Myth of The Myth of the Lost Cause
If you like “Civil War” history but haven’t been paying attention these last 20 years or so, the “Lost Cause”, has now become a “Myth” – at least according to most contemporary historians and self-proclaimed experts. Ever since Alan Nolan’s 1991 book, “The Myth of the Lost Cause” the historical literary field has witnessed an avalanche of similar books, each desperately trying to be unique in its own way, and each seeking to prove that the cause for which the South claimed to have fought and indeed, the heroic struggle itself that most people, until the last 20 years, believed that the South put up, are nothing more than myths. 

Wikipedia, not known to be the best and most reliable of sources, nonetheless defines accurately what I am getting at and what is the target of this paper:

“The Lost Cause is the name commonly given to a literary and intellectual movement that sought to reconcile the traditional white society of the Southern United States to the defeat of the Confederate States of America in the Civil War of 1861–1865.[1]  Those who contributed to the movement tended to portray the Confederacy's cause as noble and most of the Confederacy's leaders as exemplars of old-fashioned chivalry, defeated by the Union armies not through superior military skill, but by overwhelming force.  They also tended to condemn Reconstruction.”

So then, the “Lost Cause” has become a myth – so sayeth the “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists.” Why do I refer to them as such?  Because in destroying one myth, or what they claim is a myth, they haven’t done much more than replace it with another myth, and a particularly bad myth at that!

A more detailed look at what the “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” contend:

- They contend that:  Slavery was the real cause of the war.  The South fought for the right to keep others in bondage and anything else is a lie or distortion perpetrated in the post war period by former Confederates who were ashamed of their actions and who were trying to make themselves look good, or, by neo-Confederates today seeking to whitewash the Confederate cause and who themselves are most probably racists. 

-They contend that:  After the war, Southern writers wrote the history of the war and brainwashed Americans North and South into believing that the South really fought for states rights and not slavery, and that it lost its heroic fight only because it was overwhelmed by superior numbers. 

-They contend that:  After the war, Southern writers convinced America that before the Yankee attack everything was moonlight and magnolias in the South and that all the slaves were happy.  

-They contend that:  Southern generals weren’t really as good or as noble as everyone says they were.  This myth was invented by Southern writers to steal the glory from Yankee generals, who, led by Massa Linkhorn and company, gave us “a new nation,” for which we should all be eternally thankful.(even though the cost of creating that “new nation” was nearly 700000 dead and nearly half a million maimed), 

- Most mythologists contend that the Southern soldier was one or more of the following: overrated, ignorant, misled, apathetic, a frequent deserter, a poor soldier, and that his heart was not really in the fight.   If he did, at times, show enthusiasm for his cause, it was only because he hoped one day to hit the lottery and be able to afford to buy a gaggle of slaves – thus, even if he did not own slaves, he was fighting for the hope that one day he would.

-They contend that: 50000 Southerners fought bravely for the North…err, well, they used to say 50000 but a few years ago they upped the figure to 100,000, and more recently, that figure has climbed to 300,000. (soon the numbers will reach a point where it will appear that there were more Southerners in the Union army than there were males in the entire South.)

-They contend that:  Southern writers wrote out the black man’s participation in the war on the Union side in order to promote “white supremacy.” To correct this injustice, “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” now inform us that the black man was actually instrumental in winning the war for the Union, that slaves ran away in vast hordes to the Union lines, that “the slaves freed themselves”, and that those who could not make it to the Union lines worked feverishly to subvert the Southern war effort. (There is no mention of any black participation on the Southern side as “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” do not believe in such things any more than they believe in little green men.  Well, actually, a lot of them do believe in little green men but not in black men supporting the South.) 

-They contend that:  The Planters, who were slave owners and werry werry bad men, dragged the rest of the South into seceding and into a war that it really did not want.  This resulted in a lack of enthusiasm for the war that was reflected in the attitude of the Southern civilian population, whose women begged their men to desert and who frequently rioted because they were sick of the war and sick of not having any food.

-They contend that:  Reconstruction was a wonderful time of social progress and of wonderful “interracial democracies,” snuffed out by those evil Southern white supremacists and that Reconstruction was a great idea, but it did not go far enough. (stick the word “interracial in front of anything these days and it is automatically a good thing. I wonder if an “interracial” case of cholera is a good thing?).

But it’s all ok now, because the “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” are going to make it all better and fix America’s collective memory.  Like the Union army before them, they will go “trampling through the vintage” to stomp out the “grapes of wrath.”  The Republican-led Union army gave America a new nation, whether America wanted it or not, and the “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologist” will give America a new “memory” - whether it wants it or not. 

Glory, Glory Halleluiah! 

About those Post War Southern Writers

There was no subversive plot on the part of post-war Southern writers to steal America’s historical “memory.”  In 1865 the South recognized that its bid for independence had failed.  It laid down its arms, and its citizens agreed to return to the Union and be good citizens of that political entity.  They and their descendents have been faithful to their word, as evidenced by the fact that ever since 1865, whenever America has needed volunteers to go off and get killed in some far off hellhole, it is always Southerners who are the first to volunteer.  Anne Coulter referred to them as “America’s Warrior Class.”

Nowhere in the terms of surrender however, did it specify that Southerners had to grovel and to humbly beg for forgiveness.  Nowhere did it say that they had to admit to wrongdoing and then accept slander or insults. Nowhere was it written that they could not defend themselves.  Self-defense, whether against physical or verbal attack, was and still is everyone’s right.  In the post war period Northern writers took it upon themselves to cast the South as the proverbial villain in some kind of demented passion play.  Southern writers responded and that’s all there is to it.  And if they wrote better and presented a better argument than their northern counterparts, well, maybe, just maybe, it’s possible that they indeed had the better argument, and that in a day and age that had yet to see mass brainwashing in either the public schools or the national parks or, had yet to encounter the most nauseating of popular terms, “the teachable moment,” maybe, just maybe, an American public that was still able to think independently, logically and critically, actually bought those arguments - because those arguments actually had something to offer! 

About Slavery as some kind of sin or high crime

Yes, the South had slavery.  So what?   It was in America for 240 years before Sumter was fired upon, it had been practiced worldwide since the dawn of recorded history by nearly every people on the planet, it was legal and protected by the Constitution, and the Yankees had no problem with it until they stopped making a profit from it and, until they began a determined campaign to secure a majority in Congress in order to be able to pass legislation favorable to their states – legislation I might add that also happened to be detrimental to the Southern states.  Further, I don’t see anyone making demands for apologies or expressions of regret on other countries that have practiced slavery.  The only one I see getting hit with demands is America, specifically white America and specifically the American South.  And I do not see those today who whine about slavery of the past doing anything about it where it exists in the present (in Africa, and in a manner far more brutal than any 19th century white planter could have conceived of).  I can’t say exactly what the reason for this might be except to postulate, as someone else did, that slavery of the past is remunerable for reparations in the present, while slavery of the present is not.

Whatever the reasons, I will not jump on the insanity bandwagon and start apologizing on behalf of past peoples for doing what was common and quite the norm in their time.  As I’ve said before, more and more I grow convinced that for the past 20 or 30 years, someone has been putting “stupid pills” in America’s water supply.  When I majored in history as an undergraduate 40 years ago, such moralizing, sermonizing, and apologizing were not to be found, and judging past peoples by using contemporary standards was considered to be the province of the fool.  A student majoring in history who displayed such behavior would have been told by his professors to find another major.  Today, the professors do it! 

Newsflash – those who demand such apologies and expressions of regret are the demagogues, the race baiters and those who have something to gain by issuing such demands.  Those who comply with such demands are the cowards, the fools, the idiots, those who are afflicted with self-loathing and those who have something to gain by demonstrating abasement.  I refuse to play in this game. Charley Reese, former journalist for the Orlando Sentinel, once said that “the people of the past don’t owe anyone an apology. They, like us, fell out of the womb into a society that, like all societies, had pre-existing customs and mores. They played the cards that God dealt them the best way they knew how and that’s all that you can expect of them.   It’s our play now, and the pot is the future.”  I stand with Mr. Reese on this one!  And, I will not budge for anyone.  I don’t do apologies, I don’t do sorry, I don’t do “reconciliation” (another word that has been battered to death in recent times), and I don’t do “stupid pills” either.

About Slavery as the “Cause” of the War

The war itself was not caused by slavery.  The war was caused by the invasion of 11 states who sought the same right as their forefathers sought – the right to be governed by something which had the consent of those that it governed.  Those states, not counting 2 others, Maryland and Missouri, who were prevented by military force from even discussing secession, had determined that they were not safe in the Union and therefore had decided to pursue their own course independent of their northern neighbors.  Those Northern neighbors, governed as they were by a relatively new political party bent on consolidation of the “American System,” could not find it in their hearts to part with those states, and so, launched an invasion of them. That’s your cause of the war in a nutshell.

I would say that the South had plenty of reason not to feel safe.  Some Northern idealists had cheered 30 years earlier when Nat Turner mutilated and murdered 61 white men, women and children.  Even greater numbers of sanctimonious reformers proclaimed John Brown, whose plans, if successful, would have made Turner’s exploits look like a church picnic, to be a saint.  Brown’s expedition was financed by 6 well-heeled and wealthy northerners, all belonging to a party that, in the words of one prominent Republican, Wendell Phillips, was a “party of the North pledged against the South.” [1]

If anyone wanted war, it wasn’t the South!  “All we ask is to be left alone.”  It was a cry echoed by numerous Southerners throughout Dixie between 1861 and 1865, from the highest official and general, to the lowest private and civilian.  It was heard coming from the mouths of Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, Patrick Cleburne, Mary Chestnut, Judah Benjamin and countless others.   Had the North left the South alone to go its own way, there would have been no war, no nearly 700000 dead and no nearly half a million maimed. 

To you “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists”, I say flat out – if you want to know what the cause of the war was, look into the mirror and you’ll see it staring back at you.  It was caused by the invasion of sovereign states by a bunch of boobs like you who just couldn’t leave well enough alone.  The desperate fight that the South put up was a noble one and a courageous one, and until recently that fact was acknowledged by anyone with a modicum of common sense and a passing amount of literacy.   And though it failed, I have no doubt that those who conducted the defense against that invasion would say that despite its failure, it was well worth the effort to try and rid themselves of meddling, petty tyrants like yourselves.

About Slavery as a Political Issue in ante-bellum America

Yes, slavery was indeed an issue of political conflict, one which revolved chiefly around slavery in the territories.  But there was much more to the 'slavery in the territories' question than a simple matter of good vs. evil.  As in the case of most political conflicts, the real issues had more to do more with money and power than any real moral principle.  How do I know this?  I know it because I have read the words of those who lived at the time, Northerners, Southerners and even foreigners – words which are usually not to be found in most of the contemporary history books for some strange reason.  I cannot say for sure why these words are so hard to find, but I do know  that their inclusion might give students of the period a more accurate picture of what was going on in America at the time and why!

More than one Southerner questioned the feigned and hypocritical philanthropy of Northerners toward the black man.  The English also questioned it and for their part, Northerners seldom issued any denials. 

Students reading about “The Wilmot Proviso” in their high school history books seldom will read the actual words of Pennsylvania Congressman David Wilmot when he introduced this important piece of anti-slavery legislation – legislation aimed more at Southern domination in national affairs than the pursuit of some vague notion of equality.   It doesn’t sound to me like Mr. Wilmot was too concerned about equality:

“The Negro race already occupy enough space on this fair continent.” [2] 

Josiah Quincy, Massachusetts politician for over 50 years, spoke out in 1811 in favor of New England forming its own Confederation – in other words, he had no problem with New England seceding.  Still active in 1861 he strongly supported Lincoln’s invasion of the seceding Southern states in what can only be described as an amazing turn around! Nonetheless, he was honest enough to openly admit one of the real reasons behind the North’s 30 year anti-slavery cold war against the South:

“The slave representation clause is the cause of all the difficulties we labor under…the Southern states have an influence in our national councils, altogether disproportionate to their wealth, strength and resources.” [3]**

And if that isn’t enough, we have the words of various antebellum Northern luminaries who, perhaps, not realizing that someone would record their words for future posterity revealed their true attitudes toward the black man:

Ohio Republican Senator John Sherman, (brother of William T. Sherman):  “We do not like the Negroes. We do not disguise our dislike…..The whole people of the Northwestern states are opposed to having many Negroes among them and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation for nearly all of the Northwestern states.” [4] 

Republican Senator Lyon Trumbull:  “We, the Republican Party, are the white man’s party. We are for free white men, and for making white labor respectable and honorable, which it can never be when Negro slave labor is brought into competition with it.” [5]

William Seward, inveterate moralizer and creator of the phrase “irrepressible conflict,” who, at a political rally in 1860, described the American black man as a “foreign and feeble element like the Indians, incapable of assimilation…a pitiful exotic unwisely and unnecessarily transplanted into our fields, and which it is unprofitable to cultivate at the cost of the desolation of the native vineyard.” [6]

And on July 12, 1848, during a Senate debate over slavery in the territories, it was a New York Senator, John Dix, who got up and said that “free blacks would continue to be an inferior cast and simply die out.” It was a Senator from Mississippi named Jefferson Davis who replied that he was “horrified” to hear “their extinction treated as a matter of public policy.” [7]

During one Senate session in the spring of 1860, Senator Jefferson Davis cited what he believed were the real reasons behind the North’s anti-slavery campaign.  For those who believe the “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologist’” contention that unjust tariff legislation or economic grievances were issues dreamed up by Southern apologists after the war, read on:
  
 “What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party?  Do you propose to better the condition of the slave?  Not at all.  What then do you propose?  You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery.  Is the slave to be benefited by it?  Not at all.  What then do you propose?  It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds.  It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement.  It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim.  You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why?  Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” [8] 

Such statements were nothing new for Davis as he had been making them for years. In 1848 he called out his Northern brethren for their hypocrisy with these words: 

"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." [9]

And let’s not forget that Vice President Alexander Stephens, often cited for his “Cornerstone Speech,” had much more to say than simply “the Negro is not the equal of the white man,” (a widely held belief in white America, north and south at that time).  He also noted the following regarding the feigned Yankee sympathy for the slave:

“Their philanthropy yields to their interests.  Notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor…The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations.  The spoils is what they are after – though they come from the labor of the slave.” [10]    

And what about the old “spread of slavery” gambit, often used by northern politicians of the day and by “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” today?  ‘Oh!  The South was trying to spread slavery all over this great free land of ours!’  Not quite.  Once again we have the words of old Jeff Davis, words not to be found in many contemporary books on the subject:

 “We equally deny [to the federal government] the right to establish as to abolish slavery…..Non interference with the subject of slavery is our main position, and is equally opposed to force for or against it”” [11]

Students of the period who subscribe to the South being a “Slave-ocracy” will take note that in 1860, in the New Mexico Territory, an area which encompassed the area presently occupied by the States of New Mexico and Arizona, that there were a grand total of 22 slaves, only 12 of whom were actually domiciled there.  If the South intended to be a “Slave Power,” spreading its labor system across the entire continent, it was doing a pretty poor job of it.  Commenting on this fact, an English publication in 1861 said, “When, therefore, so little pains are taken to propagate slavery outside the circle of the existing slave states, it cannot be that the extension of slavery is desired by the South on social or commercial grounds directly, and still less from any love for the thing itself for its own sake.  But the value of New Mexico and Arizona politically is very great!  In the Senate they would count as 4 votes with the South or with the North according as they ranked in the category of slave holding or Free soil states”. [12]

The English, abolitionists though they were, were especially good at sniffing out northern hypocrisy on the slavery issue.  An 1862 editorial in an English journal commented, “They (the Northern white men) do not love the Negro as a fellow-man; they pity him as a victim of wrong.  They will plead his cause; they will not tolerate his company.” [13]

And if these examples aren’t enough, (I have many more, enough to fill a book), there is the simple fact that while all of this was going on, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin was moving Northern audiences to tears – in segregated theaters!” [14]

So yes, slavery was indeed an issue in antebellum America, but not in the way that our “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” say it was.  Indeed, if such mythologists accuse the South of fighting for slavery, I would have to respond by asking what it was that the North was fighting for?  Perhaps the Times of London hit the nail on the head in September 1862:

“If the Northerners on ascertaining the resolution of the South, had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg.  There was not, in fact, a single argument advanced in defense of the war against the South which might not have been advanced with exactly the same force for the subjugation of Hungary or Poland. Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” [15]

The “Civil War,” like almost every war ever fought, was about power and control.  That’s your bottom line – and it isn’t pretty.  And maybe, just maybe, when the “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” claim that the history of the war has been sanitized, well, maybe they are right.  Maybe it has been sanitized – it was sanitized because the real truth is pretty damned ugly to look at!


“The Slaves Set Themselves Free!”

I honestly don’t remember who it was that invented this bit of melodrama, but I do suspect that many “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” have jumped on this bandwagon because it is what they think that most people these days would like to hear, because it is an easy story to tell, and because it’s entertaining.  I believe it was Avary O. Craven who said that in depth discussions of economics and political intrigues as causes of the war do not have the appeal or “the entertainment value” that “harrowing tales of runaway slaves” have.  I guess then that our mythologists have opted for entertainment over reality.  Maybe instead of holding expensive Sesquicentennial Celebrations or writing books they should instead start their own Sesquicentennial “Reality Show” and sandwich it between “Jersey Shore” and “Keeping Up with the Kardashians”? 

The “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” tell us that the slaves endured unimaginable cruelties, and that often they sought refuge by fleeing Northward on the Underground Railroad, a “railroad” whose legend has grown so much in scope in recent years that it now appears to have been larger than Amtrack.  I for one would love to know how many people actually ran away to the North or to Canada and how much of what is in books on this subject these days is pure hype......or .....perhaps see some research into how so many people who don't know their rear end from their elbow and who have never been more than 5 miles from home and who are so superstitious that the darkness inspires absolute terror in them (Read the WPA Slave Narratives if you don’t believe me), can so expertly pick out the north star and navigate by it in the pitch black darkness, for a thousand miles or more?

Our mythologists also tell us that Massa Linkhorn emancipated the slaves after some sort of moral awakening late in 1862 and that taking the high moral ground is one of the things that helped the Union win the war.  Many in England didn’t quite see it that way.   In 1862, one English publication issued the following commentary regarding the Emancipation Proclamation:

“…But as time went on, and the issues of the war came out more clearly, this spring of Northern sympathies began to fail.  It soon became apparent that the grievance of the South went very far beyond the mere refusal to allow slaves to be held in the territories of the United States, and it became still more clear that whatever the North was fighting for, it was not for the emancipation of the Negro.  It was impossible to believe that the North was crusading for abolition, in the face of the President’s reiterated denials, and of the inhuman treatment which Negroes were constantly receiving at Northern hands.  If anything was wanting to confirm their skepticism, it has been supplied.  Emancipation to be a military resource of his extreme necessity, shows how little he cared for it as a philanthropist.  He values it not for the freedom it may confer, but for the carnage that it may cause.” [16]

Our mythologists tell us that those slaves who could not flee worked to sabotage the Confederacy’s war effort and that they welcomed the Union army with open arms and that whenever possible they flocked in huge numbers to swell the ranks of that army to fight for their freedom.

Seemingly ignored is the fact that while an estimated half a million slaves did, either of their own accord or because they were forced to, leave their homes and go to the Union armies, that over 3 million stayed right where they were and indeed, some of them lent strong support to the land of their birth.  The WPA Slave Narratives are full of such stories but the “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” tell us we cannot believe the stories in the Narratives because those interviewed were senile or were afraid of telling the truth to the mostly white interviewers.  It does not prevent our mythologists however, from picking out select stories from those narratives where those interviewed said they were abused or that they strongly supported the Union.  I guess the formula for determining credibility is that if a former slave said positive things about the South, then he was suffering from dementia or feeling intimidated.  If he spoke for the North or had negative things to say about slavery, he was not.  How convenient! 

You won’t hear our mythologists citing any narratives like:

“I had two uncles. Jipp and Charlie Clark in Stonewall's company.  They would never talk much about him after his death.  It hurts them too much, for Stonewall's men loved him so much.  Jeff Davis was a great man, too.” (The Federal Writer’s Project; “The Slave Narratives,” Jeff Charley Harvey, South Carolina)

or, “We wa'n't beaten, we was starved out!  Sometimes we had perched corn to eat and sometimes we didn't have a bite o' nothin', because the Union mens come and tuk all de food for theirselves….” (The Federal Writer’s Project; “The Slave Narratives,” Gus Brown, Alabama)

or, "After the War many soldiers came to my mistress, Mrs. Blakely, trying to make her free me.  I told them I was free but I did not want to go anywhere, that I wanted to stay in the only home that I had ever known.  In a way that placed me in a wrong attitude.  I was pointed out as different.  Sometimes I was threatened for not leaving but I stayed on.” (The Federal Writer’s Project; “The Slave Narratives,” Aunt Adeline, Arkansas)

or, "Slavery wus better den it is now.  Shore it wus.  I don't know much 'bout de war but my first life in Virginia wus better den it is now.  I never did have any mean white folks.  De Lord made me lucky in dat way.” (The Federal Writer’s Project; “The Slave Narratives,” Amy Penny, North Carolina)

You won’t hear the mythologists talking about Dick Poplar - a free black man from Petersburg who joined the 13th Va. Cavalry and who elected to spend 19 months in Point Lookout rather than take the oath of allegiance to the United States? [17]

Nor will you hear about the free black woman who Union General Milroy tossed out of Winchester because she refused to remove a black corsage from her dress after Stonewall Jackson died. [18]

And you won’t hear body servant Washington Wills, say in a letter to his master, “I will do whatever I can to help my struggling country…” [19]

You won’t hear anything about the Yankee lieutenant in Sherman’s army (or countless others like him) who said, “The….nig***s, as a general thing, preferred to stay at home, particularly after they found out that we wanted only the able-bodied men, and to tell the truth, the youngest and best looking women.  Sometimes we took them off by way of repaying influential secessionist.  But a part of these we soon managed to lose, sometimes in crossing rivers, sometimes in other ways.” (Thomas J. Myers, Lieutenant, U.S.A., February 26, 1865)

And while you will find many monuments, plaques and celebrations honoring the United States Colored Troops and celebrating their “Glory,” you won’t find much in the way of a realistic description of life as it really existed for these people.  You won’t hear much about the fact that not all of the 189,000 men of the United States Colored Troops were freedom fighting volunteers.  Many of those from the North were conscripted.  Others were paid bounties for their service.  Others, slaves “liberated” from their owners and in some cases carried off by Yankee troops, were forced to enlist and in some cases threatened with being shot if they did not.  Still others, runaways in most cases, took the opportunity to join something that would at least give them the necessities of life, i.e., clothing, shelter, food and medical care, even if joining that “something” meant they could get killed!  The alternative in those days, you see, was to starve or die of malnutrition or exposure.  It was a matter of simple survival.  Let’s see…where in the anything that I’ve seen on this subject have I heard anything remotely resembling this? I haven’t!

For sure you will not hear the words of Liney Chambers of Arkansas, who told a WPA interviewer, “What the Yankees didn't take they wasted and set fire to it….  They done one more thing too.  They put any colored man in the front where he would get killed first and they stayed sorter behind in the back lines…….. When they come along they try to get the colored men to go with them and that's the way they got treated.”   

And you won’t hear a peep from those Sesquicentennial planners, about Jefferson Davis and his wife rescuing and adopting an abused free black child named Jim Limber in February 1864.  Little Jim lived in the Confederate White House until the end of the war.  He played with, ate with and slept with the Davis children, and he functioned as a part of that family.  As I recall, the Sons of Confederate Veterans commissioned a sculptor to make a statue of Davis and the child, and then offered it to the Tredegar Museum.  Tredegar officials acted like they were being offered a case of bubonic plague. 

When you get down to it, our “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” really haven’t done much in regard to telling an accurate history of the black man in this period.  They’ve simply destroyed the “Gone With the Wind” myth and replaced it with another myth - “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”  Since none of us were alive at the time of the war and since none of us saw it first hand, we are left to wonder where the truth lies, and indeed, what the truth really is.  There are many versions of the truth and I submit, that as in most cases like it, the real truth lies somewhere in between the two most extreme versions of it, and that it is a pity that few of us will ever get to see or hear it.  There is no truth in what the “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” are doing. There is only a question - whose myth are we going to go with and why?

Rebels Without a Cause?

260,000 Southern fighting men fell in that war, along with nearly 50,000 Southern civilians.  Until recently, their struggle, albeit a losing one, was admired world-wide ….
 
“The Southerners have shown every characteristic that can mark an independent people.  They have made the costliest sacrifices that men can make to assure their freedom from foreign rule, and they have fought for it with a gallantry that has not been surpassed in all the wars of liberation the world has seen….” (“The Quarterly Review,” “The Confederate Struggle,” London, July – October, 1862, vol. 112, pp. 535 – 564)

Go to Amazon.com, type in “U.S. Civil War,” scan the thousands of book titles and you will be hard pressed to find anyone holding an opinion like the Quarterly Review’s.  Among the more contemporary ones are books which maintain that the planters led the South into war but they let the poor man do the fighting, that the women of the South complained bitterly of the war and urged their men to desert, that the Confederate soldier was a frequent deserter and that he often times donned blue to fight for the Union, and that the South’s population did not have its heart in the fight.  The author of one such book even claimed that Southern women were against the war because they were tired of being “second class citizens.” [20]

There is even a book on “The Free State of Jones,” a county in Mississippi which allegedly revolted against the Confederate government, and which was the subject of a very old movie called “Tap Roots.”  As I said in the beginning of this paper, if they keep increasing the number of Southerners who fought for the Union, there will be no Southerners left to fight for the Confederacy, and eventually people will begin to wonder who it was that put those 360,000 Yankees into the “Southern dust?”

Yes, the Confederate army was plagued by desertions late in the war. Of course, late in the war there was this fellow named Sherman, whose army was pillaging its way through Georgia and South Carolina virtually unopposed, targeting civilians as it went. What would you do if you were a Georgian, or a South Carolinian soldier in front of Petersburg and you knew that your family was in the path of these thugs?  Tough call, isn’t it?! 

Desertions plagued both sides actually. No one wants to come home maimed, or worse, in a body bag and sometimes men simply decided that they had had enough and could take no more.  It does appear however, desertions aside, that there were more than enough Confederates left to shoot down hordes of Yankees – a cursory look at the casualty figures late in the war would be enough to tell you that!

And while it has become all the rage among wack-ademics these days to “prove” that it was the South and the (allegedly) shabby cause for which it was fighting that caused its downfall and not overwhelming size and power of the Union army, one cannot escape the fact that the North had 4 times the South’s manpower and 10 times its industrial capacity.  No, you can’t escape it no matter how many theses you write about how flawed the South was.  You can’t escape it because even the South’s opponents noticed it themselves and spoke openly about it. 

Union General Samuel Howe, in February 1862 made the following observations: “Look at the opposing armies and you will see two striking truths.  First, the Northern men are superior in numbers, virtue, intelligence, bodily strength, and real pluck; and yet on the whole they have been outgeneraled and badly beaten.  Second, the Northern army is better equipped, better clad, fed and lodged; and is in a far more comfortable condition, not only than the Southern army, but any other in the world; and yet, if the pay were stopped in both, the Northern army would probably mutiny at once, or crumble rapidly; while the Southern army would probably hold together for a long time, in some shape, if their cause seemed to demand it.  The animating spirit of the Southern soldier is rather moral than pecuniary; of the Northern soldier it is rather pecuniary than moral.” [21]  

Yes, Howe was a Union general.  But respect for one’s enemy was not at all unheard of in those days.  In a Memorial Day, 1884 speech, Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., himself a union veteran said, “We believed that it was most desirable that the North should win…But we equally believed that those who stood against us held just as sacred convictions that were the opposite of ours, and we respected them as every man must respect those who give all for their belief…” [22]

Visiting British Colonel Arthur Freemantle, in his 1863 tour of the Southern states, might take issue with the contentions of our mythologists. After seeing first hand the determination of both the Southern soldier and civilian he remarked, “but the more I think of all that I have seen in the Confederate States, of the devotion of the whole population, the more I feel inclined to say with General Polk – “How can you subjugate a people such as this?”” [23]

Southern women brought down the war effort because they were sore about being second class citizens? The bimbo who wrote this either doesn’t get out much or she’s never met a Southern woman.  She also ignores the fact that the women of the North faced the same kind of “second class citizenship.” Colonel Arthur Freemantle, who, unlike the author, actually visited the South during the war, had this to say about Southern women….

“…no Confederate soldier is given his discharge from the army, however badly he may be wounded; but he is employed at such labor in the public service as he may be capable of performing, and his place in the ranks is taken by a sound man hitherto exempted.  The slightly wounded are cured as quickly as possible, and are sent back at once to their regiments. THEIR WOMEN TAKE CARE OF THIS…..” [24] 

Indeed, the attitudes of the Southern women that I know mirror that of the woman whose fiancé declined on volunteering for the army.  She sent him a package of women’s underwear with a note which read, “Wear these or volunteer!”  Needless to say, he volunteered. [25]

And as far as the planters and the old “rich man’s war, poor man’s fight” hooey is concerned, it is common knowledge that the ranks of the South’s aristocracy provided, for the most part, the bulk of the leadership in the Confederate army, and that most of the time these men led from the front.  It was the planters who had the most to lose in the South’s bid for freedom and lose they did.  They lost their fortunes, they lost their way of life, and oftentimes, they lost life itself.  Their words have indeed been recorded and they are in the history books if you’re not too lazy to look for them:

After leading a charge at Gettysburg and falling at the head of his troops, mortally wounded General William Barksdale, a wealthy planter by the way, asked his Yankee captors to give his wife a message as he lay dying - “Tell my wife I am shot, but we fought like hell!” [26]

17 year old David O. Dodd, a rich man’s son, was executed for being a spy by Union troops on  January 8, 1864, and was eulogized by one of his captors - “His quiet and heroic bearing stamped him as not only one of the bravest of the brave, but not one of us doubted that he met his fate with the same lofty feeling of patriotism that sustained, in his last hours, Nathan Hale, the immortal spy of the Revolution.” [27]

Colonel William Peleg Rogers of the 2nd Texas Infantry, a planter’ son, who fell at the battle at Battery Robinette, Corinth Miss., 1862, was eulogized by none other than Union General Rosecrans - “He was one of the bravest men that ever led a charge.  Bury him with military honors and mark his grave so his friends can claim him.  The time will come when there will be a monument here to commemorate his bravery.” [28] (I wonder how General Rosecrans might respond to the current craze of tearing down Confederate monuments?)

Private Charlie Jackson, a young teenager, barely 16 and a rich man’s son killed, April, 1862, 
His dying words to his father - “…Father, tell the boys when you get back how I died – just as a soldier ought to! Tell them to fight the Yankees as long as there is one left in the country, and never give up! Whenever you fill up the company with new men, let them know that besides their country there’s a little boy in heaven who will watch them and pray for them as they go into battle!” [29]

I could go on and on in this vein.  I could also ask why it is that our myth busters seem to focus heavily on Southern discontent but ignore the same, if not greater discontent that existed in the North.  In November 1864, with the war going heavily in the North’s favor, 1.8 million out of 4 million northern voters were courageous enough to go to the polls and vote against Lincoln.  I say “courageous” because in those days you did not go into a booth, close the curtain and vote in secret.  You marked a ballot in front of everyone. Everyone knew how you voted, including the Union government which had, to that point, imprisoned thousands of its own citizens for speaking out against the war.  Any perceived opposition to the war or to the government and its policies could easily earn you a trip to jail (minus any writ of habeas corpus) or an unpleasant home visit from “The Loyal League.”  Where are our myth busters on the subject of Northern discontent I wonder?  And why is it that all the myths busted are Southern ones?

There was a time when historians were less partisan than they are now, and I’m old enough to remember such times.  One particular historian, very well respected in his day was Bruce Catton, certainly no Lost Cause apologist by any stretch of the imagination.  I’ll close this section with his words on the subject of the Confederate soldier:

“There is no legend quite like that of the Confederate fighting man.   He reached the end of his haunted road long ago.  He fought for a star-crossed cause and in the end he was beaten, but as he carried his slashed red battle flag into the dusty twilight of the Lost Cause, he walked straight into a legend that will last as long as the American people care to remember anything about the American past.” Bruce Catton


Reconstruction – the quaint little experiment in social progress

Years ago I was reading a National Park Service E-book entitled, “Rally on the High Ground.” The E-book, on the park service website, was not really a book, but rather a transcription of a 2000 seminar of the same name that was attended by Dept of the Interior and Park Service officials, a gaggle of contemporary historians, and at least one politician, Jesse Jackson Jr. Jackson’s 2000 legislation mandated that the Park Service include slavery as a cause of the war in all its national battlefield parks, and place all those battles “in the larger context of both the causes of the war and the consequences--most notably--the issue of African slavery and its woeful legacy of racism and discrimination, which continues to this day.” 

Then Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbit opened with an address that touched upon Reconstruction.  He spoke specifically of that period as it related to African Americans and the elective franchise:  

“….They went to the polls in extraordinary numbers, elected black officials to county governments, to state legislatures, to state offices, to the House of Representatives, and to the United States Senate.  Many of these figures are mostly forgotten, but, in their time, they were eloquent, productive leaders who in many states laid foundations for the first time for public education in their states.  They were the leaders in anti-discrimination legislation, public housing accommodations, and social services.” [30]

Until that time I had never explored the Reconstruction period in depth and consequently knew little about it.  Nevertheless, a question occurred to me as I was reading Babbit’s babbling.  Given the fact that most blacks in the South at that time were newly freed slaves, who, not more than 2 or 3 years earlier had been living on a farm or plantation, and given the fact that most of them were still illiterate, how is it that they could make such an outstanding leap of progress in so short a time so as to be able to know what they were doing when they wielded the elective franchise?  More importantly, how is it that so many of them could find their way into political office and become great “productive leaders”?  Such a leap of progress in such a short time is unknown in recorded human history!  So then, who waved their magic wand and turned a simple, untutored people into a bunch of Henry Kissingers?

I once posed this question to former Gettysburg National Park Superintendent John Latschar (before he got snagged for surfing porn on his work computer).  I had just been to the new visitor’s center at Gettysburg and had seen that the Park Service’s presentation there extended far beyond the battle itself.  Not only was the slavery issue highlighted, but Reconstruction and civil rights as well.  And of course, the alleged accomplishments of these black “productive leaders” were touted.  I asked Mr. Latschar how it was that so many of these people could manage to hold political office when most of them had been picking cotton only a few years before.  Latschar cited two black politicians, Hiram Revels and Francis Cardozo, who actually were not only literate but highly educated as well.  I replied by sending him numerous examples which clearly demonstrated that these two men were the exceptions and not the rule.  In any case, I never heard from Latschar again.  Maybe he was too busy surfing porn?

The Wikipedia description of those who contributed to the literary movement known as the “Lost Cause,” reads in part, “they also tended to condemn Reconstruction.”  That, in case you haven’t guessed, is supposed to be a criticism.  The mantra today is that Reconstruction was a wonderful experiment in “interracial democracy” that was shot down by those evil, nasty white supremacists.  I’ve learned a lot about the period since reading “Rally on the High Ground,” and it was anything but wonderful.  Yes, it was “interracial” in nature, but simply sticking that adjective in front of a word does not necessarily make that word a good thing. 

Yes, it was indeed a form of “interracial democracy.”   
 
It was an “interracial democracy” which excluded most of the native Southern white population. As per the 14th amendment - anyone who had engaged in “participation in any rebellion or civil war against the United States” was disenfranchised, thereby leaving state governments in the hands of Yankee transplants, ex-slaves and a few compliant Southerners who were willing to “swallow the dog,” [31] 
  
It was an “interracial democracy” administrated, in part, by a people who had been slaves not more than 3 years before. This mysterious, and unbelievable leap of progress in so brief a time, unequaled in all of human history, has never been fully explained by anyone who has anything positive to say about the period. Yet, its incongruity was noted, even by Northerners of the period, who wondered at the curious nature of the Freedmen’s bill…namely that - “It took the blacks under the protection of the Federal Government as if they were not able to take care of themselves, while the same persons who urged…the measure are the most clamorous to give this same dependent population a large share in the government of the country.’” [32] 

The incongruity in question is easily explained however. If one wants to know the real motivation behind the Party of Lincoln and its drive to gain the elective franchise for the newly freed slave, one need only consult one of the chief architects of the Congressional Reconstruction policy, Rep. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. In Stevens’ own words, the purpose of giving this “dependent population” the vote in the South was to “insure perpetual ascendancy to the party of the union.” [33] Since when does one-party rule constitute a democracy, interracial or otherwise? 
  
It was an “interracial democracy” that even Frederick Douglass found, at least in part, appalling, as he commented on the white portion of Alabama’s 1869 Reconstruction state government - “Well, I would be a Democrat if I was a white man and had to herd with that cattle.” [34] 
  
It was an “interracial democracy” that caused Georgia’s debt to go from “0” in 1865 to 50 million dollars in 1872 [35], whose budgetary practices in Louisiana caused the cost of the 1871 legislative session to be 9.5 times the average cost of a pre-Reconstruction session [36], and whose budgetary practices in the South Carolina legislature caused the total cost of 6 years of Reconstruction for that not-so-august body to total $2,339,000, (when the average cost of a pre-Reconstruction session of the legislature had been $20,000/year!) [37]. 

This wonderful “interracial democracy” resulted in the tax rate in Mississippi increasing 14 fold during its 5 year tenure in that state and caused 20% of all privately owned land in that state to be put up for sale on the tax auction block [38]. 

In Texas, this wonderful “interracial” experiment resulted in a 400% tax increase, while at the same time, another Southern state, Tennessee, saw its state debt inflated by 16 million dollars.
[39]. 

It was an “interracial democracy” which saw 25% of all the property in Little Rock Arkansas in the hands of former Union General Schenck, who had purchased said property at bargain basement prices after those properties had been confiscated for non-payment of taxes. [40]. 

It was a “interracial democracy” which saw, in South Carolina, the expenditure by the legislature, “of $200,000 - all of which was spent in furnishing the state capitol with costly plate glass mirrors, lounges, arm chairs, a free bar and other luxurious appointments for the use of the legislators.” [41] 
  
It was an “interracial democracy” in South Carolina composed of black men like Beverly Nash, who admitted to  taking a $2500 bribe, and who defended his actions with the words, “I merely took the money because I thought I might as well have it and invest it here as for them to carry it outside the state”. [42]. That same type of government, in that very same state, also produced the likes of State Representative John Patterson, a white Pennsylvania transplant, who, when questioned about corruption flippantly replied, “Why there are still 5 good years of stealing left in South Carolina”. [43]  In Mississippi, it produced the likes of William Gray, a black State Senator, who proclaim “that he would win [the 1874 election] if he had to kill every white man, woman and child in the county, which was predominantly black.” [44]  
 
It was an “interracial democracy” which demanded that the black man have his vote, but which also mandated that the black man vote the way he was told!  Black men contemplating a vote for the Democratic ticket (or the Conservative Ticket), were warned off with “Death to Colored Democrat” signs in polling places, and with banners proclaiming “Every man that don’t vote the Radical ticket this is the way we want to serve him – hang him by the neck.” [45] 
  
Finally, that “interracial democracy” produced a financial house of cards which collapsed upon the head of the freedman in 1874 when the Freedman’s Bureau Savings and Trust went belly-up.  Those freedmen who had worked hard to build an economic base for themselves (instead of feeding at the public trough), and who had trusted in their Yankee benefactors, lost all they had, a grand total of 3.3 million dollars – a huge sum for that time belonging to relatively poor people who could ill afford to lose it.  And the government whose soldiers allegedly “died to make men free” did nothing to compensate them. [46] No bailouts in 1874 I guess?! 
  
But it’s all ok you see, -because it was all “interracial.” So sayeth our “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists.”  


The History Field Today….“Houston, we have a problem….”

Yes, a very big problem indeed.  I can’t say that I learned a whole lot of history itself when I majored in it as an undergraduate.  Most of my historical knowledge came years later doing reading and research on my own.  One thing I did learn in school however was that historians were seldom in agreement on anything. An event takes place, and for a decade or two, it falls into the category of a “current event.”  As time goes on, it passes into the history books and its history and significance begin to be interpreted by those who call themselves historians.  This interpretation itself is what constitutes the study of history, and human nature being what it is, it should come as no surprise that the interpretations often vary. 

However, in the case of the “Civil War” and its causes there seems to be little or no variation in opinion, at least not these days.  It would appear that the vast majority of historians (save a handful of courageous souls who occasionally speak out and whose integrity comes under fire when they do), are in complete agreement on these issues.  It sure is peaceful in the history field these days - it is peace of the dead.  Where has the variety in interpretation gone?  Where has the debate gone?  The lack of diverse opinions and the lack of debate on these issues should raise eyebrows, but they fail to.  I would conclude that - “Houston, we have a problem….” 

In the case of Reconstruction for example, our contemporary experts claim that it was a wonderful experiment in social progress that was sabotaged by white supremacists.  They claim that the “Dunning School,” a school of thought on the subject headed by historian William Archibald Dunning which maintained that Reconstruction was a terrible time in America’s history, has been officially “debunked.”  Of course, nowhere do I see them offering up any facts to justify their claims.  Dunning cites facts such as those which I cited and no contemporary historian has been able to prove that Dunning made those things up.  If you don’t see a problem with the facts that I cited, (and they are facts), or, if you choose to ignore them, as our contemporary experts seem to be doing, well then, I’d have to say that - “Houston, we have a problem…..”

In the case of the Sesquicentennial, most of the planners on the various state committees are those same contemporary experts - our “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists.”  Some events have already been held and I could not help notice that the ones that have already taken place didn’t draw very big crowds.  Events held in the Richmond area recently are indicative, I believe, of the lack of interest that the stories told by such experts hold for most of us, even if few of us are willing to say such things aloud.  The highly touted Tredegar Museum in Richmond, for example, a museum which touts slavery as a cause of the war, and which was designed and run by “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” draws an average of 50 visitors/day. [47] I’ve seen more activity than that in a cemetery.  If the states are hoping that museums like Tredegar, or events like “The Future of Richmond’s Past” are going to draw in tourist dollars, think again.  Northerners aren’t going to drive hundreds of miles and spend hundreds of dollars to see a “diversity” dog and pony show.  They can stay home, save the money, and attend such shows where they live, because such shows are a dime a dozen these days.  I have no doubt that as the Sesquicentennial progresses and states begin to see that the tourist dollars are not materializing, we are going to hear those states crying - “Houston, we have a problem…”

Of even greater concern is what may be called a lack of academic freedom within academia itself.  The expression of free thought and honest discussion seem to have gone right out the window.  

During the 2000 South Carolina flag controversy, about 100 academics from various fields and disciplines, led by a professor whose field of expertise was “African American folklore”, issued a very public statement which proclaimed, in no uncertain terms, that slavery was the cause of the “civil war,” that there should be no arguments to the contrary, and that there was nothing honorable about “the Confederate flag.”  A short time later, a smaller group of academics issued a contradictory public statement which took strong issue with the first group’s contentions.  So what’s the problem here? There are two:

First, while the press thoroughly covered the first group’s press release, it was noticeably absent for the second group’s release, and -

Second, the people who gathered the signatures for the second group’s press release reported that a number of people expressed a desire to sign the petition but declined due to “fear of future professional reprisals.”  Further, some signatures of younger, untenured professors who did volunteer to sign were not used for exactly that very reason – possible future professional reprisals. [48]

“Houston, we do indeed have a problem….”

When academics and self-proclaimed experts announce themselves to be “Professors of Memory Studies” and then hijack America’s historical memory, and no one questions the lunacy of such statements or says, “Hey!  You can’t do that!”…..we have a problem.

When academics proudly proclaim they are busting myths and that their myth busting constitutes historical study, but at the same time they tip toe around other potential myths out of fear, ignorance or something else….. we have a problem.

When nearly the whole of academia stops arguing both sides of an issue, and when those few who would like to provide another side to that issue stay silent for fear of “reprisals”….we most assuredly have a problem. 

When Congress, at the urging of a race-baiting demagogue, who most fear to publicly label as such, deigns itself fit to pass legislative mandates using taxpayer monies in order to promote an official version of an important event in America’s history, an event which, until the last 20 or 30 years was a story that had two sides….we have a problem. 

Most of all, when the American public sits silently on its haunches and says nothing about these things, we most certainly have a problem.  Maybe we have reached the point that Bruce Catton mentioned – the point where the American people no longer “care to remember anything about the American past.”


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] “The “Secession, State and Liberty,” David Gordon, Editor, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 
      (U.S.A. and London (U.K.), Copyright, 1999, 4th Paperback Printing, 2009, page 27

[2] “Taking a Stand, Portraits from the Southern Secession Movement,” By Walter Brian Cisco,
        White Main Books, 1998, Pages 62-63

[3] “The Real Lincoln,” by Thomas DiLorenzo,” Prima Publishers, Roseville Ca., 2002 Page 99
       ** (“The Slave Representation Clause” – Each slave was counted as three fifths of a person for purposes of
       determining a state’s representation in the House of Representatives.
       Northern politicians felt this to be unfair, claiming that it gave the Southern states more congressional representatives
       than they deserved, and would have preferred that slaves not be counted at all. Southern politicians of course,
       would have liked to have seen each slave counted as a “full person.” The more “full persons” a state has,
       the more representatives it gets in the lower House.) 

[4] “The Truths of History” by Mildred Rutherford, Southern Lion Books, 1998, p. 9

[5] “North of Slavery,” By Leon Litwack, University of Chicago Press, 1961, Page 269

[6] “North of Slavery,” By Leon Litwack, University of Chicago Press, 1961, Page 271

7] “Jefferson Davis – Unconquerable Heart”, By Felicity Allen, University of Missouri Press, Columbia and London,
       copyright 1999, blacks p. 168

[8] “A Constitutional History of Secession,” By John Remington Graham, page 232, Pelican Publishing Company,
       copyright 2005 [8]

[9] “Jefferson Davis – Unconquerable Heart”, By Felicity Allen, Page 168,  University of Missouri Press,
        Columbia and London, copyright 1999 [9]

[10] “One Nation Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution” By Robert F. Hawes, Copyright 2006,
          Published by the Fultus Corporation, Page 228 

[11] “Jefferson Davis – Unconquerable Heart”, By Felicity Allen, University of Missouri Press, Columbia and London,
          copyright 1999, pp. 167-168

[12] “The Quarterly Review,” “Democracy on Trial,” London, July – October 1861, vol. 110, pp. 247 – 284 
 
[13] “The North British Review,” “The American Republic: Resurrection through Dissolution”
Edinburgh, February, 1862, (British Edition), pp. 233 – 272

[14] “North of Slavery,” By Leon Litwack, University of Chicago Press, 1961, Page 248

[15] “The Times of London,” September 13, 1862, pp. 7-8

[16] “The Quarterly Review,” “The Confederate Struggle,” London, July – October, 1862, vol. 112, pp. 535 – 564

[17] http://www.craterroad.com/richardpoplar.html

[18] “War Crimes Against Southern Civilians,” by Walter Brian Cisco, Pelican Publishing Co., 2007

[19] “Rebel Boast - First at Bethel, Last at Appomattox,” by Manly Wade Wellman
Originally Published 1956 by Henry Hold and Company, New York
Reprinted 2000 by Blue Gray Books

[20] http://www.futurity.org/society-culture/did-women-and-slaves-drive-dixie-down/

[21] Gen. Samuel Howe, US Army, February 20, 1862, Confederate Veteran Magazine, July, 1930, page 251

[22] “Let Us Die Like Brave Men, Behind the Dying Words of Confederate Warriors,” By Daniel W. Barefoot,
         Copyright 2005, John F. Blair Publisher, Winston-Salem, North Carolina Preface, page x

[23] “Three Months in the Southern States,” Colonel Arthur Freemantle, copyright, 1991, University of Nebraska Press,
          pp 308-309

[24] “Three Months in the Southern States,” Colonel Arthur Freemantle, copyright, 1991, University of Nebraska Press,
          Page 306

[25] “The Quarterly Review”, “The American War”, London, January – April, 1863, vol. 113, pp. 322 – 353

[26] “Let Us Die Like Brave Men, Behind the Dying Words of Confederate Warriors,” By Daniel W. Barefoot, Copyright 2005,
         John F. Blair Publisher, Winston-Salem, North Carolina p. 116

[27] “Let Us Die Like Brave Men, Behind the Dying Words of Confederate Warriors,” By Daniel W. Barefoot, Copyright 2005,
          John F. Blair Publisher, Winston-Salem, North Carolina p. 171

[28] “Let Us Die Like Brave Men, Behind the Dying Words of Confederate Warriors,” By Daniel W. Barefoot, Copyright 2005,
          John F. Blair Publisher, Winston-Salem, North Carolina p. 61

[29] “Let Us Die Like Brave Men, Behind the Dying Words of Confederate Warriors,” By Daniel W. Barefoot, Copyright 2005,
         John F. Blair Publisher, Winston-Salem, North Carolina p. 23

[30] “Rally on the High Ground” – opening address by Bruce Babbit. 
            http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/rthg/fore.htm

[31}  See the 14th Amendment 
  
[32] Ralph Seth Henry, “The Story of Reconstruction February, 1866 Page 160 (Konecky & Koncekcy, 150 Fifth Ave. New York,
        NY, 10011)
  
[33] ibid, PP. 210- 211 
  
[34] “Brooklyn Eagle,” copied in “Montgomery Advertiser”, Feb 19, 1869) 
  
[35] Mildred Lewis Rutherford, “The Truths of History,” Pages 128-129, Daniel Voorhees, Representative from Indiana,
      “Plunder of Eleven States”, a speech made in the House of Representatives March 23, 1872: 
  
[36] Ella Lonn, “Reconstruction in Louisiana after 1868,” New York, 1918, P. 78 
  
[37] “Republican Governor Daniel Chamberlain’s Reflections” 1901, in the Atlantic Monthly 
  
[38] John S. Tilley, “The Coming of the Glory,” page 256, Copyright 1949, (Bill Coats, Ltd., 1406 Grandview, Nashville,
        TN, 37215-3030, 1995)
  
[39] ibid, page 259   
  
[40] “Albany Argues”, copied “Montgomery Advertiser,” November 29, 1868 
  
[41] Mildred Lewis Rutherford, “The Truths of History,” Page 127, Copyright, 1920, Southern Lion Books Inc., PO Box 347163,
        Atlanta, Ga., 30334, 1998, (as quoted in Muzzey’s “American History”, page 486) 
  
[42] John S. Tilley, “The Coming of the Glory,” page 241, Copyright 1949, (Bill Coats, Ltd., 1406 Grandview, Nashville, TN,
         37215-3030, 1995)
  
[43] ibid, page 232   
 
[44] Claude G. Bowers, “The Tragic Era,” Page 453
Simon Publications, PO 321, Safety Harbor, Fl., 2001, c 1929

[45] “The Southern Argus,” August 25, 1869 
  
[46] House- Misc Doc No. 16, 39, Cong 2 Sess.,, pp 61, 91 

[47] (The Richmond Times Dispatch on 4.28/10 reported that the museum received 21000 visitors in 2009)    
Http://www.styleweekly.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=
8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=5E720D93209A4075805EFEBC78D11BD7&AudID=
20938C672A3049EEB0CF33069AEE1AE0
         
[48] “The Southern Partisan,” Volume XX Second Quarter, 2000, pp. 17=21

by Bill Vallante
August, 2010