Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy

Matters of fact vs. matters of ethics

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)

We do not say hero we say heroic. Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Kodiologist is right. The contention that Southern secession was not about slavery is provably false. The contention that the Southern cause was just or heroic, by contrast, is not. The lede is the worst of all places to blur that obvious distinction.

The lede should therefore be rewritten, perhaps to something such as this:

"The Lost Cause of the Confederacy (or simply the Lost Cause) is a name given to a school of pseudohistorical and historical negationist argument that seeks to defend the historical reputation of the Confederate States and its leaders during the American Civil War by denying that the Confederacy's chief aim was to protect and perpetuate slavery."

I was tempted to go ahead and make the revision but, since the present lede apparently has defenders, I thought I'd run it past y'all first.  I'll go ahead and make the change in a few weeks unless someone either beats me to it with a better idea or has a substantial objection to the proposed edit. 2603:6010:100:6E85:F5DC:D014:E97B:3FC (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

No, Kodiologist is not right. We follow mainstream sources. And mainstream sources say that the Confederate cause was not "just or heroic". Of course, that involves an ethical judgement. A judgement that slavery is not just. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

No, we are not following mainstream sources. No source that the lede cites asserts that a belief in Confederate justice or heroism is pseudohistorical. 2603:6010:100:6E85:F5DC:D014:E97B:3FC (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Confederate statues during the Civil rights era

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)

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)

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)

This is not a myth

This is a fact. The confederacy was not trying to protect slavery, but protecting their land and keeping the government out of their business. Slavery was only 5% of the problem 137.118.174.26 (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

See talk page achive, which addresses all of this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, here is a primary source from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill online archives about why the southern states seceded. This source is titled ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE STATE CONVENTION OF NORTH CAROLINA. First Session in May and June, 1861. Section III part 3 reads:

"Acquisition of new territory.

3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or territories of the Confederate States." Hoodoowoman (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

In this source from Yale University's online archive, the state of Mississippi in the second paragraph explained the reason for secession was to keep slavery in the state: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin." (My last edit about this topic) Hoodoowoman (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course the OP ignored the big warning at the top of the editing page. This is just soap-boxing, and should have been deleted, but since other editors have responded, I'll chime in. The OP's "fact" is made-up nonsense, just like the claim that "Slavery was only 5% of the problem", as if an exact percentage could be assigned.

The most egregious thing about such fact-free claims that the Civil War was about "states' rights" (or "keeping the government out of their [the Confederacy's] business, as the OP puts it) is the lack of consciousness or deliberately ignoring that these so-called "rights" of the states included the "right" to enslave black people. Here's another example like the ones that Hoodoowoman has cited, a direct quote from the state of Texas's declaration of the causes which impelled the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union, February 2, 1861:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery—the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits—a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

This declaration, like those above it, gives the lie to the absurd claim that southern states did not secede from the Union over the issue of slavery. Carlstak (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Article is missing the claimed "lost cause"

Article has plenty on what the Lost Cause proponents deny was the cause (slavery), but doesn't seem to anywhere say what the Lost Causers claim WAS the cause.

If this is because they avoid ever making a positive claim the article ought to explain that. Otherwise the article needs to include what the claimed cause or causes were (and debunk where appropriate).

I'm afraid I am totally ignorant beyond "state's rights" (rights to what?) I can't therefore be of any help. I am simply a foreigner who perhaps has fresh eyes to see what is missing from the article. Azkm (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The article is not about what Confederates thought caused the war—it's about their "cause" (in the sense of "a principle militantly defended") to maintain their way of life, which was based on the perpetuation of the institution of slavery, on which the South's plantation economy depended. They believed the slave states had a Constitutional right to secede from the union to preserve that way of life. Carlstak (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. The article in places seems to suggest the other usage of cause though, eg. first section heading:

Origins:

"The Lost Cause's multiple origins include its main argument that slavery was not the primary cause, or not a cause at all, of the Civil War"

I understand if both usages are included in the topic--perhaps for rhetorical purposes by proponents--but if so the article ought to explain that. I feel that:

"[...]Northern threat to a Southern way of life[...]" needs to be expanded and explained (perhaps further on in the article).

To be honest the article reads more like persuasive writing than descriptive, which is understandable given the strength of feeling on the topic in USA, but it is a little difficult for a stranger like me to find the facts among the philippics. (Simple English Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the topic sadly.) Azkm (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is confusing that the very first sentence in the body of the article, immediately following the lede, says, "The Lost Cause's multiple origins include its main argument that slavery was not the primary cause, or not a cause at all, of the Civil War." That paragraph needs to be rewritten.

Please understand that the article is still evolving. I trimmed a good bit of superfluous content from it, rewrote some parts, and added new, sourced content that I wrote. A lot of new content has been added by another dedicated editor who wrote about the activities of Black women and men who worked to counter Lost Cause propaganda and political movements, greatly improving its scope. Previously to her contributions, the article glaringly lacked such coverage.

Certainly it can be further improved, and I think it still needs a lot of editorial work to trim verbosity, improve flow, and clarify confusing passages like that you pointed out. Thanks for your input, and one of these days, if someone else doesn't do it first, I intend to get my red pencil out and do some more serious editorial work on it. Of course, this is a collaborative project, and I expect there will be more feedback like yours on this talk page. Please feel welcome to suggest other changes, or to make them if you feel up to the task.;-) I'm sure you know that any new content added must be supported by reliable sources. Carlstak (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again for your explanations, I fear my tone has been overly negative. I was probably a bit foolish thinking I could just skim the article and get a real grasp of a complicated 150 year long topic. I don't even know much about the mainstream historiography that the Lost Cause is reacting against. Azkm (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

The sentence "Historians have dismantled many parts of lost cause ideology," should be supported with cited sources. 24.144.13.77 (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It is, it is a summary of the body (which is sourced). Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That said, I'm not sure I like the word "dismantled". DS (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the word "dismantled" is just fine in this context, as it very well describes what historians have done to the Lost Cause nonsense, otherwise known as racist bullshit. Carlstak (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Either way, not an uncontroversial edit to be made via this template. Closed. PianoDan (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree; “dismantled” seems a bit grandiose and inflammatory. Blyndon2001 (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

In keeping with Karlstak’s profanity. Thank you Karlstak for showing your true colors. Blyndon2001 (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Profanity? Slatersteven (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Proud to call out Lost Cause nonsense as racist bullshit. Carlstak (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Ohhh Carl, not Karl. Slatersteven (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Why? It's a myth for a reason, it's inherently false, or at least revised (in most cases extremely revised,) ways of looking at the confederacy, in an effort to defend it. If it were called "The Confederate Truth" or something, or if there were modern historians of notable number defending this "ideology," then yes, you would need sources.

But you do not. GenEli1L1 (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Lost Cause should not redirect to this article

To think that this is the only/most important us of the phrase "lost cause" indicates the continuing US bias of many wikipedia articles. Lost cause should go to Lost Cause (disambiguation) directly and then this page link to that, in the rest of the English speaking world we do not connect the phrase with this particular myth. 194.233.154.81 (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide other examples of things widely called "the lost cause"? Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Lost Cause myth was not accepted nationwide

The quote in the Emergence section, which claims

"They say that history is written by the victors, but the Civil War has been the rare exception.... the South's version of the war and Reconstruction has held sway in our schools, our literature and, since the dawn of feature films, our movies.",

is not true. I propose moving it to section 10.4, Later literature and films, where it is indeed applicable.

( LaSalle, Mick (July 24, 2015). "Romanticizing Confederate cause has no place onscreen". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on July 8, 2020. Retrieved July 8, 2020. )

The source, Mick LaSalle, is a movie critic, not a historian. He is not a Reliable Source on history, though he is about movies.

The rest of the article and its sources do not support the claim, except for the category "movies". Its examples are wholly from the South. There is no evidence about how the Civil War was taught in schools or serious history books.

The article from which the quote was taken gives only the authors personal recollection of how the Civil War was taught in school. It does give an impressive list of movies sympathetic to the Confederacy. Therefore it should be moved to section 10.4, Later literature and films, where it is indeed applicable. Ttulinsky (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree (It could be moved or removed entirely, IMO).--MattMauler (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Where's the debate on adding the template

There's a template titled "The Confederate states seceded from the Union primarily to protect slavery" that seems to at least on the face of it to be at variance with WP:NPOV "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." The headline "The Confederate states seceded from the Union primarily to protect slavery" is clearly taking a side.

I can quite understand the idea that this is one of those limited number of cultural live rails that an American based institution such as Wikipedia needs to take sides, or a frustration with a lot of IP accounts wishing to recast the south as barely noticing slavery. However this is probably the first time I've seen this type of template.

It seems to have been added by @Beyond My Ken whose although a long time user is not an admin. I can't see any debate on this, although there is a lot of archiving of other comments (including some IP of those accounts) at that time and this seems to be the only article that has this particular template.

JASpencer (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

If we are talking about serious academic history and conspiracy theories, WP always must take sides with the former. I also think it necessary to keep the short description of slavery, including the word "rape" in the lead section because that's what the Lost Cause is about: Denying the appaling side of Southern history. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Fine on the scholarly source but as far as I can see a template on a discussion page saying that one view must be favoured as the set policy of Wikipedia needs discussion at least on this page and probably on WP:NPOV discussion page. Unless there's a precedent of course.

On the other point about putting borderline relevant points in the sentence to stick it to lost cause followers, why that's a blatant breach of NPOV guidelines and should go forthwith. I'm not even inclined to put it in its own section like last time.

For the record I don't have any truck with the central idea of the lost cause narrative, that slavery was a minor cause of why the South entered the war. But I do think that Wikipedia should act as an encyclopedia and not a mirror of whatever the latest intellectual crazes are. And on its own blatant bias within Wikipedia (such as this template) the other way makes it easier for Lost Cause revisionists to say that the system, rather than the evidence, is against them. Saying that the scholarly consensus has been against them for three generations should be enough.

JASpencer (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The headline "The Confederate states seceded from the Union primarily to protect slavery" is clearly taking a side.

as to what NPOV means by "sides" and "fairness" , The sides we are required to balance—logically, the only sides we are responsibly able to balance—are those articulated in our reliable sources. For us to refer to any unflattering terms would not be unduly taking a side, and to insist otherwise is false balance. That is to say, unless there is some rich cache of neo-Confederate RS representing the opposing position we're meant to qualify assertions about, then I would be intrigued to see them. Even if they did exist, if they remained in the minority they could not in good faith be conflated with the historical Confederacy in place, time, mind or deed, so the majority consensus would be the voice we assume when talking about history, like always. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remsense (talk • contribs) 15:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but did something get lost in the editing here? I'm not sure what this is trying to say. JASpencer (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that is what the bulk of historians (and even the Confederates at the time), said. Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

And that's fine, but that wasn't the question. This template seems unique - what's it doing here? I've never before seen a template stating that there is an agreed line for Wikipedia to take. On its face it breaches the NPOV guidelines.

If there was a precedent for this I'd be interested. None has been proffered.

If this is sui generis then there should have been some debate here (and preferably on a relevant noticeboard) again there's no evidence for that.

This is not a debate about the Lost Cause, or whether it meets the criteria of WP:FRINGE. It's a debate about how a deviation from WP:NPOV is policed. Please justify that rather than justifying your reasonable belief that slavery was the main cause for the South's secession, which I repeat is not the main question here.

13:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC) JASpencer (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

On its face it breaches the NPOV guidelines I don't see any part of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy that this notice runs contrary to. While it takes different forms depending on who made the notice, articles with a single commonly made thread that's already been discussed numerous times and has a strong consensus against making the suggested change (e.g. removal of images at Talk:Muhammad) will sometimes have such a notice. Editors have come to this talk page numerous times to contest or complain about this verbiage (a partial list includes August 2016, February 2020, May 2020, October 2020, May 2022, February 2023, May 2024). My only issue with the template is the and you may be blocked from editing if you persist in doing so wording as I think that sentence is leaning too heavily on the "you may" part. - Aoidh (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, where's a similar banner on another page, particularly a history article. It's not on Talk:The Holocaust (in fact there's a "Wikipedia is not censored"), Talk:Northern Ireland, Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War, Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Talk:Slavery in Africa, Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Talk:Gaza_war or Talk:Ulster Volunteer Force. Now you may think I'm being unimaginative but these are all bigger fringe bait than this subject - I'm sure there are others.

But none of them have a similar banner to this. It seems unique. Where was the discussion?

Some of these more controversial and more viewed pages have lots of extra banners about Active Arbitration remedies, contentious topics procedure, page is not a forum and Do not feed the trolls. But these are not unique. And some of these are on this article.

The Holocaust does have a Frequently Asked Questions, but written in a deliberately neutral tone.

And yes, if you do plainly tell people with a big red hand that the policy of the page is that "The Confederate states seceded from the Union primarily to protect slavery." you are saying that the article is taking a side and it is announcing editorial bias, and it is contravening the plain meaning of the text "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." I prefer referring to the plain meaning of the text rather than some special understanding that suits a banner I want to retain.

Oh and WP:OWN is also clearly violated if this unique treatment hasn't been discussed anywhere else, which it seems that it isn't.

And yes, retaining or expanding slavery was clearly the main motivator for most of the Confederate leaders - whatever exceptions can be found. But that's just a weight of evidence thing that should be within the article.

So if this banner is not unique, show the equivalents, and if the banner is unique where was this approved?

17:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC) JASpencer (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

An example of a notice on another talk page highlighting a single perennial subject of discussion has already been given. The article is not taking a side as saying that "The Confederate states seceded from the Union primarily to protect slavery." is adhering to WP:NPOV by not stating a fact as an opinion. A notice on the talk page reflecting this (where a full FAQ may not be required since this is a singular perennial subject) is not a debate about how a deviation from WP:NPOV is policed in any way. If you believe a fuller FAQ is warranted that's a different matter. - Aoidh (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, I missed Muhammad. But this is far more mildly worded and refers to a long established and wide community consensus (and no attempt seems to have been made to do this, the template was entered without discussion) which even got into the press.

It would suggest that this needs to go to the NPOV noticeboard to get approved in the absence of a policy for these banners.

JASpencer (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you understand what "false balance" means? Or "teach the controversy"? Or "work the refs"? DS (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I do, but I also understand what overcompensation means. JASpencer (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I think some of the respondents here didn't realize you're talking about a banner here on the talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The Intro

Why are we wedded to this intro?

• It's saying things in the intro that it doesn't say in the body of the article. eg saying its historically negationist. It's a reasonable point - but not one in the article
• Linked to that there are a clutch of citations that aren't in the main body of the article. Citations shouldn't rarely be in the intro (and preferably not at all) but citations that aren't in the body of the article?
• Is it really a good idea to be introducing terms such as pseudohistory and historical negationism that a curious school kid would have to look up in the intro? Later in the body, I can understand. But you want to have the intro to be accessible to a lower reading comprehension. What's wrong with saying that just about no current academic historian takes its main claim seriously?
• The Lost Cause is a fringe theory today, but the intro (less so in the body of the article) treats that as the main show - ironically inflating its importance. The Lost Cause should mostly be looked at in the past tense - it was highly influential but the last couple of generations basically ignores most of it. Ironically by concentrating on the present fringe rather than on stressing its spent force it looks like this is a real fight in which Wikipedia is a participant.
• I know that there is a danger of false balance, but we're way to the other side of that see-saw here. This reads like an neo-confederate parody of what a politically correct response to the Lost Cause would be.

What's wrong with an introduction trying to explain the body of the article?

JASpencer (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

As written, this is too loaded and too vague to be actionable. If this is about this set of edits, there are far too many WP:WEASEL and WP:TONE issues for this to gain consensus. Saying that "we're way to the other side" of false balance suggests that you don't think it's false at all, which makes your comment about the danger of false balance seem disingenuous. Wikipedia is not interested in your personal opinion about how 'spent' this myth is. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

No, you're not going to portray me as a Lost Cause proponent. And the inability to follow WP:AGF is telling. Trying to improve Wikipedia should be an end in itself.

It's also telling that "saying things in the intro that it doesn't say in the body of the article" is not seen as actionable. I can't believe that someone who's been on this project since 2008 can't either refute or action that.

It's a bad intro, that also makes the current Lost Cause proponents look a whole sight more serious than they are. why not bring it to Wikipedia standards?

JASpencer (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

OK what do we say in the intro that is not supported in the body? Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)