Talk:Antebellum

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:

1. South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Texas were five of the first seven states to secede from the Union. (See Confederate States of America).
2. 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.
3. 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
• Sons of the South's Formation of the Confederacy

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)

---

The issues surrounding the Civil War and the structure of society in America during the antebellum period is not as simplistic as the author would have us believe. Slavery was the ostensible reason for the conflict where deeper issues were at play. Being no different from the justification of invading Iraq to free the Iraqi people, the issue of slavery in the South was nothing than demagoguery designed to swing national opinion in favor of the war over a 'feel good' sentiment.

During and after the Civil War, slavery existed in the North. Robert E. Lee did not own slaves while Ulysees S. Grant continued to own slaves after the war. The Emancipation Proclaimation did not proclaim that slavery is abolished, it stated that only the slaves in rebellious states were free. President Lincoln stated that, "If I could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. If I could preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves, I would do that too."

There were many propertied free black men who owned slaves.

White men were enslaved in the South, as they were previously in the North.

There were abolishonists in the South, as well as the North.

The Underground railroad began in the South.

The number of white men that owned slaves was very small percentage of the population.

The white planters were not popular with the yoemanry, (white freeman, many of whom were descended from white slaves) *White chattel slavery was very common in the colonies, despite the 'accepted acedemic viewpoint' which seeks to marginalize this history with the term endenture, ignoring that full white slavery existed along with, and even before black slavery in the Americas.

This entry is little more than a screed recited from the shallow brainwashing given to 3rd graders in public schools, and worse than avoiding 'the other side', it completely distorts the structure of society and nullifies any intelligent pondering of the issue. A clear indicator of the quality of this entry is the primary source that was cited, a Hollywood film based on a story written by a libertine housewife.

In short, the plantaion owners were a small slice of a society that held far different values. To characterize the antebellum South in that manner is like saying that current Americans are all ultra rich, greedy, environment destroying war mongering corporate elitists. While this element may exist in America today, it does not represent the 'mind' of the nation.

--198.6.46.11 4 July 2005 18:31 (UTC)

---

I have to agree with the previous author about parts of this article. And I must disagree with the following passage

In the romanticized view, the Antebellum Period is often looked back on with sentimental nostalgia by some whites in the U.S. South, as an idealized pre-industrial highly-structured genteel and stable agrarian society, in contrast to the anxiety and struggle of modern life. The issue of slavery is largely ignored. For example, a romanticized view of the Antebellum South would claim that the Civil War was fought over states' rights, when in actuality the war was fought predominantly over a state's right to allow slavery. Because of slavery, and the many human rights abuses it spawned, most African Americans find the romanticization of this era to be offensive, and often see a coded approving reference to the racism of the period in the term "Old South".

Most portions of the above are entirely opinion. I suggest that it be removed or changed to reflect fact and not opinion. Specifically the statements related to the Civil War.

--LordLinus 15 July 2005 15:02 (EDT)

I'm confused about the dates in this article. According to the first section, this period started as early as 1812, but in the second section it says that the period lasted from 1784 to 1860.

neutral?

i question the neutrality of this article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.56.51.177 (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Contradiction

The reference to "scorched earth" here has a link to the scorched earth article but appears to contradict it, since the article describes a scorched earth policy as destroying one's own resources, not destroying an enemy's resources. Ken Arromdee 20:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Architecture

Why does antebellum architecture redirect to this article? The architecture section is a joke, including such helpful information as "The Haunted Mansion at Disneyland - although it is not in the South (nor is it an actual house), it still is an example of antebellum architecture" and some links - it has no pictures, no description of architectural elements, nothing. --Alphanum3r1c 11:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality / Unbased Claims

I dispute the following sentence: While the South was largely ruined after the Civil War, this had as much or more to do with the failed domestic polices of the Confederacy, notably its impressment of food supplies and thousands of uprooted civilians, as it did with the scorched earth policy of Sherman.

No source cited, blames atrocities committed by Northern leaders on "domestic policy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.33.63.207 (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is stated in the article that Margaret Mitchell is an "American sexers" - the author should either clarify the meaning of "sexers" or correct the typo. If the implication here is that one of Mitchell's primary aims in "Gone with the Wind" was to portray the Antebellum South as "sexy," then the author may want to strongly consider using less biased wording. Mark2680 (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Antebellum days

The antebellum means befor the Civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.7.33 (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"More than any other single American sexers, Margaret Mitchell's 1936 novel, Gone with the Wind..."

Sexers? I'm pretty sure that's not supposed to be it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.167.87 (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never edited a Wiki page before, and I hope I haven't violated any Wikipedia rules of etiquette. IMHO "sexers" had to be either a typo, vandalism, or a literary term so obscure as to be meaningless. When I found two comments here about the same thing, I changed "sexers" to "author". I suppose I should have deleted the word "single" too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.132.204 (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

The Industrial is mythically substituted for by the widespread destruction of Sherman's March to the Sea - that makes no sense. Corvus cornix_talk 20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The prewar south was not just about slavery

You cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater simply because slavery existed in the south. Slavery existed in Egypt too, but when one talks about Ancient Egypt one does not dwell on it. Slavery existed in Ancient Rome and Greece as well, but one would hardly know it today. I am not implying that the South should be looked upon like Egypt, Rome, or Greece, but I do not think that Gone With the Wind was overly romanticized. Prewar Georgia was full of wealthy, educated people living on very nice plantations with very nice architecture. Go visit the few towns that were not burned down by General Sherman to see for yourself. Like Egypt, Rome, and Greece, much of it was built by the fruits of slave labor. 76.215.47.190 (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)