Well, the neo-Confederates are out in force condemning this collection of essays. It seems well to note that Southerners did a very good job of capturing the high ground from which Americans viewed Civil War history for nearly a century. Even though I'm a native Mississippian, I've never understood those who claim that the war was not about slavery. On the contrary, it had everything to do with slavery. The Mississippi declaration of secession began by noting "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery..." That seems pretty straight forward to me. Reasonable people can argue about whether secession was, in the strict legal sense, constitutional. And it can be pointed out that while Lincoln made strong use of slave-owner Thomas Jefferson's assertion that "all men are created equal" that ideal is taken from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. But right up until the first shots were fired, arguments about constitutional powers, sectional differences, and property rights were all framed within the context of a dispute over the institution of slavery.
This collection contains several interesting essays, some weaker ones, and one misfire. Unfortunately, the misfire leads off the collection: Alan T. Nolan's "Anatomy of the myth." While Mr. Nolan accurately summarizes key feature of Lost Cause historiography, his tone is needlessly shrill. It seems silly to have to point out that "Gone with the wind"--both book and movie--are works of fiction. They were widely embraced by a white American populous of the 1930s seeking an escapist depiction of a romantic past in the midst of the Great Depression. Focusing on GWTW as a flawed depiction of historical events is about as useless as doing the same with "Braveheart" or the latest "Robin Hood." It is a shame that Gary Gallagher, co-editor of the collection along with Mr. Nolan, did not advise his colleague to do a re-write with a cooler head and sharper focus.
On the other hand, Mr. Gallagher's essay on Jubal Early is much more balanced and instructive. Early, a Confederate general, sought to move the Southern struggle from the battlefield to the printed page. He and his followers managed to influence not only Southern perceptions but, in time, Northern views as well. Robert E. Lee, after all, did not become an American icon by accident. Also of interest is the essay on Wade Hampton by Charles Holden. Far from attacking Hampton, Holden paints a nuanced portrait of the former Confederate officer who evolved into racial moderate in the postwar period (within the context of the times) only to be pushed aside by the politically inspired race-baiting of Ben Tillman. And there is a fine essay by Jeffry Wert on Gen. James Longstreet, the man whose reluctant performance at Gettysburg, postwar political alliances, and criticism of Lee made him an ideal scapegoat.
Somewhat less successful, in my view, is the essay by Brooks Simpson dealing with Gen. U.S. Grant's reputation as winning his campaign against Lee by means of brutal attrition alone. Whatever one's view of Lee as a man, in the period of 1862-3 he was the most audacious of military leaders. But this very audaciousness produced losses that, by 1864, forced him into a much more conservative strategy. The Lee who Grant confronted in 1864 was not the same Lee his predecessors had faced. Thus it is disappointing that Simpson lets stand without discussion Grant's characterization of Lee as not being a formidable opponent. And given that Grant himself had been rather audacious in the western theater, there is the question of whether--once in the shadow of Washington DC and tied to the ponderous Army of the Potomac--he could have realistically engaged in the sort of strategic risks that Sherman took in Georgia.
Considered as a whole, however, this set of essays has merit for those with a judicious view of history (e.g., that the Civil War might have involved a dispute over slavery) and a desire to learn how such views can sometimes be shaped by the losing side.
