Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive1

Poor article
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. &mdash; 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. 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)
 * 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. &mdash; 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)

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. 12:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Gone. With the Wind, perhaps.   14:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

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 ] 21:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 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. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 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)

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. Godot Chúc mừng năm mới  18:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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 ) 19:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

"White Supremacist"
As far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, slavery was not based on racism, but racism was the result of slavery. Black people were slaves because it was much more economically viable to use them as opposed to natives or white people, and racism evolved shortly after slavery was abolished to "punish" the freed black slaves.

Please correct me if I am wrong, as this can be completely off. This is what I learned in my class on American History, and my teacher was certainly no neo-Confederate. Kentuckyball (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You're somewhat right, at least if by racism you mean the sort of "scientific racism" described in the RW article on racialism, although such racist attitudes and their "non-scientific" precursors were clearly present well before the abolition of slavery. "Scientific racism" certainly didn't "[evolve] shortly after slavery was abolished to "punish" the freed black slaves", as racialist concepts were already in vogue before the Civil War.
 * I don't buy the economic argument as blacks and whites alike died in copious numbers due to tropical diseases in the economically most important plantations of the early period of slavery, the "sugar islands" of the Caribbean. It was there that the agrarian slave economy and triangular trade pattern was established and it was from there that it spread into such products as tobacco and cotton.
 * Instead, I'd contend that the lack of white slaves was mainly due to culture and tradition: Slavery had virtually disappeared in Europe due to the ban on enslaving fellow Christians and enslaving black people was an easy way of getting "certifiably non-Christian" slaves with the added benefit of being easily able to distinguish slaves and masters. Furthermore, it could be justified on the grounds of the sort of "cultural racism" that viewed blacks and native Americans as savages (along with a host of other "savage races") who ought to be subjected to proper Christian (i.e. in practice white) mastery for the good of their cultural and spiritual development. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Native Americans were not subject to slavery on the same scale as Africans were, it isn't even a close call. In fact, I believe there are a few isolated examples of natives owning slaves. Then again, there were also isolated examples of Africans owning slaves as well.
 * While it is true that both Africans and Europeans died in copious amounts due to tropical diseases, Africans were much more immune to diseases such as malaria in comparison to Europeans. Thus, it would be more viable to have African slaves working all day in the fields while the Europeans stay indoors. Kentuckyball (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well OF COURSE they weren't as subject to slavery because the government mostly just killed them off. By the same argument, jews in Hitler's Germany didn't have to endure the generations long legacy of slavery (even if some were indeed enslaved). Burkean (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that there was some sort of Indian genocide? There never was any large scale plan to exterminate Native Americans that is even remotely comparable to the Holocaust. And Native Americans were indeed enslaved by the Spanish, the Portuguese and indeed a lot of other Europeans. However, given the low population of Native Americans following the "Columbian Exchange" and the lower price of African slaves, they were replaced in most places. Slavery in the US is unique mostly insofar as slaves were actually mostly born into slavery as opposed to "imported" and then worked to death as was the case in many cases in Brazil or the Caribbean. Pizzameister (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that's why they're so few of them now. Genocide. Incidentally, though I deplore what happened, I'm also against the PC garbage that tries to claim that the natives had a right to kill white women and children because hey, mother earth is pissed off. I also think it was a little hypocritical on their part to act like the earth couldn't be owned but at the same time, they would kill whitey for encroaching on what they felt was theirs. When you say it belongs to the mother, it's the same as killing someone in the name of god when you're really just killing someone in the name of yourself. Nevertheless, if you don't think there was an attempt to wipe out the native population, then why are there so few of them? And I would never make a direct comparison between the Indian and Jew situation. What happened to the jew was far more brutal and, though I do have my issues with Judaism and various aspects of Jewish culture, they are completely blameless in that regard whereas the Indian tribes were not. And yes, even if there was an Indian genocide (there was) it was nothing like the scale of the holocaust. The comparison was only made in regard to the fact that in neither case was there much slavery, so just as one could say that Indians were not subject to slavery nearly as much as blacks, they could also say that Jews in Germany were not subject to slavery nearly as much as blacks either. In other words, it is a point devoid of meaning.Burkean (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Lee didn't want CSA monuments
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments/ 00:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Completely Awful
I see it's quoted as such, "War to Preserve Slavery", when in reality it was a war to separate from the Union. Lincoln made the excuse that it was to free the slaves much later on. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves of the south that left the Union and left slavery intact in border states that hadn't. So for the South it was looked upon as a fight for independence from the Union and not a war to preserve slavery. 02:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why did they separate from the Union? Because of slavery. South Carolina saw Lincoln elected and seceded in fears that Lincoln will take away their slaves. It's not accurate to claim it's merely independence, a.k.a. states' rights. 04:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

"State's Rights"
States Rights is a convenient excuse for revisionist history, until you bring up the. Suddenly it becomes hypocritical all of a sudden, I wonder why.... (hint: No I don't). — Oxyaena   Harass  07:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)