Jim, although I have not got my copy in front of me, I have read "The Lost Cause" and its explanation for there being a "Lost Cause." I recall its explanation being quite similar to that which Wikipedia states as,

"The Lost Cause is the name commonly given to a literary movement that sought to reconcile the traditional society of the Southern United States to the defeat of the Confederate States of America in the Civil War of 1861–1865. Those who contributed to the movement tended to portray the Confederacy's cause as noble and most of the Confederacy's leaders as examplars of old-fashioned chivalry, defeated by the Union armies not through superior military skill, but by overwhelming force."

I tend to agree with about all that Wikipedia claims except I think the use of Lost Cause today extends a ways beyond "a literary movement" - not only because it coincides with other Lost Cause books/articles, but also because it coincides with my own feelings about the Lost Cause.

If you subscribe to this explanation of The Lost Cause, then it becomes clear that the need for reconciliation of defeat, nobility in the face of overwhelming odds and chivalry (never closely associated with the north) do not apply to the north.

That would explain to me why there is no frequently seen writing, reference or attribution of the Union's CW role to any kind of a northern Lost Cause - simply stated, the north's Cause was not lost, it was won.

Hence, I tend to disagree with you on your position that there ever was any broadly acknowledged, recognized or published northern Lost Cause.

Have I missed something, Jim? If so, please pipe me on board. I am ready to learn.