Customer Reviews

The South Was Right!

5 star:		(124)
4 star:		(31)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(12)
1 star:		(56)

 

 

...Born and bred in upstate NY. I am also civil war buff. This book is extremely important, for the fact of the matter is that MOST of the history that is taught today is WRONG. Not wrong in the general outcomes/ what happened sort of way, but wrong in explaining the TRUE motivations of the involved parties, as well as glossing over less-than savory events and dirty little secrets. The American Civil War is one of the most misunderstood events in our nation's history, and most of the misunderstanding is from Americans themselves! What we are taught about the Civil War here in the U.S. does not accurately explain what really happened (and don't even get me started on how we turn normal men into unstained 'heroes'). This book gets 5 stars for its fresh approach (how many more volumes of standard Civil War history can we stomach? There are already tens of thousands!) and because it raises questions on what you thought you "knew" about the Civil War.
Let me make it clear that this book does not defend or make a case for slavery. The authors concede right off the bat that slavery was disgusting. What the authors DO defend is the motivations of the vast majority of Southerners (and it isn't to uphold slavery), and what the authors attack is the North's (and more specifically, Lincoln's) motivations (and it isn't to free their fellow man). While I don't agree with about half of their observations, I ABSOLUTELY concur with their conclusions about Lincoln. Yes, he was a great man, but he was NOT the man we have been taught to believe he was. If nothing else, reading this book will give you a fresh take on an event that we still feel the repercussions from almost 150 years later. This book is a must read for anyone interested in The American Civil War. Read it for yourself and then decide whose version of history sounds correct.

Although there are many people who seem to think that the authors are racist or ignorant, the bashers must admit that this book makes you think. The Kennedys do a great job showing that the War Between the States was NOT about slavery! If you doubt that statement, read the Bell Wiley books "The Life of Johnny Reb" and "The Life of Billy Yank", which show the thoughts of the common soldier of the Union and the Confederacy (then ask yourself which were the racists).

The Kennedys explain in depth the political turmoil that existed in the United States up to and immediately after the War Between the States. They also back up the lawful ways the Southern States yearned for what the Constitution promised. They even offer proof that the Apartheid that other reviewers are convinced would have resulted from the South succeeding in its quest for states rights was actually what Lincoln wanted while a Congressman and President.

You don't have to agree with the Kennedys but you'll be better off in arguing whichever side you choose in the matter of states rights after reading this book.

After purchasing the book through Amazon.Com and reading it, I could only wonder how many of the other reviewers had done the same! Yes, the authors refer to pro-union persons as Yankees frequently. I wonder if anyone has ever noticed how offensive the term "rebel" can be when used ad nauseam in a work? The authors do not use the term yankee with the vitriole other reviewers would have one believe but rather to call attention to the fact how desensitized our culture has become to the overly casual use of the terms "rebel" and "Civil War". Secessionist? Definitely. War for Southern Independence? Without a doubt. However, it will be odd to the enlightened observer that our culture commonly uses the term "rebel" as a perjorative, yet is offended by the same use of the collective "yankee". Truth be told, the war was not a Civil War, had it been, both armies would have fought for control of a central government. This was a war of secession, one nation (The Confederate States) seeking to remove itself from a seperate, sovereign nation just as the colonies had done with England and King George ninety years before. The authors point out with authority and documentation that the Constitution of The Confederate States of America forbade the further importation of slaves. The authors further document and narrate that the majority of slaves were not beaten and ill treated by slave owners as others would have one believe and that, all things considered, slavery was not the primary cause behind the war, as race relations were, if anything, more strained in the north than they were in the south. The authors do a good job underscoring the fact that they are not pro-slavery nor do they advocate a return to such a system. They do, however, show that the South in 1861 had evolved into a seperate economy and culture than that of the North, BOTH of which would later have to come to terms with the spectre of slavery. En toto, the authors show that the Confederacy was acting as a sovereign nation, in the tradition of their grandfathers, seeking to preserve personal liberty and the right to govern themselves as they best saw fit. The book is a must read for anyone who wishes an understanding not only of the motivation of the Confederacy but also of how we have come to have the all-powerful Federal governemnt running (nearly) unchecked in Washington today.

To be honest, the book is strongly biased towards the Confederate cause (as if the title didn't already establish that). This bias is as solid for the Confederacy as books like "Lies Across America" are biased towards the Union. With that being said, however, this book provides much food for thought with many facts that are put forth. Before reading this book, I couldn't imagine that any black person would side with the South during the Civil War. My history texts in school derided the idea. However, the authors' evidence as well as more that I've found in related readings show that there were indeed pro-CSA blacks. This infuriates other historians who for some reason cannot accept this. However, the facts are there.

This book is a must for anyone interested in the Civil War.

This book covers a very emotional issue for many people on both sides of the debate. I believe this book to be one of the better in presenting the Southern side. I belive the term "yankee" is used so much in this book simply because of emotion. Unbridled anger, I'm sure overcame the authors during their research. If something has been represented to you as truth your entire life, just to be proven otherwise, it would be a great point of contention. This book is well documented and thoroughly researched and footnoted. Human nature is to be sorry for misdeeds. Human tendency is to justify one's actions. Slavery was immoral, wrong, indecent, and was no "bed of roses" (European immigrants in the 1800's knew all about it). I don't think the authors should have "gone there." I thought it ironic that some Northern states passed laws disallowing blacks from residing within their borders. I've grew up in the South and have never heard this. I wonder why? They were allowed to stay long enough to get out. My only wish is that others, not JUST the South, would be labled for what they were. Perhaps this book may open some minds and we can all realize blame as well as glory.

Being from Boston, MA, I have developed a viewpoint on this topic that most people would not expect. My education about the issues of this war were naturally quite biased towards the North. I can still remember my teachers becoming quite animated in their denunciation of every point of view presented to explain the Southern position, an attitude that had won me over as well. Unfortunately, later in life, this emotion about the sanctity of the Northern cause also caused me to earn a failing grade on what I considered a rather balanced paper. This anecdote clearly demonstrated, to me at least, that there is indeed a serious Northern bias in the teaching of our history, one which downplays, if not omits, pertinent information unflattering to the North. Anyone who denies that the victors write the official history clearly does not understand human nature. The book by the Kennedy brothers challenges these traditional outlooks rather effectively, but unfortunately very affectively also. The constitutional arguments and alternative images of the Northern motivation for the war make fine, compelling points. However, these arguments would bear more weight if the language were less biased and romanticized. That said, this same language is refreshing in its bias. The same people who complain about it use the exact same tactics when speaking of the North. Still, this book would be better received if it at least appeared more objective and dispassionate. I offer that we Northerners often forget that our section of the nation was part of the cycle of slavery. Yankee traders had brought the slaves to the South earlier on, and more importantly, their role in the cycle was to use the cotton in their manufacturing. They sold the slave to his master, bought the product of the slave and sold it to the world for an enormous profit! Is this fact presented pominently in our Civil War education? I would like to sign my name to this review, but quite frankly, it would not be wise. These viewpoints could earn me some enmity. I do not romanticize the Old South, but I do not endorse the "party line" either. True objectivity is not really appreciated or well tolerated in our society today.

Although I was raised as a Southerner, I never knew the full story of these events until now. This book has opened my eyes for the first time. I am angry, depressed, shocked, and confused all at the same time. The points are well documented, and fully collaborated. Those who wrote negative reviews of this book obviously didn't read it, or are so blinded by 150 years of lies they don't know any better. I feel a new sense of purpose that I haven't felt in a long time. I know now that I don't need to worry about losing our precious country any more...it was lost a long time ago already.

"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.

As the son of a Master Chief, I have lived in many places, including Georgia, Virginia, the Carolinas, New Hampshire, and Maryland (to name a few). So, I was always attracted to the "Civil War". This book is something every American should read, regardless of their stance on the issue. While presented in a very Southern-biased way, it brings to light many of the facts and truths that the Yankees have conveniently forgotten to put in the history books.
The book's title may suggest things such as slavery. This is because you have probably been educated in the United States and have been exposed to the liberal and "politically correct" views in our schools. The authors in fact make every stance that slavery was an evil practice, but that in fact it was very different than what we are taught it was. In our schools, we are taught that all slave masters were cruel and oppressive, such as it is in Uncle Tom's Cabin. That book is as inaccurate as Satan is bad. An official US report interviewing remaining former slaves some years back, "The Slave Narratives", which shows a minimum of 70% positive comments from the ex-slaves towards their masters, proves this. While I could go into a lot more details, the slave trade was not as it is perceived today.
Also, notice above that I said "Civil War". This is because it was not a civil war. A civil war is a war fought between two factions of the same government. The southern states had legally seceded from the Union and were therefore a separate and sovereign nation. Read the book and see all of the primary source quotations and references that support this as well as with the slavery and genocide issues.
The North committed a large number of what would today be called war crimes. And do you know what else? Lincoln and his homies knew about it. All of it. In fact they encouraged it. Once again, read the documentations from the official reports and you will see that the South was fighting a monster with no conscience. The last chapter of the book includes pages and pages of these references that will change even the most pro-Yankee's views of "Honest Abe".
I will not, and furthermore cannot, change your mind on these issues. So, I strongly encourage you to read the Kennedy brothers' work and decide for yourself if the South really was right. The answer may surprise you. But, even if you choose to believe that they weren't, read the book and get all the facts straight before you make your decision.

I have read a couple of revisionist books written to cash in on current events (Melkin's piece on internment and France our Oldest Enemey. This book is excellent, it shares a contravercial title, there any similarity ends (it is well worth looking beyond it's title).

To claim this book is one sided neglects the outright bias that is present in most teaching of history within the US. I was educated in England and appalled at the superficial coverage US history receives within the US school system (not to say the same PC slant isn't present in the UK now - it's probably worse). Coverage is more like a liberal apology than coverage of events.

The book adopts the "following the money approach" to analyzing who profited most from slavery - the case that much of the wealth went to the North is well made. It also points out slavery was not new to Africa, and was practiced by Africans on their own people without outside intervention. The case is also well made that the North, and Lincoln held racist views. The lot of blacks in the Northern states was precarious (e.g. draft riot lynchings in NY City).

The authors do not make any case in favour of slavery - their consistent line is the practice is vile.

The fact that many blacks served, assisted and provided material support to the war on both sides is beyond refute. Native Americans also served with distinction on both sides during the civil war (including one Brig. Gen on Grant's Staff) - this material does less for the authors case (their choice was more governed by tribal location).

The book has a few flaws, it does repeat itself. Arguing that conditions for US POWs do not amount to war crimes (it does even if the North had similar low standards - two wrongs dont make a right) and probably worse, forgetting glossing over atrocities of the South. The style is a little journalistic.

Great book that dispels some myths, and brings others into question. Makes the reader realize why most confederate soldiers fought so well. Despite the fact that more than 90% held no slaves.