Atlanta. Both times he was greeted as a hero. Many atlantans said thank you for taking the torch to our Downtown Business area and getting rid of it. Weve been able to rebuild. The phoenix has risen. This is the symbol of atlanta is the phoenix rising. And so he was greeted as a hero by. People. It wasnt until the lost cause and the development of that narrative really kicks in in the late 19th century early 20th century that sherman becomes demonized to the extent he was. Theres a great book. I have my list of books and i figured somebody would ask me whats good to read. One of them that i would recommend to you is a book by Ann Sarah Ruben called through the heart of dixie, and looks at shermans march and the memory of how it develops on both sides. Another great book is called shermans march in myth and memory. They explore this is phenomenon of what sherman comes to represent. From their argument, he comes to represent everything thats the antithesis of the cavalier society. Its the industrial north. Its not romanticizing war in any way. Its doing what has to be done. Order to destroy and to win on a grand sort of scale. And as caudle and ashdown said, grant killed a lot more people than sherman did. But sherman becomes the great villain. They said that sherman, grant defeated an army. But sherman killed a culture. Theres instinct that in terms of the scale of it for one thing. Sheridan has got the Shenandoah Valley. Youve got all of this from atlanta to sfaf na asavannah an back up to South Carolina. South carolina, i think, the images of shermans march, the georgia thing. But South Carolina still remembered it, too. A lot of what we know today about it is filtered through movies and books. Probably the thing that popularized shermans march the most was gone with the wind. Both the movie and the book. It presented sherman as the wind that came through that destroyed the culture. It gets back to what caudle and ashdown said, its sherman that destroys the culture and that becomes that, i think the term they use was the wind. This fire and wind that came through georgia. Sarah reuben made an interesting point about the destruction itself. I thought it was interesting, i left it out of my talk. She said we have the sense of the march to the sea as being the giant tidal wave, this tsunami. 60 miles across from one end to the other as it goes out to the sea. She said in reality it was more like fingers of destruction, stitches through the landscape because the army was advancing down roads. And most places they stayed a day, if that much. So the destruction, the destruction is limited to how far off the roads they can go. So she said there are vast areas in between those roads. That were untouched by it. And those people of course supplied food and help to the other people ho had lost so much during the march. Its interesting, because i had not even thought about this. We do have this image of tsunami of fire going across, and in fact, it really is more like fingers of destruction going across georgia. Yes, sir. People in the valley recognized that sheridan not only planned, organized and carried out zonal destruction, so this was an order of destruction. And it was very thorough, although theres many other phases to it. But thats different than what happened in georgia. Well, georgia, there was the order to destroy. I mean shermans order was to destroy certain types of property. I think the same thing, as you pointed out, sheridan and the valley. Its interesting, the myths continue in both places as to what was destroyed. A very distinguished historian, bud, you and i know, was telling me about the fact that he was with a group of people and a meeting like this and this man swore that every mill in the Shenandoah Valley had been burned. After the program was over with, this historian said where are we going to eat tonight . This guy said oh, were going to this wonderful restaurant in this restored mill, this mill thats been converted, civil war era mill thats been converted into a restaurant. So theres, there is this image that again that everything gets wiped out and destroyed. I dont know in terms of differences there. Because sherman had set out, and these were orders to destroy, as well. Grant knew what was going on. All of this happened with his full consent. We have this image of sherman as a lunatic that convinced 60,000 other people to go along with him on the binge of destruction. Hes just out there flatheading through the countryside. Nobody knows whats hes doing, hes just doing it on his own. It was all done with the permission of his superior officers in much the same way as sheridan. Its not coincidence. Its all happening at the same time. The lincoln administration, the government of the United States is saying enough is enough. Lets get it over with. I tend to think about it as like the atomic bomb. No one would stand here and say the atomic bomb, dropping an atomic bomb is a good thing, its a horrible thing, horrible thing, beyond horror. And yet, its one of those things that at the time it was felt it was necessary to do, to end the war. To use the tools that were at the disposal of the government. And today in looking back, we realize that even though tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people died, the casualties would have been even worse on both sides. We talk about how Many Americans would have been killed if we would have invaded japan. Think about how many japanese would have died as well. It would have been a mass slaughter. Just based upon what we saw at other places like okinawa. So it was a horrible, horrible thing. We look back now on the consequences of it and what it led to. It destroyed slavery. It preserved the United States of america. Horrible thing that in the end had the consequence of giving us the world that we live in today, the great country that we live in today. With that, yes, sir, ive got one question in the back back here. Quick comment. You ended with temporary times. My question is the following, is you had mentioned that sherman fought a hard war to create a soft peace. And im just wondering in contemporary times it seems like were fighting a soft war, in many places, and these soft wars continue, and we have a very hard peace. And one comment i have is in the libra codes and enhanced interrogation techniques in my opinion, these individuals are not entitled to libra core protections, because theyre dressed as civilians, targeting civilians and to be entitled to the rights of the libra codes, you need knob full uniform and respect libra codes. My question is, if sherman was general or president for a day, would hard war be justified to create soft pieces everywhere you are . Because what i see, my bias is showing, that we have multiple soft wars, theyre going to continue to grow like a virus. Because we are not doing what sherman did in terms of bringing about closure to some of these conflicts. I love questions like this. To me these are the kinds of questions that tell me that history is relevant. Its not just something fun to do. But we want to understand what happened in the past, because of its relevancy today. It helps us to understand. I think what i mentioned this whole area of shermans career, the counterinsurgency, something that has not been explored very well. Thats a great question. I wish i knew the answer to that. Youre making me think about this, i love this. This is the thing i tell audiences, you may not buy a single thing ive said up here, although what ive said is a compilation of what all the historians, a consensus to a large extent on much of this now. You may not buy any of it. What i hope is you will never look at this man and this march the same way. Before i step away from the podium, let me say its a real honor to be here with so many distinguished historians. Theres so many great people, Richard Mcmurray and jeffrey wert. You started the day out with the best, you started the day out with bud robertson and you ended it with the least. As far as im concerned. So thank you very much. [ applause ] book tv on cspan24 hours of nonfiction books and authorize every weekend. Here are some featured programs this weekend. On saturday at noon eastern, the 18th annual harlem book fair, the largest africanamerican book fair and the nations premier black literary event held every year in har lerm. Coverage includes black writers and safety literature, diversity and book accomplishing, a Panel Discussion about zora hurston and thur hed i glad you discussing how race still enslaves the american soul. Saturday after words. Eric fair, author of consequence a memoir, talks about his experience as an sbag greater in iraq. Hes interviewed by the director of National Security advocacy for human rights first. There was a great deal of nudity inside the sight. It was cold, it was december. The image of a number of men chained to their cell doors with their hands between hair legs which was an enhanced technique and Donald Rumsfeld said he stands at his desk all day. I can tell you that seeing someone in a forced standing position has nothing to doing with standing at a standing desk. It was it was torture. On sunday night at 10 00 p. M. Eastern, fdr and church hills strained relationship during world war ii is the subject of nigel hamiltons book commander in chief. It examines the military and tactical frustrations between president franklin d. Roosevelt and winston churchill. Go to book tv. Org for the complete weekend schedule. Next, historian edward done camp ker discusses why the south fought the civil war and why the north won which examines postwar arguments made by former confederates seeking to justify their split from the union and their defeat. In bonakember argues that slavery and not states rights was the primary reason for secession and disputes the myth the death that confederate general robert e. Lee was a better commandsder than grant and that grant only defeated lee because of superior troop numbers and resources. The Smithsonian Associates hosted this twohour event. Good evening, everyone. Can everyone hear me well . Yes, good. Im marian mcglock lynn, a program accorder and id like to welcome all of you tonight to what props to be a very stimulating program on the myth of the lost cause. It is always a pleasure to welcome ed bonakamper back. Through the years he has presented many outstanding programs for us on civil war topics. This is his tenth appearance with the Smithsonian Associates. Ed is the book review editor of civil war news which reviews all 250 plus new civil war books each year. He was an adjunct lick ter tourer history at mulen berg college for eight years and has history degrees as well as a law degree from yale. He served as a lawyer with the federal government more than 34 years and as a retired commander in the u. S. Coast guard reserve. Hes the author of six books on Civil War History including the myth of the lost cause, why the south fought the civil war and why the north won, which was published last fall and on which tonights program is based. And his book will be available through smithsonian muck shops outside the entrance to this auditorium at the end of tonights program and ed will be happy to sign copies for you then. So with that said, we have a very packed two hours in store for you. This is going to be a very engaging program. We want to bring ed out. Please join me in giving a very warm welcome to ed bonakaer. Thank you very much. Thank you, mary. Its a pleasure being back here at the smithsonian to talk about the civil war. And i really appreciate the great turnout tonight. It certainly shows the length to which people will go to avoid president ial town halls. And also, i do have to confess that as you heard, ive got two the history degrees and a law degree so you will be hearing an argumentive historian this evening. Which is probe a good time for me to say that these are my personal comments, theyre based on my personal research. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the smithsonian at all. This is completely bonakamper talking to you. So mary and the smithsonian should be off the hook. Okay. Were theernt to discuss a very important topic and that is the myth of the lost cause. Now, ill give you a couple examples of the myth in action. And then go on to explain what the details are of the myth, what the components are of the myth and also then well take a look at each one. The myth of the lost cause was created by exconfederates. Mediocre general early totally incompetent. General William Nelson pendleton and reverend William Jones between 1860 and 1900 to basically justify the civil war. What had happened was, the north fought the war. The north wouldnt war. Northerners wen back home and resumed their daily lives and really didnt care much about write bth war until maybe 100 years after the war. Southe southerners, on the other hand, had a lot to write about, and a lot to justify. What had happened was almost the entire war was fought in the south and the south was just an economic basket case by the end of the war because northern armies had gone through and destroyed pretty much anything of economic value. In addition, you have to realize that the souths major institution, social institution that is slavery had suddenly come to an end and there were between 3 1 2 and 4 million slaves with Big Questions about what happens to these africanamericans. And so southerners felt compelled to explain why it was that this devastation had occurred and that for example, 25 of southern white men between the ages of 20 and 45 were dead, not just casualties, they were dead as a result of the civil war. So there was a lot of explaining to do. And thats the origin of the myth, those first 30 years. But it has continued, and probably the best example are the seven volumes by douglas free man in the 1930s and 1940s. First of all explaining in the first four volumes called r. E. Lee that lee walked on water and then in the next three volumes, basically explaining any faults that lee might appear to have had by blaming all his subordinates. Thats called lees lieutenants which could have been call cad lees scapegoats. That was a continuation of the myth of the lost cause. The reason i felt compelled to write the back was as i went around the country talking to members of civil war round table i found that a lot of people who in my view should have known better were greatly affected and bought into a very many aspects of the myth of the lost cause. So thats why i think its important for a of us to consider what the myth is and how much we want to buy into that myth. A good example of what im talking about sort of a little change of position that occurred among southern leaders was on the threshold of the civil war as seven Southern States were seceding before lincoln even took office, Jefferson Davis, a senator from mississippi gave a very emotional farewell address to the United States senate in which he said sigh norah, and in that address, he explained that he felt compelled to leave and that his state belt compelled to leave the union because the institution of slavery was being threatened by the federal government and by northern states. And so that was his discretion in 186061. I believe that was december, 1860. Two decades later in 1818, Jefferson Davis published his twovolume memoirs. And in that work, Jefferson Davis adopts the traditional myth of the lost cause position and says, well, slavery really had almost nothing to do with the war. In fact, he states specifically there would have been a civil war even if no american had owned a slave. Okay . Just i wont comment on which one i think is the truth or the fiction, but just note the contrast between the two and this is very typical. And its why it is so important to go back and look at the evidence at the time of secession and the time of the formation of the confederacy. Now, as i said, a lot of people have bought into this over the years. And i think it great lit affected the historiography of the civil war whether you were born north, south, east or west, you absorb some or all of the myth. And thats why its important to understand what that myth is and to examine how valid you think it is based upon the evidence. Now, the statement i have behind me, and ill try to not rely upon the lower left corner because i realize at least a quarter of you cant see it anyway. This is a quote from the john keegan. John keegan is or was an internationally recognized military historian, wrote about 20 military history books. And so he lived in england. To be honest, he did not understand the civil war that well. He wrote a book on it eventually. And it was not a vet good book. But in one of his other books on intelligence in war, he just made a general statement sort of off the cuff, and this is where historians run into trouble and i do it myself all the time. You try to make a gem statement about something which is tangential to what youre writing about and what you know about. Keegan said the southern people were resolute in their determination to preserve states rights. The legal issue over which they had declared separation. So he bought into what i consider to be the myth that states rights was what the secession and the formation of the confederacy were all about. So lets now spring board off of that and let me tell you what i see as the major components of the myth. The first one ive just stated and thats an absolutely critical one. Slavery was not the primary cause. States rights was the primary cause of the civil war. Im now talking on the left there. The the myth goes on that slavery was a Benign Institution beneficial to whites and blacks alike. But then all of a sudden, it jumps into the the myth jumps into something that sounds a little inconsistent with what ive just said and says, by the way, the civil war was unnecessary because slavery was going to expire on its own within a fairly reasonable period of time. And well take a look at that. Further, the argument goes the south never had a chance to win the war and one would ask, well, if thats so, why did you start the war. And thus the south did the best it could with the resources that it had and part of this then is that robert e. Lee was the great military leader. And that he was one of the greatest general whos ever lived and you will find a lot of the books that take the lost cau