Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lost Cause of the Confederacy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Historiography / North America / United States / American Civil War B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military historiography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force United States: Civil War / Military history / History B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - American Civil War task force. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance). History B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). African diaspora B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The following claim is unsourced:

“Modern historians overwhelmingly disagree with these characterizations, noting that the central cause of the war was slavery.”

I am not claiming that the statement is wrong, simply unsourced and stated and thus of undetermined factualness. Few would argue that slavery was not a major cause because a lot of evidence exists showing that it was. There were others, however. As a cursory search of Books published on the subject will reveal, there are volumes of books written with contrary premises, one particularly popular one claiming that the north profited more from slavery than did the south. A somewhat somewhat less controversial position shared by at least some ‘mainstream” historians posits that, although not having slavery, northern states were still incredibly racist, and the notion that most Union soldiers were willing to die for black rights is laughable at best. US Grant himself owned slaves, as did many Union soldiers. An overwhelming minority of Confederate soldiers owned them (since most were poor estimates range from 2% - 9%), and the notion that they were willing to die so the rich could owned slaves is controversial. I make no opinion with regards to the accuracy of any individual claim, but as someone who has done a great deal of Civil War research research over the last 30 years (I am an amateur and not a historian and claim no greater knowledge than anyone else), I am, however, aware of the huge diversity of opinion on the subject amongst authors that would be considered somewhere in the realm of mainstream. Given the current political climate, they certainly aren’t on the circuit promoting their opinions, but the books published through the 20th century reach quite varied conclusions. Taken as a whole, the published body of work on the subject published over the last 100 years probably runs close to 50/50 admiration/hostility toward the confederate army. Of course, there is much evidence pointing to slavery as a primary cause of the war. You also have works by the generals themselves (like Longstreet) who vehemently deny that slavery was their primary motivation, and these were published during times where it there was no great pressure to say this. Therefore, a source would be quite helpful as there are certainly there are at least some qualifications to the statement (ie. The definition of “modern” historian). Thanks for listening. Opie8 (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please start discussions at the end of this page. The lead shall summarize the body of the article, so it is OK if it is supported by the article which in turn has to be supported by reliable secondary sources. There is no need to give a reference to each and every claim in the lead. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:lede.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented this change a few minutes ago, but it was reverted, so let's discuss.

The current phrasing is "the belief that slavery was moral, because the enslaved people were happy or even grateful, and that slavery brought economic prosperity".

I argue that "because" should be "that". If we simplify the current version, we get:

"the false belief that X, which is predicated on Y"

This construction does not necessarily imply that Y ("enslaved people were happy or even grateful") is false, and can in fact be read as Y being true. Remember: although a false premise leads to a false conclusion, the inverse is not necessarily the case. With my version, however, we would have:

"the belief that X, that Y, and that Z."

which more clearly indicates that all of these premises are merely things which were falsely believed. Always take alternate parsings into account — especially those that can be used to perpetuate bad-faith arguments. DS (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole point is that the argument it was moral was because they were happy and grateful, which benefited the black person.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, and at the same time it's the opposite of my point. The argument was that it was moral because of the slaves being happy. But the slaves weren't happy. Which I really shouldn't have to say. The current phrasing can be read to mean that the slaves were happy. Any argument predicated on X (X="slaves being grateful for being enslaved") is de facto a bad faith argument (which, yes, includes the entire Lost Cause). We do not want to imply that X. We want to imply that the Lost Cause argued that X. Would anyone really parse the sentence to mean that Wikipedia is saying X? Would anyone really be either that stupid or that intellectually dishonest? You know damn well they would. DS (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOI, but they claim is they were they key is in the part you leave out "This ideology has furthered the..." it is what they were trying to say, that does not mean it was true.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and I agree there is some ambiguity. I also think Slatersteven is right to want to preserve some reference to the causal link between the two false points. How about "enslaved people were happy or even grateful, that therefore slavery was moral, and that slavery brought economic prosperity"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about "that slavery brought prosperity, that enslaved people were happy or even grateful for slavery, and that therefore slavery was moral" ? DS (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven:, any objections? DS (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, seems OK, if I disagreed I would have said.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@B. M. L. Peters and BeenAroundAWhile: As far as I know, scholarly consensus says that the Lost Cause is a myth / mythology. (If I'm wrong, please correct me and I'll be happy to learn something new.) Scholarly consensus can and should be reported in the voice of WP, that's why I removed the word "considered". Additionally, "considered" provokes the question, "by whom" ? And finally, we should not retreat before an IP who writes in their edit summary, The South did objectively prosper under Slavery, and that fact alone doesn't mean that Slavery was good, but that there were objective goods that Southerners experienced as a result. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do any RS cosnsider it not a myth?Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is a myth! I was just trying to make the phrasing seem less accusatory or biased, but now that you suggest keeping "considered" out because it creates more questions, makes a whole lot more sense! B. M. L. Peters (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also interesting that the phrase ignores the fact that upwards of three million Southerners were living in slavery.DS (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By request I created a Talk topic on this item...I had moved this citation to support the lengthy quotation in the first graf of the Symbols-Confederate Generals section, whereas it was (and now is again) at the end of the graf, which would suggest it supports both the Victor Davis Hanson comment and the claim about Stonewalled Jackson's death on Day One of Shiloh arguably leading to the battle outcome. Ulbrich's book on page 1222 simply says nothing about either of these items (i.e., beyond the quotation), and the citation's placement at the end of the paragraph is simply wrong - A citation for an entire paragraph should support the entire paragraph, and this one doesn't. The final claim requires a source to support the argument re: Jackson. Ulbrich's may do so, but not on that page. It may be a well supported claim, but requires support nonetheless.

I re-reverted the part of the change to correct the spelling of Hanson's name - it is not Hansen (see his personal page at victorhanson.com). Huskerdru (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Johnston's death, not Jackson's. Huskerdru (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I tightened up the lede section to reduce repetition and improve readability, not making any changes to POV or sourcing. However I was first reverted by Binksternet who came to my talk page, and after a misunderstanding over my intentions suggested the restoration of a couple of points on Reconstruction and chivalry, which I did.

I have since been reverted twice by Rsk6400 and Slatersteven for not having that discussion on this page specifically. I didn't choose my talk page as the venue but alright, there can be a discussion here if anyone has further feedback to the actual content of my changes. PrimaPrime (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You changed a first-sentence wiki-voice descriptor, “pseudo-historical”, to “historians generally describe” in the second sentence. This was a NPOV-affecting edit. What’s your reasoning? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I figured the work of actual historians that debunks Lost Cause-ism should be attributed, and calling the ideology negationist in wikivoice was sufficient. I'd drop "generally" and if it's felt that any attribution is too equivocal then fine, put it all back in wikivoice. PrimaPrime (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are stating it as a fact in wikivoice because it is a fact that is not in dispute. We do not need to qualify it, or the opinions that support it, because it is clearly without doubt.

Language that does not indicate this will be reverted. It's that simple. Jorm (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Are there any other issues? PrimaPrime (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert you for discussing in the wrong place, but for the same reasons mentioned already by Firefangledfeathers and Jorm. An additional (minor) trigger for the "POV alert" in my mind was that you didn't use an edit summary for your last edit. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert summary didn't mention POV, just the talk page and unexplained edit (which consisted of splitting a run-on sentence). I appreciate the POV concern and agreed with it; I was the first to remove the undue bothsidesism when I last edited the lede a few years ago, and my only aim revisiting it now was to further improve readability. Sorry for any misunderstanding on my end. PrimaPrime (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A edit summary does not have to list everything that is wrong, that is why when reverted it should be taken here, where everything that is wrong can be talked about.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the application and reversion of the overquote tag today. It cannot be denied there's a superabundance of quotation here. Quotes occupy (by my reading) roughly 20-30% of all non-citation content. That's seems very unusual for a non-literary page. The quotes appear to be well-chosen, appropriately connected to text, and well-cited. To prevent edit warring, I've started this thread for discussion. BusterD (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the tagger, actually, that the article needs work and that the quotations need to be reduced. Most are relevant, yes, but some could still be shortened, others moved to a different section. Some of historians' quotations (Gallagher, e.g.) seem like they are commenting on the movement broadly, but the quotations are in the 19th century section for some reason. One of the clearest examples of a quotation not fitting entirely is the very first one, by a journalist waxing poetical about losers writing history, speculating on the reasons why this was possible "perhaps". It's an interesting irony, sure, but should be de-emphasized for tone reasons, especially relative to actual historians.--MattMauler (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this discussion, though. I was considering reverting and replacing the tag, but would rather figure it out here. I also would rather fix than tag generally (to Capn's credit, he mentions that his own time limitations are part of the reason for tagging, which I totally get).--MattMauler (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I placed the tag to begin with, I do think the fact that the page is nearly 1/3 quotes is not a good sign. While judicious use of quotes can be useful, overuse of quotes is counterproductive to the reader. Now, I certainly like some of the quotes. But I think much cleanup is necessary:

• Starting with the quote from Mick LaSalle is actually a pretty good move, I don't think we could state it better in WikiVoice.
• The morass of quotes from historians in the 19th century page could easily be incorporated into prose and would honestly read better.
• I've read the ""Annual Meeting of the Virginia Division", October 29, 1875" quote 5 times and I'm still not sure what its saying. Therein lies the danger of primary sources: without an RS to explain, readers are left to easily competing and incorrect interpretations.
• I like the quote from Jeff Davis, enlightening as to the view of a true confederate
• "Dixon insisted that the novel was based on reality:" and the following quote...no idea what that is adding to the article besides giving Dixon, KKK darling, an UNDUE defense
• First quote in Gone with the wind section is good. The second one...I think could be cut down a bit or at least given some more context in wikivoice
• Koeniger's criticism of Gallagher gives UNDUE emphasis on what seems to be a dispute between historians, and trys to use it to make a broader point. In general, the contemporary historians section probably needs work and some more voices. For example, nowhere in the page is there a citation to James McPherson, who I would say is the most comprehensive civil war scholar. One of the books I have from him goes into the lost cause idea, I'll see if I can't find it...

In conclusion, many of the quotes could be better covered with prose. I very much doubt such a quote heavy article would ever be awarded FA, over-quotation reflects poorly on authors in almost every field. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that Lost Cause of the Confederacy be renamed and moved to Lost cause of the Confederacy. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Lost Cause of the Confederacy → Lost cause of the Confederacy – This is a phrase that has been coined to describe a particular social phenomenon. MOS:SIGNIFCAPS is applicable since it may be considered a term of art or phrase used academically to convey a particular meaning. It does not appear to meet the threshold to be capped as an article title per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, in that it is not consistently capped in a substantial majority of sources. This n-gram refers - noting that n-gram results are inherently skewed toward capitalisation because they don't distinguish running text from other uses where title case would be commonly used. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a term of art, it may be appropriate to italicise the title IAW MOS:SIGNIFCAPS and the first instance of it in the article text. This would be a second consideration. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not move = It is a proper noun phrase, and the cap is appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not move, over 80% caps according to ngram, and trending higher, suggests that the current title is appropriate per MOS:CAPS. Firefangledfeathers 03:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nominator's own linked N-gram shows a substantial bias toward capitalization in the past 40 years - 4x or 5x as common. Which isn't surprising, because very old 1920-era use might have been blandly referential (i.e. the literal outcome of the Civil War), but around the 1960s & 70s it specifically became a term for the post-war "movement", and this article is about the latter capitalized meaning. I wouldn't even place that much emphasis on ngrams though; any check of the relevant literature shows that it's consistently capitalized when discussing the "movement". Examples from 2021 from running text, not article titles: NYT (the propaganda narrative of the "Lost Cause," - quotes theirs, not mine), WaPo (heart of the Lost Cause ethos), WSJ (The celebration of the Lost Cause, in short, provided a way to experience a simpler, idealized past). This is not cherrypicking, this is simply taking the first result from a Google search on the past year, it always shows capitalized use. SnowFire (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire, that it appears in quotes only tends to support that it is a term of art per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. Considering the last 40 years, the n-gram evidence shows capitalisation going from about 50% to 60% over the first 30 years. Without discriminating use in running text, it rises to about 80%. To some extent, it begs the question to what extent this relatively sudden increase is citogenesis or in this case, orthogenesis, where WP is influencing RW capitalisation of the term. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it's citogenesis. From personal anecdote, I learned about the Lost Cause from dead-tree books before Wikipedia existed, and it was capitalized in the books I read. Here's an example published in 1988 (Lost Cause capitalized in running text, not merely the title): [2]. Here's a Google Books search on 20th century literature: "Lost Cause" Confederacy. I only see capitalized versions on the first two pages of results, no non-capitalized versions, and these are all pre-2000 books so no citogenesis here. SnowFire (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It's capitalized in nearly all the sources used by the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbloch (talk • contribs) 23:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sources write "Lost Cause" as a proper noun. It is essentially its own thing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose All the sources I know of have "Lost Cause". Rsk6400 (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: "Discuss" is no valid reason for a revert. Since the external links were added very recently, WP:ONUS applies. @Chrismartin76: I removed the external links you added after taking a look a the panel discussion. I lost patience, because I first had wait until I could skip the ad, and then I had to wait for the audience to take their seats. I think, many of our readers will share the same feelings. Adam Domby doesn't have his own article. I take this as a first hint that he is not very notable. Adding his book is of course totally OK, but to add two talks about it really seems too much. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasons for removing the added ELs are not supported by WP:ELNO. Unless you can provide a reason that is valid under that policy, please do not remove them again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the book talk; it feels a bit promotional to have it in the article. I would keep the panel discussion; I had no problem skipping through the commercial, and the content is relevant. --K.e.coffman (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK,, I'm good with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The basis for judging someone should not be whether they are notable but whether they have done pertinent research. There are only a few living historians who are notable but there are numerous historians who publish peer-reviewed books in academic presses. If their work is relevant to a historical article, they are appropriate for an external links sections. Also note that C-SPAN is a nonprofit organization so these talks are not linked to promotional sales.Chris (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]