Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy

message: Maybe is correct to say that the war had an economical background, that is as important as the slavery or at least very important. With the crash between the agrarian south and the heavily industrialized north. And the economic interests that this entails in both north and south of the United States. 85.251.178.252 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source we can cite to? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (And, please, not one of the Lost Cause sources, something actually reliable.)It is not correct to say that. There were many points of conflict between the North and the South, many of them economic (and slavery to the south was an economic issue) but the one cause to which the South reacted with secession was the election of Lincoln, and that was because they thought (incorrectly) that he was an abolitionist and would do away with slavery.In fact, at the time of his election, Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, but had no intention of abolishing the institution, although he was opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories, which is not at all the same thing. Lincoln only came around to the emancipationist viewpoint during the war, and even then it wasn't primarily on the basis of abolitionist ideology, it was aimed at hurting the South's war effort by denying them the use of slave manpower, which effectively increased the number of available fighting soldiers.  He only very slowly came to the moral standpoint regarding the freedom of the slaves, and even by the time of his assassination was not totally there on black suffrage.Lincoln's strongest virtue was the ability to learn and grow (something Andrew Johnson was unable to do), and it's likely that if he continued in office he would continue to move in the direction of the Radical Republicans -- but, with almost absolute certainty -- if the South hadn't seceded after Lincoln's election, he would not have abolished slavery at that time, instead trusting (as many of the Founding Fathers did) the vicissitudes of time to eventually destroy it.In short, the article as it stands is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (2023, July) Causes and effects of the American Civil War Encyclopedia Britannica American Civil War | Causes & Effects | Britannica 85.251.178.252 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For more data if is necessary. 85.251.178.252 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

text: This is correct, many causes that had been building for years, not one issue. 2600:1700:91E4:5400:CDA2:894E:BBEE:B6B8 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  War causes 

message: In the context of an encyclopedic rebuttal to motivated reasoning, we need to be careful to distinguish the factual claims from claims about ethics, aesthetics, etc. For example, as pointed out elsewhere on this talk page, it doesn't make sense to say that say "claims that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was… heroic" are "psuedohistorical" or a "myth". Whether or not Robert E. Lee was a hero isn't a historical question or a matter of fact. "Robert E. Lee was a hero" isn't a false claim, just a really boneheaded assessment of heroism. To be sure, we can and should point out that mainstream experts overwhelmingly disagree with this assessment, as the article already does. The point is that NPOV requires us to distinguish false claims of fact, which we can flatly describe as false, and stupid ethical opinions, which we can't. —Kodiologist (t) 17:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not say hero we say heroic. Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matters of fact vs. matters of ethics 

message: "The Union victory is thus explained as the result of its greater size and industrial wealth, while the Confederate side is portrayed as having greater morality and military skill.[12] Modern historians overwhelmingly disagree with these characterizations, noting that the central cause of the war was slavery.[16][17][18]"
This could use clarification. It seems to imply that slavery being the cause means they lacked military skill. Benjamin (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is referencing the rest of the paragraph. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. If you take the entire paragraph as one thing, it's clear the "disagree" part refers to causes, not the spurious explanations. Wes sideman (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military skill 

message: The addition of "Many facets of the Lost Cause's false historiography – such as Robert E. Lee's heroic status as the best general in the war – have also become accepted throughout much of the U.S., although contemporary historians have made considerable progress in weakening the Lost Cause mythos." by User:Beyond My Ken in May has been highly controversial and is not an improvement to this article. If this unsourced and false claim should be included in the first paragraph then it should have a source. Nowhere else in the article does it claim that Robert E. Lee was the "best general in the war". This claim distracts from the consensus of the article and the way the introductory paragraph had been for over one year - longer than the false claim had remained. This is a novel idea and I have not read this unconventional claim anywhere else. This has been reverted by User:Aceholiday before it was again reverted back into the article by Beyond My Ken. Aneirinn (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can  see, I've modified and partly restored that text, minus the "Many facets... [such] as Robert E. Lee's heroic status as the best general in the war – have also become accepted throughout much of the U.S.". I've added information citing Thomas L. Connelly, who addresses this subject. Carlstak (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Carlstak, it's better now. Aneirinn (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not.  The claim that Lee was an excellent general, the best of any in the war on both sides, is a very significant part of the Lost Cause mythos, and is very well supported by numerous references.  It needs to be in the lead, so I have restored it.  Do not remove it again until you have a clear consensus to do so from the editors on this page. Beyond My en (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a "very significant" part of the lost cause "mythos". Rather, it is a very minor and insignificant part of it, if any; and undoubtedly unworthy of note in the introductory paragraph. Yet again, you have failed to provide even a single source for this controversial claim. If you wish to have it included, a source must be provided. What "numerous sources" support this specific claim? Do not reinsert this without providing a source; it could be interpreted as disruptive editing. Arrive at a clear consensus with input of others prior to doing so. At this point it does not need to be included in the lead. Thank you. Aneirinn (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Aneirinn, Beyond My Ken's version is the stable one, so according to WP:ONUS, the onus to achieve consensus is on you. The lead has to summarize the article, and Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy#Confederate_generals seems to support Beyond My Ken's version. Still, I'm not so sure and therefore, I'd like to wait for more input here. BTW: There is a one-hour lecture by Ty Seidule deconstructing the Lee mythology given right in front of Lee's recumbent statue in Lee Chapel which I thought fascinating. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Seidule's book Robert E. Lee and Me is also very interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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

text: From historian James C. Cobb writing for the National Endowment for the Humanities: Carlstak (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

text: To BMK's point, Michael C. C. Adams, writing satirically in a passage of a  book review, wrote of the lionization of Lee, "How could the greatest general of his age have so squandered his forces that at Appomattox his whole army barely amounted to the cavalry corps of his opponent?" Further,  Carlstak (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally would not use the word "best". Alan T. Nolan says: Carlstak (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has the claim that Robert E. Lee was the "best general of the war" really been "accepted throughout much of the US"? 

message: I'd normally expect both editors to discuss their disagreements here without any further reverts. BusterD (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry, didn't see this before I made the last edit, I've been editing back and forth here and at falafel. As far as I could tell, Smuckola had a problem with my leaving a paragraph uncited when I removed peripheral content that's better covered elsewhere, a paragraph that was left uncited by the editor who added it in the first place, and had been sitting there all this time, unsourced. I've added a source, and think I've satisfied Smuckola's concerns, at least I hope so. Carlstak (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: You're right of course, BusterD, I should have come to the talk page and hashed it out here. I didn't really see it as edit-warring, more as a friendly back-and-forth, but it was edit-warring. My apologies to all. Carlstak (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't help but notice there's edit warring now on the page 

message: Most confederate statues were erected in the 1890s or before. Please correct or re word this passsage as it seems to infer there were a lot of thembuilt in the 50s and 60s which just isnt true 2600:1702:50E7:9B00:8CC4:A514:ED8A:A782 (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for your claim? The two places I see in the article that mention the timing of these monuments are cited to reliable sources, and this aligns with my memory as well. Pre-1890 would be very soon after the War. IIRC, there were only a few statues built even of Lee in that span of years. I think the real (all-time) peak was in the few years pre-1920 (~1915-1920), but then another bump in the '50s and '60s.--MattMauler (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

text: By far the biggest wave of Confederate monument construction came in the early 20th century as Jim Crow laws became widespread in the wake of Plessy v Ferguson. See eg Confederate monuments and memorials#/media/File:Confederate monuments, schools and other iconography established by year.png. But there was a significant bump in the Civil Rights era as well. Erp Erpington (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confederate statues during the Civil rights era