Customer Reviews

The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Well, the neo-Confederates are out in force condemning this collection of essays. It seems well to note that Southerners did a very good job of capturing the high ground from which Americans viewed Civil War history for nearly a century. Even though I'm a native Mississippian, I've never understood those who claim that the war was not about slavery. On the contrary, it had everything to do with slavery. The Mississippi declaration of secession began by noting "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery..." That seems pretty straight forward to me. Reasonable people can argue about whether secession was, in the strict legal sense, constitutional. And it can be pointed out that while Lincoln made strong use of slave-owner Thomas Jefferson's assertion that "all men are created equal" that ideal is taken from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. But right up until the first shots were fired, arguments about constitutional powers, sectional differences, and property rights were all framed within the context of a dispute over the institution of slavery.

This collection contains several interesting essays, some weaker ones, and one misfire. Unfortunately, the misfire leads off the collection: Alan T. Nolan's "Anatomy of the myth." While Mr. Nolan accurately summarizes key feature of Lost Cause historiography, his tone is needlessly shrill. It seems silly to have to point out that "Gone with the wind"--both book and movie--are works of fiction. They were widely embraced by a white American populous of the 1930s seeking an escapist depiction of a romantic past in the midst of the Great Depression. Focusing on GWTW as a flawed depiction of historical events is about as useless as doing the same with "Braveheart" or the latest "Robin Hood." It is a shame that Gary Gallagher, co-editor of the collection along with Mr. Nolan, did not advise his colleague to do a re-write with a cooler head and sharper focus.

On the other hand, Mr. Gallagher's essay on Jubal Early is much more balanced and instructive. Early, a Confederate general, sought to move the Southern struggle from the battlefield to the printed page. He and his followers managed to influence not only Southern perceptions but, in time, Northern views as well. Robert E. Lee, after all, did not become an American icon by accident. Also of interest is the essay on Wade Hampton by Charles Holden. Far from attacking Hampton, Holden paints a nuanced portrait of the former Confederate officer who evolved into racial moderate in the postwar period (within the context of the times) only to be pushed aside by the politically inspired race-baiting of Ben Tillman. And there is a fine essay by Jeffry Wert on Gen. James Longstreet, the man whose reluctant performance at Gettysburg, postwar political alliances, and criticism of Lee made him an ideal scapegoat.

Somewhat less successful, in my view, is the essay by Brooks Simpson dealing with Gen. U.S. Grant's reputation as winning his campaign against Lee by means of brutal attrition alone. Whatever one's view of Lee as a man, in the period of 1862-3 he was the most audacious of military leaders. But this very audaciousness produced losses that, by 1864, forced him into a much more conservative strategy. The Lee who Grant confronted in 1864 was not the same Lee his predecessors had faced. Thus it is disappointing that Simpson lets stand without discussion Grant's characterization of Lee as not being a formidable opponent. And given that Grant himself had been rather audacious in the western theater, there is the question of whether--once in the shadow of Washington DC and tied to the ponderous Army of the Potomac--he could have realistically engaged in the sort of strategic risks that Sherman took in Georgia.

Considered as a whole, however, this set of essays has merit for those with a judicious view of history (e.g., that the Civil War might have involved a dispute over slavery) and a desire to learn how such views can sometimes be shaped by the losing side.

Having just finished this book, I see why some of the essays have caused some controversy. It takes a hard look at the facts of the war, versus what has been presented as accurate history by many Southern leaders and writers. Simply put, some of the authors openly question many commonly held views, particularly those proposed by people interested in justifying the South's loss, or reasons for leaving the Union.

Overall, the essays are solid: some great, some good, and a few are only okay. I found Alan Nolan's, Gary Gallagher's, and Jeffrey Wert's essays to be most compelling. They are all well written, researched, and argued. Also, the topics they cover are interesting. Although I do not agree with Alan Nolan's low opinion of General Lee as a soldier, the rest of his essay takes many of the myths of the "Lost Cause" head-on, and dispells them convincinly.

Two of the essays I did not find very exciting: Keith Bohannon's, or Charles Holden's. The topic were too narrow for my taste. The other essays are all good, and helped add to my understanding of the war.

I recommend this book to anyone who is a Civil War "buff", or student of the war. If you think that the war was not fought over slavery, but only states rights, you should explore the discussion of this topic in numerous essays.

I do not claim to be an expert on the Civil War, but I have always had a great interest in the events leading up to the war, and still think The Impending Crisis 1848-1861, by David M. Potter completed by Don E. Fehrenbacher (which book I finished reading May 15, 1976) is the best book on that era. I greatly enjoyed the essays in this book, and I agree that the best of the nine is Alan T. Nolan's "The Anatomy of the Myth." He effectually annihilates arguments of neo-Confederates, especially the one that secession was not about slavery. Anyone interested in Southern history should read this book.

A courageous work by historians unafraid to look beyond the mythology of the American Civil War (Nolan in particular).

As a retired Marine and life-long student of military history, I'm glad to see a serious, scholarly de-bunking of the Lost Cause fairytale. There has always been considerable historical evidence to refute claims that Davis was a wise and democratic leader, or that Lee was a brilliant general, or that slavery was a benign and Christian institution. Oddly enough, the Lost Cause has such a powerful hold on so many otherwise intelligent individuals because it is not fact-based (the old saying "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" applies here).

Revisionism has always been the cop-out of malcontents, and it is easy for those unhappy with modern America argue that the ills facing this country today (racial strife, government interference, economic hardships, overseas intervention, etc) would not have happened if the South had won. It is precisely this gone-are-the-days mentality that has given rise to the belief that the Confederate concepts of government and society were somehow purer than what defeated them.

Unfortunately, members of the "save your Confederate money boys, the South gonna rise again" fraternity have never bothered to read what was being written and said in the Confederacy prior to 1865, when Southern politicians, businessmen and editors were completely unapologetic about slavery and their whole-hearted support for that institution. As this book points out, it wasn't until after Appomatox that Confederate spin doctors, realizing that the rest of the world did not regard their Cause as particularly Sacred, went to work. They have spent 135 years trying to convince Americans on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line that, on the Southern side at least, the war was fought by the last true defenders of liberty and the Constitution.

It is as foul a lie as has ever been told.

Gary Gallagher continues to provide books with an excellent cross section of essayists. Usually he covers particular battles and campaigns, but here he covers an important topic, myth as history. There is unfortunately too much myth as history presented on Civil War and I remember much of it from growing up during the centennial in the 1960s, which I have grown to recognize after years of my own research. Neo Confederates will not like this, but that is a good reason in itself to buy it. Of the writers, Alan Nolan is on the shakiest ground when discussing Lee, but hits the nail on the head on most of the rest. This is a good adjunct to William Davis' book of his own essays called "The Cause Lost".

this most recent civil war anthology edited by gary gallagher is on a par with the high quality of the previous ones. however, this book differs from the others in that it does not focus on a battle or campaign but on a more philosophical topic, i.e., the myth of the lost cause. the overall tone of the book is skeptical of the claims of the lost cause, but this does not detract from its scholarly worth. the nine essays are generally readable and informative, although some are somewhat dry and academic. the best essay, in my view, was from alan nolan, who pulls no punches in his disdain for the claims of the lost cause. nolan had dealt with this theme at greater length elsewhere, but his essay is a nice synopsis of his view that the lost cause is one of the great fabrications of history and was obviously motivated by the need to downplay the significance of slavery in provokong secession and the war and to assuage the wounded pride of the south at the devastating magnitude of its defeat by creating a pseudo-history of god-like leaders (lee, jackson and davis), and incredibly heroic soldiers fighting against hopeless odds in every battle against a brutish and craven invader. nolan does a great job, in my view, of analyzing the true nature of the lost cause myth and refuting its claims.

this book is a worthy addition to the shelf of any civil war buff or anyone interested in american history.

This is simply a superb collection of essays on the "Lost cause" propaganda of the Southern "interpretation" of the civil war.

The essays are written by an impressive list of academic and lay historians. Four of the university professors are from schools located in the South! All have extensive footnotes and bibliography.

The book gracefully debunks the moonlight and magnolia view of the South, skillfully skewering the old bromides about "happy" slaves, that the war was about state's rights and not simply slavery, and along the way makes some telling points that Lee was no saint, and a very fallible leader and a miserable strategist, that perhaps the winning general, U.S. Grant, was actually very, very good at his trade, that "Pete" Longstreet was falsely vilified, that the Confederates lost because they were flatly beat, not because they lacked industry and supplies, and that a whole galaxy of beliefs about the civil war are based on some pretty bad history.

The essay about the original revisionist historian, Jubal Early, is fascinating as it shows just how much of the Southern explanation for their defeat was just made up of whole cloth.

This book clearly shows just how bigoted, misguided, and duplicitous most of the Confederate leadership was, and how misconcieved their secession and its resultant war truly was.

Read this book. Give it to friends!

(as an added incentive there is a truly hilarious send-up of that "Great" movie "Gone with the Wind." That little fantasy has influenced many an American as being history when it is nothing but a sad fantasy that deserves to be sent to the sealed archives along with "Amos and Andy.")

This is just the beginning of the flood of books that will allow us to truly see the civil war for what it was. After 135 years, it's about time!

I had always wondered how the causes of the Civil War had been sanitized and subjected to spin - this is thorough and authoritative. Essential reading for anyone trying to make sense of how we have arrived at today's divisive Tea Party politics!

The South's long and intense effort to salvage its self-image by rewriting the history of the Civil War is understandable but has become tiresome. This book reviews these efforts and refutes the inaccuracies in detail, in the first "essay" of several by real Historians. The rest of the "essays" (chapters) are each by other individuals and delve more deeply into individual cases both personal and regional. I found the increasingly close relationship between two sets of beliefs, "Religion" and "The Lost Cause" to be especially enlightening, particularly in view of current politics. A long-needed dose of reality and perspective concerning the causes and ongoing outcomes of the War.

I enjoyed this book very much. Nolan's essay is more or less a second introduction, stating, but not examining the elements of the myth. Most of the essays are very focussed and academic, which sometimes means rather dry. They sometimes examine elements of the myth by implication rather than directly. On the whole, very interesting.

I don't really have much to add to what has been said, but I did want to make available the table of contents:

CONTENTS:
Introduction by Gary W. Gallgher

One: The Anatomy of the Myth by Alan T. Nolan

Two: Jubal A. Early, the Lost Cause, and Civil War History: A Persistent Legacy by Gary W. Gallagher

Three: "Is Our Love for Wade Hampton Foolishness?": South Carolina and the Lost Cause by Charles J. Holden

Four: "These Few Gray-Haired, Battle-Scarred Veterans": Confederate Army Reunions in Georgia, 1885-95 by Keith S. Bohannon

Five: New South Visionaries: Virginia's Last Generation of Slaveholders, the Gospel of Progress, and the Lost Cause by Peter S. Carmichael

Six: James Longstreet and the Lost Cause by Jeffry D. Wert

Seven: Continuous Hammering and Mere Attrition: Lost Cause Critics and the Military Reputation of Ulysses S. Grant by Brooks D. Simpson

Eight: "Let the People See the Old Life as it Was": LaSalle Corbell Pickett and the Myth of the Lost Cause by Lesley J. Gordon

Nine: The Immortal Confederacy: Another Look at Lost Cause Religion Lloyd A. Hunter

Contributors

Index