Rating: 
Summary: what!!?
Review: these to men who wrote this book have got to be the biggest dumbasses to walk this side of the earth. yes some of the stuff in this book is true. like that there were many reasons for the civil war starting like taxes politics and many other factors which i will not bore you with. however, take a moment and think about what it would be like if the south had won. right now we would be divided. up north would be extremly rich and populated. down south there would be a bunch of slave beating maniacs who want to appoint dictators and fight for there virginia ham which is there pride rather then get a little common sense.
this book is almost as dum as the scene in gods and generals where the young slave boy prays and asks why theres slavery to stonewall jackson. soon after they both get on there knees and pray and ask god why theres slavery. uhh.. hmmm maybe its becuz u pig bellied politicions are fighting for rich corporate leaders who if it were not for toturing otheres would not have as much money. the answer is yourself you no good hill billy red neck hicks. AVOID THIS BOOK!
Rating: 
Summary: Okay, mixed reviews
Review: It's understandable that there would be mixed reviews over a book like this. But that's what books are supposed to do: make us think and cause us to question ourselves. And that's exactly what gets accomplished in Kennedy's THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. No, I don't agree with everything in this book, but I do see some excellent arguements made and along the way, some excellent writing. I'm reminded of McCrae's BARK OF THE DOGWOOD with it's themes of north/south, race, traditions, and the delima Southerns face, whether still in the south or as a transplant up north. This book is worth a shot.
Rating:
Summary: Book on Confederate Political Correctness
Review: I find it almost impossible to believed that this book was actually written by two Americans who was educated in this nation. Selective quotes, selective choices of sources and totally one sided in perception, to list the follies of this book will probably required another book! Any educated Civil War (or "War for Southern Independence") reader will have a good time reading this book which borderlined on historical fantasy. But in fairness to the authors, if you wished to fight "northern propaganda" as they see it, you have to write a "southern propagranda" which this book truly is. If anyone wishes to read what a Soviet style twisted history book look like, this is it! Joseph Goebbels would be proud. I supposed the only harm this book might do is that it might mislead the undereducated, uninformed and the totally clueless portion of the English speaking population of the world.
Rating: 
Summary: Great points. (needs better organization and less repetition
Review: Finally, a book that lists the Confederacy's reasons for secession, after countless books on the war itself and Lincoln, the tyrant. I wish more people would read this and maybe the media/hollywood would finally stop using confederates as villains. Maybe they would also realize that the rebel flag is no different than the flags from any other nations that were driven to independence by unfair policies. The South, however, was invaded by armies who destroyed their cities and crops.. all in the name of "union"? The argument is still significant today, considering that federal authorities continue to overextend their constitutional powers and feel the need to tell states and communities that they should: 1. bus their children to unfamiliar schools on the other end of town, to acheive racial "diversity" 2. award special preference to people of certain races in school admissions, scholarships, jobs, promotions.... therby penalizing people of the more-intelligent and higher-acheiving races. 3. remove symbols of the confederacy such as rebel flags and the song "Dixie" because it might offend certain outdated, uselss organizations such as the NAACP, who need to create issues to keep the membership dues coming in.......
Rating:
Summary: THE TRUTH IS HARD TO TAKE
Review: This is an excellent book filled with shocking truths backed up with page after page of undisputable, reliable facts. Those who claim otherwise are simply unwilling to let go of their preconceived notions about the role the North played in the war between the states. Everyone should read this book.
Rating:
Summary: The North Wasn't Perfect
Review: This is a simple minded book for those who see things only in blue and grey. The basic thesis is that the North wasn't completely opposed to slavery (there were 236 slaves in NJ, after all); so therefore the south must have been right. Go figure.
Don't waste a minute on this thoughtless propaganda. It's not only politically incorrect (as the author proudly points out), it's just incorrect.
Rating:
Summary: Haven't read it yet
Review: But I would like to respond to the person claiming that slavery was not sinful and that some slaves had rights. HELLO! They were SLAVES! And may I remind you that they were NOT allowed to read, vote, or intermix with whites socially. You are the type that makes it hard for the South to get respect. To make a statemant like that makes you a racist disguised as a person of undiscriminate Southern pride.
Rating:
Summary: Doesn't deliver what it claims to deliver
Review: The authors could have benefited from a good editor and some contemplation of just what this book is about. This book does not in any way show -- much less prove -- that the south was right in its succession from the Union and its role in the ensuing war. The central issue surrounding the Confederacy's legitimacy is not so much that succession was unlawful (which is debatable) but that the Constitution is a legal contract between all the states of the Union and there are only two ways that contract can be broken: either all parties who have signed the contract agree to nullify it or one of the parties does something that breeches the contract. None of these conditions existed at the time the southern states succeeded. The authors make much of the fact that among Lincoln's campaign promises he vowed to check the expansion of slavery to any more western states and that this would mean that slave-owning states would be outnumbered in Congress. But a contract cannot be broken over what may or will happen, but over what has happened. The authors argue that Lincoln wanted to start a war so that the economic fruits of the south (meager as they were) could be forcibly taken. This, of course, ignores the fact that it was the Confederacy that fired on Fort Sumter without provocation and Lincoln had a legal obligation to protect federal property. It was only after Sumter that Lincoln called for 75,000 troops. If Lincoln had imperialistic designs, wouldn't he have called up troops the day after his inauguration the month before rather than the day after Sumter? If he lusted after the South's industrial and economic provisions, wouldn't he have sent those troops first to prosperous New Orleans or Atlanta or Nashville rather than the economically insignificant Richmond? The authors are strangely silent about all these pivotal issues about the wrongness or rightness of the Confederate cause. The authors do bring up a valid point with their introduction of the Reconstruction Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, both of which could be reasonably argued as a breech of the Constitution. Unfortunately for the Confederacy, the comes years after their own breech of contract. Most of the book is a fist-shaking at Yankee liberals who --according to the authors -- have kept the South in poverty and shame. When they bother to put forth supporting evidence, much of it is straw man evidence -- essentially undisputed details that the authors claim is disputed (much of Chapters 1, 2 and 3 proclaims facts they say is hidden from the public but can be found in most high school history books). Other times the evidence presented is sketchy and questionable and the authors conveniently ignore evidence that does not strengthen their case (the authors spend considerable time listing Yankee atrocities but ignore well-documented Confederate atrocities such as Fort Piullow, the attempts to set New York aflame, and the Kansas/Missouri blood baths). Still other times the authors use evidence without much reflection (the authors compare southern succession to the Baltic states breaking away from the former Soviet Union without appreciating the difference betweem a constitutional, democratic agreement between states and the unlawful annexation of regions by a totalitarian government). About half the time, however, the authors make sweeping statements without any supporting evidence at all (see pgs. 22, 34, 39, 40, 46, 47, 275, 293, 300, 301 for examples). Often these sweeping statements are unbelievably racist (such as bringing up rumors of Dr. Martin Luther King's alleged infidelities -- pgs. 294-5 -- and comparing the North's supposed 'culture genocide' of the South to the Nazi genocide of the Jews -- pg. 278) or sectionalist (calling Yankees everything from liars to murderers to greedy money-grubbing southern-haters). It's for this reason that this book gets only one star from me. I simply cannot recommend it, not because I'm a liberal or a liberal lackey (I'm neither) as the authors would probably characterize me, but because I find this geniunely offensive. What's more, I recognize that I'm neither a Northerner nor a Southerner but an American. At a time when being American is unpopular to the rest of the world, it is particularly important that we are unified without sectionalist mud-slinging that has little relevance for today.
Rating:
Summary: Unbelievable ignorance and bigotry
Review: ... However, I also study American History at the University of California at Davis, and I must say that I have never disagreed with a book so much in my entire life (excluding maybe "Mein Kampf") The simple fact that no one wants to admit is that the Civil War was fought over slavery. States' rights is something that the group with no power always claims- the same Southerners who were screaming about the big bad Federal Government when they seceeded saw no problem with that same government forcing northerners to obey the Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave Law. Jefferson Davis himself proclaimed states' rights as damaging to the Confederacy in 1862, since it was causing great faction among the Confederate states. The main ideal that the Confederacy believed in was white supremacy, as was stated by both the Confederate constitution and often by Confederate vice president Alexander Stephens. As for the myth that slavery was a great institution and slaves were "happy"? That sure doesn't explain why there were times when an entire FOURTH of the Confederate army remained behind in their home states to prevent slave uprisings. One final myth is that of the United South that was destroyed by northern forces. It is estimated that some 20 percent of the population in the Southern states was pro-Union. It became dangerous for Confederates to travel in areas of their own home states due to raids by Unionist Confederates. As northern armies came in on the South, they actually GREW in size despite enormous casualties- thanks to runaway slaves that were supposedly "happy" and thousands of Confederates that welcomed the Union armies. The South was right, eh? About what? White supremacy, oppression, and the need to expand slavery all across the nation forever? ... It's a shame that so many people still believe that the Confederacy was some kind of great "Lost Cause"...
Rating:
Summary: An embarrassment to the modern south!
Review: As a civil war reenactor, and passionate historian, I find this book to be morally and historically offensive! Most of the book contains half-truths and distortions while providing very few historical facts. One thing they left out was the Mississippi Draft of Secession which contains, "we thoroughly identify our cause with the institution of slavery!" While I agree that the majority of Southerners fought for home and hearth, the fact remains that Southern politics was controlled by a SMALL minority of elite plantation owners concerned only about their own economic self-interests. Also, parts of it are outright racist. In short, I would not recommend this book to any sensible person. The Kennedy brothers nearly make me ashamed to call myself a Southerner! Nearly!
|
