Talk:Union (American Civil War)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Attitudes

Some of this material probably belongs in an article such as 'attitudes toward the Civil War/states' rights as shown by the use of language'. But this has gotten about as tricky as I can manage without getting too esoteric and obscure for WP. Perhaps someone with a greater gift for handling discusions of nuance in other people's use of language might have a try at it? ww 15:55, 7 April 2004 (UTC)

Which state joined the Union last?

Which state joined the Union last? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.221.251 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2004 (UTC)

North Carolina joined the Confederacy last. See Confederate States of America. Arual — Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Union" refers to the United States - it is a union of states. All states belonged to the Union. The last state to join the Union was Hawaii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.126.6 (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The map

map: i changed the map to use more appropriate colors...using the red/blue color scheme causes at best unneccessary linkage of current politics with a most painful chapter of american history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ampersand~enwiki (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 June 2005 (UTC)

The map is once again red and blue. Perhaps you might want to do this again? I'm in agreement with you on this, by the way. I should suggest that the colors that the respective armies usually wore would be better? Blue for the Union, grey for the Confederacy. TimBRoy (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

red and blue is just alot easyer on they eyes. gray just meshs in with the borders. plus, the confederate flag was mostly red, so it kind of connects. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal

This section, rightly, or wrongly, was removed--it is retained here for reference/possible future use:

In the United States, the issues of the Civil War have never entirely faded from ideological struggle, and occasionally resurface. Confederate apologists supporters, for example, will often object to the term 'Civil War' and insist on 'War Between the States' or a similar term which implies (or allows inference of) legitimacy of the secession decisions in the 'tradition' of the Kentucky resolutions, or of the various New England secession movements in the early 19th century. The distinction is not merely formal, but is often connected with current controversies, as for instance support for a strong states' rights position. Although these positions have migrated over time between the two mainstream political parties and been championed by fringe parties throughout (see, for example, "Dixiecrat" and George Wallace), anti-Federalism is currently embraced by a segment of the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party. ~ 168.103.97.214 01:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why have this article?

What is the real topic of this article? If the topic is the United States during the Civil War then it should be titled as such (it is questionable why that really needs to be separated from the discussing the Civil War as a whole). If the topic is the Civil War there is already an article on that.

This article seems to be here simply to define the term "Union" in the context of the civil war. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" so this is inappropriate.

BTW, I dispute the premise that the term "Union" today is associated exclusively with the Civil War. Although this is the most common usage the term is still commonly used to refer to the United States throughout its history.

Anyway, I'd propose that there is not a good reason to have this article and it should be removed.

--Mcorazao 19:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There probably should be an article discussing the Union home front during the war. A separate article would be needed simply because of the size of the main article on the Civil War. I would agree with you that this existing article does not appear to serve any particular purpose. Tom (North Shoreman) 20:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is not much meat in the article. It is probably there as a logical counterpart to the Confederate States of America article. The biggest argument against removing it would be the number of links that would have to be repaired, but if that could be resolved, I would not object to seeing it go. (I assume that some people may object if you simply redirect this link to United States.) Hal Jespersen 22:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I created the article during a disambiguation because a bunch of Civil War articles were linking to "Union" and linking them to United States didn't make any sense, since that article concerns a much more general context. It might make sense to redirect it to a section of American Civil War or something like that. I should note that the objection that the word "Union" is used in other contexts in history is not relevant, as this is not the article Union (a disambiguation page which could list such other contexts) but an already-disambiguated page on the Union during the American Civil War. Dcoetzee 01:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is great! I came here looking for it after reviewing the Confederate States Article. Thanks to the secession, during this period of Civil War, the Union was a different (and smaller) country than before or after the Civil War. Thanks! 70.225.180.16 (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Lancea Longini

Actually, it was the same country but some (not nearly all)members of the southern states tried to leave it. Do some research, you'll find there was a great many in the south actively against leaving, even revolting. The "union" was and is the united states. Afterall, isnt lincoln listed as on of the presidents of the united states? Joesolo13 (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Article Needs to clarify why the union was opposed to the confederacy

example reason per state for not seceding and likewise with the confederates page, reasons per state for secession as redundant as it may seem.

really it wasnt why not to rebel, so much as why should they? the gov. worked fine, they had no issues with it. the south was just pissed because , the majority of americans wanted to stop slavery, having to pay more when the government was trying to keep competition between local and forign factorys fair, and angry they didnt have as much power as the north(even though the north had more people so it was fair.) so no reason for the north to secede. specially since once the south tried to lead there wasnt really anything for them to quit from. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"An ungainly giant"

Describing Lincoln as "an ungainly giant" seems opinion rather than fact, as his appearance has anything to do with the purpose of the article. It sounds like it was written by a Lincoln-hater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.40.132.254 (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no question about "giant" -- and the RS are agreed about "ungainly." Stephenson says, "His huge, loose-knit figure, six feet four inches high, lean, muscular, ungainly," Herndon (his law partner and first biographer) says "He was lean in flesh and ungainly in figure." Burlingame (his latest biographer) says " his earnestness made the crowd forget his ungainly appearance." A newspaper reporter in 1858 said, “Lincoln is the leanest, lankest, most ungainly mass of legs and arms and hatchet face ever strung on a single frame." Hertz wrote, " his ungainly appearance, ...features and giant figure which made him tower above all those around him." And Isaac Newton (1866) said it clearly: " he was an ungainly giant". The best source -- one which emphasizes "ungainly giant" is Harold Holzer (2006). Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President. pp. 108–10. ISBN 9781416547945. Rjensen (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

implement article history

@User:Anotherclown not certain why but your edit doesn't show results and has disappeared discussion on article that was transcluded into ga review from talk page. Cinderella157 (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Gday, the GA reviews are retained in the article history and can be accessed by clicking the link there. Anotherclown (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"American Civil War homefront" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect American Civil War homefront. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 10#American Civil War homefront until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Homefront American Civil War" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Homefront American Civil War. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 10#Homefront American Civil War until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)