Talk:Zebulon Vance/Archive 1

Archive 1

Racism - "However"

I dislike this paragraph: "Although considered progressive in his era, Vance was also a slave owner and is now widely considered racist. However, it is noted that he frequently spoke out against antisemitism." Specifically, I object to the "However" in the sentence. It acts as if Vance was critical of antisemitism despite his racism, but if you read the text of his "Scattered Nation" speech, it is very clear that he's a scientific-racist who "defends" Jewish people precisely because of his racism. Over and over again throughout the speech, Vance argues that Jews in general, and Western European Jews in particular, are superior to Black people and other people of color. Vance's philosemitism was not an exception to his racism, it was a manifestation of his racism. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

In "Scattered Nations," Vance also shows that he ranked Jews by skin color; that is, he believed European Jews were superior to Jews from the area that is now Israel. I do appreciate his progressive commitment to the education of minorities and the positive impact this had on NC, but don't think his praise to one group (Jews) forgives his racist remarks towards and treatment of another. Just as any positive impact of his building the railroad to western North Carolina does not forgive the policies that gave the project a work force of prisoners (freed slaves who were arrested for not having jobs).

The sentence beginning with "however" was added to the original intro. I too was not comfortable with it, but did not remove it. But I encourage you do to so, especially given your comments. Also, the scientific racism category was a great addition--didn't know that one even existed! Rublamb (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

My recent edits

Take a look at this discussion.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Second wife

In 1880, Vance married Florence Steele Martin of Kentucky.

Not logged in the infobox. Did his first wife Harriette pre-decease him? Valetude (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

His first wife did pre-decease. This is now in the text. However, I removed the wife from the infobox as she is not notable and is included in the text.Rublamb (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Vance County

The article on Vance County states that it was named for him but I don't see it listed in this article? A short history of North Carolina by Samuel Thomas Peace, Sr. refers to it as his Zebs Black Baby. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Vance County is included in the list of honors. Rublamb (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Zebulon Baird Vance. 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/20031209033827/http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/Sections/HS/vance/vance.htm to http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/sections/hs/vance/vance.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927004943/http://toto.lib.unca.edu/findingaids/books/vance_scattered_nations/default_vance_scattered.htm to http://toto.lib.unca.edu/findingaids/books/vance_scattered_nations/default_vance_scattered.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060705134106/http://statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/nc/bio/public/vance.htm to http://statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/nc/bio/public/vance.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The Ballad of Tom Dooley, by Sharyn McCrumb

Angela, I'm reading a second novel by Sharyn McCrumb, which also discusses Vance considerably. As a bit of an expert on G. B. Grayson, I kind of backed into the study of Tom Dooley -- and hence Laura Foster, etc. Enjoy -- ResearcherQ (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Zebulon Vance was not the 'boy colonel' of the 26th North Carolina. That was Henry K. Burgwyn, Jr. who was only 18 at the time he became colonel of the 26th.

He was, however, the colonel. Burgwyn was second in command.

Rough and Ready

@TarheelTroops has indicated that this fact is incorrect: "The Rough and Ready Guards followed Vance to the 26th." This sentence is sourced; I checked the source which is avaiable through Wikipedia Library. This is what is says, "Vance enlisted on May 3 as a private in a Buncombe County militia unit known as the Rough and Ready Guards and was elected captain. That June, the unit became Company F of the 14th North Carolina Infantry. On August 26, before Vance had ever seen battle, he was elected colonel of a different North Carolina regiment, the 26th, and soon got his old company transferred into his new command." As a result, I revesed the edit that removed the sentence in question, but thought this was worth discussion. I have not found a reliable source online that covers the Rough and Ready. Any suggestions? I have a few books to check but would prefer something online so everyone can see it. Rublamb (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The original source author, Robert H. Fowler, made an incorrect statement. Vance did recruit and become captain of a company which called itself the "Rough and Ready Guards," which eventually became Company F of the 14th North Carolina Infantry. This company was from Buncombe County. Vance was indeed elected Colonel of the 26th North Carolina Infantry and went over there. He did not bring his old company with him. The "Rough and Ready Guards" from Buncombe County remained as Company F of the 14th North Carolina for the remainder of the war. For confirmation, check Weymouth T. Jordan, North Carolina Troops: A Roster, Vol. 5(Raleigh: North Carolina Office of Archives and History, 1975), 444-454. '''

When Vance became Colonel of the 26th North Carolina, there were already 10 companies (the full complement for the regiment) in place, none of which was from Buncombe County--two were Caldwell County, two were from Chatham County, one each was from Anson, Ashe, Moore, Wake, Wilkes, and Union Counties. You can find the full roster for the 26th North Carolina in Jordan, North Carolina Troops: A Roster, vol. 7, pp. 455-601. ''

In practical terms, the army did not exchange companies at the whims of commanders, which would have led to managerial chaos. Once a company became part of a regiment, it essentially remained with that designation for the duration of the war, unless the regiment itself was disbanded.

The Civil War Times Illustrated, the source for this information, is a secondary source, and unsourced itself. So no one can see what primary source Fowler used to justify his claim that Vance got the company transferred. He never cites a source for that information. The Roster volumes I cite are primary sources that show clearly that Company F of the 14th remained Company F of the 14th, no matter what Vance did or wanted. I'm not sure how deeply you wish for me to go here, but if you go to Fold3.com and look under Civil War Service Records for North Carolina, and scroll down to the 14th North Carolina Regiment, I can give you 100 names of men to look up to verify that those men joined the Rough and Ready Guards on May 3, 1861, and never at any time were transferred or designated as part of another regiment until they surrendered at Appomattox on April 9, 1865. TarheelTroops (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not a book that I have access to. And we cannot use primary souces such as those in Fold3; it is one of the quirks of Wikipedia guidelines that can be frustrating at times. It is also important to understand that Wikipedia does not require a secondary source to have citations, especially if it is published by a what is considered to be a reliable source. Instead, we are supposed to evaluate the author and the publication or publisher. But maybe both are the issue in this instance?

Unless another editor finds an online source, I will dig through my books tomorrow; I am pretty sure what you say will be in one of them based on what I see online in unusable sources. (Why hasn't someone written an article on the Rough and Ready for NCpedia or the Vance Birthplace website?) There is one possiblity: since many of the original regiments enlisted for around six months, maybe some Rough and Ready members moved at a later date. However, that detail is not worth looking for as it would not enhance this article; this info is only important if the group he formed stayed with him IMO. Anyway, thanks for noticing this. I keep meaning to come back and work on this article some more. Rublamb (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand that you are obeying the rules, and I don't have a gripe with you. But I fear that logic is not winning in this case. You probably won't find a source that explicitly says, "The Rough and Ready Guards did not go with Vance to the 26th North Carolina," because no one would even think to state that. It didn't happen, so why say that it didn't happen?

Robert Fowler was the founder of the Civil War Times journal in 1962. It is not peer reviewed. And when he published this article, no one at Civil War Times is going to say no to the founder of the journal at which they work, or dispute what he says. But Fowler did not cite any sources for his statement. I don't know where he got it, or if he imagined it, but he was (and is) just wrong.

By the logic you have indicated, I could start an online journal, and publish an article saying that Robert E. Lee sodomized Stonewall Jackson every day of the week except Sunday. And then I could add that statement to Lee's Wikipedia page, and cite it as my non-peer-reviewed journal article. If you evaluate the author you will find that he is a tenured professor of Civil War History at a respectable state university, and passes the sniff test. But no one would be able to remove that erroneous statement about Lee's sexual habits because it was sourced (even though the original source was wrong), and no one would be able to find any published piece anywhere saying that Lee was not sodomized by Stonewall. Because, of course, no one would think to have to make that statement. TarheelTroops (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I will be looking for a source that gives the history of the Rough and Ready. If you are coming to Wikipedia from academia, you will probably find it helpful to review WP:RELIABILITY. I struggled at first with some of the guidelines. For example, a newspaper is a reliable secondary source but we cannot use Census records or birth records because they are primary sources. Think about that one for a minute. There is a process for reviewing sourced content that is challenged; we don't go by someone's personal knowledge. Have patience and trust the system. It works. Rublamb (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Some sources, including membership of the Know-nothings and I think his racism

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Dictionary_of_North_Carolina_Biography/BdAGnn0SZX0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Zebulon+Baird+Vance+%22know+nothing%22&pg=PA301&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Shapers_of_the_Great_Debate_on_the_Civil/ci-_0WzfX_cC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Zebulon+Baird+Vance+%22know+nothing%22&pg=PA391&printsec=frontcover Zebulon B. Vance: A Confederate Nationalist in the North Carolina Gubernatorial Election of 1864 Author(s): Joe A. Mobley Source: The North Carolina Historical Review, OCTOBER 2000, Vol. 77, No. 4 (OCTOBER 2000), pp. 434-454 Published by: North Carolina Office of Archives and History Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23522169 Zebulon B. Vance: A Confederate Nationalist in the North Carolina Gubernatorial Election of 1864

ZEBULON BAIRD VANCE: A PERSONALITY SKETCH Frontis W. Johnston https://www.jstor.org/stable/23516187 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:48, 28 November 2021‎

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zebulon Baird Vance/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Indy beetle (talk · contribs) 02:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments

There are some significant challenges to this article becoming a GA, most of them related to focus and sourcing. Some examples:

• Sourcing concerns:
  • Sizeable sources such as the books Life of Zebulon B. Vance, Zeb Vance: champion of personal freedom, and journal articles such as "Zebulon B. Vance and the 'Scattered Nation'", “Zebulon Vance and His Reconstruction of the Civil War in North Carolina.”, and "Zebulon B. Vance: A Confederate Nationalist in the North Carolina Gubernatorial Election of 1864", are not cited by specific page number (only the page ranges are given for these journal articles.) Reference structure requirements for GAs are less stringent than FAs, but an article is required to be verifiable, and without specific page numbers for specific citations, this becomes incredibly difficult to maintain. Life of Zebulon B. Vance is a nearly 500 page book. "Zebulon B. Vance: A Confederate Nationalist" is used to support the incredibly important statement about Vance's reasons for eventually supporting the Confederacy, so we should know which page or specific two or three pages to flip to through if we want to verify that information.
  • "Vance, Zebulon | Encyclopedia.com" (currently ref 40) seems somewhat dubious as a source, especially when better alternatives almost certainly exist for someone of Vance's pedigree. "Five Things You Probably Didn’t Know About Zebulon Vance" is from a blog which also does not evidence any reliability. "Presidential Proclamation No. 38, May 29, 1865, 13 Stat. 760" (ref 39) is a WP:PRIMARY source and could easily be replaced by a secondary source, not to mention that I doubt the proclamation makes any claims regarding Holden being a former opponent of Vance. Clement Dowd, author of Life of Zebulon B. Vance, was his erstwhile law partner, apparently, so this should not be used so extensively as an authoratative source for his public career. It seems extremely sympathetic to Vance.
  • Instances where the cited source does not support the information it's supposed to be supporting:
    • The statement in the lede Although historians consider Vance progressive for his era, he was also a slave owner and is now regarded a racist. has three supporting refs (6, 7, and 8). All three are reliable, but do not really support this claim. The first one is a news article which reviews one book by historian Gordon B. McKinney. This article does support the claim that Vance was "often remembered as a progressive leader, at least for his times" (by who exactly, historians or the public, is not made clear), and supports the notion that a single historian (McKinney) thinks he should be remembered as a racist. The other two are part of The Washington Post project to document members of Congress who owned slave. Ref 7 is the introductory article to their project, and ref 8 is their database of slaveholding congressmen. Best I can tell, ref 7 does not even mention Vance, and while ref 8 could support the statement that he was a slaveowner, it would mean nothing as far as public or academic perception of Vance or how it has changed over time. The statement and the refs taken together are at best a WP:SYNTH violation.
    • The statement Vance and other former Confederates were banned from returning to public office by the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868. is plainly not supported by ref 42, Authentic History of the Ku Klux Klan, 1865-1877 p. 292.
    • Surviving members of Vance's Rough and Ready Guard led a procession of 710 carriages from the church to Riverside Cemetery where nearly 10,000 mourners attended his funeral and burial, including people he formerly enslaved. This is supposedly supported by refs 14, 41, and 6. But ref 41 does not actually appear relevant to this information and should be removed.
    • Modern detractors and some modern biographers claim that Vance was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. This is sourced to an Asheville Citizen-Times article which only says of Vance and the Klan, "Community and family historian Sasha Mitchell also found written evidence that he was grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan." A single local historian alleging that Vance was a member of the Klan is not the same as "Modern detractors and some modern biographers". She is only one person, and is neither really a "detractor" per se and definitely not a "biographer" of Vance. Thus, the source fails to support the information in the Wikipedia article.
    • The first known source to connect the two is an affidavit to the Congress's Joint Select Committee to Inquire into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States from Thomas A. Hope of Lincoln County, North Carolina.[53] In his affidavit, Hope states, "[I] frequently heard it talked among the [KKK] members that Z. B. Vance was the chief of the State; do not know this of my own knowledge, have only heard it talked of."[53] This is sourced directly to a transcript of the testimony. Using this to try and establish a connection that Vance was indeed a Klansman is probably an WP:OR violation. The transcript itself can also not be a source for the statement that it itself was "the first known source" - a secondary source would be needed to make that determination. We would also need a secondary source to affirm any significance to Hope's testimony about rumors.
    • In her 1924 self-published book, Authentic History Ku Klux Klan, 1865–1877, Susan Lawrence Davis states that Vance was the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan for North Carolina.[42] Davis had a history of fakery and appears to have plagiarized a 1906 historical romance novel by Thomas Dixon Jr. when writing her nonfiction Klan history.[54][42] Modern experts note other discrepancies in Authentic History, including fabricated descriptions of Klan costumes, giving reason to question any claims she made about Vance.[54] This whole section needs to be removed, textbook WP:OR If Davis' book is unreliable then it is unreliable, and the arguments about that can take place on the talk page. We can probably discount it on the fact that its almost 100 years old and self-published, though she really does seem like a piece of work all and all. That said, I also do not see evidence that Wilhelm Kühner, publishing by way of Medium, is a "modern expert" (and he certainly isn't "modern experts") or that modern experts of any other sort were critiquing her work, as weak as it looks. "giving reason to question any claims she made about Vance" is an original conclusion by the Wikipedia editor who put that there, not something asserted by an reliable source. This would be different if a historian was evaluating Davis' claim about Vance in something like a journal article. But what we have is one modern dubious source broadly critiquing an antiquated, self-published one. None of this should be brought into the Wikipedia article at all unless RS are discussing it.
    • However, Davis's report of Vance's association with the Klan is repeated in many credible books in the 20th century, such as historian Stanly Fitzgerald Horn's Invisible Empire: The Story of the Ku Klux Klan, 1866–187. More original research. Horn's own book cannot be a source for the claim that "many credible books" including his own say Vance was a Klansmen.
  • I've tagged a few instances where statements are not given a supporting citation. Not a major problem but needs to be fixed before a GA pass regardless.
  • A lot of the sources are very old. For a figure such as Vance (about who much as been written), we should not be heavily relying on sources published before 1900, or even really too much on those before 1960, especially when dealing with his public career and figuring out what is important about it. The newspaper articles from the 1800s are basically primary sources. Older sources, especially older news articles also tend to be less neutral on matters such as prominent political figures. The fact that the entirety of the section on his approach towards Reconstruction as a Senator relies on an 1897 book written by his law partner is not good. McKinney's 2004/2005 biography is not cited much, and it is probably the highest quality source we have on Vance. Other newer sources such as Stephanie McCurry Confederate Reckoning: Power and Politics in the Civil War South (2012), while not mostly about Vance, might also be good to consult.

• Focus concerns:
  • At the age of six, Vance attended schools operated by M. Woodson, Esq., first at Flat Creek and, later, on the French Broad River.[14][15] Both were far enough from home that he had to board with others.[10] He also was a student at a school in Lapland run by Jane Hughey.[10] Why do we need to know the names of the people who ran these schools?
  • There lots of large quotes in this article, some of which do not seem fully necessary. Namely, Sharyn McCrumb's full explanation for why she decided to write fictional novels involving Vance seems WP:UNDUE, especially when we're citing her personal web page.
  • We do not need a comprehensive listing of every notable politician who attended Vance's two funerals.
• Some problems with prose and neutral wording:
  • His account of the search, published in the Spectator in July 1857, is considered the most complete record of the tragic event. Considered the most complete record by who? Also, "tragic" should not be used in Wikivoice.
  • For this campaign, he went on a fifteen-county speaking tour that "set the mountains on fire". Two issues. One, it is not clear whether this is the quote of a contemporary or of the historian who wrote the journal article this is cited to. Second, without further context, it's not clear if this means Vance's stump speeches were controversial or very well and enthusiastically received by the locals.
  • When North Carolina needed a new governor, his name was immediately mentioned. After reading the source, I can say a much more neutral and precise way of saying this would be "Many newspapers supported Vance as a potential candidate for governor". Phillip Gerard is no pushover, but the tone of his Our State articles seems clearly played up for drama, and that seems to be bleeding over into Wikitext. Same with the preceding statement The Confederates were not victorious, but Vance again showed "unflinching leadership". Without context on what he did in battle, this also is substantively meaningless.
• Problems with being sufficiently broad:
  • His gubernatorial campaigns are glossed over in single sentences.

Per WP:GAFAIL, a good article nomination can be failed if "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria". As I have laid out above, I believe there is a lot of ground to cover before this is GA ready. On these grounds I'm going to fail the nomination. I advise the nominator to take the above into consideration before renominating. What I have pointed out is not exhaustive but I have tried to point out the biggest issues or at least things that are representative of potentially larger problems. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Assessment checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: