Thursday, February 17, 2011

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War (The Politically Incorrect Guides)A Review
By: Jonathan Harris

The PIG series (Politically Incorrect Guides) has quickly become the hallmark of my bookshelf. I remember a couple years ago when I first read the PIG to the South. After finishing I quickly scooped up the PIG to Capitalism and the PIG to Islam etc. I've probably read or listened to about six of them now, and still enjoy picking up a new one. In other words, they have not let me down. They're simple, accurate (for the most part), and usually written by experts in the field. The last installment in the series that has made the bookshelf is called The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War. As a result of my reading I would have to maintain that this book should be the introduction for every student of "Civil War" history, especially those who don't particularly care for history. H.W. Crocker III does a great job in his first two chapters, "A Country of Their Own" and "The Gunpowder Trail," of busting the myths most often associated with the "Lost Cause." Was it really about slavery?

Crocker points out a few notable things that seem to throw a wrench in the system of the Yankee establishment. When South Carolina seceded she pointed right back to the Declaration of Independence to justify her cause. Was she not seizing the same principle for which our forefather's fought in the American War for Independence? It is no coincidence that nation which heralded George Washington on their official seal claimed as its supporters the grandsons of the Jefferson, Washington, and Francis Scott Key. Were these patriotic symbols dying to promote a cause against which their own grandfathers fought so nobly? Needless to say, Crocker goes into more detail concerning the legal and philosophical arguments for secession. The objective reader will naturally conclude that not only was secession lawful, but it was also profitable.

When it comes to slavery Crocker is quick to point out the Northern hypocrisy that so often gets overlooked in our own day. Before Nat Turner's rebellion there were three times as many anti-slavery organizations in the South as there were in the North, but with the rise of a secular abolitionism, the debate became framed in a different light. Lincoln, who removed General Fremont from command when he attempted to free slaves in Maryland, and claimed that his goal was to preserve the union, not free slaves, also assigned the superior position of racial equality to the white man; as did General George B. McClellan who couldn't stand the stench of "billy goats or niggers." Contrast these sentiments with those of Jefferson Davis who freed and educated his slaves, Robert E. Lee who freed his slaves and believed in progressive emancipation, and Stonewall Jackson who illegally taught a negro Sunday School. It wasn't a simple "for or against" position on slavery that was the issue, it was more "what view of slavery do you hold to?" The Republican politicians and businessmen held to a form of civil slavery (state capitalism) for all men while retaining their racism for the black race. The Northern abolitionists also believed in a form of civil slavery (socialism) for all men while retaining their bigotry (i.e. encouraging raids and insurrections) against those who owned slaves (even if they did so out of a humanitarian motive to rescue and educate non-Christians from Africa).

In addition to the first two chapters, Crocker fills his book with two other sections on battles and famous generals. They read like a biographical story and have the same literally appeal. Thus, even for those who aren't a fan of the Southern viewpoint will find good historical information concerning battles and generals in this work.

The last chapter tackles the question, "What would have happened if the South did win?" Crocker destroys the Nazi-Confederate connection that is so often made in our modern media, instead placing the connection where it should have been all along: at the feet of Abraham Lincoln. All in all, this book is a great read, and a great gift to give those who want an introduction to the "Civil War." Order your copy by clicking the link below.

In addition to this soft-copy version being available for purchase, there is an audiobook available for free for all those who own an amazon.com account. Simply go to Amazon.com for more details.

4 comments:

Seeker said...

What utter and moronic lies.

Let's just take one -- that before the war, there were three times as many anti slavery publications in the South.

That was BEFORE 1820. After 1820, the South violently shut down, and then continually oppressed, free speech in the South. Men like Cassisus Clay and Hiton helper were literally carried out of the South, and warned not to enter again.

Others were not so lucky. Preachers could be, and were, arrested and subjected to torture for preaching what the Governmente did not like -- you either preached slavery is from God, or you shut up.

If you preached slavery was wrong, you could be arrested and tortured.

How's that for free speech, and freedom of religion?

Learn real history.

YOu are still running from the truth like your soldiers ran from Sherman.

Did you know that Hood, in Atlanta, wrote insulting letters to Sherman about Sherman's order to move women and children out of Atlanta for their safety?

Hood wanted the women and children to remain -- so he could hide behind them. Sherman wrote back, and said, essentially, quite hiding behind your women, and there won't be any need to move them out of the way.

WHen the women and children were moved, Hood ran like the coward he was.

You guys are still running.

Jon said...

Interesting thoughts, but not rooted in fact. The Hood incident is a complete Northern fabrication. Sherman was a master at blaming the defenders of Dixie for being the "real" aggressors towards their own people. If you stop to think about it, without even reading the authentic historical account, you'll realize that it doesn't make a lick of sense. The guys defending their home were the same ones making war on it? Give me a break. I could come up with 10 horrendous stories about Sherman for every one false story you can concoct about a Southerner.

Seeker said...

Jon root this. What the hell are you rambling about?

Fact -- Hood wrote to Sherman. FACT. Read the damn letter. It's in your newspapers. READ IT.

FACT Hood complained about SHerman ordering women and children out of Atlanta.

FACT Sherman wrote back, telling Hood to quit hiding behind the women and children. SHerman listed several examples of Souther soldiers doing exactly that, hiding behind schools, hospitals, orphanages, and then firing cannon and rifle against Sherman's troops.

Sherman took that for a while, then told Hood -- no more. Get the women out of the way. GO READ the letter.

SO you respond with some drivel about what a bad guy SHerman was. Bumper sticker much? The Southern soldiers were using women children hospitals homes to fire upon Shermans solders. SO he took action. Too complicated?

What did you do when slaves were in rebellion? YOU BURNED THEM TO DEATH. If a slave reacted violently against slave masters, they were BURNED TO DEATH. They were whipped for running away, they were killed, sometimes tortured to death, if they used violence against slave masters or the whites generally.

SO spare me your crying about SHerman getting rid of the South's ability to feed it's soldiers. SHerman SOULD have treated you like you treated the slaves. Even then you would have no room to cry and whine -- you did it to others.

My my what a bunch of cry babies the South was then and is now. REal tuff guys when whipping slaves. DO you know Lee seemed to enjoy watching slave girls being whipped? He would scream during their torture. REal tuff guy. But he would never face even a slave WOMAN alone, one on one.He would need five or ten thugs around him. Real hero.

Learn real history of slave masters. NOT the bullship they fed you

Jon said...

Seeker, based on your tone and language I perceive that you are not an individual interested in having an honest and civil dialogue, to whom I bid a farewell until your manners merit a dignified response.