Thoughts And Opinions On : The Lost Cause Myth

 

It Is A Myth For A Reason......

Given the events that's been going on the past few weeks with racial anxieties, the virus, and just general pessimism, I've taken a break from these articles for most of the month. Many have embraced the boogeymen in dark closest while embracing conspiracy theories. Several in high places are feeding into this paranoia. So much crap upon crap has made me retreat from these articles to temporary go back to my hobbies in a attempt to keep my sanity in check. However, sooner or later, I knew that I would need to finish these articles and post them.

This article has been a long time in the making. There have been a lot of thoughts about this topic. Given the death of George Floyd and now arriving at the 99th Anniversary of the Tulsa Race Massacre which occurred in 1921, this is a very relevant topic. There were many questions that were on my mind. There are many charged feelings. Often when individuals go into emotional overdrive, logic and reason flies out the window. People can't think in a rational state when enter such a state, much to there determent. Several don't want to confront the facts or the past because it will reveal a very ugly past. Several embrace an rose-tinted "Gone With The Wind" narrative of lush plantations with beautiful mansions, happy and cheerful slaves, and a romantic paradise that wasn't meant as those "Northerners" set out to destroy everything that they held dear.  What's sad is that many hold this narrative as fact. What's even more depressing is when one tries to make a argument based on actual facts, they will look at the person in question as some brain-washed liberal trying to rewrite history while ignorant to the fact that there "interpretation" of history is a fallacy. 

Several will throw false charges and sensationalist claims like "they're trying to remove (rewrite) history". Several will post chain-post and memes (the fodder for the lowest common denominator) declaring that Facebook removed Confederate Flag images even though no such thing occurred. Those going in a emotional overdrive will see things not there. There will see this "assault" as another battle in the "culture war" which exist only in there minds. When confronted with the past, those confronted with a harsh past by entertaining the thoughts of conspiracy theories of devious boogeymen in fancy suits sitting in a underground lair secretly plotting to bend everything to there will. I hate to disappoint those who entertain such thoughts: cartoon villains aren't real. However, there is a very destructive villain in the room: ignorance. 

My own emotions will enter the picture as well. As being mixed-blood (Half Hispanic/Half White), I can't relate to the racial detest that African-Americans have for the flag. However, as an American citizen, this flag causes resentment for another reason. The "Stars and Bars" is a flag of those who picked up arms against the United States and fought against this country. This made the Confederates instant traitors to our country. One can make the argument that what they did was far worse than anything that Bin Laden or Hitler ever done because they were just foreigners who fought our country because they didn't understand our values and traditions. However, the Confederates knew what our country was about like the back of there hand, and they still spat on it by picking up arms to fight against it. The Stars and Stripes was soaked in blood because of there selfish actions. 

Emotions aside, the South was defeated in the Civil War. This isn't a metaphor, but objective fact. Typically, when the enemy is defeated in a war, they wouldn't be honored. History is written by the victors.....right? If they fought against our country and lost, how come they're being honored with statues galore. Did Post-War Germany construct Hitler statues that commemorated there defeat. Another point has to be brought up to those who claim that removing statues is the same as removing history: statues exist to glorify history, not simply acknowledge it. If one wanted to simply acknowledge history, then read a history book or go to Wikipedia (I forgot: Those sources are tainted for reasons because some <insert conspiracy theory boogeyman> is trying to rewrite history).

As one has gathered by now, this article is going to have a very harsh tone. This is in general a response to the idea of the Lost Cause (how did this ridiculous bull-crap even become doctrine for many)? How come this aversion of history became embraced in the North as well? How did people become convinced that the Civil War monuments were history and heritage when anything, they were a farce to it. These monuments tell of a South that never existed and hide a land where oppression based on race was the norm.

A question runs across my mind: How would I approach this topic if I ever had to do a a lesson on it? I'm a regular on YouTube, and I've watched the excellent videos that KnowingBetter, Southin' Off by Trae Crowder, and ThreeArrows did on. Actually, if you haven't watched those videos, stop reading this article and watch them. They're linked below. Most of the information in this article came from those videos.

What The Civil War Was And Wasn't

History very ugly. A romanticized "Gone With The Wind" style of history serves as a massive farce to the events that played out during the conflict. Period pieces don't necessary make good references for historical reference. Some who learned history from a certain perspective would feel challenged and conflicted by what they would read in this article. The truth hurts.

Slavery is a destructive and cruel institution. Slavery is the 800-pound elephant in the room that caused the Civil War. The Civil War was about slavery. Well, in the North, the war was primarily about preserving the Union. This is where the "Son of the Republic" Civil War phrase and commentary enters the picture. Ending slavery becoming a secondary goal, especially after the Emancipation Proclamation. In fact, even before the Emancipation went into law, Lincoln provided a opportunities for the rebel states to end hostilities rejoin the Union and keep there slaves before the deadline. Even though free slaves wasn't a original war goal, Lincoln had a change in heart when he realized how the topic of slavery drove the conflict.

In the South, the war was very much exclusive to slavery. Slavery was specifically mentioned in the Confederate Constitution. When the states succeeded, many of them drafted there own articles of succession. In them, slavery was specifically mentioned by name. There is a well-know speech (by Civil-War history buffs anyway)called the Cornerstone Address. It was narrated by Alexander H. Stephens, who was the Vice President of the Confederacy. This speech specifically listed slavery by name while reinforcing the view that succession was driven by the fact that Southerners perceived views that the North was trying to force racial equality against there will.

Stephen was reinforcing the idea of racial inferiority for blacks while promoting white-supremacy. Most contemporary pieces from the day stated the slavery was behind the decisions that lead the South to do the things that they did. The Civil War was primarily about slavery and preserving the Union.

I've even did a delightful service of linking the sources in the link below. What, did you think I was going to make sensationalist claims while not providing any references to such claims in question?

The Civil War wasn't a general purpose fight for states rights or honor. On one hand, the Civil War was about protecting the Southern way of life. However, as most can point out. the Southern way of life oppressed people by putting them in chains because of race. Also, the Northern States were not aggressors. The first show fired in the Civil War was fired by the Confederacy at Fort Sumter In Charleston Bay, South Carolina on April 12, 1861.

Lincoln was not a tyrant who seized power in a Coup-de-tat. Abraham Lincoln was democratically elected president by the will of the people. Also, even though Lincoln was against the institution of slavery spreading, he was content on letting it operate in places where it already existed. Lincoln did not pose a threat to the South, regardless of what Southerners say.

However, Southerners in general fell for conspiracy theories and became hostile just by the mere presence of Lincoln. There impulsive and irrational behavior led to to the divided house. The idea of succession is offensive enough. However, such a act could only be justified if those succeeding had a very real reason, like a tyrannical violation of the Constitution. I mean a real tyrannical violation, not quote "tyrannical violation" because there is a difference of opinion. A difference of opinion was essentially the reason why the Southern States succeeded despite the fact that the North or Lincoln did not pose a threat to the Southern way of life. The Confederacy fed there own inner demons and catered to unfounded fears and paranoia that would resulted in impulsive and irrational actions that worked against there interest.

Slavery

As stated earlier, the Confederacy lost the Civil War. This is fact and not opinion. Lee literally got beaten by General Grant in the field. Lee surrendered to Grant afterwards. After the Civil War, Southerners tried to rationalize why they lost the conflict and to justify there actions. The idea of the "Lost Cause" took hold. Under the Lost Cause, the Southern states were fully justified in there ummm...cause. They were fully justified in there actions as they were seen as valid and noble. The only reason why they lost was because the North had more men, factories and guns. To make there actions "valid" and "noble" they had rewrite history. The Civil War wasn't about slave. It was about states rights. Well technically, the Civil War was about one very particular state right, however, to Southerners, there was more to it.

Under this narrative, Lincoln became that tyrant went out to destroy there paradise. This ignores the historical fact that it was the Confederacy that started the war (as stated earlier). Many of the states succeeded before Lincoln's inauguration address. How can one judge a President's character and actions if they leave the country before he takes office. I bet it was Lincoln's top hat they were offended by.

Anyway, The Civil War became the war of "Southern Independence" and the "War of Northern Aggression". The Lost Cause did acknowledged slavery. In fact, the Confederacy was even fighting on the behalf on slaves. The Southerners were fighting to protect them from the evils industrialization. The picture is painted that slaves on the plantation were much more prosperous and well-off than Northern factory workers. Granted, factory workers weren't that well off. However, they got paid and they still had the freedoms given to them in the Constitution. They had the freedom to go West as well. Many would take up that opportunity. Factory workers had the right to strive for better, an option that wasn't presented to slaves.

Under the Lost Cause narrative, slaves were happy and obedient. On one hand, the enslaved population was obedient minus the occasional slave revolt. However, the fast majority of the slaves tolerated the system because they were trying to make the best of a very horrible situation that they had no control in. That is a far cry from being quote "happy". I never encountered anyone who was happy because they were being oppressed.

What would you think would happen if a slave went up to the plantation owner and said "Do you know what, this idea of institutionalized slavery and systematic racism is unjust. Robbing me of natural rights is wrong. Therefore I'm going to exercise my rights and leave the plantation". Do you think that the plantation owner would have been "Do you know what, you make a valid argument. Go ahead and leave. I hope you succeed on your endeavor". We know what would happen to that slave, and it wouldn't have been pretty. There wouldn't be freedom until those Union forces came.

The Constitution

In there eyes anyway, because the Confederacy was fighting for there rights, they acted as if they were the ones defending the Union, and not the North. The Confederate generals became heroes who were fighting for country and Constitution (despite the contrary). The generals and political leaders were defenders who stood up to a tyrannical North trying to impose there will on them. There were proud leaders that fought for both there country (and ours simultaneously because we don't know any better).

At this point, it has to be remained that General Lee turned his back on the US and chose to fight for the Confederacy because to him, state was more important than Union. He turned his back on the very Constitution was he was to uphold. Later villains like Hitler and Bin Laden didn't understand our values and our Constitution. But Lee did, and he still chose to fight against our country. There is a word for those who turn there back on the institution that they were to uphold, and its not a hero. That word starts with a "T" and has the word " raitor " in it.  Now, I was trying to dial down down my aggressive tone and find a nice way of calling Confederate generals and leaders traitors without actually using that word. However, this task proved futile. They fought against our country, plain and simple. They rejected the idea of a United Federal Republic. This is why its unusual that there are leaders of Confederate leaders in Washington considering that they fought against the country.

One could make the argument that the Northern States betrayed the Constitution in the years and decades leading up to the Civil War. The Southern states justified succession because they viewed the Constitution as a contract, and not a binding sacred oath. They succeeded because they North violated there end of the agreement. However, this argument becomes moot because everything that was done in the North since the ratification of the Constitution up til the Civil War was done in accordance to the Constitutional framework. They didn't usurp it at any point.

It also has be be reminded that it was historical fact that it was the Southern; and not the Northern, states that succeeded from the Union. If the Confederacy thought that our Constitution was perfect and they were fighting to defend it, how come they drafted a new one instead of just using ours? The Confederacy copied and pasted our Constitution, but added parts to reinforce racial inequality and justified enslavement.  If our Constitution was perfect and the Confederacy was protecting it, then they wouldn't have needed to draft there own or make modifications to it. This insinuates that they thought that our Constitution was imperfect and a flawed and as such, they wanted nothing to do with it. Yet, simultaneously, the Confederacy were proclaiming that there were champions of it and fighting on its behalf despite them drafting there own Constitution. It's very contradictory and confusing to say the least.

It has to be pointed up out that Thomas Jefferson did own slaves. So did George Washington and James Madison. However, they created a framework which would put the ideas of the English and French Enlightenment into practice. Civic equality was a part of that framework. Even if civic equality wouldn't be put in practice for many when the Constitution was drafted, the framework to implement it was laid. Thus the Confederacy's attempt to restrict people's rights and freedoms based on race was seen as a step back, not step forward, in the pursuit of the American ideal.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thomas Jefferson

Declaration Of Independence

July 4th, 1776

In Contrast

Our new government['s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man.

Alexander H. Stephens

Cornerstone Address

March 21st, 1861

Succeeding is possible one of the biggest acts of betrayal that a state can commit against the ideals of the Federal Republic. As noted earlier, such a act could only be justified if there was a genuine tyrannical violation on the Constitution itself that warranted such a move. However, claiming a "tyrannical violation" because of a difference of opinion doesn't count. The fact was that there was no such violation was ever provided. The Confederacy had no valid reason to succeed from the Union. Succeeding from the Union because you don't like the guy in the top hat doesn't count as valid reason. The Southern States succeed because of irrational behavior that were fed by fears and supported by conspiracy theories.

Atlanta wouldn't have burned to the ground in Sherman's March if the Southern politicians didn't act in an impulsive manner by catering to there fears. One could even argue that it wasn't General Sherman who burn that city to the ground, but the Southern politicians when they chose to succeeded. They were the ones, and not General Sherman, who doomed Atlanta to its fate. On one hand, scorch earth isn't justified. However, the Southern states brought that misery upon themselves when they succeeded.

Unusual Paradox
With the Lost Cause, one of the oddest paradoxes in human history occurred. This would be one of the few times that history was written by the defeated. Essentially, Southerners wrote a completely different narrative about the Civil War that ignored historical context and facts to present a romanticized version of the South that never existed. One is presented history of a wonderful Southern paradise that was destroyed by barbaric Union soldiers. A history is presented of a South that was home to happy slaves. Generations have been brought up on the Lost Cause. It was taught in Southern Schools. In later years and decades, even many Northerners brought into the myth. From there eyes, maybe they were too hard on the South.

After the Union soldiers left and Reconstitution ended, white-supremacist took control of the South. They enacted discrimination against African Americans by implementing Jim Crow laws in the South. The KKK became powerful. White-supremacist wanted to remind African-Americans of who was in charge. it was during the time right after Reconstitution ended (and later in the Civil Rights movement) that many of the Civil War statues and monuments were built. They functioned primarily two roles. The first one was to present that version of the South that never existed. These statues became history for those who were ignorant of facts. The Southern statues is basically Lost Cause Propaganda to present a false narrative of the Civil War. The second reason the statues exist it to remind African-Americans living in the South of who's in charge. Because studying history takes effort, many simply took the Lost Cause at face value and started to see these statues as history and culture. This is the fault of a education system that is more consumed with passing standardized test so that they can get that sweet money than they are at teaching history. I hate to disappoint those who embrace wild conspiracy theories, but there isn't a convoluted sinister plot devised by those boogeymen in the underground lair wearing the fancy suits. Just a simple straightforward explanation. Even when these statues largely became forgotten set-pieces occupied by pigeons, the statues were built to present a false history while instill racial superiority. A false history can lead to ignorance.

Tulsa

It's the 99th anniversary of the Tulsa Race Massacre. Tulsa became a hot-bed of racial violence due to the arrival of the KKK, combined with the Civil War still being a living memory with many. Tulsa became the "Oil Capital" of the country, which brought many African-Americans into the city, many of them being affluent. On 1921, white-supremacist burned a thriving black suburb in Tulsa, Oklahoma to the ground. Greenwood was referred to as "Black Wall Street" because of its success in the wake of several white-business owners that were going through hard times that was a result of the economic recession that followed World War 1.

Jealously and angry caused the white-supremacist to burn Greenwood to the ground, and kill anyone who stood in there way. Hundreds of innocent African-Americans were killed. Not surprisingly, because this massacre was a very dark stain on Tulsa's image, the city leaders covered up this very unfortunate event. People living in the city a generation after forgot that this event took place. The only ones aware of it were those who went to college, lived elsewhere that wasn't Tulsa, and those who would become Wikipedia junkies. As Tulsa is now striving to become the tech capital in the region, they started to acknowledge the past. However, they tend to glorify the positive diverse aspects of Greenwood without confronting the horrific events behind the massacre. Essentially, Greenwood had become a tourist attraction to promote racial diversity while only providing a one-sentence acknowledgement that there was a race riot in 1921. The Tulsa City leaders are using the area to promote there own economic interest while ignore the painful past behind this event. 

Destruction from the 1921 Tulsa race massacre.

Conclusion

The Confederate Lost Cause served as an template for Germany's own "Lost Cause" that followed the end of World War 1 : The "Stabbed In The Back" myth. This idea was that Germany was fully justified in its war aims and winning the war, but lost because the home-front collapsed due to Communist and Germany's Jewish community. The myth ignores the fact that the German armies were defeated on the field (Like the Confederacy) and rapidly loosing the war. Germany didn't have the industrial resources to fight on.

Many Germans were looking for scapegoats, and found them with the Jews and communist. An anti-Communist movement sprung up that declared that Communism had to be destroyed at all cost because it was a front for Jewish control of the world. For many Germans, they were the ones responsible for the carnage that occurred after the war, and not the reckless nationalism promoted bygreedy politicians looking to dominate Europe. The German every-man became consumed with this extreme politicized patriotism that instantly became toxic. The "Stabbed in The Back" myth was embraced by an World-War one German corporal named Adolf Hitler. He gave this myth razor-sharp teeth as he set out to facilitate the worst crime in modern history: The Holocaust.

After the war, there was a period of de-Nazification that occurred in the Allied-occupation zones with varying amounts of success (and failures). However, the fact that de-Nazification happened at all spoke volumes about how many recognized how destructive Fascism and Nazism is. De-Nazification though did have one successful outcome: it prevented the formation of yet another "Lost Cause" or "Stabbed In The Back" myth from taking hold and going mainstream. If a process of "de-Confederation" took place after the end of the Civil War, the aversion  and distortion of American history that is the Lost Cause might have not taken place.

Auschwitz II-Birkenau Concentration Camp Main Entrance (From Wikipedia)

Everybody knows the monster and criminal that Hitler is. How do people know this. Millions were exposed to Hitler's brutality through his actions. For those who weren't there, several learned of his brutality from teachers who were actually invested in teaching history and not simply consumed with spending 1/3rd of there class time in a given year instructing students on how to pass standardized test. There have been countless documentaries of cable and now on YouTube and various other streaming services. Hitler has been covered in very podcast and college courses (Just make sure that Jordan Peterson isn't teaching them!). At the very least, many would have encountered memes on the various social media platforms that would have referenced Hitler in some capacity or another for mockery/entertainment purposes.

There are no statues honoring Hitler, but yet, everybody who spent even 5 minutes paying attention in history class would have known who he was. The reason why there is no statues of Hitler is that statues were meant to glorify history, and there is nothing to glorify about Hitler's actions. Yet, history hadn't forgotten the horrible monster that he is. This is because history isn't defined by statues. If one wanted to acknowledge history, then that what history text-books are for, not statues.

Other Semi-Relevant Thoughts

Its a coincidence that I've been covering the topic of bad history. The last two articles in my religious section (and the next one) focuses on Wallbuilders, a "organization" that claims to "unhide" our truth by presenting American history from a modern American Evangelical Christian perspective. WallBuilders perpetrates media conspiracies by claiming that public education and "they" are "hiding" the "real truth" of the founding of our country. The ideas of the English and French Enlightenment that drove the founding of the country are flushed in a stopped-up septic tank as our Founding Fathers are presented as carbon-copy clones of today's American Evangelical Christian. This ignores the facts that modern American Evangelical Christian is basically a product of Jerry Farwell and his ideas of politicized Christianity that took hold in the late 70's/early 80's. Because the Founding Fathers blended there interpretation of Christianity with the ideas of the English and French Enlightenment, there views of Christianity were very different from those planted by Jerry Farwell. David Barton, the creator of WallBuilders, has ignored historical context to rewrite history in a manner that caters to American Evangelical Christians. As such, WallBuilders paints the picture that our country was intended on being a Christian Theocracy that was intended on being a utopia for only Christians.

Christian faith is important. However, faith becomes tainted when we start rewriting history to conform to our own perspective. Often one gets into the habit of presenting idealism and history was one in the same. As such, one is likely to present a aversion of history that is a massive contradiction to the events that actually occurred.

Articles Of Interest

Wikipedia : Lost Cause of the Confederacy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

Wikipedia : Emancipation Proclamation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

Wikipedia : Confederate States Constitution - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution

Wikipedia : Cornerstone Speech - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

Wikipedia : Confederate States Constitution - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution

Wikipedia : Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Seces...

Wikipedia : Tulsa race massacre - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre

Wikipedia : Stab-In-The-Back Myth - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth

Yale Law School : The Avalon Project : Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession : https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

Yale Law School : The Avalon Project : Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union : https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

National Archives : Declaration of Independence: A Transcription - https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

The Washington Post : Five myths about why the South seceded - https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_sto...

History.net : Which States Referred to Slavery in Their Cause of Secession? - https://www.historynet.com/which-states-referred-to-slavery-in-their-cause-of-secession.htm

WallBuilders : Importance of Morality and Religion in Government - https://wallbuilders.com/importance-morality-religion-government/

MBFC : WallBuilders - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wallbuilders/

SPLC : David Barton's Make-Believe Version of American History - https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2012/08/24/david-bartons-make-believe-version-american-history