Talk:American Civil War#rfc 055ECEF

{{edit semi-protected|American Civil War|answered=yes}}

I think there shouldn't be two "could" in in "Could the nation could be maintained as a republic". Zarisi (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Fixed. Thanks for noticing this.--MattMauler (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The sentence reads, " The technology and brutality of the Civil War foreshadowed the coming world wars." I would remove it, but it seems so well-established that I don't want to without a consensus. Here are my reasons. First, it's not true, except in hindsight; no one at the time of the Civil War thought about the coming world wars. Second, its meaning is unclear. It implies that the coming world wars were like the Civil War, but what is meant, even though not said, is that they were worse. Third, everyone knows that the world wars were worse. Fourth, the world wars are not relevant to this article. In short, the sentence contains no useful information. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think this line is tangential to the rest of the article, mostly. Sherman went in the direction of total war, except that he didn't target civilians. Gatling guns were used a little, and later led to machine guns. But the connection to World Wars is weak, imho.Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I would replace it with something like, "The American Civil War introduced ironclad ships, the widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure and Gatling guns, which led to the invention of machine guns."Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The suggested sentence might warrant being somewhere in the article. But it's not a good closing sentence for the lede paragraph. Actually, the article already states, "The war saw the first appearances of rapid-firing weapons and machine guns such as the Agar gun and Gatling gun," and that's not important enough to be in the lede paragraph. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Our readers are reading "in hindsight". Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::Slatersteven is referring to a replacement sentence that I added and he reverted. I asked him to explain why he reverted it, and he has, but I disagree with his explanation. The historians who say that the Civil War isn't over are speaking about the present, not engaging in hindsight. I'm not going to do anything now, such as engage in an editing war, but I hope that others who are interested in American Civil War will put in their two cents, and maybe we can reach a consensus. The current sentence can surely be improved, even if you don't like my suggested improvement. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I was responding to your claim above that "no one at the time of the Civil War thought about the coming world wars", That is irrelevant as we are speaking about how it is seen today, not then. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I would like to add the following about the pattern of secession based on the Census of 1860.

The pattern of secession mostly followed the pattern of the thickness of slave plantations, with the partial exception of Texas. Six of the seven slave states that seceded before the Fort Sumter attack were Deep South states that had more slavery than the rest. The four Upper South slave states that waited until after the Fort Sumter crisis to join their sister slave states had less slavery than the Deep South. Even though Texas had less slavery than the Deep South, it joined the first wave of secession. The five border states had less slavery than the Confederate states and fought for the Union. For the most part, the more slavery a slave state had, the greater the support for secession, and the less slavery a slave state had, the greater the support for the Union. Fifteen of the sixteen slave states followed this pattern. West Virginia is included with the rest of Virginia in the 1860 census since West Virginia didn't exist until 1863 when it seceded from the rest of Virginia and joined the Border States. Like the other Border States, West Virginia had less slavery than Confederate states.

• Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47 percent of total population).
• Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208,758 (29 percent of total population).
• Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13 percent of total population).

Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Per our three major content policies, we must rely on reliable sources to identify patterns and to measure the significance of those patterns. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Ditto, what RS makes the connection? Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::And to add, the RS would need to be reliable WP:Secondary sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::James McPherson mentioned this. I forget the page number.Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Please read wp:cite, can someone check this? Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, this would need RS. Also, strict order of secession does not necessarily directly correlate with {{tq| "the more slavery a slave state had, the greater the support for secession, and the less slavery a slave state had, the greater the support for the Union."}} That's a pretty hefty leap in logic without a lot more RS/data. Just because State A seceded on Monday doesn't necessarily mean it has more/less support for the Union than State B, who seceded on Tuesday. Just10A (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|ans=yes}}

{{textdiff|The Battle of Gettysburg took over 50,000 Union and Confederate lives, but also proved the war's turning point, altering the course of the war in the Union's favor.|The Battle of Gettysburg caused over 50,000 Union and Confederate casualties, but also proved the war's turning point, altering the course of the war in the Union's favor.}}):

• The Battle of Gettysberg did not take over 50,000 lives - total casualties (which includes dead, wounded, captured, and missing) were over 50,000, which is likely what the original author meant to reference.:
• References supporting the possible change:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg#Casualtieshttps://www.gettysburgpa.gov/history/slideshows/battle-history#:~:text=Between%2046%2C000%20and%2051%2C000%20soldiers,most%20costly%20in%20US%20history.https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/gettysburg

EditorRedBlue (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Seems correct, support the change. Good eye. Just10A (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Aston305 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}