Talk:Cornerstone Speech/Archive 1

Archive 1

"The first change"

This no longer seems to refer to anything as the article now exists... AnonMoos (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Another Explanation" link not a suitable reference

It is merely a rambling plea (fashioned as a critique of Dinesh D’Souza) that the speech was irrelevant and should not be used to impugn the Confederacy as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.144.137 (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just read this "explanation" and must agree. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Not well known?

Although Stephens' address is not well known...

It is well-known by everyone who debates the slavery question. (How can it not be well-known, when there's a wiki page dedicated to it?) This article should include references to his later attempts to distance himself from the pro-slavery message, and his speech called What I really said. Valetude (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cornerstone Speech. 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.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Africans _and_ African Americans

It's not correct to say that there were no African slaves in the U.S. at the outset of the Civil War.

1. Legal importation of African slaves ended in 1808 (Constitution, Article 1, Section 9). There were some still alive 53 years later.
2. Smugging of African slaves (importing them illegally) was anything but rare. A lot came in via sparsely-populated Florida, which was closest to Africa anyhow.
3. The distinction that is commonplace today between Africans and African Americans was seldom found. They were all colored, negros, or niggers. Just because they were born in the United States did not make them Americans (see Dred Scott). deisenbe (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, the whole hyphenation thing wasn't as prevalent as it later became. In 1861 and previous years, it wasn't at all uncommon to use "African" to refer to people of African descent in the U.S. and "European" to refer to people of European descent in the U.S., regardless of place of birth. AnonMoos (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

Ohboy. Needs some serious NPOV work to delete the hard pro-confederacy bias, needs cleanup because of poor citation, and makes a hash of proper flow. --Lakhim 23:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The POV claims seem to be absolved; the article appears to be much better now. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I forcefully second the opinion that the pro-Confederate bias is likely to mislead readers on crucial details. For instance, the article treats as good-faith Stephens's claim that he wants a bloodless revolution, and suggests the U.S. govt started the bloodshed. In fact the U.S. allowed the southern states to seize millions in U.S. property and real estate without intervening until it became necessary after Ft Sumter. If tomorrow California claimed a right to secede, and seized U.S. property, and excluded U.S. officials from it's territory and ports, I doubt anyone would call the U.S. govt the aggressors when it finally sent soldiers to secure U.S. property and territory.

This is just one of hundreds of articles that bad-faith neo-Confederates are hijacking. Someone needs to step in now. This stuff isn't trivial when we have white supremacists in the White House and Nazis marching in U.S. cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1070:97F0:ED91:A510:4D0A:8A75 (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

provenance

as the wiki article states that stephens contested the text of this speech post hoc and after the defeat of the confederacy, it's prudent to state the provenance of the text. evidently it was from a contemporary newspaper report, but as the wiki claims that stephens amended texts of the speech sent to him for correction and approval, i think it is necessary to state the specific date of publication, the archive location of the original, and cite documentation for stephens's approval of the text.

the most authoritative version of the text that i can find, redolent with 19th century journalistic mannerisms, says only: Delivered on 21 March 1861 The Athenaeum, Savannah, Georgia (From a contemporary newspaper account). -- which newspaper, published on what date?

and the source cited in the article as verification of stephens's approval of the text [11] is the splash page for a NY Times product and web commerce review site, listing articles such as "Is Gagalands com Legit {June} – Is this a Scam Website?" Drollere (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)