Did you know that over 600,000 people died in the American Civil War? Demographic historian David Hacker now says there were 750,000 casualties. This is probably more accurate. The book was written in 1982 and Hacker’s analysis is much more recent. There were more or less over 300,000 lost on each side. But the difference was that the Confederacy lost one out of every 19 men, whereas the Union lost one out of over 3,000. The South was almost annihilated, its cities destroyed, its railroads, its farms and fields despoiled.
Thomas D. Clark of Indiana University writes of
the shortsightedness of a region going to war while hopelessly incapable of sustaining itself in a long and devastating struggle, or with the enormously human and spiritual loss of approximately 300,000 young men, or with the all but incalculable loss of property and momentum in advancing the region beyond its undeveloped frontier conditions. Historians themselves have been caught up in what the authors intriguingly call the “Lost Cause” mentality.
Connelly and Bellows compassionately yet clear-sightedly examine with interest the mind and the culture that made the war possible, and in its aftermath, what is called The Lost Cause.
An antebellum South embroiled in a power struggle with the “churlish Saxons” of Yankeedom could identify with a heroic Ivanhoe. Small wonder it was that the Rebel battleflag adopted the design of the Scottish St. Andrew’s cross, or that Dixie writers during the Reconstruction era attempted to link the ancestry of Robert E. Lee with that of Robert the Bruce. The Lost Cause phrase developed soon after Appomattox as a byword for the perpetuation of the the Confederate ideal.
I found this extremely interesting, being a Yankee myself. The book’s main author is a southern gentlemen, a professor at University of South Carolina, so it is not a condescending, superior look at the conquered by the victor. Connelly is a historian specializing in Civil War issues and personages of that time.
I believe that all regions of the country have their own mindsets, their own outlooks, so I was interested to see what these authors had to say about the ‘Southern mind’. They say that the Southern mind is one of ambivalence and paradox,
those eternal southern opposites, such as a longing for order and a penchant for evasion of the law, deeply embedded religious fundamentalism and hedonistic behavior, Dixie braggadocio and insecurity.
The religion of the Lost Cause generation was man-centered. The southern concept of the Trinity was not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but God, man, and Satan.
He quotes Robert Penn Warren’s observation that the southern mind does not grasp abstractions well, but demands a sense of the concrete. the authors say
the cultural isolation of the Old South allowed the populace to exist within a fantasy world of utter contempt for the Yankee and absolute confidence in southern might.
The antebellum South remained the most puritan of all American regions, and was an exaggeration of that general American faith that there is a correlation between Jehovah’s grace and success. The belief that God was on the side of the Confederacy was universal south of the Potomac.
The title of the book comes from the deification of General Robert E. Lee at the expense of General James Longstreet, whom Lee called ‘his old War Horse’. He was at odds with Lee about the strategies and tactics at the Battle of Gettysburg, and his detractors pilloried him claiming he was the reason for the Confederate loss at that battle. Perhaps no Confederate officer is surrounded by more controversy than Longstreet. He was Lee’s trusted advisor and friend. But, after the war, Longstreet became the target of many “Lost Cause” attacks. His letters to the New Orleans Times, his support of the Republican Party, and his memoirs served to alienate many Southerners.
The book talks about how ‘Virginia Won The War’, the state’s role in the conflict and its image-building of reluctant virgin, if you will, being against secession, but being a slave state, forced into the war.
Of course, there is so, so much more in the book, and if you have in interest in such things, I urge you to read it.
Beautifully researched, it is a fascinating read, and I would be interested to know how southern readers feel about the conclusions in it.
General James Longstreet