The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War (The Politically Incorrect Guides) Paperback – Illustrated, October 21, 2008

Great book written mostly from the perspective from the South. In this reviewer's opinion, as this book wisely points telling from a different or Rebel viewpoint, there really were no bad guys in the CW at all. It was NOT WW2 no matter how one wants to define it & understand history today. In reality the conflict was so tragic that the nation saw it's heroes of two camps fight against each other, where if there was any villain at all in the conflict that villain had been exclusively slavery itself. The Post Modernist, Neo Marxist agenda usually tells a fairy tale, altered, & lies about history, this book sets the record straight & tells people the truth. Before the Far Left dominated our schools, & culture the CW was historically analyzed by experts who were mostly pro Northern, not that they were bad but often they ignored important critical details to boost a pro Union stance which really does not help Americans truly understand how horrible, sad, & viciously ugly the American CW was. Also that earlier type of lesson method never really showed how complicated the CW was from it's early pre origins, to secessions with an attack on Fort Sumter, to all the battles waged, then it's aftermath to the post CW years often called Reconstruction. For the most part I want to state that I myself am so pro American I am can find sides and justification for both the Yankee North where I am originally from, and also the old Dixie South. The North led by Lincoln did have legal & justification for their decisions, but as this book wisely shows the Rebels did also no matter how many lies, PC Leftist spin modern phony historians state about this brutal and sad historical topic. Both elements & both warring factions had strong legal, constitutional, & even moral rationals behind their actions & beliefs at the time. Politics & religion are usually ALWAYS ugly, & nasty topics be it the 1800's still today no matter how long time goes by. Much of the elements fought over in the 1800s are actually still with us today, though long forgotten by many, and we still deal with aspects of this difficult subject matter because the debate and struggle over the US Constitution, the powers of the federal government verses the state authorities no matter what is told in the ugly media still has weight in our modern 21st Century world as it did then. The question still lingers is the Federal government really the be all end all, does it's actions or past actions find real justification to what the Founders themselves had created & defined? The book goes into heavy detail about not only battles, tactics, & outcomes. It also provides insight on major historical figures such as General Robert E Lee and others often times stating factors either past movies or books ignored or simply long forgotten about these mighty and remarkable men. Just the bios alone of each CW era player is worth the purchase of this book. Other books usually do not do this, or give you 50% of the historical record while focusing on some other themes. The decency, marvel, and humanity of men like General Lee is explained well, no one is villainized beyond the author's opinion or point of view of Northern actors being more out of line or harsher. The modern's world's problems, & our national political problems can be found in similar problems or issues from our historical past, and we see good or I would argue better insight into the history that led up to the start of the CW more than other tv shows, books, or movies had gone into. So what side do I take or favor one would ask? What I get out of the book better helps me come to my best guess, opinion, or better judgement of the CW or at least makes my own beliefs backed better by more that is learned from this book. I still take the side of Lincoln, and the North but not on the complete grounds as usually told or what initially the rational for the North's prosecution of the war had been which was to preserve the Union. I still take the position that slavery and all its horror, barbarism, and ugliness really could only end through combat, and war, though this book brings up a theory that due to technology and changes in political decisions in the 1800s in other Western nation's such as Britain the France slavery had been disfavored and outlawed by them and in time this author at least brings up a historical what if that the evil of slavery would economically die out over time itself. Maybe he took this position, or brought this idea up because the theory it make over time had been more financially costly to own or hold slaves over when technology itself made farm labor cheaper or more beneficial to hire workers for a low wage without the slave masters having to house or care for the people they enslaved. That theory is a big what if. Hard to say, for if the ideal notion that innocent human beings can be enslaved at all & perform work for free then what would ever justify liberating them out of economics alone? That is very hard to say, and again it was because of technology at that time such as the cotton gin which actually promoted Southern Plantation owners to demand more slaves on their farms because the high demand of cotton on the world market, and also the need to produce it much faster and cheaper where more labor had been needed. The answer history gave us was the Northern Army through it's tactical victories helped end the evil and horror of slavery by pure brute military force alone, that was not only a gain for the Yankees because former slaves, or black American men who were free up North had eventually been authorized to add to the numbers of Soldiers in the fight. But what I do want to state is this book shows us the raw truth that the Rebels had among their ranks very good moral people who also did not find themselves as big advocates or fans of slavery's horror, & in fact believed black Americans enslaved and free alike should be treated decently. Jackson had led a large bible promoting, reading, and writing movement on his property which broke the law at the time, but the man biblically felt black Americans like whites deserved the right to learn how to read to understand Christianity. Anyone today who mocks this, or says this was bad is an imbecile and a low life pure and simple, these actions and beliefs of Jackson show us what kind of high moral character the man had when he was alive. Unfortunately because this brutal hard historical topic has not been taught correctly for many nefarious reasons, we still live with ugly harmful fantasies about it to this very day which has negatively impacted our culture. There is this current asinine line of thought being pushed today that judges figures in history exclusively only by the standards of the modern world. This has to be one of the worst ways to ever analyze the past because it not only guides people down the dead wrong conclusions, it is also very destructive to how people look at those people in history who came before us or what they achieved. This twisted, if not ultimately childish line of thinking can lead to actual real horrors down the road, including harmful iconoclasm which has never led the world to anything remotely good (in terms of various subjects). Modern Venomous Lies & Myths people hear from the PC Social Justice crowd who indoctrinates today's high school & college students: -"Slavery is only an institution that effected black Americans alone, & only America had engaged in it & established it even from it's earlier founding beyond it's actual official founding. All black Americans alive today were victims of slavery from over a 150 years ago, and they need money from everyone else that is not black in the form of Reparations because those parties are all guilty and must atone for crimes committed before anyone was born or even people not involved. The old Rebel south was all KKK and Nazi like, they were evil and wanted to harm anyone who was not a Protestant white person. General Lee's statue has to brought down because he was equal with the Nazis as all Southerners. But the North were these gems of perfection (except for Lincoln and Grant who the modern Social Justice movement apparently also hates), they had a utopian color blind society of intellectual superiority and brilliance but those no good backward people of the South undermined their great achievements. Black Americans were treated well in the North, it was only the South that mistreated them. That Lincoln never cared about Black Americans, he only cared about his tyrannical power and had no intention of ending slavery. The villain Lincoln's emancipation proclamation as much fo a tyrant he was, magically freed all enslaved people and happiness came to the land. The Confederate flag is only a symbol of Fascist evil just like the Nazis, if not equal to them, and that flag should be banned and censored because people's feelings are hurt. Only the rainbow flag represents true social justice and equality. The Union was a flawed precursor to the Progressive Post Modern utopian movement of today, and they were Far Left Progressives who defeated White Nationalism then, and must continually hunt them down and smear them (anyone who the Far Left disagrees with or is against) today to usher in a modern globalist utopian society. Abolitionists were the primary heart & soul of the North. Everything they did was exactly what the Yankee North had been inspired by. Only white slave masters, who themselves were White Nationalists, owned slaves and only they alone were among the rank and file of the Rebel Army". Other Lies, Myths not popular today: -The Lost Cause narrative. This was an ideology or movement brought on by some prominent southerners or Dixiecrats that promoted the idea that the CW was exclusively only fought over because of States rights, and that the North invaded them first so they fought off invaders. This narrative found a large following among the both Southern political leaders in the early 1900's too the 1930's. What is wrong with this narrative? Well for one thing it is simply not exactly true, the States rights example being their most flawed platform or point, and one can ask a State's right to do what exactly? The right to enslave is what it had meant pure and simple. The rebels had also attacked first, the North did not act as the aggressors first, Fort Sumter was attacked by rebels. The Truth: Slavery had existed all over the world all through mankind's history, it was not exclusively an institution that effected and harmed black America alone, and no America was not the only country that had it or engaged in it, for every single country on Earth practiced it's horror in man's inhumanity-barbarism toward their fellow man. Not one person alive today was a slave, and not person alive today owned nor supported slavery, so no one alive today is entitled to any Reparations from anyone else no matter what lies they spew on the political scene. Not one American alive today is guilty of slavery, and not one should financially pay for something that had nothing to do with them, nor ever existed in their lifetime. Nazism did not exist in the 1800's, & neither did the term or idea of White Nationalism no matter what rhetorical rubbish some modern PC Woke fool espouses today. So any comparison of the Rebel South to Nazis is not only totally false, it is a slanderous and harmful on American history itself. No sorry the Confederates were not Nazis, it did not exist then and they never once espoused not one point that had anything to do with Nazism. This was intended as a smear and lie to villainize the South, even still today in the modern world. The Yankee North mistreated black Americans badly also, and slavery did exist by the time the CW began in some northern States (though it was almost dead in the North by the mid 1840s). Black America got a raw deal, few people actually cared about them at the time, nor did people care about treating black Americans decently at all. Due to a major historical example of a horrible unconstitutional SC decision (Dread-Scott), the war itself eventually was found to be inevitable. Abolitionism was not the norm or the political rave at it's time, most of them were remarkable and outstanding good people of character- but also in fact some Abolitionists themselves were political extremists and fanatical lunatics who engaged in misguided harmful actions which including John Brown who was captured, tried, and executed for yes real crimes that harmed real innocent people. Secession was not originally brought up by the South pre CW America, it was brought up first by the North which included New Englanders angry about Washington's foreign trade policies in terms of how it effected shipping. Then later by Abolitionist-Anti Unionists who wanted some States to engage in Secession to form a new anti slavery independent American nation out of the original US. Some of the Rebel South's major supporters of slavery had been, mind you not a lot of at all, but black American men who themselves were former slaves and after they obtained their freedom they had engaged in a profitable and larger slave trade that many aspects had been even more cruel & brutal than their their known historical southern white plantation owning counterparts had even practiced. This history had been hidden because it simply shows not only the complexity of the time period itself, but also it does not fit a Far Left or modern academia historian's agendas. Not one time had I ever been told about them in either high school, or college, and that was done on purpose by some incredibly disgusting actors who pretend to be scholars, but are really Neo Marxist activists in the Howard Zinn tradition of America haters and anti westerners (who are not historians but total frauds). Also, toward the very end of the war black southern men had enlisted or had been drafted into the Rebel Army, though they performed hard labor outside of combat duties mostly because the Rebel leadership did not view black men or former slaves to be equal with the average white Confederate Soldier, there is still a possibility in the end that these black soldiers of the South did fight in one of the last battles-but evidence is still lacking (we simply do not know?). Either way the story that only the North exclusively had black soldiers in their Army is not exactly true. Native American Indians did fight for both sides, though modern PC history never tells us about their stories, particularly the rebel side because it again discredits their false narrative that the rebels were only exclusively white or what they call today "White Nationalists", but that just was not true. Tribes from North Carolina in particular, who had land out right stolen from them by the US government proudly joined the rebel Army, & fought bravely. Book brings up important points;A. Is the so called Union destined to go on forever? Is the federal government really the be all end all? What rights do States & people in towns have today verses what is popular or what is pushed upon them by activists actors in the US government?B. Was the rebel South truly justified in some way or another at all? Is any future secession or any rebel (or independence) leaning movement- be it a nationalist- or some other political thing _______ ever legally, Constitutionally justified, and morally justified at all or did the CW's outcome decide this as an absolute final for all human time?C. So hypothetically if a modern or very near future Federal government ever does become tyrannical (IE one can describe as acting in ways that are Communist, Fascist, maybe Jihad driven, Terrorist, right wing White Nationalist, woke or left wing Black Nationalist, Corporate Controlled, __________ fill in the blank ect) does this mean because of the CW's outcome that at the end of the day the Federal government is still always correct and must be in control so no rebel movement could ever be justified?D. Was Lincoln, and his administration 100% completely correct and right even with their victory in terms of legality? Constitution: -Article 1 Section 8-To make rules for the Government & Regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections & repel Invasions.- Section 9-The Privilege of Writ of habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. Article 2- Section 2 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army & Navy of the US, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the US. Article 4 Section 4- The US shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, & shall protect each of them against Invasion; & on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. Article 1-Section 8 for Congress- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections & repel Invasions."Article 4 Section 4 applies to apparently both Congress and the Presidency. Article 1 Section 8 does not, only Congress alone. What did that mean in Lincoln's case? Well one could interpret the Constitution & Law gave him expressed supreme authority over both the federally active armed forces, & also the Militias. Then what is the Presidency then? If the noble Lincoln engaged in actions beyond his authority bounds then for the right or correct reasons, than what stops the next President from engaging in actions again beyond the law or what boundaries state for the wrong reasons tomorrow? This book brings asks puzzling ideas & problems up that usually we are told to just accept but not think of further in the modern US. If fighting a domestic war to end slavery was the good reasons then, what reasons would justify a future President or Congress from engaging in a domestic war or martially themed campaign for the wrong reasons tomorrow? My only conclusive argument of a historical situation that may be talked about & debated for many more decades on was it seemed clear that slavery & all it's evil at that exact time in the mid 1800's, had to end. Even though that was not the Union's main objective in any case, ending slavery was a by product of their win. It was in my mind really the only primary justification for a Northern victory, because holding the Union together is a noble & righteous cause along with many economic reasons that went in years beyond the 1800's, it certainly could only be justified if political groups that run it are themselves not as harmful to warp the power of the government more in the form of a tyrannical force over the citizens of the US, & of the States (where the Constitution itself demands there be a proper balance of power between the entities, & that power beyond what the Constitution had really meant & what it stated provides the federal government it's boundaries it should abide by, just as States have their's.) History's verdict to me at least is clear, no evidence has really been provided that slavery as it had in Britain would have died without violence or war, & for that the waging of war by the North was the only means in destroying it. However still the primary reason remains for the North's enactment of warfare was to maintain the American Union. But with that end, does it mean modern or people in the very near future should maintain a Union if that government is truly tyrannical? Any future act of Independence or rebellion is never justified? This book provides provocative thought beyond the lies told.

About 650,000 US citizens lost their life during the US Civil War, compared to 58,000 during the Vietnam war. Since history is always written by the victors, this book serves to express many of the other reasons that the South seceded beyond slavery.The States had joined together, just as the Euro Zone has now, and believed it was agreed that they could "un-join" the Union at any time. Just as Greece now is considering whether leaving the Euro is in its best interest, so North Carolina and Virginia had to consider what was in their best interest. Most of the federal spending was being paid for by Southern export tariffs and, as with King George before, the South felt it was being taxed without fair representation.The book makes a good case that, Northern and Southern cultures clashed and the South simply wanted to be left alone. Slave owners were a small minority and none of the Southern generals even owned slaves. In fact they believed that Christianity was making it go away naturally. It also reminds us of the Dred Scott case, where the US Supreme Court held that slavery was legal.The book quotes Lincoln, when running for office, stating how he was not going to push for emancipation. It shows evidence that, just as Britain had done before, Lincoln finally freed the slaves when he needed more soldiers.This is a good book, showing an alternative (the conquered) perspective to the US Civil War with good evidence and quotes from notables at the time. A very good read.

In writing history, authors tend to write from their own viewpoints and biases, employing the "cafeteria" method of selecting and omitting material. Some of them distort facts--either deliberately or inadvertently. Someone once said that the winners get to write the history of a conflict, and to some extent, that is probably true. Some authors feel that to achieve or retain acceptance in some circles, they must be politically correct in their writings. If you are into political correctness, you may not like this book.I loved this book, however; I've been a buff of the War of Northern Aggression (now that's biased, isn't it?) for over 40 years. While I was familiar with some of these lesser-known facts, others were new to me. It was an eye opener to read about the intricacies and complexities of that terrible war and of the personalities involved--especially facts that are the opposite of what I had read or had been led to believe for many years.Harry Crocker documents his work exceptionally well, so if there is any doubt as to anything he says, the notes are there to refer readers to the primary sources.In my view, he presents subjects from both sides of the conflict, and I believe the book is relatively free of bias. If you like reading about the War, be sure to get a copy of this one.As for gifts, I have a friend of many years whose birthday is today, 11 December, and I sent him a copy, confident that he will enjoy reading it as much as I have.

Muito esclarecedor

Mediocre at best

Excellent

Unterhaltsam geschrieben, manche Argumente sind nicht stichhaltig! haette genuegt sich auf den damaligen Zeitgeist zu berufen!