Hosta

From the article:

A great deal of ill-will among the Southern survivors resulted from the total warfare practiced during the war by the Union armies and the "reconstruction" program forced on the former Confederacy by the Union victors.

I think this is misleading on several counts:

• I don't think the Union used "total warfare", at least not the definition used in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Sherman's March to the Sea is probably the closest to being total warfare and was intended to destroy the morale of the entire south, but they did not specifically target civilians, rather any property that could aid the south.
• Does "reconstruction" really need to be in quotes? It should be an article link if anything.
• I think it's misleading to explain ill-will as resulting purely from Union misdeeds. I mean, the south lost a major war, slavery, and saw their political power wane (prior to the civil war, the two major power blocks of states where slaves states and non-slave states and even without the direct after effects of the war, the south lost a lot of power). I don't think ill-will needs to be explained to this extent as being the result of northern misdeeds. Daniel Quinlan 00:50, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
  • I don't think that one should attempt to put a generic label on the type of warfare practiced by one side or the other. The fact is that the type of warfare conducted varied by geographic location, by commander, and by how far along into the war it was. You can't just simplistically say that one side fought this way and the other fought another way. Didn't work like that.
  • As far as reconstruction is concerned you have different types of reconstruction. You have Lincoln's conciliatory policy that led to results like Isaac Murphy and you have the radical reconstruction that entailed dividing the South up into military districts. Reconstruction led to a variety of things, it led to land-grant universities which was good, it led to penetration of railroads into the South which was good, etc. but it also led to terrible graft and corruption. You are better off just stating a variety of facts and not trying to boil down "reconstruction" as all "good" or all "bad".Ark30inf 01:03, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't see any point in trying to discuss the various aspects of Reconstruction here, it should just be mentioned and have its own article. RickK 02:01, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Check the article. There already was one, so I made according changes (plus fixing the issues as I saw them). Daniel Quinlan 02:19, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

I think the article is better after the change and thats what matters. All of the Civil War stuff appears to need work in the long run though.Ark30inf 02:29, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The fact that I think its better is not all that matters, the fact that it is better is all that matters. Thought I would clear that up.Ark30inf 02:30, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why on earth was this moved from its correct name? Tannin

I did not move it, but I certainly agree with it. Civil War is the proper name we have (somewhat egotistically) given to this conflict. We added American to that proper name to differentiate it from generic civil war elsewhere on the globe. Given that, all of it should be capitalized. By changing it to not be capitalized you are referring to ANY American civil war and not the specific one whose proper name is Civil War. We shouldn't make World War Two into World war two and likewise shouldn't make American Civil War into American civil war. IMO. Ark30inf 13:24, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Just so, Ark30inf. Its name (rightly or wrongly) is American Civil War, and proper names are always capitalised. We might as well write George w. bush. I was going to wait to see if CGS had a reason for the move, but on reflection, I don't see how there could be one, so I moved it back. (Sorry CGS.) Tannin 13:33, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't see it as a proper noun. It was the civil war of the Americans, how is it a proper noun? Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words. BTW, I was I who moved it. CGS 14:27, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC).

War of the Roses is a proper name and is capitalized. American Civil War is also a proper name even though there could be an article called American civil which would deal with the generic concept of any non-specific civil war in America. But this is a specific civil war called American Civil WarArk30inf 15:28, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Think of it this way: all wars have a name (which is, of course, a proper noun). Some wars have two or three names: e.g., World War II, Second World War, Great Patriotic War - all three are names for the same war. Similarly, the First World War, World War 1 and the Great War. I could call WW2 the war against Hitler and Tojo if I wanted to, but note that this is not capitalised, as it's not the actual name of the war, just a term I made up. So, if I were to call the American Civil War (which is its internationally accepted proper name) ... er ... the US slavery war, that's fine too - but note that it is not capitalised because it's not the war's name. Same rule as for people. I write George W Bush with capitals (because that is his name) but the guy in the top job in lower case because, although it's the same person I'm talking about, I'm not using his actual name. Make sense? Tannin

Recent changes were made to boil down the wars causes to, of course, the slavery issue. The changes diminished the role of States Rights as a concept that stood on its own and instead indicated that it was merely a reflection of the slavery issue. I am not opposed to indicating the role of slavery, which was critical, but I am opposed to dismissing other causes. I'm not in favor of "boiling down" as opposed to providing more information in this case. The Civil War was the most complex political eruption in US history. It is impossible to distill such a complex event down to the sentence "slavery war", at least w/o choosing the point of view that that the rest of the issues are not real, a point of view that is disputed.

No, recent changes were made that implied slavery was not the core issue when it was. It certainly was not the only cause, but it was the core issue, and I restored that to the article. I did not "boil down" anything. Compare the current text (after my edit) to the text of several days ago. Daniel Quinlan 01:33, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

One cannot rationally deny the role of slavery in the conflict (though many do). But you can't rationally ignore the complexities either. For example, the people of my home State elected a generally pro-Union secession convention, the major State newspaper was pro-Union. That convention voted NOT to secede and dismissed. It only reconvened, and the newspaper only altered its position, after Lincoln's call for troops. The convention, and the newspaper, stated that the primary trigger for the change was the call to supress the seceded States. If you were to say that the Southern States seceded over the slavery you would be correct for Deep South states, but not as correct for the States of the Upper South which were responding to the administration's actions. Arkansas', though very involved with the slavery issue, specifically seceded in response to "coercion", definitely a States Rights issue. Was it inclined towards its fellow Southern states due to the slavery issue? Yes, but it had declined to secede until the call for troops. Also there is the matter of changing motives of the South. If you asked why Alabama went to war in 1861 the slavery motive would be high as stated in their secession resolution. But if you ask why Alabama was fighting in 1864 then independence would have been high.

Why did States Rights become an issue? It wasn't due to slavery? Daniel Quinlan 01:33, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Similarly, the United States did not enter the war to end slavery. A few abolitionists certainly did, but not the United States as a matter of policy. Lincoln definitely stated that he would not interfere with slavery if that would keep the Union together. The primary immediate cause of the war in the north was the firing on the flag at Fort Sumter which, due to patriotism and pride, demanded a response. If you say that the war in 1861 was fought by the north over slavery you would be closer to wrong. But if you said that in 1864 the north was fighting to end slavery then you would be closer to right because Lincoln made it so and changed the northern reason for war with the Emancipation Proclamation.

No, it didn't enter purely for that reason, but the states seceded to preserve slavery. Daniel Quinlan 01:33, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Oddly enough, as the war became more slavery related for the Union, it became less slavery related for the South. As I said, complex event.

The sequence of events was complicated and individual rationalization perhaps too, but the core issue was still slavery. Daniel Quinlan 01:33, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

I'm mentioning this here because I think that recent edits dismiss much of the complexity in an effort to boil down the war to the lowest common denominator. I think that does the reader a disservice and plays into the stereotypical view of the war. So I wanted to give fair warning. When I get a chance soon I will attempt to put some of this complexity into the article in a fair and neutral way.User:Ark30inf 23:40, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You're taking a very simplistic view of the complexity of the slavery issue and the numerous problems it caused. If you look at the history of the Civil War, the numerous compromises (all related to slavery that were necessary to keep the South in the Union), and the precipitating events, all relate back to slavery. Yes, southerners can rationalize all they want about states' rights and northern aggression, but what issue would there have been without the south holding slaves?

I think it's a bit deceptive to claim that I somehow "dumbed down" the article, that the article is now falling in line with the stereotypical view, or that adding "complexity" will improve the article. Do you really think the Civil War would have happened without slavery as an issue dividing the north and the south? Have you fallen prey to the revisionist history that it wasn't ultimately about slavery at all?

Perhaps I should just let the text changes speak for me:

1. 14:38, Oct 18, 2003 <- what was there before (perhaps simplistic)
2. 13:00, Oct 23, 2003 <- what I found (revisionist Southern denial)
3. 13:29, Oct 23, 2003 <- what I left (Mmm... good!)

1. But there is no question that the salient issue in the minds of the public and popular press of the time, and the histories written since, was the issue of slavery. Slavery had been abolished in most northern states, but was legal and important to the economy of the Confederacy, which depended on cheap agricultural labor.
2. There is little question that the salient issues in the minds of the public and popular press of the time, were those of slavery, state sovereignty (for the South), and [reservation of the union (for the North). Slavery had been abolished in most northern states but was vitally important to the economy of the Confederacy. which depended on cheap agricultural labor. The dichotomies between how slavery was perceived and the nature of the union were at the heart of the conflict.
3. There is little question that the salient issue in the minds of the public and popular press of the time, and the histories written since, was the issue of slavery. Slavery had been abolished in most northern states, but was legal and important to the economy of the Confederacy, which depended on cheap agricultural labor. State sovereignty (for the South) and preservation of the Union (for the North) have both also been cited as issues, but both were reflections of the slavery issue, i.e., could the Federal government force southern states to end slavery or could the southern states leave the Union to preserve slavery?

So, it's longer, more comprehensive, recognizes state sovereignty and preservation of the Union as issues, but does not put it on the same level as slavery, and it's clearly not less information, but that's exactly what you claimed. Anyway, read the text, suggest improvements, I'm game, but we should not apply revisionist southern history that attempts to sweep slavery under the rug to the article. Daniel Quinlan 01:33, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm, you seem to be judging my additions before I write them. I wrote the above on this page to give the opportunity for discussion before I made changes to such a controversial subject. I have touched nothing. You might at least have given me the courtesy of responding to my concerns rather than going full defensive as if I had reverted your changes and was engaged in an edit war with you. I am leaving Wikipedia, so you do not need to worry about YOUR article, it will remain as you have written it.Ark30inf 04:31, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)