Talk:Confederate States of America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former good article nomineeConfederate States of America was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 13, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 20, 2009, December 20, 2010, December 20, 2012, December 20, 2013, December 20, 2014, December 20, 2015, December 20, 2016, December 20, 2017, December 20, 2018, December 20, 2019, and December 20, 2020.


Confederate Naval Jack Error

The Confederate Naval Jack as shown on this page was only such from the adoption of the 2nd National Flag in 1863 until the end of the war. Jacks are an adaptaion of the Naval Ensign, usually using the canton of the flag as their inspiration. In essence the X flag is the "Second Naval Jack". The First Naval Jack would be an interpretation of the canton of the provisional First National Flag of the CSA, the Stars and Bars and as such would be a blue flag with white stars in a circle. Jacks are minor flags flown from the bow of a Naval vessel usually only when anchored or when fully "dressed" for events and such. 66.69.211.54 (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Confederacy end date is WRONG.

The Confederacy ended on June 23,1865 when the last Confederate General surrendered his Army. The claim that the confederacy ended on May 9,1965 is ridiculous as nearly 100,000 rebel troops were still fighting at that time. 75.244.119.96 (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was when the war may have ended, but the confederate government declared itself out of existence in May. That people kept fighting doesn't change that fact. Fighting for a ghost doesn't make the ghost alive. --Golbez (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uuum, actually, thats exactly what that means. The fact that there were STILL men fighting. Men who considered themselves to be and who were, the Confederacy. So, you're wrong.
Just because certain people declared the fact that they gave up, does not mean that which they were once apart of is gone.
They simply weren't apart of it anymore.
And clearly, there was still a rather large contingency that was still fighting the good fight and who were all members of the confederacy who had yet to admit defeat.
Just because a no good, weak minded political fool aka a Politician, decides to abandon his principles, his morals, and his constitutes and just leaves one day doesn't mean the entire system he was elected to serve also goes away with him. 172.56.105.98 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, not a chance. By that logic, the Confederation never died, because there were always people who believed in "The Cause". So why end it in June 1865? I support the May 1865 date. Place Clichy (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The clear answer to this would be to also include the fact that rebels were still fighting after the war, and not change the end date from when the organization of the Confederacy stated their own end. This way, readers learn the nuanced end. 104.148.215.149 (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why I reverted the "self-determining" sentence

The sentence read: The Confederate States were fairly "self-determining" and regional or specific state identities often prevailed in government and society over views of a truly unified nation.

I think that it is trying to say something to the effect that the states of the Confederacy had a significant degree of independence from the Confederacy. But here are the problems I see: (1) Capitalizing "states" results in "The Confederate States" meaning the Confederacy, not the individual states of the Confederacy. (2) "Self-determining" has no meaning, which is probably why it is in scare quotes. How do states determine themselves? I suspect that "independent" is meant. (3) "regional or specific state identities" has no meaning. If the sentence is discussing the states' independence, where does "regional" come in? And what are "state identities," specific or otherwise? (4) If "regional or specific state identities" had any meaning, what would it mean for them to "prevail in government" or "prevail in society"? (5) What views of a truly unified nation are meant? How can "identities" (whatever they are) prevail over "views"? I do not have access to the cited source, but, as an editor (not just of Wikipedia) I find that some writers mistakenly think that quoting is somehow cheating, and therefore they paraphrase is a manner that is less clear than the quotation. Perhaps that's what occurred here. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to ping @GoutComplex:. :) — Smuckola(talk) 05:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The language use in this article is pretty atrocious and PoV

"During the four years of its existence under trial by war, the Confederate States of America asserted its independence and appointed dozens of diplomatic agents abroad."

"trial by war"; this reads like admiration, not a statement of fact.

"A string of eloquent and sometimes well-educated Negro abolitionist speakers crisscrossed England, Scotland, and Ireland. In addition to exposing the reality of America's shameful and sinful chattel slavery—some were fugitive slaves—they rebutted the Confederate position that negroes were "unintellectual, timid, and dependent""

"Negro speakers"? Am I missing something, or is this just highly inappropriate? This is not a quote or citation; this is flat out using "Negro" instead of "black"; similar, "negroes were "unintellectual, timid, and dependent"" would excuse the use of negroes if it as a quote, but it isn't - again, it feels inappropriate to not use "black" or whatever other modern term is deemed appropriate.

In general, this just reads *weird* - "eloquent and sometimes well-educated Negro(s)" does not read like an impartial statement of fact, even though it might very well be, technically, but like something somebody living in the Confederacy would say; expressing surprise that negroes can be eloquent, and indeed, sometimes even well educated. "Shameful and sinful chattel slavery" is just about as PoV as it gets; use a quote if you want to use loaded language like this. And it goes on like this. This article needs a revision badly, I'd argue. 2A04:6EC0:20F:A9D0:B53B:C48:1540:E06C (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. This ridiculous content was added by an editor who has done a lot of good work on WP, but he's also known for adding such grossly point of view material to articles related to slavery, and he's been doing it for years. I recognized his style immediately when I looked, and checked to make sure it was him; it was added 25 May 2020 11:36 AM. Somehow this had escaped my attention, but I don't have time to attend to it just now. The "sinful" really gets me, even more so than the inappropriate use of "Negro" as if it were an acceptable modern-day usage. Would you possibly have time to address these concerns in a bold edit? These flagrant anachronisms should be fixed right away. Carlstak (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The misty-eyed "trial by war" phrasing was removed by another editor. I've removed the "Shameful and sinful" preacher talk and the anachronistic usage of "Negro". Why is it that whenever I ask editors who have complaints about an article's content to please fix it themselves because I am engaged IRL, I never hear from them again? Hmmm.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023

Request to add {{Confederate states in the American Civil War}}.

223.25.74.34 (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: why? M.Bitton (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.  Spintendo  22:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024

Change the confederate states of Americas to the traitors InternettrollInternettroll (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please see WP:NPOV, particularly WP:IMPARTIAL. Jamedeus (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confederate_States_of_America&oldid=1217252244"