The lost cause mythology

[Mott the Hoople]

I obviously have a strong interest in the History of the American Civil War. It, along with American Colonial and frontier history and the history of the Roman Republic are topics I've read widely and enjoy immensely.

I've probably read around thirty works on Civil War History including Levine, Batton and Foote who are probably the three most prominent American historians of the Civil War. I've also read James McPherson, Stephen Ambrose, Lydell Hart, John Keegan, Ed Bonekemper, Burke Davis, etc, not to mention primary and secondary sources.

Probably the most pernicious influence in the writings of Civil War history, including some of the authors above, is the mythology of "The Lost Cause.". The lost cause mythology of the American Civil War is characterized by beliefs that are factually wrong and originated as a propaganda campaign about twenty years after the Civil War by Southern Historians who felt compelled to rationalize the Confederacies loss while the Northern attitude was largely to move on and rebuild the American economy. The Characteristics of the lost cause mythology are;

The Confederacy could not have won the war due to the Unions advantage in manpower and resources.

That slavery was a benevolent institution for all involved and that by 1861 was a dying institution.

That States rights and not slavery was the cause of the war.

That Robert E. Lee was not only a great general but one of the greatest Generals in American history.

That Gen Longstreet was responsible for the Confederate debacle at Gettysburg and not Lee.

That U.S. Grant was an incompetent butcher who only won by numerical superiority.

That the Union won by waging unprecedented Total War against the South.

The fact that these mythogies have become pervasive in our teaching of Civil War history considering its relevance today and how easily they are refuted by primary source materials is disconcerting given how the actual facts of the war were accepted during and immediately after the Civil War and how modern historians are now doing excellent work debunking the historical revisionism that created these mythologies in the late 19th century and how relevant it is that these mythogies be debunked given their near universal acceptance by the far righ white supremacist movement.

 

[cancel2 2022]

I obviously have a strong interest in the History of the American Civil War. It, along with American Colonial and frontier history and the history of the Roman Republic are topics I've read widely and enjoy immensely.

I've probably read around thirty works on Civil War History including Levine, Batton and Foote who are probably the three most prominent American historians of the Civil War. I've also read James McPherson, Stephen Ambrose, Lydell Hart, John Keegan, Ed Bonekemper, Burke Davis, etc, not to mention primary and secondary sources.

Probably the most pernicious influence in the writings of Civil War history, including some of the authors above, is the mythology of "The Lost Cause.". The lost cause mythology of the American Civil War is characterized by beliefs that are factually wrong and originated as a propaganda campaign about twenty years after the Civil War by Southern Historians who felt compelled to rationalize the Confederacies loss while the Northern attitude was largely to move on and rebuild the American economy. The Characteristics of the lost cause mythology are;

The Confederacy could not have won the war due to the Unions advantage in manpower and resources.

That slavery was a benevolent institution for all involved and that by 1861 was a dying institution.

That States rights and not slavery was the cause of the war.

That Robert E. Lee was not only a great general but one of the greatest Generals in American history.

That Gen Longstreet was responsible for the Confederate debacle at Gettysburg and not Lee.

That U.S. Grant was an incompetent butcher who only won by numerical superiority.

That the Union won by waging unprecedented Total War against the South.

The fact that these mythogies have become pervasive in our teaching of Civil War history considering its relevance today and how easily they are refuted by primary source materials is disconcerting given how the actual facts of the war were accepted during and immediately after the Civil War and how modern historians are now doing excellent work debunking the historical revisionism that created these mythologies in the late 19th century and how relevant it is that these mythogies be debunked given their near universal acceptance by the far righ white supremacist movement.

Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated that the war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.

This is not revisionism, those are his own words so how can they be misconstrued?

 

[MAGA MAN]

I obviously have a strong interest in the History of the American Civil War. It, along with American Colonial and frontier history and the history of the Roman Republic are topics I've read widely and enjoy immensely.

I've probably read around thirty works on Civil War History including Levine, Batton and Foote who are probably the three most prominent American historians of the Civil War. I've also read James McPherson, Stephen Ambrose, Lydell Hart, John Keegan, Ed Bonekemper, Burke Davis, etc, not to mention primary and secondary sources.

Probably the most pernicious influence in the writings of Civil War history, including some of the authors above, is the mythology of "The Lost Cause.". The lost cause mythology of the American Civil War is characterized by beliefs that are factually wrong and originated as a propaganda campaign about twenty years after the Civil War by Southern Historians who felt compelled to rationalize the Confederacies loss while the Northern attitude was largely to move on and rebuild the American economy. The Characteristics of the lost cause mythology are;

The Confederacy could not have won the war due to the Unions advantage in manpower and resources.

That slavery was a benevolent institution for all involved and that by 1861 was a dying institution.

That States rights and not slavery was the cause of the war.

That Robert E. Lee was not only a great general but one of the greatest Generals in American history.

That Gen Longstreet was responsible for the Confederate debacle at Gettysburg and not Lee.

That U.S. Grant was an incompetent butcher who only won by numerical superiority.

That the Union won by waging unprecedented Total War against the South.

The fact that these mythogies have become pervasive in our teaching of Civil War history considering its relevance today and how easily they are refuted by primary source materials is disconcerting given how the actual facts of the war were accepted during and immediately after the Civil War and how modern historians are now doing excellent work debunking the historical revisionism that created these mythologies in the late 19th century and how relevant it is that these mythogies be debunked given their near universal acceptance by the far righ white supremacist movement.

You were doing OK there until the last 5 words. Then you fucked it up.

With all that reading, no author wrote that the South was controlled by Democrats?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

that alone should have been automatically unconstitutional and nullified, but the supreme court was already subverted to statism.

 

[Bill]

Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated that the war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.

This is not revisionism, those are his own words so how can they be misconstrued?

Seems to conflict w/ his emancipation proclamation... Maybe he changed his mind?? It happens doesn't it..

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated that the war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.

This is not revisionism, those are his own words so how can they be misconstrued?

They are not Tom. The North did not secede. I suggest you read the original documents of succession by the States who actually did secede and who started the shooting. The Union and the Republican Party consistently stated they would not interfere with slavery where it legally existed prior to succession. It wasn't until the second year of the war that slavery was adopted as a primary issue for the Union effort which is meaningless as that had nothing to do with the cause of the Civil War.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Seems to conflict w/ his emancipation proclamation... Maybe he changed his mind?? It happens doesn't it..

I contest that he realised that he needed more canon fodder and that was the primary motivation behind emancipation of black slaves.

 

[MAGA MAN]

I contest that he realized that he needed more canon fodder and that was the primary reason behind emancipation.

I tend to agree. I think Lincoln's attitude about slavery was similar to Newt Gingrich on Medicare: the system is FUBAR, best let it wither on the vine.

 

[cancel2 2022]

They are not Tom. The North did not secede. I suggest you read the original documents of succession by the States who actually did.

Stop being so condescending mate! I have read the secession papers. But for the umpteenth time I am talking about the primary motivation of Lincoln and the North in pursuing the war.

 

[Bill]

I contest that he realised that he needed more canon fodder and that was the primary motivation behind emancipation of black slaves.

the reason, whatever it may be has no bearing on the fact that his action trump your quote:(Said one thing, did another unheard for a politician)
"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,"

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Seems to conflict w/ his emancipation proclamation... Maybe he changed his mind?? It happens doesn't it..

I would suggest Tom read President Lincoln's response to the slavery issue just prior to his issuing his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Stop being so condescending mate! I have read the secession papers. But for the umpteenth time I am talking about the primary motivation of Lincoln and the North in pursuing the war.

Which is irrelevant as that has nothing to do with what caused the war.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I tend to agree. I think Lincoln's attitude about slavery was similar to Newt Gingrich on Medicare: the system is FUBAR, best let it wither on the vine.

More lost cause mythology. Lincoln believed no such thing. In fact the evidence was glaringly obvious that slavery was not dying on the vine. Why do you think the issue of slavery expanding into the territories was such an important issue to the South that they were willing to go to war over it? Lincoln believed barring a constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery that he had a legal obligation to enforce and protect slavery where it legally existed.

It was because slavery was quite profitable and expanding in the Southern States that permitting it to expand into the territories became important for increased economic growth in the agrarian South. The fact that the price for excess slaves for sale just prior to the war were at the highest prices ever completely contradicts this mythology that slavery in the South was dying on the vine. The real truth is chattel slavery in the South was profitable and growing to such an extent that Southern Slave owners wanted to expand it into the territories and they were willing to fight to protect its growth.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/

Two days before Lincoln’s inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Quite clearly, the North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.

Here we have absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery.

If the South’s real concern was maintaining slavery, the South would not have turned down the constitutional protection of slavery offered them on a silver platter by Congress and the President. Clearly, for the South also the issue was not slavery.

The real issue between North and South could not be reconciled on the basis of accommodating slavery. The real issue was economic as DiLorenzo, Charles Beard and other historians have documented. The North offered to preserve slavery irrevocably, but the North did not offer to give up the high tariffs and economic policies that the South saw as inimical to its interests.

Blaming the war on slavery was the way the northern court historians used morality to cover up Lincoln’s naked aggression and the war crimes of his generals. Demonizing the enemy with moral language works for the victor. And it is still ongoing. We see in the destruction of statues the determination to shove remaining symbols of the Confederacy down the Memory Hole.

Today the ignorant morons, thoroughly brainwashed by Identity Politics, are demanding removal of memorials to Robert E. Lee, an alleged racist toward whom they express violent hatred. This presents a massive paradox. Robert E. Lee was the first person offered command of the Union armies. How can it be that a “Southern racist” was offered command of the Union Army if the Union was going to war to free black slaves?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I contest that he realised that he needed more canon fodder and that was the primary motivation behind emancipation of black slaves.

Tom...do you even understand what the consequences of the Emancipation Proclamation were? Are you also aware that the Souths reluctance to use all their available manpower resources was a major reason why the South lost a war they very well could have won?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/

Two days before Lincoln’s inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Quite clearly, the North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.

Here we have absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery.

If the South’s real concern was maintaining slavery, the South would not have turned down the constitutional protection of slavery offered them on a silver platter by Congress and the President. Clearly, for the South also the issue was not slavery.

The real issue between North and South could not be reconciled on the basis of accommodating slavery. The real issue was economic as DiLorenzo, Charles Beard and other historians have documented. The North offered to preserve slavery irrevocably, but the North did not offer to give up the high tariffs and economic policies that the South saw as inimical to its interests.

Blaming the war on slavery was the way the northern court historians used morality to cover up Lincoln’s naked aggression and the war crimes of his generals. Demonizing the enemy with moral language works for the victor. And it is still ongoing. We see in the destruction of statues the determination to shove remaining symbols of the Confederacy down the Memory Hole.

Today the ignorant morons, thoroughly brainwashed by Identity Politics, are demanding removal of memorials to Robert E. Lee, an alleged racist toward whom they express violent hatred. This presents a massive paradox. Robert E. Lee was the first person offered command of the Union armies. How can it be that a “Southern racist” was offered command of the Union Army if the Union was going to war to free black slaves?

If that's true please explain why The seceding States very articles of secession unequivocally state slavery as their reason for secession?

Also the removal of Lee's statues is a completely different conversation and has nothing to do with the fact that Lee was not only not a great General but that his failures as a general contributed substantially to the Confederacy losing a war they could have won.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Which is irrelevant as that has nothing to do with what caused the war.

Oh god here we go again!

 

[cancel2 2022]

Tom...do you even understand what the consequences of the Emancipation Proclamation were? Are you also aware that the Souths reluctance to use all their available manpower resources was a major reason why the South lost a war they very well could have won?

Mott, do you even know how condescending you are?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Mott, do you even know how condescending you are?

Yes I do and I'm sorry but your arguments simply have nothing to do with what caused the War. The Union may have fought to preserve the Union and, at the beginning, was willing to preserve slavery where it legally existed in the south to preserve the Union but the majority of the Nation was not willing to permit slaveries expansion into the territories. It was for this reason the South that chose secession and war.

So I guess if you're trying to make some other point it eludes me.

 

[MAGA MAN]

More lost cause mythology. Lincoln believed no such thing. /QUOTE] Your theory, not backed up his writings.