Talk:Confederate States Army/Archive 1

Stars of David

I see this article states that Confederate Field Grade insignia consisted of Stars of David worn on the collar instead of five point stars. To the best of my knowledge, the five points stars were used and not six. Thoughts? -Husnock 01:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting discrepancy. Photos of Lee (who actually wore a colonel's insignia) show him with 5. This website shows 5, too. This one, too, although it's poorly labeled. I don't feel like editing in the graphical changes, but it seems warranted. (Wait, they didn't have warrant officers, did they? :-)) However, I will bet that due to the wide variations in Confederate 'uniforms', someone will come up with a photo showing 6 points just to confuse matters. Here's John Mosby, for instance. Hal Jespersen 02:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

diversity

I have reverted the recent anonymous edit. Please consult WP:CITE on the ways to cite reference material and re-enter your material if you choose to do so. (I often volunteer to clean up poorly formatted material or to at least communicate with the author, but since I have none of these reference works and the user is anonymous, neither is feasible.) You may wish to contrast the numbers you cite with the total numbers of whites who fought. These represent, what, 2%? Hal Jespersen 17:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Defend the Confederate States of America

THe CSA never existed, therefore it cannot be defended. The Rebel army was simply an insurgent organization making war on the legitamate government of the United States. To say that the Confederate Army existed to defend the CSA is like saying the Shi'ite militias exist to defend an Iraqi theocracy24.94.232.13 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Martin

In that case the Continental Army had nothing to defend either, since the legitimate government was the British Crown

This is an encyclopedia which documents historical facts, regardless of who wins or loses wars. If the CSA bothers you, go start a blog and vent there. Grayghost01 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The historical fact is that the confederacy was simply a large group of trators who, because there cause was slavery instead of say, Communism or Facism, seem to go down in history as deserving of some respect 75.86.147.216 22:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Martin

The real and documented historical fact is that the Confederate Army was composed of thousands of Christians who never owned a slave, commanded by a Christian General Lee who freed the ones he inherited, and they fought against an army commanded by a slave-owner, non-Christian General Grant. The Confederate cause was economic and political freedom from the Clay-Mercantilism "no foreign trade" policies of President Lincoln, who was elected by a mere 39% of the popular vote. The Confederates wished to preserve the constitution, and President Lincoln's party later changed the constitution to fit what they had done. The issue of slavery entered the picture in late 1862 to persuade England and France to disavow the Confederacy after the Battle of Sharpsburg. Home states, like my own Virginia, had banned the slave trade as far back as 1802. Perhaps you should go start a blog?Grayghost01 03:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add my 2 cents. The War for Southern Independance was about seccesion. Only 10% of the CSA had slaves. My family fought for states rights and others garunteed in the constitution that were being provoked. In the end they fought for what was right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.25 (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

While I can't think off the to of the number off the top of my head, its doubtful that only 10% of individuals owned slaves in the South. After all, in some states, the population was literally HALF SLAVE. In fact, the overall rate of slaves was in the 40's percentage wise, and if you didn't have slaves, you were probably in the employ or had business dealings with slave-owners, making your economic interests very, very similar. SiberioS (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to a site that gives some southern slave owning stats, such as 30% of the population owned slaves, 88% of slave owners owned fewer than 20 slaves & approximately 50% owned fewer than 5. Sf46 (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The origins and makeup of the Confederacy is dealt with in sourced detail and further political, social and economic nuance at Confederate States of America. Composition of the Union and Confederate armies and the slave-holding characteristics of their units by state, occupation and social class are treated in the literature as well. This article would be about the Confederate armies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Context

This article does not give nearly enough context for readers unacquainted with US history. Awien 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it didn't even have a link to the American Civil War, which I just added. What sort of questions did you have that should be addressed in the article (vs. linked articles)? Hal Jespersen 14:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but this is horrid. I agree with the first poster -- put this in context!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.247.212 (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Black conf soldiers

I really like the section added (Black Confederate Soldiers) but I think it should be summarized in this article and a new article made for it's full detailing. Then the summary section here would have a Main Article link to that created page. Just my two cents. Kresock (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well there was and sort of still is as section about Black Confederate Soldiers on the article Military history of African Americans‎. The only problem is that a user over there keeps continually deleting nearly any and all sourced and referenced information I put that mentions Black Confederate troops being any thing other than ditch diggers. Sf46 (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then how about we make a seperate article just about Black Confederate Soldiers and have links on both pages to it. And maybe remind that user of the fact that when the lead was flying in that war EVERYBODY started digging ditches. Kresock (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can look the situation over on that article & its talk page and give your input. He reverts and deletes nearly everything I add. Sf46 (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Except of course, that such platitudes, Kresock, are irrelevant. I notice, and I have modified the article that Sf46 is in such a knot about, consistently with verifiable sources, none of which anyone has argued with me about. And why is that? Because they're verifiable. Most of them come straight from the Official Record, and/or from scholarly sources.SiberioS (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the changes that you have made on this article and the related article. The attempt by another editor that was made to take material deleted from one article and putting it in another article seems like it was an inadvertant, good faith violation of the spirit of Wikipedia:Content forking. What should or should not be included regarding so-called Black Confederates should be determined by consensus and that consensus discussion should focus on the proper use of scholarly sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A content fork may be appropriate in the Military History article, using the same summary provided here. But as seen in the talk page of talk:Military_history_of_African_Americans, the issue of scholarly sources has become paramount, with my edits removing unsourced/poorly sourced information as an attempt of censorship.WP:REDFLAG I believe applies to this;the claim that there black soldiers in the Confederate army is an exceptional claim, and it must be backed up by exceptional sources. I have in fact added scholarly and first hand sources that actually verify this, in a way that is satisfactory without attempting to inject a POV. SiberioS (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nearly any and every sourced piece of information that I've put in the article, you've removed with claims of poor or unreliable source. Who are you to arbitrarily decide what is a valid source? You poked fun at the book I cited from Pelican Press. Perhaps you know something about them that I don't and would care to enlighten? I also had a sourced website article from Navy & Marine Living Hisory Association. That article had a stack of references to it including sources form the U.S. National Archives, U.S. Navy, North Carolina Department of Archives and History, Tulane University & others. There was also the info cited from the St. Petersburg Times that you again called poorly sourced. I've pretty much realized that with your now self appointed position as Captain of the Thought Police, you WILL characterize any source as unreliable or a poor source if it is not taken from the one or two sources on your pre-approved list. Sf46 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You can say whatever you want. But even WP:V backs me up on this, and I quote "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history,". That's what Confederate Emancipation (published by Oxford University Press) and The Grey and the Black(published by LSU Press) are,as are the articles I cite from the Journal of Negro History. The other source I also use frequently is the actual primary sources, contained within the Official Record, something you will see cited all over just about any wiki article on the Civil War. I welcome contributions from any scholarly source. Instead, you've gone trawling for any mishmash you can find on the web to support your point of view, even when those sources, like the supposedly well sourced website you mention above, cites things, that at best, tangentially support their arguments (in fact that article you keep harping on mentions anywhere from 60 to 90K and then goes on to portray a handful of sporadic anecdotes as evidence for larger, supposedly un-researched, black contributions to the Confederacy). Pick up a book, go to a library, search journal databases. SiberioS (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I can point you to more scholarly books on the issue of slave and free black labor during the war. Bell Irvin WIley's Southern Negroes, 1861-1865 (published by oxford University Press) and James H. Brewers The Confederate Negro: Virginia's Craftsment and Military Laborers, 1861-1865 (published by Duke's press) that talk about the contributions of slave and freedmen labor to the Confederate war cause. SiberioS (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I Don't get. Of course there wasn't a multitude of Confederate blacks but who is to say that quotes from the esteemed Frederick Douglass, and other Civil War figureheads (specifically mentioning black Confederates) are not reputable sources? Any attempts to delete these quotes in reference to black Confederates is historical revisionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

About the Douglass quote...

The problem with the Douglass quote is that, as indicated by reading the fuller speech, is he based this information on reports from Southern newspapers, which weren't exactly neutral. In fact, the evolution of the perspective of Southern newspapers (and the larger Southern culture) towards slaves and slavery from the beginning of the war to about its middle, is stark and contradictory. In fact, the hoary old saw of the faithful slave and been wholly dismissed, replaced with the stark reality that slaves were simply getting up and leaving or doing as much as they could to avoid work. And also, there is nothing "controversial" about black Confederate soldiers, since the whole issue is well documented and established. And that, despite the debate that raged one amongst the command and political elites of the South, that blacks (either free or slave) were not engaged into the army in any systematic way until waning days of the war, and even then, the attempt to raise them was racked with problems, most notably the slave owners unwillingness to part with them. SiberioS (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A further problem with the Douglass quote is that it is an improper use of primary sources. It is being presented as a factual claim that there were numerous armed, black Confederate soldiers. No reliable sources have been provided that indicate that this primary source is, in fact, an accurate account. It is a bit silly to look to a black, abolitionist, fugitive slave as an accurate intelligence source on the make up of the Confederate Army. in fact, Douglass wrote this as part of a rhetorical effort to persuade the Union to start accepting African American volunteers (see McPherson's "The Negro's Civil War"). This attempt to use the Douglass quote is simply another effort to present anecdotal material as a substitute for the solid and consistent historical research that clearly established that it was AGAINST CONFEDERATE POLICY prior to March 1865 to accept blacks as soldiers. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not presenting it as a claim of anything other than the man's statement. Sf46 (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Absurd. You are putting that quote in there to support your assertion (what you call "controversial") the existence of black troops in the Confederacy. SiberioS (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you admit that the statement has no relevance to whether their were black Confederate soldiers. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course. It's clear from edits and discussion that Sf46 believes we are trying to cover up or censor the contribution of blacks to the Confederate war effort, despite me mentioning the significant use of slave labor in the war effort, the convoluted debate about whether to enlist slaves, and the subsequent limited success they had with that policy. The fact that the Confederacy obviously did not use black soldiers, until the waning days of the war as documented, is viewed with some sort of suspicion, and as an attempt to cover up something thats simply not there. SiberioS (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Siberio, your quote of "...Sf46 believes we are trying to cover up or censor the contribution of blacks to the Confederate war effort.." is exactly what I believe. Sf46 (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, belief doesn't will facts into existence. There is no grand conspiracy to somehow cover up the contribution of any of the numerous things that I have pointed out, including the use of freedmen and slave labor, the debate over enlisting soldiers, and the subsequent execution of the policy. Hell, I've done more work proving your own points than you have. I've actually hunted down (and will continue to do so) scholarly sources about the black contribution to the Confederacy, and the policies and actions of the Confederate command towards blacks, both free and slave, I believe you simply don't like what is factually true, and what it may or may not say about the Confederacy. SiberioS (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

-Siberio, I've pretty much (but not entirely) given up trying to make any kind of meanigful contribution to that section of the article, because every bit of information I put gets deleted out by you guys, because it doesn't fit your ideas. Why is it such a blasphemy and such an "exceptional" idea to you that at least ONE African American soldier put on a grey Confederate Uniform and carried a firearm in his hand sometime between 1861-1865 and did so for whatever motivation was his? Sf46 (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you even read my contributions to article? How can you say I have a problem with blacks serving in the Confederate army when I have documented, with citations, that they DID. Why, indeed, would I make prominent quotes from a Confederate general about the issue, and then also re-format a previous citation to highlight that yes, what little troops they raised did see some action? Why would the War Department refuse the offers of assistance from units composed of free blacks? Why was Seddon concerned about letting the mulatto of Mobile joining the any Confederate war effort? Again, you simply do not want to accept the facts that are documented. You have not once responded with substance as to why either a) any of the things I've cited are wrong or b) why it is that anecdotal stories somehow take the place of war-time policy at every level of the Confederate government and military structure.. SiberioS (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hell, like I've pointed out before, the first book-length study of the emancipation debate inside the Confederacy, and the possibility of enlisting slaves and freedmen, was published by your own alma-mater (Durden's The Gray and the Black). SiberioS (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sf46 -- You state, "Why is it such a blasphemy and such an "exceptional" idea to you that at least ONE African American soldier put on a grey Confederate Uniform and carried a firearm in his hand sometime between 1861-1865 and did so for whatever motivation was his?" Perhaps if you would acknowledge that there are only anecdotal reports of exceptions to the overall rule against CSA enlistments of black combat soldiers prior to March 1865, then a compromise could be worked out. Instead you persist in trying to assert, through the Douglass quote, that "there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty ... as real soldiers."

The issue of African Americans in the various home guards may also be appropriate for inclusion in the other article (not this one) with proper documentation and without unsubtantiable claims such as "The Confederate Army, unlike the Union army, was only minimally composed of a national army, and was almost wholly made of various state-raised armies. While the Confederate National Army did not explicitly raise black regiments until near the end of the war, the states still controlled their military policies in regards to recruitment." These types of claims are nothing but a back door effort to inflate the actual significance of black participation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And not just inflate their significance, but strip it of its context. Its not merely enough to say "Confederate's used blacks as labor, and near the end, as soldiers" without mentioning the fact that the overwhelming majority of them were slaves and that Confederacy couldn't even enlist troops (let alone emancipate) until the the end of an almost 2 year long debate when the Confederacy was on its last leg. SiberioS (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

When this comes up again, we might include the units of free black militia in New Orleans and elsewhere, whose offer of service was refused by Confederate authorities. The Spanish had a policy of using freedmen as Indian fighters. The volunteers were trained men, the sons and grandsons of fighting soldiers, unlike some of the social club "militias" ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Troop numbers...

I reverted the edit by an IP address that erased the list of Conscription orders and the numbers provided. While they were uncited, they did seem to me atleast, a fairly accurate number, and were probably taken from the Record somewhere (where is what needs to be found), and either way, the replacement lines about "4,000,000 men fought", seems, well, ridiculous, considering that the Union Army had some 2.5 million or so men serve in it over the course of the war, and the Union Army was significantly bigger than the CSA. SiberioS (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like vandalism to me. Sf46 (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Army of West Tennessee

Under the section titled "Armies and prominent leaders" the Army of West Tennessee links to the article on the Union Army of the Tennessee. Granted, that article states that the Army of the Tennessee was, at one time, called the Army of West Tennessee. However, I'm assuming that this is just a coincidence wherein both sides used the same name for one of their respective armies. If that is the case, shouldn't the link in this article for the Army of West Tennessee be corrected? I'm afraid this is not my area of expertise, so please forgive me if I've made a mistake. Nutgraph (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked into the link you mentioned. It does redirect to the Union army with a similar name. I updated the link to point to the mention of Van Dorn's army on the Army of West Tennessee page. The note states his forces were quickly merged into the conf. Army of Mississippi. Both sides had similar names for their armies, like Army of the Potomac, but the north preferred river names and the south liked state or regional names. Thanks for catching this. Kresock (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit moved here

I moved an edit by this user IP 72.185.0.194 to this talk to be dissected before ditching it completely:

"* The Remnant Army of the Confederate States (RACS) was the remainder of all Confederate forces at the end of the American Civil War and was commanded by Major General Mitchell Alles. The number of soldiers in the Remnant Army was said to have contained 4,692 men."

I've never heard of this before, and we don't have an article about a Mitchell Alles, but I'm no expert and it may very well be true. I'd love to know where it came from myself. Kresock (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the IP's other edits and Mr. Alles was apparently the name of a conf. ironclad too, but that he currently lives in Tampa, Florida. Good for him but looks like vandalism. Kresock (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a stunt. There was no such ironclad either. Red Harvest (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful lede

For those of us who are unfamiliar with US history, the lede is extremely unhelpful. The introduction should provide a comprehensive, yet simple overview of the whole topic, covering the main points. This lede doesn't even say whether the Confederate Army was the North or South. I know that to Americans it's a no-brainer, but I came to this article to find out that particular piece of info, and it should be in the intro. 206.116.59.222 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional Sources that support the Gallant Role of Black Volunteers in Gray.

I would like to offer a some period sources on the subject of black Southerners in the Confederate States military. Does it please the court? lol I hope so. Before the Oscar nominated film, Glory, only a minority of Americans knew there had been black soldiers in the Union Army. As for those black Southerners that defended the South still only a minority does truly honor their memory! They were patriotic and independent men. In September of 1861, more than a year before Lincoln authorized black soldiers in the Union ranks the great statesman Fredrick Douglass warned, "There are at present many Coloured men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets." Black Southerners having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets does offend a lot of the negative presumptions of what white Southerners in the Confederate Army thought of armed black Southerners in their camps. The same year as the Hon. Douglass quote is one by Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission. He was a witness to the Lt. General Jackson's historic march through Maryland in August of 1862 (the ink of Lincoln's Proclamation was yet dry). The doctor observed the invaders in gray. "Over 3,000 N--oes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the N--oes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army." In December of 1864 as Sherman at last marched to the sea Mary Drummond witnessed the general's investment of Lincoln's Christmas present. There were few experienced, armed, or fed Confederate soldiers to defend Savannah but shots were fired. Mary Drummond was the reason her husband Major William Drummond was in a Georgia unit rather than serving with his brother in the 3rd Maine Infantry. He was a Maine yankee that fell in love with a Georgia girl. Her husband was on another part of the overstretched front from the Atlantic to the Colorado. In a letter from Mary Drummond (published in A Confederate Yankee, The Journal of Edward William Drummond, a Confederate Soldier From Maine, Edited by Roger S. Durham) her recount brings to being Savannah's forgotten defenders. "...I hope to live to see a Monument raised to their memory for they deserve it, and we bless them for their faithfulness..." Indeed there is a monument that depicts armed decedents of African in the Southern ranks. Moses Ezekiel, a Jewish Confederate veteran designed the Confederate Memorial that was dedicated by President Wilson in the Confederate section of Arlington Cemetery. Featuring bronzed images of black soldiers in Confederate Gray the Arlington Virginia Confederate monument was the first monument in American history to honor men of color in the military.

The historical evidence that blacks in the South served as individual soldiers in integrated ranks in every department of the Confederacy can be found in hundreds of sources. The sources of the information on this page include Douglass' Monthly, IV, The Official Records, and Wiki's page on Moses Jacob Ezekiel

• • In the photo of Georgia Confederate Private Camp he is wearing the uniform of a Confederate infantryman (not the civilian coat of a body servant). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebelcry (talk • contribs) 09:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Zionist army

Confederate Rabbi Max Michelbacher compared the Confederates to "the Children of Israel crossing the Red Sea." The Confederates were supported principally by the Rothschilds, the leading Zionists in London.

Petey Parrot (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Zionism, as a practice, didn't really get big until the end of the century. This is anachronistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.131.17.84 (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Supposed "self-published sources"

Several times now I've tried to amend the section for "African-Americans in the Confederacy" to reflect the fact that there are over 7,000 (that's not a typo) examples of blacks who were formally enrolled in the C.S. Army in non-combatant roles.

This fact is supported by PRIMARY EVIDENCE--the individual service records for all 7,000 are available under the respective names and units of the subjects under discussion.

However, the only full listing of all 7,000 is a self-published finding aid that someone recently made available. (As anyone who has ever done primary research in this field knows, to find a person's service record you first need to know his name and the unit -- usually a regiment -- to which he was attached.)

So the support for this purportedly "controversial" statement is nothign less than a mountain of easily accessable primary sources (anyone with Footnote can look them up).

The person who keeps undoing this correction apparently wants all 7,000 names listed individually.

I would argue that refernce to the FINDING AID (self-published though it may be) -- NOT as direct evidence for the assertion about 7,000 names but merely as a entryway INTO this vast collection of primary evidence, is not in contradiction of Wikipedia's policy.

Perhaps an older hand at Wikipedia can help me sort this out. Is it the contention of those who have taken upon themselves the responsibility for maintaining articles that primary sources are an insufficient basis for making historical assertions?

The fact that there are, in Washington D.C., service records showing some 7,000 blacks formally enrolled in the Confederate Army and paid by the Confederate government as members of variosu regiments performing non-combat assignments is as incontrovertable as saying Sunday follows Saturday.

Surely there must be SOME way of adding that apparently uncomfortable fact to a supposedly "neutral" site that's citing secondary sources to argue against that reality. 166.67.66.5 (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted you because the source you used, Creative, is a self-publishing company. Wikipedia does not allow self-published sources. No, I don't want you to cite all 7000...that is a straw man argument. Wikipedia does indeed have policies on using primary sources which disallow using them for original research or synthesis. If the material that you have are trying to add may be cited to reliable secondary sources, I doubt anyone would object.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't found a source which attests to the 7,000, however I have found the following relative to the subject:

• "It has been estimated that some 65,000 black soldiers were enlisted in the Confederate army, of whom 13,000 fought in combat. The larger contribution was made by the tens of thousands of slaves and freedmen who provided the logistical support for the Confederate army throughout the war."

• "Regardless of the amount of research material available or the level of scholarship applied, there will never be total agreement over the role of African-Americans supporting the Confederacy or the exact number serving within southern military units. Nevertheless, if one considers the most conservative estimates of 50,000 to 60,000, then the numbers are significant as compared to the estimated figures for white men in the Confederate ranks, 600,000 to 1,000,000 (depending on which side did the counting)."

Given the above, I would suggest that the 7000 seem to be just the ones for which papers currently exist. Maybe someone else can offer more sourced info.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Differenses?

I know this topic may not directly connect to this article, but it should be!

Many times one stumbles over terms like "State troops", "State militia", "Home guards" and "Local militia" What are the differenses - if any? How were they recruited?

I miss information about this, and being a foreigner not having access to or the know how about to find out these questions.

It certainly should be a part of an article about the army of the confederate states. Or, maybe, rather an article of the defence forces of the CSA?

I would very much that someone could clearyfie this to me. Perhaps in this very article.

Jens, Sweden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.69.56 (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You are exactly right. This should be clarified. I have edited parts of this article and it definitely needs some additions and further editing. If no one does this in the near future, I hope to get to it. I will quickly make some comments here which I hope will be of some value.

My initial comment would be that all these terms refer to the same type of state militia organizations. In context, there could be some differences.

Before the Confederate States Army could be formed and organized, state armies or state troops were formed by most of the Southern states. Existing state militia organizations were called to duty and additional troops were recruited. Many of the troops ended up in the Confederate volunteer army (the Provisional Army of the Confederate States). Since each regiment was manned by soldiers from the same State, they could have continued to be called state troops but this would be in error. They were organized by State but were part of the Confederate Army. State troops usually would refer to the regiments before they were taken into Confederate service soon after the beginning of the war - or would refer to troops which remained in state militia organizations under the immediate command of the governor of the State.

Most states retained a number of regiments for defense of their state in the event the Confederate Army was unable to defend the state. This was a source of irritation between the states and the Confederate government, in particular because governors would not lift the restrictions on the use of these troops. These state militia regiments usually fought only within the borders of their home states, although they might be temporarily under the overall command of Confederate Army officers within those borders if campaigns by the national and Confederate armies occurred within their states. Militia units might be called to service in the state or locality where fighting was expected. Some units might expect to fight, and be called to fight, only in their local area. They might be referred to as local militia but they would be state militia drawn from a smaller, local area. They might also be called "State troops" in some sources which would not be concerned with limiting this term to the original state regiments taken into Confederate service.

Local militia might be called up for brief periods for campaigns in their local area, but presumably could be sent throughout the state.

Home guards were usually just local militia units but I have seen the term used for troops who definitely would not be called upon to fight or campaign statewide. In that sense, they might be a little more restricted type of local militia. They might have limited duties as well, such as finding deserters, fighting guerrillas, or law enforcement in the turbulent times of a civil war.

The state militia units existed before the war but they were in different stages of readiness. They were recruited and expanded by volunteers. As the war progressed, and some of the original units were conscripted into the Confederate Army, the militia soldiers were older or younger or less fit (such as previously wounded soldiers who had been discharged).

State militia units actively engaged in campaigns in all of the Confederate States, and were active particularly in campaigns in Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Mississippi.

The modern equivalent of these military units is found in the National Guard of the United States. That article has some history which covers the era of the state militias.

The Northern states also had state militia but, as with the Southern units, many of the original regiments became United States Army (Union Army) units. Some troops were retained for state service. These were in action during Confederate campaigns in Maryland and Pennsylvania, and Confederate raids into states such as Indiana and Ohio.

I hope this is a little helpful. Someone else who reads this may be able to explain it better or more clearly, and I hope they will do so. I also hope someone will write about this in the article - or that I can write something in the article, after some research and more careful writing, in the near future if no one else does.

Donner60 (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

that is a very good explanation. I would add that the state troops who stayed home were a military liability. They were not capable of high quality fighting and seldom actually fought--as seen by the Pennsylvania state forces in the Gettysburg campaign and the Georgia forces in the Sherman campaign. Most Texas troops stayed home. The net result was a severe weakening of Lee's army -- as it withered away in 1864-65 the potential replacements were locked in at home. Rjensen (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I liked the explanation, but wonder at the uptake of militia units into US or CS service. I thought Confederate Army was officially provisional out of state-rights sensibilities, and that both North and South maintained a command structure throughout The War compromised by political considerations of each state governor. I am not sure of the extent. Were there regular army commissions for commanders of state-named brigades? Rjensen help, others? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You have mentioned several aspects of the military structures. These can be confusing, in part because they were not static. At the outset of the war, both Union and Confederacy called for volunteer troops from the states. Many new regiments were raised, of course, but some of the troops that were offered were militia regiments. When formally incorporated into the national armies, as many of them were, these troops were no longer under state control. The 90-day regiments in the Union Army presented some odd special cases early in the war.

Most states retained some militia regiments and may have formed a few others as the war progressed, often from the old, the young and wounded veterans. For the most part, the Union Army did not need these troops. The Confederacy could have used some in their many armies, especially later in the war. But governors such as Joe Brown of Georgia would not let them fight outside their home states. The Confederacy had the skeleton of a regular army, a few generals and a few supposed "Confederate" regiments - which were in fact state regiments renamed. The Union regular army stayed together for the most part and never increased above about 40,000 men. The regiments were often commanded by lower grade officers such as captains. The field officers were allowed to offer their services to the state regiments, and of course the governors willingly appointed them as field officers. Hundreds became generals on both sides. These were appointed directly by the national governments. Few former regular army officers stayed with or came back to militia regiments for the duration of the war. I don't know of any of these that went back to the regular army - in fact, the few I can recall fought for the Confederacy so they could not go back.

The Confederate Army was the "Provisional Army of the Confederate States" not because the states had any control over the troops, but because it was a volunteer army which was to be mustered out to be replaced by a small regular army at the end of the war. The situation was the same with the Union Army, which was a volunteer army which was mustered out for the most part soon after the war was over. Officers in the volunteer army who returned to the regular United States Army usually ended up with much lower grades. Custer is a good example, going from lieutenant in the regular army, over the course of the war to major general of volunteers and back to lieutenant colonel in the regular army. There are more extreme examples. Some field officers who came up through state regiments but who did not come from the regular army (some may have been veterans, however) eventually became generals and at least a few got regular army commissions after the war. So not all of those who stayed in the army had been in the regular army at the start of the war. On the other hand, some became superfluous by about 1869 or so and often resigned because they had no assignment.

The state governors could only interfere with the command structure to the extent they still had militia regiments under their control. Of course, the national governments had to depend on the states, especially early in the war, for men and supplies and occasionally for help if their territory was invaded so they could not afford to ignore them altogether. An exception would be that the governors could appoint the initial field officers of newly organized regiments and both armies mostly got new men through the formation of new regiments, not as replacements in existing regiments already under national control. (Election of officers in Confederate regiments, especially in the earlier years of the war is another complication that should be mentioned.)

I have rambled on a little to get some of the main ideas down on paper reasonably quickly. This deserves a more careful exposition (with sources) because it is not entirely straightforward and had some changes through the war, but I hope I have made a few points clearly enough. If I had waited until doing a comprehensive, well organized exposition with citations, I am sure it would have been quite awhile until I could answer. I am confident enough in what I have written to think it is generally correct; I hope it is also somewhat helpful as an answer. Donner60 (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me add that if you were specifically asking whether state militia officers (even generals) got commands in the Confederate or Union Armies, the answer after the first months of the war would be: almost none - because they stayed with the state units. Also, state militia regiments and their officers, whatever their grades, were subject to the command of the Union or Confederate Army commanders when they got called up and fought with them. As the war progressed, the Union and Confederate armies neither needed nor wanted the militia officers (with perhaps just a few exceptions) to be part of their command structures - and certainly not while they remained in command of the state units. Donner60 (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of good material to work into that encyclopedic summary style. Doesn't get any better than an encouraging word from Rjensen. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

True. I am sure he could do it in many fewer words and better over all but I am willing to look into the topic as well. This will require some research in order to provide support. Some of this comes simply from working on biographies and various reading. It may take a little time to find direct support, although I have some books that should provide some help with this topic. Donner60 (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Chinese

"Two or three men from China and two Americans of partial Chinese descent were Confederate soldiers." Is it relevant to have 35 lines discussing 4 persons in an overview article? Can I use 175 lines writing about the 20 Swedes from Texas that was conscripted into the provisonal army? 84.23.155.84 (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:UNDUE. removed. Student7 (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the section was undue weight even though I wrote the current version. It is a different situation than the Swede example, despite the superficial similarity. I'd like to explain my reason. A previous version which was nowhere near correct had to be replaced with something accurate. The inaccuracies exist in other publications as well. Even high U.S. government officials have made mistakes about the number of Chinese soldiers in both armies, but especially in the Southern army. The source of these mistakes can be traced easily enough. I put the detail and citation into this section to write a conclusive, sourced statement and end the matter. I had to do this in part to get the errors out but also because minor corrections had been worked around. You might even say politics or pride took over from history and I was trying to establish the history such as can be shown from the sources.

Don't be surprised if additions and misinformation begin to appear in this section again now that the path has been cleared. I would not argue to put the prior version or something like it back for these reasons - if it remains unchanged - because I cannot argue that it is not undue weight, and it has been some time since the editing took place. If the errors and exaggerations return, do we serve the readers by trying to keep it short and leave or work around misinformation or by showing with sources and conclusiveness the extent of the participation? Normally, I agree, it's undue weight. In this case, I am not sure it will work best to treat it that way in the long run. Donner60 (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If someone again tries to start adding material about Chinese Confederates, the appropriate action would be to revert it and direct the editor to make his/her case for inclusion on this discussion page. IMO, even a brief mention is undue weight when you consider that scholars have written numerous books on the subject of the CSA military w/o ever mentioning Chinese Confederates. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We probably can use the deleted section itself to show the true, minor scope of this and the undue weight to any re-introduction of the topic. It would be superfluous to insert it on the talk page now because it might be missed by anyone who comes along later or even archived. Donner60 (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"Beg, Steal, Borrow" in quotation is linked to Forging improperly.

The common military phrase for solider under orders to obtain supply by any means necessary often quoted as to "beg borrow, or steal" is linked to the wiki article on foraging, which covers mostly animal behavior. The term implies a part of American militarism and from person experience in the US Army can verify that it is in use today. If the phrase is in quotation it lends into self being a quote from a source. the link to foraging should be removed in any case. The phrase should be removed if uncited and if cited and an article exists for the phrase to be linked to it, or have no link at all.MichaelJPierce (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Country flag infobox

The “Blood Stained Banner”, the flag of the Confederacy “since 1865” was passed as Richmond was being lost, it was never fabricated, never a part of the historical Confederacy. David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the BSB was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB.

In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 viewed June 13, 2012, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the Stars-and-Bars was used “all over the Confederacy”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If you go to the Aiken County (S.C.) Historical Society Museum, you will see an original 3rd National Flag "The Blood Stained Banner" framed and on display. CKB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrowscv (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

And, I found another one-off example in the Bucks County (PA) Civil War Museum - Confederate flag, captured near Shreveport, Louisiana. Though the rare and isolated examples of its fabrication by a few and isolated companies in the last weeks of the conflict are extant, the “Third National Flag” itself is not something that represents the scope of this article, which treats the "Confederate States Army" from 1861 to 1865. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Decorations entry in infobox

I am inclined to delete the "Decorations" entry in the infobox. The Southern Cross of Honor as least should be removed as it was not created until 1898. The CSA authorized, but did not issue any decorations or medals during the war, and from the legislation it is not clear what the name would have been. We can only speculate, and that is not sufficient. Should we retain the field (removing the Southern Cross of Honor) and state that none were issued? This latter is verifiable. Red Harvest (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing borders on the currently depicted battle flag

I submit that the flag depicted as the battle flag of the Confederate Armies is missing its borders. The flag should have (orange, yellow or white) borders around the three sides opposite the sleeve which should be white.

File:Http://jamesdjulia.com/wp-content/uploads/images/auctions/200/images/org/76148.jpg

Battle Flag of the Confederate States Army

Meyeklhall (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Unused reference error

An unused reference was causing a cite error to display at the end of the reference list. I have commented it out, but left it in place in case a future edit would find it useful. The reference was:

<ref name="voices.washingtonpost.com">Levine, Bruce. [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2010/10/the_myth_of_the_black_confeder.html ''The myth of the black Confederates''], The Washington Post, October 30, 2010.</ref> CV9933 (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Treatment of [black] prisoners of war (section)

"...the Confederacy in May 1863 passed a law demanding 'full and ample retaliation' against the Union, stating that any black person captured in an American uniform would be tried as slave insurrectionists in civil courts; a capital offense with automatic sentence of death."

Omits the fact that no black soldier was ever put on trial and executed- [1]

"In practice, captured USCT soldiers were often murdered by the Confederates without being taken to court."

Unsourced. Amounts to opinion/belief and ignores the fact that many black prisoners were either returned to their masters or used as laborers by the Confederate army-

"...The state of Louisiana never prosecuted the black prisoners, and although their final disposition remains unclear, most likely they were reenslaved or used by the army as laborers, typifying the fate of other such captives in the South." [2]

"...The Confederate Congress had enacted that negro troops, captured, should be restored to their owners. We had several hundreds of such, taken by Forrest in Tennessee, whose owners could not be reached; and they were put to work on the fortifications at Mobile.." [3]

"Morning report of the Forrest captured negroes, February 4, 1865." [4]

---

"...[blacks] were often the victims of battlefield massacres and atrocities at the hands of the Confederates, most notably at Fort Pillow in Tennessee and at the Battle of the Crater."

Omits that black troops and their officers initiated the rule of "no quarter" (a violation of the US Army's Lieber Code) at both Fort Pillow and the Battle of the Crater-

Fort Pillow - Report of Lt. Van Horn- [5]

Battle of the Crater [6]

---

"...the prisoner exchange protocol between the U.S. and the Confederacy broke down over the latter's harsh position on black prisoners of war."

Debateable. As Grant stated: "Every man we hold, when released on parole or otherwise, becomes an active soldier against us at once either directly or indirectly. If we commence a system of exchange which liberates all prisoners taken, we will have to fight on until the whole South is exterminated. If we hold those caught they amount to no more than dead men." [7]

---

"In response to such mistreatment, U.S. Army general Ulysses S. Grant, in a letter to Confederate officer Richard Taylor, urged the Confederates to treat captured black U.S. soldiers humanely and professionally and not to murder them." Omits Taylor's reply- [8] -BorderRuffian 01:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Well no-- this is arguing with the RS and deliberately using a private interpretation of primary sources to make an argument not supported by scholars. As for Grant's demands, here's what McPherson says: According to Murrin and McPherson: "Expressing outrage at this treatment, in 1863 the Lincoln administration suspended the exchange of prisoners until the Confederacy agree to treat white and black prisoners alike. The Confederacy refused." John Murrin, James McPherson; et al. (2008). Liberty, Equality, Power. Cengage Learning. p. 433. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help).

More balance needed @"Using Slaves as Soldiers"

• There are no quotes from proponents of the measure like Lee[9] or Davis (I believe they would trump Cobb and Seddon).

• The article gives the impression that the opposition was overwhelming...yet it passed. How did that happen?

• There were proponents of arming slaves and free blacks from the beginning of the war-

General Ewell[10]

-BorderRuffian 17:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

A minor detail- "On March 13, 1865, the Confederate Congress passed General Order 14 by a single vote in the Confederate senate,[84][15] and Jefferson Davis signed the order into law."

Congresses do not pass orders. General Order 14 was issued by the War Department (the law was included in the text of the order). -BorderRuffian —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Added WV, what of KY, MO, MD?

I added West Virginia to the Area of Operations. As part of Virginia from 1861-63, there were a number of regiments recruited there, amounting to about 20 regiments of men. This article also does not cover the border states very well. Recruiting in West Virginia continued til the end of the war.Dubyavee (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"Slavery and White Supremacism" section

"The widespread northern myth that the Confederates went to the battlefield to perpetuate slavery is just that, a myth. Their letters and diaries, in the tens-of-thousands, reveal again and again, that they fought and died because their Southern homeland was invaded and their natural instinct was to protect their home and hearth."

-William C. Davis, The Cause Lost: Myths and Realities of the Confederacy (University Press of Kansas, 1996), 183.

-BorderRuffian —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Context and nuance are important. In the very first sentence of the paragraph you quote from, Davis wrote, "In short, it is impossible to point to any other local issue but slavery and say that Southerners would have seceded and fought over it."

In tagging the section as you did, you seem to ignore the intro to the section "Morale and motivations" (of which "Slavery and White Supremacism" is a subsection). This makes the same point as the Davis quote you provided in a properly balance manner. The quote from Perman provided:

Some historians emphasize that Civil War soldiers were driven by political ideology, holding firm beliefs about the importance of liberty, Union, or state rights, or about the need to protect or to destroy slavery. Others point to less overtly political reasons to fight, such as the defense of one's home and family, or the honor and brotherhood to be preserved when fighting alongside other men. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The Perman quote makes clear that historians are divided. Wiki NPOV rule is that Both views must be included. Rjensen (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Union Ideology

User Border Ruffian has added to the infobox a claim that the ideology of the Union (Union military?) was "white supremacy" and "Union with Slavery". There is so much wrong with these claims.

1. The sourcing consists of three quotes -- two from Lincoln and one from the Crittenden-Johnson Resolutions. All three PRIMARY SOURCES have an historical context that BR ignores. In any event, I am not aware of any reliable secondary source that claim that "white supremacy" and "Union with Slavery" were the ideology of the Union in the civil war. Nor do the quotes themselves support the claim.

2. This is an article about the CSA military. How is the ideology of the Union at all related to the CSA military?

3. Related to #2, the infobox should have some relation to the content of the actual article -- there is no discussion in the article of Union "ideology" -- nor should there be. If BF actually has a point to make about Union ideology, it belongs in another article and needs to be sourced to reliable SECONDARY sources.

I will become the second editor to revert this addition for the reasons I've cited. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The root of the issue is the use of the wrong infobox. User:Illegitimate Barrister changed Template:Infobox military unit to Template:Infobox war faction on March 2 without any previous discussion on doing so. Per Template:Infobox war faction/doc: "A war faction infobox may be used to summarize information about a particular faction participating in a war; it should not be used for regular military units and formations (which should use {{infobox military unit}} instead)." Therefore, I've restored the correct infobox. We shouldn't re-add "Infobox war faction" without a clear consensus here to do so. - BilCat (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason I changed it to war faction was because of two reasons, one was because the C.S. was never a recognized country, and two was because the war faction box includes many things that the military one does not, and then some. Also, the root of the issue is not because of the box, it is because some people are unwilling to accept what the reliable secondary sources say because it does not back up their pre-conceived notions. The reliable secondary sources (such as James M. McPherson, arguably the best Civil War historian there is), state the C.S. ideology's was pretty clearly slavery and white supremacism. Also, the Union ideology was not "White supremacy" or "slavery", for if that were the case, why would they have adopted the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments at the end of the war? Rjensen and North Shoreman are both correct; the Union ideology was not slavery or racism, and even if it were, which it wasn't, it belongs on the Union article and not on the C.S. article. The "Crittenden-Johnson Resolution" was at the very beginning of the war and ignores every subsequent development throughout the war, such as the fact that after 1863, ending slavery became an official U.S. goal. The Democrats surely would have wanted Union with slavery (e.g. their slogan "Union as it was"), but the Republicans, who controlled the White House and thus, the Executive Branch, did not, hence why they adopted the Confiscation Acts, Emancipation Proclamation, 13th Amendment, not to mention their slogan was Lincoln and Liberty, (e.g. Unionism and ending slavery). I also noticed somebody changed it to "states' rights", well, here again I have to channel McPherson, states' rights for what? It's a means to an end, not a goal in and of itself. Sadly, I knew there probably would have been some kind of edit war, since there are a lot of people out there who cannot accept the truth written down in the reliable secondary sources. It's not limited to things about the C.S. or ACW, it extends to things like WWII and Imperial Japan, and such. This misuse of primary sources reminds me of what Rjensen said when he told me that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, and I now know why. Regards, – Illegitimate Barrister (talk), 19:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• The guidelines are clear. The CSA Army clearly meets the definition of "regular military units and formations", and whether the country was ever recognized or not is irrelevant to that point. It is your wanting to "many things that the military one does not, and then some" that is causing the problems here, because such things do not belong in a military infobox in the first place. - BilCat (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

McPherson's quote-"Confederate soldiers from slaveholding families expressed no feelings of embarrassment or inconsistency in fighting for their own liberty while holding other people in slavery. Indeed, white supremacy and the right of property in slaves were at the core of the ideology for which Confederate soldiers fought." McPherson assigns to ALL Confederate soldiers that they "fought for property in slaves" by using statements only from "soldiers from slaveholding families." That's a problem since "soldiers from slaveholding families" were in the minority.-BorderRuffian —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, in McPherson's The Struggle for Equality: Abolitionists and the Negro in the Civil War...pp.24-25 he points out that there were feelings of "supremacy" even in the North. However, I don't see where he claims that "white supremacy" was a comparable ideology that prompted the south to secede from the Union. State's rights and slavery were the primary motivating issues in the south. The south also had many issues with the Union banks during this time who had always profited from cotton, even through the Civil War. They didn't like the idea that the south was dealing with European textile interests directly. While many, (including Britain and France) had always criticized the U.S. overall about slavery, they were not to proud to enjoy the fruits of slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I have to agree with BilCat here and support his revert to the standard military infobox. This is a major change to a significant article and should have been proposed on the talk first for discussion. That said, I would say to Illegitimate Barrister that if you feel the current infobox needs additional parameters, you don't necessarily have to change it to another one, you can instead make a proposal for the additional parameters here, (or at WT:MILHIST), and if they're approved by consensus, then a template editor will add them for you. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 01:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Rjensen, North Shoreman, Illegitimate Barrister, and Gwillihickers. --- Are we nearing a consensus? --- The Confederate Constitution upholds slavery as a “corner stone” of the rebellion (or Southern “revolution”) as Alexander Stephens noted. The Confederate “defending our rights” was defending the right to extend slavery into the territories and Latin America, and to perpetuate it at home into the twentieth century against the democratic electoral threat of the growing abolitionist movement among the majority of the United States.

Hence for the rebel secessionist fire-eaters, without any offense from the federal government, never mind "a long train of abuses" of twenty years, merely a Republican president with Republican majorities in the House and Senate were worth the bloodshed of the Civil War -- the price for guaranteed slavery. The Confederate rebels had to resort to conscription for the first time on the North American continent to sustain armies in the field after the one-year enlistments went home; they could not sustain the rebellion without coercion in the states they sought to secede. And conscription passed in the Confederate Congress only with the votes of the delegates from loyal Missouri, Kentucky and Virginia where the secessionist governors or Confederate army units appointed representatives who voted lock step with Jefferson Davis regardless of the people in their states voting against secession and electing Representatives to the U.S. Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox flag

An editor introduced a flag for the Confederate States of America which flew briefly over the Capitol building in Richmond, but never as a battle flag of the Confederate States Army. The 2:1 ratio flag literally did not function, it did not fly on a flagpole, and it was seen as truce or surrender (Samsing). For the Confederacy at the time, it was “not satisfactory” ( Coulter, p. 119). The army did not use it, Lee did not fight under it.

In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 p. 118 viewed June 13, 2012, published in LSU’s History of the South series, notes that beginning in March 1861, the First National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy”. I believe the white field flag flew once during a Union naval bombardment at Fort Sumter, but it was removed because of the confusion it caused there. I have replaced that flag icon with an image of the flag flown everywhere in the Confederacy at the time as reliable sources report. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

They look confusingly very similar, but you know better. I was just trying to add the flag since it was missing from the infobox, but thanks for the history. SkoraPobeda (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Confederate States Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.booknotes.org/FullPage.aspx?SID=55946-1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanheritage.com/content/south%E2%80%99s-inner-civil-war-0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://deadconfederates.com/tag/black-confederates/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.civilwaronthewesternborder.org/timeline/general-orders-no-14
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=N48LAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=%22howell+cobb%22+%22soldiers+of+slaves%22&source=bl&ots=kxO5xZwwr3&sig=HV6CCacydzUmjOpdEhjJ3uKR8rU&hl=en&ei=d8fETLXiB4G0lQfN9IEG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=onepage&q=%22howell%20cobb%22%20%22soldiers%20of%20slaves%22&f=false
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://deadconfederates.com/2015/01/08/real-confederates-didnt-know-about-black-confederates-2/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cwmemory.com/2015/01/07/the-most-pernicious-idea-150-years-later
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.civil-war-tribute.com/us-grant-letter-to-lincoln-08231863.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://deadconfederates.com/2014/04/15/understanding-fort-pillow-full-and-ample-retaliation/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=AMg4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA168&dq=confederate+laws+%22full+and+ample+retaliation%E2%80%9D&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Hxi1Uru2Kqby2QXDm4C4CQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=confederate%20laws%20%22full%20and%20ample%20retaliation%E2%80%9D&f=false
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.civilwarhome.com/liebercode.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29621
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.li/le1NM/f80f3a997f1e1e0b623538c8de61c42af4c5e5bc/scr.png

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

McPherson: "no black soldiers fought in the Confederate army, unless they were passing as white."

Not "tens of thousands" but some did.

Arthur W. Bergeron, Jr., "Free Men of Color in Grey," Civil War History, Volume XXXII, No. 3 (Sept. 1986), 247-255 [11].

-BorderRuffian

McPherson is wrong. Just read "Black Confederates" and "Black Southerners in Confederate Armies" by Charles Kelly Barrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrowscv (talk • contribs) 15:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Biased article?

I have noticed that the whole article does not have any (or barely any) non-American articles regarding the American Civil War. I have a suspicion that (I'm European with ancestor that fought on Confederate side) a lot of American sources due to "victor writes the history" may be heavily biased. Confederate flag, for example, is synonymous with white supermacy and/or racism - which isn't entirely true or correct. According to his diary, The South seemed to be less racist than North even could be.

I'm not sure if I should point out my lecturer's work regarding American Civil War, since I made a huge essay regarding ACW on basis of it and, to be honest, I found myself pretty surprised since a lot of non-American sources point out not only a broader involvement of foreigners into CSA. These sources seem to partially deny the supposed goals of the war (let's start with the fact that slavery was never main point of the war, but right to drop slavery or not on basis of the local State law not Federal law). A noteworthy fact - which is a very crucial point here - is a little fact that Abraham Lincoln never cared about the slavery in the first place. He did abolish slavery only to sustain the unity of the nation. And, nonetheless, would keep slavery if it was for sake of keeping United States in one piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.195.164 (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

these complaints come out of the 1930s and have long been discarded by American experts. Rjensen (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The main point of the war among the Rebels was expansion of slavery into the U.S. Territories, re-enslaving Mexico, and acquiring Cuba, Nicaragua and Central America for a slave empire ruled by English speakers (see William Walker (filibuster). Among men loyal to the U.S. Constitution, it was initially (1) Union without a Constitutional Amendment allowing secession, then (2) the end of slavery at the Emancipation Proclamation, and then for peace time, (3) to get national (Northern) super majorities of two-thirds in the House and Senate, and three-fourths of the states to abolish slavery by Constitutional Amendment, the goal was punishment of the Slave Power that made the loss of 600,000 Americans possible. For the sake of historical accuracy and heritage commemoration, I too regret that in American culture, the KKK captured the Confederate battle flag as a rectangular banner from the 1880s and 1920s into the present, but they have done so. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I am also European. While I would like to have a more global perspective in several articles and less partisan sources, I think there are several flaws in your reasoning.:

• The Flags of the Confederate States of America are not associated with white supremacy and racism out of coincidence or Union propaganda. The Neo-Confederate people and organizations which have used the flag over the last century or so tend to be associated with the causes of racism, white supremacy, opposition to civil and human rights, religious intolerance, and in some cases Neo-Nazism. The short-lived Confederate States of America have left a long-lasting legacy, but not a particularly positive one.
• Nobody claims that the soldiers and citizens of the Union were all Abolitionists or less racist than their Confederate counterparts. Four Slave states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri), joined the Union side in the war and did not abolish slavery until its final stages. However, the political leadership of the Union were opposed to the expansion of slavery to additional territories and, like the defunct Free Soil Party, believed that free men working on free land could serve as an "economically superior system" to slavery.
• I would be very surprised if Abraham Lincoln did not care about slavery. He made his political reputation in part by delivering anti-slavery speeches such as Abraham Lincoln's Lyceum address (1838), Abraham Lincoln's Peoria speech (1854), Lincoln's Lost Speech (1856), Lincoln's House Divided Speech (1858), and Cooper Union speech (1860). What he was willing to do about the matter is another topic. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Military of the Confederate States of America

Similar topics with a good amount of overlap in details - would require someone with good knowledge on Civil War on merging these two articles, but I believe it would be beneficial to merge into one article containing the info together Shaded0 (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Originally I was thinking that the broader-based Military article might be better merged towards the Confederate States of America article, but that already seems to be too long. I'm thinking that long term, the best structure is to retain the article which ostensibly covers all branches of CS military service, as a sub-article of CSA. This article needs improvement, not merging into a sub-topic of the larger subject. BusterD (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The start class "Military" article has elements which might be contributions to both Confederate States Army and Confederate States Navy. The title should be maintained with a redirect page to assist research. However, I have not set up a redirect page before. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This would result in a too large article, or in the loss of necessary detail. Dimadick (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

(a) "Military of the CSA" is hardly more than a stub, a start class article, how does the minimal information there make either Confederate States Army or Confederate States Navy too large? Much is already overlapping. (b) How does transferring the information from "Military of the CSA" result in a loss of necessary detail? The elements seen as "necessary" will surely be transferred in any proposed merge. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I recommend improving this article and the other two main branches of the CS forces, and maintaining the Military... article and improving that as well. I recognize all of these pages need work (The Army one especially), but I see the value of their separation as well. I would like to see the Military... article in particular summarize the services more concisely, and include inter-workings of the services in detail as well, which did actually happen from time to time, and I think that would be out of place on any of the three separate pages. I have been away from the pedia for a while and just getting my feet wet again, but I would be interested on colabing on these projects. Kresock (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the result would be a two-part mess that's too long for most readers & too confusing. What is needed is better coverage in the OTHER article on issues like Congress, state governors, militias, draft system, hospitals, veterans. Rjensen (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just for the records. The military article covers a larger area than just the army and that is exactly what it is there for; in my opinion being validated to exist on its own. It could use some improvement, true, but not a merge. And a bit overlapping is, considering the materia, both unproblematic and natural. ...GELongstreet (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Noting the close, given the consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

CS soldier biography

https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=5014948 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.93.225 (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Confederate States Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130625144353/http://www.civilwarsoldier.com:80/cws_confederate_soldiers.htm to http://www.civilwarsoldier.com/cws_confederate_soldiers.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Violation of US Army Oath

The oath taken by US Army officers in 1840 (the year e.g. Lee was commissioned) was:

"I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States."

Source: http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html

Hard to see how any current or former US Army officer who joined the rebel army was not violating that oath. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The oath is sworn as a commissioned officer in the army. Once he resigns his commission he is no longer bound to that oath. As I said it is only broken if he accepts a Confederate commission (or enlists) without resigning or if he does so without resigning, before the resignation is accepted or if the resignation is denied. There were cases of all three of those, but most simply were accepted. ... GELongstreet (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Confederate States Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723013312/http://www.amtour.net/downloadable/The_5_Civilized_Tribes_in_the_Civil_War_a_Biographical_Essay.pdf to http://www.amtour.net/downloadable/The_5_Civilized_Tribes_in_the_Civil_War_a_Biographical_Essay.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723013312/http://www.amtour.net/downloadable/The_5_Civilized_Tribes_in_the_Civil_War_a_Biographical_Essay.pdf to http://www.amtour.net/downloadable/The_5_Civilized_Tribes_in_the_Civil_War_a_Biographical_Essay.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113112128/http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=58612 to http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs53x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?read=58612
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.civilwarsoldier.com/cws_confederate_soldiers.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Veterans

It'd be helpful if this article had a little summary of the situation of CSA veterans. Template:American Civil War includes a few relevant articles under the topic of "Veterans": 1913 Gettysburg Reunion, Confederate Veteran, Old soldiers' home, Southern Cross of Honor United Confederate Veterans. Maybe an overview of those, and some information on pensions, etc? I don't have the knowledge or references to write it myself. Mobi Ditch (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)