The Lost Cause (R)

With most history, the dry names dates and places are distilled out by some author living decades, or more, after the events. They would have you believe that history is entirely motivated by simple movements and actions. This book is most definitely not among those histories. Written so close to the war, and by a member of the defeated side, it contains all of the raw emotion, anger and feelings of absolute betrayal. From our modern viewpoint, it is a raciest biased account, but it is a true window into the minds of people at the time of the war. One of the greatest misdirection of history is the attempt to apply our modern sensibilities to past events. It was a different time, with different values. Take this book for what it is. Not so much a history, but as a part of history. My copy of The Lost Cause is an original 1866 printing.

Everyone reading this book needs to understand something about it: It's value is not so much as a record of history, but as a part of history. If you are looking for objective, reasoned reflections upon the Civil War, you're probably going to need a book published later than 1866 (one year after the official surrender)! This book does not answer the question, "What happened during the Civil War?", as much as it answers the question, "What happened immediately after the Civil War?" Are you curious about how Southerners coped with their defeat? One major coping mechanism was a re-evaluation of the War that historians have labeled "The Lost Cause of the Confederacy." Guess where they got the label...FROM THIS BOOK, the fountainhead of the movement. Understanding the South in the last half of the nineteenth century is probably impossible without understanding the thoughts articulated in this book. It is required reading for historians of the period.

The book looks at the war between the states from a decidedly southern point of view. The entire war is covered here, from Fort Sumpter to Appomatox. Published just after the war, it gives us a look into what contemporaries thought of the conflict. In general I thought Pollard's strategic insights were quite good. He indicated several southern misconceptions, such as their belief that the North could not win because it was a commercial power, and that Europe would interfere in the war to protect its cotton. He also understood the importance of the blockade and criticized the Confederacy for failing to anticipate it. His battlefield analysis was less good, however. Apparently, every southern soldier who fired into the air was a hero, while every Yankee who got out of bed in the morning was detestable. I am not a Civil War battle expert, but I know the engagements were not as lopsided as he suggests. The book's silliest point deals with the sinking of the merchant raider Alabama in 1864. Pollard takes issue with the union ship that sank it for laying chain net over their side so as to deflect enemy explosions. He finds this, for lack of a better word, unfair. In the end, I think Pollard (and many others), were simply unprepared and uneducated about modern industrial war. War would never be the same after the American Civil War. Modern war does not spare civilians and is not fought in the old Napoleonic style.

This is a view of the War Between the States written by a southerner that was a contemporary of the events. It includes not only the war itself, but also the political events leading up to the war. Pollard was a publisher of the Richmond Examiner, one of the leading newspapers of the era. There are many fascinating facts that have been lost to histories written by northerners of the current century.