From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Questions

Why is section 4 called “Occupied California”? There is nothing about “occupation” in the section. Most of the content seems more related to the next section, “Civil War Regiments in California”.

Also, in the last paragraph of section 1, it seems overly dramatic to say there were 88 BATTLES fought in California. Most of them sound like law enforcement actions unrelated to the Civil War. Maybe the word “battles” should be in quotes?

I don’t know enough to make these changes myself. But if someone more expert that me agrees with them, please make them.

MelanieN ( talk) 23:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  • I couldn't agree more and consequently I'm changing the titles of sections 4 and 5 as you suggested. The whole article is very poorly written and is kind of on my to-do list to help to improve. Armona ( talk) 02:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

History

This article needs some editing because the tone is not neutral. evrik 17:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Forts

I have expanded this section. evrik 17:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I question Fort MacArthur. It wasn't organized until the 1880s, the coastal defenses were run out of Drum Barracks and the Wilmington Depot. Also the Army garrison at Two Harbors on Catalina was there for only a short time (11/21/1863 to 9/14/1864) and was there to scout out an Indian reservation for the Klamath tribes (see Theodore Kornweibel, Jr. (1967) "The Occupation of Santa Catalina Island During the Civil War," Southern California Historical Society Quarterly, 46(4):345-357 and Donald Chaput (1993) "The Civil War Military Post on Catalina Island," Southern California Quarterly 75(1):37-50). Another good reference is US War Department (1897) The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Vol. 50, in 2 Parts. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Volume 50 contains all reports and correspondence relating to the Department of the Pacific.

Soldiers

I have expanded this section. evrik 17:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

== missing word in sentence ==

The third sentence of the section "California Civil War military units" needs help. It reads: 

Therefore the state the usual practice of mustering militia companies into regiments.

Is it supposed to be "...the state abandoned the usual practice..." or "...the state continued the usual practice..."? Probably the former but I can't be sure from context. Anybody know?

Excellent article by the way. A bit of cleanup and it could be nominated for feature status. Herostratus 13:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't have documentation to support it, but my knowledge in the field and the context tells me the sentence should read "abandoned". Someone else already made the edit, though. Resolved. Twisted86 03:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Further reading

  • Carson, James F. "California: Gold to Help Finance the War." Journal of the West 1975 14(1): 25-41. Issn: 0022-5169
  • Chandler, Robert J. "California's 1863 Loyalty Oaths: Another Look." Arizona and the West 1979 21(3): 215-234. Issn: 0004-1408. Republicans and Free Soil (Douglas) Democrats formed a Unionist coalition in California in 1862 to counter the pro-Southern (Breckinridge) Democrats who defended state sovereignty and white supremacy and had controlled the state government for a decade. The next year the Unionists forced a loyalty oath statute through the legislature. It required all attorneys in the state's courts and plaintiffs in civil cases to support the government of the United States. For five years, this political weapon weakened the role of Breckinridge Democrats in state politics. They also tarnished the image of the Democratic Party in the state.
  • Chandler, Robert J. "Fighting Words: Censoring Civil War Journalism in California." California Territorial Quarterly 2002 (51): 4-17. Issn: 1080-7594 Reports the Republican Party dominated the state government and used its power to censor or suppress newspapers favoring the Democratic or pro-South viewpoint. By the end of the war two-thirds of the Democratic papers were out of business due to government repression, canceled subscriptions, and lack of advertising.
  • Colwell, Wayne. "The California Hundred." Pacific Historian 1969 13(3): 63-75. Issn: 0030-8676. Owing to political divisions at the time of the Civil War and to the limited transportation facilities for moving troops great distances, the Lincoln administration did not request California troops for Eastern battlefields but instead called for volunteers to replace regular troops stationed at western garrisons. Unhappy at being denied the opportunity for fame and glory, a group of San Francisco residents arranged with the governor of Massachusetts to raise a cavalry company of 100 men in California to be credited to the Massachusetts quota. Commanded by J. Sewell Reed, the Californians first took to the field near Yorktown, Virginia. From July 1863 to July 1864 the California Hundred engaged in numerous skirmishes with John S. Mosby's Confederate guerrillas. They also participated in battles in the Shenandoah Valley. of the original three officers and 101 enlisted men, 40 were present the day the company disbanded. About 12 had died, others were discharged because of sickness or wounds or were transferred to other units, and 10 deserted, a greater desertion rate than from any other Massachusetts regiment. Nevertheless, Mosby later declared that the Californians had been his most formidable opponents.
  • Crandell, John. "Winfield Hancock and His Grievous Angels - Revisited" Southern California Quarterly (1997) 79(1): 1-28. Issn: 0038-3929. : Describes the actions of a number of people who left Los Angeles at the start of the Civil War to join the Union or Confederate armies. Winfield Scott Hancock fought for the North; Albert Sydney Johnston, Cameron Thom, Richard Garnett, and Lewis Armistead joined the Confederate Army. Hancock and Thom rose to political prominence after the war, the others were killed in battle.
  • Edwards, G. Thomas. "Holding the Far West for the Union: the Army in 1861." Civil War History 1968 14(4): 307-324. Issn: 0009-8078; online in JSTOR. A review of military and political events in the Department of the Pacific (chiefly in California) from January through September 1861. General Albert Sidney Johnston (1803-62), was in command in the early months. He ruled wisely and impartially, but was removed in late April because of his southern connections and rumors of disunionist plots. The principal mission of the new commander, General Edwin Vose Sumner (1797-1863), was to check the secessionist movement. Exploiting Unionist feelings, cowing the disunionists by a show of military power, yet carefully respecting the civil rights of all, Sumner successfully executed his assignment. The loyalty of the Far West was established without serious incident.
  • Generous, Tom. "Over the River Jordan: California Volunteers in Utah During the Civil War." California History 1984 63(3): 200-211. Issn: 0162-2897. Describes the western campaigns of the California Volunteers under the command of Colonel Patrick Edward Connor during the Civil War. Although the Volunteers hoped to fight Confederates, their infantry regiment and five cavalry companies were assigned to patrol the overland mail route between St. Louis and Placerville. Connor hated Indians, and his forces were responsible for several Indian massacres, most notoriously at Bear River in January 1863. In their relations with the Mormons, Connor and his men had political rather than military confrontations, but tensions between the Volunteers and Brigham Young's people were almost constant. The nativism and prejudice of the Volunteers formed a bridge of hostility between the Know-Nothings of the 1840's and the imperialism and Jim Crow era of the 1890's.
  • Gilbert, Benjamin F. "The Confederate Minority in California," California Historical Society Quarterly, (1941)
  • Gilbert, Benjamin Franklin. "California and the Civil War." California Historical Society Quarterly 1961 40(4): 289-308. ISSN: 0008-1175. Annotated bibliography of works pertaining to the participation of Californians in the Civil War, 1860-65, under the headings: bibliography, loyalty, Confederate secret societies and sympathizers, civil liberties, political conditions, military operations, naval operations, Sanitary Commission, economic conditions, and archival and manuscript sources.
  • Goldberg, Mitchell S. "Naval Operations of the United States Pacific Squadron in 1861." American Neptune 1973 33(1): 41-48, 49-51. Issn: 0003-0155. A review of eastern Pacific naval operations during the first year of the Civil War. Fleets and vessels stationed abroad were hurriedly called home to establish a blockade of the Confederacy, but not the eastern Pacific Fleet, which was needed for the sake of forestalling southern action along the poorly fortified west coast and for guarding the valuable shipments of gold bullion from California. Small, poorly equipped and maintained, the fleet did not fire its guns during 1861, but its very presence may have deterred hostile action
  • Jaffee, Walter W. "Rebel Pirates and California Gold." Civil War Times Illustrated 1995 34(2): 48-50, 53-55. Issn: 0009-8094. Describes the 1862-63 efforts of Confederate sympathizers in San Francisco, led by Asbury Harpending, to steal federal gold shipments and recounts the subsequent capture of the Confederate pirates and their sentencing to Alcatraz.
  • Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. (1991). The Civil War in the American West. Vintage Books,New York.{{ cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)
  • Kibby, Leo P. "Some Aspects of California's Military Problems During the Civil War" Civil War History 1959 5(3): 251-262. Issn: 0009-8078 online at JSTOR. Examines the unique military problems of the State of California during the Civil War. Though the State was not assigned a quota, there were numerous volunteers for the Union cause. California soldiers did not participate in any of the major battles of the war, but were concerned with a variety of assignments, all in the West. These assignments included 1) guarding overland mail routes against Indian attacks; 2) suppressing minority elements which supported directly or indirectly the Confederate cause; 3) preventing Confederate forces from gaining a foothold in the western territories and in California, and 4) relieving Union regular troops stationed at western outposts so that they might be reassigned to active duty in the main theaters of the war.
  • Langellier, John Phillip and Colwell, Wayne. "Cavaliers from California" Gateway Heritage 1984-1985 5(3): 16-21. Issn: 0198-9375. Few California recruits for Union armies served in separate California units during the Civil War. But one group, the "California 100," was permitted to retain its identity with the 2d Massachusetts Volunteer Cavalry under its own commander, J. Sewell Reed. Four other companies of Californians later augmented the "California 100." These 500 cavalrymen provided horsemen's skills at a time when most Union Army recruits lacked such skills.
  • Masich, Andrew E. The Civil War in Arizona; the Story of the California Volunteers, 1861-65 University of Oklahoma Press, 2006. 368 pp. Recruiting, equipping, training the California Column and subsequent California Volunteer regiments that invaded and occupied Arizona. These volunteer soldiers created Arizona Territory, waged relentless attacks against Arizona tribes deemed "hostile" by the US government, and provided the leadership and manpower that developed the territory following the war.
  • Miller, Darlis A. The California Column in New Mexico. U. of New Mexico Pr., 1982. 318 pp. 2,350 men in the California Column marched east across Arizona in 1862 under the command of Colonel James H. Carleton to expel the Confederates from New Mexico. The Californians spent most of their time fighting hostile Indians and guarding the Southwest against a possible Confederate invasion.
  • Monzingo, Robert. Thomas Starr King: Eminent Californian, Civil War Statesman, Unitarian Minister. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Boxwood, 1991. 251 pp. Thomas Starr King (1824-64) was a leader in the campaign to raise funds in California for the US Sanitary Commission during the Civil War. The Sanitary Commission was created to provide medical care for Northern wounded and to enforce hygiene practices in army camps. Reverend King, a Unitarian minister who came to California in 1860, strongly supported the Union in the Civil War and made the Sanitary Commission his personal cause, speaking in towns and mining camps throughout the state to raise money. California responded to King's humanitarian efforts by contributing more than one million of the four million dollars raised for the Sanitary Commission.
  • Leonard Pitt and Ramon A. Gutierrez, Decline of the Californios: A Social History of the Spanish-Speaking Californias, 1846-1890 (1999)
  • Prezelski, Tom. "Lives of the Californio Lancers: the First Battalion of Native California Cavalry, 1863-1866" Journal of Arizona History (1999) 40(1): 29-52. Issn: 0021-9053. The First Battalion of Native California Cavalry was raised during the Civil War, modeled on romantic notions of Spanish vaquero lancers. Although the battalion did include some Californios from haciendas in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, it included diverse ethnic groups from northern California and was commanded by an Anglo. Before being sent to Fort Mason, Arizona, individual companies campaigned against Chimeheuvi, Hupe, and Wintun Indians. In Arizona, the battalion defended the border, confronted French imperial forces in northern Mexico, and protected the refugee Republican governor of Sonora. They tried to catch Cochise and other Mescaleros. The battalion mustered out at San Francisco's presidio in 1866.
  • Rawls, J. and Bean, W. (1997). California: An Interpretive History. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. ISBN  0-07-052411-4.{{ cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)
  • Rice, Richard B. et al, The Elusive Eden: A New History of California (1988)
  • Robinson, John W. "A California Copperhead: Henry Hamilton and the Los Angeles Star." Arizona and the West 1981 23(3): 213-230. Issn: 0004-1408. Henry Hamilton (1826?-91) served as editor of the Los Angeles Star, 1856-68. An outspoken Confederate sympathizer and rabid slavery advocate, he used the Star as a platform to rally Southern Democrats and to violently denounce the Lincoln administration. He gloated over Confederate battlefield victories. He survived arrest and won election to the California legislature. Hamilton closely gauged the varying intensity of pro-Southern feeling in southern California during the Civil War.
  • Shover, Michele. "John Bidwell: Civil War Politics, and the Indian Crisis of 1862." Dogtown Territorial Quarterly (2001) (46): 4-24, 34-37. Issn: 1080-7594. Examines the conflicts between supporters of the North and South in Butte County during the Civil War, centering on Chico pioneer John Bidwell and his political allies and enemies. Bidwell's memoirs and other recollections conflate two issues that inflamed residents of the region. One was the attack of Mill Creek Indians on settlers in 1862, prompting public debate and accusations that Bidwell, who employed Indians on his ranch, was hypocritical for supporting abolition. The other issue involved Union soldiers sent to Butte County and their intimidation of Southern sympathizers. Bidwell had been a Union Democrat but in 1864 switched to the Republican Party. Despite its isolation from Civil War battles, Butte settlers brought their homeland views to California, provoking hostile and at times violent actions against those who opposed them.
  • Shutes, Milton H. Lincoln and California (1945)
  • Stanley, Gerald. "Civil War Politics in California." Southern California Quarterly 1982 64(2): 115-132. Issn: 0038-3929. The state Republican Party changed its stance from opposition to abolition before the Civil War to endorsement of the Emancipation Proclamation and condemnation of slavery by the war's end. In 1860 little difference existed between Republicans and Democrats on race and slavery issues; Republicans argued that the central issue of the Civil War was to preserve the Union. Once the war began, however, Republicans found it politically expedient to justify emancipation as a military measure, and to condemn slavery on moral grounds and to insist that slavery must be ended to win the war. By 1864 Republicans and Democrats were sharply divided on the race issue. The Republican transformation thus mirrored Republican politics on the national scene.
  • Stanley, Gerald. "Senator William Gwin: Moderate or Racist?" California Historical Quarterly 1971 50(3): 243-255. Issn: 0097-6059. Recent authors, revising earlier estimates of Gwin's political allegiances, have considered him a moderate in political and social issues surrounding slavery and the Civil War. Actually, Gwin was a political opportunist who brought his Mississippi sympathies with him to California. Gwin opposed the migration of free Negroes to California; his vote against a slavery provision for the 1849 State constitution was based less on principle than on political considerations. In the 1860 election, Gwin supported Breckinridge rather than Douglas, the regular Democratic candidate. His intrigues on behalf of the Confederacy and the institution of slavery during and after the Civil War belie the moderate image Gwin sought for himself in later life.
  • Starr, Kevin H.; Americans and the California Dream, 1850-1915 Oxford University Press, 1973
  • Williams, David A. "California Democrats of 1860: Division, Disruption, Defeat." Southern California Quarterly 1973 55(3): 239-252. Issn: 0038-3929. Recounts California's participation in the 1860 Democratic National Convention. Heavily pro-slavery and anti-Stephen A. Douglas, California and Oregon supported the Southern states at the Charleston meeting. Although Douglas supporters were in the majority at the convention, they lacked the two-thirds vote necessary to put their candidate and platform across. On a number of key issues California voted on the side of the South, and after 57 ballots the deadlocked convention adjourned. When it met again in Baltimore 45 days later, California and the southern states walked out. The Baltimore convention went on to nominate Douglas, while California and the southern states nominated John C. Breckinridge at a rump convention in Richmond. In November California narrowly went for Lincoln and the Republicans.
  • Wilson, John P. "From the Colorado to the Rio Grande: Across Arizona and New Mexico with the California Column." New Mexico Historical Review (2001) 76(3): 255-283. Issn: 0028-6206 Uses the letters of news correspondents to describe the activities of the California Column, which marched from California to New Mexico. Its goal was to block Confederates, who intended to capture New Mexico and California. In their letters to San Francisco newspapers, the correspondents provide more vivid accounts than might be found in official reports or diaries. They describe encounters with friendly Indians and skirmishes with hostile ones, the hardships of travel, the capture and escape of Union officers and men from the Confederates, poor food, and the retreat of the Confederates.
  • Woolsey, Ronald C. "The Politics of a Lost Cause: 'Seceshers' and Democrats in Southern California During the Civil War." California History (1990-1991) 69(4): 372-383. Issn: 0162-2897. Describes the effect of the Civil War on Southern California Democrats. The war provoked sectional loyalties and a concern for wartime issues. Pro-Southern Democrats supported the Confederacy as was evidenced by voting patterns that rejected Republican candidates. Democratic newspaper editors editorialized against the Union or advocated peace as an alternative for the Union's war policy. By 1864, however, Democratic influence was on the decline as the Union won military victories and the state's Republicans captured statewide posts. California's wartime experience demonstrated the strong economic and political ties between state and Union that could not be broken by geographic distance or wartime loyalties.
  • Woolsey, Ronald C. "Disunion or Dissent? A New Look at an Old Problem in Southern California Attitudes Toward the Civil War." Southern California Quarterly 1984 66(3): 185-205. ISSN: 0038-3929. Argues that Southern California's pro-South sympathies in the Civil War were due more to local political issues and regional problems than to a direct concern for such North-South issues as slavery and states' rights. Southern Californians objected to Lincoln administration policies that affected them financially, resented unfair taxation by the state legislature in which they were underrepresented, and experienced hardship because of disasters in the cattle industry. To them the Civil War was distant and expensive, and it thus provided a platform on which they could air their grievances.

who were the California Volunteers in 1863 at Bear Creek Massacre?

Any help developing article on Bear River Massacre Site in Idaho would be appreciated. There were "California Volunteers" there who wiped out a Shoshoni Village in 1863. What is the unit of "California Volunteers" involved, is there a separate article on that unit, how does it relate here to this California in the American Civil War article. Sincerely, doncram ( talk) 05:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

A resource that might be of value to you in researching the answer to your question may be found at [1]. That website has the service record of every California unit during the Civil War down to the company level. Armona ( talk) 02:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Was there really local opposition to statehood?

The following sentence in the "statehood" section seems to me to be questionable:

"Northern California, which was dominated by mining, shipping, and commercial elites of San Francisco, favored becoming a state. However, some people in lightly populated, rural Southern California wanted territorial status, or at least separation from Northern California."

As a native Californian myself, I have never heard of any opposition to statehood from "some people" in southern California. And I can find no evidence of it in internet articles on the subject of California's statehood. For example, http://www.sfmuseum.com/hist5/caladmit.html http://www.militarymuseum.org/Constitution.html

I think these two sentences should be struck unless some citation or evidence can be cited for them. But not being an expert in the subject, I will not presume to remove them myself. Can someone more expert than me please review these claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Around 1850, the southern California counties were sparsely populated by Spanish-speaking "Californios". It might have been assumed that the Californios didn't have much interest in statehood. I don't know that that supposition is correct. In fact, there was a disproportionate number of Californios (such as Gen. Mariano Vallejo and others) that were members of the 1849 constitutional convention that met in Colton Hall at Monterey. Armona ( talk) 01:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Looks like there were 3 attempts to split the state prior to the Civil War. List_of_U.S._state_secession_proposals#California Asiaticus ( talk) 00:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Dan Showalter

In the end of the text of the Outbreak of the Civil War section is this: "One partisan warrior, Dan Showalter, once robbed a stagecoach of all its gold, leaving a receipt behind with the driver to keep him out of trouble with his bosses." I dont think this is the name of the bandit. Here is Dan Showalters bio that I have found and there is no mention of highway robbery. There should be some source for this accusation.

Daniel Showalter (1830-1866)

Born in Greene County, Pa. and came to California in 1852. He lived the greater portion of the time in Mariposa County where he was a miner. He ran for and won a seat in the California state assembly 6th District in 1857-58 and 1861-62. In the heat of the stuggle to elect a new Senator for California he insulted another state assemblyman Charles W. Piercy from San Bernadino who challenged him to a duel.

Although dueling was officially illeagal in California at the time, this duel took place on Saturday afternoon, May 25, l86l,near the residence of Charles S. Fairfax, about three miles west of San Rafael in Marin county. The seconds of Piercy were Henry P. Watkins and Samuel Smith; those of Showalter, Thomas Hayes and Thomas Laspeyre. The weapons were rifles at forty yards distance. The first fire was ineffective. Showalter demanded another and, on the second fire, shot Piercy in the mouth and killed him. This was the last of the duels between political figures in California.

As a fugitive as a result of the duel, Showalter made his way south to the Los Angeles area joining with freinds and fellow secessionist sympathizers who wanted to go east to join the Confederate Army. This party was caught Nov. 29, 1861 by a cavalry patrol from Camp Wright at Minter Ranch, in the mountains southwest of the Warner's Ranch in the San Jose Valley of eastern San Diego County and sent to Fort Yuma. Eventually they were released and they went to Texas where Showalter became an officer in a Texas regiment. In March 1864, Lt. Col. Daniel Showalter took command of the 4th Arizona Cavalry under John Salmon Ford. However due to drunkenness he was later releived of his command.

After the Civil War he ran a Mazatlan hotel. There in 1866 he died of lockjaw, a result of a bar fight. Asiaticus ( talk) 18:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  • I was right, Rufus Henry Ingram, a former Quantril Raider once robbed two stagecoach of all their gold, near Palacerville, California, leaving a receipt behind with the second driver. Asiaticus ( talk) 06:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply

westernmost attack ?

In the last sentence of the text of the Outbreak of the Civil War section is this: "The westernmost attack related to the Civil War occurred just outside downtown San Jose. A bronze historical plaque marking the site identifies it as a battle with "outlaws," rather than a battle of the American Civil War."

I beleive someone has garbled the 1861 Minter Ranch incident that happened in the San Jose Valley in Eastern San Diego County near Warner's Ranch, noted above in Dan Showalter's bio. Asiaticus ( talk) 08:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply
It seems the incident refers to the shootout between Captain Ingrams Partisan Rangers and the posse of the local sheriff John Hicks Adams, just outside of San Jose. Added paragraph about that to article. Asiaticus ( talk) 01:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Eighty-eight violent incidents

"Eighty-eight violent incidents of various sizes were occurred in California during the war, many of them by outlaws trying to capture gold for their own benefit citation needed."

Removed this for now as I can find no justification for it. Asiaticus ( talk) 08:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Too Much Extraneous Info

Guys, guys - why are there several lines of text regarding these Eastern regiments that merely carried the name "California" (manned by Notherners), yet there's scant mention of the only California unit that actually served in-theater? I'm talking about the companies that served with the 2nd Massachusetts Cavalry - in the article it's only getting a couple sentences. That was California's main contribution to the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.98.3 ( talk) 13:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Anybody can edit this article. Just be sure you have good sources. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 20:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on California 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:California_in_the_American_Civil_War&oldid=1206512261"