Rating: Summary: Well done Mr. J. and Mr. W. Kennedy Review: This book is: 1. A book that opens up bringing Jeff Davis to life telling us of his lifes joys and sorrows. His adventures and his sufferings. His victories and his defeats. 2. It vindicates Davis's character and faith shrugging off the lies told about him as well as John Edsmoe vindicates the Founding Fathers in "Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of our Founding Fathers" 3. It provides some solid Constitutional points Davis and his countrymen made about states rights and secession. Davis was definatly NOT a traitor. 4. It shows the reader that the issue of slavery was not as cut and dry as television and movies would have us believe. Not everyone who owned slaves was a cruel barbaric beast. And just because the Abolitionists were called abolitionists does not mean they were interested in the well being of black people. In fact they, like the Environmentalists and Anti-Smoking crowd today, were just using the issue as a vehicle to gain control wealth and power. A great book
Rating: Summary: The defense of states rights. Review: This book provides a defense of the southern cause. Slavery was a sympton of the civil war, but not it's direct cause. Although the book's intention is to defend Jefferson Davis and the CSA, it does provide some very thought provoking information concerning Abraham Lincoln, the origins of today's Republican party and an authorative central government. It is a worthwhile read for anyone looking to find the second edge to the sword. There is much more to America's bloodiest war, and most of it are skeleton's buried deep in the closet of Abraham Lincoln and the heroism associated with his deeds.
Rating: Summary: The defense of states rights. Review: This book provides a defense of the southern cause. Slavery was a sympton of the civil war, but not it's direct cause. Although the book's intention is to defend Jefferson Davis and the CSA, it does provide some very thought provoking information concerning Abraham Lincoln, the origins of today's Republican party and an authorative central government. It is a worthwhile read for anyone looking to find the second edge to the sword. There is much more to America's bloodiest war, and most of it are skeleton's buried deep in the closet of Abraham Lincoln and the heroism associated with his deeds.
Rating: Summary: A progaganda polemic with some useful information Review: This book reviews the life of Jefferson Davis and is written as a brief for the "jury" (the reader) to judge certain accusations against Jefferson Davis, most particularly that he was a "traitor". The biographical section is reasonably written, but the review of political events and constitutional law is extremely biased and selective. Much of it skips around very fine nuances of the wording use in discussion of constitutional law, ie: if the states "aceded" to the constitution this implys a right of "secession". Some of the statements seem particularly misguided, for example, the assertion the the Bill or Rights applies only to Federal actions, not state actions! The issue of secession is discussed only in terms of states, not in a broader context of any portion of civil society seceding from a parent body. The authors would perhaps maintain that since sovereignity resides in the state, only a state can secede. Therefore, if a portion of state attempted to secede that action would be illegal (and presumably the state could violate the Bill of Rights in enforcing its claim). A considerable amount of time is spent reviewing the motives and character of his "accusers" with a fair amount of vituperative language cast their way. This is more distracting than anything else, having little to do with the constutional arguements in question. Other passages are deceptive in character. For example , the authors note that Davis denied ever saying that slavery was the cornerstone of the confederacy, but don't reveal that this statement was made by the Confederate vice-president, and attempt to pass off Davis's denial as a denial for the entire confederacy. The book does have difference of advocating an unpopular position, and provides some background on the constitutional questions involved in the civil war. Nonetheless, the presentation is so biased and polemical in tone that it should be avoided by those seeking a balanced and concise review of the issues. For those who have some experience in the literature it is revealing in showing the political sophistication (or lack of it) of the modern Southern apologist. It should be noted that the authors are involved with modern groups advocating the justice of the "lost cause", so that the bias is to be expected. For those seeking a balanced and dispassionate review of secession I advise looking elsewhere. I personally agree with the authors that the charges leveled against Davis are to be rejected. Davis was not a traitor in the sense in which I would use the word. However, rejection of these charges is a far remove from acceptance of the right of secession and does not in itself provide justification for the confederacy.
Rating: Summary: A progaganda polemic with some useful information Review: This book reviews the life of Jefferson Davis and is written as a brief for the "jury" (the reader) to judge certain accusations against Jefferson Davis, most particularly that he was a "traitor". The biographical section is reasonably written, but the review of political events and constitutional law is extremely biased and selective. Much of it skips around very fine nuances of the wording use in discussion of constitutional law, ie: if the states "aceded" to the constitution this implys a right of "secession". Some of the statements seem particularly misguided, for example, the assertion the the Bill or Rights applies only to Federal actions, not state actions! The issue of secession is discussed only in terms of states, not in a broader context of any portion of civil society seceding from a parent body. The authors would perhaps maintain that since sovereignity resides in the state, only a state can secede. Therefore, if a portion of state attempted to secede that action would be illegal (and presumably the state could violate the Bill of Rights in enforcing its claim). A considerable amount of time is spent reviewing the motives and character of his "accusers" with a fair amount of vituperative language cast their way. This is more distracting than anything else, having little to do with the constutional arguements in question. Other passages are deceptive in character. For example , the authors note that Davis denied ever saying that slavery was the cornerstone of the confederacy, but don't reveal that this statement was made by the Confederate vice-president, and attempt to pass off Davis's denial as a denial for the entire confederacy. The book does have difference of advocating an unpopular position, and provides some background on the constitutional questions involved in the civil war. Nonetheless, the presentation is so biased and polemical in tone that it should be avoided by those seeking a balanced and concise review of the issues. For those who have some experience in the literature it is revealing in showing the political sophistication (or lack of it) of the modern Southern apologist. It should be noted that the authors are involved with modern groups advocating the justice of the "lost cause", so that the bias is to be expected. For those seeking a balanced and dispassionate review of secession I advise looking elsewhere. I personally agree with the authors that the charges leveled against Davis are to be rejected. Davis was not a traitor in the sense in which I would use the word. However, rejection of these charges is a far remove from acceptance of the right of secession and does not in itself provide justification for the confederacy.
|