The Myth of the Lost Cause: Book Report

Hey guys, it's Adventure Van here with yet another blog post! Today I'm going to be blogging about history, and how winners not always write it. For those in the U.S., we all know The Civil War. What you don't know is that history was manipulated at several points. It's all bound together to make the South look amazing and the Union look like drooling idjits. I based my blog off of The Myth of the Lost Cause, by Edward H. Bonekemper III. In this blog, I'll be refuting 7 separate points, so brace yourself!

POINT NO.1:  Slavery was already dying at the time of the war. The truth is, A. Slavery is not benevolent.  B. Slavery was not dying. In fact, Slavery was becoming more profitable.  The amount of cheap labour expanded the South to a point where it got to the point that according to Lois Horton, "on the eve of the Civil War,(the worth of slaves) was greater than the total dollar value of all the U.S. banks." Also, a large amount of Southern economy depended on slaves, to the point they made up 2/3 the Southern work force. The chance of something so profitable and needed disappearing was slim.

POINT NO.2:  States Rights was the reason of secession, not Slavery!  Wrong. Before Lincoln's Inaguration, all the states that that seceded had slaves making up around %40 of their population. South Carolina topped everyone else with a whopping %57, proving that states with a high intrest in slavery seceded, not one interested in States Rights. Also, if that doesn't convince you, here's the truth: (From the Convention's Declaration) "We must either submit to degradation,  and to the loss of property (Slaves) wourth four billions of money,  or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property." This means A: Slavery WAS a main reason of secession, and B: Slaves were compared to livestock.

POINT NO.3 The South had no chance of winning! Nope. In fact, the South had a great chance of winning, because they didn't have to. All they needed was a tie, and they'd stay seceded. If it wasn't for General. Lee's aggressiveness and wastefulness of troops, (more of that next paragraph), the South would have at least hit a tie. Meanwhile, the Union had to barrage the south with attacks in order to conquer all the states or get them to surrender. The Union's chances of winning were actually smaller at the beginning of the war then the South's, and if it wasn't for bad ideas from Lee and subordinates,  and smarts from Grant and his men, the South would definitely have stayed seceded.

POINT NO.4  Robert E. Lee is  one of the greatest generals in history. Not true. Lee, was, in fact, a horrible general guilty of over aggressiveness, loss of battlefield control, one theater myopia, inadequate staff, complex and uncoordinated battle plans, poor orders, and senseless continuation of the war. He was duly critiqued until his death, where some people began ‘Sainting’ him, going so far to say that he “bathed in the white light that falls directly upon him with the smile of an approving … God.”

POINT NO.5:  James Longstreet lost the war by not following Lee’s orders at Gettysberg. Ok, so I’m going to say that it’s wrong that the myth has both ‘The South Had No Chance of Winning’ and then say that Longstreet lost the war at Gettysberg, because it says that there was a chance UNTIL Gettysberg. But, there was one problem with the fabled ‘Dawn Order’ that Longstreet disobeyed. It’s this: There is no record that such a order ever happened. Lee himself said he didn’t give one, all orders on paper never talked about such an attack, and no one in or nearby Lee heard anything about a ‘Dawn Attack’.

POINT NO.6:  Ulysses S. Grant was a butcher who won simply by brute force and superior numbers. See, if you have the courageous, brave South who were fighting for State’s Rights, and the undefeatable Lee, you’ve got to have a reason they lost. That reason is that Grant was a butcher who didn’t care for typical things like strategy and diplomacy, and only won by sending man after man to his doom. However, looking at the casualty rates, you’ll see that Lee’s army suffered 190,760 casualties, while Grant’s suffered 153,642. Quite remarkable, seeing how Grant was on the offensive and had a larger army, and Lee was on the defense and had more fortifications and supplies.

POINT NO.7:  The North won by waging TOTAL WAR! Total war is where you destroy crops, kill people, and totally ruin the other side’s day. Of course, Grant ‘the Butcher’ was ok with this, while Lee’s army would always pay for what they took, and wouldn’t enter a house without authority. Except that Grant would have soldiers who did this court marshaled, and Lee’s army would pay using the ‘Confederate’ dollar, which was worthless. But you didn’t refuse it to a group of soldiers who had loaded guns. So, in all reality, TOTAL WAR was not waged on either side, and Grant was NOT ok with murder and pillaging and all that fun stuff, and Lee’s army wouldn’t always abide by Lee’s rules themselves.

And that’s that! Adventure Van hopes you had fun reading this, and if you have a problem, just comment below!

Adventure Van, out.