Talk:American Civil War
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Civil War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the American Civil War.
Q1: Should slavery be presented as the most important cause of the war? (Yes.)
A1: Yes. Slavery was the most important cause of the war. Wikipedia requires that we rely on the best officially documented research available, without any original research or undue weight to fringe theories.
After the war, some movements sought to advance Lost Cause interpretations, arguing that the Confederacy was not primarily fighting to defend slavery. While these have been popular in some quarters, the vast majority of historians do not support these interpretations, including best historians (McPherson, Nevins, Freehling and even the better Southern historians such as Potter). Ironically, during the crisis that led to the outbreak of war, Confederate politicians openly presented preservation of slavery as the central issue, in their own words. They mentioned fears for the future of slavery many times in their declarations of reasons for secession, political speeches and editorials. Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Stephens had the following to say: "You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub." - From Abraham Lincoln's letter to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, Dec 22, 1860 "We at the South do think African slavery, as it exists with us, both morally and politically right. This opinion is founded upon the inferiority of the black race. You, however, and perhaps a majority of the North, think it wrong." - From Stephens' reply to Lincoln, Dec 30, 1860 It is true that Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis both downplayed the slavery issue after the war began. As historian James Ford Rhodes explained, Davis hoped to get support from Britain and France, where slavery was unpopular, and Lincoln needed to keep the loyalty of the border states, which were both pro-slavery and pro-Union. This is why in statements like the Crittenden–Johnson Resolution, northern politicians argued they were only fighting to preserve the Union. Similarly, Lincoln's sole justification for the Emancipation Proclamation was military necessity. Holzer, Striner and Brewster note that Lincoln needed to portray the emancipation in a way that was acceptable to the border states and War Democrats. Q2: Were tariffs and states' rights similar in importance? (No.)
A2: No. The tariff issue and states' rights were factors, and there were others. These are all included in the article. However, no issue was as important as slavery.
The original secessionists were not very careful in separating states' rights from the slavery issue. They defended both states' rights (such as secession) and federal power (such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850), depending on which suited slavery with each controversy. South Carolina's declaration of reasons for secession is one example out of many. However, Lost Cause historians did subsequently portray the Confederacy as consistent defenders of states' rights. The tariff issue had been a much larger issue three decades before the war, and even then John Calhoun, who led South Carolina's attempt to nullify the Tariff of 1828, said that the tariff issue was related to slavery. In his March 6, 1860 speech at New Haven, Lincoln had said that the slavery issue was more important than the tariff or any other issue. Q3: Did Lincoln propose to immediately abolish slavery in the South when elected? (No.)
A3: No. Lincoln combined moral opposition to slavery (calling it "a monstrous injustice") with a moderate, gradual program of action. Lincoln, like most Republicans, believed that compromises of the Constitution (a three-fifths clause, a 20 year extension of the African slave trade and a fugitive slave clause) implied constitutional recognition of slavery where it existed. However, Lincoln would not compromise on preventing any expansion of slavery in the hope that this would put it "in the course of ultimate extinction." Q4: Did Lincoln believe in racial equality? (Mostly.)
A4: In the context of the 19th century, being seen as a "Black Republican" abolitionist would be politically damaging. Lincoln was inconsistent on the equality issue during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, partly in order to deflect this charge. However, the things Lincoln said in favor of equality were many (including Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address and his Cooper Union speech), while the things he said against it were few, and those few were combined with a great deal of political pressure. While Lincoln and other northern politicians did not always advocate equality, this should not be given undue weight, especially as they wanted to give far more rights to black people than the Confederate politicians. At a July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago Lincoln said, "I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist." Q5: Should the article refer to the states that allowed slavery as slave states? (Yes.)
A5: Yes, because their politicians referred to them as slave states, and because slavery related concerns were by far the major complaint mentioned by secessionists. After the outbreak of war, the slave states became divided between the Confederate states and the border states. Q6: Did some slave states fight for the North? (Yes.)
A6: Yes, the five border states. These states had less slavery and more support for the Union than the Confederate slave states. They opposed emancipation at first, but largely accepted the military need for it eventually. Kentucky and Missouri had more slavery than the rest, and had loyalties that were more divided than the rest. For example, Missouri's Governor Claiborne Jackson was a southern sympathizer, but was prevented from seceding by Union Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon. Missouri saw some of the worst guerrilla fighting of the entire war because of its divisions over slavery. Q7: Should the title be American Civil War? (Yes.)
A7: Yes. The title "American Civil War" is used only because it is the most common international name for the war. It is used in order to be understood, regardless of whether it could be better. The title does ignore the South's point of view, and it ignores the fact that Central America and South America are also America, in a sense.
The other names should be mentioned, but not in this article. They are mentioned in Naming the American Civil War. The main article links to this. Q8: Did the South start the war? (Yes.)
A8: The South bombarded and seized Fort Sumter, a federal fort in South Carolina. Historians regard this as the incident in which the actual fighting began. |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
 | There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
Summary Help
[edit]I have been working slowly over the past couple of months on Draft:Attacks on the United States, which obviously has several entries from this war (like the Maryland campaign and the Gettysburg campaign). If anyone familiar with one or several of the attacks against the U.S. during the war, feel free to help perfect the summaries or help by adding additional sources/references.
Any assistance is always appreciated! You can find the American Civil War section in the draft here: Draft:Attacks on the United States#American Civil War (October 1859–May 1865). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The first January 23 edit and its reversion
[edit]Reverting it was absolutely right. The edited version said, "However, the states rights ideas of South Carolina-based John C. Calhoun, which went beyond slavery and also concerned other federal policies which were viewed as not being in the interest of the Southern states, would also play a significant role in the buildup to the war as well." But its source did not support that.
The source starts in a way that appears to support that: "A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery. In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict. A key issue was states' rights." But then, when it elaborates, it shows, perhaps unwittingly, that slavery was the sole cause of secession.
It says, "The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn't support, especially laws interfering with the South's right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished." Note "especially laws interfering with [slavery]," with no other laws named.
It then says, "Another factor was territorial expansion. The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone." In other words, "territorial expansion" means "territorial expansion of slavery."
The rest of it pretends that secession was not about slavery by saying that Lincoln's having won the election was "a clear signal to the Southern states that they had lost all influence," so "Feeling excluded from the political system, they turned to the only alternative they believed was left to them: secession, a political decision that led directly to war." But what precedes this makes clear that the Southern states' feeling that they had lost all influence and were excluded from the political system can refer only to the fact that Lincoln, who opposed expanding slavery into the territories, had won the election. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems a little preemptive, as the user who made the edit hasn't even come to the talk page yet (and he might not at all). But regardless, pretty much this whole thing is WP:OR. If the source says something as explicitly as you cited it in your 2nd paragraph, then the fact that you think it later contradicts itself doesn't really matter I'm afraid. We just go off what the source says. However, the original edit was awkwardly worded, had some other sourcing issues, and definitely needed some work, so the revert(s) were proper. Just10A (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just10A (talk) If an editor quotes a source that contradicts itself, it can be intellectually dishonest to quote only one of its contradictory statements. It can be tendentious, in this case possibly an attempt to push the Lost Cause myth. I say "can be" rather than "is" so as not to impute motivations to an editor. He or she might have merely been sloppy and failed to read past the first sentence of the source or failed to read the source carefully. It's also wrong to use a source of this nature when one could quote numerous leading Civil War scholars, all of whom have written books that would disagree with the first sentence of the source. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I totally agree with your last sentence. But that's an undue/false balance issue, not an "I personally think the source is contradictory" issue. Just10A (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just10A (talk) If an editor quotes a source that contradicts itself, it can be intellectually dishonest to quote only one of its contradictory statements. It can be tendentious, in this case possibly an attempt to push the Lost Cause myth. I say "can be" rather than "is" so as not to impute motivations to an editor. He or she might have merely been sloppy and failed to read past the first sentence of the source or failed to read the source carefully. It's also wrong to use a source of this nature when one could quote numerous leading Civil War scholars, all of whom have written books that would disagree with the first sentence of the source. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The opening info half gives dates and they're a bit confusing
[edit]I appreciate dates aren't always specific, the second paragraph lists four events and only gives dates for one of them:
> "Decades of controversy over slavery came to a head when Abraham Lincoln, who opposed slavery's expansion, won the 1860 presidential election. Seven Southern slave states responded to Lincoln's victory by seceding from the United States and forming the Confederacy. The Confederacy seized U.S. forts and other federal assets within their borders. The war began on April 12, 1861, when the Confederacy bombarded Fort Sumter in South Carolina."
On my first reading... I was most confused about how Lincoln won in 1860 but it's not too clear how that fits into the April 12, 1861 date? Did he come to power in late Jan like presidents seem to now?
Clicking on the "Abraham Lincoln" link, it seems like he came into power March 4, 1861. (I tried finding the date in the "1860 presidential election" link but I couldn't quickly see it. I'm guessing people that maintain this page might maintain that page and I think it would be an improvement to make this date more prominent and earlier on that page.) I think the date of the election is relevant enough to put in this opening and only takes a few additional words:
"won the 1860 presidential election, taking office March 4, 1861."
But also looking at the Wikipedia page for "The Confederacy" it says:
"The Confederate States of America (CSA), commonly referred to as the Confederate States (C.S.), the Confederacy, or the South, was an unrecognized breakaway[1] republic in the Southern United States that existed from February 8, 1861, to May 5, 1865.[8] It was composed of eleven U.S. states that declared secession: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. These states warred against the United States during the American Civil War."
So I'd also update that sentence to note the date the confederacy started:
"and forming the Confederacy starting February 8, 1861"
Since those dates seem out of order it's important to also update "won the 1860 presidential election" to be:
"won the 1860 presidential election held on November 6th"
So in total something like this, with the four dates listed:
""" Decades of controversy over slavery came to a head when Abraham Lincoln, who opposed slavery's expansion, won 1860 presidential election (held on the November 6th to take office on March 4, 1861). Seven Southern slave states responded to Lincoln's victory by seceding from the United States and forming the Confederacy on February 8, 1861. The Confederacy seized U.S. forts and other federal assets within their borders. The war began on April 12, 1861, when the Confederacy bombarded Fort Sumter in South Carolina. """ Porco-esphino (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Article error
[edit]Regarding "Battles" under "Eastern Theater"
Sentence should be "The Confederatecy successfully repelled the attack in the First Battle of Bull Run." ToxicApollo (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Fixed a recent error introduced by User:Keystone18—could you explain why you have created so many tiny uncited paragraphs (ergo vulnerable to being maintenance tagged and ultimately removed as uncited) in your recent edits, alongside your other habits of violating e.g. WP:NOPIPE? Remsense ‥ 论 19:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- NOPIPE relates to adding items to a link, such as a title. It doesn't mean that links should be consciously misdirected, though sometimes they can and should be. I don't believe I have created any paragraphs in this article, much less uncited ones. If they are uncited, they were almost certainly uncited before any of my edits. In this proposed sentence above, Confederacy is misspelled. Let me look at that section and ensure everything looks ok. Thanks. Keystone18 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- I made a few minor tweaks to that Eastern Theater section. Feel free to review them. I didn't see anything significant. Keystone18 (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- NOPIPE relates to adding items to a link, such as a title. It doesn't mean that links should be consciously misdirected, though sometimes they can and should be. I don't believe I have created any paragraphs in this article, much less uncited ones. If they are uncited, they were almost certainly uncited before any of my edits. In this proposed sentence above, Confederacy is misspelled. Let me look at that section and ensure everything looks ok. Thanks. Keystone18 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2025
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think there shouldn't be two "could" in in "Could the nation could be maintained as a republic". Zarisi (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Done Fixed. Thanks for noticing this.--MattMauler (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Final sentence of the lede paragraph
[edit]The sentence reads, " The technology and brutality of the Civil War foreshadowed the coming world wars." I would remove it, but it seems so well-established that I don't want to without a consensus. Here are my reasons. First, it's not true, except in hindsight; no one at the time of the Civil War thought about the coming world wars. Second, its meaning is unclear. It implies that the coming world wars were like the Civil War, but what is meant, even though not said, is that they were worse. Third, everyone knows that the world wars were worse. Fourth, the world wars are not relevant to this article. In short, the sentence contains no useful information. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think this line is tangential to the rest of the article, mostly. Sherman went in the direction of total war, except that he didn't target civilians. Gatling guns were used a little, and later led to machine guns. But the connection to World Wars is weak, imho.Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- I would replace it with something like, "The American Civil War introduced ironclad ships, the widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure and Gatling guns, which led to the invention of machine guns."Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- The suggested sentence might warrant being somewhere in the article. But it's not a good closing sentence for the lede paragraph. Actually, the article already states, "The war saw the first appearances of rapid-firing weapons and machine guns such as the Agar gun and Gatling gun," and that's not important enough to be in the lede paragraph. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- I would replace it with something like, "The American Civil War introduced ironclad ships, the widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure and Gatling guns, which led to the invention of machine guns."Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think this line is tangential to the rest of the article, mostly. Sherman went in the direction of total war, except that he didn't target civilians. Gatling guns were used a little, and later led to machine guns. But the connection to World Wars is weak, imho.Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- Our readers are reading "in hindsight". Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- Slatersteven is referring to a replacement sentence that I added and he reverted. I asked him to explain why he reverted it, and he has, but I disagree with his explanation. The historians who say that the Civil War isn't over are speaking about the present, not engaging in hindsight. I'm not going to do anything now, such as engage in an editing war, but I hope that others who are interested in American Civil War will put in their two cents, and maybe we can reach a consensus. The current sentence can surely be improved, even if you don't like my suggested improvement. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- I was responding to your claim above that "no one at the time of the Civil War thought about the coming world wars", That is irrelevant as we are speaking about how it is seen today, not then. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- Slatersteven is referring to a replacement sentence that I added and he reverted. I asked him to explain why he reverted it, and he has, but I disagree with his explanation. The historians who say that the Civil War isn't over are speaking about the present, not engaging in hindsight. I'm not going to do anything now, such as engage in an editing war, but I hope that others who are interested in American Civil War will put in their two cents, and maybe we can reach a consensus. The current sentence can surely be improved, even if you don't like my suggested improvement. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- B-Class American Civil War articles
- American Civil War task force articles
- Failed requests for military history A-Class review
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- High-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class African diaspora articles
- Top-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- B-Class American Old West articles
- High-importance American Old West articles
- WikiProject American Old West articles
- American Old West articles with to-do lists
- American Civil War articles with to-do lists
- United States military history articles with to-do lists
- B-Class United States History articles
- Top-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- United States History articles with to-do lists
- United States articles used on portals
- WikiProject United States articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report
- Spoken Wikipedia requests