Lincoln Book Review: The Myth of the Lost Cause Vs. The Real Lincoln

 

This post deals with two books on the “Lost Cause.”

Thomas J. DiLorenzo presents the case for the Lost Cause in The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, while Edward H. Bonekemper argues against the Lost Cause in The Myth of the Lost Cause: Why the South Fought the Civil War and Why the North Won.

What is the Lost Cause? The basic tenants are as follows: the War of Northern Aggression had nothing to do with slavery; the South did nothing to provoke war; the Constitution included a right to secede and the South should have been allowed to leave peacefully; antebellum life in the South was prosperous, dignified, and just; slavery was already dying; Robert E. Lee deserved deification, U. S. Grant deserved demonization, the North deserves condemnation for engaging in total war; the South had no chance of winning, and most important of all, Lincoln was a despot who started the war by invading South. 

Basically, the Lost Cause is innocence victimized.

I chose these two specific books because they are both relatively recent (2003 and 2015) and each author presents their respective positions clearly, with entertaining gusto. On which side of this controversy did I land? You can probably guess, but this argument has raged for over one hundred and fifty years and these books will provide all the information you need to make up your own mind.

(These are research books for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)