Talk:American Civil War

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Two rules for editing any article on the Civil War: the content of the article will be, factual and well written; and 2) there will be absolutely NO DISRESPECT given to any soldier who fought for either the Union or the Confederacy. Karajou 23:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)


Isn't it sad that this is our featured article, yet it has a grammatical mistake on the front page? "It was worst war ever." This is embarassing. --Jaden13 17:42, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Completely agree. The statement opinionated (which violates the 5th conservapedia commandment) and quite frankly is very amateur. I suggest changing it to something more informative such as "it was the bloodiest war in United States history" or something along those lines. AppleCyder 20:15, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Alternate Names for Civil War

According to a friend of mine in Atlanta, the older generation is still known to refer to it as "The Late Great Unpleasantness" :-D Niwrad 19:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

If you can find a resource supporting that, feel free to add it. GodlessLiberal 19:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
That's why it's here in the Talk page; I don't have a source other than the friend in question. Just thought it might be worth a chuckle. Niwrad 20:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I see. I looked it up on google and found a few sites that actually use the phrase. Think it's worth mentioning? GodlessLiberal 20:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Civil war is not the most accurate term, since a civil war is (according to a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country. The American "Civil War" was a war between the U.S. and a group of states who believed themselves to be of another country. Thus the term civil war really depends on if you consider the Confederacy to be part of the U.S. or not. ColinRtalk 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Have to disagree with you there. Lincoln himself used the term "civil war" before the war even started, in his first innaugural address in 1861. He knew exactly what it was, and what was coming. The term was used throuhout the war and after the war; it was used extensively by participents on both sides, and quite frankly it would be better to listen to them first, then a bunch of revisionist historians today. Karajou 15:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
My great grandpappy used to say "there weren't nothin' civil about that war" Miles 18:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The commonly used alternative "The War Between The States" might be more appropriate since as stated above, a "Civil War" is by definition a conflict between two factions of the same country, and the CSA was legally and by any other measure a separate country upon its "secession" from the union, a term even Lincoln would use. He believed that secession was wrong and illegal, but of course acknowledged that it DID happen, which incidentally is the reason why we use the term "reconstruction". What had been dismatled and divided into two countries had to be recombined into one.

the accurate term, which was officially used by the USA, is the "War of the Rebellion." Thus the great compilation of war documents published by the War Department in Washington is called the "War of the Rebellion" and it remains the #1 primary source. As a gesture of reconciliation the US stopped using it after southerners proved patriotic in the next war (1898). The term "war of northern aggression" is used tongue in cheek, as a sort of joke when southerners talked to Yankees, and is not a serious name. The term "War between the states" was popular in the South before about 1970, but is increasingly less common. RJJensen 14:03, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Going to remake this article

My layout to expand this article will be based around the following subheading plan:

  • Intro paragraph
  • Prelude to war
    • Description of North prior to 1850
    • Description of South prior to 1850
    • Slavery
    • Political machinations and compromises
    • Dred Scott decision
    • John Brown
    • 1860 Presidential campaign
  • 1861
    • Secession of the Southern states
    • Ft Sumter, etc for 1861
  • same for 1862,63,64,65...detailing battles and other events for each year of the war.
  • Lincoln's death
  • Reconstruction
  • Innovations during the war; detailing weapons, the Hunley, etc.
  • Foreign affairs; the Trent affair, the use of cotton as a bargaining tool, the South's attempts at foreign recognition, etc.
  • Use of blacks as troops
  • Deaths during the war
  • Effects of the war

The article will include detailed maps and photos where needed. Karajou 03:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Sounds excellent. I had been considering making an article about the Kansas-Missouri border skirmishes, but that seems to be covered under what you have planned. I look forward to seeing the end product. MountainDew 03:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, anyone can jump in and contribute, as long as this basic plan is followed. I'm going to start by soon as some college essays are typed and finished. I hate college essays! Karajou 03:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Insult of a flag.

Please, if a C.S.A. flag is going to be put up, at least put up the correct flag, or at least a properly shaped battle flag. ColinRtalk 04:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

The flag I used was the CSA naval jack, which is the most familiar flag to readers, plus the Union flag then in use. The arrangement of the flags in this maner I did deliberately after a similar arrangement which was part of the standard used for the Gettysburg 50th Anniversary Reunion of both Union and Confederate soldiers in Gettysburg, PA, 1913. I would use the standard itself if I can get a good picture of it. Karajou 11:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
The flag/table that is here in this article can also be used for every article on the Civil War in Conservapedia as a tie-in. If the table was used for Gettysburg, we'd alter it to include the leading commanders, number of men engaged, casuaties, etc. Karajou 11:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Found the logo in question, from Time-Life Books in their Civil War series, and this one illustrated the cover to a program on the Battle of Gettysburg 1938 Reunion (not 1913). I made my own version of it, and so far I think it looks good. What say you? Karajou 16:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
That's still not the C.S.A. flag. That's a misshapen battle flag (which was a square flag). If the third National flag of the C.S.A. was used, I think it would be much more appropriate. ColinRtalk 01:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
It is not a mis-shapen battle flag; it was the rectangular design crafted for use as a naval jack onboard CSA warships. This is attested from period paintings, photographs, the files from the Official Records, and other sources. Karajou 10:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Touché ;) I would still prefer the third National flag be used, as it was the official flag of the C.S.A., but that's just my feelings. ColinRtalk 12:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
This does not mean that the CSA flag will not be displayed here, or in an article about the Confederate States. If you'll look in Wikipedia at any Navy warship, you'll see a table to the right, and in the table is an image file of the Navy jack. The way I see this subject progressing, I intend to have such a table in every Civil War article here, and I think that a flag image is warranted in a similar manner, but current for the year in question (for example, Gettysburg should display the CSA flag used for 1863). I'll have to figure out how to include it in the table, but that will come later. Karajou 14:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Works for me. Thanks. ColinRtalk 14:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm having a problam doing it, but if possible, can you upload all CSA flags to a separate file page? Karajou 14:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I have the images ready, as soon as file uploading is fixed I'll take care of uploading all the flags. ColinRtalk 14:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Prelude to war subheading

So far I'm working on what you see here. In the heading titled "political machinations" I would like to have more than just the Missouri Compromise. Such would include the Compromise of 1850, Kansas/Nebraska act, and so forth. Karajou 12:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Southern Titles

The article is titled "American Civil War" and as such I'm not going to allow the intro paragraph to be overburdened by additional names. But there are Southern titles for this war, and I've included them in a separate subheading, including why the name "civil war" is more accurate. The article as a whole will remain neutral.

As far as battles are concerned, they will be called by both names where practical. First Bull Run will also have First Manassas side-by-side in a "North/South" fashion when that info is presented, and so on for any other battle where that battle is known by both names. Karajou 13:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Deadliest war

The article states the Civil War was "[t]he deadliest war ever fought in American history...". Does the term "American history" confine the observation to American civil wars? If so there really only has been one that I am aware of (so it's not much of a comparison). Also, I understand that the US had some involvement in the First and Second World Wars for example. I think about 50 million died in the Second World War. Was that war part of American history? In which case it was more deadly than the Civil War. Or does the word "deadliest" only apply to American casualties? --Horace 21:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

The term "deadliest" was a replacement by Myk over a word I had used: "worst". As to what you're implying, the Civil War was THE worst war we had fought, for two reasons: 1) in terms of casualty versus population percentage it was higher than any other war we fought in, and in terms of battle deaths there were more men lost in the Civil War than in every other war that we had fought in combined, leaving out WWII. And 2), there is no war that is worse than a civil war, because the very nature of the war tears apart the country, which is what nearly happened back in the 1860's. Karajou 23:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Worst might also imply that it was a war in which we fought poorly in, can it not? I would use deadliest, even if it is a slightly non-encyclopaedic word, because of the reasons stated above. GofG ||| Talk 07:14, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Bleeding Kansas

Very minor point, but I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with the claim that "Bleeding Kansas" culminated with the Lawrence raid/Brown massacre, because there were a few other events after 1856, such as the Marais Des Cygnes massacre of 1858. MountainDew 00:23, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It's part of the "Bleeding Kansas" episode, which can be briefly addressed fact, writeups of battles and events are briefly listed here. What I want to do is complete this, and make it as large as possible, then use the article as a template for every event listed for the Civil War (I just added the table to the Battle of Gettysburg). What I need for this article is several (free domain) USA maps that chronicle the changes in the country from 1850-1861, and several strategic battle maps that show the movements of armies across the country; the blockade; a detailed look at the battles within the Virginia area. Other pics an be added later as needed. Karajou 00:35, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I'll see what I can find for that, although I have had problems uploading images on this site. MountainDew 00:36, 26 March 2007 (EDT)


This article has a strange lack of citations. Only one section, as far as I can see, has any citations at all, and yet in the introduction paragraph itself there are quite a few basic facts (like all the things that came out of the factories at "near break neck speed", a phrase I'm not particularly happy with in an encyclopedia). I would add some, or at least add {{fact}} a bit, but it is protected. Why is this article protected? GofG ||| Talk 07:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It is protected because I am working on it. And there are citations, in parenthesis, from the books I am continuing to use, one of which includes the phrase "break-neck speed". Karajou 08:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

As it stands

At this time, "Lincoln" is not finished, and "Slavery", "1860 Elections" plus the two at the bottom are not started. I want to get these finished, and possibly more detail for the remaining, before I get into the war years. Karajou 13:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Now on to the 1860 election, then the secession, then the war. Everything before is pretty much done. Karajou 00:22, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

WOW! A factual, important, relevant, non-biased article on Conservapedia! Karajou, this is very VERY well done.-AmesGyo! 17:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Split the article

Due to the size of it, I am concentrating this article to include detail on conditions in the country up until the surrender of Ft. Sumter. Each subsequent article will be similarly detailed, and possibly large in byte size as well, hence the split. Karajou 17:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Article is done

At this time, the first part to the subject of the Civil War is finished. The remainder is broken off by year, and I've already got 1861 started. I may come back and tweak this one some more, but that is another hour...or two. Karajou 22:01, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, maybe not in my little tinkering. I thought additional detail was needed on slavery, Bleeding Kansas, and Ft Sumter. Just to make it better. Karajou 16:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Need Pics!

Here's what I need for pics...and they have to be photographs taken during that time period:

  • A youthful-looking Frederick Douglas
  • John Brown as he looked in 1859
  • Lincoln's first inauguration
  • The ruins of Fort Sumter, preferably the one showing the newly-raised Confederate flag in 1861.

Plus a map from that time which specifically states Confederate States of America. If period paintings are used, they must be painted before 1860, and show life in the North, and life in the South. Karajou 23:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Unlocked the article

The structure is how I want it, separated into different articles by year. For those that want to further refine this one, follow this guidline:

  • Read it over first before you add want to place what you have in the proper context.
  • Don't just add and leave a single line; it may not flow with the rest of the paragraph. Write and re-write until it all looks good. If there's missing info that is truly needed for this article, again write in a professional manner and make the whole article look better.
  • Don't place anything belonging to, say "1862" here; I have separate articles by year for the Civil War.
  • Use established historical works on the Civil War as sources. Primary sources are, in order:
    • The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion.
    • The personal memoirs, diaries, and letters of the participents.
    • Period newspapers.
    • Historical works by authors who have interviewed the actual people involved in the conflict.
  • Secondary sources include all other works by established, historical authors who have used the above as source material.
  • Use period photographs as much as possible; try not to use paintings/sketches of incidents unless you feel it's necessary. As for maps of the battles, try to use the atlas supplement to the Official Records, as it was published before 1890 and used actual participents in its creation. Other, official government maps can be used as well.

Karajou 15:29, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Statistics concerning casualties

I'm going to have, on the last article of this subject, a series of statistics concerning the Civil War vs other wars. Karajou 12:17, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Article unprotected

This entry has been unprotected, but please abide by the guidelines discussed above.--Aschlafly 19:44, 27 October 2007 (EDT)