Lost Cause interpretation pervades the public's memory of the Civil War

freelancestar.com ^ | 11/16/2002 | DANE HARTGROVE

[Free the USA]

bump

[Arkinsaw]

The "slavery had nothing to do with the war" interpretation IS unsound. But that does not mean that causes other than slavery were unimportant. The causes of the war include political differences, differences in Constitutional interpretation, cultural differences, concepts of honor, economic conflict, religious differences, assorted demagoguery in the north and the south, and yes slavery.

I've found that in many cases you end up with partisans from one side promoting one cause and dismissing all others and those from the other side doing the same. In reality, the most complex event in American history cannot realistically be explained with one simple cause. Anyone who claims to explain it in one sentence has an agenda other than rationally explaining the causes.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Believe it or not I went to a Catholic school up here in NY and I remember even though they taught us it was necessary for the Union to win, General Lee was portrayed as one of the greatest American Generals of all time. He was afforded a certain amount of respect, unlike foreign opponents.There's no such glorification of British generals during the Revolutionary War for example. It was us versus them.

[CatoRenasci]

What does this damnyankee mean, Lost Cause? The South shall rise again!

[TheDon]

"...if slavery had not existed in the South, there would have been no war."

Another brilliant statement of the obvious.

[SEAL6]

You have just wasted band-width to say nothing.

What are you a prof at the U of A?

[CatoRenasci]

No, All Your Bases Are Belong To US (below the Mason Dixon Line).

Have you no sense of humor?

[tsomer]

What Gallagher does not do (but gives the attentive reader cause to consider) is link the development of revisionist interpretations of Confederate history to the rise of the Civil Rights movement and the African-American struggle ...

This is the crux of the matter. To harnass Civil War History to their ideological program, they have to broad-brush southerners as mint-julep drinking slave drovers. Aren't they getting a little tired of it? I sure am.

The way they have it, the war's greatest accomplishment was kicking-off the Civil Rights movement. I don't think, however, that the Civil Rights movement is diminished if we recognize that the war was to sustain the integrity of the United States Government. It amazes me how many people now overlook this simple fact.

[Beernoser]

just if anyone's interested, Jubal Early was a delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention and voted no to secession.
It's surprising how many southerners voted or were against secession, but then served the Confederacy loyally.

One more aside. When Lee was at Gettysburg Pennsylvania, he had 1 of every 12 adult white men in the south with him. What an awesome responsibility that must have been.

[glc1173@aol.com]

Reality: the CSA was the first "national-liberation movement" or "self-determination movement" to stand up to Washington's colonialism - long before the Vietcong revered by the hippies of the Sixties.

It was motivated by a determination to preserve our values and civilization - in a region where very few could afford slaves. It was fought overwhelmingly by people little better off than slaves.

The flag of freedom!

[stainlessbanner]

Drop all the Karl propaganda, D-C. This is a conservative forum.

[ChiMark]

It was understood that the Brit's had a significantly better army than our revolutionarys. It is a fact that the best commanders in the civil war were predominantly Confederate. Is it incorrect to say that? I don't understand why Dixie is so demonized.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

I don't think, however, that the Civil Rights movement is diminished if we recognize that the war was to sustain the integrity of the United States Government.

There's been a lot written about Lincoln and how he fought the war to ensure the passage of tariffs, that he was a dictator and a communist etc ad nauseam. If Millard Fillmore were president at the time of secession there would have been a war.

No president would have allowed one state to secede under any condition. Not Andy Jackson, not George Washington, not any of them. It was a war to preserve the union. The civil rights movement a 100 years later would have happened regardless, it was a matter unrelated to the war other than it produced some symbols for the movement to rally against, like the Confederate flag. If it wasn't that, they would have found something else I'm sure.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Is it incorrect to say that?

Not at all. I think it's understood by everyone the South had better generals.

But the textbooks, at least in my school were going beyond the technical points of that fact to imply that even though Lee fought against the Union, he was still an American, part of the family. History writers could have demonized him, but chose not to, and I think it was done intentionally as a way of bringing the country back together. Things are probably different in schools today given the pc world we're living in now.

[southland]

They need someone or some region to blame for their own inadequaces. Therefore it was the South. They then inacted reconstruction which hurt the poor Black people more than slavery. During the 1850's Black slaves of the South were better fed, housed, and clothed than the white factory workers of the north.
Yet they try to put the South on a guilt trip to take eyes off the North where Black people are still treated worse than they are in the South today. WeSoutherners are not proud of slavery but resent hypocrits who keep pointing fingers at us.
We are doing a pretty good job in the South in treating people equally.

[ChiMark]

Thank God for Dixie! It's noteworthy that the south has maintained a much closer walk to faith and the constitution.
The northern liberals naturally look down upon anything to do conservatism and traditional values. I think Gary Becker
from The U.of Chicago ,economist, studied slavery and found in fact that salves were very precious to salve holders. They were not so brutalized and abused as contemporary history books claim. This does not condone slavery but it's one of those pieces of that history which will never be revealed. I met a Russian who had a good grasp of our civil war and how it differed from the French and Russian revolutions. It's one of the most studied wars why is the average American so uninformed?

[ChiMark]

In high school I did'nt pay attention to American history as I do now. I do remember that the civil war was taught in sketchy terms. However my impression was that the North and Lincoln were the good guys and Lee more than Davis were on the wrong side. No comparison was put forth. My teacher was too lazy. I am a Lincoln person. He is my hero. But I realize that some of his decisions are questionable.