Can we avoid the "Lost Cause" mythology after the American Civil War?

[NHBL]

I keep seeing all sorts of Civil War and Aftermath timelines, where the Lost Cause continus to taint the USA for ages after the war.
With a POD after January 15, 1865 (The fall of Fort Fisher, cutting off the CSA from any European supplies) can the "Lost Cause" be eradicated (mostly) from the American scene by 1965. The POD can be anything reasonable, from the rebels taking to guerilla warfare after the last army is defeated, to the south being stupid enough to rise again--options wide open.
By erradicated, I mean no CSA flags flying in most areas--at best, in some graveyards. Memorials put up after the war are around--but most aren't factors by 1965.
There can be some...heck, even in Germany there's people that want to see either a new Kaiser or Fuhrer, and French that want a monarchy back--they just have to be an insignificant minority with no real political base.

Can this happen?

 

[Nivek]

Can this happen?

The devil is the detail of Lincoln assasination, Andrew Johnson handling the reconstruction and the reconstruction itself... the key is there but sadly i lack the microdetails, just those 3 POD are the key for it

 

[History Learner]

I keep seeing all sorts of Civil War and Aftermath timelines, where the Lost Cause continus to taint the USA for ages after the war.
With a POD after January 15, 1865 (The fall of Fort Fisher, cutting off the CSA from any European supplies) can the "Lost Cause" be eradicated (mostly) from the American scene by 1965. The POD can be anything reasonable, from the rebels taking to guerilla warfare after the last army is defeated, to the south being stupid enough to rise again--options wide open.
By erradicated, I mean no CSA flags flying in most areas--at best, in some graveyards. Memorials put up after the war are around--but most aren't factors by 1965.
There can be some...heck, even in Germany there's people that want to see either a new Kaiser or Fuhrer, and French that want a monarchy back--they just have to be an insignificant minority with no real political base.

Can this happen?

No, not unless you somehow gut the Radical Republicans in 1864; Reconstruction was always going to spur such feelings and you can only avoid that by doing the aforementioned.

 

[Thomas1195]

No, not unless you somehow gut the Radical Republicans in 1864; Reconstruction was always going to spur such feelings and you can only avoid that by doing the aforementioned.

Perhaps Seward instead of Lincoln becoming President in 1861. In 1864, Seward, being more conventional than Lincoln, would likely choose a Republican as VP, maybe Salmon Chase or C.F.Adams become Seward's VP. Or, just have Lincoln doing similar thing. No Andrew Johnson will do a lot in moderating the Congress.

 

[History Learner]

Perhaps Seward instead of Lincoln becoming President in 1861. In 1864, Seward, being more conventional than Lincoln, would likely choose a Republican as VP, maybe Salmon Chase or C.F.Adams become Seward's VP. Or, just have Lincoln doing similar thing. No Andrew Johnson will do a lot in moderating the Congress.

If Seward gets elected, the South likely wins. Best case scenario I can see is Lincoln not being assassinated and being able to use his popularity to forge a coalition of Democrats and Conservative Republicans to have a much more moderate Reconstruction.

 

[Moderate Hero]

If Seward gets elected, the South likely wins. Best case scenario I can see is Lincoln not being assassinated and being able to use his popularity to forge a coalition of Democrats and Conservative Republicans to have a much more moderate Reconstruction.

There was no mass executions of confederate leaders, nor were the plantation owners dispossesed, that's absurdly lenient treatment for a failed rebellion by the standards of the 19th century. Honesly that doing the bare minimum of supporting democratically elected state governments against hooded terrorists and disenfranchising traitors is seen as going to far just goes to show the effectiveness of lost cause propaganda today.

 

[History Learner]

There was no mass executions of confederate leaders, nor were the plantation owners dispossesed, that's absurdly lenient treatment for a failed rebellion by the standards of the 19th century. Honesly that doing the bare minimum of supporting democratically elected state governments against hooded terrorists and disenfranchising traitors is seen as going to far just goes to show the effectiveness of lost cause propaganda today.

"We'll shoot you till you learn better." not only will not make Confederate sentiment go away, it's liable to get 200,000 Confederate soldiers still in the field in April/May of 1865 to turn to Bushwhacking.

Important historical note: By 1876, Northern voters and party bosses had made it clear to national leaders that their voters no longer had the stomach for enforcing Reconstruction and wanted the last troops pulled out. This informed the thinking of the "Bargain of 1876"; Reconstruction was going to end one way and one way only no matter who got elected.

 

[redjirachi]

Insert Woodrow Wilson joke here
Oh wait, this is pre-1900.

 

[Moderate Hero]

"We'll shoot you till you learn better." not only will not make Confederate sentiment go away, it's liable to get 200,000 Confederate soldiers still in the field in April/May of 1865 to turn to Bushwhacking.

Important historical note: By 1876, Northern voters and party bosses had made it clear to national leaders that their voters no longer had the stomach for enforcing Reconstruction and wanted the last troops pulled out. This informed the thinking of the "Bargain of 1876"; Reconstruction was going to end one way and one way only no matter who got elected.

The only way 200,000 confederate solderers could last that long past the war is if the southern aristocracy still owned the means of production allowing them to finance such an army. One of the biggest falsehoods the lost causes narrative peddles is the idea that Reconstruction governments existed only because the federal government created them, as opposed to the truth, that being that majorities of people in at least several southern states actually supported the Republican party and its policies. Look at South Carolina for instance which was a black majority state and with the support of a fraction of whites should have reliably Republicans. Instead what happened was that the Democratic minority managed to seize power at gunpoint and restore white supremacy because Democrats could still rely on plantation owners to finance their paramilitaries. Has the south Carolina ruling class been uprooted and the upper rung of society been composed of blacks and unionist whites unionist militias would have been able to stand on their own two feet without the support of the federal government and been able to suppress violence from the Democratic minority indefinitely.

For curiosity's sake though, looking at a case like South Carolina where you had a minority dead set on never accepting the majority's legitimacy and later violently deposed it, how could any "moderation" possible reduce the influence of the lost cause seeing as though these same people were known to lie and rewrite history to portray democratically elected Republican majorities as federal government imposed "tyranny"?

 

[History Learner]

The only way 200,000 confederate solderers could last that long past that war is if the southern aristocracy still owned the means of production allowing them to finance such an army. One of the biggest falsehoods the lost causes narrative peddles is the idea that Reconstruction governments existed only because the federal government created them, as opposed to the truth, that being that majorities of people in at least several southern states actually supported the Republican party and its policies. Look at South Carolina for instance which was a black majority state and with the support of a fraction of whites should have reliably Republicans. Instead what happened was that the Democratic minority managed to seize power at gunpoint and restore white supremacy because Democrats could still rely on plantation owners to finance their paramilitaries. Has the south Carolina ruling class been uprooted and the upper rung of society been composed of blacks and unionist whites unionist militias would have been able to stand on their own two feet without the support of the federal government and be able to suppress violence from the Democratic minority indefinitely.

For curiosity's sake though, looking at a case like South Carolina where you had a minority dead set on never accepting the majority's legitimacy and later violently deposed it, how could any "moderation" possible reduce the influence of the lost cause seeing as though these same people were known to lie and rewrite history to portray democratically elected Republican majorities as federal government imposed "tyranny"?

For one, the idea that it was all the fault of Planters is baseless; see how the Readjuster Party fell apart in Virginia or the 1896 Wilmington Coup. White Supremacy, not Marxist Class politics, was the root cause of the failure of Reconstruction as the Yeoman Whites had no interest in a multi-racial Democracy nor did Northern Whites for that matter; they had no stomach for the costs, in both blood and treasure, for propping up something they didn't even support themselves. Case in point: the moment Federal troops were withdrawn, the Southern State in question was "Redeemed".

Further, the idea that any insurgency would be dependent on the planters just doesn't bare itself out given the historical contexts of insurgencies or even the particular realities on the ground in the South in 1865.

 

[Moderate Hero]

For one, the idea that it was all the fault of Planters is baseless; see how the Readjuster Party fell apart in Virginia or the 1896 Wilmington Coup. White Supremacy, not Marxist Class politics, was the root cause of the failure of Reconstruction as the Yeoman Whites had no interest in a multi-racial Democracy nor did Northern Whites for that matter; they had no stomach for the costs, in both blood and treasure, for propping up something they didn't even support themselves. Case in point: the moment Federal troops were withdrawn, the Southern State in question was "Redeemed".

Further, the idea that any insurgency would be dependent on the planters just doesn't bare itself out given the historical contexts of insurgencies or even the particular realities on the ground in the South in 1865.

Of course it wasn't all the planters fault, but would you agree that having a ruling class that is hostile to reconstitution makes the success of reconstruction less likely that it would have been had the ruling class been supportive? Take them away and you level the playing filed a bit, even if you believe it's still horribly stacked against the success of Reconstruction. I'm not suggesting that states like Alabama or Florida were salvageable, but you don't think a class of wealthy black planters in Mississippi and South Carolina would have been able to finance and mobilize its own protection?

I'm also curious still curious as to what moderate actions could have been taken that would have weakened the lost cause, aside from not having any reconstruction at all, seeing as though blacks voting at all was enough to get them foaming at the mouth.

 

[History Learner]

Of course it wasn't all the planters fault, but would you agree that having a ruling class that is hostile to reconstitution makes the success of reconstruction less likely that it would have been had the ruling class been supportive? Take them away and you level the playing filed a bit, even if you believe it's still horribly stacked against the success of Reconstruction. I'm not suggesting that states like Alabama or Florida were salvageable, but you don't think a class of wealthy black planters in Mississippi and South Carolina would have been able to finance and mobilize its own protection?

I largely see the Planters as irrelevant, which is why I pointed out th examples I did; the Readjuster Party was exactly the coalition of Yeoman Whites and Freedman you propose and it ultimately fell apart due to racial lines. Likewise, the moment that led to the 1896 Coup in Wilmington largely came from poor and middle class Whites, again, not the Planters; whether or not they remained would've changed nothing. As for the specific question of Mississippi or South Carolina, no, I don't see it because it failed to be achieved IOTL with Federal troops backing them and nearly a decade of controlling the State Governments. Further, if the only other option is Democide along class/racial lines, not only is that unfeasible at the political level of the time, it is also blatantly morally wrong.

I'm also curious still curious as to what moderate actions could have been taken that would have weakened the lost cause, aside from not having any reconstruction at all, seeing as though blacks voting at all was enough to get them foaming at the mouth.

Essentially no Reconstruction, which is pretty much what Lincoln had likewise come to and recognized was the reality on the ground by April of 1865, with the case in point being his 10% plan.

 

[A Piece of History]

Unless you can butterfly away the Daughters of the Confederacy, then no. You would need some serious thought control in place to prevent that Lost Cause mentality from taking shape and with the USA being a democracy, such thought control is impossible.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

I would start with Lincoln not being assassinated.

IMO, the OTL outcome was the result of extreme back-and-forth shifts in Reconstruction. Johnson greenlighted "Conservative Reconstruction", which empowered ex-Confederates (often at the expense of Southern Unionists, and as partisan Democrats) and denied any improved political status for blacks. In reaction, Congressional Republicans enacted "Radical Reconstruction", which proclaimed complete and immediate civil equality for blacks. This scared many white Southerners, because in many areas and at least two whole states, blacks were an outright majority and would rule. That fear provided the motivation for the Redeemer terrorist campaign, which ended with blacks and Republicans excluded from power and Democrats (mostly ex-Confederates) in complete control. It was in this final context that "Lost Cause" mythologizing started.

With Lincoln running Reconstruction, I would expect a much more moderate course. Lincoln in his last days had spoken of blacks becoming citizens, and even suggesting some blacks should vote. But AFAIK, he wasn't considering immediate general enfranchisement, with its revolutionary consequences.

I think he would insist that the "reconstructed" enfranchise at least some blacks, thus breaking down the white monopoly of political power, while avoiding social upheaval. He would also move to establish the Republican Party in the south, using Federal patronage and his own contacts there among former Whigs.

This would start the South on the path to general equality, without provoking the violent counter-reaction of OTL. It would also avoid the concentration of political power and social ascendancy in the post-Confederate Redeemers, who used the "Lost Cause" to rally the support of whites.

In this context, there would be much less incentive for "Lost Cause" mythologizing.

 

[Moderate Hero]

As for the specific question of Mississippi or South Carolina, no, I don't see it because it failed to be achieved IOTL with Federal troops backing them and nearly a decade of controlling the State Governments.

Of course it "failed" to be achived, because wealth redistribution was never a goal of the federal government in the first place. Sure the state governments could have gone out on a limb and tried that on it's their own, but could they trust the federal government to balk at the violation of peoperty rights and pull out leaving them vunerable during the transition period.
It's very understandable why they would avoid such risks and follow the federal government rather than anger it, even if that left them unable to conaoldate local support because without federal troops you wont have a chance to build that support in the first place. Without the explicit blessing of the federal government southern republicans none of the radical actions that could have been taken had any real chance to begin with.

Essentially no Reconstruction, which is pretty much what Lincoln had likewise come to and recognized was the reality on the ground by April of 1865, with the case in point being his 10% plan.

I actully agree that would have lead to less resentment, but I will say that OTL reconstruction was the worst of both worlds in that it used enough force to piss people off but lacked the commitment to truly revolutionize Southern society.

 

[thekingsguard]

For the Lost Causers specifically, we don't need to look at the Civil War or Reconstruction... hell, even most of the former Confederates at that point wanted to put the rebellion behind them. No less than Lee himself completely dismissed Confederate nostalgia.

No, it was the sons and daughters of the generation that fought the war, not the folks who'd loved through it, that started making myths about the war, and why it was fought. As mentioned above, groups like Daughters of the Confederacy, as well as a crop of Southern academics and authors starting at the turn of the century, were the early pushers of "The Lost Cause of the Confederacy". They were the ones who built the monuments, dusted off the battle flags, and revived the KKK.

You wanna get rid of them? Have a small group of them be stupid enough to put thier money where their mouths are, and make "the South rise again"... only to be rejected by the South and utterly crushed in embarrassing fashion.

The Lost Cause gained steam because it turned the Confederates into heroes. So you gotta make the Lost Causers even bigger losers.

 

[Whiteshore]

hell, even most of the former Confederates at that point wanted to put the rebellion behind them. No less than Lee himself completely dismissed Confederate nostalgia.

Any source for this?

 

[Strategos' Risk]

You know what? Don't execute the Southern leaders like some have proposed. Don't martyr them. Maybe try to get some to flee abroad, look like defeated dogs swimming down to Brazil. But they'll be able to continue to tell myths from there.

Turn them all into James Longstreet. Make them work for the Union to rebuild order after the war, but with an abolitionist commissar behind every shoulder. Humiliate them. Force Nathaniel Forrest to go hunt down the Klan. Make the men who fought the civil war, at least the most prominent ones, appear as postwar collaborators of their own cause. Make them tear down their own symbols, go on speaking tours declaring the wrongness of their cause, to regain their money or influence. Those with Southern honor could retire, go into exiled, or die.

This would be incredibly hard to actually pull off, so I doubt that it was actually viable, but community service restitution would be a funny penalty. Not much of a Lost Cause to pine for if all of the men who embodied that cause are turned into scalawags, themselves.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Ensure that former slaves keep voting rights and property. Disposses the planter class, Spread the idea that the rebelion was caused by the old Planter class.

 

[Skallagrim]

At all costs, avoid revanchism. Do not give any space to the sentiment that the South lost a war. Do not ever, ever, ever call the Southerners "traitors". The narrative must be that they were misguided. Perhaps even deceived by a small, self-interested cabal of planter aristocrats. (But don't mane any names. Keep it vague. Anyone you accuse can become a symbol for a cause you wish to prevent from ever existing.)

Don't go the way of even revoking citizenship or voting rights for leading Southerners. Instead, get those exact people on board. Have Lee and Longstreet preaching Unionism along with Grant and Sherman. Depict them as gentlemen who always respected each other (which, by the way, is true in most cases). Re-embrace the "wayward sons" warmly, depict slavery not as a confederate error and sin, but as an antebellum error and sin, and do everything to just put the "late unpleasantries" behind you (as a nation). The postbellum period must be an "era of good feelings" to such an extent that the feeling associated with the whole secession is one of embarrassment. Something you wouldn't want to be reminded of, and which you'd like to minimise in the historical record, because it was that infamous time you did that silly thing for no good reason. Basically a nation-spanning Noodle Incident.

That's it. No Lost Cause. Of course, this automatically means no forceful Reconstruction, either. On the other hand, without all that bad blood and division, a more gradual improvement of race relations is vey likely. This happened in other countries, after all. The initial period would be worse for former slaves, but I strongly suspect things would thereafter improve, with no "regression" into Jim Crow and segregation. As always, 'slow & steady' and rule by soft decrees is the recipe for a more tranquil and desirable outcome in the long run.