Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If angry white racists are going to continue this vandalism, they should be banned.

WP:BLUDGEON with a side of incomprehensible Dronebogus ( talk) 09:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

It doesn't matter what historical records you've read, and it doesn't matter what people hundreds of years ago said or did. The experts at the most prestigious universities have said it didn't happen and that is fact. Dig up whatever "sources" you want, but it won't change the fact that you're wrong. Vedisassanti ( talk) 10:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

What vandalism are you referring to? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 11:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
and read wp:agf and wp:npa. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
That obviously doesn't apply to people who are openly nazis. Vedisassanti ( talk) 05:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Vedisassanti This is not a forum for the discussion of the topic. This a page for discussing how to improve this page. If you have concrete suggestions as to improving this page, in a "change X to Y" format, that would be very helpful. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 07:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Okay, how about this: This article should be under protected status, so white supremacists cannot vandalize the page any further. Vedisassanti ( talk) 07:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:Page protection is for pages actively under some sort of disruption and this page has five edits in the last month, none disruptive. If you have a specific issue you'd like us to address, you should tell us when and where such disruption caught your attention. BusterD ( talk) 07:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The entire Religious Dimension section is an attempted justification for this confederate myth, and it needs to be removed. Vedisassanti ( talk) 07:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Your dissatisfaction is noted. You'll need to make more than assertions and demands. You'll need to make a case. By my reading the section says what many scholars say on the subject, mostly in those sources' voices. What should the section say, and which sources need to be added? BusterD ( talk) 07:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The section should say that those assertions are unequivocally false, and make strong use of terminology that is not vague. I'm certain this goes without saying, but a source shouldn't be required to tell the truth that racism is a bad thing. Vedisassanti ( talk) 07:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
For what its worth, this page is already semi-protected. As to the religious section: do you have a suggested wording, cited to a reliable source, in mind? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 08:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Hunting for sources isn't my forte, but having a section where the crimes of the confederacy are justified by religious reasons isn't a good look for Wikipedia.
The wording should be strong and affirmative so as to leave no mistake that the confederacy rallied behind slavery and that slavery was an atrocity. And to be quite honest, a source shouldn't even be required to state that. Vedisassanti ( talk) 08:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I think you perhaps misread the section? The article is saying that the Lost Cause was a myth. Part of that myth was its religious dimension. Its not somehow justifying the Confederacy? Its explaining just how far Southerners were willing to take the myth. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 08:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
That is how white supremacists will interpret the article, and with everything going on in the world, the last thing Wikipedia needs is to embolden racists. It's better if there are no justifications or any line of reasoning that can be construed as a justification.
Don't be part of the problem. Vedisassanti ( talk) 09:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Opening sentence revision.

Another instance of WP:BLUDGEON Rsk6400 ( talk) 13:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The opening sentence of this article reads as follows: The Lost Cause of the Confederacy (or simply the Lost Cause) is an American pseudohistorical negationist myth that claims the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was just, heroic, and not centered on slavery.

I think this could be revised for clarity. In its current state, it implies that the claims under discussion (that the cause of the Confederate States was 'just, heroic, and not centered on slavery') is pseudohistorical and a 'myth' (in this context presumably meaning a belief which is inaccurate).

Now, of those three stated claims, one of them (that the cause of the Confederacy was centered on slavery) is an objective claim, and thus can meaningfully be described as pseudohistorical and inaccurate. The other two (that the cause was just and heroic) are simply opinions, and thus cannot be either pseudohistorical or historical. They are not assertions of fact, but purely subjective.

It seems to me the article would benefit from having this cleared up. Something along the following lines would perhaps make sense: The Lost Cause of the Confederacy (or simply the Lost Cause) is an American political-historical ideology, the adherents of which claim that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was just and heroic, as well as promoting the pseudohistorical belief that secession was not motivated by a desire to protect the institution of slavery. 90.255.80.187 ( talk) 11:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Missing the point here I think. If the “RS” is making subjective claims out to be objective, it’s not as reliable as you’re making it out to be. I agree a rephrasing would be prudent, though by no means would I call it important. “Slavery is unjust” is about as objectively true as we can get about a subjective claim. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:44BD:30D2:6862:1DC7 ( talk) 15:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
They are RS because we assume they are reliable for what they say. This is not the place to question the reliability of sources, that is either are wP:rsn or WP:NPOVN. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
That’s begging the question and a terrible intellectual policy for an encyclopedia that ostensibly wants to ensure its information is reliable. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:9CD5:2667:4C14:1805 ( talk) 16:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
What that information has to be sourced to reliable sources? How else do you ensure it is actually reliable? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The point is that there is no amount of data or evidence that could make the claim they pose true, there’s a philosophical explanatory gap. It’s a moral claim that slavery is unjust, not an objective one. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:9CD5:2667:4C14:1805 ( talk) 17:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Then take it to RSN and challenge their status as RS, prove they are incorrect there, not here. My last comment here, as you have been told what to do. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
No. It’s a bad policy. They’re self evidently incorrect. You’re telling me to go prove 2+2=4, it’s ridiculous. If this is how Wikipedia operates, it’s getting no more of my donations in future. It can die on the vine. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:9CD5:2667:4C14:1805 ( talk) 17:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Leaving aside the "I'll take my ball and go home" mentality, the IP editor's argument is not wholly without merit: "just" and "heroic" are subjective statements (although arguments about whether slavery is unjust are de facto bad faith).
What if we rearranged the order?
"is an American pseudohistorical negationist myth that claims the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was not the perpetuation of slavery, and instead was just and heroic" ? DS ( talk) 20:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Dragonfly: I'm not seeing what that version does that the current one doesn't, and it makes the sentence more complex. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 22:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
It doesn't matter whether the sources are reliable or not, that's really irrelevant here - the descriptions 'just' and 'heroic' are subjective and so cannot be meaningfully described as pseudohistorical. These are not historical concepts. The reliability of cited material as a source for historical information may be beyond dispute, but this does not mean the same cited author's ethical beliefs must be stated as fact. My point is amply supported by the Wikipedia guidelines:
Rules on NPOV:
Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.
Rules on reliable sources:
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. 90.255.80.187 ( talk) 23:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
It doesn't matter whether the sources are reliable or not, that's really irrelevant here. Read WP:FALSEBALANCE, which deals with NPOV. You're proposing a deletion from the article on the grounds that you don't like what a consensus of current sources say, or what conclusions reputable academic sources and historians have drawn. We don't water down sourced statements or assessments for the sake of demands for a fallacious appearance of neutrality - that goes against NPOV. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I am equally unimpressed by your attempts to water down the content at American Bison. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
What “consensus of sources” state that the lost cause’s “heroism/justice” are pseudohistorical? Does one of them explain how a non-historical concept can even be pseudohistorical? It appears to me these reputable academics have simply made claims outside their field of expertise. Frustrating you seem to be unable to understand that. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:9CD5:2667:4C14:1805 ( talk) 00:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
You're proposing a deletion from the article...
No, I'm not proposing any such thing - I am proposing that the first sentence of the article be reorganized for the sake of clarity. If you bother to read the suggested revision I gave earlier, this will become obvious to you:
...the adherents of which claim that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was just and heroic, as well as promoting the pseudohistorical belief that secession was not motivated by a desire to protect the institution of slavery
As you can see here, nothing is deleted, the information given is exactly the same, it is simply more coherent. All three claims in the current version are mentioned (the Civil War being just, heroic and 'not centered' on slavery), but only one of these, the last, is described as pseudohistorical.
...on the grounds that you don't like what a consensus of current sources say
Not true at all. I happen to agree that the cause of the Confederate States was unjust, unheroic and chiefly motivated by a desire to prevent the abolition of slavery. That's not the point. The point is that 'just' and 'heroic' are ethical judgments, not empirical historical arguments based on fact, and so are neither historical nor pseudohistorical and should not be described as such. Again you just haven't bothered to read what I wrote.
We don't water down sourced statements or assessments for the sake of demands for a fallacious appearance of neutrality - that goes against NPOV.
Again, my proposal is not watered down, only clearer and more accurate. Regarding the 'false balance' guideline, that simply doesn't apply here. I quote from that paragraph here (emphasis mine):
While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.
'The Earth is flat', 'the moon landings were faked' and the rest are all empirically verifiable, objective claims, which can demonstrated to be true or false with evidence. The statement 'the Confederate States were motivated by a desire to protect slavery' falls into this category. This is conclusion of a majority of historians and so the opposing view does not deserve to be given equal weight. That is the purpose of the rule. 'Just' and 'heroic' on the other hand do not fall into this category - they are personal, ethical judgments, not historical arguments and so it is simply wrong to describe such judgments as 'pseudohistorical'. It's just bad English, a logical tautology.
I cite again the rule on NPOV (emphasis mine):
Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.
The statements 'John Doe is the best baseball player' and 'the Confederate cause was unjust' fall into the same category. They are just opinions. Whether you or I or any number of historians agree with this opinion doesn't matter - it should not, according to the rules of this site, be stated as a matter of fact.
I am equally unimpressed by your attempts to water down the content at American Bison.
Oh dear. Well hopefully I'll manage to sleep tonight knowing how 'unimpressed' you are with me. 90.255.80.187 ( talk) 12:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

War causes

Maybe is correct to say that the war had an economical background, that is as important as the slavery or at least very important. With the crash between the agrarian south and the heavily industrialized north. And the economic interests that this entails in both north and south of the United States. 85.251.178.252 ( talk) 18:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Do you have a reliable source we can cite to? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
(And, please, not one of the Lost Cause sources, something actually reliable.)
It is not correct to say that. There were many points of conflict between the North and the South, many of them economic (and slavery to the south was an economic issue) but the one cause to which the South reacted with secession was the election of Lincoln, and that was because they thought (incorrectly) that he was an abolitionist and would do away with slavery.
In fact, at the time of his election, Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, but had no intention of abolishing the institution, although he was opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories, which is not at all the same thing.
Lincoln only came around to the emancipationist viewpoint during the war, and even then it wasn't primarily on the basis of abolitionist ideology, it was aimed at hurting the South's war effort by denying them the use of slave manpower, which effectively increased the number of available fighting soldiers. He only very slowly came to the moral standpoint regarding the freedom of the slaves, and even by the time of his assassination was not totally there on black suffrage.
Lincoln's strongest virtue was the ability to learn and grow (something Andrew Johnson was unable to do), and it's likely that if he continued in office he would continue to move in the direction of the Radical Republicans -- but, with almost absolute certainty -- if the South hadn't seceded after Lincoln's election, he would not have abolished slavery at that time, instead trusting (as many of the Founding Fathers did) the vicissitudes of time to eventually destroy it.
In short, the article as it stands is correct. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
(2023, July) Causes and effects of the American Civil War Encyclopedia Britannica American Civil War | Causes & Effects | Britannica 85.251.178.252 ( talk) 19:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
For more data if is necessary. 85.251.178.252 ( talk) 19:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
This is correct, many causes that had been building for years, not one issue. 2600:1700:91E4:5400:CDA2:894E:BBEE:B6B8 ( talk) 17:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Matters of fact vs. matters of ethics

In the context of an encyclopedic rebuttal to motivated reasoning, we need to be careful to distinguish the factual claims from claims about ethics, aesthetics, etc. For example, as pointed out elsewhere on this talk page, it doesn't make sense to say that say "claims that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was… heroic" are "psuedohistorical" or a "myth". Whether or not Robert E. Lee was a hero isn't a historical question or a matter of fact. "Robert E. Lee was a hero" isn't a false claim, just a really boneheaded assessment of heroism. To be sure, we can and should point out that mainstream experts overwhelmingly disagree with this assessment, as the article already does. The point is that NPOV requires us to distinguish false claims of fact, which we can flatly describe as false, and stupid ethical opinions, which we can't. — Kodiologist ( t) 17:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

We do not say hero we say heroic. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Military skill

"The Union victory is thus explained as the result of its greater size and industrial wealth, while the Confederate side is portrayed as having greater morality and military skill.[12] Modern historians overwhelmingly disagree with these characterizations, noting that the central cause of the war was slavery.[16][17][18]"

This could use clarification. It seems to imply that slavery being the cause means they lacked military skill. Benjamin ( talk) 18:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

It is referencing the rest of the paragraph. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Agreed. If you take the entire paragraph as one thing, it's clear the "disagree" part refers to causes, not the spurious explanations. Wes sideman ( talk) 13:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Has the claim that Robert E. Lee was the "best general of the war" really been "accepted throughout much of the US"?

The addition of "Many facets of the Lost Cause's false historiography – such as Robert E. Lee's heroic status as the best general in the war – have also become accepted throughout much of the U.S., although contemporary historians have made considerable progress in weakening the Lost Cause mythos." by User:Beyond My Ken in May has been highly controversial and is not an improvement to this article. If this unsourced and false claim should be included in the first paragraph then it should have a source. Nowhere else in the article does it claim that Robert E. Lee was the "best general in the war". This claim distracts from the consensus of the article and the way the introductory paragraph had been for over one year - longer than the false claim had remained. This is a novel idea and I have not read this unconventional claim anywhere else. This has been reverted by User:Aceholiday before it was again reverted back into the article by Beyond My Ken. Aneirinn ( talk) 18:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

As you can see, I've modified and partly restored that text, minus the "Many facets... [such] as Robert E. Lee's heroic status as the best general in the war – have also become accepted throughout much of the U.S.". I've added information citing Thomas L. Connelly, who addresses this subject. Carlstak ( talk) 23:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you Carlstak, it's better now. Aneirinn ( talk) 23:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
No, it is not. The claim that Lee was an excellent general, the best of any in the war on both sides, is a very significant part of the Lost Cause mythos, and is very well supported by numerous references. It needs to be in the lead, so I have restored it. Do not remove it again until you have a clear consensus to do so from the editors on this page. Beyond My en ( talk) 02:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
It is not a "very significant" part of the lost cause "mythos". Rather, it is a very minor and insignificant part of it, if any; and undoubtedly unworthy of note in the introductory paragraph. Yet again, you have failed to provide even a single source for this controversial claim. If you wish to have it included, a source must be provided. What "numerous sources" support this specific claim? Do not reinsert this without providing a source; it could be interpreted as disruptive editing. Arrive at a clear consensus with input of others prior to doing so. At this point it does not need to be included in the lead. Thank you. Aneirinn ( talk) 07:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Aneirinn, Beyond My Ken's version is the stable one, so according to WP:ONUS, the onus to achieve consensus is on you. The lead has to summarize the article, and Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy#Confederate_generals seems to support Beyond My Ken's version. Still, I'm not so sure and therefore, I'd like to wait for more input here. BTW: There is a one-hour lecture by Ty Seidule deconstructing the Lee mythology given right in front of Lee's recumbent statue in Lee Chapel which I thought fascinating. [1] Rsk6400 ( talk) 09:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Seidule's book Robert E. Lee and Me is also very interesting. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Earlier versions of the article before May 2023 make no mention of Lee in the lead. I strongly disagree with the characterization that the other version is the stable one and that Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy#Confederate_generals supports the other version. I see only one mention in that section of the article that possibly characterizes Robert E. Lee as the "best general in the war". The second passage of the section reads Connelly "[wrote that Lee was] a military genius whose skills were 'unsurpassed in the annals of war'", this is just one writer's personal view, and using it to justify the claims inclusion in the lead is WP:UNDUE. There is no further note that could be construed as saying that Lee was the "best general in the war" and this claim is irrelevant and arbitrary. In the section, there are many mentions of Lee being a "heroic", "honorable", "noble", or even "pious", figure of sorts, although this is entirely different from being "the best general in the war". According to MOS:LEAD, the lead section should be written with a neutral point of view and "as in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." One author's viewpoint does not mean this is a conventional or deeply-rooted belief, and significant for that matter. Aneirinn ( talk) 10:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The mythology around Lee is supported in the body of the article, but it doesn't seem to warrant such prominent placement (or repetition) in the lead. The phrase separated by en dashes doesn't sufficiently define its antecedent: "The Lost Cause's false historiography – much of it based on rhetoric mythologizing Robert E. Lee's heroic status – has been scrutinized by contemporary historians, who have made considerable progress in dismantling many parts of the Lost Cause mythos..." There are a lot of tenets of the Lost Cause. Is "much of it" really based on Lee's exaggerated prowess? The lead seems better without it these phrases injected there, IMO. Not saying it couldn't be elsewhere in the lead, but it doesn't seem to fit where it is now.--- MattMauler ( talk) 03:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

In recent months I've read about 8-10 books about various aspects of the Lost Cause. When I started, and I came across the claim that Robert E. Lee became a heroic figure in both the North and the South in the period long after the war, I thought to myself "No way that's possible", but the more I read, the more it became clear that the acceptance of the Lee as an American hero by the North was a very significant part of the reconciliation of the regions after the failure of Reconstruction, in the same period of time when most of the Confederate statues that are now being argued over were raised. The acceptance of Lee's heroic mythos was the grease that allowed the Lost Cause to slip into American history, not just Southern history, without a great deal of protest by the North. Given this, I think the repeated mention of Lee is fully justified. It is well-supported by the text of the article and by the many sources I've read. It was something that I didn't expect to come across, so I can understand the friction it provokes, but it is nevertheless a fact of American history. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Again, "heroic" is very different from the "best general in the war." You are not addressing the point. Aneirinn ( talk) 04:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I can't help but think that you are relatively unfamiliar with Civil War scholarship. The "heroic" status of Lee was based almost entirely on his being a better general than anyone else in either army. It's only fairly recently that historians have re-examined Lee's generalship and have found it wanting. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
From historian James C. Cobb writing for the National Endowment for the Humanities:

Journalists were hardly alone in helping to nationalize Lee's appeal. Popular historian James Ford Rhodes, an Ohioan, praised him unstintingly, as did no less a proper Bostonian than Charles Francis Adams II, who felt Lee’s courage, wisdom, and strength could only "reflect honor on our American manhood." No one put greater stock in American manhood than Theodore Roosevelt, who, with characteristic restraint, pronounced Lee"“the very greatest of all the great captains that the English-speaking peoples have brought forth” and declared that his dignified acceptance of defeat helped “build the wonderful and mighty triumph of our national life, in which all his countrymen, north and south, share." A generation later, as readers devoured Douglas Southall Freeman's adoring four-volume biography of Lee, another President Roosevelt would simply laud him "as one of our greatest American Christians and one of our greatest American gentlemen.

Carlstak ( talk) 05:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
To BMK's point, Michael C. C. Adams, writing satirically in a passage of a book review, wrote of the lionization of Lee, "How could the greatest general of his age have so squandered his forces that at Appomattox his whole army barely amounted to the cavalry corps of his opponent?" Further,

A majority of the early Northern historians of the war were willing to go along with the Virginia portrait of Lee because they too had an agenda. Like the Virginians, they were conservative literary men from the Atlantic states, unenamoured of the booming, industrial Gilded Age society that had emerged triumphant from the war. They also pined for a mythic antebellum golden age of gentlemanly decorum, rural values, and public restraint. They had been galled by the appointment of Ulysses S. Grant, a man of no social background from the west, to overall command of the Union armies, and they disliked his aggressive style of fighting. Writers like Francis Winthrop Palfrey were very willing to agree with their Southern colleagues that Grant was an inferior general to Lee and had only won through superior numbers. This school perhaps reached its apogee in the writings of Henry Adams, the Boston Brahmin, who felt that Grant was barely above the level of the animal and that Lee represented a type of superior American about to be made extinct by the onrush of blind progress.

Carlstak ( talk) 06:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • (edit conflict) I'm leaning towards positions taken by User:Aneirinn and User:MattMauler. In my view the sourcing on this page is ambitious generally, especially in the subsection #Confederate generals. Individual paragraphs of that section possess one citation, yet inside each paragraph there are IMHO large numbers of arguable assertions unsupported by provided sources. An insertion is made in May by User:Beyond My Ken, adding uncited material which he claims needs to be in the lead. Material REinserted after a compromise was being reached between the OP and User:Carlstak, while discussion was already ongoing. The Lost Cause's false historiography – much of it based on rhetoric mythologizing Robert E. Lee's heroic status – has been scrutinized by contemporary historians, who have made considerable progress in dismantling many parts of the Lost Cause mythos, including the claim that Lee was the best general in the war. Let's look at that set of assertions shall we? How much of the "Lost Cause's false historiography" was based on "rhetoric mythologizing" Lee? How do you measure WP:DUE? I say it's hyperbole. And yet "considerable progress" has been made on the fabricated historiography, "dismantling many parts" (how many? what percentage?) of the "mythos" including an arguable and uncited claim of "best"? This is a list of unproven claims. I'm not satisfied even with the underlying assertion that Lee has ever been judged "best" (next to Jackson and Forrest), even among the Lost Causers. This insertion is UNDUE and totally out of place, given every other major assertion statement in the lede has at least two cites next to it. BusterD ( talk) 06:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm glad to see some sourcing from Carlstak but I must note respectfully that Adams speaks in his own voice. BYK BMK would have his insertion speak in Wikipedia's voice. I don't think we have sourcing sufficient to do so. BusterD ( talk) 06:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I only have Wiki-voice in what is agreed upon in multiple sources.
    "BMK" There is no "Y" initial in my moniker. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I personally would not use the word "best". Alan T. Nolan says:

The 1989 edition of the Encyclopedia Americana states that Lee was "one of the truly gifted commanders of all time," "one of the greatest, if not the greatest, soldier who ever spoke the English language." The entry for Lee in the 1989 Encyclopaedia Britannica reflects a similar judgment. According to the 1988 revised edition of the Civil War Dictionary, Lee "earned rank with history's most distinguished generals." These evaluations reflect the consensus of standard reference sources.... The standard reference books do not stand alone. The excellence of his generalship is a Lee dogma and is widely asserted. In 1963, Marshall W. Fishwick wrote, "In his field he was a genius - probably the greatest one the American nation has produced." Lee Takes Command, volume 7 of the popular Time-Life Civil War series, published in 1984, reports that as of the Confederate victory at Second Bull Run, "Lee was well on his way to becoming the greatest soldier of the Civil War."

Carlstak ( talk) 06:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Let's say I concede the argument, based on the very good sourcing provided above. Lee is judged the the best (for the sake of this discussion). That's not what's under discussion in this thread. What IS under discussion is a series of interlocked assertions which constitute IMHO synthesis unless each of those assertions may be interlocked using reliable sourcing applied to the page. I'm not even saying those assertions are wrong, merely contentious and unproven (by my reading). If BMK can provide a source or three which directly support the entire contribution under discussion, I'll withdraw my reluctance. In this case, a quote directly from a source might be better but not in the lede. If the page is going to say something supported by a group of sources, by all means, let's allow those sources to speak for themselves. BusterD ( talk) 16:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Can't help but notice there's edit warring now on the page

I'd normally expect both editors to discuss their disagreements here without any further reverts. BusterD ( talk) 03:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Oops, sorry, didn't see this before I made the last edit, I've been editing back and forth here and at falafel. As far as I could tell, Smuckola had a problem with my leaving a paragraph uncited when I removed peripheral content that's better covered elsewhere, a paragraph that was left uncited by the editor who added it in the first place, and had been sitting there all this time, unsourced. I've added a source, and think I've satisfied Smuckola's concerns, at least I hope so. Carlstak ( talk) 04:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
PS: You're right of course, BusterD, I should have come to the talk page and hashed it out here. I didn't really see it as edit-warring, more as a friendly back-and-forth, but it was edit-warring. My apologies to all. Carlstak ( talk) 04:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Confederate statues during the Civil rights era

Most confederate statues were erected in the 1890s or before. Please correct or re word this passsage as it seems to infer there were a lot of thembuilt in the 50s and 60s which just isnt true 2600:1702:50E7:9B00:8CC4:A514:ED8A:A782 ( talk) 23:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Do you have a source for your claim? The two places I see in the article that mention the timing of these monuments are cited to reliable sources, and this aligns with my memory as well. Pre-1890 would be very soon after the War. IIRC, there were only a few statues built even of Lee in that span of years. I think the real (all-time) peak was in the few years pre-1920 (~1915-1920), but then another bump in the '50s and '60s.-- MattMauler ( talk) 03:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
By far the biggest wave of Confederate monument construction came in the early 20th century as Jim Crow laws became widespread in the wake of Plessy v Ferguson. See eg Confederate monuments and memorials#/media/File:Confederate monuments, schools and other iconography established by year.png. But there was a significant bump in the Civil Rights era as well. Erp Erpington ( talk) 04:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy&oldid=1211878059"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If angry white racists are going to continue this vandalism, they should be banned.

WP:BLUDGEON with a side of incomprehensible Dronebogus ( talk) 09:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

It doesn't matter what historical records you've read, and it doesn't matter what people hundreds of years ago said or did. The experts at the most prestigious universities have said it didn't happen and that is fact. Dig up whatever "sources" you want, but it won't change the fact that you're wrong. Vedisassanti ( talk) 10:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

What vandalism are you referring to? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 11:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
and read wp:agf and wp:npa. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
That obviously doesn't apply to people who are openly nazis. Vedisassanti ( talk) 05:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Vedisassanti This is not a forum for the discussion of the topic. This a page for discussing how to improve this page. If you have concrete suggestions as to improving this page, in a "change X to Y" format, that would be very helpful. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 07:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Okay, how about this: This article should be under protected status, so white supremacists cannot vandalize the page any further. Vedisassanti ( talk) 07:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:Page protection is for pages actively under some sort of disruption and this page has five edits in the last month, none disruptive. If you have a specific issue you'd like us to address, you should tell us when and where such disruption caught your attention. BusterD ( talk) 07:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The entire Religious Dimension section is an attempted justification for this confederate myth, and it needs to be removed. Vedisassanti ( talk) 07:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Your dissatisfaction is noted. You'll need to make more than assertions and demands. You'll need to make a case. By my reading the section says what many scholars say on the subject, mostly in those sources' voices. What should the section say, and which sources need to be added? BusterD ( talk) 07:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The section should say that those assertions are unequivocally false, and make strong use of terminology that is not vague. I'm certain this goes without saying, but a source shouldn't be required to tell the truth that racism is a bad thing. Vedisassanti ( talk) 07:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
For what its worth, this page is already semi-protected. As to the religious section: do you have a suggested wording, cited to a reliable source, in mind? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 08:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Hunting for sources isn't my forte, but having a section where the crimes of the confederacy are justified by religious reasons isn't a good look for Wikipedia.
The wording should be strong and affirmative so as to leave no mistake that the confederacy rallied behind slavery and that slavery was an atrocity. And to be quite honest, a source shouldn't even be required to state that. Vedisassanti ( talk) 08:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I think you perhaps misread the section? The article is saying that the Lost Cause was a myth. Part of that myth was its religious dimension. Its not somehow justifying the Confederacy? Its explaining just how far Southerners were willing to take the myth. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 08:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
That is how white supremacists will interpret the article, and with everything going on in the world, the last thing Wikipedia needs is to embolden racists. It's better if there are no justifications or any line of reasoning that can be construed as a justification.
Don't be part of the problem. Vedisassanti ( talk) 09:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Opening sentence revision.

Another instance of WP:BLUDGEON Rsk6400 ( talk) 13:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The opening sentence of this article reads as follows: The Lost Cause of the Confederacy (or simply the Lost Cause) is an American pseudohistorical negationist myth that claims the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was just, heroic, and not centered on slavery.

I think this could be revised for clarity. In its current state, it implies that the claims under discussion (that the cause of the Confederate States was 'just, heroic, and not centered on slavery') is pseudohistorical and a 'myth' (in this context presumably meaning a belief which is inaccurate).

Now, of those three stated claims, one of them (that the cause of the Confederacy was centered on slavery) is an objective claim, and thus can meaningfully be described as pseudohistorical and inaccurate. The other two (that the cause was just and heroic) are simply opinions, and thus cannot be either pseudohistorical or historical. They are not assertions of fact, but purely subjective.

It seems to me the article would benefit from having this cleared up. Something along the following lines would perhaps make sense: The Lost Cause of the Confederacy (or simply the Lost Cause) is an American political-historical ideology, the adherents of which claim that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was just and heroic, as well as promoting the pseudohistorical belief that secession was not motivated by a desire to protect the institution of slavery. 90.255.80.187 ( talk) 11:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Missing the point here I think. If the “RS” is making subjective claims out to be objective, it’s not as reliable as you’re making it out to be. I agree a rephrasing would be prudent, though by no means would I call it important. “Slavery is unjust” is about as objectively true as we can get about a subjective claim. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:44BD:30D2:6862:1DC7 ( talk) 15:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
They are RS because we assume they are reliable for what they say. This is not the place to question the reliability of sources, that is either are wP:rsn or WP:NPOVN. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
That’s begging the question and a terrible intellectual policy for an encyclopedia that ostensibly wants to ensure its information is reliable. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:9CD5:2667:4C14:1805 ( talk) 16:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
What that information has to be sourced to reliable sources? How else do you ensure it is actually reliable? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The point is that there is no amount of data or evidence that could make the claim they pose true, there’s a philosophical explanatory gap. It’s a moral claim that slavery is unjust, not an objective one. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:9CD5:2667:4C14:1805 ( talk) 17:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Then take it to RSN and challenge their status as RS, prove they are incorrect there, not here. My last comment here, as you have been told what to do. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
No. It’s a bad policy. They’re self evidently incorrect. You’re telling me to go prove 2+2=4, it’s ridiculous. If this is how Wikipedia operates, it’s getting no more of my donations in future. It can die on the vine. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:9CD5:2667:4C14:1805 ( talk) 17:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Leaving aside the "I'll take my ball and go home" mentality, the IP editor's argument is not wholly without merit: "just" and "heroic" are subjective statements (although arguments about whether slavery is unjust are de facto bad faith).
What if we rearranged the order?
"is an American pseudohistorical negationist myth that claims the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was not the perpetuation of slavery, and instead was just and heroic" ? DS ( talk) 20:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Dragonfly: I'm not seeing what that version does that the current one doesn't, and it makes the sentence more complex. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 22:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
It doesn't matter whether the sources are reliable or not, that's really irrelevant here - the descriptions 'just' and 'heroic' are subjective and so cannot be meaningfully described as pseudohistorical. These are not historical concepts. The reliability of cited material as a source for historical information may be beyond dispute, but this does not mean the same cited author's ethical beliefs must be stated as fact. My point is amply supported by the Wikipedia guidelines:
Rules on NPOV:
Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.
Rules on reliable sources:
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. 90.255.80.187 ( talk) 23:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
It doesn't matter whether the sources are reliable or not, that's really irrelevant here. Read WP:FALSEBALANCE, which deals with NPOV. You're proposing a deletion from the article on the grounds that you don't like what a consensus of current sources say, or what conclusions reputable academic sources and historians have drawn. We don't water down sourced statements or assessments for the sake of demands for a fallacious appearance of neutrality - that goes against NPOV. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I am equally unimpressed by your attempts to water down the content at American Bison. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
What “consensus of sources” state that the lost cause’s “heroism/justice” are pseudohistorical? Does one of them explain how a non-historical concept can even be pseudohistorical? It appears to me these reputable academics have simply made claims outside their field of expertise. Frustrating you seem to be unable to understand that. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:9CD5:2667:4C14:1805 ( talk) 00:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
You're proposing a deletion from the article...
No, I'm not proposing any such thing - I am proposing that the first sentence of the article be reorganized for the sake of clarity. If you bother to read the suggested revision I gave earlier, this will become obvious to you:
...the adherents of which claim that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was just and heroic, as well as promoting the pseudohistorical belief that secession was not motivated by a desire to protect the institution of slavery
As you can see here, nothing is deleted, the information given is exactly the same, it is simply more coherent. All three claims in the current version are mentioned (the Civil War being just, heroic and 'not centered' on slavery), but only one of these, the last, is described as pseudohistorical.
...on the grounds that you don't like what a consensus of current sources say
Not true at all. I happen to agree that the cause of the Confederate States was unjust, unheroic and chiefly motivated by a desire to prevent the abolition of slavery. That's not the point. The point is that 'just' and 'heroic' are ethical judgments, not empirical historical arguments based on fact, and so are neither historical nor pseudohistorical and should not be described as such. Again you just haven't bothered to read what I wrote.
We don't water down sourced statements or assessments for the sake of demands for a fallacious appearance of neutrality - that goes against NPOV.
Again, my proposal is not watered down, only clearer and more accurate. Regarding the 'false balance' guideline, that simply doesn't apply here. I quote from that paragraph here (emphasis mine):
While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.
'The Earth is flat', 'the moon landings were faked' and the rest are all empirically verifiable, objective claims, which can demonstrated to be true or false with evidence. The statement 'the Confederate States were motivated by a desire to protect slavery' falls into this category. This is conclusion of a majority of historians and so the opposing view does not deserve to be given equal weight. That is the purpose of the rule. 'Just' and 'heroic' on the other hand do not fall into this category - they are personal, ethical judgments, not historical arguments and so it is simply wrong to describe such judgments as 'pseudohistorical'. It's just bad English, a logical tautology.
I cite again the rule on NPOV (emphasis mine):
Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.
The statements 'John Doe is the best baseball player' and 'the Confederate cause was unjust' fall into the same category. They are just opinions. Whether you or I or any number of historians agree with this opinion doesn't matter - it should not, according to the rules of this site, be stated as a matter of fact.
I am equally unimpressed by your attempts to water down the content at American Bison.
Oh dear. Well hopefully I'll manage to sleep tonight knowing how 'unimpressed' you are with me. 90.255.80.187 ( talk) 12:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

War causes

Maybe is correct to say that the war had an economical background, that is as important as the slavery or at least very important. With the crash between the agrarian south and the heavily industrialized north. And the economic interests that this entails in both north and south of the United States. 85.251.178.252 ( talk) 18:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Do you have a reliable source we can cite to? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
(And, please, not one of the Lost Cause sources, something actually reliable.)
It is not correct to say that. There were many points of conflict between the North and the South, many of them economic (and slavery to the south was an economic issue) but the one cause to which the South reacted with secession was the election of Lincoln, and that was because they thought (incorrectly) that he was an abolitionist and would do away with slavery.
In fact, at the time of his election, Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, but had no intention of abolishing the institution, although he was opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories, which is not at all the same thing.
Lincoln only came around to the emancipationist viewpoint during the war, and even then it wasn't primarily on the basis of abolitionist ideology, it was aimed at hurting the South's war effort by denying them the use of slave manpower, which effectively increased the number of available fighting soldiers. He only very slowly came to the moral standpoint regarding the freedom of the slaves, and even by the time of his assassination was not totally there on black suffrage.
Lincoln's strongest virtue was the ability to learn and grow (something Andrew Johnson was unable to do), and it's likely that if he continued in office he would continue to move in the direction of the Radical Republicans -- but, with almost absolute certainty -- if the South hadn't seceded after Lincoln's election, he would not have abolished slavery at that time, instead trusting (as many of the Founding Fathers did) the vicissitudes of time to eventually destroy it.
In short, the article as it stands is correct. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
(2023, July) Causes and effects of the American Civil War Encyclopedia Britannica American Civil War | Causes & Effects | Britannica 85.251.178.252 ( talk) 19:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
For more data if is necessary. 85.251.178.252 ( talk) 19:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
This is correct, many causes that had been building for years, not one issue. 2600:1700:91E4:5400:CDA2:894E:BBEE:B6B8 ( talk) 17:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Matters of fact vs. matters of ethics

In the context of an encyclopedic rebuttal to motivated reasoning, we need to be careful to distinguish the factual claims from claims about ethics, aesthetics, etc. For example, as pointed out elsewhere on this talk page, it doesn't make sense to say that say "claims that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was… heroic" are "psuedohistorical" or a "myth". Whether or not Robert E. Lee was a hero isn't a historical question or a matter of fact. "Robert E. Lee was a hero" isn't a false claim, just a really boneheaded assessment of heroism. To be sure, we can and should point out that mainstream experts overwhelmingly disagree with this assessment, as the article already does. The point is that NPOV requires us to distinguish false claims of fact, which we can flatly describe as false, and stupid ethical opinions, which we can't. — Kodiologist ( t) 17:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

We do not say hero we say heroic. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Military skill

"The Union victory is thus explained as the result of its greater size and industrial wealth, while the Confederate side is portrayed as having greater morality and military skill.[12] Modern historians overwhelmingly disagree with these characterizations, noting that the central cause of the war was slavery.[16][17][18]"

This could use clarification. It seems to imply that slavery being the cause means they lacked military skill. Benjamin ( talk) 18:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

It is referencing the rest of the paragraph. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Agreed. If you take the entire paragraph as one thing, it's clear the "disagree" part refers to causes, not the spurious explanations. Wes sideman ( talk) 13:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Has the claim that Robert E. Lee was the "best general of the war" really been "accepted throughout much of the US"?

The addition of "Many facets of the Lost Cause's false historiography – such as Robert E. Lee's heroic status as the best general in the war – have also become accepted throughout much of the U.S., although contemporary historians have made considerable progress in weakening the Lost Cause mythos." by User:Beyond My Ken in May has been highly controversial and is not an improvement to this article. If this unsourced and false claim should be included in the first paragraph then it should have a source. Nowhere else in the article does it claim that Robert E. Lee was the "best general in the war". This claim distracts from the consensus of the article and the way the introductory paragraph had been for over one year - longer than the false claim had remained. This is a novel idea and I have not read this unconventional claim anywhere else. This has been reverted by User:Aceholiday before it was again reverted back into the article by Beyond My Ken. Aneirinn ( talk) 18:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

As you can see, I've modified and partly restored that text, minus the "Many facets... [such] as Robert E. Lee's heroic status as the best general in the war – have also become accepted throughout much of the U.S.". I've added information citing Thomas L. Connelly, who addresses this subject. Carlstak ( talk) 23:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you Carlstak, it's better now. Aneirinn ( talk) 23:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
No, it is not. The claim that Lee was an excellent general, the best of any in the war on both sides, is a very significant part of the Lost Cause mythos, and is very well supported by numerous references. It needs to be in the lead, so I have restored it. Do not remove it again until you have a clear consensus to do so from the editors on this page. Beyond My en ( talk) 02:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
It is not a "very significant" part of the lost cause "mythos". Rather, it is a very minor and insignificant part of it, if any; and undoubtedly unworthy of note in the introductory paragraph. Yet again, you have failed to provide even a single source for this controversial claim. If you wish to have it included, a source must be provided. What "numerous sources" support this specific claim? Do not reinsert this without providing a source; it could be interpreted as disruptive editing. Arrive at a clear consensus with input of others prior to doing so. At this point it does not need to be included in the lead. Thank you. Aneirinn ( talk) 07:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Aneirinn, Beyond My Ken's version is the stable one, so according to WP:ONUS, the onus to achieve consensus is on you. The lead has to summarize the article, and Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy#Confederate_generals seems to support Beyond My Ken's version. Still, I'm not so sure and therefore, I'd like to wait for more input here. BTW: There is a one-hour lecture by Ty Seidule deconstructing the Lee mythology given right in front of Lee's recumbent statue in Lee Chapel which I thought fascinating. [1] Rsk6400 ( talk) 09:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Seidule's book Robert E. Lee and Me is also very interesting. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Earlier versions of the article before May 2023 make no mention of Lee in the lead. I strongly disagree with the characterization that the other version is the stable one and that Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy#Confederate_generals supports the other version. I see only one mention in that section of the article that possibly characterizes Robert E. Lee as the "best general in the war". The second passage of the section reads Connelly "[wrote that Lee was] a military genius whose skills were 'unsurpassed in the annals of war'", this is just one writer's personal view, and using it to justify the claims inclusion in the lead is WP:UNDUE. There is no further note that could be construed as saying that Lee was the "best general in the war" and this claim is irrelevant and arbitrary. In the section, there are many mentions of Lee being a "heroic", "honorable", "noble", or even "pious", figure of sorts, although this is entirely different from being "the best general in the war". According to MOS:LEAD, the lead section should be written with a neutral point of view and "as in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." One author's viewpoint does not mean this is a conventional or deeply-rooted belief, and significant for that matter. Aneirinn ( talk) 10:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The mythology around Lee is supported in the body of the article, but it doesn't seem to warrant such prominent placement (or repetition) in the lead. The phrase separated by en dashes doesn't sufficiently define its antecedent: "The Lost Cause's false historiography – much of it based on rhetoric mythologizing Robert E. Lee's heroic status – has been scrutinized by contemporary historians, who have made considerable progress in dismantling many parts of the Lost Cause mythos..." There are a lot of tenets of the Lost Cause. Is "much of it" really based on Lee's exaggerated prowess? The lead seems better without it these phrases injected there, IMO. Not saying it couldn't be elsewhere in the lead, but it doesn't seem to fit where it is now.--- MattMauler ( talk) 03:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

In recent months I've read about 8-10 books about various aspects of the Lost Cause. When I started, and I came across the claim that Robert E. Lee became a heroic figure in both the North and the South in the period long after the war, I thought to myself "No way that's possible", but the more I read, the more it became clear that the acceptance of the Lee as an American hero by the North was a very significant part of the reconciliation of the regions after the failure of Reconstruction, in the same period of time when most of the Confederate statues that are now being argued over were raised. The acceptance of Lee's heroic mythos was the grease that allowed the Lost Cause to slip into American history, not just Southern history, without a great deal of protest by the North. Given this, I think the repeated mention of Lee is fully justified. It is well-supported by the text of the article and by the many sources I've read. It was something that I didn't expect to come across, so I can understand the friction it provokes, but it is nevertheless a fact of American history. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Again, "heroic" is very different from the "best general in the war." You are not addressing the point. Aneirinn ( talk) 04:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I can't help but think that you are relatively unfamiliar with Civil War scholarship. The "heroic" status of Lee was based almost entirely on his being a better general than anyone else in either army. It's only fairly recently that historians have re-examined Lee's generalship and have found it wanting. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
From historian James C. Cobb writing for the National Endowment for the Humanities:

Journalists were hardly alone in helping to nationalize Lee's appeal. Popular historian James Ford Rhodes, an Ohioan, praised him unstintingly, as did no less a proper Bostonian than Charles Francis Adams II, who felt Lee’s courage, wisdom, and strength could only "reflect honor on our American manhood." No one put greater stock in American manhood than Theodore Roosevelt, who, with characteristic restraint, pronounced Lee"“the very greatest of all the great captains that the English-speaking peoples have brought forth” and declared that his dignified acceptance of defeat helped “build the wonderful and mighty triumph of our national life, in which all his countrymen, north and south, share." A generation later, as readers devoured Douglas Southall Freeman's adoring four-volume biography of Lee, another President Roosevelt would simply laud him "as one of our greatest American Christians and one of our greatest American gentlemen.

Carlstak ( talk) 05:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
To BMK's point, Michael C. C. Adams, writing satirically in a passage of a book review, wrote of the lionization of Lee, "How could the greatest general of his age have so squandered his forces that at Appomattox his whole army barely amounted to the cavalry corps of his opponent?" Further,

A majority of the early Northern historians of the war were willing to go along with the Virginia portrait of Lee because they too had an agenda. Like the Virginians, they were conservative literary men from the Atlantic states, unenamoured of the booming, industrial Gilded Age society that had emerged triumphant from the war. They also pined for a mythic antebellum golden age of gentlemanly decorum, rural values, and public restraint. They had been galled by the appointment of Ulysses S. Grant, a man of no social background from the west, to overall command of the Union armies, and they disliked his aggressive style of fighting. Writers like Francis Winthrop Palfrey were very willing to agree with their Southern colleagues that Grant was an inferior general to Lee and had only won through superior numbers. This school perhaps reached its apogee in the writings of Henry Adams, the Boston Brahmin, who felt that Grant was barely above the level of the animal and that Lee represented a type of superior American about to be made extinct by the onrush of blind progress.

Carlstak ( talk) 06:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • (edit conflict) I'm leaning towards positions taken by User:Aneirinn and User:MattMauler. In my view the sourcing on this page is ambitious generally, especially in the subsection #Confederate generals. Individual paragraphs of that section possess one citation, yet inside each paragraph there are IMHO large numbers of arguable assertions unsupported by provided sources. An insertion is made in May by User:Beyond My Ken, adding uncited material which he claims needs to be in the lead. Material REinserted after a compromise was being reached between the OP and User:Carlstak, while discussion was already ongoing. The Lost Cause's false historiography – much of it based on rhetoric mythologizing Robert E. Lee's heroic status – has been scrutinized by contemporary historians, who have made considerable progress in dismantling many parts of the Lost Cause mythos, including the claim that Lee was the best general in the war. Let's look at that set of assertions shall we? How much of the "Lost Cause's false historiography" was based on "rhetoric mythologizing" Lee? How do you measure WP:DUE? I say it's hyperbole. And yet "considerable progress" has been made on the fabricated historiography, "dismantling many parts" (how many? what percentage?) of the "mythos" including an arguable and uncited claim of "best"? This is a list of unproven claims. I'm not satisfied even with the underlying assertion that Lee has ever been judged "best" (next to Jackson and Forrest), even among the Lost Causers. This insertion is UNDUE and totally out of place, given every other major assertion statement in the lede has at least two cites next to it. BusterD ( talk) 06:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm glad to see some sourcing from Carlstak but I must note respectfully that Adams speaks in his own voice. BYK BMK would have his insertion speak in Wikipedia's voice. I don't think we have sourcing sufficient to do so. BusterD ( talk) 06:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I only have Wiki-voice in what is agreed upon in multiple sources.
    "BMK" There is no "Y" initial in my moniker. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I personally would not use the word "best". Alan T. Nolan says:

The 1989 edition of the Encyclopedia Americana states that Lee was "one of the truly gifted commanders of all time," "one of the greatest, if not the greatest, soldier who ever spoke the English language." The entry for Lee in the 1989 Encyclopaedia Britannica reflects a similar judgment. According to the 1988 revised edition of the Civil War Dictionary, Lee "earned rank with history's most distinguished generals." These evaluations reflect the consensus of standard reference sources.... The standard reference books do not stand alone. The excellence of his generalship is a Lee dogma and is widely asserted. In 1963, Marshall W. Fishwick wrote, "In his field he was a genius - probably the greatest one the American nation has produced." Lee Takes Command, volume 7 of the popular Time-Life Civil War series, published in 1984, reports that as of the Confederate victory at Second Bull Run, "Lee was well on his way to becoming the greatest soldier of the Civil War."

Carlstak ( talk) 06:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Let's say I concede the argument, based on the very good sourcing provided above. Lee is judged the the best (for the sake of this discussion). That's not what's under discussion in this thread. What IS under discussion is a series of interlocked assertions which constitute IMHO synthesis unless each of those assertions may be interlocked using reliable sourcing applied to the page. I'm not even saying those assertions are wrong, merely contentious and unproven (by my reading). If BMK can provide a source or three which directly support the entire contribution under discussion, I'll withdraw my reluctance. In this case, a quote directly from a source might be better but not in the lede. If the page is going to say something supported by a group of sources, by all means, let's allow those sources to speak for themselves. BusterD ( talk) 16:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Can't help but notice there's edit warring now on the page

I'd normally expect both editors to discuss their disagreements here without any further reverts. BusterD ( talk) 03:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Oops, sorry, didn't see this before I made the last edit, I've been editing back and forth here and at falafel. As far as I could tell, Smuckola had a problem with my leaving a paragraph uncited when I removed peripheral content that's better covered elsewhere, a paragraph that was left uncited by the editor who added it in the first place, and had been sitting there all this time, unsourced. I've added a source, and think I've satisfied Smuckola's concerns, at least I hope so. Carlstak ( talk) 04:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
PS: You're right of course, BusterD, I should have come to the talk page and hashed it out here. I didn't really see it as edit-warring, more as a friendly back-and-forth, but it was edit-warring. My apologies to all. Carlstak ( talk) 04:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Confederate statues during the Civil rights era

Most confederate statues were erected in the 1890s or before. Please correct or re word this passsage as it seems to infer there were a lot of thembuilt in the 50s and 60s which just isnt true 2600:1702:50E7:9B00:8CC4:A514:ED8A:A782 ( talk) 23:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Do you have a source for your claim? The two places I see in the article that mention the timing of these monuments are cited to reliable sources, and this aligns with my memory as well. Pre-1890 would be very soon after the War. IIRC, there were only a few statues built even of Lee in that span of years. I think the real (all-time) peak was in the few years pre-1920 (~1915-1920), but then another bump in the '50s and '60s.-- MattMauler ( talk) 03:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
By far the biggest wave of Confederate monument construction came in the early 20th century as Jim Crow laws became widespread in the wake of Plessy v Ferguson. See eg Confederate monuments and memorials#/media/File:Confederate monuments, schools and other iconography established by year.png. But there was a significant bump in the Civil Rights era as well. Erp Erpington ( talk) 04:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy&oldid=1211878059"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE