When General Lee surrendered to General Grant at the Appomattox court house in 1865, the South was shocked; the Confederacy had lost the Civil War. During the years after the war, the South developed a new way of viewing the Civil War in an attempt to preserve Southern honor and dignity. This movement, referred to as the “Lost Cause”, rejected the idea that the Civil War was caused primarily by slavery and sought to rebrand the war as a struggle to maintain the Southern way of life. The “Lost Cause” advocates argued that their work was not political in nature, which was largely true, but this statement failed to take into account the fact that the goals of the “Lost Cause” did have some political ramifications. The “Lost Cause” sought to restore …show more content…
For example, the postcard of the memorial proved that “Lost Cause” groups were involved in publicizing pro-South events, but the lack of information regarding the building of the memorial makes it difficult to prove whether or not the “Lost Cause” groups had any role in the creation of these memorials. Nonetheless, the postcard of the memorial proved that “Lost Cause” groups worked to spread pro-South materials to persuade Southerners that the old Southern way of life could still be enjoyed. The memorial also demonstrated that these groups thought using images of Confederate generals would appeal to the audience’s patriotic emotions, which meant that these groups actively worked to increase patriotic feeling in the South. The United Daughters of the Confederacy Constitution also proved that many Southerners wanted to perpetuate a romanticized view of the Civil War, and the UDC was incredibly influential because the organization persuaded teachers to teach children false information about the Civil War. If the children who were taught the information encouraged by the UDC went on to become politicians, those politicians would be unlikely to compromise with the North because the politicians would have a distinct bias that would prevent them from reaching an agreement with the North. This influence that the UDC had on children proved that “Lost …show more content…
A veteran’s letter proved the surprising fact that the “Lost Cause” did not honor all ex-Confederates equally, and the differing treatment of veterans based on social status and titles proved that a major limit of the “Lost Cause” was that even the movement, which sought to glorify the South, was biased in favor of the upper class. This fact leads one to the conclusion that the “Lost Cause” was probably led by the upper class and was intended to restore the family honor of relatives of prominent officers. Andrews’ textbook proved that white supremacy was an important element of the “Lost Cause’s” ideology. The fact that the UDC approved the textbook also demonstrated how influential the UDC was on education, and the fact that this textbook was written from the perspective of a white man also proved that the “Lost Cause” wanted to teach children racist ideas in order to continue the belief in white supremacy. This makes one question whether or not the “Lost Cause” was worried that abolition and Reconstruction would teach children that white supremacy was wrong, and thereby end the “Southern way of life”. Taylor’s writing proved that racial violence was an important issue in the South that white Southerners were not concerned with
As the Reconstruction Era ended, the United States became the up and coming world power. The Spanish-American war was in full swing, and the First World War was well on its way. As a result of the open-door policy, England, Germany, France, Russia, and eventually Japan experienced rapid industrial growth; the United States decided to pursue a foreign policy because of both self- interest and idealism. According to the documents, Economic self- interest, rather than idealism was more significant in driving American foreign policy from 1895 to 1920 because the United States wanted to protect their foreign trade, property and their access to recourses. While the documents also show that Nationalistic thought (idealism) was also crucial in driving American foreign policy, economic Self- interest prevailed.
In, “Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War,” Charles B. Dew analyzes the public letters and speeches of white, southern commissioners in order to successfully prove that the Civil War was fought over slavery. By analyzing the public letters and speeches, Dew offers a compelling argument proving that slavery along with the ideology of white supremacy were primary causes of the Civil War. Dew is not only the Ephraim Williams Professor of American History at Williams College, but he is also a successful author who has received various awards including the Elloit Rudwick Prize and the Fletcher Pratt Award. In fact, two of Dew’s books, Tredegar Iron Works and Apostles of Disunion and Ironmaker to
In addition to a crumbling national identity, the necessities of war diminished morale among citizens of the Confederacy. Early on, the South believed that Europe would a...
There are many different ways in which the war was represented to the public, including drawings, newspaper articles, and detailed stereographs. Stereographs such as John Reekie’s “The Burial Party” invoked mixed feelings from all of those who viewed it. It confronts the deaths caused by the Civil War as well as touches upon the controversial issue over what would happen to the slaves once they had been emancipated. This picture represents the Civil War as a trade-off of lives- fallen soldiers gave their lives so that enslaved black men and women could be given back their own, even if that life wasn’t that different from slavery. In his carefully constructed stereograph “The Burial Party,” John Reekie confronts the uncertainty behind the newly
In James McPherson’s novel, What They Fought For, a variety of Civil War soldier documents are examined to show the diverse personal beliefs and motives for being involved in the war. McPherson’s sample, “is biased toward genuine fighting soldiers” (McPherson, 17) meaning he discusses what the ordinary soldier fought for. The Confederacy was often viewed as the favorable side because their life style relied on the war; Confederates surrounded their lives with practices like slavery and agriculture, and these practices were at stake during the war. On the other hand, Northerners fought to keep the country together. Although the Civil War was brutal, McPherson presents his research to show the dedication and patriotism of the soldiers that fought and died for a cause.
2- Carl Schurz wrote reports called Reports on the Condition of the South, in 1865 in which he investigated the sentiments of leaders and ordinary people, whites and blacks, from the defeated South. He describes that was not safe to wear the federal uniform on the streets and soldiers of the Union were considered intruders, Republicans were considered enemies. But, even worse was the situation of freedmen in which were expected to behave as slaves for white Southerners. Schurz heard the same phrase, “You cannot make the negro work, without physical compulsion,” (Schurz) from so many different people that he concluded that this sentiment was rooted among the southern people. He related this case of a former slaveholder that suggested blacks were unfitted for freedom, “I heard a Georgia planter argue most seriously that one of his negroes had shown himself certainly unfit for freedom because he impudently refused to submit to a whipping.”
Throughout Europe in the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, nations were filled with poor and less fortunate individuals. While the nobles of countries such as France and England ruled their lands, many forgot about the underprivileged that roamed the city streets begging for alms. As a result, the opinions towards these lower class people were very differentiated. However, three main opinions stood out. All in all, the views of the poor in fifteenth – eighteenth century Europe included those who believed individuals should help the poor because it is the right thing to do, those who believed individuals should help the poor for God, and those who believed the poor were just idlers
In the words of President Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg Address (Doc. A), the Civil War itself, gave to our Nation, “a new birth of freedom”. The Civil War had ended and the South was in rack and ruin. Bodies of Confederate soldiers lay lifeless on the grounds they fought so hard to protect. Entire plantations that once graced the South were merely smoldering ash. The end of the Civil War and the abolishment of slavery, stirred together issues and dilemmas that Americans, in the North and South, had to process, in hopes of finding the true meaning of freedom.
America has gone through many hardships and struggles since coming together as a nation involving war and changes in the political system. Many highly regarded leaders in America have come bestowing their own ideas and foundation to provide a better life for “Americans”, but no other war or political change is more infamous than the civil war and reconstruction. Reconstruction started in 1865 and ended in 1877 and still to date one of the most debated issues in American history on whether reconstruction was a failure or success as well as a contest over the memory, meaning, and ending of the war. According to, “Major Problems in American History” David W. Blight of Yale University and Steven Hahn of the University of Pennsylvania take different stances on the meaning of reconstruction, and what caused its demise. David W. Blight argues that reconstruction was a conflict between two solely significant, but incompatible objectives that “vied” for attention both reconciliation and emancipation. On the other hand Steven Hahn argues that former slaves and confederates were willing and prepared to fight for what they believed in “reflecting a long tradition of southern violence that had previously undergirded slavery” Hahn also believes that reconstruction ended when the North grew tired of the 16 year freedom conflict. Although many people are unsure, Hahn’s arguments presents a more favorable appeal from support from his argument oppose to Blight. The inevitable end of reconstruction was the North pulling federal troops from the south allowing white rule to reign again and proving time travel exist as freed Africans in the south again had their civil, political, and economical position oppressed.
People attending schools before 1960’s were learning about certain “unscrupulous carpetbaggers”, “traitorous scalawags”, and the “Radical Republicans”(223). According to the historians before the event of 1960’s revision, these people are the reason that the “white community of South banded together to overthrow these “black” governments and restore home rule”(223). While this might have been true if it was not for the fact that the “carpetbaggers were former Union soldiers”, “Scalawags… emerged as “Old Line” Whig Unionists”(227). Eric Foner wrote the lines in his thesis “The New View of Reconstruction” to show us how completely of target the historians before the 1960’s revision were in their beliefs.
Following the defeat of the Confederacy and to lift the morale of a shattered people momentum gathered to enshrine the Myth of the Lost Cause which would transform the Southern soldier living and dead, into a veritable hero.
The Civil War was meant to end slavery in the United States, but the victory could not keep prejudiced feelings and beliefs away. The newly freed African Americans who lived in the South ...
The North’s negligence also contributed to the end of Reconstruction. The North had failed to notice the many racially motivated atrocities that occurred in the South durin...
Imagine a historian, author of an award-winning dissertation and several books. He is an experienced lecturer and respected scholar; he is at the forefront of his field. His research methodology sets the bar for other academicians. He is so highly esteemed, in fact, that an article he has prepared is to be presented to and discussed by the United States’ oldest and largest society of professional historians. These are precisely the circumstances in which Ulrich B. Phillips wrote his 1928 essay, “The Central Theme of Southern History.” In this treatise he set forth a thesis which on its face is not revolutionary: that the cause behind which the South stood unified was not slavery, as such, but white supremacy. Over the course of fourteen elegantly written pages, Phillips advances his thesis with evidence from a variety of primary sources gleaned from his years of research. All of his reasoning and experience add weight to his distillation of Southern history into this one fairly simple idea, an idea so deceptively simple that it invites further study.
More confederates than unions were illiterate due to the fact that most held professional or white-collard jobs (36). To make the Union soldiers sample fair sense most blacks couldn’t read or write, 2 who could were included in the sample (36). The levels of patriotism differed from the upper and lower south given to the fact that the upper south were mainly cotton states. The confederates felt as if it was a “rich mans woar but the poor man has to do the fifting” (16). The confederates were mainly fighting for “independence, property and way of life” (27). Some characteristics the soldiers had in common were McPherson’s calculations for the Union. He came to seeing that out of 562 Union soldier’s letters read only 67 percent voice strong patriotic motives. This is the same as the two-thirds of Confederates. As a result from reading McPherson’s book, research showed that the Union and Confederate soldiers expressed about the same degree of patriotic and ideological convictions. Even though they both had different reasons for fighting the levels of sincerity and dedication in their notes were