Rating: 
Summary: Biased
Review: Being from the South when I saw this book at the Bookstore, I thought it would be an entertaining read. I've read many Civil War books that you could at least tell that they weren't biased. This one used historical fact and twisted and skew it to make it suit their purpose. Some of the book reflecting the truth, but the large majority of it was the reflection of their bitterness.
Rating:
Summary: Terrible
Review: This has to be the worst piece of un-reconstructed, neo-confederate garbage ever offered to the general public. A reviewer made me laugh out loud when I read "Being that we were not the victors of the War of Northern Agression, we could not tell our story, but had to leave it to the murderuos Yankee generals". Where to begin with this one. That 'history is written by the victors' garbage is meaningless in a society like ours. Anyone who is educated understands that writing on the Civil War was dominated by southerners (especially Virginians) until well into this century. Modern writing, whether it be by southerners or yankees, still feels the effects of that as writers use the old, southern biased books as sources. What we need is Civil War history with LESS, not more southern bias. Just incredible....
Rating: 
Summary: A Compilation of Facts We Aren't Supposed to Know
Review: Anyone Interested in American History probably knows of some of the factual material compiled in this book. At first the adversarial tone and non-PC rendering of history are a little stunning, but soon you realize that this is information that should be out there.The winner writes the history, and when the winner is the only one left with any functioning printing presses, the delivered mythology can be oppressive. In our non-Jeffersonian USA the culture in general, and history in particular, are seen simply as vehicles for profit. There is little reverence for historical truth or for long-dead ancestors here. But I still thank the Kennedy Brothers for publishing this book, and hope (vainly perhaps) that it will be read widely.
Rating: 
Summary: Thought provoking
Review: This work is definately biased, in-your-face, 100% pro-South-- which is not necessarily a complaint. Many of the Kennnedy's ideas have flaws, and their writing style is mediocre, but if you read with an open mind it'll really make you think about American society, government, and history. Much of the book deals with the cause of the Civil War: was it slavery? The Kennedy's say no. Conventional Wisdom and High School History says yes. But after reading this book I started thinking about wars in general, and the truth is, like any war, the politicians and the common soldiers fought for different reasons. The politicians of the South declared war to protect slavery, but the soldier of the South, who had no slaves and knew he never would, fought for his home, his family, and his honor-- he was simply tired of putting up with Yankee attitude. Similarly, some Northern soldiers fought to free slaves, but the vast majority loved America and didn't want to see her split.
Rating:
Summary: This book is full of bind, evil hatred
Review: This has to be one of the worst books ever written. The very worst part was the chapter ranting and raving about "Yankee Atrocities". Sure, the Union Army was far from perfect, and they did commit many atrocities, BUT THE REBEL ARMY WAS NO BETTER, IF NOT WORSE! Haven't the Kennedys heard of Fort Pillow? The St. Albans Raid? The Lawerence Raid? The attempted flaming of New York City, or the sucessful flaming of Chambersburg, PA? Do they know of corrupt, hate-filled Rebel personalities Nathan Forrest, "Bloody Bill" Anderson, William Quantrill, Jesse James, Jubal Early and Edmund Ruffin? (By the way, all these men, [with the exception of Forrest, who later repented]) are now burning in Hell for their sins?!) Do the Kennedys know that captured black Union soldiers were nailed to crosses and burned to death? And do they know that the Rebel Army had a MUCH bigger problem with drunkeness and profanity than the Union Army did? If you only have "The South Was Right" as a source for Civil War history, you'd think the South's Army was perfect, which, as shown above was not; most def! Also, giving the Civil War the alternitive term "The War For Southern Independence" was very inaccurate. It should be something like "The War With The Southern Rebellion", which is what I call it! Don't even open this book up. If you have the correct (Unionist) views, the table of contents alone will make you sick. C.B.
Rating:
Summary: Key Book in the Southern Freedom Movement
Review: If you want to know the rationale for Southern Independence, here's your essential beginning. One of the most important American books ---culturally and historically --- in the last several decades.
Rating:
Summary: If you want the truth, start here! But if you want
Review: to hear only what you wish, then by all means, do so...but at the risk of becoming stagnant.Is it biased? No more so than Yankee history. It is high time someone had the guts to tell the truth! Thequestion is....do YOU have the guts to read the truth?
Rating:
Summary: This book is very well researched and is truthful.
Review: This book is for people who wish to know true American history
Rating:
Summary: Lincoln unmasked
Review: This book is one of the greatest histories on the War for Southern Independence. It thoroughly dispatches with the inadequacies and false propaganda of the North. It shows the moral inconsistencies of the northern position on slavery as they were the slave runners. The book proves the term "honest Abe" is a fallacy.
Rating:
Summary: Superb representation of the Southern point of view.
Review: Being a very proud southernor, from the great state of Georgia, I am happy to finally read a history from the southern point of view. Being that we were not the victors of the War of Northern Agression, we could not tell our story, but had to leave it to the murderuos Yankee generals. A great justice has been paid to those fallen soldiers who died for the cause of freedom.
|
