Template talk:Events leading to the American Civil War

Notes

This is a rather peculiar list. The Northwest Ordinance? Really? It also excludes a lot of stuff from 1845-1861 that should be included. The annexation of Texas? The Mexican-American War? the formation of the Republican Party? The Lecompton constitution? Most importantly, the election of 1860, the actual secession of the southern states, the formation of the CSA, and the firing on Fort Sumter should certainly be on the template. john k (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Though the Lecompton constitution sort of falls under Bleeding Kansas. Texas and the Mexican War should definitely be on there. Roscelese (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe Dred Scott decision isn't in there -- from the list I saw. Any high school student should know the importance of Dred Scott decision, if for no other reason than propelling Lincoln in the election, and polarizing the nation. Lincoln talked repeatedly about how Dred Scott decision meant all the states would be slave states, or free states -- it was a HUGE issue to him. So when he said we would all be free, or all slave, he meant it literally, in the sense that all the states would be slave states, or free states.

That was a major issue on Lincoln's mind -- and he was right. Dred Scott made it inevitable that the NORTHERN states would have to allow slavery. Without Dred Scott decision was supposed to settle the issue -- thats why Taney made the decision so extreme, to settle it. Instead, he lit the fuse that started the civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkMorton (talk • contribs) 14:26, 12 May 2008

John Brown's Raid, Anyone?

This is pretty much a slam dunk for this list, just as you have correctly added Dred Scott. I wouldn't include the actual results of these listed incidents though; i.e., the secession of states, the firing on Fort Sumter, etc., or long standing historical trends, like the slave trade itself.Ismaelbobo (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good show, chap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.19.185 (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Add Entry

The Fugitive Slave Act article should be added here, as I believe that there is enough information there to have it be a seperate entry from the Compromise of 1850. What do you think? <font color=#FF0000>R</font><font color=#FF6600>i</font><font color=#EFEF00>k</font><font color=#00FF00>i</font><font color=#0000FF>n</font><font color=#990099>g</font><font color=#888888>2</font><font color=#000000>7</font> (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This is quite a mess

Has things which aren't "events", also they should be in chronological order so far as possible. Slavery, 7nderground railroad, manifest destiny arrn’t events. deisenbe (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you've gone too far in eliminating the Compromise of 1850 and Underground Railroad. Both are consistently described in historical works describing the build up to the Civil War. By being overly restrictive in what should be included you overlook the purpose of the template -- giving useful information to a reader who wants to find related articles. You really want to edit war on this? I suggest you revert your revert and discuss this hereTom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing non-events from this list

This is a list of EVENTS. Not causes of the Civil War, not things related to it that a reader might want to look at, not factors leading up to it that historians discuss, but events. Of course the Underground Railroad is relevant, but it's not an event. Read the article on the Compromise of 1850 - it's a step AWAY from the war, except for the Fugitive Slave Law.

I tried a while ago making it something more general than events, but that didn't fly.

If it doesn't have a date, it's not an event. deisenbe (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Collapsible?

Hi! I was wondering if it was possible for the template to be collapsible. It is quite a long list with many, greatly important events in the lead-up to the war. However, this means it takes quite a bit of visual space. I was wondering if adding the option to collapse it is possible. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

What scholars say

The list seems to have ignored what the reliable sources say. I think the clearest statement is this one and we should try to follow it. Source = James Huston, "Interpreting the Causation Sequence: The Meaning of the Events Leading to the Civil War." Reviews in American History (Sep., 2006), Vol. 34, No. 3 pp. 324-331, quoting p 324 online

Anyone teaching or writing about the origins of the disunion crisis deals with "the sequence." The sequence is the well-known series of events that escalated sectional tensions finally resulting in seven southern states leaving the Union after the presidential election of 1860. In abbreviated form, the sequence consists of Texas annexation, the Mexican War, the Wilmot Proviso, the California Gold Rush, the Compromise of 1850, fugitive slave captures, filibusterers, the Ostend Manifesto, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the political realignment of the 1850s (the birth of the Republican and Know Nothing parties and the death of the Whigs), Bleeding Kansas, the election of 1856, the Dred Scott decision, the Lecompton Constitution controversy, the Douglas-Buchanan split, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry, the speakership fight of 1860, the break-up of the Democratic party in Charleston, the campaign of 1860, the election of Lincoln in November 1860, and finally the secession of South Carolina in December 1860. Scholars have added various events to this list and they have particularly stressed long-term economic and social processes behind it, but any historian of the Civil War period has to absorb the sequence into his or her narrative.

Rjensen (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Chronological arrangement needed

This template used to be arranged chronologically. I do not believe the presnt arrangement adds anyrhing, and it makes things seem more separated than they should, like putting Nat Turner and the 1850 law in different sections.

I'll wait for comment -- I've waited a while before writing this. At one point I thought of having a two-part list, one part by date, and the 2nd by topIc area. But I really don't find the topical arrangement helpful. It doesn't reveal anything. So I'm for just putting it back in chronological order. deisenbe (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

deisenbe the previous version (IIRC chronological) was barely readable due to being an immensely long list of links with little to no distinction between them. Remember that this template is meant in large part for readers new to the topic who want to learn more, and I don't think a list of 30-odd articles whose names they don't recognize is helpful to our readers without the context the current version gives them. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 23:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)