For some Americans, history isn’t the story of what actually happened; it’s the story they want to believe.
The Atlantic asks a good question. After all, the Civil War was a mere five years out of 245 years of American history- more if you count the Colonial period. It is just racism? or what?
This line was particularly weird for me:Speakers came to the podium, each praising the soldiers buried under our feet. “While those who hate seek to remove the memory of these heroes,” one said, “these men paid the ultimate price for freedom, and they deserve to be remembered.” Because freedom wasnt what they were fighting for at all. Unless it was the freedom for the rich % to own slaves.
and then this :Gramling then turned his attention to the present-day controversy about Confederate monuments—to the people who are “trying to take away our symbols.”… Gramling that this was the work of “the American ISIS.” He looked delighted as the crowd murmured its affirmation. “They are nothing better than ISIS in the Middle East. They are trying to destroy history they don’t like.”
It’s a story as old as human history. The North vs. The South is nothing but tribal rivalry. Each has their own “cultural history” with folk stories of heroes and boogeymen that they repeat to their children and their grand children to ensure that their tribal history endures, facts be damned. The United States are as balkanized as any other people in history.
The good news is that the Lost Cause myth fell out of favor in academia many years ago.
In a nutshell, yes, it’s just racism combined with the desire to establish a moral reason behind white supremacy. The Lost Cause myths harken back to a more genteel idealized south that never really existed. A time where gentlemen were gentlemen, ladies were ladies, and the white upper class saw fit to provide black people the opportunity to live productive lives until such time as they might be fit to govern themselves. Not only do Lost Causers deny the inhumanity and inherent brutality of slavery, they argue that the slaves were happy workers (one of my professors referred to this as the “Happy Darkies” myth), and the South was prosperous prior to the Civil War.
Immediately after the war, Southern sympathizers started writing its history and they dominated the narrative for close to a century even in academic circles. Clinging to that idealized past helped Southerners maintain a sense of social righteousness when enforcing a racial hierarchy with whites on top. And psychologically, it’s a lot easier to think of grandpa as defending good Southern values like freedom, corn bread, and belles from the rapacious North than it is to think of grandpa fighting to keep slavery around. It’s no surprise the Lost Cause persists.
I think it persists, in part, because politicians have had great success by pandering to it. Supporting the lie and pandering to its adherents is a great way to win elections.
It persists because the US was too eager for reconciliation. Everybody wanted the war concluded, nobody wanted a protracted occupation, nobody wanted to risk another war. It served the interests of friendly reconciliation to think of the South not as a bunch of white supremacist traitors, but noble adversaries with trifling differences about states’ rights.
Unsurprisingly, this kid-gloves approach stoked southern narcissism and resentment. They never had to process the shame of what they’d done. They dissipated it by turning it around and making the North the aggressor, they blamed their defeat on external factors rather than incompetence, they elevated Col. Lee to nothing less than sainthood (even though he disdained war from the outset, and eventually slavery as well).
Southerners couldn’t (and still cannot) admit that they did such a horribly shameful and stupid thing, so they resolve the cognitive dissonance by believing things that aren’t true. They did it then, they do it now, and I see no reason why it will ever stop.
It seems to be a rare case of the losers writing the history books. Even in my NYC history classes, we didn’t learn about the white-supremacist traitors in those terms.
There was a protracted occupation of the South that lasted from 1865 until 1877 when Reconstruction came to an end. I don’t know if it’s fair to describe the US as being too eager for reconciliation or that they needed to think of the South as a bunch of noble adversaries rather than white supremacist (especially since most Northern whites also thought they were superior to blacks). I think most Americans were weary and were just fine with throwing blacks under the bus and allowing the South to control the narrative if it meant they didn’t have to think about it any more.
The Lost Cause isn’t a myth; it’s the truth. The Confederates were losing losers who lost, and their Cause deserved to lose. The myth is just that there was ever anything winning about it: There wasn’t; they were losers right from the start.
American culture by its nature favors rebels and underdogs. The nation itself was founded on an act of rebellion by underdogs, against the British. Texas exists because of rebellion against Mexico. Popular entertainment such as Star Wars pits rebels against the Empire. So it’s not surprising that the Confederacy (who, evil though they were, certainly fit the definition of rebel underdogs) is sympathetic to some.
And yet somehow it’s a continuing struggle to get certain segments of the population to root for the descendants of freed slaves.
The Lost Cause is a white supremacist myth.
This is mere "both sides"ism. It gives the Lost Cause too much credit, and the “we fought a war to keep the Union together, and ultimately freed the slaves to boot” side not nearly enough. It also gives southerners past and present not nearly enough credit. Then, as now, there were unionists and abolitionists in the south. Some of them were brutally murdered for their stance.
The good thing is that “Lost Cause” sentiment and attempts to rewrite Civil War history by southern sympathizers continue to fade out, despite (and perhaps aided by) the fuss about retiring Confederate monuments from the public square and renaming high schools for worthy people instead of the likes of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
There are misstatements and exaggerations in the article, not all by the interviewees. The author says that “the soldiers memorialized in stained glass had fought a war to keep my ancestors in chains”. It’s a bit more complicated than that. One interviewee weirdly claims that all Southern soldiers were volunteers (the South actually depended heavily on draftees and began a draft before the North did). The draftees fought because they had to; it’s likely that a majority also supported slavery, but it’s not like they eagerly enlisted in the Confederate Army to defend slavery. A large number bought into the belief that they were fighting for their homes/state against “Northern aggression”.
What’s indisputable is that Southern leaders started the war to protect slavery. The secession articles issued by Southern states make that abundantly clear.
It doesn’t matter to me if descendants of Confederate soldiers want to acknowledge their forebears’ military service and decorate graves. But Southern apologist organizations need to keep their mitts off the history books.
This explains the popularity of movies like “Gone With The Wind” which cast the Confederacy in a positive light. Hollywood has a lot to answer for.
Part of it I think is American exceptionalism. Before Vietnam you commonly heard that the US never lost a war. The South on the other hand did lose. If you lose, it helps to have lost for a good cause. It takes a lot of maturity to admit that your ancestors were in the wrong. Most Germans have managed it, but the Lost Causers haven’t.
Black people not only got to vote but were put in positions of power over white people. Punishment enough for racist scum.
I think it would have been nice if the statues of Confederate generals were replaced by statues of some of the Black leaders from reconstruction. Just as historical.