Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notable members?

From the article: "Membership is not exclusively white: a notable black member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans is retired educator Nelson W. Winbush". Reading his wiki bio, it seems absolutely the only thing notable about him is that he is a member of the SCV, which is not notable at all, since anyone whose ancestors were in the CSA can join. This is a lame attempt to whitewash the reputation of the SCV. Faveuncle (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)faveuncle

Nelson Winbush has great notablility as a speaker and lecturer in Civil War History circles. He's also been interviewed for several articles in the press who seem to place his notability (to them) as being a black man who is also a member of the SCV. Sf46 (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Winbush has an article, so there is a presumption of notability. If there is a serious reason to doubt that he qualifies then the appropriate response would be to go through the deletion process.

Guidelines for inclusion in lists like this one are found at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria. (It refers to stand-alone lists, but embedded lists are the same in this regard). This is a list of "notable members", which means that "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." So each entry has to pass two thresholds - verifiable membership and notability.

Regarding sources, WP:V prohibits the use of self-published sources, like blogs, except when writing about the author of the blog. So this blog, [1] which is written by a third party, is not acceptable. OTOH, if Hylton used his own blog to say that he's a member then that would be acceptable.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that the blog itself is not a good source, but the blog has posted a copy of Micheal Given's e-mail confirming James Hylton's membership. How would you suggest sourcing or referencing that e-mail? Sf46 (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it more closely, I see a link to this official SCV blog posting: [2]. I believe that would be an adequate source for the email.   Will Beback  talk  01:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

We're down to about 21 unsourced entries. Let's keep working on it through January, and then delete any that are still unsourced.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

File:LAplateSonsOfConfederate.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:LAplateSonsOfConfederate.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Order of the Confederate Rose

Do I have enough good documentation for this section? I was able to get three third party sources that basically said that they are the womans auxiliary of the group, but more details, about how the group got started etc., I could only find on their website. Is this sufficient sourcing?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Recruiting from SCV

Concerns have been raised regarding the following content from the article:

The organization uses Confederate parks for rallies. The SCV has protested against Ku Klux Klan rallies in the same parks, arguing that the KKK should not be identified with the Confederacy.Ref-1 However, in the past, the Klan has actively sought recruits from SCV members.Ref-2

Concerns include (1) the quality of the second source, is it reliable? (2) The phrasing of the second sentence, specifically the "However", which appears to set up a juxtaposition not conveyed by either individual source. (3) Significant point of view balancing; Is the stressed point that SCV condemns KKK association, or that there is nevertheless an association, even if unwanted? Additional sources and input would be appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

White Supremacist group

I haven't seen any evidence stating that this group is a white supremacist group. Even the SPLC article cited in the first sentence that makes the claim doesn't state that it is a white supremacist group, but that some members and leaders are considered white supremacists. The rest of the article even states that the purpose of the organizations is to help maintain gravestones and things like that. I think the internal arguments mentioned in the article between members of taking a more political stance on issues would be worth while, but calling the group white supremacist in the opening sentence just seems a little overboard.Cheesecake42 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that this was added by somebody yesterday who isn't a regular editor to this page. I'm just going to go ahead and take off the change they made.72.166.62.218 (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)72.166.62.218 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Cheesecake42 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that at one time the SPLC did list the SCV as a hate group, but the organization is no longer listed by them as such. Perhaps someone over there did a bit of research and then took the group off their list?Sf46 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This page is a disgrace to good historians. The SCV was at one time led by by Nathan Bedford Forrest III, whose role and relation to the Klan is well documented in the New York Times. Moreover, there are an abundance of sources tying the Klan to the SCV. Anytime accurate sourcing has appeared on this page, it has been scrubbed by the SCV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.249.192 (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that's Wikipedia for ya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.24.73 (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It probably would be wise to have a section at least briefly exploring or documenting some of the controversy surrounding the group. Jwebsterbillings (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Links to KKK, support of other known racists individuals and organizations

This organization claims to be unbiased, but their actions prove otherwise. Numerous accounts of supporting racists. Article is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.69.1 (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Controversies

State license plates are controversial? NOTHING here is controversial. Having the license plates is no more than living SD Lee's "Charge" (which you call a Mission. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If a lot of people believe it's a controversy, then it is a controversy. That's what a controversy is. Wikipedia does not have to concern itself with every controversy, but it does have to include the notable ones. This one is notable. Your personal opinion does not change that. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Questions about "American patriotic organization" as a valid description

Is it possible to contest the notion that the SCV is "an American patriotic" organization, when it fact they are (a) regional, (b) celebrate the division of the patria into two competing countries and (c) are devoted to memorializing "treason in defense of slavery," against the US of America?

It may seem a minor quibble, but describing an organization whose camps to this day are named after N.B. Forrest, founder of the Klan and not-minor terrorist (see http://www.nbforrestcamp215.org/, http://www.romescv.org/ and http://www.scvmeridian.org/), as "American patriotic" is not unlike describing the American Nazi Party as "proudly serving the interests of American Jews."

Oswight (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Describing this organization as "patriotic" is obscene and offensive. This organization glorifies those who took up arms against their own country for deplorable reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.71.7 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sons of Confederate Veterans. 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://web.archive.org/web/20160304042210/http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/SVC_turmoil.htm to http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/SVC_turmoil.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood

The source for Clint Eastwood is a mention is some "alternative" press with no source. http://www.palmcoastobserver.com/photo-gallery/confederate-style-funeral-fulfills-one-man%E2%80%99s-last-request says Eastwood is a member but links/cites the wikipedia article as the source. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2055981,00.html says SVC often claims Eastwood as a member (and pres Truman). no such claims on the official website http://www.scv.org/new/?s=eastwood Eastwood est 1930, if he was a member, surely by now an actual news organization somewhere that would have fact checked this -- looks like not true propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.147.76 (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The Sons of Confederate Veterans badge

File:Scvlogo.png

The image above should be converted into an SVG file. 2601:8C:4102:1210:3CF5:C1D3:3DA6:32B7 (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Controversy in Washington State

I noted that a controversy from Washington State involving the SCV was not listed, I was hoping to add something like what is below with sources.

• • The Jefferson Davis Highway marker in Vancouver was removed from it's prominent location in the city in the late 1990s, to the outcry from the local Northwest Chapter of SCV. They succeeded in having the granite marker stone placed outside the Clark County Historical Museum and a petition for its inclusion on the county's historical register was secured in 2002. Vancouver city officials continued to pressure for the removal of the stone from any public poverty so in 2007, the local chapter of SCV purchased land outside of nearby Ridgefield. They placed the marker stone facing busy Interstate 5 with large Confederate flags surrounding it on prominent display. This brought outcries but little could be done by either the nearby town of Ridgefield or the county, as it was located on on private property; the prominent location and events in other parts of the nation still make this, park the local focus of strong emotions, especially in the aftermath of the white nationalist Unite the Right rally in August 2017. The vandalism of the stones on August 17, 2017 brought concern for the park managed by SVC, one marker was covered in black tar or paint and the other was covered in red. In October of 2017, the city of Ridgefield formally asked the county historical society to remove the marker from the register and the vote was unanimous to do so, 6-0.

References

Does anyone have issues and more importantly suggestions. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sons of Confederate Veterans. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scv.org/heritageReporting.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060806161141/http://savethescv.org/Introduction.htm to http://www.savethescv.org/Introduction.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170826113158/https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/23/coming-soon-swastikas-racial-slurs-on-license-plates?int=998208 to https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/23/coming-soon-swastikas-racial-slurs-on-license-plates?int=998208

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) 17:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead should but does not summarise the article, NPOV

And since it doesn't mention any controversies, fails WP:NPOV/ Doug Weller talk 08:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Agreed. I couldn't find any consensus here that the lead shouldn't be changed in any way without an explicit consensus, so I removed those inline comments. I tagged the controversy claim as needing a citation. I also reworded it to say that the display of the symbols is controversial, rather than the right to display them itself. Not enough people in the US oppose freedom of speech for the right itself to be considered controversial. The controversy is about whether people should display the symbols, not whether they can. This is appropriately described in the lead of the page linked to: "Displays of flags associated with the Confederacy have long been controversial." That was probably just a case of bad wording. Hopefully removing those inline comments will allow people to actually address the problem indicated by the template message. We may have to just remove the sentence entirely if it stays unsourced for long enough. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 05:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I re-organized the first paragraph of the lead, basically replacing "encouraging Southern historical study" (based on a source from 1926) with "promotion of the pseudo-historical Lost Cause ideology." I think this is well supported by good sources given in the body of the article. I felt a certain temptation to replace "encouraging" with "falsifying", but that would have been unencyclopedical. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Rename the page “Order of the Confederate Rose”

   Rose Greenhows page says the group changed their name to the former in the early 2000s. The name of the page should be the group’s current official name.

108.77.140.13 (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Or... rename the page "Descendants of Traitors--and Traitors Themselves" because that's what these people are.

Per their website, they're still referring to themselves as the SCV, so that is what the page should remain titled. Hog Farm _Talk 03:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

RE - the traitors comments - So are the signers of the Declaration of Idendepence and their descendants, but you don't see people advocating for a similar name change to Sons of the American Revolution. SCV was founded in 1896 and doesn't have a lot in common with groups like League of the South. The SCV and United Daughters of the Confederacy as well as the families that preceded them are simply doing what generations of families have always done, remembering their fallen. Don't let your confirmation bias tell you otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyfore (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Andyfore: You mean remembering those who have fallen in defense of racism and white supremacy. That's kindof an important detail you lft out. 46.97.170.115 (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

As explained here, the Order of the Confederate Rose is a support group for the SCV, not a new name for the group. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Is there any reason why this isn't included in any categories on White Supremacy, Discrimination or the Alt Right? 46.97.170.115 (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this. I have fixed it by adding the category "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" to the category "White supremacy". --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't improve this article. Aren't there any reliable sources describing the SCV as a white supremacist organization? 46.97.170.115 (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Those sources are already in the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Then why is the organization not directly described as a white supremacist one, and why is the article not part of the "White Supremacy" category? 46.97.170.115 (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is part of the "White supremacy" category, because the category "Lost Cause of ..." is part of "White supremacy". The very first sentence states that SCV promote White supremacy. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It's never directly described as a white supremacist organization. The term "white supremacy" appears a total of 5 times. Two of the mentions say that the lost cause myth is linked to white supremacy, two claim that they supported white supremacist groups and one is about Dylan Roof. At no point in the article is the SCV itself called white supremacist, despite the context making it obvious, which makes it look like the article is deliberately trying to avoid calling a spade a WP:SPADE.

An infobox under the image could be helpful, as well as a footer. By contrast, Neo-Confederate has both the Alt-Right AND Fascism in the footer, and is also included separately in the "White nationalism in the United States", "White supremacy in the United States" and the "Alt-right" categories, in addition to the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy". Instead, the categories this article is in, include "American Civil War veterans and descendants organizations", "Heritage organizations", "Lineage societies", and most curiously "Charities based in Tennessee", and "Nonpartisan organizations in the United States". I fail to see what makes a white supremacist organization "non-partizan", or a "charity". 46.97.170.115 (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

To call it directly a "White supremacy organisation", we need good reliable sources that do so (directly, not only indirectly). Regarding the categories: I removed both "charity" and "nonpartisan" (thank you for the hint), but regarding "White supremacy" I can only repeat what I stated above. That's because of the logic of the category system which forbids to list the same article both in a category and a sub-category of that category. If another article (in this case, Neo-Confederate) has a problem, it should be corrected there. --Rsk6400 (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

If Neo-Confederate has a helpful list of links to fascism and alt-right related articles and SCV is a Neo-Confederate organization, then it is simple logic to include those lists at the bottom of this article as well. 46.97.170.115 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Other articles are no reliable sources as defined in WP:RS. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That's because of the logic of the category system which forbids to list the same article both in a category and a sub-category of that category. This does not sit right with me. It's immediately obvious what "White supremacy" is, but "lost cause of the confederacy" is nowhere near that obvious. What we have here, is an unassumingly named subcategory used to mask something much more despicable. Not to mention the category includes things that don't seem to have anything to do with white supremacy, at least on the surface. But Neo-Confederate ideology IS white supremacist, and the SCV IS a white supremacist organization. And I'll be very surprised if there aren't multiple reliable sources describing it as such. 46.97.170.115 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I added Category:White supremacy in the United States, because I just learned that I was wrong regarding the categories. Regarding the reliable sources: They may be there, but somebody has to find them. You're welcome to find and provide them. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Source critiques

Under criticisms of the Sons of Confederate Veterans it needs to be noted that SOLON, and the NEW REPUBLIC are liberal, left wing publications. > > Without these declarations the criticisms are biased, and imply that the publications represent a majority of publications, which is clearly wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.160.5 (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2010 (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 Wikipedia 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 [my emphasis] 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)

• https://historyofyesterday.com/fighting-for-the-confederacy-d27ee57e387f
• https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/mexican-texans-in-the-civil-war
• https://www.businessinsider.com/how-native-americans-ended-up-fighting-for-the-confederacy-2019-6?amp

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)

• https://www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/confederacy-signs-treaties-with-native-americans
• https://knowledge.e.southern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jiur
• https://americanindian.si.edu/static/why-we-serve/topics/civil-war/
• https://www.amazon.com/Black-Confederates-Charles-Kelly-Barrow/dp/1565549376

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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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)