File talk:CSA states evolution.gif

Kentucky joined the Confederacy?

A breakaway faction in the state set up an alternative Confederate government in Bowling Green, yes, but officially, the state never joined the Confederacy. Please correct the map accordingly. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map is correct. It shows Kentucky as having a seceding government (though not as legitimate as Missouri's) and that this government was accepted into the Confederacy. However, note that it only says "claimed by the CSA", rather than changing color and having the borders wrap around it. So while the state did not join the confederacy, the Confederacy did claim it. --Golbez 19:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to rephrase: I would say the map is correct, but maybe the caption needs work. Yes/no? --Golbez 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Claimed by the CSA" note is rather small on the map. Perhaps the event description should say that instead (or in addition). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the map contains some serious historical inaccuracies. Either that, or the article is wrong. The article for the Confederate States of America says neither Kentucky nor Missouri seceded, while the map says that they did secede. Note that the article says "rump groups" declared secession, but I presume these rump groups had no legal authority to speak for their states or secede in the same way that the other 11 Confederate states did. -asx- (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Confederate government of Kentucky, which states "The Confederate government of Kentucky was a shadow government established for the Commonwealth of Kentucky by a self-constituted group of Southern sympathizers during the American Civil War. The shadow government never replaced the elected government in Frankfort, which had strong Union sympathies. Neither did it gain the support of Kentucky's citizens; its jurisdiction extended only as far as Confederate battle lines in the Commonwealth." While it may be accurate to say that KY was admitted to the Confederacy, it appears to be clearly in error to state that Kentucky seceded, unless one regards the treasonous shadow government as having greater legitimacy than the popular elected government of Kentucky. -asx- (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Missouri in the American Civil War, which states "Missouri thought it could stay out of the conflict by remaining in the Union, but staying neutral—not giving men or supplies to either side and pledging to fight troops from either side who entered the state. The policy was first put forth in 1860 by outgoing Governor Robert Marcellus Stewart, who had Northern leanings. It was reaffirmed by incoming Governor Claiborne Jackson, who had Southern leanings. A Constitutional Convention to discuss secession was convened with Sterling Price presiding. The delegates voted to stay in the Union and supported the neutrality position."

Unless both articles above are incorrect, there now appears to be no basis for the information contained in the animated GIF stating that both states seceded, unless, as I said, one regards the traitorous shadow government as having greater legitimacy than the elected governments of those states. It seems to me that this would be insertion of pro-Confederate POV and historical revisionism. Please correct me if I am wrong. -asx- (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Governments for Kentucky (illegitimate) and Missouri (less illegitimate) seceded and were annexed by the Confederacy, though the Confederacy never had any control over either. Quoting from Confederate States of America: "Two more states had rival (or rump) governments. The Confederacy admitted them but they never controlled these states and the pro-Confederate state governments were soon in exile." We have links to their ordinances of secession. We don't appear to have a linked source on them being annexed, but we do have dates; I'll see if I can find a source based on those dates. The map is drawn slightly from a Confederate point of view, in that it seeks to include all lands claimed by the Confederacy, being a timeline of the Confederacy itself, rather than the Civil War or what not. The Confederacy officially claimed Kentucky and Missouri, and that is represented in the map with them having 'disputed' colors rather than 'owned'. I could tweak the text, but the map remains accurate. That said, could you please calm your rhetoric? You are failing to assume good faith in accusing your editors of certain POVs. Present your concerns first, your interpretations later. --Golbez (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for responding. Secondly, I apologize for getting carried away with my rhetoric. I'll admit I was rather alarmed that the map says KY and MO seceded from the union when in fact only small groups of Confederate sympathizers seceded. In my opinion, the map should reflect the conventional understanding of history, according to which neither state ever seceded. BTW, it's a beautifully done map and a great piece of work. Sorry to quibble over a couple of minor points. -asx- (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CSA did annex them. The CSA could only annex states that had seceded; in this case, they were illegitimate governments, but to the CSA that didn't matter, which is why they are included in the map, though with special notes and coloring. It's no problem to quibble, we want our featured content to be as accurate as possible, and if you saw some of my other work on here, you'd see I'm all about the minor points. :) I'll try to find some way to squeeze a note in about it. --Golbez (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the GIF as it now stands is that it is going to give the average reader an incorrect impression--although I do not believe that is the intent of the creator. Neither Kentucky nor Missouri left the Union. Kentucky is more straightforward in that it was not even a popularly elected government or convention that declared secession. Missouri is trickier because the popularly elected delegates to the Missouri Constitutional Convention that was to decide the issue not only rejected secession, but later declared the offices of the governor and Missouri legislature to be vacant. (They in fact did this before the exiled government actually voted to secede. It is particularly ironic that the secession movement of the governor and secessionist legistlature inadvertently created the tool of their own destruction thinking that it would instead validate their acts.) Since secession in Missouri required a Constitutional convention and that convention rejected secession, the exiled government's act was illegitimate even if one disregards the convention's declaration of a crisis and removal of the existing officeholders.

However, it is also true that the Confederate Congress did recognize these illegitimate secession ordinances and stars were included in their flag to represent them. I suppose they could have recognized such in other states as well had they developed any sort of rump govt and the CSA chosen to do so (Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware), but it would not have made the claims any more valid.

Looking for an inclusive compromise, perhaps it would be better if the green that is used to signify popular secession not be used for Kentucky and Missouri. Neither rump government had the authority from their citizenry to secede. Using some other color and/or alternating diagonal stripes might give a more accurate impression of the merits of the claim and action. Red Harvest (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona territory

Arizona territory is shown twice, I think perhaps the second time should be the organisation of the New Mexico territory instead? --72.75.55.29 00:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, as this doesn't include US territories, and there was no Confederate NM Territory. Arizona Territory was formed, but it wasn't organized until a little later; if I recall correctly, on the first date, it was claimed by locals and presented to the Confederacy, and on the second date it was officially claimed and organized by the Confederacy. --Golbez 01:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any plans to fix the problems?

Are the problems going to be fixed, say within the next week? Or should I just go ahead an delete it from the CSA page? Red Harvest (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably get to it early next week. --Golbez (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now almost 3 months since this discussion started. The graphic still describes four events that never actually occured. These are the four false statements contained in the graphic:

— "Missouri secedes, October 31, 1861"

— "Kentucky secedes, November 21, 1861"

— "Missouri joins Confederacy, November 28, 1861"

— "Kentucky join Confederacy, December 10, 1861"

Every school child in America studies the Civil War, and I suspect many of them will end up looking at this graphic. It seems pretty important that we get these most basic details about our history right.

Since the author of the graphic has been unable to find the time to correct these mistakes, I can volunteer to correct it for him unless he finds the time in the near future. I have animated GIF editing software and the necessary tools to make the corrections. It can be done in a few minutes. 66.188.6.131 (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]