Parthian shot

Post Your Thoughts

Teach Science As Science And Philosophy As Philosophy

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in the notion that the existence of god/the mystical creation of life can be pursued as a scientific discipline, or something that could be taught as such a discipline. They most fundamental requirement of Christianity is faith, a belief in God and submission.

To pursue creationism or ID as a science or near-science is to throw aside faith in the search for logical underpinnings to the development of life. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

They certainly contradict each other, because they are both religions. Anything anyone holds as the supreme intelligence of the universe becomes his God. With the atheist, or humanist (both evolutionists) it's the mind of man. The humanist manifesto admits as much. Punch it up on your computer, and read it and see for yourself. Doesn't it speak volumes that the atheistic experience in Communism used terms such as:"Utopia" (perfection), and Workers "paradise" (Eden)? Now, why should the religion of the Atheist (evolution) be taught in public school, and the religion of Christianity, which 80% of Americans prefer, be excluded? Evolution belief requires more faith than Christianity. From nothing to single cell, from single to reproducing multiple, invertibrate to vertibrate, sea creature to land, or air, or vice-versa, etc,etc,etc. No Proof. All by faith.

I'm another editor: Creationism or intelligent design should not be taught in a science class. They are not science. It is an utterly stupid question, and one to deflect the issue of whether they should be taught at all, to even ask if they should be taught in a science class. It's as stupid as to ask if sex education should be taught in a math class. The real issue is should evolution be taught in a science class. The answer can only be no, as evolution isn't science either. It's make believe.

For example, if we have survival of the fittest, then there would only be one specie left. This would have to be a plant, because all animals eat plants, and so to have an animal left would mean at plant would have to be left, and that means two species. Furthermore, it would not only have to be one specie of plant left, but if it's truly survival of the species, only one individual plant.

Teach Them Everything

If we are to teach children about origins of all things and include Judeo-Christian Creationism as an alternative then we should have other beliefs as alternatives too. We can't teach every origin theory, myth, belief, etc. but we can teach a few. Perhaps a few that are culturally or geographically relevant. A combination of teaching evolution, creationism, Greco-Roman origin myths, and Native American myths would give a broader understanding than just evolution.

Even so, I go to high school and I find the teaching of evolution in biology and anthropology classes to be incorrect in many things. You think that if the government decides to teach something they would teach it correctly. The explanation of natural selection was atrocious. --Kirby 23:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know how funny it is that you refer to creationism as 'creationism' and roman beliefs as 'myths'? just two stories, both as unbelievable/believable as each other.

yes...

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school. You are stupid...they are taught as philosophy and history just like all religion should be, not as scientific fact.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evololution than any other theory or belief.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --Cranky Joe 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?Niwrad 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--Roopilots6 18:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Misconceptions

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

Gravity is not a theory, gravity is a phenomenon.Jaques 08:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually you are incorrect. A phenomenon is something that can be seen, literally. What you observe when something falls is not gravity but the effect of gravity on an object. There is a difference. Gravity is a scientific theory.--TimS 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Actully the fall is the phenomenon called gravity. The theory that seeks to explain the cause of the fall is a theory OF gravity. There is no single theory of gravity, there are many different theories that seek to explain the phenomenon of gravity. A theory of gravity is not called gravity, it's given name such as General Theory of Relativity. Jaques 11:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Jaques, I am afraid you are incorrect again. The fall is the phenomenon but it is not gravity. It is the observed effect of gravity, not gravity itself. Falling is not gravity but the force of the attraction is gravity. You can have an object sitting on a plane and it will be affected by gravity however it would not be the same phenomenon that you are claiming is gravity, hence the reason why gravity is not a phenomenon. The theory of gravity tries to explain the force of gravity's interactions of objects within space. The General theory of Relativity seeks to explain special relativity with the added effect of gravitation on the shape of space and the flow of time, not actually trying to explain the force. The two theories are different due to the scopes of what each is trying to explain. Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons. I hope this clears everything up.--TimS 12:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

no...

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

3. Creationism is essentially arguing that because the natural world can't be explained 100%, therefore an old man with a gray beard really high in the sky must have waved his magic wand are created the world a few days.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

REPLY

Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? PhilipB 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

I hate to break this to you, but just because a 5000 year old book says that God created the world, that doesn't make it true. Look at the evidence! There is no evidence against God...but there is evidence against the Bible.

"Reply" What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.

Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

REPLY

The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

REPLY

You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --Ashens 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument: 1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

Falsifiability is important in science because if there's no test one can perform that could, in principle, show a hypothesis to be false, there's no conceivable observation that could support that hypothesis either. If creationism isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, and that's the end of it.

Cats giving birth to dogs would falsify evolution, not support it. As would one extant species of ape giving birth to another. Tsumetai 06:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent Design should not be taught in (public) schools. Intelligent design is part of (several) religions, and we have a separation of church and state. Saying that Intelligent Design is the "truth" and therefore should be taught is completely inaccurate due to the fact that religion is a BELIEF. Therefore, maybe YOU think it's truth, but I certainly don't. It all depends on your POV. Also, I don't really think we have a choice between religions, we only really have a choice between believing and not believing (as that is always a readily available option). If you were born into a Muslim family and brought up to believe that religion, would you not believe it as strongly as you believe Christianity (or w/e) today? sundevilfire

Hmmm.... Creationism has NO scientific basis what so ever, people merely assume it is true because we traditionally have. Evolution is taught because it is by far the most likely theory judging by what evidence we have. Evolution is, yes, a theory. The term theory in science describes a widely excepted and scientifically based ideathat has produced nearly irrifutable amounts of evidence. Creationism is not a theory or even a hypothesis, but a baseless guess. If evolution was not well established would a respectable magazine such as Science News have a cover asking "Was Darwin Wrong," and an article titled by Half a page filled with the word NO?

why not?

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to learn about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

We all seem so worried about not offending those who don't believe in God or creationism, but nobody stops to think (or care) about offending those who do. I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true, but it's forced upon me in my AP Biology class. And if I speak out against it, the teacher basically tells me to be quiet and learn it anyways. --steponme1623 12:39, 16 March 2007

Just because your faith says that something is not true does not make it so. Many people in the middle ages believed that the earth was the center of the universe since God created it in the bible. We now know this to not be true.--TimS 12:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

"I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true" All I can say is, wow. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. How can you come to any sort of logical or reasoned conclusion that it's not true if you don't want to learn about it? That would be like me saying "I won't read Harry Potter books because I know I don't like them". Human 19:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Taught, perhaps, but not as science

Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a philosophy, some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. Thatguy 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. Smurge 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.

Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? Fpiaco 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY - The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed and there is a great amount of this evidence. Your claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings. A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay.--Tchonody 22:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Science" is irrelevant.

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.

I hope you're joking. That's all I have to say. --ALFa 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Reply: In Science Class I sure hope science is relevant.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --NVConservative 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --ALFa 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Reply: Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?

Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --NVConservative 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Prove it. --Realitycheck 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --NVConservative 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't think so.

The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --ALFa 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That's not an axiom - you're using the term wrong. An axiom is a rule or statement. Are you saying the truth of the bible is a postulate? Again, we get back to the same two problems in this debate, which you clearly don't understand. 1) Biblical truth is an unfalsifiable conclusion because the premise, that God spoke through people, is unfalsifiable. 2) Because of this, you must use circular logic to make your conclusion sound, and that's a logical fallacy. Therefore, this debate is silly. How can you claim that your conclusion should be taught as science when it doesn't even meet the basic definition of science? - stubbstarbuck

Science is neutral toward Creationism.

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares only about testable explanations of natural phenomena. It does not care about untestable explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They also learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught better than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and test creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of predictions about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

REPLY: I agree with this person more than anyone else... All I hear is the Bible can't be proven through the scientific method, yet the Bible has yet to be SCIENTIFICALLY disproven. "Faith" does not rely on "science". There is no way to disprove that a God exists, and there is also no way to disprove that evolution is God's work.

Evolution in no way conflicts with creationism. Some ill-informed creationists believe untrue facts of evolutionism, such as the "monkeys made humans" belief. But, some scientists use science as a valid fight against creationism, then say that creationism is in no way scientific. I will not the overused "circular logic" but instead call it hypocracy.

It is possible to be a Christian AND an evolutionist. Even Charles Darwin said so. So let's leave it at that. I believe in my "faith" in God. I also acknowledge that science does exist and is necessary. I don't necessarily believe in all aspects of evolutionism, but I do believe in the premise of things adapting to their environments over time. I'm sure what I'm saying will have NO impact on anyone whatsoever. Beliefs are typically implanted and can never be changed. But, I will say that the entire fight of creationism disproves evolutionism (at its core) and vice versa is stupid. Plain and simple. Thanks. - ddmdandaman

Listen to Science, not religion.

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever. All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning. There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally: much of it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever. Go with the theory proven time and time again: evolution. There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it. What is this reason? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory. Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being more true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least equally true that the Second World War happened. Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.- [unsigned]

You are getting mixed up. Truth does not come in degrees, but likelihood does. It is equally true that WWII happend and that jesus exsisted because they are both undisputable fact. However, the theory of evolution is not. To those of us who beleive in the bible, no evidence can carry more weight than what the bible says and most of it carries less. --Ben _Talk 15:58, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

I broadly agree with this [edit: this is to unsigned, not Ben, who interrupted. Ben, first, learn some manners; your faith does not entitle you to be rude to nonbelievers or anybody else. The existence of Jesus is disputable, and in terms of your belief, perhaps the Bible is the end of it, but in terms of its contributions to a scientific discussion on how the universe came into being, the Bible is worthless - it is not scientific evidence of anything]. If I may make a pedantic point, one statement cannot be "more true" than another. A statement is either true or it is not - it's like saying that one circle is "more round" than another, or one corpse "more dead" than another. Another more basic point is that the theory of evolution has not been proven to be true. No scientific theory has been proven to be true. All we can say is that it is consistent with the evidence. As has been pointed out extensively elsewhere on these pages, scientific theories are falsifiable but not provable. Because creation theory is not falsifiable - we cannot test it, as it makes no predictions - it is not a scientific theory. Your main point about the Bible not being a reliable source of factual information about how the universe came to be here is quite right. There are some valuable things to be read in the Bible, but they are more to do with how we should behave - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", as I believe Jesus said, is one such thing - and if I were to publicly proclaim that to discover the nature of the universe, a bronze-age book is a better guide than looking at the evidence, then I would be glad if somebody were kind enough to tell me I'm being stupid. --Beanbag 15:40, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Let the Children Decide

I agree that the bible is not substitute for science as I sincerely doubt the bible could have invented the computer or many other wonderful things. Yes, we should teach creationism/intelligent design in schools but we should also teach the theory of evolution. I disagree that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't scientific. We should teach both theory's and any others of different faiths or cultures and let the children make up there own minds in the subject because if we try to force our own view upon them then they will most likely reject them entirely and refuse to even consder them as an option. This would be, I feel, the best corse of action.

Would we teach all religions' creation theory? Would you mind your children being taught the Hindu creation story? Not all religious parents are Christians, you know. Czolgolz 23:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY
By all accounts creationalism is scientific. There is much evidence to support the theory of intelligent design. From the DNA of mitochondria to the fossil record. I think it's possible to teach intelligent design for the same reason they teach evolution. Neither has been succesfully proven, yet evolution is shoved down our throats as absolute fact. P.S. i would like to hear the Hindu creation story. [unsigned]

By all accounts THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO LISTEN TO creationism is scientific ("creationalism" is not a real word). To any person with any knowledge of how science works, it isn't. You point out that neither creation nor evolution has been proven. A true scientific theory can NEVER be proven; it can only be disproven. This is one of the bases upon which science works. Evolution is not shoved down our throats as absolute fact - it is simply the best theory we have based upon the evidence. The moment we find, for example, a modern human skeleton among dinosaur fossils, the whole theory of evolution will be very seriously challenged. On the other hand, creationists don't look at the evidence, they read the Bible. This is why creationism is a part of theology, but not a part of science. There is no evidence at all to support ID theory. When a scientist is faced with a problem which he cannot explain, then if he is honest, he will say, "I don't know," rather than make conjectures about supernatural agents such as God. If he arrives at a theory, he will do everything he can think of to prove himself wrong - but not by making things up. --Beanbag 20:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Teach all theories

Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--Roopilots6 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Roopilots6, I believe you are misunderstanding science. Science does not prove things, it disproves things. The theory of gravity has not been proven. The theory of relativity has not been proven nor shall the theory of evolution be proven. The issue with intelligent design is that it is a philosophy and not a science. How do you test intelligent design? What are the mechanisms that the designer used to design life? The intelligent design movement does not ask these questions, all they state is that life is so complicated that it must have been designed, that is what the IC argument is about. This seems to be giving up on discovering how things work, with this mindset medicine would not have made the break through it has made in the past 50 years.--TimS 10:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

TimS, No I haven't misunderstood. Teach all theories. The problem is that the philosophy of evolution isn't science either. Scientists that use evolutionary philosophy mainly do so because they will be more likely to receive funding for their work. The belief system of theoretical doctrines requires great faith from its believers. This is the very definition of religion. Neither evolution, intelligent design, or the theory of gravity have yet to be proven. Evolutionary theory has corrupted true science into mere religion. As a religion, it should only be included into curiculums alongside others such as intelligent design theory. If you want to test intelligent design then follow the science that isn't being corrupted by the evolutionary theory. You see, I do know science, and I do know religion. If you want to use them together then don't cry foul when others merely want to follow different evidence.--Roopilots6 13:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Roo, any experiment done by a biological scientist in regards to evolution will have one of three results.

1. It can strengthen current evolutionary theory
2. It can force current evolutionary theory to adjust and incorporate
3. It can disprove evolutionary theory

Using the math skills employed to determine the comparative liberalness of wikipedia, I can ascertain that there is a 33% chance that with any experiment, evolution can be disproven. As much as you say evolution is a religion, evolution is falsifiable and has predictive abilities. ID does not. Myk 13:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Roopilots6, once again you have shown that you truly do not understand science. What you may have learned in a high school science class does not scratch the surface of what constitutes science and what constitute philosophy. As Myk pointed out above the theory of evolution is a science because it meets the criteria of what is science. ID does not meet this criteria as of yet. The whole conspiracy theory about not receiving funding because you take a anti evolution stance is ridiculous, there is nothing that states you must indicate if you are for or against evolution when writing for a grant. Some institutions even support antagonistic evolution research funding due to the research further strengthening the theory. Why your statement about the faith needed to believe in evolution is false can be summed up that the empirical evidence out weighs the antagonistic evidence by such a staggering amount that it would require no faith at all. However, since ID does not give a mechanism for how things happen, nor does it state why things happen, it relies on faith for a person to believe that all living things were the product of the designs of some intelligence, that we can not see nor know how it influenced our designing. This my friend is theology not science. When ID can give an explanation of the mechanism of how this intelligence was able to design all of the diversity of living creatures on this planet then it could be considered science. Evolution is as much of a religion as gravity.--TimS 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

You miss the point. The theory of evolution hasn't met the criteria anymore then ID. Both are unfalsifiable. All of the smug assumptions that have created the bloated empirical evidence are meaningless since it still hasn't proven the theory of evolution to this very date. What you don't get is that this is what lends it to criticism. That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact. Before accusing others of conspiracies you ought not to be pushing your own. That flaw comes from every time you embrace the philosophy of Evolutionary theory. This is why evolutionist always make personal attacks when they've been called out since they know it is a merely a theory that will never be proven. It is theology cloaked with its priestly scientists endeavoring in a never ending quest to worship the creature and not its CREATOR. When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science. This was my whole point that neither has of yet shown the MECHANISM so that both should be considered within the realm of scientific inquiry. Even though I know the secular Humanist will never accept that.--Roopilots6 10:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Roopilots6, I guess you do not understand evolution. Research it some more. It has met and has passed the criteria for being a science and theory. Evolution is falsifiable, finding human bones lower in the earth's strata than dinosaurs would falsify evolution. Bacteria and viruses not adapting to antibodies would disprove evolution. Lack of mutations in the genome would disprove evolution. Your understanding of theory and science seems a bit flawed, theories are never proven but disproved. Science never proves anything but disproves much. Of course it leads to criticism, science is about digging and developing the understanding of a topic. Critical ideas are what is needed to be able to provide objective evidence to support the science. If there was no criticism then the science would be one sided and therefore biased. As for your statement about the mechanism it has been shown, mutation of genetic material. It is ID that says that the mutation is directed and therefore the burden of proof of what directs the mutation falls on ID. Evolution says it is just mutation and nothing else, because that is all that has been tested and observed. Please read up on what science is and about the theory of evolution before trying to be critical of it, your statements show a lack of understanding of both.--TimS 10:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

TimS, I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you. I have no doubt that you have been selectively educated in how to view your world in exsclusively evolutionary ways. You've been taught that it is the only way that science can be used. Creationism/ID and Evolution are both UNFALSIFIABLE because they are the antithesis of each other. I do have a better understanding of both as apposed to your understanding of only one.--Roopilots6 18:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Roo, once again you show a lack of understanding. Evolution is falsifiable, some basic tests to falsify it are found in fossil records, dog breeding, and gene mutation not to mention the thousands of other tests that have been performed over the last 100 years by scientist who wanted to disprove the theory. ID acknowledges that a form of evolution takes place but can not provided the mechanism of how a designer could influence this form of evolution. William Dembski just posted today on his blog about directed evolution and how it is not Darwinian, thus supporting the fact that ID does rely on a form of evolution, however directed. Not until a mechanism is proposed can ID be considered a science, it is philosophical until it proposes something that can be tested. As of yet nothing has been produced that can be tested. That is the difference you seem to be missing about ID and ToE. I must that an attack on my education does not support your understanding of the theory of evolution, especially when the facts are clear about how the theory of evolution is falsifiable and how ID is not. As for being selectively educated, I would not disagree. Scientists tend to be educated by the majority opinion at that time, and currently the theory of evolution is held to be the most accurate theory for life diversity in the bioscientific disciplines. There is no dispute of this. Take a 400 series molecular genetics course and try to understand what is being presented without a clear understanding of evolution.--TimS 11:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

"I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you." Roo, you consider ID to be science. ID is not science. ID's claim is, essentially: "Life is really, really, complex. Because life is so complex, we are going to accept that we cannot understand the mechanism for its development, and so resort to christian dogma." If you think that is science, then you do not have a better understanding of what science is than most. "That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact." Please, list them. "When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science." Um...genetic modification? Have you ever wondered why people get new flu shots every year? Or why it's unwise to take antibiotics more than necessary? Also, if each species was independently designed, why do early human fetuses resemble those of pigs, rabbits, and other vertebrae?

Wrong, that isn't the claim of ID. If you don't know what the assumptions of evolution are, well you might want to learn more about the subject. Yes, by the simple rule of majority opinion, I would agree there would be no dispute. Science by mob rule, well you're welcome to that if you like it. Go ahead and keep repeating the mantra of Evolutionary theory is scientific fact while ID isn't, or the theory of evolution is falsifiable and ID isn't. Maybe people will believe it after repeating it enough times. What's the deal on directed evolution? The eugenicists believe they are helping in the process of evolution by making decisions about who can live and who will not. One of the great ideas spawned from the idea of natural selection of the survival of the fittest. The Nazis loved the eugenicists so that after 1945 the eugenists changed the name of the American Eugenics Society to the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1972. All of this from the book with the title: On The Origin of Species, By Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the struggle for Life, By Charles Darwin, M.A., Published in London: by John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859. Now of course that subtitle is usually left out on more recent publications, but I think it proves my point. Oh, directed evolution isn't ID either. Sounds more like natural selection to me.--Roopilots6 19:07, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Roo, I do suggest you read up on evolution. Your last paragraph is throwing up strawmen about evolution. Rumple was not far off about the claim of ID. Intelligent design states that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as evolution. It is a modern form of the teleological argument, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer though its primary proponents identify the designer as God. These proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life; however, intelligent design is not considered to be science by the scientific community because, as per a statement by The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. It is often described as a pseudoscience or junk science by scientists, as well as being proclaimed as such by the National Science Teachers Association.

Tell me Roo, how is ID falsifiable? I listed how evolution is falsifiable above, so please fill me in. As for the eugenics issue, well consider that the theory of evolution is based on random mutation, not the guided selective breeding that eugenics would support. So a supporter of eugenics would not be considered a supporter of evolution. Infact eugenics would fall more in line with ID since the evolution (microevolution, which ID claims is true) would be guided by the eugenicist. Perhaps, as I keep stating, you should educate yourself more on the topic of evolution before debating it.--TimS 13:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't

Don't teach creationism in school if you don't want to hear evolution in church :P AtheistKathryn 20:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Creationism is a cockamany story invented by religion. Religion has no place in schools and is a completley outmoded institution. It no longer serves a purpose and this debate should not have been raised. There is no evidence that would suggest that creationism is a viable alternative to evolution.

Already_there

Evolution is already taught in church on Monday thru Friday K-12. Oh, you don't mean the Humanist churches do you. So sorry.--Roopilots6 17:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Roo, I just do not understand this last comment. Are you implying that people should only attend church services to receive an education?--TimS 13:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

In the same way they would be taught evolution to become religionists. You got it down.--Roopilots6 11:06, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Tell me, should we not teach Pi as 3.14... but teach it as 3 since that is what is derived from the bible for its measurement? What about the ice cores with millions of years of climate data from the Antarctic? Should we ignore this information as well? After all the bible when taken literally only allows the earth to be 6k years old. Enough about these pointless arguments perhaps you should respond to my post above.--TimS 15:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Well yes it is pointless for me argue the point. Change Pi? I don't think so. Listen, there are plenty of sources that will give you a different perspective then evolutions. The science is there. Learn the alternatives and don't be entrenched in evolution because it's become more religion then science.--Roopilots6 20:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Roo, perhaps you should look into evolution a bit more. I have studied and taught cellular and molecular biology based classes for years now, and have yet to find an alternative to Evoultion that has the same amount of evidence and support from my peers. Nature has shown us things that evoultion predicts we would see as well as supports the basic claim of evolution, that organisms evolve over time with different stimuli. I have yet to find an alternative that would provide the same amount or better information than evolution at this time. Perhaps you could provide some samples that I could test?--TimS 08:59, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Tims, if survival of the fittest is true, then perhaps you could answer one simple question: Why isn't there just one specie left? Actually, another question: Why isn't there just one individual of one specie left? Earl100.

It would seem TimS has wandered off to a more interesting corner of the net, Earl, but if you want an answer to that rather ridiculous question, I can offer you another question: if there were only one individual member of one species left, what would it eat? Presumably it would be able to fly, or else it would never be able to eat all the insects and birds, and it would be able to swim to very great depths, so as to consume all the life that lives in the oceans. It would be swift and strong in order to outrun and kill every other land creature, and it would have be very agile and nimble so as to reach the less accessible places where life is to be found. It would have to be immune to every poison produced by other animals and plants. In order to consume all other living things, it would have evolved to live in all environments - from tropical deserts and swamps, to temperate areas, alpine areas, and of course it would be at home at the ice caps. Perhaps you would like to submit a drawing of what you think this creature might look like - I have a powerful imagination, but I can't conceive of such a creature (although humans are the nearest thing to it, and the rate at which we are wiping out other species suggests that it may just be a matter of time...). Or perhaps you might prefer to think before asking questions about a subject you clearly don't understand? Look at life on earth. On the African plains, lions kill and eat zebra, but they don't wipe out whole herds in one go - as apparently they instinctively know that if they leave the fitter zebra, they'll have something left to eat next time they go hunting. The survival of any one species depends on the survival of other species. I know that this idea doesn't conform to the conservative notion of self-interestedness, but reality seldom does. --Beanbag 13:05, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

QM is an Object Lession in Science

If you want to really understand the way that science works, look at the history of Quantum Mechanics. What starts out to be a nice little idea (namely that the world at the micro level is discrete rather than continuous), has had huge ramifications and has accumulated an enormous body of results, mainly becsuse (a) no-one really understood the philosophical underpinnings of the theory, and (b) no-one actually believed its predictions. Scientists have subjected this theory to all sorts of tests, to try to find the flaws in the logic, the holes in the theory, in order to understand what is basically going on - mainly because they could not believe their own predictions. Einstein concocted the famous EPR experiment in order to demonstrate what he believed to be the inconsistencies inherent in the theory - this was his attempt to demonstrate that 'God does not play dice' with the universe. The experiment, however, confirmed, rather than falsified the theory. However, we should note that this did not mean that scientists stopped testing the theory. The fact that its results are so bizarre, has led scientists to throw test after test at it in order to find the limits to the theory.

Quantum Mechanics is merely a model of the world: it has (a) an interesting idea, (b) a mathematical framework which is derived from that idea, which has both predictive and explanatory power, which produce (c) testable hypotheses which (d) have been tested to destruction. One day, someone will come up with an challenge that QM can't answer, and we will know the limits of the model. That will then allow us to formulate improvements to the model, or reject it in favour of a better model. That is the purpose of all the experiments.

That is the way that science works. If you are in favour of teaching science in schools, then you need to include in the syllabus those things which use this scientific method. If you think science is a waste of time, then you need to find away of accounting for why science has been successful in underpinning the technological advances of the last 200 years (such as the computer on which you are now reading this). Anything that is taught in science lessons, must, de facto, be science.

Creationism is an idea, but has no mathematical or theoretical framework which can yield testable hypotheses. Creationism invokes a creator and a creation point, and puts the action in the past. Unless you are claiming that the creator is still creating, then we cannot test whether the hypothesis is true. Without an ability to test, it is not science.

Evolution on the other hand, is science. You may not agree with it, but evolutionary theory does not just claim that things got this way in the past, but that they are happening here and now. That means that the theory is testable. In addition, evolution has a genetic mechanism which has the potential for explaining how evolution works at the molecular level. Evolution is still a young science, and therefore it is still itself very much evolving and changing. Currently, for example there are indications that there are some genetic mechanisms which allow 'learned' behaviour to be passed on to offspring via meta-tagging of the DNA code. This does not invalidate the central tenet of evolution, it merely modifies the theory to take account of new information, so that it better models the world we observe.

How has creationist theory changed as a result of any observation?

--CatWatcher 13:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow, ignorance is truely bliss. It is evident that you have never met an ID scientist or even read how it is applied in science. Of course not. You'd never even consider doing so. I can read many of your points and substitute Evolutionary Theory for Creationism/ID. So you have proven how people see the problem when only one and not both being taught. You live in a world where many, if not most, see the evidence of a Creator every where. People are still free to think openly. The Theory of Evolution is only one way. Mostly embraced by the religion of secular Humanism. So until you get the totalitarian society where you can tell everyone how to think, we'll choose that path ourselves. Let that be a lesson. --Roopilots6 11:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

CatWatcher, that was very well put. I must add one thing that I thought up some time ago, since you mention "meta-tagging" of the DNA code... I am waiting for someone to find a strand or section of DNA, any DNA, that has been properly commented. You know, intelligently designed code. And believe me, whatever my thoughts may be on this tempest in a teapot, if we observed such a thing there would be some big headlines in the science journals! Human 19:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The big picture

The question raises bigger questions:

1. What should the scope of public education be?
2. Should children be taught how to do science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
   • During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See Eugenics.)
3. Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
   • Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
   • Is belief in the Anthropogenic global warming "scientific" or "religious"?
4. What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
   • Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
5. Should children be taught to think for themselves?
   • See Values clarification - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
   • Should children be taught to rebel against authority?
   • Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?

I don't think we can answer the instant question without giving some attention to the bigger questions. It's all related. --Ed Poor 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Be careful what you wish for

In England the Biblical creation account is taught to nearly all children in Religious Education lessons, but in order for to be broadly acceptable it is accompanied by the creation accounts of many other religions, thus reducing it to just another story. Similarly, there is a requirement for state schools to provide daily collective worship but once again the desire for it to be broadly acceptable often leads to it being diluted to a bland "thought for the day" that is scarcely recognisable as worship. Some science curricula even "teach the controversy", but is taught as a controversy of the 19th Century rather than the 21st. Putting creationism/ID in a science curriculum in the the teeth of opposition from the people who will be asked to teach it is, regardless of what you think of its truth, unlikely to lead to it being taught in a way that its proponents would like. --Jalapeno 14:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm cool with that. Flippin 14:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

YES and NO

Creationism and Intelligent design should be taught in public schools, but Creationism should not be taught "as a scientific alternative". That would confuse religious faith with science.

I suppose the question was framed that way on purpose, since liberals make the following argument:

1. Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism
2. Creationism is religion
3. Religion is not science

Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

ID proponents generally disagree with proposition #1, while tending to agree with proposition #2 and #3. So for ID proponents, this is not a sound argument.

Actually, ID is not a form of Creationism. It is an argument that the theory of evolution has so little material support that a supernatural cause must be considered. Thus ID straddles the bounds between science itself and the philosophy of science. It gets into the philosophical issues of methodology and epistemology. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:29, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

The Civil War 1861 - 1865
Begun	April 12, 1861
Ended	April 9, 1865
Casualties	970,000
Total dead	620,000
United States of America
President	Abraham Lincoln
Secretary of War	Simon Cameron, Edwin M. Stanton
Secretary of the Navy	Gideon Welles
Secretary of State	William Seward
Confederate States of America
President	Jefferson Davis
Secretary of War	Leroy Pope Walker, Judah P. Benjamin, George W. Randolph, James Seddon, John C. Breckinridge
Secretary of the Navy	Stephan Mallory
Secretary of State	Robert Toombs, Robert M.T. Hunter, Judah P. Benjamin

The first year of the American Civil War began with green troops on both sides expecting easy victories and a quick end of the war; many young men enlisted with romantic dreams of glory. 1862 had barely begun when those dreams would be forever shattered by the carnage of a fierce battle at a site in Tennessee whose name meant "peace", and would barely end after the single bloodiest day in American history.

The recalcitrant general

Major General George B. McClellan, United States Army.

By the time winter fell in 1861, Major General George B. McClellan had taken a demoralized force around Washington and transformed it into the superbly trained and equipped Army of the Potomac, numbering some 100,000 men. But by the first week of January 1862, it was becoming clearer that for all of McClellan's acts of creating a superior army, there was little, if any, immediate intent to use the army for what it was created to do. At a cabinet meeting with several of McClellan's division commanders present (McClellan was ill with possible typhus for much of January), Lincoln hinted that "if General McClellan does not want to use the Army, I would like to borrow it, provided I could see how it could be made to do something." In the west, Generals Don Carlos Buell in Kentucky, and Henry Halleck in Missouri also didn't make too many moves; although it was winter, Lincoln still expected them to make some sort of advance against the enemy. "Delay is ruining us," he said to them by wire, "and it is indispensable for me to have something definite." (TL 5, pp. 62-68)

While McClellan was laid up ill, Secretary of War Simon Cameron was on his way out: he had presided over a department involved in corruption and favoritism at the top, and soldiers getting bad uniforms, bad guns, and bad meat at the bottom. Added to that was the fact McClellan, for all intents and purposes, was unwilling to bring the fight to the enemy. Stepping into Cameron's place was a bombastic bundle of energy, Edwin McMasters Stanton, who would have Brigadier General Charles Stone arrested on his first day at work for the debacle at Ball's Bluff, and before January was out he made it clear that the corruption was over with, and McClellan would use the chain of command like any common soldier; the back door henceforth was closed. "The champagne and oysters on the Potomac must be stopped," he roared. "I will force this man McClellan to fight." (TL 5, pp. 70-71)

The arrest of Stone only made McClellan more cautious, instead of Stanton's hope that it would spur the general into action. His lack of fighting spirit would cause Lincoln to remark "McClellan is a great engineer, but he has a special talent for a stationary engine" (TL 8, pg 23).

Strange-looking warships

On May 8, 1861, Confederate Navy Secretary Stephan Mallory submitted his plans for building ironclads to the Committee on Naval Affairs, stating it would be costly, but the advantages of the Union Navy being overwhelmed by the sheer power implied in ironclads would be worth the price. By the end of the month the plans were approved, and the first ship selected for refitting was the salvaged hulk of USS Merrimac, scuttled the previous month when the Union abandoned Norfolk. She was placed in dry dock, and over the next several months the hull was razed to the gun deck, the engine overhauled, and heavy-timber casemate was built over the hull and and a dozens guns, then roofed over with sheet iron four inches thick. As a final weapon, a cast iron ram weighing 1,500 pounds was fitted to the bow (TL 3, pp. 48-49). The Confederacy would christen her CSS Virginia.

At about the same time the Merrimac was being overhauled, a naval committee was convened in Washington in August 1861, with Union Navy Secretary Gideon Welles presiding, and the discussion was also about ironclads. Of seventeen submitted plans, two were accepted, but without much enthusiasm for either: a large, sea-going broadside frigate named New Ironsides, and a smaller gunboat named Galena, designed by Cornelius Bushnell of New Haven, Connecticut (TL 3, pg. 51).

That same night Bushnell had taken his plans for Galena to a friend named John Ericsson, a Swedish inventor and engineer, who told him the plans were sound. Ericsson then went to a cupboard and pulled a model of his own and showed it to Bushnell, a strange-looking flat vessel with a single, two-gun turret. Convinced of this vessel's superiority, Bushnell took Ericsson before the board, who bickered back and forth until President Lincoln looked it over. "All I have to say'" he said' "is what the girl said when she put her foot in the stocking: 'It strikes me there's something in it!'" After a detailed explanation of his ship's qualities (and after some deception on Bushnell's part after the plans were initially rejected), Ericsson's plans were approved; in just over one hundred days, Ericsson's Monitor would be launched (TL 3, pp. 51-52).

Eastern Theater

Hampton Roads

the Monitor and the Merrimac at Hampton Roads, March 9, 1862.

The Battle of Hampton Roads began on March 8, when the former USS Merrimac steamed out of Norfolk as the ironclad CSS Virginia and made her heading straight for the Union warships on blockade duty. Virginia's first victim was the 24-gun sloop USS Cumberland, at anchor off Newport News, which she easily dispatched by ramming an immense hole in her side, while Cumberland's own guns fired shots that glanced off her iron skin. As water awashed over Cumberland's gun deck, Virginia turned about and headed for the nearby USS Congress, which was compelled to surrender within minutes after an escape attempt ended with Congress heeled over on a sandbar, her 50 guns useless. While Virginia's commander, Captain Franklin Buchanan, sent boats out to receive the ship's surrender, soldiers on shore opened fire, wounding Buchanan in the thigh; he would subsequently order red-hot shell fired into the Congress, setting her ablaze. After abandoning an attempt at sinking USS Minnesota, which had also run aground, Virginia retired for the night in Norfolk, intending to finish the work in the morning.

When morning arrived, Virginia steamed into the channel for the Minnesota, when lookouts on the ironclad peered through their glasses and saw the strange sight of a bizarre-looking ship steaming out from behind the big frigate. The Union ironclad USS Monitor had arrived during the night, and during the next four hours both ironclads battered each other to a stalemate, neither side gaining an advantage over the other, and both would retire from the contest, never to fight each other again. Virginia would be destroyed in May to prevent her from falling into Union hands when Norfolk was taken back, and Monitor would sink in a gale off Cape Hatteras in December. But the battle itself would have far-reaching effects world-wide, for it demonstrated that the day of the wooden warship was over.

The Peninsula Campaign

McClellan's Peninsula Campaign of 1862 (Hal Jespersen)

Following the neutralization of the threat the Virginia had caused, McClellan disembarked supplies and 100,000 troops at Fort Monroe on April 4 and began his march up the peninsula, with the aim of capturing the Confederate capitol of Richmond. Facing him are about 17,000 men under General Joseph E. Johnston, who continues to shift his forces for delaying tactics in Richmond’s defense. McClellan continues to move north, having an engagement at the Warwick River before occupying Yorktown and Falmouth by April 18, and helped in repulsing Confederates by a river flotilla which included USS Monitor (Bowman, pg. 93).

But he is slow in going. Part of the delay at Yorktown was McClellan’s wanting of a count of the enemy in the field; after hearing of an “endless march” of Confederates, he decided they must outnumber his own. “The Warwick River grows worse the more you look at it,” he wired Lincoln. “It seams clear that I shall have the whole force of the enemy on my hands, probably not less than 100,000 men, and possibly more.” He didn’t know that the “endless march” was staged by Confederate Major General John B. Magruder, who had just a few hundred men march in a circle, with a small view for the Federals convinced the men numbered in the thousands. McClellan’s delays only made Lincoln more impatient. “It is indispensable that you strike a blow,” he wired back to his general (TL 5, pp. 99-102). In the end, it was Johnston who withdrew from Yorktown, knowing he couldn’t compete with McClellan’s superior force, but also knowing McClellan’s way of fighting. “No one but McClellan could have hesitated to attack” he would say later (TL 5, pg. 107). McClellan would also be stymied by Confederate defenses at Centerville; on finally getting the nerve to figure out why such well-armed fortifications appeared not to have troops, he discovered that they were armed with “Quaker guns” – painted logs (TL 5, pg. 85).

By the first week of May there are serious clashes between Confederates and Federals. Some 1,500 men are lost in battles between Yorktown and Williamsburg; by the 15th, Johnston’s troops have moved back across the Chickahominy River as the Union forces move closer to Richmond, with more fighting breaking out at Drewry’s Bluff on the banks of the James; a naval force with the ironclads Monitor and Galena lends support, but is forced back from effective Confederate fire at Fort Darling (Bowman, pg. 98).

Jackson's Valley Campaign

In the meantime, troops that McClellan expected to take the war to the enemy in the Shenandoah Valley have problems of their own. An effort to take the valley (and with it the South’s breadbasket) by Union forces results in five battles from March to June 1862, covering more than 650 miles: Kernstown (March 23); Front Royal (May 23); Winchester (May 25); Cross Keys (June 8); and Port Republic (June 9). These brilliant actions, led by General Stonewall Jackson, pinned down the much larger Union forces, preventing them from coordinating with McClellan (Jackson’s campaign may have saved Richmond from capture), and posed a continual threat to Washington. Jackson and his First Division, the legendary “Foot Cavalry”, were catapulted to fame.

Fair Oaks / Seven Pines

The Union army had by May straddled both sides of the Chickahominy, and over 105,000 men were poised to threaten Richmond. Two corps were on the southern side of the river, and Johnston took advantage of their isolation from the other three by attacking them on May 31. According to the Confederate plan, Generals Magruder and A.P. Hill were to lead their divisions against the forces on the north side of the river to prevent them from reinforcing the remainder, which would be attacked by the main body led by Longstreet, who would converge on the enemy from three sides.

But the Union army had advance warning of the attack, courtesy of Professor Thaddeus Lowe and his Balloon Corps [1]. By deploying observation balloons at Gaines Farm and Mechanicsville But McClellan disbelieved Lowes' reports that Confederates were massing against his III Corps under Brigadier General Samuel P. Heintzelman's position, and thought the Confederate movements were a feint. Lowe sent an urgent message advising McClellan to send reinforcements to Heintzelman.

In beginning his attack, Longstreet went on the wrong road and moved south when he should have gone east; this caused a delay in the advance of his columns, preventing his getting into position until after 1 pm. By then, Major General D.H. Hill's forces had begun their attack alone against IV Corps under Brigadier General Erasmus D. Keyes, who withstood the attack until Hill was reinforced by Longstreet, and Keyes was driven back. Before IV Corps could be routed, Major General Edwin V. Sumner arrived with II Corps and stabilized the position. Both sides would fight fiercely with heavy casualties, but each made little headway against the other. It would resume the next day with the same results, and both sides would withdraw, each claiming victory. During the engagement General Johnston was seriously wounded, and he had to pass command over to Major General G.W. Smith. But the Federal advance on Richmond was halted.

The Seven Days

The three weeks following Seven Pines saw a reorganization of the Army of Northern Virginia and an improvement of their defensive lines, under the watchful eye of its new commander, General Robert E. Lee. Lee also awaited reinforcements from the Shenandoah Valley, as Stonewall Jackson had finished his campaign there and was moving south.

Not waiting for Lee to take the offensive again was McClellan, who had increased his cavalry patrols in anticipation of Jackson's arrival, and had moved his siege guns near Old Tavern, a small town to the north of where he planned his actual attack at Oak Grove.

Oak Grove

The Seven Days battles began with the Battle of Oak Grove on June 25, when McClellan advanced his lines with the objective of bringing Richmond within range of his siege guns. III Corps attacked across the headwaters of White Oak Swamp, but were beaten back by Major General Benjamin Huger's Confederates. Three miles to the rear, McClellan had telegraphed to call off the attack, but when he had arrived on the front lines he ordered another attack over the same ground. Union troops gained only 600 yards by sunset, at a cost of more than a thousand casualties for both sides.

Mechanicsville

The second battle took place on June 26. Having a plan involving an attack by Jackson's corps, Lee's plan went bad when Jackson didn't show up on time; A.P. Hill threw his division, reinforced by one of D.H. Hill's brigades, into a series of assaults against the Union V Corps led by Brigadier General Fitz John Porter, who was behind Beaver Dam Creek; all of Hill's assaults were driven back with heavy casualties. Jackson's divisions, having traversed many miles from the Shenandoah valley by foot and train, were four hours late and too exhausted to join in the battle; they would merely pitch camp for the night. However, Jackson's presence would force Porter to fall back by the next morning to Boatswain Creek, nearby Gaines' Mill.

Gaines' Mill

On June 27, Lee renewed his assault on Porter's corps, who had strengthened his defensive line throughout the night, and held fast through the afternoon, inflicting heavy casualties on the Confederates. At sunset, Lee mounted a coordinated assault that broke through Porter's defenses, resulting in defeat and withdrawal of the Federals toward the Chicahominy River. McClellan was forced to abandon his attempts at taking Richmond, and has thus begun his retreat toward the James.

Garnett's and Golding's Farms

While Gaines' Mill raged north of the Chickahominy, Magruder led a reconnaissance that developed into a minor attack against the Union line at Garnett's Farm south of the river. The Confederates attacked again on the morning of June 28 at Golding's Farm, but were easily repulsed.

Savage's Station

As the main body of the Union Army of the Potomac began its withdrawal toward the James River, Magruder pursued along the railroad and the Williamsburg Road and struck Sumner's II Corps (in the rear) with three brigades near Savage's Station on June 29, while Jackson's divisions had been stalled north of the Chickahominy. Union forces continued their withdrawal across White Oak Swamp, abandoning supplies and a field hospital with more than 2,500 wounded soldiers.

White Oak Swamp and Glendale

On June 30, a newly-placed rearguard (IV Corps) under Major General William B. Franklin stopped Jackson's divisions at the White Oak Bridge, resulting in an exchange of artillery, while a larger battle raged two miles away at Glendale. Because of Franklin's resistance, Jackson was prevented from joining the assault on the Union Army.

The Confederate divisions of Longstreet, Huger, and A.P. Hill converged on the retreating Union Army near Glendale. Longstreet's and Hill's attacks penetrated Union defenses near Willis Church, routing Brigadier General George A. McCall's division. Union Brigadier Generals Joseph Hooker and Philip Kearny would counter attack, sealing the break in the lines and saving their line of retreat. Confederate Major General Theophilus H. Holmes would make a half-hearted, and weak, attempt to turn the Union left flank at Turkey Bridge, but Federal gunboats on the James would drive him back.

Malvern Hill

The final battle of the Seven Days was fought on July 1, as Lee launched a series of assaults on Malvern Hill, where the Federals had fallen back during the night and strengthened their defenses considerably. This time, Lee was forced to withdraw, as the Confederates sustained more than 5,300 casualties without gaining any ground. Despite his victory, McClellan continued his retreat to Harrison's Landing on the James, where all of his forces would be taken across under the protection of his gunboats. His Peninsular Campaign was over.

Second Battle of Bull Run

At about the same time, the scattered Federal forces in Northern Virginia were organized into the Army of Virginia under the command of Major General John Pope, who arrived with a reputation freshly won in the war's western theater. Gambling that McClellan would cause no further trouble around Richmond, Lee sent Stonewall Jackson's corps northward to deal with Pope, clashing indecisively at Cedar Mountain on August 9. Meanwhile, learning that the Army of the Potomac was withdrawing by water to join Pope, Lee marched with Lieutenant General James Longstreet's corps to bolster Jackson. Pope successfully foiled Lee's attempts to gain a tactical advantage on the Rapidan by withdrawing his army to the north bank of the Rappahannock River. Lee knew that if he was to defeat Pope he would have to strike before McClellan's army arrived in Northern Virginia. On August 25 Lee boldly started Jackson's wing on a march of over 50 miles, around the Union right flank to strike at Pope's rear. Two days later, Jackson's veterans seized Pope's supply depot at Manassas Junction.

Stung by the attack on his supply base, Pope abandoned the line of the Rappahannock and headed toward Manassas to fight Jackson. At the same time, Lee was moving northward with Longstreet's corps to reunite his army. On the afternoon of August 28, to prevent the Federal commander's efforts to concentrate at Centreville and to bring Pope to battle, Jackson order his troops to attack a Union column as it marched past on the Warrenton Turnpike. This savage fight at Brawner's Farm lasted until dark.

Convinced that Jackson was isolated, Pope ordered his columns to converge on Groveton. He was sure that he could destroy Jackson before Lee and Longstreet could intervene.

On the 29th Pope's army found Jackson's men posted along an unfinished railroad grade, north of the turnpike. All afternoon, in a series of uncoordinated attacks, Pope hurled his men against the Confederate position. In several places the Yankees momentarily breached Jackson's line, but each time were forced back.

During the afternoon, Longstreet's troops arrived on the battlefield and, unknown to Pope, deployed on Jackson's right, overlapping the exposed Union left. Lee urged Longstreet to attack, but "Old Pete" demurred. "The time was just not right," he said.

Just before noon on August 30 Pope ordered his army forward in pursuit of an enemy he thought was retreating. The pursuit however, was short-lived. Pope found that Lee had gone nowhere. Amazingly, Pope ordered yet another attack against Jackson's line. Fitz-John Porter's corps, along with part of McDowell's, struck Starke's division at the unfinished railroad's "Deep Cut." The southerners held firm, and Porter's column was hurled back in a bloody repulse. Seeing the Union lines in disarray, Longstreet pushed his massive columns forward and staggered the Union left. Pope's army was faced with annihilation; only a heroic stand by northern troops, first on Chinn Ridge and then once again on Henry Hill, bought time for Pope's hardpressed Union forces. Finally under cover of darkness the defeated Union army withdrew across the Bull Run toward the defenses of Washington. Lee's bold and brilliant Second Manassas campaign opened the way for the south's first invasion fo the north, and a bid for foreign intervention. 9,420 of Lee's men were killed or wounded, while Pope lost 14,449.

Western Theater

Fort Henry

Major General Ulysses S. Grant

Sitting on the Tennessee River was Fort Henry, some twelve miles from the Cumberland River and Fort Donelson, and a linchpin in the defensive line held by Confederate General Albert Sidney Johnston. Both forts guarded rich agricultural land and mineral deposits, as well as guarding the passage to the city of Nashville, Tennessee. Hoping to regain control of the rivers there as well as driving a wedge in the Confederate lines, Union General Henry Halleck sent Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant and Commodore Andrew Foote on an endeavour to capture both forts. Seven woodclad gunboats gave support to a force of some 15,000 men as they journeyed along the Tennessee to Fort Henry, where they faced a Confederate force of 2,500 massed in a weak defensive line. The Union victory was largely the result of the gunboat bombardment; Grant's force had arrived too late to take part in the action. Casualties were small; the Union lost 11 killed and 31 wounded, while Southern losses stood at 5 killed, 11 wounded, and 78 taken prisoner. Tilghman ended up surrendering to the gunboats; his remaining men retreated to Fort Donelson, and prepared improving the defenses there.

Fort Donelson

Rear Admiral Andrew H. Foote's Union gunboat fleet arrived from Fort Henry on February 14, consisting of the ironclads St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Louisville and Corondolet, and the timber-clad gunboats Conestoga and Tyler, and began exchanging what they called "iron valentines" with the Southern batteries. During this one and one-half hour duel Foote was wounded, and the Confederates inflicted such extensive damage upon the gunboats (the hills the batteries were on provided the Confederates with the opportunity to hit the gunboats' angled sides more directly) that they were forced to retreat, eliciting cheers from Johnny Reb.

Rejoicing as well, albeit soberly, were the Confederate generals at Fort Donelson: John Floyd, Gideon Pillow, Simon B. Buckner and Bushrod Johnson. They were aware that Grant was receiving reinforcements daily and had extended his right flank almost to Lick Creek to complete his encirclement of the Southerners. If Confederate forces in the area did not move fast, they would face a siege and be starved into submission. Accordingly, they massed their troops against the Union right, hoping to clear a route to Nashville and safety. The battle on February 15 raged all morning, the Union Army grudgingly retreating step by step. Just as it seemed the way was clear, the Southern troops were ordered to return to their entrenchments—a result of confusion and indecision among the Confederate commanders. Grant immediately launched a vigorous counterattack, retaking most of the lost ground and gaining new positions as well.

Floyd then turned to his executive officer, Pillow, and turned over command of Fort Donelson to him. Pillow, in turn, turned over command to Buckner and slipped away to Nashville with about 2,000 men. In disgust, Colonel Nathan Bedford Forrest declared he wasn't about to surrender his command, and thereupon took his cavalry across swollen Lick Creek. That morning, February 16, Buckner, perhaps recalling his generosity towards Grant when the latter was in dire financial need, asked Grant for terms of surrender:

SIR:—In consideration of all the circumstances governing the present situation of affairs at this station, I propose to the Commanding Officer of the Federal forces the appointment of Commissioners to agree upon terms of capitulation of the forces and fort under my command, and in that view suggest an armistice until 12 o’clock to-day.

I am, sir, very respectfully,

Your ob’t se’v’t,

S. B. BUCKNER,

Brig. Gen. C. S. A.

What he received in reply was certainly not what he expected:

Sir: Yours of this date proposing Armistice, and appointment of Commissioners, to settle terms of Capitulation is just received. No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works.

I am Sir: very respectfully

Your obt. sevt.

U.S. Grant

Brig. Gen. [2]

Buckner surrendered soon after, his complaint of Grant's "ungenerous and unchivalrous terms" notwithstanding. Included in the surrender was close to 15,000 men and 48 guns, and the provisions and ammunition to maintain both. Buckner spent several months north as a prisoner of war until exchanged in August; Grant even repayed the loan Buckner gave him years before.

After the fall of Fort Donelson, the South was forced to give up southern Kentucky and much of Middle and West Tennessee. The Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers, and railroads in the area, became vital Federal supply lines. Nashville was soon to be developed into a huge supply depot for the Union army in the west. The heartland of the Confederacy was opened, and the Union got a new hero in U.S. Grant, whose name was changed in newspapers to "Unconditional Surrender Grant"; the same papers would also state that Grant had coolly directed the battle with a cigar clamped clamped between his teeth, which caused admirers of the general to send him so many cigars that he gave up his pipe.

Shiloh

Forced to abandon Kentucky and Middle Tennessee, General Albert Sidney Johnston, supreme Confederate commander in the West, moved to protect his rail communications by concentrating his scattered forces around the small town of Corinth in northeast Mississippi—strategic crossroads of the Memphis & Charleston and the Mobile & Ohio.

In March, Major General Henry W. Halleck, commanding U.S. forces in the West, advanced the armies under Grant and Don Carlos Buell southward to sever the Southern railroads. Grant ascended the Tennessee River by steamboat, disembarking his Army of the Tennessee at Pittsburg Landing, 22 miles northeast of Corinth. There he established a base of operations on a plateau west of the river, with his forward camps posted two miles inland around a log church called the Shiloh Meeting House. Halleck had specifically instructed Grant not to engage the Confederates until he had been reinforced by Buell's Army of the Ohio, then marching overland from Nashville. Once combined, the two armies would advance on Corinth and permanently break western Confederate railroad communications.

General Johnston, aware of Federal designs on Corinth, planned to smash Grant's army at Pittsburg Landing before Buell arrived. He placed his troops in motion on April 3, but heavy rain and difficulties encountered by marching large columns of men, artillery, and heavy wagons over muddy roads, delayed the attack. By nightfall, April 5, his Army of the Mississippi, nearly 44,000 men present for duty, was finally deployed for battle four miles southwest of Pittsburg Landing.

At daybreak, Sunday, April 6, the Confederates stormed out of the woods and assailed the forward Federal camps around Shiloh Church. Grant and his nearly 40,000 men present for duty were equally surprised by the onslaught. The Federals soon rallied, however, and bitter fighting consumed Shiloh Hill. Throughout the morning, Confederate brigades slowly gained ground, forcing Grant's troops to give way, grudgingly, to fight a succession of defensive stands at Shiloh Church, the Peach Orchard, Water Oaks Pond, and within an impenetrable oak thicket battle survivors named the Hornets' Nest.

Despite having achieved surprise, Johnston's troops soon became as disorganized as the Federals. The Southern attack lost coordination as corps, divisions, and brigades became entangled. Then, at mid-afternoon, as he supervised an assault on the Union left, Johnston was struck in the right leg by a stray bullet; he directed operations over the next half-hour before his weakness made him realize that the bullet severed an artery. Johnston's death from blood loss left General P.G.T. Beauregard in command of the Confederate army. Grant's battered divisions retired to a strong position extending west from Pittsburg Landing where massed artillery and rugged ravines protected their front and flanks. Fighting ended at nightfall, and Grant was left alone in his tent, emotionally drained.

Beauregard, unaware Buell had arrived with reinforcements during the night, planned to finish off Grant the next day. At dawn, April 7, however, it was Grant who attacked. Throughout the day, the combined Union armies, numbering over 54,500 men, hammered Beauregard's depleted ranks, now mustering barely 34,000 troops. Despite mounting desperate counterattacks, the exhausted Confederates could not stem the increasingly stronger Federal tide. Forced back to Shiloh Church, Beauregard skillfully withdrew his outnumbered command and returned to Corinth. The battered Federals did not press the pursuit, and the battle of Shiloh was over. It had cost both sides a combined total of 23,746 men killed, wounded, or missing—more casualties than America had suffered in all previous wars—and ultimate control of Corinth’s railroad junction remained in doubt.

Shiloh was a Hebrew word that ironically meant "peace." Said one veteran later, "No soldier who took part in the two day’s engagement at Shiloh ever spoiled for a fight again. We wanted a square, stand-up fight [and] got all we wanted of it."

Corinth

Halleck, recognizing Corinth’s military value, considered its capture more important than the destruction of Confederate armies. Reinforced by another army under Major General John Pope, he cautiously advanced southward from Tennessee and, by late May, entrenched his three armies within cannon range of Confederate fortifications defending the strategic crossroads. Despite being reinforced by Major General Earl Van Dorn’s Trans-Mississippi Army, Beauregard withdrew south to Tupelo, abandoning the most viable line of east-west rail communications in the western Confederacy.

Federal efforts to recover the Mississippi Valley stalled in the late summer of 1862, and Confederate leaders launched counteroffensives in every theater. Armies led by Major Generals Braxton Bragg and Edmund Kirby Smith invaded Kentucky, while troops under Van Dorn boldly attacked the heavily fortified Union garrison at Corinth, linchpin of Federal control in northern Mississippi. In one of the more bitterly contested battles of the war, Van Dorn was decisively repulsed, following two days of carnage (October 3-4) that claimed nearly 7,000 more Confederate and Union casualties.

Although overshadowed by the failure of Robert E. Lee's Confederate invasion in Maryland, Van Dorn's defeat, coupled with Bragg's retreat from Kentucky after the battle of Perryville (October 8), caused discouragement in Richmond and relief in Washington. More significantly, Van Dorn's defeat at Corinth—the last Confederate offensive in Mississippi—seriously weakened the only mobile Southern army defending the Mississippi Valley. This permitted Ulysses S. Grant to launch a relentless nine-month campaign to secure the final nail for control of the Mississippi River: Vicksburg.

Trans-Mississippi Theater

Halleck knew that the Missouri State Guard was a symbol of open defiance to Federal authority in Missouri and that its continued presence in the state might still encourage secession. On December 25, 1861, he placed Brigadier General Samuel Ryan Curtis in command of all the Union forces in the state, with orders were to destroy the Missouri State Guard at its winter quarters in Springfield or to drive it from the state.

Curtis' Army of the Southwest began its campaign on February 10, 1862. The army marched quickly over the rough, frozen roads, and caught the Missouri State Guard, and its commander, Major General Sterling Price, by surprise. Price abandoned Springfield on February 13, and retreated south into Arkansas. The two armies fought a series of skirmishes along the way and on February 17, one week after beginning its campaign, Curtis triumphantly telegraphed Halleck, "The flag of our Union again floats in Arkansas." As the Federals crossed the border into Arkansas, a brass band played "Yankee Doodle" and "The Arkansas Traveler".

Aware of Union movements was Van Dorn, who had been appointed overall commander of the Trans-Mississippi District to quell a simmering conflict between competing generals Price and Benjamin McCulloch of Texas. Van Dorn's Army of the West totaled approximately 16,000 men, including 800 Cherokee Indian troops, as well as contingents from the Missouri State Guard, Confederate cavalry, and infantry and artillery from Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Missouri. Van Dorn intended to destroy Curtis and reopen the gateway into Missouri.

Pea Ridge

On March 4, 1862, Van Dorn, not wishing to engage Curtis directly, split his army into two divisions under Price and McCulloch and ordered them to march north along the Bentonville Detour; his intention was to flank Curtis and cut off his lines of communication. To make speed, Van Dorn left his supply trains behind, and in the midst of a freezing storm, the Confederates succeeded in making a forced, three-day march, falling into position hungry and tired.

McCulloch arrived late, causing Van Dorn to split his army in two: McColloch would circle Pea Ridge to the west, then turn east to meet Price at Elkhorn Tavern, which would be taken by Van Dorn and Price.

McCulloch's troops swung to the west around Pea Ridge as planned, but they met Federal troops the village of Leetown, and a fierce fight took place. McCulloch and a cavalry commander named Colonel James McIntosh were killed in action soon after the clash began, and McIntosh's commander Colonel Louis Hébert was captured. The Confederate command structure was thus shattered, rendering an organized, effective attack useless.

Encountering Federals at Elkhorn Tavern, Van Dorn ordered an attack, and succeeded in driving back the Federals by nightfall, as well as securing the Telegraph and Huntsville Roads and cutting Curtis's lines of communication. Van Dorn would discover McColloch's fate from the survivors who made their way to the tavern.

Curtis meanwhile had massed his artillery during the night, and on the morning of March 8 launched a counterattack. The massed artillery, combined with cavalry and infantry attacks, weakened the Confederate lines, and by noon Van Dorn, already low on ammunition, realized his critical mistake: he had left his supply trains, with ammunition, miles away. With no hope of re-supplying his men, Van Dorn, although he had outnumbered Curtis almost two-to-one, withdrew from the battle.

New Orleans

The Mississippi had to be opened, Lincoln realized as early as the beginning of the war, and opening it was a central part of Winfield Scott's "Anaconda Plan". Rear Admiral David D. Porter suggested a plan calling for a flotilla of warships steam up the Mississippi, bypass any forts there, and take New Orleans, while an Army unit would bring up the rear, occupying the forts and the town.

Major General Benjamin F. Butler was a Democrat from Massachusetts who was once a powerful member in Congress who quickly won over the Republicans with a request for a commission as the war began. He was chosen to lead the Army side of the New Orleans operation, in part because as soon as he received his commission he was a thorn in the side of Lincoln, McClellan, and many others. "All would be relieved were this restless officer sent to Ship Island or the far southwest'" said Gideon Welles dryly, "where his energy, activity and impulsive force might be employed in desultory aquatic and shore duty in concert with the Navy"

Command of the New Orleans operation fell to the Navy, and Rear Admiral Porter suggested fellow sailor David Glasgow Farragut, a vigorous, 60-year old captain with a penchant for doing handstands to celebrate his birthday. When the war opened, he had packed his bags and took his Southern wife north from Norfolk to Hastings-On-Hudson, near New York City. But desk jobs were his lot, due to the Southern connections, and even now it was not known exactly where his loyalties lay.

Porter met Farrgut in Brooklyn, and the two chatted amiably about family and life, before the topic changed to the war. Porter then mentioned several fellow officers who "went South".

"Those damned fellows will catch it yet!" Farragut remarked with mixed disgust and anger. Encouraged, Porter then asked directly, "Would you accept a command such as no officer in our navy ever held to go and fight those fellows?"

Farragut then realized that Porter's visit was serious. "I cannot fight against Norfolk!" he said. Then Porter announced that Farragut was not the man for the job, "For Norfolk will be the very place attacked first, and that den of traitors must be wiped out." Farragut accepted anyway, setting aside sentiment for loyalty. "I will take that command," he shouted at Porter, "only don't you triffle with me!" On December 21, he was in Washington, learning to his delight that his orders were to take New Orleans instead. But first his flotilla had to get past Forts Jackson and St. Phillip on the Mississppi, which were guarded by a Confederate fleet of eleven ships, of which three were ironclads: Manassas, Louisiana, and the unfinished Mississippi.

Farragut based his operations from Ship Island, Mississippi, and on April 8, he assembled 24 of his vessels and Porter's 19 mortar schooners near the Head of the Passes. Starting on the 16th and continuing for seven days, the mortar schooners bombarded Fort Jackson but failed to silence its guns. Some of Farragut’s gunboats opened a way through the obstruction on the night of the 22nd. Early on the morning of the 24th, Farragut sent his ships north to pass the forts and head for New Orleans. Although the Rebels attempted to stop the Union ships in various ways, including the unsuccessful ramming of Farragut's flagship Brooklyn by the little ironclad Manassas, most of the force successfully passed the forts and continued on to New Orleans where Farragut accepted the city’s surrender. With the passage of the forts, nothing could stop the Union forces: the fall of New Orleans was inevitable and anti-climatic. Cut off and surrounded, the garrisons of the two forts surrendered on the 28th.

Farragut anchored his ship in front of New Orleans at noon, April 25; an armed emissary would walk through a mob to demand the city's surrender. When Butler's soldiers arrived a short time later, one of the first acts they did was to go to Jefferson Square, and on the pedestal of Andrew Jackson, the hero of New Orleans in the War of 1812, they carved a Jacksonian slogan which went out of style in the South: "The Union Must and Shall Be Preserved".

Butler would gain infamy of sorts with his occupation of the city. He was called "Spoons" for his habit of pilfering silver from well-to-do families; once, he had seized $800,000 that was held by the Dutch consul. But his most egregious act was to issue "General Order No. 28" on May 15, 1862, in which the women, if they continued to insult his troops, would be treated as "woman of the town plying her avocation", which meant they would be jailed as prostitutes. (TL 9, pp 58-73)

Antietam

Invading Maryland

Lee's Maryland Campaign, September 13-15, 1862 (Hal Jespersen)

On Thursday morning, September 4, 1862, the dirty, ragged Army of Northern Virginia, marching to the strains of "Maryland, my Maryland", splashed across the shallow fords of the Potomac River just north of Leesburg to trod on Union soil. Upon his arrival in Frederick, Lee drew up a Proclamation to the People of Maryland [3], inviting them to side with the Southern movement. For the next several days Lee's troops, upon strict orders not to pillage, bought food and all the shoes and clothing they could find at the stores in town. The early fall also marked the key harvest months in the South, and by bringing his army north, Lee knew that the Federals would mirror his movements and take up defensive positions in front of Washington and Baltimore, and allow Southern farmers to gather in their own harvest unmolested by Union troops.

Lee also hoped that by his moving into Maryland the undecided border state would join the Southern cause. Possibly he could influence the upcoming Congressional Elections and cause more Democrats--who favored peace--to be able to outvote the Republican majority in the House and demand an end to the war, thus bringing in a larger objective: foreign recognition of the Confederacy, with the inevitable aid from Britain and France. A victory on a Northern battlefield might cause the people of the North to question President Lincoln's leadership and force him to sue for peace.

By midmorning on September 6, General "Stonewall" Jackson's advance force of 5,000 men marched down Market Street in Frederick and made camp on the north side of town. The remainder of Lee's 40,000-man army soon followed.

Lee drew up a new set of plans. He would divide his forces into four sections, sending Jackson with six divisions of 22,000 men to eliminate the 12,000-strong Federal garrison at Harpers Ferry to the southwest. The remaining three divisions of Lee's forces--18,000 men under Longstreet--would move northwest over the Catoctin and South Mountain ranges to Boonsboro and Hagerstown, a distance of 25 miles.

Upon securing Harpers Ferry Jackson would rejoin Lee and Longstreet at Hagerstown. Then Lee would move his combined Confederate forces northeast along the rail line to Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania and a key rail center for the Union, and use the mountains to protect his right flank. Early on Wednesday morning, September 10, Lee's forces began leaving Frederick to carry out their assignments.

But Lee expected Major General George McClellan, back in command of the Army of the Potomac after the disaster at 2nd Bull Run, to reorganize his army in weeks; McClellan did it in days. Lee also didn't expect that the garrison at Harpers Ferry would have orders to stand and fight; and third, he didn't expect that three cigars would be found on an empty Confederate campsite by a Union private, all neatly held together by his orders for battle [4].

When Lee learned that McClellan's army was moving westward from Frederick, he realized the peril in which his divided forces found themselves. Quickly he sent troops to block the three main passes over South Mountain, providing sufficient time to concentrate the majority of his forces in a defensive position around Sharpsburg, six miles to the southwest of Boonsboro. At the same time McClellan, with 85,000 men, gathered on the east bank of the Antietam Creek. When Jackson's troops reached Sharpsburg on September 16th, Harpers Ferry having surrendered the day before, Lee consolidated his position along the low ridge that runs north and south of the town--stretching from the Potomac River on his left to Antietam Creek on his right. "We will make our stand on these hills," Lee told his officers.

All the pieces fell into place.

The Bloodiest Day

The dead in front of the Dunker Church

Battle of Antietam, September 17, 1862 (Hal Jespersen)

The battle opened at a damp, murky dawn on the 17th when Union artillery on the bluffs beyond Antietam Creek began a murderous fire on Jackson's lines near the Dunker Church. As the Federals marched toward Miller's Cornfield north of town, the Confederates rose up in the cornfield and fired on the advancing lines. McClellan responded by withdrawing his infantry and training cannon on the corn. "In the time I am writing," Major General Joseph Hooker reported, "every stalk of corn in the northern and greater part of the field was cut as closely as could have been done with a knife, and the slain lay in rows precisely as they had stood in their ranks a few moments before." Hooker's troops advanced again, driving the Confederates before them, and Jackson reported that his men were "exposed for near an hour to a terrific storm of shell, canister, and musketry." About 7 a.m. Jackson was reinforced and succeeded in driving the Federals back.

An hour later Union troops under Major General Joseph Mansfield counterattacked and regained some of the lost ground. Less than 200 yards apart, the opposing lines fired lead into each other for a half hour. "They stood and shot each other, until the lines melted away like wax," reported a New York soldier, Isaac Hall. Fighting continued back and forth over the 20-acre cornfield, with the field changing hands 15 times, according to some accounts.

Then, in an effort to turn the Confederate left flank, Gen. John Sedgwick's division of Gen. Edwin V. Sumner's corps advanced into the West Woods. There Confederate troops arriving from other parts of the field struck Sedgwick's flank, killing or wounding nearly half of his division--about 2,255 men--within a quarter hour of point-blank fire. At the end of three hours more than 10,000 of them lay dead or wounded, covered in shattered cornstalks.

Meanwhile, Major General William H. French's division of Sumner's Union corps moved up to support Sedgwick but veered south into the center of the Confederate line, under Brigadier General D. H. Hill. The Confederates were posted along a ridge in an old sunken road separating the Roulette and Piper farms. The 800-yard-long road had been worn down over the years by heavy wagons taking grain to the nearby mill, making an ideal defensive trench for the Rebels, and at dawn some five brigades of Hill's troops were guarding it. Soon three brigades had been pulled out to support Jackson in the East Woods, but they were beaten back by Union Brigadier General George Greene's attack on that position. By 9:30 a.m. the Confederates were stacking fence rails on the north side of the road to provide additional protection from the Union forces, advancing in paradelike precision across the field.

Bloody Lane

Firing from behind these improvised breastworks and sheltered in the Sunken Road, the Rebels seemed unassailable. They repelled four different Union charges against the position. "For three hours and thirty minutes," one Union officer wrote, "the battle raged incessantly, without either party giving way." From 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m., bitter fighting raged along this deeply cut lane (afterward known as Bloody Lane) as French, supported by Major General Israel B. Richardson's division, also of Sumner's corps, sought to drive the Southerners back. By 1 p.m. both sides of Bloody Lane bore 5,600 killed and wounded men.

Finally, seeing a weak spot in the Confederate line, the 61st and 64th New York regiments penetrated the crest of the hill at the eastern end and began firing volley after volley full length down the sunken line. Then, misinterpreting an order, a Confederate officer pulled his regiment out of the road. The remaining defenders rapidly scrambled out of the lane, over the fence, and fled through the cornfields to the south, some not stopping until they had reached the outskirts of Sharpsburg itself. More than 300 Rebels threw down their arms and surrendered on the spot.

"Lee's army was ruined," one of Lee's officers wrote later. "And the end of the Confederacy was in sight." About 200 Rebel infantry attempted a weak counterattack, while Lee rushed 20 cannon to the Piper farm. An attack through this hole would have crushed the Confederate center, and the remaining divisions could be destroyed piecemeal. But McClellan decided against a counterattack with his fresh reserves.

Burnside's Bridge across Antietam Creek

Southeast of Sharpsburg, Union Major General Ambrose Burnside's corps of 12,000 men had been trying to cross a 12-foot-wide bridge over Antietam Creek since 9:30 a.m. About 450 Georgian sharpshooters took up positions behind trees and boulders on a steep wooded bluff some 100 feet high and overlooking the Lower Bridge. Greatly outnumbered, the Confederates drove back several Union advances toward the bridge. Finally, at 1 p.m. the Federals crossed the 125-foot-long bridge (now known as Burnside Bridge) and, after a 2-hour delay to rest and replenish ammunition, continued their advance toward Sharpsburg.

By late afternoon about 8,000 Union troops had driven the Confederates back almost to Sharpsburg, threatening to cut off the line of retreat for Lee's army. By 3:30 p.m. many Rebels jammed the streets of Sharpsburg in retreat. The battle seemed lost to the Southern army. Then at 3:40 p.m. Major General A. P. Hill's division, left behind by Jackson at Harpers Ferry to salvage the captured Federal property, arrived on the field after a march of 17 miles in eight hours. Immediately Hill's 3,000 troops entered the fight, attacking the Federals' unprotected left flank. Burnside's troops were driven back to the heights near the bridge they had taken earlier. The attack across the Burnside Bridge and Hill's counterattack in the fields south of Antietam resulted in 3,470 casualties--with twice as many Union casualties (2,350) as Confederate (1,120).

Longstreet later wrote, "We were so badly crushed that at the close of the day ten thousand fresh troops could have come in and taken Lee's army and everything in it." But again McClellan held the 20,000 men of V Corps and VI Corps in reserve--and lost a second opportunity to defeat the entire Confederate army. By 5:30 p.m., the Battle of Antietam was over.

The next day Federal and Confederate leaders struck up an informal truce, so they could begin gathering up the wounded, the dying, and the dead. During the evening of the 18th Lee began withdrawing his army across the Potomac River.

Federal losses were 12,410, Confederate losses 10,700, a loss of one in four men. More casualties were claimed in just one day at Antietam then they were in all of the previous American wars combined.

Battle of Fredericksburg

Lincoln at McClellan's headquarters at Antietam on October 4, 1862, several weeks after the battle. McClellan once told him he didn't move his army after Lee because his horses were fatigued. "Would you mind telling me," Lincoln wrote to him in a fit of anger, "what your horses have done since the battle of Antietam that fatigues anything?"

McClellan, Lincoln reflected, had Lee in his palm and let him get away. He could have cut him off at the Potomac, and forced him to surrender; instead, he learned from the court-marshal of an officer that the game was that "neither army shall get much advantage of the other; that both shall be kept in the field till they are exhausted, when we will make a compromise and save slavery." [5]

Lincoln was going to break up that game, and he made his way to McClellan's headquarters to count 88,000 men fit for duty, even after the staggering losses of the weeks before. On a ridge with a friend, Ozias Hatch, he asked him what he saw below. "The Army of the Potomac," was Hatch's reply. Lincoln sighed. "So it is called, but that is a mistake; it is only McClellan's bodyguard."

When McClellan was given orders to advance his army, and didn't, Lincoln removed him from command for the last time, November 5, 1862, and appointed Burnside in his place. When given the news, Burnside was said to have protested his own unfitness for commanding such a large force, all 120,000 men in camps near Warrenton, Virginia. But despite his misgivings, Burnside proposed abandoning McClellan's southwesterly advance in favor of a 40-mile dash across country to Fredericksburg. Such a maneuver would position the Federal army on the direct road to Richmond, the Confederate capital, as well as ensure a secure supply line to Washington. Lincoln approved Burnside's initiative but advised him to march quickly, which he did, covering the ground in two days; by November 17 the lead units arrived opposite Fredericksburg on Stafford Heights.

Major General Ambrose Burnside

Burnside's swift march placed Lee at a perilous disadvantage. After the Maryland Campaign, Lee had boldly divided his 78,000 men, leaving Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley while sending Longstreet to face the Federals at Culpeper. Lee had not anticipated Burnside's shift to Fredericksburg and now neither of his wings was in position to defend the old city. But the Federals could not move South, however, without first crossing the Rappahannock River, flowing across his path to Richmond. Because the civilian bridges had been destroyed earlier in the war, Burnside directed that pontoon equipment meet him at Stafford Heights. Miscommunication, inefficient bureaucracy, and poor weather delayed the arrival of the pontoons. Longstreet's corps was already in place in the hills behind Fredericksburg on the 19th. Jackson would arrive the following week. The pontoons had arrived on the 25th.

The Confederate army thus guarded a long stretch of the Rappahannock, unsure of where the Federals might attempt a crossing. Burnside harbored the same uncertainties. After agonizing deliberation, he finally decided to build bridges at three places - two opposite the city and the other one a mile downstream. The Union commander knew that Jackson's corps could not assist Longstreet in resisting a river passage near town. Thus, Burnside's superior numbers would encounter only half of Lee's legions. Once across the river, the Federals would strike Longstreet's overmatched defenders, outflank Jackson, and send the whole Confederate army reeling toward Richmond. On December 11 Union engineers crept to the riverbank and began laying their pontoons. Skilled workmen from two New York regiments completed a pair of bridges at the lower crossing and pushed the upstream spans more than halfway to the fight bank; then the sharp crack of musketry erupted from the river-front houses and yards of Fredericksburg. The shots came from a brigade of Mississippians under William Barksdale. Their job was to delay any Federal attempt to negotiate the Rappahannock at Fredericksburg. "Nine distinct and desperate attempts were made to complete the bridge[s]," reported a Confederate officer, "but every one was attended by such heavy loss that the efforts were abandoned.."

An artillery barrage by Brigadier General Henry J. Hunt against the Confederate sharpshooters brought the bridge engineers some respite, but when it ended some two hours later and the engineers went back to work, so the the Confederates. More pontoniers fell into the water.

Burnside now authorized volunteers to ferry themselves across the river in the clumsy pontoon boats. Men from Michigan, Massachusetts, and New York scrambled aboard the scows, frantically pulling at oar's to navigate the hazardous 400 feet to the Confederates' side. Once on shore, the Federals charged Barksdale's marksmen who, despite orders to fall back, fiercely contested each block in a rare example of during the Civil War. After dusk the brave Mississippians finally withdrew to their main line, the bridge builders completed their work, and the Army of the Potomac entered Fredericksburg. By morning on the 12th, Burnside began sending reinforcements into the city but made no effort to organize an attack. Instead, the Northerners squandered the day looting and vandalizing homes and shops. A Connecticut chaplain would write:

"I saw men break down the doors to rooms of fine houses, enter, shatter the looking glasses with the blow of the ax, [and] knock the vases and lamps off the mantelpiece with a careless swing ... A cavalry man sat down at a fine rosewood Piano ... drove his saber through the polished keys, then knocked off the top [and] tore out the strings ..."

Marye's Heights

Battle of Fredericksburg, 13 December 1862 (Hal Jespersen)

When Jackson's men arrived from downstream, Longstreet sidled his corps to the north, defending roughly five miles of Lee's front. He mounted guns at Strong points such as Taylor's Hill, Marye's Heights, Howison Hill, and Telegraph Hill, the Confederate command post. "Old Pete's" five divisions of infantry supported his artillery at the base of the slopes.

Below Marye's Heights a Georgia brigade under Brigadier General Thomas R. R. Cobb poised along a 600-yard portion of the Telegraph Road, the main thoroughfare to Richmond, and looking rather sunken and trench-like from years of wagons traffic. Jackson's end of the line possessed less inherent strength. His command post at Prospect Hill rose only 65 feet above the surrounding plain. Jackson compensated for the weak terrain by stacking his four divisions one behind the other to a depth of nearly a mile. Any Union offensive against Lee's seven-mile line would traverse a virtually naked expanse in the teeth of a deadly artillery crossfire before reaching the Confederate infantry.

Burnside issued his attack orders early on the morning of December 13. They called for an assault against Jackson's corps by Major General William B. Franklin's Left Grand Division to be followed by an advance against Marye's Heights by Major General Edwin V. Sumner's Right Grand Division. Burnside used tentative, ambiguous language in his directives, reflecting either a lack of confidence in his plan or a misunderstanding of his opponent's posture, or perhaps both.

Burnside had reinforced Franklin's sector on the morning of battle to a strength of some 60,000 men. Franklin, a brilliant engineer but cautious combatant, placed the most literal and conservative interpretation on Burnside's ill-phrased instructions. He designated Major General George G. Meade's division -- just 4,500 troops -- to spearhead his attack.

Meade's men, Pennsylvanians all, moved out in the misty half-light about 8:30 a.m. and headed straight for Jackson's line, not quite one mile distant. Suddenly, artillery fire exploded to the left and rear of Meade's lines. Major John Pelham had valiantly moved two small guns into position along the Richmond Stage Road perpendicular to Meade's axis of march. The 24 year-old Alabamian ignored orders from Major General J.E.B. Stuart to disengage and continued to disrupt the Federal formations for almost an hour. General Lee, watching the action from Prospect Hill, remarked, "it is glorious to see such courage in one so young." When Pelham exhausted his ammunition and retired, Meade resumed his approach, Jackson patiently allowed the Federals to close to within 500 yards of the wooded elevation where a 14-gun battalion lay hidden in the trees. As the Pennsylvanians drew near to the Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railroad north of Hamilton's Crossing, Jackson unleashed his masked artillery. Confederate shells ripped gaping holes in Meade's ranks and the beleaguered Unionists sought protection behind wrinkles of ground in the open fields.

Union guns responded to Jackson's cannoneers. A full throated artillery duel raged for an hour, killing so many draft animals that the Southerners called their position "Dead Horse Hill." When one Union shot spectacularly exploded a Confederate ammunition wagon, the crouching Federal infantry let loose a spontaneous Yankee cheer. Meade, seizing the moment, ordered his men to fix bayonets and charge. Meade's soldiers focused on a triangular point of woods that jutted toward them across the railroad as the point of reference for their assault. When they reached these trees they learned, to their delight, that no Southerners defended them. In fact, Jackson had allowed a 600-yard gap to exist along his front and Meade's troops accidentally discovered it.

The Unionists pushed through the boggy forest and hit a brigade of South Carolinians, who at first mistook the attackers for retreating Confederates. Their commander, Brigadier General Maxcy Gregg, paid for this error with a fatal bullet through his spine. Meade's men rolled forward and gained the crest of the heights deep within Jackson's defenses.

Jackson, who had learned of the crisis in his front from an officer in Gregg's brigade, calmly directed his vast reserves to move forward and restore the line, and drove Meade out of the forest, across the railroad, and through the fields to the Richmond Stage Road. Union artillery eventually arrested the Confederate momentum. Except for a minor probe by a New Jersey brigade in the late afternoon and an aborted Confederate offensive at dusk, the fighting on the south end of the field was over.

Burnside waited anxiously at his headquarters on Stafford Heights for news of Franklin's offensive. According to the Union plan, the advance through Fredericksburg toward Marye's Heights would not commence until the Left Grand Division began rolling up Jackson's corps. By late morning, however, the despairing Federal commander discarded his already-suspect strategy and ordered Sumner's grand division to move to the attack.

In several ways, Marye's Heights offered the Federals their most promising target. Not only did this sector of Lee's defenses lie closest to the shelter of Fredericksburg, but the ground rose less steeply here than on the surrounding hills. Nevertheless, Union soldiers had to leave the city, descend into a valley bisected by a water-filled canal ditch, and ascend an open slope of 400 yards to reach the base of the heights. Artillery atop Marye's Heights and nearby elevations would thoroughly blanket the Federal approach. "A chicken could not live on that field when we open on it," boasted a Confederate cannoneer.

The sunken road

Sumner's assault, beginning at noon, 13 December 1862 (Hal Jespersen)

Hooker's assault at 3:30 in the afternoon, 13 December 1862 (Hal Jespersen)

Sumner's first assault began at noon and set the pattern for a ghastly series of attacks that continued, one after another, until dark. As soon as the Northerners marched out of Fredericksburg, Longstreet's artillery wreaked havoc on the crisp blue formations. The Unionists then encountered a deadly bottleneck at the canal ditch which was spanned by partially-destroyed bridges at only three places. Once across this obstacle, the attackers established shallow battle lines under cover of a slight bluff that shielded them from Rebel eyes.

Orders then rang out for the final advance. The landscape beyond the canal ditch contained a few buildings and fences, but from the military perspective it provided virtually no protection. Dozens of Southern cannon immediately reopened on the easy targets and when the Federals traversed about half the remaining distance, as sheet of flame spewed forth from the Sunken Road. This rifle fire decimated the Northerners. Survivors found refuge behind a small swale in the ground or retreated back to the canal ditch valley.

Quickly a new Federal brigade burst toward Marye's Heights and the "terrible stone wall," then another, and another, until three entire divisions had hurled themselves at the Confederate bastion. In one hour, the Army of the Potomac lost nearly 3,000 men; but the madness continued.

Although General Cobb suffered a mortal wound early in the action, the Southern line remained firm. Kershaw's Brigade joined North Carolinians in reinforcing Cobb's men in the Sunken Road. The Confederates stood four ranks deep, maintaining a ceaseless musketry while the gray artillerists fired over their heads.

More Union units tested the impossible. "We came forward as though breasting a storm of rain and sleet, our faces and bodies being only half-turned to the storm, our shoulders shrugged," remembered one Federal. "Everybody from the smallest drummer boy on up seemed to be shouting to the full extent of his capacity," recalled another. But each blue wave crested short of the goal. Not a single Union soldier laid his hand on the stone wall.

Lee, from his lofty perch on Telegraph Hill, watched Longstreet's almost casual destruction of Burnside's divisions as Jackson's counterattack repulsed Meade. Turning toward Longstreet, Lee confessed, "It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it."

Burnside ordered Major General Joseph Hooker's Center Grand Division to join the attack in the afternoon, and late in the day, troops from the Fifth Corps moved forward. Brigadier General Andrew A. Humphreys led his division through the human debris of the previous assaults. Some of Humphreys' soldiers shook off well-meaning hands that clutched at them to prevent their advance. Part of one brigade sustained its momentum until it drew within 25 yards of the stone wall. There, it too melted away.

The final Union effort began after sunset. Colonel Rush C. Hawkins' brigade, the fifteenth such Federal unit to charge the Sunken Road that day, enjoyed no more success than its predecessors. Darkness shrouded the battlefield and at last the guns fell silent.

The hideous cries of the wounded, "weird, unearthly, terrible to hear and bear," echoed through the night. Burnside wrote orders to renew the assaults on December 14, wishing to lead them personally, but his subordinates dissuaded him from this suicidal scheme. On the evening of December 15-16, Burnside skillfully withdrew his army to Stafford Heights, dismantling his bridges behind him in what was probably his only masterfully-carried out operation of the battle. The Fredericksburg Campaign had ended.

Andrew Curtin, the Governor of Pennsylvania, visited the White House after a trip to see for himself what was wrought at Fredericksburg. "It was not a battle, it was a butchery," he said to the president. The governor noted Lincoln's condition, heart-broken as he was over the loss, and bordering at times on near insanity.

Curtin didn't know it then, but Lee was preparing another move north, this time to Pennsylvania.

References

• Time-Life Books The Civil War, vol. 3 (The Blockade), Time Inc, New York (1983)
• Time-Life Books The Civil War, vol. 4 (The Road to Shiloh), Time Inc, New York (1983)
• Time-Life Books The Civil War, vol. 5 (Forward to Richmond), Time Inc, New York (1983)
• Time-Life Books The Civil War, vol. 8 (Lee Takes Command), Time Inc, New York (1984)
• Time-Life Books The Civil War, vol. 9 (The Coastal War), Time Inc, New York (1984)
• Bowman, John S. (editor), The Civil War Almanac World Almanac Publications, New York (1985)

Links

The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion

• Official Records, from Cornell University
• Official Records, from eHistory.com

General

• Library of Congress Civil War map collection
• The Civil War Homepage
• The PBS/Ken Burns documentary
• The History Place
• Civil War at a Glance; US Interior Department
• Shotgun's home of the American Civil War
• US Civil War Center, from Louisiana State University
• Civil War Treasures, from New York Historical Society

By 1850 sectional disagreements centering on slavery were straining the bonds of union between the North and South. These tensions became especially acute when Congress began to consider whether western lands acquired after the Mexican War would permit slavery. In 1849 California requested permission to enter the Union as a free state. Adding more free state senators to Congress would destroy the balance between slave and free states that had existed since the Missouri Compromise (1820).

Because everyone looked to the Senate to defuse the growing crisis, Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky proposed a series of resolutions designed to "Adjust amicably all existing questions of controversy . . . arising out of the institution of slavery." Clay attempted to frame his compromise so that nationally minded senators would vote for legislation in the interest of the Union.

In one of the most famous congressional debates in American history, the Senate discussed Clay’s solution for 7 months. It initially voted down his legislative package, but Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois stepped forward with substitute bills, which passed both Houses. With the Compromise of 1850, Congress had addressed the immediate crisis created by territorial expansion. But one aspect of the compromise—a strengthened fugitive slave act—soon began to tear at sectional peace.

The Compromise of 1850 is composed of five statues enacted in September of 1850. The acts called for the admission of California as a “free state,” provided for a territorial government for Utah and New Mexico, established a boundary between Texas and the United States, called for the abolition of slave trade in Washington, DC, and amended the Fugitive Slave Act.

The document presented here is Henry Clay’s handwritten copy of the original Resolutions, which were not passed. The transcription includes Clay’s Resolution and the five statutes approved by Congress.

---

Text of the Compromise of 1850

Clay's Resolutions, January 29, 1850

It being desirable, for the peace, concord, and harmony of the Union of these States, to settle and adjust amicably all existing questions of controversy between them aris- ing out of the institution of slavery upon a fair, equitable and just basis: therefore,

1. Resolved, That California, with suitable boundaries, ought, upon her application to be admitted as one of the States of this Union, without the imposition by Congress of any restriction in respect to the exclusion or in- troduction of slavery within those bound- aries.

2. Resolved, That as slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any of the territory acquired by the United States from the republic of Mexico, it is in- expedient for Congress to provide by law either for its introduction into, or exclusion from, any part of the said territory; and that appropriate territorial governments ought to be established by Congress in all of the said territory , not assigned as the boundaries of the proposed State of California, without the adoption of any restriction or condition on the subject of slavery.

3. Resolved, That the western boundary of the State of Texas ought to be fixed on the Rio del Norte, ommencing one marine league from its mouth, and running up that river to the southern line of New Mexico; thence with that line eastwardly, and so continuing in the same direction to the line as established between the United States and Spain, exclud- ing any portion of New Mexico, whether lying on the east or west of that river.

4. Resolved, That it be proposed to the State of Texas, that the United States will provide for the payment of all that portion of the legitimate and bona fide public debt of that State contracted prior to its annexation to the United States, and for which the duties on foreign imports were pledged by the said State to its creditors, not exceeding the sum of- dollars, in consideration of the said duties so pledged having been no longer ap- plicable to that object after the said annexa- tion, but having thenceforward become pay- able to the United States; and upon the condition, also, that the said State of Texas shall, by some solemn and authentic act of her legislature or of a convention, relinquish to the United States any claim which it has to any part of New Mexico.

5. Resolved, That it is inexpedient to abol- ish slavery in the District of Columbia whilst that institution continues to exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of that State, without the consent of the people of the District, and without just compensation to the owners of slaves within the District.

6. But, resolved, That it is expedient to prohibit, within the District, the slave trade in slaves brought into it from States or places beyond the limits of the District, either to be sold therein as merchandise, or to be trans- ported to other markets without the District of Columbia.

7. Resolved, That more effectual provision ought to be made by law, according to the requirement of the constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to serv- ice or labor in any State, who may escape into any other State or Territory in the Union. And,

8. Resolved, That Congress has no power to promote or obstruct the trade in slaves be- tween the slaveholding States; but that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into another of them, depends exclusively upon their own particular laws.

An Act proposing to the State of Texas the Establishment of her Northern and Western Boundaries, the Relinquishment by the said State of all Territory claimed by her exterior to said boundaries, and of all her Claims upon the United States, and to establish a territorial Government for New Mexico

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following propositions shall be, and the same hereby are, offered to the State of Texas, which, when agreed to by the said State, in an act passed by the general assembly, shall be binding and obligatory upon the United States, and upon the said State of Texas: Provided, The said agree- ment by the said general assembly shall be given on or before the first day of December, eighteen hundred and fifty: FIRST. The State of Texas will agree that her boundary on the north shall commence at the point at which the meridian of one hun- dred degrees west from Greenwich is intersected by the parallel of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, and shall run from said point due west to the meridian of one hundred and three degrees west from Greenwich; thence her boundary shall run due south to the thirty-second degree of north latitude; thence on the said parallel of thirty-two degrees of north latitude to the Rio Bravo del Norte, and thence with the channel of said river to the Gulf of Mexico. SECOND. The State of Texas cedes to the United States all her claim to territory exterior to the limits and boundaries which she agrees to establish by the first article of this agreement. THIRD. The State of Texas relinquishes all claim upon the United States for liability of the debts of Texas, and for compensation or in- demnity for the surrender to the United States of her ships, forts, arsenals, custom-houses, custom-house revenue, arms and munitions of war, and public buildings with their sites, which became the property of the United States at the time of the annexation. FOURTH. The United States, in consideration of said establishment of boundaries, cession of claim--,to territory, and relinquishment of claims, will pay to the State of Texas the sum of ten millions of dol- lars in a stock bearing five per cent. interest, and redeemable at the end of fourteen years, the interest payable half-yearly at the treasury of the United States. FIFTH. Immediately after the President of the United States shall have been furnished with an authentic copy of the act of the general assembly of Texas accepting these propositions, he shall cause the stock to be issued in favor of the State of Texas, as provided for in the fourth article of this agreement: Provided, also, That no more than five millions of said stock shall be issued until the creditors of the State holding bonds and other certificates of stock of Texas for which duties on imports were specially pledged, shall first file at the treasury of the United States releases of all claim against the United States for or on account of said bonds or certificates in such form as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury and approved by the pres- ident of the United States: Provided, That nothing herein contained. shall be construed to impair or qualify any thing contained in the third article of the second section of the " joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States," approved March first, eighteen hundred and forty-five; either as regards the number of States that may here- after be formed out of the State of Texas, or otherwise.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That all that portion of the Territory of the United States bounded as follows: Beginning at a point in the Colorado River where the boundary line with the republic of Mexico crosses the same; thence eastwardly with the said boundary line to the Rio Grande; thence following the main channel of said river the parallel of the thirty-second degree of north latitude ; thence east with said degree to its intersection with the one hundred and third degree of longitude west of Greenwich; thence north with said degree of longitude to the parallel of thirty-eighth degree of north latitude; thence west with said parallel to the summit of the Sierra Madre ; thence south with the crest of said mountains to the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude; thence west with said parallel to its intersection with the boundary line of the State of California ; thence with said boundary line to the place of beginning- be, and the same is hereby, erected into a temporary government, by the name of the Territory of New Mexico: Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to inhibit the government of the United States from dividing said Territory into two or more Territories, in such manner and at such times as Congress shall deem convenient and proper, or from attaching any portion thereof to any other Territory or State: And provided, further, That, when admitted as a State, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the executive power and authority in and over said Territory of New Mexico shall be vested in , a governor, who shall hold his office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States. The governor shall reside within said Territory, shall be commander-in-chief of the militia thereof, shall perform the duties and receive the emoluments of superintendent of Indian affairs, and shall approve all laws passed by the legislative assembly before they shall take effect; he may grant pardons for offences against the laws of said Territory, and reprieves for offences against the laws of the United States, until the decision of the President can be made known thereon. he shall commission all officers who shall be appointed to office under the laws of the said Territory, and shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That there shall be a secretary of said Territory, who shall reside therein, and hold his office for four years, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States ; .he shall record and preserve all the laws and proceedings of the legis- lative assembly hereinafter constituted and all the acts and proceed- ings of the governor in his executive department ; he shall transmit one copy of the laws and one copy of the executive proceedings, on or before the first day of December in each year, to the President of the United States, and, at the same time, two copies of the laws to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, for the use of Congress. And, in case of the death, removal, resignation, or other necessary absence of the governor from the Terri- tory, the secretary shall have, and he is hereby authorized and required to execute and perform all the powers and duties of the governor during such vacancy or necessary absence, or until another governor shall be duly appointed to fill such vacancy.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power and authority of said Territory shall be vested in the governor and a legislative assembly. The legislative assembly shall consist of a Council and House of Representatives. The Council shall consist of thirteen members, having the qualifications of voters as hereinafter prescribed, whose term of service shall continue two years. The House of Representatives shall consist of twenty-six members, possess- ing the same qualifications as prescribed for members of the Council, and whose term of service shall continue one year. An apportionment shall be made, as nearly equal as practicable, among the several coun- ties or districts, for the election of the Council and House of Repre- sentatives, giving to each section of the Territory representation in the ratio of its population, (Indians excepted,) as nearly as may be. And the members of the Council and of the House of Representatives shall reside in, and be inhabitants of, the district for which they may be elected respectively. Previous to the first election, the governor shall cause a census or enumeration of the inhabitants of the several counties and districts of the Territory to be taken, and the first elec- tion shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, as the governor shall appoint and direct; and he shall, at the same time, declare the number of the members of the Council and House of Representatives to which each of the counties or districts shall be entitled under this act. The number of persons authorized to be elected having the highest number of votes in each of said Coun- cil districts, for members of the Council, shall be declared by the gov- ernor to be duly elected to the Council; and the person or persons authorized to be elected having the greatest number of votes for the House of Representatives, equal to the number to which each county or district shall be entitled, shall be declared by the governor to be duly elected members of the House of Representatives: Provided, That in case of a tie- between two or more persons voted for, the gov- ernor shall order a new election to supply the vacancy made by such tie. And the persons thus elected to the legislative assembly shall meet at such place and on such day as the governor shall appoint; but thereafter, the time, place, and manner of holding and conducting all elections by the people, and the apportioning the representation in the several counties or districts to the Council and House of Repre- sentatives according to the population, shall be prescribed by law, as well as the day of the commencement of the regular sessions of the legislative assembly: Provided, That no one session shall exceed the term of forty days.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That every free white male in- habitant, above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of said Territory at the time of the passage of this act, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said Territory; but the qualifications of voters and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the legislative assembly: Provided, That the right of suffrage, and of holding office, shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, including those recognized as citizens by the treaty with the republic of Mexico, concluded February second, eighteen hundred and forty-eight.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States; nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents. All the laws passed by the legislative assembly and governor shall be submitted to the Congress of the United States, and, if disapproved, shall be null and of no effect.

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That all township, district, and county officers. not herein otherwise provided for, shall be appointed or elected, as the case may be, in such manner as shall be provided by the governor and legislative assembly of the Territory of New Mexico. The governor shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the legislative Council, appoint, an officers not herein otherwise provided for; and in the first instance the governor alone may appoint all said officers, who shall hold their offices until the end of the first session of the legislative assembly, and shall lay off the necessary districts for members of the Council and House of Repre- sentatives, and all other officers.

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That no member of the legis- lative assembly shall hold, or be appointed to, any office which shall have been created, or the salary or emoluments of which shall have been increased while he was a member, during the term for which he was elected, and for one year after the expiration of such term; and no person holding a commission or appointment under the United States, except postmasters, shall be a member of the legislative assembly, or shall hold any office under the government of said Territory.

SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That the judicial power of said Territory shall be vested in a Supreme Court, District Courts, Probate Courts, and in justices of the peace. The Supreme Court shall consist of a chief justice and two associate justices, any two of whom shall constitute a quorum, and who shall hold a term at the seat of government of said Territory annually, and they shall hold their offices during the period of four years. The said Territory shall be divided into three judicial districts, and a District Court shall be held in each of said districts by one of the justices of the Supreme Court, at such time and place as may be prescribed by law; and the said judges shall, after their appointments, respectively, reside in the dis- tricts which shall be assigned them. The jurisdiction of the several courts herein provided for, both appellate and original, and that of the Probate Courts and of justices of the peace, shall be as limited by law: Provided, That justices of the peace shall not have jurisdiction of any matter in controversy when the title or boundaries of land may be in dispute, or where the debt or sum claimed shall exceed one hundred dollars; and the said Supreme and District Courts, respectively, shall possess chancery as well as common law jurisdiction. Each District Court, or the judge thereof, shall appoint its clerk, who shall also be the register in chancery, and shall keep his office at the place where the court may be held. Writs of error, bills of exception, and appeals, shall be allowed in all cases from the final decisions of said District Courts to the Supreme Court, under such regulations as may be pre- scribed by law, but in no case removed to the Supreme Court shall trial by jury be allowed in said court. The Supreme Court, or the justices thereof, shall appoint its own clerk, and every clerk shall hold his office at the pleasure of the court for which he shall have been ap- pointed. Writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of said Supreme Court shall be allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the Circuit Courts of the United States, where the value of the property or the amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party, or other competent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars; except only that in all cases in- volving title to slaves, the said writs of error or appeals shall be allowed and decided by the said Supreme Court without regard to the value of the matter, property, or title in controversy; and except also that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States from the decision of the said Supreme Court created by this act, or of any judge thereof, or of the District Courts created by this act, or of any judge thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom; and each of the said District Courts shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States as is vested in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States; and the said Supreme and District Courts of the said Territory, and the respective judges thereof, shall and may grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases in which the same are grantable by the judges of the United States in the District of Columbia; and the first six days of every term of said courts, or so much thereof as shall be necessary, shall be ap- propriated to the trial of causes arising under the said Constitution and laws; and writs of error and appeals in all such cases shall be made to the Supreme Court of said Territory, the same as in other cases. The said clerk shall receive in all such cases the same fees which the clerks of the District Courts of Oregon Territory now receive for similar services.

SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That there shall be appointed an attorney for said Territory, who shall continue in office for four years, unless sooner removed by the President, and who shall receive the same fees and salary as the attorney of the United States for the present Territory of Oregon. There shall also be a marshal for the Territory appointed, who shall hold his office for four years, unless sooner removed by the president, and who shall execute all processes issuing from the said courts when exercising their jurisdiction as Cir- cuit and District Courts of the United States: he shall perform the duties, be subject to the same regulation and penalties, and be entitled to the same fees as the marshal of the District Court of the United States for the present Territory of Oregon, and shall, in addition, be paid two hundred [dollars ] annually as a compensation for extra services.

SEC. 12. And be it further enacted, That the governor secretary, chief justice and associate justices, attorney and marshal shall be nominated, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appointed by the President of the United States. The governor and secretary, to be appointed as aforesaid, shall, before they act as such, respectively take an oath or affirmation, before the district judge, or some justice of the peace in the limits of said Territory, duly author- ized to administer oaths and affirmations by the laws now in force therein, or before the chief justice or some associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to support the Constitution of the United States, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices; which said oaths, when so taken, shall be certified by the per- son by whom the same shall have been taken, and such certificates shall be received and recorded by the said secretary among the execu- tive proceedings; and the chief justice and associate justices, and all other civil officers in said Territory, before they act as such, shall take a like oath or affirmation, before the said governor or secretary, or some judge or justice of the peace of the Territory, who may be duly commissioned and qualified, which said oath or affirmation shall be certified and transmitted, by the person taking the same, to the secretary, to be by him recorded as aforesaid; and afterwards, the like oath or affirmation shall be taken, certified, and recorded, in such manner and form as may be prescribed by law. The governor shall receive an annual salary of fifteen hundred dollars as governor, and one thousand dollars as superintendent of Indian affairs. The chief justice and associate justices shall each receive an annual salary of eighteen hundred dollars. The secretary shall receive an annual salary of eighteen hundred dollars. The said salaries shall be paid quarter-yearly, at the treasury of the United States. The members of the legislative assembly shall be entitled to receive three dollars each per day during their attendance at the sessions thereof, and three dollars each for every twenty miles' travel in going to and returning from the said sessions, estimated according to the nearest usually travelled route. There shall be appropriated annually the sum of one thousand dollars, to be expended by the governor, to defray the con- tingent expenses of the Territory; there shall also be appropriated annually a sufficient sum to be expended by the secretary of the Ter- ritory, and upon an estimate to be made by the Secretary of the Treas- ury of the United States, to defray the expenses of the legislative assembly, the printing of the laws, and other incidental expenses ; and the secretary of the Territory shall annually account to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States for the manner in which the aforesaid sum shall have been expended.

SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the legislative assem- bly of the Territory of New Mexico shall hold its first session at such time and place in said Territory as the Governor thereof shall appoint and direct; and at said first session, or as soon thereafter as they shall deem expedient, the governor and legislative assembly shall proceed to locate and establish the seat of government for said Territory at such place as they may deem eligible; which place, how- ever, shall thereafter be subject to be changed by the said governor and legislative assembly.

SEC. 14. And be it further enacted, That a delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States, to serve during each Congress of the United States, may be elected by the voters qualified to elect members of the legislative assembly, who shall be entitled to the same rights and privileges as are exercised and enjoyed by the dele- gates from the several other Territories of the United States to the said House of Representatives. The first election shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, as the governor shall appoint and direct; and at all subsequent elections, the times, places, and manner of holding the elections shall be prescribed by law. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be declared by the governor to be duly elected, and a certificate thereof shall be given accordingly: Provided, That such delegate shall receive no higher sum for mileage than is allowed by law to the delegate from Oregon.

SEC. 15. And be it further enacted, That when the lands in said Territory shall be surveyed under the direction of the government of the United States, preparatory to bringing the same into market, sec- tions numbered sixteen and thirty-six in each township in said Ter- ritory shall be, and the same are hereby, reserved for the purpose of being applied to schools in said Territory, and in the States and Ter- ritories hereafter to be erected out of the same. .

SEC. 16. And be it further enacted, That temporarily and until otherwise provided by law, the governor of said Territory may define the judicial districts of said Territory, and assign the judges who may be appointed for said Territory to the several districts, and also appoint the times and places for holding courts in the several counties or subdivisions in each of said judicial districts, by proclamation to be issued by him; but the legislative assembly, at their first or any sub- sequent session, may organize, alter, or modify such judicial districts, and assign the judges, and alter the times and places of holding the courts, as to them shall seem proper and convenient.

SEC. 17. And be it further enacted, That the Constitution, and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of New Mexico as elsewhere within the United States.

SEC. 18. And be it further enacted, That the provisions of this act be, and they are hereby, suspended until the boundary between the United States and the State of Texas shall be adjusted; and when such adjustment shall have been effected, the President of the United States shall issue his proclamation, declaring this act to be in full force and operation, and shall proceed to appoint the officers herein provided to be appointed in and for said Territory.

SEC. 19. And be it further enacted, That no citizen of the United States shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, in said Territory, except by the judgment of his peers and the laws of the land.

APPROVED, September 9, 1850.

An Act for the admission of the State of California into the Union

Whereas the people of California have presented a constitution and asked admission into the Union, which constitution was submitted to Congress by the President of the United States, by message dated February thirteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty, and which, on doe examination, is found to be republican in its form of government:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of California shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That, until the representatives in Congress shall be apportioned according to an actual enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States, the State of California shall be entitled to two representatives in Congress.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the said State of California is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the people of said State, through their legislature or otherwise, shall never inter- fere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States to, and right to dispose of, the same shall be impaired or questioned ; and that they shall never lay any tax or assessment of any description whatsoever upon the public domain of the United States, and in no case shall non-resident proprietors, who are citizens of the United States, be taxed higher than residents; and that all the navigable waters within the said State shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said State as to the citizens of the United States, without any tax, impost, or duty therefor: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as recognizing or rejecting the propositions tendered by the people of California as articles of compact in the ordinance adopted by the convention which formed the constitution of that State.

APPROVED, September 9, 1850.

An Act to establish a Territorial Government for Utah

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the following limits, to wit: bounded on the west by the State of California, on the north by the Territory of Oregon, and on the east by the summit of the Rocky Mountains, and on the south by the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude, be, and the same is hereby, created into a temporary government, by the name of the Territory of Utah; and, when admit- ted as a State, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission: Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to inhibit the government of the United States from dividing said Territory into two or more Ter- ritories, in such manner and at such times as Congress shall deem convenient and proper, or from attaching any portion of said Territory to any other State or Territory of the United States.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the executive power and authority in and over said Territory of Utah shall be vested in a governor, who shall hold his office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States. The governor shall reside within said Territory, shall be commander-in-chief of the militia thereof, shall perform the duties and receive the emoluments of superintendent of Indian affairs, and shall approve all laws passed by the legislative assembly before they shall take effect: he may grant pardons for offences against the laws of said Territory, and reprieves for offences against the laws of the United States, until the decision of the President can be made known thereon; he shall commission all officers who shall be appointed to office under the laws of the said Territory, and shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That there shall be a secretary of said Territory, who shall reside therein, and hold his office for four years, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States: he shall record and preserve all the laws and proceedings of the legislative assembly hereinafter constituted, and all the acts and proceed- ings of the governor in his executive department; he shall transmit one copy of the laws and one copy of the executive proceedings, on or before the first day of December in each year, to the President of the United States, and, at the same time, two copies of the laws to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President of the Senate, for the use of Congress. And in the case of the death, removal, resignation, or other necessary absence of the governor from the Territory, the secretary shall have, and he is hereby authorized and required to execute and perform, all the powers and duties of the governor during such vacancy or necessary absence, or until another governor shall be duly appointed to fill such vacancy.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power and authority of said Territory shall be vested in the governor and a legislative assembly. The legislative assembly shall consist of a Council and House of Representatives. The Council shall consist of thirteen members, having the qualifications of voters as hereinafter prescribed, whose term of service shall continue two years. The House of Representatives shall consist of twenty-six members, possessing the same qualifications as prescribed for members of the Council, and , whose term of service shall continue one year. An apportionment shall be made, as nearly equal as practicable, among the several coun-ties or districts, for the election of the Council and House of Repre- sentatives, giving to each section of the Territory representation in the ratio of its population, Indians excepted, as nearly as may be. And the members of the Council and of the House of Representatives shall reside in, and be inhabitants of, the district for which they may be elected respectively. Previous to the first election, the governor shall cause a census or enumeration of the inhabitants of the several coun- ties and districts of the Territory to be taken, and the first election shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, as the governor shall appoint and direct; and he shall, at the same time, declare the number of members of the Council and House of Representatives to which each of the counties or districts shall be entitled under this act. The number of persons authorized to be elected hav- ing the highest number of votes in each of said Council districts for members of the Council, shall be declared by the governor to be duly elected to the Council; and the person or persons authorized to be elected having the highest number of votes for the House of Repre- sentatives, equal to the number to which each county or district shall be entitled, shall be declared by the governor to be duly elected mem- bers or the House of Representatives: Provided, That in case of a tie between two or more persons voted for, the governor shall order a new election to supply the vacancy made by such a tie. And the persons thus elected to the legislative assembly shall meet at such place, and on such day, as the governor shall appoint; but thereafter, the time, place, and manner of holding and conducting all elections by the people, and the apportioning the representation in the several counties or districts to the Council and House of Representatives, according to population, shall be prescribed by law, as well as the day of the commencement of the regular sessions of the legislative assembly: Provided That no one session shall exceed the term of forty days.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident or said Territory at the time of the passage of this act, shall he entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said Territory; but the qualifications of voters and of hold- ing office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be pre- scribed by the legislative assembly: Provided, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, including those recognized as citizens by the treaty with the republic of Mexico, concluded February second, eighteen hundred and forty-eight.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power of said Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, con- sistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States; nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents. All the laws passed by the legislative assembly and governor shall be submit- ted to the Congress of the United States, and, if disapproved, shall be null and of no effect.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That all township, district, and county officers, not herein otherwise provided for, shall be appointed or elected, as the case may be, in such manner as shall be provided by the governor and legislative assembly of the territory of Utah. The governor shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the legislative Council, appoint all officers not herein otherwise pro- vided for; and in the first instance the governor alone may appoint all said officers, who shall hold their offices until the end of the first ses- sion of the legislative assembly, and shall layoff the necessary dis- tricts for members of the Council and House of Representatives, and all other offices.

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That no member of the legislative assembly shall hold or be appointed to any office which shall have been created, or the salary or emoluments of which shall have been increased while he was a member, during the term for which he was elected, and for one year after the expiration of such term; and no person holding a commission or appointment under the United States, except postmasters, shall be a member of the legislative assem- bly, or shall hold any office under the government of said Territory.

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That the judicial power of said Territory shall be vested in a Supreme Court, District Courts, Probate Courts, and in justices of the peace. The Supreme Court shall consist of a chief justice and two associate justices, any two of whom shall constitute a quorum, and who shall hold a term at the Beat of govern- ment of said Territory annually, and they shall hold their offices during the period of four years. The said Territory shall be divided into three judicial districts, and a District Court shall be held in each of said districts by one of the justices of the Supreme Court, at such time and place as may be prescribed by law; and the said judges shall, after their appointments, respectively, reside in the districts which shall be assigned them. The jurisdiction of the several courts herein provided for, both appellate and original, and that of the Probate Courts and of justices of the peace, shall be as limited by law: Provided, That justices of the peace shall not have jurisdiction of any matter in controversy when the title or boundaries of land may be in dis- pute, or where the debt or sum claimed shall exceed one hundred dol- lars ; and the said Supreme and District Courts, respectively, shall possess chancery as well as common law jurisdiction. Each Dis- trict Court, or the judge thereof, shall appoint its clerk, who shall also be the register in chancery, and shall keep his office at the place where the court may be held. Writs of error, bills of exception, and appeals shall be allowed in all cases from the final decisions of said District Courts to the Supreme Court, under such regulations as may be pre- scribed by law; but in no case removed to the Supreme Court shall trial by jury be allowed in said court. The Supreme Court, or the justices thereof, shall appoint its own clerk, and every clerk shall hold his office at the pleasure of the court for which he shall have been ap- pointed. Writs of error, and appeals from the final decisions of said Supreme Court, shall be allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the Circuit Courts of the United States, where the value of the property or the amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party, or other compe- tent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars, except only that, in all cases involving title to slaves, the said writs of error or appeals shall be allowed and decided by the said Supreme Court, without regard to the value of the matter, property, or title in controversy; and except also, that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, from the decisions of the said Supreme Court created by this act or of any judge thereof or of the District Courts created by this act or of any judge thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom; and each of the said District Courts shall have and exercise the same jurisdic- tion in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States as is vested in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States; and the said Supreme and District Courts of the said Territory, and the respective judges thereof shall and may grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases in which the same are granted by the judges of the United States in the District of Columbia; and the first six days of every term of said courts, or so much thereof as shall be necessary. shall be appropriated to the trial of causes arising under the said Con- stitution and laws; and writs of error and appeal, in all such cases, shall be made to the Supreme Court of said Territory, the same as in other cases. The said clerk shall receive in all such cases the same fees which the clerks of the District Courts of Oregon Territory now receive for similar services.

SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That there shall be appointed an attorney for said Territory, who shall continue in office for four years, unless sooner removed by the President, and who shall receive the same fees and salary as the attorney of the United States for the present Territory of Oregon. There shall also be a marshal for the Territory appointed, who shall hold his office for four years, unless sooner removed by the President, and who shall execute all processes issuing from the said courts, when exercising their jurisdiction as Cir- cuit and District Courts of the United States: he shall perform the du- ties, be subject to the same regulation and penalties, and be entitled to the same fees as the marshal of the District Court of the United States for the present Territory of Oregon; and shall, in addition, be paid two hundred dollars annually as a compensation for extra services.

SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That the governor, secretary, chief justice and associate justices, attorney and marshal, shall be nominated, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appointed by the President of the United States. The governor and secretary to be appointed as aforesaid shall, before they act as such. respectively, take an oath or affirmation, before the district judge, or some justice of the peace in the limits of said Territory, duly authorized to administer oaths and affirmations by the laws now in force there-in or before the chief justice or some associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to support the Constitution of the United States, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices ; which said oaths, when so taken, shall be certified by the person by whom the same shall have been taken, and such certificates shall be re- ceived and recorded by the said secretary among the executive proceed- ings; and the chief justice and associate justices, and all other civil officers in said Territory, before they act as such, shall take a like oath or affirmation, before the said governor or secretary, or some judge or justice of the peace of the Territory who may be duly commissioned and qualified, which said oath or affirmation shall be certified and transmitted, by the person taking the same, to the secretary, to be by him recorded as aforesaid; and afterwards, the like oath or affirmation shall be taken, certified, and recorded, in such man- ner and form as may he prescribed by law. The governor shall receive an annual salary of fifteen hundred dollars as governor, and one thousand dollars as superintendent of Indian affairs. The chief jus- tice and associate justices shall each receive an annual salary of eigh- teen hundred dollars. The secretary shall receive an annual salary of eighteen hundred dollars. The said salaries shall be paid quarter- yearly, at the treasury of the United States. The members of the legislative assembly shall be entitled to receive three dollars each per day during their attendance at the sessions thereof, and three dollars each for twenty miles' travel, in going to and returning from the said sessions, estimated according to the nearest usually travelled route. There shall be appropriated annually the sum of one thousand dollars, to be expended by the governor, to defray the contingent expenses of the Territory. There shall also be appropriated, annually, a sufficient sum, to be expended by the secretary of the Territory, and upon an es- timate to be made by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, to defray the expenses of the legislative assembly, the print- ing of the laws, and other incidental expenses; and the secretary of the Territory shall annually account to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States for the manner in which the aforesaid sum shall have been expended.

SEC. 12. And be it further enacted, That the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah shall hold its first session at such time and place in said Territory as the governor thereof shall appoint and direct; and at said first session, or as soon thereafter as they shall deem expedient, the governor and legislative assembly shall proceed to locate and establish the seat of government for said Territory at such place as they may deem eligible; which place, however, shall thereafter be, subject to be changed by the said governor and legislative assembly. And the sum of twenty thousand dollars, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, is hereby appropriated and granted to said Territory of Utah to be applied by the governor and legislative assembly to the erection of suitable public buildings at the seat of government.

SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That a delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States, to serve during each Congress of the United States, may be elected by the voters qualified to elect members of the legislative assembly, who shall be entitled to the same rights and privileges as are exercised and enjoyed by the delegates from the several other Territories of the United States to the said House of Representatives. The first election shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, as the governor shall appoint and direct; and at all subsequent elections, the times, places, and manner of holding the elections shall be prescribed by law. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be declared by the governor to be duly elected, and a certificate thereof shall be given accordingly : Provided, That said delegate shall receive no higher sum for mileage than is allowed by law to the delegate from Oregon.

SEC. 14. And be it further enacted, That the sum or five thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any moneys in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended by and under the direction of the said governor of the territory of Utah, in the purchase of a library, to be kept at the seat of government for the use of the governor, legislative assembly, judges of the Supreme Court, secretary, marshal, and attorney of said Territory, and such other per- sons, and under such regulations, as shall be prescribed by law.

SEC. 15. And be it further enacted, That when the lands in the said Territory shall be surveyed under the direction of the government of the United States preparatory to bringing the same into market, sec- tions numbered sixteen and thirty-six in each township in said Ter- ritory shall be, and the same are hereby, reserved for the purpose of being applied to schools in said Territory, and in the States and Terri- tories hereafter to be erected out of the same.

SEC. 16. And be it further enacted, That temporarily, and until otherwise provided by law, the governor of said Territory may define the judicial districts of said Territory, and assign the judges who maybe appointed for said Territory to the several districts, and also ap- point the times and places for holding courts in the several counties or subdivisions in each of said judicial districts, by proclamation to be issued by him; but the legislative assembly, at their first or any sub- sequent session, may organize, alter, or modify such judicial districts, and assign the judges, and alter the times and places of holding the courts, as to them shall seem proper and convenient.

SEC.17. And be it further enacted, That the Constitution and laws of the United States are hereby extended over and declared to be in force in said Territory of Utah, so far as the same, or any provision thereof, may be applicable.

APPROVED, September 9, 1850.

An Act to amend, and supplementary to, the Act entitled "An Act respecting Fugitives from Justice, and Persons escaping from the Service of their Masters," approved February twelfth, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Repsentatives of the United States of America in congress assembled, That the persons who have been, or may hereafter be, appointed commissioners, in virtue of any act of Congress, by the Circuit Courts of the United States and who, in consequence of such appointment, are authorized to exercise the powers that any justice of the peace, or other magistrate of any of the United States, may exercise in respect to offenders for any crime or offence against the United States, by arresting, imprisoning, or bailing the same under and by virtue of the thirty-third section of the act of the twenty-fourth of Septimber seventeen hundred and eighty- nine, entitled " An Act to establish the Judicial courts of the United States," shall be, and are hereby, authorized and required to exercise and discharge all the powers and duties conferred by this act.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Superior Court of each organized Territory of the United States shall have the same power to appoint commissioners to take acknowledgements of bail and affidavits and to take depositions of witnesses in civil causes, which is now possessed by the Circuit Court of the United States; and all commissioners who shall hereafter be appointed for such purposes by the Superior Court of any organized Territory of the United States, shall possess all the powers, and exercise all the duties, conferred by law upon the commissioners appointed by the Circuit Courts of the United States for similar purposes, and shall moreover exercise and discharge all the powers and duties conferred by this act.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the Circuit Courts of the United States, and the Superior Courts of each organized Territory of the United States, shall from time to time enlarge the number of com- missioners, with a view to afford reasonable facilities to reclaim fugi- tives from labor, and to the prompt discharge of the duties imposed by this act.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the commissioners above named shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the judges of the Cir- cuit and District Courts of the United States, in their respective cir- cuits and districts within the several States, and the judges of the Superior Courts of the Territories, severally and collectively, in term- time and vacation; and shall grant certificates to such claimants, upon satisfactory proof being made, with authority to take and remove such fugitives from service or labor, under the restrictions herein contained, to the State or Territory from which such persons may have escaped or fled.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of all marshals and deputy marshals to obey and execute all warrants and precepts issued under the provisions of this act, when to them directed ; and should any marshal or deputy marshal refuse to receive such war- rant, or other process, when tendered, or to use all proper means diligently to execute the same, he shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in the sum of one thousand dollars, to the use of such claimant, on the motion of such claimant, by the Circuit or District Court for the district of such marshal; and after arrest of such fugitive, by such mar- shal or his deputy, or whilst at any time in his custody under the pro- visions of this act, should such fugitive escape, whether with or without the assent of such marshal or his deputy, such marshal shall be liable, on his official bond, to be prosecuted for the benefit of such claimant, for the full value of the service or labor of said fugitive in the State, Territory, or District whence he escaped: and the better to enable the said commissioners, when thus appointed, to execute their duties faith- fully and efficiently, in conformity with the requirements of the Con- stitution of the United States and of this act, they are hereby author- ized and empowered, within their counties respectively, to appoint, in writing under their hands, anyone or more suitable persons, from time to time, to execute all such warrants and other process as may be issued by them in the lawful performance of their respective duties; with authority to such commissioners, or the persons to be appointed by them, to execute process as aforesaid, to summon and call to their aid the bystanders, or posse comitatus of the proper county, when necessary to ensure a faithful observance of the clause of the Con- stitution referred to, in conformity with the provisions of this act ; and all good citizens are hereby commanded to aid and assist in the prompt and efficient execution of this law, whenever their services may he required, as aforesaid, for that purpose; and said warrants shall run, and be executed by said officers, any where in the State within which they are issued.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That when a person held to ser- vice or labor in any State or Territory of the United States, has here- tofore or shall hereafter escape into another State or Territory of the United States, the person or persons to whom such service or labor may be due, or his, her, or their agent or attorney, duly authorized, by power of attorney, in writing, acknowledged and certified under the seal of some legal officer or court of the State or Territory in which the same may be executed, may pursue and reclaim such fugitive per- son, either by procuring a warrant from some one of the courts, judges, or commissioners aforesaid, of the proper circuit, district, or county, for the apprehension of such fugitive from service or labor, or by seiz- ing and arresting such fugitive, where the same can be done without process, and by taking, or causing such person to be taken, forthwith before such court, judge, or commissioner, whose duty it shall be to hear and determine the case of such claimant in a summary manner; and upon satisfactory proof being made, by deposition or affidavit, in writing, to be taken and certified by such court, judge, or commis- sioner, or by other satisfactory testimony, duly taken and certified by some court, magistrate, justice of the peace, or other legal officer au- thorized to administer an oath and take depositions under the laws of the State or Territory from which such person owing service or labor may have escaped, with a certificate of such magistracy or other authority, as aforesaid, with the seal of the proper court or officer thereto attached, which seal shall be sufficient to establish the compe- tency of the proof, and with proof, also by affidavit, of the identity of the person whose service or labor is claimed to be due as aforesaid, that the person so arrested does in fact owe service or labor to the per- son or persons claiming him or her, in the State or Territory from which such fugitive may have escaped as aforesaid, and that said per- son escaped, to make out and deliver to such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, a certificate setting forth the substantial facts as to the ser- vice or labor due from such fugitive to the claimant, and of his or her escape from the State or Territory in which such service or labor was due, to the State or Territory in which he or she was arrested, with authority to such claimant, or his or her agent or attorney, to use such reasonable force and restraint as may be necessary, under the circum- stances of the case, to take and remove such fugitive person back to the State or Territory whence he or she may have escaped as aforesaid. In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this and the first [ fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That any person who shall know- ingly and willingly obstruct, hinder, or prevent such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any person or persons lawfully assisting him, her, or them, from arresting such a fugitive from service or labor, either with or without process as aforesaid, or shall rescue, or attempt to rescue such fugitive from service or labor, from the custody of such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or other person or persons lawfully assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given and declared; or shall aid, abet, or assist such person so owing service or labor as aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to escape from such claimant, his agent or attorney, or other person or persons legally au- thorized as aforesaid; or shall harbor or conceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of such person, after notice or knowl- edge of the fact that such person was a fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid, shall, for either of said offences, be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding six months, by indictment and conviction before the District Court of the United States for the district in which such offence may have been committed, or before the proper court of criminal jurisdiction, if committed within anyone of the organized Territories of the United States; and shall moreover forfeit and pay, by way of civil damages to the party injured by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand dollars, for each fugitive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action of debt, in any of the District or Territorial Courts aforesaid, within whose jurisdiction the said offence may have been committed.

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the marshals, their depu- ties, and the clerks of the said District and Territorial Courts, shall be paid, for their services, the like fees as may be allowed to them for sim- ilar services in other cases; and where such services are rendered ex- clusively in the arrest, custody, and delivery of the fugitive to the claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or where such supposed fugitive may be discharged out of custody for the want of sufficient proof as afore- said, then such fees are to be paid in the whole by such claimant, his agent or attorney; and in all cases where the proceedings are before a commissioner, he shall be entitled to a fee of ten dollars in full for his services in each case, upon the delivery of the said certificate to the claimant, his or her agent or attorney; or a fee of five dollars in cases where the proof shall not, in the opinion of such commissioner, war- rant such certificate and delivery, inclusive of all services incident to such arrest and examination, to be paid, in either case, by the claimant, his or her agent or attorney The person or persons authorized to exe- cute the process to be issued by such commissioners for the arrest and detention of fugitives from service or labor as aforesaid, shall also be entitled to a fee of five dollars each for each person he or they may ar- rest and take before any such commissioner as aforesaid, at the instance and request of such claimant, with such other fees as may be deemed reasonable by such commissioner for such other additional services as may be necessarily performed by him or them; such as attending at the examination, keeping the fugitive in custody, and providing him with food and lodging during his detention, and until the final determi- nation of such commissioner; and, in general, for performing such other duties as may be required by such claimant, his or her attorney or agent, or commissioner in the premises, such fees to be made up in conformity with the fees usually charged by the officers of the courts of justice within the proper district or county, as near as may be prac-ticable, and paid by such claimants, their agents or attorneys, whether such supposed fugitives from service or labor be ordered to be delivered to such claimants by the final determination of such commission- ers or not.

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That, upon affidavit made by the claimant of such fugitive, his agent or attorney, after such certificate has been issued, that he has reason to apprehend that such fugitive will be rescued by force from his or their possession before he can be taken beyond the limits of the State in which the arrest is made, it shall be the duty of the officer making the arrest to retain such fugitive in his custody, and to remove him to the State whence he fled, and there to deliver him to said claimant, his agent, or attorney. And to this end, the officer aforesaid is hereby authorized and required to employ so many persons as he may deem necessary to overcome such force, and to retain them in his service so long as circumstances may require. The said officer and his assistants, while so employed, to receive the same compensation, and to be allowed the same expenses, as are now allowed by law for transportation of criminals, to be certified by the judge of the district within which the arrest is made, and paid out of the treasury of the United States.

SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That when any person held to service or labor in any State or Territory, or in the District of Colum- bia, shall escape therefrom, the party to whom such service or labor shall be due, his, her, or their agent or attorney, may apply to any court of record therein, or judge thereof in vacation, and make satis- factory proof to such court, or judge in vacation, of the escape afore- said, and that the person escaping owed service or labor to such party. Whereupon the court shall cause a record to be made of the matters so proved, and also a general description of the person so escaping, with such convenient certainty as may be; and a transcript of such record, authenticated by the attestation of the clerk and of the seal of the said court, being produced in any other State, Territory, or district in which the person so escaping may be found, and being exhibited to any judge, commissioner, or other officer authorized by the law of the United States to cause persons escaping from service or labor to be de- livered up, shall be held and taken to be full and conclusive evidence of the fact of escape, and that the service or labor of the person es- caping is due to the party in such record mentioned. And upon the production by the said party of other and further evidence if necessary, either oral or by affidavit, in addition to what is contained in the said record of the identity of the person escaping, he or she shall be deliv- ered up to the claimant. And the said court, commissioner, judge, or other person authorized by this act to grant certificates to claimants of fugitives, shall, upon the production of the record and other evidences aforesaid, grant to such claimant a certificate of his right to take any such person identified and proved to be owing service or labor as aforesaid, which certificate shall authorize such claimant to seize or arrest and transport such person to the State or Territory from wbich he escaped: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be con- strued as requiring the production of a transcript of such record as evidence as aforesaid. But in its absence the claim shall be heard and determined upon other satisfactory proofs, competent in law.

APPROVED, September 18, 1850.

An Act to suppress the Slave Trade in the District of Columbia

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-one, it shall not be lawful to bring into the District of Columbia any slave whatever, for the purpose of being sold, or for the purpose of being placed in depot, to be subsequently transferred to any other State or place to be sold as merchandize. And if any slave shall be brought into the said District by its owner, or by the authority or consent of its owner, contrary to the provisions of this act, such slave shall thereupon become liberated and free.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for each of the corporations of the cities of Washington and George- town, from time to time, and as often as may be necessary, to abate, break up, and abolish any depot or place of confinement of slaves brought into the said District as merchandize, contrary to the provis- ions of this act, by such appropriate means as may appear to either of the said corporations expedient and proper. And the same power is hereby vested in the Levy Court of Washington county, if any attempt shall be made, within its jurisdictional limits, to establish a depot or place of confinement for slaves brought into the said District as mer- chandize for sale contrary to this act.

APPROVED, September 20, 1850.

---

Copyright Details
License:	This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.
Source:	[6]
	This image may not be freely used on user pages.
If you think this image is incorrectly licensed you may discuss this on the image's talk page.

Citing Sources

I think that we are way behind on citations. Way too much of Conservapedia is filled with information without providing a source. We cannot be a credible website if we do not cite our sources. I know it will be hard and alot of trouble, but we need to go back through and put citations on everything. --TimSvendsen 23:07, 28 January 2007 (EST)

I agree 100%. Although it will be really annoying, we have to start thinking about it like our post is incomplete without citing sources. Just like we wouldn't post something that was incomplete, we shouldn't post anything unless it's cites are resourced.

~DeborahB.

really, our approach to sources is that they should be the bedrock of the project. no one should start an article without a link in hand, and if all you have is a link, you shouldn't be afraid to just plop the link down, add maybe ten words describing what's in the link and call it an entry.

a wiki is also a good place to copy the text of, for instance, an article which is hidden behind a subscription page like nytimes articles are. or the text of indymedia articles you are certain will be deletedJRobertFleming 10:36, 3 February 2007 (EST)

• Copying an entire New York Times article, assuming it was published after 1923, would likely be copyright infringement. The same is true for any large piece of content copied from another website. ----

I random paged 10 pages and not one had any citations. also at least 6 had one sentance and no wiki links and were not marked as stubbs.

I've made a proposal about the quality of links we should use at Conservapedia_Discussions#References, Thanks ! Terryeo 12:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

New User

hi! i was going to set up my own wiki media project when i ran accross yours. before getting into it, i wanted to say 'thanks for taking the initiative!'

however, there were some things i saw which i was dissapointed with. for instance, the south park entry and others i saw were not encyclopedic. south park, despite its vulgarity, runs positively on some very conservative themes. as a secular conservative often given to vulgarity myself, i was dissapointed that the entry would slag probably the single show on television which mocks sex change operations, abortions and the doctors who provide them in the same episode.

i saw a narrowness of this sort in the "conservapedia commandments" where "BCE/CE" was forbidden. my objection to that may seem semantic; i have no problem with using AD and BC, but that seems to be more apporpriately placed in a stylebook entry of some sort and not dramaticly rendered as if it were the "first rule of fight club". as a secular atheist who has been a conservative all of my life, i momentarily considered this as signal against my participation, that this is in fact "devout christian-opedia." obviously a wikimedia project which bills itself as conservative is going to reflect a religious point of view on certain issues. my hope however is that we can be comprehensive of the broad range of opinions accross the right. for instance, i hope we can address all sides of the issue of homosexuality in a way that recognizes that the idea that it is a born trait is not merely a conciet of the left.

in any case, these are the sorts of discussions which will happen when and where they happen. seeing as this project is less than a month old, there is a lot of room for growth. JRobertFleming 10:25, 3 February 2007 (EST)

The fact is the Conservapedia, from square one, was meant to be a conservative and Christian encyclopedia. That's why we're using BC/AD. PhilipB 12:23, 3 February 2007 (EST)

does that mean "and" or "or". would a positive article on objectivism remain so, or would the community revert?JRobertFleming 19:26, 3 February 2007 (EST)

REPLY: It's not just "semantics" for someone to attempt to erase historical references to Christ, as in the BCE/CE movement. Dates that are based on Christ's birth should be accurately noted as such. "Common Era" was not even a recognized term in 1972 (see Merriam-Webster dictionary of that date), and "Common Era" is a meaningless term today. It's not secular. It's anti-Christian and an incorrect label for Christian dates. See CE for more information.

The really funny thing is that "Common Era" as a dating nomenclature has been accepted and used for centuries by Christian organizations. Maybe you've heard of them - the Catholic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. --Herodotus 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EST)

i think you misunderstood. my objection was the placement of the rule rather than the rule itself. something like using BC/AD rather than BCE/CE is a stylistic point similar to a rule of how proper nouns are capitalized. i think it belongs in a style guide while "commandments" should speak to more general things; such as that editors should comply with the founding intents of the particular wikimedia project and so forth. that said, it's not "anti-christian" to use BCE/CE. not christian isn't the same thing as against christianity. JRobertFleming 19:26, 3 February 2007 (EST)

REPLY BCE/CE is anti-Christian because it censors the meaning of the date to which it attaches. There is nothing "common era" about something that happened 2000 years ago in a period known as Ancient History. Censorship of Christianity to the point of creating confusion is anti-Christian, and it is not allowed here. Wikipedia welcomes that kind of bias for those who want it. This site does not.--Aschlafly 20:10, 3 February 2007 (EST)

REPLY CE isn't necessairly anti-christian. Even amongst christian groups, there is some question as to whether Christ was born in AD 1, or in some year that was merely quite close to that. As such, BCE/CE avoids possible confusion while talking about this issue(I can remember thinking a history book taht said Christ was probably born in about 3/4 BC was incredebly stupid. This would have been avoided had they used BCE/CE)

Secular conservatives are welcome here. In fact, all are welcome. But there are rules about postings that avoid the biases of other online encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia. Read numerous examples of Wikipedia Bias--Aschlafly 12:30, 3 February 2007 (EST)

i'm glad to be welcome! but i hope there aren't rules against bias. i hope there are rules which enforce a right-of-center bias so that trolls can't apeal to some kind of false neutrality. wikipedia claims npov as a principle, but operates on mob rule, which evidently translates to left bias. mealy mouthed princips about neutrality give way to tedious statements like,

"can you prove that ann coulter wasn't born a man? if you can provide well-sourced documentation demonstrating otherwise which is WP:RS and doesn't violate WP:OR then we can return to the arbitration process. until then, your WP:NPA violation (insisting that coulter's sex change is a 'smear') shows a violation of WP:AGF. and i'm putting you on a 3RR ban because you aren't reverting under muliple troll accounts like your oponents on the issue."

inasmuch as this is a place where conservatives are at the reigns, i'd rather be honest and say, "that's commie b______." and delete/ban the troll. or, "CP:TCB" for short. JRobertFleming 19:27, 3 February 2007 (EST)

REPLY: Wikipedia has voluminous vague rules that are then arbitrarily enforced by, as you say, mob rule. It reminds me of the French Revolution, frankly.

Our rules are simple and straightforward. One rule is to keep it clean, as a real encyclopedia does. I've erased your obscenity and don't want to spend my time erasing more vulgar words. Please keep this on a high level. --Aschlafly 20:10, 3 February 2007 (EST)

I'm new here and not out to make waves but just looking at a lot of article I see a huge bias towards including theist opinions (not only theist, but I mainly cruise science.) Information like the abortion states relation to the Kerry/Bush vote, 1st I believe is two articles of information that should exist but not be combined in a speculative manner. Encyclopedias do include modern information such as states votes and abortion, but do not tie them together to infer a relationship. An article such at the imigration article marked for major updates needed, should simply be deleted at this point. It is pure opinion, yet it is marked at a VSA. Their is not a need to expand it, it needs rethought completely, while a touch subject to many, facts are facts and are not biased if wholly presented. Science articles have theist bias present in them, or theist sources which misrepresent or understand the information. I recently finished a re-write the cited source was a anti-science book?!?! How do you use this as a source for a two sentence article? Athiest 11:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Hello Athiest, and welcome. I'm a pretty new user also. What is "cruise science", by the way?

This site is pretty new and clearly still needs a fair bit of work to get it into good shape. I agree that some of the articles I've looked at so far have something of a theistic bias, but from what I can gather, a major reason for this site is to counter the atheist bias in Wikipedia. I'm sure that articles here will be made more neutral in time. However, you are showing the same sort of bias that Wikipedia suffers from, in describing a creationist book as "anti-science". Creationism disagrees with particular views of many scientists, but is most definitely not anti-science, and continued misrepresentation of it as such by bibliosceptics is not helpful.

Philip J. Rayment 21:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Change Default Skin

I think we should change the default skin back to Cologne Blue, any thoughts? --BenjaminS 09:08, 15 February 2007 (EST)

• I'd personally support that. I liked the look, and I liked the fact that it looked different from Wikipedia. Dpbsmith 15:17, 18 February 2007 (EST)

• I wasn't around here when this wiki was Cologne Blue but I'd support changing it back to that. Alot of times I'm looking at Conservapedia and Wikipedia at the same time and sometimes it's hard to tell them apart without looking at the URL. Sulgran 06:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Notability criteria

Given that there have already been discussions about deleting certain articles as uncencylopedic, I think we need to establish some sort of standard for what constitutes an encyclopedic topic. JoshuaZ 14:41, 15 February 2007 (EST)

I agree; That is what I have been after all along. --TimSvendsen 14:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Ok, my initial thoughts are as follows: On Wikipedia, users are fond of stating that "Wikipedia is not paper" that is, the electronic medium allows one to have many more subjects and much more detail than what one would have in a paper encyclopedia. Many see this as a good thing. There however seems to be a perception here among some users that this attitude is actually a bad thing. As far as I can tell, the main objection seems to be inclusion of pop culture elements and that how much one thing or another has influenced society matters less than the nature of the object. For example: South Park many editors find to be an unacceptable topic while New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association is ok. Now, by a rough back of the envelope measure of which of these has had more influence on humanity, South Park would almost certainly win. Similarly, if used a metric of "what fraction of the population has heard about this entity" South Park would win. Finally if we used a metric of the form "how much can we write about this topic and have all of what we write to be well-sourced to independnet reliable sources" then again South Park would win. If one made a similar comparison between the NJSIAA and Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious‎ you will likely get similar results. Furthermore, an organization like the NJSIAA would far too small to be included in Brittanica. These may be useful things to consider when devising a policy. JoshuaZ 15:07, 15 February 2007 (EST)

As a straw man... what's wrong with this: you can only have an entry in Conservapedia if there is a similar entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica (any edition), the Columbia Encyclopedia, or Encarta? Quickly checking Britannica, that would exclude both Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious and Mary Poppins, but would allow P. L. Travers. Dpbsmith 16:37, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Can anyone explain why Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious‎ is a redlink, but Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is not? Dpbsmith 08:21, 21 February 2007 (EST)

That is baffling!!! I hope you know the answer for us!--Aschlafly 09:17, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Two Issues which Need Resolving

Two issues that need resolving are a) what precisely does it mean for this to be written from a Conservative Christian viewpoint? In particular, what policies and world views does this include? (For example, we've had some editing issues over whether Mormons are Christian) b) When writing, should things be written in a way that states the conservative christian viewpoint as fact or merely give is a large amount of weight? That is, should an article say "X is Y and liberals think X is ~Y but they are wrong for the following reasons" or should we have things of the form "Conservatives say X is Y, some people disagree. Here is one reason against this statement and here is n reasons for it for large n". Both of these issues seem to becoming increasingly relevant for a number of articles, such as the evolution related articles, abortion and a few others. JoshuaZ 14:46, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Good questions, Joshua, but I don't see any conflict between the "Conservative Christian viewpoint" and ordinary logic, or faith. So in answer to (a), I would say that we're open to all information that meets the guidelines, which are quite broad. In answer to (b), I'm fine with posting alternative viewpoints with disclosure about who holds those viewpoints. I wouldn't constantly say that "Conservatives say ..." because this site presents encyclopedia-type information as factual. But where liberals disagree with something, I'm fine without point that out along with information about why they disagree (e.g., political or commercial gain, or atheistic views).--Aschlafly 16:13, 18 February 2007 (EST)

In regard to 2, a minor point, you might want to consider the possibility that liberals might support something for other reasons (for example opposition to the death penalty based on religious concerns (quite common with catholics and some liberal evangelicals). JoshuaZ 19:13, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Good point. That's helpful to indicate the basis for differences in opinion.--Aschlafly 20:35, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Connection errors

Lately, I've been getting quite a few connection failures in which the browser says

Failed to connect

The host 205.234.102.111 could not be contacted. If this persists, you should contact the administrator of the remote site."

Just me? Is someone doing maintenance or something? Server busy with more important things? Dpbsmith 15:47, 21 February 2007 (EST)

I am also having some trouble with connecting today. The browser says something to the effect of "could not locate the server". I'm not sure what's causing it. Perhaps the increased traffic lately has something to do with it? ~ SharonS 17:02, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Whoa... well, things are getting interesting, aren't they? What an ugly mess... Conservapedia seems to have gotten noticed in this blog which may be the source of some of the increased traffic. The unkindest thing of all is that it really appears to me is that people are making fun of entries in Conservapedia without noticing that the things that seem risible are the result of recent vandalism by other people making fun of Conservapedia. Dpbsmith 20:28, 21 February 2007 (EST)

I've been in touch with our server and they have made some improvements, but say the main reason is an increase in traffic. I noticed that our number of page views seemed to jump by nearly 10,000 in one day! We can upgrade to wider bandwith if this continues.

I don't mind (unjustified) mockery one bit, by the way. It attracts attention to our site and will be helpful in the long run.--Aschlafly 20:36, 21 February 2007 (EST)

"There's no such thing as bad publicity," huh? Well, let's hope, then, that the vandals have all installed the Alexa Toolbar... Dpbsmith 14:48, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Ed Brayton's note was likely responsible for part. Also, it got picked up in the talk.origins usenet group. JoshuaZ 21:38, 21 February 2007 (EST)

The majority of the mocking has nothing to do with the vandalism (which I don't condone) that will undoubtedly follow from the recent publicity. If you read the critiques you will find that while they may have been made in a mocking tone, mamy of them are valid. I've been using the "Random Page" feature to scan some of the entries, and many of them look as though they were written by grade schoolers--amateurish and decidedly unencyclopedic in nature.

They look that way because many of them are in fact written by teenaged students. I can only imagine what they are making of all this. Dpbsmith 14:52, 22 February 2007 (EST)

These blogs are sure useful for finding mistakes! I just corrected the dates in the index, which had been changed to CE, after reading this [7]. ~ SharonS 21:17, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Andrew, you have already started upsetting one of your more regular contributers (JoshuaZ) by making edits counter to the rules that you yourself made up, then justifying your actions through bold assertions that have no basis in fact. (And no, Andrew, "creationist" is not a pejorative term. Most creationists I know will proudly proclaim themselves as such!) Finally, I just came across the Economics discussion page, and what do I find? A discussion about the merits of the Economics entry? Not likely, since it is only one line. No, you are using it to communicate with your students about some economics assignment you have set them!!! What on Earth has that got to do with creating a serious online competitor to Wikipedia? I think Joshua was right in asking you if this is really just an encyclopedia of Andrew Schlafly's personal opinions, because you sure seem to be acting that way. abba180180 03:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Should Conservapedia be taken offline, or locked against editing, on Sundays?

As I was working on Conservapedia this morning, it occurred to me that an inspection of my edits shows clearly enough that my own answer to this question is "no." However, many of my opinions are not closely aligned with those of other Conservapedians.

As one of the Ten Commandments, the requirement to keep the Sabbath would appear to be a fairly serious one.

(When I was in college and living in Boston some years ago, one Sunday I was carrying my dirty laundry to a laundromat. There were cop cars with flashing lights parked outside it. The laundromat had been open on Sunday previously, but the cops were closing it down for violation of the blue laws ordinances. The unfortunates who had brought their laundry there earlier than I were unhappily carrying armfuls of wet laundry out, under police supervision. Times change...)

I'm guessing that most Conservapedians do not want to see Conservapedia shut down on Sundays, but I am curious to know how this can be harmonized with their opinions on religious conservatism. (In my own opinion, a perfectly good answer would be "we're not always consistent about everything.") Dpbsmith 12:15, 25 February 2007 (EST)

a) Many would argue that the 10 commandments only applied to the Jews b) the original Sabbath was Saturday and some Christian groups (such as the Seventh Day Adventists) keep a Saturday sabbath c) It isn't at all clear that editing Conservapedia would constitute a forbidden form of work in any case. Many Orthodox Jews would say yes, but there view of what is sabbath prohibited is much stricter than that of any extant Christian group I am aware of. For all these reasons, I doubt it would make any sense to close it from editing on Sundays. JoshuaZ 13:42, 25 February 2007 (EST)

It could be argued that editing Conservapedia is not "work", but rather a leisure activity/service to the Lord. Think about it; What's better than spreading God's word on a free encyclopedia? It is undoubtedly reaching many people. --Hojimachong 23:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I think that this section (on Sundays) was included as a joke by a troll about a week ago. MountainDew 23:46, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Dpb brought it up, he seems to be a user in good standing. I presume that the question is quite serious and understandable. If one for example had a Jewish Wiki one would presumably ask the same thing about Saturdays (while it might be more reasonable in that case given the level of stringency among the more observant Jews, I can see the generalization). JoshuaZ 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I apologize and do not mean to insinuate that that user is a troll. I thought that I remembered seeing somebody else make that edit. MountainDew 23:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

If it is locked to editing, I would bear in mind that for missionaries in China, etc, Sunday comes considerably sooner than it does in America. And there's also the issue of timezones. In my opinion, honoring the Sabbath for a website that can be edited from timezones around the world is probably more trouble than it's worth.

Oops, I keep forgetting to sign.... --Blr 03:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't see this as being a important topic. For starters, the Sabbath is not Sunday, but rather Saturday, a common misconception.--Elamdri 03:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It's an ill wind...

Mind you, I am by no means sure that the attention Conservapedia has been attracting is really a Good Thing, but I do see that Conservapedia's Alexa rank is now up to 582,965, from something around 1,900,000 a couple of days ago, and the "reach" chart has an impressively spiky look to it.

(Recall that one of WIkipedia's notability guidelines for websites is an Alexa rank within the top 100,000...). Dpbsmith 13:47, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Now in a webcomic...

Well, Conservapedia has now appeared in a webcomic. Note: web address and webcomic's name contain a mild vulgarity. Dpbsmith 15:35, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Correct web address is here. Do heed Dpbsmith's warnings... --Eldestport^Talk!_Work 06:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

While the webcomic in question is well-drawn, its humor tends to fall flat. Luckily, in this case, the specific date's comic was hilarious. --Herodotus 09:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia Article

I don't know how much attention anyone here was paying attention to matters, but pursuant to this Deletion Review discussion the article has been recreated, and can be found here. JoshuaZ 14:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Access difficult

It is amazingly difficult to work out how to contact anyone here, or work out why someone who stumbles across Conservapedia can not (generally) create an account, make any edits, or respond to various calls to post on a talk page. Several days after reading a newspaper article, I stumbled in at a time when account creation was re-enabled for a few hours. The main page should contain a paragraph on when/why this is so difficult, and perhaps an email address or web page for creating accounts. --Scott 20:57, 9 March 2007 (EST)

It was made "difficult", so we could control the influx of users we were receiving. The server just could not support the numbers we were getting. We also did this so we could control the rampant vandalism for a while. So now we are regularly opening registration for allotted amounts of time. --<<-David R->> 21:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)

That may be a helpful idea, but it needs to be stated. The Main page has links to Ask questions, Conservapedia Talk and Propose a change, but somebody just passing by cannot edit these pages, and has no idea why not. The words invite interaction, but the actions prohibit it. --Scott 21:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I ran into the same issue. Might I suggest putting in one or more validation systems, e.g.:

• Require a validated email address for all editorial access. This won't eliminate the vandals, but it will slow their numbers.
• Use a [Captcha] mechanism for registration and/or editing, which MediaWiki says it supports in versions > 1.60
• If all else fails, switch to manual registration (a SysOp must be involved in every registration). Other Wikis, like CreationWiki, do this.

I must say that one of the biggest frustrations I found was that registration was closed, but all feedback/communication on the site is Wiki-based, which requires registration. The upshot is a catch-22: one can't express frustration about not being able to register, until after you're registered. Hence, this entry is my first input on the site. ;) Pharos 19:42, 10 March 2007 (EST)

One other thought, which goes along with what Scott had said: if the current "on again off again" registration is maintained, at least add a note to the Login/Add Account page indicating this. I stumbled around for about 30 minutes the first time I visited, before I found a mention here about registration being disabled. I have to believe that others are running into the same issues. Be careful, or you'll start to turn off people who really want to be legitimate contributors. Pharos 19:46, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Your points are well-taken. Registration will remain open for a long time now. But I do hope you can contribute some edits! Perhaps surprisingly, I've received complaints like this before and after setting up the accounts, the persons who were complaining don't contribute many edits. So I look forward to seeing your edits!--Aschlafly 19:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)

If registration had been simple, I might have drifted by and made one or two edits, then left. I might have stayed (I still might). Because registration was difficult with no explanation, I explored more links looking for the way in, leading to me having several comments to make here and on your talk page once I was finally able to make them. --Scott 22:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Copyright unclear

There is no visible indication of copyright issues on Conservapedia. This is a problem in both directions:

• There is no statement of what licence/rights are held in content on the website, or who to contact to ask for permission to use it.
• There is no immediately visible indication of what rights I would keep or give away if I contributed. Once editing, there is something like the standard MediaWiki sentences:

Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here.

You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Project:Copyrights for details). DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!

However that link to Project:Copyrights is a blank page. In particular, you might like to consider issues such as:

• Does the contributor or the project own the copyright in any text?
• Who's permission and what attribution is required to print text in a church newsletter or similar?
• Can text be freely copied to Wikipedia or other places from articles here?
• Can text be freely copied from Wikipedia (licenced under GFDL) or other free sources if the articles are sufficiently unbiased, and then modified here?

--Scott 21:41, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Scott, you're exactly right. Please propose a sensible policy that enables free use in a manner to the historically free use of the Bible. Basically, I'd prefer as a broad a license to use as possible while still retaining the right to protect against misuse (such as wholesale copying or distortion of the entire site).

I find Wikipedia's copyright policy to be confusing and I don't think we need to require attribution, as I think Wikipedia might. Also, I reject Wikipedia's concept of community ownership.--Aschlafly 21:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia does not have "community ownership" - each contributor's edits are owned by themselves, but required to be released under the GFDL, which is a rather ominous license allowing pretty much any use (including modification and sale for profit), as long as the derived works also provide the same license. GFDL is related to the Gnu General Public License which was the first widely-used form of license for free open-source computer software.

The first big issue to decide (if it hasn't already) is who owns a contribution? - the individual author, or the owner of the website? Authors need to know if they own legal copyright (as distinct from moral rights) in their contributions, or have given it to someone else (university students and employees usually don't own copyright in their work, the university or employer does). As a newcomer, I am not in a position to answer this.

Older translations of the Bible have expired copyright, and are therefore in the public domain, and anyone can do anything with them.

I wonder if you are looking for something that gives copyright of contributions to the site owner (is that an organization or an individual?) and allows free copying without modification, with credit back to this website, and no commercial use. This corresponds to Creative Commons BY NC ND license. This would allow attributed (to the site, not the editor) use of a page in a free newsletter, but not in a commercial book, and would prevent this site's content from being copied to Wikipedia (which requires the right to create derived works under GFDL).

Creative Commons also have other easy-to-use standard licenses available on their website if I picked the wrong one.

--Scott 22:37, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I suggested what I think you asked for above. After a few minutes' further thought, I realized that suggestion, if adopted prevents a person such as me from writing some text, and contributing it to both Conservapedia and Wikipedia, as I would have given away ownership to Conservapedia, who then license it in a way that Wikipedia will not accept. --Scott 22:58, 9 March 2007 (EST)

How about simply saying that contributors and Conservapedia waive all claims of copyright with respect to use by Conservapedia editors in good standing?--Aschlafly 23:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Andrew that doesn't work at all. Who or what defines an editor in good standing, and can they use the material here or elsewhere also? JoshuaZ 23:05, 9 March 2007 (EST)

You're right, Joshua. My suggestion is not any good. How about this: Conservapedia is not going to assert copyright except in extremely rare circumstances of self-defense for itself or its editors, such as to prevent wholesale copying of the entire website by someone hostile to our purpose.--Aschlafly 10:07, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I have a question. Supposing you are at a library with two computers next to each other and you create the same article on both computers and submit them at the exact same time to Conservapedia and Wikipedia. Is that legal? :) :) :) ~conservative

Andrew, I think it may make the most sense to talk to a lawyer whose a copyright expert and see if they have a recommendation for what to do. JoshuaZ 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Who owns it?

I created 3 articles at CreationWiki that I want to transfer to Conservapedia. I asked the head Admin about it and he is ignoring me. The articles are 98% mine as far as content. Do I own the articles or does CreationWiki? More importantly, can I legally copy the material to Conservapedia since I wrote it? Conservative 23:09, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

The first sentence of http://creationwiki.org/CreationWiki:Copyrights suggests that the authors still own their work. That means you can contribute it here under the same or a different licence. You probably can't give it to Conservapedia (as you've already licenced it to CreationWiki and its readers), so might need to wait until Conservapedia makes it clear who owns the copyright in content here. --Scott 02:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Copyright is a nuisance here. Conservapedia is not going to assert copyright except in extremely rare circumstances of self-defense for itself or its editors, which I cannot imagine but could include preventing a wholesale copying of the entire website by someone hostile to our purpose. So Conservapedia does not create any obstacle for editor "conservative" here.--Aschlafly 10:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

That really doesn't sound like "you may copy content from Conservapedia for ... provided ...". It sounds more like "Copy stuff from here at your own risk, we probably won't care unless you really upset us in which case we reserve the right to sue you in any available court for breach of copyright." I think the first issue is ownership - Both CreationWiki and Wikipedia leave the copyright with their contributors, and clearly state what license the contributors are required to grant. The GFDL which the both use does not allow for any restriction on what the content is used for, future changes, or even selling it. This means that whole articles can be taken from one to the other with the attribution given as a link to the article version that was copied from the other wiki in the edit summary. Other websites such as answers.com can take the entire content of the website and reformat it for their own presentation. Wikipedia's organization can act on behalf of its contributors to enforce the copyright if a copy is used without providing attribution. --Scott 22:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

There is a proposal here. http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Geo.plrd/copyr2 --British_cons (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Sandbox

Is there a sandbox or test space for test editing, like over at Wikipedia? --Transfinite 00:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Yes: sandbox --Aschlafly 00:07, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks! --Transfinite 00:09, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Quality issues

Appaling quality, tiny stubs, moderated to allow no critical viewpoints of conservatives. Simplistic propaganda which only circulates errors to those know no better. No chance of putting across alternative viewpoints and theories with this set up. If you want an on line encyclopedic resource which has an alternative conservative viewpoint then good, its call freedom of expression and you do not have that here. This really is drivel and a failed project.

Didn't fail at all. It's picking up steam. Have a nice day! Karajou 04:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

(Adding a headline for this) It indeed has the potential not to fail, but I wouldn't go as far as saying "Didn't fail at all". Indeed, he/she/it has a few valid points. Conservapedia often seems to try to be different than Wikipedia even though it says it wants to be better. Take a look at locked articles like Faith or Theory of Evolution, which have been locked after attempts to bring them more in line with... well... REALITY (to put it extremely bluntly). It should be noted that Conservapedia became notable enough for Wikipedia because news outlets basically made fun of the vast discrepancy between what is advertised on the front page and what could (and often still can) be found in the articles. Removing pro-Creationism material gets you a Ban warning, but adding "liberal" things or material that doubts Christianity ALSO ends with reverts. Yes, it is picking up steam, but it's still sailing in a quite odd direction in my eyes. --Sid 3050 14:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

And what kind of direction do you wish it to go? Karajou 19:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I don't mind the current direction. Conservapedia has become my main source of entertainment and silly trivia. However, as a contributor to the site, I'd appreciate a change towards balance. The current lack of balance is certainly not an accident. Right now, Conservapedia is Wikipedia in a distortion mirror. The site states that it's against the blatant liberal bias of Wikipedia, and (assuming for a minute that this is actually true) I'm okay with that goal. What I' not okay with is how things went from "remove alleged bias" to "full throttle into another form of bias", and I have to assume that this bias represents conservative views.

I'm German. I have NO idea what a "good, conservative American" really is. But based on what I see here, being conservative means that you should take the Bible literally, believe in Creationism, believe that America and Christianity are the best at everything, etc. Next time somebody tells me he's a conservative, this is what I'll think of him/her. And no, that's not a good thing.

But about my issues with the lack of balance... here are a few examples of articles that got worse in terms of balance and fairness:

• Take a look at this diff of the Theory of Evolution article. It happened right after the entry had been protected, and reverted a good deal of work that might have pushed the article towards a sort of balance between information about evolution and criticism. But it actually got worse since then. Now, check out the current article and tell me if it has improved in terms of balance since the protection. It has turned into a long (the Conservapedia rule about being concise seemingly doesn't apply) rant against evolution and the scientific community. Bonus points if you can explain why the article mentions how the Bible was right about how lions kill their prey.
• But it gets worse. The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution. No, it doesn't just say that it's a possible argument against evolution, it actually says "In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution", and editing it could be hard since the article is protected. And yes, it has of course been reverted to a less balanced version during the lock procedure.
• The same goes for the revert of the Faith article, just before it's protection.

Conservapedia currently is exactly what it accuses Wikipedia of being. Only worse. It still has the potential to get away from the image that blogs and news outlets currently have of it, but it will take time, effort and a looser policy in regards to what counts as an "inappropriate edit".

But if news articles can't change the course this site has chosen, I don't think that our discussion here (or, in fact, any discussion on this site) will lead to change. Maybe Conservapedia will improve eventually. Maybe conservatives (other than the ones on this site) will accept it as a reliable source. It's certainly possible... but unlikely in my eyes. --Sid 3050 21:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

• Agree. The second law of thermodynamics can help life on Earth. For example, it is as a result of entropy (an extension of the 2^nd law of thermodynamics that we get heat from the sun... --Eldestport^Talk!_Work 06:28, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Resource for homeschoolers or community blog?

For the period of time I've been watching it, Conservapedia seems have had several different identities. I'm not sure whether it is primarily

• a learn-by-doing class exercise for homeschooled students
• an attempt to produce a useful encyclopedia with content appropriate for Christian homeschooled students
• a community blog for conservatives to celebrate their conservatism

It does seem to me that in the last week, there's been an increase in blog-like activity, and much more effort has been devoted to creating, wordsmithing, and debating topics that are relevant to conservative-liberal disputes, and relatively less in covering basic high-school material. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, but obviously I, for one, think it's more fun to work on noncontroversial articles than on reverting vandalism and trying to deal appropropriately with way-over-the-top conservative spin.

I have to take responsibility for letting myself get drawn into debates, and sometimes that's fun, too, but I think the sheer volume of it is starting to become a little hazardous to Conservapedia's health. Dpbsmith 14:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I completely agree, Dpbsmith. I will strongly suggest that we do not open registration for a while, so that we have time to take a definite look at every subject. Then we will will have our goal set, articles clean, harmful users removed, and a stance on controversial material. I, too, noticed a rise in unhealthy activity on Conservapedia. Thank you for pointing it out. --<<-David R->> 23:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

One could easily make the same case for Wikipedia. I've seen a sitting member of the Wikipedia history board deliberately and willfully edit an article in such a manner as to remove 150 years of history with something akin to political correctness, all because he didn't like the name of a certain ship. Wikipedia is supposed to be absolutely neutral, but go over there and pick a topic like evolution, and see the contempt and the hate by the editors there over someone who brought in facts that refute it. You'll find the same thing on Wikipedia articles concerning Christanity, Jesus, the Bible, conservatism, Conservapedia, the Creation, and just about anything that a conservative American holds dear.

And you're quick to condemn this site as a "learn-by-doing class excercise for homeschooled students"?

Condemn? Actually I think it's a very interesting educational idea. Dpbsmith 19:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What is the difference between the editing of an article here vs Wikipedia? Is there not the same kind of wordsmithing? Is there not the same kind of editor sitting down in front of his computer screen, at home, listening to the radio? You have a sitting attorney who founded this thing; you honestly think he got his law degree by homeschooling? My own education is a walk down the street to MTSU, which isn't homeschooling either. If education is the key difference between Wikipedia and Conservapedia, all one has to do is look at the rants on Wikipedia to know their own educational level. Karajou 19:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I think I must have been very unclear in expressing myself. Dpbsmith 19:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It just occurred to me that Karajou actually may not know (may not have read Conservapedia:FAQ). Dpbsmith 09:28, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Karajou and I had a mutual misunderstanding and now understand each other. I reworded one phrase of mine which had contributed to the misunderstanding. Dpbsmith 13:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I understood what you were saying - you weren't condemning anything - just looking for clarification of the purpose of the project, because it changes the focus, influences certain decisions, etc. Made sense to me. --Hsmom 00:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Copyright

Please see User:Geo.plrd/copyr2 to review the proposed copyright policy. Geo. 23:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Facebook group devoted to vandalizing Conservapedia

Somebody on this site mentioned a Facebook group devoted to making fun of/vandalizing Conservapedia. The name of the group is obscene so I won't post it here. There are pages and pages of people making fun of the site and discussing techniques for vandalizing it.

Somebody on there said: A suggestion for more subtle vandalism: - Footnote your citation either to irrelevant/embarrasing articles or wikipedia. MountainDew 00:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the tip!--Aschlafly 00:08, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Email me the name. I want to see if we can counter vandalism. Geo. 00:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I did. I posted on their group and they banned me from it. Well, I guess we've probably banned most of them from Conservapedia anyway, so it's fair. MountainDew 00:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It was myself who found the the facegroup, and unfortunately it was on the Wikipedia user talk page of an individual named JoshuaZ. Within Wikipedia itself he had treated, and continues to treat, the subject of conservatism as well as Conservapedia as though it was a joke...and he's here as an editor. Karajou 02:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

In my opinion JoshuaZ has been a very valuable editor on Conservapedia regardless of anything he may have done off site. I don't think people should be banned based on things done on another website. Sulgran 03:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Joshua did not post anything about the facebook group. It was another editor who mentioned it on his talk page. There's no evidence whatsoever that he's in any way involved. Tsumetai 06:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Tsumetai. This might have been easier to deal with if someone had I don't know, maybe asked me what was going on. A user on Wikipedia posted on my page a comment about a facebook group. I glanced at it briefly, from the group description he gave and the description of the group on facebook it appeared that they were not attempting to vandalize but rather add factual information. I therefore felt no need to take any action regarding them. JoshuaZ 09:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Good News

We now have a page for every state in the US. Be that it may that many of them are small one sentence articles, but I feel that it is a start.--Elamdri 06:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

EDIT: I stubbed all the articles I created so people know to add to them. (I used stub2 and put it at the end, please don't bite me!)--Elamdri 06:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Fellow Conservapedians

There is a fellow running around on wikipedia, posing as yours truly. If you could do me a favor and just vandalize his article page every now and then that'd be great. It can be found at [link to user page of Wikipedia user with same account name redacted] Thanks, and keep up the good work.

(Unsigned edit by User:Weregerbil, 07:42, 12 March 2007)

On the very day you create your Conservapedia account, on your fifth edit, before we've had much of a chance to know you or your work, you caution us that a user named Weregerbil on Wikipedia, who has made 7311 edits there, is impersonating you? And you encourage vandalizing his user page?

Your third contribution here was to make the very same prank edit that Stephen Colbert encouraged his listeners to make at Wikipedia. True, you were replacing one prank with another, but it is not very confidence-inspiring.

I don't think that contests to see which site can perform the most vandalism of the other site are good idea. (And given the relative number of users at each site, when you figure the odds...) Dpbsmith 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

There are already enough groups of people who are trying to see who can make the funniest/most obscene/most liberal and unremoved edit to this site. We don't need to pick more battles. MountainDew 15:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Zealousness

I've been spending countless hours reverting vandalism, conspiracy theories, and the like, and I've been getting a lot of emails and talk notices accusing me of being too zealous in my editing. Do you all think I am? I'm just trying to keep the site under control. For instance, some guy keeps editing the Electoral College article and putting in two paragraphs about questionable events during the 2000 election. As he's citing his sources, I'm having a hard time justifying my reverts to him. I'm getting really frustrated and concerned I may not be being fair. Also, this Luke guy who keeps putting stuff into the Earth article about the Earth revolving around the sun is citing sources, Christian sources even. Is it acceptable for me to exercise common sense in these cases? MountainDew 17:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

What page on electoral college? RobS 18:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Why not leave them in, then? This place claims to be non-biased, but that's not how you're acting. --Scrap 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wait... you don't believe the Earth revolves around the Sun? SERIOUSLY?) --Scrap 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

MontainDew you are doing fine, keep on going. --TimSvendsen 00:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Page Move Vandalism

I think some of you may have noticed the 50+ page moves recently... all of them vandalism... on WHEELS! I was wondering what we should do to approach these kinds of problems in the future; mass protection, an automated page-move-revert tool, etc. What are your thoughts? --Hojimachong^talk 23:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Trivial solution: Disable registration, ban all users with less than X good edits and make this a completely isolated project.

Realistic solution: Accept the fact that vandalism can come in any form, stay alert, and hope for the best. If you have the time, look around, and maybe you'll find tools that help you (like scripts and programs that let you revert edits faster and stuff). However, I'd guess that there aren't tools for every type of vandalism (mostly because vandalism is only limited by imagination). And developing a special tool just against one type of vandalism (assuming that it doesn't exist yet) will only lead to vandals changing their tactics. The harder you try to fight back, the more creative a vandal will get. That leaves you with what you got: Your ability to recognize vandals and the determination and stamina to fight them. --Sid 3050 00:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

How do you revert a page? It is so tedious to do it manually.--Elamdri 03:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Admins have the Rollback Tool. It allows to revert a page to a previous edit with one or two mouse clicks from the History (from what I know). It's slightly more comfortable than the manual version (which isn't that bad in itself... just edit the pre-vandal version and hit Save Page), even though mass vandalism still requires you to do mass clicking (not sure if there are mass revert tools). There are also scripts and programs for Wikipedia that let normal users revert more easily (I think), but I'm not sure to what degree they'd work here. I think that this page is a good starting point. However, I have not tried any of these tools myself, so I don't know what works well and what does not, even ignoring the possible issue of compatibility. --Sid 3050 11:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Is this a joke?

Please do not be offended if it is not, but it seems to me that Conservapedia is simply a mock encyclopedia like Stupidedia oder Kamelopedia (german). After reading this section it really looks to me like a joke. Furthermore, I do not see why Wikipedia should be "too liberal" - can anyone give me an example of liberal bias in Wikipedia? (And by this I mean in an article not tagged with "Neutrality disputed".) Finally, why not simply edit pages in Wikipedia to remove liberal bias (if there is any) and replace it with a neutral point of view instead of founding a new encyclopedia with a conservative bias - even in the name? If I want information, I don't want information with a liberal or conservative bias, I simply want information from a neutral point of view - and I think many people will agree with me on that. --QuestionMark 09:20, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The way things are at this exact moment are caused by a group of spammers, it will be fixed over the next day or so when they stop and the other sysops drop by.Nsmyth 09:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I will return in a few days and see if it is better. But if anyone has time to answer my other questions, please do so. BTW: I have now found Examples of Bias in Wikipedia, and some of this examples seem to be outdated. --QuestionMark 09:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, rest assured, this whole thing is a joke. Looks like it may be getting out of hand. But a friend of mine in the TV industry assures me that Steven Colbert is preparing a special program in April 1st which will reveal that he made up the whole story about so-called "Andrew Schlafly" and his supposed homeschoolers.

Oh, I can't wait for the mass page-protecting that will have to take place then. --Hojimachong^talk 10:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

crimesofthelemon Ah, but Colbert is a LIBERAL, remember? Him and his devil worshipping pal Jon Stewart...

Colbert actually claims to be a Libertarian in real life. ColinR 05:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If this is true, we may need to block registration on April 1 and for the next few days afterward. MountainDew 17:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I think it's a fairly sure call that this is not one of Colbert's jokes (as awesome as it would be - Hi Mom! I'm on TV!). The Eagle Forum didn't seem to pop up overnight, and I think other sites confirmed that Andy actually existed way before this site. So unless Colbert somehow convinced the Eagle Forum and the Schlafly family to play along, I fear this is site is actually meant to be taken seriously. --Sid 3050 17:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes

QuestionMark: From your post, I'm guessing you're German? That might explain your confusion. As far as I can tell, the political spectrum in Europe is both broader and generally more 'liberal' than here in the USA. By European standards, the US has one Right-Wing party (The Democrats) and one Ultra-Right-Wing party (the Republicans). And then we have the people who created this site, who are ultra-right-wing Republicans, which might explain why you mistook their fervent political views for a joke.

Or possibly it was their views on science that left you nonplussed. I've been led to believe that Creationism is almost unheard of in the developed world outside of the USA? A little background, then. These are folks who believe as hard as they can that the entire Bible is meant to be taken literally. (Except for inconvenient parts, like that Communist hooey about "Giving to the poor", which they just ignore.) As far as they're concerned, the entire Book of Genesis is meant to be 100% scientifically and historically accurate. Since just about every discovery in the fields of archaeology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, anthropology and physics in the last three centuries contradicts this assertion, they've been forced to reject that reality and substitute one of their own, formulating a grand model of the universe filled with physical 'deus ex machinae' and a vast, world-spanning conspiracy of evil scientists ruthlessly suppressing the Truth(tm) on behalf of their master, Satan.

So, to answer your question, yes, this site is a joke. The people responsible for creating it are deadly serious...which only makes it funnier. I look forward to its eventual implosion with a great deal of... how do you say it?...

...schadenfreude. :) --BobA 20:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well said, and your post totally made my day. :) And yes, Creationism isn't exactly widespread outside the US, at least from what I see here. (Disclaimer: Using the people I interact with and the news here in Germany as basis for my observation). I actually told my mother about Creationism and its apparent popularity in the US today, and she went "...you're kidding.". In a way, I think it's this gap that makes the site so interesting to outsiders (According to Alexa, only 46% of Conservapedia's traffic comes from the US, and Germany is in second place with 12%. Given how most of the content here is almost exclusively targeted at a part of the American public, that should make people go "Hmmmmmm..." about the reasons why the other 54% come here... even though you can almost bet money on people spinning this into "Conservapedia impresses other nations, hopefully bringing good, conservative values to these people" or something. =P). --Sid 3050 21:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The page about Mexico is perhaps a fine example of why many people think that Conservapedia is a joke. Sure, the vandalism adds to that notion. However, having a 'serious' ~5 sentence article about a major bordering country (assuming conservapedia is only for the US, as it seems to be), with nearly half of those sentences being unsupported and demeaning 'facts', makes the conservapedia laughable. A country with a rich history and robust present gets slighted and conservapedia tries to take the high road by claiming that they are at least honest about their bias. Let's be honest, it is xenophobic, mean-spirited trash-talk. And from a quick perusal of 'hot' pages (see the history of the ID page, for example), it seems that closed minds will prevail. Perhaps the owners of the domain should also purchase blissapedia.com and redirect to this site.

Standards of Sources

I've noticed some very poor standards of sources some people have been posting. Most glaringly was an small line which was removed which stated that only 9% of the US population was reported to believe in Evolution, but the source was a website with a powerful Christian Bias. Whether or not the poll was actually properly conducted, I did not know, but its a bad idea to site poor sources like that as it damages the credibility of the site.--Elamdri 18:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a separate note, I recently removed a source from the Hillary Clinton article that was a known conspiracy theory website. If anybody sees whatreallyhappened.com cited, it's probably junk. MountainDew 18:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I would like to introduce the idea that information is no better than the source where it is found. No Personal Websites is my proposal. Already people are making changes to articles based on information appearing on personal websites. Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is lower and less conservative. Could we set the bar ABOVE the personal website please? Terryeo 10:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

A fuller discussion of this topic appears at Conservapedia_Discussions#References, comments invited. Terryeo 12:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Math Tags Broken

Math tags are currently broken. If someone could take a look at that, that would be great. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 20:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Time for es.conservapedia.com?

Conservapedia has just received what I think is its first Spanish-language article: Aborto. I guess as long as it isn't British, it's fine. Dpbsmith 11:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Amusingly enough, it's nicked from the Spanish-language Wikipedia. Tsumetai 11:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if it's appropriate. We should stick to our national language.--Sherman 11:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Quick point ... we don't have a national language. Jrssr5 12:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Addendum - there is a movement that appears to be gaining popularity to make English the official language of every state. --Herodotus 09:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

ISTR the Founding Fathers considered making German the national language. --Scrap 21:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would only support that because English is the lingua franca.--Elamdri 01:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

You have to ask Aschlafly, but i think we want to stick to english. --TimSvendsen 11:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Is it possible to be a Conservative who speaks Spanish in the USA? Or do conservatives speak en-US by definition? That is not mentioned in the Conservative article, and as I'm here to learn, I can't tell if the rest of the example traits are serious, except that they were all there in the last version by Aschlafly (several read as parodies to me). --Scott 17:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't this the language barrier is to keep out other languages, but rather to use American Spelling for American articles. A VERSION of an article in another language is entirely different. If a Japanese person wants to make a Japanese version of an article so people in Japan can read it, I see no reason to disallow it.--Elamdri 02:41, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, but that leaves the question: Who here can verify that the article is free of "liberal bias" and sticks to the commandments and goals of the site? --Sid 3050 10:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have to find a bilingual editor that you can trust. That takes time of course, but no one said it is an overnight process.--Elamdri 10:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Scott, a lot of people who flee Cuba end up voting Republican. MountainDew 07:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't it the Republican policy to stop them coming in the first place? Our right-wing party tends to do more about preventing unauthorised immigration. What makes immigrants choose to vote for the party that didn't want them to come? Or are we talking about pre-approved immigrants with visas, not the ones who show up unannounced in rented speedboats? --Scott 10:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

In these cases, it's a backlash against Castro and Communism. Naturally, there will be some cognitive dissonance. MountainDew 16:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Quick tabs in edit window

The quick tabs above the edit window are not currently working, requiring inserting barckets manually to wikilink articles and manually typing ~~~~ to get a timestamped signature. Maybe this is a temporary glitch, or a problem with my system.Patton 16:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

accessibility of language

One of the beefs I have with wikipedia is that their technical articles don't use accessibility language. I'm editing the article on electricity; I'd appreciate it if someone could read and tell me if I'm keeping the language at a level where you can actually learn something. Thanks, Navy Nuke 09:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

First impressions of a newbie

I've just recently come across Conservapedia, and thought that I'd offer my initial impressions.

First, to establish my credentials, although I don't normally go around describing myself as a conservative, I definitely would be one. I'm a Christian, and a young-Earth creationist. A fuller description of me is on my Wikipedia user page. You will also see there that I lament the bias that Wikipedia has in some areas.

So I should consider Conservapedia a "good thing", right? Well, perhaps it is; I think it's too soon for me to say. But despite being conservative, Christian, creationist, and pro-American, I am an Australian, and proud of it. And despite being pro-American, I don't like the way that American culture has pervaded Australia so much, and I also don't like the attitude that so many Americans seem to have that America is all there is or all that matters.

So one of the things that I DO like about Wikipedia is it's policy on the use of different English spellings. If I start an article on Wikipedia that is not specifically about something American, for example, I'm free to use Australian spellings, and unless the article is largely rewritten by someone else, policy is that the Australian spellings (being the spellings of the first major contributor to the article) are favoured. I find it frustrating that so many articles have already been written with American spellings, so they are stuck with them.

To come here and find that this otherwise promising site has a nationalistic bias towards American spellings—which bias has nothing to do with being conservative—is most disappointing. The criticism of Wikipedia on this point in the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (No. 13) is laughable. Surely favouring one language over another is bias, whereas not favouring is a lack of bias? Moreover, that criticism uses as justification that most English-speakers are American. This is a misleading half-truth. Americans comprise about 280 million English-speakers[8]. This compares to a total of about 480 million people (same source) who speak English as a first language (which means that Americans make up 58 percent, not exactly an overwhelming majority), but it also compares to a total, including people who speak it as a second language, of 1,800 million people[9]. By this figure, Americans comprise about 16 percent of English speakers!

Philip J. Rayment 01:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

References

Just to draw others' attention there has been some discussion here about what standards should be used for references at conservapedia. It would be great to get a wide spread of opinion from the various editors. Thanks! Tmtoulouse 11:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)