Talk:Neo-Confederates/Archive 5

historical negationism

William Tecumseh Sherman is lumped in with Lincoln as an unfair target of "historical negationism." Well, it is very easy to rightfully criticize Sherman for he provides a plethora of quotes to self-indict himself as a depraved genocidal maniac. These are very easy to find:

“We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children.”

"The more Indians we can kill this year the fewer we will need to kill the next, because the more I see of the Indians the more convinced I become that they must either all be killed or be maintained as a species of pauper. Their attempts at civilization is ridiculous..."

Sherman vowed to remain in the West "till the Indians are all killed or taken to a country where they can be watched."

"During an assault," he instructed his troops, "the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age." He chillingly referred to this policy in an 1867 letter to Grant as "the final solution to the Indian problem," a phrase Hitler invoked some 70 years later.

PerryTrenton (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Definition

I find the definition that begins this article problematic. There is no citation for the definition and all other definitions I have read diverge from this one. See or . I would suggest incorporating more of the definition used on rational wiki as this term is more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.115.10 (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism or content dispute

I have twice reverted User:Tom2123 as vandalism. While he has included edit summaries, these summaries are dishonest -- I have the book cited and the material is there. His summaries:

1. History of the term: Citation/reference does not lead anywhere. Claim therefore not correctly cited.

2. Not only is it incorrectly cited (no proof cited section exists), its denying historical facts (the South WAS outnumbered and outgunned)

Is this a content dispute when the editor either hasn't read the source or is lying about it? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

(moved comment here from my talk page)Is it not true that the south was outmanned and outgunned? Your source seems to be denying historical facts. Please answer me. Tom2123 (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

James McPherson is a highly respected historian of the Civil War era and the cited source says exactly what McPherson said. You are improperly deleting properly sourced material. If you disagree, provide an equally reliable source that disputes McPherson.

What I'm more concerned with are your, IMO, blatantly dishonest edit summaries. What does your claim "Citation/reference does not lead anywhere." mean? The citation led me directly to the book and page. Where did it lead you? Apparently not to a library or Amazon. What do you mean when you say "no proof cited section exists?" Did you look for the book? What am I supposed to do -- send you a copy of it? You need to explain yourself before I take anything else you ask seriously. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Added factual information that keeps getting removed.

I added that the "Confederate Veteran" is the historical publication of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. This is a fact easily verifiable by a google search, yet Doug Weller continues to remove the information and accuse me of "edit warring", which is not at all what I have done. I also added, in the intro, that "Neo-Confederate" is a pejorative term used against people who adhere to an ideology steeped in Confederate history. This, he also removed. Is there anyone on Wikipedia that can put a stop to this persons vandalism of others contributions, as well as their harassment of information they seem to disagree with?:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.116.78 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, you can go to WP:ANI and complain about me, see if you can get me blocked. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that will happen, as it appears that you are part of Wikipedia's "special editors club" that is allowed to ignore facts, and instead promote your own biased opinions as fact. Frankly, its just easier to tell my students to avoid Wikipedia when doing research, since the group that apparently "runs" the site will only allow their own, pre-approved, yet very biased, information to be shared on the site, with total disregard for hard facts on subjects. Not to mention, those from the "inner circle"(meaning you, Mr. Weller)are extremely aggressive in defending THEIR version of history, despite how biased and blatantly wrong their version might be. Thank you for enlightening me to the bias on this "encyclopedia" site. I have learned a great deal from your harassment.::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.116.78 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove or fix David Blight "opinion"

The article isn't longer at the URL provided. :: Waltercool (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I've replaced the old reference with a current one that includes a long excerpt from Blight's review, including the quote. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Terminology

Neo-Confederate... is a term used to describe the views of various groups and individuals who use historical negationism to portray the Confederate States of America and its actions in the American Civil War in a positive light.

Negationism is the use of unfounded claims. Is there a separate term, other than Neo-Confederate, to define a southern sympathiser who uses historical revisionism, based on well-founded claims? Valetude (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Gary Gallagher quote

The section of the article titled "Criticism of the term" is made up solely of a quote from Gallagher, with no context. Another editor just trimmed the quote, a totally appropriate action. However the quote is incomplete in representing Gallagher's actual position on use of the term. Gallagher himself uses the term. In an interview at [1] Gallagher discusses the reaction to the book containing the existing quote and states [my emphasis added]:

But the neo-Confederates hate me for that book, too. I’ve got files calling me a neo-Confederate and files of hate mail from neo-Confederates because I talk very frankly about the centrality of slavery to the Confederate experiment. In my latest book, Becoming Confederates: Paths to a New National Loyalty, I talk about how important maintaining racial control, white supremacy, was to the white South. Neo-Confederates don’t want to hear that. And other people don’t want to hear that the Confederacy was a nation. My approach is: I don’t care whether I like people in the past or not, I just want to try to understand them. That’s how historians should approach the sources. It should not be about whether you like the people of the era you’re examining or not. Of course you like some more than others. But it’s the same thing with The Union War because I argue that Union is more important than emancipation. That’s upset some people who think that I’m not taking emancipation seriously. I do take emancipation very seriously, but I’m trying to understand how people, at that time, interpreted the war. To me, it’s overwhelmingly a war for Union. Lincoln could not tell the loyal citizenry, “Let’s fight a war to end slavery because it’s a monstrous injustice.” The white North would have tuned him out right then.

It is apparent that Gallagher is not against using the term properly. I have edited the article by eliminating the section title and incorporating the existing quote and a portion of the above quote into the section "History of the term". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The Republican Party and Neo Confederacy

Wikipedia, despite it's humble origins, should aspire to be an unbiased place. And while yes, some Republicans do in fact identify with the Confederacy, putting the entire party up with the likes of the KKK is not only blatantly dishonest, but an insult to the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. You may continue to delete my revisions of this article, but I will stop at nothing to make sure that this egregious label is removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8700:8EF0:5476:B5A2:6EFE:8FC5 (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The article lede states that "Neo-Confederates are groups and individuals who portray the Confederate States of America and its actions during the American Civil War in a positive light." Within that context, I don't think you could seriously argue that the modern Republican Party doesn't meet that definition. Concerning the comment about this being "an insult to the legacy of Abraham Lincoln" I have to ask...are you not familiar with the history of the two political parties? Lincoln's Republican Party and today's Republican Party are diametrically opposed to one another. - Aoidh (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aoidh: The modern Republican Party certainly meet the definition you mentioned. Obviously, the comment about Neo-Confederates should be restored... As for "insulting the legacy of Abraham Lincoln", making a comparison between the Republican Party in Lincoln's time and the present period, and claiming a clear connection between them, would be the same like claiming that the modern Democratic Party is the same as the one that held power in the Solid South during the Jim Crow period. —Sundostund (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aoidh@Sundostund you both make good points about the time difference, but the bottom line is WP:VERIFY. Where are the reliable sources stating this? I'd expect to find them in the Republican Party's own article. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: You make a very good point yourself by raising the issue of WP:VERIFY, and mentioning the Republican Party's article. That article should contain the fact of the GOP's (at least partial) shift towards various alt-right movements in recent years, including neo-Confederates. It isn't hard at all to find sources to back up that assertion (like this, this and this). I am sure some other sources can be found as well. —Sundostund (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOCONFED

Those interested in the subject of this article might be interested in WP:NOCONFED, a closely related essay that was created rather recently. —Sundostund (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Whut?

What did I just read?- "The League of the South, the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other neo-Confederate organizations continue to advocate the secession of the former Confederate States." Don't know about League of the South, but I've never heard of the SCV or UDC promoting secession. Was someone overdosing on woke pills when they wrote that? -Topcat777 - 16:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Topcat777: - I don't know what you think woke means, but it's not this. The article is not saying they're advocating for a future secession, it's saying they advocate the secession of the former Confederate States. It's referring to the one that happened, the secession that started the civil war. Nothing woke about that. - Aoidh (talk)

@Aoidh: Actually, Topcat777's complaint is valid. The statement is ambiguous and its wording should be changed. If someone merely changed "Confederate States" to "Confederate states", it would mean exactly what Topcat thought it meant, and that's too thin a line for readers. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC) I'll give it a try. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)