Talk:Confederate States of America

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics USA.svg

This United States history related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately.

This article is of MID importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

To be honest, this is an extremely poor article which doesn't bother to explore the myriad causes which led to the American Civil War. Either try to do it properly, or don't do it at all. — Unsigned, by: 86.40.215.72 / talk / contribs

Thank you for your helpful feed back, now I can see exactly where we were going wrong. - π 03:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The Bon could edit it up to scratch itself of course, but would that be too much like being constructive? 03:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
Well, we could go into detail about the causes of the war - societal, economic, cultural, and of course the whole slavery thing - and, conceivably, fill up several articles with stuff about just that without even talking about the war itself. However, this isn't a history website. I Eat Glue (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
No, this evidently is neither a history website or a website that's acquainted with history. But nevertheless, one can be witty, snarky, and historically accurate without displaying high levels of historical gullibility and extreme ignorance. That is all. — Unsigned, by: 86.40.215.72 / talk / contribs 14:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
BoN, I think anyone who is really interested in the American Civil War can find plenty of info over at Wikipedia. This is more like a snarky supplement. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
That would be a valid point to make if the article was actually funny. As it isn't, I can only assume that it is the work of some sexually frustrated 15 year old addicted to midget porn. 86.40.215.72 (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Accomplishments

This section seems to be an extremely vague account of a battle that took place at an undisclosed location sometime in early July in an unnamed year. Apparently the results were rather predictable.

This doesn't really tell us much about the Confederate States (or anything else). It should probably be in the American Civil War article rather than here, & be at least a little bit more specific. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Gone. With the Wind, perhaps. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom, not Tyranny

Afraid not, use logic and skepticism!

One of the most troublesome Union myths is the myth of Confederate slavery. It was true that most Southerns AND NORTHERNS were racist slave-owners. That doesn't mean he fought to end slavery. In fact, he is a lot like Gaddafi.

1. Both don't like the government's power to be challenged. Abe didn't like people to secede, Gaddafi doesn't like anti-government protesters. 2. Both put the blame on something else Abe blamed the Confederate States of America on slavery, Kadafi puts the blame on Al-Qaeda drugging the Libyan people.

He also didn't like the "troublesome presence of free negros" while Robert E. Lee didn't like slavery for its effect on BOTH whites and African-Americans[1] Colbert|Fan ... of libertarians? 21:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] This article has no citations

And it really, really needs citations. We can't claim that the CSA was an authoritarian plutocracy without citing some history books. It may behoove us to stick it to the libertarians and neo-confederates, but we can't just make stuff up.--"Shut up, Brx." 06:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

[1] Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't make any of the claims in the article. Why should I be the one to back them up?--"Shut up, Brx." 14:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You don't want to fix the article up to deal with things you know are made up? There's some books. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know it's made-up. I just know that lines like in practice the Confederacy was repressive and authoritarian, with almost all political power held by the plantation-owning plutocracy and much of the country under strict martial law really need citations. I'm not a civil war scholar, nor am I a neo-confederate, or a Confederacy apologist. This article makes bold claims without backing them up, and that's a bad thing--"Shut up, Brx." 17:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] So, what exactly is the point of this article?

Are we talking about links from this confederacy to attitudes about, say, politics, racism, women, poverty, new secession movements, etc? Cause as it stands right now, it seems just to be an attempt at some encyclopedia entry on the confederacy. a bad entry. I would happily add something, to make it a decent article, if i knew what angle we might take on it, to make it at all mission worthy. Green mowse.pngGodot Chúc mừng năm mới 18:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Domestic passports

Papers, Please! From "Disunion". Freedom of movement was restricted, even for CSA citizens. That's... pretty authoritarian. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock )Moderator 19:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Winston/Nickajack

So... it looks like these areas might nit have actually declared independence after all, save in stories I was told as a child, so much as they put up some mostly civil resistance (and voted against the initial secession of AL). PacWalker 03:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support