Talk:Antebellum
From Academic Kids
I believe that the following phrases compromise the neutrality of the article:
- The Antebellum Period is often looked back on with nostalgia by whites in the US South, due in part to widespread destruction and occupation of the region by Union forces after the Confederacy was defeated.
- Because of slavery and many other human rights abuses, this era is found offensive to most Americans, especially African Americans, than the adjoining Victorian Era.
The antebellum period was not exclusively a Southern period and there is no conclusive evidence of either the amount or skin color of people who would find the period, in totality, offensive. The edits of 12.7.120.9 were unnecessary, the controversy surrounding the period and reasons for why it was more lauded in the South than other regions was already addressed in a neutral manner. I propose that we revert the article to the last edit by Mulad.
JCarriker 21:18, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The page lacked sensitivity and the other side of the story. Of course, there are those who lament the passing of slavery in the U.S. and approve of this style of slanted writing. I would like to see this page completely rewritten to include both sides. How do most African Americans feel about this period? Here is a shallow quote from JCarrikers profile page "Antebellum - one of my favorite architectural styles and historic periods". This, I assume Caucasian southerner, is concerned that this article may soon contain a balanced report of this period. Here is the concise meaning from a dictionary, "belonging to a period before a war especially the American Civil War". There is nothing in the dictionary about how we all look back with nostalgia at this era.
12.7.120.9 10:28, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- To the Anon editor. Your opinion of JCarriker is a little bit harsh! How can you possibly conclude that he "laments the passing of slavery" based on "one of my favorite architectural styles and historic periods" ? It's clear that you feel strongly on the issue. This is a good thing, we should all be passionate about what we write. However by refraining from personal attacks and working together (By this I mean working with people with opposing viewpoints) we cdan get the best possible article. theresa knott 10:10, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I started from scratch with these two paragraphs for your enlarging and tweaking, in hopes we can achieve an NPOV balance. The difference between Antebellum and pre-Civil War is the essential I think. Wetman 10:42, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I believe we can work together to achieve NPOV, however I respectfully disagree with you're assertions, in the article, that the Antebellum Period is not a serious historic period. It is a period that is taught in schools and often includes much more emphasis on the evils of slavery than on Moonlight and Magnolias. In fact, I can recall a required reading about how African-Americans helped to influence and create the style that is synonymous with it. The Underground Railroad and the speeches of Frederick Douglas; and of course, memorizing Lincoln's Gettysburg Address were all part of the subject matter. The terms Antebellum and pre-Civil War are synonymous, and therefore cannot be seperated; the actuality of the Antebellum Period and the Romanticised View of the Antebellum Period can be, and that is what I have tried to do with my edit.
- -JCarriker 03:39, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
The article has not been edited since March 2, should we consider the article to have reached NPOV?
--JCarriker 18:38, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Well I reckon no edits in a week mean everyone is happy.So I've removed the NPOV header. theresa knott 20:07, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This is to explain why I reverted Guy Montag's 2/23/2005 edit: Guy, your desire for historical accuracy is admirable, but consider the following facts:
- South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Texas were five of the first seven states to secede from the Union. (See Confederate States of America).
- Each of the declarations issued by these states explaining why they were seceding (Alabama's was a speech by a leading member of its Senate) specifically mention their concerns about their continued rights to allow slavery.
- None of these declarations issued by these states mentions the word tariff.
Copies of these declarations can be found (assuming the links are still live) at the following sites:
- James F. Epperson's Causes of the Civil War (http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html)
- Sons of the South's Formation of the Confederacy (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Confederate_states_America.htm)
I found these sites rather easily. I invite others to find and add web links to copies of the declarations for the other Confederate states here.
06:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)EcoMan
I understand the need for people to believe that the Civil War had mostly something to do with slavery rather than slavery bieng a periphery of states rights to protect the lively hood and state's jursidiction against federal power and north biased laws. There is a history in the Union of near succession by the South due to the North's tariffs. For example, Tariff of Abominations and nullification.
I'll get back to it. Just to make sure we are clear, my only interest is historical accuracy here.
Guy Montag 09:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Discussions of the origins of the Civil War should be in the article, "Origins of the American Civil War." Cheers, -Willmcw 19:41, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
