Talk:New South

idk ndndj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.138.67 (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm...The politics part of this is total bullshit and clearly made up by a democratic party member who has not understanding of history. The South voted almost entirely progressive until the 1980s. It lacks sources because no one can substantiate the poor claims like: This also caused these areas to become more Democratic over time.

Intro is rambling, unsourced and not NPOV

This whole article seems to need some work, but this intro is particularly bad.

"The antebellum South was largely agrarian and sought to preserve its cultural identity in departing from the Union, which led to the irrepressible conflict."

I think it's bunk, but that's beside the point -- it's unsourced opinion / interpretation.

"After the war, the South was impoverished and seemed to be in great need of an alternative economy. The New South was no longer to be dependent on banned slave labor or predominantly upon the raising of cotton, but rather industrialized and part of a modern national economy."

Also unsourced, and doesn't make sense -- The South magically became industrialized after the war? The former slaves just disappeared? Oh, right -- they were just part of the newly industrialized workforce </sarcasm> Sorry if I'm violating DBAD and Assume Good Faith. I'm actually holding back. There really is a valid concept of "New South," but this article is looking like a coatrack for neoconfederate apologetics. Matt Kurz (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Images of Southern city skylines?

What is the justification of the use of the city skylines in this article? I don't think it makes very much sense. Some better illustrations of the New South are needed. --Iamozy (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New South. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121214205632/http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2007/04/sanford.html to http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2007/04/sanford.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Lyndon Johnson supported civil rights "at least in word if not deed"?

The article lists Harry Truman, JFK und Lyndon Johnson as supporting civil rights "at least in word if not deed". Is there any historical source that comes to the conclusion that they, especially Lyndon Johnson (who passed the Civil Rights Act!) did not support civil rights "in deed" also? There is no source given for it in the article. I'll remove that part if there is no disagreement. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)