Talk:South Carolina in the American Civil War

POV

The article, as is, contains no original research, is not cited with any verifiable sources and contains many loaded words. It should be entirely rewritten before the POV tag is removed, which is exactly what I plan on doing in the next few days. Hope you can contribute. -John_C

Agreed completely, it is considerably biased. - Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.200.8 (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It's still biased and not particularly encyclopedic. It also is confused as to whether SC was the first state in the confederacy, joining Feb 4 1861 (see infobox), or came later to it on Feb 8 1861 (see text). 68.2.235.85 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

POV ("Relatively free from Union occupation")

I question the article's statement that "Relatively free from Union occupation until the very end of the war" South Carolina was a strategic base of operations for virtually the entire war. The Battle of Port Royal resulted in a Union victory early in the civil war (November, 1861) For the next four years, Beaufort, SC was the headquarters of the Union's South Atlantic Naval Blockade Squadron and the Union Army headquartered it's Department of the South on Hilton Head, SC. More than 50,000 Union Army troops were stationed there. Multiple amphibious raids on coastal ares of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida were launched from these locations. --Charles B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.42.238 (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You are correct about that for the most part, although I doubt it is a POV problem and more a matter of poor wording (later in the article better wording is used.) The early occupation of the Sea Islands was a critical part of the U.S. naval blockade and put pressure on the east coast of the Confederacy, forcing the movement of slave labor inland and requiring the rework of the whole defensive scheme. There is a lot missing from this article at present, including the operations against Charleston (and bombardment) as well as any substantial coverage of Sherman's Carolina's Campaign.

On the other hand, most of the state was free of Union occupation and unlike border states the interior didn't become a battleground until 1865--by which time there was little real opposition. As a result most of the actual actions were small in terms of field forces engaged. Red Harvest (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a merger proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The discussion of the proposed merger was continued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of South Carolina where the result was merge and redirect Republic of South Carolina to South Carolina in the American Civil War.. —Bejnar (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

---

It appears admin User:BD2412 tagged the Republic of South Carolina page for merge today with no discussion started, so I'll take the liberty of advocating the proposed merge.

• Merge to this pagespace. Subject is a content fork of South Carolina in the American Civil War. I'll concede this merge candidate has been around longer than the merge target, but we now have a fair (perhaps complete) body of these "Statename in the ACW" pages and it seems (by common usage) the proper namespace. BusterD (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge The "Republic of" name is not sourced. This one will be a little more challenging as a merge because it actually has some sourced material that should be transferred into this target page. The current SC in the ACW page is surprisingly short so this merge won't make it overly lengthy. Red Harvest (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge as proposed. The topics cover the same ground. bd2412 T 13:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge here: Per Red Harvest. Otr500 (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Whether or not the merge is approved, expansion of the SC secession timeline is desirable for this article. Therefore, I've taken a first pass at creating a secession section for SC in the ACW. This includes most of the references and cites from the "Republic" article, but with more details specific to South Carolina's legislative actions/timeline. Please edit as needed. Red Harvest (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Red Harvest, fancy meeting you here. I ran across this looking at the leads (and other areas) of other "Statename in the ACW" articles for consistency and improvement discussions forthcoming at Texas in the American Civil War

The above discussion is preserved as an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Republic of South Carolina" article for deletion discussion

In addition to the merger discussion above, there is also an active article for deletion discussion for Republic of South Carolina at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of South Carolina Red Harvest (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I made comments there concerning dual AFD and merge requests on-going at the same time. Otr500 (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Republic of" infobox

There are several problems with addition of this infobox. The most serious is that it is unsourced original research. There was a whole series of these articles with infoboxes. The articles have been deleted and/or merged/redirected after discussions on each page since they consisted of speculative original research rather than reliable secondary sources. (The AfD for this one can be found at [1].) The infoboxes were full of original research, were unneeded, and in some way duplications., As such the "Republic of" infoboxes are not helpful to the reader. But now we get to play whack-a-mole as people keep trying to insert their favorite eye candy from articles that never should have been created in the first place. Time for a bigger hammer. Red Harvest (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll confess I was pointed toward this issue by Red Harvest, as that user and myself had been part of the deletion and merge discussions surrounding these subjects. So this may sound like canvassing, but I don't consider it so. On the merits, this infobox is excessive detail, IMHO, and the republic it represents doesn't garner significant enough coverage to warrant its own infobox. BusterD (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted a removal of the "Palmetto Republic" description as it is sourced properly. The important distinction is that while South Carolina was a de facto republic for the brief time before the Confederacy was formed, it did not adopt a new official name or refer to itself as the "Republic of South Carolina." That is why the page is gone and the infobox from it should remain vanquished as well. There is nothing in that infobox that is worth having that isn't already in the infobox above it--the duplication of material under a fictitious name is really silly. Red Harvest (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on South Carolina in the American Civil War. 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.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2006.05.0178%3Aarticle%3Dpos%3D47
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html

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} 15:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Fort Wagner?

Rather a startling jump from 'Fort Sumter' to 'The War Ends'. How can any article about South Carolina in the Civil War leave out the Fort Wagner engagement? Valetude (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

PS Have copied-down part of the Wiki page on Fort Wagner. But the article still needs improving. Valetude (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The flag

I think we should add the Gold Palmetto tree flag hat was in use for 2 days by the south carolina legislature on Jan 26-Jan28 before the legislature would change it to the one we use now or the one being used on the website.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/flag-of-South-Carolina Website where i fund the flag info Raketelli (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

SC gold palmetto flag

On January 26 1861 the sc legislature would make SC gold with a gold palmetto tree before changing it 2 days later to the SC flag we all know and love today so i was wondering if we would put bellow the flag the gold palmetto tree flag. This would make 2 flags on the article.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/flag-of-South-Carolina proof of gold palmetto flag that was used for 2 days.

Raketelli (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

i accidentally made 2 things about this i thought the old one didn't post. Raketelli (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)