Talk:Origins of the American Civil War

Primary sources

@Sychonic: As I already stated twice, the problem with the Davis quote is that it is a primary source. See WP:PSTS for an explanation. An arbitrary selection of primary sources is original research. I didn't question the reliability of the source. Your answers seem to indicate that you fail to understand the problem of primary and secondary sources. Anyway, also WP:ONUS applies here. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m happy to discuss the matter, but you seem to reject my multiple sources as “primary” without justification. I’ve repeatedly stated the obvious, which is that these are media sources. How can the New York Times be rejected as an acceptable source? The same is true of Davis’s papers, housed at Rice University. You don’t question the validity of the information and don’t seem to realize that these sources are common to Wikipedia pages. The source right after my first edit on another quote in the existing article comes from the Congressional Globe. There also are other multiple references to Davis’s papers in the same article. There’s even a reference to census material. Mine are clearly references of common use among editors. I’ve more than fulfilled the requirement to use proper sourcing and have no interest in an edit “war” but I am uncertain as to how many sources are required in your view. The New York Times reference in particular should be enough. Sych (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, I would direct your attention to the Wiki guidelines in regard to primary sources and when they can be used, in particular with quotes:

“Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.”

Please see:

Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#"Primary" does not mean "bad"

Thank you Sych (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sychonic: I already gave you a warning on your users's talk page. The next time you insert that quote, I will immediately take the case to WP:ANI/3RR. The onus for establishing consensus is yours, that's why I mentioned WP:ONUS. I didn't say that the source is bad, but it clearly is a primary source. That's as obvious as the consensus of historians that the Civil War was about slavery and that the Lost Cause mythology is a deliberate falsification of history. You can add hundreds of references to primary sources. WP guidelines - as I understand them - require that you prove the relevance of the quote by providing a reference to a good, academic, recent, mainstream historian. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have augmented the existing references with secondary sources to address your concerns and made a few other edits with the same purpose. It now includes two recent works and one from a Civil War Union General. They are all “accurate” and “reliable”. These, to me, are the most important Wikipedia guidelines.

The quote from Jefferson Davis, one from an interview conducted while the war was still raging, is a “contemporary explanation” and by that very fact should be included. His importance is not in question, I should think his views are as relevant as the Vice President of the Confederacy, who is also quoted.

These additional sources include one from John A. Logan, a General in the Union Army during the War, Senator, and candidate for Vice President (with Blaine in 1884). His book, The Great Conspiracy, is far from supportive of the “lost cause” and is distinctly critical of the South.

The Davis quote enhances the article not simply because it is by person of major significance, but because he expressing a contemporary opinion (from 1864), and also because it indicates what the most important political figure in the South was thinking at that time, in particular after several years of a far bloodier war than anyone had expected.

I am neither interested in the “lost cause” nor in attempting to skew any article in a particular direction. My only interest is that it be dispassionate and fact-based. To me the addition is about history, not contemporary politics – the question should be always – “is it good history?” I think this contrasting quote with between the Vice President and President of the Confederacy serves as an interesting juxtaposition and provides factual material that contrasts with orthodoxy, which is really the kind that always should be considered. Sych (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sychonic: Contrary to the claims you made at ANI/3RR, Maihafer was no historian (Amazon says in the description of his book: "The late Harry J. Maihafer, a West Point graduate and retired U.S. Army colonel, held a master’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri."). I didn't check the other recent book you provided since its focus is on the emancipation debate, not on our debate. But you are certainly right that there are more problematic quotes in the section Contemporaneous explanations. I therefore propose to remove the entire section. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Countering sanitization of history

Reading the origin of the causes the article seems to do a good job of refuting the lost cause theory that defenders of the Confederacy use to claim the war had nothing to do with slavery. However my reading of the article is that the article does not seem to refute some similar sanitization of the Union states' complicity with slavery. My understanding is at the outset, the majority in the Union States ( both the slave and free states ) were willing to preserve a Union with slavery ( though NIMBY - not on their territory ) if it would prevent war. My understanding is that it was not until slavery threatened the Union and after the war started that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in states in rebellion. The article seems to go along with the north's revision of their own complicity with slavery. White northern Americans in particular seem to be revising their history of complicity ( and slavery in their past) to glorify their side, as do the lost causers from what I can see. Sengbe7 (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The hero worship of the Union forces is nothing new, I am afraid. The Emancipation Proclamation dates to January 1863, two years following the beginning of the war. It did not change the status quo in the border states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia). Dimadick (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

That is covered in-depth elsewhere, but covering it here is not topically appropriate and would give a sense of WP:FALSEBALANCE. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are separate issues from what I am bringing up. Sengbe7 (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The majority of secession documents clearly state that their reasons for seceding were due to what they perceived as Constitutional issues

The following statement in the opening paragraph is unsourced and gives an impression of original research:

• "Proponents of the pseudo-historical Lost Cause ideology have denied that slavery was the principal cause of the secession, a view that has been disproven by the overwhelming historical evidence against it, notably the seceding states' own secession documents."

If the original secession documents are read in their entirety, they sum up their arguments for seceding as Constitutionally based. (No matter how many times they may mention slavery in other contexts). There is no consensus of historians that says otherwise.Jimhoward72 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The idea that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War is part of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, something clearly established as a myth invented to reconcile the White North and the White South and to secure White supremacy. The WP:lead section is supposed to summarize the article, so the sources belong in the body of the article. Rsk6400 (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you are not seeing my point. There is no consensus of historians that support the statement I quoted. The statement has an air of original research about it, thus it would be necessary to support it with a referenced consensus of historians instead of relying on the writer's own reading of the statements of secession (arguably wrong), and having it in the lead as if it's something historians agree on. Like you mentioned above to an earlier writer, this sentence is relying on how the writer is reading the secession statements (primary sources), instead of referencing their primary sources with historical consensus of legitimate historians. It's certainly not summarizing something in the body of the article. Jimhoward72 (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jimhoward72 A simple search on Google Scholar immediately pulled up a source on point, which I added. This is now the second time you've complained about a Lost Cause claim being unsourced, but instead of finding a source, you've argued for removal. In the future, I suggest you do some research before going straight for arguing something is incorrect. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask that if you source a restricted to paid subscription article in JSTOR, (as you have for the second time), that you post the relevant quote in your actual reference or footnote? I don't know, but it seems like it should be a policy for quotes to be posted for reference material that isn't available online for all users. I find it hard to believe that a scholar would ignore the clear references to the constitution being violated, as being mentioned as the primary single cause in the majority of secession documents. Jimhoward72 (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jimhoward72 The WP:LIBRARY gives free access to a lot of sources. Requiring things to be quoted would be a waste of editor time; the majority of sources, like books, are not accessible free online. Info on wiki must be WP:VERIFIABLE, but it need not be instantly verifiable to every reader. Beyond that, the Southern secession was about slavery, regardless of what other reasons were used to dress it up. The WP:ONUS is on you to dispute that with reliable sources. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jimhoward72 I just added the quote. It is the second sentence of the article. The first one reads, "Working with the American public to understand the causes of the Civil War can be an exercise in frustration." Yes, it is frustrating having to argue again and again about something that is clearly supported by academic consensus. I second CaptainEek's suggestion. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems like an overall misreading of the texts themselves, If the original secession documents are read in their entirety, they sum up their arguments for seceding as Constitutionally based. (No matter how many times they may mention slavery in other contexts)-while it may be true that the articles of secession make more than token references to the constitution, these manifest as legal arguments in defense of the right to secede, and are not, as this wording would imply, cited amongst the core impetii or motivations for doing so-which are clearly referenced in the texts as pertaining to the institution of slavery. Yes, supporters of Confederacy believed they had a constitutional right to succeed and no consensus of historians..says..otherwise. The widely held imaginary right to succeed under the constitutional does nothing for the fact that the actual reason for doing is made clear-to preserve slavery. OgamD218 (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

"Confederate leaders themselves made it plain that slavery was the key issue sparking secession." From JSTOR that was provided as a source (see immediately above). The key issue for secession was disagreements about slavery, the South and the North didn't agree, and per the South the Northern disagreement wasn't constitutional. Saying "slavery caused secession" is meaningless, it was the disagreements that caused secession.Jimhoward72 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Chris Mackowski in the lead is not a "historian"

[Slavery]"—it was not just "a cause" of the war but "the cause" according to Civil War historian Chris Mackowski". Chris Mackowski credentials:

Ph.D., English/Creative Writing, Binghamton University.

M.F.A., Creative Writing, Goddard College

M.A., English, University of Maine

B.A., Communication, University of Pittsburgh

Per this site: [1] It would improve the credibility of the article if the authors would use actual historians for references of their positions, instead of a random result of a google search that supports their position.Jimhoward72 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The North never stated that their reason for the war was slavery. It can not be "the" reason. It most certainly was the South's reason. There is also a northern lost cause myth. Emancipation was a result of the war not a cause. Servitude for life was legal in New Jersey until the 13th amendment. Missouri, Kentucky and Delaware never seceded. All three were slave states that kept their slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation as per the Emancipation Proclamation. Missouri would be the only state of the three to free their slaves before the 13th amendment. (That's our M.O. The Missouri mantra "Don't be first, don't be last.":) Alexander R. Burton (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

My point is that this the editors of this article are claiming that only "valid historians" can be used as references, and yet, their reliance on their main point "slavery caused the war" is a quote from someone who is clearly not an historian. The article is intent on promoting an agenda, not historical reality. There are Southern historians, with actual degrees in U.S history, that would not agree with points in this article. The editors know this, but will create an endless edit war to prevent a view that dissents from their narrative. Jimhoward72 (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Consensus in a certain field (history in this case) doesn't need to be a 100% consensus. There are actually doctors who maintain that Covid doesn't exist, or politicians who maintain that Trump won the last election, but those are fringe theories. See WP:FRINGE for how to deal with that on WP. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Chris Mackowski is well established as a historian of the Civil War--he has been studying it and publishing over a dozen well-received books, as well as recognized by major civil War historical organizations. As for academic degrees: yes, English departments do teach advanced historiography (the history of literature is a major field). see his major books. Note that the reviews in the scholarly journals have been quite favorable, such as the Journal of Southern History in 2019 Rjensen (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

July 2023 changes

St.Sidonius, can you please self-revert and wait until there's affirmative consensus for your changes. You've been challenged by multiple editors, and your version includes content in the lead that is uncited and unsupported by the body of the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm bringing up the first of many issues, which I mention so that you won't think that addressing this one issue is sufficient. What sources are you relying on to support a statement like "The most common opinion regarding the origins of the American Civil War among contemporary scholars originates with New Left Historians working in the 1960's"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there,

So as not to throw out all the work I did in editing the article, could I ask that you restore my edits sans the pieces you personally find disagreeable? I think it'd be best if we worked from there---keep the edits you agree with, reject the ones you don't.

Many of my edits I'm sure you'd agree with and serve to correct some blatant factual errors (as with the section about how preservation of slavery in the United States was the cause of the war), or to add much needed context. I'm sure we can make more progress in coming to an agreement (as per our rules on comment warring) if we kept the edits we agreed on and then discussed only the things we don't. St.Sidonius (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The usual process is WP:BRD, and there's no rush. We can discuss your edits here and then figure out which parts are amenable, if any. Though at first glance, I don't agree with any part of your edits, as they are pushing the oft debunked idea that the war was not about slavery. I especially take issue with your suggestion that Southern leaders were somehow against slavery, and you'll need a very good source for us to include that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there,

First, and I know you're likely aware of this, but the War itself wasn't about slavery, but about a State's right to secede. Some historical schools (specifically the New Left school of historiography which is ascendant in our modern Academia), however, do contend that secession took place on account of slavery, and this is the take that the article presents.

Secondarily, the fact that you don't agree with *any* of my edits does make me question whether you read all of what I've written, as the better part of my changes are unassociated with the question of slavery as the cause of secession. For example, removing the part where it says that the South fought the Civil War to preserve slavery in the United States is common sense, as that claim is absurd and was likely placed there on accident.

Where I did address the question of slavery and secession, I was careful to list out different significant historiographical schools which discussed the question, being careful not to rule either side, keeping in mind the principle that history is not a science, and that a narrative is not something that can be "debunked," only overturned. St.Sidonius (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that we could probably do a better job laying out the evolving historiography, such as a sentence on Beardians. But I disagree with your approach to that, and don't see what source you're getting the New Left from. Further, the South was fighting to preserve slavery, which is why we say that. I in no way see how that claim is absurd, and it was placed quite intentionally. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

One small thing: I do think it's odd to see "the preservation of slavery in the United States", given that the seceding states were by this point not so hot on "the United States". My first thought is "the preservation of the institution of slavery" (still linked to Slavery in the United States), but I'm worried that might be too broad. Any thoughts? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

If you look on the editing history three entries down, I made a change to that entry in particular that I think you both will find satisfactory. St.Sidonius (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the current text is fine. Slavery in the US was the existing institution they were trying to preserve, and it's valid to call that "slavery in the US" even if they were seceding to do it. 97.113.72.93 (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

How would slavery in the United States be preserved if there were no more slave states in the United States? St.Sidonius (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not ultra-bothered by the status quo. I prefer it to St.Sidonius' proposal, which focuses more on the economy than on the institution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I just changed "slavery in the United States" to "institution of slavery" because of the logical flaw pointed out by Firefangledfeathers. To me, the important thing seems to maintain that slavery was the cause of the war. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)