Talk:Bleeding Kansas

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marshan3q.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Expansion

I really think someone needs to expand on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.0.142.73 (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. drini ☎ 02:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I really think that phrase stating that the Bleeding Kansas incidents were directly correlated to the Civil War should be clarified. I'm not quite sure what that means, so we should have some evidence that backs it up, or maybe some similar qualities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.247.173 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the leaders of the movement are unclear to me. A sentence or two about the significant figures, their role in the war, etc. would be appreciated for those that don't have their own article. William Quantrill doesn't need expansion, he has his own page. But when Antonio Benincasa and George Clarke are supposed to be influential figures, I'd like to know in what capacity they were involved. Even if it is just a few words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.113.0.170 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Suspected Vandalism:

I have removed the sentence that read "The first shot of the small war was fired by the colonel Rob McHell when he shot his neighbor in the face when he learned he would not be voting for slavery." I have been unable to find any mention of this elsewhere that does not return to this wikipedia page and it seems highly suspect for several reasons; for example, the name "McHell." DeciusAemilius

Rob Mitchell was a real Colonel in this time period, but I don't know if he ever shot his neighbor in the face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.193.5 (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Heading

It is easier to organize an article if you use headers like the one above.

Copyright Violation?

Much of this article is copied verbatim from the PBS article. Those paragraphs should be rewritten or deleted. MarcusGraly 20:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

It seems that someone fiddled around with the introduction to the article, changing the pictures... hm.

This pissed me off.

I couldn't understand about half of what the writer was trying to get across. Stop trying to act like a genius and put it in terms we can all understand.

I agree. The word that cuaght me was "Presaged". I had a good idea what it meant from context, but it was still really unnecessary to use, a word like "foretold" (that WAS a MS word synonym)would have worked perfectly fine Name here 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to 'directly correlated to', but I still don't get how the two are linked. Maybe the writer should have put in some examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.247.173 (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deaths in Bleeding Kansas

Since this was the subject of a recent change, I thought I would point out that Craig Miner's recent and fairly-definitive Kansas: The History of the Sunflower State, 1854-2000 states, "Between 1854 and 1861, fifty-six people died in the confrontations in Kansas." [p. 57] Kgwo1972 12:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the change to 200 deaths back to 55 on general principals, as it did not cite a source. As you seem to be familiar with Miner's book, could you place an appropriate link to it in the article? -- Donald Albury 01:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I put it in the "References" section months ago. If you want citations to the book for specific sentences – such as the one about fatalities – I could do that, but I'm not sure its necessary. Let me know. Kgwo1972 02:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

For short articles, it doesn't matter much. As articles get longer/gain references it becomes important to tie citations to specific sections. Citing page numbers in books helps readers find the specific information in the source. -- Donald Albury 22:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

First Deaths of the Civil War

5 guys getting hacked to death with swords is considered the first shots of a war?

Yeah, I took that sentence out. Unless someone has a source for it...and even then, *who* considered it the opening shots of the war? It is certainly not the mainstream view. DMorpheus (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet, Bloody Kansas was the true beginning of the Civil War and the first deaths in the struggle for Kansas eventually entering as a free-state should be historically recognized as the first deaths of the war. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I Couldn't Find This

I couldn't find the answer to this question. What was it that Kansas became after the battle was over? Slave or non-slave? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.213.71 (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Free. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (B.A., Hist., UW-Milwaukee)

Freedom's Frontier

Edited out the comment concerning Fort Scott being a part of the "Freedom's Frontier National Heritage Area". Although the enabling legislation for the National Heritage Area has passed, the Management Plan stated in 109th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 413 Sec 4(e) has not been submitted or approved to the Secretary of the Interior for review as per H.R. 413 Sec 4(e)(5). As a result, the inclusion of sites in the National Heritage Area Management Plan is conjecture at this point.

Cass & Popular Sovereignty

Per the Fact-tag request, I have removed the sentence claiming that Lewis Cass "first developed" the doctrine of Popular Sovereignty and replaced it with cited material naming him as "Father of Popular Sovereignty". Said book is available (in part) through Google Books. I believe I have altered the wording sufficiently to place it in context and avoid claims of plagiarism so long as the citation remains in place. Someone may care to offer a better synonym for "sobriquet" though. --Geoff Capp (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Too Militaristic

This article treats the events like they're military engagements. I would fix it myself, but i'm new to wiki editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.83.52 (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

US Senator Stephen Douglas - Dem. Ill.

I added "- Dem. Ill" after the introductin of US Senator Stephen Douglas. He was a most important Democrat at the time and would, of course, be the party's nomination for President in 1860. The fact that he was from Illinois is also very important. I haven't referenced this because of the Wikipedia article on him. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Kansas was 34th State admitted to the Union

"On January 29, 1861, Kansas was admitted to the Union as the 34th State and as a free state. Three months later, Southern Rebels fired at a US Flag with 34 stars at the Battle of Fort Sumter which began the Civil War." Kansas being the 34th state is important as is the symbolic representation of it as a star on the US Flag. I have not referenced this because it so undisputed. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There are no "undisputed" facts. Please state a reference where "Southern Rebels fired at a US Flag with 34 stars" CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

'Bleeding Kansas' by Sara Paretsky

Hi, I am from Gemany and I read Paretsky's book. It has nothing to do with history. It is about “what life is like growing up on a Kansas farm. It's a coming-of-age story packed with a punch of moral debate.” Please check with Book Review 'Bleeding Kansas'. Good luck. --178.11.235.191 (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Map with the article.

The map accompanying the article shows Utah as a free territory. This is incorrect, slavery existed in Utah from the Mormon settlement of 1846 till the abolition of slavery in the territories in 1862. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintonge235 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Separate article on caning - talk in Charles Sumner

I'd like to put the information regarding Brooks's beating of Sumner into a separate article, considering how important and symbolic an event it was, and that the vast majority of the information is repeated in separate articles: Charles Sumner, Preston Brooks, and Bleeding Kansas.

I have begun this "Main Article" by copypasting to Caning of Charles Sumner, and this note has been copied to the relevant Talk pages for discussion here (Talk:Charles Sumner#Separate article on caning). Let me know what you think, and let's try to pin down title, article scope, and summary scope in the next 2 weeks. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Color key to map

Someone needs to add the bright yellow box in the legend for the "Border Union states, permitting slavery". I'm not sure how to do it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.195.247.116 (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Map and Oregon

Oregon officially banned slavery (and the residency of all people of African origin) upon statehood in 1859. Slavery can assumed to be tolerated only begrudgingly, given the ban of the 1859 constitution of any African-origin residents, any moral issues aside. Wistungsten (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Extensive rewrite coming

I am planning an extensive rewrite of this article. I wanted to place a notice here so that once the changes were made, regular editors of this page would realize what I was doing. I would eventually like to work this article up to Featured Article status. Lithistman (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

good luck with that. I strongly encourage you to make changes on paragraph at a time, otherwise it's a mess of reverts and arguments. Rjensen (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I will be rewriting in my own userspace, and having it combined all at once. Lithistman (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In that case it will all get reverted if anyone spots an issue. It will be MUCH easier step by step. Rjensen (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it won't. You don't revert an entire rewrite because of a typo or a small error. You fix the typo or the small error. Reverting the whole rewrite would be nonsensical, unproductive, and (in my opinion, at least) should be a blockable offense. Lithistman (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the quality, tone, and depth of the rewrite. If it manages to include the existing salient points and cites found in the original article then it should be okay. But if it wipes out large sections and dumps valid existing cites with no easy way to reinsert them, then reverts are likely. Assuming everyone is going to be satisfied with the quality and NPOV of one's work on a large scale is a dangerous assumption. I believe you would be better served in tackling a section at a time. That makes it easier for editors to compare and to focus on specific problem sections/paragraphs rather than making a full revert preferable. While starting with a clean slate might be easier for the individual editor (speaking from experience/frustration fixing some really poorly structured and/or highly biased articles), it also is non-collaborative in nature. Red Harvest (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

My rewrite will be structured quite similarly to the current article. I will eliminate no valid citations, and have no problem with editors coming in and making changes after the rewrite is posted. I don't think anyone will be particularly disturbed by the changes, as they will expand the article's depth, as well as cleaning up some failry clunky prose. And unless a rewrite simply completely butchers an article style-wise or causes serious NPOV issues, a full revert is never a good idea, and is very "non-collaborative"--much moreso than simply doing a rewrite in one's userspace and moving it wholesale into the article space. Lithistman (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest, if you are planning a large-scale structural change, that you post your outline here and how it differs, like "1. Intro, 2. Background (move more recent material to next section), 3. Kansas-Nebraska Act," etc. That way we have a reference to how you're doing the rewrite, so that when we see intermediate edits that may delete paragraphs, we know where they will eventually fit in.

With that, I stress that your actual rewrites should be posted one section at a time. It just makes it easier to look over revisions side-by-side and note down if there's some gap that you may have missed. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Map Is Wrong

This map is from 1865 according to the other articles that reference it. As previously noted, color coding is wrong for Utah, and Nevada was not a state during the referenced dates. I'm not sure how to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.8.109.170 (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Furthermore, West Virginia is shown as a Border Union state permitting slavery, but for the time period this map supposedly depicts, West Virginia was still part of Virginia. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the map, per the above concerns and also due to this map using modern state borders instead of the borders in use at the time of the conflict. This is not a good map. 67.1.137.31 (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"The committee found the elections improperly elected by non-residents"

I know that this talk page is quite silent, but can anyone with knowledge interpret this? "conducted" maybe?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoony (talk • contribs) 09:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a couple months old, but I changed it to: "The committee found that non-Kansas residents had illegally voted in the election, resulting in the pro-slavery government."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)