In the Slavery, Secession and Civil War thread, Olympic Fan pointed to Edward Bonekemper’s recent book, The Myth of the Lost Cause (2015). I found his comments about the book intriguing and so acquired a used copy from one of the discount sites (it's expensive new). The book was not available in my county library (too new and it doesn’t think histories generally fit the usage requirements of a lending library).

I was a little concerned about the seeming contradiction of Oly’s positives about the book and the fact that its publisher specializes in right wing screeds. Having read it, I can say for certain that it is a well-researched academic report about how Civil War buffs (and historians) have contributed to and fallen prey to a number of myths arising from the South’s defeat in the Civil War.

He rather easily, relying on earlier works of others, exposes the myths as, well, myths. These include “States rights, not slavery was the principal cause of the war;” “The South never could have won the war because of the North’s greater advantages in men and supplies, so it was a Lost Cause from the outset;” “Lee was one of the greatest generals in history, deserving near-deification, while Grant was one of the poorest and a butcher, to boot;” and “Longstreet lost the Battle of Gettysburg, not Lee.”

Bonekemper makes an extremely compelling case that all of these myths are false. They were perpetrated by post-war Southern propagandists determined to rewrite the real history. Rarely has the loser of a war gotten to write the first draft of its history, but that is what happened here. It has taken 145 years for unbiased historians to look at the facts and to set the record straight. In this regard, Bonekemper has provided a real service to students of the war.

Having said that, the question is whether the book is something that casual readers would enjoy. That may depend on what your training is. Bonekemper was first a long-term government lawyer (DOT, DOI) and second, a historian, though that began as an undergraduate. Even before retiring from federal service he began writing military histories. Afterwards, he became a history professor. And a good one.

Even so, his writing style here is that of a lawyer. I’m not sure a casual reader would take his brief-writing style in stride. Bonekemper is thorough and loops back to previous points as his focus switches from one myth to another. After all, the myth makers created several myths and they are intertwined. So the sources, like Douglas Southall Freeman, need to be addressed from different directions, while at the same time, the progress of the war remains constant in each section. So I, anyway, thought I was often re-reading the same thing. But, lawyers do that all the time in briefs which cover overlapping issues. That’s OK, I think, if one is reading a book like this piecemeal, as a student might when focusing on only one myth, but still needs full context. As a casual read, it tends to appear repetitive.

Overarching all of this is the war itself. I found that aspect to be very rewarding. His defense of Grant was a bit of a revelation to me as I had never really focused on the Tennessee campaign and his brilliance in taking Vicksburg and later relieving Chattanooga. I didn’t know Grant had a photographic memory for terrain and applied it to his planning. Plus, I don’t think I had ever understood Lee’s shortcomings as he commanded battlefields with intentionally limited staff, a too short-sighted strategic and a Virginia-focused, view of things. Bonekemper points out that Lee fought the war all wrong: he never recognized that the South could win with a stalemate, while the North had to win the war outright in order to truly achieve victory. So in the beginning of his command, Lee showed recklessness in his northern incursions. This approach cost him irreplaceable troops leading to losses later on. And why he wouldn’t support theaters other than Virginia is a ponder-worthy question.

Anyway, if you are a buff, I recommend the book. If you are not, I still recommend it, but take it in small bites.