Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:31, 21 February 2023 editBusterD (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,549 editsm Reverted edits by Topcat777 (talk) to last version by BubbaJoe123456Tag: Rollback ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:55, 22 February 2023 edit undoRsk6400 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users15,245 editsm Rm orphaned bracesTag: 2017 wikitext editor Next edit →
Line 5:		Line 5:
	}}		}}
	{{Annual readership}}		{{Annual readership}}
	}}
	__TOC__		__TOC__
	{{Clear}}		{{Clear}}

Revision as of 07:55, 22 February 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sons of Confederate Veterans article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alleging White Supremacy

The lead paragraph contains language that alleges white supremacy promotion by the SCV. This needs to be removed. It is an opinion, not fact.

In 1906, the Sons of Confederate Veterans incorporated this declaration into its organization documents: “The Sons of Confederate Veterans, in furtherance of the Charge of Lieutenant General Stephen D. Lee, shall be strictly patriotic, historical, educational, fraternal, benevolent, non-political, non-racial and non-sectarian. The Sons of Confederate Veterans neither embraces, nor espouses acts or ideologies of racial and religious bigotry, and further, condemns the misuse of its sacred symbols and flags in the conduct of same...”

To that end, the current SCV Facebook pages also affirms the organization’s objections and condemnations of any racial, religious or other types of bigotry.

There are non-white members of the SCV. There are photographs of members of different races, meeting and socializing together to discuss historical documents, photographs and various articles that pertain to the War and subsequent events.

Recent postings on the Facebook page have included discussions about

    • Non-white soldiers as freemen volunteers.
    • Activities and social events that included both whites and non-whites. 
    • Condemnation of, and actions against, any form of bigotry, prejudice or exclusionary practices, publications, activities, organizations, rhetoric and advocacy.

I strongly urge editing of this Misplaced Pages article to remove opinion and bias. Restewartjr (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, the charge seems pretty well verified. BTW, the non-white soldiers bit, are you referring to that old myth? BTW there is no doubt that Black people did contribute, albeit not voluntarily: "Anywhere between 6,000 and 10,000 enslaved people supported in various capacities Lee’s army in the summer of 1863". But this is not a discussion forum. The club's Facebook page may claim what it will, but reliable secondary sources say differently. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Drmies. They still state on their website, "The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South’s decision to fight the Second American Revolution." Do they know that for their ancestors the meaning of "liberty" was the liberty to torture and rape enslaved human beings (adults and children) ? I'm afraid, they do. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be worth noting that presumably some of these descendants' ancestors did not have that idea of "liberty", but instead were some of the large portions of population forcefully drafted by the Confederacy against their will, especially from 1862 to 1864. This especially occurred in Appalachian areas, where those soon-to-be soldiers held no slaves, and in general held religious beliefs against owning them. Nevertheless, they were drafted to fight. Of course, elites who did own slaves could find ways around being drafted (see the Twenty Negro Law entry on this website). A great many deserted their families rather than be drafted, but many could not escape conscription. Some of this reality is backstory for the 2016 movie "Free State of Jones." All that to say, there's nuance in history, you can't paint everyone with the same brush, lest it be done to you in the future.

-Source, History major and Social Studies teacher. 71.29.53.179 (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

We very much appreciate the contributions of a history major and social studies teacher. We hope you register an account and learn what we're about. In my view the previous comment by User:Rsk6400 was veering into WP:Forum behavior (and so does the astute response by our teacher), as User:Drmies warned might occur. BusterD (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Needful comparison of SCV and UDC?

I'm watching this slow motion edit war and asking myself: is there even a significant reason this comparison needs to be made and does the source actually prove such a nebulous and largely unverifiable claim (that UDC is "bigger and more active")? What sort of criteria? How does the statement inform the reader? Do we have better and more sources? Does anybody mind if I consult a Misplaced Pages editor who is an expert on the subject of hereditary societies (not to weigh in, but to help with sources)? BusterD (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

SCV and UDC are not important as hereditary societies, but as societies that have actively promoted pseudo-history in order to sustain white supremacy. They have always been working together for that same purpose. So it is important to mention that connection. @Azhistorylov: The source says "bigger and more active", if you can provide a source for current membership numbers, please do so. We can surely change the sentence to something like "originally bigger and more active", but we need a source for that. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Members of those organizations would claim they are valued precisely for their hereditary nature ("sons" and "daughters" sounds definitive). Actually the cited source says "...larger and more active United Daughters of the Confederacy consisted of men and women of wealth and social standing..." This refers back to the previous sentence when describing membership "After the turn of the century..." the next generation after the veterans. The source itself dates from 2002 and doesn't actually mention any activities at any dates newer than the 1920's (other than bare mention). So this 20 year-old source is specifically about the activities of 100 years ago, not claiming to refer to current activities or membership. BusterD (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You are right about the source. However, the source refers to the time when both organizations were really influential and successful in spreading their lies (not my expression, but Ty Seidule's). They controlled Southern textbooks well into the 1970s - today they are much less influential and therefore less important. Having said that, I'm not opposed to a wording more in line with the source or with other sources mentioning current membership. Any suggestions ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems there are two questions here: (1) Should the sentence reference the UDC at all, and (2) If so, should it describe the UDC as "bigger and more active"? My take is that mentioning the UDC is optional, and, given that the support for the "bigger and more active" claim is mixed, at best, we should definitely leave that out. My suggestion is to have the sentence start "The SCV has been promoting the ideology..." and leave the UDC out of the section entirely. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I just moved "bigger and more active" to the section where it becomes clear from the context that the qualification refers to the early 20th century. I wouldn't like to drop the mention of the UDC, since they actually took the lead in building and funding monuments and controlling textbooks (the section "History" shows this with references to David Blight's Race and Reunion). Rsk6400 (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Historical Errors

There is a concern about the historicity of the use of “Lost Cause”. There were many in American history, not just one. Many fought for the Confederacy not to preserve slavery but to defend their livelihood. If the civil war was about white supremacy then why did native Americans and Mexican Americans fight with the Confederacy? Asims6801 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

On the merits, people do unexplainable things all the time. Today, some Russians are fighting to defend Ukraine and some Ukrainians are fighting in Russia's assault. But, this is not a forum for free discussion of the subject. If you have specific improvements you'd like made to the page, come prepared with reliable sources. BusterD (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Asims6801 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

historyofyesterday.com is a blog, so not considered a reliable secondary source independent of the subject, per the link I gave you above. Business Insider, while a mildly acceptable source for some subjects, is not considered reliable for 19th century American history. Texas State Historical Association's Handbook of Texas Online is quite a good source and the author Jerry Thompson makes it even better (he being a respected Texas history education figure, and favorite of mine). Here's the thing: nowhere in ANY of the provided sources appears any critique of the Lost Cause, the subject of this article. Handbook of Texas briefly mentions the Lost Cause 336 times in various articles but never discusses or defines it on its own, and where it is mentioned, such discussion or definition seems to align closely with what appears on this page. As an encyclopedia we must hold not only to the highest level of sources available, but also reiterate what those sources say, not draw our own conclusions from the text, as you seem to have done above. BusterD (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Asims6801 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The first three of these four sources might meet RS. You post these URLs but have made no specific change you wish to insert, and have drawn no connection between the sources and the changes you imply. If you were to post a draft statement with citations here, we'd be discussing THAT. Your assertion "native Americans and Mexican Americans fight with the Confederacy" is somewhat supported by the sources you've listed, but I don't see anything connecting this assertion with your broader point, "There is a concern about the historicity of the use of “Lost Cause”." BusterD (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I am glad that you mentioned this about the lost cause. A major problem I have with current sources is that there is nothing pertaining to other families of causes that would be considered “lost causes”. Strangely, they merely talk about this lost cause rather than others. Memorials to Bacon’s rebellion and Shay’s rebellion, erected by descendants of those events, could be considered lost causes and a rejection of current historical understanding of those events. Asims6801 (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The name Lost Cause of the Confederacy is the only "lost cause" we're discussing with SCV, not other lost causes without their own article and no connection to Sons of Confederate Veterans. Other lost causes are outside the scope of this discussion. This is a place to discuss changes to THIS article, not a place to advocate your general position. BusterD (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Time to create an FAQ for this talk page

The need for an FAQ is demonstrated, IMHO. I've drafted such an FAQ at Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans/FAQ and request input before we decide about inclusion on this talk space. I'll begin just by listing questions. I strongly request assistance, especially when we disagree, so we can hash this out for the passing reader who may take issue with the way we have handled this so far. BusterD (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This happened during my editing career but I guess I wasn't around when these Archive 1 talk page discussions were going on in 2006. I didn't remember this talk page as being such a battlefield. Interesting reading for the wikipedian. BusterD (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a task I hope I'm not taking on alone. My first questions are intended to provoke more questions and discussion, not by themselves represent work product. BusterD (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

White Supremacy in the first sentence

@PRRfan and 3Kingdoms: The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is (see WP:LEADSENTENCE). In the case of an organization we cannot tell this without mentioning its purpose. And this purpose has always been linked with the Lost Cause and with White Supremacy. On the other hand, the fact that they officially disavow racism, doesn't tell us anything about them, since (nearly) everybody claims to be against racism. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I'm fine with removing "officially disavow racism". PRRfan (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I included the official disavow because it was in a reliable source and thought in the interest of fairness it should be included. Personally prefer my wording regarding the lost cause, but if more prefer the current wording so be it.3Kingdoms (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Let me add that WP is no courtroom, so "fairness" doesn't mean that both sides have to be heard. It means WP:NPOV, that is, we neutrally report what reliable sources say, giving weight to each side following secondary sources (see WP:PSTS and WP:BALANCE). Rsk6400 (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I understand your point. I felt that the source I included that mentioned the disavowal would be considered reliable. Thanks. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Categories: