THE LOST CAUSE AND THE BIG SWITCH MYTHS

 This question has been pondered by historians for years. What if the South had won the Civil War? This is convenient for leftist historians. They can pit North against South when it was actually a war between the Democrat party and Republican party. It was a war that is still going on today and when it comes to how history is interpreted the Republican's are losing badly. The Republican's won on the battlefield but lost the peace. The peace was the Reconstruction period after the Civil War. Usually the victor of a war writes the accepted version of history. The Democrat party, however: is responsible for two of the biggest myths of American history that is widely accepted as the truth by both left and right. The "Lost Cause Myth" and The Big Switch Myth".  These two lies allow the left to cover up for a multitude of sins and to project their sins upon the modern day Republican party and Constitutional conservatives.

The " Lost Cause Myth" was perpetuated over three decades after the Civil War by "purposely misleading" and "conveniently forgetful" Democrat Confederate participants of that war. From Historian Gary Gallagher says the myth "addressed the nature of antebellum Southern society and the institution of slavery, the constitutionality of secession, the causes of the Civil War, the characteristics of their wartime society, and the reasons for their defeat." It originated with Generals Jubal Early and General William Pendleton and was promoted by others too numerous to mention from there.  

Author Edward H. Bonekemper III states that the Lost Cause Myth basically has seven points.

1. Slavery was a benevolent institution for all involved but was dying by 1861. There was therefore no need to abolish slavery suddenly, especially by war.

I only partially disagree with this point. Slavery was a dying institution in the western world but the Democrats didn't know this in 1861. Only three western countries had slavery in 1861. The United States, Cuba, and Brazil. Only about 600,000 slaves were ever brought to America by the Atlantic slave trade. It is estimated that as many as 5,8 million were transported to Brazil and another 5 million were transported to the West Indies. Our foreign slave trade was legally abolished in 1808. Slavery in the British West Indies was abolished in 1833 but slavery in Cuba wasn't abolished until 1886. Slavery in Brazil was abolished in 1888. My point here is that if slavery was abolished in the West Indies, Cuba and Brazil without a bloody Civil War pressure would have been even greater for the legal end of slavery here in the United States if we had not had a war that ended it in 1865. Abolitionism was a growing movement in Europe and the U.S. Slavery wasn't a benevolent institution by a long shot but in my view all the war did was hasten the end of slavery in this country and it could be successfully argued that war wasn't necessary for an eventual end to slavery but it was necessary for a quick end to it. By starting the war the Democrats were the most effective abolitionists although that was definitely not their intent.

2. States rights, not slavery, was the cause of secession and the establishment of the Confederacy and thus of the Civil War.

States rights is an integral part of our Constitution and a major part of the checks and balances on an overly powerful Federal government. Democrats, however; have always misused the states rights power granted by the Constitution to protect slavery and abuse our black citizens. I challenge anyone to name a right that the Federal government was trying to impede. The Republican party was primarily founded on two key issues. Stopping the spread of slavery and polygamy. Polygamy was seen as a form of sexual slavery. Lincoln was for stopping the spread of slavery into the territories.  A power granted by the Constitution but Lincoln knew that he did not have the Constitutional power to end slavery where it already existed. Other than this there was no threat to any rights that the states possessed. Democrats were hypocritical on the issue of states rights when it came to returning escaped slaves. They demanded that free states arrest slaves, or allow slave catchers into those states against their will. If there had been no slavery there would have been no war. If you don't believe me read the speeches that were given by South Carolina and the representatives of six of the original seven seceding Southern states trying to talk the border states into seceding and Alexander Stephens 1861 Cornerstone speech.

3. The Confederacy had no chance of winning the the Civil War and did the best it could with the limited resources.

The Democrat Confederacy had as great of a chance at winning the Civil War as the American patriots did fighting the British who had the greatest navy and army in the world. Or the North Vietnamese who fought the United States who was the strongest superpower in the world. The Republican's had to win the war. All the Democrats had to do was fight for a deadlock or a tie to win. The Republicans had to go on the offensive and invade Southern Democrat territory, destroy their army and occupy their territory to win. All the Democrats had to do was defend interior lines on home territory. 

4. Robert E. Lee, who led the Confederates to a near-victory, was one of the greatest generals in history. 

I believe General Lee was one of the most overrated generals in history. Although there is enough blame to go around Lee's strategy of offensive defensive was disastrous for the Democrat Confederacy. Although Lee did not become general in chief of all Confederate armies until late in the war his influence was very strong on overall Confederate strategy. He was always Virginia first. Food grown in the highly fertile region of Middle Tennessee was prioritized for shipment to the Army of Northern Virginia instead of the more needy Army of Tennessee. Many historians including myself argue that the Civil War was won in the West and the western armies should have had a higher priority than Lee's army. He refused to reinforce western armies during critical periods when they were being threatened such as the Vicksburg campaign and Rosecrans Middle Tennessee campaign in the summer of 1863. Lee's aggressive tactics cis small staff, vague orders, and lack of battlefield control contributed to costly defeats and tremendous casualties that he couldn't replace. Lee's strategy should have been focused on preserving his army in the same way that George Washington preserved his army in the American Revolution. Washington realized that as long as the army existed America existed. The same held true for the Confederacy. 

5. James Longstreet caused Lee to lose the battle of Gettysburg and thus the Civil War. 

This is not true. It is true that Longstreet didn't want to fight at Gettysburg. He wanted to go around the Union position and find good defensive high ground and compel the Union army to attack the Confederates. Lee was determined to try and drive the Union army off of a strong defensive position. Lee would not give in and forced Longstreet to attack against his better judgment. If the attack had been attempted early in the morning there might have been chance for success because Little Round Top was not manned. Lee's orders weren't issued until 1100 hrs. By the time the attack was formed it was late afternoon. Longstreet continued to urge Lee to flank the Union army on day three but Lee insisted on the disastrous charge against the Union center known as Pickett's Charge. Longstreet became a Republican after the war and supported Reconstruction. This was probably a great motivation for defaming his character and blaming him for the loss at Gettysburg. 

6. Ulysses S. Grant was an incompetent "butcher" who won the war only by brute force and superior numbers. 

Although Grant had his flaws as a general I believe that he was a better general than Lee. He had a winning strategic vision. After Shiloh Grant came to realize that the war would be brutal and long. Not only the Confederate Army but the will of the Southern people would have to be defeated. Grant was not a butcher. Lee was more of a butcher than Grant. During the course of the war Grant commanded  621,912 troops with a total casualty count of 94,171. A total loss of 15.1%.  Lee on the other hand commanded 598,178 troops of which 121, 042 were casualties. A total loss of 20.2%. About one third higher than Grant. Three other Confederate commanders had higher casualty percentages than Grant. Braxton Bragg 19.5%, John Bell Hood 19.2% and Pierre Gustave Tousant Beauregard 16.1%. Grant captured three entire armies during the war. At Fort Donelson in 1862, Vicksburg in 1863 and Appomattox in 1865. Grant was aggressive because the North had to win the war. All Lee had to do was go for a deadlock or tie but he chose to go for a win and destroyed his army in the process. He used his superior numbers to great effect with less casualties. Grants predecessors in the East had superior numbers against Lee. McClellan, Burnside, Hooker and Meade and incurred more casualties totalling 144,000 over two years and little to show for it. Grant defeated Lee in less than a year.

7. The Union won the war by waging unprecedented and precedent setting "total" war. 

The Union did not wage total war. It could be called hard war but not total. If it was total there would be not only massive military casualties but civilian casualties as well. Total war would be similar to what Hitler waged in Russia during WW2. Russia waged total war by destroying food and anything that would be of value to the German army. This was called "scorched earth". If the Democrat Confederates had gone scorched earth in Mississippi and Georgia Grants Vicksburg campaign and Sherman's March to the Sea would have been much more difficult if not impossible because the Union armies were living off the land without supply lines. The concept of total war was alien to the thinking of most Civil War leaders. 

 Although many Northern Democrats  bravely fought and died for the Union they were mainly supportive of Lincoln's initial policy of preserving the Union. On the other hand the Northern Democrats did not sign on to free the slaves. They mostly opposed the Emancipation Proclamation and later the 13th Amendment which permanently freed the slaves. The Northern and Southern Democrat party was united in it's support of slavery at their convention in Charleston in1860. The main cause of their division within the party was the method that would be used to spread slavery into the territories. The Northern Democrats supported "Popular Sovereignty". In other words they wanted to keep the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 in force which allowed the people in the territorial governments to have referendums to decide whether their territory would be slave or free. The Southern Democrats wanted to return to the Missouri Compromise line of 36"30' parallel north latitude. Slavery would be legal below that line all the way to the Pacific coast.The Democrat party split over the way in which slavery would spread to the territories. Not over the institution of slavery itself which both wings supported. 

The Northern Democrats were okay with an armistice between the Southern Confederacy and the North that would have reunited the country with slavery intact or even allowed the Confederacy to go their separate way with slavery intact. This was the position of the "Peace Democrats" or "Copperheads". General George McClellan,  a Democrat ran on this platform in 1864. If Sherman hadn't captured Atlanta in September 1864 there was a good chance that Lincoln would have lost to McClellan. Even he was prepared for that possibility When Lee invaded the North in September 1862 most historians emphasize that he was hoping to win a decisive victory on Northern soil in the hope of enticing foreign intervention on the Confederate side from Britain or France. This was true but what they fail to mention is that Lee was also hoping to influence the midterm congressional elections that were coming in November. He hoped that a decisive victory on Northern soil would lead to a Democrat victory in Congress that could undermine Lincoln's war effort. Some have argued that McClellan wasn't as incompetent of a military commander as he appeared to be. They argue that he was not interested in defeating Lee decisively because he was seeking a settlement to end the war rather than unconditional surrender such as Grant and Lincoln wanted. I lean toward McClellan being incompetent but there could be merit to this claim.

After the war Reconstruction failed because the Democrat party, North and South primarily consisted of white supremacists who were determined to keep whites in control of Southern governments and in America generally. They fought the 13th Amendment freeing the slaves and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.They formed the Ku Klux Klan in order to keep black people from voting and exercising their rights citizens in the South. They voted against the 14th Amendment that granted civil rights to the Freedman and the 15th Amendment granting them the vote. They opposed the Ku Klux Act of 1871 that was designed to fight political terrorism. Because of this resistance and a severe economic depression in 1873 Reconstruction would fail in the South. The Compromise of 1877 would ultimately lead to Jim Crow and lynching in the South and it became a one party region of the country. Led by the Democrat party and this one party system was not truly ended until the overwhelmingly Republican congressional victory of 1994. So you can say that the Democrats lost the Civil War but they won the peace. They even got to write the history . 

The other big lie that the Democrat party has invented is that there was a "Big Switch". Yes they were the party of slavery, the Trail Of Tears, lynching, the Ku Klux Klan, and Jim Crow but that all changed during the 1960's. The Republican's and Constitutional conservatives became the racists after the passage of the 1964 and 65 civil rights acts by a Democrat president. All the racist Democrats bolted from the party and found a new home in the Republican party. The Democrat party miraculously transitioned into the good guys. In other words the cops. Republican's became the robbers and the robbers became the cops. Of course this is demonstrably untrue. 

 Blacks began migrating from the Republican to the Democrat party as early as 1936. Although the Roosevelt administration pursued the support of white Democrat segregationists blacks felt like they were benefitting from the economic programs of the New Deal. Roosevelt was the same guy who refused to invite Olympic hero Jesse Owens to the White House after his wins at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. The illusion was created that since Harry Truman desegregated the military in 1948. The Democrats put a civil rights plank in their 1948 Democrat platform and Lyndon Johnson pushed forward the civil rights acts of 1957, 60, 64 and 65 the Democrats were the new champion of black people. Despite the fact that although Truman signed an executive order integrating the military it was Dwight Eisenhower who actually desegregated the military. It was Eisenhower who sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock Arkansas in order to protect black high school children trying to attend school there with white students. It was Eisenhower who also appointed Federal judges who were instrumental in overturning segregation laws during the civil rights struggles of the 1950's and 60's. For example Chief Justice Earl Warren was instrumental in getting a unanimous court decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education and Frank Johnson's ruling that desegregated the public bus system in Montgomery Alabama. It was John Kennedy appointed segregationist judges that blocked progress on civil rights in the early 1960's. Or the fact that if not for support of the Republican party the civil rights acts could not have passed by Democrat votes alone. 

 The Democrats expanded the "Big switch myth" by branding Barry Goldwater a racist because he refused to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act on sound constitutional principles rather than racist reasons. He believed that there was no need for a new law since there was the 14th Amendment. Goldwater, like Reagan advocated the enforcement of the law that was already on the books. He was a founding member of the Arizona NAACP and desegregated the Arizona Air National Guard before Truman signed the executive order in 1948. Goldwater met with Lyndon Johnson before the 1964 campaign asking that the subject of race would not be made an issue during the campaign. He kept his promise but the Johnson campaign race baited anyway. He was half Jewish and familiar with ethnic bigotry. Goldwater did receive the electoral votes of 5 deep South states in 1964 but that did not mean that he identified with their cause any more than Lincoln identified with the cause of the Know Nothings when they voted for him in 1860. The Know Nothings were an anti immigrant political movement. The fact that Goldwater won five deep South states was not a Southern voting trend toward the Republican party. Democrat George Wallace won five deep South states as a third party candidate in 1968. It did not affect Nixon because he won the presidency that year without these states support. 

 Goldwater would have had a decent chance of winning in a head to head matchup with John Kennedy. Because of the assassination and martyrdom of Kennedy he knew that he didn't have a dogs chance in hell of beating Johnson. He considered dropping out but he was the father of the modern conservative movement. His supporters encouraged him to run anyway because it would expose conservative values to the general public. In my view his campaign laid the groundwork for Ronald Reagan's victory in 1980. It has been described as a soldier who falls across the barbed wire while other soldiers step over him to victory. The Democrats continued to espouse the "Big switch myth" calling Nixon's Southern strategy an attempt to win the deep South in the manner that Goldwater did in 1964. Nixon's Southern strategy was not aimed at those states but the more moderate Southern border states like Tennessee and Virginia that Eisenhower had won in 1956. His strategy was also focused on winning not only the upper South states but the Southwest sunbelt states along with California. 

 Nixon was known for his progressive views on civil rights. He was lifelong member of the NAACP and he supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He knew that the Republican base was in the Northeast, Midwest, and parts of the West. Nixon wasn't aiming to win the deep South like Goldwater did but win the rest of the country. As president he did much to advance the cause of civil rights, especially in the area of affirmative action. I think it was bad policy but Nixon created the quota system in affirmative action. It was the segregationist Democrat George Wallace who won the deep South in 1968, not Nixon. The segregationists remained in the Democrat party with the sole exception of Strom Thurmond and one Democrat Congressman after the signing of the civil rights acts. Segregationists like Richard Russell, the Bill Clinton hero and mentor William Fulbright and former Klan recruiter and Hillary Clinton hero Robert Byrd were glorified by the Democrats and were never pressured to leave the party. Hillary Clinton proudly accepted the Margaret Sanger award named after the eugenicist Margaret Sanger who called black people weeds and wanted to exterminate them.

 Eventually the South moved into the Republican party based on Reagan's appeal of free market capitalism, patriotism, protection of the unborn, school prayer, and family values. These values were far more important than race and they appealed to many Southerners. The move of Southerners away from the Democrat party was also fueled by the leftward shift of the Democrat party in the early 1970's. Even among former Northern Democrats this was their primary motivation for leaving the party. Reagan's conservative values were key in luring me away from the Democrat party. A massive break-up of the old solid Democrat South did not fully occur until the 1994 Republican landslide in the off year congressional races of 1994 during Bill Clinton's presidency. As the South became less racist it became more Republican. Unfortunately most blacks and many whites overwhelmingly bought into the "Big Switch Myth" after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act. Just like many whites bought into "The Lost Cause Myth" in the decades after the Civil War. The Republican party lost much black support leaving the party of Lincoln and the party that with few exceptions had always tried to protect their interests. In the eyes of many the Republican party was no longer the party of Lincoln. It was the now the party of oppression.