Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Vandalizing My Talk Page

You should probably think twice about who you accuse of vandalism. Simple disagreement with the non-scholarly neo-confederate version of history is not vandalism. You cannot invade your own country -- to claim that the USA invaded Virginia reflects a particular point of view that assumes the legitimacy of secession. Lincoln certainly did not use the word "invasion" in his call for 75,000 volunteers, did he? Neutral language that implies neither the acceptance or rejection of the legality of secesion is available and should be used. Or would you prefer that we use Lincoln's actual language on the purpose of the call for troops? A far as Winchester being your home town, that gives you abolutely no ownership over the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of Neutrality

North Shoreman: you have some neutrality problems in your article writing and editing, and it seems to me that you force your biased views and revert suggested changes from others. Wiki is a free forum, and so it will be hard to deal with your type of tactics. In regards to the use of "invasion", the invasion of Baghdad in 2003 is simply called that, even within current military circles. An invasion is a military procedure with no political meaning. In the vernacular of the day, Virginians wrote letters, news articles and official reports on the invasion of Virginia. That is the accurate and historical way those events were spoken of. Now, those with a political or biased agenda will take issue. Some conservatives regard the "invasion of Baghdad" as an attempt to politicize that military action. As a professional Marine I disagree. Others, like yourself, will attempt to say that the invasion of Virginia in 1861 is also a negative and politically charged way to describe it. Again, just as in the case with Baghdad, it is not. Here is an example definition:

American Heritage Dictionary: invasion - The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.

Synonyms include penetration or attack. It is a military, not political term. We invaded Okinawa, Korea, Normandy, and so on. The D-Day event of 1944 is referred to as the "NORMANDY INVASION". The fact that you cannot handle the proper military description of the Union Army entering Virginia for the purposes of accomplishing control, or conquering, would indicate that you have a biased or politically charged view of the affair. When an Army enters another territory ... and if it is not called an invasion ... what, then, is it called?

Therefore, as a trained military professional, educator, and subject matter expert on the South, Virginia and CSA history, to the extent that I contribute to Wiki, it will be with some attempt at historical accuracy ... vernacular and view of the historical day ... and respect and honor for Southern patriots who died for what they called their country (Virginia). History regards the movement of the Union army into Virginia as an invasion. Authors of the day called it an invasion. Trained military professionals call it an invasion. Therefore it is an invasion. And it was the same U.S. Army that invaded Normandy 83 years later.

You may see it as a liberating invasion (like that into Kuwait or Baghdad or Normandy). I may see it as an oppressing invasion. Either way, an invasion is a forceful entry with hostile intent. Our Normandy Invasion was forceful with hostile intent. That political view must be held separate from the use of the language and the word invasion.

So, please focus your contributions in a non-political manner. Your accusations of "neo-confederate" are silly. Allow people with historical knowledge in the Winchester, VA area to contribute accordingly to their area. Try to read this feedback without a biased Neo-Union point of view.

Thank you. Grayghost01 (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem No. 1 -- You changed the sentence in question to, "However, later that month the firing upon Fort Sumter prompted newly elected President Abraham Lincoln to issue a call for 75,000 volunteers to invade the Southern United States ...". You need more than all of your above rhetoric -- you need sources that show Lincoln called it an invasion. You can't put words in his mouth without a source.
Problem No. 2 -- The term "invade" does not have a NPOV connotation. For all your examples, you have failed to provide any where invasion is used to describe movements within your own country. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a war is a civil war does not negate the use of military terms such as an "invasion". No proof is necessary to show that "invasion" or "assault" or "flanking movement" or any other military terms don't apply to military actions "within your own country" as you say. The fact that you have that view demonstrates, in and of itself, that you do not have a NPOV. The logical conclusion of your view would be that a "war" could not be conducted, then, within one's own country, because these terms don't apply if done within the country ... yet it is called a "Civil War". Are the "battles" not "battles" because they were done within the country? The list could go on in refutation of your logic and view.
In regard to Lincoln, Stonewall Jackson viewed Lincoln's actions as an invasion, and his military operating philosopy hinged on that point of view ... that Virginia had the right to defend herself. He discussed this at length with many officers in his command, and also had the philosophy that counter-invasions into the North, such as the Sharpsburg Campaign, were over-stepping the bounds of the CSA's political aims of good will.Grayghost01 (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the above response from my talk page. The bottom line is that the sentence in question refers to Lincoln's call for action, and he very clearly did not use the term invasion. If Jackson viewed it differently, then you are perfectly free to put the word INVASION in his mouth. The POV that you are advancing is obvious. Here is the actual call for troops -- a NPOV requires that references to this message are consistent with the actual words:

April 15, 1861

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,

Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.

I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12 o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July, next, then and there to consider and determine, such measures, as, in their wisdom, the public safety, and interest may seem to demand.

In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of April in the year of our Lord One thousand, Eight hundred and Sixtyone, and of the Independence the United States the Eightyfifth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

Notably missing is the word invasion. Notably present is the phrase "re-possess the forts" which I have paraphrased as "recapture the forts". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one has ever claimed that Lincoln used the word "invasion". The Virginians did. That's the point you don't seem to quite grasp. You claim "invasion" can't be a legitmate term if done within our "own country" which is faulty logic that you haven't addressed. You claimed that "invasion" has a negative tone, when we, the U.S., conducted the "Normandy Invasion" and you haven't addressed that point either. No wonder you want this discussion removed from your talk page.Grayghost01 (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I notice Lincoln doesn't use the word "emancipate", "liberate", "reconstruct" and many other items ... which seem to have happened in the conduct of the Civil "Situation" should we call it, since military terms cannot be used regarding actions within one's own country per your view? So let's agree to disagree, and let the Virginians keep up the Virginia pages about the Civil War. Perhaps you see why so many of us call it the War o Northern Aggression.Grayghost01 (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You disingenuously argue that “No one has ever claimed that Lincoln used the word ‘invasion’". As I said above, this is the sentence as you want it in the article, "However, later that month the firing upon Fort Sumter prompted newly elected President Abraham Lincoln to issue a call for 75,000 volunteers to invade the Southern United States ...". That very clearly is claiming that invasion was Lincoln’s expressed intention, when, in fact, his actual language addresses restoring the law and securing property illegally seized. As far as “let the Virginians keep up the Virginia pages about the Civil War”, I don’t think so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I sincerely make the point that Lincoln did not use the word "invade", and there is nothing disingenuous about it. Why do you think I am insincere?

The facts of history are that Lincoln, as commander in chief, ordered the United States Army to enter into Alexandria, Virginia on the 24th of May in 1861. This act was prohibited by the United States Constitution. No other President, to this day, or before, would dare send the U.S. Army in a military maneuver to sieze, take control of, or conquer a State within our federated republic. Why? Because this is against our law. This military maneuver, ordered by Lincoln, is commonly referred to as an invasion.

Similarly and recently the Russian Federation did exactly the same thing to a former state, Georgia. This military maneuver is referred to in the press as ... an "invasion". An "invasion" is a particular type of military maneuver that usually includes a border crossing of some sort. That is a denoting quality. And that is what happened on May 24, 1861 and it was performed by Lincoln, at his order. It doesn't matter what the status of Virginia was, and whether Virginia's secession was lawful or not. As either a United State, or an independent State ... Virginia is a sovereign entity, and remains so to this day. That is, it governs itself.

Similarly the state-level government of Virginia could never, lawfully, send state forces into a city within Virginia for the purposes of taking control away from that city (or county). To do so would constitute ... an "invasion". Similarly police cannot just decide, on their own, to bust your door down and commit an "invasion of privacy".

Ironically, when Lee entered Pennsylvania in 1863, it was NOT for the purpose of taking control of any Northern states, nor the United States, yet Southerners (like myself) would consider it fair to call this maneuver an "invasion" and certainly the denizens of Pennsylvania saw it that way. It certainly had much lesser objectives than Lincoln's intentions in 1861. General Lee graciously paid for any resources he used, and sought to bring good will while crossing Maryland, to bring more sympathizers to the Cause.

But, alas, this seems our destiny: to be eternally pestered by gruff, grouchy, ill-willed Northerners who make it their lot to bother us, disturb the peace, and prevent the most liberal extends of self-governance that we wish for ourselves. How amazing that Lincoln said "of the people, by the people" because this was certainly not his motto as his unlawful act removed that very ability from the citizens of this Commonwealth of Virginia.

It was an "invasion" in every possible character of the word, and with even more negative connotation than I could ever possibly hope to allude to. My NPOV prevents my writing of it's true name and character, as Lincoln's unconstitutional act was REALLY a pillaging foray, marauding our dear countryside, destroying life and property, requiring a necessary sallied response from an honorable militia of Christian men who tried in vain to steer our course right.

Probably what ticks off Northerners the most is that you can never extinguish the Southern spirit, our esprit de corps, our devotion to our way of life, and our enthusiasm for our heroes of that Great Disturbance. It is the strategy of Lee and Jackson that are revered worldwide, in the military colleges of our fellow nations ... not the scorched-earth policies of Sherman and Sheridan. It is the maneuver warfare tactics of Lee and Jackson that are meticulously studied in the halls of valor at Quantico ... not the dull mindless brothels of "hookers" behind Joe Hooker, as he watches in a stupor while his army is routed. It is the virtues and piety of Lee and Jackson that are the stuff of popular films ... not the drunkeness and swearing of Grant.

Yet ... even Grant had the common sense to graciously honor our Southern men. He tried to set the tone for all the other grouchy, argumentative Northerners. So look to his example, and allow us poor Virginian Wikipedians to take a NPOV and refer to Lincoln's unlawful instrusionary attack into Alexandria on that fateful day ... by the merely collegiate moniker "invasion". After all, let's remember ... Lincoln was certainly NOT invited, and there's really not much else one can do with a 75,000 man army other than to ... invade. And heed the advice of General Lee, "Get correct views of life, and learn to see the world in its true light. It will enable you to live pleasantly, to do good, and, when summoned away, to leave without regret." Grayghost01 (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Issues of Neutrality

Dear Northshoreman, I reviewed your user page. We wiki's often list pages we create and work on, and your list includes:

This causes me to wonder greatly as to your motivations. Such topics are ignited by ill-will, enflamed by unkind intentions, provoking and arguably twisted. Hopefully an administrator will see to it that one or more of these is promptly removed. If ever there was a lost cause ... such a list would seem to be one. Good grief. Grayghost01 (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to my actual edits of these articles you will find that I have a consistent approach -- a reliance on reliable sources and efforts to correct folks that bring a clear POV to what should be objective history. On the Lincoln article I found the same thing that modern defenders of the CSA's goals demonstrate -- a reliance on dubious sources and a distortion of the writings of legitimate historians in order to promote a current political/social position. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example Historical Marker at Point of Rocks, MD

see: http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=743

"The opening sentence states "In mid-June 1863, with rumors of a pending reinvasion of Maryland by Confederate forces, most Baltimore and Ohio trains stopped running past here."

Thus, the non-conquest oriented military movements by Lee into Maryland are called "invasions" by official govnernment signage. Thus, in keeping with national historical marker language idioms, the neutral way to describe any border crossings by one side into the other is by the word "invasion". Similarly, our non-conquest military movement on to the coast of France in 1944 was called the Normandy invasion. See this link, where the United States Navy (also part of our government) refers to it as Normandy Invasion, June 1944. (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-eur/normandy/normandy.htm)

Does that suffice as sufficient proof of government-created historical literature using this military word? Thus, will you defer the point, and allow the wiki articles to follow the same idioms, and agree that it is, indeed a NPOV to do so?

I can provide literally hundreds of other examples, if necessary.

Thanks, The Gray Ghost (Grayghost01 (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I did a quick check of how major historians of the era addressed Lincoln's call for troops. James McPherson ("Battle Cry of Freedom"), Bruce Catton ("The Coming Fury"), Shelby Foote ("The Civil War: A Narative" vol. 1), David Eicher ("The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War"), Russell Weigley (A Great Civil War), J. G. Randall and David Herbert Donald ("The Civil War and Reconstruction"), and Gary Gallagher, Stephen Engle, Robert Krick and Joseph Glatthaar ("The American Civil War: This Mighty Scourge of War") ALL do not use the term "invasion" and most all use some variation of the actual words in Lincoln's actual proclamation. Foote's take is typical -- "That same Sunday ... Lincoln assembled his cabinet to frame a proclamation calling on the states for 75,000 militia to serve for ninety days against 'combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.'" Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Northshoreman ... this is an interesting sidebar. But our topic was never about what Lincoln called his own actions. I have provided evidence that various parts of the U.S. Government refer to these types of border-crossing maneuvers as invasions. Please refer to our very own wiki article Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, which I have not edited in any way, and read the second sentence of the article which states: "The upper South (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Arkansas) listened to and rejected the secessionist appeal. They decided to stay in the Union, though warning Lincoln they would not support an invasion through their territory." Now, when Lincoln pulled the rug out from under the feet of Virginia ... and said he would run his invasion THROUGH Virginia in order to get to South Carolina via North Carolina and Virginia, Lincoln then caused the heart and soul of the United States ... Virginia ... a neutral country at the outset, to be forced to defend the law of nature and nature's God and err on the side of standing against such unlawful actions. Anyway ... it is universally understood here in Virginia, that Virginia quit the Union purely on the threat by Lincoln to disregard Virginia's constitutional rights by marching an Army across it, which no commander-in-chief has the authority to do ... ever, even to this day.

Other wiki references to "invasion":

  • American Civil War - "Emboldened by Second Bull Run, the Confederacy made its first invasion of the North, when General Lee led 45,000 men of the Army of Northern Virginia across the Potomac River into Maryland on September 5."
  • 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States
  • Invasion of Grenada by the United States
  • Maryland Campaign - "Confederate General Robert E. Lee's first invasion of the North was repulsed by Major General George B. McClellan and the Army of the Potomac", and "Lee's invasion was fraught with difficulties from the beginning."
  • Cincinnati in the Civil War#1862 invasion threat
  • Philadelphia in the American Civil War - "In 1863 Philadelphia was under threat from Confederate invasion during the Gettysburg Campaign"
  • New York in the American Civil War - "Pennsylvania's Republican Governor Andrew G. Curtin, Governor Seymour dispatched significant quantities of New York State Militia to Harrisburg to help repel the invasion of Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia"

Need I go on? Here's my conclusion: Arrogant Northeners love to say the Confederates were "invading" the north in all these silly wiki articles. Yet Lee did not seek conquest. But yet Lincoln sought to conquer and quell the south, eradicating their choice of self government. And so you all want to plaster the walls with wiki articles on Northern cities, campaign names and views calling the South invaders. And then, God forbid, we call Lincolns action that same thing? At least ONE page has it right: Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. Someone should give them an honesty award.

Grayghost01 (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are largely irrelevant. On the specific issue we're discussing, all reliable sources that I have consulted use the pattern that I have described. As far as the article that you claim got it right, this is what it actually says:
After Union troops at Fort Sumter were fired upon and forced to surrender in April 1861, Lincoln called on governors of every state to send detachments totaling 75,000 troops to recapture forts, protect the capital, and "preserve the Union," which in his view still existed intact despite the actions of the seceding states. Virginia, which had repeatedly warned Lincoln it would not allow an invasion of its territory or join an attack on another state, then seceded, along with North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas.
Since it puts the term "invasion" in Virginia's mouth rather than Lincoln's, I have no problem with it -- assuming that Virginia's language can be properly sourced. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing Virginia's language, my friend, is the simplest task possible:

Confederate Military History, A Library of Confederate State History, Volume III, Part I, VIRGINIA, edited by General Clement A. Evans, Confederate Publishing Company. Atlanta, Georgia. 1899. Available in Hardcover at Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Confederate-Military-History-Distinguished-Virginia/dp/B000H6H3JI

On page 32, Chapter III, "From John Brown's execution to the Federal invasion ..."

I think that's proof enough, don't you? I consider the point conceded, unless you care to question the accuracy of the print press that printed my copy of this great book, from Weider History Group, by the National Historical Society, 2008. The ink is still fresh smelling. Any book written in 1899 that's still in print, and going for $225 on Amazon is quite a resource. I consider your argument derailed, and your locomotive on its side.

Sincerely, The Gray Ghost(Grayghost01 (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Here is the paragraph as it currently exists:
However, later that month the firing upon Fort Sumter prompted newly elected President Abraham Lincoln to issue a call for 75,000 volunteers to recapture the forts and to preserve the Union. In response, the convention met again on April 17, passing an ordinance of secession by a vote of 88 to 55, which was ratified by popular vote on May 23, 1861. Immediately after this vote, Governor Letcher ordered the capture of the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry, and Winchester companies of the Virginia militia were among the first to arrive, under the command of Colonel Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson.
Why don't you show EXACTLY how you propose to change it. If the change is to the first sentence, then I object for all the reasons previously stated -- you're still trying to put words into Lincoln's mouth. Going back to the quote from Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War, it does not appear that your source supports the claim that Virginia "had repeatedly warned Lincoln it would not allow an invasion of its territory..." When the convention debated this issue, they did so in the context not of an invasion of Virginia but in terms of coercing the seven already seceded states. In fact, the only official delegation to Lincoln from the convention was the Randolph, Preston, and Stuart delegation sent on April 12, and I believe Lincoln did most of the talking. Baldwin and Botts met with Lincoln on their own volition and emphasized that Sumter should be abandoned -- I am unaware that they warned Lincoln not to invade South Carolina, Virginia, or anywhere else. Who made these repeated warnings and when did they occur? Does Evans claim that such repeated warnings were issued? If all Evans did was refer to later Union incursions as invasions, then it really isn't relevant to the paragraph under debate which stops chronologically before these events occurred. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, vs. Article on Winchester in the American Civil War

I see that you keep focusing on Lincoln's speech. Perhaps what you need to do is revise Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, where that article describes how all the bordering states, Virginia included, had decided not to secede, unless Lincoln planned his invasion by crossing their territories. That is a well known issue historically, I'm surprised you're debating it, but your topic is best placed in the write up for that article, to give a "balance" to the invasion statement there. Granted, your point is fair, that in Lincoln's mind perhaps, his actions were not an invasion, despite causing a million deaths. I'm sure, also, a pro-Nazi group will also put text from speeches of Hitler, on how he never called his "miltary movements" invasions. After all, he was simply re-gathering the proper original states of the Third Reich, much like Lincoln was re-gathering original States of the united States (to use the spelling of that era).

However, I created and have put much time into Winchester in the American Civil War. Here, in this article, as long as I am contributing to Wiki, I generally plan to use and cite local sources of Winchester, of Virgnia, or of southern origin. In our own Confederate Military History of 1899, General Evans called the initial action by Lincoln an invasion. Why do we want to quote Lincoln in an article on Winchester in the American Civil War, when there is already an article on Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War?

Chambersburg, Pennsylvania doesn't quote Jubal Early or Robert E. Lee on what they called their movements into Pennsylvania or that city. Plus, I've given you a sprinkling of how all these Northern city pages all yikkity-yack about how anytime a southerner dared rip up a rail on the B&O, its called an "invasion". Wiki is not a place for Northern revisionary history. Surely in this day and age, we can cover the late Unpleasantness (Grant's term) in a fair and neutral manner?

In 1899, in the orginal encylopedia of Confederate Military History, in the Virgnia book of the series, General Evans called Lincoln's unlawful crossing of the Potomac River with a huge Federal army an invasion. Thus I can see why so many Wiki articles use those types of descriptions, because that's how people naturally view it.

So, for Winchester in the American Civil War I vote for invasion verses "a call ... to recapture". By the way recapture? That doesn't even make sense anyway, because it's not like anyone had already captured Virginia. Oh wait .. he must be referring to the capture of Fort Sumter, and thus the recapture of that, since that was the ONLY thing captured as of the day of that speech. All right. Then why does Lincoln need to march through Virginia and North Carolina, who had already decided to stay in the Union? Why doesn't Lincoln go directly to Fort Sumter? So Virginia and North Carolina say ... look pal ... do what you want, but if you come through our States, we will consider it an invasion, so don't do it. Lincoln makes his "call ... to recapture", thus ensuring that indeed one of the more powerful and historic States in the Union at that time, Virginia, will sure as heck secede. Thus Virginia views the whole affair as an invasion. And certainly, at the least, we'll go with that view of Winchester citizens, who had overwhelmingly wanted to remain in the Union, in their article on their city in that war. Lincoln ticked us off. That's the history of it. That's in the article.

The trestle bridge in your Line of Logic is now burnt. The Chain Bridge will come down next. I'll call Captain Sharp in and we'll steal all your locomotives after that. Sincerely, The Gray Ghost (Grayghost01 (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I keep focusing on Lincoln's call for troops since that is the subject of the paragraph being discussed. You are dead wrong in your allegation that Fort Sumter was "the ONLY thing captured as of the day of that speech" -- everyone is aware that federal property had been seized throughout the South and Fort Sumter was only one of two remaining forts in the CSA still in USA hands. You are also dead wrong that Virginia would have accepted coercion of South Carolina if it were done without crossing Virginia's border -- you ignore the very clear history of the Virginia Convention. As of April 15 Virginia had not made a final decision to stay in the Union -- in fact they had just recently approved 14 proposals, mostly relating to the protection of slavery, that would form the basis for a final decision by Virginia. The aggressive attack by the CSA on Fort Sumter short circuited Virginia's actions, as well as a planned convention of the slave states remaining in the Union, and as John D. Imboden wrote after the war, "Virginia was then, as it were, forced to 'take' sides, and she did not hesitate." As far as Winchester being so strongly Unionist, historian James I Robertson Jr. wrote, "However, the term "unionist" had an altogether different meaning in Virginia at the time" and he cites the example of two Unionists who were "in favor of separation from the Union if the federal government did not guarantee protection of slavery everywhere." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. North Shoreman: Please insert a link, as necessary, to the Lincoln-Civil-War page and basically remove your off-topic material elsewhere. The citizens of Winchester at the time of this affair were strongly pro-Union and very coldly received Virginia Milita troops under Kenton Harper and John Imboden as they proceeded through here to Harpers Ferry. Like Milroy, you have a tact and flare for simply being intentionally provoking, and sir ... with all due respect ... you have contributed NOTHING of value whatsoever to the topic of Winchester, the history of Winchester, and it's affairs in the Civil War. However, you have opined greatly about many things having nothing to do with WINCHESTER itself in particular. Your view that the "subject" of any paragraph in this article is about Lincoln is dead wrong.Grayghost01 (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is badly POV. You want to talk about Lincoln's alleged intention to invade, but then try to censor out what his message actually called for. You talk about Winchester not being "particularly fond of secession from the Union" (which is undobtedly true), but neglect to discuss the rest of the story and the conditional nature of their committment to the Union. Why do you leave out the December 14 meeting of Frederick County residents in Winchester, led by unionist Robert Y. Young that passed a resolution accusing the North of having launched an "insane war" against southern institutions, identifying slavery as "perfectly consistent with civiliztion, humanity, and piety", vowing that Virginia would not "tamely submit" to challenges to its rights, and calling for full enforcement of the fugitive slave laws. (source -- Link "Roots of Secession").
Also omitted from "your" article are any references to the hardships placed on Winchester and environs by the CSA. A small sample of quotes from Berkey's contribution to Gallagher's "The Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1862":
“As the contending arms squared off in the Valley, civilians learned one of the first lessons of the Shenandoah campaign: proximity to either army inevitably led to property loss.” “Confederates also did their share of property damage.” John Casler of the Stonewall Brigade on chickens, “We would not steal them! No! Who ever heard of a soldier stealing? But simply take them.” (pg. 88)
“David M. Barton of Frederick County noted that Confederate stragglers caused many problems for local noncombatants. ‘They are more troublesome than the Yankees,’ he said, ‘because they go anywhere without fear.’” (pg. 88-89)
“Civilians especially felt the pinch of military necessity as Jackson hurried back up the valley in late May and early June. From Front Royal, Maj. John A. Harman, Jackson’s profane quartermaster, impressed horses and wagons throughout the upper Valley in order to move captured Federal stores to a safe place. Confederate officers were directed to collect “everything that can be made available to haul stores” and send them to Front Royal. In a brief time Harman had trains of civilian wagons carrying captured supplies to Winchester and Front Royal.” (pg. 89)
Surely someone so interested in this subject as you has read and probably owns both of these books (up here in Ohio I have and I do). Why have you omitted this clearly relevant material? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started adding balance to the article by providing details regarding resolutions adopted by the people of Winchester (see above). It is important, as well as NPOV, to describe not just the differences between Virginia and the first states that seceded but also the similarities. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes from a reader in No. Va.

Northshoreman your views that life in the CSA were rough are true but not really the point of this article. The page on Germany with pointer to Nazy Germany does not go into how rough life was internally due to hardships. I think the points made above with your neoconfederate and secuality of lincoln contributions shows that you are anything but neutral in your views. you seem very harrasing to me. I think you are out of line and have added nothing of value to this page. my 2-cents from a fellow Virginia resident from Ohio, who thinks this state is real nice and friendly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.37.18 (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you are fine with all of the language in the article regarding hardships caused by the United States, but absolutely draw the line at pointing out that the CSA also inflicted hardships on the same population. Interesting point. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. This got me reading a few other pages on localities and their history in some war. None that I saw go into a big off-topic discussion of how the locale, itself, put hardships on itself as part of the war. North Shoreman, why don't you show other Wiki examples of your format?Grayghost01 (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You dodge the issue. Why are you presenting only one side of the issue IN THIS ARTICLE? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northshoreman, the problem with your antagonistic tactics, and usually off-track edits, is that you have a one-track mind to turn this article into either a rant on slavery or a glorification of Lincoln. Countless other articles exist, which you already edit to that end. If this were the first time you were editing this page, folks would assume good intent. However your track record has already proven otherwise. Therefore any materials which you edit into this article, I will edit out if they stray from the topic of WINCHESTER in the war. Additionally any materials which you add which are, indeed, on topic but create a lengthy or awkward article, with undue details, may be pared back or put into the footnotes. Any materials that you add which add to the quality of, and improve the article are appreciated. And in the efforts of your research, I hope that you come to unlock the mystery of why pro-Union Virginia was turned to the less valorous course by being so provoked. Ohio owes its status as a free state to Virginia, who declared when turning over all her land west of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi to the United States, that any territories or states formed therein must be free states ... an act for which Ohio, Indiana or Illinois has never expressed gratitude to my knowledge. But, alas, Jedediah Hotchkiss explains all that in his volume of Virginia in the Confederate Military History. Don't read it, as it may destroy many of your views, if you read it objectively. Sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still with the personal invective. In fact, details are important and it is not up to you to independently delete properly sourced material. I suggest you discuss any proposed alterations on existing material before you resume your edit warring. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled since you are independently deleting material and editing in off-topic maaterials without prior discussion on the talk page? Do you always make such major changes totally alone without attempting to reach any consensus? And why do you insist on spending so much time on the Winchester article with discusssion of Lincoln, Slavery and other topics which have multiple articles on all the varying facets already dedicated to that? Perhaps you can contribute in a manner like User:Scott Mingus, instead of in the manner in which you are doing so now? Grayghost01 (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still with the personal invective. The material under discussion here is entirely material I have added -- nothing has been deleted by me. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits precede your reponses on the discussion pages, and you have done some extensive deleting on this and other pages. It all began on this page when you deleted the word "invade", which is used by dozens of historians about Lincolns actions. Coincidental with that first deletion, you levied the first accusation of a "POV", which is both personal and invective. After that you refused to acknowledge that the word "invade" or "invasion" has been used by historians about Lincoln, and then that was followed by an apparant browsing of my contributions to add tags, deletions, POV accusations across many articles I've contributed to. All in all it's been very personal and invective, with a 3RR tag added too, for zero reversions. But the material on Winchester in the Civil War is well documented and impossible to refute except through utter denial.Grayghost01 (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive Conversation on Content

I thought that several issues might need to be addressed on this article. Before making any changes, I wanted to put them out for discussion. First, the discussion on Winchester's strategic location needs to be reassessed. The B and O RR goes through Martinsburg 23 miles north of Winchester. The C and O Canal is is 37 miles north of Winchester in Maryland. Also, the Manassas Gap Railroad passed through Strasburg, 21 miles south of Winchester. The inclusion of these transportation arteries with Winchester is a stretch.

Also need to look at the inclusion of Julia Chase as a "Devil Diarist." That names was given to Secessionist women of Winchester because of vociferous hatred of the occupying US forces. Ms. Chase was quite pleased with US occupations, her only lament being that they generally did not last. Also, the modern flag of Winchester is not relevant to Winchester in the War. Was there a city flag during the war? It would be more appropriate. Also there is an assumption that Fort Jackson = the main fort which was actually expanded greatly beyond the original confines of Ft. Jackson.

The article also states Winchester served as a "base of operations for several Confederate incursions into the Northern United States." I think we need a list of what "incursions" are being referenced and documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenandoah1864 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winchester,_Virginia,_in_the_American_Civil_War