This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles
Re: "a bloody internal civil war raged in Kentucky", does anyone know of a source for this? My understanding is that Kentucky was generally geographically divided with regards to sympathies for one side or the other, that there were a good number of Confederate guerrilla raids in the state, and that the Union government dealt with guerrilla suspects and the disloyal harshly, but "a bloody internal civil war"? Is this just assumed, or are there credible sources for this? Thanks. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 02:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coulter's major book on Civil War & Readjustment in Kentucky (1926), & Lowell Harrison, CW in Kent. (1975) explores the violence at length. Areas were indeed 80-20 this way and 20-80 that way, but the 20% took a real beating. Lots of assassinations (see Hatfield-McCoy feud = postwar continuation). The most recent study is " Feelin' Mighty Southern: Recent Scholarship on Southern Appalachia in the Civil War" by Noel Fisher in Civil War History. Volume: 47. Issue: 4. 2001. Page Number: 334+. To quote: "A third constant in Civil War Appalachia was the prevalence of partisan violence. Throughout this region, loyalists, secessionists, deserters, and men with little loyalty to either side formed organized bands, fought each other as well as occupying troops, terrorized the population, and spread fear, chaos, and destruction. Military forces stationed in the Appalachian regions, whether regular troops or home guards, frequently resorted to extreme methods, including executing partisans summarily, destroying the homes of suspected bushwhackers, and torturing families to gain information. This epidemic of violence created a widespread sense of insecurity, forced hundreds of residents to flee, and contributed to the region's economic distress, demoralization, and division." Rjensen 02:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all that. I don't have immediate access to these materials, but it appears most of what you describe happened in Eastern Kentucky. Do the materials say this partisan violence occurred in a similar manner throughout the rest of the state? Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 03:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditions were worse in the mountains but areas like the Jackson Purchase and Pennyrile, as I recall, had rough times too. 06:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Not that refrences are bad or anything, but this article has more refrences than it has actual text. Could somebody go to their copies of the refrences and put in a little more detail? Thanls! Ahudson 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, what a wonderful problem to have, though - too many references and not enough text. Far better than not enough references to cite the text. This seems easily remedied by putting keyboard to wiki. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Merge. I've asked the main editors to complete the merge. --KarlB (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a quite lengthy article titled Opposition to the American Civil War: The Peace Movement and Draft Opposition. It is actually longer than this article. However, the two articles do not differ enough in subject matter to merit two articles. This appears to be the better title. If someone could take the time to incorporate the material into this article and then perform the redirect, that would be great. -Twinkie eater91 (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the two articles need to be merged. The main advantage of this article is that it acknowledges that there was opposition in both the North and the South. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two should definately be merged. 72.86.37.79 (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some discussion is needed here of the Lincoln Administration arresting in large numbers newspaper men, members of the federal and state governments, etc., in Maryland and Missouri in order to force them to remain in the union (Maryland) or remain divided (Missouri). 72.86.37.79 (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why so Little on Southern Opposition to the Civil War?[edit]
The imbalance in this article is shocking and disturbing. Has this been taken over by a neo-Confederate? There is extensive coverage of Northern opposition to the war -- good. But to dismiss what some historians argue as the much larger array of Southern opposition with a meager paragraph and then a sub-section on Appalachia is a joke! If anyone is at all interested in the subject, you need look no further than Bruce Levine's Fall of the House of Dixie. There were major peace movements within the South, open opposition to Southern war measures, there is the whole West Virginia story, not to mention Eastern Tennessee. To cover Northern opposition so extensively and ignore so much about opposition in the South makes it appear there is no sense in even trying to start a wider discussion of the topic -- some editor somewhere in the Wikipedia realm must be blocking the discussion somewhere.
