Talk:Confederate States of America

Map

Why is Texas so small?

Why is Oklahoma so huge?

Why has the Territory of Arizona been omitted?

---

Main Discussion

I think calling the Confederacy a "nation" is fraught with all sorts of implications, so I changed it back to "government", although perhaps a better phrasing is in order than that. The problem is that the Union considered the Confederacy nothing more than rebelling states against the United States, and not a separate "nation" in any sense whatsoever. A "nation" is generally construed as more than just a government, but a people with a common character and identity (and the word "nation" can be used in all sorts of non-political contexts--Nation of Islam, and so forth). In fact, in the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln made a point of using the word "nation" to describe the entire United States, including the South. soulpatch

--

Removed (ironically, this was placed in its "Bill of Rights"-- since ownership of slaves was considered part of the "right to own private property" by white men)

1: The "ironically" prelude violates NPOV. Consider thet a writer with a different POV could substitute "properly" for "ironically".

2: The above text is misleading in implying that there was a "Confederate Bill of Rights". While Article I Section 9 of the CoCSA resembles the BOR, there are other BOR-like restrictions peppered throughout the CoCSA.

I haven't heard of the reenslavement near the end of the war, very interested in that. What is the source? If we can get a date of the decree it would go well in the date section down below but I don't think it belongs in the section about the Confederate constitution. The main focus of the paragraph is the constitution and the gear switch is sort of jarring.Ark30inf 00:25, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Putting text here until we can get a source. I can't find a quick source on Google. "In the last days of the Confederacy, all free blacks were decreed to be enslaved." Probably should get date as well so it can go in date section instead of section on the form of government.Ark30inf 00:47, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thereference is Jefferson Davis' An Address to the People of the Free States by the President of the Southern Confederacy which came out on January 5th 1863: "On and after February 22, 1863 all free negroes within the limits of the Southern Confederacy shall be placed on the slave status, and be deemd to be chattels, they and their issue for ever." So it was not so much towards the end of the war, but inresponse to Lincoln's speech of partial emancipation. It shows that the form of government was explicitly racist - Davis says his aim was the restoration of the old Union with "slavery nationally declared to be the proper condition of all of Africab descent". Harry Potter 01:50, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If you want to put the date of the address and description in the date section then I can't complain. But the reference to the speech doesn't belong in a section about what is in the confederate constitution.Ark30inf 02:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've been searching Google and Altavista for "slavery nationally declared to be" and "they and their issue forever" and the speech title and can't locate it. Can you provide a link. I see Jefferson Davis's reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation in the "complete and crowning proof" transmission to the Confederate Congress on 12 Jan 1863 but it doesn't seem to contain these phrases.Ark30inf 02:26, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I found a message on a Yahoo message board referencing this as a broadside published in Richmond with this as a source.

-- please leave this source on the talk page in case the 'reenslavement speech' date is questioned again --

Source: Broadside, Jefferson Davis Papers, University Library,

Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA. This is printed in

Ervin L. Jordan, _Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War

Virginia,_ University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 1995,

Appendix C, pages 319-320.

So the presence of this in the date section is satisfactory to me.*:Ark30inf 02:34, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

There is a little anomaly here. In Davis' original address he writes: "While I would not ignore the conservative policy of the Slave States, namely that a Federal Government cannot without, violating the fundamental principles of a Constitution, interfere with the internal policy of several states, since, however, Abraham lincoln has seen fit to ignore the Constitution he has solemnly sworn to support, it ought not to be considered polemically or politically improper in me to vindicate the position which has been at an early day of this Southern republic, assumed by the Confederacy, namely, that slavery is the corner stone of a Western republic." So perhaps Davis' original intention was over-ruled by conservatives who did consider his behaviou improper.???Harry Potter 05:00, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Davis was infuriated by the Emancipation Proclamation, probably because he realized he had just lost all hope for foreign recongition and thus the war. All of his reactions to it were uncharacteristically over the top, he was generally a very exacting and quiet man, almost to a fault. But as for actually implementing such a policy, he would have had to get the Confederate Congress to back him. Davis had a hard time getting them to back him on anything. And even if they had backed him, they were about the most ineffective body ever elected to anything.Ark30inf 16:57, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I cannot disagree with you. However what I find more poignant is the way Davis' response was to over-ride states rights which was, at one level, the causa belli. Fronm what you say, the confederacy was doomed in that its central political making organs were no taken seriously, and did not take themselves seriously. And of course to do so would be to usurp states rights by making decisions binding. Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia unfortunately only reviews the situation in Virginia. Perhaps a broader portrayal of the situation across the Confederacy would offer us more evidence to consider when working out the political questions which faced free African Americans resident in confederate states during the civil war.Harry Potter 12:29, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I am concerned with the bias and possible inaccuracy in the wording in the time line for the line . . . . "March 13, 1865 - Faced with severe manpower shortages the CSA reluctantly agreed to use African American troops." The fact is that they agreed to use African troops, whether is was "reluctantly" is an editorial call, and perhaps a bad one in my mind. For reference, Robert E. Lee, who was in fact the CSA, enthusiastically wanted black troops. Please read his letter at Arming Slaves (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/LettersAndrewHunter.htm) to Andrew Hunter. Lee is almost begging for slaves, and shows NO bias against blacks fighting along side his white troops. I would believe that the southern slave owners would be very much against it, but they were not the CSA. I did not edit the article, but think the wording should be tweeked on this one line, as it is a pretty clear NPOV violation. Vic

---

What does "President of Congress" mean? There were two Houses in the Confederate Congress, surely he wasn't President of both? RickK 02:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Move here

resulting a relatively moderate founding document. This moderation came from the commonly accepted notion in the Southern states that slavery had become obsolete, while the explicit protection of slavery allowed each state to decide for itself a timetable for phasing out slavery into more modern labor.

Article I - Section IX-3 says

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

And it's unclear from the context that this restriction applies only to the Confederate Congress.

Can someone cite something that shows that the Confederacy did have the intention of allowing states to ban slavery.

Roadrunner 06:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Considering the emphasis the CSA placed on state's right, I think it can be safely assumed that they simply did not think the rights included in the constitution could be binding for the states as well. This is even clearer to me when you consider that even in the USA this is a newer development, and much was brought forth against it. How much more controversial (or rather unacceptable) must it have seemed to the Southern states.--Laca 01:58, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Confederacy is not only a word for "Confederate Stateds of America". It's also word for organisation of people (in Poland), kind of government etc.. Shouldn't confederacy be a disambiguation page?! Szopen 06:46, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Capital-C "Confederacy" usually means the CSA, but we don't have the ability to have it be different from "confederacy", and it's not that hard to fix the links. Stan 16:05, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What is wrong with the flag images they are black instead of white

---

This is speculation with regard to the banning of the slave trade in the Confederate constitution.

This provision ensured the practice of slave labor would not expand, and would encourage states to actively pursue transition to a modern labor force.

Its not clear that it wouldn't cause slave labor not to expand. People were actively talking about invading Cuba and the Carribean.

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages! jengod 22:42, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Country? 2 Conservative rule reestablished? 3 Nation Template 4 Confederate motto 5 Country? 6 Conservative rule reestablished? 7 Nation Template 8 Confederate motto 9 "Recognized by Saxe-Coburg and Gotha but no other countries." 10 ==Map== 11 Map 12 Main Discussion 13 Does the CSA still exist as a Country? 14 Saxe-Coburg and Gotha 15 Map Inaccuracy 16 Currency 17 Manifestations after collapse of Confederacy 18 Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, again 19 DELAWARE - 1860 Census 20 Legality of the secession by CSA members 20.1 More on Secession 21 Secession/Declared secession

Country?

I've noticed that this page is included in the Former Country category, and I wonder whether that is really accurate. For one, I believe it was the official policy of the Union that the confederate states had never seceded, rather there were ongoing insurrections in those states. Also, I am not aware of any major power which recognized the South as a sovereign state. By what criteria do we consider the confederacy a former country? Mackensen 00:13, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I partly started this, by reverting Mackensen's removal of the categorisation. I don't know a huge amount about the US Civil War and the Reconstruction (I'm a European) but I would certainly have considered that the CSA were a state–actor. It functioned as a country in many ways that smaller countries do not (it had an independent head of state, broadly unlike Andorra or even Canada, after a fashion; it certainly had more territory than the Vatican City; it made war, which used to be considered something that only states could do; it held democratic elections, I think). That it was not recognised by the USA is hardly surprising, but I certainly think people would expect to find the CSA in Category:Former countries. — OwenBlacker 00:30, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think the prevailing viewpoint in the USA would be that the Confederacy was a portion of the USA in the state of rebellion. Only a diehard southerner would claim that it was a true country. Pollinator 03:14, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

It was sovereign within its territory, and intended to remain so permanently; had its own government departments, sent out diplomats, etc. Britain did declare neutrality in the conflict, thereby officially recognizing the Confederates as a belligerent power (and angering the Northerners in so doing). One could argue technicalities, but I think there are plenty of Northerners who have no problem calling the CSA a country. Stan 04:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Conservative rule reestablished?

What does "Conservative rule reestablished" mean? A google search mostly turned up other sites that were ripping off Wikipedia. Lkesteloot 21:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this makes little sense. I think it means the period at which the Reconstruction ended in the state with local politicians regaining control (immediately after the civil war, the Union imposed governors on the south, as allowing states to elect a governor who supported the side that had just lost the war was seen as a bad idea). However, calling this "conservative rule" is something I've never seen before, and usually it's called "local control", so I've changed it to this. Feel free to substitute if you can find a better or more canonical phrase. --Delirium 05:47, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

I added that. There was a chart/map SOMEWHERE, I can't find it anymore, but that it was the terminology used there. jengod 19:13, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Nation Template

Shouldn't this place have a nation template ("Name, capital, population", a map of the nation, etc)..Even if its not considered a "country" for NPOV reasons, even Taiwan follows this template. I think this article should as well. Comrade Tassadar 04:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Confederate motto

So, people keep seeming to change this motto. I've looked on Google and I frequently see very poor translations of it. I'll tell you why - they say "God will vindicate" and "God defends" and some such things. But this is incorrect, as Deo vindice is not a nominative phrase. It has no such word as "is" and no verb as such - rather, it is a phrase in the ablative- ablative of means if memory serves. So it's "With God our defender" or "With God as our defender" - from the words Deus and vindex. If it were "God vindicates" it would be Deus vindicabit and were it "God defends" it would be Deus defendit or vindicit.

• You are right about Deo. Vindice is harder to translate - I think Protector might be better than Defender -- or perhaps Vindicator or Champion or Deliverer or Justifier
  • vindico : to avenge, punish, liberate, deliver, protect
  • Vindicate (to justify, to avenge) has a remarkable etymon. Vindicius (aka Vindex) was a slave of the Vitelli, who informed the Senate of the conspiracy of the sons of Junius Brutus to restore Tarquin, for which service he was rewarded with liberty (Livy, ii. 5); hence the rod with which a slave was struck in manumission was called vindicta, a Vindicius rod (See Manumit ; and to set free was in Latin vindicare in libertatem. One way of settling disputes was to give the litigants two rods, which they crossed as if in fight, and the person whom the praetor vindicated broke the rod of his opponent. These rods were called vindiciae, and hence vindicate, meaning to “justify.” To avenge is simply to justify oneself by punishing the wrongdoer.
  • In addition, the motto, "Victoria Liberatis Vindex", is traditionally translated "Victory Vindicates Liberty
  • --JimWae 06:29, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
  • but http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederateseal.htm is a must see - it contains a speech by one of the eventual designers during a vote on what motto to have

    ".. in the selection of the word 'vindex,' which signifies an assenter, a defender, protector, deliverer, liberator, a mediator and a ruler or guardian. 'Vindex' also means an avenger or punisher.

    "... Under God as the asserter of our rights, the defender of our liberties, our protector against danger, our mediator, our ruler and guardian, and, as the avenger of our wrongs and the punisher of our crimes..."

  • Under God, Our Vindicator?
  • --JimWae 07:18, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

I think that "With God as our vindicator" is perfect. I'll change it right away

I think calling the Confederacy a "nation" is fraught with all sorts of implications, so I changed it back to "government", although perhaps a better phrasing is in order than that. The problem is that the Union considered the Confederacy nothing more than rebelling states against the United States, and not a separate "nation" in any sense whatsoever. A "nation" is generally construed as more than just a government, but a people with a common character and identity (and the word "nation" can be used in all sorts of non-political contexts--Nation of Islam, and so forth). In fact, in the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln made a point of using the word "nation" to describe the entire United States, including the South. soulpatch

--

Removed (ironically, this was placed in its "Bill of Rights"-- since ownership of slaves was considered part of the "right to own private property" by white men)

1: The "ironically" prelude violates NPOV. Consider thet a writer with a different POV could substitute "properly" for "ironically".

2: The above text is misleading in implying that there was a "Confederate Bill of Rights". While Article I Section 9 of the CoCSA resembles the BOR, there are other BOR-like restrictions peppered throughout the CoCSA.

I haven't heard of the reenslavement near the end of the war, very interested in that. What is the source? If we can get a date of the decree it would go well in the date section down below but I don't think it belongs in the section about the Confederate constitution. The main focus of the paragraph is the constitution and the gear switch is sort of jarring.Ark30inf 00:25, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Putting text here until we can get a source. I can't find a quick source on Google. "In the last days of the Confederacy, all free blacks were decreed to be enslaved." Probably should get date as well so it can go in date section instead of section on the form of government.Ark30inf 00:47, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thereference is Jefferson Davis' An Address to the People of the Free States by the President of the Southern Confederacy which came out on January 5th 1863: "On and after February 22, 1863 all free negroes within the limits of the Southern Confederacy shall be placed on the slave status, and be deemd to be chattels, they and their issue for ever." So it was not so much towards the end of the war, but inresponse to Lincoln's speech of partial emancipation. It shows that the form of government was explicitly racist - Davis says his aim was the restoration of the old Union with "slavery nationally declared to be the proper condition of all of Africab descent". Harry Potter 01:50, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If you want to put the date of the address and description in the date section then I can't complain. But the reference to the speech doesn't belong in a section about what is in the confederate constitution.Ark30inf 02:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've been searching Google and Altavista for "slavery nationally declared to be" and "they and their issue forever" and the speech title and can't locate it. Can you provide a link. I see Jefferson Davis's reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation in the "complete and crowning proof" transmission to the Confederate Congress on 12 Jan 1863 but it doesn't seem to contain these phrases.Ark30inf 02:26, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I found a message on a Yahoo message board referencing this as a broadside published in Richmond with this as a source.

-- please leave this source on the talk page in case the 'reenslavement speech' date is questioned again --

Source: Broadside, Jefferson Davis Papers, University Library,

Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA. This is printed in

Ervin L. Jordan, _Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War

Virginia,_ University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 1995,

Appendix C, pages 319-320.

So the presence of this in the date section is satisfactory to me.*:Ark30inf 02:34, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

There is a little anomaly here. In Davis' original address he writes: "While I would not ignore the conservative policy of the Slave States, namely that a Federal Government cannot without, violating the fundamental principles of a Constitution, interfere with the internal policy of several states, since, however, Abraham lincoln has seen fit to ignore the Constitution he has solemnly sworn to support, it ought not to be considered polemically or politically improper in me to vindicate the position which has been at an early day of this Southern republic, assumed by the Confederacy, namely, that slavery is the corner stone of a Western republic." So perhaps Davis' original intention was over-ruled by conservatives who did consider his behaviou improper.???Harry Potter 05:00, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Davis was infuriated by the Emancipation Proclamation, probably because he realized he had just lost all hope for foreign recongition and thus the war. All of his reactions to it were uncharacteristically over the top, he was generally a very exacting and quiet man, almost to a fault. But as for actually implementing such a policy, he would have had to get the Confederate Congress to back him. Davis had a hard time getting them to back him on anything. And even if they had backed him, they were about the most ineffective body ever elected to anything.Ark30inf 16:57, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I cannot disagree with you. However what I find more poignant is the way Davis' response was to over-ride states rights which was, at one level, the causa belli. Fronm what you say, the confederacy was doomed in that its central political making organs were no taken seriously, and did not take themselves seriously. And of course to do so would be to usurp states rights by making decisions binding. Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia unfortunately only reviews the situation in Virginia. Perhaps a broader portrayal of the situation across the Confederacy would offer us more evidence to consider when working out the political questions which faced free African Americans resident in confederate states during the civil war.Harry Potter 12:29, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I am concerned with the bias and possible inaccuracy in the wording in the time line for the line . . . . "March 13, 1865 - Faced with severe manpower shortages the CSA reluctantly agreed to use African American troops." The fact is that they agreed to use African troops, whether is was "reluctantly" is an editorial call, and perhaps a bad one in my mind. For reference, Robert E. Lee, who was in fact the CSA, enthusiastically wanted black troops. Please read his letter at Arming Slaves (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/LettersAndrewHunter.htm) to Andrew Hunter. Lee is almost begging for slaves, and shows NO bias against blacks fighting along side his white troops. I would believe that the southern slave owners would be very much against it, but they were not the CSA. I did not edit the article, but think the wording should be tweeked on this one line, as it is a pretty clear NPOV violation. Vic

---

What does "President of Congress" mean? There were two Houses in the Confederate Congress, surely he wasn't President of both? RickK 02:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Move here

resulting a relatively moderate founding document. This moderation came from the commonly accepted notion in the Southern states that slavery had become obsolete, while the explicit protection of slavery allowed each state to decide for itself a timetable for phasing out slavery into more modern labor.

Article I - Section IX-3 says

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

And it's unclear from the context that this restriction applies only to the Confederate Congress.

Can someone cite something that shows that the Confederacy did have the intention of allowing states to ban slavery.

Roadrunner 06:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Considering the emphasis the CSA placed on state's right, I think it can be safely assumed that they simply did not think the rights included in the constitution could be binding for the states as well. This is even clearer to me when you consider that even in the USA this is a newer development, and much was brought forth against it. How much more controversial (or rather unacceptable) must it have seemed to the Southern states.--Laca 01:58, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Confederacy is not only a word for "Confederate Stateds of America". It's also word for organisation of people (in Poland), kind of government etc.. Shouldn't confederacy be a disambiguation page?! Szopen 06:46, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Capital-C "Confederacy" usually means the CSA, but we don't have the ability to have it be different from "confederacy", and it's not that hard to fix the links. Stan 16:05, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What is wrong with the flag images they are black instead of white

---

This is speculation with regard to the banning of the slave trade in the Confederate constitution.

This provision ensured the practice of slave labor would not expand, and would encourage states to actively pursue transition to a modern labor force.

Its not clear that it wouldn't cause slave labor not to expand. People were actively talking about invading Cuba and the Carribean.

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages! jengod 22:42, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Country?

I've noticed that this page is included in the Former Country category, and I wonder whether that is really accurate. For one, I believe it was the official policy of the Union that the confederate states had never seceded, rather there were ongoing insurrections in those states. Also, I am not aware of any major power which recognized the South as a sovereign state. By what criteria do we consider the confederacy a former country? Mackensen 00:13, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I partly started this, by reverting Mackensen's removal of the categorisation. I don't know a huge amount about the US Civil War and the Reconstruction (I'm a European) but I would certainly have considered that the CSA were a state–actor. It functioned as a country in many ways that smaller countries do not (it had an independent head of state, broadly unlike Andorra or even Canada, after a fashion; it certainly had more territory than the Vatican City; it made war, which used to be considered something that only states could do; it held democratic elections, I think). That it was not recognised by the USA is hardly surprising, but I certainly think people would expect to find the CSA in Category:Former countries. — OwenBlacker 00:30, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think the prevailing viewpoint in the USA would be that the Confederacy was a portion of the USA in the state of rebellion. Only a diehard southerner would claim that it was a true country. Pollinator 03:14, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

It was sovereign within its territory, and intended to remain so permanently; had its own government departments, sent out diplomats, etc. Britain did declare neutrality in the conflict, thereby officially recognizing the Confederates as a belligerent power (and angering the Northerners in so doing). One could argue technicalities, but I think there are plenty of Northerners who have no problem calling the CSA a country. Stan 04:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Conservative rule reestablished?

What does "Conservative rule reestablished" mean? A google search mostly turned up other sites that were ripping off Wikipedia. Lkesteloot 21:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this makes little sense. I think it means the period at which the Reconstruction ended in the state with local politicians regaining control (immediately after the civil war, the Union imposed governors on the south, as allowing states to elect a governor who supported the side that had just lost the war was seen as a bad idea). However, calling this "conservative rule" is something I've never seen before, and usually it's called "local control", so I've changed it to this. Feel free to substitute if you can find a better or more canonical phrase. --Delirium 05:47, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

I added that. There was a chart/map SOMEWHERE, I can't find it anymore, but that it was the terminology used there. jengod 19:13, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Nation Template

Shouldn't this place have a nation template ("Name, capital, population", a map of the nation, etc)..Even if its not considered a "country" for NPOV reasons, even Taiwan follows this template. I think this article should as well. Comrade Tassadar 04:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Confederate motto

So, people keep seeming to change this motto. I've looked on Google and I frequently see very poor translations of it. I'll tell you why - they say "God will vindicate" and "God defends" and some such things. But this is incorrect, as Deo vindice is not a nominative phrase. It has no such word as "is" and no verb as such - rather, it is a phrase in the ablative- ablative of means if memory serves. So it's "With God our defender" or "With God as our defender" - from the words Deus and vindex. If it were "God vindicates" it would be Deus vindicabit and were it "God defends" it would be Deus defendit or vindicit.

• You are right about Deo. Vindice is harder to translate - I think Protector might be better than Defender -- or perhaps Vindicator or Champion or Deliverer or Justifier
  • vindico : to avenge, punish, liberate, deliver, protect
  • Vindicate (to justify, to avenge) has a remarkable etymon. Vindicius (aka Vindex) was a slave of the Vitelli, who informed the Senate of the conspiracy of the sons of Junius Brutus to restore Tarquin, for which service he was rewarded with liberty (Livy, ii. 5); hence the rod with which a slave was struck in manumission was called vindicta, a Vindicius rod (See Manumit ; and to set free was in Latin vindicare in libertatem. One way of settling disputes was to give the litigants two rods, which they crossed as if in fight, and the person whom the praetor vindicated broke the rod of his opponent. These rods were called vindiciae, and hence vindicate, meaning to “justify.” To avenge is simply to justify oneself by punishing the wrongdoer.
  • In addition, the motto, "Victoria Liberatis Vindex", is traditionally translated "Victory Vindicates Liberty
  • --JimWae 06:29, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
  • but http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederateseal.htm is a must see - it contains a speech by one of the eventual designers during a vote on what motto to have

    ".. in the selection of the word 'vindex,' which signifies an assenter, a defender, protector, deliverer, liberator, a mediator and a ruler or guardian. 'Vindex' also means an avenger or punisher.

    "... Under God as the asserter of our rights, the defender of our liberties, our protector against danger, our mediator, our ruler and guardian, and, as the avenger of our wrongs and the punisher of our crimes..."

  • Under God, Our Vindicator?
  • --JimWae 07:18, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

I think that "With God our vindicator" is perfect. I'll change it right away --Gaidheal nan Stàitean Aonaichte 22:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

er "under God our vindicator" sorry! --Gaidheal nan Stàitean Aonaichte 22:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Recognized by Saxe-Coburg and Gotha but no other countries."

I've never heard such a thing, so in my reversion I got rid of it - if the author of the edit could back this up, that would be great. gaidheal 22:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Saxe-Coburg and Gotha recognition of the CSA is one of those things that appears in all the civil war trivia books about which country was the only one to recognize them. Of course it didn't mean much on the world scale because Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was one of those tiny German countries about the size of Rhode Island. But it's a footnote in history that should be posted.

It happened in mid 1861 when the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha consul in Texas became vacant and had to be replaced. Since Texas had changed hands in between it caused a diplomatic problem since they could no longer send their diplomats to the United States. The Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha solved the problem by recognizing the CSA and sending the new consul, Ernst Raven, to Richmond where he applied for an Exquator from the Confederate Government and was received as the only foreign diplomat ever officially appointed to a post in the CSA. The matter was discussed at the time in the Confederate Congress. Here's one of the journal pages that does so -

Regards. Rangerdude 17:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

good enough for me - i'll add it back

==Map==

Map

Why is Oklahoma so huge, and Texas so small?

Why is the Territory of Arizona omitted?

Main Discussion

Does the CSA still exist as a Country?

The nation taxo-box lists these dates:

• Independence
• - Declared
• - Recognized

But there is no date for the cessation of its independence. Would Lee's surrender be the appropriate date? Davis' resignation capture? Any suggestions? -Willmcw 23:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It seems to me that this article shouldnt even have the taxo-box, since the categories are set up for current nations. For example, the country code and TLD. Also, there is no category for the date when it ceased to exist. --L. Pistachio 02:47, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

• • I found an infobox for defunct countries, which I'm sure we all agree is the situation. It is more free-form than this one. I'll post it here when I find it again. -Willmcw 07:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I edited this one instead. -Willmcw 07:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

In 1861, the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was a member of the German Empire, and had a population of under 250,000. Thus it was barely more of a nation than Rhode Island. I think it could be called a "state". (And I am surprised that a state with so few inhabitants would send a consul to Texas, which probably had a similarly small population. Perhaps there was significant trade or migration between the two.) [1] (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13494a.htm) [2] (http://www.rootsweb.com/~wggerman/map/germanempire.htm) -Willmcw 22:14, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your information, as usual, is uninformed and erronious. The German Empire was not created until 1871, and even its member states retained semi-sovereignty. Prior to 1871 there were 41 sovereign Germanic nation-states that belonged to the German Confederation created by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. During this period SCG was no less a sovereign country than Austria, Prussia, Bavaria or any of the other duchies, principalities, and city-states that were members. Rangerdude 04:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right you are, and gracious as always. ;) I should have remembered that the German Empire didn't form until 1871. Unfortunately, the lousy article of SGC doesn't mention any of this. In any case, 250,000 people doesn't make a nation. I think that "state" is sufficient. And in the context of the info box, "duchy" is certainly accurate. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:47, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree on the SCG article - it needs to be rewritten and an info box added. The proper term for it is nation-state. It may have been a small nation-state, but it was one nonetheless. Just the same Luxembourg (which is also a sovereign duchy) is a very small nation-state today but one nonetheless. The term "duchy" is a reference to its head of state, who goes by the title of Duke. Just the same a "principality" is a nation whose head of state goes by the title "Prince" and a "kingdom" for "King." Some duchies such as Cornwall and York were historically parts of a kingdom (England). Others were not and were independent countries in their own right, like SCG. Rangerdude 02:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yep, there have been little duchies and grand duchies, just as there have been large and small kingdoms and empires. But this the Duchy of SC & G was a duchy all the same, so that is what we should call it. I think that the word "duchy" efectively carries the connotation of a small state. If any editor wants to label it as a nation-state instead of a duchy then it would be necessary to list its population so that casual readers would have a snese of how tiny the place was. And that would be a bit silly, so let's just leave it as it is. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:42, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Duchy's fine by me. My previous objection was to the claim that SCG was not its own sovereign nation, which was historically wrong. If anybody wants to know the size of SCG (it was about as big as Luxembourg today) or its population all they've gotta do is click on the link Rangerdude 08:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In reference to the map, it looks slightly odd because it's from a large map shrunken down to just a few pixels. Anyone can edit it, if they want. I don't have time right now. And you're correct about Arizona Territory.

And I think maybe the population number should be investigated or revised. Remember, 5 slaves counted as 3 people. So if you want the actual number of bodies, someone could crunch those numbers.

And what happened to the national anthem link? Either it's vandalism or someone is being awful anal-retentive about it. The whole God Save the South page is gone, in fact.

Map Inaccuracy

The map is inaccurate namely because it is the present day map with an outline of Confederate states, as opposed to a world map of the time. I'm unsure of the exact specifics of what the map would be, so perhaps someone else would like to take a shot? 24.10.139.96 07:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Currency

I have an 1864 Confederate $20 bill that I can scan in and place here; is this of any use here? --Schultz.Ryan 06:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be a nice addition. -Willmcw 19:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Manifestations after collapse of Confederacy

In what article should "Confederate" entities after the collapse of the Confederacy be alluded to or discussed? (Confederate Air Force, Confederate College of Heraldry &c.) --Daniel C. Boyer 17:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neo-confederate? -Willmcw 19:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, again

An editor has added the dates of existence of the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, again. Why? If then intent is to show that it was a short-lived state, then there are plenty of significant states that have had shorter terms. It seems like an extraneous detail in the taxo-box. -Willmcw 02:39, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

DELAWARE - 1860 Census

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/censusbin/census/cen.pl?year=860

County	TOTAL NO.OF MALE SLAVES	TOTAL NO.OF FEMALE SLAVES	AGGR. NO. OF SLAVES	TOTAL # OF SLAVEHOLDERS	NO. OF WHITE PERSONS	Total Population
KENT	89	114	203	66	20330	27804
NEW CASTLE	121	133	254	86	46355	54797
SUSSEX	650	691	1341	435	23904	29615
Totals	860	938	1798	587	90589	112216

There's no need to give A reason why DE did not consider secession - there are likely many reasons. Geopolitical is so unspecific as to be "contentless".

AND to say the North INVADED the South is to take a POV on the legality of secession and on the aims of the North. According to the North, it was to recover forts overtaken by South. Also your change overlooks other things South did - such as "invade" North. Just leave the POV out--JimWae 19:32, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Do police "invade" premises when arresting with warrant? Did federal troops "invade" U of Alabama in 60s? Perhaps one thinks yes, or that situations are not exactly parallel, but it is POV to insist North's aim was to "conquer or pillage" the South - especially as "conquer" implies taking away rightful ownership or power --JimWae 20:20, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Legality of the secession by CSA members

I noticed that an editor recently included this comment in an edit summary: "Discuss/debate secession's legality on secession, not here." Since this is an international encyclopedia and that article is a generic discussion of secession, it would not seem like the appropriate place to discuss the legality of one specific secession. This article would seem to be a good place. Origins of the American Civil War might be another, though some of the determinations of legality happened after the war, so that is not idea either. In any case, I don't see a reason to avoid the topic here. The same editor also commented "SCOTUS "opinions" are inherently POV themselves & not a determinant of factuality." On the contrary, in this country courts of law are generally deemed to be determiners of fact, particulalry when it comes to interpreting the laws of the nation. Their opinions can be rebutted by those who disagree, but they nonetheless stand unless overturned or overridden. -Willmcw 19:17, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think the best solution for the secession article would be to subdivide it into applicable sections. While it is indisputable that the concept of secession applies internationally, its historical origins are heavily rooted in British and American political theory. Thus what the American court system says on secession, and what others argued in response to that court decision, are pertinent to the article on secession theory. Of course my main point is that we should NOT be holding a debate over whether or not secession is legitimate in the middle of a related albeit separate article such as Abraham Lincoln or the CSA. You are also incorrect about the status of courts. They are the interpreters of fact, or at least fact as it is presented (as courts can and do err about facts both big and small all the time). They are not the determiners of facts though nor could they be, as court cases tend to address tangible events that have already happened or are in the process of happening. The factual nature of those events both precedes and exists independent of the court process, meaning it is not contingent upon the court's outcome (e.g. whether OJ Simpson did/didn't kill his ex wife - either way - is a fact regardless of whether the court found him guilty or found reasonable doubt to his guilt. That the court determined reasonable doubt, however, does not alter what actually happened whether he killed her or not). In this case, it is both proper and NPOV to note the court's opinion on secession in the appropriate places and articles. It is a POV however to endorse that opinion and attempt to rewrite the article from its perspective as JimWae has been doing, just as it would be a POV to rewrite the abortion article with a view slanted toward Roe v. Wade or, alternatively, rewrite the segregation article slanted toward Plessy v. Ferguson. Rangerdude 20:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

It would be highly inappropriate to remove material giving the SCOTUS's view on the legality of abortion in the United States. The opinion of the SCOTUS is highly relevant to legal issues inthe United States. However, it is also necessary to include other views that disagree with the prevailing legal opinion. If the head court of the country has determined that something is illegal, then it is logical to present that as the first view. -Willmcw 21:23, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to remove an NPOV description of it so long as that description is neutral and in the proper article. My issue is with JimWae attempting to justify his wording re: secession upon the SCOTUS opinion, which is a POV whether one agrees or disagrees with it. Rangerdude 23:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being so dumb, but I don't understand your point about the SCOTUS's opinions being inherently POV. Does this extend to all courts? Are we barred from saying someone is a murderer just because a court found them guilty? Is SCOTUS incapable of correctly interpreting the laws of the land? Are laws passed by Congress POV? ("well, that's just their opinion of which laws we should have...") I mean, sure, we can report that others contend that he isn't a murder, that the SCOTUS got it wrong, that Congress is full of idiots. But the bottom line is that if SCOTUS says something is illegal, it's illegal. -Willmcw 00:01, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

No, Willmcw. The point is that the SCOTUS, just like any other source, has a POV. That does not mean we can't quote them nor did I ever suggest anything even remotely approaching that end. It does, however, mean that the position they take is NOT the only position, nor is it the final authority between right and wrong. JimWae claims that since the SCOTUS ruled against secession's legality we can't say that the south seceded. And that is an endorsement of a POV. Rangerdude 00:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• How is it not POV to state as fact "the south seceded" when the legal fact as far as the USA is concerned is clearly that they did not? To avoid arguments over whether or not they did or did not, the article can say they "declared a secession", they "were seceding", they "fought an unsuccessful war for secession". It's not about what is "right", it is about what is fact, what is POV, and what is NPOV. Why is it always POV to disagree with the insurgents, & not POV to disagree with SCOTUS? You want special treatment for the rebels? --JimWae 00:47, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

• Saying the Confederate states "declared their secession" does not take a POV on whether or not they seceded - though a very good argument can be made that the FACT is that they did NOT. Secession is a completely legal concept. SCOTUS has determined (in Texas v. White) that the legal FACT is that the Southern states did not secede. Murder (a moral & legal concept) is illegal, but legally possible. It is illegal to commit murder, but if it were not true that one had COMMITTED murder then one could NOT be charged with it. Secession was not only illegal, but it had not (according to SCOTUS, the arbiter of legal fact in the USA) been committed. Rebellion was committed, not secession. Colloquial shorthand was that they "rejoined the union" - what that meant practically & legally was that they could again vote for and seat representatives in the House & Senate, etc. It also later involved the end of martial law & the return of local rule. There is not the same problem with "seceding" - for it entails something "in process" - and had the Confederates won, or found another way to get agreement on secession, they could have completed the process. It is sufficient, to avoid revert wars to say they "declared a secession". The CSA article needs to have a section on the whole legality issue, however. It surprises me how many have chimed in with an opinion, yet never heard of Texas v. White --JimWae 00:53, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

• • So you're asking everyone to prove a negative, Jim? Interesting. In the meantime, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's definition of secession on the article of the same name: "Secession is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or political entity." No matter how one spins or interprets it, the south certainly did just that. They were defeated in the ensuing war and their secession was later found to be illegal 4 years after the war, but it cannot be denied that they did it, legally or not. Oh, and nobody's asking for special treatment of anything around here. I'm simply asking for some common sense, and your tortured hairsplitting over the use of the word "secession" is distinguished by its absence. Rangerdude 01:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Now I see RD's point. The CSA certainly it went beyond merely "declaring" a secession. I can sit in my chair and declare a secession, but unless I act on it I haven't really attempted to secede. The CSA definitely tried to secede. I think it is correct to say that they illegally attempted to secede. "Illegal" because the highest court in the land said so. "Attempted" because they did not succeed. -Willmcw 01:00, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

More on Secession

According to wikipedia's secession article "Secession is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or political entity." This is a fairly standard dictionary definition. Whether or not the south's secession was legal, there is little question that what they were trying to do in 1861 was "withdrawing from an organization, union, or political entity." They did not simply say "we declare ourselves seceded" and leave it at that. They actually executed that act of secession and fought a lengthy but eventually unsuccessful war to carry it out. Whether or not it was legal for them to do so is immaterial to the fact that they did so, though it is pertinent to mention the dispute over secession's legality in the proper context. I've suggested that context is the article on secession itself. Willmcw suggested one of the civil war articles, and some on the Lincoln page have suggested a new article entirely. Whatever solution comes of this though, it needs to occur on one of those other articles and with NPOV in mind. Neglecting to do so and then giving favor to the SCOTUS opinion here without mentioning other views is unavoidably POV. Rangerdude 20:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• What's missing is "official" and "successfully". Are the Basques a separate state from Spain because they say so? Kurdistan? Is Quebec a separate country from Canada because their ruling party had said so? If the US lost the revolution would they still be independent because they endorsed a declaration of independence? I am not saying the article should say the South did not secede. Nor should it say they did. Both are POV, (but saying they did flies in the face of legal facts -- and secession is a concept that is entirely legal. Had they won, laws & facts would be different). Saying they "declared a secession" is NPOV. Saying they did is clearly POV that ignores legal FACT. I am not talking about what is "right" as some have argued against. I am talking about what is fact & what is POV.--JimWae 00:59, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

• • Unfortunately for your cause, Jim, you are not the arbiter of the definition of secession. As listed here on wikipedia and in most dictionaries, "official" and "successfully" are not part of the definition. Nor is your unnecessarily wordy "declared a secession" NPOV no matter how you try to dress it because it is admittedly premised on a Supreme Court decision, that is inherently POV. Rangerdude 01:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Nor are the other editors of wikipedia arbiters of definition any more than I am - most dictionaries include "formal". Name other "countries" that seceded but did so unofficially & unsuccessfully.
• Btw, SCOTUS declared in a five to three decision, read on April 15, 1869, by Chief Justice S. P. Chase, that the Union was indestructable and, thus, not dissoluble by any act of a state, the government, or the people. Arise wikipedians & weigh in on how ignoring SCOTUS' determination of fact is or is not taking a POV on the issue.
• My revision is not premised on SCOTUS, it simply does not ignore it like you would prefer.--JimWae 04:36, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Now you're just plain fibbing, Jim. NOWHERE have I suggested that we should simply ignore Texas v. White and I defy you to quote me if you think that I did. In fact, I would be perfectly content if you wanted to mention it and add in a link IF it meets two simple and perfectly reasonable conditions: (1) the case is presented from a neutral point of view that does not endorse its opinion as the authoritative and correct one as you have been doing and (2) it is placed in the proper article and with the proper context indicating its circumstances (IOW, there shouldn't be a multi-paragraph essay on Texas v. White in every single civil war article, though a sentence is fine where it is reasonable appropriate). As for the use of secession, I've yet to see you show any of these dictionaries that supposedly modify the definition to include your criteria yet I do see the existing wikipedia article on secession, that does NOT abide by your criteria. I also see several dictionaries that do not include your version of the word "Secession." The American Heritage Dictionary defines secession as "To withdraw formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance." It also has an interesting second definition "The withdrawal of 11 Southern states from the Union in 1860-1861, precipitating the U.S. Civil War." Princeton WordNet defines it similarly as "formal separation from an alliance or federation" and "the withdrawal of eleven Southern states from the Union in 1860 which precipitated the American Civil War." IOW, the dictionaries are against you as well and even go so far as to explicitly apply the word "secession" to the confederacy. Rangerdude 05:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• The question is still hangs on whether they withdrew. It is not enough in constitutional law to say "I divorce thee" 3 times, to effect a secession. SCOTUS has said they did not withdraw. True they did much else to attempt to withdraw, but that does not settle that they sucessfully did so. I do not find it necessary to say all this in intro paragraph - though full section on it is needed. I have edited intro to say "attempted to secede". Saying they DID secede is not only POV, it is POV counter to fact (as determined by SCOTUS, the supreme arbiter of legal fact in the USA) --JimWae 06:04, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

• • You are simply mistaken in your application of terminology, Jim. Secession (or more specifically "secede") as used here is a verb referring to a specific act in itself. The use of that verb (as in "the south seceded") is in perfect keeping with its definition in two reputable dictionaries as well as the secession article on wikipedia. I suppose you can and will call that use POV till the cows come home since you seem intent upon injecting a real POV - the supreme court decision - into the wording as a situational arbiter, but the fact remains that "secession," as used in its verb form and as it appears presently in the article, is a perfectly valid, correct, and professional wording per multiple sources that carry substantially more weight than the whims of your own personal opinions, Jim. You also seem incapable of comprehending that wikipedia is not a national but rather international encyclopedia, thus the POV opinion asserted by the United States Supreme Court is no more "neutral" or "final" than any other opinion in the world. "Attempted to secede" is not much better than your previous iteration. Not only is it unnecessarily wordy (thus making for a poor writing style) - it also runs into conflict with multiple standard English dictionary definitions, which as I have shown directly recognize what the CSA states did as an act of secession. It was not an "attempt to secede" because they actually passed secession ordinances and for a period of about four years removed themselves from the northern government and operated under their own. Some legislators in Maryland "attempted to secede" but were thwarted before they could get a bill out of the legislature. The CSA states, however, carried secession into action and sustained it for four years before being defeated. Now the Supreme Court, as you say, did rule in 1869 against the legality of secession. But by then it had already happened and the war it caused was long over, resulting in the secessionists' defeat. If one accepts and supports the Supreme Court's opinion (and apparently you do, though many others did not) that means secession, as it happened, was illegal and thus invalid. It does NOT mean secession did not happen though...unless you are suggesting that we should interpret Texas v. White as a damnatio memoriae on the events in 1861 that is. Rangerdude 06:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• they did not say it was simply illegal, they said it did not happen... "that the Union was indestructable and, thus, not dissoluble by any act of a state, the government, or the people." The question was whether SCOTUS had jurisdiction over events that happened after the attempted secession & before their defeat. They ruled they did. You may disagree, but what SCOTUS decrees is legal fact at least in the USA. A NPOV is one that accomodates opposing viewpoints w/o taking sides. You are proposing that wikipedia take sides against SCOTUS. I am not proposing that the article take SCOTUS side, only that it not be undermined. --JimWae 06:53, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

• • That's a declaration of illegality, Jim. It's the equivalent of saying that since the union was indissoluble, the states that seceded acted illegally by trying to dissolve it. It does not alter the fact that secession happened though (and in fact had it not happened, the SCOTUS would not have had a case!). So unless you are trying to use Texas v. White as a damnatio memoriae upon the Civil War, there simply isn't any basis to your interpretation. And since when is denying your attempts to insert the SCOTUS POV as the litmus test for using the word secession taking sides against Texas v. White? As I've told you many times, I'm perfectly open to including a reference and link to Texas v. White in the appropriate articles and context so long as it is done in NPOV. Yet you refuse to add it and then have the audacity to accuse me of trying to suppress it! Rangerdude 17:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, this discussion makes it apparent that the topic of the legal status of the CSA should be mentioned in the article. -Willmcw 18:01, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I added a brief section on the confederacy's legal status. It covers diplomacy, the CSA as seen by itself versus as seen by the north, and both sides of the Texas v. White issue. Rangerdude 19:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps cover an important aspect of the history of the CSA. Chers, -Willmcw 03:25, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Secession/Declared secession

JimWae - Please cease and desist your edits to replace "secession" with "declared their secession," "declared their separation" or any other variation thereof. These changes do not have the consensus of the other editors on this article. They also conflict with the Princeton and American Heritage Dictionary definitions of the word secession, not to mention the wikipedia article. This has been pointed out to you. A proper, fitting, NPOV section has also been added to this article that documents and links to the Texas v. White decision per your desire to cover that topic. You therefore have no basis to pursue your changes any further. Please make your edits in a manner consistent with this discussion or show cause why you believe the issue should be revisited. You may consider this a warning before administrator notification is sought. Rangerdude 03:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

A discussion between 3 people with 1 guy seeing points made on both sides is not a consensus. SCOTUS has said no state ever seceded. It is POV to say any did, it is NPOV to say they "declared a secession" (a totally true fact, altho' I do agree they did more than declare, they fought for it). It is NPOV to say they "attempted to secede". You want to say it is POV to state a clear fact, but not POV to state a contentious opinion at odds with legal fact (as determined by SCOTUS). Someone has argued that outside the US it is recognized they seceded - but that is true officially only by Saxy-Coburgh (sp?). SCOTUS says the declaration of secession was "absolutely null" - this is a subset of the non-specific illegal. It was not illegal in the sense of murder, which it is possible to commit. Legal fact in the US & in every country - but one that no longer exists - is that no secession was ever committed. --JimWae 04:19, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

The problem with that take on things, Jim, is that "declared their secession" etc. itself connotes a POV aimed at diminishing the act of secession. It also ascribes to an unsourced definition of secession that is in clear in conflict with what the dictionaries say on secession (quoted above). Those dictionary definitions both apply to what the South did in general and contain secondary definitions specifying the confederacy by name as a secessionist act. Since your personal definition and the dictionary's are in conflict, the burden is on you to come up with a reason why we should discard them and take yours instead. As to your claim that I "want to say it is POV to state a clear fact," this is pure and utter nonesense. What you are stating is NOT clear fact but rather a convoluted wording premised upon your endorsement of a Supreme Court opinion that factually happened but is also nevertheless a POV onto itself. Curiously, despite all your efforts to load this and the other articles with semantical hairsplitting, you seem unusually averse to actually specifying that Supreme Court opinion in the article's text and letting the reader make up his mind for himself about it, which is what we're supposed to do. From day 1 I have been agreeable to stating the clear fact that Texas v. White happened and specifying what Texas v. White was. In fact, I repeatedly invited and urged you to write a couple of NPOV sentences detailing Texas v. White and any other relevent material within the article itself. You ignored each of these invitations and chose not to. I suppose could have simply left it at that, taking your inaction as an indicator that properly inserting Texas v. White into the article didn't merit the effort. But in complete fairness to your indicated position of including it, I composed and added a section on Texas v. White covering the basis of your argument and more in a neutral and succinct manner. You have yet to even acknowledge this contribution or consider it as a reasonable alternative to your single-minded and unilateral insistence of introducing the cumbersome and etymologically incorrect "declared their secession" phrasing at every opportunity possible. Rangerdude 05:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I will review the Lincoln page to see if any consensus emerged there -- but I have not, as you repeatedly claim, violated NPOV - you just do not, for some reason, understand my point. I am not advocating we say they did not secede, as true as that is. I am saying it is POV to say they did - even more POV than saying that they did not. Btw, "warn" me all you want - you are wrong.JimWae 04:23, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

I don't know how consensus is judged on this page, but my earlier remarks were to the effect that the CSA never successfully seceded. -Willmcw 04:35, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Understood and thank you for the clarification. My point is that the verb "seceded" or "to secede," as defined by the dictionaries and wikipedia's secession article, is perfectly proper under its use here. All of this "declared there secession" stuff is unnecessary hairsplitting that reduces the overall quality of the article through awkward language and has a POV effect of minimizing the south's secession (which only started a little thing called the Civil War) to a simple declaration on paper. Since the dictionaries are consistent with the use of secession/seceded as it appears here, I see no reason to alter it. Now, JimWae has indicated that he wanted to include something about Texas v. White. That is fine by me, and as you have seen I was fully accomodating of that request going so far as to write the paragraph myself when he refused to do so after being invited repeatedly. If JimWae doubts that Texas v. White is properly covered in the section I added, I invite him to propose additions to it. But right now all I see is cumbersome and weasily language that is apparently premised upon Texas v. White (and thus POV in itself) without saying so. Rangerdude 05:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)