Talk:American Civil War Museum

UDC & SCV
What does this have to do with the Museum of the Confederacy? -Willmcw 01:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * [McPherson] further said the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) and the Sons of Confederate Veterans have "white supremacy" as their "thinly veiled agendas." The incident outraged members of the UDC and the SCV, who accused McPherson of using a slur against them. Some SCV and UDC chapters subsequently urged their members to boycott his books and engaged in letter-writing campaigns.


 * The relevance is to contextualize the McPherson incident. Otherwise we're left with a statement that shows little more than McPherson throwing out an allegation against the museum. Including it shows he also made identical allegations against other groups at the same time and that those allegations were the cause of a controversy surrounding him. Rangerdude 02:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The "context" is that he was on a radio show and was asked about Bush and the Confederacy. The UDC an SCV are covered in the article on McPherson. There's no reason to list them here. The fact that other grouops ahve also been called "neo-confederate", and that some in those other groups have complained is not relevant to the Museum. -Willmcw 05:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The context is also that McPherson's comments were extremely controversial and were used to paint two other groups along with the MoC. It is a POV to repeat McPherson's comments without giving the full story of how they were made and their implications to McPherson. Further deletions of those facts will be viewed as POV-pushing censorship. Rangerdude 06:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * His comments about the Museum were not demonstrably controversial. Apparently the only reason SCV and UDC are being mentioned is to bring in the controversy about them. If that's the case, then we'd better fully "contextualize" by indicting other peole who call those groups "neo-Confederate." No, removing irreleveant info is not POV pushing. This info does not belong in this article and is already included in other articles. -Willmcw 06:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * His radio interview taken as a whole was indeed demonstrably controversial. You are consciously attempting to pick and choose which parts of the radio interview fit your POV political agenda and thus exclude the controversy from the event. Then you turn around and declare on that manufactured basis that it wasn't controversial. It's a sly move, Will, but also a transparent one. Wikipedia is here to inform readers of facts - not to promote your POV to the exclusion of others. Rangerdude 06:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is not about McPherson's radio interview. It is about the Museum. Anything not directly related to the museum does not belong. Please explain what "POV" is being pushed by omitting extraneous info. -Willmcw 07:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

As long as the interview itself is relevant, the context of that interview is relevant as well. That context includes a very well known controversy due to McPherson's similar smears against the SCV and UDC in the same brush stroke where he labelled the museum. That fact is neither extraneous nor unrelated, and excluding it serves to promote the POV espoused by McPherson. Rangerdude 07:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The "interview" is not relevant, only the "Neo-Confederate" characterization of the Museum by McPherson. There is no controversy associated with that characterization. However if you can find any, please provide a source for it.-Willmcw 08:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If the interview is not relevant then it should be removed entirely. Otherwise you are simply picking and choosing elements from it that suit your political agenda, and that violates WP:NPOV. Rangerdude 16:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, my edit was intended to remove the interview and just leave the quote. But if you think that the entire interview is significant then let's bring in the longer treatment of it now located in James M. McPherson. -Willmcw 19:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Highly Unscholarly Article
The museum article needs to be reviewed and rewritten. Most of the second half of the article needs to be relegated to to the discussion page. Put in some information on the museum for Pete's sake. Is the Confederate White House open to the public? One would not learn much of value from this article as it is written. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to contribute anything other than to say this kind of article "cheapens" Wikipedia. That is something that I truly dislike.

Comments
The [criticism section] represents some one's personal opinion and does not belong with a wikipage about the Museum of the Confederacy and it's past. I myself have debated some of these people and because of that I learned of their personal agendas -- one being keeping their name in the spotlight. While I see the word, neo-confederate, I know from debates that Neo-damnedyankee has also been used although not by me since neo-yank is shorter. But nobody mentions this so the article on that point and many others shows personal agendas by the original posters.--Maury


 * It is a criticism of the museum's management by a notable historian. I don't see why it would not belong. -Will Beback 23:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a matter of point and counter point. Many notable historians (and other professions) disagree with one another. Look to religious beliefs for an easy example. This is nothing new but in what I see there is no point and counter point -- it is a one-sided viewpoint. I know about McPherson and I like much of what he writes but not everything he writes.--Maury

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MAURY (talk • contribs)


 * There is a significant section in which the UDC and SCV responses are noted. Has anyone from the Museum ever responded? If so we should add that info. -Will Beback 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section revisited
Since the previous discussion, the relevant pieces of criticism have been removed. What remains in the "Criticism" section of the article really isn't criticism at all; not in the conventional sense, at least, as it is almost entirely positive. Does anyone disagree that the section should either be removed or expanded? --BDD 08:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it is almost entirely positive. "Balanced" is perhaps a broader view. -Will Beback · † · 09:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * McPherson's view of the Museum is almost entirely positive as displayed here. The only criticism that is actually mentioned is hidden in hearsay -- criticism allegedly leveled by the vague "old guard in Richmond" on the exhibit at the time. If that's what we want to focus on, we should state that and use the McPherson interview as the source or reference. The way the article frames it now, one expects the criticism to come from McPherson himself. --BDD 09:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if all of this would count os criticism, but the MOC has made it into the news:
 * Museums of Civil War Are Torn by Debate (from the New York Times)
 * Lost in the Shuffle: The Museum of the Confederacy has been operating in debt for more than a decade.
 * Museum Of The Confederacy: Museum officials seek new site in Richmond, but the White House won't move
 * We might summarize some of those. -Will Beback · † · 19:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest Criticism
A list of a number of notable historians and their scholarly or board governance connections to the Museum was added at one point, in place of the McPherson criticism. This entire section was removed, at some point recently, and a number of largely negative comments have been added to several sections. One presumes that these edits were made by folks who have an axe to grind with the current administration, and seek to use this public encyclopedic article as a platform for their diatribes.

Perhaps we should separate the White House article from the museum article – giving independent articles to each. Further, I would suggest that ongoing commentary about the museum’s management be directed elsewhere besides the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B93 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, while their criticisms have not been removed, all positive mentions and developments of the Museum's latest plans were removed by users Kar98 and 76.123.23.222. This left only the negative commentary in place. I have restored the positive comments back into the article, in an attempt at fairness to all positions.

In the section about proximity to the Capitol, the so-called "heritage" defenders allege that the Museum sold its own property cheap, and caused its own problems. The deeds to the property in question are on file with the City of Richmond as well as the Brockenbrough Library at the Museum of the Confederacy. I added some text about it, but this whole section was removed by the above users, presumably to keep the facts out of their allegations. Evidently, they are more interested in spewing their diatribes than allowing the article to be a straight forward, fact-filled entry about the Museum and White House of the Confederacy.

I maintain that the articles are supposed to be fact based and objective - meaning that they should be largely devoid of commentary. It is disappointing that some persist in this intentionally divisive rhetoric.

Perhaps Wikipedia should just lock or remove the entire entry until more responsible “contributors” can participate.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by B93 (talk • contribs) 9:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Rename it?
Shouldn't the article be renamed American Civil War Museum? 155.213.224.59 (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it should remain as is because the Museum of the Confederacy has a long history under this name, which is described in this article. The new museum is a merged entity of the Museum of the Confederacy and the American Civil War Center at Historic Tredegar. So it is a successor to both museums, not just this one. I think there should be a new article on the American Civil War Museum with some information about the combined museum. A brief history of the predecessor museums and links to the articles about them and their history up to the formation of the new museum seems appropriate. The new article might get rather long if both articles were combined as the two museums were. Also, even though redirects would be made, readers might still look for the two old articles under those names - which, of course, would have links to the new article. Just my thoughts for what they may be worth. Donner60 (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How does the American Civil War Museum address the issue of Neo-confederate movements and the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" revisionist narrative about the cause of the civil war?
The article on the Lost Cause of the Confederacy includes this bit: The CMLS founded the Confederate Museum to document and defend the Confederate cause and to recall the antebellum mores that the new South's business ethos was thought to be displacing. By focusing on military sacrifice, rather than grievances regarding the North, the Confederate Museum aided the process of sectional reconciliation, according to Hillyer. By depicting slavery as benevolent, the museum's exhibits reinforced the notion that Jim Crow laws were a proper solution to racial tensions that had escalated during Reconstruction. Lastly, by glorifying the common soldier and portraying the South as "solid," the museum promoted acceptance of industrial capitalism. Thus, the Confederate Museum both critiqued and eased the economic transformations of the New South, and enabled Richmond to reconcile its memory of the past with its hopes for the future, leaving the past behind as it developed new industrial and financial roles.

If I'm correct in assuming the museum referenced here is the same one in this article, then we need to expand this article to include info on how the museum dealt with and the Lost Cause of the Confederacy narrative, both in past and how it deals with it in the present. Does it currently downplay or deny slavery's role in the civil war? How does it currently address "Jim Crow laws" and segregation. Based on this passage from the other article it seems did at one time that it downplayed slavery role in the civil war while defending Jim Crow, in which case this should be added to this article. Also, since surely at least one modern notable historian likely has looked into the modern version of the museum and critique it for historical accuracy this should be sought out and included in the article. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)