old comments[edit]

This topic has been extended for another week as the USSCOTW.

Thought I'd get us started off...by starting at the very beginning. Forgive me, I don't know how to add the collaboration heading...It is a really big and broad subject we might need to come up with some kind of outline.Kayellen 19:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is really turning out well, y'all have been doing a great job. :) In order to prop the home team, do y'all think there is any way to somehow incorporate the following into the Rev. War section?

Aroused by the news [of the Lexington battle on May 19 1775], the delegates chose three of their number, on of whom - Hezekiah Balch - was a Presbyterian minister from the region which would become Cabarrus County, to draft a document declaring that they would not longer be subject to a king who had fired upon their countrymen. That document, finished after midnight by candlelight, was read to a large and approving throng from the stairs of the log courthouse the next day by Colonel Thomas Polk, leader of the local militia. History knows the document as the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence. Scholars debate its terms and authenticity, but North Carolina proudly placed the date of its completion May 20, 1775, on the state flag in 1861.
The revolutionary fire in the backcountry did not burn out, as Lord Cornwallis was to find to his sorrow in 1780 when he invaded Charlotte from South Carolina. He had been misled into thinking he would find a land of plenty to supply his troops for an invasion of North Carolina. Mecklenburg marksmen used the bright red coats for target practice, and ambushed the food-gathering parties until the nervous British fired at every sound. Cornwallis was to write Sir Henry Clinton that the citizens of Mecklenburg and Rowan County were "more hostile to England than any in America".

[1] --Golbez 16:21, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Roanoke Island[edit]

The Lost Colony and Virginia Dare were in North Carolina. Maurreen 05:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The rest[edit]

No one else knows the rest? Mike H 07:11, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Merging title[edit]

I was wondering if anyone else had opinions regarding the new title for a post-merge of History of the U.S. Southern states vs History of the U.S. South. I created History of the U.S. Southern states after working on U.S. Southern states, and the history section of that article bore the former. I had one person suggest that the name of the new article ought to be History of the U.S. Southern states to coincide with the original region article. However, since there is a longer history for History of the U.S. South I wanted to get some opinions from contributors here about what the new merged article title should be. Thanks, User:Poroubalous 30 Mar 2005

Page Move[edit]

According to new policy approved by Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. regions this page should be moved to History of the Southern United States, its main article has already been moved to its new title. Thanks. -JCarriker 12:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Since there seem to be no objections I'm going through with the move. -JCarriker 09:12, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Bias and lack of citation in first paragraph of Civil War section[edit]

You know there's a bias issue when the writer is going out of their way to pretend an attack wasn't an attack. Cannon fire and taking of prisoners is an attack, even if nobody died and the side doing the attacking has what they believe to be justifications for it. I'm noting this because this content made me laugh and it's been sitting there for many years now, UNCITED. Stefen Towers among the rest! Talk • Work 23:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which section, give more details? Sunriseshore (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutrality, October 2023[edit]

Sunriseshore, you really did a lot of work. Maybe there is some hope for this article now, but I still see many problems (not because of, but in spite of your work):

  1. From the lead: "the expansion and then ending of slavery in the U.S., ... the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta" - The whole list makes slavery just one element of a long and rich history, on one level with the Olympics. In current discussion, slavery is sometimes called the "original sin" of the U.S.
  2. The Civil War still seems like the most important part of Southern History. Is Southern identity really centered on the Civil War experience? The people who shout "heritage, not hate" would surely agree.
  3. In the article, Sherman's March was only destructive. David Blight, Race and Reunion quotes W.E.B.DuBois that there are different memories, one being that of the slaves who were liberated.
  4. In the Reconstruction part, the KKK is still described as "resistance", the racists are still described as "conservative", and the joy of the people whose chains were broken is absent, but is was "a harsh time for many white Southerners who found themselves without many of the basic rights of citizenship (such as the ability to vote)".
  5. The Civil War seems to have been started because of Harpers Ferry.
  6. Are my eyes blind, or is the "Lost Cause" totally absent ? Rsk6400 (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have a point the removal of the tag is indeed premature. , I tried to remove these parts, but much of it remains. A proper rewrite beyond importing from other articles requires an Indepth reading of modern research but at the very least the heading needs to be rewritten.

From my classes in college, indeed the war was a climatic turning point, but that whole area needs a rewrite as well- The details of the destruction are interesting but I worry about the motives behind that writing to begin with. I certainly want to add more about Black Unionist Soldiers, White Unionists movements, details about the Oppressive Nature of the CSA as well as the homefront.

The Harpers Ferry bullet almost made me giggle- All laughing aside at the hysterical pro confederate narrative, I was hesitant to remove that because indeed Southern planters used that as an excuse to break away but it needs to be surrounded with showing all of the aggression the South had perpetuated. Maybe more emphasis on the Fugitive Slave Law and the Dredd Scott decision is a starting point. Sunriseshore (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Here is a proposed new summary of the Article:

Starting in the 17th century, the history of the Southern United States developed unique characteristics that came from its economy based primarily on plantation agriculture and the ubiquitous and prevalent institution of Slavery. While West Africans were brought to the region as soon as English Colonization the system was strictly formalized after 1677. It has been postulated by some historians that Slave Codes were designed to prevent solidarity between White and Black Colonials. Afterwards, Millions of enslaved Africans, approximately 10% of all slaves taken from Africa during the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade were imported to the United States primarily but not exclusively for forced labor inn the south. While the majority of English Colonial and later White Americans did not own slaves, Slavery was nevertheless the foundation of the region’s economy and social order. Southern Slavery denied basic human rights to millions of Black Americans and prevalently permanented all parts of daily life to all people who resided in the region regardless of location, class or ethnic background. Questions of Southern Slavery directly impacted the struggle for American Independence throughout the South and the nature of the United States most infamously with Constitutional Clause that referred to Black Slaves as 3/5ths of a legal person. Almost all Southern founding fathers owned slaves including Thomas Jefferson and George Washington through the latter did free all enslaved persons in his will.

As industrial technologies including the Cotton Gin made slavery even more profitable Southern States refused to ban slavery- perpetuating the division of the United States between Free and Slave States. Tensions escalated as the United States expanded west ward (also retroactively causing the Southeast region to also expand to the west. However, agreements including the Missouri compromise and the Compromise of 1850 did not resolve the growing divisions the South had with the North due to Slavery and the Planter Class’s political aspirations to control the entire country. Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860 caused South Carolina to secede which was eventually followed by all other states in the region with the exception of the ‘border states’. The Breakaway states formed the Confederate States of America- the most significant country in modern history worldwide that was founded for the purpose of promoting Slavery.

Lincoln’s original goal was only to preserve the United States but his Emancipation Proclamation brought freedom to Black Slaves living in rebellious areas. With a smaller economy, smaller population and (in some cases) widespread dissent among its white population the Confederate States of America was unable to carry on a protracted struggle with the national government in 1865. Subsequently, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments gave citizenship and civil rights to Black American men all across the United States. Reconstruction that took place until 1877 attempted to uplift the former enslaved In the Southern United States but the attempt by the abandoned by the National Government. In many instances former secessionists retook control often aided by the KKK terrorist organization that brutalized Black Americans and their white allies. After the dissolving of a Populist movement in the 1890s that attempted to unite working class blacks and whites Segregation and Jim Crow Laws were implemented all across the region by 1900. Compared to the North, the Southern United States lost its previous political and economic power and fell behind the rest of the United States for decades. Its agricultural economy often based on Sharecropping practices.

The New Deal and World War II brought about a generation of Liberal Southerners within the Democratic Party that looked to accelerate development. One notable achievement includes the Establishment of the Tennessee River Valley authority that brought electricity to the Deep South. However, this New Deal Coalition existed on the premise that the Jim Crow system was left unaltered and the continued denial of basic civil rights to Black Americans.

Black Americans and their allies resisted Jim Crow and Segregation initially with the Great Migration and later the Civil Rights Movements. In the face of intense opposition by racist Segregationists, Black Southerners’ Martin Luther King Jr. Rosa Parks others vigorously campaigned to end institutionalized racism in the American South as well as the rest of the United States. From a political and legal standpoint, many of these aims were realized by the Supreme Court’s ruling on Brown V.S Board and President’s Lyndon Johnson (also a Southerner) reforms. Civil Rights coupled with the collapse of Black Belt agriculture has led some historians to postulate that a ‘New South’ based on Free Trade, Globalization and cultural diversity has emerged. Meanwhile the South has influenced the rest of the United States in a process called Southernization. However, the legacy of Slavery and Jim Crow continue to impact the region- which by the 21st century was the most populous area of the United States.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunriseshore (talk • contribs) 08:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, that was really quick. IMHO much better than before. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some more observations:
  • A classic interpretation is that the Confederacy "died of states' rights" - That's not "classic", that's outdated (the source is from the 1920s [sic]). State rights are very important for the Lost Cause myth, but in reality they were far less important.
  • The article still wants to de-legitimize Lincoln's election ("only 40 % of the popular vote" [even the word "popular" is a lie, as 70 % of the adult population of the South were not allowed to vote]).
  • Slavery as the main cause of secession is mentioned, but not very prominently.
Rsk6400 (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image caption[edit]

@Sunriseshore: With this edit and this edit, you added an image, along with the following text: "'The Old Plantation,' South Carolina, about 1790. Gullah slaves are playing traditional West African instruments, preserving traditions despite forced assimilation from slave owners." To support your edit, you cited this source. Perhaps I missed it, but where is your text supported at that source? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sunriseshore:, I overwrote this edit of yours in a conflict, but now that I look at it, I think that was a good thing. Please make sure you do your copyedits before you save the edit. BTW I think the image is fine, but your additional phrase was unnecessary, IMO. Magnolia677, I saw your objection, but I don't think that thinking that the reader will think that everyone lived like that is very realistic. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Mangnolia and Drimes, in any case I think the plantation picture is important Pages, 4,5,6 of the article talk about the Gullah intentionally preserving names because they knew they came from Africa, and go into detail on wheir their names originated from Sunriseshore (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sunriseshore: The sourced article does not mention the image in question, and text regarding the photo does not mention that it depicts Gullah people. The source cited also in no way states that the people in this photo were "preserving their traditions despite forced assimilation from slave owners." Please note that a cornerstone policy on Wikipedia is that it does not accept original research, and misrepresenting a reliable source is considered disruptive editing. Also, please refrain from making uncivil and inappropriate edit summaries on this article, per WP:SUMMARYNO. This would included:
  • referring to other editor's work as "Confederate Propoganda"
  • "Go ahead, racists I dare you to raise objections... Dare you."
  • "Are you satisfied? Great!"
  • "those citation-needed tags are just what bad actors need to come out with their racist talking points. "
  • "This section must be here, and reverts will not be tolerated."
  • "No whitewashing here."
Thank you for your cooperation. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Magnolia677:

First thing first- The picture does indeed represent the Gullah people, while the source is about the preservation of their traditions. If you want me to add a second source about the picture, than I can bring that up readily. However your accusations of original research are not correct. The picture is verifability Gullah (as I will show later, and the article makes it clear their traditions was preserved.

In regards to your other points, this article was for years and years not neutral and in fact were advocating a fringe (Lost Cause point of View) The above discussion that took place some years ago is proof of that. Also, do so correct me but if I am aware Wikipedia has a strong policy aganist misinformation. In order to improve this article (given its history) a hard line is needed. IF you were satisifed that this article for many years promoted a fringe point of view but now selectively take a bigger issue with some incidential communciation here that would actually speak volumes.

Here is some context to help

  • For years the article promoted the Lost Cause Narrative, and tried to spun Emancipation in as bad as light as possible
  • The core reason of the CSA's exitance was in fact white washed and not made clear.
  • Atrocities like Indian Removal were not mentioned and seem deliebertely skipped
  • On many cases, former Confederates and even terrorist organizations like the KKK were made to look like victims. \
  • The CSA and its struggle is made to be the most important part of the article, almost as if over celebrated

In Real life revisionism around Southern History is paramount. Even while historians clearly outline why the CSA existed in the first place there are constant attempts to cloud its meaning or to normalize the oppression of millions of people. I think you compeltely missed my point about the tags. While techincally that user may have been in the right, (and at that point I just not had gotten to putting the source yet) the choice was still unwise. Understand that many Wikipedia readers may not understand how the website works, I have seen it personally. If they see evidence that Wikipedia might be incidently questioning established facts they will use that as eager proof to promote their fringe theories. The CSA Consitution is so easy to find, it would have been much better if they could have just added it. Questioning whether the CSA was founded on slavery is all but equivalent to promoting flat earth, pandemic misinformation or justifications for the January 6th Attack. Its important that Wikipedia is not netural about supporting facts over fiction.

I understand I could have expressed my points with more civlity, but once again I wish you and others had shown greater interest in fighting misinformation in the article years prior. I hope you realize the desperate need for the changes that have been made here.

In the spirit of you (hopefully) wanting to make this an article free of Pro-Confederate bias and a reflection of academic discourse on this topic:


Thank you for your cooperation. Sunriseshore (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Magnolia677, the talk page is for discussing the content of the article, not the civility of edit summaries. If I understand WP:NPA correctly, it is about attacks directed at specific editors, and so doesn't apply to Sunriseshore's summaries. While I don't like some of their summaries, I think they were absolutely right in calling parts of the article "Confederate propaganda". I'm teaching history at a German school and I know that pseudo-history contributed a lot to Hitler's success. Sunriseshore, totally agreeing with your last comment. WP "is not neutral about supporting facts over fiction". Rsk6400 (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very little remains of Spanish or French influence[edit]

The lede is for important matters only. Mardi Gras in New Orleans--yes but today's Mardi Gras is not a big deal outside that city. Spanish influence in Texas --very small influences from the Spanish who were there by 1840--only the names of cities like San Antonio. the large number of Mexicans now in Texas arrived after 1900 and their influence represents is modern Mexico not the Spanish elite. (There is much more Spanish influence in places outside the South like New Mexico, Arizona and California .(and Colorado where I have Spanish in-laws.) Rjensen (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since Sunriseshore is busy at the moment working on this article (IMHO, greatly improving it), I'd suggest we wait for the result and then give the lead the finishing touches according to MOS:LEAD. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyway you look at it Spain and France did have some influence on the Southern United States, even the presence of Mexico should count as Mexico was a direct product of the Vicerorory of New Spain. At the very least France and Spain put down foundations in New Orleans, Texas and Florida. However I am open to compromise here, especially since of the most lead (that I guess has been accepted) is in fact about the 'English South'

However there is so much work to be done for the article, citations are needed but contributors that go and find these rather than placing tags on empty places (that were the result of a source failing to carry over) are much appreciated.

Some thoughts

- Citations that take from comprehensive books about Southern History in particular are the gold standard but I am too constrained to do all of this myself

-Its likely better if the Confederate Section be trimmed in some way (not by removing by new additions haha- minority voices be they native american or unionist are needed). We need to look at this section and remove elements of the Lost Cause once and for all

-Greater Diversity in Geographical scope: I admit I come from a coastal area of the South. However I realize that we are dealing with a geographical entity that is as large as the heart of Europe. Using the right sources, we need to find ways to include under represented areas like Texas and Appalachia without losing the coherence of the article (which mostly should still be about the black belt, agriculture and the coast at least until 1900) as most of the deveoplment population and conflict was in these areas until very late in the article's period.

Greater Diversity in Historical Scope: No one will deny that the Pre Confederate and Confederate periods are important, but we cannot give in the Lost Cause Fringe point that this time defines the south alone. As much as former planters might believe- the Southern Story is not only their tale- far from it!

I realize I have copied and pasted much- though I have also given attribution in these cases. Some of the material will be to stay though ideally summaries of chapters of compreensive Southern History books would be better. However this measure that I took shines on light of events that were completely ignored for over twenty years. No Indian Removal- Really? No New Deal- Really? Statements like "The end of the CSA hurt every family" or "Slavery was not a big issue in the 19th century" Really?! Obviously in the interest of facts and basic human values on Wikipedia a certain era of this own article has come to an end and a new one needs to begin.

Comme on we all have to admit that was a bad play- but now is the time for fixing. The new material is a good place holder that will remain until better summaries can be formulated. The historical episodes mentioned by the new sections are needed in any southern history and should remain in princpal.

We need to make sure the article becomes more balanced. That likely means more emphasis on the Native Amerian Period, Early Industralization after 1930 and maybe a little more about New Deal/World War- which according to the proffesors I had at unviersity and many others was the true origin of the modern south and the Civil Rights Movement.

Thanks to all other contributors that have been helping in good faith. We can fix this article and make it a model for others in the U.S History to follow!

Friendly note: Images were selected for a reason, we can discuss them here before they are any removals. And in all actuality an image removed should have a replacment that better represents the subject.

With cuddles and friendship! Sunriseshore (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Early Industralization after 1930" The region did not experience industrialization until the 1930s? I thought much of the United States was experiencing urbanization by the early 20th century, and the primary sector was less influential than its heyday in the 19th century. Dimadick (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For sure
My message was not to imply it didn't happen I was really saying some eras needed more attention than other
But actually the industrial history of the Antebellum period also needs to be in here no doubt. Sunriseshore (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look last week, the New Deal section did not even exist. Sunriseshore (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And one more thing
Most historians consider the South behind the North in everyway at least until 1960
That being said, if you want to write about early industrializaton that is still needed! All help appreciated. Just no Gone with the wind stuff. Sunriseshore (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Audio Files[edit]

The goal is to add to the artile by adding a diversity of perspectives that highlight trends in Southern History or remarkable hinge moments. Obviously all recordings on public domain

Possible add ons:

Categories