This is an excellent discussion of the creation of The Lost Cause mythology of the Civil War. The creation of the myth started at Appomattox right after the Confederate surrender. In the video, University of Virginia historian Caroline Janney speaks with teachers about the elements of The Lost Cause, how it was created, and why it was maintained for nearly 125 years.
Because there is a fairly long introduction promoting the programs of the sponsor, you may want to skip ahead in the video to the 7:40 minute mark when Professor Janney is introduced.
Follow Reconstruction Blog on Social Media:
Sorry, but given the generally sorry performance of the Union armies when not given overwhelming numbers and resources, how is Lee in error? He is stating an obvious fact, for whatever reason. And Lee never mentioned the word mercenaries.
thanks for pointing out that Lee never mentioned mercenaries, the only factual error the speaker made in an overall very fine presentation.
“Sorry performance”? It took barely a year, for the Union, which was as unprepared as the South at the start or the war, to capture it’s largest and most important commercial city, New Orleans. Offensive war is alwasy more difficult than defensive war and the South never launched a succesful offensive campaign. Bragg’s invasion never even made it to the Ohio River. Lee barely made it out of Virginia when he was nearly destroyed at Antietam. His Gettysburg campaign likewise ended in disaster, barely 50 miles from Harper’s Ferry. By the end of the war the North had blockaded a coastline, thousands of miles long. Their armies had not only cut the South into pieces, but could march virtually anywhere unopposed. The southern people were literally starving, their economy was in ruins while that of the North was thriving. The slaves, who they had always claimed were well treated, abandoned their owners at the first oppurtunity and hundreds of thousands were in the Union Army. This is all more of the LC lie, that the South was “overwhelmed”. Much of this was simple incompetence. For example, Lee, who slaughtered his men at Malvern Hill, witnessed Burnside slaughter his men at Fredericksburg, then decided to slaughter even more men at Gettysburg. Yet he is considered a “military genius”? Nothing Lee did compared to Grant’s Vicksburg campaign, wherein he marched hundreds of miles through enemy territory, and captured an entire army. Or Sherman’s invasion of Georgia. Or Thomas’ destruction of Hood’s army. Or Grierson’s raid in Mississipi which did far more in military terms than anything Forrest ever did. To say nothing of the plain bad generalship of people like Bragg. By the end of the war, more than half ot the Southern Army had simply deserted. They could not even feed the army let alone the civilian population. Compare this to how the Vietnamese performed in their war against the US Army. Outnumbered and vastly outgunned at all times, a near non-existent economy comparitively speaking, facing the richest most powerful nation on earth, yet they managed to win. So much for “white supremacy”.
Yes, the North Vietnamese won the political war but lost the military war with the destruction of their nation and a combat loss of 10 men to the allies 1 man. They also won the propaganda war.
Here’s the thing, the confederate view points are not totally wrong! They were overwhelmed by man power and resources. That was the whole point of the federal blockade, and the capture of Vicksburg, control of the Mississippi River. Forts Henry and donelson. Yes also by better fighting union armies as well starting at Gettysburg in 1863. In 1864 Grant was a bulldog, brilliant just as Lee was. Now I don’t totally buy into the lost cause myth, but some of it was fact. Just because they were confederates doesn’t mean they didn’t fight nobley. Also not every southerner who fought for the confederacy did so for slavery. The confederate government yes, but not all soldiers or commanders for that matter. Again it was a different time period, different ideology. The United States of America was less than a hundred years old when the civil war broke out, the union just didn’t mean the same to some as it does today to people. Especially when the souths economy hung in the balance which the north profited off of I might add. Maybe the north should have tried to help the south in the first place to flourish without slave labor. Villianizing confederate history does nothing but help divide the country even today as it did back then. I’ve stated multiple times Washington and Jefferson had slaves too, let’s attack them as well. Singling out one group of people and part of our history, while ignoring other people and parts is just plain wrong. These are my view points and I’m from Pennsylvania!
I agree, pretty well said. At that time in our history, four score and seven years, (87) after the nations founding as you mention, the central Federal government had not yet grown in size and scope and authority nearly to what it is today and states passionately guarded their own powers and responsibilities. It is true that the citizenry had a stronger sense of loyalty and respect to local and state government, more often than not describing themselves as citizens of the state of Virginia or New York as examples. We see this over and over in the writings of the people of the time. To be sure there were very strong feelings against being governed by nameless and faceless beaurocrats in Washington D.C. as opposed to local and state authority. That Lincoln would put out a call to arms and a call for volunteers to increase the size of the army for the express purpose of ‘invading” the southern states was seen as a most unacceptable and aggregious act. For us today to belittle and casually dismissive of the southern citizens motivation to fight to oppose and expel an invading army to defend their states, their businesses, property, homes, farms and families is at best ignorant although expedient for ideological reasons. The Civil War was a conflict that had been delayed and brooding for decades perhaps since the compromises that were made that allowed the states to form a central government to oppose the Royal Crown. The growth of the country via the huge land purchases such as the Louisiana Purchase and events such as the Missouri Compromise and the Dred Scott case stoked the passions in both camps. Roughly 20% of southerners were slave holders, contemporary writings of the common man on both sides of the conflict especially those expressed before the Emancipation Proclamation support the position that the war was not primarily about ending the institution of chattel slavery. In the aftermath of the Emancipation Proclamation we see that it was percieved as rank hypocrisy by the South in that it freed no slaves at all, because it preserved the practise in the border states between the North and South. One can appreciate how incensed the south was with that declaration, illiciting the logical reaction that it sought to free the slaves in the Confederate states but not those held by Union states. As far as the southern states being defeated because they were overwhelmed, has much more than a kernel truth to it, the north had a much larger population, a stronger economy, and vastly superior resources and capabilities for the manufacture, supply and distribution of goods, supplies and munitions. Shelby Foote said the North fought the war with one arm behind its back. Roughly one in ten people in the north were engaged in the military, the participation rate being much higher and more necessary in the south.
“It is true that the citizenry had a stronger sense of loyalty and respect to local and state government, more often than not describing themselves as citizens of the state of Virginia or New York as examples. We see this over and over in the writings of the people of the time.”
Actually, what I do see in the writings and the words of people of the 19th Century is the word union. What Union mean to White Americans in the mid-19th Century needs to be understood in order to understand why most people volunteered to serve, fought in, and why civilians supported the Union Cause in the Civil War all the way through to final United States victory. You may be familiar with the words of President Andrew Jackson: “Our Federal Union! It must be preserved!” (1830); and Senator Daniel Webster (Whig-MA): “Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!” (1830); and you may know that the word “union” was mentioned by President Lincoln 21 times during his first inaugural address in 1861. But the best place, I believe, to gauge what Union meant to Americans in the 19th Century is in the Washington Monument in Washington, DC. When construction of the memorial was begun in 1848, states were allowed in the 1840s and 1850s to donate commemorative stones that were embedded inside the interior walls of the monument. These stones- along with others from cities, countries, societies, companies, churches, and individuals, remain there today, and can be seen when touring the monument. Most interesting are some of those from the states that would later make up the Confederacy. For example, Louisiana- “The State of Louisiana: Ever Faithful to The Constitution and The Union.” And the one from Tennessee, which echoes the words of Andrew Jackson- “The Federal Union: It Must Be Preserved.”
“To be sure there were very strong feelings against being governed by nameless and faceless beaurocrats in Washington D.C. as opposed to local and state authority.”
These sound like your own feelings about the federal government today more than those of the people of the time period. Who was expressing this? 19th Century White American men were very much in touch and aware of their representatives in Congress- John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, David Wilmot, David Crockett, and Stephen Douglas. And if you want to talk about the nameless and faceless, how about the millions of people of color, women, poor Whites, and immigrants who weren’t really citizens and were not directly represented by any of these men?
“That Lincoln would put out a call to arms and a call for volunteers to increase the size of the army for the express purpose of ‘invading” the southern states was seen as a most unacceptable and aggregious act.”
Actually, I see Lincoln’s call in April 1861 for 75,000 volunteers for 90 days’ service as a brilliant move to see who was loyal to the Union. And especially after Confederate President Jefferson Davis called for 100,000 volunteers for the rebellion in March 1861.
“Roughly 20% of southerners were slave holders, contemporary writings of the common man on both sides of the conflict especially those expressed before the Emancipation Proclamation support the position that the war was not primarily about ending the institution of chattel slavery.”
The 20% number you cite is likely that which misrepresents slave ownership definitely does not represent the White Supremacy created by slavery. In other words, it doesn’t matter how many people enslaved other people. It’s far more important to be aware of the 4 million people enslaved than the number of people who claimed them as their property.
“In the aftermath of the Emancipation Proclamation we see that it was percieved as rank hypocrisy by the South in that it freed no slaves at all, because it preserved the practise in the border states between the North and South. One can appreciate how incensed the south was with that declaration, illiciting the logical reaction that it sought to free the slaves in the Confederate states but not those held by Union states.”
If this is what you feel about the Emancipation Proclamation, I think the same can be said by the people in the U.K. about the Declaration of Independence. While we in the United States date our country’s birth from July 4, 1776, do you think the British felt the same way? Did they suddenly acknowledge us as Americans? Both documents required the action of United States victory to back up their words. And the EP provided the platform for the creation of the United States Colored Troops. And many USCT regiments were raised in the border states of Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri. So much for the EP “not freeing any slaves at all.
“As far as the southern states being defeated because they were overwhelmed, has much more than a kernel truth to it, the north had a much larger population, a stronger economy, and vastly superior resources and capabilities for the manufacture, supply and distribution of goods, supplies and munitions. Shelby Foote said the North fought the war with one arm behind its back. Roughly one in ten people in the north were engaged in the military, the participation rate being much higher and more necessary in the south.”
In 1860, none of these things existed:
-a United States army of 100,000 men (just the Army of the Potomac alone).
-The United States Sanitary Commission
-The United States Christian Commission
-Drafted soldiers (at the state level in 1862, then the national level in 1863).
-DC Emancipation (April 16, 1862) and the Emancipation Proclamation
-the Bureau of Colored Troops, which created the over 180 USCT regiments (200,000 soldiers)
-The Veteran Reserve Corps (originally known as the Invalid Corps)
-The 13tth Amendment
The idea that the loyal citizens of the United States exerted no real effort to win the war is nonsense, plain and simple.
Hi Michael,
To your point, I see what you’re saying about Confederate soldiers fighting bravely. One of my favorite stories of the war is the respect paid by Joshua Chamberlain at Appomattox. Also, people should be able to understand why people could be proud that their ancestors fought bravely and honorably in the name of their tribe.
But, the Lost Cause Myth was created and maintained for one purpose, to diminish to the point of irrelevancy the role of slavery in the war. Yes, there were plenty of Confederate soldiers who had no stake in slavery. But you cannot separate the cause of the war from the soldiers who fight it, and the cause was slavery. States rights, of course, played a role; they felt they had the right to secede. Why did they want to leave in 1860? Look no further than slavery. The Lost Cause prophets and disciples only want you to focus on the right of a state to secede, not the cause of secession in 1860. This is revisionist and I think worthy of vilification. Particularly, because the right to secede doesn’t exist. True, as a theory it had been kicking around and taken seriously by some
members of the political elite but it was never popularly supported until the issue of slavery intensified regional . Without this right, the war becomes one of rebellion. The Lost Cause wants you to believe they’re were fighting for their rights. A right that never existed. This too is worthy of contempt. True, plenty of citizens had deeper allegiance to their State. But that doesn’t equate to a right to leave the Union. So sure, they were brave. But also traitors.
If we are going to condemn slavery we need to speak about the 5 tribes that supported slavery in the CW. Betcha liberals won’t touch that with a ten-foot pole.
The Union did not have overwhelming anything at Gettysburg or, for that matter, at the Vicksburg campaign.
I would call having the U. S. Navy at your back an overwhelming advantage
I agree, pretty well said. At that time in our history, four score and seven years, (87) after the nations founding as you mention, the central Federal government had not yet grown in size and scope and authority nearly to what it is today and states passionately guarded their own powers and responsibilities. It is true that the citizenry had a stronger sense of loyalty and respect to local and state government, more often than not describing themselves as citizens of the state of Virginia or New York as examples. We see this over and over in the writings of the people of the time. To be sure there were very strong feelings against being governed by nameless and faceless beaurocrats in Washington D.C. as opposed to local and state authority. That Lincoln would put out a call to arms and a call for volunteers to increase the size of the army for the express purpose of ‘invading” the southern states was seen as a most unacceptable and aggregious act. For us today to belittle and casually dismissive of the southern citizens motivation to fight to oppose and expel an invading army to defend their states, their businesses, property, homes, farms and families is at best ignorant although expedient for ideological reasons. The Civil War was a conflict that had been delayed and brooding for decades perhaps since the compromises that were made that allowed the states to form a central government to oppose the Royal Crown. The growth of the country via the huge land purchases such as the Louisiana Purchase and events such as the Missouri Compromise and the Dred Scott case stoked the passions in both camps. Roughly 20% of southerners were slave holders, contemporary writings of the common man on both sides of the conflict especially those expressed before the Emancipation Proclamation support the position that the war was not primarily about ending the institution of chattel slavery. In the aftermath of the Emancipation Proclamation we see that it was percieved as rank hypocrisy by the South in that it freed no slaves at all, because it preserved the practise in the border states between the North and South. One can appreciate how incensed the south was with that declaration, illiciting the logical reaction that it sought to free the slaves in the Confederate states but not those held by Union states. As far as the southern states being defeated because they were overwhelmed, has much more than a kernel truth to it, the north had a much larger population, a stronger economy, and vastly superior resources and capabilities for the manufacture, supply and distribution of goods, supplies and munitions. Shelby Foote said the North fought the war with one arm behind its back. Roughly one in ten people in the north were engaged in the military, the participation rate being much higher and more necessary in the south.
The Lost Cause revisionist history puts a cover right on top of treason and rebellion. If you’re going to do those things you have to win. If you lose you risk hanging.
The South seceded because they didn’t like the results of the 1860 democratic election after losing most of their political weight in Congress in the preceding decades. Slavery was gone in most of the world and on its way out in the USA.
Slavery and white supremacy was the cornerstone of the confederacy.
Thank you!
White Southerners understood that white people in the north would not put up with equality for black citizens. the terror of the Klan was fueled by this fact, plus the bitterness of having been defeated in the CW.
The term, ‘Lost Cause’, in reference to the Confederate war effort, it’s history and Historiographical structure were not originated by either Jubal Early or Edward Pollard; these appear much earlier, the earliest to date I have personally seen are from 1862. By 1865, the name, the common tenets and manner of researching, writing and educating for passage from one generation to the next in this manner are all present.
It may surprise but these are almost entirely written from foreign locations, namely, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
To truly understand the Lost Cause historiography, what helps is an understanding of the difference between history and historiography, and to know at least another historiography from another historical field well, ie., the Laurentian thesis of Donald Creighton.
THE best, and most succinct, explanation of the LC out there by the best historian on the planet,
Matt Atkinson of Gettysburg NPS
https://youtu.be/QZ2Md83uIP4
“State’s Rights” my a$$. Where was the South’s support for state’s rights with the fugitive slave act? How about human rights? The founding fathers wanted to see slavery die out, which is why they banned it in the Northwest territorys and the Northern states gradually began to abolish the institution. They also abolished the slave trade for the same reason. Slavery was a disaster for the entire South, not just the slaves. Northern and Southern states were more or less equal at the beginning of the nation in economic terms. Slavery ruined their economy. They developed no manufacturing to speak of, their railroads were far inferior and had no standard gauge, their people were poorly educated by Northern standards. Work was despised as something fit only for slaves. The Northern population boomed while the South’s stagnated. Even in agriculture the South fell far behind. The Northern Hay crop alone was worth more than the entire Southern agricultural output. They were warned about this; See Hinton Helper’s 1857 book “The Coming Crisis of the South”. This book was banned throughout the South. So much for their respect for the US Constitution. In a similar way, Lincoln wasn’t even allowed on the ballot in the South in the 1860 election. The rebellion was nothing but a war forced on the nation by a tiny class of wealthy slave owners, who controlled not just their slaves, but the local media, the government and the schools, what there was of them. 1/3 of the population was enslaved. Of the remaining whites, the war quickly grew unpopular when casualty lists started coming in, forcing the South to create the first draft in US history. Huge areas of the South were in rebellion against the so-called Confederacy. The North was unprepared for war just as the South was at the start. So after 1 year of preparation, Northern armies were able to invade and crush the rebellion in 3 short years, a huge area the size of Western Europe. The Southern cause was lost by the middle of 1863, barely a year after the Northern armies began to move. Had it not been for the disaster at Chickamauga, they likely would not have lasted until the end of 1863. Even their vaunted leaders like Lee did incredibly stupid things, yet simply in order to justify white supremacy and EVIL policies like Jim Crow, they have created a false narrative we are still suffering from.
I will add one more point; the Lost Cause is not a ‘mythology’, or a, ‘myth’. The Lost Cause is a historiography, a structured way of researching, evidence gathering/engagement/questioning process, and particular way of writing and education about something.
A thesis is a sample of a Historiographical school, exactly as, ‘Settler Colonialism & The Elimination of the Native’, by Patrick Wolfe is THE seminal work of the Settler Colonialism historiography.
The word ‘myth’ has become so debased from it’s actual meaning that I don’t even use it anymore whatsoever the question.
The American Heritage Dictionary’s definitions and sub-definitions, taken collectively together, posit that a ‘myth’ is basically one of either two things-
A) What is commonly ascribed to a person/place/thing/etc, can not be at least reasonably supported, based on the known and credible evidence.
B) What is unknown, (can not be DISPROVEN), about a person, etc, etc, is more important than what can be at least reasonably substantiated from the known, credible evidence.
It’s not a myth that Stonewall Jackson enjoyed eating lemons like they were apples. He certainly did. This aspect about him had been magnified to depict him as uniquely enjoying lemons in this manner. He had an insatiable appetite for ALL fruit.
‘Myth’ has become a pejorative term to signify, ‘what I’d bring historically argued herein is so asinine, absolutely and totally wrong in every capacity that it deserves to be ridiculed.’ It’s basically the Scarlet Letter in the Historical World.
NOTE: Please read above to comment to read, ‘…what is being historically’, etc.
There is only one major problem with the current use of the fashionable pejorative “Lost Cause Myth.” When I read primary sources from the antebellum, bellum and postbellum periods, I find more support for what Southerners claimed than for the PC fabrication that is what I call the “Official Myth.”
– Did the South defend itself from unfair taxation via protective tariffs? YES! Along with a 70 year array of Northern attempts to gain political and economic advantage by circumvention of the Union’s compact.
– Did the South secede to preserve and extend slavery? NO! It seceded to defend the slaves and Southern society from the irresponsible demands of Northern abolitionism for an immediate, uncompensated and unplanned emancipation back by terrorist activity; coupled with Northern politicians seeking to leverage slavery for political advantage in the territories. Both of which were the most recent and egregious violations of the compact that held the States in Union.
– Were the slaves for the most part quite content and loyal to their masters and their Southland? YES! Very few sought refuge in the North, and those that did were usually provoked by Northern radicals, or were young males, who by nature at that age, sought to leave the nest. Primary sources, both foreign and domestic testify to the contentment of and welfare provided for the slaves. Which most all stayed home and remained loyal when yankee lines were only a short distance away. Those who followed the Union Army did so because that same army had destroyed their homes and confiscated their food. A large number of former slaves remained on their plantations even after their freedom was declared.
– Did the Southern soldier display great courage and determination under superior leadership? YES! Far outnumbered and less equipped, they held off an invading force as valiantly as any army ever facing those same ofds.
– Was State Sovereignty engrained in the Southern DNA from the founding and a major reason for secession? YES! A cursory reading of the secession documents reveals the great concern that the North was abandoning the founding philosophy of the Union for a centralized sovereignty that gave a majority Northern section of the Union the means by which to exploit the Union to its advantage.
I could go on dispelling that the popular fabrication that the Southern apologetic for having lost so noble a cause was NOT myth! What needs demythologizing is the “Official Myth” that attempts to sanitize a war that was nothing more than political and economic conquest of a people seeking independence by exercising their founding right to a government of their own consent. The fantastic myth is that there was anything noble or moral about one section of the country denying another section of the country that right in the land of The Declaration of Independence!
“ – Were the slaves for the most part quite content and loyal to their masters and their Southland? YES! Very few sought refuge in the North, and those that did were usually provoked by Northern radicals, or were young males, who by nature at that age, sought to leave the nest.” — WRONG!!
The Underground Railroad was a network of clandestine routes and safe houses established in the United States during the early- to mid-19th century. It was used by enslaved African Americans primarily to escape into free states and Canada.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/undergroundrailroad/what-is-the-underground-railroad.htm