Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy/Archive 1

Early

I removed this sentence:

"It is unknown the extent to which Early really believed these accusations or whether he was simply trying to play down his own lackluster participation at Gettysburg and the Valley Campaigns of 1864."

If it is truly "unknown" then it has no place here. It is also unknown if Early was merely doing it to impress his girlfriend, or because he was mean-spirited, or because he had seen a vision, or even, god forbid, because it was true.

The implication is clearly that it is not "unknown" but simply unprovable by the author. This is a common rhetorical ploy used to smear someone as in "It is unknown the extent to which the author of this accusation really believes it or whether he was simply trying to put forth his own political agenda".

Jack

{{subst:Unsigned1|20:07, 6 August 2005|Jack Nastyface}}

Alleged bias

I have to make a note of some of the bias that is playing out in this article. I have tried to brush it up and some of the changes to what could be deemed possible slams on the South. I see that some of the statements I erase keep coming back. I am in college currently studying the Civil War to become an historian. I have read extensively Southern history and most Southern scholars tend to be much more sympatheic to the Confederacy unlike the statements that keep being posted on this article. I would very much like to know the source that stated that Southern historians do not believe in this. Because everything I have read has proven contradictory to that statement. William C. Davis is among the many popular Southern historians who give the Southern perspective of the war. I would like people who do not know the perspective to know it not slam it. When the British colonized America the North had slaves first in fact Massachusetts was the first state to have slavery look it up! The British made the Northern states industrial while the South was an extension of the West Indies and because of the climate and the land became an agricultural economy. Now the first workforce that worked in South Carolina on plantations were white indentured servants. But these white indentured servants were only hired for an interim of a couple years and would likely leave because of the hard work agriculture was at this time. So there was a need for a permanent workforce to wield a crop thats how agriculture works specifically back in those days when large numbers were needed. So when the British turned to rice as their main crop they were offered slaves by West Africans who knew all about rice cultivation. The warring tribes in Africa would sell their prisoners to the British as a workforce for the plantations back in the colonies. So there is how slavery came to be because that is the main reason why people write off the South. Now as far as the role of sucession dates back to two totally different ideolgies of how America should be made. Alexander Hamilton of the North and Thomas Jefferson of the South. Alexander Hamilton still a British citizen was President Washington's Secretary of Treasury and proposed that America emulate the British Industrial economy. The British just came off of their Industrial Revolution and therefore this was fresh at the time. This meant a big National Bank. This was in total opposition to Thomas Jefferson who believed in an Agarian Republic of "Rugged Individulism" the taming of the land the agricultural economy which made America distinct and different then Europe. Jefferson believed in getting industrial goods from Europe. These two ideologies played out in the formation of our nation and in the original Articles of Confederation written by John Dickinson was the first document that was written for the formation of our new independent government. These Articles allowed states to govern themselves without very little National Government control. This was to get away from the Monarchial rule of King George III that the fought to gain independence from! This way everyone was guarnteed to decide what was best for their own state instead of using oppressive means of enforcement to adhere to a doctrine that is oppressive. This is the reason we fought to get away from this NO TAXION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION remember? See the Confederate government takes its name from the Articles of Confederation because just like Jefferson believed this was the American ideology that should work in our independent country. So after the Articles of Confederation were deemed invalid the South still believed that it was right. So anyhow the new document the Constituition was formed but with the Jefferson and Hamilton fight in the foreground. Who should be sovereign the states or the national government?Jefferson Davis believed if each state ratified the Constitution then shouldn't the states be sovereign? This poses quite a question to how America should be formed. Now the Constituition was built with a failsafe which was the fact that wrote legal succession from the union in response to being told that the states would lose their sovereign rights to a "government" called the United States. Until that time, it was a treaty between sovereign states, in other words the right to govern rests on the consent of the governed," and to the right of independent action as among those reserved by the States. The South appealed to the acts and opinions of the Fathers and to the report of the Hartford Convention of New England States asserting the power of each State to decide as to the remedy for infraction of its rights. Proponents such as Calhoun, Davis cited nullification in the oppressive tariffs. This is seen especially when Lincoln took over and proposed the morrill tariff which left many southerners bankrupt due The immediate effect of the Morrill Tariff was to more than double the tax collected on most dutiable items entering the United States. In 1860 American tariff rates were among the lowest in the world and also at historical lows by 19th century standards, the average rate being around 18% (Click link for more info and facts about ad valorem) ad valorem. The Morrill Tariff immediately raised this average to 37%, and in subsequent years was revised upward until in 1864 (when it could only be collected from states under Union control) the average rate stood at 47%. See a reason to suceed? So South Carolina suceeded and the Union troops refused to recognized it at Fort Sumnter so thus the war was started. Then Lincoln called up 75,000 volunteers to invade the South. Why did Lincoln invade the south everyone points to slaves but Lincoln did not decide to use that card until later. Especially after Antiemnam when Lincoln's support for the war was very low and he proposed the Emancipation Proclamation. This was an intelligent political move by Lincoln to give the North a cause to fight for other then inforcing the suceded states to pay the morrill tariff. So Lincoln ties the war with radical abolitionism which is really smart considering he got support for the war then. He saw the lack of cause to fight for that was within all Southerners who were protecting themselves from Northern Invasion. It was in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that secession was legal. Lincoln suspended habeous corpus and many other various abuses of power leaving his behavior suspect according to the Consitution he had no right to invade the South. During this time also slavery in the north was still legal. Other facts not looked at by the North such as 94% of Southerners did not own slaves. Less then 1% own 20 or more. This dispells the myth of Southerners fighting for the right to keep slaves. They just wanted to be left alone plain and simple. They were even on the verge of doing away with slavery. Thats how much their independence meant to them that they would sacrifice their source of economic prosperity to remain free. This of course didnt matter because Union General Sherman made sure the South was destroyed. The destruction of everything in his path ,the rape, the killings, the lootings, everything burned to the ground. How can you justify it? Its butchery on regular civilian people like you and me. Did the Civil War need to be fought? The Confederacy wanted peaceful relations with the North from day one but instead were met with an invasion. General Lee and Stonewall Jackson are all respected military leaders emboding the finest honor and duty to their state of Virginia. They won the whole first half of the War and if they would of had the man power and ammunitions would of won the war. So I hope this can help everyone respect the Southern perspective of the War. I will make it a point to revise this for grammatical and citations so you can read the material for yourself. Thanks

Scott

Bias? If it were any more slanted, I would call it Union propaganda. Seriously, though, this article is clearly skeptical in its tone. The Lost Cause idea, like many (but no all) thories has both points of accuracy, and a touch of hogwash. Either the author of the article desires to ensure that no dignaty is retained by the south, or he is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I totally agree with you whoever keeps making this making this article Union Propaganda seriously needs to read some Southern History books.

Scott

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.42.33.159 (talk • contribs) 12 October 2005

---

ever heard of a paragraph?

also i think the article should mention more prominently the fact that the "lost cause" movement is often associated with many hate group who tries explains away the guilt of slavery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.77.193 (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda?

I really do not know what you are talking about. The only edits in quite awhile have been to tone down slurs against specific Union generals and to restore text that someone keeps deleting that says lost cause sympathies are no longer the dominant theme of Southern historians. Although it may be possible to find an historian here or there who maintains that theme (and I can think of one or two), those sentiments are certainly no longer dominant among any prominent (living) Civil War historians. If you disagree with that, cite some sources and we can discuss. Remember, this is not an article that attempts to justify either side in the Civil War, it is an attempt to provide a neutral description of a literary movement that arose after the war. Hal Jespersen 20:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a distinction should be made by the Literary Lost Cause which was a movement in Romanticizing the Old South after the War this is true. But the Lost Cause is much more then a literary movement it embodies the Southern reasons for Secession and an interpretation of the Constitution that represents the founders aims such as Jefferson, Washington which were Southerners. Jefferson Davis believed that the states ratified the Constituition so the states should be Sovereign. The Articles of Confederation and the Thomas Jefferson argument for states rights is where the Lost Cause and the reason for Southern secession begins. The Lost Cause is understanding the Old South and why they thought the way they do. Now if this article is meant to demonstrate that the reason for Southern secession is bogus then I do object to the way it is written. For orginally when I saw this article it compared the Confederates to the Nazis! Now Thomas Jefferson and George Washingtion, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson just rolled over in their graves. It also had the Lost Cause in quotations like it was a joke. And the mocking of Lee, the wording Lee could do no wrong or saying that believing in the Southern War cause is neo-confederate which cleary is calling those of us who believe in the Southern argument are racist. I looked this term up neo-confederate it basically means your a racist. So who is using the slurs. This is the biggest misconception about the Confederacy and the Southern war aim. Which as I stated earlier about slavery When the British colonized America the North had slaves first in fact Massachusetts was the first state to have slavery look it up! The British made the Northern states industrial while the South was an extension of the West Indies and because of the climate and the land became an agricultural economy. Now the first workforce that worked in South Carolina on plantations were white indentured servants. But these white indentured servants were only hired for an interim of a couple years and would likely leave because of the hard work agriculture was at this time. So there was a need for a permanent workforce to wield a crop thats how agriculture works specifically back in those days when large numbers were needed. So when the British turned to rice as their main crop they were offered slaves by West Africans who knew all about rice cultivation. The warring tribes in Africa would sell their prisoners to the British as a workforce for the plantations back in the colonies. So there is how slavery came to be because that is the main reason why people write off the South. Now as far as the role of sucession dates back to two totally different ideolgies of how America should be made. The South reacted the way they did for the reasons I wrote about in the large paragraph above which I hope you read. The following slurs you deemed are true as hard as it might hard to accept but Grant really was a drunkard, and seriously the reason why prostitutes are called Hookers are from General Joseph Hooker's love of prostitutes, these play into some pride Southerners take in the Confederacy sure and I hope you realize the respect that the Lost Cause the reason for the Confederacy are deserving of respect. Please read my first long paragraph on Southern Secession, I am going to make a list of sources a lot of them I had on interlibrary loan and do not possess them at the current time but I can get them back if you really want me to show you. Most of my sources are University Press books mainly from the University of South Carolina, and University of Mississippi. Scott

Sorry, my eyeballs swim at your 1354- and 636-word paragraphs, so I may be overlooking some points. The purpose of this article is to describe the literary movement started primarily by Jubal Early, not to discuss its merits. By analogy, an article on the Temperance Movement doesn't spend any text describing why alcohol is good or bad, it merely describes the movement. The places to discuss the merits of secession, etc., are in Origins of the American Civil War and the American Civil War. And BTW, Grant's drinking during the war are pretty much a myth. There was one incident after Vicksburg that had no effect on combat and it isn't fully documented. Bringing up allegations of this type and generalizing them are considered slurs in my book. (There were plenty of other generals who are known to have lost battles due to drinking, so give Grant a break.) Hal Jespersen 20:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, the way the article was written, and the tone it takes very much -is- discussing its merits, and from only one side. Izuko 03:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree originally when I looked at this article it compared the Confederates to Nazis, I changed it from what was typed so called "myths" and I changed it to adherents to the Lost Cause movement. First of all anyone who studies the Civil War knows that the Union had more troops were industrial and outnumbered the South. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were huge Christians which is fact and anybody North or South that reads about them knows this. Your indicating that there was one incident over Grant getting drunk this is almost laughable. I am looking at many, I mean many examples of Grant's love of alcohol I mean I am reading this book now right in front of me that has drinking in the index. It cites the examples of Grants less then noble traits. Pick it up its a Civil War classic called Lee and Grant by Gene Smith. See you really need to read, I dont know if your a historian or not but im studying to be one in college and these things are fact. You may be a Union apologist but please realize that the article is too apolgetic. Give Lee and Stonewall credit for being Christians at least and take out this neo-confederate bit about people who like Southern History are racist. This shows extreme liberal bias. Which you are implying that the Confederate Flag is bad. Which I have proven is honorable in my paragraphs so its not that im asking for you to slant it in my favor but try to be neutral. You claim thats what you want well just listen to these claims because when Southerners read this you know they would like to read about the Lost Cause which can be defined more then the literary movement but the Southern Cause for War and secession itself. So all I ask is that you make this article non offensive to Southerners and literally take the middle road. Take out words like "Lee could do no wrong" and say the works were written to Romanticize Lee and his tenure as General. Use less bias words and as other who have agreed with me its the tone of the article. So I hope you consider these suggestions. Thank you. Scott

I tend to agree with you in that many of the articles on wiki about the ACW tend to betray a certain pro-"union" bias. Admittedly, it is very hard to ex post facto justify the Southern position in the ACW as being morally "correct." Having said that, authors for these articles, in my view, have on more than one occasion associated individuals in the Confederate Armed Forces too much with the raison d'etre of the Confederacy. I think its fair to say that many of the people fighting for the Confederacy did so because of a particular nationalist sentiment. For example, at least some of the officers, and probably many of the enlisted members in the Confederate Armed forces fought because they recognized their home "state" as the primary site of "national" elegance--the age old problem of patriotism.

Additionally, I think its academically unsound, as this article does, to suggest that those who portrayed the ACW as un-winnable (after a certain point at least) due to Northern superiority in men and materials of war were somehow wrong, or simply romantically remembering their roles in the war. I believe, that there isn't a student of political conflict and war (besides some historians) who would suggest that the war was winnable for the south given the very material variables, especially when political variables (such as a Lincoln loss in the 1864 election) have been removed from the equation.

Now having said all that, in support of you I might add, your claim to a "liberal" bias is ridiculous. Quite frankly, ideology attaches itself to almost any academic work, or work of science. What is more, I'm a Marxist, and defending your position (sort of) so your trite bifurcation of the world into "liberal" and "conservative" really has no applicability here.

Lastly, to the original author I say that your initial comparison of adherents to the "Lost Cause" and Nazis is not only outlandish, but shows a complete and utter lack of respect for historical fact. You do a tremendous disservice to yourself, to those who suffered under the most efficient organized genocide in history, and to the discipline of history.

-rev 09:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to discuss the current page when you drag in grievances from previous versions. I've looked at it again and see nothing derogatory or describing Nazis. It's generally as I wrote it originally, other than the final three sentences, added by others. Although I would be happy to see those go, I haven't insisted. If you can cite specific instances of where the tone is inappropriate or where it is factually incorrect (within the context of the specific subject of the article, the literary movement, not the ACW origins or outcome in general}, we can discuss. Please be succinct and avoid charged words like propaganda. The article is certainly not intended to be slanted or offensive. Hal Jespersen 15:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well there is no part about Nazi's because I erased it. But originally in the first paragraph it said the Lost Cause of the Confederacy was similiar to how the Nazis explained their war loss. This was rather offensive so I erased it. I also erased the part that said The "Myths" of the Lost Cause which was definately a negative tone toward the Confederacy and I erased that and wrote what you see there now because I guess you decided not to change that back which is great by the way. I want to thank you for allowing the part of the low morality possesed by Northern Generals to be there also this was another edit I made. But you took out the examples of Northern Generals demonstrating low morality due to what you considered slurs. Which as I have told you to read into it Grant had a hard time being sober please look in to it. This is also true that the name for prostitutes being called Hookers is due to General Joseph Hooker, just like the name side burns for your hair on the side of a face was named after Union General Burnside who had pronounced side burns. So you see these things aren't slurs but true statements. What I would like to cite is taking out the neo-confederate bit this is offensive to Southerners that they are being called racist for liking their heritage. I don't know if you ever saw any bumper stickers or shirts that say heritage not hate, thats exactly it. Use the examples of the books I can even add some more if you want like. I would recommend you read God and General Lonstreet by Thomas L. Connelly and Barbara L. Bellows I am in the process of reading it. This is Louisian State University Press book that is entirely on the Lost Cause and examines it in detail. This article along with tone adjustment could use some expanding. Well anyway what could be changed is the description of the books you list saying "Lee could do no wrong" is kind of derogatory. Perhaps you can say in this book Lee and his tenure as General were Romanticized. It means the same thing but without the tone. The last paragraph is distasteful first of all why are you so quick to say the Lost Cause doesn't exist with Historians now a days. Sure they are not going to say Gettysburg was lost because of Longstreet and everybody knows that. But the fact that the South was honorable in their defeat, that they were overcome by superior manpower and and resources is true. Same with why the South initially seceeded which was really not about slavery when 94% of Southerners didn't have slaves to begin with. You know facts like this remain true, the Lost Cause has evolved in the South this article focuses on the intial Lost Cause in the 19th century after the War. This is the original Lost Cause you see the Lost Cause is much more complex then what is written here. It has evolved just like the South has evolved any Southern Historian while not blaming Longstreet for defeat at Gettysburg anymore are holding up those tenets that are listed in this article because they are fact. So its not gone today nor is it gone with Southern Historians so understand that the definition of the Lost Cause has changed and this article needs expanding in my opinion. Well I hope you take this into consideration. Thanks

Scott

I am in an airport, so have limited typing time and will expand my reply later. We can discuss expanding the article then. In the meantime, two points. (1) I do not object to making generic negative comments about a class of people, but singling out the arguable faults of individuals belongs in their bios, not here. Let's concentrate the negativity in places people expect to see it and document it correctly. For instance, if you really believe that Grant was drunk during the war, edit it into his article and be prepared to defend your assertions with people editing there. (2) Hooker's name is definitely not the source of the slang term for prostitute, despite his bad reputation; check his bio on Wikipedia. Hal Jespersen 17:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I am back (at Murfreesboro, Tennessee, ready for immersion in the Battle of Stones River!). I have copied your recent response and will respond to it in e-mail style. (If you would prefer to continue this conversation via real e-mail, my address in my User page.)

> Well there is no part about Nazi's because I erased it. But originally
> in the first paragraph it said the Lost Cause of the Confederacy was
> similiar to how the Nazis explained their war loss. This was rather
> offensive so I erased it.

I do not believe I wrote that in the original article and do not object to having it removed. I will point out that most of the people in Germany who were being compared in that example were not Nazis, but I understand the sensitivity.

> I also erased the part that said The "Myths"
> of the Lost Cause which was definately a negative tone toward the
> Confederacy and I erased that and wrote what you see there now because
> I guess you decided not to change that back which is great by the way.

The term myth was derived from mythology, which is a body of legends and lore, generally of heroic nature, but I can understand why you misinterpreted that original intent.

> I want to thank you for allowing the part of the low morality possesed
> by Northern Generals to be there also this was another edit I made.
> But you took out the examples of Northern Generals demonstrating low
> morality due to what you considered slurs. Which as I have told you to
> read into it Grant had a hard time being sober please look in to it.
> This is also true that the name for prostitutes being called Hookers
> is due to General Joseph Hooker, just like the name side burns for
> your hair on the side of a face was named after Union General Burnside
> who had pronounced side burns. So you see these things aren't slurs
> but true statements.

So I hope I addressed that to your satisfaction in the previous reply. If I could clarify one more time: if you can find negative comments about a particular general in a Wikipedia biography and want to use those as an example, I would not object to that. For instance, if you read the biography of Joseph Hooker, you will see some very negative statements about his morals (all written by me, by the way), and they are well backed up in the references given. (If such statements were controversial, alternative documentation would be included by me or other editors.) I would not object to using Joseph Hooker as an example of lower morality. What I do object to is an offhand reference to character flaws of an individual in which there is no supporting documentation listed. As I said earlier, if you believe you have adequate documentation about Grant's drinking during the war and negative consequences that resulted from it, feel free to edit his biography appropriately, but be prepared to defend your accusations from an audience of editors who know Grant pretty well.

> What I would like to cite is taking out the neo-confederate bit
> this is offensive to Southerners that they are being called racist
> for liking their heritage. I don't know if you ever saw any bumper
> stickers or shirts that say heritage not hate, thats exactly it. Use
> the examples of the books I can even add some more if you want like.

I do not object to removing any of the final three sentences of the article, although perhaps the person who originally added added them to my article would.

> I would recommend you read God and General Lonstreet by Thomas L.
> Connelly and Barbara L. Bellows I am in the process of reading it.
> This is Louisian State University Press book that is entirely on the
> Lost Cause and examines it in detail. This article along with tone
> adjustment could use some expanding. Well anyway what could be changed
> is the description of the books you list saying "Lee could do no
> wrong" is kind of derogatory. Perhaps you can say in this book Lee and
> his tenure as General were Romanticized. It means the same thing but
> without the tone.

I will attempt to find that book. I keep a bibliography of books I have used as references for Wikipedia articles if you are looking for some suggestions for future reading. I don't really understand why "Lee could do no wrong" is offensive, but it would be better to say "infallible"? That truly was the attitude of people in the historic Lost Cause movement.

> The last paragraph is distasteful first of all why are you so quick
> to say the Lost Cause doesn't exist with Historians now a days. Sure
> they are not going to say Gettysburg was lost because of Longstreet
> and everybody knows that. But the fact that the South was honorable
> in their defeat, that they were overcome by superior manpower and
> and resources is true. Same with why the South initially seceeded
> which was really not about slavery when 94% of Southerners didn't
> have slaves to begin with. You know facts like this remain true,
> the Lost Cause has evolved in the South this article focuses on the
> intial Lost Cause in the 19th century after the War. This is the
> original Lost Cause you see the Lost Cause is much more complex then
> what is written here. It has evolved just like the South has evolved
> any Southern Historian while not blaming Longstreet for defeat at
> Gettysburg anymore are holding up those tenets that are listed in this
> article because they are fact. So its not gone today nor is it gone
> with Southern Historians so understand that the definition of the Lost
> Cause has changed and this article needs expanding in my opinion. Well
> I hope you take this into consideration. Thanks

The point of the original Lost Cause movement was not to analyze objectively the reasons the South lost the war. It had two purposes, in my humble opinion: (1) provide tactical cover to some of the senior generals with less than stellar records, deflecting criticism away from their own conduct; (2) provide positive feelings to the citizens of the South to justify their great sacrifice in vain. When I say that they did not analyze objectively, you can see that in part by what they omitted from their list of reasons: poor strategic military judgments by the Confederate high command, including Davis and Lee (see the Jefferson Davis biography article for more information about his role in this); a poorly organized military with inefficient central control; poor diplomatic decisions, such as the embargo on cotton during the early years of the war before the blockade started; some really bad performances by senior generals in important battles, most of which had no relation to Lee; their lack of attention to the Western Theater.

The purpose of this article is not to analyze why the South won the war, but just this once I will say a controversial thing to you, but one that is widely acknowledged among modern historians: the South did not have to win the war, all it had to do was tie, or avoid losing. The default case if they had held on long enough with an appropriate strategy would have been the exhaustion of Northern public opinion and the South would've gone its own way. Most military historians are able to outline alternative strategies to those used by Davis and Lee that would have accomplished that objective, regardless of how outmatched they were in manpower and industrial might.

I believe it is justified to say that most modern historians, including those in the South, such as Gary Gallagher of the University of Virginia, do not allow the limited topics of the lost cause movement to affect the way they analyze the results of the war. (I also understand that there are many non-historians who do not fit this statement, but I was careful to say historians, not the general public.) If you are arguing that there is a broader selection of topics that are being discussed, then I believe that is an illustration of my point — the lost cause movement is no longer at the center of discussions of the war. You may choose to retain the expression "lost cause" to represent current thinking, but I believe that violates the spirit of the article, which is to describe an historic literary movement.

If you would like to add a paragraph at the end that describes, say, The Lost Cause Today, and makes it clear that it is an evolution and not a direct continuation of the historic movement, I might not object to that. Hal Jespersen 03:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You say that the south didn't have to win, but rather not lose the war. But when you're being invaded, not loosing -is- winning. The thing was, Lee didn't want to draw it out even longer, because that means more deaths, more damage, and more suffering for the citizens of the Confederacy. So, while a defensive war would have achieved the goals, it would have done so at a great cost. Lee gambled a bit in hopes of greatly reducing the cost. Izuko 12:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say a strategy for tying or holding out would be easy. But there are many things that could have been done that in retrospect showed they made a number of flawed decisions. The first bad one was to strike first militarily at Fort Sumter and it was all downhill from there. Another was the strategy to disperse their defenses thinly over an enormous landmass and not make short-term tradeoffs of some territory for more defensible areas. Polk's decision to invade Kentucky. Bad moves at Henry and Donelson, which opened up two great rivers for invasion. Lee's two invasions of the North were militarily dumb; if he had reinforced Pemberton at Vicksburg instead of wasting troops in Pennsylvania, what might have happened? Anyway, the point of this article is not argue these issues. The Lost Cause sentiment that winning the war was impossible is not really true (it was improbable), but since we're describing what that past literary movement wrote about, it doesn't matter what is true or false. Hal Jespersen 14:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The question of whether or not Lee made mistakes is meaningless. Wars have never been fought without one side making major mistakes, and never will be. The only question is how much the other side capitalizes on them. And often the difference between a mistake and a brilliant move is whether a 50/50 gamble paid off - in other words, something that can only be seen in retrospect. War is like that. He who wins the war is often the one who screwed up the least.

Also, you have to view the decisions in their proper perspective. Would it have been militarily preferable to give up some territory for better defensive posture? Certainly. None the less, it also would have been counter to everything they were fighting for. They were defending their homelands, and would not give the land up (abandoing every southern family that the union came across) without a fight. In Lee's mind, such tradeoffs were simply not an option - lest the whole war mean nothing.

Izuko 17:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with you in what you said about Historians, and I think really what I meant was that many tenets of the Lost Cause are true historically and based in fact. Others such as blaming subordinates and many things of that nature are outdated. But what I'm trying to say is it did evolve and historians have evolved with it. No they do not limit themselves you are quite correct. But I guess what Im saying it has evolved and maybe what I am looking for is demonstrating how people who study the Confederacy and the South who are Southern and Historians are more likely to demonstrate less harsh criticism at least from what I have read. Compare William C. Davis a Southern Historian writing books about the Confederacy and James McPherson who is a Northern Historian and mainly writes as an apologist for the Union. If you read the Wikipedia article on James McPherson it states how he has called the The Museum of the Confederacy, The Sons of Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy are all white supremist organizations. These organizations all of which are historically motivated organizations committed to preserving their heritage and the history of the Confederacy. They are not white supremist organizations. Same has been true with another Northern Historian Eric Foner read his biography on Wikipedia also. It troubles me to think that because these Ivy League Northern Historians have kind of an monopoly on how the Civil War is seen in orthodoxy. Well I am glad for William C. Davis and for him becoming the David McCullough of Southern History and the Confederacy and making the South have a human face and less evil and wrong is very good depiction of how the Lost Cause has evolved. You are correct the initial Lost Cause was used to deflect blames lots of time and had its list of authors with many Confederate Generals writing their memoirs to clear themselves. But it was not all in vain. You see I mean the South had to feel good about something after Sherman’s March and losing the War. So clearly they tried to make themselves feel better by Romanticizing the Confederacy and concentrating on the good qualities of the South. But I think that any Country when they go through disaster is going to react they way they did. The North has Romanticized Lincoln and him being the Great Emancipator when anyone who really reads about him knows he never meant to free the slaves and only did so to gain support for the War which was close to none considering they were rioting in New York and Union troops just off the Battle of Gettysburg had to put it down. Read another what I would consider contemporary Lost Cause book such as The Real Lincoln : A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas Dilorenzo. I have not gotten to read this one but as I read the reviews look very good. It was the Unionist Romanticizing ideology just like Uncle Toms Cabin is a piece of this propaganda to go to War with the South. Harpers Weekly and its articles mocking the South are also notoriously known being War time Propaganda against the South.

I would like to have an example of immorality by the Northern Generals. I would also like to have an example of the oppressive taxation such as the Morrill Tariff which was put on the South by the North and this is widely believed to be why South Carolina suceeded. This does not slam the North but merely describes the first tenet in the Lost Cause in your article. I will be willing to also write an example of how the Lost Cause has evolved as kind of a Lost Cause today or over time and culturally how it has effected the South.

Also I want to address what you wrote;

“The purpose of this article is not to analyze why the South won the war, but just this once I will say a controversial thing to you, but one that is widely acknowledged among modern historians: the South did not have to win the war, all it had to do was tie, or avoid losing. The default case if they had held on long enough with an appropriate strategy would have been the exhaustion of Northern public opinion and the South would've gone its own way. Most military historians are able to outline alternative strategies to those used by Davis and Lee that would have accomplished that objective, regardless of how outmatched they were in manpower and industrial might.”

Well that is a very controversial statement, but you do know an argument can be made for the South possessing better Generals. I think you know Lee's intelligence, as opposed to Northern General George McClellan, take into account the entire first half of the War. First and Second Manassas, Chancellorsivlle, Fredericksburg, Seven Days Battles, Stonewall and Lee were better in the War initially. It was later on and as described in God and General Longstreet the "Everlasting If"(p.67) If General Stonewall Jackson had not been shot down by his own men after doing night recognizance after the Battle of Chancellorsville. Or if Lee wouldn’t have ordered Picketts Charge which ultimately lost the War or signaled the beginning of the end of the Confederacy. I also recommend An Honorable Defeat The Last Days of the Confederate Governmentby William C. Davis Lee was outnumbered without any place to go. And especially since the Confederacy never would sink to total war such as the terrible Shermans March. They could of done a lot of things sure but Lee was an honorable man and I think that is something both sides can agree on. I think the South did win the War with morality, Christianity and were products of their agricultural environment and climate. They tried their best. But aside from this I think this article can be quite good with revisions, I also wonder if I can add some information from this book God and General Longstreet.

Scott

Scott, I apologize, but you are writing way too much for me to respond coherently. If you would like to email me (see User:Hlj), I can attempt to respond point-by-point, but this editing of the Talk page for one of the 850 pages I monitor is taking more time than I want to spend. Hal Jespersen 03:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Lee and Longstreet get a bad rap (often from different sides), but it has to be understood just what type of dynamic existed between Lee, Longstreet, and Jackson. When the three worked together, they really did capitalize on their respective strengths. After the loss of Jackson, Lee never again had a hammer he could trust to Longstreet's anvil. And his attempts to use Longstreet as if he were Jackson just never worked out. I think the loss of any of those three would have been equally crippling. It just happens that it was Jacksons loss that we saw. Izuko 17:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the term Hooker was around long before the Civil War. See Joseph Hooker, final years and legacy for more information.

Comments

I know this talk page is getting long, but I ran across this article, and with no special love for the South my initial reading detected revisionist bias in the article. I intended to inquire about it on the talk page when I found the above discussion. I see your point about the article referring strictly to a literary movement, but the only word alluding to that is "intellectual". I think if you make it more clear that we are documenting an obsolete pro-Confederate academic trend here and not discrediting an ideology, you will find less objections left for you on the talk page. :-) Runderwo 09:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The pro-Confederate academic trend is still around anyone who reads many Southern historians such as James I. Robertson Jr. from Virginia Tech who is widely known as teaching the largest Civil War class in the United States and did the commnetary for Gods and Generals along with Clyde N. Wilson from University of South Carolina who very supportive same with William C. Davis who is a little less pro South then the previous two I mentioned but still believes in preserving the honor of the South. Look at professors in the South. University press books from Southern Universities you do not see this negative tone towards aspects of the Lost Cause. I have already listed reasons and argument points for the South. This is merely another example of the Winners writing the History. If you only read books from James McPhearson and Eric Foner who are vehemently pro North and get mainstream attention you are only reading half of what really happened in the war. The War did not happen in Massachusetts folks it happened in the South perhaps we could listen to the perspective of a culture that still has not forgotten the War. Instead of only basing your opinion on these Northern historians listen to the Southern ones. I implore you folks to read the other story and by the way explain to me how Douglas Southall Freeman's book is so criticized as to my knowledge this is the definitive book on Lee and I would perhaps like to see some better historical anaylsis of the book instead of "Lee could do no wrong" rather negative wouldnt you say. Word choice could be evaluated definately I propose to make this article neutral. Right now it is leaning towards the South was wrong side. So do not discredit the Southern argument, do not say it is no longer popular without showing due evidence and revaluate the Southall Freeman book with less biased wording. Thank You.

Scott

Thank you for your long discourses, Scott. A few comments:

1. If people need to read Southern historians and not just read Northern propaganda, as you say, I would say that you need to include Northern historians and not just Southern propaganda in your opinion formation.

2. As to Davis's assertion that if the states ratified the Constitution, they could get rid of it, Lincoln said that even a business contract with multiple parties would require the consent of all the parties to legally dissolve it without breaking it.

3. I have a great respect for the leaders and generals who fought for the Southern Cause. But my reasons are different than the Lost Cause reasons (I've spent virtually all my life in the ex-Confederacy). My main reason is this: they helped destroy slavery by prolonging the war; a shorter war or quick war would probably not have ended slavery.

4. States rights is reasonable in itself. But the South constantly shot themselves in the foot by wrapping it up in pro-slavery arguments.

5. Slavery was a difficult situation, but lets not pretend it was good for African-Americans. It was horrible. But the real problem with the South's pre war argumentation was that many wanted to expand it, and their position carried the day. They could've easily beaten Lincoln by voting for Stephen Douglas, but he only wanted slavery to expand by popular sovereignty; the South wanted every new territory to be slave, so they instead voted for Breckinridge. This speaks volumes about the Southern reasons for secession.

6. The immediate cause of secession was the candidate they hated won by a constitutional majority. I don't know enough about the tariff stuff, but Lincoln didn't take office until 2 1/2 months after SC seceded, so if the tariff was his doing, he couldn't have passed it before they seceded.

7. What is the Lost Cause's view about race relations? I'd like to see an article or subsection about that. Historically, it probably would have had a much different view of African-Americans than such as prevail today.

8. Scott, if you signed your articles per Wikipedia guidelines, and spelled "secede" correctly, it would give you more credibility in people's eyes, and certainly mine. Or is there some Southern spelling of "secede" I don't know about?John ISEM (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I have a problem with the following line: "Today, the Lost Cause is no longer a dominant theme of Civil War historians, even Southern ones, and its tenets have been challenged and in most cases discredited." If this article is not meant to be a critique of the Lost Cause then the line should be removed. If a critique is appropriate then more details and citations are needed, particularly which tenets have been discredited and how. Chops79 23:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Just remember,The Civil War is over.What's done is done.North and south both committed various war crimes,lets not start a war all over again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.87.79 (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A few more things, Scott:

1. I looked up the Morrill Tariff. It was signed by Buchanan after all the states had seceded. You said Lincoln proposed it; I don't know about that. I have a hard time, however, buying the idea that the 7 original Confederate states were OK with being in the Union, then when they heard about this new tariff, all of a sudden, they wanted to secede, before it was even passed. After all, if they had stayed in the Union, they could've fought it. Did the lower South states walk out of the Charleston and Baltimore conventions over the tariff in 1860? I don't think so. It was over the issue of a Federal Slave Code for territories.

2. As far as the issue of Massachusetts having slaves before Southern states, I don't think slavery in Massachusetts had anything to do with the Civil War. I do think slavery in the South had something to do with it. For whatever reason in 1860, the future confederate South had 3.5 million slaves; MA, on the other hand, had none. Once again, if the South was more honest about the difficult situation of slavery, and didn't try to expand it or claim that it was a "positive good", I would have more respect for their plight.

3. Not sure why Southerners keep quoting the "94% of Southerners didn't have slaves". Whether they did or not, the issue dominated the 1850's, whether on its on, or along with economic and states rights issues. You might as well say that "less than 1% of people in the USA in 2007 were CEO's of major corporations, so the USA was not a very business oriented place." If the point is to say that slavery was not a big deal in the South in the pre Civil War years, let me throw you another statistic: 3.5 millions slaves in the Confederacy--at least one slave for every 2 free people. Plantations required a lot of people to run them; not just the owners. In SC, there were more slaves than free people, in fact. Slavery was a big deal in the pre Civil War years. 70% of Southern wealth was tied up in land and slaves.

4. By the way, the South did have representation in the House and Senate. The "No Taxation Without Representation" cry doesn't apply at all to the pre Civil War years, until the South seceded, which was their own doing.

5. As far as the Articles of Confederation were concerned, if that's what the South really wanted, then why did they sign on for the Constitution in the first place? No one put a gun to their head.

6. As far as the South "Winning the War" with Morality, if you want to talk about war tactics (total war, etc.), that's a worthy discussion (thought the South was not completely innocent in this respect, i.e., the burning of Chambersburg, sending blacks into slavery, etc.). As far as the personal morality of the leaders, that may be a personal issue of who you want to emulate, but it loses relevance beyond that. If Grant was a drunk, so what? Lee fought to ultimately preserve a system which oppressed millions, though in the end, he helped destroy it by his fighting, and he did consider it an "evil", or at least he was quoted as saying so.

7. If the South fought against "insurmountable odds", at some point the wisdom of secession must be questioned. Why would you fight a war that you have no chance of winning and will ultimately destroy everything you are fighting for? The Confederate soldiers had plenty of valor, but unless the war was winnable, the wisdom of Confederate leadership must be questioned. And if the war could've been won, then it must be dispassionately asked: then why wasn't it?

8. As far as Southern historians trying to defend the honor of the South, that is not my interest. My interest is to find out as best as possible what actually happened. The North as a whole had its own problems; few people fought to free the slaves initially, and as more people became convinced that slavery should end, many only saw it as a means to end the war. The treatment of African Americans is something that neither the North or the South can be proud of, though the atrocities of slavery were worse than the northern racial problems over time. Over and over again slavery is mentioned as an issue for southerners leading up to the Civil War, whether on its own or in concert with other problems, by leading Southerners, including Stephens, Keitt, and others. It was probably the main reason for secession, or at least one of the main reasons. To say otherwise is revisionism; if that is how the Southern authors argue, no wonder they get so little play overall.

9. As the person who said "The Civil War is over", Faulkner said "The past is not dead. Its not even past."(LOL!) Nevertheless, historians should be beyond "defending honor". Because I come from the South, I'm more interested in finding out the truth about it, and will, if anything judge it more strictly, because it is where I come from. I can understand that the South had to romanticize the situation early on, but they should be past that by now.

10. In Battle Cry of Freedom, much of James M. McPherson's argumentation is based on quotations. Maybe there's another side as well, but which quotes are you going to strike from his book? The Alexander Stephens one? The James Hammond ones? And he's not all that pro-North; he seems to dispel the notion that Northerners were white knights fighting to free slaves. He does often adopt the viewpoint of the people he's portraying, which can be confusing at times, but he does that for both sides. Admittedly, he doesn't seem all that unhappy that slavery is no longer around, but that's hardly a biased viewpoint nowadays.

10. Sorry, other Wikipedia people, for the long discussion. I felt that Scott needed responding to. John ISEM (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

History, Myth, Movement?

The Lost Cause of the Confederacy is still a powerful force in American politics and culture. To call it a literary movement is far too narrow, and to call it an intellectual movement is pretty funny, given its basis in the quasi-religious mythology and symbolism around Confederate iconography and the War of Northern Aggression, as the aggrieved southrons imagine it. The Lost Cause takes on elements of age-old conflicts of property rights vs. the rights of man (manifest as state rights vs. federalism and individual honor vs. the community, the rights of the individual vs. his duty to the community, and of course, slave vs. free), race and culture wars (manifest as yankee vs. southron, the chivalrous cavalier vs. the yankee busybody and businessman, the cities vs. the countryside, industry vs. agrarian and of the need for the (supposedly) sophisticated white European to protect his culture from the barbaric Africans and yankees), religion (the Baptist and Methodist emphasis on saving your own soul vs. the Quaker and Congregationalist emphasis on a community of faith), intermingled with a fairly peculiar southern notion of "honor", seeking both to remember their ancestors and 'save face' about their defeat in the war. It is cultural mythology, a point of view - fact-based, but not necessarily at all factual. Faveuncle 15:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

[Moved addition to the bottom of the file, as is customary for new comments.] This article is about the literary movement. (The term "intellectual" was selected, perhaps inappropriately, to imply that it was an activity of writers, historians, and educators, as contrasted against random sentiment and feelings in the general public.) If you would like to expand upon its "philosophical" underpinnings, you are welcome to edit responsibly. However, note that this article is not the place for arguing about whether the war was justified, whether it was about slavery or not, the nature of the war, the name of the war, etc. All of those factors are addressed in other articles about the origins and naming of the war. In my opinion, if you believe that something is "still a powerful force in American politics and culture," you are not talking about the same phenomenon as this article. There are relatively few professional historians who are writing in this genre anymore. (Note "relatively" in the previous sentence.)

• I had never heard of The Lost Cause of the Confederacy as merely a literary movement. The Lost Cause, and confederate and neo-confederate mythology are still a strong underpinning to politics in our country, especially in the south, but in other areas as well.Faveuncle 17:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

Clansman

Before I revert the edit about The Clansman, can you explain what it has to do with the reasons for the South losing the war? I read its article and it discusses the KKK and Reconstruction, not the Lost Cause. Hal Jespersen 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

See my edit, cleaned up the dual mention of Birth of a Nation. The Lost Cause is not about the reasons for the south losing the Civil War (which can be argued ad infinitum), it is about the point of view embodied in the those reasons.Faveuncle 19:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

Well, yes it is about the reasons. Let me quote from Gary Gallagher's paper, Jubal A. Early, the Lost Cause, and Civil War History: A Persistent Legacy:

“ Jubal Anderson Early ... sought to create a written record celebrating the Confederacy's military resistance. Early hoped future generations would rely on this record, the essence of which can be distilled into a few sentences. Lee was a heroic soldier who led an outnumbered army of Confederate patriots against a powerful enemy. With "Stonewall" Jackson initially at his side, he faced northern generals of minimal talent who later lied in print to explain their failures. Against these men and later against Ulysses S. Grant, a clumsy butcher who understood only that vast northern resources of men and matériel must be expended freely, the Confederate commander worked his magic across a Virginia landscape that functioned as the cockpit of the war. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia set a standard of valor and accomplishment equal to anything in the military history of the western world until finally, worn out but never defeated, they laid down their weapons at Appomattox. If the youth of the white South and succeeding generations of Americans and foreign readers accepted his version of the war, believed Early, ex-Confederates would have salvaged their honor from the wreck of seemingly all-encompassing defeat. These ideas constitute part of what has come to be called the Myth of the Lost Cause, an explanation for secession and Confederate defeat propagated in the years following the Civil War. (emphasis added) ”

Although the general "point of view" that you cite is an interesting discussion, it is not what this article is about. Hal Jespersen 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's exactly the topic of the article, as evidenced by the academic work quoted above. What is the basis of your objection?Verklempt 03:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

History

I'll agree that there was widespread economic devastation caused by the Civil War, but the psychological devastation did not apply to all southerners. In 1860, there were roughly 7 million human beings in the soon-to-be CSA. At the end of the war, the 3 million slaves in the south were set free, at least on paper. They were most likely the opposite of devastated, at least until the Klan and Jim Crow reared their ugly heads. This section of the article would appear to have a distinctly Caucasian POV, as written.Faveuncle 23:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

Let's not make assumptions and overly broad generalizations. Many former slaves found that earning the basic necessities of life was not easy. Odd as it may seem to our modern mindset, many chose to stay at the places of their enslaved labors, if allowed, or tried to return to their later. I would say this indicates psychological, as well as economic, devastation.

Old, metal signs at Andrew Jackson's home The Hermitage documented that some slaves chose to leave while others stayed after the war. But once when I visited, I found that paper signs had been put over the metal ones, and the paper signs claimed that the slaves had all left (obviously false, as his head slave lies right where he had asked to be buried--near his former master). When I asked about the discrepancy, a member of the staff told me that too many people had complained about the truth, so they put up the other signs to make people happy.

Slavery is a loathesome, dispicable practice. Many of my ancestors from New York State volunteered, fought, and shed blood or gave their lives in the war. Some of my ancestors are buried beneath a historical marker that reveals their church as center of the abolitionist sentiment and a leader in the movement. I'm not arguing in favor of slavery; I'm arguing in favor of fact. Wikipedia should present historical reality, not a political position and wishes that things were different, IMO. 68.83.72.162 (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If that story about the old, metal signs is true, then that is pretty sad. Also, all guilt for the southern practice of slavery ended with the Civil War, and the sins of the fathers do not pass to the sons. I get really tired of people trying to pass the guilt unto southerners of today, many of which didn't come to the south until AFTER the civil war ended.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern Usage

"Today, the Lost Cause is no longer a dominant theme of Civil War historians, even Southern ones, and the concept has been thoroughly discredited by modern research into the causes of the war."

I am nominating this sentence's removal from the article. This first half I agree with, but unless someone can come up with some evidence to support the part about modern research I do not think it a valid claim. There is plently of evidence out there supporting the Lost Cause view. I am somewhat neutral on this subject, but the evidence is there. Cho Chang 01:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your evidence? I would agree that there are still some Lost Cause revisionists extant today, but they are mostly neo-Confederate nationalists, not professional historians.Verklempt 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought about for awhile, and I think it would be a better idea to just remove the part about modern research. I'm not really sure I really want to start a debate on this page, but you could start from the fact that the war was not fought over slavery.Cho Chang 16:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you review the Wikipedia article on the Civil War, focusing on the causes of the war. No serious scholar today denies the prominent role of the slavery issue in the war's inception.Verklempt 20:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading period Confederate documents, such as their stated causes for secession, Stephens' 'Cornerstone' speach, or the Confederate Constitution clearly shows the war was about slavery. I do think the sentence needs to be sourced, however. Edward321 17:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your point is not valid because it was the "North" that declared the war. If you want to argue what secession was "about," the section would have merit. Confederate sympathizers also have referred to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression" for this reason. To make a case that the war was mainly "about" slavery, you need to have citations and quotes about the Northern participation and motivations to invade the south and fight the war Cuvtixo (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

Edward - Stephens was not saying that slavery was the cornerstone of the confederacy. by "cornerstone," he meant the idea that blacks were inferior to whites and that the natural order, god's laws, etc., dictated their position as subordinate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.145.192 (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Role of Southern Women

I'm surprised that this article has no mention of the role that southern women played in establishing the Lost Cause mythos. It was generally post-war women's societies that often got some memorial to Lee, Davis, or some other general or solider, in their home town. Also, many fictional depictions of the war with lost cause themes, such as Gone With the Wind, have female authors.[1] [2] [3] and I can provide many other links.Jsonitsac 14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

See Also

I restored links to related Wikipedia articles that had been deleted with no reason given.Cyane (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

James Ronald Kennedy as historian?

Kennedy is a founder of the League of the South with a bachelor’s degree from the University of Louisiana in Monroe and a master’s in health administration from Tulane University. I am unaware of any credentials that he has that would qualify him as an “historian”. I have changed the reference to him in the article to “writer” and added his status as a League of the South Founder. If someone can find a reference from a professional historical source that indicates he is considered a member of the profession, then please provide it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

sign your comment with four tildes....also, if kennedy writes a book about the civil war, which he did....that makes him a historian.....he also wrote "jefferson davis was right." he doesn't need to be a card-carrying member of an historical organization or university department to be called a historian....your comments show a subtle bias. if i look up my town's history, that makes me a historian. WillC (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong within the context of this article. The section clearly is talking about professional historical treatment of Lost Cause theories and folks such as the Kennedy brothers simpy are not treated seriously by that profession. I haven't even seen Kennedy claim that he is an historian. In any event, I have tagged your claim for a citation to show that he is considered an historian by any reliable source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the Jimmuldrow edit that was made while I was typing the above.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Treated seriously by the profession? Not mainstream? Those are both point of view statements and undocumentable. WillC (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not -- but I gave it the old college try with my most recent edit. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is still unbalanced against Lost Cause supporters, but i am satisfied with what you say because they are presented merely as quotes and not facts. WillC (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

April 29, 2008 Edit

I removed the paragraph added after the block quote from Kennedy and Kennedy. Besides being the editor's own opinion based on his/her original research, it is irrelevant to the Kennedy's claim which is more rhetorical than factual. The quote was offered, and I think the context is clear, to demonstrate the political motivations of their writings. They are not callig for a Southern rebirth of power within the political situation as currently exists -- obviously the picture they paint of the South as victim makes any discussion of actual political power over the last 50 century moot.

If some editor wants to start another section, with sources and not OR, criticizing the Lost Cause arguments or its advocates, they are free to do so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd echo Tom's comments above. In a section given to cited quotes, I'd rather see cited analysis as well. To paraphrase that yankee Mark Twain, lies, damned lies, and uncited statistics. BusterD (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Material out of place

I recently corrected one minor grammatical error and added a Dubious tag stating that "Gods and Generals" was a "Lost Cause" movie. The book it was based on is a historical novel and from the same author whose book was used for the film "Gettysburg" as well. I have seen both films and both do an excellent job at factually representing the order of events as well as providing ample coverage of the positions of both sides.

Gettysburg is based on the novel The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara; the novel Gods and Generals is by his son Jeff Shaara. One of the frequent criticisms of the latter film is the disparity given to the Confederate characters, and the complete excising of one of the novel's major (Union) characters, General Hancock.

Edits I did not make but would like to be seen are:

The removal/moving of:

"Slavery was a benign institution, and the slaves were loyal and faithful to their benevolent masters."

as a main tenet of the "Lost Cause". Jefferson Davis espoused this, as did movies such as Gone with the Wind, but most Lost Cause literature tried its best to largely ignore slavery, or divert it to being one of many State Right issues involved. It probably deserves mentioning, but not as a main tenet.

Also, this seems very out of place:

"Lost Cause beliefs were encouraged by the neo-Confederate movement of the late 20th century, especially in the magazine Southern Partisan."

This is placed right after a reference to flag disputes, but seems to have nothing to do with it.

Lastly, the last line of the page:

"Lost Cause adherents have called the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression."

This is obviously a true statement but seems to just be dangling and in need of more expansion.

Iamfuzz (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The article is completely written from the perspective that the items listed as tenets are untrue, when several of them (relative Northern industrial strength, for instance) are quite clearly historical fact.

The flags have almost but not quite completely nothing to do with this article--they're coatracked in without even a linking reference.

References could also stand to be augmented (so tagged) and those books that are quoted should be listed in the appropriate section--not all are. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course the North had superior industrial strength. The Lost Cause argument, however, is that northern superiority made victory inevitable. The flags have quite a bit to do with the legacy of the Lost Cause -- certainly an appropriate topic for this article. I have provided additional source information to strengthen that link. I added the Stampp book to the references section which appears to be the only one missing.

Your rather brief justification for your various tags makes it difficult to determine your specific problems with which claims are "untrue" and which claims you feel are "quite clearly historical fact". The coatracking tag (which based on the link "You may heed it or not, at your discretion.") has been removed based on my additions. I am leaving the POV tag up, pending more detailed discussion on the issue. I believe any issues you have can be properly sourced. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now addressed all of the citation tags you left. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; it now reads as substantially better cited. I still don't quite buy the appropriateness of the flag dispute, but not sufficiently strongly to reinsert the coatrack tag in the face of your definite improvements. I think you've done a good job of addressing some of the NPOV concerns as well, although I think retaining that tag is probably the correct decision. My apologies for the paucity of my earlier comments--you are correct that I should have been more verbose; in fact, I was considering whether I had the resources available to elaborate on the deficiencies myself, but you beat me to it. Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Florida Flag

The reference to the current Flag of Florida being in someway a controversial extension of the confederate battle flag is highly speculative at best. The current Florida flag is a derivative of the flag of the Viceroyalty of New Spain (a knotted red cross on a white field) which flew over Florida for 200 years when Florida was a Spanish possession (1565-1763) (i.e., before the USA even existed as an independent nation). A reference to Wikipedia's own entry on the Flag of Florida makes this abundantly clear. If there is a controversy as the author asserts, there is no evidence or citation of any dispute over the Florida flag existing in Florida or anywhere else. The author's opinion is only an opinion and should be noted as such, and countered with an opposing viewpoint, or removed entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.72.19.178 (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

North Carolina flag?

How is the North Carolina flag influenced by Southern/Confederate battle flags? I fail to see the resemblance. The flag of Texas is much like the flag of North Carolina, but no inference is listed here. I propose North Carolina's flag be removed from the article as there is no obvious link and no source to back up the assertion. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Confederate Stars and Bars flag and the North Carolina flag look similar.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

They do look similar. Without a citation it's just a coincidence though. I've removed NC from the flag comment and tagged the whole flag comment as being uncited. To me it seems like OR, which doesn't mean it's incorrect, just that it's not credible. 96.10.251.86 (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what Stars and Bars flag you're comparing with the NC flag, but they look nothing alike. NC's flag should definitely be removed from the article.

North Carolina flag(s), [4]

Stars and Bars flag(s), [5]

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony Horwitz's book Confederates in the Attic

I have a fractured wrist right now so I can't write much. I did want to say that some mention of (and from) Tony Horwitz's book would be of use here. Among other things, he discusses the degree to which the Lost Cause lives on in the modern South. In some areas, the Civil War is just having an intermission, to resume later. Bigmac31 (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Tenets

I don't see any references to the tenets of the Lost Cause, except for the last one. I'm writing this in the middle of the night (suffering from insomnia) so I may be missing it. Can someone confirm? Thanks.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

While there are not footntes after the "bulleted" tenets, the following two paragraphs clarify several of the tenets and are footnoted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Frederick the Great

I saw a US Army declassified ad publicly available for free work which implied that had Lee led like Frederick and not like Napoleon the South may have won. It can be found through a Google search but can take awhile to find. 86.41.75.52 (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Testing Talk

Blah blah blah blah --Maxedison9 (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Source's?

Looking at the history and the real facts from the war I would tend to lean more to Union vets and supporters in general in refute are trying to justify why with the vast manpower and industrial resources they had,had such a hard time defeating the South.At the begining the southerners had no standing military or infrastructure,virtually no industry and roughly 25% the population of the north.On paper the conflict should have ended in months,not years and 10's of thousands of lives later.One need only to study Jacksons Valley Campaign (1862) and the statistics to understand why the war lasted so long.The South had superior leadership in the field overall and were vastly out numbered in most fights. These are all indisputable facts The slant and biased views in the text on the Lost Cause fall way below the standard set by this site,one would think Grant himself had resurrected to write it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.22.239 (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

pile of biased crap

This article is pathetic. It is a fact that the winners whitewash the history books. Yes there may well be or have been holocaust-denial type running around trying to push whitewashing of their own by saying slavery was great or was gonna end anyway or whatever. But it's also a fact that the north committed massive brutality during that war, and oh by the way, from the mouth of Lincoln himself the war was not fought to end slavery. Plus there's the little issue of the goddamn definition of a "civil war", all making for a second side of the story to be told. Instead we get this shit bunch of polemic. "Basic assumptions of the Lost Cause have proved durable for many in the modern South"? Can you phrase it any more pretentiously?

I couldn't agree more. Northerners will never understand the concept of chivalry. In their minds, we are (and always will be) just a bunch of backward, foul-mouthed trailer park bigots. Mardiste (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not a place for you to vent your anger over any issue. If you have some specific issue you want to see changed, then identify it and present your evidence. --68.39.25.109 (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Confirmed

This article has received NPOV Confirmed status, indicating it follows a Northern Point of View, in keeping with standard Wikipedia practice for entries on the American Civil War. 71.58.158.59 (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

agreed--it is unbalanced and relies too much on Gallagher's viewpoint primarily because he is hostile to the topic. Rjensen (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Dissenting Opinion

Can we get a dissenting opinion here, or a severe rewrite? Because this article reeks of Confederate Apologetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.165.20 (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Balanced

Unless I am misreading the comments there seem to be people objecting to bias in both directions. I am working on an article that touches on the Confederate flag controversy and I find this article pretty balanced. It is about historiography, i.e. the history of history, not about the underlying history itself. Peter Reilly (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Monument Movement Reference Missing

As I understand the history, this perspective was more than just literary. Actual monuments in praise of the Confederacy were commissioned and set up in many town and cities across the US. Later some were removed, but this apparently was a major political movement at one point and included efforts to influence not only the perception of the Confederate cause, but also the later establishment of segregation and civic management of other Black oriented institutions such as Storer College at Harper's Ferry. In fact one such monument was placed and caused controversy at Harper's Ferry to modern times. That was a monument in memory of the "Loyal Slaves" who fought on the side of the confederacy. Whatever one's political perspective, this actual manifestation of this view warrants inclusion. I am not a historian, but would welcome information on the correct title of the Monument Movement.Wdteague (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Balance

This articles seems to have a distinct lean against those who hold to the Lost Cause. I could understand that if the Lost Cause ideology were as monolithic as it is presented. However, this is far from a united movement. There are pro-South movements which are for slavery, and those which are completely against, and those which find some middle ground. Additionally, many who would consider themselves supporters of the Lost Cause would disagree on what exactly that means, and how it applies both to the causes of the War and the discussion of states rights, not to mention racism. This is not my article, and I don't have the time to collaborate, so I'm not taking any steps personally to address this issue. I'm only asking that those responsible for this article consider taking a few pro-Southern editors and having them look over it.

Sincerely,

GTN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.37.191 (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Having looked back over a few things, I would like to clarify that I do not take issue so much with the northern slant, which is understandable considering they won the war, as much as I take issue with the presentation of pro-Southern views as being essentially the same. I myself am pro-CSA, but would have vehemently oppossed some of the statements of Davis, and would certainly have been against slavery. Such actions as presenting Davis as evidence of a coherent Southern view of the Lost Cause do not adecquately portray the diversity among those who hold to it.

GTN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.37.191 (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the "slant" is such that the article should be rewritten to bring it up to Wikipedia's ideal standard of objective neutrality. Even the act of calling it a "myth" rather than "belief" is subjective and a sign of bias. Do we refer to the belief that the United States could have won in Vietnam a "myth" or simply as a perspective on the conflict and its outcome?

Getting back to the (American) Civil War, is it a myth that the Union had a larger population than the Confederacy? Is it a myth that the Union had a larger industrial base? Is it a myth that the question of whether and how individual states could leave the Union was the immediate cause of the war? Is it a myth that judged in terms of the outcome of the battles fought in the north-eastern front, General Lee was more energetic and able than his Union counterparts -- at least until Gettysberg? If one believes that the CSA lost because the Union had substantially more manpower and a significantly larger industrial base I don't think an objective student of history can say that that person is believing in a myth. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC))

There is much more to the myth than your rhetorical questions suggest. The Lost Cause as myth is fully supported by reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

His rhetorical questions don't need to be an all-inclusive description of whatever the hell is going on in your head when you refer to some "myth". This page makes a collection of claims and refers to them as part of a myth, when many of those claims are not mythological at all, but rather undisputable facts. Other supposed aspects of the "myth", such as the superiority of southern generals, are supported by 1000x more reliable sources than your little collection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.135.196 (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that referring to the War of Northern Aggression/Southern Secession as a "civil war" is technically incorrect. The South was not fighting to control the government of the United State's, it was fighting for independence much as the colonies did in the Revolutionary War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.184.117 (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis quotation

"[The] servile instincts [of slaves] rendered them contented with their lot, and their patient toil blessed the land of their abode with unmeasured riches. Their strong local and personal attachment secured faithful service ... never was there happier dependence of labor and capital on each other. The tempter came, like the serpent of Eden, and decoyed them with the majic word of 'freedom' ... He put arms in their hands, and trained their humble but emotional natures to deeds of violence and bloodshed, and sent them out to devastate their benefactors." – Jefferson Davis

The quotation appears under the Tenets section, cited from David Blight's Race and Reunion, and attributed to Davis' book, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. However, this quotation is does not appear in The Rise and Fall. The book is available from Project Gutenberg. A quick search will easily verify that this quotation is not present. (For example, search for the word "Eden", which appears only twice in the text; the quotation isn't there.)

I'm not sure if Bright got it wrong or if a Wikipedia editor simply added the attribution carelessly, but it seems obvious that the reference to The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government should be removed, so I'm going to do so. --darolew (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Project Gutenberg text, for whatever reason, only has volume 1. Blight's footnote references it to volume 2 pp. 161-162 of the Da Capo edition. You can check this out at [6] and then using the search function available there at "search inside another edition of this book". I am restoring the original footnote with a fuller reference. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the mistake, thanks for correcting me. --darolew (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Another question about that quote. If the word "majic" as spelled in the quote is quoted exactly as in the source, should it not have the notation [sic] after it so that other editors know it is not a typo? Further checking of the Da Capo edition (which did not come up as an option when I went to the Amazon link given and clicked on "Search Inside Another Edition", so I just searched for "Da Capo Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" and came up with this url: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Confederate-Government-Paperback/dp/0306804190 A search of that link shows the spelling as "magic", so rather than adding [sic] as I originally planned, I am just changing it to the correct spelling of magic. WayneyP (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"The South will rise again"

Does this slogan have enough of a link with the Lost cause to merit mention in the article? deisenbe (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Important minority viewpoint

On this revision of this article, the Lost Cause is described as an "important minority viewpoint." I revised it to this instead. When you call an article about history a minority viewpoint, you are saying that historians consider it a valid view of history. This is clearly not the case. Every historian sourced in this article calls it a myth invented to justify racism. The introduction to the article needs to summarize it this way. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

it's a minority viewpoint on the causes of the civil war but a major factor in defining southern identity in opposition to Northern identity, as shown by many scholars like Charles Reagan Wilson, Baptized in Blood: The Religion of the Lost Cause, 1865-1920 University of Georgia Press, 2011; Karen L. Cox, Dixie's Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture University Press of Florida, 2003. The "lost cause" is only partly about the causes of the war, it's also about honor, manhood and religious values. Rjensen (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• When you are talking about history and call it a minority viewpoint, you are telling people it is a minority viewpoint among historians, which is blatantly not the case. A lot of people believe that vaccines cause autism, but we don't describe it as an "important minority viewpoint", we describe it as pseudoscience. A lot of people believe in homeopathy, but we don't describe it as a minority viewpoint, we call it quackery. And the sources you give support my point, that it is a myth, not your point, that it is a minority historical viewpoint. Finally, my text was backed up by the rest of the article, where historians universally call it a myth invented to justify racism. For an article on history, we need to describe the words of historians, not uneducated cranks with an obvious political agenda. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that your version better summarized the article. This article is about a cultural belief that definitely exists, not a pseudoscientific practice. The article attempts to address this nuance, and the lede should, too. VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Not pseudoscience, but certainly pseudohistory, more properly known as negationism. The theme of deceptively denying unquestioned facts is still there. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: please add sourced content to the article body that calls it negationism before adding it back into the lede. VQuakr (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Valid point. But the word myth is well-sourced and needs to stay. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not attribute it to a historian rather than present it in Wikipedia's voice? The former is what the article body does. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• The lead is intended to summarize the rest of the article and generally isn't the best place to quote people, so there is no need to attribute it to a historian there. We are quoting plenty (Davis, Blight, Nolan, etc) who say so later on. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

historians do not "universally call it a myth invented to justify racism." You lack a source for that claim. You seem to ignore the question of honor, which the RS include. A leading specialist Gaines Foster recently argued: "Scholars have reached a fair amount of agreement about the role the Lost Cause played in those years, although the scholarship on the Lost Cause, like the memory itself, remains contested. The white South, most agree, dedicated enormous effort to celebrating the leaders and common soldiers of the Confederacy, emphasizing that they had preserved their and the South’s honor." [source: http://www.cwbr.com/civilwarbookreview/index.php?q=5590&field=ID&browse=yes&record=full&searching=yes&Submit=Search] Rjensen (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is already well-cited in this article, with no historians disputing the central point that the war was about slavery. Need a reminder? Davis: "Causes and effects of the war have been manipulated and mythologized" Nolan: "the Lost Cause legacy to history is a caricature of the truth." Koiniger concedes that the South was outgunned and outnumbered, but does not dispute that it was all about slavery. The evidence against the Lost Cause is overwhelming. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Rjensen, the book you just linked to above calls the Lost Cause the "Myth of the South". The book is trying to understand why people believe this myth. Every source you've brought about to argue that it's not a myth has explicitly said that it is. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Reinstate the overwhelming historical view that "lost cause" is a myth.WP:UNDUE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: what is the proposed source for the absolute "lacks any basis" phrase? VQuakr (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a deep misunderstanding here to the effect that "myths" are 100 percent false by giving totally imaginary facts. Beowulf fits that model. That is not the way historians talk about this myth. They mean the meaning superimposed upon the facts. To say the myth as zero factual basis is Astonishing nonsense. Most of the writings are highly factual narrative stories about what Robert E Lee or Jefferson Davis or Stonewall Jackson etc. were doing during the Civil War. I think what you mean to argue is that the lost cause interpretation of the role of slavery is rejected by historians-- or more exactly, the lost cause historians gloss over the role of slavery. On the other hand historians have praised the interpretation of the lost cause version of women's history. See Jacqueline Hall quotation and her long article for example. Rjensen (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem of myth: Look at an actual example of text

Jefferson Davis's book on "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" Has been mentioned as an important example of the Lost Cause. Here's a typical passage of the opening of chapter 3 ( using the online Gutenberg edition). This is what standard narrative history looks like; It's full of factual information, with an underlying interpretation by the author. The topic is how the South should respond to the Compromise of 1850 and best defend its "constitutional rights" to slavery. I believe most historians agree with Davis on his analysis of Southern opinion in these 1851 debates. Rjensen (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC) I had been reëlected by the Legislature of Mississippi as my own successor, and entered upon a new term of service in the Senate on March 4, 1851. On my return to Mississippi in 1851, the subject chiefly agitating the public mind was that of the "compromise" measures of the previous year. Consequent upon these was a proposition for a convention of delegates, from the people of the Southern States respectively, to consider what steps ought to be taken for their future peace and safety, and the preservation of their constitutional rights. There was diversity of opinion with regard to the merits of the measures referred to, but the disagreement no longer followed the usual lines of party division. They who saw in those measures the forerunner of disaster to the South [ ie abolition of slavery] had no settled policy beyond a convention, the object of which should be to devise new and more effectual guarantees against the perils of usurpation. They were unjustly charged with a desire to destroy the Union—a feeling entertained by few, very few, if by any, in Mississippi, and avowed by none. [Davis says little or no secessionism in 1851] There were many, however, who held that the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and the purposes for which the Union was formed, were of higher value than the mere Union itself. Independence existed before the compact of union between the States; and, if that compact should be broken in part, and therefore destroyed in whole, [ if North denies the constitutional right to slavery] it was hoped that the liberties of the people in the States might still be preserved. Those who were most devoted to the Union of the Constitution might, consequently, be expected to resist most sternly any usurpation of undelegated power, the effect of which would be to warp the Federal Government from its proper character, and, by sapping the foundation, to destroy the Union of the States. [antislavery would destroy the Union] [end of quotation from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19831/19831-h/19831-h.htm#chap-i-iii]

Well, the "constitutional rights" in question were the claimed right to have their slave property returned under fugitive slave laws. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Davis had in mind the somewhat broader right to bring property that was legal in Mississippi (slaves) into the territories. Rjensen (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's proving the broader point that it was all about slavery. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No carp. VQuakr (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

yes, Jeff Davis is making the point that they cause the Civil War was slavery. What makes this "lost cause" is that he sees the white South as the victim, and slavery as a good thing & that it is constitutionally protected. He argues that it's Yankees who are breaking away from the union by destroying the consensus of 1787 that slavery is constitutionally protected. Davis is offending modern ethical sensibilities regarding slavery. Rjensen (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Catton as a leading RS on civil war says Blight

With a Pulitzer Prize and 2 dozen honorary degrees it seems Catton's stature is assured as a RS. One editor disagrees --he does so by misreading Blight. as Harvard UP (the publisher) says abour Bright's book, "The focus of American Oracle is on four men who were among America’s most important writers on the significance and legacies of the Civil War during the 1950s and 1960s: Robert Penn Warren, Bruce Catton, Edmund Wilson, and James Baldwin." Blight praises Catton for rejecting the Lost Cause myths. Here is a scholarly review of Blight:

Blight’s treatment of Catton is more sympathetic. For all of his limitations, Catton nevertheless insisted upon recognizing the role that slavery and racism played in the origins of the war, and, as a supporter of racial integration, valiantly, if unsuccessfully, sought to keep the centennial from entirely becoming a segregationist costume drama. Above all, though, what Blight honors in Catton is his sense of tragedy." review of American Oracle: The Civil War in the Civil Rights Era by David W. Blight from John Burt in Register of the Kentucky Historical Society Volume 112, Number 2, Spring 2014 pp. 319-322 Rjensen (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Catton quote is entirely appropriate. The assertion Catton doesn't qualify as a reliable source is laughable. BusterD (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Putting him in the lead without putting him in the article itself is plainly unworkable. Leads are meant to summarize the article, not to highlight the opinions of particular commentators; if you feel that the article should have a section covering this viewpoint, by all means write such a section, but this quote plainly does nothing to summarize the article as it is and therefore is entirely inappropriate for the lead, regardless of Catton's credentials -- even if someone is a reliable source, it is still generally giving them WP:UNDUE weight to highlight them in the lead unless the article itself supports the idea that their opinions are crucial to understanding the subject matter. I do not see even the slightest assertion of that in the article's text as it is. I'll be removing Catton from the lead again; by all means, feel free to mention him in the article, but none of the arguments above give any particular reason for putting him in the lead -- for that, he would have to be more than a reliable source, he would have to be established as someone whose personal opinions are core to the entire subject matter. I'm not seeing any assertions here that he is that important. We can quote him further down in the article, yes (where we can discuss the various disputes and opinions involved, including his limitations.) We cannot quote him in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I added a new section to the article on the reconciliation of the North and South, citing Catton and other historians making the same point. Rjensen (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of introduction

I struggle to understand the lede. What exactly is a myth that attempts to reconcile the traditionalist white society of the antebellum South with the defeat of the Confederate States in the American Civil War?Royalcourtier (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the introduction is in bad shape. The introduction doesn't seem to "know" what the subject of the article is (so to speak).

First, the article says that the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" is a "movement." A movement is "a series of organized activities working toward an objective [ . . . ] an organized effort to promote or attain an end [ . . . ]. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 753, G. & C. Merriam Company (8th ed. 1976).

Then, the introduction says that the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" is a "myth" or a "belief."

A myth is "a usu. traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon [. . . ] an ill-founded belief held uncritically esp. by an interested group [ . . .]", Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 762, G. & C. Merriam Company (8th ed. 1976).

A belief is "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing [ . . . ] a tenet or body of tenets held by a group [ . . . ] conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon esp. when based on examination of evidence [ . . .]". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 101, G. & C. Merriam Company (8th ed. 1976).

So, what is the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy"? Is it a series of organized activities? An organized effort? A story? A belief? All of the above?

The article suffers from the incoherence in the wording of the introduction (or lead, or "lede"). Famspear (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

well said. I tried to fix it. Rjensen (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Famspear - the Lost Cause seems to be a theory of modern historians that circa 1900 there was a set of perspectives on the civil war. It seems mostly a narrative to say the image in Gone with the wind and other romance fiction of the time not being historically accurate. Markbassett (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a bafflingly inaccurate description of the Lost Cause that leaves me wondering if you have actually read the article. Edward321 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Quotes in lead

User:108.52.57.150User:50.176.53.32 edited the lead to move a long quote from the lead to a section of the article (this edit), and then later User:Rjensen put them back (this edit). I agree with 108 here, that a long quote like this does not belong on the lead section, which is supposed to summarize. If someone famous had brilliantly summed up the Lost Cause in a single sentence, that is appropriate, but otherwise the quotes should be elsewhere in the article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

the lede never quite says what the contents of the legend were, and the short quote does an excellent job of summarizing the legend in a mere four sentences. No single sentence I have seen does the job--i doubt anyone here can match it for conciseness. Rjensen (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• At a second look, I can see why you chose that one. May I suggest putting that quote at the end of the lead section, though? The artistic wordsmithing used by Osterweis is just the kind of thing that leaves a reader begging for more, encouraging them to read the rest. Some other articles that do this well include Ted Bundy, D.B. Cooper and Earthquake prediction once had a quote by Richter himself that only fools predict earthquakes. I think "They perpetuated the ideals of the Old South and brought a sense of comfort to the New" is a good way to lead into the remainder of the article.
• That said, I do like the IP's text about how the Lost Cause downplayed the reality of slavery. That should go back it.
• BTW, looks like I linked to the wrong IP. Corrected above. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

well it could go lower in the lede but the point is that we should tell the readers something of the actual content before analyzing it. Rjensen (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

More 19th century content ?

The article seems a historians theme of narration - 21st century commentary about a on 19th century historians framing of events. But could it cite or list out some more of the imputed 19th century content, and particularly some statements being made seriously whether book or newspaper? Looking at the items mentioned in order of publication just seems pretty thin on examples with large gap and largely fiction works rather than contemporary commentary or history texts -- the publication order seems to be :

• The Lost Cause by Edward A Pollard, 1866
• The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government by Jefferson Davis, 1881
• The Clansman by Thomas Dixon Jr., 1905 (Historical Romance)
• Sartoris by William Faulkner, 1929 (Fiction)
• R.E. Lee A Biography by Douglas Freeman, 1934
• Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell, 1936 (romantic fiction)

I'm largely wondering how much we're talking about a real phenomenon of the day an how much just a 21st century mythos about Gone with the Wind ... Markbassett (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Predominantly a 20th century mythos. VQuakr (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The Lost Cause view of the Confederacy was the predominant view for the first 100 years after the war, and is still influential today. Edward321 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Edward321 -- I am looking mostly for what works this narrative theme viewed as the body of works in the post-war period approximately up to 1900. (Gone with the Wind being romantic fiction and 70 years later is an example for it being in current cultural imagery, but not of it being a significant theme in the reconstruction era.) But sure, if you have works that characterized this label as a mythos 100 years ago that would be wonderful to add. Initial usages of 'lost cause' seems a simple phrase similar to the 'war between the states' of the much more common 'civil war' phrasing, and the what/when/how it acquired the patina of mythos or was identified by historians as a specific coping mythos could use more documents associated to that body. The existing references being predominantly 21st century make it seem that framing as a mythos is something relatively recent, starting from works of Osterweis (1973) and Foster (1987). Markbassett (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Wasn't Huck Finn basically a criticism of the Lost Cause? Seems to be the period you're looking for. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy - Huck Finn of 1884 is the right timeframe and at least it is not romance novel, but is fiction about pre-war time that is sarcasstic towards racism/slavery. I can't cite items in Lost Cause from that or see it as a book supporting the Lost Cause. I've not easily found any historians listing out books within this theme that I could cite, and looking at the Huck Finn counter-example and the List of years in literature or 19th century in literature around 1880s-1890s is more arguing that Lost Cause was not a major part of the landscape. I did see The Broken Sword by Worthington (1901) fiction set in reconstruction, and a web site mentioning the article title here. But mostly I'm thinking the mythos theme is more a 21st century theme

and popularity than anything else. Seems a bit of current confection criticizing / praising the views found in a 1930s romantic novel. Article needs to find a citeable bibliography of items within the Genre to clarify things a bit, perhaps out of one of the recent books talking about it ? Markbassett (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

the article deals mostly with pre 1900 time frame, by which time the Lost Cause theme was dominant in the white south. Rjensen (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen the article lacks works prior to 1900 -- so I asked for some examples of it to be put in. Seems the best-sellers of the era were other genres. Welcome more examples, but just words won't alter there being a hole. Changing absence of 19th century examples would require actual 1th century examples. Markbassett (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The way I count it, the sections that deal heavily with the pre-1910 era (At which point the veterans were dying out) include #2 Reunification of North and South; #3 New South; #4 Religious dimension; #5 Gender roles; #6 Tenets. That seems plenty of coverage to me. Rjensen (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen this thread was asking for 19th-century works of the theme, i.e. something written in that timeframe. That the article has all those sections talking about items of that timeframe without actually naming ones. Well, in the end it seems just not a practice of the reconstructuion era and incorrect to say so. It really seems the topic of article is a 1930s era Romance novel theme and/or idealized historical image rather than things done in 1870s-1900s, see Gone with the Wind. But how seriously can one take Twilight (Meyer novel)  ? Markbassett (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The novels came mostly in the 20th century. in late 19th century you had Non-fiction history books, memoirs and historical articles by Edward A Pollard, Jefferson Davis, Jubal A. Early and many others. Also you have the Memorial work done by the different women's organizations creating statues and monuments, organizing parades, giving speeches and revising textbooks. So the Movement was not originally based on fictional studies. Rjensen (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking for citable specifics -- else it remains a hole / flaw in the theme. One would think the historians saying it would somewhere list items as part of the narrative, and if you're seeing one please plug it in and fill the gap. But I still think it just is more imagined than real history, and the article is correctly showing it as romantic notion long after the war. Yah, there's one history book out of many that happened to use the name -- but it seems just a 750 page chronicle of events in the south and seems to be contrary in places to what the article says the themes are. (Says blaming the army sizes is wrong for one thing.) And the article claim of helping restoration seems mistiming -- the Davis book is after what is normally termed reconstruction, and is at least partly critical of the past reconstruction. The whole article looks like a theory, but not even clear if they're talking 1880 or more like 1980s here, and whether it is post-Civil-war emotions or post-Reagan getting notions from pop culture. Guess I should look for the 1970s narration and see if it says much. Markbassett (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The goal of this article is to summarize what historians have said about the topic. Quite a few different scholars have written about it, and there is relatively little controversy among them. So I suggest you read the scholarly items that have been cited & see whether it makes sense to you. Keep in mind that this article is about memory-- a specifically structured memory of the Civil War and antebellum periods-- and that memory had consequences which we can see in 2015 debates about Confederate memorabilia. Rjensen (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen Sadly that seems not true. There seems a BIG difficulty in providing wiki norms of content or even getting a coherent sense of what historians have written into the article: 5 of the 7 'themes' have no source cite, the evidence examples listed starts with Gone with the Wind (a romantic fiction 70 years after the war,) and it puts in uncited opinions on 21st century rather than 19th century and side remarks about early 20th century. Just too too many gaps of conveying what is said or what the topic is and internal conflicts about it to really seem one coherent topic. If it is a historian theory re 2015 instead of 1865, then say that. If it is two theories then say that. If it is a bunch of loosely related historians talking on historical idealizing then say that. Right now it looks like a jumble of about 6 diferent topics on religion, reunification, gender roles, and building multiple mountains out of three romance novels. Again happy if you've got more but just claiming without providing is just showing again and again and again ... this one smells funny. Markbassett (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Those are topics raised by the cited scholars. When you read the cited materials you'll have a much better idea of the issue. I suggest starting with Janney, Caroline E. "The Lost Cause." Encyclopedia Virginia (Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, 2009) which is online free. Rjensen (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen Still nothing - this thread was looking for a citeable listing of 19th century items tagged as part of the theme so they could be shown in the article. That website lacks such. Does get a bit earlier than the 70-years-later romance novel 'Gone With the Wind', with 'The Clansman', a 40-years-later historical romance. Meh - never mind, I'm considering this one CLOSED. Markbassett (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The tone of the article hardly seems neutral. Ooze2b (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The slavery-denial continues

At User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160224. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Extremely biased article

The article's content and tone is extremely biased and one sided. A great deal of the content presented is indeed valid for inclusion in the article, however there's absolutely no counter points or counter arguments presented. There are many opinions and individual subjective viewpoints stated as though they absolute fact. Zaqwert (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

this complaint is too vague to be useful. which sentence bothers you the most and why? what reliable secondary sources are you using? Rjensen (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It would probably help to include a 'critique of the lost cause thesis' section. Historian's critiques are included, but might be spotlighted more. 76.16.93.184 (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've had the idea of having the first section (after the lead) being titled background and be modeled roughly after Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. So, it would say "Lost Cause proponents deny the following facts about slavery and the civil war" and then list the key facts that are denied. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Introduction bias

Edward321, hello. I am writing concerning the following two sentences in the article's introduction:

"The Lost Cause belief was founded upon several historically false elements. These include the claim that the Confederacy started the Civil War to defend states' rights rather than to preserve slavery, and the related claim that slavery was benevolent, rather than cruel."

You cannot use "Revert to better wording" as your explanation every time someone attempts to change these two extremely biased sentences. It is not adequate. Clearly, a large number of people do not want these sentences in the article, but I handful of editors, including yourself, have simply reverted any attempts to change these sentences, usually without providing an adequate explanation.

There are a few historians who to varying degrees support some of the ideas that you are calling "false". In an interview linked here, Shelby Foote, one of the most accomplished Civil War historians of all-time, stated: "The causes were so nebulous and so diverse." Douglas Southall Freeman was also somewhat influenced by it. Clyde N. Wilson wrote an essay disputing traditional perspectives on the causes of the Civil War here. By the way, you do not get to call these people "fringe" theorists simply because you disagree with them.

The 2 sentences contradict the beliefs of these people in many ways. They state that the war was not about states' rights. It absolutely was, but it just so happens that one of the main rights in question was that of slavery. In my opinion, slavery was the primary cause of the war, but it was certainly not the only one, as these sentences suggest. The next part, concerning whether or not slavery was "benevolent" or "Cruel", is just as bad. It was a mix of both. The institution of slavery goes against the almost universally-held belief that no human person should own another. However, slave masters were not always cruel. They were often kind to their slaves and looked on them with care and appreciation.

Let it be known that I am not trying to support any of the ideas of the Lost Cause theory. I have many problems with it myself. I am simply trying to make sure that this article agrees with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which at this time it certainly does not. The sentence that I added in the place of the other two was neutral and fair. However, you reverted it and to do so apparently used rollback, which is only supposed to be used in cases of clear vandalism, and not to undo good-faith edits. This was definitely not vandalism. I urgently ask you to be willing to bend slightly by undoing your revert and allowing an unbiased and equitable introduction to exist in the article. Otherwise, you might expect an RfC very soon. Display name 99 (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Wilson, a founder of the League of the South (which advocates a separate Southern country, has been described as white supremacist and a hate group) disputes traditional perspectives? No surprise there. Perhaps you don't see secessionists are fringe, but I do. Yes, Foote said the causes were nebulous (and is pretty much hammered in the article for ignoring slavery as a cause), but I see in his article that he's criticised for ignoring the politics of the Civil War. No wonder he sees the causes as nebulous. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I doubt you actually took the time to read Wilson's essay. But even so, I'm not trying to endorse it. I'm only saying that Wikipedia should present it neutrally. Please take a look at the difference between revisions here. There was nothing wrong with my edit and no reason for it to be reverted. Display name 99 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Shelby Foote did his research in the 1950s (60 years ago) and was of course unfamiliar with six decades of intense scholarship on the causes of the war. Freeman wrote 80 years ago. Indeed Clyde Wilson makes exactly the same point about how different it used to be two generations of historians ago. Wilson's essay in fact is primarily about Northerners and deals only briefly w the first topic under discussion here [ie the claim that the Confederacy started the Civil War to defend states' rights rather than to preserve Slavery ]. He gives one sentence that admits the power of the desire of Southerners to preserve slavery. [It is no surprise that they mentioned potential interference with slavery as a threat to their everyday life and their social structure.] Indeed it's no surprise to Wikipedia readers. Wilson does not provide any support for the second topic under discussion [slavery was benevolent, rather than cruel] Nor does Foote or Freeman. So we are down to maybe n=1/2 alternative RS that need to be considered. --that's "fringe" and Wilson agrees: he says Conventional wisdom of the moment tells us that the great war of 1861—1865 was “about” slavery or was “caused by” slavery. Yes and the job of Wikipedia editors is to tell readers what the convention wisdom of the present moment actually is. When the Conventional wisdom of the moment changes we can change the article quick enough. Rjensen (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The Foote interview was done in 1997. Therefore, of the six decades of scholarly research that you mentioned Foote being unfamiliar with, he would only have been unfamiliar with about two of them. If anything his appearance in the 1990 PBS Civil War Documentary should show that he remained familiar with the latest developments and projects in Civil War research going on after he finished his three volume narrative. But I think that when explaining what the historical perspective on something is, it is important to take into account how it has been viewed throughout all of time, and not only through the eyes of the latest trends. But anyway, the version that I entered in the article does a perfectly adequate job of explaining the "conventional wisdom of the moment" by explaining that most historians do not agree with the Lost Cause movement. Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Foote was never much interested in what caused the war, either in his books or interviews. As his biographer states, "While Nevins and Catton included political and economic matters, Foote did not. Those omissions meant that the causes for the war, including slavery, were barely mentioned." [C. Stuart Chapman, Shelby Foote: A Writer's Life (2006) p 162] The point is Foote is not a RS on the causes of the war. As for past views, the article makes clear that the Lost Cause argument was widely believed generations ago. The article gives reasons for that: national unity among whites was a very high national priority, especially in the 1890s-1930s, and Northern acceptance of the lost cause would facilitate that. That was a national unity that excluded segregated 2nd-class African-Americans. Rjensen (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I revised the statement a bit to this: The Lost Cause belief was founded upon assumptions that practically all scholars of the last half century have rejected: These include the claim that the Confederacy fought the War to defend states' rights more than to preserve slavery, and the claim that slavery was benevolent, rather than cruel. Rjensen (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, that is significantly better. Thank you. But I would lie to change "assumptions" to "beliefs" or "ideas", as the use of the former seems rather derisive. Display name 99 (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Largely concur with Rjensen, but I changed "more" to "rather". The Lost Cause does not claim state's rights was more important than slavery in their reasons for secession, they claim it was only states rights and that slavery had nothing to do with it. Edward321 (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Edward321, it largely depends on who you ask. There are different levels of extremism within the movement. I ran into a man once at the Gettysburg Battlefield who started talking about how much of a "bastard" Lincoln was and how the South was on the right side of the war. However, he did say that slavery was "out there", supposedly meaning that it was one of the issues at play, but not the biggest one. He certainly downplayed that a lot while he was speaking, preferring to talk more about tariffs, trade, and states' rights in general, but he was willing to acknowledge that slavery was a factor, no matter how small. Display name 99 (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to throw out here that state's rights was, and usually is, a canard and a distraction. The biggest complaints that appear in the southern secession statements, in fact, was the northern state's refusal to enforce the fugitive slave act. In short, they didn't believe in state's rights when state's actions didn't support slavery. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy, I agree with what you said here. In my opinion, slavery was by far the greatest issue that led to the Civil War. But not all people do, and even many of those who agree are willing to acknowledge other factors. Foote, Freeman, Wilson, and Ron Paul (not on the same level, I know, but still an important public figure) have all stated or indicated that slavery was not the only cause of the war, or have expressed other beliefs common amongst Lost Cause believers. Display name 99 (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Foote did NOT say what caused the war. As his biographer says (see above) he always avoided that topic. Did Freeman state the cause??? better get a quote (but he wrote 80 years ago). Clyde Wilson is pretty vague--his cited article is about the Northerners not the Confederacy. Ron Paul??? do we have a scholarly article from him on the topic? [comment by Rjensen]

Oiyarbepsy, I cannot cite anything from Freeman's own works, as I regret to say I have not yet read them. However, I was able to find a book, The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History, by Henry W. Gallagher and Alan T. Nolan. It is linked here. If the link doesn't work precisely, go to page 15, where Gallagher and Nolan discuss Freeman's views on the war's causes. Wilson does talk mostly about Northerners in his article, but he also makes clear his disagreement with the "slavery and nothing but slavery" people in the first several paragraphs. As for Paul, I was not able to find a written publication, but plenty of speeches and interviews. Display name 99 (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Quit mentioning Ron Paul. Politicians are almost never reliable sources about anything, especially a guy like Paul who has a lot of racist supporters, and who knows it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Freeman did not discuss the causes of the war. Ron Paul says that slavery was the cause & the war could have been avoided if the North bought all the slaves for cash. (Actually Lincoln favored that solution to for border states & in 1865 to end the war faster.) Rjensen (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy, you asked me to mention Ron Paul by requesting that I try to find an interview of him. I replied by stating what I had found. If you didn't want to here about his theories on the war, you should not have asked me to locate them. I also disagree with your statement "Politicians are almost never reliable sources about anything". They often are not reliable sources, but this is not a universal rule. If the statement that Paul "has a lot of racist supporters" is true, it still would not necessarily make him less reliable than a politician who doesn't. He might try to satisfy those supporters by favoring the Lost Cause movement, just as someone with non-racist supporters might try to satisfy them by supporting the opposite set of ideas. Rjensen, I was not able to find Freeman writing anything specifically on the causes of the war either, but do you have a way of explaining the page that I linked above, in which Freeman's views on the war's causes or discussed, and a conclusion is reached that he was sympathetic to the Lost Cause view? Display name 99 (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

the issue of Freeman as sympathetic to the Lost Cause has to do solely with his view of Lee and Longstreet as commanders esp at Gettysburg. (The Lost Cause folks blame Longstreet for the great defeat, probably because he became a leading Republican Scalawag in New Orleans after the war) Lee was rough on Longstreet in 1935 but became much more supportive of him (dropping the Lost Cause position) in 1942 books. Rjensen (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, I understand the controversy and scapegoating of Longstreet. In the full version of the Shelby Foote interview previously cited, Foote even criticizes Freeman for his bias against Longstreet. However, the page that I linked clearly discusses Freeman's views on the causes of the war. It includes a quote from a different author, which states that Freeman "denied that slavery had anything to do with the Confederate cause." Therefore, it appears that Freeman identified with the Lost Cause point of view in more ways than one. Display name 99 (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

On Freeman, I think you misread p 15 (you are quoting Stampp who does not mention Freeman--Stampp meant Jeff Davis & leaders of CSA). Rjensen (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, at any rate, I would be fine with this:

"The Lost Cause belief system was founded upon several historically inaccurate elements. These include the claim that the Confederacy started the Civil War to defend states' rights and not to preserve the institution of slavery, and that the treatment of slaves was mostly benevolent." Display name 99 (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I have a problem with "founded upon" --that is not what historians like Cooper & Terrill say. Look at their statement at William J. Cooper, Jr.; Thomas E. Terrill (2009). The American South: A History. p. 480. (bottom of page) for what the LC was founded upon. Maybe we should just paraphrase them like this: The basic beliefs upon which the Lost Cause rested were that secession was constitutional; The South had not been defeated by superior soldiers but had been ground down by overwhelming Northern numbers and resources; Confederate society was superior to Yankee society because it was more Christian & more hierarchical and was morally based on evangelical Protestantism, with a higher regard for honor and duty than for money-making. Slavery was part of this this good society, assording to the Lost Cause, and elevated blacks by Christianizing and civilizing them." is that a good solution? It gets away from the issue of what caused the war and focuses on what exactly the LC was founded upon. Rjensen (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, these are of course all important points. I think we can get to them by expanding the section. I propose the following paragraph which I think summarizes the major points fairly well, while also explaining how they have been received.

"The Lost Cause belief system developed from several different ideas. Most Lost Cause supporters deny that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War, and instead focus on the need for protection from Northern economic tyranny using the broader theme of states' rights, while defending the right of a state to secede if it feels that its rights have been violated. Southerners are portrayed as better Christians than Northerners, who are often shown as greedy and non-pious. Slavery, itself, is portrayed as more benevolent than cruel, with some claiming that the institution "elevated blacks by Christianizing and civilizing them."[cite] Confederate battlefield defeats are usually described in the context of the South being overrun by immensely superior arms and numbers. While most Southern generals are portrayed as honorable men, more skilled and gentlemanly than their Northern adversaries, a few, such as James Longstreet, are blamed for causing defeats, with such attacks often coming from disagreements in postwar Reconstruction politics. Most Lost Cause tenets have been widely criticized by Civil War scholars. For example, the theory that slavery was not the primary cause of the war has been almost universally rejected. Military historians also identify several instances in which Confederate troops outnumbered or were outgeneraled by opposing Union forces, and state that there is insufficient evidence to justify the scapegoating of certain Southern commanders, such as Longstreet, as a means to explain the Southern defeat."

I know that it's a lot, but I think that it covers all of your major points. We would be able to delete the third sentence in the next paragraph, which would then be covered here. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

well we have problems--it changes the thrust from the content of the LC idea (according to Cooper & Terrill) to a much more confused emphasis about what unnamed anonymous people supposedly said. 1) Most Lost Cause supporters deny that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War, and instead focus on the need for protection from Northern economic tyranny using the broader theme of states' rights drop deny that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War -- "deny" means they said "It is not true that slavery caused the war" and I do not think most ever made that statement. 2) some claiming that the institution elevated..." that was a standard claim so "some claiming" is misleading. I would drop the Longstreet business (accurate but really quite minor). 3) DROP "Military historians...." --this takes us into technical debates on military history which are not really part of the LC theme. Rjensen (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, I made most of the changes that you suggested. However, I am confused about what you said in your first point. Your interpretation of the words to mean "It is not true that slavery caused the war" is likely not the best analysis. While it is true that only a few say this, I think that you have overlooked the presence of the word "main". Amongst believers in the Lost Cause ideology, the role of slavery in causing the war is either greatly minimized or rejected altogether. Stating that they "deny that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War" accounts for both those who say that it was a cause, but not the main cause, and those who say it was not a cause at all. Here is what the paragraph looks like now. "The Lost Cause belief system developed from several different ideas. Most Lost Cause supporters deny that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War, and instead focus on the need for protection from Northern economic tyranny using the broader theme of states' rights, while defending the right of a state to secede if it feels that its rights have been violated. Southerners are portrayed as better Christians than Northerners, who are often shown as greedy and non-pious. Slavery, itself, is portrayed as more benevolent than cruel, as it supposedly "elevated blacks by Christianizing and civilizing them."[cite] Confederate battlefield defeats are usually described in the context of the South being overrun by immensely superior arms and numbers. Most Southern generals are portrayed as honorable men, more skilled and gentlemanly than their Northern adversaries, while a few are blamed for causing defeats, with such attacks often coming from disagreements in postwar Reconstruction politics. Most Lost Cause tenets have been widely criticized by Civil War scholars. For example, the theory that slavery was not the primary cause of the war has been almost universally rejected. Historians also identify several instances in which Confederate troops outnumbered or were outgeneraled by opposing Union forces, and state that there is insufficient evidence to justify the scapegoating of certain Southern commanders as a means to explain the Southern defeat." Display name 99 (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

OK try this version:: The Lost Cause belief system synthesized numerous ideas into a coherent package. The Lost Cause supporters did not claim that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War--very few scholars did before the 1950s. Instead they stressed secession as a defense against a Northern threat to their way of life and said that threat violated the states' rights guaranteed by the Union. They believed any state had the right to secede, a point strongly denied by Buchanan, Lincoln and the North. The Lost Cause portrayed the South as more profoundly Christian than the greedy North. It portrayed the slavery system as more benevolent than cruel, emphasizing that it taught Christianity and civilization. In explaining Confederate defeat, the Lost Cause said the main factor was not qualitative inferiority in leadership or fighting ability but the massive quantitative superiority of the Yankee industrial machine. The focus here is on what made up the belief system, not which recent scholars agree or disagree with various points. Rjensen (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, I suppose that this will suffice, although I would like to see it discussed in the present tense, as the Lost Cause is something that, although it is not as strong as it once was, persists to the present day. Display name 99 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

i don't see the intellectual construct persisting in 2016. the debates we have today are always about symbols not ideas--ie statues, monuments, flags, license plates. Rjensen (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Well then go ahead and put it in. I'm eager to get this affair finished. Thank you for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok I added it (dropping the words Buchanan, Lincoln and ) Rjensen (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

all scholars of the last half century have rejected

I strongly disagree with the statement in the heading. If nearly all historical scholars have rejected it, then good scholarship on our part requires that we simply say that it isn't true. That statement is kinda like saying the scientists claim vaccines don't cause autism - strictly speaking true, but implying a lot more debate than there actually is. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Other than a few people like Paul and Wilson, yes, this is true. But some scholars before that accepted it to varying degrees. Hence the compromise. Display name 99 (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

old ideas get rejected all the time. Wiki reports the current consensus. Ron Paul is a MD. Rjensen (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyediting and more primary and secondary historical work needed

Coming across this article last week, I was frustrated, but chose not to edit it after viewing this talk page, which seems close to rancorous. The article's lede/intro section is far too long, for starters. Also, I suspect using long indented quotes in a lede is against wikipedia guidelines (tho publicity for the book being quoted). Moreover, the subsections argue politics rather than set forth history actually capable of being checked, IMHO.

Thus, I went back and edited an article by perhaps its prime exponent in the last decades of the 19th century, John Warwick Daniel, who isn't even mentioned here (although his former boss Jubal Early is, and this Daniel does have an article on encyclopediavirginia). Also, I've started articles about some of Virginia's other legislators of this era. I don't claim that I did a great job, because I have limited time and other responsibilities. Plus, even in northern Virginia, libraries don't actually have check-outable books about this era which were written in the last decades of the 20th century.

At the risk of violating wikipedia guidelines, this article as well as talk page portray recent books as more political than historical. A historiography section may be useful--I noticed all the block quotes "historian XXX said", but only one I believe was of stature sufficient to merit a wikilink. Plus the article contains no discussion of Douglas Southall Freeman, nor mention why Richard Weaver (no relation, nor do I remember his middle initial) is listed as an external link.

I went to LVA and checked out Allen W. Moger's magnum opus, Virginia: Bourbonism to Byrd, 1875-1925 (U.Va. Press 1968), which at least cites some primary and secondary sources, although I lack the time to write all the articles IMHO it suggests. (like most of Virginia legislators of the century after the Civil War, he has no wikipedia article). EBSCO was supposed to have an electronic edition of a book by Steven Trott (I think not Stephen Trott the Senior 9th Circuit judge, but I can't check now and his wikipedia article doesn't mention it) which a university press published in 1997 about race relations in Lynchburg. As of last week it was still cataloged in a local library collection but removed by EBSCO online. I happen to live physically near the Library of Congress, so I may be able to view it, when I can find the time. However, I write here in hope that this note will prompt university presses and/or EBSCO to consider making such resources available electronically through libraries.Jweaver28 (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Attempts to insert United Daughters of the Confederacy promotional claims

So, Cjhard and Rjensen have both tried to insert wording to the effect that "Today higher education is a priority of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, which collects documents and gives aid to historical researchers and top college scholars."

At first it violated WP:RS's WP:SPS section as it was sourced to the UDC's own website and was needlessly self-promotional material. Rjensen attempted to claim to add a RS for it but Peterson's the testing company is not as far as I can tell any sort of journalistic entity; while it might vaguely serve as a source to reference the existence of specific scholarships, it in no way is a Reliable Source for the wording "Today higher education is a priority of the United Daughters of the Confederacy".

Also as Aquillon pointed out, this is an article on the Lost Cause and while the UDC are purveyors of same, inserting their promotional claims into the article seems highly irrelevant. [7]. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the line treads too close to being promotional. Further sources would be needed, along with a reword if the content in question is necessary.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Description of slavery's "racism, brutality and dehumanization"

User:Edward321 what is your reason for reverting my removal of this description of slavery from the tenets section? The tone isn't encyclopedic, and I don't think it's appropriate to debunk the tenets of a set of beliefs when explaining what those beliefs are. Any such criticisms should be in the appropriate section ("Contemporary historians" in this case.). Cjhard (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am watching and pondering.....can see both sides of this edit dispute. It has an analog in the bullets above when Grant is "falsely" described as a drunk. If all we're doing here is listing the tenets of this (abhorrent) belief system, then the word 'falsely' should come out and Cjhard is right about the slavery statement. OTHO if the 'falsely' qualifier stays on the Grant sentence, then the slavery correction should be there also, IMHO. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the "falsely" needs to go too. Cjhard (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The whole Tenets section needs a rewrite. It's using inconsistent voice, and it should be worded to clearly contrast the tenets (all of which are either outright fictional or gross distortions of historical fact) with reality. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC) Suggested wording to make consistent:

Some of the main tenets of the Lost Cause movement are:

• Moral posturing: In Lost Cause mythology, Confederate generals such as Lee, Albert Sidney Johnston, and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson are portrayed as representing fictional virtues of Southern nobility and as having fought bravely and fairly. Most Northern generals are contrarily characterized as possessing low moral standards; common justifications for this include Sherman's March to the Sea and Philip Sheridan's burning of the Shenandoah Valley in the Valley Campaigns of 1864. Union General Ulysses S. Grant is often falsely portrayed as an alcoholic.

• Losses on the battlefield are portrayed as being inevitable due to Northern superiority in resources and manpower. Conversely, victories on the battlefield are portrayed as being a result of Confederate generals' moral or intellectual superiority.
• Battlefield losses are also sometimes portrayed as the result of betrayal and incompetence on the part of certain subordinates of General Lee, such as General James Longstreet, who was reviled for doubting Lee at Gettysburg. The Lost Cause focuses mainly on Lee and the Eastern Theater of operations, and often cites Gettysburg as the main turning point of the war.
• Algood identifies a Southern aristocratic ideal, typically called "the Southern Cavalier ideal" in the Lost Cause. It especially appears in studies of Confederate partisans who fought behind Union lines, such as Nathan Bedford Forrest, Turner Ashby, John Singleton Mosby, and John Hunt Morgan. Writers stress how the subjects supposedly embodied courage in the face of heavy odds, as well as horsemanship, manhood and martial spirit in a literary mythological tradition of the "knightly hero" that traces to the 17th century and the English Civil War.

• States' rights: Lost Cause proponents claim that defense of states' rights, rather than preservation of chattel slavery, was the primary cause that led eleven Southern states to secede from the Union, thus precipitating the war. This claim is in direct contradiction with almost every record of the time, including the declarations of secession by multiple states.
• Claims of northern aggression: Lost Cause proponents claim that secession was a justifiable constitutional response to what they deem Northern cultural and economic aggressions against the Southern way of life. Oftentimes phrases as "The War Between The States" or "The War of Northern Aggression" are substituted for the title of the American Civil War.
• Defense of slavery: Lost Cause proponents claim that slavery was a benign institution, and that the slaves were loyal and faithful to their benevolent masters. Proponents portray northern abolitionists as trying to provoke problems in the South, and minimize or ignore the realities and brutalities of slavery as it existed. Lost Cause portrayals of slavery are also used to make the claim that freed slaves and their descendants remained inferior to whites and could not handle freedom, blaming freed slaves and their descendants for economic and social hardships that were perpetuated through segregation and continue in modern times.

Whatever is done, the sections has to commit to either being exclusively about the views of the lost cause, or also throwing in the actuality of the situation. There is no middle ground in this case.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with SamHolt6; per my comment above - either make it all one thing or all another. A list of tenets divided against itself cannot stand ;) DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It is best for wording to preface each appropriately, to be certain that there is no confusion or implication that the Lost Cause claims are said in Wikipedia's voice. "Lost cause proponents claim", or similar, makes it clear that these are the things claimed by those promoting Lost Cause mythology rather than wording that implies it's a statement-of-fact by wikipedia. That's why I am suggesting the wording above. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

We do not pigeonhole criticisms in a separate section. See WP:CRITICISM: In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Claims of The Lost Cause believers may be stated, but those claims have to be presented in context and with balance. It is a historical fact that slavery was brutal and racist. We can and do include claims otherwise, but those claims are a fringe minority viewpoint and we are required to present such claims in context with mainstream scholarship. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a case of a separate criticism being a negative. Our writing of this article needs to view the Lost Cause as the pseudohistorical conspiracy theory that it is. In my view, the Tenets section should be renamed Background, moved to be the first section, and reformatted to match Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, with this key phrase at the beginning of the background section: "Lost Cause proponents reject at least some of the following facts about slavery and the Civil War". Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

References