The "False Cause?"

[John Hartwell]

Many books of the later 19th century contained Testament of Virtue-like statements -- usually books about local participation in the civil war, often local history -- just about always by amateurs, writing to make themselves and their neighbors feel good. It was popular history. There were, of course, a great many more written from the Union point of view that made no such claims. I don't recall any such stuff coming from professional, academic historians, or in works of serious historiography -- though there may be a few. The genre was pretty much dead by the 1920s, and nobody continued to repeat it except the ignorant, who didn't know any better (or care). Nobody, to my knowledge, is writing such stuff today (I'm not talking here about a few internet whackos).

If you think you remember that that was what you were taught in school (it certainly wasn't what I was taught), then I suggest that you gp back to the actual textbooks used in grammar and high schools in the 1930s and later. I strongly suspect you will find very few that "live down" to your expectations. For example, is there even one American history textbook that actually says "The North went to war to free the slaves"? What you are remembering is not what you were taught, but what you picked up from popular culture, heavily influenced by movies, stories, folk memories, and children's tales ... and, maybe some irresponsible teachers who didn't do their job properly.

The Lost Cause mythos was a deliberately constructed interpretation popularized especially by the members of the Southern Historical Society during the 1870s and '80s. It was a very successful concerted propaganda effort by a number of widely read historians. Its influence was widespread, and in fact was the basis of most history actually taught in the USA for nearly a century. I remember very well my mother saying that she was taught in school (in Boston in the early 1920s) that the Civil War was "not about slavery," which was only a minor issue. The big change came during the late 1950s and '60s, when the Civil Rights movement initiated a greater interest in the issue of slavery, and discussion of its central role in creating the secession crisis.

 

[hanna260]

I think he was objecting to calling Mitchell a Lost Causer. She's not, really, you know. Gone with the Wind is an easy book to read badly. Her perspective is tight and her focus character is meant to be unreliable. The themes of the Lost Cause narrative - happy slaves, the good old days, heroic soldiers who only lost because they were outnumbered - are all deliberately called out and sent up. Prissy is a clever saboteur, Mammy thinks Scarlett is trash, Uncle Peter rebels against being taken for granted. Scarlett's first husband dies not heroically in battle but from illness, and Ashley is incapable of running a business. Ellen, Scarlett's idolized mother and benevolent mistress of the plantation, has a secret lover in her past and it's strongly implied she spent her entire life putting on a facade of civility to hide the truth that she was miserable. While Scarlett may have thought she was happy as a flirtatious belle, it's clear that the disaster which allowed her to break the rules of convention and become a businesswoman also showed her true calling. Anyone who reads it and sees nostalgia is missing the point.

Yes, a thousand times yes. The whole novel pretty much deconstructs this idea that war is glorious ( the novel makes war look like absolute hell and makes it clear that it pretty much destroyed everyones lives) and the Confederate cause is glorious and you can see just how flimsy this whole construction of a perfect Southern society before the war is too- with its stifling rules and the fact that it really is made to look quite ridiculous and exaggerated. Rhett and Scarlett repeatedly lampoon the Confederate cause and are shown to be more sensible for lampooning it- as you said, and more then that the depictions of Yankee soldiers- I always took it as an unreliable narrator too- she's a girl whose not very well-informed and who feels that her home state is being invaded- why would we take her descriptions of Sherman's march or the "excesses" as gospel?

I always in some ways took it a bit as a satire. Look, guys, this is what you think is so romantic? But the movie, as movies are wont to do, made it look quite a bit more tragic, romantic, and exciting- missing I think as someone said- quite a lot of the nuances.

I think it's the movie as Eric said, that's really been influential. And people who read the book are generally those who've watched the movie and I think that kind of colors their view of the book a little.

 

[Drew]

Despite it being frequently used here as a shield against the inconvenient reality of historical fact, there are almost no "disciples" of the "Treasury of Virtue". The phrase is almost always used to deflect criticism by a disagreeing party, and it's worth noting that most of the time, the term "Lost Cause" is used in much the same way. Strangely, the two stem from almost the exact same intellectual failing: modern political absolutism.

I can think of one guy who was an adherent of both; or neither. Depends on your brand of absolutism, I guess.

"I might say, secondly, some people wonder, well, what has Mississippi got to do with Harlem? It isn't actually Mississippi; it's America. America is Mississippi. There's no such thing as a Mason-Dixon Line – it's America. There's no such thing as the South – it's America. If one room in your house is dirty, you've got a dirty house. If the closet is dirty, you've got a dirty house. Don't say that that room is dirty but the rest of my house is clean. You're over the whole house. You have authority over the whole house; the entire house is under your jurisdiction. And the mistake that you and I make is letting these Northern crackers shift the weight to the Southern crackers."

(Italics Original)

Malcom X, Malcom X Speaks: Selected Speeches and Statements, 1965, pp. 108-109

 

[Allie]

Yes, a thousand times yes. The whole novel pretty much deconstructs this idea that war is glorious ( the novel makes war look like absolute hell and makes it clear that it pretty much destroyed everyones lives) and the Confederate cause is glorious and you can see just how flimsy this whole construction of a perfect Southern society before the war is too- with its stifling rules and the fact that it really is made to look quite ridiculous and exaggerated. Rhett and Scarlett repeatedly lampoon the Confederate cause and are shown to be more sensible for lampooning it- as you said, and more then that the depictions of Yankee soldiers- I always took it as an unreliable narrator too- she's a girl whose not very well-informed and who feels that her home state is being invaded- why would we take her descriptions of Sherman's march or the "excesses" as gospel?

I always in some ways took it a bit as a satire. Look, guys, this is what you think is so romantic? But the movie, as movies are wont to do, made it look quite a bit more tragic, romantic, and exciting- missing I think as someone said- quite a lot of the nuances.

I think it's the movie as Eric said, that's really been influential. And people who read the book are generally those who've watched the movie and I think that kind of colors their view of the book a little.

Well, after reading a bit of Mary Chesnut this morning about a young woman who was raped by Yankees until she died, I'm not sure the bit about the bummers is meant to be exaggerated. There were excesses. And Yankee deserters trying to steal are not even that excessive. There was a war on and things got ugly.

Even the least justifiable bit of the book, the scene where Scarlett is attacked by men from the negro encampment, is framed in terms which indicate this didn't happen often and it only happened to her because she was doing something no sane white woman would do. And in the event nothing very bad happens to her - she gets her bodice torn and is frightened, but the scary bogeymen aren't so far gone that they don't back down when Sam tells them to. The Klan reprisals involve executing people who have not themselves killed anyone. Are the Klan meant to be seen as justified and necessary? Again, the sensible Rhett is not on board with them.

 

[hanna260]

Well, after reading a bit of Mary Chesnut this morning about a young woman who was raped by Yankees until she died, I'm not sure the bit about the bummers is meant to be exaggerated. There were excesses. And Yankee deserters trying to steal are not even that excessive. There was a war on and things got ugly.
.

When I wrote that, I was thinking more in terms of when she summed up the top three Union generals (Grant, Sheridan, Sherman), "butcher, ruthless, really ruthless" respectively, and I thought- huh, some people might take this at face value, but I think she's just talking through Scarlett's point of view as an unreliable narrator (to name one example). I totally agree there were excesses and I think exactly- war was ugly and she was trying to show that- completely lampooning this idea of a glorious Confederate war and cause.

 

[brass napoleon]

When I wrote that, I was thinking more in terms of when she summed up the top three Union generals (Grant, Sheridan, Sherman), "butcher, ruthless, really ruthless" respectively, and I thought- huh, some people might take this at face value, but I think she's just talking through Scarlett's point of view as an unreliable narrator (to name one example). I totally agree there were excesses and I think exactly- war was ugly and she was trying to show that- completely lampooning this idea of a glorious Confederate war and cause.

While I agree wholeheartedly that Mitchell was lampooning the Confederate cause, it was always my feeling that she was dead serious about the Yankees and the slaves - and the Klan. If I can ever bring myself to read it again, I'll do so with a fresh perspective and see if I come to a different conclusion. (But I seriously doubt I'll live long enough to want to read it again!)

 

[cash]

With all the talk about the "Lost Cause" and the an idea that the southern people didn't support the south's agenda - per say - Is it possible that the winners wrote a history that would make themselves look more saintly?

What I mean is, that if the south wrote using a "Lost Cause" mentality to make their soldiers look more chivalrous, ragged, whatever...

Is it possible that the "False Cause" was later introduced to suggest that "all" Northerners fought to end slavery... thus putting them on a pedestal in moral standing if nothing else?

Just a question.

I will say this, that once ending slavery was made to be a Union war measure, which is not until the last half of the war, then every Union soldier was therefore fighting to end slavery as well as to preserve the Union, but that doesn't mean they all agreed they were fighting to end slavery. Individual motivations varied, but soldiers fighting for a government are automatically fighting for what that government wishes to accomplish whether they agree with it or not.

 

[hanna260]

While I agree wholeheartedly that Mitchell was lampooning the Confederate cause, it was always my feeling that she was dead serious about the Yankees and the slaves - and the Klan. If I can ever bring myself to read it again, I'll do so with a fresh perspective and see if I come to a different conclusion. (But I seriously doubt I'll live long enough to want to read it again!)

You may very well be correct. It'd definitely be a little weird for a women back then in the 1930s and 20s to have totally progressive views. I don't know- that's just how I took it.

 

[ForeverFree]

Does the average person think that the Union Cause was to end slavery?

The Union does get credit for having an emancipation policy, and for the 13th amendment, which abolished slavery for good. But is the common belief, today, that the Union entered the war for the purpose of ending bondage? I am not sure that is the case.

- Alan

 

[hrobalabama]

Really? Must be an Alabama thing. I've attended many different churches in many different denominations, and can't remember ever singing it there.

It is on p. 488 of the BAPTIST HYMNAL of 1956 Convention Press, Nashville, TN. (Southern Baptist Convention.) On p.633
of the BAPTIST HYMNAL of 1991, Convention Press, Nashville, TN (Southern Baptist Convention) I have been in Southern Baptist Churches for the past 75 years. We sing it on the 4th of July , never fail. True most folks do not know the story behind it, but it has a rousing tune. George Beverly Shea sang it at most Billy Graham Crusades. The only thing is the words have been change to a more religious vein than was originally written.

 

[CMWinkler]

It is on p. 488 of the BAPTIST HYMNAL of 1956 Convention Press, Nashville, TN. (Southern Baptist Convention.) On p.633
of the BAPTIST HYMNAL of 1991, Convention Press, Nashville, TN (Southern Baptist Convention) I have been in Southern Baptist Churches for the past 75 years. We sing it on the 4th of July , never fail. True most folks do not know the story behind it, but it has a rousing tune. George Beverly Shea sang it at most Billy Graham Crusades. The only thing is the words have been change to a more religious vein than was originally written.

In Indiana, at the Methodist Church, it was always sung on The 4th.

 

[hrobalabama]

Let me assure, Christianity in Alabama is practiced way different.

Let me assure, Christianity in Alabama is practiced way different.

Really now. We have the Bible and we practice it individually as we see the scripture. So you can assure ?
I went to school in Chicago and church as well and aside from the weather we conversed and worshiped the same.

 

[hrobalabama]

I think he was objecting to calling Mitchell a Lost Causer. She's not, really, you know. Gone with the Wind is an easy book to read badly. Her perspective is tight and her focus character is meant to be unreliable. The themes of the Lost Cause narrative - happy slaves, the good old days, heroic soldiers who only lost because they were outnumbered - are all deliberately called out and sent up. Prissy is a clever saboteur, Mammy thinks Scarlett is trash, Uncle Peter rebels against being taken for granted. Scarlett's first husband dies not heroically in battle but from illness, and Ashley is incapable of running a business. Ellen, Scarlett's idolized mother and benevolent mistress of the plantation, has a secret lover in her past and it's strongly implied she spent her entire life putting on a facade of civility to hide the truth that she was miserable. While Scarlett may have thought she was happy as a flirtatious belle, it's clear that the disaster which allowed her to break the rules of convention and become a businesswoman also showed her true calling. Anyone who reads it and sees nostalgia is missing the point.

The title in itself tells the story. The old days of the South have "Gone With The Wind."

 

[hrobalabama]

Yep. Are her credentials not in order?

I'd still like to see what authors folks have read who they consider to be "false cause" or "treasury of virtue."

Margaret Mitchell wrote one novel, "Gone With The Wind." It is a work of fiction not history. It doesn't even qualify as a
Historical Novel. It was made into the most popular movie of all times. The tile explains itself. The "Old South" has gone to the wind....no longer here. All we can do now is debate about it.

 

[gunny]

Does anyone have a kid in high school that they haven't brainwashed either way that they could ask?

 

[hanna260]

Does anyone have a kid in high school that they haven't brainwashed either way that they could ask?

Well, I'm a kid in high school with two parents who ain't too interested in the Civil War. I wrote an answer earlier in a thread. Would you like me to answer some more questions?

Great topic question by the way!

 

[rhettbutler1865]

There was a thread on this not too long ago. (I warn you it headed south quickly.) Can anyone remember where it was?

My husband and I were talking about this recently in the context of what we learned in history class, and he pointed out that until quite recently, no one learned anything in school ever that made the government look bad in any way. As children of the 70's we learned about Thanksgiving and happy Indians, but not about broken treaties or smallpox blankets. Custer was a good guy and Geronimo a bad one, the North fought to free the slaves after Washington the great and kindly father of the nation (slave ownership not mentioned) created this glorious union, and somewhat later we kicked the Germans out of Europe and rescued helpless France and England, twice. Go team go! And this wasn't by accident - more often than not part of the stated mission of schools when schooling became compulsory was to create good citizens who felt the appropriate amount of love for the nation.

Given that during the entire 200 year history of the US (I was in grade school during the bicentennial) it had done no wrong, it's not surprising that the role of the US in the Civil War was delineated in cheerful primary colors.

But I don't think the Cause of the North was a post-war invention. Battle Hymn of the Republic outlines the belief that the Republic is acting as the hand of God in destroying the evil institution of slavery in a fully-realized form, and it was first published in 1862.

Great post, Allie, and, as always, well stated...Boy am I old--you were in grade school? I was a senior in college!

 

[rhettbutler1865]

IMHO, I really don't think the South thought it was a "lost cause" until beginning of 1864...I'm referring, of course, to the politicians, and wealthy slave-owners, who's propaganda influenced the always "ready to fight" younger men and women...

 

[rhettbutler1865]

By the way, good topic...

 

[gunny]

Does anyone have a kid in high school that they haven't brainwashed either way that they could ask?

Yes. What were you taught? Why did the north fight. Was it to preserve the Union or was it a mere ethical or moral view to end slavery. We always hear why the southern soldiers fought. (To preserve slavery - right?). But what was the reason northern boys fought and died from a young person's teachings?