Battle of Backbone Mountain

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Untitled

North Carolina was not the last state to secede from the United States. Tennessee did not secede on May 6. They only put the question up for vote on that day. Their actual date of secession was on June 8, 1861. That was the official day their Ordinance of secession was passed and voted on. Therefore, that makes them the last state to secede. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.85.192.200 (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Union sympathies?

As a deeply divided state, did North Carolina send any regiments to fight for the Union, as Delaware sent some to fight for the Confederates? Valetude (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miracles

Henry Toole Clark 'made miracles happen for thousands of soldiers for the Southern cause....'

Not entirely clear what this dramatic claim actually means. Valetude (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is really basic

This article needs considerable expansion. It is a simple summary with little detail of how NC left, fought the war, or how it re-entered the Union. Red Harvest (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on North 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Greetings! There is an editor who disagrees with my removal of content from the page. I have no problem explaining my reasons and why I believe it is necessary. Firstly, "One soldier from the 38th North Carolina gave his reasons for fighting for the Confederacy, stating that "a white man is better than a nigger" " is absolutely Undue and POV. The opinion of one single soldier does not matter. Its also inflammatory. This was far from the sole reason the war was fought. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, "In January 1863, thirteen North Carolinian Unionists were murdered by the Confederate army" is a Coatrack. It implies that anyone who fought or served for the Union in any way was inherently good, while anyone in the Confederacy, inherently bad. If there were Union operatives acting in North Carolina during the war, that is treason or espionage, technically speaking. It was not murder, it was a military execution. That aside, it is not notable for this article. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't believe either belongs in the article. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
we have the opinion of two anonymous Wiki editors versus that of two leading scholars (Foner & McPherson), each with a Pulitzer prize for his civil war histories. So who do we rely upon: Wiki rules say rely on reliable secondary sources. In case of disputes ALL sides should be included, even those that embarrass a neo-rebel. So no we do not erase reliably sourced material. Rjensen (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing it. WP:UNDUE says we do exactly that - remove well-cited material because it presents a lopsided view of a situation. Thats exactly what Dalton has done. Toddst1 (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, not the best way to catch flies. You don't see how that content is presented in a concerning manner at all? DaltonCastle (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lopsided view?? in that case Wiki requires we ADD a counterbalancing view. And who says the famous expert is lopsided? some anonymous editor. Toddst1 mntions the rule but failed to quote it: (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Rjensen (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Some anonymous editor". Wow. Who are you? DaltonCastle (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who am I-- ask Wikipedia: Richard J. Jensen. so who are you? Rjensen (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Am I supposed to be impressed by that? You've been living in your ivory tower too long. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes you're supposed to be impressed--you asked and now you know. you fit well with Toddst1-- he thinks you and he are fighting the Flat Earth society here. Rjensen (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The same guy proved wrong by a high schooler? DaltonCastle (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
same one--but in that case she was dead wrong. You need to be a bit more thorough in your research. Rjensen (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you need to be a bit more thorough in your understanding of Wikipedia Policies. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so for example, the article on the Earth should directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority? Heck no! To do so would give undue weight to it. That's why we remove stuff like that. Read WP:UNDUE Toddst1 (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The deletions were of statements by the leading experts in reliable sources. that is POV editing by DaltonCastle, and a very poorly conceived defense by Toddst1. Rjensen (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both editors who disagree with your insertions are longtime established contributors here, so let's display a little good faith here, Richard. Not knowing the sources myself, I tend toward the view that quoting a single soldier from a single regiment from a single state out of the quote's context seems to unduly weight the view of that soldier. Reporting a single incident of atrocity out of context doesn't seem particularly appropriate either. Lots of things are true and accurately reported that have no place in a Wikipedia article. I'd like Rjensen to advocate his position, making his case here that both cited sentences belong in such a narrow article. BusterD (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BusterD wants context and I tried to add it, emphasizing white supremacy as a powerful force in NC--that was reverted by DaltonCastle, and adding a RS quote about the conflict became even more localized and internalized, and at the same time became far messier, less rational, and more mean-spirited, vindictive, and personal. -- I think that quote helps explain the summary executions of numerous Unionists. Rjensen (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask all those here to avoid hyperbole and discussion of personalities. There are plenty of issues here to actually discuss. I'd encourage those making points to stick to the subject at hand: the insertion of specific assertions backed with citation from clearly reliable sources. On the general subject of the ACW, few writers are more reputable than Foner and McPherson. To me the question is not "are the quotes/assertions well supported?" but instead "why are these specific quotes/assertions relevant to the general purpose of this article?". BusterD (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BusterD. The RS on NC in Civil War in recent years have focused on the turmoil & nastiness in the West--where lots of people were shot at ambush or hung without trials. The first deleted text deals exactly with that. Second, across the Confederacy recent RS have emphasized the central importance of white supremacy, which is well exemplified by the second deleted text. Rjensen (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I often find myself disagreeing with Rjensen, but just as often find myself interested in his professional perspective, even when I don't agree. In the context of Unionism, an important topic in my opinion, I can see why information on the massacre referred to might be argued to be relevant. I'd like to see an expansion of the section, perhaps referring to the local issues involved in the Union supporters (were they located in a specific area or areas of the state?), giving a broader context, perhaps linking to similar activity in eastern Tennessee. For my part, I'd assert that the lengthy quote in the preceding paragraph lacks context. I'd prefer analysis and description instead of quotation. If a part of the quote were placed in a quote box, I'd like it more. BusterD (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One additional thing. I often see edits on Wikipedia with which I disagree. I often choose to forgo reverting such edits until I've gotten a chance to allow the contributor to make his or her point without my picking nits. If after reviewing the edits later I still disagree with them I may revert or state my displeasure in the talk space. I try to avoid edit warring in live pagespace if possible. That said, editing boldly is important and BRD is another useful and practical strategy. BusterD (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In order to prevent both editors in live page dispute from being blocked, I have requested page protection here. BusterD (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Too late -- DaltonCastle has massacred sourced facts again to uphold his Confederate ideals. He deleted yet another quote from Eric Foner and a couple sentences from the Wiki article on the Shelton Laurel massacre. He has no explanation on this page for his brazen deletions of major events. His edit summary is a very poor one: since NC was mostly pro-Confederate each section of the article should follow suit and present a Confederate viewpoint. Minority elements should be eliminated. Actually the "Shelton Laurel massacre" was indeed a Confederate action--it's what the Confederate army in NC did to Unionists (massacre them). The cite he erased is to a major scholarly book on the massacre by Paludan. DaltonCastle made his very first edits on this article yesterday--they all have been deletions of fully sourced material and he is at it again, in defiance of Wiki NPOV rule: representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources Rjensen (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"North Carolina contributed more troops to the Confederacy than any other state"

This article currently contains these words: "North Carolina contributed more troops to the Confederacy than any other state". Just with a quick internet search, it appears that while often quoted, this statement is false. Also, the number for the total number of Confederate troops seems higher than any source I can find. If someone with more knowledge on this topic wants to correct these things, it would be appreciated. Leviavery (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_Carolina_in_the_American_Civil_War