back to top
|I would like to get back to the thought of my first post on this thread. I think we would all agree the southern men were out numbered, out supplied, and out gunned. Especially, toward the end of the war when the union troops were carrying the seven shot spencer rifles. How could it be a lost cause myth? Look at the difference in just the supplies. Our southern boys were almost starved at Petersburg and Atlanta. As an example, of man power, the sixteenth N.C. started out with 1200 men when they left Raleigh. They took heavy casualties at Seven Pines battle. At the Seven days battle the regiment had a force of 721 men. Its casualties were 33 killed and 199 wounded. At second Manassas 8 killed and 44 wounded. The regiment had 6 killed and 48 wounded at Fredricksburg, 105 casualties at Chancellorsville and at Gettysburg. Of the 321 left, thirty seven percent was disabled. And the overland campaign had not even begun. General Grant had not even took command yet. And there was not alot of the sixteenth boys left. The reason I gave a little history of the sixteenth N.C. is because it was a typical confederate regiment. The confederate army was bleed to death. To say the south was not over matched in man power, equipment, supplies(etc). And to call this a lost cause myth, to me is absurd. Also one of the things I have found researching this subject is one of the first things attacked, was when the ladies began to decorate the graves of confederate soldiers. I considered this grasping at straws. Alot of the ones that began the lost cause myth idea or unionist point of view use the decorating of those graves as the begining of the lost cause movement. ( I never believed there was a movement.) How could someone possibly attack that. Even today don't we decorate our loved ones graves. And most seem to say that Edward A. Pollard and Jubal A.Early was the beginning of the post war lost cause writers. Early came out with a book in 1866, attacks began on these two men. Almost as soon as their writings were read. As I just read Early's book a couple of months back, I thought it dealt mostly with th 1864 valley campaign. The only lost cause mentality I saw in the book was maybe, in the preface. After reading from the detractors of the book, I thought it would be oozing with lost cause dogma. But, at any rate,how could a southern man say anything that would be correct? When there is so much differance in what you beleive according to geography. And also, in pro unionist books. Such as, Gary Gallagher and Allen Nolans book "The Myth Of The Lost Cause And Civil War History." I felt as if the book done nothing more than demonize southerners. The same old, same old! The north was good, the south was bad. Seems to me, the agenda of so many of these books is to stamp out everything southern. And erase it completely. Total bias. Especially in more modern books and documentaries. Such as the History Channels "Gettysburg". Every time a southerner was shown we had to be told he was a slave owner. Though it was probably truthful, what about the other 80% of confederate soldiers? (probably, closer to 92%) Who were not slave owners? Were we watching the battle of Gettysburg or the politics of slavery? It is agenda pushing. Or consider, PBS Ken Burns "Civil War". Out of the total length of the film, what did we get from the confederate side? Maybe an hour? If that? We were shown the Lookout Mt. and Missionary Ridge battle for how long? Second Manassas battle, a total confederate victory, what two minutes? Total bias! Such as Gary Gallagher's attack on Shelby Foote, (Civil War Times) because Foote thought Forrest was an unique genius. Shelby Foote was one of the most unbias historians of our time. He just presented history and pushed no ones agenda. His only fault was praising a southern general. I think most modern writers would come out better on the "lost cause" issue, if they would present both sides. Then, let the reader decide! Instead of pushing there agenda. One of the fairest accounts of the confederate soldier was given by union hero, Joshua Chamberlain, at the surrender at Appomattox. Chamberlain said, "before us in proud humiliation...the embodiment of manhood, men whom neither toils and sufferings, nor the fact of death, nor disaster, nor hopelessness could bend from their resolve... thin, worn, and famished, but erect, and with eyes looking level into ours.... bound us together as no other bond."