I don't mean to criticize, but I think the map should include the northern portion of NM/AZ like this map does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_of_CSA_4.png Cameron Nedland (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-06-16T17:44:00.000Z","author":"Cameron Nedland","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cameron_Nedland-2008-06-16T17:44:00.000Z-Map_at_the_top_of_the_page","replies":[]}}-->
As the talk page was getting ridiculously long, and most of the debates were long dead, I decided to archive them. I kept the most recent addition above. SiberioS (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-06-16T22:47:00.000Z","author":"SiberioS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-SiberioS-2008-06-16T22:47:00.000Z-Archived_Page","replies":[]}}-->
The way that Missouri's secession is described, as a powerless declaration of a rump government is not entirely right. A rump government is one where a minority of elected leaders and other individuals (mostly radical ones) make a declaration or decisions for an entire government, in the U.S. case a state, even though it is powerless in every aspect. A rump government usually exists along side the traditional government and has no real power towards or over it. This is the case for Kentucky’s secession and the creation of West Virginia. However, in Missouri’s case its secession was not done by a rump government but a government-in-exile. The rightly elected officials of Missouri’s executive and legislative branches were expelled by a ruthless union general who violated Missouri’s neutrality, which was guarantied by the legal Price-Harney Truce. After the Union general Lyon subverted Missouri’s government authority and basically caused a military coup, the government fled the capital, voted for secession, and created a government-in-exile which sided with the Confederacy. This is way it should be said that Missouri secession was done by a government-in-exile rather than a rump government. The true rump government was the puppet government setup by the Union army later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.27.144 (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-06-20T20:19:00.000Z","author":"71.114.27.144","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-71.114.27.144-2008-06-20T20:19:00.000Z-Missouri_-_rump_or_non-rump_legislature_versus_State_constitutional_convention","replies":["c-Red_Harvest-2008-06-27T06:04:00.000Z-71.114.27.144-2008-06-20T20:19:00.000Z"]}}-->
The following section was in the article:
Two more slave states had rival secessionist governments. The Confederacy admitted them, but the two pro-Confederate state governments soon went into exile and never controlled the states which they claimed to represent[citation needed]:
I added the following links:
Missouri in the American Civil War
Missouri secession
Missouri Constitutional Convention (1861-63)
Making it be as follows:
Then later someone modified it to:
Then the section was entirely deleted.
Reasonably, I don't think that the sentence on Missouri accurately describes it. The problem is that the situation in Missouri is so complex however, that I am not sure if it can easily be summarized in a short sentence. The problem with deleting the entire section, however, seems to imply that these border states did not exist during the war. This article is after all, on the Confederate States of America. 4.242.177.66 (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-01-31T01:11:00.000Z","author":"4.242.177.66","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-4.242.177.66-2009-01-31T01:11:00.000Z-Missouri_-_rump_or_non-rump_legislature_versus_State_constitutional_convention","replies":[]}}-->
In the first case, the map caption is formatted incorrectly, the 1st line is illegible.
Secondly, since several states were admitted during the war (Kansas and Nebraska I know), shouldn't the "next flag" on the infobox have more stars (I don't know the precise number, so don't want to change it myself)?
Thanx, 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-06-26T23:26:00.000Z","author":"68.39.174.238","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-68.39.174.238-2008-06-26T23:26:00.000Z-Some_things_I'm_not_sure_of","replies":[]}}-->
Obviously, when it is written "the rest of the United States", it is clear that the CSA was not, in a defacto sense, a part of the United States by virtue of the war. That said, awkward language use aside, the point of mentioning "the rest of the United States" is to illustrate, especially how its used in the article, a very cogent point; the tariff introduced by the CSA, no matter how much smaller in absolute terms, would have significantly raised the tax BURDEN on everyone in the CSA, by virtue of redefining the boundaries of the domestic market. I quote:
"The image of a South devoted to free trade, however powerful at first glance, [End Page 334] ignores a crucial point that was not lost to contemporaries: the Confederacy lowered tariff rates, but vastly increased the number of dutiable goods by changing the geographical scope of the nation-state. 3 Under the Confederacy, Northern goods once considered part of the domestic trade suddenly were redefined as foreign goods. A Confederate tariff, no matter how low, might result in a radical change in trade patterns; hundreds of millions of dollars of Northern goods would be stopped at the Confederate border, stored in special warehouses, inspected by Confederate customs officers, and then taxed a specified percentage of their value. How did Confederates view this potentially massive disruption of trade between North and South? Did Southerners fear the consequences of altering long-established trade relations, or did they see it as an opportunity?" Imagining "A Great Manufacturing Empire": Virginia and the Possibilities of a Confederate Tariff Jay Carlander and John Majewski SiberioS (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-07-03T16:16:00.000Z","author":"SiberioS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-SiberioS-2008-07-03T16:16:00.000Z-On_the_issue_of_parsing_out_the_United_States_from_the_CSA...","replies":["c-76.107.30.155-2008-07-07T21:14:00.000Z-SiberioS-2008-07-03T16:16:00.000Z"]}}-->
I invite both these editors (Sceptik and Coviepresb1647 - CP1647) to make their case on this discussion page regarding their material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-10T10:49:00.000Z","author":"North Shoreman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-North_Shoreman-2008-08-10T10:49:00.000Z-Relations,_CSA's_End,_Slavery,_and_Religion","replies":[],"displayName":"Tom (North Shoreman)"}}-->
Sceptik added unsourced material relating to how Great Britain reacted to the CSA with respect to Canada. I have reverted it based on relevance -- it describes a purely British reaction that involved no participation by, or interest in, the Confederacy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-10T10:49:00.000Z","author":"North Shoreman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-North_Shoreman-2008-08-10T10:49:00.000Z-Relations","replies":["c-Sceptik-2008-08-10T23:14:00.000Z-North_Shoreman-2008-08-10T10:49:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Tom (North Shoreman)"}}-->
He/she has also twice changed without explanation the reason for the end of the CSA from "military collapse" to dissolution. Finally, this editor has added material relating to the Presbyterian Church in the North that appears to be irreleevant to this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-10T10:49:00.000Z","author":"North Shoreman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-North_Shoreman-2008-08-10T10:49:00.000Z-CSA's_End","replies":[],"displayName":"Tom (North Shoreman)"}}-->
He/she has also twice changed without explanation the reason for the end of the CSA from "military collapse" to dissolution. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-10T10:49:00.000Z","author":"North Shoreman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-North_Shoreman-2008-08-10T10:49:00.000Z-CSA's_End-1","replies":["c-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-10T23:20:00.000Z-North_Shoreman-2008-08-10T10:49:00.000Z","c-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-10T23:28:00.000Z-North_Shoreman-2008-08-10T10:49:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Tom (North Shoreman)"}}-->
Gary Gallagher in the widely cited "The Confederate War" (p. 157)makes the case for military collapse:
As you note three different editors have reverted your change which you have still not bothered to justify. I will restore the term and add a footnote -- I suggest you don't change it yet again without obtaining a consensus on this page to do so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-11T11:41:00.000Z","author":"North Shoreman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-North_Shoreman-2008-08-11T11:41:00.000Z-CSA's_End","replies":[],"displayName":"Tom (North Shoreman)"}}-->
Before I let the military collapse vs. dissolution question rest, what makes Gallagher a reliable source? What other reliable sources would agree with him? Yes, per your true allegation, I elected to delay my justification until I have heard the other view. I am more concerned on the spiritual paragraph than the end of the CSA. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-11T23:53:00.000Z","author":"Coviepresb1647","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-11T23:53:00.000Z-CSA's_End","replies":["c-North_Shoreman-2008-08-12T12:04:00.000Z-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-11T23:53:00.000Z","c-Red_Harvest-2008-08-12T17:23:00.000Z-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-11T23:53:00.000Z"]}}-->
Having checked Gallagher's credentials, I agree that he is a reliable source. Hence, I concede the point on CSA's End. However, the citation provided in the main article is not sufficient. Since "Gallagher, p. 157" does not show in which book (of Gallagher's 20+ publications) the page 157 is. I put that as a notation. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-13T04:11:00.000Z","author":"Coviepresb1647","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-13T04:11:00.000Z-CSA's_End","replies":["c-Red_Harvest-2008-08-13T04:42:00.000Z-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-13T04:11:00.000Z"]}}-->
Coviepresb1647 has twice added the statement "Slavery was only a small part of the cival war" as if it were supported by an already existing footnote, which it isn't. Nor can it be supported by a reliable source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-10T10:49:00.000Z","author":"North Shoreman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-North_Shoreman-2008-08-10T10:49:00.000Z-Slavery","replies":[],"displayName":"Tom (North Shoreman)"}}-->
Though it is a false accusation on what I did and why I reverted (NOT added), I do concede on the point of slavery being a major part of the war though indirectly. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Coviepresb1647__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-10T23:20:00.000Z","author":"Coviepresb1647","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-10T23:20:00.000Z-Slavery","replies":["c-141.156.239.222-2008-08-18T03:25:00.000Z-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-10T23:20:00.000Z"]}}-->
Anonymous user 76.5.41.66 added that statement on 5/Aug/08, and I have invited the person to elaborate on her case here. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-15T01:16:00.000Z","author":"Coviepresb1647","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-15T01:16:00.000Z-Slavery","replies":[]}}-->
Mabee this issue would be furthered by a statement of where you are from, seeing as how i rather suspect the ones "claiming slavery as the major cause" are from the north!!! S. Kays —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.151.53 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-01-02T00:39:00.000Z","author":"75.22.151.53","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-75.22.151.53-2009-01-02T00:39:00.000Z-Slavery","replies":["c-139.76.64.66-2009-01-03T02:21:00.000Z-75.22.151.53-2009-01-02T00:39:00.000Z"]}}-->
To say slavery was a major cause of the war is quite a stretch, I think. It implies that the issue had direct bearing on the motives of both North and South. I have doubts about this as Lincoln mentioned nothing of ending slavery in his first inaugural address, and even more importantly, Article 1, Section 9 of the CSA constitution banned the importation of slaves.Sentinel1701 (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-12-03T21:00:00.000Z","author":"Sentinel1701","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sentinel1701-2009-12-03T21:00:00.000Z-Slavery","replies":["c-North_Shoreman-2009-12-03T21:46:00.000Z-Sentinel1701-2009-12-03T21:00:00.000Z","c-139.76.64.67-2009-12-04T03:07:00.000Z-Sentinel1701-2009-12-03T21:00:00.000Z"]}}-->
Finally, this editor has added material relating to the Presbyterian Church in the North that appears to be irreleevant to this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-10T10:49:00.000Z","author":"North Shoreman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-North_Shoreman-2008-08-10T10:49:00.000Z-Religion_in_the_South_(NPOV_Dispute)","replies":["c-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-10T23:20:00.000Z-North_Shoreman-2008-08-10T10:49:00.000Z-1"],"displayName":"Tom (North Shoreman)"}}-->
As far as the Presbyterian material, I will wait for others to weigh in. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-11T11:41:00.000Z","author":"North Shoreman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-North_Shoreman-2008-08-11T11:41:00.000Z-Religion_in_the_South_(NPOV_Dispute)","replies":["c-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-11T23:53:00.000Z-North_Shoreman-2008-08-11T11:41:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Tom (North Shoreman)"}}-->
I created a separate section and expanded it with sourced material. Contrary to allegations made earlier, there is no evidence that I am aware of that as the Civil War approached there were any ignificant number of southern preachers speaking from the pulpit for emancipation. I will leave the NPOV tag up to give people who believe otherwise to provide documentation for their claim. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-13T22:37:00.000Z","author":"North Shoreman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-North_Shoreman-2008-08-13T22:37:00.000Z-Religion_in_the_South_(NPOV_Dispute)","replies":["c-Red_Harvest-2008-08-14T03:50:00.000Z-North_Shoreman-2008-08-13T22:37:00.000Z","c-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-14T17:35:00.000Z-North_Shoreman-2008-08-13T22:37:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Tom (North Shoreman)"}}-->
This article is about the CSA. The disputed section seems to focus mostly on "southern religious attitudes toward slavery". While it is appropriate to include, in this article, some mention that southern religious leaders supported both slavery and secession, the details included make the article wander from its main topic. There is also at least one "quote" which is unsourced. Additionally, the "Seceding States" section should not be a SUBsection of this section - the specific identification of which states are "included" in the CSA should come even before the "Causes.." section. Besides the several grammatical problems in the section, the text wanders between treating the issue chronologically & denominationally. I do not think the topic merits its own section. It definitely should not be so close to the top, and even if moved way down, would still need to focus more on the religious attitude towards secession (instead of wandering between secession & slavery) While "religious attitudes toward slavery" is an important topic, without a focus on "religious attitudes toward secession" instead, an entire section on it is misplaced here. --JimWae (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-14T15:23:00.000Z","author":"JimWae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JimWae-2008-08-14T15:23:00.000Z-Religion_in_the_South_(NPOV_Dispute)","replies":["c-North_Shoreman-2008-08-14T16:04:00.000Z-JimWae-2008-08-14T15:23:00.000Z","c-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-14T17:35:00.000Z-JimWae-2008-08-14T15:23:00.000Z"]}}-->
Today's excellent revision, primarily by NorthShoreman, confirmed and then immediately answered my NPOV dispute/concern/allegation, in a satisfactory manner, by adding the anti-slavery/anti-secessionist view in a way that presents both views in proper proportion instead of leaving a biased one-view section. I no longer regard the section as biased or having undue weight. If it is agreeable by a consensus, I would recommend that someone remove the NPOV tag at the top of the section. If I do find other reliable sources indicating a anti-slavery or anti-secessionist view during the war, I will share them. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-15T01:07:00.000Z","author":"Coviepresb1647","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-15T01:07:00.000Z-Religion_in_the_South_(NPOV_Dispute)","replies":[]}}-->
If there is no objection to the removal of the NPOV tag that I placed, I intend to remove it on 18/Aug/08 at 23:00 UTC and mark the NPOV Dispute Resolved.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-15T20:59:00.000Z","author":"Coviepresb1647","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-15T20:59:00.000Z-Religion_in_the_South_(NPOV_Dispute)","replies":[]}}-->
There is a new NPOV (Undue Weight) claim by JimWae. Hence, I am postponing the removal of the NPOV tag that I placed. The removal of it falls under MY responsibility as I volunteered to remove it.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-17T01:25:00.000Z","author":"Coviepresb1647","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-17T01:25:00.000Z-Religion_in_the_South_(NPOV_Dispute)","replies":["c-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-17T01:45:00.000Z-Coviepresb1647-2008-08-17T01:25:00.000Z"]}}-->
There is way more detail in this article on the role of religion (& specifically Presbtryianism) than there is in the Origins of the Civil War article. This article should contain only an overview of the origins/causes - not more elaborate detail than the branch article. --JimWae (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-26T06:34:00.000Z","author":"JimWae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JimWae-2008-08-26T06:34:00.000Z-Religion_in_the_South_(NPOV_Dispute)","replies":[]}}-->
I have added a new sub-section moving the seceding territory under that. The secession of the Arizona territory on March 16, 1861 is historical fact. The capital was Mesilla. This is documented in these other clarifying wiki articles:
So please do not edit out this sub-section on the main article, with radical or uniformed claims that the Arizona Territory was not an official territory of the CSA. It was. This is historical fact, not a POV. There were official governing bodies and sessions of government, and the westernmost battle of the war was fought there. The only difference was that the Confederate Arizona Territory ran east-west to Texas, while the later-formed Union Arizona Territory ran north-south to Utah.
Regards, The Gray Ghost (Grayghost01 (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC))__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-25T16:42:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-08-25T16:42:00.000Z-Seceding_territories_under_the_CSA","replies":["c-JimWae-2008-08-25T18:14:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-08-25T16:42:00.000Z"]}}-->
Gents, first, I notice a large horde of Wiki-authors all hailing from northern climes busily banging away writing Southern history. We have denials that Arizona seceded and joined the confederacy, denials that Lincolns movement of troops into that south is properly called a military invasion, and it just seems to me this is all a bunch of baloney. I'm sorry, but I've been re-checking the Confederate Military History, only the Virginia Vol3-Part1 mind you, and I've come across invade or invasion at least 30 times. And then many pages on Northern cities and areas all calling any occasion that John Mosby spit into the Potomac an "invasion". Wiki is a source to GET FACTS, gents. If someone wants to know what Arizona did, and when the did it ... for crying out loud, why can't they come to Wiki to just find out the facts? These articles simply need to state what happened and when, and perhaps how, and a little bit of why. Go bang away on the Union page, gents, and give your POV there. In the meantime, the southern Confederate articles are going to cite history references, give the facts, and tell it like it was, and yes ... they will give, to some degree, the Southern take on what happened, per Southern historians, who are just as valid, in fact, even more so because how does Grant or anyone else have the diary of what was happening in the south? If you want a new page to discuss the theories and views on things, then start a NEW article on that topic. Meanwhile, Arizona representatives met ... they seceded, and Arizona was accepted into the Confederacy. Those are real historical events. And the graphic, yes, it needs to be updated. Virginia's secession was on 23 May, and the results were held secret from the public and Washington, to give Stonewall time to destroy half the B&O and other such raids. Yet this article was going on the secession convetion. Listen ... Virginia did it differently. But that subtlety, and many others, gets lost on the various Ohioans and New Yorkers who are taking it upon themselves to force their own view of the history of the Confederate States of America. So can the graphic, get a new one, and let's document the facts as they were. Good day. Grayghost01 (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-26T01:57:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-08-26T01:57:00.000Z-Seceding_territories_under_the_CSA","replies":["c-Amcbride-2008-08-26T02:34:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-08-26T01:57:00.000Z","c-Red_Harvest-2008-08-26T03:01:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-08-26T01:57:00.000Z"]}}-->
If folks think that I am fabricating the secession of the Arizona territory, and the recognition and acceptance of that territory into the CSA ... please ... by all means ... give this due diligence, read the other half dozen wiki articles on that topice, crack open your history books ... and inform yourselves. Secondly, don't give me all this NPOV hype, when referenced small edits are made regarding this topic. There is zero "southern revisionist history" going on here, because a referenced small edit is made pointing out the Arizona territory secession, which is described beautifully, with colorful graphics, throughout other wiki articles. It is what it is, and for the life of me, why are folks so up in arms because Arizona seceded? Who cares? I use these wiki articles as great history notes, and I add to them as I see details that need to be polished. Go give me a break with the rhetoric.Grayghost01 (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-26T04:32:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-08-26T04:32:00.000Z-Seceding_territories_under_the_CSA","replies":[]}}-->
P.S. Check the "Geography" section of this very same article showing the Arizona territory aforementioned. So let's keep the article in congruence with itself, and give in the TOP portion the mysterious and previously unknown "secession" date by which the Arizona territory, depicted in the geography section, made the jump and saw the light. Else ... readers will be confused by the accurate map below ... while the date of secession is not rendered above. Well ... assuming that factual secession dates are being given, of course. I wouldn't want to make up "revisionist" dates for when Arizona did anything, God forbid. Grayghost01 (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-26T04:39:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-08-26T04:39:00.000Z-Seceding_territories_under_the_CSA","replies":["c-Red_Harvest-2008-08-26T05:23:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-08-26T04:39:00.000Z"]}}-->
What's worth keeping in the following?
* [[Arizona]] Territory ([[March 16]], 1861)< ref>Bowman, p.48</ref> A portion of modern [[Arizona Territory (CSA) | New Mexico]] south of 34 degrees north was formally part of the Confederate [[Arizona in the American Civil War | Arizona Territory]]. Later on [[February 24]], 1863 the Union created the [[Arizona Territory]] with [[Fort Whipple, Arizona|Fort Whipple]] as the capital.
* [[Arizona]] Territory ([[March 16]], 1861)< ref>Bowman, p.48</ref>
A portion of modern [[Arizona Territory (CSA) | New Mexico]] south of 34 degrees north was formally part of the Confederate [[Arizona in the American Civil War | Arizona Territory]]. Later on [[February 24]], 1863 the Union created the [[Arizona Territory]] with [[Fort Whipple, Arizona|Fort Whipple]] as the capital.
Problems:
What is there to dispute in the following??
The Confederacy also claimed portions of modern [[New Mexico in the American Civil War|New Mexico]] and [[Arizona in the American Civil War|Arizona]] south of 34 degrees north as the [[Arizona Territory (CSA)|Arizona Territory]], with [[Mesilla, New Mexico|Mesilla]] serving as the territory capital.<ref>Bowman, p.48</ref> The Union regained military control of the area, and on [[February 24]], [[1863]] created the [[Arizona Territory]] with [[Fort Whipple, Arizona|Fort Whipple]] as the capital.
--JimWae (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-26T06:06:00.000Z","author":"JimWae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JimWae-2008-08-26T06:06:00.000Z-Seceding_territories_under_the_CSA","replies":["c-Altgeld-2008-08-26T15:03:00.000Z-JimWae-2008-08-26T06:06:00.000Z"]}}-->
If you look back through the history of the page edits, I did some very minor editing on two items: (a) I corrected Virginia's secession date to the May popular-vote ratification election, to make this consistent with all the other ACW pages on Virginia. Please examine these other pages on Virginia to see what I mean.
Then, (b) I noticed the section on the territories was nominal and did not clearly explain that Arizona territory had seceded on a particular date, and did not clearly indicate it's difference in status relative to other territories (such as Oklahoma) which did not exist in the CSA on the same legal status. Thus I performed minor editing again.
But this page is as it was originally, per the diligence of User:JimWae. The same gent who at first claims that the Arizona secession date was not allowed because the article split dates on the "March 4" lincoln date. So I moved it to the second grouping. Then he deletes that, and re-writes the prose to talk about an "April 12" split and "confederate attack" as the grouping pardigm. At this point, the article is blatantly off fact, because the second grouping of states did NOT seceded because of an "April 12" "confederate attack". Thus User:JimWae has bascially driven the article into the ground. I tried one last time to put in a cited reference for why those last states "claim" they seceded, per the Hotchkiss book reference, so we can have the right basic understanding, the correct two groupings, and then get Arizona's secession date (March 16 by the way) somehow in there, and I put in in new sub-section on territories, thus treating it differently.
Then you step in and remove the clearly incorrect graphic. But not before User:North Shoreman also steps in a deletes all the changes too (another user that does not like my Winchester in the American Civil War article, that is one of the better articles of the ACW on Wiki.
So ... I created an UNDO that fixed it all, and left your proper graphic edit in. And thus ... I have put my dispute tag on. I have better things to do. It would have been nice to have the framework of this article correct, so it could be used for reference, including my own.
I don't know what else to say. The bottom line is that the 2nd group of states seceded for a very specific historical event, which was neither April 12, nor March 4 events. Secondly, Arizona seceded on March 16.
And as far as Hotchkiss not being a "neutral" historical source for reference books, that's a comment that's completely out of line. Hotchkiss' book, maps and contributions to the history series are all used by historians. His Winchester map is a key feature on the 2nd battle page. He kept a meticulous diary. I have been combing through Wiki, and have now found invade or invasion as a military term in many ACW articles, all of which have nothing to do with Hotchkiss. Historically the 2nd grouping of secessions was centered NOT on Lincoln's taking of office ... but specifically on his call to raise and army and proceed through the border states to get to the deep south states. Thus, states which would have been Union allies (e.g. Virginia, North Carolina, etc) all seceded. The reason was that they protested the military movement through their states to get to the others. Call it by what word you want, but that was the issue. Grayghost01 (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-26T14:53:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-08-26T14:53:00.000Z-Hotchkiss,_Arizona,_reason_for_2nd_group_of_secessions_all_explained","replies":[]}}-->
Red Harvest: So, let me see if I have this straight. All southerners who wrote any history of the war are automatically considered opinonated and are not citable ... particularly the most truthful, revered and kind ones like Lee and Hotchkiss ... in your opinion. Yet, as North Shoreman said elsewhere, we should be quoting Lincoln's speech. And then for me to have pointed out all this, I am resorting to "strawman" arguments? Presumably, of course, a strawman argument would be something I'm suggesting which is to be purposely shot down. But I'm not suggesting citations of Lee should be shot down, nor Hotchkiss. And you are doing the shooting down. Thus as the shooter-downer, you would notionally have been the one setting up the strawman. Meanwhile ... the secession date for the Arizona territory and its acceptance into the CSA is not cited in this article ... the reason I came to this page to begin with. And upon not finding that information, and then looking it up, I then returned and added it. And the article is tagged as being in bad shape. If nothing else ... I've discovered why the article is in bad shape.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-30T02:20:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-08-30T02:20:00.000Z-Southern_historians_not_quotable?","replies":["c-Red_Harvest-2008-09-02T00:56:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-08-30T02:20:00.000Z"]}}-->
Certainly, it's one POV, perhaps, to call the whole affair an insurrection. Kinda like the one Col. Lee helped put down, right? Now, isn't an insurrection a revolt against established government? But what was it called when we declared independence and created a government? And what if that same process is followed again? That is, declare independence, write a constitution, establish a government, and so on? The last I checked, the secessions of the various States were not referred to or labeled as the "insurrections" of the states ... not even on this highly biased wiki page. Perhaps you need consult Wikipedia:NPOV a bit. It's hard to believe your good faith, when you call the southern states insurrectionists. Can anyone verify whether the southern states actually seceded and established governments or not? Need some help here. How about Arizona? Did they historically and factually secede? Did the CSA government recognize that and make them a territory? Heres a quickie verification of some text at: [[2]] Is this text real, or a web hoax?
The objective historian recognizes the Southern view that the Northern states were violating the constitution, and reports that as such, and as the reason for their secessions. The non-objective historian pretends that only allowable view in print is that the North erred not, and that the south was wrong in their accusation. Again ... both views are explained objectively. One view is non-allowed unobjectively. We have one wiki article on the Union. We have one wiki article on the CSA. A beautiful place to discuss the historicity of both views, from both angles, in both places.
However ... that would be the ideal-wiki way. Perhaps that is how other task-force wiki writers do it? But not on this page. And to raise the point is to have my "POV" questioned. But I will not allow the clover to be put in the boiling beetlenut juice. I stand firmly on my position and points, namely:
1- Arizona seceded 2- the CSA recognized and incorporated an Arizona Territory 3- The second-wave of secessions centered around the disagreement and view of legality of raising a federal army and moving it across what should be sovereign states
I believe the historical record is clear, verifiable and true on that account. Therefore let the CSA page objectively give this information, and explain the CSA viewpoint on why, in their minds, they did what they did. Grayghost01 (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-29T02:10:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-08-29T02:10:00.000Z-Who_entered_Virginia?","replies":[]}}-->
Does anyone besides me find it odd that my small edit of when the CSA Arizona territory seceded and joined the CSA in 1861/1862 has been deleted ... yet the sentence I had also put with that on when the Union took and added the territory in 1863 is still in the article. Does anyone think one side of that historical point is being shared (POV) ... or would we rather give all the information (NPOV)? I'm highly entertained by this whole affair. Where is President Tyler when you need him?Grayghost01 (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-29T01:03:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-08-29T01:03:00.000Z-Union_acquisition_of_Arizona","replies":[]}}-->
You may wish to consult WP:NPOV a bit. It is hard to believe in your good faith when you acknowledge this is entertaining for you. DMorpheus (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-29T01:12:00.000Z","author":"DMorpheus","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DMorpheus-2008-08-29T01:12:00.000Z-Union_acquisition_of_Arizona","replies":["c-Grayghost01-2008-08-29T01:49:00.000Z-DMorpheus-2008-08-29T01:12:00.000Z"]}}-->
I just notice all the bad-tags and categories this page has. Does anyone here wonder why? It certainly wasn't me that put this page in the categories of:
"needing attention to referencing and citation"
and "former good article"
and "articles needing review"
Well ... a reviewer is here ... being rebuffed when adding a date of "March 16, 1861" to Arizona's secession, but having only the Union admission date left intact.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-29T02:20:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-08-29T02:20:00.000Z-Union_acquisition_of_Arizona","replies":[]}}-->
With no further comment coming forth, I will create (and put here in the next couple of weeks) an improved secession table of the states and territories, with edited and improved prose, and show it here for preview and comment, and then move it in place of the curren secession section. For the sake of the contributors with the bias toward having only Northern historians for citations, I will do all I can to research notations from those types of sources. Normally I have no interest in contributing to this higher level articles, as I am focused on documenting raid operations for the CSA, but I will spend some time on this, because this article is in such dire shape, and bad need of better writing. So, anyone opposed to the documentation of what happened with the Arizona territory, please discuss it here. Now is your chance to air your views on that. I happened to be reviewing this topic in the vein of CSA raids out west, which is what led me to even look at this page to begin with ... and finding the lack of historical references and information on that. Grayghost01 (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-30T17:19:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-08-30T17:19:00.000Z-Union_acquisition_of_Arizona","replies":["c-JimWae-2008-08-30T19:28:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-08-30T17:19:00.000Z","c-JimWae-2008-08-31T03:58:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-08-30T17:19:00.000Z","c-JimWae-2008-08-31T04:28:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-08-30T17:19:00.000Z"]}}-->
Here is one of but many many historical documents of the reasoning for why all the pro-union states (Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina) seceded. The Fort Sumter response (not the battle) is what upset these remaining states. Lincoln ... who could have conducted action against the Deep South 7 ... provoked a much larger fight and all out war. Again, the remaining states did not give a hoot about SC firing on Sumter. That is not why they seceded. The issue was Lincolns "call" ... an act seen as insurrection in-and-of-itself against the US Constitution, which the border state had heretofore been complying to.
To be clear ... April 15th is the key date in history, by which the remining states begain re-convening conventions, and causing Kentucky to call a border state convention. The view of the border states, documented over and over again, is that they viewed this call as a course of invasion needing to go via their state borders, without authorization constitutionally or by the states. That, in the minds of many previously pro-union delegates in those 4 states, constituted an act of war.
The question here is whether this simple point, plastered on the annals of history, can be clearly and succintly explained in this article on the CSA. Perhaps in the USA article, the reasons, in Lincolns's mind, of why he thought he was doing the right thing can be explained there, and a "see for more info" link can be a bridge to that. But IMHO, the CSA article needs to cover CSA history, what the CSA did, why the CSA did what they did, and how they did it.
Arkansas Leaves Union for Southern Confederacy LITTLE ROCK — Delegates to the Arkansas Secession Convention voted to leave the Union and join the Confederate States of America today, May 6, 1861. The State House was packed full of noisy spectators who cheered loudly after the final vote was taken. W. P. Grace of Pine Bluff introduced the ordinance of secession. Convention president Judge David Walker of Fayetteville called the roll. The crowd became solemn. Just two months ago this same group of men voted not to secede. Since that time there have been major changes in the national situation. The Republican Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated president on March 4, the same day Arkansas voted not to secede. Then military forces of the new Confederate States of America, only seven Deep South states at that time, demanded the surrender of Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. When Lincoln sent additional supplies to the Federal troops in the fort in April, the Southerners fired on the fort which soon surrendered. Lincoln then issued a call for 75,000 volunteers to put down the "insurrection." So today’s Arkansas vote comes after a state of war exists between the North and the South. Today’s secession vote was 65 for and 5 against. The crowd jeered the five delegates who voted no. Although there were Unionists in attendance, secession supporters in the room were more numerous and louder. After quieting down the crowd, Judge Walker said that for such a serious and important matter, the vote should be unanimous. Roll call was taken again. Four of the five delegates who had voted "no" changed their votes to "yes." Only Isaac Murphy, a farmer and lawyer representing Madison County, remained firm. He said, "I have cast my vote after mature reflection, and have duly considered the consequences, and I cannot conscientiously change it. I therefore vote ‘no’." The final vote was 69 to1. The room filled with angry shouts of "Traitor!" and "Hang him!" In the midst of this, a bouquet of flowers was thrown towards Murphy and landed at his feet. Onlookers said that it was Mrs. Frederic Trapnall, the widow of a Little Rock attorney and merchant, who threw the flowers as a sign of appreciation for Murphy’s stand. As of ten minutes past four this afternoon, Arkansas is a member of the Confederate States of America. The future is unclear. Convention delegates plan to meet again, perhaps to write a new constitution. Throughout the state people are choosing sides. Some men are forming companies and preparing to fight. It appears that the military forces of the free and slave states will meet soon in battle, perhaps in Virginia or Missouri.
Arkansas Leaves Union for Southern Confederacy LITTLE ROCK — Delegates to the Arkansas Secession Convention voted to leave the Union and join the Confederate States of America today, May 6, 1861. The State House was packed full of noisy spectators who cheered loudly after the final vote was taken.
W. P. Grace of Pine Bluff introduced the ordinance of secession. Convention president Judge David Walker of Fayetteville called the roll. The crowd became solemn. Just two months ago this same group of men voted not to secede.
Since that time there have been major changes in the national situation. The Republican Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated president on March 4, the same day Arkansas voted not to secede. Then military forces of the new Confederate States of America, only seven Deep South states at that time, demanded the surrender of Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.
When Lincoln sent additional supplies to the Federal troops in the fort in April, the Southerners fired on the fort which soon surrendered. Lincoln then issued a call for 75,000 volunteers to put down the "insurrection." So today’s Arkansas vote comes after a state of war exists between the North and the South.
Today’s secession vote was 65 for and 5 against. The crowd jeered the five delegates who voted no. Although there were Unionists in attendance, secession supporters in the room were more numerous and louder. After quieting down the crowd, Judge Walker said that for such a serious and important matter, the vote should be unanimous. Roll call was taken again. Four of the five delegates who had voted "no" changed their votes to "yes." Only Isaac Murphy, a farmer and lawyer representing Madison County, remained firm. He said, "I have cast my vote after mature reflection, and have duly considered the consequences, and I cannot conscientiously change it. I therefore vote ‘no’." The final vote was 69 to1.
The room filled with angry shouts of "Traitor!" and "Hang him!" In the midst of this, a bouquet of flowers was thrown towards Murphy and landed at his feet. Onlookers said that it was Mrs. Frederic Trapnall, the widow of a Little Rock attorney and merchant, who threw the flowers as a sign of appreciation for Murphy’s stand.
As of ten minutes past four this afternoon, Arkansas is a member of the Confederate States of America. The future is unclear. Convention delegates plan to meet again, perhaps to write a new constitution.
Throughout the state people are choosing sides. Some men are forming companies and preparing to fight. It appears that the military forces of the free and slave states will meet soon in battle, perhaps in Virginia or Missouri.
Grayghost01 (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-31T03:13:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-08-31T03:13:00.000Z-Arkansas_Newspaper_Article_from_1861","replies":["c-SiberioS-2008-08-31T06:16:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-08-31T03:13:00.000Z"]}}-->
Here is what Arizona Territory (CSA) has to say for dates:
In March 1861, the citizens of Mesilla, New Mexico, convened a secession convention to separate themselves from the United States and join the Confederate States of America. On March 16, the convention adopted a secession ordinance citing the region's common interests and geography with the Confederacy, the need of frontier protection, and the loss of postal service routes under the United States government as reasons for their separation.[1] The ordinance proposed the question of secession to the western portions of the territory, and on March 28 a second convention in present day Tucson, Arizona, also met and ratified the ordinance. The conventions subsequently established a provisional territorial government for the Confederate "Territory of Arizona." Owings was again elected as provisional governor and Granville Henderson Oury was chosen as a delegate to petition for the territory's admission into the Confederacy.
On March 16, Mesilla adopted a secession ordinance. Part of that ordinance was to put the question to Tucson - which ratified it March 28. SUBSEQUENTLY (who knows when) a provisional territorial gov't was established. Not mentioned is any date for the petition and presumed acceptance of that petition by the CSA --JimWae (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-31T16:19:00.000Z","author":"JimWae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JimWae-2008-08-31T16:19:00.000Z-AZ_Territory_(CSA)","replies":[]}}-->
If you would bother to read either further down this article, or in various other Arizona wiki articles, most of the information is there, helter skelter. Constantly editing out minor updates on Arizona's secession information is inappropriate for you to do. If historical events don't fit your pre-conceived view, you may need to step aside and allow the historical information to remain. Your propensity for edit-wars is not appreciated. Your constant insertions of material on Lincoln or Fort Sumter are not always warranted, either, and the secession section of this page is missing much key information due to your slash-editing. Please refrain.Grayghost01 (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-09-07T03:24:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-09-07T03:24:00.000Z-AZ_Territory_(CSA)","replies":["c-JimWae-2008-09-07T03:36:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-09-07T03:24:00.000Z"]}}-->
You are a master of spin. You and your partner systematically change these broad-topic pages to suit your POV. Meanwhile, Arizona seceded, ratified it's secession, instituted a military governor, send a delegate to the CSA congress, and legislation was passed admitting the territory, with a sign-off approval by President Davis. Why you feel compelled to keep this deleted out of this article on the CSA is beyond me. Your partner inserts all the Lincoln proclamations and Fort Sumter materials. Conceptually, the two of you don't seem to understand that the 2nd group of seceding states were not moved to secession because South Carolina conducted that battle. They were moved to secede because of the call to raise an army. That is well documented historically. Concurrent to deleting the secession information for Arizona, the two of you routinely chain-edit as a pair, and in this case the Arizon material was deleted, and the Fort Sumter material inserted in your orchestrated edit.Grayghost01 (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-09-07T05:25:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-09-07T05:25:00.000Z-AZ_Territory_(CSA)","replies":["c-North_Shoreman-2008-09-07T12:01:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-09-07T05:25:00.000Z"]}}-->
The census data doesn't say "households", it says "slaveholders". Now, in the 19th century, it may very well have been the case that there would only be one property owner per household or family (in which case the percent of slave-owning families in some Confederate states may have been as high as 49%), but that's an assumption. Trying to stay away from original research here, the only assumption made is that slaves would not be owned by other slaves (which seems pretty solid), so we can divide "slaveholders" into "total free population" (both categories from the census data). Of course, 5 year olds probably didn't own a whole lot of slaves either. And I think that in general women wouldn't own slaves either--but I'm not an expert on 19th century property law; I think a widow might own property. And even in the case of a married woman, again, ISTR that although her husband controlled her property, that didn't mean that in the strictest sense he owned it--certainly a lot of men in those days married women who brought substantial property (including slaves) into the marriage; and although the husband would then (as I understand it) control that property, I really don't know one way or the other if a 19th century census would show such a household as having one "slaveholder" (the husband) or two (the husband and the wife, even though the husband would have control over his wife's property).
What we really want, of course, is the percentage of white males at least 21 years old who owned slaves since--and I don't think this constitutes original research here--only white males at least 21 years old would be voting on secession (or on anything else). Even in the North, only men over the age of 21 would be voting (I believe in some Northern states at least some blacks could vote). Even a very wealthy widow with many slaves who actually controlled her own estate would have no political say-so.
The particular information--What percentage of white males at least 21 years old owned slaves? or in other words What percentage of the electorate owned slaves?--may very well have been figured out by some scholar somewhere, in which case that would of course be a highly relevant statistic to include. -- 67.34.10.133 (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-09-01T04:58:00.000Z","author":"67.34.10.133","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-67.34.10.133-2008-09-01T04:58:00.000Z-Demographs:_\"Slaveholders\"_vs._\"households\".","replies":["c-JimWae-2008-09-01T07:31:00.000Z-67.34.10.133-2008-09-01T04:58:00.000Z","c-JimWae-2008-09-01T08:36:00.000Z-67.34.10.133-2008-09-01T04:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
It says the CSA did not have diplomatic relations with European countries. What about others? Cripipper (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-02T20:30:00.000Z","author":"Cripipper","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cripipper-2008-10-02T20:30:00.000Z-Foreign_Relations?","replies":[]}}-->
Cripipper ... bear in mind that much of the material in this Wiki-article is made up Neo-Yankee baloney. The Europeans didn't have Foreign Relations with their CSA buddies? Yeah, right, because they were too busy shipping them Enfield rifles, building their Commerce Raiders, shipping them goods via the blockade runners, providing ammunitions and harboring their vessels and folks overseas in cities and ports. The Germans typically offered the CSS Alabama Christmas Dinners when in town (Simontown, South Africa), the French helped by offering safe harbors for the refit of the CSS Alabama, and the list goes on. Queen Victoria held pep rallies, and the Pope, himself, weaved a Thorn of Crowns (no kidding) for ole Jeff Davis. All the Native Americans who'd been "talked" out of their land were falling over themselves to aide and abet, and were the last allies to surrender on behalf of the CSA. Of all the allies of the CSA (practially the world) ... many payed through the nose later. We all know what the U.S. Army did to the Indians from 1865 to 1900. Even the British were sued for building the commerce raiders. Just like the Pre-Napoleonic France was the France we "once knew" but went away ... so the Southern States of America were the "united States" the Europeans "once knew" but went away. Thus seeing what the Northern States did to the Southern States ... the world has lived in fear ever since, and the Northern historians like to pretend as if no one was a friend to the CSA, because it makes them feel better about themselves.
But for what it's worth allies (by actions and deeds of support) of the CSA included:
Grayghost01 (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-03T02:29:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-10-03T02:29:00.000Z-Foreign_Relations?","replies":[]}}-->
I agree. Neo-Yankee Reconstruction is everywhere these days...
But you are not correct about the nature of WVs discarding the 1863 constitution. All the others were merely amended, as far as I know. The 1872 Constitution was a radical act which I don't think is found in any other state.Dubyavee (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-20T21:47:00.000Z","author":"Dubyavee","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dubyavee-2008-10-20T21:47:00.000Z-West_Va._Constitution_of_1872","replies":[]}}-->
I have reverted a number of edits made by an IP that largely consisted of unsourced material that appears to be ether inaccurate or misleading original research. I have included the material removed in italics below followed by my indented explanations.
From the time of the US Constitution's composition, state's rights and the right to own slaves had been hotly contested by the Founders of the United States. It was based on these very concerns that the Bill of Rights was passed into law in 1791, providing the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The 10th Amendment is blatant:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
As for slavery, once more the issue was hotly debated during the Declaration of Independence discussions in 1776, as well as during the Constitution and the Bill of Rights' framing. To this end, Article I, Section 9 had delayed ruling on the slave trade until 1808, just to ensure all 13 existing states would approve the Constitution and form the United States of America.
With a majority vote in Congress, international trading in slaves was prohibited on 1st January 1808. However the owning of slaves remained commonplace in all states throughout the US; it became a matter of conscience and faith for some, however, who questioned the presumption that Africans were inferior or lacked souls. Throughout the 1830s, pressure built to outlaw slavery; this pressure increased when the UK abolished slavery in 1837.
What split the States was the Northern manufacturing/ industrial base and the more agrarian economy of the Southern states. Heavy influx of immigrants provided cheap labour for the Northern factories; however few immigrants travelled South, thus cheaper farm labour continued to be supplied by slaves.
Any law that outlawed slavery required a majority vote in Congress, and this was never forthcoming. As the States expanded, and more and more territories applied for statehood, many Northern politicians set up additional criteria about whether the new State would or would not permit slavery. The Southern politicians considered this an affront, breaching the Constitutional law that outlined the only criteria for new states' acceptance into the union.
The British Parliament and Prime Minister were heavily supportive of the Southern States, until the intervention of Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert, who was steadfastly against any military intervention on either side. He maintained the British Raj, specifically India, could supply the cotton needs of the Coventry based textile industry.
Yet even Davis was aware that slavery could be ended in the Southern States. Indeed, Davis sent Duncan Kenner to France and England in 1864 with an offer to emancipate Southern slaves in exchange for recognition of the Confederacy from France and Great Britain.
Bottom line -- if there is a consensus that this article should contain a detailed discussion of the background of secession going all the way back to the founding, then the section should be expanded with sourced material that covers specifics. The material added by the IP appears to be a well intentioned essay, but it creates more problems than it resolves. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-11-06T13:14:00.000Z","author":"North Shoreman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-North_Shoreman-2008-11-06T13:14:00.000Z-Cause_of_Secession_(11-6-2008_edits)","replies":[],"displayName":"Tom (North Shoreman)"}}-->
There is a long discussion of this above. Originally there was a one paragraph summary of this subject, but it was greatly expanded when material was introduced that attempted to (1) claim that even in 1860 there was a significant division among Southern religious leaders regarding slavery and (2) expand the significance of the Presbyterian Church's pre-1850 position. This information was countered by adding material that showed that (1) religious opposition to slavery had largely disappeared in the South by 1850(2) the Presbyterian position was more nuanced than alleged and (3) Methodist and Baptist information was also relvant.
While I have no doubts that the current section is both accurate and properly sourced, the question as to the relevance of a detailed history of Southern religion to this article is valid and has resulted in several tags being placed o the section. I would propose that all of the material be replaced with the following that seems to be an accurate summary of the section (footnotes would be added from the existing section to support each sentence):
As the nation divided over slavery, religion exacerbated the sectional differences. Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians in the first half of the 1800s expressed reservations about slavery, but by 1850 John C. Calhoun would note that “already three great evangelical churches had been torn asunder” over slavery. By the 1850s, as sectional tensions over slavery were heightened, more and more ministers in the South “who openly resisted southern evangelicals’ accommodation with slavery found themselves silenced or driven out of the South.”
Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-11-06T14:09:00.000Z","author":"North Shoreman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-North_Shoreman-2008-11-06T14:09:00.000Z-Religion_and_Secession","replies":["c-Gensanders-2008-11-09T20:06:00.000Z-North_Shoreman-2008-11-06T14:09:00.000Z","c-Coviepresb1647-2008-11-13T01:15:00.000Z-North_Shoreman-2008-11-06T14:09:00.000Z","c-68.217.101.58-2009-03-23T10:30:00.000Z-North_Shoreman-2008-11-06T14:09:00.000Z","c-68.217.101.58-2009-03-25T08:55:00.000Z-North_Shoreman-2008-11-06T14:09:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Tom (North Shoreman)"}}-->
I know I may be nit picking a bit, but why is Danville, VA listed as the last capital of the CSA when Jefferson Davis' article states that he proceeded to Greensboro, NC, then met with his cabinet a final time in Washington, GA? Greensboro's article actually claims to be the final capital, while both Davis' and Washintgon, GA's articles state that Davis and the CS Cabinet dissolved the government there.
I know that Danville has traditionally been counted as the last capital, but it's claim is supported only by the fact that Davis and his Cabinet met there (they also did in Greensboro and Washington). Does anyone know if there is a specific reason why they were excluded? If not, should they be included? York1066 (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-11-12T03:21:00.000Z","author":"Edward J. Picardy","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Edward_J._Picardy-2008-11-12T03:21:00.000Z-Last_capital?","replies":["c-Berean_Hunter-2008-11-14T02:26:00.000Z-Edward_J._Picardy-2008-11-12T03:21:00.000Z"],"displayName":"York1066"}}-->
There must be a half dozen or more articles on secession, reasons for secession, Lincoln, and etc. Contributing editors have riddled this article to a point of looking like Swiss Cheese, with mostly one-sided POV selective citations. Let's remove the radicalism to those pages devoted to that topic. May I dare suggest that this article simply document the history of the CSA, and leave the politcial arguments and second-guessing to those other articles. Many reasons went into the seceding acts, not just the Neo-Yank ones. Grayghost01 (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-02T03:16:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-12-02T03:16:00.000Z-POV's_on_Secession","replies":[]}}-->
Due to User:North Shoreman's deletion (here) of the good faith contribution of another editor, eliminating, reducing and/or restricting a balanced presentation of historical materials, I have added tags to Confederate States of America#Religion, slavery, and secession, and ask that the materials that were deleted be restored and discussed here. Overall the entire article is extremely antagonistic in tone and language toward the history of the Confederate States of America, and a neutral balance view is not presented. Citing historical references of one POV does not balance the article. Grayghost01 (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-02T04:27:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-12-02T04:27:00.000Z-POV's_on_Secession","replies":["c-North_Shoreman-2008-12-02T16:25:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-12-02T04:27:00.000Z"]}}-->
Northshoreman, it's hard to track all the deletions you make on good faith contributions by others. I've been watching this article for several months now, seeing quite a few you've done merely on this page. The previous one you made on this article was here. You cut direct quotes, previous contributions, and dozens of lines. Should we go through this article and tally the quantity and quantity of deletions like this you have made? In the prevous single IP edit, it was not clear at first glance that there was any error in the edit, and so you have a valid point in that regard, and I stand corrected there. But this previous deletion, and so on back in the history of this article show substantial editing and deleting on your part. On just your previous deletion here it the actual text you cut out:
- - As for slavery, once more the issue was hotly debated during the Declaration of Independence discussions in 1776, as well as during the Constitution and the Bill of Rights' framing. To this end, Article I, Section 9 had delayed ruling on the slave trade until 1808, just to ensure all 13 existing states would approve the Constitution and form the United States of America. - - With a majority vote in Congress, international trading in slaves was prohibited on 1st January 1808. However the owning of slaves remained commonplace in all states throughout the US; it became a matter of conscience and faith for some, however, who questioned the presumption that Africans were inferior or lacked souls. Throughout the 1830s, pressure built to outlaw slavery; this pressure increased when the UK abolished slavery in 1837. - - What split the States was the Northern manufacturing/ industrial base and the more agrarian economy of the Southern states. Heavy influx of immigrants provided cheap labour for the Northern factories; however few immigrants travelled South, thus cheaper farm labour continued to be supplied by slaves. Any law that outlawed slavery required a majority vote in Congress, and this was never forthcoming. As the States expanded, and more and more territories applied for statehood, many Northern politicians set up additional criteria about whether the new State would or would not permit slavery. The Southern politicians considered this an affront, breaching the Constitutional law that outlined the only criteria for new states' acceptance into the union. - - By 1860 sectional disagreements between North and South revolved primarily around the maintenance or expansion of slavery. Historian Drew Gilpin Faust observed that, "leaders of the secession movement across the South cited slavery as the most compelling reason for southern independence."[13] - - Within the framework of the Constitution, if a State didn't agree with what the Federal government was doing, they had the right to secede, e.g., discontinue being part of the United States. This right had been threatened by many states over the decades for many reasons, though none were on record as having actually seceded (it needed a 2/3 majority vote in the State level Congress). However the election of 1860 was extremely divisive, bitter fought by the newly formed Democrat party of the South and the fledgling Republican Party represented by the Northern states. - - The immediate spark for secession was the victory of the Republican Party and the election of Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election. He had made it a campaign pledge to maintain the States' unity, even by force. Civil War historian James McPherson wrote:
On the other hand, the leader of the Confederate troops was General Robert E. Lee, a war hero who was first offered the command of the Union troops. He declined, after much thought, saying he was a Virginian first, an American second. Personally he was opposed to slavery and had made provision not only for the reduction of slaves on his holdings but also the freedom of all his remaining slaves in his will. For Lee, clearly State's rights was more important than the rightness or wrongness of slavery.
Although in denial, the repercussion of these events inevitably created the destruction of disillusionment imposed by the federal government. In later years, it was proven that blacks were very much respected throughout the southern states.
That's quite a hefty deletion you made, wouldn't you say? What's interesting is that the material deleted (above in small) all had balanced the article by explaining the Southern view and reasons for establishment of the CSA. All that material is now gone. Thus the article is not balance, and reflects only a particular point of view from only a portion of the historians. Does the POV of the article reflect your own POV? If not, what was the reason that you made this deletion? Grayghost01 (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-03T04:16:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-12-03T04:16:00.000Z-POV's_on_Secession","replies":["c-North_Shoreman-2008-12-03T12:10:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-12-03T04:16:00.000Z"]}}-->
Okay, let's start with some of this text above: On the other hand, the leader of the Confederate troops was General Robert E. Lee, a war hero who was first offered the command of the Union troops. He declined, after much thought, saying he was a Virginian first, an American second. Personally he was opposed to slavery and had made provision not only for the reduction of slaves on his holdings but also the freedom of all his remaining slaves in his will. For Lee, clearly State's rights was more important than the rightness or wrongness of slavery.
Show me where this material is in the article now? I can't seem to find it. Notice that phrases like "State's rights was more important that rightness or wrongness of slavery" and "disillusionment imposed by the federal government" from the text above are now NOT in the article. They clearly articulate what many historians agree are typically Southern views on creation of the CSA (references on these views are easy to find). Yet, you have, indeed, deleted these. Therefore you re-included SOME of the material above, perhaps, I guess, but when I do a spot check I find that your explanation is very misleading since backing up and looking at the these two paragraphs, I find they are entirely absent! Therefore, it appears that Southern views on the creation of the CSA have been deleted by you (a fact, not invective). We can go through the edit record, and perhaps show this to be a routine methodology of deleting. Should we examine that question further? If I'm misunderstanding this, please explain your deletions, and how those points are addressed in the article?
Grayghost01 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-04T03:47:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-12-04T03:47:00.000Z-POV's_on_Secession","replies":["c-North_Shoreman-2008-12-04T13:10:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-12-04T03:47:00.000Z"]}}-->
Okay. Reading slowly, we'll take the first sentence, and go line by line:
Did you delete this because you think its false, or because you cannot find a source for this? Grayghost01 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-05T00:53:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-12-05T00:53:00.000Z-POV's_on_Secession","replies":["c-BusterD-2008-12-05T01:47:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-12-05T00:53:00.000Z"]}}-->
I don't know what all things Northshoreman has deleted from the article or what sections of the article he's deleted them from, but there are multiple reasons why something might be deleted or an edit might be reverted. A sentence like "In later years, it was proven that blacks were very much respected throughout the southern states" is profoundly in need of a citation. As for "Although in denial, the repercussion of these events inevitably created the destruction of disillusionment imposed by the federal government"--to be honest, I don't know what that even means. Concerning the question of Lee's previous war record, or his well-known opposition to secession followed by his decision that his loyalty to Virginia outweighed his loyalty to the United States, we start to get into questions of relevance. It's not as if the article as it stands doesn't identify Lee as a major military leader of the Confederacy (complete with a picture); it notes his previous service in the Mexican War; and mentions his public support of the recruitment of black infantry units. This article also includes multiple links to the article on Robert E. Lee himself, where Lee's personal views on slavery can be discussed in detail. Not every true fact belongs in every article on Wikipedia. -- 68.219.192.80 (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-05T11:49:00.000Z","author":"68.219.192.80","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-68.219.192.80-2008-12-05T11:49:00.000Z-POV's_on_Secession","replies":["c-North_Shoreman-2008-12-05T13:42:00.000Z-68.219.192.80-2008-12-05T11:49:00.000Z"]}}-->
Okay gentlemen, let me see if I understand this correctly:
Yet ... the IP User states It's not as if the article as it stands doesn't identify Lee as a major military leader of the Confederacy (complete with a picture); it notes his previous service in the Mexican War; and mentions his public support of the recruitment of black infantry units.
So, what the IP User is suggesting is that perhaps the material was duplicative? Northshoreman, did you simply delete it because it was duplicative, but you're having problems communicating that? Or is it really POV and irrelevant? Which is it? I'm not following the logic, and I'm still not real clear on why the deletion. Northshoreman, in simple terms, why was this particular example sentence of the example paragraph, of the entire example section of your many deletions ... deleted? (a) Duplicative, (b) irrelevant, (c) POV, (d) Other (with explanation)
Thanks, Grayghost01 (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-06T02:23:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-12-06T02:23:00.000Z-POV's_on_Secession","replies":["c-68.219.192.80-2008-12-06T06:49:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-12-06T02:23:00.000Z"]}}-->
Mr. 68.219.192.80, this example sentence was in the section called Causes of secession. Thus, it related. Oh, by the way, this section Causes of secession currently goes like this:
Do you get the picture? The swirl of "contributing" editors who basically "guard" this article ensure, by thoroughly deleting any other materials, that only ONE point of veiw is allowed to exist here. These one-POV remaining elements composing the article are certainly and unquestionably well-sourced. No argument there. But ANY other views or explanation or history which do not fit the paradigm of the "swirl" are systematically eliminated point-by-point. Any true bona fide historian has no interest in such one-sided skewing of facts and perspective. But one side is about all you will get on this article. And as you can see, I pulled just a very simple example of a sentence deleted about Robert E. Lee ... and you see the cacophany of excuses asking, he was the leader of what? what unit? when? Who?
This article is a complete joke and a sham. It's ashame that a Wiki article cannot neutrally present all the facets and viewpoints on history. This could potentially be a good article, but there are very few people running check on this stuff. If most or all of the editors are of like mind, then Wiki "guidance" is meaningless. So, for now, according to this article, the CSA existed mainly and expressly for the purposes of protecting slavery. But no one who has even the most basic knowledge of this temporary nation would agree ... unless ... your own POV so overwhelmingly blinds you to the facts, that you feel compelled to systematically delete what you don't want to face or hear. Grayghost01 (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-07T04:15:00.000Z","author":"Grayghost01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grayghost01-2008-12-07T04:15:00.000Z-POV's_on_Secession","replies":["c-68.219.192.80-2008-12-08T01:11:00.000Z-Grayghost01-2008-12-07T04:15:00.000Z"]}}-->
First, I see there has been no real response or answer regarding the massive quantities of deletions of reasonable and historical materials, such as that on Robert E. Lee. Additionally, no one has tried to make the argument that the material was not appropriate for this page or section. Furthermore, the deletions were made without discussion. Therefore, this is one EXAMPLE of many deletions systematically made in this article, which remove material in a manner so as to SKEW the overall tone and material in the article. The POV and other tags in the article are well justified.
Second, as to Lee being opposed to secession, his personal view WAS indeed typical of his countrymen, and the elected representatives of the Commonwealth of Virginia had already met in convention and voted NO to secession. The NO sentiment was very strong. Lee's view, and dilemma were typical, and as the General-In-Chief of the CSA, and it's #1 military leader, his example was a key. His example in surrendering was ALSO a key. This article on the CSA is devoid of such materials because of the systematic and unjustified deletions (as seen above in this section). That is one reason it makes sense to discusss Lee's views.
Third, there are AMPLE historians discussion causes of secession and giving reasons OTHER than "slavery", being the primary view pushed in this article. Instead of adding these in, and getting whacked and deleted by the systematic POV effort, I have chosen to discuss this subject here first. That way when corrective material starts to be added and applied, in the effort to remove all the tags, and make this a truly good and balanced article ... the systematic deletions can, perhaps, be thwarted by the group following this page, having had their consciences seared toward compliance with wiki guidelines and the desire to correct and improve the article.
Fourth, what "basic" knowledge is being omitted from this article? Not just "asserstions" but "facts"? I do not suppress "facts" in pushing any POV. Thus you will rarely, if ever, see deletions on my part. One example is the material in this article on Arizona, saying the CSA "claimed" Arizona on Feb 14, 1862. So such "claim" occurred. I possess a copy of The Confederate Invasion of New Mexico and Arizona written by Robert Lee Kerby, 1958. This book thoroughly documents what did happen. I already tried to insert the material on what did happen. It was deleted by the same contributing editor who chose to delete the materials outlined in this section. So the facts regarding the admission of the Territory of Arizona into the CSA are not here. Rather, it reads as if some sort of a claim was made, on par and akin to the Indian territory of Oklahoma. Another item is the outline I made above which shows how the section on secession is PRIMARILY focused on slavery, which is highly skewed, that is, not balanced by a brief summary of ALL the other causes of secession. Some of the cause of secession are actually make and given by several of the northern states! The material on the CSA's #1 military leader, Lee, as discussed here, is also absent.
In summary, the article is highly skewed, unbalanced, expressing a clear POV, with certain uncitable claims, and in major need of repair. That repair and movement toward a good-article status cannot begin until the mindset of several folks performing the systematic deletions is changed. The article can be fixed, though. E.g. the brief paragraph on causes of secession CAN, indeed, be re-written to present a balanced view of ALL the reasons for the secessions made and what the true nature of the sentiments in the South were, as well as the differences in the deep South-7 and the later border states and disputed states.
According to the article about Gen. U.S. Grant's issue of General Order 11, there was a legal cotton trade between the CSA and the Union during the war. There was also an even greater illegal trade. Can someone verify if this is true and if so does it deserve mention in the article? It's hard to see if that is cited or not?\. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PonileExpress (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-17T23:35:00.000Z","author":"PonileExpress","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PonileExpress-2008-12-17T23:35:00.000Z-This_article_does_not_mention_the_Cotton_trade_with_the_Union_during_the_Civil_W","replies":[]}}-->
The image File:Sealback.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-01-07T22:41:00.000Z","author":"FairuseBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-FairuseBot-2009-01-07T22:41:00.000Z-Image_copyright_problem_with_File:Sealback.png","replies":[]}}-->
In the list of seceding states after the attack on Fort Sumter, the order is Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina. While the rest of the list is in chronological order, the dates show that Virginia seceded before Arkansas. The footnotes suggest that the order should be Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee. Shouldn't it be in one of these two orders? 76.31.160.221 (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-01-12T02:49:00.000Z","author":"76.31.160.221","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-76.31.160.221-2009-01-12T02:49:00.000Z-Order_of_Seceding_States","replies":[]}}-->
I thought these were true but they wer challenged so I had to removed them as they were false I guess:
12.52.67.30 (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-01-20T18:25:00.000Z","author":"12.52.67.30","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-12.52.67.30-2009-01-20T18:25:00.000Z-Removed_Challanged_Section.","replies":[]}}-->
On Wikipedia, the United States of America is called the United States. This article should thus be moved to Confederate States, as to correspond with the United States. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-02-19T17:10:00.000Z","author":"GoodDay","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-GoodDay-2009-02-19T17:10:00.000Z-Move_the_article","replies":["c-BusterD-2009-02-26T01:03:00.000Z-GoodDay-2009-02-19T17:10:00.000Z"]}}-->
Almost everyone in the world knows the country referred to as the United States. Most have never heard of the "Confederate States", and as a defunct entity, the more descriptive name is appropriate. This sounds more like an attempt to change the name of the United States article. --JimWae (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-02-27T02:50:00.000Z","author":"JimWae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JimWae-2009-02-27T02:50:00.000Z-Move_the_article","replies":["c-BusterD-2009-03-07T02:29:00.000Z-JimWae-2009-02-27T02:50:00.000Z"]}}-->
A dispute has come up at Tennessee over which state was the last to secede from the union. After checking sources outside of Wikipedia I still can't seem to answer this question definitively. Numerous sources say that Tennessee was the last state to secede. Other sources say that North Carolina was the last state to secede. A few sources even say that Virginia was the last state to secede. The discrepancy seems to revolve around these dates:
Judging by this information, it would seem that Tennessee was officially the last state to succeed from the union (and Virginia the 2nd to last). I'd like to get a second opinion, however, before changing the article. Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-02-20T20:06:00.000Z","author":"Kaldari","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kaldari-2009-02-20T20:06:00.000Z-Last_state_to_secede_from_the_union","replies":["c-Kaldari-2009-02-20T21:04:00.000Z-Kaldari-2009-02-20T20:06:00.000Z"]}}-->
Is there something left out of this article regarding the "states, territories and Indian nations" of the Confederate States? It seems to me we discuss everything, from Confederate Arizona to Delaware and everything in between. Is there any reason why that tag can't be removed? -- 68.219.109.112 (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-03-18T07:57:00.000Z","author":"68.219.109.112","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-68.219.109.112-2009-03-18T07:57:00.000Z-\"Undue_weight\"_tag_on_the_History_section","replies":["c-North_Shoreman-2009-03-18T12:15:00.000Z-68.219.109.112-2009-03-18T07:57:00.000Z"]}}-->
There's a discussion on the talkpage of the Democratic Party (Confederate States of America) between me and someone who claims that the Confederacy did not have a Democratic Party of its own (although Jefferson Davis, etc. are listed as members of this supposed party on this page). Some input would be nice. --Mrdie (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-04-29T10:26:00.000Z","author":"Mrdie","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mrdie-2009-04-29T10:26:00.000Z-Democratic_Party_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America","replies":["c-North_Shoreman-2009-04-29T12:47:00.000Z-Mrdie-2009-04-29T10:26:00.000Z"]}}-->
I have no reliable sources, but if it did not function as a political party then mention of it on this (CSA) page (note infobox: Jefferson Davis (D), Alexander Stephens (D)) should be removed. A "political parties in the Confederacy" page or whatever would be a good idea.
There is one source that is cited though that states the existence of the Democrats in the CSA: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/United_States.html#Confederate to which it says "Dem = Democratic Party ("southern" wing of democratic party, pro-states rights, pro-slavery)."
According to this though, it doesn't mention a Democratic Party but it does mention a Confederate Party (composed of southern Democrats and pro-Confederate Whigs) which was pro-Davis and a Conservative Party (made up of pro-Union Democrats and anti-Confederate Whigs) --Mrdie (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-04-29T18:42:00.000Z","author":"Mrdie","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mrdie-2009-04-29T18:42:00.000Z-Democratic_Party_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America","replies":["c-North_Shoreman-2009-04-29T22:35:00.000Z-Mrdie-2009-04-29T18:42:00.000Z"]}}-->
Actually, if anything the book I noted hurt my argument. I'm genuinely trying to find out if there was a Democratic Party in the Confederacy or not. Otherwise the article would be fictitious. --Mrdie (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-04-30T06:35:00.000Z","author":"Mrdie","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mrdie-2009-04-30T06:35:00.000Z-Democratic_Party_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America","replies":[]}}-->
Prior to the edit by Coviepresb1647 the text read that there was no foreign diplomatic recognition of the CSA. Two sources were provided. The first was a work by McPherson in which he actually writes, “ In the Civil War the Confederates failed to achieve foreign recognition ... .” The second was a United States State Department website which states, “One of the most important victories won by the United States during the Civil War was not ever fought on a battlefield. Rather, it was a series of diplomatic victories that ensured that the Confederacy would fail to achieve diplomatic recognition by even a single foreign government.”
What is not at dispute is whether or not Saxe-Coburg-Gotha maintained a trade consul in Texas during the war. The article at Ernst Raven explains this relationship in some detail and includes a third source regarding non-recognition, historian Eugene H. Berwanger, who wrote "In requesting the exequatur, Raven's government made clear that its request did not imply or extend diplomatic recognition." The article also has a long quote from CSA Secretary of State Benjamin explaining the difference between accepting trade consuls and official diplomatic recognition.
Despite this sourcing, Coviepresb1647 decided to claim that diplomatic recognition was secured from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. His cite is a German language book by somebody named Harold Sander. No explanation was offered as to why Mr. Sander’s opinion is to be accepted over McPherson’s or Berwanger's or, for that matter, the CSA Secretary of State. I have restored the original text and ask Coviepresb1647 to (1) establish exactly why Mr. Sander is considered a reliable source on the American Civil War and (2) provide exactly what Mr. Sander said on the subject. If Coviepresb1647 provides convincing evidence, then it might be appropriate to include the info in the body of the article, but certainly not in the article lede as the most reliable statement on the subject. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-07-24T12:07:00.000Z","author":"North Shoreman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-North_Shoreman-2009-07-24T12:07:00.000Z-CSA_Diplomatic_Recognition_claim","replies":["c-Coviepresb1647-2009-07-25T05:02:00.000Z-North_Shoreman-2009-07-24T12:07:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Tom (North Shoreman)"}}-->
I notice how the map shows WV (Kanawah) as Confederate held, but doesn't show NM in this same context. The split between Arlington & DC, VA & WV, entirely within KY & MO & KS, followed by solid tribal CSA support in OK (odd, considering this pattern, so CO must have been solid USA), then another split between AZ (northern Sonora) & NM, followed by the almost invisible Baja California & Alta California differences further out west. The CSA actually "recaptured" NM from USA control because NM was a slave territory, much like KS was before the John Brown domestic terrorist cell invaded from New England, thus barring its entry as a slave state, despite the fact that all of the pioneers and founders of the territory were from MO, itself founded by Kentuckians, as they were by Virginians in a straight line west (where does Yankeeland fit in this?). I think that it doesn't make sense also, to conceive of the South in only its eastern context, in the modern era (especially the US Census Bureau's "rounded edge" sort of inexact groupings). You know, William Walker from TN about conquered himself a few Latin American republics, including Sonora and Baja California, around the same time as the Mexican War...but we're all supposed to pretend that was something we should sweep under the rug (Walker and Texan war with Mexico, as much as the Mormon Deseret Utah considered a Liberal embarrassment), all the while praising the Bear Flag Republic, or limit our conception of the South to the Alamo, because some have this notion that the South only means slavery and just barely getting past the Bayou. Cowboys (TX, again!) and Indians (OK, again!) are the Western extent, especially with the Apache in the Gadsden Purchase, original boundaries of AZ, before the USA version. AZ is the only entity which began its life as a Confederate land, very much so because of Walker's excursions in northwest Mexico (oh no, George Bush's middle name is Walker--conspiracy!). Southerners moving west have had to put up with San Diego, Bakersfield and Los Angeles or SoCal in general, but their main aim was the Peninsula and Gulf, rather than be lumped in with the Forty-Niners, most of whom were German immigrants sponsored by Yankee Free Soilers, who believed in a double edged sword of Aryanism (primalism, getting "back to nature" stuff) and the Communist Manifesto, on par with the failed 1848 Revolutions of Europe, exported down South as a new test ground for Republicommunism.
So we all accept the fact that the old CSA lost and was reincorporated to the USA, right, as much as the previous issue of the "Perpetual Union" was an evolution of the "Articles of Confederation", etc? (compare the Yankee colonies of 1620 as a continuation of English Jamestown [1607] in the same sequentialist, progressive model) OK then, well, we can accept the breadth and expanse of Southern Americana as a significant subset (or even central to American identity, of which New England's philo-Dutch/Deutsch culture is only a sidebar that appended itself to the main) which is inaccurately portrayed in the regionalization of the South (because the Yankee subculture enjoys kicking the South when it's down), very much influenced by exclusivist stererotyping which typecasts Southerners as the "Other", like the exiled Mormons I wrote above in one comment. This pervasive Yankee, triumphalist bias (How much hate do we afford them? Anti-Mormon, anti-Southern, anti-Catholic...when is enough, enough?) certainly skews much of the coverage here on the boundaries and success of the Confederacy, which, of course, is circular as it therefore misrepresents the current South. Where did all those Southerners go, who left the East and went West? Come on, don't pretend they ceased to exist! That would be like saying the Yankee connections in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Honolulu don't exist either...the same as denying the Yankee origins of Salt Lake--what a Yankee embarrassment, as one faction goes into Mormonism and the other chooses Unitarianism--the only religious branch has to leave their homes in the Mormon Trail of Tears, at the murderous hate of the secularists who forced themselves in Kansas. Surely, the "free love" movement began with the Yankee Mormons and spilled over to California through whorehouses in Nevada. Surely we can see the east-west parallelism here, with southern and northern currents of population transfer in Manifest Destiny. Much of that Chesapeake planter ego, pomp and wealthy popularity attitude went into Hollywood, which makes sense, considering the Upper South is closer in trajectory to SoCal than the backwoods country folks, who left Appalachia for the Rockies, not having left the Atlantic for the Pacific because they weren't rich enough for oceanfront property. Then again, this explains why SoCal had a pro-slavery senator when CA was admitted to the Union. It was only as important as slavery in DC, MD, DE or WV. Again, if we are to accept that WV was a Union state, then KS should be accepted as a Southern territory, if not a Southern state. I would rather simply draw the line between secession conventions in the states and territories, along the lines above, between Arlington and DC, all the way to betwixt AZ and NM. The lines of secession, not conquest, should represent popular sovereignty (wishes of the people) rather than the results of military conflict. E.G. WV was never Confederate because its birth was defined in opposition to secessionist VA. AZ's birth was defined in opposition to NM. Perhaps the CSA's invasion of NM was as against popular sovereignty as was the Yankee invasion of Kansas, since the locals had already decided a course of action by that point, by non-alignment in the case of Southern railroad interests, preferring to put up with Yankee government in western expansionism.
Still, the story needs telling and the Damn Yanks just find nothing but the truth and the whole truth, so help them, (God?) to be too embarrassing. The whole truth, is accepting that Kansas was the very cause of the war (hot off the saddles in the Utah War), since the Yanks filibustered any further expansion of a Southern stripe by that time, interfering simply in the name of self-righteousness. I'm sure there were no human rights violations committed by Brown or Sherman...heroes? Whatever! Either it is between two cold blooded nations (real war?), or fratricidal brethren (civil war?) where the fratricides are considered models of decency. Utter nonsense! Oh, slavery, that "peculiar institution"...St. Paul never objected to it (nor did the Hebrews, Greeks and Romans which were the model of our Neoclassical country), for the Yankee fundamentalists who shoved their Baptists down South in Reconstruction to convert the "evil Popish" Episcopalians and Catholics to their will. Any opposition to the truth on these matters is all a giant fairytale that I'm supposed to take as Gospel, through the Yankee public school system, founded by Calvinists in opposition to parochial schools which were the colonial model, even in New England (remember every school was Church funded and every school had big Bibles that class dunces had to hold while standing in the middle of the room for the rest of class?). Yankees like to scream about the separation of Church and State, but conduct both politics and "spirituality" in their meetinghouses. I really wish I didn't have to rant just now, but I hope my points are clear and that there needs to be a WP:BIAS project to handle this severe kind of historical possessionism which the Yanks foist into "acceptable and unacceptable" perceptions of Americana. Not all of us are gung-ho for liberal fanaticism, whether it's Calvinistic or Unitarian and secular humanist. Please, all you good old boys out there, increase the accuracy and scope of detail on the Southern situation, as the Yanks insist on making it as minimalist as possible, reductionism ad infinitum, to present decades upon decades of discontent and differences to the bonds of Africans, even though they themselves sold these Africans to Southerners after coming to ports in Boston, Newport, New York, Philadelphia and elsewhere, all for their own profit, built on Yankee shipyards...
Please don't delete this, even though I've had a tendency to ramble and rant. You see my specific points raised, especially in regard to the borders of the Confederacy from the Potomac to the Colorado, the push for obscurity in regards to coverage of CSA affairs by Yankee spin and the whole cloud overhead when anybody approaches the South without Jacobin (the world's first Terrorists, in France) screams of "racist slavers", foaming at the mouth hatred for Southerners (why should Southerners, already beaten, bash themselves? Isn't there a law against self-incrimination in connection to our Miranda Rights?). I wasn't born in the South, but I have learnt to accept it for what it is and the people there are nothing like the straw men put up in Yankee (ahem health tonic and wooden nutmeg salesmen--false advertising?) versions of Americana. To be honest, I grew up with a mixed family of English and Irish immigrants, Yankees and Southerners and French Canadians and now there are even Italians, Poles...Africans ("gasp") involved on the edges. You can see what little capacity I have for following the dyed in the wool WASP (Howard Dean, etc) Republican propaganda which still believes in early 20th century eugenics (Planned Parenthood), even after having switched parties to support people like Obama, hoping to start a race war instead of somebody less polarizing. With all the mix in my family situation, there is absolutely no way anybody will win an argument here with some kind of Obama craze on "tolerance", comparable to what Jimmy Carter just said in the news, that racist intolerance is the cause of opposition to Obama. So sad Jimmy and the Clintons, giving in to rabid Yankee propagandas and being used as tools, while I hold to the old Jeffersonian and Jacksonian beliefs, not backwards Lincoln or even Reagan, the Schwarzenegger prototype.
The line of secession not only rules out New Mexico, because Arizona seceded from the Santa Fe government, but West Virginia likewise remained in the Union. Oklahoma's tribal reservations were all united in secession, even if they did not formally incorporate themselves into the Confederacy, so their position is similar to that of Kentucky and Missouri, having declared secession, but not integration to the Confederacy. It is worthwhile to note that both Kentucky and Missouri were added to the Confederate flag. I believe that these two are the only de facto and de jure border states, while Oklahoma was merely Indian Reservation territory and did not require integrated government, not required to pay taxes. West Virginia seems to be added primarily for sentimentality, as having been carved out of Virginia, a secessionist state. I reiterate that the border between Virginia and West Virginia is the same as that between Arizona and New Mexico, respectively. New Mexico is no more a part of Confederacy than West Virginia, based upon the principles of popular sovereignty, because each were held under siege by the Confederacy; Arizona and Virginia respectively. If New Mexico and West Virginia were considered Confederate, then by that analogy, all of the Confederacy itself would be Union. While battlefields may have been decisive in how the conditions were to be, always subject to fluctuation through the course of the War, it is the voting process which defines the true differences between the Confederates and Unionists.
Now, as to the borders of slavery, this usually leaves out mention that Kansas was a slave territory if not a slave state, whereas Los Angeleno Southern California permitted a pro-slavery legislator, while San Franciscan Northern California had an abolitionist legislator. Obviously, this had been among the causes of the War, but these states were not in any way connected to slavery concurrent to the War, as Delaware, Maryland, DC and West Virginia were. Oh, that brings up the main point of West Virginia. West Virginia was merely a slave state in the Union, not a state of its own within the Confederacy. In any case, the Potomac and Colorado rivers represent the respective east and west water boundaries of the Confederacy and Union, no matter what some say about the Mason-Dixon Line. If one designates slave territories or states into the Confederacy or South, then that doesn't have an easily definable limit, due to the fact that most states up until the War had slavery at one time or another. Oh right, so too did the original states have a confederate government rather than federalism. Re: Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Since slavery is only an economic strategy, it is not worthwhile a marker of differences between the parts of America on a governmental or establishmentary basis. Consider the wage slave lifestyle for indentured servants living in employee housing and payroll benefits of Yankee economy. What's the difference between a slave rebellion and a union strike? What's the difference between the Hartford Convention and that in South Carolina? Question: Who started the War? Answer: John Brown.
Kereta khusus merokok biasanya dirangkaikan di salah satu ujung kereta sehingga penumpang dapat berpindah melalui kereta lain dan kereta tidur untuk mencapai kereta makan tanpa khawatir terpapar asap. Kereta khusus penumpang merokok adalah jenis kereta penumpang yang dirancang untuk penumpang yang hendak merokok di dalam kereta, tetapi dilarang di bagian lain dari kereta api penumpang. Selama akhir abad ke-19, ketika sangat sedikit wanita yang merokok, layanan kereta api penumpang Amerika Utara …
Questa voce sull'argomento scrittori austriaci è solo un abbozzo. Contribuisci a migliorarla secondo le convenzioni di Wikipedia. Hermann Bahr (1891) Hermann Bahr, all'anagrafe Hermann Anastas Bahr (Linz, 19 luglio 1863 – Monaco di Baviera, 15 gennaio 1934), è stato uno scrittore, commediografo e critico teatrale austriaco. Indice 1 Biografia 2 Opere 3 Filmografia 4 Altri progetti 5 Collegamenti esterni Biografia Saggista e abile commediografo, tra le sue opere più celebri si ricordano…
1946 film by William H. Pine Swamp FireDirected byWilliam H. PineScreenplay byDaniel Mainwaring(as Geoffrey Homes)Produced byL.B. MermanStarringJohnny WeissmullerCinematographyFred Jackman, Jr.Edited byHenry AdamsMusic byRudy SchragerProductioncompanyPine-Thomas ProductionsDistributed byParamount PicturesRelease dates August 24, 1946 (1946-08-24) (New York City) September 6, 1946 (1946-09-06) (United States) Running time69 minutesCountryUnited StatesLanguage…
Tercis-les-Bains Gemeente in Frankrijk Situering Regio Nouvelle-Aquitaine Departement Landes (40) Arrondissement Dax Kanton Dax-1 Coördinaten 43° 40′ NB, 1° 6′ WL Algemeen Oppervlakte 10,19 km² Inwoners (1 januari 2020) 1.283[1] (126 inw./km²) Hoogte 2 - 62 m Overig Postcode 40180 INSEE-code 40314 Portaal Frankrijk Tercis-les-Bains is een gemeente in het Franse departement Landes (regio Nouvelle-Aquitaine). De plaats maakt deel uit van het arrondissement Dax…
Pour les articles homonymes, voir Rollot. RollotPays d’origine FranceRégion Picardie Marchélepot (Somme)Lait vachePâte molle à croûte lavéeAppellation non protégéemodifier - modifier le code - modifier Wikidata Rollot est une appellation d'origine désignant un fromage fabriqué en Picardie, originaire du village de Rollot, au sud-est du département de la Somme, en France. Historique C'est du XVIe siècle que la première mention écrite du fromage de Rollot apparaît dans les baux et…
vde Deputados estaduais do Rio Grande do Sul - 21.ª legislatura (1891 — 1893) Carlos Barbosa Gonçalves Frederico Bastos José Carlos Pinto Júnior Antônio Soares de Barcelos Antunes Ribas Álvaro Batista Aureliano Pinto Barbosa Artur Homem de Carvalho Aparício Mariense da Silva Alfredo Clemente Pinto Caetano Inácio da Silva Carlos Thompson Flores Cândido Machado da Silveira Epaminondas Piratinino de Almeida Evaristo Teixeira do Amaral Júnior Setembrino de Carvalho Francisco de Paula Ale…
«The Socratic method» Episodio de House M. D. House, como Sócrates, busca la verdad mediante diálogos irónicos.Título traducido « El método socrático Método socrático(Otros países) Esquizofrenia»Episodio n.º Temporada 1Episodio HOU 106Dirigido por Peter MedakEscrito por John MankiewiczGuion por John MankiewiczCód. de producción HOU-106Emisión 21 de diciembre de 2004Diagnóstico Enfermedad de Wilson (acumulación excesiva de cobre en el organismo). Error en el diagnóstico a…
Isla Balambangan Pulau BalambanganUbicación geográficaCoordenadas 7°15′49″N 116°53′21″E / 7.26361111, 116.88916667Ubicación administrativaPaís MalasiaDivisión SabahEstado SabahCaracterísticas generalesSuperficie 79 km²Longitud 24 kmAnchura máxima 7 kmPunto más alto ()PoblaciónCapital no tienePoblación 100 hab. ()[editar datos en Wikidata] Isla Balambangan (en malayo: Pulau Balambangan[1]) es el nombre de una is…
Karlie Flamingo ЛоготипТип NVГалузь імпорт та експорт споживчих товарівЗасновано 1972 Засновник(и) Рене ван ТенделоШтаб-квартира Hagelberg 14, 2440 Єл, БельгіяПродукція товари та аксесуари для домашніх тваринСпівробітники 200www.karlie-flamingo.com Karlie Flamingo NV — торговельна марка, під якою міжна…
Садовський Леонід ВікторовичНародився 1 серпня 1949(1949-08-01)Єнакієве, Сталінська область, Українська РСР, СРСРПомер 16 листопада 2020(2020-11-16) (71 рік)Харків, УкраїнаКраїна СРСР УкраїнаДіяльність театральний режисер, педагогAlma mater Харківський державний інститут мистецтв і
Peta infrastruktur dan tata guna lahan di Komune Combs-la-Ville. = Kawasan perkotaan = Lahan subur = Padang rumput = Lahan pertanaman campuran = Hutan = Vegetasi perdu = Lahan basah = Anak sungaiCombs-la-VilleNegaraPrancisArondisemenMelunKantonCombs-la-VilleAntarkomuneSénartPemerintahan • Wali kota (2008-2014) Guy Geoffroy • Populasi122.114Kode INSEE/pos77122 / 2 Population sans doubles comptes: penghitungan tunggal pe…
Occupied Palestinian territory in the Middle East For other uses, see Palestinian territories (disambiguation). Palestinian territoriesالأراضي الفلسطينيةal-Arāḍī al-FilasṭīniyyaPalestinian territories according to a Green Line based definitionLargest citiesGazaHebronNablusKhan YunisEast Jerusalem[note 1]LanguagesArabicHebrewEnglishEthnic groups PalestiniansJewsSamaritansDemonym(s)PalestiniansIsraeli/Jewish settlersArea • Total6,220 km2 (2,400…
Politics of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Constitution Human rights Government President (list) Félix Tshisekedi Government Prime Minister (list) Sama Lukonde Cabinet (current cabinet) Parliament Senate President National Assembly President Judiciary Constitutional Court Court of Cassation Council of State Administrative divisions Provinces (governors) TerritoriesCities SectorsChiefdomsCommunes Elections Recent and upcoming elections General: 20182023 Senate: 20072019 Gubernatorial: 2016…
Bagian dari seri mengenai Sejarah Rusia Bangsa TatarVolga Bulgaria (abad VII-XIII) Bangsa TurkKekhaganan Khazar (abad VII-X) Bangsa Rus Kekhanan Rus' (abad VIII-IX) Pendudukan Viking Rus Kiev (abad IX-XII) Vladimir-Suzdal (abad XII-XIV) Republik Novgorod (abad XII-XV) Bangsa Mongol Invasi Mongol (antara 1220–1240) Gerombolan Emas (1240-an–1502) Abad Pertengahan AkhirKadipaten Agung Moskwa (1340–1547) Era modern Ketsaran Rusia (1547–1721) Kekaisaran Rusia (1721–1917) Pemerintahan Sement…
هذه مقالة غير مراجعة. ينبغي أن يزال هذا القالب بعد أن يراجعها محرر مغاير للذي أنشأها؛ إذا لزم الأمر فيجب أن توسم المقالة بقوالب الصيانة المناسبة. يمكن أيضاً تقديم طلب لمراجعة المقالة في الصفحة المخصصة لذلك. (فبراير 2022) هذه المقالة تحتاج للمزيد من الوصلات للمقالات الأخرى للمس
Drs.Kristiarto LegowoKristiaro Legowo, 2020Duta Besar Indonesia untuk Australia ke-23Masa jabatan13 Maret 2017 – Oktober 2021PresidenJoko WidodoPendahuluNadjib Riphat KesoemaPenggantiSiswo PramonoDuta Besar Indonesia untuk FilipinaMasa jabatan21 Januari 2010 – 14 Februari 2014PresidenSusilo Bambang YudhoyonoPendahuluIrzan TandjungPenggantiJohny Lumintang Informasi pribadiLahirYohanes Kristiarto Soeryo Legowo27 Desember 1962 (umur 60)Magelang, Jawa TengahSuami/istri…
アンドリュー・アトキンソン・ハンフリーズAndrew Atkinson Humphreys アンドリュー・アトキンソン・ハンフリーズ将軍渾名 Old Goggle Eyes(年取ったギョロ目)生誕 1810年11月2日ペンシルベニア州フィラデルフィア死没 1883年12月27日(満73歳没)ワシントンD.C.所属組織 アメリカ合衆国陸軍軍歴 1831年-1879年最終階級 少将指揮 第2軍団、アメリカ陸軍工兵司令部戦闘 セミノール戦争南…
Relaciones España-Unión Soviética España Unión Soviética [editar datos en Wikidata] Las Relaciones España-Unión Soviética se refiere a las relaciones bilaterales entre la extinta Unión Soviética y España. Las relaciones españolas con la URSS comenzaron en 1933 y terminaron poco antes de acabar la Guerra Civil española, en 1939, cuando el nuevo Gobierno español y la URSS rompieron todas sus relaciones diplomátic…
Untuk kegunaan lain, lihat Salisbury. Salisbury Salisbury ialah sebuah kota di bagian selatan Inggris. Lokasi Salisbury amat dekat ke berbagai sungai yang penting. Salisbury mempunyai sebuah katedral - suatu jenis gereja Kristen - yang amat spesial karena memiliki 4 salinan Magna Carta. Salisbury berpenduduk 45.000 jiwa. Salisbury terletak dekat Stonehenge.[1] Rujukan ^ http://www.visitsalisbury.com/ Wikimedia Commons memiliki media mengenai Salisbury. Artikel bertopik geografi atau temp…
1987 studio album by Pat Metheny GroupStill Life (Talking)Studio album by Pat Metheny GroupReleasedJuly 7, 1987 (1987-07-07)RecordedMarch–April 1987StudioThe Power Station, New York CityGenre Jazz jazz fusion Latin jazz avant garde Length42:30LabelGeffenProducerPat MethenyPat Metheny chronology Song X(1986) Still Life (Talking)(1987) Letter from Home(1989) Professional ratingsReview scoresSourceRatingAllMusic[1]The Encyclopedia of Popular Music[2]The Peng…
Lokasi Pengunjung: 3.145.184.110