Talk:Lost Cause of the South

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Causes of the war[edit]

"and that Ft. Sumpter, although in South Carolina, was property of the U.S. Army, and that they shot first." Can someone clarify the "they" here? I'm not up on who shot first. A particular general? Southern unorganized rebels? Organized Rebel army? Thanks, --Waiting for Godot 15:55, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

South Carolina militia under the command of PGT Beauregard bombarded the federal installation at Fort Sumpter.178.167.254.100 (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cites, and more[edit]

This thing needs a heck of a lot of citations, and currently reads like a CP hatchet job, except the word liberal has been replaced with Southerner. ThunderkatzHo! 18:35, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Deletion[edit]

I don't know if you live in the south, but my time spent at A&M suggests to me that this attitude of "North is to blame" etc., is common. I heard it referred to as "The war over northern incursion" or northern aggression. The article might have problems, but i do think the topic is a fair topic for RW in the whole "denialism" vein.--Waiting for Godot 10:41, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I would vote against deletion. It certainly could use a major re-write but, on a basic level, much of it is correct. Right now, the article over-simplifies the cause(s) of the American Civil War to just slavery. In actuality, despite how this article presents it, main cause of the Civil War was states rights. It was sort of the umbrella cause under which the other causes manifested. There truly was a revisionism of history almost immediately after the Southern defeat. I would just like to see significant editing rather than deletion. --Edgerunner76Save me Jebus! 12:30, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
I agree that it shoud stay, but I added the template to force the original writer and others who really support it to clean it up or face vaporization (the article, not the editors). ThunderkatzHo! 19:55, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
heh, there are days when I wish I had the power to vaporize "editors" and others. Myself, especially. Can you imagine your day if you could say "begone, silly Boss of mine" or "how dare you forget to bring me lunch" and my favorite "To Hell with you, you non-dish washing Husband!".... ahh... oh well, back to this edit. Do you think we should mearly reflect the southern attitude, or get into the real reasons of the war? can we do both and keep the light hearted (or snarky, as it were) tone?--Waiting for Godot 20:16, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

grammification issues[edit]

The way this is set up as an endless series of bullet points makes it a bit clunky to read - some are full sentences, some aren't, and the ones that aren't often don't have an obvious "antecedent" to make them clear. ħumanUser talk:Human 13:31, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Accuracy[edit]

Not to offend whoever wrote this, but this is really pretty wrong. Contrary to the article, state's rights was a major factor of the war. So was the economic and cultural divide between the North and South. Those were the major factors. Slavery was a way of the North justifying the war to an increasingly discontented electorate--it became a major issue long after the war started. Furthermore, several southern generals, such as Lee, did oppose slavery (of course most did not, like Forrest), and with one big exception (Grant) most Southern generals were far superior to their northern counterparts. Sadly, the Civil War, like World War 2, was NOT fought primarily to end a great evil but because it was in our interests to fight.

Also, a lot of this article is really mentioned better elsewhere. I don't think there is a need for it unless someone can re-write it. I would if I wasn't so exhausted, busy, and if I knew what I was talking about. --— cm2 — 02:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. When the "causes" section isn't incoherent platitudes, it's rather biased and disingenuous. That section should be deleted posthaste. Uke Blue 02:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I did. (I hope posthaste means quickly). I'm not really sure if there is even a need for that section.--— cm2 — 03:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, but a much more reasoned discussion without the blatant falsehoods would be nice. Uke Blue 03:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Zinn[edit]

I find it hard to believe that Zinn was "pro-Southern," which is what this article is about: "an effectively pro-Southern perspective" on the Civil War. The section should be moved to the American Civil War article. Uke Blue 03:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I wanna see page numbers and exact quotes. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Zinn was not pro-Southern; he was merely against both sides in that dispute. The section is noting that his views are very similar to those of the Lost Cause crowd (the only difference being that his heart is in the right place on the slavery question).
Human, the chapter is "Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I still want page numbers and quotes for the article. You seem more interested in smearing Zinn than informing the reader. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I call it exposing him; it is rather difficult to make a smear on someone when you are mostly repeating their own ideas. I will see about the exact quotes. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You implicitly disparage him by putting him on a page full of white supremacists, negationists, denialists, and "War of Northern Aggression"-ers. Uke Blue 04:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
(EC^4) Are you sure we are reading the same book? Yeah, hard to use their words against them if you don't use them. And why does this relate to this article, again? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Blue, as Zinn did believe that it was a war of Northern aggression (his beef was not that the Union went to war, but that it went to war for the wrong reason, he believing that it went to get a new market for the industrialists rather than for emancipation) it is not entirely out of place.
Human, the first quote, from page 13 in volume II of my copy: "[The U.S. government] would end slavery only under conditions controlled by whites, and only when required by the political and economic needs of the business elite of the North. It was Abraham Lincoln who combined perfectly the neds of business, the political ambition of the new Republican party, and the rhetoric of humanitarianism." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Try to find a mainstream historian who thinks the war began as a moral crusade against slavery. You won't. Uke Blue 04:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe that either, but must I remind you that Zinn did not exactly consider himself to be writing mainstream history? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Second quote, pp. 14--15: "The northern elite wanted economic expansion — free land, free labor, a free market ... The slave interests opposed all that; they saw Lincoln and the Republicans as making continuation of their pleasant and prosperous way of life impossible in the future ... Lincoln initiated hostilities by trying to repossess the federal base at Fort Sumter, South Carolina."
Third quote, p.15: "It was only as the war grew more bitter, the casualties mounted, desperation to win heightened, and the criticism of the abolitionists threatened to unravel the tattered coalition behind Lincoln that he began to act against slavery." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

All you're doing, LX, is proving that Zinn wasn't pro-South, but rather anti-capitalist. He saw the war as nothing more than a change from chattel slavery to wage slavery for the African people. I know, this might be hard for you to understand with your Reagan uber alles world view, but everyone else can see it.UncleHo (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, LX, I think you might be missing Zinn's point by a centimeter or two. I like "Lincoln initiated hostilities by trying to repossess the federal base at Fort Sumter" - so rebels assault and take a Federal fort, and taking it back is the initiating of hostilities? Anyway, yeah our dear Uncle Minh pretty much encapsules Zinn's perspective. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
(EC) I am perfectly aware that Zinn was a pinko rather than a pro-Southern fellow, and also that he saw little perceptible difference between the antebellum and Redemption periods (hence the parenthetical remark about his belief that slavery had not been truly abolished). I cannot help it if the parallels between his views and the neo-Confederates' make some people uncomfortable. (As far as Reagan goes, I think more highly of Gorbachev, whose skills appear to reach beyond acting.) Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
There are no parallels. Neo-confederates are arguing that the south was right, Zinn is arguing that both sides were wrong. The world isn't black and white, LX. If I could show you the world through my eyes, where wars aren't good vs evil, but assholes vs assholes, I would. Zinn wasn't aligning himself with the Klansmen and Nazi thugs that push this noble south bullshit, he was simply saying that the North did little to help the African people. Also, Mickey was a naive dreamer who let his guard down and got taken down by a a fat alcoholic and some gangsters.UncleHo (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The parallel is this: The neo-Confederates argue that slavery was not the main issue because the Northerners were using it as a fig-leaf to take away the Southerners' states' rights for some nebulous reason. Zinn argues that slavery was not the main issue because the Northerners were using it as a fig-leaf to take away the states' rights but then gives a specific reason: Northerners were aiming to increase industrial development in the South. I have not claimed any other parallels, and I have certainly not claimed that Zinn was at all aligned with neo-Confederates.
We might be in agreement more than you think about wars; I think it is quite certain that most of the war leaders practice realpolitik, but if there is a war on I consider it acceptable to root for one side or the other. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
No, Zinn argues that the North was using the war to extend their economic domination over the South and didn't give a shit about the African slaves. "states rights" does not enter into the picture. It's almost cute that you can root for one side in a war. It's not a game, kid. It's disgusting to me that you can see human suffering as game of football.UncleHo (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Although Zinn does not make nearly so much of it as the neo-Confederates, states' rights do enter into his view in that they needed to be removed for the Confederate slave-holding elite to be dismantled.
I am not going to speculate on the application of your view to the case of the U.S. vis-a-vis Nazi Germany in World War II, but if you are going to act all offended upon perceiving a morally neutral attitude concerning suffering and death, you might have been more careful about repeating Duranty's slime on the subject of breaking eggs. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Zinn wasn't arguing states rights, he was arguing human rights. Those who profit off suffering and oppression deserve what they get. In terms to my beliefs, refer to the former sentence. Fighting the fascists in Europe was good, but it was done wrong and for the wrong reasons.UncleHo (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Zinn's main theme was class struggle, not human rights. Marxists have been much criticized from both sides of the spectrum for their attempts to shoehorn all manner of social tensions into the framework of class struggle, and Zinn was no exception; his main beef against racism seemed to be the idea that the industrialists' conspiracy used it to produce false consciousness among white workers.
Zinn and the neo-Confederates are in agreement that the real aim of forces in the North was to dismantle the Southern society as it existed at that time, specifically by wiping out the slave-holding elite. States' rights, or at least a state's right to have slavery, had to be removed for this dismantling to occur; one of the very many differences between Zinn's argument and the neo-Confederates' is that Zinn did not mention this point except in one or two passing references, but the neo-Confederates harp on it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
"Zinn's main theme was class struggle, not human rights" You are simply wrong. Now get over it. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
As this is veering off-topic, I am continuing the discussion here. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Back to the article, I can support the "new" Zinn section you added, with a minor quibble about the "historical revisionist" bit - he's an historian, period. Certainly a left wing one. Why aren't we adding sections quoting other well known academics, though? Are you just trying to take a poke at Zinn, or is it because you are reading him right now? How about that other guy, the invention of the human guy? How about I add a section about my old friend's perspective (she's an historian specializing in antebellum and civil war era US history)? I gots her books... ħumanUser talk:Human 07:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the Zinn part is wholly unnecessary and reeks of LX trying to get some jabs in at the pinkos.UncleHo (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
As to the "historical revisionist" question, since Blue's restructuring of our historical revisionism and negationism pages, "historical revisionism" refers to the honest, legitimate reinterpretation. Nevertheless, that is an adjective I am willing to remove.
The reason for having the section there is as follows: If we are to jab the neo-Confederates for dissenting from the view that slavery was the primary issue in the Civil War (and this is one of the larger objections levied against the neo-Confederate view of history), we might also wish to take jabs at others who dissent from this view. I was of the understanding that such dissent was a fringe perspective.
I submit that my personal motives should not be relevant to this discussion. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
No, they shouldn't. But I would have to argue that I agree that the Zinn addition seems better suited for our American Civil War article than for this one. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 02:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Accordingly, I've moved it there. Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 02:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it does look better there. Blue's initial suggestion unfortunately was ignored by the rest of us. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Zinn, continued, and wage vs. chattel slavery[edit]

Don't get me wrong; wage slavery is bad to the point of being malicious and evil. But as bad as chattel slavery? That just simply oozes privilege. Upton Sinclair said this, too, which was also an assholish thing to say. I agree with them that the North didn't really give a shit about human rights in abstract (see post-Reconstruction to the American Civil Rights movement) in a meaningful way, but statements like that only serve to excuse the vile, vile evil that American slavery was. And they're dicks for implying that. Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Further proof that slavery was the sole cause of succession and states' rights had nothing to do with it[edit]

Reading the Confederate Constitution, and you come across this in the first article: Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. Slavery was to be forever, no matter what individual states felt, or even the sum total of all the states in the putative country.178.167.254.100 (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly this. Slavery was explicitly mentioned in almost all of the Confederacy's official documents and speeches. If anyone really thinks that the Confederacy wasn't really about slavery, they should try telling that to the actual Confederacy. 134.241.1.131 (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Was every state in the USA favorable to slavery?[edit]

Title says it all. It is also kind of the impression I get when I read this article. I want a definitive answer. User:Hex4 User talk: Hex4 , 8 april 2017, 17:51