Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I finished writing this article (only my own MS Word browser), which will go into the History of the United States series and a series on the Civil War. However, I'm not done editing it and adding all the hyperlinks. Others should not worry. I will finish editing this piece promptly. 172 09:14, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Usually terms should be wikilinked only on their first appearance, not repeatedly all the way through. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:48, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
In an article this long I can see extra links being ok. Rmhermen 22:40, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)
On long articles, I usually link the first time in each section, though it can vary depending on the section length and so on. Shouldn't have to search through pages of text to find a link to slavery or something, but I agree that most occurrences shouldn't be linked. Tuf-Kat 22:47, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

I like this article very much, but the length might make it unweildly for those of us looking for a broader view of American history. Perhaps a bulletpointed outline could be added? -Alex S 22:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) This is a featured article.

The featured article status of this article has been disputed.
See User talk:Maveric149 172 01:03, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I finished writing this article (only my own MS Word browser), which will go into the History of the United States series and a series on the Civil War. However, I'm not done editing it and adding all the hyperlinks. Others should not worry. I will finish editing this piece promptly. 172 09:14, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Usually terms should be wikilinked only on their first appearance, not repeatedly all the way through. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:48, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
In an article this long I can see extra links being ok. Rmhermen 22:40, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)
On long articles, I usually link the first time in each section, though it can vary depending on the section length and so on. Shouldn't have to search through pages of text to find a link to slavery or something, but I agree that most occurrences shouldn't be linked. Tuf-Kat 22:47, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

I like this article very much, but the length might make it unweildly for those of us looking for a broader view of American history. Perhaps a bulletpointed outline could be added? -Alex S 22:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

History of the United States includes the executive summaries. There used to be a bulletpointed outline at American Civil War until it was converted into paragraph form. I'll keep this in mind, though. 172 23:21, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
A minute after the above posting an idea dawned on me. How about a timeline of significant events at the end followed by a more comprehensive list of suggested readings? 172 23:27, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


I am in my first year teaching American history at the high school level, and I thought this article was incredibly helpful, both to me and to my students. Too often, websites or online encyclopedias provide only a cursory overview of the Civil War, or present the lead-up to the conflict as an inevitable polarisation of 'Slavery v. Anti-Slavery' and 'States Rights v. Federalism'. Certainly these themes are central to the conflict, but they were neither inevitable nor straightforward - nor did they take on the moral overtones people tend to give them today. This article avoids those pitfalls - thanks.

Contents

Great work by +sj+

User:Sj has done an excellent job dividing this article. Passing users will still see the current single article, especially important since no other parts of WP link to this set of 4 pages (something Sj noted on my talk page). Just to get a sense of how nicely this was done, take a look at the crude 8/03 two-part division of the History of the Soviet Union article. I had no idea how to go about creating anything that wouldn't resemble that breakup (but I'm one of the lamer Wikipedians when it comes to web design).

Editors ought to use this article as a template for dividing many long articles from now on. 172 20:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm OK with this format. Friends again? :) --mav 21:03, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Of course. We were friends during that rough edit war. I just desperately wanted to obstruct work on a NI-style series. Trust me - it would've been a complete mess. I knew that your intentions were good, but I was going to be dragged out kicking and screaming before letting that happen. BTW, what do you think - am I right about +sj+'s division being a cure for all Wikipedia:Longpages? 172 21:41, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No - in general this format should be discouraged. We should instead try to focus on writing on distinct topics instead of lumping everything together. This format does work well for this article though. --mav
Oh, okay. I meant to say that. I meant to say as a temporary fix for some other articles. 172 22:05, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Also, now that we have the split, should the timeline stay where it is, or be placed toward the bottom of 4/4 (above the suggested readings - where it was beforehand)? 172 22:08, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Most long timelines and lists get their own pages so I don't see why this one would be differnt. --mav
Brilliant job, +sj+! --Alex S

I've done some fixing of (what I think were) mistakes where I was fairly confident what they should be, but there are some points I'm not clear on:

  1. The first two paras of the overview refer to four regions and two regions respectively, without explaining how the two relate.
  2. The second para talks of visions emerging by 1860, then goes back in time to the changing tensions of the 1840s and 50s.
  3. At the end of the overview there is a reference to "geographical, social classes, and party affiliations"; geographical what?
  4. "For development to proceed, property rights, consumer goods, and laborers must be freed from traditional bonds and restraints, from aristocratic traditions, quasi-feudal arrangements, personalistic and other multi-bonded relations." That's a very sweeping statement! I've changed it to the past tense in the article to restrict it to the context, but I think it's still pretty POV.
  5. "hostile to big manufactures". Manufacturers? I'm not sure- it may be an American/British English difference.
  6. "the number of farmers was still double that of farm laborers and tenants". Surely farm tenants are farmers? Should it be the number of farm owners, or free farmers?
  7. "the two decades before the Civil War saw the rapid expansion of the Northwest". Is this geographic, demographic, economic? All three?
  8. "the expansion of slavery in newly acquired territories such as Oregon". Is this expansion of existing slavery in the territories, or expansion into territories where it did not yet exist?

Markalexander100 08:01, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Markalexander100, excellent job copyediting! I really need to get new glasses. I'm getting worse and worse when it comes to skimming over these kinds of errors. From now on I'll use a larger text size on my browser and stop speed-reading stuff that I ought to be copyediting. Thanks for your help! 172 20:34, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How long is an "Eve"?

Very informative article overall. Just a few tiny nits though. The first section refers to the eve of the Civil War. But to me, "eve" implies immediately before, like say the late 1850s, but I think (but really can't tell for sure) that this refers to some period before then.

I'll play around with the text. Please tell me if it's satisfactory when I'm done. 172 03:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Second, it refers to four regions in the U.S., but isn't that a big oversimplification?

It's not just a big one; it's a colossal oversimplification. But this might be the case for any topic that could be brought up in the overview. Any short overview of a subject of this nature can merely lay the groundwork for the rest of the article, establishing some key points for a hueristic function. The overview's there to help general readers understand where the article's going as they read. 172 03:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And why link the word "northwest" to the modern day census region of the "midwest"? For both it and the "southwest" the linked articles cover such a huge region as to be relatively meaningless in describing any uniform region in the pre-civil war era.

You're right about the usage of the anachronistic term "Northwest." However, I doubt that I'd favor replacing the term with "Midwest." The literature on the subject tends to stick with the regional terms contemporaneous with the period. I'll add some {now known as...) notes whenever this matter comes up in the text if you think that it is necessary. 172 03:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seems like on the actual eve (late 1850s) there were many very diverse pockets than just four regions. Just off the top of my head, there's California, the Pacific Northwest, Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska (which were not part of the old northwest and quite distinct from it) and so on.

Thanks for mentioning this. I wanted to emphasize many commonly overlooked realities of the era, and this was high up on the list. While I wanted the article to be as suggestive as possible to general readers, I wanted to avoid the extreme shortcomings of the standard, simplistic "North vs. South" write-ups found online. 172 03:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Which leads me to wonder if the "eve" refers to an earlier period (say circa 1840) when you could perhaps get away with describing four regions.

Though very simplistic, the "four regions" reference works for 1860 in the overview. Do you think that it would suffice if I added a note in parenthesis reminding readers of the great deal of economic, political, demographic, cultural, etc. diversity within the regions themselves? Would a reminder in the overview saying that we're speaking very broadly be helpful as well? 172 03:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I can't think of suggestions for changing -- just some things that came to mind as I read that. Bkonrad | Talk 02:00, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The first sentence

Re: 172's revert of my edit to the intro. To list slavery, expansion, and sectionalism as causes while excluding the issues of taxation and centralized nationalism is simply inaccurate. This presents a serious NPOV problem. - Nat Krause 05:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not listing anything as "causes" in the intro. Trends in the longterm development of the US are cited, that's all. 172 18:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Issues of taxation/centralization/state v. federal power are certainly longterm trends in US history! In fact, it makes even more sense to list them since the Civil War would have such a major effect on those areas of American politics. --Αλεξ Σ 23:13, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sectionalism covers this. Let's keep it short. Before you'd know it, you'd have a list longer than the article. 172 23:40, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If we're going to have the list at all, it should be a little more comprehensive in listing the major issues. To do otherwise introduces a bias. -- VV 01:09, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Leave me alone you pest. You have no interest in the subject other than trying to follow me around from page to page to annoy me. 172 01:30, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Pot, kettle. -- VV 01:35, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The idea that taxation (or centralization, for that matter) had much of anything to do with the origins of the American Civil War is discredited nonsense of the Charles Beard school. It should not be in the article intro. john 02:53, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh man, it's worse than that. At least they could get the Beard school right and refer to tariffs rather than "taxation" (who knows what these two mean by this). 172 03:23, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, well, I would say that the idea that it did not is discredited nonsense. How about some NPOV? - Nat Krause 03:15, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Please name a historian currently working who believes that "taxes" and "centralization" were major issues in bring about the American Civil War. john 03:50, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Thomas DiLorenzo, Charles Adams just off the top of my head. - Nat Krause 09:33, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hummel is pretty clearly a libertarian ideologue as much as a historian - and even he doesn't seem to say that "taxes" had anything to do with the civil war. Adams does seem to argue that (or at least, that tariffs caused it), but his book sounds like a ridiculous polemic that just resurrects Charles Beard's arguments. The (only) review on H-Net (there are none on JSTOR) is fairly scathing ([1]). DiLorenzo I can exclude, as he seems to be an economist. A few fringe libertarians does not constitute a major school of historical analysis. john 16:16, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, let's see. You describe Jeffrey Rogers Hummel as a "libertarian ideologue", you say that Charles Adams wrote a "ridiculous polemic", and argue that DiLorenzo is not a historian (he writes books about history, so that's why I call him a historian). Then you dismiss all three as "a few fringe libertarians". If these are your only arguments against them, then I think that sounds like POV on the face of it. All ad hom. - Nat Krause 15:39, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) PS - 172, what gives? Is a tariff not a form of taxation? Since at the time it was the main source of federal tax revenue, I thought it was reasonable to just say taxation, but we can say tariff if you prefer.

One more thing, john, I'm surprised to hear that Hummel thinks taxes played no role in the lead up to the war, and I tend to doubt that it's the case, but I don't have his book in hand at the moment to check. You sure about that? - Nat Krause 16:23, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Partly because the debate over how much weight each factor carried will probably never be resolved (in addition to it being an overview), I would think the list should be short. I propose this for the first sentence:

The origins of the American Civil War lay in the complex problems of slavery, expansion, state's rights, economics, parties, and politics of the antebellum era.
I don't think that taxation belongs, as without the slavery issue, it probably wouldn't have led to war. However, economics in general played a significant role (EG It's why the issue was so important to the south). I think that states' rights is a more recognizable and pertinant concept to cover centralism (plus the centralization article doesn't provide much relevant content, but states' rights does). I left out sectionalism because I think it's mostly a term for a concept that can already be inferred from the definition of civil war, plus, the article it links to doesn't even mention our civil war, and most of the examples are countries where the boundaries were forced by outside interests, unlike the US that originally chose to unite.
Or: "The origins of the American Civil War lay in the complex problems of slavery, expansion, state's rights, economics, political parties of the antebellum era. (as I think that politics is already inferred)
From the History Channel[2]: The Civil War was "a sectional combat having its roots in political, economic, social, and psychological elements so complex that historians still do not agree on its basic causes."
From the Library of Congress[3]: "Conflict over issues of how much control the federal government should have over the states, industrialization, trade, and especially slavery had increased tension between Northern and Southern states."
From Wikipedia American Civil War: "While there is considerable debate about the influence of individual events that led the states to this civil war: abolitionist sentiment, the ongoing free state-slave state battles in Congress and elsewhere, the rise of the Republican Party, states' rights and economic issues are most often cited."

In general, it would be great for the sentence in question to be pithy, but we're better off two words longer and more accurate than shorter and less accurate. I would be happy if we could figure out a simpler way to say what's true, and your "state's rights, economics" version is a definite improvement, although I'm not sure how much. "State's rights" has advantages over "sectionalism", but it continues to focus on trends in the states rather than in the federal government, which was of course also a party to the conflict. One of the basic problems with this article is that it is largely the story of how some of the Confederate states came to secede from the Union, which, while it is the crucial part of the story, doesn't constitute a civil war by itself. Heck, this article (except for half of one sentence) ends 4 months before the beginning of the war!

As for taxation, how can we say that any of the causes of the war would have led to war in the absence of other causes? Slavery was the predominant factor, but even there, in the absence of sectional party politics, etc., would it have led to fighting? I'm not sure the tariff issue couldn't have caused the war by itself: didn't South Carolina almost secede over a tariff 30 years earlier? "Economics" seems like a bit of mincing of words with regard to this, if, as I suspect is the case, the main economic issue was that the South objected to the proposed Republican tariff.

Anyway, I've got no stomach for a revert war over this, so I will probably back off once the general consensus of the 'pedia is hashed out. It's starting to look like a moot point right now, because the current version is frozen, so 172 and John Kenney can just stonewall indefinitely if they want. - Nat Krause 16:20, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page pending the outcome of quickpolls for users 172 and VeryVerily. It has been reverted to what I believe is a neutral copy of the page edited on April 11, 2004 before the revert war between VV and 172. --Flockmeal 03:33, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

This article is VERY biased

Everybody today likes to argue about why the war was fought, and wants to pick out the ONE reason. The problem with that is there is NO ONE reason that the war was fought. To some extent, everyone is right, and everyone is wrong.

  1. Slavery: Yes, large plantation owners with many slaves were afraid of losing them. Some of these people were evil racist bigots, and others were good people who inherited a mess and were desperately trying to keep their businesses operating. These people, as large wealthy business owners, had a lot of influence and loudly supported secession.
  2. States rights: Most of the people who fought for the south didn't care much about slavery one way or the other. There was a strong feeling both in the south AND the north, that the states should be "independent", with only a figurehead federal government. These people didn't see themselves as Americans or Confederates, they thought of themselves as Kentuckians, or Georgians, or Alabamans. They had long complained about the northern states domination of the economy, and there was a general feeling that the northerners controlled the federal government.
The question of why people fought for each side are not necessarily connected to what caused the war. I think most historians would agree that states' rights was a convenient excuse rather than a genuinely held principle. Furthermore, the idea that northerners controlled the federal government is insane. The south had had things all its way for pretty much the entire history of the republic (and certainly almost entirely for many years before the 1860 election with such dough head presidents as Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan), and, in fact, would have continued to be able to prevent pretty much anything they didn't like from getting passed by a Congress in which the Democrats would still have controlled the Senate, and the Republicans not had a majority in the House. john 19:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Taxes: Yep, that's right, taxes. The northerners were really big on taxes and tarrifs, which really hurt the import/export dependent south. In fact, 80% of the tarriffs that the north insisted on, were paid by southern states. This fact angered southern industrialists greatly, and was widely viewed as an attempt to stifle business.
So what? Tariffs were low in 1860, and the south could've prevented the Republicans from increasing it if they hadn't seceded. Also, Louisiana sugar planters, for instance, were actually entirely dependent on high tariffs. Many southern planters, in fact, had supported the high-tariff Whig party for many years. john 19:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Immigration: Largely forgotten today, immigration was also a big issue in the 1850's. The northerners, for the most part, were really big on unbridled immigration to "populate the continent". Many southerners didn't care for the idea of allowing immigrants to populate the whole country (and especially the southern states), and wanted more control over who came and went.
Err...this is, as far as I am aware, nonsense. Southerners were allied to the Democratic Party, which was the party of northern immigrants. Republicans were in many areas tied to former Know Nothings, and were often suspected of nativism. john 19:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Indian treaties: Here's a fact that has been almost erased from modern textbooks about the Civil War because it doesn't fit peoples preconceived notions of what the CSA was all about: Many politicians in the southern states were growing tired of the wars with Native Americans, and wanted to begin honoring treaties and make peace with the native Americans, while the northern states insisted on militarily removing them from their lands, irregardless of treaties (yes, I am aware that not all southerners agreed on this point). The Cherokee Nation itself willingly joined the CSA, and blasted the north for ignoring the very freedoms of self determination that it claimed to represent.
Oh, come on. john 19:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure that there were hundreds of other localized issues that I'm overlooking here that got other communities and regions involved in secession, but I think the point is made. There was no one reason for the Civil War, and no one brush that all secessionists can be painted with. They were not all good people, nor were they all evil. People who try to label all southerners with one label simply display a fundamental lack of understanding on the issue.

At any rate, you have not cited a single actual historian here, just your encounter with the facts. Let me note to you the work of Eric Foner on the Republican Party (Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men), of William Freehling on southern secessionism, or even just take a look at McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. Libertarian/Neo-Confederate polemic should have no place in an encyclopedia article. john 19:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

VV's revised opening

I'm not sure I object to it. Yeah, it's basically so vague as to be meaningless. But first sentences are basically clearing of the throat, anyway. The next sentence goes on to talk about the specific things that are going on, anyway, and I don't think this version implies silly libertarian revisionism like Nat Krause's did. john 07:39, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

At least Nat was saying something. VV's prose is simply not English. I don't know what it mean to say, "The origins of the American Civil War lay in a complex of political, economic, and cultural forces of the antebellum era." If the word "complex" were replaced with, say, "interplay," I guess that it would be a step up from gibberish to being so obtuse that it could hypothetically introduce every article. It would be better to delete the old sentence entirely than post such sheer nonsense. First impressions matter, and beginning the article with that sentence really says "bullshit" right off the bat to readers. 172 09:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is not a comment on either VV's or 172's recent reversion antics. But 172's version definitely reads better. My reaction to VV's version was "huh?". Bkonrad | Talk 14:18, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In the current revision, I edited it for coherence. - Nat Krause 15:00, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You called that a compromise in your edit summary. I did NOT agree to that. In my comments the other day, I meant that it was a step up, but one from gibberish to embarrassingly obtuse. 172 07:33, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
My goal is to try to find a version of the intro which does not prejudice one view over another. This is important, as, as Nat showed above with considerable examples, it's not such a clearcut matter amongst students of that era. I welcome improvements. I do not welcome 172's characteristic insta-reverts. -- VV 08:00, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nat Krause showed nothing of the sort. He cited some extremist libertarian polemics. But, at any rate, I don't think a vaguer opening sentence does any harm, since the article goes right on to talk about expansion of slavery in the next sentence. Assuring that that first sentence is well written is important, though. john 08:04, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Extreme polemics such as the History Channel and the Library of Congress? (Although, minority views should be presented neutrally even so.) And, yeah, I hope the vaguer opening to be better than what appears to pretend to be an exhaustive list. -- VV 08:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Alright, I didn't notice those. But those are just vague, mushy explanations that try not to offend southerners any more than is necessary. I was thinking of his citations of Hummel, Adams, etc. At any rate, I think the real issue is that the current vague opening is very vague indeed. I think that slavery ought to specifically be mentioned in the first sentence, at least. john 08:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, I think you should pay attention to what people say; there are other intelligent points of views besides your own. If it's for the sake of southerners, maybe they should have their say. Why insist on such specificity when it is not needed? -- VV 04:09, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I've protected it. On VV's version, as it turns out, but only because that was the most recent version. If another, less involved, sysop wants to choose the other version, whatever - I figure I'm perhaps on thin ice protecting at all, but I wanted to stop the edit war. john 08:07, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The last stable version was Revision as of 23:22, 11 Apr 2004, before this article was featured on the main page, when it was finally discovered that yet another page existed in order to mess with my head. Unfortunately, the pic of Frederick Douglas turns into Michael Douglas there. (I guess that the old Douglas.jpg was somehow overwritten a few days ago.) I doubt that those obsessed with the intro have even read the damn article. 172 08:18, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As previously noted, I'm not going to revert, since I think I was on somewhat thin ice protecting at all, since I've been involved in discussing the article. john 08:21, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Opps. I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking anyone to protect it. It can't be reverted to the last stable version because of the problem with that Michael Douglas pic. 172 08:25, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Would VV be willing to settle on getting rid of the first sentence entirely? Starting the intro off with that obtuse b.s. would be worse than not even having an intro. 172 08:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I get no response. As if I needed any proof that this was all about trolling... 172 08:59, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, I get reverted within seconds when I revert asinine gibberish, but once I make concessions just to get the page unprotected and to be left alone, I get no response. How convenient. 172 10:18, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There should be a sentence to introduce the subject. It shouldn't say more than necessary, but it functions as a placeholder; as John said, a "clearing of the throat". So losing the first sentence entirely would be problematic. Your comment of "asinine gibberish" is amusing in light of the changes you've tried to force on articles. Based on your timestamps, I see you waited a full 31 minutes before declaring this "trolling" (this from you). -- VV 04:09, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just explain your reasoning behind wanting to change the old sentence, alright. And I mean problems you have with that sentence, not with me. I have no idea why a single sentence in a four-page article is bothering you so much. I have no idea what kinds of biases you see in that sentence that aren't showing up everywhere else. I wrote nearly 100% of the rest of the text for the four articles in the series, but I don't seem to be getting into fights with anyone else over the thousands of additional words in this series.
At least to me, this seems pretty bizarre, thus leaving me prone to assume the worse when it comes to your motives. I think that you're just getting a kick out of forcing another admin to protect the page and thus keep me from editing an article that I've written (perhaps to get back at me for my protections of pages during your edit wars with Lance/Hector/Hanpuk/etc.). 172 16:39, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The fact that the rest of the article contains POV and inaccuracies does not by itself justify the first sentence containing the same, does it? I'm not sure that Very's or my failure to rewrite the entire article is relevant to the discussion of the intro. - Nat Krause 17:11, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I was not directing that question to you with respect to your concerns, which were already addressed by John in your correspondences with him above, but to VV with respect to his stated concerns with the first sentence in the introduction. I am waiting for a response. 172 22:57, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Virtually every article you write is filled with POV-pushing. You seem incapable of even comprehending the concept of neutrality; rather, you think your view alone, and indeed your wording alone, is the only correct one, a stance incompatible with Wikiconsensus. I am starting with the intro because there was an edit war where I saw you pushing a POV over it. I'm sure much more work needs to be done on the rest, but I pity the sucker who invests hours into writing a solid, NPOV article, only to have you revert them entirely because, e.g., you don't think the word "large" in the eighth paragraph is appropriate. Also, agree with Krause's comments. -- VV 02:36, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Are you ever going to explain your position on the first sentence in the introduction? 172 04:27, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I answered the question you asked me. My position is that it should be neutral. That's what my rewrite was about. -- VV 04:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You've said that a number of times. The question is why do you feel that the original opening sentence in the intro is not neutral. 172 05:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that's massively disingenuous. It's up to you to explain why the paragraph is POV. If you want to say "because some radical libertarian revisionist doesn't like it," I suppose that's okay, but I'm not sure why that should convince anyone who doesn't buy the radical libertarian version of the Civil War (which is, crazily enough, the same as the vulgar Marxist version of the civil war...) john 04:02, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) Perhaps the continuation of the page protection should be contingent on whether or not he finally gives a straight answer. 172 05:29, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because it presumes a point of view which is contentious. Now, please tell me what I said that was "massively disingenuous". -- VV 04:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Instead of saying what your problem was, you just launched into an ad hominem of 172. He has, it is true, made his fair share of ad hominems, but he also has made substantive points, and it is, I think, the burden of the person wanting to change the article to present the case for doing so. While I personally think that a vaguer intro sentence would probably work better stylistically, I don't think any case at all has been made for why it is POV. The first sentence simply isn't controversial, except to those who are holders of a radical fringe POV. The opening of Holocaust doesn't mince words just because there are those who say there was no Holocaust. Similarly, just because a very small, and fairly disreputable, group denies that slavery was the main cause of the civil war, and tries to bring the tariff into it, doesn't mean we should kowtow to that view in the article introduction. john 05:33, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: ad hominem. I said that in response to this from 172: I think that you're just getting a kick out of forcing another admin to protect the page and thus keep me from editing an article that I've written. One good turn deserves another. Anyway, 172's ill behavior is the underlying issue in many conflicts. But, as for the issues: These, call them mixed (that tariffs played some role), views are widely believed by southerners, as you yourself seem to have conceded, too large and substantial a group to dismiss as fringe. The cited examples from the History Channel, etc., illustrate other reputable sources which say it's not the straightforward matter you present. That seems pretty good grounds for putting in a bit more flexibility. -- VV 05:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The term "sectionalism" already and sufficiently covered the economic angle. Keep in mind that JDB DeBow, e.g., was an instrumental figure in the development of the ideology of Southern sectionalism. Much of the forth page of the article deals with competition between Northerners and Southerners in the federal government not only to influence tariff policies, but also banking, trade, land grants, public lands, internal improvements, free farms, subsidies to railroads, slave trade, etc. 172 06:06, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I thought the point of NPOV was to examine the scholarly consensus about things, not what "lots of people" believe. That many southerners are taught discredited garbage doesn't mean that we should make an effort to accommodate them in the intro. At any rate, I find it hard to see how the vaguer version makes arguments about tariffs any clearer than 172's, given that the term "sectionalism" would, as he notes, include the economic questions within it. john 06:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
a) John, I think it's misleading for you to talk about a "very small, and fairly disreputable, group denies that slavery was the main cause of the civil war", because as far as I know, no one here denies that slavery was the primary cause of the initial southern secession, which you seem to think is synonymous with causing the Civil War. I certainly don't deny that and neither does Jeffrey Rogers Hummell, the main historian that I am interested in citing. My version of the list of causes began with slavery the same as 172's. However, no one's proposal contained only slavery, so I thought we were discussing what else should be included.
Hummell may. Adams, who you've also cited, certainly seems to just be retelling the Marxist/Beardsian interpretation. At any rate, my point is that the tariff shouldn't be included at all - that argument was essentially debunked by Allan Nevins more than fifty years ago...
b) If you guys really think that the term "sectionalism" is sufficient to cover the economic angles of the war, then it would be ironic for you to criticize the current version as too vague.
I have never criticized the current version as too vague. I said I thought a vague version was fine. Take that part up with 172. john 16:33, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
c) Is the point of NPOV actually "to examine the scholarly consensus about things"? This seems to assume that the scholarly community necessarily has no POV of its own. If that is policy, then it will certainly affect how some pages are written, but it would be nice to have some clarification on this point from someone other than the four of us who seem to be actively contributing to this talk page. - Nat Krause 08:36, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree with John on both these points. The lunatic fringe can be dealt with in their own section of the article, if necessary, but they don't require us to incorporate their views in the summary. Markalexander100 09:03, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The scholarly community, Nat, has several different POVs. If you think that mainstream scholars all agree about the causes of the Civil War (or any other historical question) you're in for a rude awakening. But we would be remiss in our responsibilities if we were to present discredited theories from the 1920s as though they are equally valid with what scholars are talking about at present. It's not as though the article on Earth is phrased so as to assuage the POV of Flat Earthers. john 16:33, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Man, am I sick of having this discussion with you. So far, I've been compared to a holocaust denier and flat earther. Well, anyway, I'm giving up on this for the moment. I'll come back later if I can figure out how to discuss this more productively. - Nat Krause 14:43, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Then do you mind if the page is unprotected now? 172 22:21, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm certainly not saying you're equivalent to a flat earther or a holocaust denier. What I am saying is that the view of the Civil War that you hold is not one which is held by a significant number of serious scholars of the subject, and is not deserving of consideration in the introduction to the article. john 15:14, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

replace the image of michael douglas

The image of fredrick douglas is really michael douglas. Someone should really change this. I mean michael is a good guy and all but he's no abolitionist.