The Cult of the Lost Cause

Justin Mullis

Abstract

Conf ederate monument construction began immediately f ollowing the end of the Civil War in 1865. Though more than 150 years have passed since the f all of the Conf ederacy, many of these monuments continue to stand throughout the South. Construction began as a benevolent movement to memorialize the men who lost their lives on the battlef ields of the Civil War. However, beginning in 1890, the construction of Conf ederate monuments took on a new theme. The Cult of the Lost Cause used Conf ederate monuments as pro-Confederate propaganda to ref rame the legacy of the Conf ederacy f rom one of slavery to one of chivalry. Through the application of Milivoj Bešlin and Marko Škorić’s model of historical negationism onto Lost Cause propaganda, one can identif y the Cult of the Lost Cause as negationist. As most Conf ederate monuments explicitly promote the Lost Cause ideology and the Lost Cause narrative of the Civil War, one must also understand these monuments as instruments of historical negationism.

Introduction

After the fall of Reconstruction in 1877, a certain political rehabilitation of the Southern image took place. Organizations such as The United Conf ederate Veterans (UCV) and The United Daughters of the Conf ederacy (UDC) proposed a “Lost Cause” narrative that has gripped a certain minority of the American political Right f or more than a century and a half (Forest and Johnson 2018). This narrative minimizes the role of slavery in the South’s secession f rom the Union, and it promotes the myth of the heroic Conf ederate def ending a superior way of lif e (Loewen and Sebesta 2010; Barney 2007). This minimization of slavery, and its subsequent explanations f or the outbreak of the Civil War, diverts f rom historical consensus and must be classif ied as “historical negationism” (Loewen and Sebesta 2010; Bešlin and Škorić 2017). Lost Cause organizations, such as the UCV and the UDC, purposefully engaged in historical negationism by erecting Conf ederate monuments in their pro-Confederate propaganda campaign (Simpson 1975; Forrest and O’Connell 2020). This article is written in pursuit of f our goals. First, this article aims to provide a f irm understanding of the construction of Confederate monuments and the context of those constructions. Second, this article seeks to def ine “historical negationism” and apply the idea to the “Cult of the Lost Cause.” Third, this article seeks to condemn the Lost Cause narrative of the Civil War and Conf ederate monuments as two intertwined instances of historical negationism. Finally, by applying statistical data regarding monument

inscriptions, this article seeks to provide rebuttal commentary on certain specific arguments in def ense of Confederate monuments.

Background on the Cult of the Lost Cause

In the study of American history, a unique phenomenon existed in Southern historiography, beginning in the late 1870s and continuing into the present. This unique phenomenon was known as the Cult of the Lost Cause (Winberry 2018). The Lost Cause movement sought to ref rame the

“The Lost Cause movement sought to reframe the legacy of the Confederacy legacy of the Conf ederacy from one of slavery to one of gallant and chivalric from one of slavery to one of gallant and heroes defending their way of lif e chivalric heroes defending their way of (Giguere 2019). Having begun in life” (Giguere 2019). 1877, this Lost Cause movement became more cohesive in 1889 (Simpson 1975). Af ter the f all of Radical Reconstruction with the Compromise of 1877, a certain desire grew among f ormer Confederate soldiers f or a consolidated veterans’ organization. This desire led to the f ormation of the UCV in 1889 (Simpson 1975). This association attempted to address the Southern shame for the Conf ederate defeat in 1865 (Simpson 1975). In 1898, the leadership of the UCV resolved to reframe the Southern historiography of the Conf ederacy. The governing body of the UCV introduced the “six-plank platf orm” to aid this ef f ort. The most important of these was the creation of a mythology surrounding f ormer Confederates. The “six-plank platform” promoted the Conf ederate soldier as a chivalric knight def ending his homeland f rom invasion. Likewise, it promoted the Conf ederate leader, embodied by the Conf ederate president Jefferson Davis, as a noble statesman aiding a noble cause (Simpson 1975). A second important f actor in ref raming the Southern historiography of the Civil War was the minimalization of slavery (Forrest and O’Connell 2020; Simpson 1975). From the Lost Cause point of view, the benevolent system of slavery benefitted both the slaveholders and the slaves (Pollard 1868). A f inal important f actor in ref raming the Southern historiography of the Confederacy concerned itself with the South’s motivations for secession. Lost Cause organizations, f irst the UCV and then the UDC, aimed to ref rame the motivations f or the war by insisting that the South seceded to def end their ideal of dual f ederalism, or “states’ rights” (Simpson 1975; Forrest and O’Connell 2020). In the Lost Cause narrative of the Civil War, the Conf ederacy did not f ight f or material interests, but rather f or a perceived better way of lif e. In ref raming the Southern historiography, the Cult of the Lost Cause sought to reshape how the common man understood the history of the South so that the contemporary South would not be treated with scorn (Simpson 1975; Forrest and O'Connell 2020). The Cult of the Lost Cause’s efforts was largely successful. By the 1910s, the public regarded the Lost Cause narrative of the Civil War with the same respect as Northern

interpretations (Simpson 1975). The Lost Cause movement even managed to convince one president, William Howard Taf t, of its respectability (Simpson 1975). Between 1890 and 1915, the Cult of the Lost Cause successfully reframed the legacy of the South (Simpson 1975; Forrest and O’Connell 2020). Integral to the ref raming effort, what some may call a propaganda effort, was the erection of monuments to the f allen Conf ederacy and its leaders (Forrest and O’Connell; Simpson 1975). As John A. Simpson writes, f ollowing the death of Jefferson Davis on December 6, 1889, “the preservation of Confederate valor became more than a f rame of mind; it embraced an entire movement dedicated to the construction of monuments” (1975). Monument construction did not begin in 1889, but there was a

“Proponents of the Lost Cause feared that, without embodiments of the Confederacy present in public spaces, the American public would reject and forget revival of interest in monument construction between 1889 and 1915, given the aged nature of the the Lost Cause narrative of American remaining f ormer Confederates history” (Simpson 1975). (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). Proponents of the Lost Cause f eared that, without embodiments of the Conf ederacy present in public spaces, the American public would reject and f orget the Lost Cause narrative of American history (Simpson 1975). Confederate monuments would serve to preserve the Lost Cause narrative of American history in Southern public history (Simpson 1975; Forrest and O’Connell 2020). In the mid-1890s, the UCV began collecting f unds to erect a monument to Jefferson Davis in Richmond, Virginia. However, the UCV proved incapable of collecting the money necessary for the monument’s construction. For this reason, at the Ninth UCV Reunion in 1899, the organization transferred responsibility f or revenue-raising to the UDC (Simpson 1975). The UDC was, in ef fect, the UCV’s daughter organization, dedicated to the same ideas. Beginning in 1899, with the assumption of responsibility f or the Davis monument by the UDC and the aging of the UCV, the UDC would serve as the f oremost important organization in both the Lost Cause movement and the construction of Conf ederate monuments (Simpson 1975). Evolving into a cohesive pro-Confederate propaganda movement by the late-1880s, the Cult of the Lost Cause sought to redef ine the Southern image. Through their usage of propaganda, the Lost Cause movement was successful in their ef f orts (Simpson 1975). Beginning in 1890, the UCV and the UDC constructed Confederate monuments as integral pieces of their propaganda efforts (Simpson 1975; Forrest and O’Connell 2020).

Times, Contexts, and Motivations Surrounding the Monuments

In the study of history, it is of ten difficult to f ind absolute truth. Generalizations can be made, but outliers almost always exist within a broad set of statistical data. A large majority of Confederate monuments serve the Lost Cause ideology, but one cannot make this accusation against all Conf ederate monuments (Forrest and O’Connell 2020).

To begin to understand the nature of these monuments, a statistical analysis must f irst be conducted upon existing Conf ederate monuments. Danequa Forrest and Heather O’Connell’s 2020 research study, “Confederate Monument Inscriptions: Different Times, Dif f erent Places, Different Messages,” published in the Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race provide statistics for analysis. In this study, Forrest and O’Connell outline three broad categories of monument inscriptions: “Lost Cause;” “plain;” and “dead” (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). Forrest and O’Connell def ine the f irst category of inscriptions as “Lost Cause” inscriptions. This category accounts f or f ifty-nine percent of all Conf ederate monument inscriptions (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). These are inscriptions that explicitly glorif y the f ormer Confederacy and its leaders. These inscriptions use positive terms, such as “heroism” and “generosity,” to describe the f ormer Confederacy (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). Additionally, these inscriptions use negative terms, such as “conquering foe” to describe the Union (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). These inscriptions were most common between 1890 and 1915. Af ter these f ifteen years, certain new monuments continued to include “Lost Cause” inscriptions, but the second category of inscriptions would dominate Conf ederate monuments (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). The second category of monument inscriptions is that of “plain” inscriptions. These inscriptions account f or thirty-five percent of all inscriptions upon Conf ederate monuments (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). “Plain” inscriptions are more historically descriptive in nature than those within the “Lost Cause” category. Monuments with this kind of inscription stand primarily at historic sites. These inscriptions typically list the names of f allen Confederate soldiers (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). These inscriptions are similar to those in the third category in that they primarily relate to the Conf ederate dead.

The f inal category of monument inscriptions is that of “dead” inscriptions. This category accounts f or six percent of all Conf ederate monument inscriptions (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). “Dead” inscriptions are similar to “plain” inscriptions, but they are more poetic than descriptive. Monuments with these inscriptions typically list the Conf ederate dead of a given town, city, or surrounding area (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). These inscriptions were primarily inscribed upon Confederate monuments erected before 1890 (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). As these monuments were erected closer to the end of the war, they are more genuinely mournful f or the death of Confederate soldiers. In their study of Conf ederate monument inscriptions, Danequa Forrest and Heather O’Connell came to the f ollowing conclusions. Fif ty-nine percent of Confederate monument inscriptions are “Lost Cause” inscriptions. Thirty-five percent are “plain” inscriptions. Finally, only six percent of inscriptions are “dead” inscriptions (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). Considering these results, not every Confederate monument can be identif ied as explicitly “Lost Cause” in nature. For arguments to be made against Conf ederate monuments, this qualif ication must be made. However, f or the sake of convenience, this qualif ication will only be made once.

Defining Historical Negationism

The Cult of the Lost Cause originated in the late-nineteenth century, f ollowing the f all of Reconstruction in 1877 (Simpson 1975). Through a coordinated propaganda effort, this movement sought to rehabilitate the Southern image f rom its pre-Civil War context to a new, and f alse, narrative (Simpson 1975; Forrest and O’Connell 2020). The method by which this rehabilitation took place is known as “historical negationism.” Historical negationism is the intentional manipulation of a historical narrative in pursuit of political gain or moral justif ication of past actions and actors (Bešlin and Škorić 2017). This idea has been known by a variety of different terms throughout history. “Revisionist history” is the most prominent of these terms. However, this term is a misnomer. Proper historiography requires constant revision, as new sources produce new evidence to enlighten the narrative of history (Rampolla 2010; Bešlin and Škorić 2017). “Historical negationism” is a much more suitable term, as the actions of its perpetrators actively engage in negating a widely understood historical narrative in pursuit of political gain (Bešlin and Škorić 2017). Milivoj Bešlin and Marko Škorić’s study of historical negationism in post-socialist Serbia provides the best model f or identifying historical negationism. Bešlin and Škorić put f orth a series of f ive questions to identif y historical negationism: how reliable are the sources used; how do claims f it into the modern consensus of history or how the world works; does the author engage in conf irmation bias; and does the author have a substantial ideological bias that guides his writing (Bešlin and Škorić 2017)? Bešlin and Škorić’s model of historical negationism can be applied to Lost Cause propaganda to understand the nature of the Cult of the Lost Cause. Through this application, one can identif y the movement as negationist.

Condemning the Cause

As noted above, historical negationism is the intentional manipulation of a historical narrative in pursuit of political gain (Bešlin and Škorić 2017). This section serves to apply Bešlin and Škorić’s model of historical negationism to the Lost Cause. This section is comprised of an analysis of “A Measuring Rod to Test Textbooks, and Ref erence Books in Schools, Colleges and Libraries,” henceforth referred to as the “Rutherf ord Report,” written by Mildred Lewis Rutherf ord. In applying Bešlin and Škorić’s model, the Lost Cause f ails on every point. At the annual reunion of the UCV in 1919, the organization’s governing body called f or a committee to convene to study the treatment of the South in scholarly textbooks (Huf f man 2019). Fif teen members f rom the UCV, the UDC, and the Sons of Conf ederate Veterans (SCV) comprised this joint committee. Cornelius Irvine Walker chaired the committee, but its most notable member was Mildred Lewis Rutherford (Huffman 2019). Af ter a year of study and consideration, the Rutherford Committee published a report on

the character of the South in American history textbooks and its proposed methods of redress.

The Rutherf ord Report is twenty-four pages long, so it is unreasonable to excerpt large sections to provide commentary on them. However, the Rutherford Report does provide a f oreword by Mildred Lewis Rutherford. This f oreword sets questionable implications regarding scholarly works of American history and provides the reader with a basic understanding of the larger report. “Realizing that the text-books in history and literature which the children of the South are now studying, and even the ones f rom which many of their parents studied bef ore them, are in many respects unjust to the South and her institutions, and that a f ar greater injustice and danger is threatening the South today f rom the late histories which are being published, guilty not only of misrepresentations but of gross omissions, refusing to give the South credit f or what she has accomplished, as Historian of the U. D. C, and one vitally interested in all that pertains to the South, I have prepared, as it were, a testing or measuring rod. Committees appointed by Boards of Education or heads of private institutions and their teachers can apply this test when books are presented f or adoption, so that none who really desire the truth need be hampered in their recommendation for acceptance or rejection of such books. Absolute f airness to the North and South is stressed as only Truth is History” (Rutherford 1920).1 Just as Rutherford makes controversial claims in this f oreword, so does she throughout the larger report. This warrants an analysis of historical negationism. Such analysis, based on the work of Bešlin and Škorić, f ollows. How reliable are the sources used? Throughout the report, Rutherford makes many claims about American history and provides sources through the usage of quotes. However, the quotes provided by the report are either taken out of context or wholly unreliable. For instance, to substantiate a claim that the Constitution did not create a perpetual union, the Report cites three quotes by Daniel Webster. Though a prominent statesman of his time, one can question Webster’s expertise regarding the original intent of the Constitution, as he was only six years old during its ratif ication (Current 2021). The Rutherf ord Report relies heavily on the quotes f rom Daniel Webster to substantiate this specif ic claim, so a substantiation of Webster’s expertise on the Constitution and its original intent would be welcome. The report gives no such substantiation in this case, nor does it provide substantiation of any other sources used (Rutherford 1920). Many of the sources cited in this report are unreliable. How do claims f it into the modern consensus of history? The claims made in this report drastically depart f rom the consensus of history. For example, as its third claim, the Rutherf ord Report asserts “The North Was Responsible f or the War between the States”

1 This foreword is unedited. All italicized words and punctuation appear here as they did in the original report.

(Rutherford 1920). This claim that the North began the war completely ignores the Battle of Fort Sumter, largely regarded as the beginning of the Civil War (Britannica 2021). The Battle, begun by cadets f rom the Citadel, a Southern military education institution, involved an aggressive action by the South (Britannica 2021). Negationist claims, such as this, are made throughout the report, and these claims diverge f rom the modern consensus of history. Does the author engage in conf irmation bias? In the twenty-three pages of the Rutherf ord Report, eleven claims are substantiated by more than seventy pieces of supporting evidence. Not once does the Rutherford Report discuss evidence that contradicts its thesis (Rutherford 1920). This is undoubtedly confirmation bias. Does the author have a substantial ideological bias that guides her writing? To analyze a potential ideological bias of the author, the author’s character must be analyzed. Born in Georgia in 1851, Mildred Lewis Rutherford came f rom a wealthy slave-owning f amily (Marshall 2005). In 1899, Rutherf ord became the historian general of the UDC and advocated the Lost Cause ideology (Marshall 2005). Throughout her lif e, Rutherford supported “Old South” values in the f ace of a progressing society (Marshall 2005). The question of ideological bias must be answered in the af firmative. The Rutherf ord Report embodies the negationist ideology of the Lost Cause. The minimization of slavery, the reframing of the Southern motivation f or war, and the shif ting of blame f or the war to the Union are all claims made in this report (Rutherford 1920). Through the application of Bešlin and Škorić’s model of historical negationism, this report is revealed as an agent of historical negationism. First, its sources are unreliable. Second, its claims diverge f rom the modern consensus of history. Third, its author engages in conf irmation bias. Finally, a substantial ideological bias guided the author’s writing. As this report both embodies the ideology of the Lost Cause and has been proven as negationist, it is logical to accuse the Lost Cause, and all of its agents, of being negationist.

Commentary on Specific Arguments in Defense of Confederate Monuments

Despite evidence that condemns Confederate monuments as Lost Cause propaganda, certain arguments in def ense of the monuments continue to persist (Carrington and Strother 2021). First, monument defenders argue that Conf ederate monuments purely serve to commemorate Confederate soldiers who died in battle (Edwards 2020; Forrest and O’Connell 2020). Second, monument defenders argue that Confederate monuments represent Southern heritage and not hatred (Edwards 2020; Forrest and O’Connell 2020). Both of these arguments are f lawed. In a 2020 statement f rom Linda Edwards, current President-General of the UDC, Edwards characterized Confederate monuments as merely “memorial[s] to our

f orefathers who f ought bravely during f our years of war.”2 This characterization, though prominent among defenders of Confederate monuments, is misleading (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). As seen through statistical data on the explicit messages of Conf ederate monuments, “dead” monuments only account f or six percent of all Conf ederate monuments (Forrest and O'Connell 2020). The argument of memorial, though perhaps well-intentioned, collapses in the f ace of statistical data. A second argument in def ense of Confederate monuments also collapses in the f ace of f acts. This argument is that Conf ederate monuments are pieces of Southern heritage and represent Southern history (Southern Poverty Law Center 2019). One could argue that Conf ederate monuments represent Southern beliefs or perceptions, or a subsection thereof, but one cannot argue that Conf ederate monuments represent Southern history. The study of history entails perpetual and thorough analyses of primary documents. It demands constant revision, as new and enlightening sources are made available f or analysis (Rampolla 2010). Improper revision f or political gain is historical negationism (Bešlin and Škorić 2017). As proven above, the Lost Cause narrative of history is negationist. Fif ty-nine percent of Confederate monuments support the Lost Cause narrative, and they are subsequently negationist. As such, one cannot observe these Conf ederate monuments as true representations or analyses of Southern history. Through the application of statistical data on the explicit messages of Confederate monuments, two popular defenses of these monuments are proven f alse. As only a minority of monuments are classified as “dead” monuments, one cannot observe most Conf ederate monuments as genuine memorials to the Conf ederate soldiers that died on the battlef ields of the Civil War (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). Furthermore, as an overwhelming majority of Confederate monuments are “Lost Cause” monuments, one cannot observe these monuments as representations of any true heritage of the South (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). The arguments of memorial and Southern heritage are not based in f act.

Conclusion

The initial construction of the numerous Confederate monuments in the United States of America dates back to 1865, immediately f ollowing the end of the Civil War and the f all of the Conf ederate States of America (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). Following the f all of Radical Reconstruction in 1877, an acceleration in Conf ederate monument construction accompanied a propaganda effort intended to rehabilitate the “Southern” image, known as the “Cult of the Lost Cause” (Simpson 1975). Largely successful, the Lost Cause narrative of the Civil War detailed the “glorious” Conf ederate leaders and soldiers who f ought to def end their homeland and their way of lif e f rom the “aggressive” North (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). This narrative elevated the argument of states’ rights and minimized the role of slavery as the reason f or the outbreak of the Civil War (Simpson

2 This quote is slightly modified to fit the rhetorical style of this article. The only modification is the addition of the letter “s” to the end of the word “memorial.” To read the full context and to see the original quote, follow the link that appears in the bibliography.

1975). Monuments erected to the Conf ederacy in the American South reflect this Lost Cause propaganda effort (Giguere 2019; Forrest and O’Connell 2020). Through the application of Bešlin and Škorić’s model of historical negationism to Lost Cause propaganda, specifically A Measuring Rod to Test Text Books, and Reference Books in Schools, Colleges and Libraries by Mildred Lewis Rutherford, one must identif y the Lost Cause narrative of American history as negationist. As a vast majority of Confederate monuments explicitly support this f alse narrative of history, one must also identif y these monuments as instruments of a f alse and harmful interpretation of American history (Forrest and O’Connell 2020). How this inf ormation should be used in regard to the potential removal of Confederate monuments f rom public spaces ought to be lef t to the citizens of the communities to which specif ic monuments belong. However, one recommendation will be made regarding the public discourse over Confederate monuments.

The removal of Confederate monuments must be done democratically. Non-democratic measures of removal, such as the spontaneous toppling of the “Silent Sam” statue on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, only serve to bolster the existing partisan views of Confederate monuments (Forest and Johnson 2018; Levenson 2020). These measures embolden division (Forest and Johnson 2018). For true progress to occur, divisions must be reconciled, not bolstered. Measures f or removal must come f rom the people, but they must not be spontaneous. They must be the results of democracy. Individual members of a community must be brought together to discuss the intents and ef fects of Confederate monuments before any removal of these monuments can take place. This idea of “prescriptive forgetting” is outlined in Benjamin Forest’s and Juliet Johnson’s article “Confederate Monuments and the Problem of Forgetting” (2018). There is no easy solution to the issue of Conf ederate monuments in public spaces, but the path to reconciliation in the United States of America is not through bitter spontaneity. Proper reconciliation can only take place through open, vulnerable, and honest discussions (Forest and Johnson 2018). 

References

Barney, William L. 2007. The Making of a Conf ederate: Walter Lenoir's Civil War. Cary, NC: Oxf ord University Press. Bešlin, Milivoj and Marko Škorić. 2017. “Politics of Memory, Historical Revisionism and Negationism in Postsocialist Serbia.” Filozofija i Društvo 28, no. 3: 631-649. DOAJ (February 8, 2021). Britannica. 2021. “Battle of Fort Sumter.” Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Fort-Sumter (April 20, 2021).

Carrington, Nathan T., and Logan Strother. 2021. “Who Thinks Removing Confederate Icons Violates Free Speech?” Politics, Groups, and Identities 9, no. 1: 208-218. Taylor and Francis Online (February 12, 2021). Current, Richard N. “Daniel Webster.” Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Daniel-Webster (April 20, 2021). Edwards, Linda. 2020. “Statement f rom the President-General.” United Daughters of the Confederacy. https://hqudc.org/ (March 6, 2021). Forest, Benjamin, and Juliet Johnson. 2018. “Conf ederate Monuments and the Problem of Forgetting.” Cultural Geographies 26, no. 1: 127-131. SAGE (February 12, 2021). Forrest, Danequa L., and Heather A. O’Connell. 2020. “Conf ederate Monument Inscriptions: Dif ferent Times, Dif ferent Places, Dif ferent Messages.” Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race: 1-23.

Giguere, Joy M. 2019. “The (Im)Movable Monument: Identity, Space, and The Louisville Conf ederate Monument.” The Public Historian 41, no. 4: 56-82. MUSE (February 12, 2021). Huf f man, Greg. 2019. “TWISTED SOURCES: How Confederate propaganda ended up in the South's schoolbooks.” Facing South. https://www.facingsouth.org/2019/04/twisted-sources-how-confederatepropaganda-ended-souths-schoolbooks (April 22, 2021). Levenson, Michael. 2020. “Toppled but Not Gone: U.N.C. Grapples Anew with the Fate of Silent Sam.” New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/us/uncsilent-sam-statue-settlement.html (May 4, 2021). Loewen, James W. and Edward H. Sebesta. 2010. The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The “Great Truth” About the “Lost Cause.” Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi. Marshall, Anne E. 2005. “Mildred Lewis Rutherford (1851-1928).” New Georgia Encyclopedia. https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/historyarchaeology/mildred-lewis-rutherford-1851-1928 (April 21, 2021). Pollard, Edward A. 1868. The Lost Cause Regained. New York: G.W. Carleton and Co., Publishers.

Rampolla, Mary L. 2010. A Pocket Guide to Writing in History, 9th Ed. Boston: Bedf ord/St. Martin’s. Rutherf ord, Mildred Lewis. 1920. A Measuring Rod to Test Text Books, and Reference Books in Schools, Colleges and Libraries. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/measuringrodtot00ruth/page/n3/mode/2up (April 30, 2021).

Simpson, John A. 1975. “The Cult of the ‘Lost Cause.’” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 34, no. 4: 350-361. JSTOR (February 12, 2021). Southern Poverty Law Center. 2019. “Whose Heritage? Public Symbols of the Conf ederacy.” Southern Poverty Law Center. https://www.splcenter.org/20190201/whose-heritage-public-symbolsconf ederacy (April 28, 2021). Winberry, John J. 2018. “‘Lest We Forget’: The Confederate Monument and the Southern Townscape.” Southeastern Geographer: 19-31. ProQuest (February 12, 2021).