I've read all of the books in the "Don't Know Much About.." series. If you're interested in getting a rather thorough overview without becoming an expert, these books are for you. They are so easy to read, that I couldn't but them down.

I have been reading about the American Civil War since the Centennial of that bloody conflict, in 1960. And when you're talking about the period of American history about so much has been written, I guess I have to say I've only read through enough books to fill a small apartment by now.

But Mr. Davis' book, which I picked up on a whim, has proven to be the most accessible, most entertaining, most crammed with facts, speeches, articles, letters, and references to follow up Civil War book I've read in the past ten years. I'd rate it as invaluable to anyone who wants to begin their own study of the Civil War years, and of the American history that preceded, and led to the War. The huge figures of American history are here, sure, but so are a wonderful collection of lesser lights, heroes, victims and villains... on all sides of the question.

In fact, in reading the sections of this book that predate the War, I learned more about those eras than I did back when I was taking a minor in History in college, more than I'd learned throughout my schooling, in fact.
And to be entertained, to enjoy myself while I learned all those things like who helped Daniel Webster write the last part of his most famous speech ever, was something I frankly did not expect from a Civil War reference title. But the author delivered a book I was engrossed in from the first page to the last, while never bored and often amazed.

I'd strongly, strongly suggest this book to almost anyone with an interest in the Civil War except maybe the academicians and 50+ year Civil War buffs who've read, researched and written their own tomes by now, anyway.

When I was in high school, we were assigned to write a paper on the causes of the Civil War. I think of the 30 people in my class, 29 wrote their papers on slavery; I wrote mine on state's rights. I focussed on the threats to the Union encountered by Andrew Jackson. When this book began with the thesis that the Civil War was caused primarily and perhaps exclusively by slavery, I was willing to let the author make his case. After completing the book, I am not convinced. The South was vanquished, slavery abolished, and 140 years later the South is still almost diametrically opposed politically to the North. Look at the results of the last two presidencial elections. Slavery is gone and all of the state's rights issues are still there. The South is as anti-Federal now as they were before the Civil War. It was this difference in basic philosophy that led to the war, slavery made the differences more noticeable.

When I was in high school, we were assigned to write a paper on the causes of the Civil War. I think of the 30 people in my class, 29 wrote their papers on slavery; I wrote mine on state's rights. I focussed on the threats to the Union encountered by Andrew Jackson. When this book began with the thesis that the Civil War was caused primarily and perhaps exclusively by slavery, I was willing to let the author make his case. After completing the book, I am not convinced. The South was vanquished, slavery abolished, and 140 years later the South is still almost diametrically opposed politically to the North. Look at the results of the last two presidencial elections. Slavery is gone and all of the state's rights issues are still there. The South is as anti-Federal now as they were before the Civil War. It was this difference in basic philosophy that led to the war, slavery made the differences more noticeable.

I was looking for verification of facts, like who was behind Lincoln's assassination, but this work didn't satisfy that curiosity, yet I learned much, since I didn't do American history in school.

I listened to this book on tape and enjoyed it overall. I confess, I had some issues as I listened to the book as I am apparently in that class of people who actually does enjoy and study history. I found the anecdotes entertaining and overall found the book appropriate for its purpose as a primer for a majority of the populace who apparently doesn't have even a cursory grasp of the keystone event in American History. It does have a tendency however to oversimplify some of the issues in an apparent effort to create a framework to understand not only the events, but their socio-economic-political implications.

You have only to read the other reviews of this work for evidence that many of the philosophical and political battles of the civil war are still being fought in American Society.

Most criticism of this work seems to be directed at Davis' contention that slavery was the issue of the Civil War. Davis does go to great lengths to make this point. It is by no means a slam dunk as there are many reputable historians who downplay this claim as an over-simplification.

However, Davis is not writing this book as a competitor or replacement for the weighty works of academia that address this question. Davis is writing to a more general audience that he appears to perceive as attempting to sluff over or bypass this issue from the civil way, perhaps in some effort to minimize or bypass the issues of racism and civil rights inequities today.

In those terms, Davis seems to be going to great lengths to address the issue in order to convince them that:

1. Slavery is not a new issue.
2. Slavery was integrally entwined within many of the issues cited then and since for the Civil War.

States rights were an issue? Of course they were! What were the states primarily asserting their rights to control that they believed the North and then Lincoln were threatening? Slavery was primary in this regard.

Were taxes and tariffs tied into the argument. Yes it was. What were the taxes and tariffs centered around? Issues related to the agricultural South and the industrial North who preferred to see these applied to the others and not themselves. What drove the southern agricultural system and undergirded it in the context of the times? Was it state's rights? Yes, but primarily as those state's rights applied to slavery!

Are detractors correct when they claim that many who fought the war from the North were equally racist and had no real desire to benefit negro slaves? Yes, that is undeniably true. Were there many who fought on the Southern side who did not own slaves and would have been just as happy to see slavery ended? Absolutely.

The truth of the matter is, however, that slavery as a political issue was inextrably in the weave of all the issues leading up to Lincoln's election and succession.

In this regard, maybe Davis is overstating and oversimplifying things from the point of view of anyone who is already familiar with the events of and surrounding the civil war. The point to be made, is perhaps he needs to do this with his intended audience of neophytes and newcomers who need to be slapped in the face with it to dispel the opposite error which seems to have diminished the role of slavery and then civil rights development within the US.

That said, if you have questions after reading or listening to this book, then you'll at least have a platform from which to do further research.

So, I recommend this book. It does what it sets out to do which is to introduce people with little or no historical background not only into the events of the Civil War, but the political and societal context of it.

In order to do that you have to take a stand and make a case for what you are saying. Like it or not; agree with it or not; Davis does just that and he does a credible job.

Those criticizing it on that basis are beyond the purpose of the book and for whatever reasons still fighting the original battles.

Better here than on the battlefield!

Read it. Learn. Then move on and question the premises in additional reading after this fine introduction.

For anyone wanting a basic education about the American Civil War, either as an educational requirement or as perhaps a lifetime hobby of interest, this is the perfect place to start. Author Davis covers every aspect of this great confrontation (except one) from the real reasons it was fought to how it came to its conclusion. There are thumbnail sketches of most of the participants on both sides, some in great detail; all of the major battles are incorporated, including the strategies and reasons for their outcome; myths are busted (no, Lincoln did not write the Gettysburg Address on an envelope); heroes and cowards receive their just desserts. My only complaint: Not one map. How can you write a history book without maps? How can your write a book about war without battlefield sketches? The book is presented chronologically in an expanded outline form, with questions asked and then answers given, making this an easy tome to return to and find quick information about specific topics. The index is equally complete in listing names and places. There is a terrific appendix giving complete documentation on such important aspects as The Emancipation Proclamation, The Dred Scott decision, Amendments to the Constitution, and much more. Even with all this detail, the book is very readable. Within this book, a person could find a narrow scope that intrigues and can lead to further exploration, whether it is Andersonville, The Underground Railroad, Gideon Welles, or the burning of Atlanta. To aid in this exploration, there is a 16-page bibliography that, in addition to title information, describes briefly what area each book covers. This is a treasure trove. But, bring your own maps.

I found this book very biased, which is why I continued reading. The history is horrible, but I was curious the extent to which Mr. Davis wants to cement his moral crusade view of history in lay people's minds. At one point the comparison is made between the opporators of the underground railroad and the people who resisted the Nazis. By extention Mr. Davis makes the implicit and fallacious argument, slavery is like the holocaust.

The title should be "Don't know much about slavery: How white men's stupidity continues in perpetuity."

I found the book to be very informative, overall, and having heard Davis on the radio, he is a very passionate and interesting author, however, as others have stated, there is a significant bias in this book and it is riddled with errors.

It is interesting that he asks rhetorically, would there have been a Civil War had there not been the issue of slavery? Actually, many historians say "yes" ! Tarrifs, taxes, the operation of Federal and State banks had as much or MORE to do with the fomenting of the Civil War, going back to Andrew Jackson's term as president, than slavery, on the whole.

Also, among the many other errors, as a Celtic-American, I was disappointed to see that on Page 14, Davis erroneously refers to Adam Smith, who was born in Kirkcaldy, Scotland, as an "Englishman". Smith went on to enter the University of Glasgow, and wrote the Wealth of Nations. He would later return to chair more than one department at that university.

Although they are definitely British subjects and Smith was a "Brit" if anything, to refer to him, in a book about "Facts" as an Englishman, would be akin to refering to someone from Portugal as a Spaniard. Perhaps not the best analogy, but when one considers the hundreds of years of wars between the Anglos and Celts, to refer to Smith as "English" would perhaps be more like refering to someone from Athens as a "Spartan".

Davis should have known that would catch the attention of even novice history buffs.

I give this one star only because the site won't let me give it zero.

After agonizing through the first hundred pages of this book just to see if it got any better (it didn't) I was so disgusted with his tiresome prose and graphic accounts of slave beatings that I literally threw the book in the trash. Slavery was wrong, Mr. Davis, we get it, now get on with what we are to learn that we supposedly never did. My conscience got the best of me regarding tossing the book, though, since I have a certain reverence for books (even bad ones) so I fished it out of the trash and put it on the exchange table at work in case some masochist feels compelled to delve into it in its entirety. I bought it at Goodwill for $1.50; I see why it got sent to Goodwill. It's not one to keep in a collection. In fact, if we were still using Sears & Roebuck catalogs in outhouses.....

To judge any new book, look into the index to find a topic that you are familiar with, then decide from that. Your results may vary. The 'Introduction' asks about the interest in the Civil War. Aside from a trend of fashion, it marked a turning point in America. Before, most Americans lived not too differently from past centuries. After, the railroads, canals, and electricity created modern life (as in other countries during the Victorian Age). It is also politically safe, unlike the Revolutionary Wars. The concerns of that time are still with us, although the question of secession was settled. Perhaps the major change was the creation of large corporations, and the lessening power of the middle class. Davis doesn't grasp that Official History, as a collection of battles and dates, is a way to avoid the still important political events of that era. Income tax, greenback dollars, Federal control to aid corporations, corporate control of politics, are all controversial topics. No one can create controversy by sticking to the simple facts, however dull and dreary they are (p. xvi). The fashionable theory about the cause of the Civil War (p.xxx) is another way to avoid reality and mislead students.

This collection of anecdotes will educate and entertain the reader, and is the purpose for this book. Mike Wright's "What They Didn't Teach You ..." books cover events left out of the academic histories. The original intent of history is for popular entertainment: the Iliad, the Odyssey, Beowulf, the Song of Roland. Or the dramatizations on TV and film ("rewriting history" was George Orwell's description.

Every book reflects the author's outlook and bias. Page 78 fails to note that the state of Zacatecas also revolted against Santa Anna's dictatorship, and were crushed. Davis oversimplified the Mexican War (p.79). Other military dictatorships have proved incompetent against foreign troops (Greece, Argentina). The discussion about earlier political parties fails to mention the Anti-Masonic party (p.115). Page 119 does not explain "Beecher's Bibles". Davis should read the book on the US Camel Corps (p.153). A few hundred "wealthy and upper-middle-class men" still decide the destiny of millions (p.154). The paragraph on blockade running didn't mention the British Bahamas (p.171). The page on Southern cotton didn't mention the greater importance of Northern wheat (p.199).

Davis correctly complains that American history ignores events elsewhere (p.196). In describing the battle of the ironclads (p.216), he does not mention whether Great Britain or France had built one earlier. Do you think politicians have to compromise? Page 251 explains why. Those who wanted a negotiated settlement with the Confederacy wore a copper penny that then had a Liberty head on it (p.296). After wards Congress ordered the use of Lincoln's profile on the penny. The St. Albans bank robbery does not mention this area as a supply center for horses (p.380). Davis says the military commission that investigated the conspiracy "should have been a civilian" (p.415), but ignores the fact that Washington was under martial law. I once read that "kuklux" imitated the sound of a musket hammer being cocked (p.432). Davis doesn't know much about George Armstrong Custer "eccentric cavalry commander" (p.438). Davis fails to mention Lew Wallace's term as Governor of New Mexico Territory (p.448). The notes about John Singleton Mosby was informative (p.444). Appendix II lists the many Presidents who had no Vice-President.

Easy read and just enough details not to bore you to death. I thought this was an excellent book!

Historians must have a point of view that accompanies the facts they present, as do newspapers or (I feel unsettled saying this)television reporters. So it is not uncommon say, in the form of the American Civil War, that Kenneth Davis has his own axe to grind. This is good, as long as the reader is left with enough evidence to differentiate between fact and opinion. Or as the old Memorex commercial with Ella Fitz spoke, "what's real and what's Memorex?"

Certainly, that this nation spoke in lofty terms and yet kept slaves is the haunting near inexplicable anomaly of our history, one that today continues to chafe, cause tears, violence and still be misunderstood. Professor Davis has an interesting quote from Freud where Freud supposedly says, "Thank you for sharing with me the high minded values and lofty standards of men. Now let me introduce you to the basement."

Unless you were lost in disreality as a youngster and your parents sent out a missing persons alert, you must of guessed somewhere along the line in school that when teachers told us that the causes of the Civil War (which for starters killed close to three quarters of a million) had everything to do with anything other than slavery, they were the ones that had lost their sense of reality. Certainly slavery was the root cause of the terrible carnage and it is certainly refreshing to have someone of Davis' stature confirm that. As Davis says, without slavery, there is no war.

Yet at some point his bias seems innundated with the good guys versus the bad guys, and we end up reading chapter after chapter describing virtually everyone north of Kentucky and all Quakers being good, and anyone south of Kentucky being stand-ins for Harriet Stowe's 'Simon Legree.' Ain't necessarily so.

Another jarring issue is the recitation of the facts before each chapter that Professor Davis wishes to present, followed by the repetition of those same facts at the end of the chapter. For many of us the textbook style of writing was something we gratefully left behind in college and high school.

Having said all that, like David Howarth in the UK, Kenneth Davis has a pleasant style of prose that gets us to read things we ought to have read earlier on. And he does it well. As Maya Angelou once wrote of Oprah Winfrey, 'I don't like all of the books she puts on 'her list,' but at least she gets people to read.'

And Kenneth Davis gets us to take a hard look at history, and how we got here. Larry Scantlebury