The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates. Comprising a Full and Authentic Account of the Rise and Progress of the Late ... the World's History. Drawn from Official...

by Edward A. Pollard

This is a reproduction of a classic text optimised for kindle devices. We have endeavoured to create this version as close to the original artefact as possible. Although occasionally there may be certain imperfections with these old texts, we believe they deserve to be made available for future generations to enjoy.

Genres: Civil War, History, American History, American Civil War, Nonfiction, Politics, War

Kindle Edition

Published May 6, 2018

About the author

Edward Alfred Pollard (1832–1872) was an American author, journalist, and Confederate sympathizer during the American Civil War who wrote several books on the causes and events of the war, notably The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates (1866) and The Lost Cause Regained (1868), wherein Pollard originated the long-standing pseudo-historical ideology of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.

During the American Civil War, he was one of the principal editors of the pro-Confederate but critical of Jefferson Davis newspaper Richmond Examiner.

In 1864, he sailed for England, but the vessel on which he sailed was captured as a blockade runner, and he was confined in Boston Harbor from 29 May until 12 August, when he was paroled.

NB Do not confuse with the Rev. Edward Bagby Pollard (1864-1927)

Reviews

[ALLEN · Rating 3 out of 5]

I suppose this is the book to blame -- or at least the first in a long line of books and later, the now-despised statues of Confederate soldiers and political leaders on public land (consider Richmond's Monument Avenue) -- all of which established, then perpetuated an historic myth. Edward A. Pollard, with the help of a prominent Richmond (VA) newspaper, authored THE LOST CAUSE in 1866, which tried to make an ignominious defeat by an unprepared people over an asinine cause (slavery) into a moral triumph. It is pure advocacy with a distinct bias (find any Yankee who isn't kind of a sloven in this book), all around the pure lunacy of "a gentleman doesn't do that." Those gentlemen shouldn't have gone to war, then, a point which the pragmatic Rhett Butler makes early in the book/movie of GONE WITH THE WIND.

The book has enough historical research in it that people who can separate facts from tilt may well find THE LOST CAUSE of interest historiography. It certainly "reads modern" in the sense that its journalistic approach does not seem all that stylistically archaic to modern readers, despite its lack of a real Index of names or events.

Should you read this? Probably only if you intend to be a self-taught independent scholar in the rhetoric of Restoration and its consequences -- its view of the South's role in the 'War of Northern Aggression' is not all that useful in retrospect. Unless, as I say, you are already something of an independent scholar and can separate the wheat from the chaff. I'm a little sorry I read it -- so much wasted effort about how such a putatively noble people could lose such a war. It got quite grating at times.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

While this book is negligible in its insight of the Civil War and is ridiculously, even comically biased in favor of the South, it was the sort of terrible book which is entertaining to read.  And it should be noted that this book was written in the immediate aftermath of the defeat of the Confederacy, and that the author was responsible for coining the term lost cause to discuss the Confederate longing for an imagined independence.  All of this makes this a book of considerable value as propaganda and as a cultural artifact even if it makes for a terrible history.  Indeed, this book ought to be a reminder to any historian who would be inclined to learn the lesson that someone cannot be a just judge of their own cause, and that being an activist of necessity makes one a poor historian of a matter that touches upon the cause one is actively in support of (or, similarly, of something that is inimical to one's own causes).  Obviously, those who are most in need of such a lesson will be likely to heed it the least but that is how these things go, alas.

This book is a somewhat sprawling book at around 750 pages or so with 44 relatively short chapters that cover the period from the lead-in to the war to the conclusion of the war and the author's fears about reconstruction.  The book begins with a denial of American federalism, moves on to anger about Lincoln's provocation of the South, and has a lot to say about the various battles as well as the non-military aspects of the war, including economics and logistics and the psychology of the populace of the South and of the largely quarreling leaders of the South.  Much of the information in this book will be broadly familiar to readers who have read dozens of narrative histories of the Civil War.  The book is broadly chronological but covers the Battle of Nashville, for example, before covering the siege of Petersburg, which means that this is a book where the narrative of the war is not really sorted.  The book has a 19th century feel to it with lengthy chapter headings that summarize the points, rather than the more contemporary simplification of the material of chapters.  One thing that never changes is the author's unflinching partisanship for the South.

This book is a sprawling one, and it has some characteristic flaws that have been lampooned successfully for the last 150 years.  The author underestimates Confederate casualties by at least half and doubles or triples Union casualties.  Similarly, the author leaves no libel against Lincoln unused, while being immensely melodramatic in his discussion of the apotheosis of various rebel dead like Jackson and Stuart.  Somehow this book set the template for neo-Confederate "histories" of having the South win nearly every battle but somehow lose the war because various cowardly generals retreated after victories.  The author is somewhat of a partisan of Johnston, blaming Pemberton for the loss at Vicksburg and Davis for being too intemperate in demanding an attack in Georgia, and so on.  The result is a work that cannot be recommended at all as a book of history but points out some of the patterns of explaining the war that would be followed by later writers, including a tendency to complain about logistics.  So this is a significant work of history in that it was highly imitated, but it is by no means the sort of history that anyone should have written in the 1860's or should adopt as a model for one's approach in the contemporary time.

[Jeffrey]

This is an 1866 history textbook about the Civil War - written by the editor of the Richmond Examiner. If you've ever wondered what the history of the Civil War looks like from the Southern perspective, this is it - and it's a very interesting read.

[Paul · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am nearly finished with this. It has, frankly, been a struggle. Pollard's style is overly polemic, to say the least. People of the North are 'silly', 'vulgar' and 'coarse' to mention just a few of his favorite adjectives. He is a irrationally partisan supporter of Joseph Johnson; who would have thought to interpret his retreat from Chattanooga to Atlanta, and subsequent retirement to the works of Atlanta, as having brilliantly put Sherman exactly where he wanted him? He exhibits every painful racial attitude one could imagine, and more.
So why I am I reading it (thank heaven, nearly done)? Because here is a contemporary view of the war from the losing side, and in its own polemical way, a clue to how the myths of the South got their start. If you knew nothing of the Civil War and its history, this book would just be tedious (it is huge). But having read extensively on the topic, you can sort through the distortions and flat out falsehoods to see the end of four years of bloody conflict through the eyes of a Richmond journalist, willing and able to do anything but be objective.
Worth reading if you are deeply interested in the Civil War as seen through the eyes of an angry, bitter partisan in the aftermath of a destroyed dream.

[Frederick · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author is an unapologetic supporter of the South; its culture, its politics, its slavery, and its Confederacy. He makes many points but some were very interesting as he dissected the battles of the Civil War, political and otherwise. One of these was that he was no admirer of the Constitution or its framers (37). He argues that the war was fought over state’s rights but one must ask if this state’s rights argument is true then why did the states rights group try to force the acceptance of their ownership of slaves on states that did not permit slavery when traveling in their territories? (41) The author admits that the South was politically divided by slavery. But he denied that slavery was a, “moral dispute.”(47) The author presents the, “Southern slavery wasn’t so bad,” argument that no sane person can buy.(49) The author accuses the North of worshipping the Union.(52) He admits the Civil War was clearly about slavery.(80) He was not a fan of Jefferson Davis.(91)

The South was foolish to think that England would be brought to its knees without cotton from the South. Both North and South were foolish in underestimating how awful this conflict would get.(130) He explained the origin of “one Southerner is worth five Yankees” as after the First Battle of Manassas.(153) Author calls Southerner overestimation of strength of Confederate Army a “popular delusion.”(202) He really comes down hard on Lincoln’s changing view of slavery and Confederate mismanagement, lack of men and materiel, and unrealistic expectations added to just bad leadership from President Davis on down. Very negative. The North was wrong but the South was naïve.(217) The author makes the point that in history, when there have been civil “commotions” the most violent party, the party whose aims are most clearly defined, will gain the upper hand. So it was with the abolitionists who molded and changed government and Northern opinion.(219)

The author stated that before the Emancipation Proclamation there was a lot of confusion in the North over the intent and purpose of prosecuting the war. He implied Lincoln bungled things and that there were many disagreements over the Federal government’s actions regarding slavery. This underscores how this author believes that neither side was served by competent political leadership at the top, making the war longer, more costly, and more sanguinary.(357) Stonewall Jackson’s words as he lay dying, “If I live it will be for the best. And if I die it will be for the best. God knows and directs all things for the best.” Then, “Tell Major Hawks to send forward provisions for the men. Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees.”(378) Gettysburg the most important battle of the war. (401) Vicksburg and Gettysburg crushed the Southern economy causing a thousand per cent decline in currency. Vicksburg, in particular, was an economic shock from which the South could not recover.(415) Modern wars fueled by government debt while the people who start the wars are often enriched. This system was started by Great Britain. (416)

He made this interesting comment, “He who seeks to solve the problem of the downfall of the Southern Confederacy, must take largely into consideration the absence of any intelligent and steady system in the conduct of public affairs; the little circles that bounded the Richmond administration; the deplorable want of the commercial or business faculty in the Southern mind.” This brings to mind comments made by Booker T. Washington in his Up From Slavery on how slavery degraded both white and black and denied them any concept of a rational work ethic not dependent on subjugating others on the one hand or self-reliance on the other. Of course, I am paraphrasing Mr. Washington’s comments as I feel they apply to Pollard’s statements.(489)

Union failures in Florida and Mississippi with Sherman learning a bitter lesson and being forced to retreat 150 miles over land he had plundered already.(492) The author discounted Sherman’s march as having any military merit as he was virtually unopposed.(615) The North produced no great generals and acted as uncivilized brutes and the only true nobility was in the Confederacy. This shows the particular one-sidedness of this author’s opinion.(699) The author makes a point that although the restoration of the Union and the abolition of slavery was decided that black equality and African-American right to vote was not and that this will be an ongoing struggle. His view represents the reality of the history that followed Reconstruction.(752)

I think this book is a very important read for students of the Civil War and Reconstruction. I do not think it is wise to set it aside. The author’s viewpoint is well-put and you see the conflict from the eyes of the Confederate side. This book is the granddaddy of the lost cause movement of thought for fans of the Confederacy. While I do not believe in the nobility of his cause I do see his side holding onto a dying world.

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book by Richmond journalist Edward A. Pollard was published only one year after the war had ended. As I college student, I spent two and a half months reading this book in between taking classes and working on other things. I have to say that I'm glad I did it. This book is extremely valuable for understanding Southern perceptions of the Civil War, even if it provides a less than accurate look at the war itself.

Pollard's descriptions of battles and military engagements are generally accurate and can be quite valuable. A good historian however will probably question how much space he gives to particular events. Significant battles or campaigns are sometimes dispatched with in a few paragraphs or even, in the case of the Tullahoma Campaign in the spring of 1863, which pushed the Confederate Army of Tennessee out of Middle Tennessee, a few sentences. However, comparatively minor battles, including a number of campaigns that occurred west of the Mississippi or along the Atlantic seaboard, are sometimes given pages. Also, because this book is so thoroughly from a Southern perspective, we get a good look at military events from the Southern point of view and the conflicts, relationships, and strategizing that went on in Southern armies and amongst Southern commanders, but less so with Northern ones. That's not a fault, it just means that the reader doesn't get the full picture.

One big example of bias with regard to military history comes at the discussion of the Battle of Monocacy (p. 535). Pollard writes that Union soldiers retreated "in shameful confusion," ignoring the fact that they were fighting against an enemy three times their number, and that their purpose was not to defeat the Confederates but to delay them, which they did. This is a total distortion of what actually happened.

The narrative portions of the book are usually fairly easy to separate from the portions devoted to analysis and perspective. Which is good, because these sections are gross embellishments and fabrications. Very early in the book, Pollard significantly overplays his hand by describing how everything about the North, from the climate, the soil, and the people, were inferior and unenlightened compared to the South, and that this had been evident for centuries. Pollard denounces everything about the North as "course and materialistic." (p. 51) Meanwhile, he exalts the South for "its higher sentimentalism, and its superior refinements of scholarship and manners." (p. 48) I do not know how Pollard could have written something so ridiculous and expected any dispassionate person with the slightest sense of human nature to take him seriously. It gets a little better later in the book, but not much. Every Union general is in some way smeared or degraded, and on controversial questions in the war, Pollard gives every benefit of the doubt to the Confederates and judges the Union as harshly as possible. Perhaps the greatest example comes in the second half of the book in the chapter on the treatment of captured soldiers in prisoner of war camps. Pollard portrays the South as kind and benevolent, and the North was brutal and cruel. In reality, as he begrudgingly acknowledges, prisoners of war held by both sides suffered from malnourishment, ill-sanitation, and overcrowding. Physical abuse by camp guards was also common. Pollard describes reports of misconduct by guards in Northern prisons but ignores similar reports from Southern prisons. He also does not bother to mention the fact that, if they did not massacre them on the field, Confederates sold captured blacks back into slavery without reference to their previous condition.

Pollard also has his perspectives about different military campaigns, financial and political matters during the war, and the capabilities of certain commanders. These are mostly reasonable positions to hold and not as far-fetched as some of his other ideas, because they are based on clearly presented evidence rather than flaming irrational passions. Such commentaries are well-enough separated from the narrative so as not to interfere.

Pollard's book is highly valuable to the modern reader for understanding how Southerners felt about the war, in both the Reconstruction Period and after, which is the primary reason for the 4-star rating, and it also includes some important facts about the war. It is not especially useful as a reasonable and balanced narrative of what really took place. Pollard's bias is so incredibly clear that in his analysis, he really has almost no time at all for anything like fairness or dispassionate criticism, all things which he hypocritically demands of Northerners and reprimands them for allegedly not having. This is not a good book for Civil War beginners, who are likely to find it tedious and, at times, quite obnoxious. I recommend it only to already-knowledgeable Civil War scholars who already have enough familiarity with the time period and enough patience to filter through the garbage that is interspersed at various points throughout this book.

[BC Coulter · Rating 3 out of 5]

A must read if you want to understand the mentality of the Southern aristocracy at the start, middle and conclusion of the Civil War. Shocking in more than a few passages - particularly his view of the enslaved (whom he is completely unable to refer to as "people") - and amusingly breathless clutching of the pearls tone in others. But a sincere recounting of the conflict as experienced by a Southern journalist. Left me with the distinct impression that the antebellum white southern gentleman's education and life style left him a little dim-witted and certainly ill-prepared for life.

[Jim Gardner · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to see where the nonsense about "the lost cause" and how the South tried to re-write history, this is Patient Zero. It's a wonderful source of information about what was going on around the Civil War.

[Ted Greiner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Originally, volume 1 was published alone in 1863 when Pollard thought the South would win, so without the Lost Cause in the title. He gives details of small battles hard to find elsewhere, but is always biased. Sometimes the casualties he reports for the Confederates are accurate but those he reports for the Union army are always exaggerated. He gives the best argument I've seen of the southern perspective, along with perhaps Jefferson Davis'book. Here's a quote: "The North has territory and numbers and physical resources enough for a separate existence, and if she has not virtue enough to sustain a national organization, she has no right to seek it in a compulsory union with a people who, sensible of their superior endowments, have resolved to take their destinies in their own hands."

[Sherman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am finding this book very interesting. The insight of the southern beliefs and attitudes toward the Union and the War are different from those taught in the American school system that I grew up in. The first chapter goes into the issue of "States Rights" and the southern conception of how and why the Federal Government got its power and how it was allowed to use that power is a real eye opener.

[Fred Moreau · Rating 4 out of 5]

A historical look at the Civil War from the eyes of the Confederate States of America, initially written in 1866 by E.A. Pollard. This gave me look into the Southern point of view of events leading up to the war and eventually the events that sealed the fate of Lee's Army as it continued to fight against the odds of a well-supplied federal forces, the lack of food, supplies, and men that would eventually force the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia and the end of the Civil War.

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Integral history of the American civil war from a Southern point of view. It could have been more detailed on some issues and less on the battles.

[Dennis O'Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

a good read written from the prospective of the South. Things you will not be taught in regards to the Civil War.