Really? The loser wrote the history of the Civil War?

Georgia Sixth

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Location
Texas
In the current thread "Shameful actions of the Union army", poster IcarusPhoenix made this comment in response to a reference to the winner writing the history of a given war:

"If ever there was proof that this particular axiom is an absolute falsehood, the American Civil War is it. Most history is initially written by through losers. The victors are far too busy to bother with such pursuits."

I've seen this idea stated frequently on this Forum (and Icarus Phoenix did a great job of expressing it both assertively and succinctly) and it is evidently accepted as fact by many here....but I'd like to challenge this assertion. What specific examples or events can be cited to demonstrate that the former Confederates wrote the nation's history of the war? Even more specific -- how did they possibly write the history of the war that was taught and/or remembered in the northern states?

It just doesn't ring true to me. A quick look at ancient history shows who wrote the memorials to wars and battles -- Egyptian inscriptions, Assyrian stieles, Julius' history of the Gallic wars, etc. -- it was the winners and conquerors who wrote the story. With the rare exception of the Hebrew histories preserved in the Bible, I'm not aware of the vanquished leaving behind a history of defeat (and they had plenty of them).

Perhaps those who hold this opinion are correct. Perhaps the former Confederates really did write the northern textbooks. They certainly wrote the ones used in southern schools...but those used other regions too? I truly and honestly would like to know how specifically the former secessionists were able to "win the war of memory".

I sincerely look forward to your thoughts. I've thought about this a lot and continue to scratch my head.
 
Good thread idea. Off the top of my head, Ms. LaSalle Corbell wrote a history of her husband,
George Pickett's actions, character traits and famous friends (President Lincoln) that flew in the face of history...even helped shape Stephen Lang's portrayal of Pickett in Gettysburg.

Jubal Early wrote some one-sided, self-serving...as did plenty of others on both sides, back stabbing and finger pointing history of the war.
 
Just to clarify, G6, are you asserting that the victors wrote the history exclusively, or are you questioning whether the losers wrote the history exclusively. Or, to put it another way, is it your belief that BOTH the victors and the losers wrote the history?
 
There are a zillion histories of the Civil War, and the losers wrote a lot of them. Every day another book comes out trying to sift the truth out of all the histories. Not likely every accepted fact will be the truth, ever, and a lot of the non-truths will have come from the losers. A lot will have come from the winners.

But here we go again, don't we? The Confederacy surrendered and disappeared as a political entity, so they are called the losers, but a lot of their policies carried right on after the war (black codes, segregation, economic and political inequality). Didn't the USA as a whole win and lose at the same time? Aren't we still dealing with what we lost and what we won? Aren't we still winning and losing at the same time even today? Aren't we still choosing sides and living our lives accordingly? Maybe that's one of the reasons the era is so fascinating to writers - is it really over? IMO, no, it's not.
 
By a quirk of history, Southerners irrevocably reimagined "the lost cause" in the last forty years of the nineteenth century, just at the time the American Historical Association took it upon themselves to use a more Southern and sympathetic view of the Civil War Era, in order to unify the nation in soul as well as name. For the AHA (Fredrick Jackson Turner was a leader of this academic league of professional, university trained historians) The Union Cause was righteous and freeing the slaves was the proper course for the nation. But Southerners and their leaders were not evil, and there really were Constitutional issues,... and states rights to consider. Plus, The South had all those dashing and gallant heroes, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, JEB Stuart.... No Union commander of note inspired the post-war worship and respect these Great Americans did among 'northerners' as well as 'southerners.'

Gone With The Wind is our accepted universal American Myth of the Civil War.
 
In the current thread "Shameful actions of the Union army", poster IcarusPhoenix made this comment in response to a reference to the winner writing the history of a given war:

"If ever there was proof that this particular axiom is an absolute falsehood, the American Civil War is it. Most history is initially written by through losers. The victors are far too busy to bother with such pursuits."

I've seen this idea stated frequently on this Forum (and Icarus Phoenix did a great job of expressing it both assertively and succinctly) and it is evidently accepted as fact by many here....but I'd like to challenge this assertion. What specific examples or events can be cited to demonstrate that the former Confederates wrote the nation's history of the war? Even more specific -- how did they possibly write the history of the war that was taught and/or remembered in the northern states?

It just doesn't ring true to me. A quick look at ancient history shows who wrote the memorials to wars and battles -- Egyptian inscriptions, Assyrian stieles, Julius' history of the Gallic wars, etc. -- it was the winners and conquerors who wrote the story. With the rare exception of the Hebrew histories preserved in the Bible, I'm not aware of the vanquished leaving behind a history of defeat (and they had plenty of them).

Perhaps those who hold this opinion are correct. Perhaps the former Confederates really did write the northern textbooks. They certainly wrote the ones used in southern schools...but those used other regions too? I truly and honestly would like to know how specifically the former secessionists were able to "win the war of memory".

I sincerely look forward to your thoughts. I've thought about this a lot and continue to scratch my head.

Basically, for the first hundred years after the war, the "Lost Cause" narrative dominated the historiography of the war. The war was about states' rights, blacks played no role in the war (with some arguing that slavery wasn't that bad), Lee on a pedestal, the veterans led the way in reuniting the nation, etc. This narrative changed in the 1960s when a reexamination of the evidence showed that the previous narrative of the war was badly flawed.

R
 
Maybe we ought to consider a good old American trait - we root for the underdog. We examine like crazy the reasons the loser of anything lost, not so much the reasons the winner won. We like extolling the virtues of the loser who fought hard and lost, like there is some religious significance to being that loser. Heck, look at how many admire the bravery of the ANV troops at Pickett's Charge more than the bravery of the AOP troops who beat back that charge. Even one of the AOP soldiers watching the Charge coming at him said it was the most beautiful thing he ever saw! Another one of our strange American quirks.
 
I can only hope that whatever goes into textbooks has been written by an unbiased, neutral, objective scholar of the ACW. Be he/she from the North, South, West, or Timbuktu. Although interesting reading by the participants themselves in the war, it is most likely to be emotionally biased. ------Good thread, it does really make you wonder; who wrote what? I would sincerely hope the material, especially in what is to be considered "fact" is written by an open-minded, very clear-headed person(s) that have a keen sense of reading between the lines.
 
I don't think that the losers wrote the history of the War of the Rebellion. A glance at the first listings of Vol 1 of Battles and Leaders (post-war writings of a reasonable contemporaneousness) illustrates a balance between northern and southern writers/soldiers. 1st Manassas gets a predominant Confederate group because which of those losers McDowell, etc. wrote anything interesting? In this case, the "winners" were happy to give their memories for publication. Post-war, both northern and southern officers wrote memoirs (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Chamberlain.... er.... McClellan, Pope (and his owl), Bragg, Alexander, Gordon, Mosby, Early. etc. But losers like A S Johnston (dead); Lee (dead before writing anything); Jackson (dead); JEB Stuart (dead); A P Hill (dead) remained silent.

I think the impression that the losers wrote the history largely rests upon the prolific lost cause /who lost the battles? back-and-forth that former Confederate officers seemed happy to engage in. And the proliferation of biographies written in the 20th century about Confederate generals.

Here's the early part of the B&L Vol 1 table of contents:

FROM MOULTRIE TO SUMTER GENERAL ABNER DOUBLEDAY
INSIDE SUMTER IN '61 CAPTAIN JAMES CHESTER
THE FIRST STEP IN THE WAR GENERAL STEPHEN D. LEE
NOTES ON THE SURRENDER OF FORT SUMTER. COLONEL A. R. CHISOLM
ORGANIZING FOR THE CONFLICT. GENERAL JACOB D. COX
FIRST OPERATIONS IN VIRGINIA.
JACKSON AT HARPER'S FERRY IN 1861 GENERAL JOHN D. IMBODEN
McCLELLAN IN WEST VIRGINIA GENERAL JACOB D. COX
GOING TO THE FRONT (Recollections of a Private). WARREN LEE GOSS
VIRGINIA SCENES IN "61 MRS. BURTON HARRISON.
CAMPAIGN OF THE FIRST BULL RUN.
McDOWELL'S ADVANCE TO BULL RUN GENERAL JAMES B. FRY 167
THE OPPOSING ARMIES AT THE FIRST BULL RUN. Table of Strength, Composition,
THE FIRST BATTLE OF BULL RUN GENERAL G. T. BEAUREGARD 196
INCIDENTS OF THE FIRST BULL RUN GENERAL JOHN D. IMBODEN
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FIRST BULL RUN GENERAL JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON 240
GENERAL EWELL AT BULL RUN MAJOR CAMPBELL BROWN 259
THE CONFEDERATE COMMISSARIAT AT MANASSAS COLONEL L. B. NORTHROP 261
WILSON'S CREEK, LEXINGTON, AND PEA RIDGE.
THE FIRST YEAR OF THE WAR IN MISSOURI COLONEL THOMAS L. SNEAD
IN COMMAND IN MISSOURI GENERAL JOHN C. FREMONT
DEATH OF LYON GENERAL WILLIAM M. WHERRY
THE FLANKING COLUMN AT WILSON'S CREEK. . . GENERAL FRANZ SIGEL
THE OPPOSING FORCES AT WILSON'S CREEK, MO. Composition, Strength, and Losses 306
THE SIEGE OF LEXINGTON COLONEL JAMES A. MULLIGAN
 
Just to clarify, G6, are you asserting that the victors wrote the history exclusively, or are you questioning whether the losers wrote the history exclusively. Or, to put it another way, is it your belief that BOTH the victors and the losers wrote the history?

Brass, I'm not asserting but rather am being skeptical of the oft repeated assertion here that the side that lost the war wrote the history of it. I am questioning whether that is actually true and, if so, just how did that happen...who?...when?...how?
 
Good thread idea. Off the top of my head, Ms. LaSalle Corbell wrote a history of her husband,
George Pickett's actions, character traits and famous friends (President Lincoln) that flew in the face of history...even helped shape Stephen Lang's portrayal of Pickett in Gettysburg.

Jubal Early wrote some one-sided, self-serving...as did plenty of others on both sides, back stabbing and finger pointing history of the war.

Yes, quite a few ex-Confederates wrote memoirs and carried on boring squabbles via books and articles. Even former president Davis wrote something in printed form that is a cure for most cases of insomnia. But the question is, how could anything scribbled by the defeated rebels possibly be picked up by the victorious north and used as their history?
 
By a quirk of history, Southerners irrevocably reimagined "the lost cause" in the last forty years of the nineteenth century, just at the time the American Historical Association took it upon themselves to use a more Southern and sympathetic view of the Civil War Era, in order to unify the nation in soul as well as name. For the AHA (Fredrick Jackson Turner was a leader of this academic league of professional, university trained historians) The Union Cause was righteous and freeing the slaves was the proper course for the nation. But Southerners and their leaders were not evil, and there really were Constitutional issues,... and states rights to consider. Plus, The South had all those dashing and gallant heroes, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, JEB Stuart.... No Union commander of note inspired the post-war worship and respect these Great Americans did among 'northerners' as well as 'southerners.'

Gone With The Wind is our accepted universal American Myth of the Civil War.

Dave, thanks for the response. I did a very quick google of Turner and all I saw was what I remembered about him: the frontier thesis and rugged individuality, etc., blah blah. But your reference to the AHA is intriguing. Can you point to a specific date or convention or speech or something in which this group stated the need for a historical narrative more sympathetic to the South or discussing how said narrative could be used to foster reunification?

Side note: it is weird that the Confederate military commanders today have more, for lack of a better word, glamour than their Federal counterparts. Especially since I have read that the death of U.S. Grant solicited an even greater outpouring of affection than that of Lincoln, that far more people came to see his body in state than did to greet Lincoln's now better remembered train to the grave.
 
Basically, for the first hundred years after the war, the "Lost Cause" narrative dominated the historiography of the war.

That's exactly what I'm asking about. I'm not concerned with whether the "lost cause" narrative is true or not. I don't care, for purpose of this inquiry. I'm just asking, if the "lost cause" really dominated the historiography -- and did so shortly after the war ended -- how and when did it occur?
 
Yes, quite a few ex-Confederates wrote memoirs and carried on boring squabbles via books and articles. Even former president Davis wrote something in printed form that is a cure for most cases of insomnia. But the question is, how could anything scribbled by the defeated rebels possibly be picked up by the victorious north and used as their history?
Well, our portrait of Pickett came from the southern general's wife.

But I don't see what was posted by Icarus as using southern writings and possible rewriting of the civil war era as being picked up as "northern" history. I see it as whether it be true, false, rewritten or lost cause history as just being picked up, read, believed and retold.
 
That's exactly what I'm asking about. I'm not concerned with whether the "lost cause" narrative is true or not. I don't care, for purpose of this inquiry. I'm just asking, if the "lost cause" really dominated the historiography -- and did so shortly after the war ended -- how and when did it occur?

The 1870s when the "Lost Cause" narrative was just getting started through the 1880s when Jefferson Davis writes his tome.

In the North, shortly after the war ends, the public seems to want to move on and looks to the future. Especially after the end of Reconstruction, the "Lost Cause" narrative is essentially the only narrative out there and becomes the default story until the 1960s.

R
 
Back
Top