The Myth of the Lost Cause

By Rachel Brooks, with comment by Ed Tabor and Lynn Farley

[1] Once the Civil War finally ended, the South was left embarrassed and ruined. The North no longer had any respect for the South; the Northerners viewed the Southerners as inhumane and insensitive. The myth of the Lost Cause was then created to help the South regain its strength and dignity. This myth consisted of false statements about the causes and outcomes of the war. The Lost Cause was the product of many books and articles right after the war ended. Gary G. Gallagher explains that although the Lost Cause was born from a range of sources, all of the creators wanted to “find something positive in all-encompassing failure.” Their motive was to provide a “correct” interpretation of the war for their children and all Southerners. Despite the fact that the Lost Cause is an extremely inaccurate interpretation of the war, it quickly spread to the North and became a “national phenomenon.” Alan T. Nolan explains that “in the popular mind, The Lost Cause represents the national memory of the Civil War; it has been substituted for the history of the war.”

[2] The Birth of a Nation portrays the war through the eyes of a Lost Cause believer. The film clearly illustrates every aspect of these eight different aspects of the myth:

• Slavery was not the critical issue: the Southerners claimed that slavery was not the main issue between the North and South but states’ rights was.

• The South would have abandoned slavery on its own: it was just a matter of when. This claim makes the North look foolish for starting a war over something that would have gone away on its own.

• The Slaves were content with their status: the “legend” claims that the slaves were happy and content with their lives. Nolan states that “It was the uniform contention of Southern spokesmen -- the press, the clergy, and the politicians â€" that the slaves liked their status.” The myth describes two different images of black slaves. One “type” is the “faithful slave,” and the other is the “happy darky stereotype.” Nolan points out that even President Davis referred to the slaves as “peaceful and contented laborers.”

• Northerners and Southerners were distinct national cultures: Northerners descended from the Anglo-Saxon tribes that had been conquered by the Norman Cavaliers. The Cavaliers were the ancestors of the Southerners.

• The abolitionists were not heroes: the abolitionists were “troublemakers and provocateurs.” The South claimed that the abolitionists created unnecessary trouble between the North and South, and that the real issues were of no interest to the people at large.

• The South was not “defeated”: the Southerners claimed that they were not actually defeated, because it was impossible for them to win. The South was simply overwhelmed by “massive Northern manpower and material.”

• The South was the superior culture: The South is composed of “cavalier aristocrats and martyrs along with the fortunate happy darkies.” Slaves benefited from work on plantation and in the master’s home. Nolan explains that “the planter aristocracy, the other whites, and blacks are pictured as united in defense of the South’s humane, superior culture.”

• The Confederate soldiers were heroes: the Lost Cause “idealized the confederate soldier. . . . [he was] “invariably heroic, indefatigable, gallant, and law abiding.” The Southern military leaders were “remarkable and saintly.” (see comment by Ed Tabor)

[3] Many films and novels that describe the Civil War and Post-War Era through the assertions of The Lost Cause are well written, believable, and convincing. For this reason, they are extremely misleading as to what actually happened in history. The creation of The Lost Cause idea was the Southern attempt to re-write history and place the South in a better light. There was definitely a period of time in which they were successful in convincing people that the myth of The Lost Cause was fact and not fiction. Now The Lost Cause is merely a myth, and historians have demonstrated the contrary truths about the Civil War and the succeeding disputes between the North and South. By comparing the assertions of The Lost Cause to facts from history, it is obvious that not only is The Lost Cause misleading, but it completely changes the reasons for the war, the motives of the South, and the characteristics of the North.

[4] The Birth of A Nation is a prime example of a brilliant piece of work that easily misleads the average American into believing false history. (see comment by Lynn Farley)

Comments

Ed Tabor 7/18/12

Robert Lang tells us that “[i]n America [. . .] the Civil War is not remembered as history, but as legend.” (3) The idea of the “lost cause” if not already ingrained in American consciousness seems to have been cemented there by Griffith’s The Birth of A Nation. Griffith admitted that the film owes much to the stories his father, a Southern Colonel in the war, told of his experiences. He even went as far as to say that his father’s many stories of wartime adventures “were burned right into my memory.” This act of burning may have also involved a little alchemy. Griffith’s Birth plays upon and enhances the single viewpoint of the defeated but proud South. Griffith transforms events of a post war world into a romantic tableau. Many images, scenes, and characters in the film pander to the sentimental ideals of the faded glory of the South. All of this creates a stage set with the shadows of a former golden era, in Everett Carter’s words, “an age in which feudal agrarianism provided the good life for the wealthy, leisured, kindly, aristocratic owner and loyal, happy, obedient slave.” (Lang 6) The melodramatic decay of the Cameron house bereft of furniture after the war, along with the Cameron girls who resort to wearing “Southern Ermine,” or raw cotton, as decoration upon their dresses strike a chord in the American Romantic impulse. Many, who viewed the film in 1915 were doubtless caught between the emotions of awe and pity at the loss of the golden age and the desperate straights of the poor nobility.

Lynn Farley 7/21/12

This is a powerful statement, but it needs to expand on the notion of what makes someone average. For example, I consider myself an average American, and I wasn't misled by Birth of a Nation. Rolfe Cobleigh, Francis Hackett, and Moorfield Storey probably considered themselves average too, and they vehemently disagreed with the depiction of history in this film. When I think about average American characteristics, terms like melting pot, middle class, educated, white or blue collar, nuclear family, church-going, house in the suburbs, and median income come to mind. Those were probably similar traits of the population in 1915. The difference between average movie-going audiences then and now is most-likely marginal in terms of general characteristics.

Where the two differ is in viewpoints--specifically about race. In 1915, desegregation and civil rights were fifty years from being legislated into the fabric of America. It was easy to be a racist. Now the country has had fifty years of government rule and practices against prejudice, and, thankfully, it's wrong to be a racist. Having said that, why does Birth of a Nation resonate with certain segments of America? Why do white supremacists and Aryan Nation flagholders view this film as truth? My thought is the answer lies in choice as opposed to ignorance. The last 100 years of America's history are well-documented in newspapers, photographs, film reels, magazines, videos, public archives, and the like. A person has to choose to ignore the evidence and believe a false history. As such, Rachel's statement needs to be slightly re-worked to read "the Birth of a Nation is a prime example of a brilliant piece of work that easily misleads 'individuals' into believing false history." As Americans, we've chosen a different history and that statement is backed up by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.