Member Review The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates by Edward Pollard

It took me 4 days to read the thread. First, I feel as though I have read a Cliff Note book with the fabulous review of each chapter given by @Andersonh1. And even after the opening brief by @Pat Young was I keenly aware of a deep desire to read this book. Something of this magnitude gives me pause due to the fear of an ending not worth the full text; similar to how Pollard describes how the end of the war should have been instead of how it was. This also brings to the surface a rather interesting point of expectation based upon his own interpretive viewpoints throughout the book. Isn't this a same reflection of his own expectancy when he speaks his mind concerning the whole truth of the Lost Cause?
"The underlying value I may get to understand by reading this book is of a mind with the unique ability to believe in no other view but his own."
Though it may be wrong and thoroughly opinionated, it is set solidly like a rock upon the ages, and though it may get covered over by other foundations, it will always be there as a single beam of steady light. I doubt I will have the perseverance to see it through but I am intent to give it a try, so I thank all of you who participated in this thread.
Lubliner.
 
It took me 4 days to read the thread. First, I feel as though I have read a Cliff Note book with the fabulous review of each chapter given by @Andersonh1. And even after the opening brief by @Pat Young was I keenly aware of a deep desire to read this book. Something of this magnitude gives me pause due to the fear of an ending not worth the full text; similar to how Pollard describes how the end of the war should have been instead of how it was. This also brings to the surface a rather interesting point of expectation based upon his own interpretive viewpoints throughout the book. Isn't this a same reflection of his own expectancy when he speaks his mind concerning the whole truth of the Lost Cause?
"The underlying value I may get to understand by reading this book is of a mind with the unique ability to believe in no other view but his own."
Though it may be wrong and thoroughly opinionated, it is set solidly like a rock upon the ages, and though it may get covered over by other foundations, it will always be there as a single beam of steady light. I doubt I will have the perseverance to see it through but I am intent to give it a try, so I thank all of you who participated in this thread.
Lubliner.
You hit the nail on the head. Poland’s writing in his Richmond paper often reads like a report from an alternative universe to knowledgeable modern readers. The principles of objective modern journalism did not exist back then. I salute you if you manage to slog through the entire book. Like a lot of Victorian writing it is in dire need of box of red pencils to complete the editing.
When you make it through you will be in an exclusive club, like a lot of books that spawned a movement, almost nobody has actually read Lost Cause. it was what others did with the counter factual concept Pollard created that really matters.
 
You hit the nail on the head. Poland’s writing in his Richmond paper often reads like a report from an alternative universe to knowledgeable modern readers. The principles of objective modern journalism did not exist back then. I salute you if you manage to slog through the entire book. Like a lot of Victorian writing it is in dire need of box of red pencils to complete the editing.
When you make it through you will be in an exclusive club, like a lot of books that spawned a movement, almost nobody has actually read Lost Cause. it was what others did with the counter factual concept Pollard created that really matters.
It does sound like the 'cornerstone' on which the house was built.
Lubliner.
 
It does sound like the 'cornerstone' on which the house was built.
Lubliner.
Pollard was not held in particularly high regard. What people these days who claim to believe in the lost cause don’t do is read the scathing reaction to it that came from Southerners. In time, literally as the actual veterans died off, the rewrite of history took hold. For example, Early et al waited until Lee died to make him a demigod. Lee would never put up with that kind of thing & they knew it.
 
It does sound like the 'cornerstone' on which the house was built.
Lubliner.
Is this book a historical account or is it a revisionist history of the period ? Is it history or is it one of alternate history from a social redemption point of view? I would like to know before I purchase this book or should I may be wait till it goes on the discount table?
 
Pollard was not held in particularly high regard. What people these days who claim to believe in the lost cause don’t do is read the scathing reaction to it that came from Southerners. In time, literally as the actual veterans died off, the rewrite of history took hold. For example, Early et al waited until Lee died to make him a demigod. Lee would never put up with that kind of thing & they knew it.
This account of Pollard I view as a goldmine of the pulse and rhythm of the confederacy. It is not muddled up with peoples' artificial excuses and trumpet-glaring laud of praise. Pollard's view is a simple yet dramatic statement of exactly how he believed it to be, without any whitewash. Sure it may have been extremely painful to his contemporaries to have their faults publicized. I don't doubt it a bit that the memory was to sharp, and part of the 'Early's Lost Cause' was to assuage that pain and grief.
Lubliner.
 
Is this book a historical account or is it a revisionist history of the period ? Is it history or is it one of alternate history from a social redemption point of view? I would like to know before I purchase this book or should I may be wait till it goes on the discount table?
It is a strongly opinionated recital of events portrayed in all it's seamy errors and by a southern advocate of secession, slavery, territorial society, but anti-government regardless of north or south.
Lubliner.
 
Is this book a historical account or is it a revisionist history of the period ? Is it history or is it one of alternate history from a social redemption point of view? I would like to know before I purchase this book or should I may be wait till it goes on the discount table?

Pollard writes a history of the war mixed with his "editorial comments", which are what I found the most interesting part of the book. He's actually trying to write a history of the war with analysis, and it's worth reading if you want to see one Southerners opinion of the war and its participants. It's full of raw reactions from immediately after the war ended. I don't think he's writing a revisionist history, he's giving his genuine opinions as they were at the time.
 
Pollard’s writing during the war is what you need to read. The Richmond Examiner was a font of outrage & disinformation. Don’t make the mistake of confusing Pollard with a historian. He was the yellowest of yellow journalists.

<civilwarrichmond.com> Richmond Examiner - Civil War Richmond

It won’t take you very long to see where Mr Pollard was coming from.
 
Last edited:
The term “The Lost Cause” was being used with regularity in both the North and South by 1868 in the many newspapers I have read from that year. Since it is used typically without any explanation of what it means, the editors likely assumed their readers were familiar with it.
 
It took me 4 days to read the thread. First, I feel as though I have read a Cliff Note book with the fabulous review of each chapter given by @Andersonh1. And even after the opening brief by @Pat Young was I keenly aware of a deep desire to read this book. Something of this magnitude gives me pause due to the fear of an ending not worth the full text; similar to how Pollard describes how the end of the war should have been instead of how it was. This also brings to the surface a rather interesting point of expectation based upon his own interpretive viewpoints throughout the book. Isn't this a same reflection of his own expectancy when he speaks his mind concerning the whole truth of the Lost Cause?
"The underlying value I may get to understand by reading this book is of a mind with the unique ability to believe in no other view but his own."
Though it may be wrong and thoroughly opinionated, it is set solidly like a rock upon the ages, and though it may get covered over by other foundations, it will always be there as a single beam of steady light. I doubt I will have the perseverance to see it through but I am intent to give it a try, so I thank all of you who participated in this thread.
Lubliner.
my opening brief is 5,500 words long!
 
Last edited:
My apology for calling it a 'brief' @Pat Young. I didn't mean it in that light, but should have termed it a 'review' as you did. I will make no excuse about it, as my own mind had settled into the chapter by chapter breakdown. I was significantly enthralled by your review, and stand astonished at you reading it in 5 days. I remember when 'speedreading' was gaining widespread coverage in the early 1980's. It is said that JFK had a remarkable talent for reading. My own retention suffers dramatically if I begin to skim. My biggest accomplishment was reading 'Of Human Bondage' in the summer before the 10th grade. I did enjoy the work. Thanks.
Lubliner.
 
My apology for calling it a 'brief' @Pat Young. I didn't mean it in that light, but should have termed it a 'review' as you did. I will make no excuse about it, as my own mind had settled into the chapter by chapter breakdown. I was significantly enthralled by your review, and stand astonished at you reading it in 5 days. I remember when 'speedreading' was gaining widespread coverage in the early 1980's. It is said that JFK had a remarkable talent for reading. My own retention suffers dramatically if I begin to skim. My biggest accomplishment was reading 'Of Human Bondage' in the summer before the 10th grade. I did enjoy the work. Thanks.
Lubliner.
Ha ha! I was joking. A lot of people have told me my reviews are interminable.
 
Back
Top