Rating: 
Summary: The South Was Right
Review: My interest in the Civil War started with a goal of understanding "Why war was inevitable" given that secession would occur. "The South Was Right" gives great insight into the real causes of war. The issue of slavery vs Tariffs will be debated forever as the cause, but this book clearly presents the concept that Lincoln saw that the loss of Southern agriculture and ports for internationsl trading would mean financial disaster for the Union. The book documents well that money raised from taxation on imports and exports through Southern ports and particularly of southern agriculture products (King Cotton) fed the construction of the northern infrastructure (canals, roads, bridges) and ignored the the needs of the south. Upwards of 75% of federal revenues came from southern imports/exports and the south received little of the benefit of that revenue. This insight alone made my reading of this book well worth the time spent.A new and interesting tidbit of information was revealed in this book. Why was Ft Sumpter so important? Why fire on Ft Sumpter? Lincoln refused to vacate Ft Sumpter after secession, making Ft Sumpter an occupied military installation, occupied by the Union Army on the soil of the CSA. Ft Sumpter was being resupplied by sea on the order of Lincoln, and Ft Sumpter was the Customs House in Charleston. All Tariffs were collected at Ft Sumpter and it would appear that the Union refused to give up tax collection on cargo passing through Charleston. It would also appear that this war was was fought over taxes. Further, when I read of the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in 1867, and the deceipt, illegality, and coercion required to ratify the 14th Amendment, which effectively killed the concept of "States Rights", I was deeply affected. The case is made that the 14th Amendment was not legally ratified and one could conclude that all Supreme Court decisions that follow the 14th Amendment are without basis... Almost all civil rights decisions go to the 14th Amendment and the growth in power of the central federal government eminates from the 14th Amendment. Further revelations concerned a summary of historical facts of slavery, roles and attitudes of some blacks favorable to the south, summary of many Yankee atrocities, treatise on Slavery as the cause of the Civil War, and dealing with numerous "myths" that support the traditional causes and history of the war between the North and the South. As a Texan, I well remember learning i n the 1950sthat "Lincoln was the Greatest president because he freed the slaves" and can recite to this day the Gettysburg Address. I do believe that I am the victim of these "Yankee Myths". I greatly value the liberation from those myths that "The South Was Right" has provided. This book was not written to be an objective evaluation of both sides of all of these issues. But it does present the Southern view, as told by southerners, and presents much compelling evidence and logic. It goes far to balance out the barrage of traditional Yankee history that we all learn in school. Do not expect to read about Southern Atrocities, Southern culpability in the causes of the war, Southern political miscalculations, or fault in any southern leaders. "The South Was Right" will sadden you to read that Lincoln trampled the Constitution in starting a war to "Save the Union"... He needed to "Save the Union from bankruptcy" and he started a war to do so. And you will be saddened to see the extremes that the Northern politicians went to in enacting the laws of Reconstruction and reatification of the 14th Amendment. Be prepared to be emotionally affected if you value the letter of the law in the U S Constitution. This book has altered my view in many respects. I highly recommend it in spite of its flaws.
Rating: 
Summary: Thought-Provoking
Review: Putting aside the brutalities of the war and committed what against whom, the authors highlight what mainstream historians too often ignore: the War for Southern Independence (or perhaps more fitting in this context, the War of Northern Aggression) DID result in radical, fundamental change to the original Constitutional Republic--namely, the shift of power from the sovereign states to a powerful central government. The authors make a forceful argument for the moral, constitutional and legal right of the southern states to secede from the Union, one that, as a lawyer and history buff, I find impossible to fault.
Rating: 
Summary: bald faced lies
Review: As one born and raised in the south, and a student of the Civil War for over 30 years, I never ceased to be amazed at the fools who defend the south. To this day (and this is the year 2000), the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other such organizations still say the war was not fought over slavery. Idiocy. There argument is very few southeners were slaveowners. That is correct. So what does that say about the fools who fought, bled and died so that the rich elite could own their slaves? Sorry boys, but you book is pure nonsense. The south was very wrong. And it remains wrong to this day. Consider the South Carolina flap over the Confederate battle flag. They speak of Southern heritage. That damned flag was put up in 1962, at the height of the desegregation fight. The south, I am afraid, is nothing more than a pit of hypocrisy, just as it was in the days of slavery. I rank this piece of garbage right up there with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Rating:
Summary: This is regrettably the Truth.
Review: The Northern account of this war has for too long been the official "gospel." I have had plenty of opportunity to hear that side of it for free. All the Kennedy's have done, is show you the other side. It is shameful what the North did to the South, especially given the fact that it was apparent the North didn't give a rat's ( ) about "black freedom," or any other consideration. Lincoln was a tyrant of the worst order. He was the author of the modern centralized government, and a man who believed " the ends justify the means." He met his end by a man who took him up on that premise. A wiser coarse of action, would have been to allow the South to depart, and negotiate later on honorable terms when tempers were cooler. It is difficult to see why the South couldn't part on agreeable terms. Black Slavery? Hell, the U.S. is on better terms with Communist China, and they're far worse slave masters, numerically speaking! (Unless you don't mind "yellow" slavery) The South was fighting for a principle. It was the North, its money as stained as the slave trade itself, that fought the war; not for "Union, Negro", or "Freedom." It was a bloody war for Centralized Power. Love them or hate them, the Kennedy's have done us all a service in showing us the reeking source of our current governmental system; one you would have probably never have gotten, had it not been for their research. It's damning enough to turn the Lincoln Memorial into a urinal.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Book
Review: This book is a thorough refutation of the centralized federal government we now have,and a eye opener for students of american history.It exposes the North's"war against slavery" in it's true light as pure propaganda.An excellent book and very enjoyable.
Rating:
Summary: The Founding Fathers would have been proud!
Review: I took a huge interest in the so-called Civil War at a young age. Learning through the California school system, I discovered that 90% of what I was being taught contradicted what I found in independant research of the historical records.This book brings this all to light, and is a MUST read for Southerners. Northerners who are interested in truth should also take note. My teenage research coupled with books like this is the reason I left the Peoples Republic Of California for the land of my ancestors. Viva La South!
Rating:
Summary: I actually read this book, prior to review ...
Review: After purchasing the book through Amazon.Com and reading it, I could only wonder how many of the other reviewers had done the same! Yes, the authors refer to pro-union persons as Yankees frequently. I wonder if anyone has ever noticed how offensive the term "rebel" can be when used ad nauseam in a work? The authors do not use the term yankee with the vitriole other reviewers would have one believe but rather to call attention to the fact how desensitized our culture has become to the overly casual use of the terms "rebel" and "Civil War". Secessionist? Definitely. War for Southern Independence? Without a doubt. However, it will be odd to the enlightened observer that our culture commonly uses the term "rebel" as a perjorative, yet is offended by the same use of the collective "yankee". Truth be told, the war was not a Civil War, had it been, both armies would have fought for control of a central government. This was a war of secession, one nation (The Confederate States) seeking to remove itself from a seperate, sovereign nation just as the colonies had done with England and King George ninety years before. The authors point out with authority and documentation that the Constitution of The Confederate States of America forbade the further importation of slaves. The authors further document and narrate that the majority of slaves were not beaten and ill treated by slave owners as others would have one believe and that, all things considered, slavery was not the primary cause behind the war, as race relations were, if anything, more strained in the north than they were in the south. The authors do a good job underscoring the fact that they are not pro-slavery nor do they advocate a return to such a system. They do, however, show that the South in 1861 had evolved into a seperate economy and culture than that of the North, BOTH of which would later have to come to terms with the spectre of slavery. En toto, the authors show that the Confederacy was acting as a sovereign nation, in the tradition of their grandfathers, seeking to preserve personal liberty and the right to govern themselves as they best saw fit. The book is a must read for anyone who wishes an understanding not only of the motivation of the Confederacy but also of how we have come to have the all-powerful Federal governemnt running (nearly) unchecked in Washington today.
Rating:
Summary: Required reading for any self respecting Southerner
Review: This book has opened my eyes to the reality of history
Rating: 
Summary: Thought provoking
Review: This book covers a very emotional issue for many people on both sides of the debate. I believe this book to be one of the better in presenting the Southern side. I belive the term "yankee" is used so much in this book simply because of emotion. Unbridled anger, I'm sure overcame the authors during their research. If something has been represented to you as truth your entire life, just to be proven otherwise, it would be a great point of contention. This book is well documented and thoroughly researched and footnoted. Human nature is to be sorry for misdeeds. Human tendency is to justify one's actions. Slavery was immoral, wrong, indecent, and was no "bed of roses" (European immigrants in the 1800's knew all about it). I don't think the authors should have "gone there." I thought it ironic that some Northern states passed laws disallowing blacks from residing within their borders. I've grew up in the South and have never heard this. I wonder why? They were allowed to stay long enough to get out. My only wish is that others, not JUST the South, would be labled for what they were. Perhaps this book may open some minds and we can all realize blame as well as glory.
Rating:
Summary: Is the war over?
Review: The war is over but these authors seem not to know it, or knowing it, are out to start a new one. The main theme is Yankee hatred and it is paraded at every opportunity decorated with abundant "facts". As there is no logical thread to the story, all the venom leads nowhere. The book has become something of a bible to the Sons of Confederate Veterans and as such it narrows the line between this group, which claims to revere Southern heritage, and the pure haters like the KKK. Both the book and your readers' reviews cause one to wonder if after 135 years any reasoned public discussion of the great war is yet possible.
|
