea of an intermediate executive summary article along the lines of the New Imperialism series, right? 172 08:44, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On what grounds would I seek your de-adminship? Your fear of me trying to take away your status is not warrented since I have not seen you abuse any sysop powers. I have not given up on the idea for a long summary but am willing to accept, as a truce, to put that off the table for now so that the technical issues concerned with article size are taken care of. Would you revert me if I broke this article up along the lines that I put forward? Or do we need to work out the details on the split first? --mav

So that we're both on the same page, that was a silly hypothetical argument. Perhaps it bordered on hyperbole, but I was just trying to illustrate the consequences of your reasoning if they were applied somewhere else. In all seriousness, I never expected you to call for my de-adminship. Regarding the "categorization" of this article (finally - we get to talk about it directly!), it's probably best to come to an agreement before we act. Since we're both online regularly, this seems easier than letting it turn into a revert war. While we're doing this, I can be less of a roadblock if I'm assured that you're willing to give up the idea an intermediate executive summary page. 172 10:35, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you've already said this, but can you explain exactly what your problem is with a medium-sized executive page? --Alex S 13:45, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've already explained this on a number of pages. They should be easy to find if you retrace the steps of either Mav or me. Creating a New Imperialism-style series would be a really unnecessary headache. 172 15:20, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again 172 - will you or will you not revert me if I divide up this page as I proposed. We can deal with the summary issue later (perhpas much later). But I will *not* create such a summary as part of the spilt-up process. --mav

172 - I retraced your and Mav's conversation, and you said several times that you didn't want the article to be broken up in a New Imperialism style... but never why. If you could explain that (or point me to where you already explained it) maybe it would be easier to come up with a solution acceptable for everyone. --Alex S 00:13, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, but Cottonfieldpanorama.jpg, the image of the slaves picking cotton, all of a sudden became huge. Can anyone fix this? 172 05:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This has been fixed. 172 13:34, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The titles of the four pages this article got split over

I understand that there were reasons for splitting this page up, but I must say that seeing articles with "two of four" in the title made me reflexively want to splice them all back together again just to get rid of that. I feel that arbitrarily chopped-up articles are worse than too-long articles; IMO an article should be reasonably self-contained and have as descriptive a title as possible. So, how about we come up with descriptive titles for the pieces of the article, things like "Slavery and the American Civil War", and move/retitle appropriately? Since this is a featured article as well as one that's undergoing active editing, I am reluctant to be so bold as to just start doing it unilaterally by myself. Bryan 00:43, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. But that will probably require a good deal of re-org. --mav 05:58, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Weekend is upon us, I'll read the articles tomorrow in detail and perhaps do just that. :) Bryan 05:53, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Hold it, please. Click and go on to read the next page. That makes more sense than trying to undo something that has already been done just for the sake of reorganizing it. 172 12:23, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean, here. I wouldn't be doing this simply because I have fun shuffling text around pointlessly, I would be doing it to group the text under more meaningful titles and in a better-organized way. This would allow for improvements in future searching for information, linking to information, and future additions and editing. Bryan 20:15, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Refer to the archived discussions pertaining to this article. I made my stance clear against a reorganization (barring a total rewrite with certain sections expanded significantly) earlier. The users voting for featured status didn't seem to mind my reasoning either. If you review these prior conversations, we can be on the same page with each other and avoid a meaningless revert war. 172 20:47, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Could you direct me to the relevant archives? I have just come to this article afresh and I haven't found anything in a cursory search aside from what's already on this talk page. Also, I would appreciate if you don't threaten a "meaningless revert war" before I even start working out the details of what I intend to do here. Bryan 21:09, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Some of those conversations can be found in pages related to the featured status nomination process. I posted those comments FYI. I was informing you that you might be resurrecting matters that were already resolved, and likely to encounter the same type of opposition. What you seem to be describing is turning this article into a New Imperialism-style series, which I will oppose. 172 22:07, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

See below (taken from this page, btw):

Firstly, thanks for producing such a magnificent article. I am greatly pleased by its generosity of (multiple) contexts. Secondly, I agree that for a "NI-style" summary to work, much more content is needed -- and I hope that someday that content appears. (Once there are >200kb of content on the origins of the Civil War, something better than 10 long sequential pages will be necessary just to make sense of it all!) For now, 3 or 4 sequential pages - for purely technical reasons - sounds like an acceptable idea (NB: it's possible to have a 30-page document with one title; that is impossible on this wiki, alas). I'm going to go ahead and take a stab at breaking it up, just as an exercise in being bold, and b/c I want to get this off the 'featured status disputed' list; I won't object if one of you reverts me and tries a different division. +sj+ 05:29, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

172 22:11, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that New Imperialism thing looks like the general sort of idea I was proposing. If not that, then what would you propose as an alternative to having "(2/4)" in article titles? Leaving this "series" as it is now is something that I will oppose, I think it is not at all reasonable to have articles whose titles do not reflect their contents. I'd rather see it all stitched back together into one long article than leave it at that, since section editing overcomes some of the worst obstacles such long articles would otherwise present. Bryan 22:48, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I just unprotected this page, BTW, since discussion is ongoing and I can't see any good reason to protect it. I assume it must have been a result of a finger slip or something. Bryan

Pages (2/4), (3/4), (4/4) do not link to pages outside this series. Only Origins of the American Civil War is built into other pages. There's one table of contents for all four pages too. This has already been taken care of. 172 23:08, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

The current table of contents is just a stopgap hack, as far as I can tell; it has to be manually updated if the sections of the other articles get fiddled with. I don't see this as a good long-term solution. Bryan 23:13, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Changing that would entail creating a New Imperialism series. I totally concur with Sj, who, as mentioned, already laid out the all the work required for such a sweeping reorganization: "Secondly, I agree that for a "NI-style" summary to work, much more content is needed -- and I hope that someday that content appears. (Once there are >200kb of content on the origins of the Civil War, something better than 10 long sequential pages will be necessary just to make sense of it all!) For now, 3 or 4 sequential pages - for purely technical reasons - sounds like an acceptable idea (NB: it's possible to have a 30-page document with one title; that is impossible on this wiki, alas)." That's a hell of a lot more work than merely having to manually change the contents box every now and then. 172 23:20, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

If there's so little content here, then why not merge it all back into one article? There are other articles this big on Wikipedia, Plant hormones or John F. Kennedy assassination for example, and they don't seem to be suffering excessively from their size. Bryan 23:56, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with that. But Mav wouldn't get off my case until the article was split. We both agreed to Sj's divisions as a compromise, which IMHO worked out quite nicely. 172 13:12, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps as a stopgap interim measure, but I don't think it makes for a reasonable 'end state' for an article of this size. There are identifiable sub-topics in here the article can be split along, IMO, the ability to insert meaningful section headers proves it. Much better to divide the article along the lines of subtopics than simply on the basis of length. Bryan 05:13, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

See, e.g., this posting (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:172&action=edit&section=9):

I put a sample division of the page here; please take a look and tell me what you think (on the categorization talk page). Note that right now no other parts of WP link to this set of 4 pages; passing users will still see the current single article. +sj+ 08:19, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

172 23:11, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I'm not surprised that no other articles link to the later pages in this article, since they've got such nonintuitive and uninformative titles; that's kind of my point. Bryan 23:18, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. The only people going on the the second page, e.g., will only be getting there after having read the first article. BTW, what's the big deal about turning from one page to the next? 172 23:22, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

It's ugly. It's fragile, requiring manual maintenance to keep the tables of contents accurate, which makes it harder to make changes to the article itself. It doesn't take advantage of Wikipedia's abilities to keep such things organized and cross-linked, and a page that is only intended to be linked to from one other page in a rigidly pre-defined way doesn't fit well with the wiki style. It's against Wikipedia's naming conventions (heirarchy, precision). Conversely, what's wrong with giving the subpages descriptive titles, as in the New Imperialism case? Or, as a different approach, putting brief summaries of the various topics there and linking to more detailed articles on those topics (as is done with Earth for example)? Or some other alternative in which all the article titles involved actually describe what their contents are about? Bryan 23:52, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

The article is coherently organized and integrated with the rest of the encyclopedia, and it is consistent with Wikipedia policies. It does take advantage of Wikipedia's abilities to keep such things organized and cross-linked; the first page, Origins of the American Civil War, is cross-linked to related entries. Article (2/4),' e.g., just means 'Page 2 of 4.' The same is the case for MSN Encarta's article on the Civil War (see Page 1 of 10 here; and Encarta online does utilize hyperlinks, but nevertheless their article cannot fit in a single page either. We may have three pages only intended to be linked to from one other page, but these **aren't self-standing articles**. And it's not against Wikipedia's naming conventions (heirarchy, precision); the same technology may be used to post pages 2-4, but, once again, these aren't self standing articles. There is only one article title for this four-page article: Origins of the American Civil War. 172 12:43, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I can think of one minor improvement to address the rest of your concerns. We can add a centered "Page X of 4" on page X of the article toward the bottom of the page. Other online encyclopedias do this in articles consisting of multiple pages. 172 12:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

All Bryan wants to do is add a lead section to the top of each page in this series, better organize the text, and create better page titles. The article in its current state is a temporary hack that is inflexible and hard to maintain. --mav 03:33, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's going to provoke an edit war. This is one single, four page article. This is one article, with one lead section, with one overview; and the organization corresponds to a single table of contents box - the contents box on the first page. 172 16:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Quite. Wikipedia is not paper; there shouldn't be any need for the concept of "turning pages" when reading this article. I'd like to see that these pages become reasonably self-contained, or at least focused on one particular topic each, so that they can be given titles that describe what their contents are. Adding a more obvious "X of 4" header would just make the situation worse, as far as I'm concerned. Bryan 05:09, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Bryan and Mav,

A belated apology- sorry if I've been coming across as a curmudgeon on this page. Just so that you know what I'm up to, I'm very fond of the way Sj broke up article, so I'm very interested in maintaining it. I should've made it clearer earlier that I appreciate your constructive intentions, though I disagree with the specific steps that you have been discussing. 172 10:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what good this apology does, frankly. I sighed, threw up my hands, and wandered off to do other things when you indicated you'd start an edit war over this; I've seen you fight them with others on other articles and I just didn't want to get into the hassle. So as a result an editor who honestly wanted to improve an article was thwarted by an edit warrior's threat rather than by being convinced otherwise, and I didn't even complain about it. I've been feeling kind of bad about that. Thanks to the categorization craze I've just happened to wander back, however, and I'm feeling more willing to endure hassle this time. I'm going to start tinkering with these articles in coming days, do you still intend to revert me or are you willing you discuss the specifics of how to make these articles more self-contained? Bryan 00:08, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, shoot, my timing sucks. I just read on the mailing list that 172 is quitting Wikipedia. I don't want it to seem like I'm being opportunistic bringing this back up right at the same time when he's leaving; I just happened to have been moving some articles from category:United States history into category:United States wars and this was on the list. I guess I'll continue in a few days and see if anyone else objects or 172 comes back. (edit on Jun 8: after the long Wikipedia downtime and the discussions on the mailing list, I'll be waiting a few more days yet to see how things develop before getting to work here) Bryan 01:48, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Been a week now and it looks like the various off-Wikipedia discussions have ceased. I'll now resume discussion of how I hope to reorganize these pages over on the main talk: namespace, since this is an archive subpage. Bryan 01:04, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Southern Declarations of Secession

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

Featured article

I'm kind of new to Wikipedia but I will use it for a project of mine. I will write about the origins of the American civil war and I will compare a schoolbook with the article on Wikipedia. I saw that I has been featured in 2004 and I was wondering how I can get the exact article that has been featured with proof that it is featured. I went to the article dated April 9th 2004 but the note in the beginning says the status is pending. I would also like to know more about the writers and if they have any academic preparations. I know this might not belong on the discussion page, so if anyone can help me, feel free to contact me and remove this "comment". Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snookerman (talk • contribs) 13:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It should never have been. 2004 was a long time ago in Wikipedia, and our standards were much lower; which is why it has been demoted.

And now for one of the reasons

With the outcry over developments in Kansas strong in the North, defenders of slavery— increasingly committed to a way of life that abolitionists and their sympathizers considered obsolete or immoral— shifted to a militant pro-slavery ideology that would lay the groundwork for secession upon the emergence of Abraham Lincoln

This will not do. There was a militant pro-slavery ideology in the 1830's; its roots can be traced back to 1807. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed External Link

Hi everyone, I'm a PhD student who's been involved in producing Shmoop, a new educational website, and I think we have a very strong piece on the Causes of the Civil War. I'm biased, of course, but I think it would add something of value to add here as an external link. However, I obviously have a COI problem here and I don't want to violate the spirit of Wiki's COI rules. I do think we have a lot of good stuff, though, so if any of the other editors here agree that we'd be worthy of linkage, I'd propose adding this to External Links:

• Shmoop US History: Causes of the Civil War

Hopefully I'm not out of line for proposing this; if I am, I'm sure you'll tell me.

Cheers, Nate Portlandnate (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's okay by me. If someone else objects, they can delete. 67.88.206.99 (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Tariffs

not one mention —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Tariffs are mentioned in the second sentence of the article; mentioned again under "Free labor vs. pro-slavery arguments" (1.4.3); discussed at some length under the "Nullification Crisis" section; and discussed some more in "Sectional battles over federal policy in the late 1850s" (10.2) and "Elections of 1860" (10.4). -- 139.76.64.66 (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Restructure for clarity and make encyclopedic? -- Part 2

There were some plans laid down over a year ago (see part 1 above). There wasn't much discussion and not much followup. Absent any objections, I am going to start working on the general outline and principles proposed above. One of the first things needed is to get the lede down to four paragraphs and it seems like the easiest way to start that is to move the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs into the body of the article.

Other than two possible new subsections covering the Early Republic era and the Gag Rule debates, it seems like very little new info. is needed -- most of the emphasis should be, IMO, on rearrangement, elimination of duplication, and using Summary Style to move material into already existing articles.

Thoughts? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Today I added the early Republic info and slightly expanded the Missouri Compromise section. The next thing that needs attention is those series of sections and subsections between the Missouri Compromise and the Nullification Crisis. Much of the material is repetitious and needs to be consolidated. Other parts need to be moved out of the article and into the articles History of the United States (1789–1849), History of the United States (1849–1865), or other appropriate articles. I also believe that some of the political and economic explanations can be combined in a new, separate section in the article titled something like Historiography of the Origins of the Civil War. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Today I trimmed some material from the Nullification Crisis section. Other than duplications, I eliminated some references to Clay and Calhoun's personal careers. I also moved a quote from Calhoun out of the states' rights section and into this section. I have also made the article more chronological by moving the entire section to immediately after the Missouri Compromise section. Most of the economic and political issues discussed in the sections now following Nullification are more related to the 1840s and 1850s than the 1820s and 1830s. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Still proceding (slowly) with the above proposal, I have rewritten the Gag Rule section and moved it up in the article in its proper chronological place. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Legality of Northern Action

I have changed the wording of the first sentence to reflect that it is only a popular belief that the war started due to slavery. It is validly argued as a counter-argument that there had been a long standing feud between North and South, and it finally reached a boiling point. The bigger issue is, as we know, states rights... which did involve slavery... but if the south got pushed over the edge because of something less controversial, would it still be seen as the main reason for the war? Probably not.

We have to consider that history was written by winners of the wars... So of course they are going to make it sound like the North was the protectors of freedoms (while Lincoln only freed slaves in states he didn't legally control)

Which brings me to the point that I really wanted to stress was the legality of Northern actions, the succession of the south was totally legal, and when the North started pushing its weight on the sougvern south... They retaliated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamcoltra (talk • contribs) 09:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is more than simply a "popular belief" but a consensus among historians writing about that era. Your opinions about freeing the slaves, the legality of "succession", or the "sougvern south" as a victim are not relevant to the change you made in the first sentence nor are they relevant to the balance of the article unless they are related, by reliable sources, to the topic of the article.

Your claim that "The bigger issue is, as we know, states rights" is neither true nor supported by reliable sources. It was in fact the South that insisted on FEDERAL slave codes in the territories, hardly a states' rights position. It was some states in the North that argued for a state's right to ignore Federal Fugitive Slave Laws.

You state, "but if the south got pushed over the edge because of something less controversial, would it still be seen as the main reason for the war? Probably not." You miss the point that the South DID NOT draw the line in the sand over any other issues -- it was ONLY the slavery issue that was significant enough to lead to rebellion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

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

Bad first sentence

The new first sentence that was added has a number of problems: There is already a link to Fort Sumter in the article head (I did change that to the article on the battle rather than the article on the fort, as the "Battle of Fort Sumter" article is clearly more to the point) and to the ACW article itself. As is, the article is about the major root causes, and as such gets to the point right away.

Furthermore, the statement that the "cause of " or even "trigger for" the war "was simple" is both flip and likely controversial. Rightly or wrongly, there is controversy about the issue of whether the cause of the start of the war was the attack on Fort Sumter, or the Federal government's continuing maintenance of troops there; and there is controversy about whether or not the Middle South states seceded due to the battle of Fort Sumter, or due to Lincoln's call for mobilization (or for that matter, simply that they were slave states, and despite their early fence-sitting would inevitably have mostly ended up on the Confederate side).

Of course the statement "The main explanation for the origins of the American Civil War is slavery" is also (rightly or wrongly) controversial; the difference being that pretty much the entire rest of the article is devoted to explaining and documenting why that statement is correct. Enlargement of the "tactical" origin of the war--who fired the first shots and why--might perhaps go at the end of the article, but as it is this article is about the historical origins of the conflict. 72.145.121.169 (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

editor 72.145.121.169 is new here and has nhot learned the ropes. Wikipedia history articles reflect the consensus of reliable sources, and I think they all agree that Ft Sumter was the trigger that started the war. So that is the place to begin. The introduction sets up nicely the issues of North and South and asks why they wanted to shoot at each other. Then it steps back into deeper origins, all of which lead up, in EVERY reliable source, to the firing on Ft Sumter. There really is no minority viewpoint on that. As for slavery, 72.145.121.169 seems utterly unaware of the centrality of that issue in the reliable sources. 72.145.121.169 needs to learn to read more carefully before criticizing. The lede explains that the firing on Ft Sumter caused, in both North and South, an immediate unstoppable demand for war. That statement is likewise endorsed throughout the scholarly literature--which is what we follow here at Wikipedia. Newbie does not seem to have an actual alternative opening--perhaps it takes a little experience to knwo how to start an article on one of the most important events in US history.Rjensen (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Everybody knows that the Civil War started at Ft. Sumter, which is why it is linked to in the article head. The proposed sentence does not "explain" that "the firing on Ft Sumter caused, in both North and South, an immediate unstoppable demand for war", it asserts it. The original opening sentence "The main explanation for the origins of the American Civil War is slavery, especially Southern anger at the attempts by Northern antislavery political forces to block the expansion of slavery into the western territories" is also an assertion, but it is one which is then unfolded in detail throughout the rest of the article; the assertion "the Confederate attack on the United States fortress at Fort Sumter led immediately, North and South, to an overwhelming popular demand for war" is not--Sumter is mentioned towards the end, in ways which hint it might be more complex (was it South Carolina's attack on Fort Sumter, or was it "Lincoln's call for troops to march south to recapture it" that caused the secession of the Middle South)? And to say "the firing on Ft Sumter caused, in both North and South, an immediate unstoppable demand for war" implies there was no immediate unstoppable demand for war beforehand--so what set off South Carolina, then? Did Fort Sumter cause itself?

Yes, of course the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that the slavery was the central cause of the war. (And the proposed edit actually moves slavery a bit further from front and center.) That doesn't stop endless drive-by edits of Civil War-related articles disputing this. The original lead sentence "The main explanation for the origins of the American Civil War is slavery..." can be defended from such by referring to the rest of the article, which explains and documents in detail why this statement is made. The claim that the "trigger" of the war is "simple" lacks any such documentation in the article.

The "actual alternative opening" being proposed here is "The main explanation for the origins of the American Civil War is slavery, especially Southern anger at the attempts by Northern antislavery political forces to block the expansion of slavery into the western territories."

Incidentally, your revert changed the link in the article head from the more relevant "Battle of Fort Sumter" back to an article on the fort more generally. You really should be more careful in how you edit. 72.145.121.169 (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality??

Neutrality, no pro-slavery information....

Undoubtedly there are is no pro-slavery information that says it's ethical or moral, but I think that there is the element of the argument that was made in the 1850's by anti-slavery northerners and by Jefferson himself in "Letters on the State of Virgina", saying that the integration of liberated slaves would be a long and painful process and that some other solution had to be found -- hence, Liberia. It's all pretty awful any way you look at it, but as time passed it clearly became more and more difficult to escape, not only for the slaves but for their owners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindwanderweg (talk • contribs) at 22:07, 24 November 2006

1. On the contrary, the range of Southern opinion did include arguments that slavery was ethical, moral, and the cornerstone of enlightened civilization. The argument rested on belief in the supposed racial superiority of white people, comparisons with Roman civilization, some IMO specious but widely accepted biblically based arguments, and so forth.
2. Please sign your posts with ~~~~ -- Rob C (Alarob) 23:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel I must interject that a knowledgeable reading of the Old or New Testament does in no way support the " . . . racial superiority of white people" at least in widely accepted translations of the Bible such as the King James version which I've read many times.

There are some rouge translations which are not accepted as accurate which make wild statements such as adulterers, thieves, and homosexuals should be executed. Any such statement found in a translation of the Bible should be immediately suspect as inaccurate. TDurden1937 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937

the "wild statement" probably covers Deuteronomy 22:22 (King James version): "If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. " Rjensen (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Revisionism

Some bozo here wrote: "To say the war was fought over slavery is just ludicris, few people, if any, would have made that arguement anywhere before 1863." Fact is the exact opposite, not least down south.

The last couple of decades, white supremacists have been rewriting Civil War history. They have been quite successful selling lies like black Confederate soldiers. Not only is there no documentation of black Confederacy soldiers, it goes against the foundation of the slave south.

The very accurate point made then by opponents of this legislation was, as one Georgia leader stated, "If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong." Southern newspaper editors blasted the idea as "the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down," a "surrender of the essential and distinctive principle of Southern civilization." Take especial note of "the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down."

And what was that "essential and distinctive principle of Southern civilization"? Let's listen to the people of the times. The vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, said on March 21, 1861, that the Confederacy was "founded . . . its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based on this great physical, philosophical and moral truth."

What was the "very doctrine" which the South had entered into war to destroy? Let's go to the historical documents, the words of the people in those times. When Texas seceded from the Union in March 1861, its secession declaration was entirely about one subject: slavery. It said that Thomas Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" - were "the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color . . . a doctrine at war with nature . . . and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law."

"Freedom is not possible without slavery," was a typical endorsement of this underlying truth about the slave South. Without slavery, white nonslaveholders would be no better than black men.

If you are going to dispute that slavery was the main cause you must first present facts. Of course you can't. You have no fact. But go ahead if you think you have any. Just don't post personal opinions. They are worthless if you can't back them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(138.32.32.166 (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

True history is never recorded. What we call history is pieced together like a puzzle. Sometimes it is our nature to make the pieces fit. That's what I see going on here. Allow me to editorialize a moment.

As a historian, I find the banter here problematic to presenting any truth at all. Polarized on one side or another, everyone that has written here has shown repugnant bias. On both sides!

Victors do get to tell the story - their way. Who will dispute it? The losers are dead or in the case of most Confederate soldiers have travelled off to the 4 corners of the world.

Restoration of the South didn't leave much room for a former Confederate soldier. Especially along the border states such as Tenneessee as is detailed in the memoir of Confederate Captain Ruben G. Clar's "Valley of the Shadow" edited by Willene B. Clark. This is available in book form from University of Tennessee Press. A very large portion of former Confederates moved away and went west or further south. A good number left the U.S. all together.

Slavery was at issue at the time of the Civil War. But only the slavery of (mostly)African American's in the South. The fact that indentured sevitude, child labor, and womens sufferage in the North wasn't at issue at the time wasn't at issue.

Let's not forget the racial abuse of the Irish and Chinese who provided a lions share of cheap labor in the North, South and West. Whether complete bondage, sevitude, working for promised pay that you never receive (which happened to the Chineese and Irish), or the company store, both the machines of North and South idiologies called for the exploitation of labor. Which is really something we still see today, but now through Free Trade Agreements. We still have child / slave labor making our products and food stuffs. But just not on our shores. We import it! It's still slavery! No one can stand behind adages of Abraham Lincoln and white wash themselves from that dirty little lie!

Call it exploitation, a deal on labor costs, outsourcing, etc... It's still slavery. White slavery in the U.S. is huge especially with prostitution and with foreign nationals bringing their servants with them to the U.S. Will history explain it as such? Only if you can source it! Ah the rub...if no one is talking about it during the period...how can it be sourced? But did it really occur? It's in memoirs and diaries...but not in the official record...is it history? How many times have you been an eye witness to modern day news, but saw the event unfold much differently than a news reporter. Remember a news reporters job was to sell papers. Does it have bias? Is it our job as historians to explain the bias of someone 200 years ago? I can see historians 200 years from now quoting sources from the "National Enquirer". Argh! We have to be remain resolute as a historian in how we show that the bias existed, such as showing court transcripts.

The issues at hand at the time of the Civil War stemmed from the begining of the nation. A large federal government vs. a small federal government. This argument is seen in Congress from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. The question for the South was "does a State have the right to succeed from the U.S."? The North's position was No! Which they drove home by continuing to occupy Fort Sumnter after secsession. (Thumbing it's nose at the south?)

Yes the South evicted them by force. It was the straw that broke the camels back. But probably not the origin of the Civil War. There were a number of economic and political factors that played larger into the origins of the War. Why did the Nothern States want to increase tarrifs? I've seen it mentioned here that it happened, but who has documented the reason why?

The power struggle of large government vs small government was enough of an issue. There was already 80 years of anamosity, and most of it not just about slavery. Remember people came to the U.S. to govern themselves. Most states were democratic and allowed local self governance. The federal government is a Republic and you do not have a vote in the matters. You only have a representative.

To say that slavery was at issue over self governance/States Rights would make a good protagonist vs antagonist term paper. But the fact is that the North wanted to bring the South into a bigger government and the South didn't want to. So they left.

The newly empowered federal government, imediately after the war then tried to impose a federal income tax. The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. Perhaps this was the real monster that the South feared. A generation after the war Federal Income Tax was finally instituted in 1913 by a constitutional ammendment. Let's also remember that these were Republican's at the time imposing taxes and wanting a bigger Federal Government. Funny how todays Republican is for smaller government and lower taxes. If you wanna have fun...research that one!

I don't have time to recite all the sources here that's why I wrote in the discussion not the actual page itself. But all above can be verified and supported. I don't have the time to edit this page, but to leave this page as is, is a travisty.

Remember in you search for history, do read memoirs, diaries and other accounts. Old newpapers articles are always interesting. You can always coroborate the memoirs etc...for accuracy against accounted for events.

Tho' I have editorialized here, factual history does not. A source is a source and can only be explained as such. When we as historians start trying to conditionalize a source we re-write history. So and so said "^*&%$#$" is all we can say. Put them in a timeline and thus you have history. Anything else is editorializing. Which is ok prefaced in an editorial context.

Explain what happened in Congress by putting it's actions and transcripts in a timeline. Explain the actions of the states by their actions, publications etc..Eyewitness accounts are just that! Leave them alone. Editorials from the period are fine as long as you get enough to show both sides. Otherwise you are biased. Remember we can't judge history from the standards of today. It is what it is... when it was. Leave it that way. Let the reader draw their own conclusions. They will anyway if they are smart. Accounting of history is not a thesis statement to persuade.

It is important that factual history is accurately accounted without bias, otherwise we'll be ignorant of the past and doomed to repeat the mistakes that we never knew actually happened...and that sucks!  :-) (138.32.32.166 (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RB138.32.32.166 (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I know that all of this has been said before, but anyone who doubts that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War needs to deal with the reasons given by the seceding states at the time(s) they seceded. You can see those here: <http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp>. When you have read them, you will know that the preservation of slavery and white supremacy were the causes of secession. And of course secession led to the war - any nation that allows pieces of itself to secede is not a nation at all. If the Lost Cause devotees would simply read the words written by their ancestors, they would see that by attempting to confuse the issue of causes they are insulting their (self-styled) noble ancestors - who were extremely proud of their racial supremacy and exploitation of slave labor.Davidiank (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits of 19 August 2010

These were just an unholy mess--someone had already corrected "recognize the legitimate city of secession" but what the heck is "kept a port of Ford in the center of the Confederacy's second-largest port"? Rjensen, PLEASE learn how to proofread!

The header for the would-be new section, "Causes of secession", hardly summarizes the actual content of it (which, since it was originally most of the intro to the article as a whole, ranges over most of the history of the U.S. for the first half of the 19th Century rather than specifically discussing the secession crisis that directly precipitated the war). Maybe the intro needs to be tightened up or re-written, but this is certainly not the way to do it. 184.36.97.61 (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the article is all about the causes of secession. The lede needs to link that to the Civil War which it now does. Rjensen (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Disppointing

A very disappointing article. I'm not American, but it seems to me that the infighting has kept any coherent or complete representation of fact from filtering through. Here's what I didn't see (before just giving up): No mention of where the money backing the Republicans came from. Or why. No explicit mention of the near civil war of 1832. Or the influence of British antislavery movements. No mention of the difficulties the West had with getting infrastructure built, caused by a Southern desire to limit northern Western expansion for demographic reasons. Civil Wars, such as in Lebanon decades ago, very frequently result from a demographic shift that takes a majority group into relatively powerless minority status. This is not exactly emphasized. Economic changes for the South, caused by mechanization (cotton gin) making cotton far more profitable... one could go on and on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.45.143 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Money backing Republicans - mainly from the North's advantage in manufacturing. Near civil war in 1832 - also 1820, 1850 and 1854. Difficulties in getting infrastructure built - apparently the "slave power" felt threatened. The cotton gin - made slavery more profitable. None of this is mentioned? Are you sure about that?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The articles on Wikipedia regarding the Civil War are a prime example why it is considered by scholars as a poor source of information. Not too long ago, a self proclaimed "Virginia historian" wrote a textbook based purely on internet and Wikipedia research. When the book was published it contained numerous errors which "the author" got from Wikipedia and the so called historian soon became a laughing stock. Even YouTube has a video mading fun of "Professor Wikipedia". If you want to know about history, please stick to sources produced by professionals which are vetted by other professionals. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.179.45 (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

First battles as origins???

Was [sic] Pearl Harbor the originS of U.S. entry into WW2? Was [sic] Germany's invasion of Poland the originS of WW2?--JimWae (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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

I am not, of course, against mentioning Sumter in the lede, but ORIGINS "begin" before first battles--JimWae (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You have *immediately* a syntactical problem also "The origins... was the Battle of Fort Sumter". The subject title is plural. Even if you could solve that, first battles are not the "origin" of fighting--JimWae (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

And the previous "The origins of the... War resulted in full-scale fighting..." is void of substance. This article is not ABOUT what happened IN the war, but about its origins. Only some of what happened IN its battles belongs here. The battles are not the primary focus, though the first one does belong in the lede - but is not the originS, and is misplaced in the first sentence.--JimWae (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The "civil war" has multiple meanings: a) it was a political conflict with deep roots; b) it was a shooting war that originated with the firing on Ft Sumter. Most (but not all) historians focus on a); plenty of historians and most popular readers focus on b). I think the lede should include both AND should show how the yare linked, which is what I tried to do. JimWae is primarily concerned with syntax/ plural-singular. So try this: The origin of the fighting war comprised the firing on Ft Sumter AND the immediate response to that firing in both North and South. All the historians cover that. Rjensen (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We are not disagreeing on what is COVERED. We are disagreeing on calling the first battle of ANY war its origin/originS.--JimWae (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Territories and the US Constitution

If editors have access to JSTOR, they can read the essay by Bestor that undergirds the original article subsection.

The editor offers these as support for the paraphrases below: Bestor, 1964, pp. 20-25 and Holt, 2004, pp. 34–35.

“These were the theory that an equal number of free and slave states had to be carved from the territories...” Where do Bestor and Holt make this claim about equal number of states required by “the theory”?

“...the theory that Congress could prohibit slavery from territories and new states...” From “new states”? Are you certain of this?

“...the theory that Southerners carried the rights of their slaves with them into the territories, including a right to slavery...” “carried the rights of slaves...? The slaves had rights? Careful, this may incite a servile war!

“...the Popular Sovereignty theory that the people of a territory could decide the slavery issue by a majority vote.” Where do Bestor and Holt make this statement about direct democracy in the decision making process? What role did territorial legislatures play?

I object to the cannibalization of existing sections without careful examination of the sources. The “Origins” article on the Civil War appears to be a dumping ground for all sorts of material, the bulk of which lacks citations. Please don’t contribute to enlarging this oversized, albeit rather entertaining, recycing bin. 36hourblock (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sex, honor and Sumner-Brooks

The interpretation of the insults as sexual innuendo is already clearly in the section of the article and is so prominent I think it may be showing undue weight. The words I removed are unsourced and heavily pov - the rape is figurative and Butler was not singled out on that. Sumner said slavery was Butler's mistress, which is quite a different thing from accusing Butler of being a pimp. Edward321 (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It's important to see this in terms of a challenge to honor. Sumner used the term "rape" which has a double meaning (both sexual attack and more generally to to seize and take away by force, says Webster's 3rd). "pimp" is the term used by historians see Judith N. McArthur; Orville Vernon Burton (1996). "A Gentleman and an Officer": A Military and Social History of James B. Griffin's Civil War. Oxford U.P. p. 40. Rjensen (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC).

It still seems undue emphasis to me, but the view is now sourced and the author of the view clearly cited. Edward321 (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Southern Culture Section - Unsupported Internal Conflict

The second paragraph of this section says, "In 1850 there were around 350,000 slaveholders in a total free Southern population of about six million." By my calculations this means about 6% of free Southerners were slave owners. The following paragraph says, "Yet, while the proportion of the white population consisting of slaveholders was on the decline on the eve of the Civil War—perhaps falling below around a quarter of free southerners in 1860..." My reading is that the slave owning section of the free southern population decreased from 6% to something very close to 25%. Since there is no reference provided for either percentage, I have no idea which (if either) should be considered correct. Slickjack (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

it's garbled. if you say About 350,000 persons owned slaves, you get a small %. If you say About 350,000 families owned slaves, you get a much higher %. Rjensen (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Onset of the Civil War and Compromise section unreferenced

I'm not one to hang tags on sections (since I too frequently see them thrown on every few words in a paragraph, and sometimes in error), but this section appears to be a good candidate for one. There are no notes given in the entire section at present. I attribute this to it being a very old section. I went back through 8 years or so of edit summaries without finding when it was created.

It appears to be more of discussion of academic historian opinion at given times, rather than popular/political/participant opinion--which differed by section. I've read enough Southern participant accounts in the era to question the accuracy of the claim: "In the first decades after the fighting, histories of the Civil War generally reflected the views of Northerners who had participated in the conflict." I don't doubt that it is true on some level, but I'm not sure what particular type/level they are referring to. General histories of the war? First hand accounts/biographies by participants?

What I'm trying to say is I'm not sure if the general picture given is accurate or not, but it also isn't clear to me what it is specifically referring to at times. My interest is typically drawn more to the campaigns/operations, first hand accounts, and strategic considerations rather than general histories so I am not well equipped to tackle this one.

I am also confused as to how this section fits with the rest of the article--it seems general and unconnected to the specificity of the rest. Red Harvest (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

the article is mostly historiography--that is, what explanations people have offered for what happened 9as opposed a narrative of event). I added some cites--let me highly recommend Tom Pressly's excellent book. Rjensen (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this was needed. Older material didn't carry as much burden of notes/cites when written. A few general references listed at the bottom was enough at times. It isn't so easy anymore. Red Harvest (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Arguments against : Slavery as the number one cause of the Civil War or an Oversimplification.

When we list the reasons for the civil war, and number then 1..N, where does slavery appear in this list. Putting Slavery as the number one reason is a debatable point. It's sometimes put as reason number 3. Unfortunately, it is part of human nature to write history such that the victor gets to write the history, and declare his side on the moral right. (Perhaps this is why we don't like to admit that the settling of the USA involved the death of half a trillion natives). This likely has led to pushing slavery into the primary reason, because yes, as a nation we somehow moved from voluntary indentured servitude, to involuntary slavery which is repulsive.

What were the other issues?

(1) Money was a major issue, and money implied cotton. The North had the factories and the banks, and therefore was making lots of money from cotton and exports (The US was producing 60% of the worlds cotton goods). Import-taxes were seen as a tax burden on the south, since the North's exports were not taxed. (The Morril Tarriff of 1861, increased the import tariff by up to 70%.) While they were very low before the increase, a disparity in taxation, causes ill feelings. When the southern representatives walked out in protest, the Northern representatives seized the opportunity to pass the bill that they knew would not pass in their presence, and increased their taxation. The first time South Carolina threatened succession, was Vice President Calhoun (from South Carolina), in regards to the Tariff of 1828 (The Tariff of Abominations) against president John Quincy Adams. V.P. Calhoun threatened succession, and the tariff was modified.

(2) The morals of the north and the south differed/Southern Pride. People in the north had more education. They also has looser morals. Even the religions had a divide between the Northerns and the Southerns (currently, only "Southern" Baptist's religion is the only divide). This contributed towards a pride in being southern. The south was actually spending less on education, and children in the south were dropping out of school earlier especially women. The south was in debt. Their roads were not as well maintained. Slavery was also in the decline in the south. The north had wage slavery, which did not provide any social security for the elderly, sick or injured workers. There was a law in Virginia which made the slave holder responsible for the social security of his slaves. (Shockingly, the last of the Lott "slave cottages" in Virginia, provided free lodging for decedents of the slaves at that location, until the mid-1960's). This was in contrast to the wage slavery in the north. The story projected about large plantations, is also an exaggeration, most slaveholders held 5 slaves, with only one percent of the population holding much more.

The Petticoat affair in 1830-1831, which was exposed by Vice President Calhoun's wife (whom lead an anti-Peggy parade), added to the illusion of a divide between the morals of the North and the South.

(3) Vice President Calhoun... The man was unyielding, and negotiated by force. He threatened to leave the Union, in order to alter a tariff! And it worked! This man, as a hero figure, convinces people to rebel against the federal government. His wife led the anti-peggy parade (for morality)! Other Unitarians of the time were also rebelling against authority, but Calhoun did it from the inside!

(4) States Rights. States Rights was a dispute about if federal laws can be overridden or NULLIFIED by the states. Do Federal Taxes need to be enforced? We see this today, in the form of the federal marijuana laws being ignored by some of the states (but not nullified). While today, people like to focus on the fact that States Rights circle back to slavery, the initial reason was TAXES/Tariffs. Huge import taxes forced the south to buy goods from the north instead of Europe, especially the Tariff in 1861, which raised the tax 70%!. These taxes angered southerns. (http://www.ket.org/civilwar/causes.html).

(5) Because it worked. The first time V.P. Calhoun, South Carolina, threatened succession, there was a negotiation, and a compromise. So, they tried it again. The next time, the government sent troops.

If we want to rewrite history such that it appears that the north was in the moral right....then we'd better remove the US Supreme Courts Dred Scott decision from history as well (Anyone of African decent, is not a US citizen, and not entitled to the protection of law). You might also want to erase some of Charles Stewart Parnell's speeches (he came to the US with his mistress, from England/Ireland). Truth be told, you did not want to be a black man or women anywhere in the US in the mid 1800's. During this time, the Whig Party ended and the Republican Party started, with Abraham Lincoln. The states voted for presidents during the 1860 elections, and were divided into regions. Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee voted for the Constitutional Union Party (which supported National rule, over States Rights). To list slavery as the number one cause, is an oversimplification. The nation was divided, but after the war, and years after, we have come together and the issue of states rights has been decided to take a back seat to Federal Laws, and taxes, and Tariffs. ( http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm ) 75.107.140.75 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Anon seems to have his own secret history of the war that resembles the fringe ideas put forward by neo-Confederates. One might call that un-American but it is merely un-Wikipedian. We rely on the reliable secondary sources and in the last half-century or so no scholats have endorsed these fringe views. The second problem is that the Confederates back in 1860-61 did not see these as the causes of the war. They talked endlessly about the Northern threat to their way of life. The men busy fathering illegitimate babies with slave women did not boast about their moral superiority in front of their legal wives. The Southern way of life was identical to the North except when slavery came up. That was the rub. (About the tariff, by the way, that was a Northern grievance because southerners controlled Congress and set the tariffs too low.) Rjensen (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Slavery and Independence

Under "Historical tensions and compromises," the first section ("Early Republic") starts by saying, "At the time of the American Revolution, the institution of slavery was firmly established in the American colonies." This assertion might be revised.

While England allowed the colonies to legislate for themselves, it stipulated that the colonies' laws could not be repugnant to law in England. Through the 1700s, the legal status of slavery in England became increasingly doubtful, and the Somerset decision of 1772 finally established that slavery was so "odious" that it was not consistent with English common law and that it could only be established by a statutue of Parliament. Since there was no prospect of such a statute, the American colonies were on notice from 1772 on that their laws establishing slavery could be at any time be noticed as repugnant to English law.

In this light, institution of slavery was not firmly established in the American colonies as a legal matter, until independence took the colonies out of the reach of English legal authorities.

It is not clear how important this threat to American slavery may have been in the colonies' push for independence. The conflict with England brought the matter to a head, however, as during the war for independence British armies liberated about a third of the African-American population that had been held in slavery, mainly in the South. It appears that slavery might have ended in the English colonies much earlier had they not become independent.

Taking the points above into account, it would be ideal for an expert to revise the beginning of the "Early Republic" section. The revised text might go along lines such as the following: "Among the differences between England and its American colonies was the legal status of slavery. As of the Somerset court decision of 1772, slavery was illegal in England but was still supported by laws that the individual American colonies had adopted. Independence resolved a potential conflict over slavery by taking the colonies out of the reach of English legal authorities."Jsryanjr (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

well that's a fringe view held by a few people. The British had a very hard time getting rid of slavery in their colonies -- even Canada (1833). The British armies did NOT liberate more than 1% of the slaves during the war....they hauled far more off to slavery in the West Indies. As for the Somerset case you are misreading the ruling: " Mansfield ruled Somerset must be "discharged" — set free — although not on the basis that slavery was illegal in England, as the abolitionists had argued. Mansfield's judgment was made on the narrow base that Great Britain had no precedent allowing for the forced re-capture of an escaped slave for sale outside the country." [Patricia Bradley, 1985] Rjensen (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Content speaks of demographics/population migration patterns and should be moved to correct section

At the time of the American Revolution, the institution of slavery was firmly established in the American colonies. It was most important in the six southern states from Maryland to Georgia, but the total of a half million slaves were spread out through all of the colonies. In the South 40% of the population was made up of slaves, and as Americans moved into Kentucky and the rest of the southwest fully one-sixth of the settlers were slaves. By the end of the war, the New England states provided most of the American ships that were used in the foreign slave trade while most of their customers were in Georgia and the Carolinas.

Though starting from an earlier period, this paragraph is less about History and more about Geography and Demographics; I recommend we move it into that section. AlwaysLiberty (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. A narrative on the history has to start somewhere. This paragraph describes the conditions at the start of this history. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the article already had the geography section when I arrived, I was thinking that a discussion of geography (and demographics, as there is some of that content as well) of the regions involved in the conflict was the beginning of the narrative, as it provides setting and backdrop for the events that occurred. Seems like a good place to start to me, but perhaps it shouldn't be its own heading equal to history? We could change the section into a subheading of history. AlwaysLiberty (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Paragraphs don't belong in section

Even expanding the section heading to include demographics as well as geography, discussion of history does not belong in the section. To wit:

In the interest of maintaining unity, politicians had mostly moderated opposition to slavery, resulting in numerous compromises such as the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After the Mexican-American War of 1846 to 1848, the issue of slavery in the new territories led to the Compromise of 1850. While the compromise averted an immediate political crisis, it did not permanently resolve the issue of the Slave power (the power of slaveholders to control the national government on the slavery issue). Part of the 1850 compromise was the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, requiring that Northerners assist Southerners in reclaiming fugitive slaves, which many Northerners found to be extremely offensive.

Amid the emergence of increasingly virulent and hostile sectional ideologies in national politics, the collapse of the old Second Party System in the 1850s hampered efforts of the politicians to reach yet one more compromise. The compromise that was reached (the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act) outraged many northerners, and led to the formation of the Republican Party, the first major party with no appeal in the South. The industrializing North and agrarian Midwest became committed to the economic ethos of free-labor industrial capitalism.

Arguments that slavery was undesirable for the nation had long existed, and early in U.S. history were made even by some prominent Southerners. After 1840, abolitionists denounced slavery as not only a social evil but a moral wrong. Many Northerners, especially leaders of the new Republican Party, considered slavery a great national evil and believed that a small number of Southern owners of large plantations controlled the national government with the goal of spreading that evil. Southern defenders of slavery, for their part, increasingly came to contend that blacks actually benefited from slavery, an assertion that alienated Northerners even further.

We should move these paragraphs to a more appropriate section, or strike them if they duplicate material already in those sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwaysLiberty (talk • contribs) 06:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the section could use a better title. The bigger problem is that the article lead is flawed -- it doesn't present a summary of the actual article. This section apparently attempts to remedy that by serving as an introduction to the article. IMO this section should be eliminated and merged with the lead. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't had time to finish reading the article (I'm just making suggestions as I go along, and reading as I have time), so I hadn't presumed to speak of the lead yet. The main reason I singled these paragraphs out was that they seem to summarize later sections of the article (e.g. the Missouri Compromise has its own section a little later) while only being peripherally relevant to the section head, but I'm not sure they are sufficiently summarized for the lead. AlwaysLiberty (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Modernity

Modernity is a perfectly acceptable term.[1] Edward321 (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't find a definition for "modernity" other than the quality of being modern, and modern, according to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/modern?s=t, is defined as:

1. of or relating to present and recent time; not ancient or remote: modern city life. 2. characteristic of present and recent time; contemporary; not antiquated or obsolete: modern viewpoints. 3. of or relating to the historical period following the Middle Ages: modern European history.

It is an anachronism to assume that anyone at the time knows what future historians will call modern of a particular period, modern being relative to the period in question. If I'm missing a definition here, please let me know, but it would seem that modernity, as applied to the actions of actors in an historical period, would by necessity be an anachronism, as it requires hind-sight to identify, something that no one has on their immediate actions. The same problem affects any terms with modern as their root, such as modernization, when discussing history.

Also, I'd like to mention that "Increasingly Different Values and Cultures in North and South" seems to describe and fit the content of the section better than the rather vague "Southern Fears of Modernity." AlwaysLiberty (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"It is an anachronism to assume that anyone at the time knows what future historians will call modern of a particular period" is correct, but nothing in the article does that. I already linked Modernity as explained here on Wikipedia, so why you're having trouble with its meaning escapes me. "Increasingly Different Values and Cultures in North and South" is so broad that in could replace most headers in the article. Edward321 (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You have a point about the generality of the title I suggest, but having looked at the article on Modernity, I'd have to say the term is being misused here. The modern values of the South at that time included a moral right to own slaves, work fresh land freely with their property, and to sell their wares without burdensome tariffs and taxes. The fears in the South revolved not around modern values, but around the new values emerging in the North, values that began to become modern a few decades later, after the war, and completed that journey in the civil rights movement in the 1960's. Abolition, for example, was a very young movement at that time, less than a century old, and it faced a colossal, nearly world-wide institution that had been around longer than recorded history. Perhaps we should analyze the content to see if the paragraphs belong in other sections; it seems like the content is unfocused enough that a general title is difficult for the section. AlwaysLiberty (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

the issue is modernization. Start with Luraghi, Raimondo. "The Civil War and the Modernization of American Society: Social Structure and Industrial Revolution in the Old South before and during the War." Civil War History 18.3 (1972): 230-250. and Richard D. Brown, Modernization: the transformation of American life, 1600-1865 (1976)." Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

But using the term "modernization" like that makes the false assumption that history is a progression toward what we have today, as though historical actors had our time in mind as they made their decisions. We don't have the benefit of this kind of precognition; why would we attribute it to historical actors? This is horribly anachronistic; I mean, what about, say, eugenics? That monstrosity doesn't seem like a necessary step in moving from past to future from our perspective today; rather, it was a massive and horrific mistake on the parts of scientists and politicians all over the world. Still, those scientists and politicians, from the late 19th century until the crimes of the Nazis in Germany were revealed, would have called public policy supporting eugenics "modernization." I will, however, take a look at the books and historians you suggest, thanks. AlwaysLiberty (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No such assumptions are made by the civil war historians. Rjensen (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The heading "Southern Fears of Modernity" makes that assumption. The South would have to fear values modern to the time for that to be a valid statement, and the emerging values of the North could hardly be called modern of the time. Modern later, certainly, but not at the time. AlwaysLiberty (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Confederate historical revisionism

At Historical revisionism (negationism) an editor has removed the text about Confederate historical revisionism[2] - see their reason at Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism). Clearly needs input. Doug Weller (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure they don't have some points. Mostly I'm thinking that's not a 'negationism' denying of factual events. Markbassett (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Origins of the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Origins of the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150713102827/http://civilwarcauses.org/benningva.htm to http://civilwarcauses.org/benningva.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150213033216/http://civilwarcauses.org/reasons.htm to http://civilwarcauses.org/reasons.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Origins of the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106090007/http://www.npg.si.edu/col/amistad/index.htm to http://www.npg.si.edu/col/amistad/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html to http://www.multied.com/elections/1860Pop.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Origins of the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html to http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/Background/BackgroundElection.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Dred Scott Summary

Like a lot of other scholarship on this, the current description of the Dred Scott decision attributes to CJ Taney something he wrote to describe the view's of another. The section also doesn't grasp the actual holding(s) of the case. I already re-wrote the majority opinion subsection on the Dred Scott page ([[3]]. Lukacris (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing something? the strategic importance of the Mississippi River

Have you missed something that was extremely obvious to anyone in the Midwest in the 1800s--If the Confederacy had become an independent nation they would have had total control over the Lower Mississippi River and with it could have held hostage commerce in the Midwest. Trains could not have made up the difference then, and even today the Mississippi continues to be important for transportation of goods and natural resources. Since Lincoln went down the River twice with goods when he was young he was naturally and fully aware of its strategic importance. The outcome of our nation would have been profoundly different had we let the South control it. Source--this is a "self-evident truth"--one of those things people take so for granted they rarely even need to talk about it. Books are vitally important sources but reason is also needed. 205.167.120.201 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC) (I'm Margaret9mary but can't remember my password. Don't have sufficient computer skills to change it and no one at this community college that I know of is interested in figuring it out--I would appreciate some help with this because I occasionally notice something missing)

paper money

The speculation of a contemporary artist John W. Jones who colorized Confederate currency is entertaining, but does not meet standards or a reliable secondary source. The local reporter undoubtedly reported what artist Jones said but no expert has endorsed his interpretation. Most bills apparently did NOT showe scenes of slavery--take a look at File:CSA-T20-$20-1862.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/File:CSA-T20-$20-1862.jpg Rjensen (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ps there is scholarship on the issue. Here's an excerpt from a review in Civil War History (2015) p 327 of Ian Binnington's 2013 book Confederate Visions: Nationalism, Symbolism, and the Imagined South in the Civil War--the plantation scenes dropped off after 1862:

"The Pledge of a Nation That’s 'Dead and Gone’: The Confederate Nation on the Face of Money” is Binnington’s most innovative chapter. Treating paper currency as a text, he argues that...money also provided an ideological necessity to nation building. For Binnington, the evolution of Confederate nationalism can be traced—almost step by step—on the face of paper currency. While early Confederate bills contained iconography that stressed agriculture, commerce, liberty, and American history, beginning in late 1862, the imagery took on a more martial and distinctively Confederate tone. Where there was once the figure of Liberty, there was now Jefferson Davis; where there was once a peaceful plantation, there was now galloping horse artillery. This chapter is methodologically innovative, as Binnington places his arguments in a dialoge with two public history exhibits, treating them as if they were any other historiographical contributions. Rjensen (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I’m alone here, but the point is not John W. Jones, and it's not speculation. The point is that Confederate bills portrayed bucolic slavery — not every bill, and not throughout the war. They are concentrated at the beginnng of the war. That's significant too. Considering the very long campaign to claim slavery was not the cause, this is, to me, impressive evidence to the contrary, and worth mentioning. And it's in an exhibit put on by a reputable museum. What do others think? Anyone interested can see all the Confederate notes at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gallery/National_Numismatic_Collection/Paper/US/Banknotes#Confederate_States_of_America deisenbe (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

you need a reliable secondary source --the exhibit was about new color paintings by Jones inspired by the old currency. Binnington points out that Confederate national currency mcuh less often used happy-slavery themes--those were mostly on state bank issues, and emphasize the antebellum way of life was good for everyone. In my opinion those notes represent 1) the 'defend our happy homeland' theme- and 2) rejecting the Yankee theme that slavery was a great evil. But that's my opinion and i'm not a RS on the topic. Rjensen (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Walter Scott's Waverly Novels

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

"ACW causes" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ACW causes. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"Slavery in the South and West" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Slavery in the South and West. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

To whom ever wrote the original of this please check your facts and do not place sentences of Slavery before Economic impact, and Tariff taxation. for these are the real reasons for this WAR! Further more the name was not The Civil War, for there was nothing Civil about Brother against Brother! The actual un-named Name of this War was "The War Between the States" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huberthhayes (talk • contribs) 16:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Causes of the Civil War" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Primary sources

@Sychonic: As I already stated twice, the problem with the Davis quote is that it is a primary source. See WP:PSTS for an explanation. An arbitrary selection of primary sources is original research. I didn't question the reliability of the source. Your answers seem to indicate that you fail to understand the problem of primary and secondary sources. Anyway, also WP:ONUS applies here. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m happy to discuss the matter, but you seem to reject my multiple sources as “primary” without justification. I’ve repeatedly stated the obvious, which is that these are media sources. How can the New York Times be rejected as an acceptable source? The same is true of Davis’s papers, housed at Rice University. You don’t question the validity of the information and don’t seem to realize that these sources are common to Wikipedia pages. The source right after my first edit on another quote in the existing article comes from the Congressional Globe. There also are other multiple references to Davis’s papers in the same article. There’s even a reference to census material. Mine are clearly references of common use among editors. I’ve more than fulfilled the requirement to use proper sourcing and have no interest in an edit “war” but I am uncertain as to how many sources are required in your view. The New York Times reference in particular should be enough. Sych (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, I would direct your attention to the Wiki guidelines in regard to primary sources and when they can be used, in particular with quotes:

“Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.”

Please see:

Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#"Primary" does not mean "bad"

Thank you Sych (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sychonic: I already gave you a warning on your users's talk page. The next time you insert that quote, I will immediately take the case to WP:ANI/3RR. The onus for establishing consensus is yours, that's why I mentioned WP:ONUS. I didn't say that the source is bad, but it clearly is a primary source. That's as obvious as the consensus of historians that the Civil War was about slavery and that the Lost Cause mythology is a deliberate falsification of history. You can add hundreds of references to primary sources. WP guidelines - as I understand them - require that you prove the relevance of the quote by providing a reference to a good, academic, recent, mainstream historian. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have augmented the existing references with secondary sources to address your concerns and made a few other edits with the same purpose. It now includes two recent works and one from a Civil War Union General. They are all “accurate” and “reliable”. These, to me, are the most important Wikipedia guidelines.

The quote from Jefferson Davis, one from an interview conducted while the war was still raging, is a “contemporary explanation” and by that very fact should be included. His importance is not in question, I should think his views are as relevant as the Vice President of the Confederacy, who is also quoted.

These additional sources include one from John A. Logan, a General in the Union Army during the War, Senator, and candidate for Vice President (with Blaine in 1884). His book, The Great Conspiracy, is far from supportive of the “lost cause” and is distinctly critical of the South.

The Davis quote enhances the article not simply because it is by person of major significance, but because he expressing a contemporary opinion (from 1864), and also because it indicates what the most important political figure in the South was thinking at that time, in particular after several years of a far bloodier war than anyone had expected.

I am neither interested in the “lost cause” nor in attempting to skew any article in a particular direction. My only interest is that it be dispassionate and fact-based. To me the addition is about history, not contemporary politics – the question should be always – “is it good history?” I think this contrasting quote with between the Vice President and President of the Confederacy serves as an interesting juxtaposition and provides factual material that contrasts with orthodoxy, which is really the kind that always should be considered. Sych (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sychonic: Contrary to the claims you made at ANI/3RR, Maihafer was no historian (Amazon says in the description of his book: "The late Harry J. Maihafer, a West Point graduate and retired U.S. Army colonel, held a master’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri."). I didn't check the other recent book you provided since its focus is on the emancipation debate, not on our debate. But you are certainly right that there are more problematic quotes in the section Contemporaneous explanations. I therefore propose to remove the entire section. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Countering sanitization of history

Reading the origin of the causes the article seems to do a good job of refuting the lost cause theory that defenders of the Confederacy use to claim the war had nothing to do with slavery. However my reading of the article is that the article does not seem to refute some similar sanitization of the Union states' complicity with slavery. My understanding is at the outset, the majority in the Union States ( both the slave and free states ) were willing to preserve a Union with slavery ( though NIMBY - not on their territory ) if it would prevent war. My understanding is that it was not until slavery threatened the Union and after the war started that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in states in rebellion. The article seems to go along with the north's revision of their own complicity with slavery. White northern Americans in particular seem to be revising their history of complicity ( and slavery in their past) to glorify their side, as do the lost causers from what I can see. Sengbe7 (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The hero worship of the Union forces is nothing new, I am afraid. The Emancipation Proclamation dates to January 1863, two years following the beginning of the war. It did not change the status quo in the border states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia). Dimadick (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

That is covered in-depth elsewhere, but covering it here is not topically appropriate and would give a sense of WP:FALSEBALANCE. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are separate issues from what I am bringing up. Sengbe7 (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The majority of secession documents clearly state that their reasons for seceding were due to what they perceived as Constitutional issues

The following statement in the opening paragraph is unsourced and gives an impression of original research:

• "Proponents of the pseudo-historical Lost Cause ideology have denied that slavery was the principal cause of the secession, a view that has been disproven by the overwhelming historical evidence against it, notably the seceding states' own secession documents."

If the original secession documents are read in their entirety, they sum up their arguments for seceding as Constitutionally based. (No matter how many times they may mention slavery in other contexts). There is no consensus of historians that says otherwise.Jimhoward72 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The idea that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War is part of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, something clearly established as a myth invented to reconcile the White North and the White South and to secure White supremacy. The WP:lead section is supposed to summarize the article, so the sources belong in the body of the article. Rsk6400 (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you are not seeing my point. There is no consensus of historians that support the statement I quoted. The statement has an air of original research about it, thus it would be necessary to support it with a referenced consensus of historians instead of relying on the writer's own reading of the statements of secession (arguably wrong), and having it in the lead as if it's something historians agree on. Like you mentioned above to an earlier writer, this sentence is relying on how the writer is reading the secession statements (primary sources), instead of referencing their primary sources with historical consensus of legitimate historians. It's certainly not summarizing something in the body of the article. Jimhoward72 (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jimhoward72 A simple search on Google Scholar immediately pulled up a source on point, which I added. This is now the second time you've complained about a Lost Cause claim being unsourced, but instead of finding a source, you've argued for removal. In the future, I suggest you do some research before going straight for arguing something is incorrect. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask that if you source a restricted to paid subscription article in JSTOR, (as you have for the second time), that you post the relevant quote in your actual reference or footnote? I don't know, but it seems like it should be a policy for quotes to be posted for reference material that isn't available online for all users. I find it hard to believe that a scholar would ignore the clear references to the constitution being violated, as being mentioned as the primary single cause in the majority of secession documents. Jimhoward72 (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jimhoward72 The WP:LIBRARY gives free access to a lot of sources. Requiring things to be quoted would be a waste of editor time; the majority of sources, like books, are not accessible free online. Info on wiki must be WP:VERIFIABLE, but it need not be instantly verifiable to every reader. Beyond that, the Southern secession was about slavery, regardless of what other reasons were used to dress it up. The WP:ONUS is on you to dispute that with reliable sources. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jimhoward72 I just added the quote. It is the second sentence of the article. The first one reads, "Working with the American public to understand the causes of the Civil War can be an exercise in frustration." Yes, it is frustrating having to argue again and again about something that is clearly supported by academic consensus. I second CaptainEek's suggestion. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems like an overall misreading of the texts themselves, If the original secession documents are read in their entirety, they sum up their arguments for seceding as Constitutionally based. (No matter how many times they may mention slavery in other contexts)-while it may be true that the articles of secession make more than token references to the constitution, these manifest as legal arguments in defense of the right to secede, and are not, as this wording would imply, cited amongst the core impetii or motivations for doing so-which are clearly referenced in the texts as pertaining to the institution of slavery. Yes, supporters of Confederacy believed they had a constitutional right to succeed and no consensus of historians..says..otherwise. The widely held imaginary right to succeed under the constitutional does nothing for the fact that the actual reason for doing is made clear-to preserve slavery. OgamD218 (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

"Confederate leaders themselves made it plain that slavery was the key issue sparking secession." From JSTOR that was provided as a source (see immediately above). The key issue for secession was disagreements about slavery, the South and the North didn't agree, and per the South the Northern disagreement wasn't constitutional. Saying "slavery caused secession" is meaningless, it was the disagreements that caused secession.Jimhoward72 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)