Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy

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)

Do you have a reliable source we can cite to? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

(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)

(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)

For more data if is necessary. 85.251.178.252 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

It is referencing the rest of the paragraph. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you Carlstak, it's better now. Aneirinn (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Seidule's book Robert E. Lee and Me is also very interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• (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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is not a myth

This is a fact. The confederacy was not trying to protect slavery, but protecting their land and keeping the government out of their business. Slavery was only 5% of the problem 137.118.174.26 (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

See talk page achive, which addresses all of this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, here is a primary source from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill online archives about why the southern states seceded. This source is titled ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE STATE CONVENTION OF NORTH CAROLINA. First Session in May and June, 1861. Section III part 3 reads:

"Acquisition of new territory.

3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or territories of the Confederate States." Hoodoowoman (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

In this source from Yale University's online archive, the state of Mississippi in the second paragraph explained the reason for secession was to keep slavery in the state: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin." (My last edit about this topic) Hoodoowoman (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course the OP ignored the big warning at the top of the editing page. This is just soap-boxing, and should have been deleted, but since other editors have responded, I'll chime in. The OP's "fact" is made-up nonsense, just like the claim that "Slavery was only 5% of the problem", as if an exact percentage could be assigned.

The most egregious thing about such fact-free claims that the Civil War was about "states' rights" (or "keeping the government out of their [the Confederacy's] business, as the OP puts it) is the lack of consciousness or deliberately ignoring that these so-called "rights" of the states included the "right" to enslave black people. Here's another example like the ones that Hoodoowoman has cited, a direct quote from the state of Texas's declaration of the causes which impelled the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union, February 2, 1861:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery—the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits—a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

This declaration, like those above it, gives the lie to the absurd claim that southern states did not secede from the Union over the issue of slavery. Carlstak (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Article is missing the claimed "lost cause"

Article has plenty on what the Lost Cause proponents deny was the cause (slavery), but doesn't seem to anywhere say what the Lost Causers claim WAS the cause.

If this is because they avoid ever making a positive claim the article ought to explain that. Otherwise the article needs to include what the claimed cause or causes were (and debunk where appropriate).

I'm afraid I am totally ignorant beyond "state's rights" (rights to what?) I can't therefore be of any help. I am simply a foreigner who perhaps has fresh eyes to see what is missing from the article. Azkm (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The article is not about what Confederates thought caused the war—it's about their "cause" (in the sense of "a principle militantly defended") to maintain their way of life, which was based on the perpetuation of the institution of slavery, on which the South's plantation economy depended. They believed the slave states had a Constitutional right to secede from the union to preserve that way of life. Carlstak (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. The article in places seems to suggest the other usage of cause though, eg. first section heading:

Origins:

"The Lost Cause's multiple origins include its main argument that slavery was not the primary cause, or not a cause at all, of the Civil War"

I understand if both usages are included in the topic--perhaps for rhetorical purposes by proponents--but if so the article ought to explain that. I feel that:

"[...]Northern threat to a Southern way of life[...]" needs to be expanded and explained (perhaps further on in the article).

To be honest the article reads more like persuasive writing than descriptive, which is understandable given the strength of feeling on the topic in USA, but it is a little difficult for a stranger like me to find the facts among the philippics. (Simple English Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the topic sadly.) Azkm (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is confusing that the very first sentence in the body of the article, immediately following the lede, says, "The Lost Cause's multiple origins include its main argument that slavery was not the primary cause, or not a cause at all, of the Civil War." That paragraph needs to be rewritten.

Please understand that the article is still evolving. I trimmed a good bit of superfluous content from it, rewrote some parts, and added new, sourced content that I wrote. A lot of new content has been added by another dedicated editor who wrote about the activities of Black women and men who worked to counter Lost Cause propaganda and political movements, greatly improving its scope. Previously to her contributions, the article glaringly lacked such coverage.

Certainly it can be further improved, and I think it still needs a lot of editorial work to trim verbosity, improve flow, and clarify confusing passages like that you pointed out. Thanks for your input, and one of these days, if someone else doesn't do it first, I intend to get my red pencil out and do some more serious editorial work on it. Of course, this is a collaborative project, and I expect there will be more feedback like yours on this talk page. Please feel welcome to suggest other changes, or to make them if you feel up to the task.;-) I'm sure you know that any new content added must be supported by reliable sources. Carlstak (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again for your explanations, I fear my tone has been overly negative. I was probably a bit foolish thinking I could just skim the article and get a real grasp of a complicated 150 year long topic. I don't even know much about the mainstream historiography that the Lost Cause is reacting against. Azkm (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)