Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Early

I removed this sentence:

"It is unknown the extent to which Early really believed these accusations or whether he was simply trying to play down his own lackluster participation at Gettysburg and the Valley Campaigns of 1864."

If it is truly "unknown" then it has no place here. It is also unknown if Early was merely doing it to impress his girlfriend, or because he was mean-spirited, or because he had seen a vision, or even, god forbid, because it was true.

The implication is clearly that it is not "unknown" but simply unprovable by the author. This is a common rhetorical ploy used to smear someone as in "It is unknown the extent to which the author of this accusation really believes it or whether he was simply trying to put forth his own political agenda".

Jack

Template:Unsigned1

[edit] Alleged bias

I have to make a note of some of the bias that is playing out in this article. I have tried to brush it up and some of the changes to what could be deemed possible slams on the South. I see that some of the statements I erase keep coming back. I am in college currently studying the Civil War to become an historian. I have read extensively Southern history and most Southern scholars tend to be much more sympatheic to the Confederacy unlike the statements that keep being posted on this article. I would very much like to know the source that stated that Southern historians do not believe in this. Because everything I have read has proven contradictory to that statement. William C. Davis is among the many popular Southern historians who give the Southern perspective of the war. I would like people who do not know the perspective to know it not slam it. When the British colonized America the North had slaves first in fact Massachusetts was the first state to have slavery look it up! The British made the Northern states industrial while the South was an extension of the West Indies and because of the climate and the land became an agricultural economy. Now the first workforce that worked in South Carolina on plantations were white indentured servants. But these white indentured servants were only hired for an interim of a couple years and would likely leave because of the hard work agriculture was at this time. So there was a need for a permanent workforce to wield a crop thats how agriculture works specifically back in those days when large numbers were needed. So when the British turned to rice as their main crop they were offered slaves by West Africans who knew all about rice cultivation. The warring tribes in Africa would sell their prisoners to the British as a workforce for the plantations back in the colonies. So there is how slavery came to be because that is the main reason why people write off the South. Now as far as the role of sucession dates back to two totally different ideolgies of how America should be made. Alexander Hamilton of the North and Thomas Jefferson of the South. Alexander Hamilton still a British citizen was President Washington's Secretary of Treasury and proposed that America emulate the British Industrial economy. The British just came off of their Industrial Revolution and therefore this was fresh at the time. This meant a big National Bank. This was in total opposition to Thomas Jefferson who believed in an Agarian Republic of "Rugged Individulism" the taming of the land the agricultural economy which made America distinct and different then Europe. Jefferson believed in getting industrial goods from Europe. These two ideologies played out in the formation of our nation and in the original Articles of Confederation written by John Dickinson was the first document that was written for the formation of our new independent government. These Articles allowed states to govern themselves without very little National Government control. This was to get away from the Monarchial rule of King George III that the fought to gain independence from! This way everyone was guarnteed to decide what was best for their own state instead of using oppressive means of enforcement to adhere to a doctrine that is oppressive. This is the reason we fought to get away from this NO TAXION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION remember? See the Confederate government takes its name from the Articles of Confederation because just like Jefferson believed this was the American ideology that should work in our independent country. So after the Articles of Confederation were deemed invalid the South still believed that it was right. So anyhow the new document the Constituition was formed but with the Jefferson and Hamilton fight in the foreground. Who should be sovereign the states or the national government?Jefferson Davis believed if each state ratified the Constitution then shouldn't the states be sovereign? This poses quite a question to how America should be formed. Now the Constituition was built with a failsafe which was the fact that wrote legal succession from the union in response to being told that the states would lose their sovereign rights to a "government" called the United States. Until that time, it was a treaty between sovereign states, in other words the right to govern rests on the consent of the governed," and to the right of independent action as among those reserved by the States. The South appealed to the acts and opinions of the Fathers and to the report of the Hartford Convention of New England States asserting the power of each State to decide as to the remedy for infraction of its rights. Proponents such as Calhoun, Davis cited nullification in the oppressive tariffs. This is seen especially when Lincoln took over and proposed the morrill tariff which left many southerners bankrupt due The immediate effect of the Morrill Tariff was to more than double the tax collected on most dutiable items entering the United States. In 1860 American tariff rates were among the lowest in the world and also at historical lows by 19th century standards, the average rate being around 18% (Click link for more info and facts about ad valorem) ad valorem. The Morrill Tariff immediately raised this average to 37%, and in subsequent years was revised upward until in 1864 (when it could only be collected from states under Union control) the average rate stood at 47%. See a reason to suceed? So South Carolina suceeded and the Union troops refused to recognized it at Fort Sumnter so thus the war was started. Then Lincoln called up 75,000 volunteers to invade the South. Why did Lincoln invade the south everyone points to slaves but Lincoln did not decide to use that card until later. Especially after Antiemnam when Lincoln's support for the war was very low and he proposed the Emancipation Proclamation. This was an intelligent political move by Lincoln to give the North a cause to fight for other then inforcing the suceded states to pay the morrill tariff. So Lincoln ties the war with radical abolitionism which is really smart considering he got support for the war then. He saw the lack of cause to fight for that was within all Southerners who were protecting themselves from Northern Invasion. It was in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that secession was legal. Lincoln suspended habeous corpus and many other various abuses of power leaving his behavior suspect according to the Consitution he had no right to invade the South. During this time also slavery in the north was still legal. Other facts not looked at by the North such as 94% of Southerners did not own slaves. Less then 1% own 20 or more. This dispells the myth of Southerners fighting for the right to keep slaves. They just wanted to be left alone plain and simple. They were even on the verge of doing away with slavery. Thats how much their independence meant to them that they would sacrifice their source of economic prosperity to remain free. This of course didnt matter because Union General Sherman made sure the South was destroyed. The destruction of everything in his path ,the rape, the killings, the lootings, everything burned to the ground. How can you justify it? Its butchery on regular civilian people like you and me. Did the Civil War need to be fought? The Confederacy wanted peaceful relations with the North from day one but instead were met with an invasion. General Lee and Stonewall Jackson are all respected military leaders emboding the finest honor and duty to their state of Virginia. They won the whole first half of the War and if they would of had the man power and ammunitions would of won the war. So I hope this can help everyone respect the Southern perspective of the War. I will make it a point to revise this for grammatical and citations so you can read the material for yourself. Thanks

Scott

Bias? If it were any more slanted, I would call it Union propaganda. Seriously, though, this article is clearly skeptical in its tone. The Lost Cause idea, like many (but no all) thories has both points of accuracy, and a touch of hogwash. Either the author of the article desires to ensure that no dignaty is retained by the south, or he is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I totally agree with you whoever keeps making this making this article Union Propaganda seriously needs to read some Southern History books.

Scott

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.42.33.159 (talk • contribs) 12 October 2005

[edit] Propaganda?

I really do not know what you are talking about. The only edits in quite awhile have been to tone down slurs against specific Union generals and to restore text that someone keeps deleting that says lost cause sympathies are no longer the dominant theme of Southern historians. Although it may be possible to find an historian here or there who maintains that theme (and I can think of one or two), those sentiments are certainly no longer dominant among any prominent (living) Civil War historians. If you disagree with that, cite some sources and we can discuss. Remember, this is not an article that attempts to justify either side in the Civil War, it is an attempt to provide a neutral description of a literary movement that arose after the war. Hal Jespersen 20:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a distinction should be made by the Literary Lost Cause which was a movement in Romanticizing the Old South after the War this is true. But the Lost Cause is much more then a literary movement it embodies the Southern reasons for Secession and an interpretation of the Constitution that represents the founders aims such as Jefferson, Washington which were Southerners. Jefferson Davis believed that the states ratified the Constituition so the states should be Sovereign. The Articles of Confederation and the Thomas Jefferson argument for states rights is where the Lost Cause and the reason for Southern secession begins. The Lost Cause is understanding the Old South and why they thought the way they do. Now if this article is meant to demonstrate that the reason for Southern secession is bogus then I do object to the way it is written. For orginally when I saw this article it compared the Confederates to the Nazis! Now Thomas Jefferson and George Washingtion, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson just rolled over in their graves. It also had the Lost Cause in quotations like it was a joke. And the mocking of Lee, the wording Lee could do no wrong or saying that believing in the Southern War cause is neo-confederate which cleary is calling those of us who believe in the Southern argument are racist. I looked this term up neo-confederate it basically means your a racist. So who is using the slurs. This is the biggest misconception about the Confederacy and the Southern war aim. Which as I stated earlier about slavery When the British colonized America the North had slaves first in fact Massachusetts was the first state to have slavery look it up! The British made the Northern states industrial while the South was an extension of the West Indies and because of the climate and the land became an agricultural economy. Now the first workforce that worked in South Carolina on plantations were white indentured servants. But these white indentured servants were only hired for an interim of a couple years and would likely leave because of the hard work agriculture was at this time. So there was a need for a permanent workforce to wield a crop thats how agriculture works specifically back in those days when large numbers were needed. So when the British turned to rice as their main crop they were offered slaves by West Africans who knew all about rice cultivation. The warring tribes in Africa would sell their prisoners to the British as a workforce for the plantations back in the colonies. So there is how slavery came to be because that is the main reason why people write off the South. Now as far as the role of sucession dates back to two totally different ideolgies of how America should be made. The South reacted the way they did for the reasons I wrote about in the large paragraph above which I hope you read. The following slurs you deemed are true as hard as it might hard to accept but Grant really was a drunkard, and seriously the reason why prostitutes are called Hookers are from General Joseph Hooker's love of prostitutes, these play into some pride Southerners take in the Confederacy sure and I hope you realize the respect that the Lost Cause the reason for the Confederacy are deserving of respect. Please read my first long paragraph on Southern Secession, I am going to make a list of sources a lot of them I had on interlibrary loan and do not possess them at the current time but I can get them back if you really want me to show you. Most of my sources are University Press books mainly from the University of South Carolina, and University of Mississippi. Scott

Sorry, my eyeballs swim at your 1354- and 636-word paragraphs, so I may be overlooking some points. The purpose of this article is to describe the literary movement started primarily by Jubal Early, not to discuss its merits. By analogy, an article on the Temperance Movement doesn't spend any text describing why alcohol is good or bad, it merely describes the movement. The places to discuss the merits of secession, etc., are in Origins of the American Civil War and the American Civil War. And BTW, Grant's drinking during the war are pretty much a myth. There was one incident after Vicksburg that had no effect on combat and it isn't fully documented. Bringing up allegations of this type and generalizing them are considered slurs in my book. (There were plenty of other generals who are known to have lost battles due to drinking, so give Grant a break.) Hal Jespersen 20:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


The problem is, the way the article was written, and the tone it takes very much -is- discussing its merits, and from only one side. Izuko 03:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree originally when I looked at this article it compared the Confederates to Nazis, I changed it from what was typed so called "myths" and I changed it to adherents to the Lost Cause movement. First of all anyone who studies the Civil War knows that the Union had more troops were industrial and outnumbered the South. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were huge Christians which is fact and anybody North or South that reads about them knows this. Your indicating that there was one incident over Grant getting drunk this is almost laughable. I am looking at many, I mean many examples of Grant's love of alcohol I mean I am reading this book now right in front of me that has drinking in the index. It cites the examples of Grants less then noble traits. Pick it up its a Civil War classic called Lee and Grant by Gene Smith. See you really need to read, I dont know if your a historian or not but im studying to be one in college and these things are fact. You may be a Union apologist but please realize that the article is too apolgetic. Give Lee and Stonewall credit for being Christians at least and take out this neo-confederate bit about people who like Southern History are racist. This shows extreme liberal bias. Which you are implying that the Confederate Flag is bad. Which I have proven is honorable in my paragraphs so its not that im asking for you to slant it in my favor but try to be neutral. You claim thats what you want well just listen to these claims because when Southerners read this you know they would like to read about the Lost Cause which can be defined more then the literary movement but the Southern Cause for War and secession itself. So all I ask is that you make this article non offensive to Southerners and literally take the middle road. Take out words like "Lee could do no wrong" and say the works were written to Romanticize Lee and his tenure as General. Use less bias words and as other who have agreed with me its the tone of the article. So I hope you consider these suggestions. Thank you. Scott

I tend to agree with you in that many of the articles on wiki about the ACW tend to betray a certain pro-"union" bias. Admittedly, it is very hard to ex post facto justify the Southern position in the ACW as being morally "correct." Having said that, authors for these articles, in my view, have on more than one occasion associated individuals in the Confederate Armed Forces too much with the raison d'etre of the Confederacy. I think its fair to say that many of the people fighting for the Confederacy did so because of a particular nationalist sentiment. For example, at least some of the officers, and probably many of the enlisted members in the Confederate Armed forces fought because they recognized their home "state" as the primary site of "national" elegance--the age old problem of patriotism.

Additionally, I think its academically unsound, as this article does, to suggest that those who portrayed the ACW as un-winnable (after a certain point at least) due to Northern superiority in men and materials of war were somehow wrong, or simply romantically remembering their roles in the war. I believe, that there isn't a student of political conflict and war (besides some historians) who would suggest that the war was winnable for the south given the very material variables, especially when political variables (such as a Lincoln loss in the 1864 election) have been removed from the equation.

Now having said all that, in support of you I might add, your claim to a "liberal" bias is ridiculous. Quite frankly, ideology attaches itself to almost any academic work, or work of science. What is more, I'm a Marxist, and defending your position (sort of) so your trite bifurcation of the world into "liberal" and "conservative" really has no applicability here.

Lastly, to the original author I say that your initial comparison of adherents to the "Lost Cause" and Nazis is not only outlandish, but shows a complete and utter lack of respect for historical fact. You do a tremendous disservice to yourself, to those who suffered under the most efficient organized genocide in history, and to the discipline of history.

-rev 09:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to discuss the current page when you drag in grievances from previous versions. I've looked at it again and see nothing derogatory or describing Nazis. It's generally as I wrote it originally, other than the final three sentences, added by others. Although I would be happy to see those go, I haven't insisted. If you can cite specific instances of where the tone is inappropriate or where it is factually incorrect (within the context of the specific subject of the article, the literary movement, not the ACW origins or outcome in general}, we can discuss. Please be succinct and avoid charged words like propaganda. The article is certainly not intended to be slanted or offensive. Hal Jespersen 15:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well there is no part about Nazi's because I erased it. But originally in the first paragraph it said the Lost Cause of the Confederacy was similiar to how the Nazis explained their war loss. This was rather offensive so I erased it. I also erased the part that said The "Myths" of the Lost Cause which was definately a negative tone toward the Confederacy and I erased that and wrote what you see there now because I guess you decided not to change that back which is great by the way. I want to thank you for allowing the part of the low morality possesed by Northern Generals to be there also this was another edit I made. But you took out the examples of Northern Generals demonstrating low morality due to what you considered slurs. Which as I have told you to read into it Grant had a hard time being sober please look in to it. This is also true that the name for prostitutes being called Hookers is due to General Joseph Hooker, just like the name side burns for your hair on the side of a face was named after Union General Burnside who had pronounced side burns. So you see these things aren't slurs but true statements. What I would like to cite is taking out the neo-confederate bit this is offensive to Southerners that they are being called racist for liking their heritage. I don't know if you ever saw any bumper stickers or shirts that say heritage not hate, thats exactly it. Use the examples of the books I can even add some more if you want like. I would recommend you read God and General Lonstreet by Thomas L. Connelly and Barbara L. Bellows I am in the process of reading it. This is Louisian State University Press book that is entirely on the Lost Cause and examines it in detail. This article along with tone adjustment could use some expanding. Well anyway what could be changed is the description of the books you list saying "Lee could do no wrong" is kind of derogatory. Perhaps you can say in this book Lee and his tenure as General were Romanticized. It means the same thing but without the tone. The last paragraph is distasteful first of all why are you so quick to say the Lost Cause doesn't exist with Historians now a days. Sure they are not going to say Gettysburg was lost because of Longstreet and everybody knows that. But the fact that the South was honorable in their defeat, that they were overcome by superior manpower and and resources is true. Same with why the South initially seceeded which was really not about slavery when 94% of Southerners didn't have slaves to begin with. You know facts like this remain true, the Lost Cause has evolved in the South this article focuses on the intial Lost Cause in the 19th century after the War. This is the original Lost Cause you see the Lost Cause is much more complex then what is written here. It has evolved just like the South has evolved any Southern Historian while not blaming Longstreet for defeat at Gettysburg anymore are holding up those tenets that are listed in this article because they are fact. So its not gone today nor is it gone with Southern Historians so understand that the definition of the Lost Cause has changed and this article needs expanding in my opinion. Well I hope you take this into consideration. Thanks

Scott

I am in an airport, so have limited typing time and will expand my reply later. We can discuss expanding the article then. In the meantime, two points. (1) I do not object to making generic negative comments about a class of people, but singling out the arguable faults of individuals belongs in their bios, not here. Let's concentrate the negativity in places people expect to see it and document it correctly. For instance, if you really believe that Grant was drunk during the war, edit it into his article and be prepared to defend your assertions with people editing there. (2) Hooker's name is definitely not the source of the slang term for prostitute, despite his bad reputation; check his bio on Wikipedia. Hal Jespersen 17:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I am back (at Murfreesboro, Tennessee, ready for immersion in the Battle of Stones River!). I have copied your recent response and will respond to it in e-mail style. (If you would prefer to continue this conversation via real e-mail, my address in my User page.)

> Well there is no part about Nazi's because I erased it. But originally
> in the first paragraph it said the Lost Cause of the Confederacy was
> similiar to how the Nazis explained their war loss. This was rather
> offensive so I erased it.

I do not believe I wrote that in the original article and do not object to having it removed. I will point out that most of the people in Germany who were being compared in that example were not Nazis, but I understand the sensitivity.

> I also erased the part that said The "Myths"
> of the Lost Cause which was definately a negative tone toward the
> Confederacy and I erased that and wrote what you see there now because
> I guess you decided not to change that back which is great by the way.

The term myth was derived from mythology, which is a body of legends and lore, generally of heroic nature, but I can understand why you misinterpreted that original intent.

> I want to thank you for allowing the part of the low morality possesed
> by Northern Generals to be there also this was another edit I made.
> But you took out the examples of Northern Generals demonstrating low
> morality due to what you considered slurs. Which as I have told you to
> read into it Grant had a hard time being sober please look in to it.
> This is also true that the name for prostitutes being called Hookers
> is due to General Joseph Hooker, just like the name side burns for
> your hair on the side of a face was named after Union General Burnside
> who had pronounced side burns. So you see these things aren't slurs
> but true statements.

So I hope I addressed that to your satisfaction in the previous reply. If I could clarify one more time: if you can find negative comments about a particular general in a Wikipedia biography and want to use those as an example, I would not object to that. For instance, if you read the biography of Joseph Hooker, you will see some very negative statements about his morals (all written by me, by the way), and they are well backed up in the references given. (If such statements were controversial, alternative documentation would be included by me or other editors.) I would not object to using Joseph Hooker as an example of lower morality. What I do object to is an offhand reference to character flaws of an individual in which there is no supporting documentation listed. As I said earlier, if you believe you have adequate documentation about Grant's drinking during the war and negative consequences that resulted from it, feel free to edit his biography appropriately, but be prepared to defend your accusations from an audience of editors who know Grant pretty well.

> What I would like to cite is taking out the neo-confederate bit
> this is offensive to Southerners that they are being called racist
> for liking their heritage. I don't know if you ever saw any bumper
> stickers or shirts that say heritage not hate, thats exactly it. Use
> the examples of the books I can even add some more if you want like.

I do not object to removing any of the final three sentences of the article, although perhaps the person who originally added added them to my article would.

> I would recommend you read God and General Lonstreet by Thomas L.
> Connelly and Barbara L. Bellows I am in the process of reading it.
> This is Louisian State University Press book that is entirely on the
> Lost Cause and examines it in detail. This article along with tone
> adjustment could use some expanding. Well anyway what could be changed
> is the description of the books you list saying "Lee could do no
> wrong" is kind of derogatory. Perhaps you can say in this book Lee and
> his tenure as General were Romanticized. It means the same thing but
> without the tone.

I will attempt to find that book. I keep a bibliography of books I have used as references for Wikipedia articles if you are looking for some suggestions for future reading. I don't really understand why "Lee could do no wrong" is offensive, but it would be better to say "infallible"? That truly was the attitude of people in the historic Lost Cause movement.

> The last paragraph is distasteful first of all why are you so quick
> to say the Lost Cause doesn't exist with Historians now a days. Sure
> they are not going to say Gettysburg was lost because of Longstreet
> and everybody knows that. But the fact that the South was honorable
> in their defeat, that they were overcome by superior manpower and
> and resources is true. Same with why the South initially seceeded
> which was really not about slavery when 94% of Southerners didn't
> have slaves to begin with. You know facts like this remain true,
> the Lost Cause has evolved in the South this article focuses on the
> intial Lost Cause in the 19th century after the War. This is the
> original Lost Cause you see the Lost Cause is much more complex then
> what is written here. It has evolved just like the South has evolved
> any Southern Historian while not blaming Longstreet for defeat at
> Gettysburg anymore are holding up those tenets that are listed in this
> article because they are fact. So its not gone today nor is it gone
> with Southern Historians so understand that the definition of the Lost
> Cause has changed and this article needs expanding in my opinion. Well
> I hope you take this into consideration. Thanks

The point of the original Lost Cause movement was not to analyze objectively the reasons the South lost the war. It had two purposes, in my humble opinion: (1) provide tactical cover to some of the senior generals with less than stellar records, deflecting criticism away from their own conduct; (2) provide positive feelings to the citizens of the South to justify their great sacrifice in vain. When I say that they did not analyze objectively, you can see that in part by what they omitted from their list of reasons: poor strategic military judgments by the Confederate high command, including Davis and Lee (see the Jefferson Davis biography article for more information about his role in this); a poorly organized military with inefficient central control; poor diplomatic decisions, such as the embargo on cotton during the early years of the war before the blockade started; some really bad performances by senior generals in important battles, most of which had no relation to Lee; their lack of attention to the Western Theater.

The purpose of this article is not to analyze why the South won the war, but just this once I will say a controversial thing to you, but one that is widely acknowledged among modern historians: the South did not have to win the war, all it had to do was tie, or avoid losing. The default case if they had held on long enough with an appropriate strategy would have been the exhaustion of Northern public opinion and the South would've gone its own way. Most military historians are able to outline alternative strategies to those used by Davis and Lee that would have accomplished that objective, regardless of how outmatched they were in manpower and industrial might.

I believe it is justified to say that most modern historians, including those in the South, such as Gary Gallagher of the University of Virginia, do not allow the limited topics of the lost cause movement to affect the way they analyze the results of the war. (I also understand that there are many non-historians who do not fit this statement, but I was careful to say historians, not the general public.) If you are arguing that there is a broader selection of topics that are being discussed, then I believe that is an illustration of my point — the lost cause movement is no longer at the center of discussions of the war. You may choose to retain the expression "lost cause" to represent current thinking, but I believe that violates the spirit of the article, which is to describe an historic literary movement.

If you would like to add a paragraph at the end that describes, say, The Lost Cause Today, and makes it clear that it is an evolution and not a direct continuation of the historic movement, I might not object to that. Hal Jespersen 03:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You say that the south didn't have to win, but rather not lose the war. But when you're being invaded, not loosing -is- winning. The thing was, Lee didn't want to draw it out even longer, because that means more deaths, more damage, and more suffering for the citizens of the Confederacy. So, while a defensive war would have achieved the goals, it would have done so at a great cost. Lee gambled a bit in hopes of greatly reducing the cost. Izuko 12:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say a strategy for tying or holding out would be easy. But there are many things that could have been done that in retrospect showed they made a number of flawed decisions. The first bad one was to strike first militarily at Fort Sumter and it was all downhill from there. Another was the strategy to disperse their defenses thinly over an enormous landmass and not make short-term tradeoffs of some territory for more defensible areas. Polk's decision to invade Kentucky. Bad moves at Henry and Donelson, which opened up two great rivers for invasion. Lee's two invasions of the North were militarily dumb; if he had reinforced Pemberton at Vicksburg instead of wasting troops in Pennsylvania, what might have happened? Anyway, the point of this article is not argue these issues. The Lost Cause sentiment that winning the war was impossible is not really true (it was improbable), but since we're describing what that past literary movement wrote about, it doesn't matter what is true or false. Hal Jespersen 14:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The question of whether or not Lee made mistakes is meaningless. Wars have never been fought without one side making major mistakes, and never will be. The only question is how much the other side capitalizes on them. And often the difference between a mistake and a brilliant move is whether a 50/50 gamble paid off - in other words, something that can only be seen in retrospect. War is like that. He who wins the war is often the one who screwed up the least.
Also, you have to view the decisions in their proper perspective. Would it have been militarily preferable to give up some territory for better defensive posture? Certainly. None the less, it also would have been counter to everything they were fighting for. They were defending their homelands, and would not give the land up (abandoing every southern family that the union came across) without a fight. In Lee's mind, such tradeoffs were simply not an option - lest the whole war mean nothing.
Izuko 17:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with you in what you said about Historians, and I think really what I meant was that many tenets of the Lost Cause are true historically and based in fact. Others such as blaming subordinates and many things of that nature are outdated. But what I'm trying to say is it did evolve and historians have evolved with it. No they do not limit themselves you are quite correct. But I guess what Im saying it has evolved and maybe what I am looking for is demonstrating how people who study the Confederacy and the South who are Southern and Historians are more likely to demonstrate less harsh criticism at least from what I have read. Compare William C. Davis a Southern Historian writing books about the Confederacy and James McPherson who is a Northern Historian and mainly writes as an apologist for the Union. If you read the Wikipedia article on James McPherson it states how he has called the The Museum of the Confederacy, The Sons of Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy are all white supremist organizations. These organizations all of which are historically motivated organizations committed to preserving their heritage and the history of the Confederacy. They are not white supremist organizations. Same has been true with another Northern Historian Eric Foner read his biography on Wikipedia also. It troubles me to think that because these Ivy League Northern Historians have kind of an monopoly on how the Civil War is seen in orthodoxy. Well I am glad for William C. Davis and for him becoming the David McCullough of Southern History and the Confederacy and making the South have a human face and less evil and wrong is very good depiction of how the Lost Cause has evolved. You are correct the initial Lost Cause was used to deflect blames lots of time and had its list of authors with many Confederate Generals writing their memoirs to clear themselves. But it was not all in vain. You see I mean the South had to feel good about something after Sherman’s March and losing the War. So clearly they tried to make themselves feel better by Romanticizing the Confederacy and concentrating on the good qualities of the South. But I think that any Country when they go through disaster is going to react they way they did. The North has Romanticized Lincoln and him being the Great Emancipator when anyone who really reads about him knows he never meant to free the slaves and only did so to gain support for the War which was close to none considering they were rioting in New York and Union troops just off the Battle of Gettysburg had to put it down. Read another what I would consider contemporary Lost Cause book such as The Real Lincoln : A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas Dilorenzo. I have not gotten to read this one but as I read the reviews look very good. It was the Unionist Romanticizing ideology just like Uncle Toms Cabin is a piece of this propaganda to go to War with the South. Harpers Weekly and its articles mocking the South are also notoriously known being War time Propaganda against the South.

I would like to have an example of immorality by the Northern Generals. I would also like to have an example of the oppressive taxation such as the Morrill Tariff which was put on the South by the North and this is widely believed to be why South Carolina suceeded. This does not slam the North but merely describes the first tenet in the Lost Cause in your article. I will be willing to also write an example of how the Lost Cause has evolved as kind of a Lost Cause today or over time and culturally how it has effected the South.

Also I want to address what you wrote;

“The purpose of this article is not to analyze why the South won the war, but just this once I will say a controversial thing to you, but one that is widely acknowledged among modern historians: the South did not have to win the war, all it had to do was tie, or avoid losing. The default case if they had held on long enough with an appropriate strategy would have been the exhaustion of Northern public opinion and the South would've gone its own way. Most military historians are able to outline alternative strategies to those used by Davis and Lee that would have accomplished that objective, regardless of how outmatched they were in manpower and industrial might.”

Well that is a very controversial statement, but you do know an argument can be made for the South possessing better Generals. I think you know Lee's intelligence, as opposed to Northern General George McClellan, take into account the entire first half of the War. First and Second Manassas, Chancellorsivlle, Fredericksburg, Seven Days Battles, Stonewall and Lee were better in the War initially. It was later on and as described in God and General Longstreet the "Everlasting If"(p.67) If General Stonewall Jackson had not been shot down by his own men after doing night recognizance after the Battle of Chancellorsville. Or if Lee wouldn’t have ordered Picketts Charge which ultimately lost the War or signaled the beginning of the end of the Confederacy. I also recommend An Honorable Defeat The Last Days of the Confederate Governmentby William C. Davis Lee was outnumbered without any place to go. And especially since the Confederacy never would sink to total war such as the terrible Shermans March. They could of done a lot of things sure but Lee was an honorable man and I think that is something both sides can agree on. I think the South did win the War with morality, Christianity and were products of their agricultural environment and climate. They tried their best. But aside from this I think this article can be quite good with revisions, I also wonder if I can add some information from this book God and General Longstreet.

Scott

Scott, I apologize, but you are writing way too much for me to respond coherently. If you would like to email me (see User:Hlj), I can attempt to respond point-by-point, but this editing of the Talk page for one of the 850 pages I monitor is taking more time than I want to spend. Hal Jespersen 03:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Lee and Longstreet get a bad rap (often from different sides), but it has to be understood just what type of dynamic existed between Lee, Longstreet, and Jackson. When the three worked together, they really did capitalize on their respective strengths. After the loss of Jackson, Lee never again had a hammer he could trust to Longstreet's anvil. And his attempts to use Longstreet as if he were Jackson just never worked out. I think the loss of any of those three would have been equally crippling. It just happens that it was Jacksons loss that we saw. Izuko 17:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Just to let you know, the term Hooker was around long before the Civil War. See Joseph Hooker, final years and legacy for more information.

[edit] Comments

I know this talk page is getting long, but I ran across this article, and with no special love for the South my initial reading detected revisionist bias in the article. I intended to inquire about it on the talk page when I found the above discussion. I see your point about the article referring strictly to a literary movement, but the only word alluding to that is "intellectual". I think if you make it more clear that we are documenting an obsolete pro-Confederate academic trend here and not discrediting an ideology, you will find less objections left for you on the talk page. :-) Runderwo 09:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The pro-Confederate academic trend is still around anyone who reads many Southern historians such as James I. Robertson Jr. from Virginia Tech who is widely known as teaching the largest Civil War class in the United States and did the commnetary for Gods and Generals along with Clyde N. Wilson from University of South Carolina who very supportive same with William C. Davis who is a little less pro South then the previous two I mentioned but still believes in preserving the honor of the South. Look at professors in the South. University press books from Southern Universities you do not see this negative tone towards aspects of the Lost Cause. I have already listed reasons and argument points for the South. This is merely another example of the Winners writing the History. If you only read books from James McPhearson and Eric Foner who are vehemently pro North and get mainstream attention you are only reading half of what really happened in the war. The War did not happen in Massachusetts folks it happened in the South perhaps we could listen to the perspective of a culture that still has not forgotten the War. Instead of only basing your opinion on these Northern historians listen to the Southern ones. I implore you folks to read the other story and by the way explain to me how Douglas Southall Freeman's book is so criticized as to my knowledge this is the definitive book on Lee and I would perhaps like to see some better historical anaylsis of the book instead of "Lee could do no wrong" rather negative wouldnt you say. Word choice could be evaluated definately I propose to make this article neutral. Right now it is leaning towards the South was wrong side. So do not discredit the Southern argument, do not say it is no longer popular without showing due evidence and revaluate the Southall Freeman book with less biased wording. Thank You.

Scott


Thank you for your long discourses, Scott. A few comments:

1. If people need to read Southern historians and not just read Northern propaganda, as you say, I would say that you need to include Northern historians and not just Southern propaganda in your opinion formation.

2. As to Davis's assertion that if the states ratified the Constitution, they could get rid of it, Lincoln said that even a business contract with multiple parties would require the consent of all the parties to legally dissolve it without breaking it.

3. I have a great respect for the leaders and generals who fought for the Southern Cause. But my reasons are different than the Lost Cause reasons (I've spent virtually all my life in the ex-Confederacy). My main reason is this: they helped destroy slavery by prolonging the war; a shorter war or quick war would probably not have ended slavery.

4. States rights is reasonable in itself. But the South constantly shot themselves in the foot by wrapping it up in pro-slavery arguments.

5. Slavery was a difficult situation, but lets not pretend it was good for African-Americans. It was horrible. But the real problem with the South's pre war argumentation was that many wanted to expand it, and their position carried the day. They could've easily beaten Lincoln by voting for Stephen Douglas, but he only wanted slavery to expand by popular sovereignty; the South wanted every new territory to be slave, so they instead voted for Breckinridge. This speaks volumes about the Southern reasons for secession.

6. The immediate cause of secession was the candidate they hated won by a constitutional majority. I don't know enough about the tariff stuff, but Lincoln didn't take office until 2 1/2 months after SC seceded, so if the tariff was his doing, he couldn't have passed it before they seceded.

7. What is the Lost Cause's view about race relations? I'd like to see an article or subsection about that. Historically, it probably would have had a much different view of African-Americans than such as prevail today.

8. Scott, if you signed your articles per Wikipedia guidelines, and spelled "secede" correctly, it would give you more credibility in people's eyes, and certainly mine. Or is there some Southern spelling of "secede" I don't know about?John ISEM (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the following line: "Today, the Lost Cause is no longer a dominant theme of Civil War historians, even Southern ones, and its tenets have been challenged and in most cases discredited." If this article is not meant to be a critique of the Lost Cause then the line should be removed. If a critique is appropriate then more details and citations are needed, particularly which tenets have been discredited and how. Chops79 23:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Just remember,The Civil War is over.What's done is done.North and south both committed various war crimes,lets not start a war all over again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.87.79 (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A few more things, Scott:

1. I looked up the Morrill Tariff. It was signed by Buchanan after all the states had seceded. You said Lincoln proposed it; I don't know about that. I have a hard time, however, buying the idea that the 7 original Confederate states were OK with being in the Union, then when they heard about this new tariff, all of a sudden, they wanted to secede, before it was even passed. After all, if they had stayed in the Union, they could've fought it. Did the lower South states walk out of the Charleston and Baltimore conventions over the tariff in 1860? I don't think so. It was over the issue of a Federal Slave Code for territories.

2. As far as the issue of Massachusetts having slaves before Southern states, I don't think slavery in Massachusetts had anything to do with the Civil War. I do think slavery in the South had something to do with it. For whatever reason in 1860, the future confederate South had 3.5 million slaves; MA, on the other hand, had none. Once again, if the South was more honest about the difficult situation of slavery, and didn't try to expand it or claim that it was a "positive good", I would have more respect for their plight.

3. Not sure why Southerners keep quoting the "94% of Southerners didn't have slaves". Whether they did or not, the issue dominated the 1850's, whether on its on, or along with economic and states rights issues. You might as well say that "less than 1% of people in the USA in 2007 were CEO's of major corporations, so the USA was not a very business oriented place." If the point is to say that slavery was not a big deal in the South in the pre Civil War years, let me throw you another statistic: 3.5 millions slaves in the Confederacy--at least one slave for every 2 free people. Plantations required a lot of people to run them; not just the owners. In SC, there were more slaves than free people, in fact. Slavery was a big deal in the pre Civil War years. 70% of Southern wealth was tied up in land and slaves.

4. By the way, the South did have representation in the House and Senate. The "No Taxation Without Representation" cry doesn't apply at all to the pre Civil War years, until the South seceded, which was their own doing.

5. As far as the Articles of Confederation were concerned, if that's what the South really wanted, then why did they sign on for the Constitution in the first place? No one put a gun to their head.

6. As far as the South "Winning the War" with Morality, if you want to talk about war tactics (total war, etc.), that's a worthy discussion (thought the South was not completely innocent in this respect, i.e., the burning of Chambersburg, sending blacks into slavery, etc.). As far as the personal morality of the leaders, that may be a personal issue of who you want to emulate, but it loses relevance beyond that. If Grant was a drunk, so what? Lee fought to ultimately preserve a system which oppressed millions, though in the end, he helped destroy it by his fighting, and he did consider it an "evil", or at least he was quoted as saying so.

7. If the South fought against "insurmountable odds", at some point the wisdom of secession must be questioned. Why would you fight a war that you have no chance of winning and will ultimately destroy everything you are fighting for? The Confederate soldiers had plenty of valor, but unless the war was winnable, the wisdom of Confederate leadership must be questioned. And if the war could've been won, then it must be dispassionately asked: then why wasn't it?

8. As far as Southern historians trying to defend the honor of the South, that is not my interest. My interest is to find out as best as possible what actually happened. The North as a whole had its own problems; few people fought to free the slaves initially, and as more people became convinced that slavery should end, many only saw it as a means to end the war. The treatment of African Americans is something that neither the North or the South can be proud of, though the atrocities of slavery were worse than the northern racial problems over time. Over and over again slavery is mentioned as an issue for southerners leading up to the Civil War, whether on its own or in concert with other problems, by leading Southerners, including Stephens, Keitt, and others. It was probably the main reason for secession, or at least one of the main reasons. To say otherwise is revisionism; if that is how the Southern authors argue, no wonder they get so little play overall.

9. As the person who said "The Civil War is over", Faulkner said "The past is not dead. Its not even past."(LOL!) Nevertheless, historians should be beyond "defending honor". Because I come from the South, I'm more interested in finding out the truth about it, and will, if anything judge it more strictly, because it is where I come from. I can understand that the South had to romanticize the situation early on, but they should be past that by now.

10. In Battle Cry of Freedom, much of James M. McPherson's argumentation is based on quotations. Maybe there's another side as well, but which quotes are you going to strike from his book? The Alexander Stephens one? The James Hammond ones? And he's not all that pro-North; he seems to dispel the notion that Northerners were white knights fighting to free slaves. He does often adopt the viewpoint of the people he's portraying, which can be confusing at times, but he does that for both sides. Admittedly, he doesn't seem all that unhappy that slavery is no longer around, but that's hardly a biased viewpoint nowadays.

10. Sorry, other Wikipedia people, for the long discussion. I felt that Scott needed responding to. John ISEM (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History, Myth, Movement?

The Lost Cause of the Confederacy is still a powerful force in American politics and culture. To call it a literary movement is far too narrow, and to call it an intellectual movement is pretty funny, given its basis in the quasi-religious mythology and symbolism around Confederate iconography and the War of Northern Aggression, as the aggrieved southrons imagine it. The Lost Cause takes on elements of age-old conflicts of property rights vs. the rights of man (manifest as state rights vs. federalism and individual honor vs. the community, the rights of the individual vs. his duty to the community, and of course, slave vs. free), race and culture wars (manifest as yankee vs. southron, the chivalrous cavalier vs. the yankee busybody and businessman, the cities vs. the countryside, industry vs. agrarian and of the need for the (supposedly) sophisticated white European to protect his culture from the barbaric Africans and yankees), religion (the Baptist and Methodist emphasis on saving your own soul vs. the Quaker and Congregationalist emphasis on a community of faith), intermingled with a fairly peculiar southern notion of "honor", seeking both to remember their ancestors and 'save face' about their defeat in the war. It is cultural mythology, a point of view - fact-based, but not necessarily at all factual. Faveuncle 15:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

[Moved addition to the bottom of the file, as is customary for new comments.] This article is about the literary movement. (The term "intellectual" was selected, perhaps inappropriately, to imply that it was an activity of writers, historians, and educators, as contrasted against random sentiment and feelings in the general public.) If you would like to expand upon its "philosophical" underpinnings, you are welcome to edit responsibly. However, note that this article is not the place for arguing about whether the war was justified, whether it was about slavery or not, the nature of the war, the name of the war, etc. All of those factors are addressed in other articles about the origins and naming of the war. In my opinion, if you believe that something is "still a powerful force in American politics and culture," you are not talking about the same phenomenon as this article. There are relatively few professional historians who are writing in this genre anymore. (Note "relatively" in the previous sentence.)
  • I had never heard of The Lost Cause of the Confederacy as merely a literary movement. The Lost Cause, and confederate and neo-confederate mythology are still a strong underpinning to politics in our country, especially in the south, but in other areas as well.Faveuncle 17:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

[edit] Clansman

Before I revert the edit about The Clansman, can you explain what it has to do with the reasons for the South losing the war? I read its article and it discusses the KKK and Reconstruction, not the Lost Cause. Hal Jespersen 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

See my edit, cleaned up the dual mention of Birth of a Nation. The Lost Cause is not about the reasons for the south losing the Civil War (which can be argued ad infinitum), it is about the point of view embodied in the those reasons.Faveuncle 19:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

Well, yes it is about the reasons. Let me quote from Gary Gallagher's paper, Jubal A. Early, the Lost Cause, and Civil War History: A Persistent Legacy:
“ Jubal Anderson Early ... sought to create a written record celebrating the Confederacy's military resistance. Early hoped future generations would rely on this record, the essence of which can be distilled into a few sentences. Lee was a heroic soldier who led an outnumbered army of Confederate patriots against a powerful enemy. With "Stonewall" Jackson initially at his side, he faced northern generals of minimal talent who later lied in print to explain their failures. Against these men and later against Ulysses S. Grant, a clumsy butcher who understood only that vast northern resources of men and matériel must be expended freely, the Confederate commander worked his magic across a Virginia landscape that functioned as the cockpit of the war. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia set a standard of valor and accomplishment equal to anything in the military history of the western world until finally, worn out but never defeated, they laid down their weapons at Appomattox. If the youth of the white South and succeeding generations of Americans and foreign readers accepted his version of the war, believed Early, ex-Confederates would have salvaged their honor from the wreck of seemingly all-encompassing defeat. These ideas constitute part of what has come to be called the Myth of the Lost Cause, an explanation for secession and Confederate defeat propagated in the years following the Civil War. (emphasis added) ”
Although the general "point of view" that you cite is an interesting discussion, it is not what this article is about. Hal Jespersen 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It's exactly the topic of the article, as evidenced by the academic work quoted above. What is the basis of your objection?Verklempt 03:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

I'll agree that there was widespread economic devastation caused by the Civil War, but the psychological devastation did not apply to all southerners. In 1860, there were roughly 7 million human beings in the soon-to-be CSA. At the end of the war, the 3 million slaves in the south were set free, at least on paper. They were most likely the opposite of devastated, at least until the Klan and Jim Crow reared their ugly heads. This section of the article would appear to have a distinctly Caucasian POV, as written.Faveuncle 23:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

[edit] Modern Usage

"Today, the Lost Cause is no longer a dominant theme of Civil War historians, even Southern ones, and the concept has been thoroughly discredited by modern research into the causes of the war."

I am nominating this sentence's removal from the article. This first half I agree with, but unless someone can come up with some evidence to support the part about modern research I do not think it a valid claim. There is plently of evidence out there supporting the Lost Cause view. I am somewhat neutral on this subject, but the evidence is there. Cho Chang 01:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your evidence? I would agree that there are still some Lost Cause revisionists extant today, but they are mostly neo-Confederate nationalists, not professional historians.Verklempt 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought about for awhile, and I think it would be a better idea to just remove the part about modern research. I'm not really sure I really want to start a debate on this page, but you could start from the fact that the war was not fought over slavery.Cho Chang 16:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you review the Wikipedia article on the Civil War, focusing on the causes of the war. No serious scholar today denies the prominent role of the slavery issue in the war's inception.Verklempt 20:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Reading period Confederate documents, such as their stated causes for secession, Stephens' 'Cornerstone' speach, or the Confederate Constitution clearly shows the war was about slavery. I do think the sentence needs to be sourced, however. Edward321 17:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Your point is not valid because it was the "North" that declared the war. If you want to argue what secession was "about," the section would have merit. Confederate sympathizers also have referred to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression" for this reason. To make a case that the war was mainly "about" slavery, you need to have citations and quotes about the Northern participation and motivations to invade the south and fight the war Cuvtixo (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Role of Southern Women

I'm surprised that this article has no mention of the role that southern women played in establishing the Lost Cause mythos. It was generally post-war women's societies that often got some memorial to Lee, Davis, or some other general or solider, in their home town. Also, many fictional depictions of the war with lost cause themes, such as Gone With the Wind, have female authors.[1] [2] [3] and I can provide many other links.Jsonitsac 14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See Also

I restored links to related Wikipedia articles that had been deleted with no reason given.Cyane (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Ronald Kennedy as historian?

Kennedy is a founder of the League of the South with a bachelor’s degree from the University of Louisiana in Monroe and a master’s in health administration from Tulane University. I am unaware of any credentials that he has that would qualify him as an “historian”. I have changed the reference to him in the article to “writer” and added his status as a League of the South Founder. If someone can find a reference from a professional historical source that indicates he is considered a member of the profession, then please provide it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

sign your comment with four tildes....also, if kennedy writes a book about the civil war, which he did....that makes him a historian.....he also wrote "jefferson davis was right." he doesn't need to be a card-carrying member of an historical organization or university department to be called a historian....your comments show a subtle bias. if i look up my town's history, that makes me a historian. WillC (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong within the context of this article. The section clearly is talking about professional historical treatment of Lost Cause theories and folks such as the Kennedy brothers simpy are not treated seriously by that profession. I haven't even seen Kennedy claim that he is an historian. In any event, I have tagged your claim for a citation to show that he is considered an historian by any reliable source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the Jimmuldrow edit that was made while I was typing the above.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Treated seriously by the profession? Not mainstream? Those are both point of view statements and undocumentable. WillC (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not -- but I gave it the old college try with my most recent edit. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It is still unbalanced against Lost Cause supporters, but i am satisfied with what you say because they are presented merely as quotes and not facts. WillC (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 29, 2008 Edit

I removed the paragraph added after the block quote from Kennedy and Kennedy. Besides being the editor's own opinion based on his/her original research, it is irrelevant to the Kennedy's claim which is more rhetorical than factual. The quote was offered, and I think the context is clear, to demonstrate the political motivations of their writings. They are not callig for a Southern rebirth of power within the political situation as currently exists -- obviously the picture they paint of the South as victim makes any discussion of actual political power over the last 50 century moot.

If some editor wants to start another section, with sources and not OR, criticizing the Lost Cause arguments or its advocates, they are free to do so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd echo Tom's comments above. In a section given to cited quotes, I'd rather see cited analysis as well. To paraphrase that yankee Mark Twain, lies, damned lies, and uncited statistics. BusterD (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)