Was Jefferson Davis Right? (Paperback)

~ James Ronald Kennedy (Author), (Author) "On May 10, 1865, the military forces of the United States of America captured Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America..." (more)
Key Phrases: United States, Jefferson Davis, Founding Fathers (more...)

Product Details

• Paperback: 352 pages
• Publisher: Pelican Publishing Company; illustrated edition edition (May 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 156554370X
• ISBN-13: 978-1565543706
• Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 5.9 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (16 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #444,548 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

52 of 54 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An extraordinarily cogent and revealing discourse, February 16, 1999

By	[e-mail] (Springfield, VA) - See all my reviews

In a day in which the Federal government of the United States is virtually all-powerful, nothing is needed so much as a diligent study of the United States constitution, its limitations, and the original intentions and perspectives of America's founders. "Was Jefferson Davis Right?" serves this capacity not only by employing a rigorous examination of the US constitution and early American politics and perspectives, but by challenging the modern politically-correct dogma concerning Jefferson Davis, the Southern Confederacy and the War of 1861-1865. The Kennedy brothers demonstrate key principles that impacted the events of the conflict between North and South and created the America that we live in today. Among those are: 1) The historically provable fact that the Founding Fathers did not intend that Washington's government be all-powerful but rather limited to a small range of specifically delegated powers: a conditional, not supreme union. 2) That prior to 1865, the states of the union did not hesitate to defend their reserved rights and that such actions were in fact mainstream practices. 3) That the consolidated view of the United States government was a view that evolved after the formation of the Republic. 4) That the usurpation of power by the Federal govt. began very shortly after the formation of the union and was reasonably contained until 1861. 5) That Jefferson Davis and those who advocated southern independence were in fact following the pattern originated by our Founding Fathers in their separation from England. 6) That the issue of slavery (although a heinous practice) was beyond the power of the Federal govt. and was instead a matter for the states to decide for themselves just as the Northern states (and European nations) had done during the time in which they embraced the practice. In summary, "Was Jefferson Davis Right?" is an excellent book in terms of providing evidence for its assertions and eliciting thoughtful response. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in the great issues that so consumed our nation in the mid-19th century, and (in many ways) have dictated the society in which we live today. On the nitpick scale, I'd have to say that I had only two problems with this book. To start with, it was a bit too redundant in some places. I know that repitition is the key to learning and such but I think that this statement applies more to facts and less to logical thoughtlines. I have more trouble with remembering dates and names than I do with following ideas though, and your mileage may vary of course. The only other detractor is a Kennedy brothers predilection that is actually much reduced from "The South Was Right," and that is the use of rather harsh language directed at certain historical figures and regions. I can understand very well the frustration that these issues raise (particuarly when considering your stolen heritage...I am a Virginian, after all....), but I think that your case is weakened and sometimes lost on those who might be persuaded (or at least become sympathetic) to your point of view, if your word usage is designed to be offensive to the "facts" and perspectives with which some individuals are familiar. They take it personally. For that reason, I believe that some things could have been phrased more effectively for the undecided or skeptical reader. Overall...an excellent work. Powerfully persuasive. Highly recommended.

31 of 33 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Splendid Defense of Constitutionalism, August 21, 2000

By	Brenan R. Nierman (Falls Church, VA USA) - See all my reviews

This book is a much-needed historical correction. That being said, and the state of modern politics and education being what they are, I have little hope that this book will have much of an impact beyond readers who are predisposed, either by conviction or a genuine search for the truth, to give it a fair hearing.

That's a real pity, because an accurate understanding of the war for Southern independence -- the last really just and necessary war that Americans engaged in -- is sorely needed if the present trend towards globalization and corporate tyranny is to be thwarted. And in this book, the Kennedys provide some necessary material towards understanding that conflict. (Other writers worth reading are Eugene Genovese, Marshall DeRosa, Clyde Wilson, and the late, great M.E. Bradford.)

Modern day so-called conservatives, who enjoy talking about "original intent" and "constitutionalism," are in truth discussing these terms within the parameters established by Abraham Lincoln when he made a travesty of the original Republic. Contrary to the assertions of some, the process by which the Constiution was ratified was a process of acceding to the Union by the States, in which the self-understanding of at least some of the ratifying conventions was that the States retained what they did not expressly convey to the national government. This included their sovereignty.

Southerners who followed Thomas Jefferson believed that the virtues of self-government, to be nourished and preserved, were best fostered by an agrarian social order. As the nineteenth century progressed, this order was perceived as being threatened by industrialism. The very best of the pro-slavery writers, George Fitzhugh, would level the charge of "wage slavery" against the North; and who can say he was wrong about that? And how much of the current debate about "welfare reform" is but a continuance (whether its protagonists realize it or not) of that old argument? Is a person flipping hamburgers in the local fast food joint truly free? Not in the Southern understanding of liberty; and, truth be told, you and I are probably not, either.

The tragedy of the South, and of the order fostered by agrarianism, is that industry and its benefits are a necessity for any nation wishing to preserve its independence. The tragedy of modern conservatism lies in its efforts to defend a noble and historically conditioned cause of liberty in a land where the preconditions for that liberty have been slowly vanishing.

Southerners defined freedom as necessarily including economic liberty, so that no man could threaten another man's livelihood for speaking his mind, or worhipping where he pleased. That agarian definition of freedom applies to very few today, and for that state of affairs, we have Lincoln, more than any other individual, to thank or blame. (For the best book on the creator of our American empire, see Gore Vidal's masterful "Lincoln.")

The cause that Jefferson Davis led was the last serious attempt to stem the tide of events. Maybe a romantic attempt, maybe -- given a determined adversary -- a doomed one, but certainly not a wrong or immoral attempt. History records that Davis failed,and it is perhaps inevitable that, given the swirl of issues that attended the conflict, the reasons for which the losing side waged it would be in time distorted beyond recognition.

The victor and his twisted history are not alone in responsibility for this. Every person wielding the Confederate battle flag in opposition to the legitimate struggles of blacks in the South (and in the North), as they sought a decent education and the chance to live lives without fear, bears the burden of using that symbol in a way that has rendered recovery of the cause of the South almost impossible. I sometimes wonder, for example, what Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis would have thought of the use of their flag as a backdrop to the racial epithets that were hurled at black children seeking to enter a public high school. To even ask the question is to answer it.

It is perhaps inevitable that, in the post-agrarian world, the power of the state should be harnassed to help alleviate the dislocations of industy and then technology. For if citizens cannot hope to have the necessary preconditions that an agarian would say are essential for a life lived in liberty, then these conditions must be secured against the power of corporations and then -- the most difficult point -- the elites who run the state themselves. That this is almost an impossible task goes without saying. That those who continue to warn of the effects of state power look to such models as Jefferson Davis, a man who in his arrest and torture at the hands of the Federal government is our highest-ranking victim of state power, is to their credit.

34 of 37 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A book by real historians, September 8, 1999

By A Customer

I am an academic and want to state that I have come to believe that, in general, many of the best and most honest histories today are being written by those outside the Academy. Universities too often "enforce" a particular view, and Academics know it all too well. There is so much toadyism, sycophancy, role-playing, and political maneuvering in a once very honourable profession, that the calling has become merely a lucrative "career." Professional Academic historians have too often degenerated into "careerists." So it is refreshing to see writers like the Kennedys perform the service that we Academics should be doing---that is, opening the mind. When the Academy careerists fail us, writers like the Kennedys must step into the void. Congratulations to the authors of an honest book.