Talk:American Civil War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Hal's useful navigation box

Couldn't see this helpful tool gathering dust in archives. BusterD 11:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What a great subject box. Why isnt this on all the CW pages? :) --Cuomo111 10:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think of it as a very useful draft, since Hal didn't post it to many pages, and hasn't modified it since posting. When I archived old chat, I just couldn't bear to put it away. I think the text should be smaller, and more items added; the completed box should hold about 50% more items IMHO. BusterD 11:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't promulgate it too far because I didn't want the inevitable arguments that will result. I am amazed that you think the 113 entries, which include categories of links as well as individual ones, need to be expanded by about 56 more. Perhaps you can list them here and I'll see what can be done to add some without making it unwieldy. My theory is that if the box gets too big, it will be ignored, and it's already mighty big. Hal Jespersen 16:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean any statement to sound in the least bit pejorative, and I can certainly appreciate concerns about max size issues and inevitable disputes which would follow. I don't mean to put a fine point on it (or to sound at all insensitive), but... there's not a single mention of African-Americans, slavery, the Fugitive slave law (or even the normal "token" Frederick Douglass or Harriet Tubman entry), no mention of secession, political, economic, social issues. No mention of Bloody Kansas, Reconstruction, Redeemers, the Klan, the Trent Affair or the Alabama Claims. I consider NONE of those articles to be unimportant relative to conflict details. There are entire categories of non-military material which would love to occupy a prominent place on such a navigation box, or set thereof. The fighting was only the most visible part of the conflict.

IMHO, the best tack is to bulk up the ACW topics article to an almost unwieldly long list, then use that organic list to define fuller categories and build a more complex box (or perhaps a series of similar, subject-delimited boxes). Many thousands (and perhaps tens of thousands) of articles link to this main page; 113 to 200 links in some sort of box or other template doesn't seem like that many in comparison. BusterD 17:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, how about this version? Hal Jespersen 23:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Better still. I've fleshed it out as much as I dare; if it can be pared down a bit I think we have something very workable. But I can see Hal's point about size being a big disadvantage, epecially on small pages, where the box might overwhelm the article. But as far as main page, campaign pages, theater pages, this is a good start on an uncomplex solution. BusterD 20:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern was not for the overall bulk, but for excessive width. I use a relatively wide screen resolution (1400x1050) and it looks fine in my browser, but I wonder what others might think. Hal Jespersen 01:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As of today Hal has published this new horizantal view which offers more space and a nifty article-appropriate blue and grey stripe! BusterD 02:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Firsts? Almosts?

I think the two sections Firsts and Almost Firsts are poorly written, but rather than trying to improve them, I'd like to see them deleted. There are probably hundreds of things that happened for the first time during 1861-65, such as Land Grant, Taps, and railroad gauges, so why attempt to do a laundry list in this main article? Why not "First invasion of Pennsylvania town?" "First inauguration of second governor in a state." "First draft riots." "First bearded president." The list goes on and on. The Almost Firsts section is, with all due respect, a joke. Would anyone object to removing these? I'd consider moving them to a new article, but I think it would be just as specious. Hal Jespersen 18:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove. For reasons stated. Hal Jespersen 18:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove. Looks like a trivia collection. I feel the same about Analysis of the Outcome. Maybe children's encyclopedic, but neither belong on a serious wiki page. BusterD 00:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed some of the political items. As for the Analysis, that is summary of best recent scholarship. Lots of people want that kind of in-depth analysis, not just chronology of battles. Rjensen 01:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My view of the Analysis section is that it contains a blurry graphic, several incomplete sentences, and lots of unsourced personal opinion. The section does contain some significant nuggests, but they're buried under the chaff. It's like a "pin the tail on the donkey" except with user opinions instead of a paper donkey tail. It practically begs a user to stick their own opinion in. BusterD 12:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The criticism seems pretty blurry too. It's easy enough to fix "incomplete" sentences once they are pointed out. The goal is to give a consensus of what historians have agreed on (as per McPherson, Berringer, Nevins, Weigley, etc). Is there any statement that does not represent a consensus? If so please identify the exact problem. Rjensen 13:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Since we've entered this arena, almost none of the points are cited. If this is analyis garnered from consensus, then citations should quite easy to come by. The bullet points are not grouped by type (i.e. military, economic, social), so several make virtually identical points. The section is enormously long (IMHO, about twice as long as it needs be.) There is some very asute writing there, I'll admit. I'd just like to see some of that made clear by weeding out some of the growing mischief. I've avoided dealing with this directly, trying to avoid an edit war with strongly opinionated users like yourself. BusterD 13:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I should have used the more specific term sentence fragments. Text which lacks the elements of a complete sentence (like this statement, for example). Subject, predicate, that sort of thing (and like this fragment). If all of the items were fragments, then parallel structure would permit, but since some of the points are written in complete sentences, then all of them should be. BusterD 13:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I added citations for most of the statements from notes I have at hand (other cites take longer to track down). I still don't see the pesky little fragments??? Rjensen 14:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please look at my changes and see if they keep the intent. My effort was intended to fix grammar only, not change points. I'd really like to see a grouping structure: political, military, economic, geographic, social, and whatever others. BusterD 14:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As of today, the "firsts" section has been deleted by Tfine80. I concur with this deletion, but could see a section and/or article arising from technological innovations and such, perhaps "A Modern War." The Rains brothers deserve a much fuller treatment than that given here (makes it sound like they were just some clever backwoods boys, and not both USMA graduates with a combined 50 years of service under the US flag before secession). BusterD 17:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

New date for start of war?

Our new edits state: The Civil War began when President Lincoln rejected the peace commission sent by President Davis to negotiate a peace treaty. In his letter dated 27 February 1861... Looks like Lincoln started the war before he was even inaugurated! Far too much detail in intro. Sumter AFTER the naval blockade. Fort Sumter "surrendered", not taken. North reacts with "outrage". Mention of martial law in North, but not in South. Lots of other false info & propaganda added too? I vote for a revert --JimWae 23:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote for revert. BusterD 00:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking through, it appears there is no place to revert to to remove all these errors & propaganda attempts. Once again the article needs to be fixed because of people on POV campaigns, plain ignorance, &/or delusions of superiority --JimWae 03:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need to devise is not a structure, but a process. Since the article is going to get mucked up even when well-intentioned editors are at work, perhaps we could all agree with a "cleaning" procedure (for lack of a more accurate term), a time structure, some sort of evaluation process, or maybe just delete everything that isn't correctly cited. What do others think? BusterD 04:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A process for cleaning each section

Not wanting to use specific circumstances of this morning's (heretofore unprecedented and interim) cooperation between Dr. Jensen and myself, we do seemed to have stumbled onto a process that does make sense and can be endlessly repeated.

• Step one: Demand citations. If a user feels so strongly they'll go to edit war on a subject, then they should feel at least as strongly about proving assertion with citation.
• Step two: Repair basic construction. Fix grammar, spelling, inversion, poor use of negatives, fragments.
• Step three: Group like elements. If bullet points, create some overt (or otherwise) structure, then group by that structure. If text, group like statements into rough paragraphs without too much editing. Structure might be by subject, chronological, whatever as long as the grouping makes sense. No matter what, talk about the intended structure in comments so others can follow. Sort of like soccer, where the players are constantly communicating to enable all to see what to do and where to go. We play a lot of herd ball here. All of us.
• Step four: Trim, mesh, and blend. Identify duplicate statements, created compound sentences, create coherence. Make sure each paragraph has strong representative statement.
• Step five: Wikify and repeat.

Does this work? Could we try, maybe breaking down the work by sections? BusterD 15:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm reducing text size on the reading list for smaller page

If anyone has a serious problem with this, please revert. After looking at many other long pages, this looks like a cheap solution that works in such situations BusterD 20:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

War between the 11 states?

User:Rjensen has 2x today reverted my work so he can insert that mistakenly worded "the war was BETWEEN the 11 states". Insisted is on the Wikipedia:Words to avoid list. Whether or not they actually seceded or were independent is POV. Neither time has he bothered to say what was "wrong" with what I put in - except to say it was important to say "11". These points (including the "between the 11") have all been covered previously --JimWae 19:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

JimWae was right and I was wrong, so I tried to fix it as follows:

The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a sectional war in the United States between the national government ("Union") and an independent Confederate States of America under President Jefferson Davis formed by 11 slave states. The Union, under President Abraham Lincoln and his anti-slavery Republican party rejected any right of secession and insisted on restoring the Union. Rjensen 20:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. What a weekend. I can now say I've seen almost everything. Me trying to be less sarcastic, and Dr. Jensen ceding a point on the ACW talk page, all within 24 hours. Good for us. Really, a few of us regulars ought to work up some consensus on the Intro. Our disagreement can be a great strength. I think the intro is about the right physical length now, though I'd like to see 3 or 4 paragraphs built out of that. I think the intro now has TOO much emphasis on narrative. IMHO, I think the first paragraph should be a textbook definition of the conflict, the second and/or third should contain this narrative (and I think link to many major daughter articles), and the final paragraph should say something about legacy. Without getting directly back to wordsmithing, that's what I believe. BusterD 20:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, the opening paragraph emphasizes/summarizes that the ACW was about slavery??? Hasn't this been widely debunked by now? It had everything to do with regulation of trade, both interstate (commerce clause) and international (tariffs). The anti-slavery angle is severely revisionist history written by the victors. (Obviously slavery was/is a terrible institution, but it was a minor focus, at best, for causes of and conduct in the ACW.) The war was fought largely over states rights versus Federal hegemony. 71.162.255.58 02:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, the entire article is heavily slanted towards slavery as the central issue in causing and conducting the war between the states. Please read, Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, by Mark Thornton and Robert B. Ekelund. (Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources, 2004. xxix +124 pages.)^[1] 71.162.255.58 02:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There are multiple flaws with the above intro: 1) How can a specific number of states be mentioned when that was a changing number (not all joined the CSA at the same time). 2) Their "independence" was not recognized by the USA or most foreign govts, a unqualified inclusion here is deceptive and POV. This issue of the legitimacy of the claim of independence should be addressed in the body of the article, not in the introduction. 3) the GOP was not monolithicly anti-slavery, such a term does not distinguish between anti-slavery expansion (free soil) and abolishing slavery. The intro should be limited to facts not in dispute or requiring further explanation. NoSeptember 20:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Good on you, Rjensen, for your acknowledgement --JimWae 20:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with comments by NoSeptember above
• I think the section on Causes of the War is too long - tho' I am not sure how to shorten it - particularly since the branch article is itself too long. I also think "causes" is a term custom-built for disputes & "origins' is likely less controversial --JimWae 20:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

To respond to NoSeptember. A summary has to be very broad and give the main points. The nuances are in the article itself. 1) the details of when each of the 11 joined is fully covered in the article. Fact is there were 11 during for 99% of the war. 2) intro clearly says Lincoln and GOP rejected Confederate independence. That's why the Union fought. 3) yes the GOP was at all times antislavery in terms of its leaders, policies platforms and actions. Rjensen 20:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You gentlemen really moved the intro forward today!

We can never go back to the very short version again. What we have now is worlds better than what we started with this morning. Always a process... BusterD 02:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Threat of international intervention

This section could do with a bit of a rewrite. It looks at it too much from the perspective of how the US managed to prevent British intervention, without seeing it from the British perspective, which was that it there was no real reason to intervene. I may come back to it later, but in the meantime I removed a couple of sentences.

"The British had ample stocks of cotton but they depended on Union grain shipments for their daily food supply."

-I'm extremely sceptical of the idea that the UK depended on the Us to feed itself at this time. Any evidence for it would be welcome though.

"Neither Britain nor France ever promised formal recognition, for that meant war with the United States."

-Again, any evidence that the reason that Britain and France didnt recognise the Confederacy was because of the threat of war with the US should be presented. --Ruby Tuesday 18:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Camp Wild Cat

This sentence is needed to link from a merged article. Please do not delete again without discussion. BlueValour 16:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I almost deleted this myself until I googled it. The non-wikified entry kinda sticks out like a thumb, but I can see the strategic significance of the event. You will have to make a pretty good case for inclusion when a far more significant battle (Battle of Ball's Bluff) was fought the very same day, cost the country a US Senator, and isn't mentioned anywhere in this article (and probably shouldn't be). BusterD 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am a neutral editor who knows nothing about this subject! I spend part of my time cleaning up WP by looking for 1 line articles that are better served by a redirect to a main article. This is one such case. If the concensus amongst the regular editors on here is that this battle is not important enough for WP to even make a passing reference to it then so be it. However, in that case, I will need to PROD the main reference to the battle and AfD if contested. BlueValour 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the battle deserves its own article, not a redirect to American Civil War. I will go ahead and write up a small article to get started. Scott Mingus 22:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Article is finished (feel free to add more detail). I have also rewritten the sentence in the American Civil War article to add more clarity to why this action was important in the overall scheme of the Civil War. It prevented an early loss of Kentucky to the Union, and paved the way for the commonwealth to remain in the Union. Scott Mingus 23:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks BlueValour. Sometimes it takes a neutral editor to help us figure out what actually belongs. Good job Scott! BusterD 02:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In a six-paragraph summary of the theater, this obscure battle does not belong. It's not even in the lengthy theater subarticle. Mill Springs is much more important and that isn't mentioned. Since I wasn't involved in the flurry of editing here, I won't simply delete it, but recommend someone do it. Hal Jespersen 02:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Since an editor has gone to the trouble of writing a substantial article, simply cutting out all mention is against the WP spirit. I have therefore put a link in 'See also'. It matters not to me where it is linked from but to leave it as an orphaned article does not improve WP as an entity. Therefore, if you are not happy with the present place of this link please find a new location rather than just delete. BlueValour 22:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest Battles of the American Civil War, where 300+ battles not mentioned in this main article are listed. None of those 300+ should be in the See also section here. The "WP spirit" is to write good articles, which often means knowing what should be omitted, not adding data indiscriminately without review by the community. Hal Jespersen 02:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Slavery and Anti-Slavery

Do the second and third paragraphs overlap other stuff too much? I think they do, and should be deleted for that reason or combined with other sub-topics.Jimmuldrow 15:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

invasion?

Lincoln himself called it an invasion. "The words "coercion" and "invasion" are much used in these days, and often with some temper and hot blood. Let us make sure, if we can, that we do not misunderstand the meaning of those who use them. Let us get exact definitions of these words, not from dictionaries, but from the men themselves, who certainly deprecate the things they would represent by the use of words. What, then, is "coercion"? What is "invasion"? Would the marching of an army into South Carolina without the consent of her people, and with hostile intent toward them, be "invasion"? I certainly think it would; and it would be "coercion" also if the South Carolinians were forced to submit. But if the United States should merely hold and retake its own forts and other property, and collect the duties on foreign importations, or even withhold the mails from places where they were habitually violated, would any or all of these things Be "invasion" or "coercion"? Lincoln speech Feb. 12, 1861 Rjensen 02:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• The federal gov't would not ordinarily be said to ever be invading its own country. When the national guard went to Alabama in 1960s, was that an invasion? Was putting down the Whiskey Rebellion an invasion? Do police invade private property when they carry out a raid? For it to clearly be an invasion, it would have to be one country illegally entering another country - but Lincoln never acknowledged any right of secession, nor "the Confederacy" as another country. Likewise, I have avoided calling it a "police action" or "putting down an insurrection". The article should be written in such a way that the reader cannot determine on which side the editors' sympathies might be. --JimWae 02:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Aside from that, They seceded because they would not join an invasion is pithy prose, which gives editorial commentary and attempts to read the "souls of the South". I am disappointed that you have chosen twice in one day already to revert me without allowing an opportunity to discuss it first. I think you have already exceeded the allowed amount of 3 reverts on a single article in one day.--JimWae 02:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"They seceded because they could not join an invasion" is what they said at the time, and what historians have said since. There is no POV on the part of a Wiki editor. (There was plenty of POV in 1861 of course.) The question is asked what is an invasion: the Lincoln quote does in fact define "invasion" in highly authoritative fashion. Rjensen 03:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• What Lincoln quote are you talking about - the one where he said he would NOT invade? The way the article is worded there is no attribution re who thinks of it as an invasion, it is just called an invasion - and for all apparent purposes it appears that wikipedia is calling it an invasion - that is clearly POV --JimWae 03:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln define invasion in Feb and said he did not plan to do that. In April he did exactly that. So if Lincoln calls it an invasion who is Wiki to quibble? The article makes the point that Virginia etc seceded because THEY considered it an invasion. The best history is Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis by Daniel W. Crofts; 1989. He says on April 13-15: (p 334) "Unionists of all descriptions, both those who became Confederates and those who did not, considered the proclamation calling for seventy-five thousand troops "disastrous." Having consulted personally with Lincoln in March, Congressman Horace Maynard, the unconditional Unionist and future Republican from East Tennessee, felt assured that the administration would pursue a peaceful policy.

Soon after April 15, a dismayed Maynard reported that "the President's extraordinary proclamation" had unleashed "a tornado of excitement that seems likely to sweep us all away." Men who had "heretofore been cool, firm and Union loving" had become "perfectly wild" and were "aroused to a phrenzy of passion." For what purpose, they asked, could such an army be wanted "but to invade, overrun and subjugate the Southern states." The growing war spirit in the North further convinced southerners that they would have to "fight for our hearthstones and the security of home." Sounds like fear of invasion to me. Rjensen 03:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• You mean the speech at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14721/14721-h/14721-h.htm#43 where he goes on to dispute calling it an invasion, don't you. You want wikipedia to side against Lincoln & with the South & you think that is NPOV. Sure! Let's say also "Lincoln said he would not invade & then he did exactly that" --JimWae 04:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Your edit does NOT say they considered it an invasion, it just calls it "an invasion", TWICE - I feel like I am trying to communicate with spinach - this is unworthy of my time. I am putting up a POV notice --JimWae 04:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Stop removing the NPOV dispute tags --JimWae 07:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV tags are meaningless jibberish in this case--the editor who posts them is unable to explain what he thinks is POV. Rjensen 07:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

First, please stop the edit war. Take a day or so break. There is a defacto POV dispute going on, so the NPOV tags are appropriate and must stay. That one user fails to care to see another user's process is inevitable, and exactly what these talk pages are intended to salve. I find it fascinating that such an important concept as "coercion" is important enough to discuss here, but not essential to the article (see Kenneth Stamp, And Then The War Came Chapters 2 and 3, and dozens of others which which Dr. Jensen is familiar). Once again, when looking at this article, what we see is a section of onsourced assertions which we're expected to accept because one of us knows the scholarship cold. That's just not good enough for wikipedia, and it's not acceptable here. The section should have at least a dozen citations--the initial section assertions about what historians say is just horse manure without serious sourcing (and I mean recent and I mean a serious figure). Any one user's expertise/authority is meaningless here unless they demonstrate that on the page in question (and by demonstrate I mean prove, not assert). I demand citation; then we can work out petty detail like exact construction. Removing the POV tags will occur when the whole section is cited and consensus is reached. BusterD 14:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest NPOVing the whole article is just wrong. If someone has a problem with sources for a sentence or paragraph, then say so, Otherwise it's just a generic disgust that is inarticulate and unhelpful. in this case one user was upset about the "invasion" of the South in 1861. He did original research or a sort to show the term is useless, but missed Lincoln's very apt definition. When that deifinition was provided he slapped NPOV on the whole article, as a sign of frustration. Rjensen 14:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The temporary application of a temporary NPOV tag to an article does the content zero harm, and attracts the attention of others who may wish to assist in solving the problem (like myself and others). The NPOV tag carries no negative connotation unless one wishes to grant it such weight. Work the problem, not the transaction. This is like the Peer review argument; just because one user doesn't agree with the process doesn't (and shouldn't) negate the effectiveness of such a process. Just because one user thinks a section "is just fine" is no serious argument to justify removal of an attention flag. I don't actually care who's correct here gentlemen; but I do insist that each step is a step forward. BusterD 14:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply from User:JimWae

• User:Rjensen may think I am inarticulate, but I am very good at spotting crap - that sentence not only was POV - it was not from McPherson, AND it was not even on topic[2]. How articulate can one be when one might just as well be talking to spinach? Jensen has been using the talk page not to discuss, but to announce that he is right. When I raise an issue, he has just kept reverting the article [3][4][5] then adding more POV stuff along the same lines to the article[6] - giving undue weight, presumably in some demonstration of triumph. Then he repeatedly removes NPOV tags I put in, saying I have not made any point at all.[7] [8] I hope other editors will excuse me if I have difficulty in assuming good faith when it comes to him. Wikipedia is not a forum to prove a thesis, but to report on them. --JimWae 17:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

League of the South????

Why does this belong on the See Also list? Modern political or social movements should not be included in an article on the 1861-1865 war. Agree to delete? Scott Mingus 11:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree to delete. Sons of the Confederacy, Grand Army of the Republic, fine with me; KKK, League of the South better in Redeemers article, IMHO. BusterD 14:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Solving BusterD's problem

here are the references BusterD wants. Now will he please read them before complaining? Rjensen 14:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC) The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature and Research. ed by Steven E. Woodworth - Greenwood Press. 1996. Thomas Pressley, Americans Interpret Their Civil War (1962) James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom (1988) Donald, Lincoln D Donald et al Civil War & Reconstruction (2001 ed) Eric Foner Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (1970)

Slavery and Anti-Slavery section

Focus on the slavery issue has been cyclical. From 1900 to 1955, historians considered anti-slavery agitation to be less important than constitutional, economic, and cultural issues. PRESSLY Since the 1960s historians have again emphasized slavery and antislavery as the primary cause of the war, with its many political, economic, constitutional and ideological dimensions. Woodworth ch 11

For....The right to retrieve escaped slaves from the free states with federal assistance was also an explicit Constitutional right. see Wiki: Fugitive slave laws

Northern resistance ...available to working men. See Foner 1970

Slavery was seen as unfair competition for men attempting to better themselves in life. Slavery was seen as a threat to modernization. Slavery was seen as a threat to republican and democratic values; Northern leaders like Lincoln, Seward, Chase and Greeley warned that a corrupt oligarchy of rich planters, the Slave Power, dominated Southern politics, and national politics as well. See Slave Power, Foner, and Leonard L. Richards, Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780-1860 (2000) 1.

The Compromise of 1850 included a new, stronger fugitive slave law that was bitterly resented in the North. One of the 1850 laws provided a mechanism for federal agents to capture and return slaves that escaped into the North. Northerners — especially those who read the highly influential Uncle Tom's Cabin objected on moral grounds to being legally required to enforce fugitive slave laws. covered in Fugitive slave laws

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 overthrew the Compromise of 1820 that had outlawed slavery so far in the Louisiana Purchase Territory north of Missouri, and led to the new anti-slavery Republican party. see any textbook

The Dred Scott ....Lincoln warned that "the next Dred Scott decision" could threaten northern states with slavery. any bio of Lincoln, esp Donald

(NOTE: an NPOV tag was placed here and has been removed as part of work on the NPOV backlog. Since this is an archived page it should be safe to remove the tag. If you disagree with this, please re-tag with {{NPOV-sect}}. -- Steve Hart 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

see McPherson as cited (p 283) There was a strong correlation .... Rjensen 14:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a nice start, but how about incorporating these into the article where any reader can see the reference? older ≠ wiser 15:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is my problem, I'm merely reponding to a community need (as are you and others). I've demanded citations for all those unsourced assertions. You've responded by throwing sand in the bull's eyes, by (and just like a professor too) throwing a massive bulk of reading with which you apparently expect each reader of the page to be familiar. If you can prove your assertions, cite them for the community, on the page, and not to me. As I've already stated, I don't care about the particulars here, but might be greatly concerned that asking for citations on a controversial section constituted a personal problem between me and another user. Truth is: there are few personal problems between any user and Dr. Jensen he doesn't bring on by his frequent impetuous, reckless, and presumptuous action. I'm sorry to have to be the one say it, but there it is. BusterD 15:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And page numbers would be nice. BusterD 15:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There are no controversial points that are being asserted--all of them are covered in every major college history textbook. If people don't want to read the books, then 1) at least read McPherson or 2) any recent general American history textbook. No one who refuses to do that can be a serious editor of a serious history article. Much fuller detail on all points appears in McPherson, Battle Cry (1988) and Donald's Civil War and Reconstruction. (2001) Use the index. The slavery issue appears on several hundred different pages in the McPherson book-- even a narrow topic like Fugutve Slave appears on over 30 pages: 40 61 65 71 72 75 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 103 117 119 120 121 129 201 203 204 224 227 228 237 251 256 262 355 497 498 852 861 870 etc I think we can assume our users can use the index and do not need all these page numbers. Rjensen 15:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"...don't quibble so much..."

Now we've really stepped over a line. Demanding specific citation for controversial assertion is the heart of Wikipedia and one reason many people grow to trust it as a source. Demanding citation is by no means "quibbling." One reason many still fail to trust this pedia is that some readers recognize that often wiki editors are more interested in expressing their own point of view than conveying objective truth, and might even fail to properly cite assertions they make. What you propose is that every reader of this page must either have:

• Already read a college-level textbook on this subject
• Trust that contributors like you and I have done so

That's just not acceptable, Richard, and as an academic I'm surprised at your resentful attitude over being forced to write citation for articles when you've spent a career demanding just those citations from students and collegues. We demand citation here at Wikipedia, and if you can help bring that to the table, more power to you. Just stop trying to change the subject by suggesting every reader must have prerequisite knowledge; that's the opposite of what this knowledge platform is designed to do. BusterD 15:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we have editors who have only the vaguest knowledge of slavery or the Fugitive Slave Law or the Compromise of 1850. When citations are provided they don't read them. The best is some half-remembered high school lesson or maybe a TV show. There are lots of people like that, but should they be editing an encyclopedia??? Wiki needs to do a lot better than that to be acceptable. Rjensen 17:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You continue to steer the conversation away from your failure to provide exact citation, and toward the implied failings of imaginary others. I got involved because I believe this is an important page to present correctly. I didn't get involved because I disagree with any of the subject matter you and others were discussing, and while I have a certain general competence on the subject matter, none of that is at issue. What is at issue is your tendency to insert (often poorly worded) general assertion without specific reference links for verification. When pressed, your answer is a non-specific "none of you is as expert as I." That's not a wikipedian answer, it's the answer of someone who would do better on their own private page. Here you must defend your positions or watch them fail to stand public peer review. Here you must show your expertise through the content of your posts, the quality of your citation, and the character of your action. BusterD 18:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If people have a comment on a specific sentence let's hear it. So far there is merely a confession of ignorance and request for citations for the most basic and well-known facts that are covered in every textbook. It is false to say that the article is riddled with POV or any such thing. It represents the consensus of experts. People who don't know much about the Civil War shouldn't feel stupid; but I think they should not be editing the entry. Rjensen 18:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but BusterD is right on the issue of policy. WP:RS is quite explicit that every piece of (non-trivial) information in this encyclopedia should be referenced. "It is always appropriate to ask other editors to produce their sources. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor." What is self-evident to one person may not be to others. - Merzbow 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

All the sources have been provided. Now it's time for the critics to read a little. Rjensen 18:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's for the entire wiki community to read and evaluate, not just one user. This isn't, hasn't been, and won't be construed to be a personal, private interaction; it's a public forum. And thank goodness for all those non-expert editors out there who make this attempt at a unified body of public knowledge possible. The experts who keep "truth" behind layered walls of interpretation make learning a more difficult experience for all those who need to learn the essentials about a content area. It took a small child to point out "the Emperor wears no clothes." In that example, the experts had too much at stake to point out what was obvious to an indifferent innocent. Not so different in this arena, Wikipedia. Thank goodness for experts, but thank goodness we're not required to trust them. We trust, but we verify. I trust accurate citations, and I distrust any who makes unwarranted attack when honest action was adequate. BusterD 18:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

try it again: if BusterD has ONE sentence or paragraph that he thinks is problematical, he needs to tell us Which sentences, and What is the problem. Even a small child can do this: is the Emperor bare on the left arm or the right arm? Rjensen 18:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Jensen's selective reading of the above ignores my multiple statements I have no stake in this specific discussion. I suggest if he must, he direct such unworthy taunts at users who have disagreed with his assertions. My general interest is only that he cites when he assert so that others (including but not limited to myself) can verify and perhaps learn something in the process (I'm often inspired to read source material by citation). Those users who fail/refuse to cite are begging for content deletion. As to the specific discussion, I do not choose to enter Dr. Jensen's narrow arena. I'm simply pointing out the inadequacy of such a position. BusterD 18:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Dependance on Grain?

The article contains the following - Cotton diplomacy proved a failure. The British had ample stocks of cotton but they depended on Union grain shipments for their daily food supply.

I'm not sure that this statement is very well supported. The British at the time had Australia and Canada as large grain producing colonies as well as it's traditionaly large native production, so it seems unlikely that the British food supply depended on Northen US production. It may be possible that 'Grain had more economic weight', has been distorted into 'Britian was dependant on US Grain'?

--Barberio 10:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Australia and Canada did not export much grain in 1860. (Of course a war with US meant an end to most imports.) McPherson says: "Crop failures in western Europe from 1860 through 1862

increased British dependence on American grain and flour. During the first two years of the Civil War the Union states supplied nearly half of British grain imports, compared with less than a quarter before the war. Yankees exulted that King Corn was more powerful than King Cotton." (Battle Cry p 386) Rjensen 10:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've re-worded the article to explictly state the conditions, not just use the phrase 'dependant'. I think that's probably too vauge a word in it's meaning to people (does it mean necesity or compelling economic interests?). So we should say what the conditions actualy were instead. --Barberio 11:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Historiography

When I 1st learned on the Civil War in the 50s, slavery was very much taught as the main cause. Same when my parents went to school in the 20s & 30s. ONE author saying otherwise does not make it so. --JimWae 15:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Pressly book shows the ups and downs of the argument, paying attention to the region. The topic was approached very differently in the South, in New England, in the Midwest, andin African-American schools, for example. The mainline textbooks by 1940 had pretty well dropped slavery (or referenced it in terms of the abolitionists starting the war). At the high schools and college I attended in the 1950s slavery was barely mentioned. Rjensen 17:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So it would be more accurate to say "the attribution of importance of slavery as a cause has varied by region & decade" --JimWae 17:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And perhaps most accurate to say largely by region; the change by decade is largely attributable to this. William Archibald Dunning was born in New Jersey; but most of his School was "southern-born" (ANB, sub Dunning).Septentrionalis 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dunning was a major figure re Reconstruction, but not for the coming of the civil War. Pressly is unusually good in tracking down just about every major historian on the matter. (His book very much needs updating, and Woodworth is adequate but not outstanding.) As for cycles and changes, WW1 had a major impact: historians recoiled inb horror and started asking how Civil War could have been prevented. WW2 had a major impact and historians started talking about righteous wars. The Civil Rights movement had a major impact (1960s), as did the Vietnam war (which turned attention to the soldiers themselves, and the homefront.) Rjensen 18:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

See Lost Cause and Birth of a Nation for older attitudes.Jimmuldrow 21:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The right of secession

This may well be the most controversial question in American constitutional law. Who held what position on it, when, is even more complicated. WP should certainly have an article on it, and probably does. There are three courses about what to do here:

• To discuss it at length, indicating what positions are held and by whom. I don't think this will fit here.
• To indicate that it is controversial, and elide it, as the paragraph on slavery as a cause now does, as discussed in the previous section.
• To leave it entirely for a different article, since it is not part of the history of the war.

I have no problem with McPherson asserting a moderate version of the position of South Carolina, however firmly. But to make Wikipedia quote his words, alone, is not the action of a serious editor. Septentrionalis 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A separate long article on secession would be a very good idea. The Civil War article has to cover many many topics and cannot deal with any one of them in depth. Rjensen 18:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The secession idea was one of the reasons we had a war. (That is, if both sides had agreed there was no right of secession, then no Civil War; if both sides had agreed there was such a right, no war. But disagreement -> war. Rjensen 01:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

More of the Same

Abolitionism as a cause of the war

Old

By the 1830s, a small but outspoken abolitionist movement arose, led by New Englanders and free blacks, including William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, and Lucretia Mott. By the 1840s abolitionists were vocal in condemning slavery. Garrison once publicly burned a copy of the U. S. Constitution because of the fugitive slave clause and called it ”a covenant with death and an agreement with hell."

Richard Jenson's revision

Before the 1830s many people, North and South, considered slavery an undesirable institution. But a new sensibility emerged from a small but outspoken abolitionist movement arose, led by New Englanders and free blacks, including William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, and Lucretia Mott. The considered slavery not just a generic evil but a specific sin that would damn the slaveowner to hell unless he immediately repented and set in motion a plan to end his connection with slavery. The Constitution itself was implicated--Garrison once publicly burned a copy of the U. S. Constitution because of the fugitive slave clause and called it ”a covenant with death and an agreement with hell." Throughout the 20th century many scholars concluded that the extremism of the abolitionists made compromise impossible and war inevitable.Jimmuldrow 09:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed up the grammar a bit. The abolitionists hit a "hot button" in the 1840s that really got people riled up. Wiki should explain the hot button was making the issue not a debate between better or worse, but one between heaven and hell (to use the language of that era). The goal of course is to state this in NPOV fashion. Rjensen 09:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV means letting Garrison speak for himself. Yes, abolitionists were militant. But you can't ask people to trust a statement that sounds like a point of view. And Garrison stated his point of view forcefully enough. And quoting it with a reference lets people know that this is a fact that can be looked up and verified, not just an opinion.

If it makes you feel any better, I have Confederate ancesters. But this is an Encyclopedia.Jimmuldrow 09:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, southern leaders of secession (Jeff Davis and so forth) didn't think slavery was wrong. They thought it was right, and said so, and talked openly about inferior races.Jimmuldrow 10:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Abolitionism as cause

Does someone have a problem with covering the abolitionists in depth? The key factor was their use of religion/sin as the charge against the South, which made the Southerners very angry indeed. Lots of historians have explored the issue and it needs coverage. Rjensen 03:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• They also said it was morally wrong & that also offended the South. And in those days few distinguished sin from immorality. Was the South more upset that the abolitionists thought slave-owners would be eternally damned, or that they thought they were immoral? I ask, not because I suppose an answer could be given, but to point out just how difficult it is to present this to a modern reader (for whom the meaning of "sin" has changed somewhat since then). Although at the time there would have been few on either side who would have drawn much distinction between the terms, focussing on "sinfulness" does not really address many modern readers. It seems more like a belittling of the abolitionists - as though they should not have made the accusation, because it hurt the feelings of slave-owners. --JimWae 03:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps we would need to explore fugitive slave laws as a cause of abolitionism - those laws made some Northerners "very angry" too --JimWae 03:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Btw, I think I've linked fugitive slave law in this article a number of times already - yet there are no links anymore --JimWae 03:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You added some interesting facts at the top, and facts are good. But do people keep telling you to avoid POV issues? Also, southerners who thought slavery was wrong were not the leaders of secession, the editors of the Charleston Mercury or Debow's Review and so on. That point needs to be made clear if you're going to raise the issue at all. And I've read many, many books on the Civil War and haven't found one that says that abolitionists were THE cause of the civil war. Also, who was more at fault for raising the issue of sin, abolitionists or slave owners? Assuming the former is problematic.Jimmuldrow 03:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki should not call slavery a sin. (I think in the 1850s "immoral" and "sin" meant the same). Wiki should say that abolitionists kept the issue alive and made the Southerners angry by calling slavery a sin. A lot of historians have argued this prevented any compromises and helped start the war (Pressly covers them in detail). The Southerners kept saying solething like: Lincoln is almost = John Brown and we can't be in the same country as those abolitionist-republicans. So we have to leave. Was this the main cause of secession? well I think it was fairy important. Secondly the abolitionist value system deeply affected a lot of religious northerners, who increasingly agreed that slavery was a sin. That kept the pot boiling in the North, pressuring Republicans not to compromise on issues like Kansas. (The Protestant religious types were heavily GOP) So yes it is important (and other factor are important too--Wiki should not try to say that factor A was 25%, factor B was 20%, etc.) As for modern readers: whether a 2006 reader believes in sin is irrelevant. The war was caused back in 1860 and most folks at that time certainly talked like they believed in sin.Rjensen 04:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sure reaction to abolitionists was a factor (btw, cause is a problematic term here), but let's not focus almost exclusively on what they said about sin - they said other things too (immoral, barbaric, unfair, violation of founding principles & Declaration of Independence, not good for Southern economy - all these claims were met with anger, not just "sinful") --JimWae 06:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's compromise. Some good info was added on abolitionists, but a NPOV way of talking about sin is needed.Jimmuldrow 12:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is not talking about sin. It is telling how abolitionists talked about sin. (I suppose "demonize" is about as POV as "sin") Rjensen 22:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not use either. Both the fact and appearance of a neutral point of view are required. And too much drama sounds bad.Jimmuldrow 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Too much drama--well that's what caused the civil war and we have to tell people that not hide the facts. Being neutral about slavery will not inspire confidence in Wikipedia Rjensen 02:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither will saying that abolitionists were wrong and slave owners were right. Yes, there was a lot of drama about slavery, but blaming it all on the abolitionists is taking sides. And doing so also ignores a lot of history, or at least it's one-sided.Jimmuldrow 02:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Focussing on sin is misleading - the abolitionists had other points too. People are saying the way it is phrased is contentious, unnecessary, & POV. Quit adding this stuff about sin. --JimWae 02:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Historians generally agree the moral argument was paramount with abolitionists (the other issues could be compromised of course). See 1) Stafford, Tim. "The Abolitionists" Christian History 1992 11(1): 21-27. ISSN: 0891-9666 Abstract: "abolitionists used Christian premises and vocabulary in their 30 years of preaching, making slavery an issue that could not be eluded; in their view repentance for the sin of slavery did not occur, so God punished the nation and ended the sin through the Civil War." 2) Murray, Andrew E. "THE BOOK AND SLAVERY IRRECONCILABLE, BY GEORGE BOURNE" American Presbyterians 1988 66(4): 229-233. ISSN: 0886-5159: His approach to slavery was that it was a sin, and as such the sinful institution must be totally and immediately abolished. 3) Scott, Donald M. "ABOLITION AS A SACRED VOCATION." in Antislavery Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Abolitionists (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State U. Pr., 1979): pp 51-74. Many who espoused the immediate abolition of slavery had felt sudden religious revelations that slavery was a sin and had to be extirpated. Gerrit Smith, Theodore Weld, James Birney, and H. B. Stanton were among those who, influenced by the evangelism of the 1820's, called from the pulpit for the swift emancipation of blacks. 4) Dillon, Merton. "THE FAILURE OF THE AMERICAN ABOLITIONISTS."

Citation: Journal of Southern History 1959 25(2): 159-177. ISSN: 0022-4642 says: The goals of the American Anti-Slavery Society were 1) to spread the doctrine of the sin of slavery. Want more references??? Rjensen 04:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Any statement on the Civil War saying that "most historians agree" is likely to be wrong; this one is more likely than most. Some Northerners were saying that slavery was a sin since the Quakers in the 1760's; the difference with the abolitionists is that they might actually have ended the sin, and the slave-holders' capital assets with it. As for Rjensen's sources: You should read them; I have just finished analysing his sources on Talk:Abolitionism and finding that they do not sy what he says they do. Septentrionalis 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement about "most historians" is based on the historiographical overviews, esp Pressly. Every sentence in the subarticle is fully sourced (and much of it is direct quotes or paraphrases from historians). Pmanderson's problem is that very few serious historians in the last 50 years agree with him, so he has none to cite, and therefore posts his own POV flag. Rjensen 22:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see Rjensen cite a source which says what he claims it does; so here. Septentrionalis 01:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So were slave owners as pure as the driven snow?Jimmuldrow 04:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

RJ - you completely removed what I wrote, added more of your POV and kept none of the counterpoint - that is the same as a reversion - and you did not even put a comment in an edit summary. I find your behaviour intolerable --JimWae 04:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

JimWae is unable to cite a single source--we don't allow his original research in Wiki. My sources? I keep giving them. here's yet another. McPherson says: a wave of Protestant revivals known as the Second Great Awakening swept the country during the first third of the nineteenth century. In New England, upstate New York, and those portions of the Old Northwest above the 41st parallel populated by the descendants of New England Yankees, this evangelical enthusiasm generated a host of moral and cultural reforms. The most dynamic and divisive of them was abolitionism. Heirs of the Puritan notion of collective accountability that made every man his brother's keeper, these Yankee reformers repudiated Calvinist predestination, preached the availability of redemption to anyone who truly sought it, urged converts to abjure sin, and worked for the elimination of sins from society. The most heinous social sin was slavery. All people were equal in God's sight; the souls of black folks were as valuable as those of whites; for one of God's children to enslave another was a violation of the Higher Law, even if it was sanctioned by the Constitution. (Battle Cry p 8)

You really think I'd be unable to find a source that says abolitionists said slavery violated the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence? You are focussing on religious arguments to the exclusion of all others - that is POV. --JimWae 04:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Abolitionists were intensely and primarily religious. What source says otherwise? What source is JimWae using, anyway--he refuses to say. That suggests perhaps he has no reliable source, which is a no-no. Rjensen 04:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You are adding POV, removing POV flags, in general vandalizing the article & about to violate 3rr AGAIN - IF NOT ALREADY. Do you develop reading comprehension difficulties every weekend or every other? --JimWae 04:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

People who post NPOV signs they cannot justify using relaiable sources are vandalizing Wiki. Repoeatedly JimWae erases solid historical information and refuses to discuss his sources. Rjensen 04:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the twisted logic that contends temporary NPOV tags specifically designed to draw user attention to assist in disputes should not be used because what?: You guys aren't in dispute? Seems like a dispute to me. Appropriate place to such a tag, IMHO, and I commend a user who has the honesty to tag POV controversies with which they happen to be involved. I see NO vandalism here. What, on the other hand, is the motive of a lone-wolf wiki user who repeatedly gets himself into 3RR violation situations over removing valid NPOV tags? That's a very different question which deserves to be resolved on different pages. Find other users who subscribe to your positions, and they will bear community scrutiny longer. BusterD 05:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is that one editor fears that mentioning abolitions damned slaveowning as a sin is POV. I reject that assertion. Rjensen 05:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is that one user consistently demands his own way, claims authority, acts recklessly and attacks personally, and doesn't seem to pay any attention to community consensus. This isn't a page-specific problem; this has nothing to do with any subject matter discussed. This has to do with your attitude toward working with others in this space. BusterD 06:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• You must be in "delete" mode or having another attack of reading-incomprehension. I have deleted exactly NOTHING at all from this article today. Every contribution was an addition with absolutely no deletion, while you have repeatedly deleted text & flags. But while we are talking about deletions: This article is way too long 5 of 15 pages is on the CAUSES - when there is an extensive article (with a better title) on the "Origins" & yet the section on Abolitionists grows in length & POV --JimWae 05:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

5 of 15 pages on Causes. That is about right. The Donald textbook (2001) has 23 chapters (not counting reconstruction), of which 6.5 deal with the Origins. Likewise 9/28 chapters in McPherson's "Battle Cry" deal with Origins. Fellman (2003) is about 30% on origins. Those textbooks have much longer treatments of battles than this article does because Wiki has very long articles on major campaigns and battles. Rjensen 06:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/garrison.html Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison Admits of No Compromise with the Evil of Slavery, 1854

I am a believer in that portion of the Declaration of American Independence in which it is set forth, as among self-evident truths, "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Hence, I am an abolitionist. Hence, I cannot but regard oppression in every form – and most of all, that which turns a man into a thing – with indignation and abhorrence. Not to cherish these feelings would be recreancy to principle. They who desire me to be dumb on the subject of slavery, unless I will open my mouth in its defense, ask me to give the lie to my professions, to degrade my manhood, and to stain my soul. I will not be a liar, a poltroon, or a hypocrite, to accommodate any party, to gratify any sect, to escape any odium or peril, to save any interest, to preserve any institution, or to promote any object. Convince me that one man may rightfully make another man his slave, and I will no longer subscribe to the Declaration of Independence. Convince me that liberty is not the inalienable birthright of every human being, of whatever complexion or clime, and I will give that instrument to the consuming fire. I do not know how to espouse freedom and slavery together.

- sure there's some religion in there - but there's more than "you are a sinner" --JimWae 06:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't all historians of abolitionism these days base abolitionism on religion? Is there some other reliable source that says otherwise in the last 50 years? as Bartlett says, "It was this intense awareness of the sin of slavery that set the abolitionist apart from the average citizen and made him appear fanatical." (p 56) Rjensen 06:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

RJ, Slave owners used to believe that slavery was ordained by God and would last forever. Jefferson Davis thought he was religious and said his prayers. Both factions thought that God was on their side. The prayers of both could not be answered.

The point isn't which side accused the other of sin. They both accused each other of sin. The point is that you're taking sides. You want us to believe that the morality of slave owners was right and that the morality of abolitionists was wrong.

I think the entire abolition article would have been ok if all the points of view were left out. Your opinions were your own and belong in a blog, not Wikopedia.

You seem to think that none of us ever read about the civil war.Jimmuldrow 07:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, issues related to the growth of democracy (the Declaration of Independance and so forth) were talked about quite a bit by both abolitionists and Republicans (including Lincoln). You ignore that because of your bias.Jimmuldrow 07:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That much being said, does anyone still object to replacing all the POV stuff on abolitionists with the following:

The northern states all abolished slavery by 1805, but the peculiar institution took on new vitality in the South with the rise of the cotton plantations in the Gulf states. Thanks to the Second Great Awakening in religion, a new sensibility emerged from a small but outspoken abolitionist movement, led by New Englanders, Quakers and free blacks, including William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, and Lucretia Mott.

1804, but it was almost entirely a process of gradual emancipation, like Brazil's; so there were slaves long after the abolition laws were passed. New Jersey notoriously reported a dozen "permanent apprentices" on the 1860 census. Septentrionalis 22:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If no one has any objections within the next day, I'd like to change it to the above.Jimmuldrow 07:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it's good to look for an ORIGINAL source - it took less than 2 minutes to find that one --JimWae 07:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I like original sources too, but they're bulky.Jimmuldrow 08:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

On this topic, one can get secondary sources that say just about anything. We can trim the section & put it in the Abolitionism & Origins of the Civli War article. It would be worth keeping how much the South vilified the abolitionists & how it has continued into the present.--JimWae 16:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Precisely; this is why selective quotation of carefully chosen papers is, even if accurate, irrelevant. Septentrionalis 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Blatant Bias in this Article

This article shows much bias, starting with the title. There are three different names for this war, and only one of them is mentioned. Of the three titles, the least biased is "The War Between the States" and as such, that is what should be used despite "The American Civil War" being in more common usage. Calling the war "The American Civil War" inherently takes the position that seccession was illegal and that the war was not the invasion of one country by another. By contrast, calling the war "The War of Northern Aggression" inherently takes the position that seccession was legal and that the war was the invasion of one country by another. Calling it "The War Between the States" takes neither position and is the most neutral of the three posibilities. Worst of all is that the article fails to even mention the other two commonly used names for the war. This is just the first example of many, but the article shows a distinct pro-union, anti-confederacy bias throughout. As such, I am adding a non-NPOV tag. - AlexMc 05:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia AlecMc! You have some excellent points, but if you'd take the time to look at talk archive pages, you'lll see this has been a subject of much previous discussion. The naming of the war has become the subject of its own article (qv). While I do agree in substance with your contention, the community has developed a way to counter that bias, and at this time the separate article serves. BusterD 05:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That separate article doesn't change a thing. Sure it's wonderful that if someone really looks through the Civil War information on this site, they'll find it, but it doesn't change the fact that this article is flat out biased and that by not mentioning the bias anywhere within THIS article, Wikipedia is effectively endorsing this bias as fact. Whether issues are addressed on other pages or not is entirely irrelevant to the bias of this specific page, and the average person that does a search for the American Civil War is going to find this page, read it and leave having only read biased information without being informed that it is so. This is completely and totally unacceptable. The goal should be to eliminate or make bias clear, not mention it in a single quote on a different page. If no one wants to go through and fix the bias, that's fine, but until the time that someone does, bias tags absolutely must be present. AlexMc 06:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

there is no bias. All reliable reference sources use "Civil War" or "American Civil War." AlexMc needs to find some reliable sources. Rjensen 06:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not "all reliable reference sources" use the term is irrelevant. Calling it the Civil War is, as I have pointed out, inherently biased. Whether or not the term is used by everyone doesn't change that.AlexMc 06:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the new user here, and not the old one. There is certainly and inherant bias in all Wikipedia articles, IMHO, and combatting bias is one of those tasks which may never be totally complete. If you see specific introduction of bias, we encourage you to make bold changes. However, as you can see from discussion above and two previous archives, you'll have to cite your assertions, and be prepared to defend them. Other than that, help the article and make it better! BusterD 06:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the page at the beginning in what I feel to be a more useful way than simply dropping in a bias tag. Tell me what you think.AlexMc 07:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the Declaration of Independence was not a cause of the Civil War, which is what we are talking about. Southerners noted that Jefferson held hundreds of slaves himself and supported (to a degree) the right to secession. Rjensen 07:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a new section concerning bias, not the Declaration of Independence section which is above this one. You may be misunderstanding what I'm talking about based on that confusion.AlexMc 07:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, AlexMcJimmuldrow 08:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, this is the most common name in English, which is the primary reason for naming articles. If we were going to try for "correct" naming, I would support War of the Rebellion as in the compendium The war of the rebellion : a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. Septentrionalis 17:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This would be another name supporting the opinions of the victors and ignoring the opinions of the losers. Just like calling it a civil war, calling it a rebellion also implies that secession was illegal despite the fact that most people at the time considered it perfectly legal.AlexMc 22:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying again to find an NPOV approach to Abolitionists

Jim Wae raised a good point. Original sources with references are nice.

If no one objects, I would like to replace the current Abolition sub-article with the following:

The northern states all abolished slavery by 1805, but the peculiar institution took on new vitality in the South with the rise of the cotton plantations in the Gulf states. Thanks to the Second Great Awakening in religion, a new sensibility emerged from a small but outspoken abolitionist movement, led by New Englanders, Quakers and free blacks, including William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, and Lucretia Mott.

In 1854, abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison wrote:

I am a believer in that portion of the Declaration of American Independence in which it is set forth, as among self-evident truths, "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Hence, I am an abolitionist. Hence, I cannot but regard oppression in every form – and most of all, that which turns a man into a thing – with indignation and abhorrence

Slave owners responded that slavery was sanctioned by the Bible and argued for its preservation:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

"Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage." Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor

By the 1850s Northern teachers suspected of any tinge of abolitionism were expelled from the region, and abolitionist literature was banned there as well. Jimmuldrow 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

completely inadequate. The point is that the abolitionists, few in number, had a major impact both North and South. What was the impact? Why did they have it? Rjensen 18:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Pot shouldn't call the kettle "naughty"

I'm tired of these schoolyard taunts from Rjensen, a lone-wolf user who has been edit warring at least four different users on this one page alone in last 24 hours. Aside from content edits, this user has incorrectly removed NPOV tags and intentionally defaced this page by delinking the introduction after he'd been warned on this and other pages. I don't make any special claim to virtue or authority, but I refuse to be treated like a child by this abusive and frequently misbehaving bully. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out to all reading here this user's schoolyard behavior inappropriate for this workspace. I'd also like to point out that he does this with no assistance from others. It's just his way or the highway. I wonder how the community deals with such a repeat offender? BusterD 20:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

BusterD certainly tires easily. My mission is to clean up poor edits and to upgrade and improve the articles. I try to follow the Wiki guidelines. I consider slapping NPOV tags a device to delegitimize and deface Wiki when the editor is unable to explain what he is complaining about. As for The Am Civil War article I have made hundreds of edits which have been accepted by the Wiki community. The latest go-round of edit wars involves one editor who thinks it's POV to mention sin and slavery and abolitionists in one sentence. That is very poor history and cannot be tolerated on Wiki in a major article like this one. Rjensen 20:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's sad to have to point out that the user's response is not only to taunt further, but to warn me to be prepared to endure more. BusterD 20:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Rensen, be nice. Ok, Let's get a vote and reach a majority concensus. Rensen is against my suggestion for improving the abolitionist sub-article. I vote for my own idea. What do the rest think? So far it's a tie.Jimmuldrow 20:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow's problem is that he lacks reliable sources and relies on his own POV regading abolitionists. I vote we not allow that--and note that Wiki rules do not allow that. Rjensen 20:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. For those that disagree and haven't voiced an opinion yet, say what needs to be changed. Let's get something that most (if not all) can agree on.Jimmuldrow 21:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that Jensen changed his name to Wiki.Jimmuldrow 02:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write about the abolitionists you need to study them first--Wiki demands reliable sources. Rjensen 02:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)\

In that case we should scrap *all* American sources. Since the victors (our government) strive to reshape history to make themselves look better as usual, and since every single American has been raised in this biased environment, only international sources can be deemed to be reasonably reliable.AlexMc 22:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. Can you recommend some international sources that you believe are more reliable than domestic ones? My experience with non-US sources are entirely military histories and they seem pretty similar, as I would expect. Hal Jespersen 00:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My version does include primary sources with references.Jimmuldrow 04:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If you need references that slave owners added to the controversy, Allen Nevins eight volumes on the war has some good information about that. You should read it some day. It's kind of interesting.Jimmuldrow 21:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Much Better

The Abolitionist sub-article is much better. The only thing I could quibble about is some purple prose in the second and third paragraph. But that's a matter of style, not substance. Overall, pretty good.Jimmuldrow 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevins quote re hysteria

Nevins wrote (Ordeal v 1 p383) "Had both North and South sat down quietly, appraised the numberer and value of fugitive slaves, got at the truth about all the reports of the kidnapping of free Negroes and refrained from emotion and exaggeration, agreement might have been possible. Both sides were equally guilty of hysteria." Rjensen 02:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Where there is there any reference to abolitionists? --JimWae 02:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Nowhere. Septentrionalis 19:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Since this seems to have been selective quoting & either "off-topic" or "original research", I have removed it --JimWae 04:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The quote is from Nevins; but it is a discussion of the Fugitive Slave Act, and is a discussion of the fact that the Northern press condemned it almost unanimously. They did not unanimously support abolition; the converse would be nearer to the truth. Its present location is therefore a novel synthesis.
  • Rjensen has now sourced much of the rest of his opinions to the controversial scholars Genovese and Fox-Genovese. Their views are not consensus, and should not be so represented. Septentrionalis 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • But Rjensen has managed to exaggerate even their views; what the Genoveses say is that the first generation of abolitionists "did not demonize" slaveholders because they knew some; but that ""later generations tended to see all slaveholders as infamous". This is still disputable, but it is not what the text says. Septentrionalis 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am genuinely puzzled how Rjensen arrives at the following text:

the whole they did not have a religious base for their position and did not morally blame individual slaveowners.

The source cited (the Genoveses, p. 481) says neither of these things; it says the early abolitionists did not blame all slaveowners. Septentrionalis 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What Pressly actually says

The following sentence (sourced to Pressly, 289-329) is a misrepresentation of its source.

Many historians have argued that the intense moralism of the abolitionists, coupled with the intransigent reaction of the slaveowners, made disunion more likely and compromise much more difficult to attain

• The pages discuss Stampp and Nevins, at some length.
  • The discussion of Stampp says that he is an exception, a revisionist mature after 1914; Pressly conjectures there may be others, but sees none.
  • Pressly also denied that Stampp thought compromise worth attaining.
• The whole seciton on Nevin and the reaction to him is entitled "A Confusion of Voices", which describes Pressly's view of his present. Summarizing this as Many historians think X without even Many also think Y is not serious scholarship.
• Pressly ends his summary of Nevins' view with;

  enduring peace between North and South depended on some step which would have marked the beginning of the end of the institution of slavery.

• Pressly never describes Nevins as deprecating "moralism" ("emotionalism", yes)
  • Instead he quotes Nevins as unsympathetic to Stephen Douglas as of "dim moral perception"
  • and as saying that "All hope of bringing Southern majority sentiment to a better attitude would have been lost if Lincoln and his party had flinched on the basic issue of the restriction of slavery."

I think removing this sentence may improve the section to the point where the tags can be reconsidered; but JimWae should make that decision. This overall article should not endorse any judgment, however credentialled, whether Stampp's Nevins' or McPherson's; it should have a separate section, or article, on "Historical opinions". What Pressly actual wrote would be a good start. Septentrionalis 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Whose sins were abolitionists concerned with?

If abolitionists were content to have the slave states leave the US, this indicates they were more concerned with their own involvement in the sin (via the fugitive slave laws), rather than the condemnation/salvation of slave-owners. Surely somebody who reads a lot of history books could find a source that "points this out". Btw, there is no citation for the 2nd Great Awakening being responsible for abolitionism - was that awakening about the sins of others or about one's own? --JimWae 04:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It was Nevins that did the original research, not a Wiki editor. He was talking about the abolitionist issues (esp treatment of slaves and fugitive slaves). JimWae is speculating about the motives of the aboltiionists--no need for that as we have several long quotes from top historians like McPherson and Stampp. The 2nd great awakening cite is from McPherson Battle Cry p. 8 (which is included already: McPherson says regarding the causes of the war

"Meanwhile, a wave of Protestant revivals known as the Second Great Awakening swept the country during the first third of the nineteenth century. In New England, upstate New York, and those portions of the Old Northwest above the 41st parallel populated by the descendants of New England Yankees, this evangelical enthusiasm generated a host of moral and cultural reforms. The most dynamic and divisive of them was abolitionism. Heirs of the Puritan notion of collective ccountability that made every man his brother's keeper, these Yankee reformers repudiated Calvinist predestination, preached the availability of redemption to anyone who truly sought it, urged converts to abjure sin, and worked for the elimination of sins from society. The most heinous social sin was slavery. All people were equal in God's sight; the souls of black folks were as valuable as those of whites; for one of God's children to enslave another was a violation of the Higher Law, even if it was sanctioned by the institution. By midcentury this antislavery movement had gone into politics and had begun to polarize the country." [end McPherson quote]Rjensen 04:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Pressly (so spelt; p. 290) describes Stampp as a "revisionist" historian whose view was that the logical and reasonable policy was for the North to acquiesce in "peaceful separation" in 1861; Rjensen's quotations from McPherson are in the same vein, although this is partly selective quotation again. These views are not consensus; although they are a rather larger and more respectable PoV than the Genoveses (who are, of course, too late for a book published in 1962.) Septentrionalis 17:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The answer to JimWae's question is clear from the citation from Irving Bartlett; "Wendell Phillips: Brahmin Radical" p.56, which quotes three abolitionists ( Francis Jackson, Theodore Parker, Angelica Grimke) as

• wishing to perish in the cause and be persecuted for righteousness' sake
• to make "atonement for his own sins, and his father's sins, against the Negro".

Citing Bartlett as the text does ( Historian Irving Bartlett remarks that it was an intense awareness of the sin of slavery that set abolitionists apart from others and made them appear fanatical) is misleading to an extent difficult to reconcile with the assumption of good faith. Septentrionalis 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Bartlett does not (here at least) use the word fanatical; he uses "enthusiasm", but I see no reason to assume he shares Gibbon's PoV.
• Bartlett does not say anything about the white South being "angered that abolitionists called slavery primarily a moral and religious issue." Septentrionalis 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And Jensen said he doesn't like original research.Jimmuldrow 20:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Jensen responds: Irving Bartlett wrote:

What May said of Francis Jackson... could have been said of most of the leaders of the movement. "More than twenty-five years of his life had been spent in endeavoring to make 'atonement,' as he himself said, for his own sins and for his father's sins" against the Negro. It was this intense awareness of the sin of slavery that set the abolitionist apart from the average citizen and made him appear fanatical." Jensen paraprased it: "Historian Irving Bartlett remarks that it was an intense awareness of the sin of slavery that set abolitionists apart from others and made them appear fanatical." I think that paraphrase is pretty close to Bartlett's intention--and a good summary of what helped cause the Civil War (which is what we are concerned with). Rjensen 00:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The sins here are those of Jackson and his father, not of the slaveholders of the South. English could scarcely be plainer, but Bartlett continues (after discussing Henry Wright, who thought the air of Boston Harbor tainted with slavery):

Thus "the epithets and stone and rotten eggs, the near lynchings and the broken bones that antislavery lecture[r]s encountered in their ministry were not only welcomed but invited. It was blessed to be persecuted for righteousness' sake and the abolitionists constantly saw themselves in the martyr's role. 'Blessed are they who die in the harness' wrote the crusading Theodore Dwight Weld 'and are buried in the field of bleach there'. And the woman he married, Angelica Grimké, once said, 'A hope gleams across my mind, that our blood will be spilled, instead of those of the slaveholders; our lives will be taken, and theirs spared.'"

I'm not sure whether Jensen is tone-deaf to his source or to the effect of his own prose; but to summarize this as if these seekers for Christian martyrdom were ayatollahs is not representing his source. Septentrionalis 02:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Who keeps moving the Preston Brooks picture away from the "fanatical" abolitionist?Jimmuldrow 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sumner was not an abolitionist so it is misleading to put his picture there. Rjensen 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

He was a Free Soil Senator. The online ANB (link for subscribers) not only calls him "one of the first members of Congress to urge abolition", it categorizes him under "Abolitionists, Political Figures". Septentrionalis 02:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sumner was instrumental in abolishing slavery AFTER the war started, but was not an abolitionist before the war, which is where we are at. (Source: ANB) Pmanderson does not provide HIS sources, so he's making things up.Rjensen 02:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What part of "online American National Biography" did you not understand?

(article on Sumner; I thought that was obvious) Septentrionalis 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

inaccuracy

The best chance for Confederate victory was entry into the war by Britain and France. The Union, under Lincoln and Secretary of State William Henry Seward worked to block this, and threatened war if any country officially recognized the existence of the Confederate States of America. (None ever did.)

The state of Saxe cobourg-gotha recognized CSA to my knowledge I may be wrong

Revisionism

Thomas Pressly divides historians of the causes and character of the Civil War into several classifications; one of these is the "revisionists". Their characteristic positions are

• That the war was not inevitable, but was the result of emotionalism.
• That the positions of the South were basically reasonable.
• Slavery was not an important issue; it would have died out anyway.
• That, therefore, what should have happened was either (depending on the historian) either compromise on Southern terms before the war, or the North's acknowledgement of peaceful separation.

This is a defensible point of view; clearly some of our present editors agree with it. But it is not consensus; there is no consensus.

Nevertheless, this article quotes Randall, Stampp, and the Genoveses for matters of judgment (as opposed to matters of fact: there was a Kansas-Nebraska Act, an incident at Fort Sumter, a battle at Gettysburg, and such-and-such things happened there).

It also quotes Nevins and McPherson. Nevins agrees that the war was not inevitable; he thinks, however, that the South should have compromised, and made arrangements for gradual emancipation. McPherson supports a more complicated synthesis. This article only cites them for points on which they agree with the revisionists. This will not do.

I see two basic solutions:

• Trim back the discussion of causes of the war to those things on which all schools agree, and put the judgments on the war (all the judgments) into Origins of the American Civil War.
  • This won't leave much, but this is an overview.
    • Origins of the American Civil War is worse than this article; it still contains the one-sided quote from McPherson endorsing the Southern right to secede. Septentrionalis 13:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps a "one-sided quote" from someone else endoring the Southern right to secede would be better: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit." - Abraham Lincoln AlexMc 22:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Expand with more quotes from more historians of other schools. Septentrionalis 02:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Another solution is for interested people to read the historiography, and not rely on half-century old Pressly. (He is superb to 1950...but times do change). There is no reason for Wiki to take sides for or against secession; our job is to lay out the major factors that historians in the last 50 years have dealt with. Rjensen 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• When Pressly can be cited to Rjensen's purpose, he is "unusually good" [9]
• When one quotes what he actually says, he becomes 50-year old Pressly, who can be ignored.
• I have no doubts, from Jensen's performance, that if I had quoted Randall, Stampp, and Nevins on my own authority, it would be dismissed as OR. Septentrionalis 12:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think it would have been better to list the most basic facts and then let these dead white guys speak for themselves. Enterpretation, even from experts who don't agree, isn't as good as quoting primary source speeches and writings and letting people think for themselves.

But I guess I'm the only one that likes that idea.

I like it; it's certainly better than adopting the positions of one school of historians. There is one difficulty with it: just like historians, some dead white guy from 1861-1865 can be found to say almost anything; which is why WP:V supports secondary sources, who ought to have checked out who was typical and who was a lone crank. But if we restrict ourselves to quotes endorsed by secondary sources, this should not be a problem. Septentrionalis 12:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Answers.com has an older version of the American Civil War Wikipedia page with Jensen's "militant" abolitionists. Very similar. It starts with

"By the 1830s, a small but outspoken abolitionist movement arose, led by New Englanders and free blacks, including William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, and Lucretia Mott. Many people North and South considered slavery an undesirable institution, but by the 1840s the militant abolitionists went much further and declared that owning a slave was a terrible sin, and that the institution should be immediately abolished. Southerners bitterly resented this moralistic attack."

It never did sound very good. Jimmuldrow 02:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And "immediately abolished" is dubious; immediate passage of (possibly gradual) emancipation" would cover the sources more accurately. Septentrionalis 12:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The basic problem with Revisionists is that while they present very good arguments for why slavery wasn't a major cause of the war actually starting, they fail to point out that it was most certainly the cause of the war continuing and the South's eventual loss. Had the South abolished slavery on their own, they would have likely received military support from England and it would have eviscerated the popularity of the North. AlexMc 23:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Unhealthy dialogue

Folks, I think a couple of deep breaths are in order.

I know virtually nothing about this topic but I came here out of interest. I see from this page that there's been a history of conflict between users. Would it be productive for people to take some time off from this page and then return to look at the content, instead of the conflict? The alternative seems to be a continuation of back-and-forth written attacks.

I think you'll all agree that this subject material is important enough not to be coloured by this behind-the-scenes conflict. My $0.02. Hu Gadarn 18:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is important enough not to present a factional interpretation; but I see a way of resolving this. Septentrionalis 14:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Core Abolitionist policy was "immediate emancipation" -- but what did that mean?

Russel Nye explains: "The beginnings of "immediate" emancipation, more popularly referred to simply as abolition, may be approximately dated from the appearance of William Lloyd Garrison Liberator in 1831. "I stand," said Garrison in his first number, "for the immediate enfranchisement of our slave population." ... As interpreted by him, immediatism involved no real practical plan; it consisted of freeing Negro slaves, and that only. The various economic, social, and political problems incidental to their emancipation never caught his interest. ... The New York Anti Slavery Society, organized in 1833, officially adopted a modified version, "immediate emancipation, gradually accomplished," a compromise difficult to understand and equally difficult to publicize. The American Anti-Slavery Society, organized later in the same year, adopted the New York doctrine....In the West, the Lane Seminary group, led by Theodore Weld, redefined the term as "gradual emancipation, immediately begun," a refini tion eventually accepted by the national society as meaning that "the slaves be at once delivered from the control of arbitrary and irresponsible power, and, like other men, put under the control of equitable laws, equitably administered." from Fettered Freedom: Civil Liberties and the Slavery Controversy, 1830-1860 by Russel B. Nye - 1949. pp 4-5. Rjensen 18:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen could have been clearer. What his source actually says is that the estreme "immediate emancipation" was Garrison's doctrine alone. Other anti-slavery groups saw the problems and adopted various modified slogans, which he explains as meaning (I quote almost exactly)

• the legal control of the owner should cease;
• the slave should be able to sell his labor in the open market
• and he should be under a "benevolent and disinterested supervision" until he was ready for equality. Septentrionalis 22:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The latest edit

Rjensen has several new sources [10] ; none of them support his perennial claim that On the whole they did not have a religious base for their position and did not morally blame individual slaveowners; no one does. The only source cited which even approaches this is the Genoveses; and they don't say it, any more than they did yesterday. (And the citation from McPherson is clearly wrong: p.3 is about Chapultepec; I presume he means p. 31, which does discuss abolitionists, but still doesn't support the contested sentence.)

I also note that two of the books he cites are from 1949 and 1951 (actually 1943). Perhaps we will hear no more comments dismissing 50-year old sources. Septentrionalis 00:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)