Legacy section renaming Edit

Citing one author's opinion on the speech- that this one man's opinion was "the soul of the CSA and the South" -as the "legacy" of the speech is biased and should not be treated as encyclical. In other words, it's painting one man's opinion of one man's opinionated speech as fact. Remember, the views of one Confederate politician does not automatically invalidate the myriad of complex reasons the South seceded from the Union, including slavery.

I decided not to remove that section because citing one author's interpretation of the speech is certainly relevant enough to be included. I suggest that the "legacy" section be renamed to "modern intepretation" to avoid the risk of seeming like they are painting the author's claims as factual. - (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

one can also refer to the declaration by south carolina about why it was seceding -- failure of the federal government to enforce the fugitive slave act, and clauses in the constitution that allow the institution of slavery -- as winnowing down "the myriad of complex reasons" for secession to the core motivation. i'd also point skeptics to the number of times that stephens's speech was interrupted by applause (19 times by my count) which demonstrates that stephens's ideas were widely shared and popular -- the audience at the speech was "the largest audience ever assembled" at the venue, and the applause is described as "loud," "rapturous," "continuous," "immense", etc. Drollere (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The too-brief article cites to only one scholar, but this is the general academic consensus.
For starters, look at The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History by Gary W. Gallagher, Alan T. Nolan, pp. 15, 20.
More importantly, look how James M. McPherson--who won a Pulitzer Prize for his book about the Civil War--dismisses the Lost Cause, citing Alexander's speech.
Then Paul Finkelman, while not addressing Stephens' speech, wrote, "As almost all historians have increasingly recognized, the institution of slavery was the primary cause of secession and, consequently, of the Civil War." YoPienso (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The idea that secession was about anything other than slavery is horseshit. Of course there were a myriad of issues causing conflict between the states, then and now and as there always will be. Not one of them or all of them together--save slavery--was enough to induce treason against the U.S. govt. Everyone knew slavery was the cause of the war then and everyone should know it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1070:97F0:ED91:A510:4D0A:8A75 (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This statement is COMPLETELY out of context. "the negro is not equal to the white man" in the format used on this page Edit

This was stated before that statement in the same speech. ""the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with" It's not for us to judge by editing out critical context. http://msgeorgewc.weebly.com/uploads/5/0/9/7/50973469/sources_civil_war_and_reconstruction.pdf -- Preceding unsigned comment added by OxAO (talk o contribs) 09:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you read the full passage contained in the speech, he said that racial inequality was the cornerstone if the Confederacy. The sentence you quoted referred to 18th-century views that Stephens thought were outmoded (now that "positive good" ideology had taken hold). AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]