Talk:Confederate States Army

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Confederates marching through Frederick, MD in 1862.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Ahem

Carlstak, that rather idiotic (if not downright racist) "boy" was introduced in this recent edit by TGORT (it used to be "bodyservant"). Since you're improving this article, please have a closer look at their various copy edits--I see a bunch of things wrong with em, including the "correction" of quotations from primary sources. I do not know what they were thinking. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Drmies, I was shocked when I saw that. It's late here and my eyes are getting bleary, but I'll take a look tomorrow. I'm a bit obsessive-compulsive and working on several articles at once, as well as replies to a friend's blog posts. Most of the work is in checking sources or in finding them, as I'm sure you know, but it's my pleasure and curse both. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"Dunbar's Guerillas" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dunbar's Guerillas. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Need for consensus

From second paragraph of CSA article lede - "Convinced that white supremacy and the institution of slavery were threatened...the Confederacy declared its secession." I don't see what was controversial about adding this here. Konli17 (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Konli17: I support the addition of this text above. The sources, and consensus as established on the main page, makes it clear that what you said was the purpose of that CS. Garuda28 (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems correct. Just read A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

White supremacy was a given in the United States in toto, this seems to be a contemporary spin to me, as it infers that white supremacy was not a concern in any other part of the US. African-Americans were not citizens, which is why we needed the 13th-15th amendments to the constitution, they could not vote in any state. Slavery was the issue. If it is put in then it should be phrased in such a way to let uninformed readers understand. If you look at Union (American Civil War) it doesn't even mention African-Americans and their position in society. Dubyavee (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Dubyavee, I was tending to agree with you then I re-read the section titled "Slavery_and_white_supremacism", which puts it into perspective. A common question is why non-slaveholding whites fought for the Confederacy, and that section gives the answer. The intro just reflects the article. Mobi Ditch (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. The status of race relations in the loyal states is irrelevant to why the folks in the CSA decided to revolt. As you note, the reason why non-slaveholding whites supported the CSA is firmly rooted in maintaining their status as superior to blacks in the Southern social and economic hierarchy. The number of new single issue users and IPs disrupting the page and ignoring this discussion is interesting and disturbing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: "The number of new single issue users and IPs disrupting the page and ignoring this discussion is interesting and disturbing." We can probably thank Trump and the Republican outrage machine for that—white supremacists and historical revisionists feel empowered now, and the removal of monuments to Confederate generals has them riled. I daresay most white Southerners (I'm a Southerner) still believe that the Civil War was about states' rights rather than the issue of slavery. For them, it's a matter of the "right" of southern states to chart their own course; they're completely oblivious of the inherent contradiction in upholding the principle that states should have had this "freedom", which entailed the enslavement of other human beings, while denying freedom to those people who were enslaved. They simply won't acknowledge that this principle of "freedom" they hold as sacrosanct was for white people only, or else they openly declare that it was justified. Carlstak (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion - how about the following tweak: '...was the military land force of the Confederate States of America (commonly referred to as the Confederacy) during the American Civil War (1861–1865), fighting against the to secede from the United States forces in order to uphold white supremacy and the institution of slavery in the Southern states.'

Firstly, a disclaimer, I'm not an expert on the topic - I've just sat down to think about whether the wording could be improved. I can see why people may find the existing sentence provocative, even though it is factually accurate, as it (correctly) implies that regardless of individual motivations, soldiers essentially fought against the Union army to uphold white supremacy. While this isn't a problem (the truth sometimes does provoke reactions), I think placing the army's purpose (upholding slavery) in the context of the CSA's attempted secession retains the truth of the statement and partly explains why it was fighting to protect racism, making it clearer that the statement isn't about the motivation of every individual soldier, but the army as an institution. This also better reflects the sentence in the CSA lead. Do others agree this is an improvement? Jr8825 • Talk 17:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

OK with me, but there are smarter editors than me around here. Mobi Ditch (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

While I think that the "white supremacy" issue is important to keep in the article, maybe it doesn't need to be in the intro. It's a source of considerable irritation to nameless editors, who delete it regularly. Mobi Ditch (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Quote farm and white supremacy

Morale and motivations section, including the Slavery and white supremacism sub-section, looks like a Quote Farm. You really need to work those concepts into original prose.

Secondly, I get what you're saying about white supremacy and the war, but white supremacy was not the over-riding factor of the institution of slavery. Slavery was an economic institution, and the south depended on its income. Remember, we had some presidents whose plantations were worked by slaves - it was economic for them, and they didn't free their slaves. They had monetary value. When plantation owners died, their slaves were listed in the inventory of their estates, with a monetary value placed on each one. Please don't get sidetracked on the white supremacy buzz phrase. If the white slaveholders had captured white slaves (and white slavery does still exist), the outcome would have been the same. The over-riding factor of slavery was that if they freed their slaves, their plantations would go bankrupt for lack of unpaid labor. Economics. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You're missing the fact that upholding the idea of white supremacy was essential to maintaining the institution of slavery, and the planter class were vociferous in using it to justify owning slaves. The Southern plantation owners were only a small minority of the population, but the yeoman class and the hardscrabble farmers did most of the dying in the war.

The declaration of secession by the state of Mississippi perfectly embodies the rhetoric of the planters, and yours too:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

And the state of Texas even more explicitly reflected the sentiments of the slave-owning planter class:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

Carlstak (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Is white supremacy really the focus or slavery? Throughout history slavery has been relevant all the way back to Egypt. This "White Supremacy" term seems to be thrown around in contemporary times as a focus of discussion. Even appearing within the first paragraph of this article. Other languages of this article do not seem to focus on this term, or even mention it at all, hence, it would seem there's an implied bias right from the start instead of bringing information to the surface as a socio economic system challenged by new ways of thought and letting the reader decide for themselves.Douken (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The statement of white supremacy, in this context, implies that the North was fighting to end "white supremacy" and didn't itself support forms of what we now call white supremacy. For example in the Union, blacks weren't full citizens until 1870, years after the Civil War ended. The line being in this page is simply out of place. 0BlackEclipse0 (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Another editor made a good point in the section above - that the reasons why Union soldiers fought aren't relevant to this article. This article is just about the CSA army. And the political statements by CSA leaders make their motives pretty clear. Mobi Ditch (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The article suffers to much disruption, everybody has an original source. See above at Mobi Ditch post: While I think that the "white supremacy" issue is important to keep in the article, maybe it doesn't need to be in the intro. It's a source of considerable irritation to nameless editors, who delete it regularly. The article’s discussion of ‘white supremacy’ is located in the section, “Morale and motivations”, subsection “Slavery and white supremacism”. (1) It is overly documented with primary sources, it is poorly written as a matter of encyclopedic style: wp:MOS deprecates a “narrative” that amounts to a wall of multiple quotes and lengthy authoritative citations that belong allocated among article “Notes” and “Citations” footnotes. (2) Instead of editor wp:cherry picking original sources, it would benefit from ACW history RS, such For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, and Billy Yank and Johnny Reb: Soldiering in the Civil War.

Wikipedia recommends editors inform themselves about other RS encyclopedia approaches to an article topic. At Britannica online, “The Civil War: Why They Fought]”, is written by the American scholar James M. McPherson. It addresses small unit commitment, self-respect, religion, ideology (he looks at eight). Compared to the potential there, the existing Wikipedia article is “slim pickin’s”.

Nationalism was a related motivation in a nation 30% black overall, 44-49% black in SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, and LA. A minority in the Army and in the Confederate Congress saw blacks as the key to army manpower, slave loyalty, and foreign recognition. In their view, all rested on adopting George Washington’s post-1777 policy for enlisting free blacks and slaves into the Continental Army. See the ill-fated General Patrick Cleburne division officer corps petition to Congress for allowing black recruitment and conditional freedom. See the belated Robert E. Lee proposal surfaced only (a) after Congress had granted him dictatorial powers, and (b) after half the members of the "Confederate (not-a-quorum) Congress" had self-exiled from Richmond before the encircling General Ulysses S. Grant. - - - One might argue the "Confederate Government" chose slavery over its existence, but I've found no RS to put it that way. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

A discussion of white supremacy has a place in an article about the Confederate States Army, but I agree that it doesn't need to be mentioned in the lede. I responded to Maile's oversimplification of the economics of slavery and his simplistic, incomplete description of the white slaveholders' motivations; there are no constraints on using primary sources on a talk page to make a point. TheVirginiaHistorian makes some good points, which I agree with as well, why doesn't he rewrite the "Morale and motivations" section and then we can proceed from there? I'd do it myself, but I'm busy doing other stuff. Carlstak (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I likewise have three irons in the fire at my Wikipedia hobby. But I'll certainly put the item on my dance card. Oh, and I'm almost two-thirds through standardizing the citations into Harvard Reference format at Battles of Lexington and Concord. The others are sort of ongoing, so as I finish up that one, I'll return here if no further progress has been made. I'll be back. Cheers and OORah - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Fought to uphold the institution of slavery"

It is wildly disputed that they fought only to uphold the institution of slavery. That's like saying the colonial revolutionists fought in order to kill and take Indian's Land's. Even if slavery were mentioned by confederate officials it does not mean it was the sole reason they fought Crazando (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Few, if any, of the founding documents mention slaughter of Native Americans as being a principle cause of the Revolutionary War, so that seems like a straw man argument. Regarding the CSA Army, they fought because their civilian and military leaders wanted to go to war. And we have lots of documents about why they went to war. Please read Confederate States Army#Morale and motivations for a full discussion. If you have additional sources maybe we can add more. Mobi Ditch (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please bear with me to make six (6) points: I reverted the edit of William D. McGhee here. I meant the rationale to say,

(1) These united States" were federalized by the People of the United States at the ratification of the Constitution. The agency of new government was the People of the United States in each State, without the intervention of their state legislatures. The Articles Congress dissolved itself, after recommending to the state legislatures to enact conventions for their residents on the single question, Shall the Constitution as submitted to the States be ratified by the People in each State?

(2) In the Virginia Ratification Convention, for example, those resident in Virginia among "the People of the United States", directly chose their delegates with a wider franchise than the State legislature allowed, including Virginia militia and Continental Army war veterans who were not eligible to vote for their Virginia Assembly. They could not vote for representatives in either house due to property requirements that few enlisted soldiers in Virginia could meet.

(3) Virginia ratified, not by the Pennsylvania-style steam-roller Yankee up-or-down vote, but allowing Patrick Henry and his out-voted Convention minority a voice in the ratification document itself; they sought Amendments immediately after federal government establishment. Virginia's first two US Senators were legislators from Henry's caucus at the Convention; both approved of and voted for the Bill of Rights to protect Virginians from federal government abuse. Side note: The 14th Amendment "federalized" those same citizen rights by applying them to the State governments as well as the national government - for the first time truly "federal" protections for resident citizens, nationally and for every state, you see.

(4) The Secessionist Caucuses in the 36th Congress proposed bills to allow one-state cession without a Constitutional Amendment in both the US House and in the US Senate. Each bill failed to receive the Constitutionally required two-thirds majority in both houses, with all state delegations from every section present, representing the federalized "People of the United States of America" of the 1788 Constitution.

(5) In 1798, Virginia and Kentucky directly petitioned Congress and sued in federal court to stop the Federal Administration from expelling its citizens, naturalized in Virginia who were not yet US citizens. Virginia won at the ballot box, and at court. In 1860, Lincoln released no slaves, there was no 20-year "long train of abuses" by central government as at the Declaration). In December the Chief Justice of South Carolina publicly declared that state's "secession convention" illegal by South Carolina law and federally unconstitutional.

(6) The secessionist convention in Montgomery acted without ratification from the people, but solely on the authority of rump-legislatures of secessionists, stole federal property ceded to Congress by their state assemblies: post offices, treasury mints, armories, naval yards and forts. Davis called up 100,000 for "defense", Lincoln called up 75,000 to "protect federal property".

And so here we are at Confederate States Army. It's all about slavery, and not about any "States rights". That's my case. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that a student at Liberty University would disrespect WP policy and try to impose his preferred view on the article, nor that he projects this imposition onto the editors who revert his edit that has no consensus. It seems appropriate that he is studying political science at the Jesse Helms School of Government, which of course was named after the infamous racist, Jesse Helms. TheVirginiaHistorian is correct. Carlstak (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• The states themselves stated that the reason for secession was the institution of slavery, per their own Declarations of Secession: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." Do a search for slavery on that page, and then do a search for states rights or any other similar phrase and tell me they didn't secede because of slavery. - Aoidh (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

And Lincoln himself declared that he would let slavery remain if the South would not secede. He made it clear, even though he strongly opposed slavery, that his priority was keeping the states together. But of course he was a Republican, so his view doesn't count. And winners write the history, so who cares about being neutral and presenting both sides of the issues? BilCat (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes but the article is stating why the south seceded, not what Lincoln wanted to do to keep the Union together; his political leanings aren't relevant to this. Also, the "winners" did not write the secession declarations of the seceding states, they did, unless the Northern states went back and rewrote these documents, it's not a "winner writes the history" issue; these aren't Northern sources I'm citing. It also isn't a "both sides" issue; the "it was about States' Rights, not slavery" is an attempt to whitewash the actual reasons, a Lost Cause rewriting to downplay the slavery aspects of the civil war's cause. - Aoidh (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

No, the passage in dispute states slavery was the reason the South fought, not why it seceded. And Lincoln was the President, so his views are entirely relevant. But that doesn't matter here. Just accuse every one who disagrees with you of trying to white-wash history and hope they'll shut up out of embarrassment. We know how oppression works. BilCat (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"We know how oppression works." Really? Are you a black or a Native American person in the United States? I think they know best how oppression works here in the US, certainly not white historical revisionists and white supremacists who plead "states rights" and "liberty", when the whole crux of the issue before the Civil War was the "rights" of the states that seceded to oppress their black inhabitants with the institution of slavery. "Liberty" my ass. Carlstak (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Stick to the content, rather than trying to attack me personally. The Lost Cause whitewashing is a verifiable fact, that is well sourced and has its own article documenting it. So is the fact that the south seceded and fought over slavery. I'm not even going to comment on the oppression bit. - Aoidh (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

You accused me of whitewashing history and supporting slavery simply because I disagree with the Orthodox History. That's a personal attack. BilCat (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@BilCat: you acknowledge that the "orthodox" view among historians is that the South seceded and fought primarily on the basis of retaining slavery. The contrary view (that the South has been victimised and didn't fight for slavery) consequently "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" and is therefore the definition of a fringe theory. Fortunately we've got a policy on what to do in cases like this. Jr8825 • Talk 06:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If you think me stating that the Lost Cause narrative is an attempt to rewrite history is an attack on you personally, feel free to take that to WP:ANI. However, it wasn't directed at you personally, but the Lost Cause narrative itself. I was talking about the content of that narrative, not you. However, I never accused you of "supporting slavery." Accusing me of personal attacks without cause is itself a personal attack. Unless you're going to take it to WP:ANI or somewhere actionable, please don't accuse me of personal attacks, as I did not make any. I'm not talking about you specifically, so you stop talking about me specifically, and we can discuss the content itself, which has been my intention all along. - Aoidh (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Name of army

When was the title 'Confederate States Army' first applied? Valetude (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Enlisted Member

Many of the officer - especially the more senior were prior members of the United States Army, and had to resign their commission, to follow their state, or their convictions in joining the Confederate Army. What of the Enlisted - did any mid-grade to senior enlisted have prior service in the United States Army? Wfoj3 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)