Talk:Battle of Fort Sumter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): American Civil War task force

WikiProject Echo has identified Battle of Fort Sumter as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

This article states that Lincoln ran on the idea of "free-soil" which is true yet free soil did not mean free slaves. This was the term that referred to the disadvantage of farmers who did not use slaves vs. farmers that did. Lincoln did not run on the idea of Emancipation. He only supported this idea later in the war when it was both militarily and politically advantageous for him to do so.

Perhaps, but to Lincoln's credit, he never supported slavery, and personally believed the institution should have been abolished. The only reason he condoned it was to get elected. Politicians have always done this. One seeking public office must always make a compromise on their stances to earn the public's trust despite their own personal beliefs. To support this George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both owned slaves (whether personally or through their families), but came to the eventual conclusion that it was morally wrong. GW wrote in his personal diary that he strongly believed that the institution should be abolished, but knew that the fledgling nation at the time could not be divided by the issue (which it eventually did in 1860). --Acefox 22:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Also "free-soil" meant that new territory was closed to slavery so your interpretation is a bit misleading. The way I view the ninteenth century support of free-soil, as I believe is the consensus, is that it was a compromise position for those opposed to slavery (for whatever reason) to greatly limit it. This in itself was a controversial issue at the time, as legislation leading up to the Civil War was a continuous argument of whether to allow new territories under the US to be open to slavery. Compare it with the issue of gun-control today. Many supporters of gun-control would like to see an eventual ban on guns altogether, but support gun limitation bills simply because it has a chance of getting passed whereas an extreme stance would not.--Acefox 22:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

So we have one person that says LoserLincoln did not run on the idea of emancipation, and that he only supported it when it was in his best interest. The other person, says that he believed in emancipation from the beginning, though how they would know that I have no idea, since it is quite hard to get into a dead mans thoughts, and states that all politicians will water down their beliefs, and/or lie to get elected. This does not make it all right for Lincoln to do this, and the very statement is a broad generalization. Which of these ideas should be in the article. My opinion is the first's, but I am but one person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.164.149 (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 typo? 2 340-hour? 3 Article upgrade 4 Bonds of

[edit] typo?

"in the autumn of 1861 work was nearly complete" really? but the the battle was in April!

It says "autumn of 1860."

I've also read that the battle was from april 12th-14th not 12th-13th.

This is a matter of interpretation, I guess. A truce was called on April 13, so there was no fighting on April 14, the day the fort was evacuated. Hal Jespersen 15:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 340-hour?

I'm just wondering, it says 340 hour bombardment.......is that true? sounds ridiculously long so I'm a little doubtful it was that long. [anonymous user posting]

That was vandalism, just cleaned up. Thanks for noticing. Hal Jespersen 01:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article upgrade

I'm making an intermittent effort to get the article up to, hopefully, FA status. The French Article is already at that point, so I'm liberally stealing ideas from them, with my limited Francophone abilities. The French article lifted several images from the National Park Service websites. I confirmed by email today that all images there, unless otherwise noted, are public domain, so if anyone has any suggestions for prettying-up the article, we have resources. DCB4W 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

nothing happened the union won and no onw died only one fed horse died —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.54.18 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bonds of

restore bonds of what? In the first section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orpheus Machina (talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)