Talk:Confederate History Month

Sons of Confederate Veterans quotes

I believe it would be wise to balance this article out and include quotes from the Sons of Confederate Veterans or United Daughters of the Confederacy and hear why they believe it necessary to celebrate Confederate History Month. This will make the bias of the article neutral instead of only hearing it from the side of the NAACP. Thanks, Scott

Yes, by all means, we shouldn't take a position on slavery being wrong. Perhaps we should also have a "neutral" article on the holocaust?

At the very least, this page needs some sources! - USSalkaselsior —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.30.2 (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

@USSalkaselsior I agree the page needs sources and references. No one is suggesting that slavery was right. You will find most felt it was wrong. In fact its debated but less than 6% of southerners owned slaves. Most were just normal people trying to get by - only the very wealthy plantation owners typically did yet for some reason most southerners were mis- characterized as evil slave owners. take a look here at a wiki answers about northern sentiment towards blacks being worse than southern :

here are many misconceptions as to what caused and fueled the American Civil War. Slavery was indeed one of them. However, less than 6% of the Southern population owned African Americans. It was a major investment to own an African American especially if they possessed valuable skills such as blacksmithing, carpentry, or farming skills. Certainly owning a black man or woman, was a prestigious classification, but very few Southerners and even Northerners, fit in this category of wealth. Thus, the stories that have been perpetuated throughout history of all slave owners beating their "slaves" is quite inaccurate. It is a myth that the media of that time stimulated to build a case to send the North and South to war. In addition, politicians, many of them wealthy and slave-owners, were used as the example or model for the Southern population, when in fact the average Southerner lived day to day and could not afford to purchase another human being for $500-$1,500 .

In addition, while many people have been taught that Southerners were the only ones who did not like African Americans in the United States, Northern sentiment was equally if not more harsh toward African Americans. Blacks were beaten and even killed in city streets of New York City, New York, toward dissolvement in the mid to late 1800's, but it was the American Civil War which sped up the abolishment. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_southerners_owned_slaves_in_1860 . What is lacking on this article is the rest of the story. It is unfortunate that a group would want to suppress the information and let opinions be formed based on all the facts - is the other sides position so tenuous that it can not hear them? 72.145.75.181 (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia != soapbox for the tea party

Heading pretty much says it all. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 11:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Right - must be YOUR soapbox instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.127.239.146 (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

most people want to have a one sided statement to define what this is. They don;t want any more information other than the limited amount fed to them by govt schools. Its likely non confederate states people trying to keep this to a "southern states are evil and just a bunch of biggoted slavers" definition. Why are you people so afraid of truths and information being included. Is it going to ruin your view of reality if you find out what you have been taught is wrong? Censorship at its best. Are you all the same ones that cry out when your own statements are censored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1kn0wtruth (talk • contribs) 05:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with 'censorship'. You're more than welcome to add to the article as long as the content is in line with key Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. -Reconsider! 05:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You pretty much lost me when I read "govt schools". It's the same as writing "Micro$oft" in a discussion about software - a big red flag for intellectual laziness. Lothar76 (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the links. I read them - great information and good guidelines. I also read this one : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and this wiki topic is clearly in violation of this one. All neutral point of view posts have been swiftly removed which leaves this wiki sorely lacking in other thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.75.181 (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

designed?

Is that really true?

"The month is especially designed to celebrate [...] the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man"

I cannot imagine that anybody US government entity would really (still) claim that. I assume that if there is any politics involved, the main topic would be states rights vs the federal government. 194.24.138.4 (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(This section was deleted without comment. I am restoring it, in the hope that somebody will answer. --194.24.138.4 (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no factual basis for this claim. The stated reason for Confederate history month is to celebrate the sacrifices individuals made in defense of their homes and States. Although it also provides for an excellent occasion to study the evils of chattel slavery as it existed in the Confederacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg198611 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the month more offensive because the Confederacy was treasonous? Does that not concern anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.64.86 (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

not really - wouldn't that make july 4th very offensive as well, and cinco de mayo? Should england and spain be offended and cut off relations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.75.181 (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

isnt it only treason and rebellion if you lose? Its celebrated independance if you win. It all depends on what side you are looking at it from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.75.181 (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

new neutral content

Clearly many will not want this content although it is highly referenced and factual only. It presents another view in support of why many support this month. I am not interested in wasting time in an edit war with those that would choose to have a one sided view of things. this material should be included to explain the view of why many suppoort this celebration. Without it this is nothing more than akin to a communist style indoctrination of half truths and partial facts meant to slant ones view without having all the information.

My submission is as follows:

Most agree that this celebration is controversial due to the spotlight that the charged issue of slavery takes. However, many supporters of the holiday do so for their belief that the war was mainly fought over taxation and freedoms. While slavery was an important issue in the civil war, taxation was as well and is often overlooked as a major contributing factor. Among those issues of importance was the Morril tarriff.ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff</ref>In the North, enforcement of the Morrill Tariff contributed to support for the Union cause among industrialists and merchant interests. Speaking of this class, the abolitionist Orestes Brownson derisively remarked that "the Morrill Tariff moved them more than the fall of Sumter."ref> "Emancipation and Colonization," Brownson's Quarterly Review, April 1862</ref>In one such example the New York Times, which had previously opposed Morrill's bill on free trade grounds, editorialized that the tariff imbalance would bring commercial ruin to the North and urged its suspension until the secession crisis passed. "We have imposed high duties on our commerce at the very moment the seceding states are inviting commerce to their ports by low duties."ref>http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9501E4DC103BE63BBC4E51DFB566838A679FDE</ref> As secession became more evident and the fledgling Confederacy adopted a much lower tariff of its own, the paper urged military action to enforce the Morrill Tariff in the Southern statesref> http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9902E4DA133FEE34BC4850DFB566838A679FDE</ref> One noted libertarian historian, Thomas DiLorenzo, felt it was the main cause of the civil war and not slavery, and he is quoted as saying : My book, The Real Lincoln, has received much the same response with regard to the tariff issue. But there is overwhelming evidence that: 1) Lincoln, a failed one-term congressman, would never have been elected had it not been for his career-long devotion to protectionism; and 2) the 1861 Morrill tariff, which Lincoln was expected to enforce, was the event that triggered Lincoln’s invasion, which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans."ref>http://mises.org/article.aspx?control=952</ref> Slavery as a root cause has famous supporters including the famous communist Karl Marx who said : "Naturally, in America everyone knew that from 1846 to 1861 a free trade system prevailed, and that Representative Morrill carried his protectionist tariff through Congress only in 1861, after the rebellion had already broken out. Secession, therefore, did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place". ref>http://www.aotc.net/Marxen.htm</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.75.181 (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we arrive at "neutral" through consensus, not civil war, fortunately. I doubt you'll find many people who will agree that Karl Marx is a reliable, neutral source. Janus303 (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you not read the citation? He was in support of the cause of the war being slavery. While he may not be neutral - I think most would argue that a representative of the NAACP speaking negatively of the celebration is certainly not a neutral source either - yet you seem to support its existance on the post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.75.181 (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I will post the following undisputed portion leaving out the karl marx piece. I will am interested in why you are afraid to have that statement in there - please advise - it supports your position.

Most agree that this celebration is controversial due to the spotlight that the charged issue of slavery takes. However, many supporters of the holiday do so for their belief that the war was mainly fought over taxation and freedoms. While slavery was an important issue in the civil war, taxation was as well and is often overlooked as a major contributing factor. Among those issues of importance was the Morril tarriff.ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff</ref>In the North, enforcement of the Morrill Tariff contributed to support for the Union cause among industrialists and merchant interests. Speaking of this class, the abolitionist Orestes Brownson derisively remarked that "the Morrill Tariff moved them more than the fall of Sumter."ref> "Emancipation and Colonization," Brownson's Quarterly Review, April 1862</ref>In one such example the New York Times, which had previously opposed Morrill's bill on free trade grounds, editorialized that the tariff imbalance would bring commercial ruin to the North and urged its suspension until the secession crisis passed. "We have imposed high duties on our commerce at the very moment the seceding states are inviting commerce to their ports by low duties."ref>http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9501E4DC103BE63BBC4E51DFB566838A679FDE</ref> As secession became more evident and the fledgling Confederacy adopted a much lower tariff of its own, the paper urged military action to enforce the Morrill Tariff in the Southern statesref> http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9902E4DA133FEE34BC4850DFB566838A679FDE</ref> One noted libertarian historian, Thomas DiLorenzo, felt it was the main cause of the civil war and not slavery, and he is quoted as saying : My book, The Real Lincoln, has received much the same response with regard to the tariff issue. But there is overwhelming evidence that: 1) Lincoln, a failed one-term congressman, would never have been elected had it not been for his career-long devotion to protectionism; and 2) the 1861 Morrill tariff, which Lincoln was expected to enforce, was the event that triggered Lincoln’s invasion, which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans."ref>http://mises.org/article.aspx?control=952</ref> 72.145.75.181 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Janus303 - why did you remove a clip of the official georgia declaration citation?

"The month of April of each year is hereby designated as Confederate History and Heritage Month and shall be set aside to honor, observe, and celebrate the Confederate States of America, its history, those who served in its armed forces and government, and all those millions of its citizens of various races and ethnic groups and religions who contributed in sundry and myriad ways to the cause which they held so dear" http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/fulltext/sb27.htm this was a very neutral factual and reference statement

Please explain your reason for removing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.75.181 (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you added it back. Thank you.72.145.75.181 (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you afraid it is showing some positive light on it?72.145.75.181 (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV violations

This article keeps being re-edited to include teh stephens quote in the first paragraph. This is POV pushing and violates neutrality as it attempts to cast all supporters of Confederate History Month as racists. That is a violation of the NEUTRALITY goal of wikipedia. Someone, please remove that and ootherwise work to put a non-FLAME version of this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.144.143 (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rwolsleger, 14 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Rutherford County, Tennessee also celebrates Confederate History and Heritage month in April. As of April 2010 a proclamation was signed by the Rutherford County mayor of Tennessee.

Rwolsleger (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I can't find any reliable sources that say this. /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Original research

Okay, so this is unacceptable for several of reasons. In addition to perpetuating the myth about black Confederates, it's purely original research, in both synthesis and citing Wikipedia, which is anything but a reliable source. I misunderstood what you were saying on my talk page earlier and have re-removed it. Recognizance (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

yes it's clearly POV without a RS and is not attributed to anyone, so it appears to be merely the personal views of a Wiki editor so phrased as to mislead readers into thinking the Confederacy was the champion of all races. Rjensen (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

looks good

This current revision as of today looks good. It is to the point and factual. Maybe this should be left alone at this point unless its an addition of dates places - non political information. Thanks for the last round of edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1kn0wtruth (talk • contribs) 14:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad we could settle this without an extended debate. I mentioned in my edit summary that this was just a quick fix (I'd like to include more information about how it started, how the governors between Allen and McDonnell handled it, and its reception elsewhere) but I'm happy you approve of the tone. Feel free to let me know if there's an issue elsewhere on the wiki in the future. Recognizance (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments on racepackets edits and my undo of them regarding comments by nyt op ed column

There are multiple violations of wikipedia rules in your post, so I dont have to post anything to back up my opinion that its wrong because it would be all original research as well. You cant just use an op ed column of some randon write in person's opinions and allegations to support your post. A few of the violations - original reserach, the person is not a reliable source and its certainly not neutral neutrality. Here are a few links for you to peruse to ponder what the SCV are : http://www.scv.org/whatis.php Sons of Confederate Veterans - They are clearly not right wing and are apolitical. This article has had enough edit wars between people that would like to disparage and negatively characterize it and anything associated with it and those that would like to stick with wiki standards of presenting the information in a neutral and factual manner. Lets leave well enough alone please. 1kn0wtruth (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Confederate History Month. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/apr/07/mcdonnell_statement_on_omission_of_slavery_in_conf-ar-163834

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Confederate History Month. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/fulltext/sb27.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413130145/https://www.governor.virginia.gov/OurCommonwealth/Proclamations/2010/ConfederateHistoryMonth.cfm to http://www.governor.virginia.gov/OurCommonwealth/Proclamations/2010/ConfederateHistoryMonth.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Language

@Notfrompedro: Let us discuss this on the talk page. The previous version of the article was clearly by a preachy left-wing writer who wanted to throw in as many buzzwords as possible. I already changed my version adding back 'slavery' and 'treason' in the lede. It is a matter of fact that some see the Confederate flag as hate, others see it as heritage etc. And I thought your problem was with my source, now you are complaining that my edits are 'POV'. I don't know that this is against any rules but it seems you want to exhaust me and waste my time so that I will not make further edits to Wikipedia. What is it you don't like about my version of the article? CactusRoy🏴󠁣󠁡󠁱󠁣󠁿 (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Calling another editor a "preachy left-wing writer" isn't a good way to prove that you are attempting to edit neutrally. You were told the first time you were reverted (and not by me) that your edits were POV pushing and they are. You are attempting to whitewash what the "heritage" stand for which was slavery. You are using sources that don't say what you claim they say to push your POV. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Notfrompedro: Well, it is preachy language. Slavery was not the only justification for the Civil War. Including the death toll just serves to demonize the Confederacy for fighting a defensive war. Not only that the previous text esp. first two lines in 'Politics' are rambling and disorganized. 'If you support the Confederacy, YOU are defending slavery, YOU hate black people, and YOU believe those 500000 people needed to die.' What don't you like about my new version? Presents both perspectives- racism, slavery etc as well as Southern heritage. Not like either is a consensus opinion - maybe on Wikipedia but not in the real world. CactusRoy🏴󠁣󠁡󠁱󠁣󠁿 (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It actually was the reason for the war. Cornerstone Speech and Origins of the American Civil War would be worth reading. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. But do you at least agree with my other edit, about the differing feelings towards Confederate flag/statues? CactusRoy🏴󠁣󠁡󠁱󠁣󠁿 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It isn't "my opinion" it is scholarly consensus based on historical facts. Your other edit used a source incorrectly as I noted in my edit summary. You are engaging in original research and synthesis to push your own POV. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Notfrompedro, for engaging so patiently here, and for supplying links for anyone who's genuinely curious to learn more about the issue at hand. This talk page is certainly not the place to relitigate whether slavery was the primary reason the Confederate States chose to secede. There is a very strong consensus among scholars and among the Wikipedia community (which follows what those scholars say) that it was. Generalrelative (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Thank you. It turns out that editor was a sock of a banned editor so they are now blocked as well. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)