Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

CSA "history" intro

CSA “history” section should have an introduction under the == section header, encompassing the === subheader topics as it is now written: The SCA (a) had cultural and political divisions, (b) went to war for independence, (c) did not gain war allies, (d) did war, but (e) unsuccessfully. Previous editors writing contributions to the section make a direct connection between the four-year history of CSA and the war for its survival.

- Rather than overemphasizing war as one complaint has it, the reverted introduction treated SCA (a) formation and social, political composition, (b) secession rationale, disunion by secession and war, (c) political, economic diversity, member state political division 1860, (d) scholarly judgment of its war for independence as “a tragedy”, and the influence of aristocracy in its traditional society to sustain its existence against all odds. The previous introduction is so well written that it was as coherent as an essay. To lend conciseness in the narrative, supportive statistical detail referenced from reliable sources is placed in footnotes.

- To my knowledge, there are no reliable sources holding that the history of the CSA was merely a disputation on theories of government or an explication of alternative literary traditions. Rather, all regard war as the core of CSA existence, its piecemeal dissolution and its final collapse. The introduction reflected that scholarly consensus and the article subsections as written. The reverted "history" introduction should be restored. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"The Confederacy was formed, and a civil war followed." This is not remotely quality writing. The bulk of that first history section isn't about the history of the Confederacy at all; it's about the war, or it jumps straight to an analysis of the secession without even telling us what the secession was. --Golbez (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

“The bulk” of the introduction to the "history section" is about the Confederacy, its rationale and its composition, with no mention of the mechanics of war, and little on secession. It concisely describes political, sociological and cultural elements of “The Cause” -- crucial for the international reader to make sense of secession before jumping into it, along with liming social stratification in that 19th Century traditional society. Secession is described by the sentence, “The Confederacy was formed, and a civil war followed its attack on Fort Sumter”. It may be that a general reader will not recognize “Confederacy” to mean "nation-state"? I will supply it.

- Is there any objection to the substance of the sentence? RS consensus says the Confederacy was "formed", it existed. RS consensus says Civil War "followed", beginning at Fort Sumter. The first sentence is entirely correct in its substance, so we are approaching quality history writing.

- The WP standard for measuring quality writing in U.S. English includes Strunk and White’s "Elements of Style", see WP:ATE. Strunk was a professor at Cornell, as was the writer of “The Blue and the Gray”. Samuel Clemens spent his last years with friends at Cornell and edited Grant’s "Personal Memoirs" in Ithica NY. All are known for clear, direct language. In Personal Memoirs, the opening paragraph is one sentence, "My family is American, and has been for generations, in all its branches, direct and collateral."

- The cardinal rule for quality writing in Strunk and White is, Omit needless words. But based on your comments, I now thought to add a compound word [nation-state] to clarify the subject for a reader coming to the article with no prior knowledge of the topic: "The Confederate nation-state was formed and a civil war followed its attack on Fort Sumter." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

-- For a passage which is not remotely quality writing see Jefferson Davis, in the first sentence of his Short history of the Confederate States of America, page 9. “Ignorance and credulity have enabled unscrupulous partisans so to mislead public opinion, both at home and abroad, as to create the belief that the institution of African slavery was the chief cause, instead of being a mere incident in the group of causes, which led to war.” – Jefferson Davis 1890.

-- (a) In the substance, it misrepresents the speeches, newspaper editorials, presidential proclamations, acts and resolves of legislatures, and the reported conversation, extant correspondence and preserved diaries of the individual participants on both sides 1860-1865 concerning interests, motives and events, before, during and after the Civil War. (b) In the style, it is convoluted, adopting WP:WEASEL words in the passive voice and projects an egregiously pompous tone. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

... I struggle to have a response for much of the above. You really think it makes sense to start the history section "The Confederacy was formed and a civil war followed..."? Really, not even a date? Explaining what formed it? What it was formed from? Who was this civil war with? What is Fort Sumter? Can you imagine if the history section on United States started "A country was made."? As for the wording used in Davis' book, that is utterly irrelevant. Same with the language used in Strunk's memoir, though I find no remote correlation between that and the history section I'm taking offense to. --Golbez (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(a) The “history” introduction here might date the Confederacy Spring 1861 to Spring 1865, but dates appear in the article intro directly above and in each subsection, so we can omit the unnecessary.

(b) What formed it? The intro explains Southern white people in states formed the Confederacy. They followed “The Cause” as described in the intro. Further description of secession is in its subsection.

(c) “Attack on Fort Sumter” indicates a place and initiation of hostilities sufficient for an introduction. The War is addressed in its subsection. Further explication of land title, fortification, and armament is unnecessary in an intro.

(d) "A country was made." is plainly worded, but yes, American historians see the U.S. and C.S.A. becoming a nation-state deliberately. * They were made by "charter constitutions", begun like that of France, * not accretions of precedent found in "common law" constitutions like that of Britain, * not empires accumulated by the warrior conquest of an Alexander the Great, * not through family inheritance like the Habsburgs.

- The US/CSA Conventions believed themselves to be acting out the dictates of the laws of nature, they did not see themselves as demigods suspending them. Miracle at Philadelphia is a figure of speech, a metaphor for "surprise". Historians do not anticipate that a charter constitution for a democratic-republic would be serviceable for two centuries. Yes, the U.S. is man made.

(e) Of the two contemporary writing samples provided, Grant’s memoir is well written, Davis’ account is not. An editor can evaluate the passage in question as more like Grant's than Davis', and see that by standards at WP:STYLE and Strunk-and-White, the passage should remain. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. was made. Joseph Ellis in “American Creation” 2007 sought an explanation for the U.S. during the founding era 1775-1803, apart from divine intervention or dumb luck. There were (a) contingent improvisations in the context of the Enlightenment and political freedom; (b) large scale geography, population, and cultural diversity; (c) issue-deferral to allow for enduring social change via legitimate competing political parties. BUT (d) in their management of space and pace the experiment failed at slavery. They could not imagine or effect a national biracial society, nor could their successors. So here we are in the Confederacy article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about. --Golbez (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Somebody said, Can you imagine if the history section on United States started "A country was made."?

- Okay, on another matter, I'd like to restore your animated map of the Confederacy, if you tweeked the technical to your satisfaction. You pulled it down earlier as not yet "fit for human consumption". That's like the Marine Corps officer-of-the-day requirement to eat one meal in the enlisted mess each day to ensure food quality there was "fit for human consumption" -- I think those were the exact words in the standing orders. Were you in the Marines?

- Back to the map, the educational value of the animation allows for visual perception faster in greater detail and more comprehensively than is possible by narrative alone. My Martis atlas of C.S.A. is still unpacked, but when I find it, did you want a page reference for each item of the map series components listed in your sandbox before we publish the map here? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because it would be horrible writing to start like that, and somehow you managed to cobble together a half dozen non sequiturs to defend it, yet ... you didn't. You don't seem to have understood my complaint wasn't on the facts but on the 1st grade quality writing.

My map isn't ready yet, and no, I wasn't in the marines.

Is that the atlas of the congresses? That reminds me, that's at a local library, I might be able to pick up my own copy. Thanks for offering, and thank you for the page numbers in case I can't get one. :) --Golbez (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Congresses. I never saw it written, only spoken, but the grade less than "not fit for human consumption" is "unfit for man nor beast". Little was good in the good-old-days for a sailor in the days of sail.

- History intro first sentence is rewritten into a first paragraph to meet criteria proposed by Golbez. Confederacy establishment dated, agency defined, place specified, composition enumerated, duration defined, war not emphasized. I still think that the other was good writing, but JimWae says I get too poetic, so I guess there is something to your point. Here's the next try:

- DRAFT #2: The Confederacy was formed in the Montgomery Convention February 1861 by state delegations sent from seven of the United States. Following Lincoln’s inauguration, four additional border states were represented, and subsequently two states and two territories gained seats in the Confederate Congress in accordance with their Secessionist resolves. The government existed from Spring 1861 to Spring 1865 during a Civil War initiated by Confederate firing on U.S. Fort Sumter. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Jesse James is not Reconstruction

- The image representing the last election of a bi-racial Republican election of Reconstruction in Missouri, 1883, has been removed with a photo of Jesse James to represent the third phase of 'Reconstruction' in the South after the Civil War.

- While there were bi-racial Republican parties in every Southern state during Reconstruction, scholars do not characterize bank robbers and their bank robberies in the former Confederacy as shaping events of Reconstruction. Jesse James robbed small community banks in Missouri without any connections out of state, nationally or internationally. He was not a CSA “guerrilla” 18 years after Jefferson Davis said the Confederacy “disappeared”. There were no CSA guerrillas; there were no CSA sanctioned 'partisan ranger' service in Missouri after February 1864. Reference page 338 of E. Merton Coulter’s volume on “The Confederate States of America 1861-1865”, ISBN 978-0-80-7100073 volume 7 in LSUs multi-volume 'History of the South'.

- Dr. Coulter of the University of Georgia wrote: “There was some sentiment favoring the authorization of guerrillas, but the Confederate authorities NEVER countenanced such warfare; yet a service called the “partisan rangers” was set up and they were constantly charged by the FEDERALS with being guerrillas." Rangers received regular pay and full value of captured munitions turned over to Confederate forces. "But partisan rangers became so troublesome to loyal Confederates [behind Union lines] that Congress abolished the service in February, 1864, except for those operating in enemy country.“ (Coulter, p.338)

- The lawful action sanctioned by the CSA precludes any partisan ranger activity in Missouri after February 1864. Missouri was not “enemy territory” since it had full representation in the Confederate Congress. Jesse James was never representing the CSA when he robbed Missouri banks independent of any Confederate command, murdered unarmed men or watched their mutilation, whether he did so before or after the Confederacy disappeared. Without sourced objection, the election cartoon of Reconstruction will be restored. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Intro "eleven" versus "thirteen"

- The introduction now describes the Confederacy as made up of eleven states, an editor having replaced "thirteen". The change merits some discussion before a consensus is overturned. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The following are not in dispute: VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, AR, TX, TN. Eleven. So I'm assuming our new friend is referring to Missouri and Kentucky, both of which were admitted to the CSA but were never substantially under its control. Furthermore, and I think this is key, their legitimate governments did not vote to secede. Thus, since the sentence reads "... by eleven slave states", this is accurate. The STATES of Kentucky and Missouri, represented by their constitutional governments, did not secede. Instead, splinter groups seceded for them, though these splinters never had control of the states they purported to represent. I'm comfortable with keeping it at 'eleven'. --Golbez (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

- DE FACTO The article about the Confederacy should call out those thirteen states represented in its Congress. They were represented in numbers voting to make majorities to pass Jefferson Davis policy over the objections of states such as Georgia, North Carolina and Alabama. To say that the delegations of Missouri and Kentucky did not really represent their people in a legitimate way ignores the fact that those seated representatives determined the course of war for four years. In an article about a government which lasts only so long as it could wage war, that would seem sufficient to include them on the basis of historical events. The only judge for inclusion in the Confederacy must be the Confederacy, and that must be thirteen states represented by the thirteen stars on its flag. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

- DE JURE, the tragedy is that the "legitimate governments" of NO state seceded. For all the states with rebellion against the United States, the PEOPLE joined the Union in the following steps, and the SAME steps were required of all those PEOPLE in each state entering into a confederacy, before the event. A 'concurrent majority' of the people was required in two-thirds of the states previously in the Union. The sitting U.S. Congress had to vote concurrence with its dissolution. And the decision was in the event unanimous ratification by 'The PEOPLE' in the states for the Articles of Confederation in seven years, and in two years for the Constitution. None of this pertained relative to the legitimacy of secession anywhere.

- In 1788-1790:

- (1) A legislature of regularly elected representatives under the constitutions acknowledged as legitimate by the U.S. [Continental] Congress met in regular session in their seat of government of record.

- (2) With a quorum present, it enacted a resolution for a constitutional convention based on wider franchise among the PEOPLE than existing law provided, to meet at regular voting places to elect more representatives than the sitting legislature, apportioned to represent more towns and places, for the sole purpose of determining the question of union.

- (3) In the Southern states, a canvass occurred over some weeks, including debates before the PEOPLE and wide reading of reprinted opinion from other states, including states which had ACCEPTED and those which had REJECTED, union.

- (4) The elections held, the conventions met in the state capitol, where delegates consulted with members of the state courts, the PEOPLE of their constituents, and among themselves, and came to a vote according to constitutional provisions. The people acceded to the dictates of their legitimate representatives in every case without intra-state civil war, UNLIKE that experienced in Tennessee and Virginia, and others in 1861-1865.

- (5) The [Articles] Congress resolved to dissolve itself without civil war.

- In 1860-1861: The SAME steps were required to undo the acts of those PEOPLE in each state. NO state met all five requirements. NEITHER two-thirds of the entire number of the United States, NOR two-thirds the fifteen slave states joined the proposed slave-state confederacy. I say "slave-state" because the Confederacy, six then seven states with secession resolutions by a variety of unrelated ad hoc procedures, declares war on the United States, but not the slave-holding states by name, including Missouri and Kentucky, Delaware and Maryland. Who was in, who was out?

- UNLIKE the United States Congress which passed statutes and held committee hearings to determine whether a state might be admitted to the Union, there was no Confederate standard for 'legitimate'. Only the Confederate Congress could know for sure, based on what its said at different times for different states, but always unanimously, regardless of how a resolution were to come about by any state, and the Confederate Congress said thirteen were in. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think de jure enters into this. If the intro said "The CSA was a country made up of 13 states and one/two territories" (depending on if you count the Five Civilized Nations) then that would be one thing. But it says, "was a government set up by 11 slave states that had declared their secession." And in this case, it would be improper to change that to thirteen, because while people claiming to represent Missouri and Kentucky seceded, the legitimate governments of those states did not. If I declare Iowa to have seceded, that doesn't really mean anything unless 1) I'm the legitimate representative of the government in Des Moines, or 2) I have the military power to back it up. So if we change it to thirteen, the entire sentence has to change and be specific what it's referring to. My point is, the sentence says "who seceded"; what you're going in to is, what the CSA defined itself as. These are two very different topics. The CSA was made up of eleven states that seceded, plus a territory or two; it also claimed two other states. However, we could say that the CSA consisted of thirteen states, but we couldn't say those states seceded. You can't have it both ways and say it was made up of "thirteen states that seceded," I don't think. --Golbez (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

- You are correct, the article cannot say, "thirteen states seceded", well, because 'secession' is controversial enough to require a neutral treatment to carefully negotiate around asserting it was so or that it was not so.

- One neutral thing the article can say is, "The Confederacy was made up of [ -- ] slave-holding states and [two territories] as they were found to have resolutions of secession by the Confederate Congress.", -- "found to have resolutions" because no procedure for secession was adopted by the Confederate Congress, and since no two states found resolutions of secession the same way.

- Iowa is a non-sequitor, since it did not allow slavery, but your point is arguable for Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, and your mastery of the geography correctly includes the two territories. My bad.

- The 'military enforcement' is an aspect which dogged us on the animated map of the CSA. That's why I sought cover (a) in what the U.S. Congress said was represented in it, and (b) in what the C.S. Congress said was represented in it -- to avoid interpretive Original Research on our part. So, if we do not take the C.S. Congress on-the-face-of-it, we have the problem of determining military control. in a year or so, the Confederacy lost any pretense to military control, or even access to, over a majority of the voters in Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia and Louisiana. There is no "Great Rebellion" if it is put down in those places within a year at the cost of little bloodshed, so they would be excluded in such an article were it to be written from that viewpoint. A majority of voters in Virginia were found west of the Blue Ridge Mountains, a majority of those in Louisiana were found nearby New Orleans. Occams razor offers a solution. As long as the Confederate Congress seats a delegation, the region should be treated as a part of the rebellion, even if it never slips back into Confederate military control for the duration of the conflict. Likewise for year two, Tennessee, Arkansas and Mississippi, although only half of the Confederacy's existence encompasses them militarily. They were each, MO, KY, VA, LA, TN, AR, MS allowed representation in the U.S. Congress, or excluded from it, variously in the House and Senate, in the 37th and 38th Congresses because the U.S. Congress defined itself during the American Civil War, and afterwards through Reconstruction variously in the 39th-42d Congresses.

- Since the only basis for acceptance into the Confederacy was a vote in the Confederate Congress, the answer should be [thirteen] states, because the C.S. Congress said "thirteen". Yes, you nailed it, I was trying to say, "the CSA defined itself." The U.S. never allowed that it existed at all. Anything else is our own legitimacy-regarding POV, it seems to me, for now. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

We still run into the problem of how to explain it though. Because, from a purely CSA point of view, yes, it consisted of 13 states and a territory, just as the USA presently consists of fifty states, a federal district, and one territory. But we cannot say it consisted of 13 seceded states because, even at a generous definition of seceded, only eleven states seceded. People who claimed to represent two others did, but the states' legitimate governments did not, nor were they in ever effective military control. The seceding shadow governments were a mere minority. The same could be said about Arizona, but unlike MO and KY the CSA did appear to exert full control over that territory for at least a short while. --Golbez (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

w

- Agreed. How to stay away from 13 "seceded" states and an alternative the 'legitimate' state terminology presents problem of the 'legitimate' government of Virginia (U.S.) with a capital at Wheeling and representation in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House before the creation of West Virginia. Most of the voters in antebellum Virginia participated in the 'legitimate' Virginia (U.S.). A larger population can only be attributed to the Richmond government by counting slaves, who were not 'legitimately' Virginian citizens nor voters in 1860 by the Virginia Constitution then, nor did the Confederate government 'legitimately' make them during 1861-1865, so one can only count slaves as citizens with an anachronistic POV unthought of by any living person at the time. Agreed, we cannot have 13 'seceded' states.

- (a) it now reads, "a government set up from 1861 to 1865 by eleven Southern slave states that had declared their secession from the United States".

- (b) It may be revised to read, "The Confederacy was made up of thirteen slave-holding states and two territories as they were found to have resolutions of secession by the Confederate Congress.

- (c) or another ---. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

- On some reflection, the Confederacy is what the CSA said it was, or it was what the USA said it was, or it's POV.

- References to 'military control' are difficult to interpret. Confederate forces withdrew from northern Virginia after their famous victory at Bull Run, as they did from Missouri after their famous victory at Wilson's Creek. Where George Washington lost battles to victory, the Confederacy won battles to defeat. The rebel minorities could not maintain military control over a majority of the populations in Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee or Louisiana for long. There were thirteen states in the Confederacy, not because they had military control for some arbitrary number of undisclosed weeks, but because the CSA said so.

- "The seceding shadow governments ..." (1) no states in the rebellion seceded according the the Union side, only ad hoc resolutions were ever undertaken in any of the Confederacy, and in each case, regardless of the majority. Florida with 1 U.S. Representative and Texas with two U.S. Representatives, may have been the exceptions as a matter of historical fact. There is no point in arguing the 'legitimacy' of each state resolutions of secession, state by state. If regiments (thousands of men) fought, then that historical reality must be given credence. There were regiments out of Missouri and Kentucky ... and Maryland for that matter, only there no resolution of secession was recognized by the C.S. Congress. There are thirteen states in the Confederacy, not because anyone is now persuaded by apologies for inconsistent procedures among an array of ad hoc gatherings, but because the CSA said so.

- The rebel governments "were a minority". (2) they were a minority in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana and Missouri. so that can be said of over half of those governed by the Confederacy at all times. See David Hiedler's "Pulling the Temple Down: the fire-eaters and the destruction of the union". This led to major difficulty in CSA conscription, not only in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee and Louisiana, but also in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. See E. Merton Coulter's "The Confederate States of America". There were thirteen states in the Confederacy, not by whether or not they could draft soldiers from a population by civil authority or martial law, but because the CSA said so.

- "The legitimate government did not" represent a secession in Missouri and Kentucky. (3) that was true there and in every case of rebellion according to the U.S. Supreme Court. But earlier you said 'de jure' considerations were irrelevant, so the argument stalls there.

- We are logically left with, the Confederacy is what the Confederacy said it was, thirteen states, unless there is an arbitrary POV selection made apart from (a) one historical side which said there were NONE, and (b) the other historical side which said there were THIRTEEN. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree that we can characterize thirteen U.S. states as having seceded, so perhaps the best option is a rewrite of the sentence, to say something like... "the CSA consisted of, at its height, thirteen states and one territory (again, I don't know exactly if the Five Civilized Nations counted, or if they were merely in alliance with the CSA) whose governments or shadow governments (this could be worded better) declared their secession from the United States." --Golbez (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

- I think that two of the five Civilized Tribes were offered a statehood, and they could include the others at discretion, but they did not exercise the option, in part because they could not bring together all factions of all five tribes, they could not successfully trade their cotton through the blockade on the Gulf Coast, Confederates could not arm them nor defend them from Plains Indian raids, and Confederates could not expel Union troops from the territories, in short, none of the assurances made in behalf of the CSA came to fruition, so none of the tribes felt an interest in proceeding with negotiations to surrender their lands to the CSA during a time purported to be of secession from the United States.

intro copy-edit draft #2b. "The Confederate States of America was a nation-state in existence from 1861-1865. At its height, the Confederate Congress recognized resolutions of secession from the United States by thirteen states and a territory. It also entered into negotiations and alliances with elements of the Five Civilized nations and recognized their delegates in its Congress. Within a year of its creation, the Confederacy lost substantial control of territory and population in Missouri, Kentucky and Virginia. By the end of the second year of existence, its territory was further eroded in Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana and it had lost off-shore islands to support a blockade of nearby ports in every coastal state but Alabama and Texas."

- I suspect that the last two sentences may have to be pared down for the purposes of the article's introduction section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A point that is over looked in these arguements is that Missouri's legitement government was run off by federal authorities, thereby keeping it from seceding. The elected government was run off to the south east of the state, and in simple terms, the two governments met on the battlefield at Wilson's Creek. The true fact is that there were only 11 states that seceded, however, the federal government insured that Kentucky and Missouri would not, as they did in Maryland. There is not a simple way to write this, but to exclude Missouri and Kentucky, when the Confederate States of America did not, is incorrect and wrong. Greg (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Confederate States of America (also called the Confederacy and the CSA) was a government set up from 1861 to 1865 by a number of Southern slave states that had declared their secession from the United States. Eleven states formally declared secession, and two additional states with less formal declarations were also recognized as members by the Confederacy. The Confederacy was eventually defeated in the American Civil War against the Union (the U.S.). Secessionists argued that the United States Constitution was a compact among states, an agreement which each state could abandon without consultation. The Union government rejected secession as illegal. Following the Confederate attack at Fort Sumter, the Union used military action to defeat the Confederacy. No foreign nation officially recognized the Confederacy as an independent country, but several did grant belligerent status. --JimWae (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

- I like draft #3-JimWae. I would amend his sentence #2 -- into the active voice and add 'a new "Arizona" Territory' -- to read: "The Confederacy recognized eleven states as formally declaring secession, two additional states with less formal declarations and a new “Arizona” Territory.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Confederate States of America (also called the Confederacy and the CSA) was a government set up from 1861 to 1865 by a number of Southern slave states that had declared their secession from the United States. The Confederacy recognized, as members, 11 states that had formally declared secession, two additional states with less formal declarations, and one new territory. The Confederacy was eventually defeated in the American Civil War against the Union (the U.S.). Secessionists argued that the United States Constitution was a compact among states, an agreement which each state could abandon without consultation. The Union government rejected secession as illegal. Following the Confederate attack at Fort Sumter, the Union used military action to defeat the Confederacy. No foreign nation officially recognized the Confederacy as an independent country, but several did grant belligerent status.--JimWae (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

- I like it. Let's go with it. Maybe drop the second sentence's first comma? "The Confederacy recognized as members, 11 states ... " TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure punct rules require either both (or perhaps neither) unless we do "The Confederacy recognized 11 states that had formally declared secession, two additional states with less formal declarations, and one new territory, as members."--JimWae (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Potential resurgence

Anonymous *26 proposed a new section, "potential resurgence", with "On November 14, 2012, citizens in nine of the original eleven Confederate states filed a petition with the Obama administration asking to be allowed to secede from the Union. The nine states are Texas, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and North Carolina, and the petitions in those states have already garnered more than 25,000 signatures."

This presentism is outside the scope of a historical article spanning 1861-1865. Presentism was once a feature of the article Secession in the United States. My efforts to enlarge upon its historical aspects did not meet consensus there a few years back. It may be that the scholastic interests of Anon*26 can find expression there. And here as at most places in Wikipedia, the article requires a measure of notability. None of the 25,000 meet those state numbers requirements for either an election recount nor placing the proposition on a ballot in any of those nine states.

Secessionists in the 19th century believed that a governor by fiat without legislative nor popular authority, or in the case of Virginia, an ex-governor without either, could legitimately expel federal presence on the grounds of "states rights", and the spewing man waving a single shot pistol in the faces of the assembled Virginia secession convention threatening to shoot anyone voicing a No vote. On Nov 14, 2012, Anon*26s secessionists, again relying only on an executive, without reference to the people in either their states or the nation, directly petitioned the Democratic President of the United States, certified elected in the Electoral College by the Republican House of Representatives. Unlike members of the Constitutional Democratic party of 1860, no national-coalitiion party in 2012 suggested secession on the constitutional election of the next president. The party of the re-elected Democratic president about to be re-certified by the newly-seated Republican House majority in January has not said he would certify secession by petition without law. I'm not sure what could be in the minds of the petitioners.

To change the constitution to allow secession requires two-thirds House, two-thirds Senate, and three-forths the states to ratify. Or a simple majority of 50 state delegations meeting in constitutional convention. If I sat in the Virginia delegation, what would I ask of Texas secessionists to get my vote?

(1) repay the millions of debt the we assumed, in 2012 US dollars, or in gold, depending on what the Mississippi delegation agrees to. (2) add 3% or the average inflation rate since statehood, depending on what the New York delegation says, compounded annually. (3) Allow U.S. federal government to administer and transfer all revenues from oil and natural gas following secession until our depletion allowance given oil companies operating in Texas is repatriated, with interest, depending on what the Oklahoma delegation says. (4) Establish a U.S. treasury fund to receive Texas secession self-taxed funds until the convention-specified amount is reached, along with annual compounding interest, depending on what the California delegation says. (5) At that time, as certified by the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, recall the convention for the sole purpose of allowing Texas secession.

If I were in that assembly, I would vote for using the amendment process and move to adjourn the convention, retaining the monies to defray any outstanding U.S. treasury debt, with a grateful note of thanks to the people of Texas -- Of course, I would just rather forget it, but I'm just saying, grown-ups in a "sovereign" state pay their debts before they move on, and in the absence of twenty years of tyranny suppressing individual rights as certified at the (predisposed anti-American) U.N. General Assembly, there should be NO FREE LUNCH for secession. Of course Texas might secede, but lets talk about this first, maybe have a vote on it in Texas before it comes to Wikipedia 'Texas', but not here at CSA, in any case. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no "potential resurgence", there's no reason to give further thought to the anon's edit. In the article on secession, sure, but there is less than zero reason for it to be in this article. --Golbez (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks again for reeling me in. But "politics ain't bean bag". VIRGINIA did not enter the Constitution with any debt. Voters here will want OUR share of federal funds spent on Texas interstates, pipelines, nasa, civilian ports, military bases and the Mexican war. Are Amerindian tribes to be repatriated to Texas with compensation to restore 1845 demographics? And who knows what Virginians really would want from an oil-rich secessionist Texas wanting to kill U.S. energy independence by creating a new OPEC nation on our borders? Like Lincoln said in his first inaugural, better to be countrymen than aliens.

• In my ancestral home in Williamsburg, Virginia, there are rooms where dogs will not enter -- they stop at the threshold shaking with their tail between their legs -- because no amount of sanding or refinishing over one-hundred and fifty years on the original oak flooring can mask the scent of human blood from the union and confederate wounded housed there after the Peninsula Campaign. "Secession" at CSA can not become some sort of two-stepping honky-tonk drinking game for a yahoo-laugh. Too much blood of both sides, too much blood spilt to make "secession" a joke at 'Confederate States of America'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Six versus seven 'original' signatories

Anon*214 vandalized the page replacing link ‘'Alabama in the American Civil War’' with ‘'England in the American Civil War'’, which I duly reverted -- BUT -- he also reduced the first signatories from ‘seven’ to ‘six’.

- Anon*214’s six-count is correct. The original six signatories in the Confederate Constitutional Convention session beginning February 4 initiated the CSAs Consitution without the Texas delegation – they did not vote until the Texas state referendum authorized secession two weeks later.

- But my earlier distinction was reverted. -- Because the first Stars-and-Bars flag had seven stars, Texas is usually counted in an ‘original’ seven states of the CSA.

- This is all to say, Anon*214s vandalism was unnecessary. Had he brought the ‘six versus seven’ issue to Talk, he would have found an immediate collaborator here, and we together might have figured a way to adding the six-versus-seven fact into the narrative. But – win or lose -- I will not re-start a discussion on this copyedit point alone. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Mitchumuch copyedits 8 Dec.

- Mitchumuch 8 Dec. made strong improvement in the article

-- (a) Confederate Constitution link, (b) Constitution image, (c) Provisional congress link, and others.

- However, the 8 Dec. copyedit brings unnecessary loss of {{Main|Confederate Congress}}.

-– I propose to restore the previous as {{Main|Confederate Congress}} and keep the 8 Dec improvement as {{Further|Provisional Confederate States Congress}} .

- The revert of Cabinet Wikitable collapsible collapsed without discussion at Talk, has two consequences in the article.

(a) As placed, it is in violation of WP:ACCESS – it does not right-justify images on article page.

(b) Text of the 'Executive' section does not support multiple large-scale images in portraits or in wikitables -- which are also out of balance with the national legislative and state judicial departments.

>> Without further discussion here in a couple of days, I will restore {{Main|Confederate Congress}}, and restore CSA Cabinet Wikitable collapsible collapsed. -- to meet image handicapped access and standards for text-image balance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Vergetorix copyedits -- 7 Dec

Vergetorix made strong 7 Dec copyedits with which I agree or concur.

- These include improvements to my own writing which I wish I had thought of first.

- However, below please find my exceptions to a few -- fewer than half -- of the 7 Dec copyedits.

- For version PRE - previous edit box.nr.a, and NEW - Vergetorix edit box.nr.b, (Copyedit rationales are placed in italics in parentheses.)

Previous edit (PED) v. 7 Dec Vergetorix (NEW)

Previous edit (PRE)	7 Dec Vergetorix (NEW)
[box.1.a] The Confederacy was eventually defeated in the American Civil War against the Union (the U.S.). (NEW is not parallel construction, if adopted, CSA = USA would be cumbersome. Confederacy = Union.)	[box.1.b] The Confederacy was eventually defeated in the American Civil War against the United States (the Union). (Corrected PRE terminology)
[box.2.a] Five Civilized Tribes (NEW uses “so-called”, violates WP "expressions of doubt")	[box.2.b] So called Five Civilized Tribes of American Indians (PRE copyedit uses POV)
[box.3.a] ... blockade brought … disadvantage in supplies and finance. (NEW (a) no ref to blockade-run cotton as financial basis of Confederate currency, and (b) may assume we all read Jomini.)	[box.3.b] ... blockade brought … disadvantage in matériel. (PRE copyedit is Awkward and redundant)
[box.4.a] Following four years of Union campaigning, Richmond fell … (Richmond did not fall to any Confederate campaign.)	[box.4.b] Richmond fell after four years of war ... (There were four years of both Confederate and Federal campaigns. Not just four years of "Union" campaigns.)

- Again, I offer this with respect, and thanks again for improving my earlier writing, especially in the multi-phrase monster.

- Without any discussion here, I will restore the previous PRE edits above in the "Old-gold" boxes in a couple of days. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliments, however, I must disagree with at least one of your objections. The first use of the word "Union" in the introductory paragraph leaves an outsider (One not familiar with American History) at a loss untill the word is clarified later. It further diminishes the facty that the CSA were at war with the United States of America. A disinterested outsider would need to know this very important bit of information straightaway. That outsider would presumably be familiar with the USA, but not necessarily with the convention "Union". Your thoughts? Vergetorix (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, your insistance on calling the fall of Richmond being due to four years of "Union campaigning" seems to present a point of view. Richmond did indeed fall as a result of a Union campaign (the overland campaign and the siege of Richmond), but these campaigns did not last four years. Both sides fought various back and forth campaigns over those bloody four years. Why not say Richmond fell after four yours of war and a successful Union seige? Vergetorix (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Vergetorix. -- AGREED to your Box 1.b. On second look, I’m not so sure about my own phrasing. Looking into it, I struggled with various wording trying to say, United States Government, but nothing flowed as well as your draft. But, FYI.

-- Reading into Coulter, I gather that technically the CSA declaration of war early on was against the US Government (USG) and free soil states -- but NOT the "sovereign states" [holding slaves], by name in the declaration, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. A flag at the secessionist convention at Charleston had a flag of fifteen stars, the official flag started with eleven. -- After appropriations of two million dollars to bankroll Kentucky and Missouri secession -- financed in part with gold taken from U.S. Treasury in New Orleans without resistance in the Buchanan administration -- two stars were added to the official Confederate flag to make thirteen. –- All that aside, since I can’t reflect that in a clean sentence for the intro, I now go with your box 1.b. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

For Box 4, -- At the introduction, the overview should encompass the sweep of CSA existence. Both formulations are correct in themselves -- I think that Richmond fell from four years campaigning AND the immediate cause was from Union siege. For the introduction, the fall of Richmond should reflect the Federal call “On to Richmond!” persisting in the press for four years.

-- The approach to Richmond via Harper’s Ferry switched hands several times, CW wags say the progress of Union advance can be traced by the progress of standard gauge track laid south out of the arsenal. The approach to Richmond via Wilmington NC was met with initial Union success taking the outer banks, and these became important forward bases to close CSA’s eastern ports and supplying the blockade in general. But in point of fact, Federal siege before Richmond was not successful until Wilmington could be closed to Richmond.

-- But Alexandria-Aquia Creek and Fort Monroe were never lost as staging bases for attack on Richmond, Norfolk was lost early and held by Union forces. The calls "On to Richmond!" triggered multiple campaigns to capture Richmond over four years -- across the Appalachians, down the Valley, up the Lower Peninsula from Fort Monroe, out of Washington to Manassas twice, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and only finally through the Wilderness ending in siege.

-- So, for the intro, my preference is still Box 4.a, “Following four years …” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"So-called" usage

(a) In the direct quote we have “so-called” from Secretary of State Seward in “Diplomacy: United States, a foreign power”. "[if Britain is] tolerating the application of the so-called seceding States, or wavering about it, [they cannot] remain friends with the United States ..." This is permissible usage in the article, as it is in a direct quote, Seward meant to communicate an expression of doubt, in the same way “alleged” is used. The quote faithfully represents that.

(b) in the Introduction: #2 paragraph, we have “so-called”, found as written, “… with the Confederacy were the so-called "Five Civilized Tribes" of American Indians.”

- The Introduction "so-called" violates WP WP:ALLEGED, "expressions of doubt". It also causes a “blue out” discouraged in WP introductory paragraph guidelines.

- The sentence should read “… with the Confederacy were the "Five Civilized Tribes"”.

1) In the quotes around "Five Civilized Tribes", which the previous copyedit added -- and which I propose to keep -- the narrative communicates a distinctive usage, without communicating bias in either direction.

2) At the link, readers can find all the necessary background and historical qualification attached to the term as it is found general use. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

- "Five Civilized Tribes” in quotes and all-in-capitalized-words, incorporating a previous editor's quotes - signifying a term-of-art historiographically or the political term-of-the-times. At the link, its meaning is explained.

- At WP:ALLEGED.Expressions of doubt we find in the box "... supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, accused, so-called ... [and explication, these terms'] editorializing can produce implications not supported by the sources."

- It is NOT meant to communicate the common usage of the words separately 'civilized' and 'tribe', meaning

- -NEITHER to imply (a) all other tribes are NOT "civilized"

- -NOR to imply that (b) THESE five tribes are "not civilized". -- only the meaning found at the WP link at Five Civilized Tribes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A minor edit, slaves, by definition, can't be 'employed'

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#Political_economy

I made a minor edit to the political economy section of this article where it used to say, 'the plantations that employed over three million black slaves.' According to the Wikipedia article on employment slaves can't be considered employed so in order to make Wikipedia more consistent and to not throw around words I chose to make a minor edit to that particular line.

en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Employ#Indenturing_and_slavery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badsearcher (talk • contribs) 01:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

- The terminology the source used is captured in the text, The plantations that employed over three million black slaves were the principal source of wealth. The common-sense-use is “Plantations employed slaves”, adopted by historians of the period. In any case it does not say, Slaves were "employees in a developed nation of today" which is the topic of the referenced article.

- At Employment the beginning has, “Employment is a contract ... those who … do not receive pay for their services and are not considered employed.” This refers to "employees" and their compensated employment as an element of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) comparisons in the modern era. The 'Employment' article as written is tagged with insufficient inline citations, with disputed factual accuracy and neutrality since 2010. At its Alternatives, “indenturing and slavery” has no citation at all. We should stay with the Thomas terminology. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

- The text did require review. At the copyedit, I tightened up the antecedent causing conflict and racial solidarity. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

National production - the lost citation

- At the last paragraph in "National production", I restored the substance of the contribution without a citation, which can be found scrolling back through previous edits at the previous button for JimWae's edit on another matter (comma), 05:06, 14 August 2012.

The Confederacy underwent an economic revolution with centralization and standardization but it was too little too late as its economy was systematically strangled by blockade and raids.

- The citation is as the previous editor noted, Ian Drury, ed. (2003) [2000]. "American Civil War: Naval & Economic Warfare". History of war. London: Times Books. p. 138. ISBN 0-00-716458-0. "The Confederacy underwent a government-led industrial revolution during the war, but its economy was slowly strangled."

- In the intervening time, not only was the narrative made more concise in an encyclopedic style, which is good. Also, the documentation was somehow lost, which is bad. I have restored the previous editor's reference in a spirit of collaboration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Immigration Statistics in states

I came out with a map of how the states would look like if certain countries seceded. What would be great is if someone had some legitimate statistics on immigration population percentages. I can not really tell though, i dont know if this would help...yes, israel is the newest established country whom successfully succeeded into becoming a state nation last. Demokratische Republik aus Deutschland/democratic german republic/Demokratischen Deutsch republic which translates to Demokratische Republik Deutschland or in english the federal republic of Denmark or deutschland germany/Democratic republic of germany ie drd/frd/fdrz (Federal or Free Democratic Republic Zone or Democratic Republic of France would become Federal Republic of Denmark in english)/ddr as abb where as the germanic word of germany would most likely turn into denmark in these old english algorithms. If the FRD was established in Germany after ww2 the world would be much different than today, especially if the confederacy won the civil war. As a result, Tennessee most likely wouldn't secede, yet Louisiana would, which poses a problem, if a border is put up than all states have to concede to their provisional government eg missouri seceded, yet Mississippi lost but Mississippi was a part of the deep south and an area for major conflicts. Also I noticed the government didn't change its stance. The government has to change its stance, politically speaking. Indian territory always belonged to the union. In realistic terms though, it would probably end up like this map where as Kentucky becomes the judeah of the americas. Come to think of it, cuba would still be under democratic control as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.60.164 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be WP:OR so is not of use to the article Bevo74 (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point, alot of original research came in here, because we all know history books tells west virginia was part of the union and a northern stronghold. Missouri though, during the civil war was 3 provinces long and a confederate state.

All I'm saying is I'm right. Wikipedia even proves I'm right, every battle in missouri was won by the confederacy. They even say it seceded. I'm Just requesting a map change is all. Not only that, but the Indian territory in your disputed gains map is false. There was never any csa activity in Indian territory. It was always claimed by the US. The map in your title page has the confederacy under west virginia and not missouri. Its false too.

Do you mean seceded rather than suceeded? Thanks Bevo74 (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, good call. thanks. I'm not good at spell check. Got an F in my college english course. But that's not my fault was using the word succeeded first, as an actual word..nm..The edits were because of pixel errors i had to correct though. Yeah..the german words werent working with FDR as i thought they would be.

I mean come on, kentucky is the biggest mistake on your map. Its as confederate as you can get. If a gov secedes its a confederate gov. Every map on wikipedia has it as a union state. Except for the fact the confederate took back its territory.

Kentucky didn't secede. The Russellville Convention established a shadow Confederate government which had to go into exile, and the Confederacy used this as an excuse to call Kentucky a Confederate state. But it didn't secede and CSA claims for this shouldn't be recognised as real. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying that if you win 3 battles and establish a government in your state thats secession to me. It just seems like tennessee was split and this state wasn't. Also west virginia lost every major battle. I guess I would just regard it as a secession if the confederate won. The confederacy was too busy trying to get rid of the full-scale northern invasion upon its territory. It made a really bad move. It could be an analytical point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.60.164 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Besides everyone knows that the united states army had bases in the south, a poor decision on their part, could have avoided a war if they didnt sieze occupation of southern territory before the war started in the first place. When you occupy another country, that's a declaration of war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.60.164 (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Fort Sumter, firing on.

- Editor.Anon*250 made a copy edit 30 Dec: a Civil War initiated by military forces serving the Confederacy firing on U.S. Fort Sumter. -- explaining: "I just wanted to make a little change that might make something easier for a reader to understand." versus previous initiated by Confederate firing on U.S. Fort Sumter.

- This looks like he confuses Cadets firing on the merchanman Star of the West, which did not cause a crisis, and the firing on the U.S. flag at Fort Sumter by Confederate forces. [Note. President Andrew Jackson had collected import revenues from forts in Charleston Harbor while putting down the earlier SC Nullifiers, 1832-33.]

- Donald Stoker in 'The Grand Design: strategy and the U.S. Civil War' reports open communication between Jefferson Davis and Confederate General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard, along with Davis consultations with his cabinet in Montgomery, "the Federal presence had to go." On April 12, 1861, the Confederate guns opened on Sumter. (Stokes 2012, p.32).

- This can be properly paraphrased, "Confederate firing on U.S. Fort Sumter.", so the copyedit is reverted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Bias

This article (like almost all American Civil War related articles) is very biased. There were free black troops for the south from the start of the war, Lincoln said when he passed the "Emancipation" Proclamation that he only did it to hurt the South and if he could have won the war he would have done so, this proclamation, by the way, both was illegal and did not end slavery! (The slave states that stayed in the North, or want back to the North could keep their slaves.) Slavery did not end in the North until 1900 when Delaware ratified the 13th amendment, but the Confederacy made it illegal in 1864! Also there were many free blacks who had slaves in the south!Lee Tru. (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The free black troops in New Orleans who volunteered in 1861 were rejected by the Confederacy, as discussed here. Have you a source for further discussion? Free blacks in the South is an interest of mine. They were in largest numbers in port communities as ships captains, crew, shipyards (Gosport) and ropewalks, but also --- in Virginia --- along transportation villages midway along canals (boatmen, Dismal Canal), or along Turnpike Roads (teamsters, US-7), in industrial centers (Tredegar Iron Works, Richmond), and in mountain farming enclaves (Page Valley, Shenandoah).

Too early for this article --- Black Masters of South Carolina arose from the practice of granting plantations to form a buffer between white-owned plantations and raids from Spanish, Seminole and Maroon colonies who would free and recruit from plantations nearest them. That was a great deal before the ACW. At this time, the freed son of a Petersburg owner, John Mercer Langston was at law school in Ohio because the Trustee of his father's estate did not believe it possible for a black man to profitably operate a plantation in 1850s Virginia. He returned home after The War to be elected to Congress. A moderate Republican, he sought equal votes for ex-Confederates, but he was not seated by the Radicals until the last months of his term. Founder of Va. St. U. --- Too late for this article.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure with uncertain future, see Spielberg's Lincoln (film). Slavery surely ended permanently with the 13th Amendment. Slavery ends with the 13th Amendment ratified by the American people in 3/4 of the states. The unanimous state provision in the Articles Constitution that might have awaited Delaware or Mississippi concurrence did not carry forward to the subsequent Constitution. The American people chose a different way of making a majority for new amendments to apply immediately to everybody everywhere in the Union.

When 2/3 house and 2/3 Senate send a proposed amendment to states, the American people of each, following Congressional guidelines, determines to ratify or not. When the American people in a state approve the measure, that state communicates the result to Congress. On reaching approval of the American people in 3/4 of the states, the Congress certifies the total and declares the Amendment ratified to the Constitution without further action on the part of Congress, President or Supreme Court. Afterwards, the federal district Courts in each state, regional appeals courts, and rarely nationally at 3% or less, the supreme court --- then all sort out what the relationship between the new amendment and the previous text may mean at law over time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Troop numbers

You say Lee surrendered 50,000 troops. I heard it was 28,500. 109.154.233.80 (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think forces withdrawn from Richmond were 50,000, and the 28,500 were paroled at Appomattox, I don't have a cite handy. Magnificent lost scene of then US General Chamberlain of Gettysburg's Little Round Top fame, calling his troops to attention and rendering the "soldier's salute" as Confederate troops passed in formation at surrender. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Based at a quick look at a few sources, Lee left Richmond with at least 50,000 troops; Chris Calkins gives the figure as nearly 58,000. But along the way to Appomattox several thousand were killed, a few thousand deserted and about 20,000 were captured, mainly at Sailor's Creek. This left 28,231 men to be paroled at Appomattox. Recall that 2,400 Confederate cavalrymen also broke out and did not surrender at Appomattox. Obviously the text of the article needs some editing. Donner60 (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Animated map

So I've been thinking about restarting my map project, and I realized there may be a way around all the varying control issues. Right now, all my maps are ambiguous about control, they simply say "disputed between". And in some cases, like the US-Canada border conflicts in Maine, Minnesota, and Alaska, that is true, it simply was an ambiguous border. But in most cases, it's a case of "Side A claims, side B administers". For example, for a time, Texas was claimed by Mexico but administered by Texas. At one time, West Florida was claimed by Spain but administered by the U.S.

So, that means we have several more options at play for a map of the evolution of the CSA.

Specifically, first of all, we can outline the CSA as its claimed borders go. This can be easy to explain. The map will make it clear this is the claimed border. Everything within it was claimed by the CSA, and also the USA. Nothing outside this border was claimed by the CSA. Nothing outside this border was ever disputed.

So, then we have the areas inside the border. Here are the possible scenarios:

• Administby the CSA (most of the states)
• Administered by the USA (The states without any military control; this includes Missouri and Kentucky, as well as Arizona Territory later in its history)
• Administered by both (This applies to states where the USA had representatives, i.e. Virginia, Louisiana, and I believe Tennessee fell under this as well. The CSA was more than willing to seat representatives from regions it didn't control, but the USA never did, so if they had representation in the US Congress, you can be sure that the US controlled that region. This will not apply only to military movements, it only applies to US representation)

So, this seems to simplify things quite a bit. We never have to explain who the CSA claims; that's handled by the border (Which will be quite thick and visible). It will be easy at a glance to see which states are solidly controlled by both sides, and which states are solidly split.

So, really, I'm left with only one question: What about West Virginia?

There are only two places where the borders of the states and territories of the CSA aren't coterminous with the borders of the states and territories of the USA: Arizona Territory, and Virginia. Arizona Territory, we can dispense with, since I never intended to show the territories. Virginia, though, is an interesting problem. If I show West Virginia being created, that really complicates things, since from the CSA side, it never existed. Now, if and when I create a map based solely on congressional districts (which is a big undertaking but intrigues me), this will be less of an issue; I could just swap the color of West Virginia's districts. But as it is, this is a big question with no easy solution.

If I include West Virginia, I create a confusion in how the CSA saw itself, and this is fundamentally a map of how the CSA sees itself. After all, if it was a map of how the USA saw the CSA, it would be a single frame.

If I don't include West Virginia, I risk confusing readers who wonder why it's not there.

The best option I can think of is, create an extra frame [if necessary; again, I don't have my notes explaining Northern Virginia's representation in Congress] explaining that the USA has admitted West Virginia as a state, and color Virginia appropriately as 'administered by both', but do not draw the border between Virginia and West Virginia. Or, I could draw a dotted line, but I'd really prefer not to.

Now, this is still an educational map of the extent of the US and CS during this time, so it would still include US state borders. I had my other map, of course, which was purely from the CS point of view and treated the US and the seceded states as foreign countries, and who knows, that might make even more sense under this new color scheme idea. So I'll dabble with that once I get this one done.

A side note: When I redo my territorial evolution of the US map, I intend to include every secession and claim from the CS, rather than the "and then the civil war happened" single frame treatment. But, being from a US perspective, it will obviously include West Virginia and the US Arizona Territory, but maybe not the CS Arizona Territory; I'm unsure yet how to treat that.

So basically, there's two questions: How much context to give (Do I even show the borders in the US?) and what to do with West Virginia? Any other thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

one map is enough to show CSA claimed territory. The problem is showing ACTUAL territory controlled by CSA every x months. Note that Virginia was represented in the US Congress even though only a small slice was under Union control. And please forget about Canada. :)Rjensen (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This will be a political map, not a military one... it's not concerned with day to day troop movements (and that is a far, far larger project than I could do). And yes, part of Virginia was represented, but I'd rather not have one state have multiple colors. If I were doing that, I'd want to do it by district and, again, that's a larger project than I want to tackle right now (though I kind of want to eventually). So I want these to be somewhat vague - from this day to this day, this state was represented in both congresses. This would be objectively true, and doesn't rely on knowing troop movements.

As for 'one map is enough', true, but this map, if it includes the US states, is necessarily an ambiguous map, trying to show the situations in both countries, and that is why I'm conflicted on how to handle West Virginia. A map purely from a CS point of view, treating the US a greyed-out foreign country, would simplify this a lot, but I wonder how educational it would be. One way to find out! --Golbez (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

this article is only about the CSA and its claims. Ignore the USA. one map suffices if you have no interest in the movement of military control lines. I see no educational value in multiple political maps. Rjensen (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

So now there are three maps that come to mind. Bear with me:

• A map purely from the Confederate point of view. The USA and seceded states are treated purely as foreign countries. The split of West Virginia and Arizona Territory, therefore, are not handled. It will include different coloring for states claimed by the CSA but administered by the USA (KY, MO), and for states claimed by the CSA but partially administered by the USA (VA, LA, TN), but no more detail beyond state level, i.e. no coloring WV and NoVA specifically, the whole state gets colored in.
• A map purely from the Union point of view, i.e. what I have in territorial evolution of the United States, but I'm working on remaking that so it contains all of the secessions. It, however, will not contain internal reorganizations of the Confederacy (since as far as the Union was concerned, they didn't happen). It will include the Confederacy claiming Missouri and Kentucky but it will not mark them as disputed. It will include the Confederacy claiming Arizona Territory but it will not name it as such; likewise, it will not include the Confederacy's renaming of Indian territory. This is going to be made for that article, so it has little bearing here, I'm just explaining where I'm coming from. It will rely on a thick, perhaps colorful, border to display where the CSA claim terminated; that cuts down how many colors are needed in the map itself.
• A map of actual congressional control. Yes, I want to actually do this. Since presumably no seats were ever ejected from the Confederate Congress, it would be based on Union congressional districts. The map would solely be "which districts are represented in the Union?" So, there'd be three modes: One for Union representation, one for no representation at all(seceded but not yet acceded states), one for no Union representation. This is a longer term deal but I still think it would be useful to show the political movement of the war, if not the military movement. --Golbez (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Map #1 is relevant to this article--the other maps don't fit anywhere. Rjensen (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I even said #2 was for another article. And #3 is relevant, I think, but it's further out. Do you have any comment on the proposals or subject matter for the maps, beyond whether or not they are relevant for this article? Because I'm making them whether or not you want me to, so I'd like to get all the input I can. --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm delighted that Golbez is making maps. Lack of maps is a major weakness in Wikipedia. However displaying a map is a collective decision of the editors--is the map useful and relevant to the article? does it represent OR? Rjensen (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I never said the others would be in this article; simply that I'm going to make them. You can comment on the first map if you want, I just want to get you off your only responses being whether or not a map is relevant for this article. --Golbez (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Confederate States of America is a political article, not military. CSA politics encompassed legislatures, voters, soldiers and voting and it changed over the life of CSA, it was not simply one set of proclamations from Montgomery. I cannot imagine withholding political information from reliable sources such as Kenneth C. Martis, Emory M. Thomas, William W. Freehling, and E. Merton Coulter. Mapping their verifiable data from their maps and text is not original research any more than paraphrasing a direct quote into encyclopedic style to communicate information to the general international reader.

To meet Rjensen’s sensibilities, the basis for a Confederate map must be by Confederate political practice, which over the course of CSA existence evolved from initial. Four Confederate considerations for a Confederate animated map.

• color-code dark blue US territory unclaimed by CSA. Medium blue states that have not completed their secessionist-adopted secession procedure, is it TX and VA, TN or KY required referendums? Light blue states with secessionist conventions but still over half seated US Members of Congress, not Tennessee.
• color-code dark-grey states with completed secessionist procedures and over half US Reps vacated at 1860-61, VA shows dark grey, WV light grey, see next item.
• color-code light-grey states Martis uses the terms “disrupted” and occupied for his state and congressional maps. This would include WV, KY and MO, 1860-61 adding TN, LA, MS and AL 1862-3. Representatives from the occupied states formed a solid bloc supporting Jefferson Davis as the representative-constituency link of elective politics was broken, “extending the life of the Lost Cause” as Martis puts it, germane to this article.
• Related to the previous item in alternate sources, color-code states light grey those states with attenuated connections to resident constituency purportedly represented. These include where scholars report Confederate representatives were chosen by (a) the Confederate governor in an army camp or an exiled legislature out-of-state, (b) CSA occupied area or army camp elections at large, or (c) by majority of soldiers voting for their home districts while on government service. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the beauty of my new idea, going purely by claim and administration:

• Entire state claimed by CSA, entire state administered by CSA (most states) [standard country yellow]
• Entire state claimed by itself, entire state administered by itself (most seceded states) [standard foreign counry grey]
• Entire state claimed by itself, entire state administered by USA (MO and KY) [unknown; light green?]
• Entire state claimed by CSA, portions of state administered by both (VA, TN, LA at times) [orange? lighter than the next color]
• Entire state claimed by CSA, entire state administered by USA (MO and KY) [standard dispute red]
• Entire territory claimed by CSA, entire territory administered by CSA (AZ and OK) [standard territory brown]
• West Virginia is not included; this is from the CS point of view, in which WV never existed. It being seated in the US Congress would of course be noted in the text, but only reflected on the map if that meant the status changed.

This would seem to simplify things greatly, without having to rely on a third party's analysis. Not that it's not useful, but I want to try this method first. --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur. I'm glad you have returned to this project. As before, I can offer to assist in paginal citations from text and maps from volumes I have in hand. As long as there is no assertion from primary documents, such as secession resolves or newspaper reports of occupation dates, there should be no fear of WP opposition to original research. These four all qualify as reliable published, secondary scholarly sources.

• K.C. Martis' 1994 "The historical atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America: 1861-1865, W.W. Freehling's 2007 "The road to disunion: secessionists triumphant: 1854-1861", E.M. Thomas' 1979 "The Confederate nation: 1861-1865", and E.M. Coulter's 1950 "The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

As you can see from Territorial evolution of Canada and Territorial evolution of the United States, in every situation I use the primary source where available. I don't see this as a problem or as original research, far from it. --Golbez (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Approve. I suppose primary sources will show a) states had 'declarations of secession' apart from their populations; b) they never legally seceded in the Great Rebellion, and c) states may not legally secede without constitutional amendment under the existing constitution.

Nevertheless, I think Golbez' original unsourced map is outstanding and I hope it can endure on this page because it conveys information, a PRIMARY goal of Wikipedia. I especially appreciate the Golbez solution to the West Virginia issue. The people in States are incorporated into the Union when Congress admits citizen representatives into Congress after the universal amnesty (save Jefferson Davis) -- just like the citizens in the five modern territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

West Virginia is the fly in the soup. As it is, the map shows West Virginia, which was the most supportive of the Confederacy in the border states, as the least supportive. It should be put on a par with Missouri and Kentucky, especially as the Confederacy still considered it Virginia. Perhaps it should be color coded as "claimed by the Confederacy".Dubyavee (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with WV 'claimed by Confederacy'. Virginia is the only Confederate state under large occupation with Congressional District elections, 13 of 16 contested. Virginia law provided for soldier and refugee voting for occupied and disrupted districts, 233 votes reported in CD-16. At least one county vote counted in CD-9 and 10. In what will be WV, counties are in Confederate controlled CD-11,12,13 by my estimate reading the Map 18, 'District Occupation Status'. See p. 47, 67 in Martis, Historical Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've found 9 counties voting in the 1863 Virginia elections, aside from Logan CD-14, mentioned in Martis' Atlas, there were Hampshire & Hardy CD-10, Pocahontas & Pendleton CD-11, Greenbrier, Mercer, Monroe and Raleigh CD-12, as per "Dubin, Michael J., 'United States Gubernatorial Elections, 1861-1911: The Official Results by State and County', McFarland and Co., 2010. Pgs. 584-585". When you consider that 24 counties voted officially to secede from the United States on May 23, 1861, and that also, according to the Shepherd Univ. hand count of soldiers, West Virginia gave as many soldiers to the Confederacy as to the Union, it seems that West Virginia has a firmer stand within the Confederacy than any of the border states. Dubyavee (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Noting a possible 1860 CD-13/ modern VA-WV border discrepancy. 1860 CD-13 north-north-west boundary in Martis p. 47 does not correspond with modern VA-WV boundary at Buchanan-Tazewell VA to my eye. Seems as though Logan WV and Tazewell VA swapped magisterial districts on more than one occasion, but it is a puzzle trying to sort out info from Salmon and Campbell's 'The Hornbook of Virginia History' 4th ed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Martis appears correct for our purposes in the Confederate States of America and the American Civil War -- it is the Tazewell County-Logan County border pictured in the 1848 Crozet map “Internal improvements of Virginia. That would be the border used in the Virginia Congressional District reapportionment following the 1850 census. Crozet’s map is shown in “Virginia: mapping the Old Dominion state through history” 2010, p. 52-53 by Virga and Hines

The border pictured for CD-13 in Martis p. 47 conforms to the Crozet 1848 map. “Hornbook of Virginia History” 4th ed. reports Wyoming County WV 1850, Buchanan County VA in 1858, these two subsequent to the apportionment following the 1850 Census of course will not show. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

7 August vandalism

I reverted 7 August Matthewbdavey unsourced POV contradicting the sourced narrative as vandalism. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Lede

It seems to me that the lede is too long and too detailed. Much of it's discussion about the timing of the formation of the CSA government would be better placed in the "History" section. I don't want to move it myself as I did not do any significant editing and I don't want to misconstrue what others have written. Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

armaments section -- deleted in good faith

In the section "Inauguration and response", Jim Wae expressed concern in masked code, then deleted parts of:

Previously John B. Floyd, U.S. Secretary of War under President James Buchanan (and soon to become a Confederate general), had moved arms south out of northern U.S. armories. To economize War Department expenditures, Floyd and Congressional elements persuaded Buchanan not to put the armaments for southern forts into place. These were now appropriated by the Confederacy along with gold bullion and coining dies at the U.S. mints in Charlotte, North Carolina; Dahlonega, Georgia; and New Orleans.

tag: vague. not vague, the move from northern forts to southern forts without remounting the cannon did indeed enable their capture and speedy repositioning, read on to the next sentence.

tag: contradictory. There is no contradiction between unmounting and removing armament from northern forts and delivering and not installing armament inside ungarrisoned southern forts --- in light of subsequent events and John B. Floyd's participation in them. At Fort Pulaski, Savannah GA there was a sergeant and a corporal detailed as caretakers to face secessionist militia companies. Some of the captured armament was sent to Richmond, most mounted at Pulaski by Georgia forces.

tag: which. The northern ordinance delivered into southern forts but uninstalled there in the southern forts by orders of John B. Floyd. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've amended the section to clear the tags:

Previously John B. Floyd, U.S. Secretary of War under President James Buchanan (and soon to become a Confederate general), had moved arms south out of northern U.S. armories. Using the rationale to economize War Department expenditures, Floyd and Congressional elements persuaded Buchanan not to put the armaments for southern forts into place. The uninstalled cannon were now appropriated by the Confederacy along with gold bullion and coining dies at the U.S. mints in Charlotte, North Carolina; Dahlonega, Georgia; and New Orleans. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Did the secessionists seek a peaceful resolution?

I think their actions show they didn't, and I have marked the claim as dubious unless someone can provide solid documentation. They consistently demanded expansion of slavery into the west, and the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act and Dredd Scott Decision on the north. They broke up the second Democratic convention of 1860 by demanding the imposition of slavery in the territories. A peaceful secession would have left these things out of reach, or dependent on the unlikely cooperation of the Union. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 05:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The documentation is as provided, Thomas, Emory T., "The Confederate Nation: 1861–1865" 1979. ISBN 0-06-090703-7 Chapter 3. "Foundations of the Southern Nation". Without a counter-source, labels motivated by idle speculation will be removed.

There were peace feelers, especially from border states, especially from former whigs. Lincoln, a former Whig himself, peacefully let go armories with weapons, treasury mints with gold, court houses, custom houses and post offices. His change of policy from Buchanan came in holding forts where he could collect tariffs -- north and south, about half of USG revenues, the other half from western land sales -- The old Whigs were Republican in the north. Old Whigs in the South were mostly in the Opposition Party, generally voted for Constitutional Union candidate, former Whig John Bell.

Both Republicans and Opposition Party would have waited two years for elections were the tariffs but to be collected in ports without interfering with the domestic state populations. The Fire-eaters on the other hand, could not secure the South without a patriotic war. The "Peace Convention" in the Willard Hotel was the last gasp of the older generation. Lincoln met there face to face with slave-state delegates in his Willard Hotel suite --most accounts only report his disguise to bypass Baltimore assassins, without the political purpose of the several-day consultations. But peace efforts from the south, there were, as sourced. There is never a 'solid south' of northern newspaper headlines in the actual history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that many secessionists "hoped for a peaceful departure" - meaning they could leave, take forts & federal offices with them, and nobody would try to stop them. But what does that tell us about what actually happened? Even (most) criminals hope nobody will stop them. How does that merit a line of text? There's too much psychologizing in the entire article. And what does "including all slave-holding states in the Union" mean, anyway? --JimWae (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Rather than going on about feelings & wishes, the text would be more concise & move along better if the focus there were on the efforts for peaceful departure - i.e. the meetings held - regardless of (and without one-sided commentary on) whether they were sincere or not. There's more psychologizing about "beliefs" & "feelings" & "motives" & "self-image" that needs to be shifted to talk of actions. --JimWae (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Too much psychologizing in the earlier edit. Intent was to write the article away from the "Solid South", "Lost Cause" previously which simply celebrated the Confederacy in a certain triumphalism -- which I did not believe should be the voice of wikipedia, especially since the movement cost the nation 600,000. Lots of push-back, my using Emory M. Thomas, he said things like "Secession was not just a spontaneous restatement of Lockean theory; it was the culmination of years of radical tactics and revolutionary propaganda", p. 38. "Secession was a radical act, and the process of disunion was the product of radical men and tactics." p.56.

I tried to convey the Upper South stalemate which threatened the entire secessionist enterprise, as it depended on a stampede to patriotic war, emotional and ephemeral. The longer delay, the greater the chances of reconciliation. The view of history as contingent may not be possible to narrate online. JimWae has read more of US history than most. It may be that "Black Republican", the epithet secessionists used for anyone not a northern "Doughface" prior to 1860 is too arcane. If JimWae cannot distinguish between Antebellum political name-calling and Reconstruction descriptive analysis 1865-1885, "Black Republican" is too easily misplaced in the chronology and misunderstood, and should be dropped from the online wikipedia.

Ah, it is "dubious" to JimWae that the slave-power sought all 15 slave-states to join them, maybe also that they sought Mexican alliance on the commonality of slavery and peonage (Juarez corresponded with Lincoln in friendship, aided the Union militarily, and jailed Confederate diplomatic emissaries). Well, I never said secessionists were reasonable or ethical, "even (most [reasonable]) criminals hope nobody will stop them" as JimWae says. I only said they were serious, meant to be taken seriously, leading their communities to ruin and destruction without legitimate justification and to no purpose.

Apart from the references from scholars Emory M. Thomas, Willima W. Freehling and E. Merton Coulter, you can see an image of the "Secession Banner" hung behind the podium at the South Carolina Secessionist Convention --- online at the link. It was previously reproduced as a black-and-white photograph in the LSU History of the South series, volume seven, "The Confederate States of America", 1950, 1962, opposite page 354. The FIFTEEN building blocks of the new slavery-based nation include Maryland and Delaware, connected by canal and along shipping lanes to New York City, which also had a secessionist faction along with financial backers of filibusters to reestablish slavery in Nicaragua and Cuba. I'm not sure where to work those article links into this narrative. On the other hand, some of my edits are too concise. Agreed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Cannot stay long right now, so I will say 1> I did finally figure out that the somewhat vague "including all slave-holding states in the Union" meant that all would LEAVE the Union. At the very least, it needs to be stated more clearly. 2> Not all the tags are mine 3> I am glad to see agreement that we need to work to remove as much as possible the psychologizing - from all the CSA, Civil War articles 4> We also need to remember that not all readers are history professors familiar with shorthand terminology that can be construed as pejorative, and also that some readers, especially many non-US ones, would not have already heard of many events history professors take for granted - not even Sumter --JimWae (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

... to remove as much as possible the psychologizing -- well, yes, but it cannot be removed entirely, as there was no objective reason to secede. There was no twenty-year "long train of abuses" of ever-widening abuse of individual rights comparable to the indictment against George III in the Declaration. Slave-power had controlled Supreme Court, Congress and the Presidency for the previous 20 years. The CSA is established before the inauguration of Lincoln against the dangers he represented, but no president had served two terms since General Andrew Jackson -- and Lincoln did not have his popularity, his political machine, or his majorities in Congress. Historians resort to psychologizing the participants in the rebellion because there was no objective reason for it. Should an online encyclopedia even try to explain how the CSA came to place armies in the field and fight them for four years? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

citations from Ch. 3

From Thomas above, chapter 3: p.59 Jefferson Davis’ military background was important, “for even though the Southerners repeatedly told themselves and others that the North would not fight to restore the seceded states to the Union, their words were more hopeful than confident.” p. 81. “During this period [before Sumter] Toombs counseled war, Davis hoped for peace…” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Tag: which three are the pro-Union candidates?

Answer: the three pro-Union candidates were Lincoln, Douglas and Bell.

Concern: this appears to be obscuring the fact that Lincoln was not even on the ballot in 10 of the 11 CSA states

Answer: the topic sentence of the paragraph asserts there was Unionist support in every state said to be in the Confederacy, not only Lincoln support.-- and this Union support ranged from 34% in Florida to 71% in Missouri. --- Reporting Lincoln only would obscure the fact that there was substantial Unionist support in every state of the Confederacy, as evidenced by free elections in 1860, regularly conducted at customary polling places.

Explanation: Both Lincoln and Douglas were widely reported saying they would use force to preserve the Union. --- Douglas in his "Norfolk [VA] Doctrine" speech at the end of his speaking tour throughout the South. And in the event, Douglas stumped throughout Illinois and the midwest raising troops for "Lincoln's Army" after Fort Sumter. Bell asserted states had no right to secede from the Union, but asserted only negotiation as a means of preventing it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)