Talk:Origins of the American Civil War

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)

WP:WEASEL wording in the first sentence of the lead.

The current first sentence of the lead is completely inappropriate. The sourcing makes it clear that there is no serious dispute as to the cause of the Civil War among historians; it is uncontested fact. Therefore, it is WP:WEASEL to attribute it in a way that implies it is only opinion. This has been discussed and thoroughly established on the main article for American Civil War, which says that The central conflict leading to war was a dispute over whether slavery should be permitted to expand into the western territories, leading to more slave states, or be prohibited from doing so, which many believed would place slavery on a course of ultimate extinction; deviating from that here leads to potential WP:POVFORK issues. Beyond that the sentence is clunky and weirdly-worded, spending a great deal of verbage on details unrelated to the topic. This is a vastly improved lead that more succulently and accurately summarizes the sources. If you feel that there's high-quality academic sources who doubt that the primary cause of the Civil War was slavery, go ahead and present them, but otherwise we have to state uncontested facts in the article voice; we cannot cast unsourced doubt on them in this way. --Aquillion (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Aquillion here. The current wording is beyond clunky. Extensive discussion at the main article has come to a very clear and precise wording. I'm not saying Aquillions version should necessarily be the final version, but it's a clear improvement over what we have right now. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Though Aquillion I would take issue with bolding the article title in your lead. I think it would be better to keep the link to the main article, and not bold it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

We can tweak the wording if need be. A lead rewrite that large just need to be in the talk page first. On the subject of re-writing it, it can certainly be improved, but I think there's some virtue to the "consensus of historians" language that I want to bring up.

1.)It gets the explicit, correct point across that slavery is the overall cause leading to the conflict, but accomplishes it without saying it so abruptly in wikivoice, which would probably invite more retaliation and bias accusations, without really adding much to the statement.

2.) It's overall just more accurate. While it's true that the majority of historians as well as overall scholarly consensus support the statement, there are real, legitimate historians (not lost-cause hacks, like actual universally respected ones) who do not agree with that narrative. Brian Holden-Reid, "The Origins of the American Civil War" comes to mind primarily.

Thus, I don't really think taking that away adds anything. Both statements equally and explicitly state that slavery was the overall cause of the war, so to me, the "new" statement would be just upping the risk and making a precise statement more vague, without really adding anything of value. In terms of just style preferences however, I'm open to whatever. Just10A (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The statement is reads awkwardly, and the way it references historians suggests here are other historians with some other consensus. It is a needless addition. Lostsandwich (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion Also, just FYI, if your statement from the Fringe theories noticeboard is correct: "This article could probably use more focused attention overall anyway; if it has degenerated to the point where the first sentence is this bad, I would expect similar issues throughout the body." The proper form is for you to edit and improve the body before the lead, not after, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Just doing drive-bys on leads results in disjointed articles. Just10A (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted to Aquillion's version. The prior prose is awkward and ambiguous. 107.116.165.62 (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:STATUSQUO, disputed content should not be added while discussion is being had and/or consensus is still being achieved. I'm reverting your edit, just for now. I see this is your first edit, so please read up on guidelines before any hasty action. Just10A (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I can see you are new here. I have over 100,000 edits over 15 years. I choose not to have an account. I see you are jumping hot and heavy into topics around race. You should probably stay away from contentious topics before someone reviews your edit history and proposes some topic bans... 107.116.165.62 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Your edit history is literally 3 edits long, and please refrain from WP:Personal attacks. Just10A (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

If you feel attacked, review your own edit history and wonder why. You obviously don't understand how IP addresses work, you should refrain from drawing conclusions about data you don't understand. We have some great articles about networking basics that can help you out.107.116.165.62 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand IP addresses can change, but theres no other way to reference who you are. If you're so offended by that, theres a reason people make accounts. Secondly, if you are so seasoned, then why can I clearly cite multiple wikipedia policies that explicitly support my statement and you cannot? Lastly, there is nothing problematic about my edit history, if you think there is, have at it. The vast majority of my edits are non-contentious, and any that are have explicit stated reasons accompanying them. I'm sorry if I committed the grave mistake of assuming your profile data is accurate. My bad if that offended you. I have been nothing but polite to you. Now, please contribute to the actual issue at hand on the talk page or go violate policy somewhere else. Just10A (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

That was a lot of words not to make any point, but I accept your apology about not understanding technical data. 107.116.165.62 (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Something that sticks out as confusing, is that this article doesn't really cover the 1860 Democratic National Conventions. There are two paragraphs that touch on it starting with, "Until the 1860 election, the South's interests nationally were entrusted to the Democratic Party." But that's vague, and some of the statements are very hard to parse unless the reader already knows the information, like "Jefferson Davis defined equality in terms of the equal rights of states". The Fire-Eaters split the party largely over the issue of how a territory determines the legality of slavery. Douglas advocated for popular sovereignty. Davis advocated for a federal slave code for all territories.[2][3] The article doesn't make it clear why the pro-slavery side ran so many candidates. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The deleted origins on main article

Recently, the origins section on the main article was deleted due to space reasons. But it was actually pretty well researched and edited. I think we could improve the sourcing here by incorporating some of that otherwise lost material. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)