Myth of the Lost Cause: Why the Confederate Loss Was Not Inevitable

The American Civil War has become a point of controversy and argument when discussing key events in shaping America. The arguments that arise when discussing the war tend to focus on whether the Confederate was constitutionally justified in seceding, or whether the North had the right to prevent the secession. However, when discussing the America Civil War and the idea of separation, it is important to be mindful that separation did not simply end at the state level. Letters written by Jesse Rolston, Jr. and Jedediah Hotchkiss portray two significantly different attitudes toward the war, despite the fact that the writers both fought for the Confederate States and give accounts of the same battle, one of which ended in the Confederate’s favor. When examining the documents, both writers express different viewpoints on life on and off the battlefield. This significant difference represents a division amongst the Confederate army.

The name Civil War is misleading because the war was not a class struggle, but a sectional combat, having its roots in political, economic, social, and psychological elements. It has been characterized, in the words of William H. Seward, as the “irrepressible conflict.” In another judgment the Civil War was viewed as criminally stupid, an unnecessary bloodletting brought on by arrogant extremists and blundering politicians. Both views accept the fact that in 1861 there existed a situation that, rightly or wrongly, had come to be regarded as insoluble by peaceful means.

First, the South couldn’t have won the civil war because state’s rights prevented unification of the South. The very issue that created the Confederacy helped to destroy it. In waging war, the South faced problems of politics and government that greatly complicated its problem of economic mobilization. No one would deny the troublesome effect of the conflict generated by differing ideas of how best to protect liberty and to organize southern society for the war effort. Southern people insisted upon retaining their democratic liberties in wartime, which proved fatal for the South. They had to struggle with a “confederacy formed by

The tensions of the Civil War are very much still alive in the Southern United States one hundred and fifty years after the Confederacy surrendered to Union forces to end the war. While the tensions may have mitigated away from full-fledged war between North and South, there still remain tensions along racial and cultural lines well beyond the war. In Tony Horwitz’s Confederates in the Attic these long standing tensions left over from the war are delved into by Horwitz as he makes his way across the south to see how the old Confederacy is viewed in the modern world of the United States. What Horwitz found was a dualistic society differing views on the Confederacy and the events of the Civil War. Dualities left from the war in aspects such as racial tensions, the meaning of the Confederate flag even between North and South entirely. Those living in the South can be seen holding a resonating connection to the Civil War. It becomes clear in Confederates in the Attic the Civil War not only became the catalyst of such dualities in Southern society, but still further shape and perpetuate these dualities long after the Civil Wars conclusion.

The romanticized version of the Civil War creates a picture of the North versus the South with the North imposing on the South. However, after reading “The Making of a Confederate” by William L. Barney, one can see that subdivisions existed before the war was declared. The documents analyzed by Barney primarily focus on the experiences of Walter Lenoir, a southern confederate and a member of the planter elite. His experiences tell a vivid story of a passionate and strongly opinioned participant of the Civil War as well as demonstrate a noticeably different view involving his reasoning when choosing a side. Between analyzing this fantastic piece of literature and other resourceful documents from “Voices of Freedom” by Eric Foner, one

Historians have argued inconclusively for years over the prime reason for Confederate defeat in the Civil War. The book Why the North Won the Civil War outlines five of the most agreed upon causes of Southern defeat, each written by a highly esteemed American historian. The author of each essay does acknowledge and discuss the views of the other authors. However, each author also goes on to explain their botheration and disagreement with their opposition. The purpose of this essay is to summarize each of the five arguments presented by Richard N. Current, T. Harry Williams, Norman A. Graebner, David Herbert Donald, and David M. Potter. Each author gives his insight on one of the following five reasons:

The entire truly tragic sense of the Lost Cause was that the South’s men knew their cause was lost, they knew there was really no way they could possibly win, and yet they fought on with tremendous bravery and dedication. The Civil War was such a poignant and even heart-wrenching time (Bowman, 2006, p.756). Despite the long-held notion that the South had all of the better generals, it really had only one good Army commander and that was General Lee. The rest were second-raters, at best (Donald, 1996, pp. 9-21). The North, on the other hand, had the good fortune of bringing along and nurturing people like Ulysses Grant, William Sherman, Philip Sheridan, George Thomas, and others.

Through examining the letters of a Confederate surgeon, the main motivation for Southerners to both fight and continue fighting in the American Civil War was hope. From the inception of the war, the South had major disadvantages compared to the North in almost every aspect of war; however, Confederates had remarkable confidence in the face of such weaknesses. The Union did have similar sureness in themselves, but the Confederacy displayed noteworthy hope throughout the entire war that was not expected under their circumstances. The Confederacy was outnumbered in men, weapons, food production, transportation, and so on, yet they had hope until the end. Each Southerner had faith that compelled them to fight in the war, but each Southerner had faith in different places. Confederates held onto different sources of hope – hope that the Union would quit, hope that the Confederacy would prevail, hope that they would return to their homes – but hope nonetheless was what drove Southerners in the war.

Many historians have tried to offer their ideology on the outcome of the Civil War. McPherson in his “American Victory, American Defeat” writes about what other historians have decreed their answers to why the Confederacy lost. He tells us the reasons that could not be the explanation for the loss, and explains the internal reasons but leaves the true cause of the loss untold. Freehling explains the defeat by discussing what could have been and then gives reasons to negate some of the cases that he states for the outcome of the Confederacy. Both McPherson and Freehling both agreed that there were other factors besides battles that needed to be looked at.

On April 12,1865 Confederate warships bombed the union at Fort Sumter in South Carolina and this marked the beginning of one of the worst and deadliest wars fought in the world. It was a war that only lasted around four years but yet took 620,000 of our brothers, sisters, and children with it. Families were torn apart, sons had lost their fathers, mothers lost their sons, and whole towns lost every man they had to give. A war that we fought on our land, a war that made brother fight brother, killed almost as many men as every war America has fought since combined. At First the Union believed they were going to fight at least a couple battles and it would all be over with, but oh was the Union wrong. They under estimated the wholeheartedly fighting Confederate soldiers, the Confederates were not going to give up that easily what they needed, what they wanted, and their way of life.

The American Civil war is considered to be one of the most defining moments in American history. It is the war that shaped the social, political and economic structure with a broader prospect of unifying the states and hence leading to this ideal nation of unified states as it is today. In the book “Confederates in the Attic”, the author Tony Horwitz gives an account of his year long exploration through the places where the U.S. Civil War was fought. He took his childhood interest in the Civil War to a new level by traveling around the South in search of Civil War relics, battle fields, and most importantly stories. The title “Confederates in the Attic”: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War carries two meanings in Tony Horwitz’s

and taken over the Union capital and win the war. But because of the amount of men lost on the Confederate side, the Confederate officials agreed to not invade the North again to avoid any more significant losses. This forced the Confederates to move back down to the South and try and set up a good defense. It was a challenge for the South to make a good defense and regain a good stand against the Union because of the number of men lost, including high ranking officers killed, wounded, or missing in action, and the lack of supplies of the soldiers. This lack of supplies was a result of the Union attacks on the European supply ships sailing towards the South for trade. As a result of these tough times, the motivation and passion to keep fighting was steadily decreasing in the South. This loss of motivation can be felt through a letter written by General Lee to the Confederate President Jefferson Davis where he tries to resign from the army as he fears it is coming to an end. (Document C) Most of the battles from then on ended up in a Union victory which led to General Lee surrendering causing the North to win the war. While the Confederates were trying to recover from the Battle of Gettysburg, this victory gave the North a huge boost in

In 1863, “a great civil war” (Lincoln, 1863) was raging across the land and seas of the North American continent. Union and Confederate forces were locked in a deadly struggle for control of America’s future. Yet, despite the Union’s undeniable logistical and infrastructural advantages over the Confederacy, the war was not progressing in favour of the Union. The Confederate generals had managed to outsmart and outmaneuver the Union armies repeatedly, dealing defeat after defeat to the North, greatly demoralizing the populace. As such, the Confederates, who were fighting not to conquer the Union, but rather to survive, were inching

If the north was to succeed, they would forever be oppressed by their victory, and slaves of their achievements. The Confederates fought to promote the wellbeing of their family and the protection of their land “from Yankee outrage and atrocity”(Mc.Pherson 20) .

Unlike the Confederates, the Union had to fight and win an offensive war. Lincoln and his advisors developed a multipronged strategy to defeat the South. First, they would negotiate with border states like Maryland to keep them in the Union. Second, they would blockade Southern ports, thus restricting trade with Europe. Third, they would capture strongholds along the Mississippi River, isolating the southwestern states from the eastern ones. Finally, they would advance into the Confederate heartland, especially toward its capital in Richmond, Virginia. Although details of this plan changed during the war, the basic outline remained the key to victory.