Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

The make up of Confederate Armies

There should be a separate section on 'The make-up of Confederate Armies': the fielding and sustaining, fighting and rebuilding of mass Napoleonic armies in a democratic republic. CSA was remarkable in its endurance in part due to its ability to place, 'at the point of contact', sufficient men at arms to effect the strategic balance, regardless of aggregate disparity of numbers.

The shared combat experience among all classes led to bonds that connected men well after the Civil War, on both political sides, officer and enlisted (Conservative Governors Kemper and Fitzhugh Lee; bi-racial Readjusters Senator Mahone and Governor Cameron.)

Topics to address might include (a) population trends, immigration, citizenship including CSA Constitutional bars to foreign born.

These might be compared to US inclusive policies which led to regimental units of Irish-born, German-speaking, African-American and Canadian anti-slavery troops;

(b) national and state recruitment including legislative, newspaper coverage and church magazine coverage;

(c) volunteers; (d) draft; (e) desertion (f) state enforcement patrols.

After the US draft began, volunteer enlistments were used to subtract from state quotas. But then the largest volunteer states (New England) objected to tardy draft administration in the large draft states (border north & NY). And the negro-exclusion states like IL and IN protested states like MA, PA, OH counting free African-Americans for both volunteer and draft counts. What is the CSA story of draft administration and state politics? (TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

Stamps as CSA ideals, values, aspirations

Does anyone have a scholarly source explaining the “heated” (Richmond Daily Dispatch) CS Congressional committee debates over postage portraits? They must have been controversial, every one. An exploration of the debate could merit a separate section. Cavour famously said, “Now that Italy is made, we must make the Italians.” (1860). The rationale for choosing these stamp portraits will shed considerable light on what the CS Congress had in mind “to make the Confederates”.

a. John Calhoun. A slave-holder. Was he chosen for states’ rights? Hated by cooperationist secessionists as engineering failure by going it alone (Freehling).

b. George Washington. A slave-holder. Was he chosen as a revolutionary? As US President, he put down the Whisky Rebellion which called for a separate western republic. (Hogeland).

c. Jefferson Davis. A slave-holder. Was he chosen for exemplary labor relations on his Mississippi properties (Foner)? Why commemorate a living ‘hero’ before any accomplishment?

d. Andrew Jackson. A slave-holder. Chosen as anti-central Bank, or anti-tariff? He, like Washington, quoting Washington, crushed an intended separation of the Union (Meecham). Lincoln read telegraphs under Jackson’s portrait in his War Department office (Wheeler).

e. Thomas Jefferson. A slave-holder. … chosen for interposition doctrine? Secessionists hated him for calling slavery a ‘necessary evil’ (Freehling). The bankrupt was rumored to have freed his children by Sally Hemings and paid their way to Canada, instead of selling them ‘away South’ to cover his debts (Gordon-Reed).

To the 1858 Lincoln quote, ‘Slavery [is peculiar as it] … is the only ‘good’ thing which no man ever seeks … for himself …’, Jefferson might have added, ‘or for his children’ as in Jamaican examples. Virginia’s first African-American elected to Congress was freed by his father. John Mercer Langston insisted that ex-Confederate soldiers get the right to vote; equal rights for all: blue, grey and black (Langston).

In the meantime, it seems to me that a link from the CSA ‘Currency’ section to Wikipedia ‘Confederate Stamps’ seems in order, since the 20-cent G. Washington was used as currency for less-than-dollar amounts. The stamps pictured there, are, like all philatelic collections, beautiful representations of a government’s values, ideals and aspirations. (TheVirginiaHistorian 00:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk • contribs)

That link is Postage stamps and postal history of the Confederate States. As you can see, and I regret to say, that I am still struggling with the wikipedia tutorials...I really want to see the Virginia flag in the grid...whatever happened to punch cards and FORTRAN (no suffix), anyway? (TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

Literature

Parallel to the above suggestion about stamps, I would love to see someone do a section on Confederate literature, pre and post war. Or does something like this already exist?AMuseo (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For historiography, if you google ‘ex-confederate memoirs’, you can begin on Google Books with ‘Leaders of the American Civil War: a biographical and historical dictionary’ By Charles F. Ritter, Jon L. Wakelyn. – The introduction gives a start to a wonderful puzzle:

(a) contemporary memoirists, North and South, thirty-five years of ‘apologetics, rationalizations, and recriminations’;

(b) the 1880s pro-Union ‘Nationalist Historians’;

(c) post WWI ‘Neo-Confederates’ and those who believed war unnecessary;

(d) 1930s ‘New-Nationalists’ emphasizing growth of US economic strength to oppose Nazis rooted in post-civil war industrialism; and

(e) the ever sloppy category, “New Historians”, which seems to address a systems analysis of the pipeline from conception of secession to Confederate independence. Maybe a label could be taken from business management paradigms, like the McCarthy-Shimizu Marketing channels, or militarily, the ‘Deep Battlefield’ concept. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I forgot, once you get out of the memoir weeds, there are plenty of 'acknowledged scholars' listed in each school of historiography, so you can sort of pick your poison and draw up your own reading list, and each scholar has his/her graduate school 'followers' with more current titles ... sort of like attending one grad school or another, or you could try out my contrarian favorite hobby, and lucky-dip across the spectrum ...

Though, about those memoirs, Grant's was co-written by Samuel Clements (Mark Twain), so it really is interesting as a piece of literature ... and his take on the Mexican War is surprising ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

and, if every commander writing a memoir showed the humanity Grant did in is manly apology for Cold Harbor, historians could put considerable more credence in the genre as source material. The single one other sterling character I know of in that time, who unflinchingly said 'this is all my fault', after losing his 5,000 in twenty minutes at Gettsysburg, was Robert E. Lee.

But I digress into things military. I beg pardon. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

State flags in the ‘Member States…’ section

Wiki Commons apologizes for format giantism, encourages continued image use, and promises techies will fix it shortly.

The intent here is to editorially find representative flags for each state in their POLITICAL entity, different from regimental standards. These are all meant as placeholders only.

Georgia flew a red five-pointed star on a white field according to the Ga Secretary of State web page and other online flag sources.
Virginia flew essentially the same flag it used before and after the Civil War according to the Virginia government page and other online flag sources. (thanks for an editors help uploading).
Arkansas used both a modified 1st National Flag, and a Full Moon Flag according to various online flag sites. Wiki Commons has an image of the modified 1st National Flag, here it is.
Tennessee used both a Full Moon Flag, and a modified 1st National Flag according to the TN Secretary of State webpage. Wiki Commons has an image of a Tennessee Full Moon Flag. Here it is.
Missouri Confederates used the ‘Missouri State Guard Flag’ according to the MO Secretary of State webpage, but I have not found a free source yet. It is the Missouri State Seal bears scene embroidered in gold only on a blue field. Wiki Commons has a blue flag, so here it is as a placeholder.
Kentucky Confederates used the 1st National Flag according to the KY Secretary of State webpage, so here it is.

Flags were various. Ga, Ak, Tn, Mo, Ky, all did not adopt flags by law until between 1905 and 1915 or so, Arkansas not until there was a USS Battleship of that name requiring a state flag for ceremonies.

Some 1st National Flag modifications simply sewed on representations of state seals over the stars in the canton. Some brought the blue down to the lower edge as a vertical stripe. One Arkansas 1st National modification added a fourteenth star in the center and embroidered an 'A' over it, and added a fifteenth star in the lower left corner. I haven't found out the story behind that one, yet.

But editorially, I wanted to choose one representative political flag for each state on the chart. ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I got it: Free source for the Misouri State Guard Flag, as soon as I master the download-upload. Their email reply: "Unless otherwise indicated, the images on the Missouri state park system may be used. We do ask that you give credit to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Intro edits alternates: inauguration & repossess

Rjensen is doing yeoman work for the style of the article, “dropping the neo-Confederate stuffing”, in the introduction. Nevertheless I have two substantive questions to discuss.

(1) Dropping the phrase stating that the Deep South secession was ‘before the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln’ is not neo-Confederate, it is cotton state emphasis, not to say point of view.

Middle and Border South states were reluctant to secede before Lincoln DID anything. (like George III 20-years’ list of outrages.) According to the soon-to-be Confederates in Virginia (Mr. Ruffin notwithstanding), Lincoln could not meet the requirement for state independence in the American tradition until AFTER the US executive passed into his hands AND he did something smacking of the tyrant.

But instead, Lincoln, like Buchanan, gave up forts, suspended collections, ignored seizure of US mints with printing plates and bullion in Ga, NC and La. He closed US courts, withdrew US marshals, and suspended postal service. He ignored occupation of US arsenals and the appropriation of 75,000 arms (Freehling).

States such as Virginia waited for some action against the South or Southern Institutions. Constitutional election alone, lawfully elected majorities, anti-slavery slurs were not enough to secede in the minds of the ‘Cooperationists’, who envisioned not only Cotton and Middle South states, but Ky, Tn, Mo, even Md and De joining also.

I propose restoring the phrase, …seven states declared their independence from the United States “before the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(2) “After the Civil War began at the Battle of Fort Sumter” is precisely, fairly stated. And as we read along, it may be that Lincoln did invade the South later on with those same troops. But chronologically speaking, his call was not “for troops to invade the South”. It was for states to provide 75,000 troops for 3-months to recover Sumter and the abandoned forts, “and in every event … to avoid … a disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country”. It did not turn out that way. In any event,

I propose substitute the phrase, … and President Abraham Lincoln called for troops “to invade the South,” with “to repossess forts seized from the Union.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both proposals. "Invade" is POV, as has been mentioned here many times before --JimWae (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree on one point here, and that is the use of the term "invade", which is appropriate. There is no need to PC the war. If you look at other Wiki articles like Invasion of Normandy, they clearly call it an INVASION, whether the Germans were correct or not in occupying France. An armed incursion of troops into a region is an INVASION, whether they are trying to retake stolen land or liberate stolen land, it is still an invasion. Dubyavee (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A country cannot invade itself. The Union POV was that the States never left the Union. The South POV was that they did. NPOV does not take a position one way or the other.--JimWae (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln used the term invasion. Before his inauguration Lincoln said that marching and army into South Carolina without its permission would be an "invasion". (Holzer, Lincoln president-elect: p 309 online. Rjensen (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

He used the term "invasion" in a question. His actual words in answer to that question are not presented in the source except as he begins an exception "But if the government simply insist upon holding its own forts or retaking those forts..." Sending the national guard into a state to enforce the law is not invading a state. Countries cannot invade themselves. Saying the Union "invaded the South" (not even "invaded South Carolina") is speaking of "the South" as a separate entity --JimWae (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Here Lincoln says it would constitute an invasion IF there were hostile intent - but he clearly does not consider retaining forts "hostile intent". He did not view enforcing law to be "hostile intent". Lincoln did not, in his view, "call for troops to invade the South". His "call" was for troops to "repossess forts seized from the Union" --JimWae (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

JimWae, your terms themselves are POV, in that you are taking the side of the Union. The whole point of the war was whether secession was legal or not. "Countries cannot invade themselves". Isn't that POV? It seems very much to me. You are taking the POV side that it was illegal, and therefore object to the use of the word "invasion". There is nothing POV about the word "invasion". It is an act, like "jumping", or "scratching". You are applying abstruse interpretations to something that is very obvious. "Hostile intent"? 600-700,000 dead.Dubyavee (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

My view is that NPOV prevents having the article take the view that Lincoln's view was incorrect. Btw, are you suggesting that Lincoln knew how many would die? He thought the military action would be over fairly quickly. Are police who have to shoot to enforce the law exhibiting hostile intent? Is police hostility measured by the number they have to kill?--JimWae (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You have to cross a border to invade. *Perhaps* a federated country could be said to invade one of its states, (but that would mean much more than marching soldiers through it) but to say the Union "invaded the South" is to assert "the South" had some kind of border--JimWae (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"My view is that NPOV prevents having the article take the view that Lincoln's view was incorrect" Do you hear yourself? Neutral means taking NO side, which you have CLEARLY done. I could equally say that "NPOV prevents having the article take the view that Jefferson Davis' view was incorrect." Dubyavee (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggested the question we are debating here is whether Wikipedia's use of the word "invade" is biased against the union position. I do not see any bias at all; invade is a common English word meaning sending your Army into unfriendly territory. in his speech before he was inaugurated, Lincoln asked and answered a hypothetical question:"Would the marching of an army into South Carolina, without the consent of her people, and with hostile intent towards them, be 'invasion'? I certainly think it would." [see online for more details At that point he had no intention of using the army aggressively; he was arguing that merely holding Ft Sumter was not an invasion and was not coercion. However once Fort Sumter was in Confederate hands it was no longer a question of holding that Fort. the situation was changed and Lincoln asked for 75,000 troops to repossess Fort Sumter and other unspecified places. That seems to be about as close as you possibly can get to "marching an army into South Carolina without the consent of her people and with hostile intent toward them", which is how Lincoln himself defined invasion. The Army that Lincoln intended to send in the South was prepared to shoot anybody who stood in its way--that's "hostile"; as indeed happened when 10,000 Union troops did invade Virginia on May 14, 1861 (Nevins 5:144-45)Rjensen (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to realize that adding "invade" to the article lede would be controversial. I have substituted language taken from the body of the article that is more NPOV. The language keeps the two events that immediately preceded the actions of the four border states -- the attack and the call for troops -- without putting words in Lincoln's mouth that he never said with respect to the call of the militia.

You refer to Nevins, but I don't see "invade" on the pages you cite. Instead he says of the events on May 24, more than a month after the call for troops, that Lincoln was using "force to repossess the national property in the State." Donald in his Lincoln biography (page 296) avoids "invade" and simply quotes from the proclamation. Lincoln, in turn, had carefully chosen his language from the 1795 militia act that was clearly aimed at domestic insurrections.

In any event, the change you made was more than a "tweak" and, nw that objections have been raised, requires consensus in order to add it. The word "invade" is POV for the reasons stated by the other two editors that object to its inclusion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Declaration of War by Confederate Congress

help I'm killing topic headings. what am I doing wrong?

Hopefully, this corrected it! TexasReb (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is one that should be discussed. It was posted in one of the sections that the Confederate Congress reacted to the incident at Ft. Sumter by "declaring war" on the "United States." Even the source provided does not support this contention. I suggest re-wording this portion in order to correct historically innacurate content. TexasReb (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you want to add and what is your source for it? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to add anything so much as to delete the inaccurate statement that the CSA Congress declared war on the United States. That is, the source was lacking to begin with in that war was ever declared. It is not necessary to provide one that says the opposite. See what I mean? TexasReb (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When we can find a secondary source, please ADD / restore something to the effect that, three weeks following Fort Sumter, the CS Congress,

"Approved May 4, 1861, Chap. III. – An act recognizing the existence of war between the United States and the Confederate States; and concerning letters of marquee, prizes and prize goods.

"Whereas, the earnest efforts … to establish friendly relations … have proved unavailing … and whereas the President of the [US] has issued his proclamation … making requisition upon the States … of capturing forts … and … a blockade … and whereas, the State of Virginia has seceded … and … States … have refused … or will … and whereas, by the acts and means aforesaid,

"war exists between the Confederate States and the Government of the United States, and the states and territories thereof, except the States of Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, and Delaware, and the territories of Arizona and New Mexico, and the Indian territory south of Kansas: Therefore…[President authorized to use the whole land and naval forces] … "

See University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, “Documenting the American South, Electronic Edition”, docsouth.unc.edu, ‘Public Laws of the Confederate States of America, passed at the First Session of the First Congress; February 8, 1861 to February 18, 1862.’, page 100, the Act immediately prior to accepting Virginia into the Confederacy. (TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC))

This edit, some days ago, already added exact text from declaration.--JimWae (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that the CSA declaration is consistent with its 'states rights' doctrine because it addresses the general US government as an equal, then addresses slaveholding states as distinct entities. But they are considered distinct if and only if they 'deny' the USG central government's request nationalizing state militias, a power/permission found in both US and CS Constitutions. (TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

Without having access to a full copy of that Declaration so as to read the context of that excerpt, does the document actually constitute a Declaration of War?-- Avazina, an Unreconstructed Southerner 12:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Where can I find the full text of that "Declaration?"-- Avazina, an Unreconstructed Southerner 12:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The bill as enacted by the CS Congress is online at UNC Chapel Hill (Go Tarheels !!). See the citation above in this discussion at "docsouth.unc.edu".

I like the primary documents too, so I don’t read a history without my computer on to run searches, and every day there are more books and documents online. But my opinion of what I read there is the ‘original research’ no-no. To contribute to the article, each entry has to have a secondary source so we can rely on published scholars to help interpret the context and to guard against easily made mistakes and misrepresentations. TheVirginiaHistorian(96.241.160.249 (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

And, for the "full copy", JimWae set up a link to an ebook, 'The Rebellion Record'. on the table of contents page, Document 140, "'Confederate' Declaration of War" is linked to page 195 so you don't have to scroll down. TheVirginiaHistorian(96.241.160.249 (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

There was no formal Declaration of War by the Confederacy upon the United States, Avazina, so it can't be found. What was passed by the Confederate Congress -- on May 6, 1861 -- was an act recognizing that a state of war existed between the two nations. Two different critters, so to speak. The act itself was in response to Lincoln's call for the states still within the old Union to furnish troops for the purpose of invading the Lower South (South Carolina thru Texas), and the intention to blockade Southern ports...in spite of CSA efforts to arrive at a peaceful solution. You can read it at the link provided to the Rebellion Records. Hope that helps! :-) TexasReb (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's standard practice for a launching of war. For example The US Congress typically recognizes that a state of war exists--as in 1898 and 1941, for example. US law says, The United States becomes "engaged in war" whenever Congress makes a declaration of war or the congressional or executive authority of the government recognizes that a state of war existsRjensen (talk)

Unlike the Confederate Act, both the United States 1898 and 1941 documents expressly declared war. In the former, it read: That war be, and the same is hereby, declared to exist, and that war has existed since the 21st day of April, A. D. 1898, including said day, between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain. In the latter, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared. On the other hand, the wording of the CSA measure seemed carefully designed to not formally declare war upon the United States, but recognize it existed de-facto -- by way of certain itemized actions of the part of the Union -- and that Confederate military measures were authorized "to meet the war thus commenced". TexasReb (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If we cannot admit that the CS Congress was competent to declare war in an article about CSA, we do not concede that the actors believed themselves to be making a sovereign Constitutional republic. Editors may construe such a position as POV. I offer two points, one scholarly, one primary document, both taken from Congressional Research Service report to Congress.

Note the exact wording in the US document of 1846 and the CS document of 1861, “a state of war exists”. It is found online at the US State Department, fpc.state.gov, topic: foreign relations. If the US could declare war this way, why not the CSA? (TheVirginiaHistorian 14:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC))

(1) In the CRS “Declarations of War … Historical Background”, of 8Mar2007, we learn that in the 19th C., “all declarations of war were passed by the Congress in the form of a bill. … In every instance the measures were adopted by majority vote in both the House and the Senate and were signed into law by the President. (p.2)

(2) US Congress Act of May 13, 1846, “Whereas, by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that Government and the United States: … the President … is hereby, authorized to employ the militia, naval, and military forces of the United States, and to call for and accept the services of any number of volunteers… (p.86) TheVirginiaHistorian 14:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk • (TheVirginiaHistorian 14:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC))

It was not a matter of lack of competency nor power of the CSA government to formally declare war. It was the choice not to do so in that sense. Instead, both the Confederate and U.S. government in 1861 and 1846, respectively, passed acts recognizing that a state of war existed via the hostile actions of the other party. In many ways, both the Confederate and Mexican War resolutions are similar. http://www.sonofthesouth.net/mexican-war/president-polk-mexican-war.htm

The biggest difference I can discern is that Polk authorized that offensive military measures could be taken against Mexico itself, whereas the Southern act took a much more defensive posture (which was their very much their initial strategy and design once things got started) in terms of any plans to carry the conflict into recognized Union territory.

Admittedly, there can be a certain gray area (no pun intended!)as concerns a formal declaration of war and an act recognizing its existence. But what seperates the two -- in my own honest research -- is that the former usually constitutes an intention to use offensive means to carry the war into their nation. By default if not actual intent. In that sense, even though it wasn't worded as a declaration of war, the Polk speech and act passed by the United States Congress in the Mexican War might well have qualified as such. On the other hand, The Confederate Act seemed very careful to limit military actions to only that deemed necessary to protect and defend its own borders and territorial waters. TexasReb 00:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I don't know why the above contribution and the section below now appear in smaller type than the rest. If it was a mistake I made (which has never happened before), I very much apologize, and would like to know how it can be corrected! I would appreciate any suggestions/assistance with this! Thanks! TexasReb (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't your edit - I've replaced the missing /small ending tag. Vsmith (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That the CS Congress intended a defensive war is overwhelmingly true, although its intentions about ‘Southern States’ DE, MD, MO and KY and its right to defend them from the USG is ambiguous. (See Memphis Appeal reprint in Richmond Daily Dispatch (RTD) 24May1861.)

(1) The meaning of words must be taken from the time they are spoken; examples from the Spanish American War or WW II did not inform those in the CS Congress. We should use the Mexican War.

(2) ‘Just war’ as understood in legal terms of the time requires several things to students of Cicero, Grotius and Wolff (Wikipedia).

(a) first, it must be self-defense or to right wrong, not for revenge, and in the 19th Century,NOT to invade, hence the passive voice, “a state of war exists”;

(b) proper authority of a sovereign public authority; and (c) right intention – not material gain;

(d) reasonable hope for success, for CSA, war weariness in the North, recognition from European powers, military alliance with France or Britain;

(e) proportionality and (f) last resort. The bill of the CS Congress addressed each of these.

(3) Republics require that legislatures representative of the people enact measures of the state. Fiats of an executive cannot lawfully bind a people, including for war. i.e., Santa Ana’s rule was illegitimate; Texas and Zacatecas were justified in rebellion and in any independence.

(4) Again, from the RTD, 10May1861, interpreting the CS bill of 6May1861, “Recognition of a State of war by the [CS] … an Act … recognizing the existence of war with the [US] …, and declares that it is necessary for the [CS] to accept the war thus commenced by him.” (see dlxs.richmond.edu online)

So I would argue that CSA declared war on the US, 6May1861. The actors believed that they legitimately represented the citizens within its territory. They believed they acted in a way equal to Declarations by the US Congress. And they believed that they would engage in a “just war” by law and ethics of their time. (TheVirginiaHistorian 04:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk • contribs)

In many ways, I think we may be talking past each other. I am in agreement with most of your points, so far at it goes. I am not disputing the definition of just war, nor the power to declare such on the part of the Confederate government. Where we seem to part company is was the Act of the CSA tantamount to a true declaration of war? Or, was it just a resolution recognizing that, as the Union had already taken -- and intended to take further -- military measures (which really amounted to an initial declaration of war in itself IMHO) to invade and conquer the South? And that the Confederate military was simply authorized to meet the threat?

You are right for sure that the meaning of words must be understood in the context of the time, and that the Spanish American and WW II declarations could not possibly have influenced the Confederate Congress in the wording. However, the War of 1812 declaration easily could have in this regard: To wit:

'An Act Declaring War Between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Dependencies Thereof and the United States of America and Their Territories.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That war be and the same is hereby declared to exist between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories; and that the President of the United States is hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the United States to carry the same into effect, and to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper, and under the seal of the United States, against the vessels, goods, and effects of the government of the said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the subjects thereof. APPROVED, June 18, 1812'

As came up earlier, the Mexican war passage via Polk's speech is probably the one most comparable to the one by the CSA. We agree on that. But even then, the former seems to heavily imply (if not outright stated) that an offensive war was authorized. Not true of the latter CSA. Along this line, I have carefully reviewed the original document of the latter and never (unless I missed something, and will stand corrected if I have), ran across the phrase you cite stating "declares it necessary for the [CS] to accept thus commenced by him." What is says is that the President is authorized to use the whole land and naval forces of the Confederacy to "meet the war thus commenced." I submit there is a noteable difference in terminology and intent working. In a nutshell, my position is that while the CSA government certainly had to the power to declare war upon the Union even after being provoked and faced with an immenient and declared military threat on the part of the same, it chose to carefully avoid doing so. The wording of the Confederate Act recognizing the state of war has the cautious ring of one intending to make clear the use of military force would be used only to defend its own boundaries and waters. TexasReb (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) Jefferson Davis and Polk both addressed their legislature to take up the subject of war. An Act was passed using the language, “a state of war exists.” They both signed the acts into law.

(2) So it may be that we are looking at the question of whether a ‘declaration of war’ must have the word ‘declaration’ in it as found in the US Act for the War of 1812.

(3) A contemporary report can show what Confederates took the language to mean. I found one in the May 10, 1861, edition (online) of The Richmond Daily Dispatch. Those editors reported that the Act “declares that it is necessary for the Confederate States to accept the war thus commenced by him [Lincoln].”

So, the word ‘declares’ was used in the reportage to explain an Act where the word does not appear in the Act. But if we find a contrary Confederate report which says there is no ‘declaration of war’, tit for tat, you and I have only just begun the research. We need a scholar.

I am pretty much in agreement with all the points you make above. This topic is indeed an ambiguous one, subject to a lot of POV. Even I have to admit it might be hard to find an historical scholar that unequivocally states the CSA act did not constitute a declaration of war. There is just too much overlap working. BTW -- just on a brief related tangent, it is interesting to note that in his address to the Provisional Confederate Congress on the matter, President Davis asserted that war had been declared on the Confederacy. To wit:

"The declaration of war made against this Confederacy by Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States, in his proclamation issued on the 15th day of the present month, rendered it necessary, in my judgment, that you should convene at the earliest practicable moment to devise the measures necessary for the defense of the country.", and "This is the lamentable and fundamental error on which rests the policy that has culminated in his declaration of war against these Confederate States." (The entire text can be found here: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/jdmess.html)

This is one reason why I believe that the Confederate resolution was carefully worded so as to not use any form of "declares" within. That is to say, if Davis (and by extension, the provisional congress in debating and passing his request for action) firmly believed war had already been declared upon the South, then it might stand to reason they would have no hesitation in using the same type terminology in their own response. Unless, there was some compelling reason NOT to do so. In this instance, I think the reasons for simply limiting the relevant wording to "(recognizing) the existence of a state of war", were broadly two-fold; both of which tacitly acknowleged that outright declaring of war in so many words would be detrimental on both the home and world front (as it could be taken to mean the South would carry the war to the North). This would go against Davis' "cornerstone" position that "all we ask is to be left alone." Specifically, it might have "turned off" the bulk of common Southerners who enlisted only to defend their own homeland. And, perhaps more importantly, put off potential allies in Europe. After all, as William C. Davis (paraphrased) put it in "A Government of Our Own", it would be hard to maintain the Confederacy was the victim of unjustified aggression -- which was part of its foriegn policy strategy (albeit a very valid one IMHO) -- if its counter-response via the act implied an intention to directly attack Union territory.

But of course, in the end, it all comes back to, as you say, exactly what is the importance and weight assigned to the actual use (or non-use) of "declares" or "declaration" in this realm? It is for sure a topic worth further research. As it stands at the moment, I believe that in the Wiki article itself, the wording should stay as is (i.e. just quoting the text of the act itself). At the same time, I respectfully suggest to all editors that there be a very minor revision reflecting the "chronological order" as concerns the Union/Confederate actions. I will do so now and see how it flies! :-) TexasReb (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is why North Shore Tom boxed my ears earlier for ‘original research’ about secession. I put John Locke and the Declaration together and drew a conclusion. Not that I’m wrong, I just have to bring acknowledged scholars with me to play. That’s different (harder).

I regret that my referenced dates above can be misinterpreted: the May 10 article reported about the May 6 Act, but did not quote the Act directly; the “declares that” quote is from the May 10 article only. (TheVirginiaHistorian 02:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk • contribs)

Here is something that is interesting vis a vis the article written in the Richmond Daily Dispatch which opined the Confederacy had declared war by virtue of the act in question. This one appeared in Harper's Weekly (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/april/abraham-lincoln-declaration-war.htm) and, in a similar vein, stated that war had already been declared upon the South! By a northern publication, no less!

"WAR is declared. President Lincoln's proclamation, which we publish above, is an absolute proclamation of war against the Gulf States."

I guess the bottom line is we all gotta be careful with this one! LOL TexasReb (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction (a) style and (b) format

(a) STYLE. In the introduction, states seceding at Lincoln’s election are termed ‘seven cotton’ states, and those after Ft. Sumter ‘four border’ states.

It may be that a new editor from a border state (welcome, Sir, your presence is appreciated) is concerned about being left out. But it is not necessary to call out the four of us in the introduction. We are, each and severally, in the very first section, Contents 1.1, “Seceding states” and throughout the article narrative.

The robots scanning articles will call the back-and-forth an EDITORS WAR. You get bright red nasty-grams on your personal screen. Not good for you; not good for the article.

When your edit is changed out, hit the discussion page with an explanation. Folks here back up what they say, so you (I am also new) will learn a lot about scholarly literature and primary sources on the Confederacy from lots of angles you never thought of, win or lose.

(b) FORMAT. More generally, this brings up a problem in the article formatting for the new visitor to the site.

There is a huge forced gap after the Introduction due to the Wikipedia nation box on the right, which I take to be fixed, and on the left, the Contents box.

Even if the Contents were set to be a default ‘hide’ with a ‘show’ button, more than a screen’s length of dead space occurs.

Is there any way of showing the first inch of “Seceding States” text on the FIRST screen: running the text in a middle column like a magazine format; anything? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Fort Sumter -- militia call ups -- What was Lincoln thinking?

Recently, there is alot of POV about Lincoln and Fort Sumter, "betrayal" and such. Anything for the article needs to be neutral, that is, to consider the Federal's point of view without adopting it. So, apart from which officer misunderstood or misreported whom, What was Lincoln thinking?

Tenth Amendment ‘states rights’ requires SILENCE in the Constitution. But in Article I Section 8, the Constitution explicitly states that,

[Congress will] exercise exclusive Legislation … over all Places purchased by the Consent of the [State] Legislature … [and the acceptance of Congress] … for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; …

and in the second sentence of Article VI,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the [US],… shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,

any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any STATE to the Contrary notwithstanding.

And in the third sentence of Article VI,

The [US legislature], and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,

both [US] and of the several STATES, shall be bound by Oath …, to support this Constitution ...

So, with Fort Sumter and others, the Federals believed that without BOTH the consent of Congress AND the state legislature,

no transfer of US property could, Constitutionally, be made. This is akin to the contractual nature of Union Lincoln references in his First Inaugural.

In Virginia, the Harper’s Ferry US Arsenal was taken by private troops under the command of former Governor Henry Wise,

over the objection of Governor Letcher, and without consent of the Virginia Assembly. This was, in Lincoln's view, unconstitutional.

Lincoln’s government did nothing (did not have a majority in Congressional support for?) until Fort Sumter.

He then called for 75,000 militia for 90 days from state governors to reoccupy forts, equal to the number of arms taken from US arsenals, 75,000.

And he assured all that there would be no harm done to peaceful residents acceding to transit of those forces sent to enforce the laws where US Marshals could not.

First, reoccupying the US forts. First, at Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens, by sea approaches that required no civil disturbance against peaceful US citizens.

For a searchable text of the Constitution, see, http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article4

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Capital of the Confederacy (i), (ii), (iii)

On the recent editing of the capital of the Confederacy.

(i) US convention has it that following the adoption of the Constitution, the US had a capital in New York for the first constituted government, Philadelphia, then the District of Columbia. In the same way, Richmond for the Confederacy is parallel to DC, and Montgomery is parallel to New York City, the place of the first Congress without Rhode Island and following states, the seat of government which adopted the first ten amendments and sent them to the states for ratification.

(ii) As the fundamental instruments of government for the Confederacy including its Constitution, and a Congress met and enacted laws which applied when the seat of government moved to Richmond, we should consider Montgomery, Alabama as a capital. The last reversion of Montgomery justified it by asserting Danville was not a capital. Let's look at including Montgomery again.

(iii) But Danville, Virginia., is more difficult. The City is careful about its claim. In Danville, Virginia, April 3-10, 1865, the Sutherlin Mansion housed Jefferson Davis. There he wrote and delivered his final proclamation to the Confederacy on April 4th then met with his Cabinet. It is in this sense, Danville has become known as the "Last Capital of the Confederacy." See http://www.visitdanville.com/index.aspx?nid=107

In the South a cult of personality grew surrounding Jefferson Davis, exalting his presidency as the expression of the nation. These saw the last place of Presidential Proclamations as the last capital of the Confederate government. I am disagreed, so I cannot argue the point of including Danville, if editors will not concede it.

An excerpt of the President’s Last Proclamation: “To the People of the Confederate States of America”. Danville, Va., April 4, 1865.

[W]hile the memories of the heroic dead … remain [and] failing resources admonish [the enemy that the war] … must be abandoned if not speedily [ended] … it is for us, my countrymen, to show … how wretched has been the self-deception of those who have believed us less able to endure ... [And] with an army free to move from point to point and strike … the enemy, … nothing is now needed to render our triumph certain ... Let us but will it, and we are free; …

… no peace [will] ever be made with the infamous invaders ... again and again will we return, until the baffled and exhausted enemy shall … despair … of [enslaving a free people] with unconquered and unconquerable hearts. -- Jeff'n Davis.”

Transcribed from Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, compiled by James D. Richardson (2 vols., 1904), Volume 1, pp. 568-70. And available at Rice University at http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/docs.cfm TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Montgomery = yes but Danville = no. there was one meeting of the cabinet and no agency activity, no Congress, no offices, no official post office, no letterhead, no sign on the doort (indeed, no door--where were the offices?)--just the local tourism department. :) Rjensen (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm with you on this one. Anyway, unkind (POV) biographers say this Proclamation is the clincher that Jeff Davis lost it. Some of Lee's artillery officers wanted this guerilla war, ala the Spanish against the French Napoleonic occupation, but he stopped it, sort of like Washington stopping Armstrong's "Cromwelleon" coersion of Congress to credit their back pay, only different. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

States unseceded to Sumter & Union call up.

It is true, by our narrative in the subsection concerning secession, the CSA can be seen as an independent nation.

The deleted paragraphs address the attempts of the US Congress and the Republican Lincoln by March of 1861 to quiet the crisis in border states which did not attempt secession until after Sumter and Lincoln's call up.

The call up for coersion, even for the limited goal of reoccuppying the forts on the part of the federal government, is what drove Bell into recognizing the secessionist government in Tennessee.

So, I would like to address some of the attempts by Federals trying to counter the groundwork laid by disunionists in the border states. It is okay to say that they tried and failed to be persuasive in controlling contested territory without force of arms. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

yes but the discussion was about the US Congress and it does not directly concern the CSA, which is why it should be in the secession article. Rjensen (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

okay, let me rewrite the research so that the narrative does not center on the US Congress ... not my real point ... the point to be made for this article is that during the sequence of secession -- the title of the section in view -- after the CS Congress met in Montgomery in January-February, unionists sincerely tried to keep the border states through March, trying to address protections for slavery, and they failed, and there was no turning back for the seceded ... men of good will were trying on the border South side also ...

In David Long's 'The Jewel of Liberty' there seems to have been a real surprise on the part of Vallandingham on his visit/debriefing in Virginia, that no 'cease-fire' would return any of the several Confederate states to the Union.

There would NOT be 'Union as it was and the Negroes where they are.' as promised by the Peace (Copperhead) Democrats.

For the confederated States, the starting point of discussion/ mediation/ negotiation was Independence. But I get ahead of myself.

-- Maybe a rework of the draft this weekend. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Formation of Government

There is only a brief mention of the events surrounding the formation of the CSA government. Much more needs to be added to the history section. How, and when was the government formed? Also, it seems that the subsections in the history section are out of order. NittyG (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Submittal up for consideration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

good material added, but we don't need text not directly related to CSA -- it's covered in the long Origins of the American Civil War article. On footnotes, the full bibliog info needs to be cited only the first time. Rjensen (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; your edit is more focused. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

With the new material, the "Causes of secession" section seemed out of place, so I moved it up under the new A “Revolution” in disunion" main section under History.

I'm not quite sure what to do with the "Religion, slavery, and secession" sub-section. Perhaps it should be pushed back under the "Causes of secession" sub-section in the outline, or maybe the material should just be merged into one of the other sub-sections. 184.36.81.229 (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Houston the Jacksonian Unionist; 1860 Cooperationist

Part of the tricky work of history is chronology. Houston was certainly a ‘Unionist’ with Andrew Jackson and against Calhoun in the 1820s, and in Texas, he was for joining the US. But by 1860, he is pro-union only to the extent of seeking constitutional procedure based on the Texas Constitution, looking to the sovereign people for choosing a government to “best effect their safety and happiness”. “Houston could tolerate neither a Republican overt act against slavery nor federal coercion of a seceded state. But he had no other conditions for staying in the Union.” Freehling II, p.447. Here Freehling cited in note 3, Amelia W. Williams and Eugene Barker, eds., “The Writings of Sam Houston”, (Austin, 1938-43), vol. 8: 192-97.

In the enthusiasm of pronouncing the unionist Houston of 1820s and 1830s as an 1860 unionist, Anon.184 … struck the passage alluding to Houston calling for a Southern Convention to decide the question of secession from the Union. That is not the same as ‘Secessionist’ immediate and unilateral call for disunion, and without a Texas legislative call for secessionist convention. Rather, that would be Houston's calling for southern states to “cooperate”, hence Freehling’s classification, Cooperationist.

This was taken from Freehling II, p.449, citing note 7, Williams and Barker, eds., Writings of Houston, 8: 208, and Freehling adds, “Houston announced his decisions to the Texas populace in a public letter dated December 3, printed in the “LaGrange True Issue”, December 6, 1860.

Freehling’s conclusion that such a convention would delay immediate secession is not contested, yet it was deleted without a counter citation.

William W. Freehling is an historian of the Civil War era. He is Singletary Professor of the Humanities Emeritus at the University of Kentucky and Senior Fellow at the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities. His “Prelude to Civil War” won a Bancroft Prize. “The Road to Disunion”, vol. II, is published by the Oxford University Press.

I know for a fact that there are published scholars with a more southerly pedigree than Kentucky and Virginia. They will differ with Dr. Freehling. We can, in good faith, compare notes, and enrich the article. I just used Freehling to get us started on the “great deal more” prompted for CSA government formation by NittyG. Let’s get another scholar into the discussion. Who would you like to bring in? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I had simply always seen Houston portrayed as a Unionist, and thought I was just doing a bit of clean-up, but I have no problems in deferring to Freehling. I have reversed that change. 184.36.81.229 (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

southern postmasters opposing 'Abolition' v. 'Freedom for all'.

I think that Anon.184 has correctly chosen the key term "abolition" relative to pamphlets without some expanded narrative, if there is only to be one term. That is because most of the contemporary writing of the time seems to be about abolitionism.

RJensen may have the larger point that includes abolitionism. Hinton Rowan Helper's best seller "The Impending Crisis", showed that the poor white farmer was made a dependent by the slaveholder just as a slave. See NC History Project url:http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/345/entry I meant to lay the groundwork for this same point by referencing the Virginian McCormick reaper (co-invented by a slave), and the crop rotation, fertilization program of Virginian Edmund Ruffin.

Mechanical farming and soil enrichment could make the yield of a free white man's labor in the South equal to ten-fold acreage under the lash of slavery without. Often the intensive gardening in the slave-quarter also vastly outperformed the gang labor system under white slave drivers lash amidst the cash crops. Ira Berlin describes overseers getting bonuses for acreage planted, so to speed the planting process, furrows were plowed downhill, not contoured, adding erosion to soil depletion in unrotated fields ... But other editing properly saw these references as tangential to the discussion of creating a Confederate government.

Helper's book was used by Republicans as a campaign pamphlet. Endorcement by Republican floor leadership then precipitated the crisis over election of a Speaker. But my earlier draft references which would explain in part "freedom for all" is laid aside because it was too closely linked to the story of the US Congress, as it indeed was.

I've got to go with "Abolition" for the term that discribes the concern of southerners and their postmasters. While I do not think slavery is the primary motive for those who fought in grey, I do think that the politics of slavery in the confederacy of slave-holding states does bear mentioning however tangentially ... so, I vote for "abolition". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

To say that the Confederates were "afraid of freedom" seems way too sweeping to me. I am no pro-Confederate apologist--far from it--but that really sounds like propaganda more than an encyclopedia article. (Shades of our most recent ex-President, in fact!) Certainly the secessionists were pro-slavery (and therefore anti-abolitionist, and therefore of course "anti-freedom" in that sense); it is also true that this entailed (in addition to the obvious denial of freedom to the slaves), a willingness to censor the speech of even free white males. Nonetheless, I am pretty sure the Southerners themselves would have indignantly denied being afraid of or opposed to freedom itself (whereas they were quite open in their opposition to abolitionism, and indeed often sought to associate the label of "abolition" with Lincoln and the Union cause in general; to most Southerners of 1860-1865, "abolitionist" was "obviously" a bad thing.)

"Advocating freedom for all Americans" has a very editorial tone which I don't think is appropriate; "opposed to abolition" is a quite neutral statement which the Confederates themselves would have accepted without hesitation. 184.36.81.229 (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Free Soil, Free Labor, Free speech, --these were the Republican themes that terrified the South and led to secession. For example, the South imposed a ban on free speech and use of mails to publicize ideas of freedom it feared. As for slaves, it said these folks were not really Americans and therefore did not deserve American rights like freedom. They rejected the Declaration of Independence. And if an orator made these points in Alabama he would be run out of town or killed. If Germans in Texas talked about freedom they would be hung. The South was NOT opposed to emancipating slaves if they left the state (colonization to Liberia was acceptable; Lee freed slaves and sent them out of Virginia). But they could not tolerate large numbers of free blacks because the freedom was the threat. (In larger cities there were a few free blacks, always under constant watch because of fears they would use their freedom to organize.) Encuclopedias might as well tell it like it was. Rjensen (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen has an important perspective which should be used to expand the "Civil Rights" section of the CSA article. I likewise don't want to sugar coat the pass system for slaves extended to whites. Or the use of out-of-state soldiers in Confederate camps to out vote Virginian residents in the referendum for secession (McPherson). Or the single name ballots for elections. Or the measures to prevent an opposition (peace) party comparable to that in the north. Or the refusal to seat former Secessionist Convention members who were then elected to the Confederate Congress from North Carolina, Alabama and Missouri because they had been born 'alien', north of the Ohio River. Or the imposition of a draft and supression of draft evaders. Or suspension of habeus corpus. Or government takeovers of manufacturing and railroads. ...

But in the section about Secessionists disunion and setting up the CSA government, the persuasive arguement in the public forums of the time were speaking to 'abolition' meaning externally coersed, precipitant abolition and the possibility of "servile insurrection" (read: race war) like that which followed precipitate abolition in Haiti. Lots of sociological and psychological and economic and coersive reasons why that would not happen here. But the fear of 'abolition' in 1860 was also, specifically, "like it was".

So, in the formation of government section I'd like to see "abolition" and in the civil rights section, I'd like to see "restriction of freedoms" elaborated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

TheVirginiahistorian brings up some excellent points, but the problem is his using the word "abolition" in its 2010 meaning, vs. its 1860 meaning in the South. That ambiguity will be highly confusing to the readers, because the Southerners used "abolitionist" in ways we no longer think of. They used it for Lincoln, for all Republicans, for most Northerners, and indeed for practically everyone who wanted more freedoms such as free homesteads, free soil, free speech, free press, free mail service (the South censored the US mail) --in addition to freedom for blacks. There was no room in the South for whites who had disagreed with the Southern Credo. In a word, they allowed only a very narrow range of freedoms, and that was restricted to white Southerners who supported the southern credo. See Slavery and Freedom : An Interpretation of the Old South by James Oakes (1998) and Freedom of Thought in the Old South by Clement Eaton (1951) Rjensen (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Codewords still work in politics. Modern sound bites often miss the local import of political debate. ... apart from the 'abolition'/'anti-freedom' terminology business, ... Could you take a stab at expanding the Confederate Civil Rights section based on your reading into J.Oakes and C.Eaton as a start-up for others? My introduction to this kind of difficulty in historical interpretation was James McPherson's 'Battle Cry of Freedom'. I think this article could profitably explicate the CSA understanding of terms in a way that increases modern understanding. There was a lot done in the 19th Century, North and South, that would not fly now, though the vocabulary seems familiar. That is, I take it, one of your main points.

Maybe, in the passage under dispute, we could put quotes around "abolition" with an internal note or link to an expanded discussion in CSA Civil Rights. "Freedom" carries modern interpretive baggage just as much as does "abolition". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for Secession

One thing that everyone skips over in their feverish efforts to paint the cause of secession as solely, or at least predominately, to be about slavery, is the Corwin Amendment. The Corwin Amendment was passed by Congress, and ratified by two States, and was supported by President Lincoln, who vowed to see it through if the seceding States would rejoin the Union. The Corwin Amendment would have solidified slavery as a Constitutional Right, but the seceding States said "NO!".

Text of the Corwin Amendment (which, ironically, was to be the 13th Amendment): "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State"

Though not "politically correct" to discuss, the Corwin Amendment is historical fact... and goes a long way to back up the so-called "lost cause" view of the Confederacy.

Think about it... the Corwin Amendment makes "seceding over slavery" pointless.

Note: The Corwin Amendment is still alive, but in limbo. If States Ratified it, it could invalidate the now infamous 13th amendment.

Discussion of the Morrill Tariff is omitted or downplayed... but tripling the taxes the South had to pay seems a pretty good reason for the South to leave the Union.

Patralis (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is confined to mirroring "standard" viewpoints on topics, and mainstream history fingers slavery as the major cause of the war. While this may be a history written by the victors, righting great wrongs isn't what Wikipedia does. Especially for controversial topics, we cannot hold that Wikipedia is "right" all we can hold is that it gives due weight to the sources available. In this particular case, I believe that the Corwin Amendment was a meaningless gesture (3/4s of states would have had to approve it, and very few states outside of the Confederacy would have). SDY (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Corwin--how many Confederates wanted to return to US if Corwin passed? Answer: zero. As for tariffs, the CSA in 1861 passed much higher tariffs than the South had ever known. read the CSA article. Rjensen (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Corwin Amendment was hardly a meaningless gesture... it passed BOTH Houses, was supported by President Lincoln, AND was already under the ratification process, but it was halted due to the South refusing to come back. Wikipedia has an article over the Corwin Amendment... why not mention it in this article and link to the related article? Patralis (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

wait, wait. Your research is discussed, but not with your specificity. The article needs your edit. The section, “the last of a Union without coercion” has a discussion of the recommendations by the Peace Convention of 1861. Then it skips over the Corwin Bill into “Buchanan’s Thirteenth Amendment” -- you need to add Corwin Amendment link there.

Your point is not ignored, but featured. It is described as the last, watered down provision recommended to Congress by the Peace Conference. The “old men’s last hurrah” in Holzer can hardly be considered “politically correct”. You mention two states ratifying, he counts Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois as ratifying, even though Constitutional scholars have seen Illinois' as an extraordinary procedure to support Lincoln's endorsement that you describe here. It was sort of, if Lincoln could not deliver his home state for the Amendment, he did not mean it. Delivering a vote for ratification in Illinois gave him more credibility in the Border South.

And as to slavery as a cause, --contemporaries-- with divergent politics and geography, thought slavery had something substantially to do with the Great Rebellion, Civil War, War Between the States, War of Northern Aggression ... or the "Late Unpleasantness", as Grandmother Susan used to say in the 1960s. Your larger point to the Lost Cause (i.e. Cousin Ludwell Johnson's crowd) does not now carry a consensus here, so it has to be deferred ... but please do not put off adding Corwin Amendment -- the research is the thing here, not a point of view.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

State Flags

The flags displayed in the box listing the 13 CSA states are very inaccurate.

For South Carolina the so-called "sovereignty flag" is shown rather than the official state flag,

for Florida the flag used by Col. Chase's militia is shown rather than the flag disigned by the state governor at the direction of the legislature as seen here http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/contentViewer.aspx?category=PublicGuide&file=About%20Florida%20--%20Flags%20of%20Florida.html,

Missouri is shown with just a plain blue flag, and

Kentucky is shown with the Star and Bars.

Someone should fix this. Emperor001 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

using the Category:SVG flags - Confederate States of America, I found two:

a SC state flag that followed its secessionist flag, so both are now included.

a FL state flag that followed the "Lone Star" secessionist flag which is also referenced your online link, so both are now included.

a MO state flag, golden bears state seal on a blue field, is available from the Missouri State Parks at http://www.mostateparks.com/confedmem/confedflags.htm My post of their text giving blanket permission in an email to me is archived here. I'll make it a wiki commons addition when I learn how.

the Kentucky state web site affirms that the political banner used by Confederates from Kentucky, as adopted by the 'Russellville Convention' was the 'five-star First National Flag, http://www.kdla.ky.gov/resources/kyflag.htm#Official, so we may be covered there. (other Kentucky banners were military, not political).

Hope this partial fix helps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Although for Florida I'm not sure I'd include the Lone Star and Strips since from what I understand, that flag was simply used by the militia (and was borowed from Texas' former navy). The other flag was the only one established by FL's government. Emperor001 (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, it turns out that it was the provisional flag until FL could adopt a new one. Emperor001 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Washington DC a Southern city?

Under the section Rural/urban configuration it says Other large Southern cities (Baltimore, St. Louis, Louisville, and Washington, D.C as well as Wheeling, West Virginia, and Alexandria, Virginia) never came under the control of the Confederate government.

Now I may well be wrong but I have never classed DC as Southern, other opinions please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.229.144 (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Geographically, the general demarcation of North and South in the 19th Century was the "Mason-Dixon Line" surveyed between Maryland and Pennsylvania, by Mr. Mason and Mr. Dixon, from their respective states, alternating days at the transit. Tested by satellite, it was good surveying; North of the Line was becoming free soil, south is Delaware and Maryland, loyal, but slave-holding states. Then westerly the demarcation ran along the Ohio River, and, for a while, the Missouri Compromise Line at 36 degrees, 30 minutes North latitude.
As I remember, part of the Hamilton-Jefferson deal for choosing DC's location (besides giving George Washington's westerly canal project a boost) was that it was surrounded by slave-holding states; any escaping slaves of Congressmen would be running across slave state territory. Though as it turned out, free blacks working in southern ports such as Baltimore and Alexandria allowed for escape (Frederick Douglass was not challenged for a pass when he dressed as a sailor for his getaway.)
Read “Reveille in Washington, 1860-1865”, Margaret Leech's 1942 Pulitzer Prize-winning history major events and Lincoln, McClellan, Grant, Louisa May Alcott, Walt Whitman, Andrew Carnegie, Confederate spies, rooming houses, bordellos … "It was a southern city in which loyal men labored to save the Union while secessionist neighbors openly jeered at their efforts ..." -- currently in print as a paperback ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

p.s. In one way, you are right. Joel Garreau's "Nine Nations of North America" cuts Dixie off at the James River, the navigable river for ocean-going shipping to Richmond and Petersburg, Virginia (cities at the Fall Line). The common expression is 'South of the James'. Basically, driving down US-1, when you order breakfast north of the James, you get homefried potatoes with an omelet, south of the James, you can get grits. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

DC is not really considered southern today, but it was for most of its history, and probably more so than Baltimore and St. Louis, which the anon didn't object to. john k (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No two references for Wiki?

On redacting additional sources posted by new editors when the first editor's reference will do.

'Confederate States' is controversial; there is no incontrovertible authority. Why not support points with multiple scholars? What is the advantage for Wikipedia to minimize sources in general? Okay, this could run away, let's credit no more than the most recently published (2,3), then older sources get included in the Bibliography with a note. Not, 'First on the page wins'.

We already have a primary source tag, "Wikisource has original text related to this article: the Constitution of the Confederate States." The Avalon (Yale Law School) cite was a second reference to an "orginial text". I added it because I don't know the mechanics of getting open sourced primary documents into the Wiki collection. Anon ***76 should not redact our Wikisource tag because it is a second "reference to the same text".

Many Avalon documents cite open sources which could conceivably be added to the Wiki collection. Instead of redacting references to primary documents, how about other editors take the cite, convert it to a Wikisource document, and ADD the Wikisource tag?

And, if not, instead of diminishing the article, leave the work alone so others can come behind and enhance it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Danville capital

On the infobox, it says that the capitals of the CSA were Montgomery, Alabama and Richmond, Virginia. However, the capital was quickly moved to Danville, VA near the end of the war. Is there a reason why Danville shouldn't be included as a capital, or can I go ahead and add it to the infobox? —Reelcheeper (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Danville was never designated the capital, state offices were not set up, state officials did not operate there, Congress did not meet there, and no one at the time considered it the capital. No reliable source calls it the capital. Rjensen (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Bloody

Is anybody actually reading this edit? (Which wasn't even my edit in the 1st place.) It's "bloody" as in "bloodiest single-day battle in American history", not as in "bloody hell". Now, if someone wishes to argue that "Union victory" is a better description of the Battle of Antietam than "bloody stalemate", that's fine by me. I just don't think it should have been auto-reverted by a robot (the robots around here in general do an extraordinary job), nor do I think the robot's edit should be mindlessly defended by sanctimonious human Wikipedians. 184.36.90.183 (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Antietam was a Union victory -- perhaps you would like to review the Battle of Antietam article and the discussion there concerning how the battle results are listed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Confederate goals for Lee’s invasion included, (a) defeat of Union Army on northern soil,

(b) foreign recognition as an independent nation, [beyond belligerent status then acknowledged by Spain and Brazil],

(c) threaten capture of DC, Lincoln and Congress, (d) threaten capture of Philadelphia’s bullion.

None of these strategic goals were met. Tactically, McClellan did not drive his foe from the field on the first day of battle. But, what of it? Antietam was a Union victory.

Background: 1700s European armies maneuvered, sometimes fought, over the course of a day, like a classical Greek play, sun up to sun down. The next morning generals met in a truce tent, breakfasted, the outmaneuvered prince ceded a territory. The sides then withdrew their expensive professional armies intact. But that was no longer useful by the 1800s, see Crimea, where McClellan was an official US observer.

Let’s keep our centuries straight. Both commanders at Antietam knew Napoleon from Jomini in translation at West Point. Both knew that with mass conscription armies, the outcome of battles is more than one day, see Austerlitz (1805), and Wagram (1809). We should, too. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a military historian, and have no strong views as to whether the Battle of Antietam should be characterized as a "stalemate", a "Union victory", a "Union strategic victory" or what. (It was certainly "bloody", which I don't think anyone could deny.) I just objected to the edit being reverted as "vandalism" which it clearly was not. Now, if someone calls it a "Klingon victory" or a "poopyhead" or a "bob was here hi", that's a different story, but the edit was clearly made in good faith, if debatable as to its accuracy. 184.36.90.183 (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The point you miss is that the original edit by the IP was made with NO EDIT SUMMARY and no sourcing -- valid reasons for reverting even if good intent were assumed. Furthermore, it was the IP's first edit ever so there was no track record to evaluate. The info inserted was wrong and does not belong in the article. As far as whether it was vandalism, it is really quite common for vandals to change factual things such as dates, numbers, and outcomes of battles. We really can't tell what the IP's intentions were. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Some random thoughts, first regarding the article content:

This 'bloody stalemate' issue started out as an objection to a reversion by ClueBot but has now morphed into a discussion regarding how to characterize the Battle of Sharpsburg/Battle of Antietam in the Confederate States of America article, whether or not 'Union victory' or 'bloody stalemate' is a verfiable statement about the Battle..
Yes, the Battle of Antietam/Battle of Sharpsburg was the single bloodiest day in American history.
Both sides claimed it as a victory. Lee (& the Confederacy) because he had the field at the end of the day and the North because the Southern army was decimated and any thoughts of invasion were left by the wayside. Afterwards foreign governments refused to intervene, one of the reasons being the failure of the invasion (and, of course, the Emancipation Proclamation). Lincoln could have even been said to seal the fate of how the Battle was regarded by history with his timing of the Proclamation's announcement.

Regarding wikipedia practices:

Wikipedia editors are supposed to, first of all, assume good faith when dealing with all other editors and their edits.
In general Wikipedia articles are not supposed to use self-referenced subject sources in their articles. Also, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (self-references to avoid), Wikipedia is not supposed to reference itself. It doesn't seem to be correct practice if we bring other Wikipedia articles and talk-pages into this particular discussion to bolster what is being said here...but I'm actually asking, I don't know.

At this point I think interested editors should weigh in and a consensus should be gathered about what the choice of text should be. Shearonink (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The self-referencing refers only to the text of the articles, not to discussion pages. It seems only common sense that the proper place to discuss whether Antietam was a Union victory, stalemate, or loss would be the Antietam article. It also seems like a useless expenditure of energy here to not point out that there is already a discussion on a very simlar issue at the Antietam discussion page. That discussion contains reliable sources that are relevant. The issue there was only whether the Union victory should have been considered both a tactical and a strategic victory -- the fact that it was a strategic victory was not in question. Unless you have some reliable sources that deny it was a strategic victory, I don't see where the issue is worth discussing here or reopening at the Antietam page.

As far as whether "bloody" is appropriate, you need to look at the context. Obviously every time Antietam is mentioned you don't need to make it some sort of Epithet by adding "bloody" to it. in this case, Antietam is brought up in the context of diplomatic relations with Great Britain and the key point is that it was a Union victory, not that it was bloody.

As far as good faith, that is not the issue. The text of the article was changed with no explanation and no sourcing by an IP making his/her first edit. It should have been reverted. The IP was given a proper first notice, that doesn't even mention vandalism, and was offered an opportunity to add it back. The IP, for whatever reason, did not respond -- instead another IP has made a mountain out of a mole hill. If this IP, as he/she claims, does not have any idea on whether or not the edit was factually accurate, then it shouldn't have been added back even once, let alone three times. Yes ClueBOT was wrong in treating it as vandalism and so was User:Breawycker twice, once when he reverted it and once when he reverted me after this discussion was opened and after I had used a proper edit summary. That doesn't mean that the second IP didn't also make an error in judgment. At the least, they could have (and should have) taken thirty seconds and seen which version of the battle results were used at the Battle of Antietam article, in particular the infobox and the footnote in that box after "strategic victory". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What if the wording was changed from 'Union victory' to 'consequences'? Shearonink (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Why in the world would we change anything? This is not a controversial issue. What reliable sources suggest that Antietam was not a Union strategic victory? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to discuss if different wording might be appropriate or would work and cover different opinions about and different ways of looking at the outcome...we don't have to change a thing. Shearonink (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The only opinions that should be covered are those reflected in reliable sources. To repeat, what reliable sources suggest that Antietam was not a Union strategic victory? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I would think that using the word 'consequences' would cover the outcome of that particular battle as it pertains to this article but really...whatever the editorial consensus is to include and whatever the Reliable Sources state, sometimes adjusting text within an article is appropriate - that's all. Shearonink (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Confederate call-up

The Confederacy intended itself a nation, so it began by establishing a Constitution, a government, then an Army. John Keegan is a noted military historian who describes the first manning of the CSA armies. This brief notation avoids the POV which assumes the Confederacy did not act in the capacity of a sovereign nation. It did not act the passive victim, vaguely unaware that it might have to fight for its independence in secession. The Confederate Congress provided for its own defense, its President would command its armed forces.

Lincoln's response was proportionate to the lost government property. Freehling accounts for the 75,000 confiscated arms from federal properties before Lincoln's inauguration, often before any state act of secession. Lincoln followed with a call for 75,000 militia in nationalized service for 90 days. Both Davis and Lincoln had authorization from their respective Congresses ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Restore Georgia Secessionist flag.

Let’s look at the online site for the State of Georgia’s Secretary of State:

|Georgia State Flag before 1879 (unofficial) “In 1861, a new provision was added to Georgia's code requiring the governor to supply regimental flags to Georgia militia units assigned to fight outside the state.” That is, we are not sure what it looked like, but, in any case, it was for regimental purposes outside the state.

For | Secessionist Flags “Tradition holds that the Bonnie Blue flag was flown in Georgia during the early months of 1861, although no evidence has been found to support this claim.”

“Better documented is a flag of the same design, but with a red star on a solid white background. Several accounts mention such a flag being flown in Augusta and Milledgeville in January 1861.” (Milledgeville, Georgia was the capital from 1804 to 1868, southeasterly of Atlanta, centrally located in the state.)

Following the convention in earlier states, I have replaced the known red star secessionist flag in the chart with a citation, if the State of Georgia can be credited with knowledge of the flag of the State of Georgia.

This seems a strange place to argue the authority of the states, but I advocate this addition without a counter citation. This is not an endorsement of Macy’s or any other Northern enterprise one might misunderstand it to be.

If we consider the uncited regimental flag for use outside the State of Georgia, we apprise a lovely banner indeed, and further, it has the distinction of resembling the Commonwealth’s of Virginia flag, and I have not the heart to revert the unsourced artifact.

The Red Star flag shown is the only I could find in wikicommons. Later I will try to secure permissions from the State of Georgia for wikicommons use, as we have done from the Missouri Secretary of State. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Split article?

Someone has tagged the article with the "split into multiple articles" tag, which refers to this discussion page, but there isn't actually any discussion here about the idea. Do other editors think this would be a good idea? Does anyone have any actual suggestions for splitting up the article? What pieces should it be split up into, and where would the dividing lines be? 184.36.82.77 (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the page is fine the way it is. Too many 'editors' go around tagging articles without a lot of thought or alternative ideas it seems. I am going to remove the tag. If there is anyone who feels the article should be split, please present your idea(s), and if it is practical and in everyone's (the average reader) interest, the tag can be restored. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

no need to split. Rjensen (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Two Railroad illustrations from wiki commons

I cannot find the history of the “Fred Leach”. Wikicommons cite says it was captured, but not a different Confederate name. It was New Jersey Locomotive & Machine-built 4-4-0 Fred Leach. Another reference at wigwags.wordpress has it later renamed “Warrenton” for the Orange and Alexandria RR after the war.

On the map, if one clicks on the map, then clicks on that map, then clicks on the magnifying glass, the size is readable. This is an 1860 B & O promotion which features that line’s connections “east and west”. Of course the thickest line is the east-west B&O. It has old names, and relative city size shown in font size, perhaps as of the 1850 census?

I do not know if the various sizes relate to gauge or passenger connections. I believe it was pre-war Cleveland OH that was famous for three different gauges entering the city, providing the local wagon freight teamsters a booming business until the onset of standardization by the United States Military Railroad (USMRR).

In fairness, this early example of commercial advertising has no assertion that it is current as of its date of publication. But as with all primary documents, it must be used with care. So, it is for illustrative purposes only, until a scholarly map can be provided. To be accurate, a map must be omniscient, and in a time before telegraph connections, an accurate map for the article must be anachronistic. Welcome to historiography.

What is now Emporia, Virginia, south of Petersburg was then named Hicksville, and the name survives there in a street name and a school name; that’s okay. Reading along in a primary document from another source, one would not want to be misled to thinking of modern day Hillsville, WV. But here, Chattanooga is omitted, along with the Western and Atlantic Railroad, in operation since the mid-1850s. It is an operating line of note to us for contributing two locomotives in the “Great Locomotive Chase” according to the AtlantasUpperWestSide website. But again, it’s not on the map if the map is based on data from 1850.

Nevertheless, I thought it worth adding these two to draw the reader into the text, as WP would have us do. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Where at Wiki Commons does it say that the Fred Leach was captured?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Commons says, "'Fred Leach, is photographed on the Orange and Alexandria Railroad after it escaped from Confederates on August 1, 1863 near Union Mills."

'Escape' means leave the posession of; if one escapes capture, one leaves custody of the enemy. The picture was taken by a Union photographer, showing a locomotive which "escaped from Confederates", in Union service at the time of the photograph. Farragut did not 'escape' the Confederates at New Orleans, he 'ran by (under) the guns of' the Confederate defenses there. What do you suppose the Wiki commons editor meant here?

As I say, I have not found a history of the "Fred Leach". But regardless, I did think that an example of period rolling stock running on what I suppose was a Virginia railway gauge was an appropriate illustration of the Confederate railway system. It is, to my mind, better for our article relating to the Confederacy than the Union railway seige mortar pictured in the "main article".

Is this only a POV on my part, that a period locomotive would illustrate Confederate railroads better than an example of a military device of Confederate Petersuburg's destruction? Most locomotives in service in the South were manufactured in the North, sometimes hauled to unconnected track by wagon, as in the case of the Western and Atlantic RR. Tredegar in Richmond, Virginia, stopped production of locomotives in 1860, as did Georgia's facility, I believe.

How about, The 'Fred Leach' a 4-4-0 locomotive built by 'New Jersey Locomotive & Machine', an example of rolling stock on railways of the Civil War period. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Using the photo is fine with me; I'm not objecting. I'm pointing out that you are confused about the meaning of the caption at Wiki Commons. An escape means getting away from but does not necessarily convey having been in custody. Such usage would be the same as a narrow escape. That is what the Wiki commons editor meant. Escape is correct usage without having to have been captured. Searching for evidence of the capture of Fred Leach is chasing a red herring.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the text should be clearer in the photo description. Maybe, "avoided an ambush".

Rolling stock changed hands in this cavalry-porous land between Manassas and Richmond. The Virginia Central RR engine “Augusta”, was captured by the North, recaptured in 1862, and re-re-captured in Stoneman's 1863 raid. (see the csa-railroads site, toggle Virginia, click ‘Virginia Central’ RR, click locomotives).

In July, 1862, the northern Valley of Virginia was not secure. Just prior to Second Manassas, Union Commanding General Pope fired off a heated telegram, "...in regard to capture of a train between Front Royal and Winchester ... What train was pursuing that road and who sent it? ... Allow no trains whatever to travel that road. Your supplies are at Warrenton and nowhere else.” The Official Record is now searchable online from Ohio State University at ehistory.osu.edu.

Union Mills station is 23 miles out of Alexandria on the north bank of Bull Run from Manassas, 65 miles north of the Orange and Alexandria RR repair facility. The gauge was old standard 4’-8”, not the newer (30-year-old) 4’-8-1/2” standard adopted by the USMRR (less binding, so less curve derailment).

The general reader will be interested that the 4-4-0 wheel configuration is the same featured on locomotives pictured on varieties of CSA $50 and $100 notes. In that sense, the ‘Fred Leach’ is an good exemplar of the rolling stock found in the Confederacy, regardless of what flag it flew. Maybe cutting some of the LOC-like photo description can keep the vertical dimension of the illustration about the same as the text, or substituting a $50 bill. I guess I just fell in love with that photo. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

LOC? I don't know what that means. I'm glad you like the photo. When I uploaded it to Commons, I mostly conveyed what was written in the source. Evaded capture might be the clarity you seek. I do think the mention should be there about the bullet holes as that is very interesting, imo.

You may also like this, this, or this as well (not for the article though).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, really good. On the Gen.Haupt crews, I notice the work crews are segregated, white in the foreground at the cut (soldiers?), black in the right background, maybe, making a borrow pit? Somewhere I read a substantial number of the Union RR bridge builders were freedmen, (70% ??). The engine wreckage as an example visited on both sides would be interesting to wrap into the article on csa railroad operations, impact on turnaround times, X hours in the shop for every Y hours in operation ... gotta be degraded if you loose an engine or two right before tactical operations, need to bring food up, redistribute ammunition, run troop trains forward, rotate locomotives to the roundhouse to punch the tubes so the boilers don't explode (I think the Union lost a locomotive in this August timeframe from a boiler explosion) ... cavalry raids on both sides were sort of like strategic bombing at Normandy, well ... just it makes no difference if you have the assets, but cannot bring them to bear ... Thanks for finding some really evocative/provocative photos for WP use ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

the general and the commandant

General Samuel Cooper and Commandant Lloyd Beall should be restored to the military listing.

The US Department of Defense says that [“Military Service”] is “a branch of the Armed Forces … established by act of Congress, in which persons are appointed, enlisted, or inducted for military service … within a military or executive department.” The Military Services are: the US Army, the US Navy, … the US Marine Corps .... So, “Military” does not by definition exclude those without battlefield experience.

Nor should foreign birth in New York or Rhode Island effect their status on this list, since by Article II, section 7 of the [“Confederate Constitution”], foreign born prior to December, 1861 does not restrict election even to the presidency. Cooper in particular was both a professional and personal intimate of both Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, before and during the War.

Is there a 19th Century usage I am missing? This was a civil war; countrymen fought those once friends in the nation, from their home states near and far, and even within their own families. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)