Students of Civil War history know that after the war, General James Longstreet became a scapegoat for Lost Cause adherents seeking to explain Confederate defeat. Longstreet had commanded the I Corps of Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia and during the decades after the war he was repeatedly tagged with responsibility for the loss at Gettysburg. Much of the opprobrium heaped upon his military career had less to do with his record during the war, than it did with his post-war counsel that white Southerners accept defeat and desist from resistance to the civil rights laws and the 14th Amendment.
I recently found an example of the rewriting of Longstreet’s military history explicitly because of his post-war record. Here is an article from a Louisiana newspaper, reprinting and commenting on an article from a Texas paper, on Longstreet at Gettysburg. The writer of the original article says that he never believed the accounts blaming Longstreet for the Confederate failure at Gettysburg, but that Longstreet’s actions in 1874 convinced the writer that Longstreet was, in fact, the author of the Confederate defeat.
The 1874 act that convinced the writer that Longstreet had lost Gettysburg was his commanding state militia in September of 1874 against the White League coup in New Orleans, This was an armed coup designed to violently take over the city and restore white supremacy. It was memorialized by the city’s Jim Crow governments as “The Battle of Liberty Place.”
Longstreet’s Civil War record would be distorted by the lens of the Lost Cause because of his support for the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant and his opposition to the White League and other terrorist groups. Lost Cause writers sought to erase history in their quest to impose on the South a unified narrative of the war that could support the re-imposition of exclusively white control of the government and society. This rewriting of history went on for more than a century.
Just goes to show how false narratives come to be accepted by large numbers of people and how a murderous mob can be portrayed as innocuous “citizens…assembled to demand relief from the infamous tyranny.” Highly reminiscent of January 6, except that Longstreet was not there to stop them in DC!
Your fabricated post screams of democrat/Marxist hate—a defeated concept in the era of Joe Biden anti-Americanism. Longstreet delayed his attack. Longstreet lost the civil war. Have a nice day.
You seem to be repeating the Lost Cause claim that only James Longstreet’s betrayal stood between the Confederacy and independence.
Well, you’re an idiot.
Hey Brad,
Longstreet was not the problem at Gettysburg, Lee was. And ain’t nobody talking Marxism or any other crap you mentioned here you damn fool!
General Lee thought his squad was invincible, and the dude was too far north. Lee and his massive overconfidence is to blame for the south’s loss at Gettysburg.
I am very thankful for his arrogance.
The language on here has to take a step back.
Re-focus on the arguments put forth and to be put forth; no one has to like anyone and by all means have a debate, a robust one is all the better, but first, take a step back.
And as well, unless the Admin has different opinions, remove all reference to contemporary politics.
You obviously have lost touch with reality, Brad. Your irrational rantings, of course, do not change History.
Lee lost the Battle off Gettysburg. He himself said that.
The hate in your comment is only exceeded bu your ignorance
A lot of people including me were also fooled by the Ken Burns Civil War documentary on PBS. He devoted a great deal of time to the commentary of Shelby Foote a wealthy Southerner and apologist for the “Lost Cause and barely any time the role that slavery played in bringing that war to fruition. His film glosses over the fact that the Civil War did not exactly end in April of 1865 Instead, the war’s most important outcome was a false emancipation that continued slavery by terrorizing black people and subjecting them to discriminatory laws well into the 21st century. “Confederates in the Attic” by Tony Horowitz and Robert E. Lee and Me by Try Seidule also affirm that the Civil War and its Lost Cause fanatics have never really gone away.
You are spot on Mr. Hernandez.
Very much on point. Having Shelby Foote as the “star” without the caveat that his hero, Nathan Bedford Forrest, began the KKK, gave the documentary a huge bias. I agree about Ty Seidule’s book – wonderful zeal from a convert.
He did start the KKK, but it was soley established to get rid of the carpet baggers from up north.. you also forget to mention that Forrester, left the Klan when they became to extreme, and began lashing out at blacks and white southerners. We need to read history before we believe what people write in books to make money because it fits the narrative of our times
False and appalling. Surely a little research on your part would eliminate such misunderstanding.
Tell you what. You spend 30+ years doing research—of the old-fashioned, non-Internet type—and write several books that are among the best on the topic…and then, and only then, can you judge Shelby Foote. Until that time, stfu.
Gp albertson, even those folks without 30 years doing research are entitled to their own opinions. In the future please refrain from vulgarity.
Thank you sir
You’re suggesting a lot of things he SHOULD have talked about because you think he should have.
Should he mention NBF and the KKK, even though that happened AFTER the war? I don’t think so, because it’s not relevant, just like what Grant did or what Lee did or what whoever did years later isn’t relevant to The Civil War.
If you want to read about NBF and/or the KKK, there are books on that. Eat your heart out.
Well said
David Stewart’s book “Impeached” explains well what president Sourmash Did to retard matters and keep blacks subjugated all the while claiming to be a constitutionalist.
I am sorry both those books are written, with the mentality of our times, and not 1865 to the present. Instead of cherry picking certain books read the thousands that are written by famous authors and historians, which will broaden your horizon on these times. In either of these books were mentioned how Robert e. Lee received the sacrament of communion with a black man in church which at the time showed our willingness to move on, and repair our country
Shelby Foote was not a trained historian; he was a professional journalist. His strengths in his work were his incredibly informed and accurate knowledge/info re. figures and events.
His overall historiographical knowledge was sparse. He did lean towards a Lost Cause bend, but this at least was clear.
Slavery and race were major factors that actioned the war; by no means were they the only ones. The war would have come without slavery and would have looked little different. We know that from Alexander Hamilton’s writings in 1787 which scarily predicted an inter-American conflict, not to mention the very term of ‘War Between The States’.
We must not look aside that when the war actually occurred in 1860-61, that slavery and race were the foremost issues, imo; there was no moral highground between either side in regards these.
Slavery could and did indeed converge into other issues such as states rights/federalism, tariffs/economics and culture/regionalism; at the same time, all of these issues could and did diverge into issues in their own right, completely separate from separate from slavery.
I have no knowledge of ‘Confederates – Attic’, as I haven’t read it. I have not read Seidule’s book, but I am familiar with a substantial amount of his works/arguments. I can relate that a very high number of these are flawed in a serious manner.
His arguments in general appear as cogent on the condition that a huge amount of pertinent/relevant evidence is never raised and engaged with and only very limited questions in number and nature are put to it.
The Lost Cause has certain inset errs to it and limitations to how much history it can at least satisfactorily explain.
I will also reply that I have very little knowledge of Reconstruction and thereby pose no arguments in any way about it.
Even Black people will admit that creating a situation under which blacks ruled in governments in the south, right out of slavery, was ridiculous.
No they won’t. The former rulers had wrecked the South in defense of slavery. The Reconstruction governments were biracial, rather than “black ruled.”
I didn’t realize Ken Burns and Shelby Foote are on the leftist “Cancel” list. I see from the above comments they are to be disregarded rather than considered. Bringing Woke to history. Aka rewriting history to suit current leftist political agendas. Modern day book burning.
If liberal Burns did the PBS special today he’d be sure to let us know how racist we all are His Central Park Five is liberal lies and dribble
In these days of extreme political correctness and rising cancel culture it is nearly impossible to praise the qualities of a confederate leader without being verbally assaulted and falsely accused of racism by moral troubadours who care more about political positioning than an objective, fact-based interpretation of trouble conflict from our past.
As we can see here, cancelling is nothing new. Former Confederates cancelled Longstreet in the 1870s when he defended Black voting rights.
And that he became a republican, which was taboo in the south
the hatred espoused by commentors in this forum, imparts that little to nothing was learned from that tragic war.
Foote’s account did describe the delays on the 3rd day of Gettysburg. It is my understanding that Lee understood his mistake in not instructing 1 Corps or Longstreet on the night of the 2nd day to prepare for the attack on the 3rd day. Therefore all the coordination took about 6 hours. . One reason for Longstreet’s delay in the Little Round Top attack was that he had to wait on his troops and one of AP Hill’s divisions to arrive. Two divisions spent the night several miles away. I think one of them was part of AP Hill’s corps. Picket’s division never arrived until the 2nd night. Longstreet and most division and brigade commanders who would be part of the 3rd day attack felt that the Union line was strongest in the center, which is where they attacked.
I tried to leave a comment, but the system rejected it, saying that I had submitted duplicate comments, which is incorrect.
The two best books on how the Lost Cause warped and falsifed the historical record of the War of the Rebellion are “The Marble Man: Robert E. Lee and His Image in American Society” by the late Thomas Connelly and “Lee’s Tarnished Lieutenant: James Longstreet and His Place in Southern History” by William Garrett Piston
The Lost Cause is a historiography, a school of historical studies. It has particular inset flaws and errs in its structure and supporting tenets. It also possesses a variable measure of merit to at least a fair number of its tenets and arguments. It is pilloried upon a sense of historical grievance, (particularly acute in its case), and in all the above, it is very similar to other such historiographies, such as the Irregular School of Irish history voiced by Eamon De Valera, Ernie O’Malley, Gerry Adams, Andrew Brasier and John Kelly.
I read and enjoyed Connelly’s book but I noted several key critiques to it-
-For starters, it must be understood that TLC’s ancestors fought in the Confederate Army of Tennessee and he was always keen about how he felt his ancestors’ contributions were overshadowed by the Army of Northern Virginia.
This is very understandable on his part. It doesn’t change the fact that the Eastern Theatre was the only one which would decide the outcome of the war, and not the West, Trans-Miss., etc.
-That latter point is another main critique: TLC doesn’t want to concede that the Eastern Theatre, wherein the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia fought was the key Theatre of Operations in the war. Victory in this theater determined victory in the conflict because the most significant and formidable armed force that either side could field was located here. Destruction of one side by the other represented that that one side could no longer effectively resist the other. That means, one side must destroy utterly the other’s ability to resist them. That would also mean that the capital of that side would be captured.
Victory didn’t come after Vicksburg or Atlanta; it is signalled by Appomattox. TLC mounts an aggressive argument to resist conceding this. The surrender of all other Confederate armies accompanied news of Appomattox and is borne out by the primary records of observations by the historical agents, such as Grant, Lee, Lincoln, etc.
-In his opening chapter, TLC doesn’t cite from much else besides newspapers are of course an important source but he cites from them in almost isolation. There is little from the OR, diaries, letters, journals, foreign evidence, (even foreign newspapers).
And in this thrust when he attempts to diminish Lee’s standing compared to other Confederates, he avoids conceding that by that time in 1865, Jackson was dead for 2 years and Lee was not. Not enough time had passed for emotional outpouring of Jackson’s death to be put in perspective and assessed.
Caught in the very grip of the whirlwind is not the most accurate time to have a balanced and overall perspective, necessarily. The South was still caught in the emotional norm of not wanting to speak ill of the dead over Jackson, which is why at the time in 1865 if you look through the eyes of newspapers solely, (as TLC largely did), he seems to be held in greater esteem than Lee.
He may well have been at the time, but TLC doesn’t provide an adequate and rigorous examination of that.
-Next, he does examine very well how the LC thesis and historiography was formed and the political processes which affected this, and the areas in which this can be challenged. But he doesn’t devote an adequate amount of time looking at the merits of the thesis or where it can withstand scrutiny.
For example, Gary Gallagher points to several instances in Robert E. Lee’s corro where the General uses the terms, ‘country’, ‘the country’, ‘our country’, etc. Gallagher then postulates this as disproving that Robert E. Lee chose to fight for the South out of the alleged Southern understanding of federalism wherein one’s state, (Virginia), was the lynchpin. What TLC and Gallagher do not adequately address is the evidence AGAINST their stance, such as how when Sam Houston became Governor of Tennessee in 1827, he referred to Tenn. as, ‘my country’.
As well, TLC does not examine/incorporate various evidences that lend weight to the LC thesis, such as when the state of Maine essentially started a war with the British Empire in the late 1830s, their reps defended this on the floor of Congress by stating that since Maine was a state of the Union, it was as sovereign and had the exact same status as the original 13 states which had created the Union which bound them and had fought to defend its birth. This convention and tradition gave their state the right, the reps argued, to invade what is now New Brunswick, conquer sections from it, add it to the borders of their state without the need to so much as inform, let alone involve in any way, the US federal government.
When questioned why Maine would ever desire to do this in the first place, the reps answered, ‘to protect ourselves from Northern invaders’.
-It’s very true that by about 1890-1914, (give or take), Confederate writers did write about the South in glowing, hagiographed terms, (as if all of daily life was akin to a magnolia garden party). This was in part a response to the devastation and poverty of life circumstances that the war had levelled upon the area.
Emotional nationalism is largely about depicting a person/place/event/etc, in emotional terms in order to avoid having to square with how that same such thing/etc, is in reality.