Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2017

The entire article reeks of Lost Cause myth-making, but narrowing it to one example: the opening description that Confederacy was an "unrecognized country" should be changed to the more accurate "illegal government," ""criminal conspiracy" or something similar."Unrecognized country" is an anachronistic term--there was no such thing in 1861--that is useful in modern international law but not in a historical narrative. The United States has always been a dual-sovereign: the states exert sovereignty over their territory only to the extent it does not conflict with the supremely sovereign US government's own power over the same territory (subject to Constitutional limits). The position of the United States & the international community at the time was that the USA retained its sovereignty over the territory covered by seceded states, and was using force to quell an unlawful rebellion over the same land. A close analogue of Confederacy is the modern Islamic State--which most legal scholars see as a government but do not consider an unrecognized country precisely because the sovereign govts of Iraq & Syria never stopped contesting the land. If the Civil War had been formally won by the South, then there might have been a post-victory period when the Confederacy had limited or no formal recognition as a nation in the international community. If the war had ended in a truce, there would almost certainly have been a longer period without recognition, and at some point perhaps a formal status as an "unrecognized state" would emerge. In actual history, though, the question never arose. The Confederate States formed a form a form of government, but that is afar cry from being a country or nation. 173.66.219.218 (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  — Ammarpad (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed for Davis paraphrase

Text is given as In a message to the Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861 Jefferson Davis cited both the tariff and slavery for the South's secession.[48]

^[48] is given as: 48. Annual Register... for 1861 (1862) pp.233-239

Where the link appears to be a Google Books search for "Annual Register 1861" which retrieves the UK register and not the confederate register. I was unable to craft a search which located the confederate annual register. This link is: https://books.google.com/books?id=524-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA344&dq=%22annual+register,+1861%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EvXMVN37M7iMsQT2zoLoDw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Of course the page is locked so that all errors can be maintained in perpetuity... 172.5.154.148 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Confederate States of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Confederate States of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Non sequitur in "International diplomacy"

There's a jump in the narrative near the end of the "International diplomacy" section, possibly resulting from a previous edit:

French Emperor Napoleon III assured Confederate diplomat John Slidell that he would make "direct proposition" to Britain.... Roebuck in turn publicly prepared a bill to submit to Parliament June 30 supporting joint Anglo-French recognition.... The result was a defeat at Gettysburg....

How does the defeat at Gettysburg result from any of the preceding diplomatic maneuvering? Lee Choquette (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done: I've reworded it to be more coherent. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2018

"plantation system that relied upon the labor of African-American slaves". Those Africans were not Americans until the 14th Amendment, which gave them citizenship. Therefore, they are just Africans or people of African decent. CHANGE TO: "African slaves" LeeJackson1861 (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - As far as I know, the term "African-American" is not equivalent to "American citizen". In any case, please seek consensus on this talk page before initiating another edit request about this content.- MrX 🖋 17:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd honestly change it just to "black" slaves. They didn't care if the slaves were from Africa, born in the United States, from the Caribbean, etc... they just cared that they were black. I think this needs more discussion, though I agree that the edit request was premature. --Golbez (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
They were "American" because they were living in America. They might have been stateless people, but Americans none-the-less. Carptrash (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Dates states joined the CSA

from Wikipedia articles:

Czechia2016 (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

From my research, North Carolina was admitted to the CSA sometime on or before July 20. The law required a presidential proclamation, which was not given until then. See [1]:
"That the State of North Carolina shall be admitted a member of the Confederate States of America, [...] upon the condition that the convention of said State soon to assemble shall adopt and ratify said Constitution for the Provisional Government of the Confederate States, and shall transmit to the President of the Confederate States, [...] upon the receipt whereof the President, by proclamation, shall announce the fact; whereupon, and without any further proceeding on the part of Congress, the admission of said State into this Confederacy"
And a mention of said proclamation was delivered on July 20, per [2]:
""Our loved and honored brethren of North Carolina and Tennessee have consummated the action [...] and I have had the gratification of announcing, by proclamation, [...] that these States were admitted into the Confederacy.""
Now, this appears to be a statement of the proclamation, rather than the proclamation itself, but I have been unable to find an earlier statement.
Tennessee's proclamation was on July 2: [3] That's the actual proclamation, rather than the above, so it's possible North Carolina's proclamation was earlier than July 20, but I have yet to find it. --Golbez (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That could explain why on May 21 they only added two stars to the flag and not three Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#First_flag:_the_"Stars_and_Bars"_(1861–1863) Czechia2016 (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Getting back to this, since all sources on the internet say NC was admitted on May 21, I figure that must be true, we just don't have the primary source saying so. I've modified Territorial evolution of the United States accordingly. --Golbez (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

note 310 is invalid

The link for [310] leads to a nonexistent page, correct page seems to be https://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html#y1860 Unsure if all the data on the population in the demographics section matches up with the above source. If anyone can check all of them 1860a-16 seems to have all the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.23.51 (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, I hope. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"Blood-stained Banner" -- again

The "Blood-stained Banner", a neo-Confederate flag unseen by any historical Confederate was promoted recently by @MateoKatanaCRO: with a rationale that the “Blood Stained Banner” is used elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is of course not sourced by him, as its other appearances on WP are not. Here is the reference to deny its use here and elsewhere on Wikipedia:

Confederates served under only one banner, so history articles at WP should picture the flag of their time, the "First national flag with 13 stars", 1861-1865. Jefferson Davis was the last Confederate citizen, the only man not included in the general amnesty. Heritage Auction offered the original Stars-and-Bars flown by Jefferson Davis in his retirement at Beauvoir “since 1865” – that is 1867-1908 until his death.

David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the “Bood stained banner” was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB.

In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the First National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me ask you something, when we can't use the last flag of the CSA for the infobox, why do we have to use the last flag in this one? It not even lasted a year. What's the rule for using a national flag in the infobox? --MateoKatanaCRO (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
You'd have to ask the editors of that article, as that is a different article, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on its own is not the best argument. TVH supplied some valid arguments for this, so you saying "but Montenegro" is not a proper rebuttal. --Golbez (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
More directly, the "Blood Stained Banner" was a mere resolution of a rump session of the Confederate Congress that had mostly abandoned Richmond under the enclosing Federal siege. The flag as designed never saw the light of day before the historical Confederacy of this article "disappeared" in the words of Jefferson Davis. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Territorial evolution of the Confederate States

Let me know what you think. :) --Golbez (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Question for Georgia

In the chart detailing population, it lists the state of Georgia as George (US State). Is this necessary? I do not believe, in the context of the article, anyone will confuse it with the country of Georgia (which was a province of the Russian Empire at the time, and had been since 1801). I'd like to nominate changing it to "Georgia".Jlr3001 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed; I'm guessing it was a link and when someone delinked it, they didn't remove the dab. --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Great Britain or United Kingdom?

In the context of this article, which term should be used, Great Britain or United Kingdom? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: The Acts of Union 1800 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so the appropriate designation when referring to the post-1800 country is the United Kingdom. - Conservatrix (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and as a shorthand for that long title, what was common for the time: Great Britain or United Kingdom? Today, it would be the United Kingdom, but in the mid-1800's was it not Great Britain? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I cannot say which was preferred during the period, but do vernacular references not risk confusing our casual readers? As an encyclopedia we should present only straightforward, factual information. – Conservatrix (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Is it really that confusing to anyone to use the term Great Britain? I still hear people refer to themselves as "British", even though their live in the UK. All things of Britannia and many different terms are easily recognised as being of the UK, from what I see, it matter little. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The correct term is always UK. "Great Britain" is a geographic term, and describes the island. The UK is the political term and describes the country. England became the United Kingdom when it merged with Scotland. British is the noun for a citizen of the UK because it's the only thing that makes sense, much like "American" is the only noun that makes sense for citizens of the USA. This is because the UK used to cover the entire British Isles, but now it doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.125.200 (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Just to be pedantic, not always. Prior to 1801, there was no country named "United Kingdom", there was the Kingdom of Great Britain, and the Kingdom of Ireland. This isn't relevant here, since 1865 was after that, but it has come up a handful of times on United States, with people wanting to say "independence from the UK" when the UK did not exist. But on topic, I would agree 100% that we should say United Kingdom instead of Great Britain, regardless of what terminology may or may not have been used at the time. --Golbez (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
When editors follow the RS, they will I believe find that historians prefer "Great Britain" or "Britain" for topics before 1945. They avoid UK variations. Other social science editors (pol science, econ) seem to prefer UK forms. Rjensen (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
And when quoting the RS, we are fine with using Great Britain. But otherwise, we should be accurate and use the actual name of the country. --Golbez (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
What was the actual name? Of course "United Kingdom" never was the actual name. UK and "Great Britain" & variations are only popular abbreviations of the official long name, which is seldom used by RR. Rjensen (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The actual name was "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." "United Kingdom" is one of the present short names, and is what is used on Wikipedia, as well as being an accurate description of the country. "Great Britain" is the other short form, but it leaves out a sizable portion and thus should be avoided in prose as being inaccurate. A comparable situation to me would be Russia vs Soviet Union - neither was the name of the country, yet both were typically used, even in reliable sources. Yet, in an encyclopedic article, only the most accurate term should be used. --Golbez (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
"most accurate" according to the reliable sources we are using. For the 1860s the reliable sources use "Great Britain". Note that official documents from US and GB at the time typically used GB -- such as the British documents in the Alabama postwar arbitration as shown in [title page and documents Rjensen (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of your source. The first term I've seen used in it by British diplomats or leaders is, in fact, "United Kingdom," on page 32. Her majesty does not use the term "Great Britain." The next use of any name is the next page, where the Lords of the Admiralty use the term "United Kingdom." In fact, I've gone through the first fifty pages and so far have not found one Brit calling their country "Great Britain." I could have missed it, but so far, I can't see how your source backs up your statement. Maybe you could demonstrate that some Americans use "Great Britain", but then we run in to who gets the right to name a country, especially when they share a language. But my point here is, I don't think your source backs up your statement. Again, I could be wrong, I only went 60 or so pages in. --Golbez (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
And when reliable sources are wrong, we should not repeat their errors just because they were widely used. So the crux of it is, is "Great Britain" an incorrect, archaic term that should be avoided, much like "Russia" for the Soviet Union, or "Holland" for the Netherlands? I think it is. --Golbez (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
the US government titled the whole collection "Great Britain" and US documents here seem to always say GB. eg "THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF GREAT BRITAIN, CONCLUDED AT WASHINGTON, MAY 8. 1871." British official docs prefer " THE GOVERNMENT OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY".. The British texts referring to Treaty of Washington use GB, not UK. --but who tells us when a RS is "wrong" -- why another RS makes that statement, not a Wiki editor issuing a personal opinion. Use of "UK" may be a signal that the editor is not reading the reliable sources closely. Rjensen (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they say "Her Britannic Majesty", but they also say "United Kingdom." As for who tells us when an RS is wrong? Not just other and perhaps more modern RS's, but also, first-party statements. When it comes to someone or something's name, the statements of the individual or entity in control should outweigh everything else, no matter how "reliable" they are. I don't need an RS to tell me that, for example, "Russia" is an incorrect term for the Soviet Union, any more than I needed one to tell me that "Sears Tower" was an incorrect term for the Willis Tower, or that "Bradley Manning" was an incorrect name for Chelsea Manning. Believe or not, but "what do most RS's use" is not the be-all, end-all of Wiki scholarship, because sometimes they're rapidly out of date or just plain wrong. We've both been here for more than a decade, so it's not like either of us are going to be templating each other. We just have perhaps different views on some niche issues. My personal view is that your stance that "Great Britain" is used by the preponderance of reliable sources is not backed up by the evidence thus given, and in lieu of that, "United Kingdom" should be used, especially in an article being read in 2018 and not 1864. --Golbez (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
And, one should not have to "read the reliable sources" from the 19th century "closely" to figure out what name to use for a country. We use United Kingdom now, there's no given reason why we shouldn't use it now for an article involving a predecessor of the country with a near-identical name. (And our article on said 1801-1922 country not once refers to it as "Great Britain", but multiple times refers to it as "United Kingdom". This may be a battle being fought in the wrong place, if you're so sure that pre-1945 references to the country should read GB and not UK.)--Golbez (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
nope. Wiki depends on the RS who study the 1860s--the historians mostly do NOT use UK version for 19th century--the dividing line is ww2. please read the rules closely at WP:SCHOLARSHIP--can you name any of the RS you are using to study the Confederacy?? Rjensen (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
So, again, perhaps the argument should be made at United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as that article - the primary article on the subject - appears to disagree with your assessment. Otherwise, I think we're done here. --Golbez (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
this is the talk [age on the CSA -- can you name ANY RS you are using to study Britain in 1860s? --books with titles perhaps like: A World on Fire: Britain's Crucial Role in the American Civil War, 2011 by Amanda Foreman; Our Man in Charleston: Britain's Secret Agent in the Civil War South 201; Great Britain and the American Civil War 1924; The Trent Affair: The Diplomatic Incident That Nearly Brought Great Britain into the American Civil War 2015 ?? Rjensen (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

table of dates

Confederate
State		 Declared
Secession		 Joined
Confederacy		 Ratified
permanent CS Constitution		 Readmitted
to US Congress
South Carolina December 20, 1860 February 8, 1861[1] April 3, 1861 June 25, 1868
Mississippi January 9, 1861 February 8, 1861[1] March 29, 1861 February 23, 1870
Florida January 10, 1861 February 8, 1861[1] April 22, 1861 June 25, 1868
Alabama January 11, 1861 February 8, 1861[1] March 13, 1861 June 25, 1868
Georgia January 19, 1861 February 8, 1861[1] March 16, 1861 July 15, 1870
Louisiana January 26, 1861 February 8, 1861[1] March 21, 1861 June 25, 1868
Texas February 1, 1861 March 2, 1861[1] March 23, 1861 March 30, 1870
Virginia April 17, 1861 May 7, 1861[2] NA January 26, 1870
Arkansas May 6, 1861 May 18, 1861[3] NA June 22, 1868
North Carolina May 20, 1861 May 20, 1861[4][5] NA June 25, 1868
Tennessee June 8, 1861 July 2, 1861[6][7] NA July 24, 1866
Missouri October 31, 1861 November 28, 1861 NA NA
Kentucky November 20, 1861 December 10, 1861 NA NA

Georgia was first readmitted to the US Congress on July 25, 1868 than expelled on March 3, 1869. Virginia had been represented in the US Senate until March 3, 1865 by the Restored Government of Virginia. Only small portions of Missouri and Kentucky were controlled by the CSA.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyearbaby (talk • contribs) 17:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

"Deep South" is a loaded term

"Deep South" is a loaded term and is used repeatedly in the article. Why not just say e.g. "Southern cotton states" instead of "Deep South cotton states"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.215.141 (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand "Deep South" to be a "loaded" term.
But for shorthand generalizations in the antebellum era, I prefer three alternative geopolitical descriptors: "Lower South" (SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX), "Upper South" (to include Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas) and "Border States" (to include Maryland and Delaware, invited to join the Confederacy at the South Carolina Convention, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
It's a standard term used by scholars in history & geography & politics and by the general public in the South & nationwide. [eg: a textbook Alabama: The history of a deep south state (2018) for Alabama students]] It shifts the emphasis away from economics (cotton) to culture (depth of Southerness = greater here than in border states or those in between) [eg a famous 1941 classic: Deep South: A Social Anthropological Study of Caste and Class] Rjensen (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Matthews, James M., ed. (1864). The Statutes at Large of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, from the Institution of the Government, February 8, 1861, to its Termination, February 18, 1862, Inclusive; Arranged in Chronological Order. Richmond: R. M. Smith. p. 8 – via Internet Archive.
  2. ^ Matthews, James M., ed. (1864). The Statutes at Large of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, from the Institution of the Government, February 8, 1861, to its Termination, February 18, 1862, Inclusive; Arranged in Chronological Order. Richmond: R. M. Smith. p. 104 – via Internet Archive.
  3. ^ Matthews, James M., ed. (1864). The Statutes at Large of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, from the Institution of the Government, February 8, 1861, to its Termination, February 18, 1862, Inclusive; Arranged in Chronological Order. Richmond: R. M. Smith. p. 120 – via Internet Archive.
  4. ^ Matthews, James M., ed. (1864). The Statutes at Large of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, from the Institution of the Government, February 8, 1861, to its Termination, February 18, 1862, Inclusive; Arranged in Chronological Order. Richmond: R. M. Smith. pp. 118–19 – via Internet Archive.
  5. ^ Journal of the convention of the People of North Carolina, Held on the 20th Day of May, A. D. 1861. Raleigh: Jno. W. Syme. 1862. p. 18. LCCN 02014915. OCLC 6786362. OL 13488372M – via Internet Archive.
  6. ^ Matthews, James M., ed. (1864). The Statutes at Large of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, from the Institution of the Government, February 8, 1861, to its Termination, February 18, 1862, Inclusive; Arranged in Chronological Order. Richmond: R. M. Smith. p. 119 – via Internet Archive.
  7. ^ "Tennessee Admitted as a Member of the Confederacy". Louisville Daily Courier. Vol. 33, no. 6. July 6, 1861. p. 1.

"two thirds" hurdle/requirement

I added a "please clarify" tag after the sentence "Moderates in the Confederate Constitutional Convention included a provision against importation of slaves from Africa to appeal to the Upper South. Non-slave states might join, but the radicals secured a two-thirds hurdle for them." With the reason "What is a "two-thirds hurdle"?"

User:TheVirginiaHistorian Changed the text to "Moderates in the Confederate Constitutional Convention included a provision against importation of slaves from Africa to appeal to the Upper South. Non-slave states might join, but the radicals secured a two-thirds requirement to accept them." and removed the "please clarify" tag with the edit summary "clarify." However, this didn't really address what I meant, this just changed one word ("hurdle") to what is essentially a synonym ("requirement"). What I meant was what does it mean by "two-thirds"? What is a "two-thirds hurdle"? What is a "two-thirds requirement"?

Since I'm familiar with the "three-fifths compromise", I'm assuming that most likely it means that slaves would be counted as "two-thirds" of a person for purposes of allocating representatives? (I'm not sure if that's what it means, though, just my best guess) If this is what it means, then it should be explained that that is what it means, because it really isn't clear, especially if someone is not familiar with the "three-fifths compromise", as would likely be the case for someone who is not American and hasn't been exposed to American History classes, for example. Vontheri (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that it might actually mean that two-thirds of some sort of legislative body would be required to vote in favor before a non-slave state could be admitted? If this is actually what it means, then that should be clarified as well, and it should also state two-thirds of who/what would have to vote. Was it two thirds of a congress/senate? Two-thirds of the population of the entire confederacy? Two-thirds of the population of the state in question? Or what? Vontheri (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It's my understanding from the source that it was meant as Congressional voting hurdle equivalent to a constitutional amendment, with two-thirds of both houses required for admittance, but without state legislature concurrence required. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! That makes sense now. Vontheri (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Flag

Shouldn't the flag in the info box be the Third National as it was the last flag adopted? Emperor001 (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No, because this article uses the flag that was used by the Confederates of history, not the standard embraced by neo-Confederates of the last half of the 20th century.
When the "Third" National Flag was flown once over Fort Sumter, the Union forces besieging it thought that it meant surrender. So the Confederate commander, not meaning to send the wrong signal, retired it permanently. It was later reported flying over the Capitol in Richmond for a time before the Confederate Congress abandoned their Capital, leaving a rump faction without a quorum to adopt a fourth "Blood-stained" Banner, hoping that the red stripe at the fly would not represent immediate surrender to all who saw it.
On the other hand, the Second National Flag showing thirteen stars and three broad stripes, including two stars representing Union-occupied Kentucky and Missouri, was flown everywhere in the Confederacy throughout the entire conflict. Indeed the Second National Flag flew over Atlanta when it fell, and that was the banner that Jefferson Davis flew outside his place of residence in Mississippi after Reconstruction.
(Because Kentucky and Missouri were states with a majority of their 1860 electorate voting for U.S. Representatives, the elections for their entire delegations were certified and the Congressmen seated in the U.S. Congress, unlike partial delegations from Virginia, Tennessee, and Louisiana. In the Confederate Congress, Kentucky and Missouri had full delegations of self-appointed expatriate secessionist "Governors", or secessionist slate "elections" by enlisted soldier voice vote held before their regimental formations in Confederate Army camps. The Congressmen in those delegations voted unwaiveringly for whatever Davis Administration proposal was before them throughout the rebellion. The Confederate treasury provided them room and board for the duration of the conflict, and Richmond is said to have admitted them to polite society.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The Third National Flag was used by the Confederates of history, albeit briefly as it was adopted little over a month before General Lee surrendered (it was also used to drape Davis' casket). You also made a couple minor mistakes. The "Second National Flag" (adopted May 1863) was the Stainless Banner sometimes confused with the flag of truce, not the Stars and Bars, and the Third National was the Blood-Dipped Banner. There was no Fourth National Flag. The First National Flag (Stars and Bars) was only in service from 1861-63, and even then it was technically the unofficial flag as the Confederate Congress was in such a hurry they produced the flag adopted by the committee appointed to design the flag but forgot to actually pass a Flag Act. The first Flag Act of the CSA came in 1863 adopting the Second National, and the second Flag Act in 1865 adopted the Third National. Because the Third National Flag was the last official flag of the CSA and had some limited contemporary uses before the Confederacy's dissolution I believe that that should be the flag in the info box. Emperor001 (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
You have it right. Sorry, in the last post, I got the Confederate "National Flag" nomenclature, First, Second, Third, awry. Looks like you are the beneficiary of the good archival work by the U.S. government, as the papers of the Confederate Congress were never made public by the Confederacy; the results of any deliberations in their councils were rarely made public, as the rebellion was an illegitimate conspiracy, first to last. ----- By contrast, see the hearings by U.S. House and Senate Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, and the instantaneously telegraphed coverage of their disputes with the Lincoln administration throughout the Northern press, including those by anti-administration dailies published by the Democratic party opposition.
The phrase that you use in the last post, diminishing the usage of the Stars and Bars flag as "only in service from 1861-63", implies that the First National Flag (Stars and Bars) was some how ended, retired from service simultaneously, that is, superseded and replaced throughout the unoccupied Confederacy (about 60% of the rebel-claimed territory as of May 1863 (see Kenneth Martis, Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States, when the Second National Flag, the "Stainless Banner" was adopted; the Mississippi River was entirely lost with the defeat at Vicksburg in the following month of June that year). But we know from the Louisiana State University's "History of the South" series Volume VII page 118, Confederate States of America, that beginning in March 1861, the First National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy”. As the LSU webpage describes it, "Mr. Coulter treats the war in its perspective as an aspect of the life of a people." He does not take note of any retirement of the Stars and Bars anywhere in the South at any point during the conflict.
For my take on Confederate Flag usage during the historical entity of this WP article, the "Confederate States of America", I am using as a reliable scholarly source, Professor David Sansing of Mississippi State University in his article, A Brief History of the Confederate Flags at "Mississippi History Now" online Mississippi Historical Society. Retrieved October 4, 2012.
Professor Sansing concluded that the "Blood-Stained Banner", or "Blood-dipped Banner" as you style it, was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted Confederate General Bradley T. Johnson, the author of the Confederate Military History 12 vols. on CD, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- again, this article should reflect the Confederates of history and their actual flag usage, not the wp:POV results of neo-Confederate retroactive research in the last half of the 20th century mining archives held by the U.S. government. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the CSA being an "illegitimate conspiracy" they certainly didn't see themselves as that. The Civil War itself was fought over a bona fide legal dispute over whether a State can secede from the Union as the Constitution is silent on the issue and both sides drew opposing inferences from that silence. The Supreme Court did not address the issue until after the war, and under the Constitution it could not rule on the legality of secession until a State actually tried it. For a more in depth discussion see the article on Secession in the United States.
I am aware that many Confederate units didn't stop using the First National Flag cold turkey. Some regiments were attached to it and continued using it throughout the war, though the Battle Flag gradually gained more popularity (hence its inclusion in the Second and Third National Flags). I was not relying on any neo-Confederate sources but rather the Flag Act itself which officially declared what the CSA Flag was. Again, I admit that its usage would have been quite limited as it was adopted a month before Richmond fell thus most Confederates would have never seen it until after the war if at all. Modern groups like Sons of Confederate Veterans simply have the benefit of being able to read the Flag Act of 1865. Emperor001 (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
However, I understand your position that the First National was in use for the longest, both officially (Feb. 1861 to May 1863) as was as unofficially (post 1863 by units that preferred it). In which case now my only question is whether there is a Wikipedia policy for it: use whatever was in service the longest or use whatever was adopted last?
If secessionists believed there were to be a "bona fide legal dispute" over whether a State can secede from the Union, they would not have used "extra-constitutional" means. (1) They would have adhered to their state constitutions. Instead they subverted them, beginning with South Carolina secessionists meeting away from the state capitol, secessionist armed bands unauthorized by the state making war without permission of the state legislature, secessionists commencing war before state ratifying referendum, etc.
(2) The Constitution was not silent on the issue, the Articles declared a "perpetual union", and the Constitution assured a "more perfect union", with the Constitution as the "supreme law of the land", ensuring republican governments in the states ruled by the ballot. States are not to be overtaken by armed rebellion -- the preamble explicitly states that the Constitution is meant to establish "domestic tranquility". (3) The Constitutional attempt by southern partisans to pass an amendment in Congress to allow secession from the Union failed in both the U.S. House and in the U.S. Senate, before southern state seats were vacated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
(1) It cannot be said that the rump session in Richmond without a quorum "adopted" the Third National Flag of their 1865 journal. If we are to use the standard, "how they saw themselves" (which is not scholarly sourcing according to Wikipedia standards), the Confederate Congress believed itself incompetent to pass legislation without a quorum.
(2) If we are to use the standard of reliable scholarship, we must rely on a professor of history at Mississippi State University asserting that it is "unlikely" that the Blood-stained banner flew over any "troops" OR "civilian agencies" [except the Capitol alone, I presume].
(3) If we are to use the standard of first-hand accounts (with caution), we are to use Confederate General Bradley's "Confederate Military History", “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.”
(4) Wikipedia does not admit original research by volunteer associations that independently find a document in an archive, and then applied in an edit that takes it out of historical context. In Wikipedia policy, it does not even matter whether the factoid "is true" or not. The referenced element must be verified as appropriate by sourcing in reliable, peer-reviewed scholarly publications. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
A bit off topic regarding the flag, but to address the secession issue I actually wrote an article about this issue in law school which responds to most of your arguments. http://fl.lawstudentland.com/post/45684364518/secession-treason-or-state-right In short the Constitution is indeed silent on the issue of secession. In contrast the treaty creating the German Confederation expressly stated, "The Confederation has been founded as an indissoluble union, and therefore no member of the same is at liberty to secede from this union. "
Jefferson Davis argued that a "more Prefect Union," was based on consent, not force. Further, the Preamble is merely a list of goals the Constitution sought to achieve. The rest of the document declares how the Constitution is to go about accomplishing those goals. The Articles of Confederation were no longer legally binding. Further, the 10th Amendment declares that States can do anything the Constitution does not otherwise prohibit, and if the Constitution allows secession then the Supremacy Clause requires the Federal government to recognize it. Lincoln himself at one point had to acknowledge that "perpetuity is implied if not expressly stated." Perhaps a British military historian G.F.R. Henderson put it best in his book The Civil War: A Soldier’s View where he declared that secession did not go against the letter of the Constitution but it probably went against the spirit of it. The Founding Fathers themselves were divided on the issue with Washington, Hamilton, and Maddison saying that States could not secede, but Gouvernor Morris (who wrote more of the Constitution than the other three I mentioned) said that they could secede under certain circumstances. Also, most Southern States were not acting outside their State Constitutions as they called State constitutional conventions which in addition to passing ordinances of secession revised or re-wrote their State Constitutions to reflect their secession. The State governments then ordered the seizure of Federal property which they believed the Federal government no longer had a right to as the States were no longer in the Union. Tennessee is the exception as it never called a convention thus arguably its secession was defective. Something similar could be said for Missouri which did call a convention, but when the convention voted to stay in the Union the Legislature wrote its own ordinance of secession.
Back to the flag issue, every secondary source I have ever read indicates that the Third National was validly adopted right before the war ended. See for example here https://web.archive.org/web/20090130091945/http://www.confederateflags.org/national/FOTC3dnat.htm which quotes the Flag Act. However, that source acknowledges that few, if any, flags were made to the statute's specifications. Emperor001 (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

(1) Of course states can secede “under certain circumstances”: a) through a Constitutional Amendment, which was attempted in the U.S. Congress and failed in 1861, or b) “when a long train of abuses” over an uninterrupted period of twenty years might lead to the necessity “for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” due to a governmental tyranny leading to the permanent loss of personal liberties and virtual enslavement of the citizens residing in a state, --- each state under English Whig philosophy, being "the ultimate defender of the liberties of the people" in the Articles period beginning with its proposal in 1776, then from its ratification 1781-1788, BEFORE the U.S. Constitution.

Secessionists claimed that their "states' rights" to own property in chattel slaves of a race-based caste was at risk. But for the twenty years before the Great Rebellion 1840-1860, the Slave Power controlled the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Senate until 1858, and the U.S. Presidency until 1860. Further, two-thirds in the U.S. Houses of Congress passed a “Thirteenth Amendment” in early 1861 to guarantee slavery of the states (though not the territories) in perpetuity. And before the outbreak of hostilities at Fort Sumter, it was ratified by the Illinois state legislature, the home state of President Abraham Lincoln.

(2) The southern states hijacked by unauthorized secessionist armed force did not follow their state constitutional procedure to call an election to elect delegates specifically for a state Constitutional Convention. Secessionists re-convened rump assemblies which had proclaimed "Ordinances of Secession" as secessionist-only gatherings they called “Conventions”. These groups, culled of any who were not pro-Davis "Confederate States" advocates (none were allowed who were a) unionists or b) states' rights "neutral ground" men), then unconstitutionally proclaimed new "state constitutions" admitting them to the slave-state only Confederate States of America.

In the case of Virginia, the constitutional fraud was perpetrated a) only after the capitol was occupied by an unrecognized out-of-state foreign army styled the Confederate Army (objected to by conditional unionist Convention Delegate Jubal A. Early of Franklin County, Virginia), and b) only when a majority of the free white male population in the state was NEITHER represented in proportion to the whole state, NOR even in half of its gerrymandered General Assembly minority.

(3) Even under the “compact theory” of union, each state and the federal government had a contract ceding land to federal forts and treasury mint buildings. A contract cannot by English Common Law, U.S. law, or any state law, be dissolved without the consent of both parties.

The U.S. government did not give its assent to return the property, so it was not legally returned to the states that had previously voluntarily ceded it. It was taken with unlawful force by unauthorized military bands which were never sanctioned by the “good people” of any state under any applicable law acknowledge by their state courts.

(4) As to the flag issue related to “every secondary source [you] have ever read” as a law student, well, let’s see what we can find from your last post. The site “Confederate Flags” website, which is authored and copyrighted by “Devereaux D. Cannon, Jr.”, is meant to be your exemplar secondary source --- which Wikipedia requires to be authored by a scholar, and published in a reliable, peer-reviewed journal.

So when we click on the link to discover the author and webmaster’s qualifications, we get the North Carolina Telecommunications Channel email login page, which is not an academic journal. And when we search for “Devereaux D. Cannon, Jr.”, the WaybackMachine provides a link to porn-rent websites, which are not historical scholarship. You are trolling us.

But even so, on the face of it (ipso facto as the law students say), if that unpublished porn-related “source” acknowledges that "few, if any", Blood-Stained Banner flags were ever fabricated before the end of the Confederacy (as defined in the post-war publications of Jefferson Davis, who never accepted Congressional amnesty to become a U.S. citizen again), then that image should not be used in this article’s info-box to represent the "Confederate States of America" of history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually that source I pulled from Wikipedia itself on the article about the various Confederate Flags just to serve as a quick example. I have read several books, online articles, Encyclopedia entries, etc. describing the Third National and other Confederate Flags, and none of them indicate that the Third National was not validly adopted.
On the other issue your description of events does not appear entirely correct. For one, Gouvernor Morris was not referring to a Constitutional amendment but rather the Constitution as it stood pre-Civil War. Also, the Southern States were not high-jacked. The State legislatures called for the constitutional conventions in accordance with their pre-Civil War Constitutions because they genuinely believed that a right to secede existed. Those conventions did not "cull" unionists to guarantee "pro-Davis 'Confederate States' advocates." There were Unionists at all of the conventions. They were just outnumbered in ten of the eleven States that called them (hence why Missouri is usually regarded as a Union State). In the case of Virginia the convention was originally Unionist-majority but Lincoln's call for troops converted several "on the fence" Unionists. Davis was not elected President until after six States seceded and formed the provisional CSA government (he didn't even want the job, and from what I understand he was more of a moderate who believed a right to secede existed but was hesitant to say his State should secede). Your description of the conventions only accurately describes the Kentucky convention which was unauthorized by the Kentucky Legislature (Davis was hesitant to "admit" Kentucky into the CSA for this reason). Regarding the property, the States claimed that property as a matter of sovereign right (one nation has the right to order foreign troops previously invited to leave); there was also an argument that in some cases like Forth Sumter the US breached its contract.
Anyways this conversation is going nowhere. I merely introduced my thoughts. If other Wikipedians do not agree with them then the info box will stay as it is. I thank you for being civil in your discussion as others online can be quite nasty on topics such as this. Emperor001 (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
It is WP Foundation policy for Wikipedia articles to absolutely reject any sources used in other Wikipedia articles without that article editors’ independent verification. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. Editors should not perpetuate bad contributions spreading Wikipedia:Other stuff exists that is not properly included in WP Confederacy-related articles elsewhere. Beware of the WP:FALLACY, "Keep It: it is verifiable, therefore it is not original research." which confuses a necessary WP requirement (that a flag design might be verifiable in Confederate Congress archives) with a sufficient condition, such as including wp:notability in the editorial judgement to include something in a prominently displayed article Info-box, when scholars call it "unlikely" and the Confederate historian-General of the Confederate Military, wrote, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.”
. . . so, for instance, posting images of the “Blood-Stained Banner” into Civil War-related biographical and battle article info-boxes, using unsourced wp:POV advocacy to impose a “duly” authorized flag supposedly enacted a month before the complete and total collapse of the historical Confederacy, “adopted” by a rump session without a quorum, in an unrecognized national “Congress”, with de facto control of less than one-third of its purported territory, with 20% of the remnant restricted to an Appalachian region remote from the capital, and 10% west of the Mississippi River one-thousand miles away (see Kenneth Martis 1994. p. 53). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I have enjoyed our exchange as well, especially since it has led me to further inquiries and expansion of my sourced understanding of the Virginia Secession Convention of 1861. Lets look at reliable scholarly webpages that are newly discovered (for me) from University of Richmond webpage: Virginia Secession Convention, and Library of Virginia webpage: Virginia Convention (1861: Richmond).
- The “First Session” of the Virginia Secessionist Convention met from February 13 to May 1, mal-apportioned in the same way as the General Assembly against the majority of free white males in the state to favor eastern slave-owners, (passing ordinances #1-48, secret sessions April 16-May1.
- [Note: Following unauthorized secessionist militias making war on the U.S. at Harpers Ferry Arsenal and Gosport Navy Yard, and under the threat of a drawn pistol threatened by a duelist who had killed a political opponent, the Convention “passed” an Ordinance of Secession without counting dissenting votes of some scared off entirely by intimidating “students” in the streets outside delegate hotels. Those voting sent Confederate Congressmen for the secessionist rebellion before the state law-required plebiscite to ratify secession and war.]
- The “First Adjourned Session” followed from June 12 to July 1 (passing ordinances #50-88 in secret, with the customary secessionist rump assembly without unionists following a purge expelling them June 28-29.) Special elections were held on October 24, 1861 in Confederate soldier camps including non-resident Virginians, and among secessionist refugees in Richmond to fill vacancies. 
- The “Second Adjourned Session", from November 13 through December 6. It drafted a new state constitution, adjourning on 6 December 1861. The 1862 Virginia Constitutional Referendum failed March 14-16. It was held among eastern Virginia voters and men in Confederate Army camps on the secessionist-proposed Virginia constitution. It was defeated due to objections concerning pro-slave plantation owner and anti-soldier poll taxes to be imposed as a new restriction on free white male suffrage overturning the 1850 reform, and due to a newly proposed basis for property taxes that was pro-slave plantation owner and anti-small farmer (see Brenaman 1902, p. 69). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Anthem

I think the anthem section needs to be simplified by removing God Save The South, The Bonnie Blue Flag, and Dixie (song) references. There are no sources provided on this page for them being anthems, and the parentheticals make it seem like a mess. The page for God Save The South does have a source where an opinion is given that it was the unofficial anthem of the Confederate States, but I don't think that's enough to have it listed as an anthem, even as unofficial. Listing The Bonnie Blue Flag as an anthem just because it was popular in the Confederate States (with no sources on the page for The Bonnie Blue Flag claiming it was the anthem at all) is just misleading. And for Dixie, there are also no sources that claim it was the anthem for the Confederate States - just that it was played at the inauguration of Jefferson Davis. If anything is to be said for those three songs in relation to the Confederate States, it should be in a separate section. Tmressler (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2019

pls i have data Jordan Nichols6666666 (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideautalk 15:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence, suggested correction

"The Cherokee Nation, aligning with the Confederacy, alleged northern violations of the Constitution, waging war against slavery commercial and political interests, abolishing slavery in the Indian Territory, and that the North intended to seize additional Indian lands."

This is confusing. I read the text that it references to understand it. I think the sentence should say

"The Cherokee Nation, aligning with the Confederacy, alleged northern violations of the Constitution. It also claimed that the North was waging war against slavery for its own commercial and political interests, that it intended to seize additional Indian lands, and that it intended to abolish slavery in the Indian Territory (which the Cherokee Nation's political leaders were in opposition to)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.47.139 (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The Cause

This article seems to be misleading as it does not mention (I believe) the use of the term "The Cause" during the Civil War. Thus it contradicts the Wikipedia article on The Confederacy- "Many Southern whites had considered themselves more Southern than American[20][21] and were prepared to fight for their state and their region to be independent of the larger nation. That regionalism became Southern nationalism, or "the Cause". For the duration of its existence, the Confederacy underwent trial by war.[22] The "Southern Cause" transcended the ideology of states' rights, tariff policy, and internal improvements. This "Cause" supported, or derived from, cultural and financial dependence on the South's slavery-based economy. The convergence of race and slavery, politics, and economics raised almost all South-related policy questions to the status of moral questions over way of life, commingling love of things Southern and hatred of things Northern. Not only did national political parties split, but national churches and interstate families as well divided along sectional lines as the war approached.[23] According to historian John M. Coski, "

I do not feel capable of correcting this, but would like to suggest that someone take another look at what seems to be a misleading omission.Histysci (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you put this on the wrong talk page? Because this is the article on the confederacy. --Golbez (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

why don't they try it again?

there is a new move to get the south free! why don't we hear more about it?--66.213.14.116 (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not the topic of this article. You might start a page on that subject, but most information from reliable sources is pretty negative: skinhead white supremacy, domestic terrorism theory, etc. In order to be encyclopedic, supporting sources have to be more than diatribes & manifestos from the blogosphere. The first order of business might be to determine who “they” are, and what the motivation is. Any inclination for secession of states from the U.S. is far from monolithic. Ragity (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

I considered this a "good read" -- EXCEPT -- the first paragraph in the "History" section maybe factual but is unsourced. A tag on a B-class article could lead to reassessment per B-Class criteria #1. Otr500 (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The following source listed at the bottom of the article has the incorrect publishing date: "Mackey, Robert R. The Uncivil War: Irregular Warfare in the Upper South, 1861–1865 (University of Oklahoma Press, 2014)" The correct date is 2004. See, e.g., https://muse.jhu.edu/article/181003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.228.112.218 (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Supposed "White Supremacy"

The article we have now has been revised so as to include that the Confederate States of America were white supremacist. This is not true. It is true that some/most of their people were white supremacist, but stating that the entire country was isn't. If it was, what was Patrick Cleburne doing fighting for the CSA? Not to mention that Illinois, Lincoln's home state, barred any blacks, slave or free, from even entering the state. Even the reference the article has from James McPherson has the key phrase "some slaveholding families." The only other reference the article has supporting this is from Vice President Alexander Stephen's "Cornerstone Speech", but Alexander Stephens was one of the most radical slave-owners of his time, to which few people even took seriously.

I just propose we take that part down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamCorbettWiki (talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You misread the passage. The citation is, "McPherson, James (1997). For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War. New York City: Oxford University Press. p. 106. ISBN 978-0195124996. :"Confederate soldiers from slaveholding families expressed no feelings of embarrassment or inconsistency in fighting for their own liberty while holding other people in slavery. Indeed, white supremacy and the right of property in slaves were at the core of the ideology for which Confederate soldiers fought."
It is true that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled at Dred Scott (1857) that those of African descent could not be U.S. citizens. Several states at the time gave blacks citizenship, including southern states as recently as the 1840s, though fewer allowed the men to vote, north or south. Nevertheless, the characterization of the Confederacy as an explicitly white man's republic based economically and morally on hereditary black slavery is well documented in the preponderance of reliable scholarship.
You may be interested in exploring the sectarian newspaper debates leading up to the sectional spits among Protestant churches --- Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and others . . . though not Episcopalians or Quakers --- on whether to be (a) New Testament followers of Paul who called on Christians to free their Christian slaves, or to be (b) Old Testament half-way followers without circumcision, and misinterpreting passages to permit involuntary hereditary slavery for Christians, which Hebrews allowed only for unconverted pagan Canaanites (and 1600s Virginia colonial law forbade for African Catholics imported after 1619 who were kidnapped from the Congo River region).
The Gospel denying "Old-Testament-Christian" faction were further self-servingly un-Biblical so as to perpetuate an undemocratic "slavocracy" for its personal economic gain. They ignored (a) Old Testament Deuteronomy 23 injunction to allow escaped foreign slaves their freedom (though at the Amistad Case, former president U.S. Representative John Quincy Adams successfully argued before the Supreme Court that Africans kidnapped by the Spanish committed no crime in their "mutiny" to escape), and (b) Leviticus 25 "Jubilee year" every 49-50 years, requiring slave emancipation of co-religionists and abolishing all debts (aside note: debt was a major restriction prohibiting several slaveholder wills in the South from freeing slaves as intended). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I think Topcat777 was correct to remove "white supremacist government" from the lede. Both the Federal and Confederate governments were inherently white only, "white supremacist" is primarily a post-war movement in the face of African-American enfranchisement and involvement in southern state governments. The impetus for the Confederate government was the preservation of slavery, there was never any "danger" of A-A involvement in the government. White supremacy is still addressed in the lede as part of Reconstruction. Dubyavee (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Confederate States of America

The Articles of Confederation applied to the 13 colonies and document is considered to still be a part of our system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:5E06:601:6D83:79CB:B344:DEC5 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Reference for sentence in opening paragraphs

"Through activities such as building prominent Confederate monuments and writing school history textbooks, they[who?] sought to ensure future generations of Southern whites would continue to support white supremacist policies such as Jim Crow."

I stumbled onto the article while going down a Wikipedia rabbit hole and saw the "who?" thing and decided to find a reference. The United Daughters of the Confederacy page has a suitable reference for that sentence on their page.

Towns, W. Stuart (2012). Enduring Legacy: Rhetoric and Ritual of the Lost Cause. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 978-0-8173-1752-2.

I am just unsure on how to add it to the page and how semi-protected works, plus the page is a bit overwhelming in terms of editing and I didn't want to break anything. So I just thought I would drop it here for people who seek to maintain the page or just correct any issues.

Ptwinters (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This citation is incorrect. Not only does the referenced book not reference the UDC on the provided entry, but the UDC has never held a policy supporting Jim Crow laws. While they were responsible for erecting many monuments and selecting textbooks that more thoroughly explained the Southern position, including the UDC as the prime example with so many responsible acts is incorrect and the article should be reverted to the more accurate Lost Cause group description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onelasthope364 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2020

Lincoln was assassinated April 14, 1865 not April 15, 1865 as stated. Jalarsonjr (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Not Done Assassination is the act of deliberately killing a prominent person. In other words, the crucial part is when the person dies, which was on the 15th. Either way, you have to provide WP:RS to support the change. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2020

The wrong flag is being displayed. The flag being displayed is the 2nd Confederate States flag. The 3rd Confederate States flag looked much similar to the 2nd flag, but had a red bar on the side. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281865%29.svg/1280px-Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281865%29.svg.png

I request that the flag be fixed from the 2nd flag to the 3rd flag. Relapserelax (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish a consensus for this change before making this edit request. See also Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 20#Flag for extensive discussion on the matter. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Danski454 (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Confederate States of America → Confederate States – Per WP:CONCISE and MOS:COMMON. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 14:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Actually, the most common name is "The Confederacy", which already redirects here. If we are going to move the article to anything based on the common name, it should be that. But I think I prefer the current status quo. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Seems pretty clear. Also differentiates from other confederacies as well. Garuda28 (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I am genuinely split on this. On the one hand, we have precedent: "United States." And while "CSA" is common, so is "USA". "Confederacy" is a colloquialism and is right out, just like "America." On the other hand, I would definitely say that people are more familiar with the term "Confederate States of America" than simply "Confederate States". It could honestly go either way. --Golbez (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, same as Rreagan007. Clear as mud, this is a solution looking for a problem. There is no problem. WP:NATURAL WP:COMMON — Smuckola(talk) 19:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – just as there is a subtle difference between "The United States of America" (referring to the country and federal government) and "these United States" (referring to the collection of states, with the common plural antebellum terminology which is now archaic with the rise of the strong post war federal government), I posit that "Confederate States of America" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the Confederate equivalent of the country and "national" government opposed to the collection of Confederate States, and (especially important when describing a strong-state confederacy), avoids any ambiguity. See the end of the United States#Etymology section: "it is a difference between a collection of states and a unit." Also there is a predominance of "Confederate States of America" used on official Confederate issuance such as c:Category:Bonds of the Confederate States of America, c:Category:Stamps of the Confederate States of America, c:Category:Banknotes of the Confederate States of America, and the rare c:Category:Coins of the Confederate States of America, etc. Note: I'm not sure you meant to link to MOS:COMMON, since that's about organisms. Mojoworker (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – "Confederate States of America" is a better name for this article than either "Confederate States" or "The Confederacy". Confederate States of America was the name of the unrecognized country, and is also a commonly used name for it. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is at the common name already. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The current name is by far the most common. Per WP:COMMONNAME it should be kept. — Tartan357  (Talk) 08:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current name is the most common. Dimadick (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. The most common name is certainly not Confederate States. While I fully accept it probably exists, I don't recall ever coming accross this in writing. The Confederacy is certainly the true most common name. Confederate States could only be justified by analogy with United States. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for now, go with the most common name. Coltsfan (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, common name, abbreviated C.S.A, and doesn't conflict with other confederacies. --Bob not snob (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flag in infobox

The stars and bars

There's a longstanding consensus the that flag in the infobox of this article should be "the stars and bars". Here are some archived discussions about that:

— Mudwater (Talk) 23:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of The Bonnie Blue Flag from the infobox?

I'm not really sure I understand why the The Bonnie Blue Flag was removed from the anthems tab of the infobox. The song was popular across the South, and was considered an unofficial anthem, especially amongst the Southern upper classes.

--Wardie1993 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Confederate offices held in Infoboxes

If you look at the infobox for Alexander Stephens, Robert Toombs, and many others, it gives the Confederate offices held as if they were just as important and legitimate as their (Union) positions (U.S. senator, etc.) before and after.

This is offensive and misleading. They were officers of a rump republic recognized by no one, protecting slavery in its Constitution (Article I Section 9(4), and see Cornerstone Speech). Confederates committed treason against the U.S., starting with the attack on Fort Sumter. I propose marking these with a "small" tag, i.e., Jefferson Davis's presidency of the Confederacy would be in a smaller size type than his being U.S. senator and his earlier offices.

There are other ways this could be marked typographically. Or we could just remove all Confederate offices from Infoboxes.

What do others think? deisenbe (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. The fact that one of your proposed options is to remove Confederate offices shows how bad this proposal is. To them, it was just as important and legitimate; had they received any recognition or won, it would have absolutely been just as important and legitimate. Perhaps we should shrink the text when talking about governors of southern states in the 1860s? "Protecting slavery in their constitution" has absolutely nothing to do with this, yet you said it. Finally: We don't indicate information on Wikipedia with text size. That's inaccessible and, also, no. --Golbez (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
No, obviously not, things should stay as they are. Wikipedia isn´t limited to a US POV and font size or overall inclusion are not depending on moral or legal standings. There is no offense in information. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Relatively minor point, but should Texas be considered a "southeasternmost" state as it says in the intro?

It just objectively doesn't seem correct. It's a minor point, but I don't want to change an introductory paragraph to such an important article without concensus.

Bomb319 (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead -- the Confederate States

The current version of the lead section is a well-written summary of the article. It's pretty long, but that's fine. But, I think it can be enhanced to make it very obvious which states seceded from the union and ended up as the CSA. A careful reading of the lead does provide that information, of course, but it takes a while to become clear. First seven states seceded, then, later, four more, and all that. It's good stuff, but I think it can be punched up a bit. I'm going to go ahead and boldly do that. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021

The third sentence of paragraph two starts with "Convinced that white supremacy[4][6] and the...."

Citation [4] is in error; the Encyclopaedia Britannica article at the link makes no mention whatsoever of white supremacy. It should be removed as a source. 24.22.233.26 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"South: Ante Bellum" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect South: Ante Bellum. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 22#South: Ante Bellum until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wording about secession

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Hello! With this edit you changed the wording in the lead section and elsewhere in the article. Before, it said that some states seceded from the union. Now it says that the states had declarations of secession. In my opinion the previous wording -- that the states seceded from the union -- was clearer, more straightforward, and easier to understand. So perhaps it should be put back. In your edit summary you said "some few style edits related to settled constitutional law in the US". Could you please explain this further? I am thinking that you meant -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- that under the U.S. Constitution, states can't secede, and therefore from a legal perspective the states did not actually secede, even though they said that they did. Another point is that one generally reads that the Southern states seceded from the union. Not that that makes it accurate to say so. Anyway, I would like this article to be factually correct, while still being easy for the average reader to understand. And possibly some alternative wording could accomplish both goals. So, please let me know what you think. And of course other editors are encouraged to join the discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Mudwater, yes, (1) it is established law in the US by Supreme Court rulings that there can be no unilateral state secession among the United States. I suppose that leaves the possibility of a Constitutional Amendment, as was proposed in the 1860 Congressional Session. But even with all Confederate-rebelling state delegations in tact, their numbers could not persuade 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate to abandon the Constitutional Union by an Amendment to be sent for ratification by the US people in the states.
So next it is reasonable to ask, What IS the rationale for writing any a US history sourced by mainstream scholars for any topic related to its historical boundaries, or in this case, that of the 1861-1865 Confederacy meant for the general English-speaking reader and the international reader?
(2) From an historical perspective, (a) the 1781 Articles of Confederation declare the United States a "perpetual" union of states, and (b) the 1789 US Constitution declares its preamble purpose to be "a more perfect Union" of the People of the United States than the previous perpetual one of states.
- The Confederation Congress unanimously forwarded the proposed 1789 Constitution to the state legislatures, which each in turn passed statutes to empower a Ratification Convention. These in the case of Virginia and others, expanded the electorate for Constitutional ratification to an electorate larger than for the state legislatures, because its advocates wanted to secure the foundation of the new government on the people of the US in each state, not upon the state legislatures as before in the Confederation.
- The Confederation Congress unanimously dissolved itself in deference to the Congress of the 1789 Constitution convening within a few weeks. Most of state delegates voting to dissolve had been elected as US Senators and US Representatives in the First Congress of the 1789 Constitution.
(3) The secessionists in each state represented in the Confederate Congress, (a) removed their state representation from Congress and (b) sent state delegations to the Confederate Congress using methods that were in each state, either unconstitutional or illegal, except perhaps in the cases of Tennessee and Texas.
- In South Carolina, for instance, the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court stated in the press that the extralegal secessionist convention that was held in Charleston was (i) conducted in a prejudiced venue surrounded by mobs and (ii) removed from the state Capitol in Columbia where the state legislature had met since 1790, and critically, records were kept for legislator reference.
- In Virginia, to stampede the Richmond Convention to vote secession,
- (i) rogue militias acting unlawfully without the authority of the sitting state Governor made war on the United States by capturing the arsenal at Harpers Ferry and the shipyard at Gosport [Norfolk] that had been ceded by the Virginia General Assembly to the US Government by Virginia and US Constitutional procedure.
- (ii) the secessionist ex-Governor who had previously killed dueling, stood at the convention podium where the assembly had voted against secession a few weeks before, and personally challenged any union-voting delegate as a traitor, waiving his drawn pistol in the air. Voting literally "under the gun" was not recognized as proper parliamentary procedure in the State of Virginia, and dueling had been outlawed there since 1810.
- (iii) After that gerrymandered Richmond Secession Convention resolved for a plebiscite to decide Virginia secession. a rump provisional secessionist Assembly sent voting delegates to the Provisional Confederate Congress BEFORE Virginia's plebiscite, they were seated and voted - - other delegations there were likewise unauthorized by the voting men of their states to be there except by extra-legal and unconstitutional means, as several were from states with legitimate majorities for unionists Steven Douglas and John Bell: Lower South GA, LA, Upper South TN, VA, ~NC, Border States MO, KY.
- (iv) In Virginia, the statewide vote in the referendum with every white man counting equally, lost the county vote tallies from those with both delegates voting against secession in the Richmond Convention. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian: Thanks for the detailed reply. It does seem that the confederate states did not actually secede, since the Constitution does not allow that to be done. I'm wondering though if the wording of that aspect of the article, especially in the lead, could be adjusted somehow to make it easier to read. (As a related side point, the lead now refers to "rump state assembly declarations of secession" without explaining what a rump state is.) — Mudwater (Talk) 14:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Rats. I need to circle back to that awkward phrasing, - later today, tomorrow? - as it is MEANT to refer to a "rump" that is, "portion" of a legislature, with one or more factions removed voluntarily, by intimidation or by force, rather than a "rump state". rats. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Saying that the states did not actually secede seems purely legalistic, at best, and I think it is incorrect. First, the states thought they had legally seceded, while the Union refused to recognize the secession, so it depends on whose legality you accept. Second, the Union put conditions on readmitting the secessionist states; by having a concept of readmission, the Union was agreeing that the states had seceded, while by refusing to let them go, the Union was denying the legitimacy of the secession. Therefore, the common understanding that the states had seceded seems well justified. None of my comment implies that the secessionists were justified legally or morally. I am simply saying that the term "secession" is appropriate and should not be an issue. 17:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Only the seditionists at the Great Rebellion believed that a state could secede from the Union without a US constitutional amendment. No US citizens residing in a state were successful in persuading the others in three-fourths of the other states to let them go out of the Articles "perpetual Union" made "a more perfect" than 'perpetual' Union in 1788. Indeed the 1860 and 1861 secessionist efforts in Congress failed to gain simple majorities for their 'secession amendment' in either US House or US Senate, even before seditionist conspirators voluntarily withdrew or were expelled for their treason, expelled for materially aiding and abetting efforts to overthrow the Constitutional government of the United States.
There was no 'readmission of states into the Union', Congress put conditions on readmitting state delegations into Congress until the US constitution as amended was agreed to by a majority of the voting population equal to half of the 1860 electorate. So, in Virginia where the secessionists controlled most southeastern counties above the Fall Line, the 1866 Loyalist majority of those voting in Virginia were not sufficient for either US House or US Senate to certify those elected. The Virginia delegation for Congress was NOT seated that year because the electorate were too few among the general population. It is all about the people, you see. The people are sovereign, citizens count.
You've got history and historiography very wrong. States are a legal fiction, they are an abstraction of aggregate populations, states do not think anything, only people think. A majority of the 'Southern', 'slave-holding state' electorate voted for Union in 1860, casting most of their ballots for a combination of Stephen Douglas and John Bell, even where Breckinridge received a plurality to capture Electoral votes.
In late 1860-early 1861, secessionist cabals illegally convened in rump sessions without attendance by members of the Southern Unionists or Opposition Party [against secessionists]. The rumps declared state secession in locations sometimes outside of their state, with less than a majority of Members present. But they were uniformly unconstitutional, as noted in December 1860 by the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court regarding the putsch carried out in Charleston away from the state capitol, the seat of government for the legitimate state legislature of loyal US citizens residing in South Carolina. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Excessive length and detail

Yes, the article is too long and should be condensed. In a very cursory view I noticed much inappropriate detail; my recommendation would be to move it to separate articles. Specifically, a discussion of the current value of Confederate paper and metal money is simply a distraction. The issuance of many different paper bills can be summarized in one or two sentences. There should be a short article on Confederate money instead. I noticed other cases of great detail that should be only briefly mentioned in this article. Zaslav (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree on the money essay for 'MOVE' its narrative information and citations to preserve the good collaborative research and contributions by previous editors to the 'information source' goals of the Wikipedia Foundation.
Here we find some article development or topic extension is in response to previous edit wars, some now years past, and much of the narrative could stand a review and trim and transfer, to improve 'accessibility' to the information 'for the general reader'. Agreed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Recognition of a Foreign Power for the CSA

https://catholicism.org/catholicism-south.html The relationship between the Vatican and the CSA is actually pretty interesting. Obviously no foreign powers ever got directly involved, but there was communication between the Vatican and the CSA government during the war. The Vatican was the only foreign government ever to address Jefferson Davis as holding an official title of President of the CSA. After the war, Pius IX, the Pope at the time, sent a letter and some gifts to President Davis while he was imprisoned. I cannot make edits now due to my account, but for someone who can edit, this is some useful info on the Catholic Church's stance on the CSA and the Catholic Church recognizing the CSA. Kaiser Jaguar (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Kaiser Jaguar

Ha...that's actually kind of fitting, in a way XD. At that time, like the CSA, the Vatican's days as a government were numbered (see Papal states). The sovereign status of Vatican City was restored (minus military power) in the 1920s...by Mussolini, of all people. Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Missouri and Kentucky did not secede

Please correct this. It’s truly shocking this is in your article. 2600:1008:B044:BADB:95F9:FF8:61EB:D1B0 (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

What's actually shocking is that you didn't bother to read the article. Carlstak (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wording about enslaved people

Recent edits here and here changed the wording in the lead section from "African chattel slaves" to "enslaved Africans" and then back again. In my opinion the lead should say "enslaved Africans", and the rest of the article should use terminology like "enslaved people" instead of "slaves". WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES means that the events described in the article -- and their causes and effects, and so on -- should follow the cited sources. It does not mean that the article should use the same terminology that the sources do. Many of the sources for these events use wording that is now considered outdated or antiquated, or in some cases disrespectful. "Negro" is one example that comes to mind. The article should use modern terminology, and reflect modern perspectives. Other editors are encouraged to post their opinions about this. (Pinging Stephenamills and Mathglot.) — Mudwater (Talk) 15:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The change in the wording does not represent the wording in the source given, nor does it represent the overwhelming majority of sources about this topic, which use the word "slaves", as do the overwhelming majority of black people researching or talking about their ancestry. In this query, there is overwhelming preference for the term slaves over enslaved Africans (and so little data available for the latter that it doesn't meet the minimum threshold required for appearing on the graph.) The original change to add the term enslaved Africans was a good faith attempt to introduce new wording, but after it was reverted, it should not have been reinserted again, per WP:BRD but instead discussed here first. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to insert what may well be more enlightened terms over what the sources actually say; we have no choice, and *must* follow the majority of reliable sources here. The WP:BURDEN is on those who wish to change long-standing consensus at this article to make their case for the new wording, and this has not been done; on the contrary, the data shows that the sources are overwhelmingly opposed. Accordingly, I have reverted this to the status quo ante, per WP:BRD. Please discuss and achieve consensus for this change, and do not edit war while the discussion is going on. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Again, we should use the sources to substantiate the facts presented in the article, but we need not use the same wording as the sources, which may in some cases be outdated or derogatory. Nor are we obliged to use the wording used by a majority of black people researching their ancestry. Instead we should use whatever wording a consensus, or at least a substantial majority, of editors find most appropriate. So, what do other editors think about this? And also, have there been any discussions elsewhere on Wikipedia about the use of the terms "slaves" and "enslaved people"? — Mudwater (Talk) 19:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Imho, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. You said,

Instead we should use whatever wording a consensus, or at least a substantial majority, of editors find most appropriate.

That is false. If wording in articles were up to whatever editors felt was most appropriate, then we would have no need of policies such as WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, or WP:DUEWEIGHT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we do not stand at the bleeding edge of change, we are a lagging indicator, and we follow what the majority of the sources say.
There are often trends in historiography and in social change moving towards a more just representation of history accompanied by more sensitive use of wording, and that's all to the good. If you are a university or grad student in one of those fields, you are to be applauded for considering the latest trends, and trying to stay on top of them. If you are an author or professor publishing in the field, more power to you if you are able to move the needle away from outdated, possibly prejudicial phrasing towards a more general use and acceptance of more modern terminology. That's all great, and I look forward to seeing those changes as much as you do. But Wikipedia is not part of that process of moving the needle; we are a lagging indicator, never at the forefront of change, and always following it. Efforts to move the needle by changing wording at Wikipedia articles to conform to a more just vision, ahead of what the sources actually say are contrary to policy and the purpose of Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia.
If you need a refresher, please reread WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE; the wording in this article is not going to get out in front of what the sources actually say, which currently stand at least 100–1 against your proposed wording change. The onus is on you to show that the sources support your desired wording change, and simply polling users what their favorite words are, is not going to change that, I'm afraid. Thanks Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Some more data for you (limited to the last 20 years); your preferred phrase is nowhere to be seen. WP:BURDEN. WP:DUE. Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful response. You've brought up some valid points. However, I still think that on Wikipedia the use of verifiable sources applies to the facts of the article, and not necessarily the terminology used. And I would still be interested in knowing if this particular subject -- "slaves" vs. "enslaved people" -- has been discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia. That said, I will go along with whatever wording most editors think is best for this particular article. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Both terms are widely used in Wikipedia articles, with about 2 1/2 times as many using the term African slaves as enslaved Africans, however this is completely irrelevant and not an argument in favor of the former, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Only mentioning it because you asked. Mathglot (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Carlstak, while this discussion is still going on, can you please revert your your change to the WP:LEAD which reinserted the term "enslaved Africans" in the lead, and join this discussion? Simply removing sources that were there before and replacing them with other sources that support your preferred choice of wording is not how we achieve consensus, especially not in the WP:LEAD. There's no question that you can find many dozens of reliable sources that support your choice of wording if you search for them; the question is, what do the majority of sources say? For starters, check out the links provided above; the data seem to point strongly to a majority preference for the previous wording. Any changes to it should be achieved by consensus and supported by the facts. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, my fingers can't do the deed. The wording "Enslaved Africans" is in common usage in up-to-date academic writing, and in older scholarly literature, at least from the '90s. The NPS article previously cited is rudimentary, and not even an academic source. My sources are better.
It seems odd to me that you are raising cane over a benign change in phrasing that respects black personhood and the humanity of those persons who were enslaved, rather than dehumanizing them with the word "slave", as if there were no other aspects of their being. Is this the hill you want to take a stand on?
Your links are arbitrarily worded search queries on Google.com with *your* "preferred" parameters yielding the results you want. You say, "[the] preferred phrase is nowhere to be seen". Not surprising.
I found these scholarly sources right off the bat on Google Scholar:
"enslaved Africans" "Louisiana"
"enslaved Africans" "Alabama"
"enslaved Africans" "Georgia"
And by the way, WP:BRD is not a WP policy, or even a guideline. As the page says, it's "an optional method of seeking consensus". Carlstak (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Carlstak: To your points:

Sorry, my fingers can't do the deed. ... And by the way, WP:BRD is not a WP policy, or even a guideline.

Quite right. There are many ways of achieving consensus, but would you agree that editors who simply revert in order to insert their preferred wording is not the way? I'm not sure how to take your comment about "your fingers not doing the deed"; does that mean your mind is made up? Or, what does it mean?

It seems odd to me that you are raising cane over a benign change in phrasing that respects black personhood and the humanity of those persons who were enslaved...

First, "raising cane"? Okay, you get a "lol" for that...
Second: you say it's a "benign change in phrasing" which of course puts the best possible spin on it, and "respecting black personhood and humanity" sounds even better. Who could possibly be in favor of disrespecting black personhood and in favor of inhumanity, right? If you want to make a specific allegation about this, my talk page is here, but like it or not, Wikipedia is not at the bleeding edge of social change and we have no choice but to follow what the reliable sources say. When the majority of them change over to the new wording, then so will we; but not before.

Is this the hill you want to take a stand on?

The hill I want to take a stand on, is WP:NPOV and WP:DUEWEIGHT, which is policy, and that's the hill that you are currently ignoring in order to unilaterally reinsert wording into the article that is contrary to the preponderance of reliable sources. As soon as you show that the majority of sources support "enslaved Africans" I will immediately back off my original position, turn 180 degrees, and argue very strongly in favor of a change to your preferred wording of enslaved Africans. That's because I have no a priori opinion of what the best wording is or should be, and because I support WP:NPOV and WP:DUEWEIGHT. May I ask what kind of evidence would cause you to change your mind and strongly support the original wording in the article?
This statement of yours was truly a "day is night, up is down" kind of comment, getting everything exactly backwards:

Your links are arbitrarily worded search queries on Google.com with *your* "preferred" parameters yielding the results you want.

I'm very familiar with information retrieval, including google API keywords and search internals, and I took care to ensure that the queries I constructed were as carefully worded as possible in order to avoid bias in any direction as much as feasible, so that the results could easily be evaluated by impartial observers. I linked two such queries above, one Ngrams query, and one Google books query:
carefully worded to avoid the bias that would favor the word "slaves" used in sources about slavery outside of the United States, or going back to slaveholding in antiquity or over the last 2000 years. Including the names of U.S. states in the South ensures that the results have far fewer false positives, and elicit books containing the terms that are about the time and place covered by the article. The result was overwhelmingly against the new wording.
and was limited to books published in the last 20 years, to avoid the bias that the term "enslaved Africans" was not used as much before that period. If you look at the first page of book results, none of them use the term "enslaved Africans". I paged through the next pages of results until the tenth result page and I did not find any occurrences of "enslaved Africans" in the first one hundred results. Perhaps there is an unseen bias in the query that I am missing; please improve the query if you can and let me know how it comes out.
Both of those queries show a very strong preference against your preferred wording. Your comment that I chose the queries with my "preferred parameters" is absurd on the face of it. On the other hand, let's look at your Google scholar queries: you used queries with the wording, "enslaved Africans" "Louisiana", or "enslaved Africans" "Alabama", or "enslaved Africans" "Georgia". There's no surprise that you found results with the words "enslaved Africans" in them, as Google will only return documents that contain that term for that query, and omit any that don't have it. Every one of those is clearly a cherry-picked query, designed to obtain the conclusion you wish to prove; that's the very definition of bias.
I did not construct the queries to prove a point by WP:CHERRYPICKING the query to produce a predetermined result, but that is exactly what you did, however. If you prefer Google scholar rather than books or ngrams, then let's try to construct a query that is NOT cherry-picked, but which contains any of the possible terms, and see what turns up with no prejudging how it might come out:
Search google Scholar for: ("Georgia" OR "Alabama" OR "Louisiana") AND ("enslaved Africans" OR "African slaves" OR "slaves")
and see what that shows. The term "enslaved Africans" does not turn up on page one of the results, or the next three pages, but it does turn up as result #49 on page four of the results.
It seems to me that all of the unbiased evidence shows a 50–1 or 100–1 preference for the original wording, and you haven't offered a shred of evidence to the contrary. I'd ask you first to please self-revert, or if your fingers really can't do it, at least not reinsert the material again if I or someone else reverts it (I'll wait a couple of days for someone else to get there first), and provide evidence supporting your preferred wording choice. As I mentioned above, the minute it's clear that your choice is supported by the majority of reliable sources, I will immediately change my opinion and support your view instead, but currently the evidence seems to be running very strongly against it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
tl;dr. Not concise, muddies the waters. You seem to be responding emotionally; as they say in Jamaica, it might be helpful to "cool out" a bit. Carlstak (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mudwater and Mathglot, this is Stephenamills who initially made the edit. Thank you for creating this discussion and inviting me to it.

I’m not resolutely certain on how Wikipedia policies apply here (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or WP:STICKTOSOURCE are the main ones mentioned here). I’m not sure if my uncertainty is caused by my lack of depth with the policies relative to more experienced editors, or rather due to our potentially divergent interpretations of those policies. If the policies mandate a certain outcome here, I would never wish to violate them and I would never have made this edit. But I believe that the reason we are having this discussion is because there isn’t yet consensus on how the policies apply to this specific instance (or which policies). I tried to find past wording discussions like this before I did the edit, but I was not able to find any, though I am not anywhere near as skilled as Mathglot at narrowing searches.

While the number of occurences of a term is both a thoughtful point and, also, something I wasn’t aware of and hadn’t considered when making the edit, my main uncertainty here is still whether those policies are actually applicable here. My interpretation which may be wrong, is that they are not describing this instance and are more similarly along the lines of what Mudwater mentions – the above policy of “sticking to the source” is to match the events, causes, and core semantic meaning of the cited reliable sources; not to prescribe the exact same terminology from those sources, which as Mudwater mentioned, could be outdated, antiquated, or even disrespectful and offensive to the community described (crucially – none of which would show up or be represented in an number of occurences/ngram search).

Mudwater uses the word “Negro” as a good example, and I wish to add my own: “Mulatto”. In the Russian Wikipedia article on Barack Obama, at the top (second paragraph in the lead), he is described, as a "Mulatto". (“Obama is a mulatto, but unlike most black Americans, not a descendant of slaves”, in Russian, “Обама — мулат, но, в отличие от большинства чёрных американцев, не потомок рабов”). That is extremely offensive and clearly must only have happened due to Russian Wikipedia likely having 0% African-American representation among its editors. My guess is that, in addition to there being 0% African-American representation in that offensive article with the word "Mulatto" at the top, probably, the sources used to support that usage are primarily Russian sources which themselves use that term both today and in the past, though I don't know how to do an ngram search on Russian texts to validate that guess.

English Wikipedia is not much better – about 0.5% of Wikipedia editors in the United States are African-American, despite the fact that we are 13% of its population. My primary point is that the decision on the terms to describe a given community or here, what has been done to that community, should be decided by members of that community and not exclusively by the frequency of past written occurrences, particularly when those written occurrences likely themselves had as much representation of the described community as Russian Wikipedia. Because otherwise, if we ignore this point, we might potentially, as editors, make a decision to support using the word “mulatto” or “negro” or another word offensive to a community simply due to its past frequency of written usage. Though you do make a strong case, Mathglot, I believe that Mudwater's point is also essentially saying that there can be additional factors to consider.

Adding additional uncertainty, I’m not sure what the viewpoint is of, e.g. prominent members of the African-American community regarding the terminology used to describe enslavement. When making the above edit, I made the decision to be bold based primarily on the recent Washington Post article on enslavement, which I realize is only a single source, but there are also non-sources such as the Featured Article on Jefferson Davis that I also based my decision on, since it is recognized by the Wikipedia community as thus being among the absolute best articles that Wikipedia has to offer. Notably, it uses the phrase “enslaved people” in the second paragraph, which is most likely even better than using “enslaved Africans”.

Some summary questions: 1) To what degree does past frequency of a term encourage or require its usage (or do the above mentioned policies mandate a use based on this)? 2) Concerning the terminology of enslavement/slavery, are there any phrases or terms that e.g. the African-American community has generally determined to be outdated/antiquated or disrespectful?

Summarizing, I still hold my same viewpoint that the wording should absolutely be either “enslaved Africans” or “enslaved people”, at the very least in the lead paragraphs; never “slaves” in the lead, following a recent high-profile Washington Post article, as well another Featured Article on Wikipedia. However, there does not yet appear to currently be a Wikipedia consensus regarding this wording. I see usage of the term “slave” as being extremely dehumanizing passive-voice language which removes the act of enslavement and subjugation in its language, instead describing enslavement/slavery not as a vile action being done to a person but rather an attribute of the person, an attribute of the victim. Stephenamills (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Stephenamills: thanks for your comment; you've put your finger on the relevant policies. I just finished a long reply (and got a confusing edit conflict in the bargain), and so I am a bit talked out right now; but your comment deserves serious thought and a reply, which I hope to get back to before too long. In the meantime, thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Brief follow-up since you asked a specific question:

To what degree does past frequency of a term encourage or require its usage (or do the above mentioned policies mandate a use based on this)

Wikipedia prefers more recent reliable sources to older ones; I'll get you the link later. Mathglot (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Stephenamills, Here's the link I promised: WP:RSAGE. As to your other points, it looks like this discussion has been mostly upstaged by the Rfc below, but I'll try to hit the main points. I think you are struggling with and trying to balance in good faith the right policies and guidelines, so your thoughts and inquiries are well-founded, imho. Everyone has their own interpretation, and you may come up with a different result than I do, or than some other editor does, which is fine.
With respect to "outdated" or "antiquated", see WP:RSAGE. As to "disrespectful" or "offensive", I'm not aware of specific guidelines or policies that would trump the most common term in reliable sources, but there are pages in the Manual of Style that warn against using unnecessarily contentious terms that are chosen by editors and *not* in the sources; see for example WP:MoS/Words to watch, and you could also check out WP:Offensive material. The single example I am aware of where material that is the most common term used in reliable sources should *not* be used in an article, is covered by MOS:GENDERID, and is part of the WP:Manual of Style/Biography page. I think the crux of the issue you are struggling with, is if terms like African slaves are, or should be, handled in the same way as gender identity is; that is, should we avoid certain terms even if they are the most common ones in the sources in favor of what people labeled with such terms believe about them. I think this is a worthwhile discussion to be had, and you could raise it, if you want; I'm not exactly sure of the right venue for it. As the Rfc below looks like it's headed for your desired result, that discussion may be moot, at least for the time being, but it's something you might consider taking on in the future.
As far as Negro, Mulatto and so on, that's a bit of a red herring; after all, those terms have largely disappeared from academic publishing over the last 50 years, whereas terms like slaves are still very much current in academia, and are even used, for example, on African American genealogical and ancestry forums. A more analogous question to African slaves vs. enslaved Africans, might be Sexual reassignment surgery vs. gender affirmation surgery; Wikipedia uses Sexual reassignment surgery, because that's what the sources do, but there are a bunch of synonyms at the article including some that are trending up, including GCS, GAS, and others, but as Wikipedia is conservative in following the most common usage, and avoiding the bleeding edge until it has taken over as the majority viewpoint.
Regarding the 0.5% figure you quoted, the essay Wikipedia:Systemic bias could and perhaps ought to say more about this (and you can edit that page, so why not? You could link the Signpost article.) As far as Russian Wikipedia, first: see WP:WINARS, so you can pretty much ignore what they say. Secondly, unless your Russian is a lot better than my elementary level, I'd be careful about making judgments about the level of offensiveness about a cognate term like "мулат" (or "негр") in Russian when the English term is offensive and the Russian cognate word may not be. (Conversely, afaik, one shouldn't go round saying "чёрный" to refer to a black person, even though "Black" carries no pejorative flavor in current American English.) Or to use an example from Colombian Spanish which I'm more comfortable with than Russian, one of my fave Cumbia songs goes, "Me gusta bailar tambo cuando estoy con mi negra" and trust me, it's an endearment not a pejorative. This change of register as one goes from a cognate in one language to another one is common. Which isn't to say Russians aren't prejudiced wrt to black people, but I don't believe "мулат" is part of that; it's just a word, afaik. (I'll ping Ymblanter here to verify my sense of the Russian words mentioned in this paragraph.)
Wrt to the views of prominent African Americans, I wouldn't venture to say. But I fairly regularly watch Finding Your Roots with Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and they don't hesitate to talk about "slavery", or use the word slave on the show, when they discover that so-and-so's great-great-great-grandmother was "born a slave in Georgia", or wherever. I'd need to find transcripts of the show to verify that, but that is my recollection. This is as much as I have time for, but I hope this helps. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
(A disclaimer: I have only read the response I am replying to, not the whole discussion). Indeed, in Russian негр is normally used to describe any Black person; чёрный (black) is less common but might be also used for this, is which case it is not offensive (негр is not offensive either). Мулат (mulatto) is pretty much used to describe anyone who is not white, not Asian, and not black, for example any Latino person might be мулат; this is not offensive either. There are offensive words to describe Black people, but as historically there were virtually no Blacks in Russia/Soviet Union they are not really widespread.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ymblanter (Stephen here) I acknowledge you read the immediate comment above and not the full discussion, but I linked to the Russian Wikipedia article on Barack Obama. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you as I’m not an expert on the Russian language, but I do speak Russian imperfectly and spent three months in many of its regions. I raised my eyebrow in some confusion when you said “mulatto” (“мулат”) is used to describe anyone who is “not black”, because it’s being used precisely in the second lead paragraph of the Barack Obama article in Russian Wikipedia to do just that. I linked to the page above, where it says (“Обама — мулат, но, в отличие от большинства чёрных американцев, не потомок рабов” – “Obama is a mulatto, but unlike most Black Americans, not a descendant of slaves”). Anyway, I didn’t want to derail as the semantics or common usage of the Russian language weren’t really the central purpose of what I wrote above, it was just one paragraph of an example of how an encyclopedia community whose editorship is systemically white Russians using systemically white sources would use offensive terms with a deeply discriminatory history so casually when describing another community. And yes it is an offensive term – none of my friends in Russia or the United States have ever referred to me as a mulatto and that would be extremely rude, it doesn’t matter what language it is in. I met one ex-friend in Los Angeles several months ago who used that term to refer to me – definitely not friends with him anymore and can find YouTube videos of him stating how “slavery is a choice”, as he was happy to show me. That’s about the extent of the one person I’ve met using that term to refer to me as attractive and it wasn’t taken as positive and never will be. It’s a slur. There are obviously respectful ways to draw attention to someone’s ethnicity without using disparaging terms with a deep global history of caste discrimination and enslavement. In Russia if someone wanted to draw attention to my ethnicity, they simply told me I look like Alexander Pushkin, which is very respectful, or in Russian there’s also African-American (афроамериканец) or also, as you mentioned, Black (Чёрный). So I’m not necessarily trying to say that you’re categorically wrong about usage, as I’m not an expert on the Russian language to say that, but the above Russian Wikipedia article, if we are to pretend that it is a valid source on usage, contradicts your statement that “мулат” is used to describe someone who is “not black”. And yes the word is offensive. In Russian. Stephenamills (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry but as a native speaker of the language I do not find the word мулат offensive, and, to be honest, I do not see as it could be offensive in any context. Referring to Barack Obama as мулат would not be my choice, but in Russian it is just a simple statement that he has a black father and a white mother, nothing beyond that. You are free to disregard my opinion of course and continue using your friends as a reference frame.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Stephenamills: the translation you quoted is inaccurate; it should read something more akin to this: "Obama is of mixed race, but unlike most Black Americans, is not a descendant of slaves." This is a typical kind of false friends error in translation that occurs in many language pairs all the time. (A classic Spanish–English one is El está constipado. Hint: doesn't mean what you think at first glance.) The Russian article is fully in line with Ymblanter's statement about the meaning of "мулат" (although it's not a reliable source, it happens to be accurate in this case). If you won't take one native Russian speaker's word for it that it's not offensive in Russian, I'm not sure pinging another three or five native speakers would change your mind, so maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree about this point. Either way, it's mostly a tangent that doesn't really affect the main point of the discussion, and I hope we are in agreement about that. Mathglot (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to get some input about this from more editors, so I'm going to start a Request for Comment. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confederate_States_of_America/Archive_20&oldid=1185482953"