Talk:American Civil War

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Civil War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24: 2 months

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the American Civil War.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Should slavery be presented as the most important cause of the war? (Yes.)

A1: Yes. Slavery was the most important cause of the war. Wikipedia requires that we rely on the best officially documented research available, without any original research or undue weight to fringe theories.

After the war, some movements sought to advance Lost Cause interpretations, arguing that the Confederacy was not primarily fighting to defend slavery. While these have been popular in some quarters, the vast majority of historians do not support these interpretations, including best historians (McPherson, Nevins, Freehling and even the better Southern historians such as Potter). Ironically, during the crisis that led to the outbreak of war, Confederate politicians openly presented preservation of slavery as the central issue, in their own words. They mentioned fears for the future of slavery many times in their declarations of reasons for secession, political speeches and editorials. Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Stephens had the following to say:

"You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub." - From Abraham Lincoln's letter to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, Dec 22, 1860

"We at the South do think African slavery, as it exists with us, both morally and politically right. This opinion is founded upon the inferiority of the black race. You, however, and perhaps a majority of the North, think it wrong." - From Stephens' reply to Lincoln, Dec 30, 1860

It is true that Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis both downplayed the slavery issue after the war began. As historian James Ford Rhodes explained, Davis hoped to get support from Britain and France, where slavery was unpopular, and Lincoln needed to keep the loyalty of the border states, which were both pro-slavery and pro-Union. This is why in statements like the Crittenden–Johnson Resolution, northern politicians argued they were only fighting to preserve the Union. Similarly, Lincoln's sole justification for the Emancipation Proclamation was military necessity. Holzer, Striner and Brewster note that Lincoln needed to portray the emancipation in a way that was acceptable to the border states and War Democrats.

Q2: Were tariffs and states' rights similar in importance? (No.)

A2: No. The tariff issue and states' rights were factors, and there were others. These are all included in the article. However, no issue was as important as slavery.

The original secessionists were not very careful in separating states' rights from the slavery issue. They defended both states' rights (such as secession) and federal power (such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850), depending on which suited slavery with each controversy. South Carolina's declaration of reasons for secession is one example out of many. However, Lost Cause historians did subsequently portray the Confederacy as consistent defenders of states' rights.

The tariff issue had been a much larger issue three decades before the war, and even then John Calhoun, who led South Carolina's attempt to nullify the Tariff of 1828, said that the tariff issue was related to slavery. In his March 6, 1860 speech at New Haven, Lincoln had said that the slavery issue was more important than the tariff or any other issue.

Q3: Did Lincoln propose to immediately abolish slavery in the South when elected? (No.)

A3: No. Lincoln combined moral opposition to slavery (calling it "a monstrous injustice") with a moderate, gradual program of action. Lincoln, like most Republicans, believed that compromises of the Constitution (a three-fifths clause, a 20 year extension of the African slave trade and a fugitive slave clause) implied constitutional recognition of slavery where it existed. However, Lincoln would not compromise on preventing any expansion of slavery in the hope that this would put it "in the course of ultimate extinction."

Q4: Did Lincoln believe in racial equality? (Mostly.)

A4: In the context of the 19th century, being seen as a "Black Republican" abolitionist would be politically damaging. Lincoln was inconsistent on the equality issue during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, partly in order to deflect this charge. However, the things Lincoln said in favor of equality were many (including Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address and his Cooper Union speech), while the things he said against it were few, and those few were combined with a great deal of political pressure. While Lincoln and other northern politicians did not always advocate equality, this should not be given undue weight, especially as they wanted to give far more rights to black people than the Confederate politicians. At a July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago Lincoln said, "I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist."

Q5: Should the article refer to the states that allowed slavery as slave states? (Yes.)

A5: Yes, because their politicians referred to them as slave states, and because slavery related concerns were by far the major complaint mentioned by secessionists. After the outbreak of war, the slave states became divided between the Confederate states and the border states.

Q6: Did some slave states fight for the North? (Yes.)

A6: Yes, the five border states. These states had less slavery and more support for the Union than the Confederate slave states. They opposed emancipation at first, but largely accepted the military need for it eventually. Kentucky and Missouri had more slavery than the rest, and had loyalties that were more divided than the rest. For example, Missouri's Governor Claiborne Jackson was a southern sympathizer, but was prevented from seceding by Union Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon. Missouri saw some of the worst guerrilla fighting of the entire war because of its divisions over slavery.

Q7: Should the title be American Civil War? (Yes.)

A7: Yes. The title "American Civil War" is used only because it is the most common international name for the war. It is used in order to be understood, regardless of whether it could be better. The title does ignore the South's point of view, and it ignores the fact that Central America and South America are also America, in a sense. The other names should be mentioned, but not in this article. They are mentioned in Naming the American Civil War. The main article links to this.

Q8: Did the South start the war? (Yes.)

A8: The South bombarded and seized Fort Sumter, a federal fort in South Carolina. Historians regard this as the incident in which the actual fighting began.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

American Civil War was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 10, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
November 4, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
November 26, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
December 10, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
March 22, 2007	WikiProject A-class review	Not approved
March 28, 2007	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
April 21, 2007	Good article reassessment	Kept
October 14, 2007	Good article reassessment	Kept
November 5, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 10, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
March 23, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
July 28, 2012	Good article reassessment	Delisted
May 30, 2014	WikiProject A-class review	Demoted
December 12, 2015	Peer review	Reviewed
May 25, 2021	Good article nominee	Not listed
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 20, 2004, December 20, 2005, and December 20, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

Additional information:
/
	This article has failed an A-Class review.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

United States: Old West / Civil War / Military history / History Top‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as High-importance).
	American Civil War portal This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - American Civil War task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article has been selected for use on the United States portal.

African diaspora Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by geraldshields11, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on February 15, 2013.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Daniel Nasaw (4 April 2012). "Who, What, Why: How many soldiers died in the US Civil War?". BBC.

Other talk page banners

Section sizes

Section size for American Civil War (64 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	15,353	15,353
Origins	6,010	7,997
Lincoln's election	1,987	1,987
Outbreak of the war	24	21,159
Secession crisis	10,623	10,623
Battle of Fort Sumter	3,273	3,273
Attitude of the border states	7,239	7,239
War	681	26,578
Mobilization	5,827	5,827
Southern Unionists	686	686
Prisoners	788	788
Women	2,034	2,034
Naval tactics	3,242	3,242
Union blockade	1,310	6,583
Blockade runners	1,788	1,788
Economic impact	3,485	3,485
Diplomacy	6,737	6,737
Eastern theater	711	11,206
Background	19	3,007
Army of the Potomac	527	527
Army of Northern Virginia	2,461	2,461
Battles	7,488	7,488
Western theater	597	8,393
Background	19	1,237
Army of the Tennessee and Army of the Cumberland	855	855
Army of Tennessee	363	363
Battles	6,559	6,559
Trans-Mississippi theater	95	5,138
Background	802	802
Battles	4,241	4,241
Lower seaboard theater	91	3,746
Background	431	431
Battles	3,224	3,224
Pacific coast theater	476	476
Conquest of Virginia	2,033	6,634
Grant's Overland Campaign	1,324	1,324
Sheridan's Valley Campaign	1,254	1,254
Sherman's March to the Sea	1,266	1,266
The Waterloo of the Confederacy	757	757
End of the war	10,330	10,330
Union victory	10,636	10,636
Casualties	10,311	10,311
Emancipation	2,927	14,710
Emancipation Proclamation	11,783	11,783
Reconstruction	4,783	4,783
Memory and historiography	2,540	13,814
Lost Cause	3,983	3,983
Battlefield preservation	3,478	3,478
Commemoration	1,783	1,783
Technological significance	2,030	2,030
In works of culture and art	927	4,263
Literature	1,022	1,022
Film	1,134	1,134
Music	362	362
Video games	818	818
See also	645	645
Notes	46	46
References	15,098	39,345
Bibliography	188	15,545
Sources referenced	15,357	15,357
Web sources	470	470
Further reading	6,275	6,275
Soldier life: North and South	1,957	1,957
External links	2,809	2,809
Total	218,372	218,372

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

August 13 to 19, 2017 (21st)

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Leonard, Elizabeth D. (1999). All the Daring of the Soldier: Women of the Civil War Armies (1st ed.). W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0-3930-4712-1.

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I found this on CitationHunt and my account isn't old enough to directly edit. I don't care about the Confederates (derogatory) but I did find reputable citations that I'd like to offer:Keslambo (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga. After Rosecrans' successful Tullahoma Campaign, Bragg, reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east), defeated Rosecrans, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas.[citation needed]

Encyclopedia Virginia states that this guy's defensive stand in Chickamauga earned him the nickname "the Rock of Chickamauga" which I believe directly addresses the latter part of that section. (https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/thomas-george-h-1816-1870/)

To address the former part of the second sentence, I believe it should be reworded with this section reading:

The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga.

Following Rosecran's successful Tullahoma Campaign[citation exists in article: [1], Rosecran was defeated by Bragg, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas[proposed citation above: https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/thomas-george-h-1816-1870/]. Bragg was reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east)[I can also provide a National Park Service Historical Handbook citation for that: https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/hh/25/hh25e.htm]. Keslambo (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keslambo: Welcome to Wikipedia. Could you summarize this into a "Change X to Y" format, preferably in a reply to this message? — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course and I will do that in the future. Thank you for the tip @BerryForPerpetuity!

Please change [The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga. After Rosecrans' successful Tullahoma Campaign, Bragg, reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east), defeated Rosecrans, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas.[citation needed]] to [Following Rosecran's successful Tullahoma Campaign[1], Rosecran was defeated by Bragg, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas[2] Bragg was reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east).[3] Keslambo (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the X next to abraham lincolns name really necessary?

He was only assasinated after the war, so is it needed? Pidger (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was assassinated a little over one month before (14 April) the formal end of the war as the article defines it (26 May). AntiDionysius (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "The war left between 620,000 and 750,000 soldiers dead" to "The war left an estimated 698,000 soldiers dead, with the true number likely falling between 647,439 and 748,561"

Reference: Barceló, J., Jensen, J. L., Peisakhin, L., & Zhai, H. (2024). New estimates of US Civil War mortality from full-census records. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(48), e2414919121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414919121 Academic world 2020 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: It's not clear to me that this formulation is meaningfully more accurate or helpful to a general readership. Remsense ‥ 论 20:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do actually think we should use the new data here; I'd meant to get around to reading the paper and figuring out how to present it. But it's clearly important new data, the NYtimes ran an article about it yesterday. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The war resulted in an estimated 698,000 soldier deaths"

This formulation reflects the most accurate figure available to date. This estimate is based on the comprehensive analysis presented in PNAS. Also, the findings have been highlighted in a recent New York Times article.

Barceló, J., Jensen, J. L., Peisakhin, L., & Zhai, H. (2024). New estimates of US Civil War mortality from full-census records. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(48), e2414919121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414919121

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/19/health/civil-war-death-toll.html 5.195.74.110 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I updated the lead and the casualties section. I didn't end up amending the infobox yet because its a bear, and this new source doesn't actually give precise "this is how many died on each side" numbers. Although with more work it might be possible to divine the number out of it yet...its just very dense. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lincolns assassination in the lead

I didn't mean to cause such chaos by changing a this to a that :P My original wording of that phrase was intended to show that Lincoln lived to see Lee's surrender, which was the death knell of the confederacy. I.e. Lincoln lived to see victory, and then was killed shortly thereafter. It's a way to mention his assassination, which needs a lead level mention for sure, and to make it read in an interesting and helpful manner. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maurice Magnus @Slatersteven CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary checks

I've been working on the Attacks on the United States article and I wrote some summaries for the few Confederate campaigns against the Union (i.e. campaigns against the U.S.). Can someone who is familiar enough with the Civil War take a look to make sure (1) I didn't butcher any of the campaign summaries and (2) make sure nothing else is needed for the summaries? See (Attacks on the United States#American Civil War (October 1859–May 1865)). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]