As a reformed Confederate, I read this book many years ago and revisited it recently as I continue my quixotic battle against the neo-Con(federate) fascists who peddle this poison. If you believe that "America" means "liberty and justice for ALL," that "ALL men are created equal," and that "We the PEOPLE" formed this Union, then read this book and know your enemy.

This book will tell you how the North conspired to "oppress" the South, but not how the white planter South oppressed their own people, or dominated the federal government from 1789 (virtually every president was either a southerner or was pro-southern until Lincoln).

In an Orwellian twist, they will tell you about "liberty" and "freedom" and "states' rights" but what these neo-Confederates don't tell you (objectively) in this polemic is the end result of a Confederate nation. What would it look like? I'd like to see them talk about the "real" Confederate "vision". They try but they leave out a lot of real history and real facts.

As we all know, this book, thankfully, is not taken seriously by anyone well read in American history. If you want to know if "The South Was Right", avoid this trash and read John C. Calhoun's papers instead... (esp. his speech "Why Slavery is a Positive Good.")

As a reformed Confederate, I read this book many years ago and revisited it recently as I continue my quixotic battle against the neo-Con(federate) fascists who peddle this poison. If you believe that "America" means "liberty and justice for ALL," that "ALL men are created equal," and that "We the PEOPLE" formed this Union, then read this book and know your enemy.

This book will tell you how the North conspired to "oppress" the South, but not how the South oppressed their own people. In an Orwellian twist, they will tell you about "liberty" and "freedom" and "states' rights" but what these neo-Confederates don't tell you (objectively) in this polemic is the end result of a Confederate nation. What would it look like? I'd like to see them talk about the "real" Confederate "vision". They try but they leave out a lot of real history and real facts.

As we all know, this book, thankfully, is not taken seriously by anyone well read in American history. If you want to know if "The South Was Right", avoid this trash and read John C. Calhoun's papers instead... (esp. his speech "Why Slavery is a Positive Good.")

As a reformed Confederate, I read this book many years ago and revisited it recently as I continue my quixotic battle against the neo-Con(federate) fascists who peddle this poison. If you believe that "America" means "liberty and justice for ALL," that "ALL men are created equal," and that "We the PEOPLE" formed this Union, then read this book and know your enemy.

This book will tell you how the North conspired to "oppress" the South, but not how the South oppressed their own people. In an Orwellian twist, they will tell you about "liberty" and "freedom" and "states' rights" but what these neo-Confederates don't tell you (objectively) in this polemic is the end result of a Confederate nation. What would it look like? I'd like to see them talk about the "real" Confederate "vision". They try but they leave out a lot of real history and real facts.

As we all know, this book, thankfully, is not taken seriously by anyone well read in American history. If you want to know if "The South Was Right", avoid this trash and read John C. Calhoun's Papers instead.

The men and women of the Southern States (including Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri) were willing to once again risk life, limb, and property to fight for the rights guaranteed in the US Consitution. This indeed is what they fought for. Imagine joining voluntarily into a "union" that would not allow you to leave, even though the "unifying" document gave you the right to leave.

Tyranny is defined as, "oppressive government: oppressive government by one or more people who exercise absolute power cruelly and unjustly." This is precisely what the northern led US goverment was and still is. Freedom lost in 1865 and tyranny won. The fact that we now have close to 300 million people the majority of who love their "peace" and personal affluence more than they love freedom is a shame, but indeed a product of the outcome of the Second War for Independence ("Civil War").

Instead of sitting around thumping our chest about how much "history" we know, why don't we think about returning to the spirit of the original American patriots and their Southern counterparts of 85 years later. We are all now beholden to this behemoth central, tyrannical goverment and we all have egg on our faces as we decide what to do with our "economic stimulous package" as we wait to vote for one of three presidential candiates all of whom would have been hung for treason in 1776-1861.

The condition of our nation and the fact that those who fought for adherence to the Constitution are now maligned is a national shame. I do not care whether you are now a "northerner" or a "Southerner." We have all largely sold out and are all "slaves" to a tyrannical central power. If that outcome is "right" then indeed we are in the days like those of which Scripture speaks, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isa 5:20).

Assuming of course that the facts are true, this book is extremely interesting for its facts, timelines, and 'no holds barred' look at the issues of the civil war. It is therefore interesting legally and historically.

However, knowing that the subject matter is extremely controversial, the authors really do not say enough that slavery was wrong, and considering that most examinations of this subject deal with the moral issues of slavery and subjugation, they seem to have glossed over the issue far to rapidly. In a world where the discrimination and persecution of African Americans is still too raw and real, a cursory denouncement of the reasons for slavery is insufficient.

The book also does not even attempt to hide its bias. It is a vehement attack on the North without any mincing of words, and strays uncomfortably close at times to stating 'two wrongs make a right.' Even if the majority of books on the topic were pro-North, or portrait the 'yankee myth of history,' a staunchly pro-Southern book just perpetrates the same wrongs in reverse!

Consequently, because I felt the book strayed a little, repeated itself somewhat, and washed its hands of the moral issue, I can't rate it any higher than three stars.

It always annoyed me how countries including France and England would constantly mock Americans for our lack of appreciation, understanding, or simple knowledge of our own history.
However, who could say they were wrong? During the last few decades of the last century and well into this one nearly every American including student as well as teacher knew any of the facts regarding the true history of the Confederate States of America and especially their cause.
The multiple choice upon every test was A. Slavery B. Slavery C. Slavery. It is ironic that one of the biggest reasons Americans hate communism is because those who live in communist countries do not learn any truth except for government propaganda. Yet, it is no different here in America as far as the teaching and learning of the Civil War goes.
There are two popular myths that we are taught as children, two myths that are as far from the truth as any. 1. The South seceded from the US to preserve slavery. 2. The North fought against the South to emancipate the slaves.
However, when open minded and truth obsessed researchers including James and Walter Kennedy dive into all the documents, accounts, letters, and testimonies from the periods of 1861-1865, they learned and now have published that what we all thought we knew about the Civil War was nothing but myths.
They give us a compelling case against the North's invasion of the Southern States. They give us accounts spoken and written by the men and women from the North and South, retelling their true positions regarding the causes and the conflict.
The Kennedy's also dispel the myths that Southerners fought to preserve slavery. They do this through including quotes and accounts of hundreds of Southern citizens both white and black.
NO OTHER biographer of the Civil War, even including Bruce Canton or James McPhearson, has ever given the public so true and authentic history of the War Between the States as this book. So far those and other historians have written their texts based on modern ideas, timeless myths, and personal prejudice towards one side of the conflict or the other.
However, The South Was Right gives us an unbiased, brave, and again, authentic representation of Secession, slavery, independence, invasion, and sacrifice.
I recommend this to ANYONE who has ANY interest in the true history of the Civil War.

That's right I said it. Let's be honest, Robert E. Lee did not approve of slavery, but he thought blacks were inferior to whites. Jefferson Davis owned slaves, but he trusted a black man to run his family business while he was away on business. "Stonewall" Jackson owned slaves, but he also educated blacks in his area by opening schools and churches for them. However, Jackson too also felt blacks were inferior to him. Basically, I am pointing out the fact that the "fathers" of the Confederacy was JUST like Abe Lincoln...a bunch of racists who had conflicting views about black people.

What Kennedy failed to realize is the South should blame themselves for their reputation. Its their behavior AFTER the Civil War that sealed their fate. These racists formed the KKK, which terrorized blacks, burn down their businesses and even burn down their churches. White women falsely accused black men of raping or looking at them, which led to black men being lynched. White men continued to rape black women as if they owned them. The South denied blacks equal access to education, health care, businesses, homes and jobs. The South denied blacks the right to vote and it goes on and on......

It will take ANOTHER 100 years AFTER 1860 for a new movement (The Civil Rights) for the South to get their act together and that movement took even more lives. The South needs to look at itself and stop blaming Abe Lincoln for their reputation....they are the ones who continued to be racist and evil after the War.

It is true...the North had its problems when it came to blacks, but at least the North left black people alone and allowed them to have some access to things. The South did not and even when blacks tried to build their lives by themselves, the South would harm them (example, Rosewood). That is why so many Southern blacks left the South after the War because in the North, they had a chance.

The South was WRONG and until they admit they hold some blame for their reputation, they will continue to be wrong.

"We definitely have a problem when children in the South are raised on the fables of 'Honest Abe' while they're taught that their own forebears were the villains of our country's history." - Michael A. Grissom, "Southern by the Grace of God"

I think most of us realize that history is not a pure study. History is the story of mankind, and men have their prejudices; they pass their tales down to posterity laden with their own bias, and in the hope that future generations will support and perpetuate their way of thinking.

We can see this truth at work in our own time. George W. Bush's presidency is not yet ended, and already the battle has begun to define it as either a success or a failure, and the conclusions being reached quite obviously reflect the personal political beliefs of those who are doing the evaluating. Objectivity is in short supply.

Consider a few other examples from recent times:

Was the Vietnam War worthwhile? Why did we lose?
Was the the decade of the 1980s a "decade of greed", or a vindication of the free market?
Do social welfare programs really help anyone, or do they just make people dependent upon the state? And is the government justified in confiscating the income of individuals in order to fund these programs?
Was Bill Clinton's impeachment justified?
Was the invasion of Iraq justified?
Is it worth suppressing civil liberties in order to wage the "war on terror"?

We as a society are at odds over such questions. What one person will claim as fact, another will deride as partisan, special interest agenda pandering designed to cloud the issue. And how will future history view these questions and the great debate that surrounds them? The answer to that depends upon which forces ultimately prevail on the political battlefield in our own time; for, as always, it is the victors who will write the accounts that will dominate in the future and will thus help to shape future opinion.

In "The South was Right!" James and Walter Kennedy assert that today's popular opinion regarding what is commonly referred to as "the American Civil War", more accurately reflects a successful campaign of partisan distortion and outright deception than a true and faithful account of history. They claim that those who won the war engaged in the same sort of cover-ups, ideological gamesmanship and partisan nonsense that we see in the modern political arena. And if you are prepared to look at the subject with an open mind, you will find that they make a very strong case for their claims.

Over the course of 431 pages (hard cover edition), the Kennedy brothers call into question numerous tenets of what they refer to as "the Yankee myths of history". Such alleged myths include:

- Lincoln the Emancipator, Humanitarian and Protector of Liberty
- The North Fought the War to Save the American Constitutional Union
- The South Fought the War to Preserve Slavery
- We (Southerners) are Better Off Because We Lost the War
- The Struggle for Southern Independence was a Civil War
- The North was Motivated by High Moral Principles to Preserve the Union
- The North Championed the Cause of Equality, Racial Tolerance, and Human Brotherhood

The bulk of "The South was Right!" is dedicated to shedding light on these long-accepted beliefs. The Kennedys show that Abraham Lincoln's sole aim was to force the seceded Southern states back into the Union, by whatever means possible, including making pitiless war against Southern civilians. They quote from speeches where Lincoln plainly stated that he was not a believer in racial equality, and that, as he said to Horace Greeley, what he did about slavery and the black race he did in order to "save the Union". However, the Kennedys also demonstrate that the constitutional Union established by our founding fathers was actually overthrown by Lincoln's war, not saved, and that we owe today's aggressive, runaway federal machine to Lincoln's ideology. Secession, as it happens, was not unconstitutional at all, but was a reserved power of the states and their people, as defined by the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution. Having studied and written about the issues associated with the Constitution and secession myself, I can testify that the Kennedys' defense of states rights and the compactual nature of the Constitution is one of the strongest parts of the book.

Overall, "The South was Right!" is a convenient single volume re-assessment of the "Civil War", and serves well as an introductory read for those who are curious about the things most of us have been taught since elementary school. The Kennedy brothers bolster their controversial claims with an impressive battery of quotations and via extensive documentation; the book's end notes and bibliography run thirty-six pages, combined. A number of interesting appendices are also provided.

On a critical note, I have to say that I believe the book's overall tone borders on hostility. I understand the authors' frustration in combating more than a century's worth of lies and obfuscation, but I'm willing to bet that many who might otherwise be interested in the material might be tempted to dismiss it as a rant because of that tone. The issues in question here are sensitive, for many reasons, and I think they should be handled a bit more even-handedly if persuasion is the end goal. We have to remember that this is very much an 'underdog' approach to history, and thus those who argue in favor of it have to be more careful in their presentation, if they wish to be taken seriously. I know that many people have been positively influenced by "The South was Right!", and I'm glad of it; however, I think that many more could have been influenced had its tone been a bit more mellow.

All in all, I highly recommend "The South was Right!" to students of history, particularly those who have caught the whiff of a strange and disturbing odor emanating from the ardent Lincoln camp. I should know; that's how I started down the 'revisionist' road myself. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address didn't make sense to me given how he proclaimed that he was fighting for "government of the people", when the truth was that his armies were obviously fighting to deny the right of self-government to the Southern states. It seemed to me that any country based on the sanctity of self-government had no business denying that right to states that preferred to go their own way (remember the Declaration of Independence? It was really a joint ordinance of secession - and the British were quick to point that out to northerners during the war). Lincoln's rhetoric sounded very patriotic because he claimed to be 'defending America', and that's why so many continue to swallow it to this day, but it was anything but a reflection of the ideals that brought the United States of America into existence and promised to differentiate it from the other nations of the world. Lincoln's approach could be summarized as "You can have your self-government as long as it's this government," and "you can have your freedom as long as it's not freedom from us."

"The South was Right!" helps to tell that neglected story.

Also recommended for further reading: The Real Lincoln" and "Lincoln Unmasked", both by Thomas DiLorenzo; "Is Davis a Traitor?" by Albert Taylor Bledsoe; "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government," by Jefferson Davis; "From Union to Empire: Essays in the Jeffersonian Tradition," by Clyde Wilson and Joseph Stromberg; and "A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States," by Alexander H. Stephens.

"We definitely have a problem when children in the South are raised on the fables of 'Honest Abe' while they're taught that their own forebears were the villains of our country's history." - Michael A. Grissom, "Southern by the Grace of God"

I think most of us realize that history is not a pure study. History is the story of mankind, and men have their prejudices; they pass their tales down to posterity laden with their own bias, and in the hope that future generations will support and perpetuate their way of thinking.

We can see this truth at work in our own time. George W. Bush's presidency is not yet ended, and already the battle has begun to define it as either a success or a failure, and the conclusions being reached quite obviously reflect the personal political beliefs of those who are doing the evaluating. Objectivity is in short supply.

Consider a few other examples from recent times:

Was the Vietnam War worthwhile? Why did we lose?
Was the the decade of the 1980s a "decade of greed", or a vindication of the free market?
Do social welfare programs really help anyone, or do they just make people dependent upon the state? And is the government justified in confiscating the income of individuals in order to fund these programs?
Was Bill Clinton's impeachment justified?
Was the invasion of Iraq justified?
Is it worth suppressing civil liberties in order to wage the "war on terror"?

We as a society are at odds over such questions. What one person will claim as fact, another will deride as partisan, special interest agenda pandering designed to cloud the issue. And how will future history view these questions and the great debate that surrounds them? The answer to that depends upon which forces ultimately prevail on the political battlefield in our own time; for, as always, it is the victors who will write the accounts that will dominate in the future and will thus help to shape future opinion.

In "The South was Right!" James and Walter Kennedy assert that today's popular opinion regarding what is commonly referred to as "the American Civil War", more accurately reflects a successful campaign of partisan distortion and outright deception than a true and faithful account of history. They claim that those who won the war engaged in the same sort of cover-ups, ideological gamesmanship and partisan nonsense that we see in the modern political arena. And if you are prepared to look at the subject with an open mind, you will find that they make a very strong case for their claims.

Over the course of 431 pages (hard cover edition), the Kennedy brothers call into question numerous tenets of what they refer to as "the Yankee myths of history". Such alleged myths include:

- Lincoln the Emancipator, Humanitarian and Protector of Liberty
- The North Fought the War to Save the American Constitutional Union
- The South Fought the War to Preserve Slavery
- We (Southerners) are Better Off Because We Lost the War
- The Struggle for Southern Independence was a Civil War
- The North was Motivated by High Moral Principles to Preserve the Union
- The North Championed the Cause of Equality, Racial Tolerance, and Human Brotherhood

The bulk of "The South was Right!" is dedicated to shedding light on these long-accepted beliefs. The Kennedys show that Abraham Lincoln's sole aim was to force the seceded Southern states back into the Union, by whatever means possible, including making pitiless war against Southern civilians. They quote from speeches where Lincoln plainly stated that he was not a believer in racial equality, and that, as he said to Horace Greeley, what he did about slavery and the black race he did in order to "save the Union". However, the Kennedys also demonstrate that the constitutional Union established by our founding fathers was actually overthrown by Lincoln's war, not saved, and that we owe today's aggressive, runaway federal machine to Lincoln's ideology. Secession, as it happens, was not unconstitutional at all, but was a reserved power of the states and their people, as defined by the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution. Having studied and written about the issues associated with the Constitution and secession myself, I can testify that the Kennedys' defense of states rights and the compactual nature of the Constitution is one of the strongest parts of the book.

Overall, "The South was Right!" is a convenient single volume re-assessment of the "Civil War", and serves well as an introductory read for those who are curious about the things most of us have been taught since elementary school. The Kennedy brothers bolster their controversial claims with an impressive battery of quotations and via extensive documentation; the book's end notes and bibliography run thirty-six pages, combined. A number of interesting appendices are also provided.

On a critical note, I have to say that I believe the book's overall tone borders on hostility. I understand the authors' frustration in combating more than a century's worth of lies and obfuscation, but I'm willing to bet that many who might otherwise be interested in the material might be tempted to dismiss it as a rant because of that tone. The issues in question here are sensitive, for many reasons, and I think they should be handled a bit more even-handedly if persuasion is the end goal. We have to remember that this is very much an 'underdog' approach to history, and thus those who argue in favor of it have to be more careful in their presentation, if they wish to be taken seriously. I know that many people have been positively influenced by "The South was Right!", and I'm glad of it; however, I think that many more could have been influenced had its tone been a bit more mellow.

All in all, I highly recommend "The South was Right!" to students of history, particularly those who have caught the whiff of a strange and disturbing odor emanating from the ardent Lincoln camp. I should know; that's how I started down the 'revisionist' road myself. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address didn't make sense to me given how he proclaimed that he was fighting for "government of the people", when the truth was that his armies were obviously fighting to deny the right of self-government to the Southern states. It seemed to me that any country based on the sanctity of self-government had no business denying that right to states that preferred to go their own way (remember the Declaration of Independence? It was really a joint ordinance of secession - and the British were quick to point that out to northerners during the war). Lincoln's rhetoric sounded very patriotic because he claimed to be 'defending America', and that's why so many continue to swallow it to this day, but it was anything but a reflection of the ideals that brought the United States of America into existence and promised to differentiate it from the other nations of the world. Lincoln's approach could be summarized as "You can have your self-government as long as it's this government," and "you can have your freedom as long as it's not freedom from us."

"The South was Right!" helps to tell that neglected story.

Also recommended for further reading: The Real Lincoln" and "Lincoln Unmasked", both by Thomas DiLorenzo; "Is Davis a Traitor?" by Albert Taylor Bledsoe; "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government," by Jefferson Davis; "From Union to Empire: Essays in the Jeffersonian Tradition," by Clyde Wilson and Joseph Stromberg; and "A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States," by Alexander H. Stephens.

First let me start by saying that I have read most of the reviews by you people and some made good points others simply vomited out the same crap that the school books have been saying since the end of the 1950's. the war of between the states was started over taxes frist and foremost the so called civil war was fought for the same reason every war has been waged MONEY,And as this book states the Pres. only released the slaves in the South and if you think the north didn't have Slaves you should stop believing everything your told and do a little work and look things up yourselves. Now before ya'll get to crazy about this understand one thing I had family that fought on both sides of this war and the ones in the south DID NOT own anything but a patch of ground whereas the Northern Family members DID own slaves .

Now the reason I say that the civil war was fought over taxes can be backed up just look in the goverment records of that time its there if you look you will find them. what this books says is true like it or not the slaves were freed by "honest" Abe in hopes of them turning on their "owner" and thus ending the war. This book is a must read for anyone who wants to know the real story of a war that still divides this country today.

In order to argue that "The South Was Right" these authors must first dismiss, excuse, or minimize the role of slavery or its significanse in the Civil War. Ideologues have been trying for years to do this, and this attempt is no more successful at deflecting the real issue that provoked the Civil War.

Yet another intellectually dishonest effort to revise history and excuse southern oppression and immorality.

This book conveniently picks and chooses facts and statements to support an argument by selectively choosing and ignoring only those historical facts and events that promote their position.

Abraham Lincoln stated that if he could save the Union by freeing no slaves, he would do that, if he could save it by freeing all, he would do that, or if he could save the Union by freeing some and not others, he would do that as well. This is not a statement of his feeling about the black race, as so many wish to ascribe to it, but a statement reflecting his priorities and his understanding of the limits of his Presidential powers.

1) His priority was to save the Union, over abolishing slavery.
2) He believed (and correctly I feel) that the Office of President did not have the power to simply abolish slavery by Executive Order.

The second point leads me to another argument presented by Confederate sympathizers. Lincoln's emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in only Confederate states. This is absolutely consistant with the points I made above. Lincoln did not have the power to simply free slaves on his own will, but when the Southern states seceded and initiated a state of war with the Union (when they attacked Fort Sumter and the shipment sent to resupply it), Lincoln's power as Commander and Chief allowed him to take action necessary to defeat an enemy of the United States. Freeing the slaves in the Southern, rebelling states was a legitimate attack on the ability of those states to maintain their war effort. It was within his power and a wise tactical move.

God Bless Abraham Lincoln, and I fear the world that might have come to exist had those Southern states been successful in perpetuating slavery.

Certainly such a result would have led to further wars and fighting between the United States and the Confederacy over annexation of land in the West, a willingness of Northerners to accept runaway slaves (those states would no longer have been bound by the Fugitive Slave Law to return slaves to the Confederacy), and countless other disputes that would have arisen from the existence of two separate, and morally distinct nations where America once stood.

This book is yet another amateurish exercise in historical revision. It makes no points that cannot be rebutted by a more complete history of the events of the time.

This book is a complete failure that would never pass any peer review.

This book is well written and very readable unlike many other historical works. Although it's accessible, it doesn't skimp on footnotes that authenticate facts and substantiate points of view. The real tragedy in the Civil War was the literally psychotic nature of president turned dictator, Abraham Lincoln. This individual pursued total war against a largely civilian population of the same basic culture. In a way, it was an early version of the sort of diasters that devasted Russia later at the hands of Communists.

This book is very informative! It tells everything people should actually be taught in school about the "civil war" times. The country might actually be a better place to live. A must read for everyone! Especially the black community. To find out what life was really like in the slave days.

One question for people who think this neo-Confederate is a legitimate historian: If the cause of the Civil War was not slavery, what was it? If you can name something, and show that it has NO connection to slavery, then you win. But of course, you can't do this, because slavery was at the heart of everything during the sectional crisis. Westward expansion was about slavery. Bleeding Kansas was about slavery. So called "States' Rights" is really just another way of saying "The Right to Own Slaves," because what other "rights" did the South have to maintain that were so different than the North? None.

Think about this: What about Lincoln's election so terrified the South? Did Lincoln threaten to take away southern land? No. Did Lincoln threaten to shut down southern manufacturing? No. Did Lincoln threaten to take away southern lifestock? Did he threaten to dismatle the southern court system? No. No. what was the one thing, the one single cornerstone of southern society (and the one thing that seperated the South from the North) that seemed to be at stake with the election of Abraham Lincoln? Yep, slavery.

If you still don't think slavery was the single root cause of the Civil War, answer this: could there have been a Civil War without slavery? No. Because if you take slavery out of the equasion, than you take away the root that connects every other minor branch of supposed reasons for the outbreak of war, from "States Rights" to the "Southern Way of Life," ie: the slaveholding way of life. If you are still ignorant to the basic truth, consider this famous quote from Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, from a speech he delivered in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861. Quote: "The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right."

I, of course, did not make this quote up. Look up Stephens' speech in any history book or archive, and you can read it for yourself. Slavery was the cause of the Civil War. When you say your Southern ancestors fought to maintain "Their way of Life," what you are really saying is that they fought to maintain the most defining aspect of Antebellum southern society: slavery. Go ahead, say that the majority of Southerners did not own slaves. True. But, the majority of people today do not own BMW's, or summer houses in the Bahamas. That doesn't mean they do not ASPIRE to own those things. The average southern yeoman may not have owned slaves, but because slave-owning was the highest mark of status in southern society, he certainly hoped to SOMEDAY own a slave, or two, or three...Many southerners fought for the right to maintain slavery, in the hope that someday they might own them. Read REAL history. It is not "Northern Biased," it is simply conclusive fact based on imperical evidence.

Personally, before reading the book I have always felt the South was portrayed a little too harshly during the Civil War Period. For one thing I never understood why Lincoln didn't just let the South secede. I've heard views that it was to preserve the Union but I asked myself the question of after a war would it truly be a Union if the South were defeated. To me anyway union means togetherness all striving for the same goal. After a war the Union would never be truly a union but only a perhaps shallow or fake union. I always held that the North had to have had other motivations for the war. The North needed to conqueror the South in order to further build up its industry. I think it is a great book as it provides many observations and facts that simply cannot be ignored. One thing many people don't undersand today is that textbooks in schools use sources of information. But however there are thousands of sources of information out there that have never been consulted by the vast majority of the U.S population. In schools one only learns probably a third of Civil War History.

Personally, before reading the book I have always felt the South was portrayed a little too harshly during the Civil War Period. For one thing I never understood why Lincoln didn't just let the South secede. I've heard views that it was to preserve the Union but I asked myself the question of after a war would it truly be a Union if the South were defeated. To me anyway union means togetherness all striving for the same goal. After a war the Union would never be truly a union but only a perhaps shallow or fake union. I always held that the North had to have had other motivations for the war. The North needed to conqueror the South in order to further build up its industry. I think it is a great book as it provides many observations and facts that simply cannot be ignored. One thing many people don't undersand today is that textbooks in schools use sources of information. But however there are thousands of sources of information out there that have never been consulted by the vast majority of the U.S population. In schools one only learns probably a third of Civil War History.

This book is incredible! Great read for anyone who is interested in truth!

This book takes an approach that will divide most people into two clear camps, but not necessarily with the best intentions. Unionists will find this book as insulting and offensive based on everything they have been taught in school, but our educational system is not very reliable or accurate when it comes to our own history. Racists and so-called "rednecks" will take things to the opposite extreme and confuse issues (as they do with all things) to support their views. People should not apply anti-New England arguments to "blue" states, and then claim all "red" states live on in the true fashion of the Confederacy. That simply is not true.

Such an argument assumes that the Confederacy would stand against all of the pro-human, pro-rights stances put forth by the "Kerry" states. This is insulting to me, as I am a Southerner born and raised, and I still care about other people. The same arguments made against the New Englanders of the time can now be made about the Republican party, especially since many of them are from New England and only pretend to be home-grown, good ol' boys to get their way.

The Confederacy was not fighting to found a Christian government (specifically against the Founding Fathers' wishes). They also were not fighting to give the President of the United States unlimited power over all matters. None of the current "red" state issues can be applied to my ancestors that fought and died for the Confederacy, and it is ignorant to claim that current hatred, extremism and religious fundamentalism is what those valiant people had in mind when they abandoned everything they knew in an effort to protect freedom from an overbearing government.

This book does not support slavery nor racism, and it is a bit extreme in some points. One must read this for what it is and not try to attribute their own biases or fundamentalism to a bygone era. People fought and died on both sides based on what they believed to be right and just. We have always been told the Unionist version of history, and this book makes an attempt to present the other side's feelings on the matter.

This is for the ones that listed the states' sucession letters and attempted to point out that all the states mentioned slavery. If you read what you copy and pasted, you will notice that they did mention slavery but not as an excuse to fight but for the reason that the federal government was trying to take away their right to decide on their own accord about this issue, the very basis of the 10th amendment. I know just like the rest that slavery was wrong, however people back then saw it as an institution that they should get to vote on and decide they wanted. I dont recall seein in the Constitution any provisions for slavery other than an amendment made after the fact. That was why the states left; they wanted to make their own laws. This was granted by the founders of the country and is something we are still denied even today.

I have known all my life that the south was right.THIS BOOK SHOWS THE REAL FACTS ABOUT THE WAR FOR SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE.
I WANT EVERYONE TO THIS BOOK FROM COVER TO COVER. IF THERE NOT THE SOUTH SOUTH WAS RIGHT THEN THEY ARE IDIOTS.

This is an interesting book, no doubt about it. But the authors make mistakes common to Southern apologists.

The first is that the Civil War was not fought over slavery. Certainly the Civil War was not fought over the morality of slavery, with the North fighting for right and the South fighting to defend evil. But yes, the Civil War absolutely was fought over the Economics of Slavery. All wars are economic. Here is a part of Georgia's Declaration of Secession:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war.

This is from South Carolina's declaration of secession:

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

This from Texas':

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them? The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

As for whether the majority of soldiers fighting were fighting for or against slavery, the question is frankly, ridiculous. Ask any veteran of Vietnam or Korea what they fought for. They fought because their country told them to fight. Not because they'd done a personal analysis of the communist threat. But for the COUNTRY, yes communism certainly was at the heart of those wars.

I had just visited the "Confederates in the Attic" page on Amazon, on which there are a few reviews stating that it is an "anti-Southern" book that made vast stereotypical judgements about the whole of the Southern people in presenting a few "fringe" characters who were extremist in their desire to see the Confederacy rise again. I could accept that notion but for the number of positive reviews of this book, which I read in a bookstore just two days ago.

I was intrigued by the title (and slightly amused by it), and knew what I was likely to find, being a Civil War buff and knowing that in many ways the South was politically and ideologically quite wrong. But the pages I read exceeded all expectations. What we have here is frothy, poorly-written "proof" of Yankee aggression and distortion of the "truth" about the Confederacy, supported with copious citations (as is typical of polemics, such as Ann Coulter) of sources culled from the very dregs of Civil War scholarship. I had only to read a passage on why the Confederacy was "not fighting for slavery" to put the book on my list of worthless revisionist nonsense with purely one-sided partisan bile. The section simply opts to list five Confederate generals who did not own slaves, and then select a series of letters written home by "soldiers" in which many words about "fighting for freedom" crop up, providing the basis for the hilarious tag line for the section, "Another Northern myth exposed." Unfortunately for the Kennedys, only ONE of those letters is cited as actually being written by a Confederate soldier, and that is the only one that didn't mention "fighting for freedom." No doubt their heavy use of distorted selections to cloud the ideas of the readership lulls them into believing they are seeing a "repudiation" of the North's "version of events."

I appreciate revisionism's raising of points contrary to the "party line" about history. Some of the points they make are true, and color perceptions about the war in a good way. For instance, their talk of blacks owning other black slaves is true, and their talk about the facts that many Confederates did not own slaves and did not neccesarily feel that they were fighting for slavery (as slaveowners represented a small upper-class of planters in a South where many lived in agrarian poverty) has merit. Unfortunately, the whole thing is colored by a tone that treats the North as though it were Nazi Germany, to the point where I began helplessly grinning at what I was reading. I fear that people who will not investigate very far into the time period, however, will be misled by this book, which claims to add nuance to typical understanding but which is in reality unnuanced pro-Confederate crap. Revisionism is useful, but for novices it can become difficult to draw the distinction between judgements which have a lot of support and judgements that have little support, and choosing which histortical view to award more credence, particularly with the presence of clearly partisan "revisionisms" that have political and racist agendas. Even then, I don't see how a novice could be fooled by this nonsense.