Recommended by another Civil War enthusiast, I bought the book because of it's interesting premise - to refute the rationale of the "Lost Cause" made famous throughout the South following the event. Basically the author gives an overview of how the "Lost Cause" was propagated, then introduces the reader to several chapter length stories from various authors with Civil War history backgrounds that support his theory. While not something who supports the "Lost Cause" will even pick up in all likelihood, it does capture how the myth carries on even to the 21st Century. A very different exploration into the Civil War!

All of the essays in this book were well-written in their respective theses, some better than others, but among the better I've encountered. The cases for both Blue and Gray are well presented, and for this the book receives four stars (one star removed because a fair chunk of the book was old hat to me).

But even after reading book upon book and viewing documentary upon documentary, I've never really known what to make of the Civil War. Each time during the aforementioned activities, two thoughts plagued me: One was that the defeated (CSA in this case) will often, but not always, shine a light of dignity and honor where none was in the first place. Yet the old adage "history is written by the victor" (USA in this case) also rang in my head. This book didn't convince me to view the CSA with pride, nor did it convince to view the USA with disdain...or vice versa. Not that it is making the attempt, mind you. But overall, the essays and even user reviews written for this book have only reinforced what I've known all along: That I was not alive then, and any amount of research is not going to lead me any closer to the truth behind America's shameful past. And if you think it will, you're an intellectual weakling of the worst kind.

We're a nation steeped in immaturity, one that is bitter and cannot let go of past events, and can't resist beating the proverbial dead horse. I feel like the only person who cackles hysterically at "North vs. South" arguments...lest we forget how homogenized modern America is. Compared to the rest of the world, we're a toddler eating dirt. Hopefully a time will come when we as a country can say, "It happened...let's move on."

I was most interested in the generalship of Grant versus the actual (not glorified) generalship of Lee. I was hoping to find some confirmation of my suspicion that Lee really wasn't that great and Grant really wasn't all that bad. To some degree, the book tries to do this with a limited success. It takes Lee down a notch from his almost divine pedestal in the eyes of some. But I found it hard to find a convincing argument that Lee was anything but a great, more-then-competent general.
I see no problem with Southerners focusing on Lee's military greatness with some pride. Despite the causes some generals fight for, we can still admire their cunning as military commanders, Rommel is a great example much like Lee. Besides, the North got the ultimate hero in Lincoln who most Americans hold in the highest regard, he transcends the Presidency itself.
Where I get upset is with marginalizing slavery as anything but THE central issue of the War. Whether the participants at the time knew it or not, Slavery was what the War was all about. I think the people in the North, particularly the Republic soldiers, knew what it was about. They voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln in a clear show of support for the cause. The South was, and still is to a large degree, in denial and this is where the book does a much better job. Chopping away at what should be called the State's Rights Myth of the Confederacy. It traces the evolution of the Southern response to defeat from the immediate catastrophe of the War to the ultimate historical revision that is the Lost Cause. Other places where the book lays out a strong case against the Lost Cause includes: the myth that the South was solidly unified, that its defeat was inevitable and that its soldiers were braver and more committed then their Northern counterparts.
It's a very necessary book. It is important for people to remember always who the good guys were and who the bad guys were. Few other conflicts in history have had so clear a line drawn between Evil. The cause the Republic fought for was the most noble of all, human freedom. It's a national tragedy if we ever allow that to be forgotten or replaced by the bad guy's interpretation of that conflict.

I was most interested in the generalship of Grant versus the actual (not glorified) generalship of Lee. I was hoping to find some confirmation of my suspicion that Lee really wasn't that great and Grant really wasn't all that bad. To some degree, the book tries to do this with a limited success. It takes Lee down a notch from his almost divine pedestal in the eyes of some. But I found it hard to find a convincing argument that Lee was anything but a great, more-then-competent general.
I see no problem with Southerners focusing on Lee's military greatness with some pride. Despite the causes some generals fight for, we can still admire their cunning as military commanders, Rommel is a great example much like Lee. Besides, the North got the ultimate hero in Lincoln who most Americans hold in the highest regard, he transcends the Presidency itself.
Where I get upset is with marginalizing slavery as anything but THE central issue of the War. Whether the participants at the time knew it or not, Slavery was what the War was all about. I think the people in the North, particularly the Republic soldiers, knew what it was about. They voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln in a clear show of support for the cause. The South was, and still is to a large degree, in denial and this is where the book does a much better job. Chopping away at what should be called the State's Rights Myth of the Confederacy. It traces the evolution of the Southern response to defeat from the immediate catastrophe of the War to the ultimate historical revision that is the Lost Cause. Other places where the book lays out a strong case against the Lost Cause includes: the myth that the South was solidly unified, that its defeat was inevitable and that its soldiers were braver and more committed then their Northern counterparts.
It's a very necessary book. It is important for people to remember always who the good guys were and who the bad guys were. Few other conflicts in history have had so clear a line drawn between Evil. The cause the Republic fought for was the most noble of all, human freedom. It's a national tragedy if we ever allow that to be forgotten or replaced by the bad guy's interpretation of that conflict.

The shamelessly teleological approach to research displayed in this book is its most memorable feature. The ability of the authors to disregard 25 years worth of scholarship on Southern nationalism is only the most blatant methodological crime committed in what is without a doubt one of the worst examples of research I have ever encountered.

Somewhat convoluted approach to the Southern cause, but now that I have finished the book, it is not worth reading. Perhaps it is worth checking out of the public library to grasp the "Northern" view point, but overall, the book is too partisan.

Having just finished this book, I see why some of the essays have caused some controversy. It takes a hard look at the facts of the war, versus what has been presented as accurate history by many Southern leaders and writers. Simply put, some of the authors openly question many commonly held views, particularly those proposed by people interested in justifying the South's loss, or reasons for leaving the Union.

Overall, the essays are solid: some great, some good, and a few are only okay. I found Alan Nolan's, Gary Gallagher's, and Jeffrey Wert's essays to be most compelling. They are all well written, researched, and argued. Also, the topics they cover are interesting. Although I do not agree with Alan Nolan's low opinion of General Lee as a soldier, the rest of his essay takes many of the myths of the "Lost Cause" head-on, and dispells them convincinly.

Two of the essays I did not find very exciting: Keith Bohannon's, or Charles Holden's. The topic were too narrow for my taste. The other essays are all good, and helped add to my understanding of the war.

I recommend this book to anyone who is a Civil War "buff", or student of the war. If you think that the war was not fought over slavery, but only states rights, you should explore the discussion of this topic in numerous essays.

It is one thing to want to romanticize the past because it makes you feel comfortable, but it is entirely another thing to believe that such things are history. The one thing that should be obvious when reading these essays is not whether you want to accept the myth or not, but that there was (and still is) a deliberate attempt (by the Confederate spin doctors) to change or hide the truth. One can be in denial of the actions and purpose of the Confederacy (and the results), but one cannot deny the blatant attempts at the propaganda. This book, albeit dry at times, clearly shows that there had been very calculated and deliberate efforts to mislead future generations to the truth.