The "False Cause?"

[gunny]

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.

 

[Sid J.]

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.

Whenever I speak of the lost cause, I have specific authors in mind, such as Edwin Pollard, Mildred Rutherford, Jubal Early, Thomas Dixon, or Margaret Mitchell. Do you have specific authors that you have read in mind?

 

[Lee]

Research the "Treasury of Virtue" there are more than a few TOV disciples out there or in here. Those that carry the banners/colors for the "Lost Cause" and the "TOV" are more are less polar opposites. The ACW was a huge event in this nation's history. The battle for self righteousness and the moral high ground not to mention the broad brush painting will go on long after all of us here are dead and gone. Speculation mine.

 

[CMWinkler]

The Treasury of Virtue Revisited
By William C. Havard
[clock] 12-MINUTE READ ISSUE: Winter 1987
Southern Liberal Journalists and the Issue of Race, 1920—1944. By John T. Kneebone. North Carolina. $26.00.In his brilliant retrospective, The Legacy of the Civil War

In his brilliant retrospective, The Legacy of the Civil War (1961), Robert Penn Warren offered us a pair of contrasting metaphors that evoke in all their symbolic complexity the abiding effects of that war's outcome on the collective psyches of the victors and the vanquished. For the South the loss of the conflict gave rise to the "Great Alibi," while the result enabled the North to lay claim to the "Treasury of Virtue." In Warren's elaboration on these images the South has used the "Great Alibi" to explain, condone, and transmute everything, "to turn defeat into victory and defects into virtues." If the Southerner is trapped by history according to the "Great Alibi," the Northerner is automatically redeemed through history's having conferred the "Treasury of Virtue" on him, and with it a plenary indulgence for transgressions past, present, and future. In the case of the "Treasury of Virtue," as in that of the "Great Alibi," the respective self-identifying legacies may be used and extended almost infinitely for the purposes of diminishing guilt and avoiding facing up to the nature of the inner-conflicts of our history.

More: http://www.vqronline.org/treasury-virtue-revisited


Here is a thread on this: http://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-treasury-of-virtue-v-the-great-alibi.22431/

 

[Allie]

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.

 

[brass napoleon]

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.

Excellent point. That's the only instance I can think of where a Northerner came close to saying "all" Northerners fought to end slavery - and she wrote it during the war.

 

[brass napoleon]

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.

As for the above though, I have a vastly different recollection of the 70s than you do. But perhaps that's because I was in high school then. I basically remember learning in high school in the 70s that America sucks and could do no right. Interestingly though, your grade school memories of the 70s are like my grade school memories of the 60s. And I have no doubt high schoolers in the 60s were hearing all about how America sucks too. So perhaps it's more a grade school thing? If so, it would actually make some sense that grade schoolers be sheltered from all the negativity until they're mature enough to put it into perspective.

 

[Allie]

As for the above though, I have a vastly different recollection of the 70s than you do. But perhaps that's because I was in high school then. I basically remember learning in high school in the 70s that America sucks and could do no right. Interestingly though, your grade school memories of the 70s are like my grade school memories of the 60s. And I have no doubt high schoolers in the 60s were hearing all about how America sucks too. So perhaps it's more a grade school thing? If so, it would actually make some sense that grade schoolers be sheltered from all the negativity until they're mature enough to put it into perspective.

That would seem reasonable except that during high school we learned no perspective of any kind, only dates and names. But - even if you grant that some high school teachers as far back as the 60's were trying to give their students a non-conformist perspective - that's still a recent development in terms of how we as a country regard our nation's role in history.

 

[brass napoleon]

That would seem reasonable except that during high school we learned no perspective of any kind, only dates and names. But - even if you grant that some high school teachers as far back as the 60's were trying to give their students a non-conformist perspective - that's still a recent development in terms of how we as a country regard our nation's role in history.

Well, I can't speak for the 40s and 50s, as I wasn't there. However Vietnam and Watergate certainly changed a lot of things in American culture and the American perspective, so it's possible schooling was quite different before then. But again, I can't speak from experience on that.

BTW - My high school World History teacher signed my yearbook "An American Idealist". He was being extremely sarcastic, and he knew everybody knew it.

 

[hrobalabama]

Whenever I speak of the lost cause, I have specific authors in mind, such as Edwin Pollard, Mildred Rutherford, Jubal Early, Thomas Dixon, or Margaret Mitchell. Do you have specific authors that you have read in mind?

Margaret Mitchell??

 

[hrobalabama]

It is almost as soon as someone from the south or one of Southern Heritage ponders about the "late unpleasantness,"
Someone ID's that person as adherent to the "lost cause." It WAS a cause (not slavery) and the South lost. We, in retrospect, look back (that's all we can do) at its mistakes and successes. The "cause" was in the hands of politicians....might be the reason we lost.

 

[hrobalabama]

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.

And now we sing "The Battle Hymn" in our churches.

 

[brass napoleon]

And now we sing "The Battle Hymn" in our churches.

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

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

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. The shades of grey that naturally compose American history are inconvenient to the simplistic sound bites of, "The government is intrusive," or, "My country is always right and just." (Or, even more paradoxically, the all-too-common phenomenon of holding both positions at once). If someone is to view their opinions as definitive, then the study of history becomes an act of self-justification, not self-education.

We, of course, have the occasional Lost Causer drop by; the once every month or two, fly-by-night troll who blatantly lies, plagiarizes, attacks, invokes inane conspiracy theorists, and inevitably abandons the forum or gets themselves banned in their fury at being confronted by a wall of people who have no patience for someone who exploits our shared, life-long hobby as justification for their modern political agenda. I'm sure if we were to have a true adherent to the "Treasury of Virtue" or "False Cause" - or whatever you wish to call it - they, too, would find themselves confronted by a wave of accuracy.

It's worth noting, however, that anyone whose view of the war is so simplistic that they honestly think the soldiers of the north were fighting to free the slaves probably has so little interest in the war that we're not going to ever see them. For that matter, anyone who holds the idea that, "My country is always right and just," is probably going to use a different moment in our history to justify that position, for even if only one side was universally in the wrong and one side universally in the right, the people who were wrong were still Americans.

 

[hanna260]

I don't know what it was like when you all went to school but I feel schools today are quite a bit more balanced- not really America sucks and not really Long live 'Murica! I think there's a lot more looking at just history and talking about the good and bad respective things that happened. As for this forum and people not in school-I think there are partisans, I think there is white-washing- as long as there are humans there is rationalizing and sure, gunny- I think both Northerners and Southerners after the war tried to make themselves look as good as possible, but I think we're turning away as a culture both on this forum and elsewhere from looking at history as if you have to pick a side. There are no sides; there's just history.

Did that help to answer the question? Or was that just more rambling from me? I'm not really all that coherent today.

 

[jgoodguy]

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

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

 

[Sid J.]

Margaret Mitchell??

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."

 

[Allie]

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."

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.

 

[brass napoleon]

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.

Indeed. The people in the book who believe in the Confederate cause are all portrayed as a bunch of goofballs. The two main characters, Scarlett and Rhett, mince no words in saying that the Confederate cause is a bunch of hogwash. The only pro-Confederate in the whole book who has any redeeming qualities is Melanie, and we find out at the end that she really thinks it's all a bunch of hogwash too.

 

[Sid J.]

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.

Yep. Popular culture does miss a lot from the novel, much of the reason is that movie lacks a lot of the context, subtlety and snideness of the novel. In popular culture, for example, Miss Scarlett is the epitome of the Southern Belle. In the book, as the daughter of an Irish immigrant Father and second generation French refugee from Haiti mother, Scarlett O'Hara couldn't make the B list in Charleston or Savannah.

Nonetheless, I cannot exclude Mitchell from my list of Lost Cause writers, at least some of the lost cause boilerplate is retained by the novel, but her influence is far greater. ie, she may be only 1/10 as lost cause-y as say Jubal Early, but she's read 100 times (at least) as often, and the movie has more popular influence than dozens of pointy headed university professors with their "books."