Mr. Crocker goes straight to the point in Chapter One: following the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the citizens of South Carolina, in voting to declare their state independent of the Union, believed that they were exercising their absolute right to self-determination as understood by the founders and expressed by Jefferson in the colonies' Declaration of Independence from England. The question facing them was: had they, having chosen union with the other former colonies following the war for independence, thereby lost their liberty? True, they had voluntarily ceded some prerogatives to a federal government, but those prerogatives remained their own, by God-given right, to reclaim. On December 10, 1860, South Carolinians reclaimed those prerogatives, setting a precedent which other states would soon follow. Between January 9 and February 1, 1861, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Lousiana and Texas all seceded and, before Lincoln was inaugurated, the Confederate States of America was a fait accompli.

It's generally accepted today that these southern states, in seceding from the Union, were rejecting democracy. Their citizens, however, believed that the democratic process had demonstrated quite clearly that North and South were politically and culturally incompatible. Insofar as the entire South had overwhelmingly rejected Lincoln (even Kentucky, which would choose not to secede, had given him less than 1% of its vote), secession was seen as an acknowledgement of democratic principles and of reality. South Carolinians in particular had long felt bullied by northern states (especially Massachusetts) and many had for more than three decades dreamt of separation. Following the election, it would have been impossible in Charleston to have ignored the enthusiasm for a second declaration of independence.

The four states which seceded later (Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee) did so only when pressed to take up arms against their fellow countrymen.

It would be a welcome thing if more Americans were aware of the wider range of issues over which the war was actually initiated. Certainly slavery had been the major point of contention between states for the entire life of the nation and especially during the election campaign, but the northern states pressuring President Lincoln during the first half of 1861 to "put down the rebellion" were more concerned about the possibility of the new southern nation's enactment of protective tariffs on its plantation-produced cotton and tobacco than about the welfare of slaves. They also fretted over the potential for a Southern/European alliance against them. What they did NOT do was trumpet the abolition of slavery as a war goal. Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until after Antietam/Sharpsburg (September 17, 1862) and only thereafter was the practical possibility of the abolition of slavery openly discussed. For two years, Northern enlistees went to war principally to "preserve the Union" and to punish the Confederacy for its assault on Ft. Sumter - not to end slavery. Southern enlistees left their farms and towns not out of zeal to perpetuate slavery but rather out of pride and patriotism. They didn't want war, but felt honor-bound to defend their homelands and culture, their new confederation and their ideal of citizenship.

There's really not that much here which IS "politically incorrect". Chapters One, Two and Fifteen are most conspicuously so. Otherwise, this POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE is mostly a quick reference to prominent battles and generals. I suppose, though, it's un-PC to point out, as the author does, that Robert E. Lee freed his few slaves in 1862 after seeing to it that they were educated. Or that some Union generals were quite prejudiced. Or that Sherman wanted to kill or drive all southern whites out of the country and replace them with transplanted northerners and residents of the western territories. Or that Confederate officers were ordered by Lee to treat inhabitants of Maryland and Pennsylvania with respect. Or that there existed alternatives to war. Or that slavery would surely have ended soon anyway - with the South NOT completely destroyed, with better relations between the races, without extra-legal subversive organizations such as the KKK ever having come into being and with more than 600,000 American lives spared.

The book is simply and clearly written (a few typos, but so what) and is easy to read and understand. I recommend it and thank you for reading.

Mr. Crocker goes straight to the point in Chapter One: following the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the citizens of South Carolina, in voting to declare their state independent of the Union, believed that they were exercising their absolute right to self-determination as understood by the founders and expressed by Jefferson in the colonies' Declaration of Independence from England. The question facing them was: had they, having chosen union with the other former colonies following the war for independence, thereby lost their liberty? True, they had voluntarily ceded some prerogatives to a federal government, but those prerogatives remained their own, by God-given right, to reclaim. On December 10, 1860, South Carolinians reclaimed those prerogatives, setting a precedent which other states would soon follow. Between January 9 and February 1, 1861, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Lousiana and Texas all seceded and, before Lincoln was inaugurated, the Confederate States of America was a fait accompli.

It's generally accepted today that these southern states, in seceding from the Union, were rejecting democracy. Their citizens, however, believed that the democratic process had demonstrated quite clearly that North and South were politically and culturally incompatible. Insofar as the entire South had overwhelmingly rejected Lincoln (even Kentucky, which would choose not to secede, had given him less than 1% of its vote), secession was seen as an acknowledgement of democratic principles and of reality. South Carolinians in particular had long felt bullied by northern states (especially Massachusetts) and many had for more than three decades dreamt of separation. Following the election, it would have been impossible in Charleston to have ignored the enthusiasm for a second declaration of independence.

The four states which seceded later (Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee) did so only when pressed to take up arms against their fellow countrymen.

It would be a welcome thing if more Americans were aware of the wider range of issues over which the war was actually initiated. Certainly slavery had been the major point of contention between states for the entire life of the nation and especially during the election campaign, but the northern states pressuring President Lincoln during the first half of 1861 to "put down the rebellion" were more concerned about the possibility of the new southern nation's enactment of protective tariffs on its plantation-produced cotton and tobacco than about the welfare of slaves. They also fretted over the potential for a Southern/European alliance against them. What they did NOT do was trumpet the abolition of slavery as a war goal. Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until after Antietam/Sharpsburg (September 17, 1862) and only thereafter was the practical possibility of the abolition of slavery openly discussed.

For two years, Northern enlistees went to war principally to "preserve the Union" and to punish the Confederacy for its assault on Ft. Sumter - not to end slavery. Southern enlistees left their farms and towns not out of zeal to perpetuate slavery but rather out of pride and patriotism. They didn't want war, but felt honor-bound to defend their homelands and culture, their new confederation and their ideal of citizenship.

11/12/08 update:
Having now finished the book, I can report that there's really not that much here which IS "politically incorrect". Chapters One, Two and Fifteen are most conspicuously so. Otherwise, this book is mostly a quick guide to prominent battles and generals. I suppose, though, it's un-PC to point out, as the author does, that Robert E. Lee freed his few slaves in 1862 after seeing to it that they were educated. Or that some Union generals were quite prejudiced. Or that Sherman wanted to kill or drive all southern whites out of the country and replace them with transplanted northerners and residents of the western territories. Or that there existed alternatives to war. Or that slavery would surely have ended soon anyway with the South NOT completely destroyed - with better relations between the races and never having seen the development of extra-legal subversive organizations.

The book is simply and clearly written and is easy to read and understand. I recommend it.

I've just finished "A Country of Their Own", the first chapter of this book. Mr. Crocker goes straight to the point. Following the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the citizens of South Carolina, in voting to declare their state independent of the Union, believed that they were exercising their absolute right to self-determination as understood by the founders and expressed by Jefferson in the colonies' Declaration of Independence from England. The question facing them was: had they, having chosen union with the other former colonies following the war for independence, thereby lost their liberty? True, they had voluntarily ceded some prerogatives to a federal government, but those prerogatives remained their own, by God-given right, to reclaim. On December 10, 1860, South Carolinians reclaimed those prerogatives, setting a precedent which other states would soon follow. Between January 9 and February 1, 1861, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Lousiana and Texas all seceded. Before Lincoln was inaugurated, the Confederate States of America was a fait accompli.

It's generally accepted today that in seceding from the Union, southern states were rejecting democracy. The citizens of the member states of the southern confederation, however, believed that the democratic process had demonstrated quite clearly that North and South were politically and culturally incompatible. Insofar as the entire South had overwhelmingly rejected Lincoln (even Kentucky, which would choose not to secede, had given him less than 1% of its vote), secession was seen as an acknowledgement of democratic principles and of reality. South Carolinians in particular had long felt bullied by northern states (especially Massachusetts) and many had for more than three decades dreamt of separation. Following the election, it would have been impossible in Charleston to have ignored the enthusiasm for a second declaration of independence.

Of course, those states which later seceded (Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee) did so rather than take up arms against their fellow southerners.

It would be a welcome thing if more Americans were aware of the wider range of issues over which the war was actually fought. Certainly slavery had been the major point of contention between states for the entire life of the nation and especially during the election campaign, but for the first year and a half of the war, northern troops risked their lives for a myriad of other reasons, such as to "preserve the Union" or to punish the Confederacy for its assault on Ft. Sumter or seizure of U.S. Mints in Charlotte and New Orleans. In fact, President Lincoln and northern governors were wary of mentioning slavery at all for fear of losing recruits.

Just so in the South. The great majority of southerners enlisted not out of zeal to perpetuate slavery but rather to defend their homelands and culture, their new confederation and their ideal of citizenship.

The book is simply and clearly written and is easy to read and understand. I highly recommend it. There's a very brief and fitting Afterword by Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

I've just finished "A Country of Their Own", the first chapter of this book. Mr. Crocker goes straight to the point. Following the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the citizens of South Carolina, in voting to declare their state independent of the Union, believed that they were exercising their absolute right to self-determination as understood by the founders and expressed by Jefferson in the colonies' Declaration of Independence from England. The question facing them was: had they, having chosen union with the other former colonies following the war for independence, lost their liberty? No, they had voluntarily ceded some prerogatives to a federal government, but those prerogatives remained their own, by God-given right, to reclaim. On December 10, 1860, South Carolinians reclaimed those prerogatives, setting a precedent which other states would soon follow. Between January 9 and February 1, 1861, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Lousiana and Texas all seceded. Before Lincoln was inaugurated, the Confederate States of America was a fait accompli.

It's generally accepted today that in seceding from the Union, southern states were rejecting democracy. That's the line. The citizens of the member states of the southern confederation, however, believed that the democratic process had demonstrated quite clearly that North and South were politically and culturally incompatible. Insofar as the entire South had overwhelmingly rejected Lincoln (even Kentucky, which would choose not to secede, had given him less than 1% of its vote), secession was seen as an acknowledgement of democratic principles and of reality. South Carolinians in particular had long felt bullied by northern states (especially Massachusetts) and many had for more than three decades dreamt of separation. Following the election, it would have been impossible in Charleston to have ignored the enthusiasm for a second declaration of independence. That comes through loud and clear in this book.

It would be a lovely thing if more Americans were aware of the wider range of issues over which the war was actually fought. Of course slavery had been the major point of contention between states for the entire life of the nation and especially during the election campaign, but for the first year and a half of the war, northern troops risked their lives for a myriad of other reasons, such as to "preserve the Union" or to punish the Confederacy for its assault on Ft. Sumter or seizure of U.S. Mints in Charlotte and New Orleans. In fact, President Lincoln and northern governors were wary of mentioning slavery at all for fear of offending and losing recruits.

Just so in the South. The great majority of southerners didn't leave their towns and farms out of zeal to perpetuate slavery. They enlisted to defend their homelands and culture, their new confederation and their ideal of citizenship.

There's a very brief and fitting Afterword by Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

I've just finished "A Country of Their Own", the first chapter of this book. Mr. Crocker goes straight to the point. Following the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the citizens of South Carolina, in voting to declare their state independent of the Union, believed that they were exercising their absolute right to self-determination as understood by the founders and expressed by Jefferson in the colonies' Declaration of Independence from England. The question facing them was: had they, having chosen union with the other former colonies following the war for independence, lost their liberty? No, they had voluntarily ceded some prerogatives to a federal government, but those prerogatives remained their own, by God-given right, to reclaim. On December 10, 1860, South Carolinians reclaimed those prerogatives, setting a precedent which other states would soon follow. Between January 9 and February 1, 1861, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Lousiana and Texas all seceded. Before Lincoln was inaugurated, the Confederate States of America was a fait accompli.

It's generally accepted today that in seceding from the Union, southern states were rejecting democracy. That's the line. The citizens of the member states of the new southern confederation, however, believed that the democratic process had demonstrated quite clearly that North and South were politically and culturally incompatible. Insofar as the entire South had overwhelmingly rejected Lincoln (even Kentucky, which would choose not to secede, had given him less than 1% of its vote), secession was seen as an acknowledgement of democratic principles and of reality. South Carolinians in particular had long felt bullied by northern states (especially Massachusetts) and many had for more than three decades dreamt of separation. Following the election, it would have been impossible in Charleston to have ignored the enthusiasm for a second declaration of independence. That comes through loud and clear in this book.

It would be a lovely thing if more Americans were aware of the wider range of issues over which the war was actually fought. Of course slavery had been the major point of contention between states for the entire life of the nation and especially during the election campaign, but for the first two and a half years of the war, northern troops risked their lives for a myriad of other reasons, such as to "preserve the Union" or to punish the Confederacy for its assault on Ft. Sumter or seizure of U.S. Mints in Charlotte and New Orleans. In fact, President Lincoln and northern governors were wary of mentioning slavery at all for fear of offending and losing recruits.

Just so in the South. The great majority of southerners didn't leave their towns and farms out of zeal to perpetuate slavery. They enlisted to defend their homelands and culture, their new confederation and their ideal of citizenship.

There's a very brief and fitting Afterword by Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Good job, Mr. Crocker!

I have just finished "A Country of Their Own", the first chapter of this POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO THE CIVIL WAR. It's an enjoyable read, conversational and informative. The book's attractive, too, and easy on the eyes.

Mr. Crocker does go straight to the point on the first page: that following the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the citizens of South Carolina, in voting to declare their state independent of the Union, believed that they were exercising their absolute right to self-determination as understood by the founders and expressed by Jefferson in the colonies' Declaration of Independence from England. The question facing them was: had they, having chosen union with the other former colonies following the war for independence, lost their liberty? As they saw it, the answer was no - they had voluntarily ceded some prerogatives to a federal government, but those prerogatives remained their own, by God-given right, to reclaim. On December 10, 1860, South Carolinians reclaimed those prerogatives, thereby setting a precedent which other southern states would soon follow. Between January 9 and February 1, 1861, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Lousiana and Texas all seceded. Before Lincoln was inaugurated, the Confederate States of America, its constitution patterned after that of the U.S. but with the Bill of Rights written into the body, was a fait accompli.

I'll be interested to see what Mr. Crocker has to say about the election of 1860. It has been accepted on faith in the North (and now therefore in our culture at large) that in seceding from the Union, southern states were rejecting democracy. The citizens of the member states of the new southern confederation, however, would have believed that the election had demonstrated quite clearly - and more emphatically than ever before - that North and South were politically and culturally incompatible. South Carolinians in particular had long felt bullied by northern states (especially Massachusetts) and many had for more than three decades dreamt of separation. Following the election, it would not have been possible in Charleston to have ignored the enthusiasm for a second declaration of independence - and that does come through loud and clear in the first few pages of this book.

It should also be remembered that it was only after President Lincoln's call for troops to be furnished from all states to "put down the rebellion" that other southern states such as Virginia and North Carolina moved to secede. In the South, it was almost universally accepted at the time that citizens, having the right to association, had the right to decide for themselves whether to remain in the Union. Even many northerners agreed with that and were willing to tolerate the southern confederacy.

It would be a lovely thing if more Americans were aware of the wider range of issues which led the states into war. I only rarely find someone who can summon to mind anything but a few misconceptions regarding slavery. Of course slavery was a catalyst, but for the first two and a half years of the war, northern troops didn't go into battle over slavery. They risked their lives for a myriad of other reasons - desire to "preserve the Union" (a vague inference here being that the Confederates wished to destroy it, which they manifestly did not), or righteous anger over the assault on Ft. Sumter or the Confederate seizure of U.S. Mints in Charlotte and New Orleans among them. In fact, President Lincoln and northern governors were wary of mentioning slavery at all for fear of offending and losing recruits.

Just so in the South. Southerners didn't enlist en mass over slavery. Virginians, Carolinians, Georgians, and Texans left their towns and farms to defend their homelands, their culture, their new confederation and an ideal of citizenship which they believed to have been passed on to them by our founding fathers.

I look forward to the rest of the book.

I have only just read "A Country of Their Own", the first chapter of this POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO THE CIVIL WAR, so I'll be giving an impression only of that in my review - along with a few thoughts of my own. The first chapter is an enjoyable read, conversational and informative. The book's attractive, too, easy on the eyes and not at all like the textbooks I knew in school.

Mr. Crocker does go straight to the point on the first page: that following the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the citizens of South Carolina, in voting to declare their state independent of the Union, believed that they were exercising their absolute right to self-determination as understood by the founders and expressed by Jefferson in the colonies' Declaration of Independence from England. The question was: had the citizens of South Carolina, by virtue of their union with the other former colonies, lost their liberty? No, they had simply voluntarily ceded some prerogatives to a federal government. Those prerogatives remained their own, by God-given right, to reclaim. South Carolinians, on December 10, 1860, reclaimed those prerogatives. (Between January 9 and February 1, 1861, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Lousiana and Texas all seceded. Before Lincoln was inaugurated, the Confederate States of America, its constitution patterned after that of the U.S but with the Bill of Rights written into the body, was a fait accompli.)

As I continue reading, I'll be very interested to see what Mr. Crocker will have to say about the election of 1860. It has been accepted on faith in the North (and now therefore in our culture at large) that in seceding from the Union, southern states were rejecting democracy. The citizens of the member states of the new southern confederation, however, would have believed the opposite - that the election results had demonstrated quite clearly and more emphatically than ever before that North and South were politically and culturally incompatible. (Need convincing? Google an electoral map for 1860.) Given that southerners (particularly Carolinians) had long felt bullied by northern states (especially Massachusetts) and had for decades dreamt of separation, it was therefore in acknowledgement of the popular will that they wished to bid farewell to their former compatriots and go their own way. In Charleston, it would have been impossible to ignore the enthusiasm for a second declaration of independence - and that does come through loud and clear in the first few pages of this book.

It should be remembered that it was only after President Lincoln's call for troops to be furnished from all states to "put down the rebellion" that other southern states moved to secede. In the South, it was almost universally accepted at the time that citizens, having the right to association, had the right to decide for themselves whether to remain in the Union. Even most northerners agreed with that.

It would be a lovely thing if more Americans were aware of what the issues were which led the states into war. I only rarely find someone who can summon to mind anything but a few misconceptions regarding slavery. Right, slavery was a catalyst, but for the first two and a half years of the war, northern troops didn't go into battle over slavery. They risked their lives over a myriad of other reasons - desire to "preserve the Union" (with the vague inference that the Confederates wished to destroy it, which they manifestly did not) or righteous anger over the assault on Ft. Sumter or the Confederate seizure of U.S. Mints among them. In fact, President Lincoln and northern governors were wary of mentioning slavery at all for fear of offending and losing recruits.

Just so in the South. Southerners didn't enlist over slavery. Virginians, Carolinians, Georgians, and Texans left their towns and farms to defend their homelands, their new confederation and an idea: they would not be transformed from men made free in the image of God into subjects of a new Crown.

If through this book, Mr. Crocker can lead a few more of us to some appreciatiation that southerners of the 1860s were honorable people acting before the eyes of God as they believed just, then maybe mature discussion of our "War between the States" will become a little less rare. I myself look forward to the rest of the book.

Mr. Crocker goes straight to the point in Chapter One: following the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the citizens of South Carolina, in voting to declare their state independent of the Union, believed that they were exercising their absolute right to self-determination as understood by the founders and expressed by Jefferson in the colonies' Declaration of Independence from England. The question facing them was: had they, having chosen union with the other former colonies following the war for independence, thereby lost their liberty? True, they had voluntarily ceded some prerogatives to a federal government, but those prerogatives remained their own, by God-given right, to reclaim. On December 10, 1860, South Carolinians reclaimed those prerogatives, setting a precedent which other states would soon follow. Between January 9 and February 1, 1861, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Lousiana and Texas all seceded and, before Lincoln was inaugurated, the Confederate States of America was a fait accompli.

It's generally accepted today that these southern states were rejecting democracy. Their citizens, however, believed that the democratic process had demonstrated quite clearly that North and South were politically and culturally incompatible. Insofar as the entire South had overwhelmingly rejected Lincoln (even Kentucky, which would choose not to secede, had given him less than 1% of its vote), secession was seen as an acknowledgement of both democratic principles and reality. South Carolinians in particular had long felt bullied by northern states (especially Massachusetts) and many had for more than three decades dreamt of separation. Following the election, it would have been impossible in Charleston to have ignored the enthusiasm for a second declaration of independence.

And of course, the four states which seceded later (Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee) did so only when pressed to take up arms against their fellow countrymen.

It would be a welcome thing if more Americans were aware of the wider range of issues over which the war was actually initiated. Certainly slavery had been the major point of contention between states for the entire life of the nation and especially during the election campaign, but the northern states pressuring President Lincoln during the first half of 1861 to "put down the rebellion" were more concerned about the possibility of the new southern nation's enactment of protective tariffs on its plantation-produced cotton and tobacco than about the welfare of slaves. They also fretted over the potential for a Southern/European alliance against them. What they did NOT do was trumpet the abolition of slavery as a war goal. Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until after Antietam/Sharpsburg (September 17, 1862) and only thereafter was the practical possibility of the abolition of slavery openly discussed. For two years, Northern enlistees went to war principally to "preserve the Union" and to punish the Confederacy for its assault on Ft. Sumter - not to end slavery. Southern enlistees left their farms and towns not out of zeal to perpetuate slavery but rather out of pride and patriotism. They didn't want war, but felt honor-bound to defend their homelands and culture, their new confederation and their ideal of citizenship.

Chapters One, Two and Fifteen are conspicuously "politically incorrect". Otherwise, this POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE is a quick reference to prominent battles and generals. I suppose, though, it's un-PC to point out, as the author does, that Robert E. Lee freed his few slaves in 1862 after seeing to it that they were educated. Or that Sherman wanted to kill or drive all southern whites out of the country and replace them with transplanted northerners and residents of the western territories. Or that Confederate officers were under orders from Lee when in Maryland and Pennsylvania to treat the citizens of those states with respect. Or that there even existed alternatives to war and that slavery would surely have ended soon anyway - with the South NOT completely destroyed, with better relations between the races and without seeing the birth of extra-legal subversive organizations. Or many other things...

The book is simply and clearly written and is easy to read and understand. I also found it entertaining. I recommend it.

To the victor goes the spoils, and greatest of these is the right to compose the approved history.
That history has been taught to generations of schoolchildren, and embraced by biased, completely indoctrinated historians and educators.
Now, after 143 years, the facts regarding a government gone astray from the visions of the Founding Fathers, Taxation and Tariffs, Mr Lincoln's political objectives, and the South's decision to legally and constitutionally secede from unbearable tyranny finally see the light of day.
It is becoming more and more difficult for the indoctrinated to assert the simplistic explanation that "the Civil War was over slavery" as insurmountable evidence to the contrary becomes available to the public. In fact, the War for Southern Independence was not a "civil war" at all (the South sought not control of a central government, but freedom from same, and the constitutional establishment of their own government).
The dreams of the Founding Fathers ended in 1865. States Rights and individual liberty - as well as the noble democratic experiment itself - were irreparably altered by the Northern "victory."
Southerners have known for generations that the Union victory was a defeat for all Americans. The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War precisely why this is true.
This book should be used in every history class in the United States. Given time, the concept of the "civil war" being over slavery shall be as laughable as the long undisputed concept that the Earth was flat.
Deo Vindice.

"The Politically Incorrect Guide(TM) to the Civil War" serves to further reinforce the fact that the "South's" patriotic, moral, rebellious, determined and unceasing efforts to maintain/restore the ideals of our nation's founding fathers throughout history were genetically bequeathed from centuries-old Scots-Irish ancestry and transcended a corrupt kingdom and a democratic republic turned dictatorial.

From a historical perspective, for Southerners, it's simply in our genes. More specifically, it's in our rebellious or "rebel" gene; An independent rebel gene that crossed the Atlantic in rebellion against a lack of freedom.

A rebel gene that fought a war against the British Crown, rebelling for our right to secede from that overpowering government.

A rebel gene that led the rebellious argument, as evidenced by "The Federalist Papers", against the formation of a union of states (United States) for fear of eventually returning to the overbearing demands of a federal power from which we fought to escape.

A rebel gene that reluctantly agreed to the formation of a union, but only after rebelling for the promulgation of a protective constitution that would guarantee that any federal power would be limited to essentially a few basic tasks: provide for a common defense, promote and facilitate commerce between the states, etc.

A rebel gene that rebelled against the gradual creep of the feared overbearing federal power of this "United States" government in violation of the Constitution.

A rebel gene that rebelled and fought a war against an overpowering United States central government that denied our states the inalienable right to secede from an overbearing government.

A rebel gene that lost a war for the restoration of the rights of our individual states; a war that, sadly, set the stage for the encroaching federal monarchy (royalty) under which we approach today.

A rebel gene that gets up, brushes itself off and continues incessantly today, rebelling against those same creeping encroachments feared by our founding fathers that threaten freedom.

A rebel gene that despite setbacks has been our nation's salvation to date.

A rebel gene, the urge from which emanates the patriotic, moral and appropriate rebelliousness we witness today in these ever-expanding red states, as they continue to adamantly cast their votes of rebellion and slowly nudging the few remaining "blue-states" into the Atlantic and Pacific.

A rebel gene that guarantees that our democratic republic will continue to survive and flourish as our rebel founders intended.

Yes, we Rebels lost the Civil War "battle" but continue to win the "Rebel War" for those principles upon which our country was founded

It's jes in our genes!

[...]

In his newest work, Harry Crocker makes history come alive. The Civil War has not often been taught well in schools, with the teaching model focused on dates, and not individuals. In "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War", as he did in his acclaimed book "Robert E. Lee on Leadership", Harry corrects this, making history entertaining, with humor and wonderful anecdotes. I cannot think of a better birthday or Christmas gift for any lover of history that this wonderful book.