What do you think?
Rate this book
Dixie Betrayed: How the South Really Lost the Civil War
David Eicher reveals the story of the political conspiracy, discord and dysfunction in Richmond that cost the South the Civil War. He shows how President Jefferson Davis fought not only with the Confederate House and Senate and with State Governers but also with his own vice-president and secretary of state.
384 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
5 people are currently reading
67 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
February 3, 2024
An inside view of what really brought about the downfall of the Confederacy, this book fills a void in Southern literature. The author posits that internal strife within the Davis administration brought about the Confederacy's eventual collapse. I found the narrative to be very brisk and lively, but best of all: I found NO TYPOS within the text!!! A very satisfying read indeed.
July 1, 2020
It is always fascinating to see accounts of the fall of the South in the Civil War. On what can it be blamed? This particular book is a case of the author wanting to provide an explanation for the defeat of the South that does not involve a praise of the North to too high of a degree. So we get some praise of Lincoln's skill in managing the fractious politics of the North in trying to build a coalition between War Democrats who were not particularly strong in antislavery as well as antislavery radicals whose commitment to the war effort was less than exemplary and those who, like him, were both antislavery and committed to the successful maintenance of Union. Above all, the author did not want to praise Yankee skill in military leadership, from famous leaders like Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Sheridan, Curtis, Farragut, and others. The subject of logistics is not of great interest to the author, and so as a result what we get in this book is a look at the supposed betrayal of Dixie by its own political class and its infighting, which was a predictable outcome--predicted by no less a personage than Lincoln himself [1].
This particular book is almost 300 pages long and is divided into nineteen chapters. The author begins with a prologue that discusses the book's focus, a Confederate officer named John Worsham (1), who seems to represent the author's own perspective. After that there is a look at the birth of the Confederacy (2) as well as the portrait of Jefferson Davis (3), whom the author generally supports. There is a discussion of the War Department (4) and the curious cabinet that Davis put together (5), as well as the military high command (6) and the struggle with states' rights (7). There is a chapter about the effects of the war on Richmond (8) as well as the rise of Lee and Bragg thanks to their successes in 1862 (9) as well as the uneasy brotherhood (10) and the jockeying for position (11) that happened in the Confederate elite. The author discusses the problem of politics going out of control (12) as well as the struggle to get along between rivals (13) and the soiled reputations of those who failed in military and diplomatic efforts (14). The author discusses the increasing divide between Dais and Congress (15), the military highs and lows of the 1864 campaign (16), the proposal to use slaves as soldiers (17), and various peace proposals (18) before the author ends with a discussion of despair (19) and includes some information about the postwar lives of notable Confederates in a postlude.
In reading this book one is convinced of the divisiveness of the Confederates themselves. But this was a given, since the whole course of secession and the refusal on the part of radicals to submit to cooperationism as an approach as well as the refusal to wait for actual unconstitutional behavior on the part of Lincoln and his administration all made for a fractious attempt at union on the part of the Confederacy, which rather tellingly did not make a right to secession a part of its own constitution, thus conceding it was not a constitutional right under the U.S. Constitution either. As someone who is not a fan of the Confederacy I found large parts of this book greatly entertaining as the author detailed the pettiness and in-fighting of various Confederate civil and military leaders, and where the fight for place and the recognition of one's region and one's personal honor and dignity was of a higher importance sometimes than doing what it took to win the war. To be sure, this was a regrettable thing to do, but it demonstrations the very real weaknesses that were present within Southern nationalism. The Union had not been oppressive to them, and indeed after efforts at Reconstruction failed, the South was free more or less to run itself for another century or so according to broadly tolerated if lamentably unjust principles, and so the South has until recently had little cause to want to rise up again, fortunately for us all.
[1] See, for example, this quote from Lincoln's first inaugural address:
"For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated as to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such a perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union as to produce harmony only and present renewed secession? Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.
A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments is the only true sovereign of a free people."
This particular book is almost 300 pages long and is divided into nineteen chapters. The author begins with a prologue that discusses the book's focus, a Confederate officer named John Worsham (1), who seems to represent the author's own perspective. After that there is a look at the birth of the Confederacy (2) as well as the portrait of Jefferson Davis (3), whom the author generally supports. There is a discussion of the War Department (4) and the curious cabinet that Davis put together (5), as well as the military high command (6) and the struggle with states' rights (7). There is a chapter about the effects of the war on Richmond (8) as well as the rise of Lee and Bragg thanks to their successes in 1862 (9) as well as the uneasy brotherhood (10) and the jockeying for position (11) that happened in the Confederate elite. The author discusses the problem of politics going out of control (12) as well as the struggle to get along between rivals (13) and the soiled reputations of those who failed in military and diplomatic efforts (14). The author discusses the increasing divide between Dais and Congress (15), the military highs and lows of the 1864 campaign (16), the proposal to use slaves as soldiers (17), and various peace proposals (18) before the author ends with a discussion of despair (19) and includes some information about the postwar lives of notable Confederates in a postlude.
In reading this book one is convinced of the divisiveness of the Confederates themselves. But this was a given, since the whole course of secession and the refusal on the part of radicals to submit to cooperationism as an approach as well as the refusal to wait for actual unconstitutional behavior on the part of Lincoln and his administration all made for a fractious attempt at union on the part of the Confederacy, which rather tellingly did not make a right to secession a part of its own constitution, thus conceding it was not a constitutional right under the U.S. Constitution either. As someone who is not a fan of the Confederacy I found large parts of this book greatly entertaining as the author detailed the pettiness and in-fighting of various Confederate civil and military leaders, and where the fight for place and the recognition of one's region and one's personal honor and dignity was of a higher importance sometimes than doing what it took to win the war. To be sure, this was a regrettable thing to do, but it demonstrations the very real weaknesses that were present within Southern nationalism. The Union had not been oppressive to them, and indeed after efforts at Reconstruction failed, the South was free more or less to run itself for another century or so according to broadly tolerated if lamentably unjust principles, and so the South has until recently had little cause to want to rise up again, fortunately for us all.
[1] See, for example, this quote from Lincoln's first inaugural address:
"For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated as to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such a perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union as to produce harmony only and present renewed secession? Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.
A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments is the only true sovereign of a free people."
May 11, 2017
This history reviews the discords which divided the Confederate States of America, between the Executive in Richmond and the governments of the states, within the military and within the Confederate govenment itself. While mentioning divisions within the population, this is not the focus. There's no Republic of Jones here nor any detailed discussion about the border states or the people of West Virginia. There is, however, a chapter concentrated on the South's debates about conscripting its slaves--a major reason I bought the thing.
Other than the debates about the conscription and emancipation of its slaves, the most interesting part of the book was, for me, the concluding section discussing the mythology of the Confederacy and how it came about and persisted into the present.
Other than the debates about the conscription and emancipation of its slaves, the most interesting part of the book was, for me, the concluding section discussing the mythology of the Confederacy and how it came about and persisted into the present.
August 10, 2011
An interesting history of the Confederate government and less the Confederate military action, which runs counter to many histories of the Civil War. Debunks many popular myths about "The Lost Cause" and shows exactly why the Confederacy lost the Civil War: individual states who secede for "states' rights" cannot function as a whole. However, the one drawback of the book is that it seemed a bit academic and plodding at times, not as seamless to read as a Gore Vidal book, but good historical knowledge nonetheless.
June 26, 2021
It was only okay. It didn't answer my "so what?" questions. Would've been a good idea to compare or contrast it to Lincoln and his generals and political opponents (such as Ben Wade, Thaddeus Stevens, and Horatio Seymour). The real cause of Southern defeat was simply an overdose of Yankees.
June 7, 2020
The best thing I can say about the author is that he's a good writer - so often historians may know the subject, but write tediously. Eicher writes well (though his editor could use some proofreading help; there are some glaring typographical errors in the text).
As an unbiased historian, however, he is lacking. Almost from the beginning it's clear that he assumes, a priori, that the north was right - in opposing secession (though not all northerners did so, and indeed New England had in the past threatened to secede), in refusing to allow the south to peacefully leave the United States, in making war against the CSA, in what it wrote in history books afterward. While he clearly has access to, and draws from, primary southern sources, his goal appears to be not an objective portrayal of politics in the Confederate States of America, but the pulling down of those whom he considers to be wholly unworthy idols of the Confederacy.
If all that it took to be a good historian was to show the flaws of the personages of history, then I'd have to say that Eicher is an excellent historian. He is highly adept at depicting the faults and failings of Confederate leaders individually and en masse. But that's far from all that makes one a good historian; iconoclasm may be a useful thing in the right circumstances, but as the sole justification for a book, it is deficient (to say the least).
And Eicher just can't leave well enough alone. Not content with discharging his whole broadside at those who led the Confederacy, and trying to sink them all in one great wreck, he proceeds, at the end of the book, to accuse southerners after the war of revisionist history - as though no one north of the Mason-Dixon Line ever engaged in hagiography or slanting of the facts. The reality is that - as the old saying has it - the victors write the history, and Eicher is one of the victors, writing history to suit the federal view of things. To dismiss everything that southerners then and now have to say on the matter of secession, the Confederacy, and the War For Southern Independence as puffed up balderdash is, at best, ignorance; at worst, it's deliberate revisionism, which is precisely what he accuses the south of. And his last slap at various organizations for the descendants of Confederate soldiers and women is petty in the extreme.
For the facts it presents this is a useful book. But there's so much chaff here that many readers will no doubt find the necessary winnowing to be a greater labor than is worth their time.
As an unbiased historian, however, he is lacking. Almost from the beginning it's clear that he assumes, a priori, that the north was right - in opposing secession (though not all northerners did so, and indeed New England had in the past threatened to secede), in refusing to allow the south to peacefully leave the United States, in making war against the CSA, in what it wrote in history books afterward. While he clearly has access to, and draws from, primary southern sources, his goal appears to be not an objective portrayal of politics in the Confederate States of America, but the pulling down of those whom he considers to be wholly unworthy idols of the Confederacy.
If all that it took to be a good historian was to show the flaws of the personages of history, then I'd have to say that Eicher is an excellent historian. He is highly adept at depicting the faults and failings of Confederate leaders individually and en masse. But that's far from all that makes one a good historian; iconoclasm may be a useful thing in the right circumstances, but as the sole justification for a book, it is deficient (to say the least).
And Eicher just can't leave well enough alone. Not content with discharging his whole broadside at those who led the Confederacy, and trying to sink them all in one great wreck, he proceeds, at the end of the book, to accuse southerners after the war of revisionist history - as though no one north of the Mason-Dixon Line ever engaged in hagiography or slanting of the facts. The reality is that - as the old saying has it - the victors write the history, and Eicher is one of the victors, writing history to suit the federal view of things. To dismiss everything that southerners then and now have to say on the matter of secession, the Confederacy, and the War For Southern Independence as puffed up balderdash is, at best, ignorance; at worst, it's deliberate revisionism, which is precisely what he accuses the south of. And his last slap at various organizations for the descendants of Confederate soldiers and women is petty in the extreme.
For the facts it presents this is a useful book. But there's so much chaff here that many readers will no doubt find the necessary winnowing to be a greater labor than is worth their time.
September 7, 2025
The last words of Eicher’s book are “Jefferson Davis had lost his power as Confederate president — but not before the whole cause of the Confederacy was lost. Dixie was Betrayed.”
The title and these final words betray the worth of this book. Nearly twenty thousand books have been written about Lincoln and almost a hundred thousand about the Civil War. Less than an estimated twenty percent of these were written from a Confederate perspective and many of those were Lost Cause screeds. Since the Confederacy lost, official documents were often destroyed which requires a historian to rely on sources like newspapers, letters, and memoirs—and these are not nearly as well organized and indexed as Union sources. This may partially account for why relatively few Confederate histories have been published.
Dixie Betrayed is a solid history of the Confederacy and does not attempt to propagate the Lost Cause myths. Eicher explains how the South lost, but betrayal played no role in it. The absence of an industrial base, limited manpower, naive political leadership, and a flawed constitution were the culprits.
The betrayal theme likely originated from an editorial meeting aimed at boosting sales, and it may have been effective for the launch. However, now Eicher’s book wears the title like an albatross, and it is perhaps overlooked by those seeking an erudite history of the Confederate States of America.
To understand the Civil War period, it is necessary to study the war from both sides. Dixie Betrayed by Davis J. Eicher provides the view from the Confederate side.
The title and these final words betray the worth of this book. Nearly twenty thousand books have been written about Lincoln and almost a hundred thousand about the Civil War. Less than an estimated twenty percent of these were written from a Confederate perspective and many of those were Lost Cause screeds. Since the Confederacy lost, official documents were often destroyed which requires a historian to rely on sources like newspapers, letters, and memoirs—and these are not nearly as well organized and indexed as Union sources. This may partially account for why relatively few Confederate histories have been published.
Dixie Betrayed is a solid history of the Confederacy and does not attempt to propagate the Lost Cause myths. Eicher explains how the South lost, but betrayal played no role in it. The absence of an industrial base, limited manpower, naive political leadership, and a flawed constitution were the culprits.
The betrayal theme likely originated from an editorial meeting aimed at boosting sales, and it may have been effective for the launch. However, now Eicher’s book wears the title like an albatross, and it is perhaps overlooked by those seeking an erudite history of the Confederate States of America.
To understand the Civil War period, it is necessary to study the war from both sides. Dixie Betrayed by Davis J. Eicher provides the view from the Confederate side.
May 8, 2022
(3.5 stars) Running a treasonous rebellion against a materially and numerically stronger adversary is tough enough. It is even harder when you have a very politically divided rebellion leadership that spends as much time fighting itself as it does the outside adversary. So it was with the Confederacy. Jeff Davis spent about as much time trying to boost his supporters and counter the political maneuvering of his rivals as he did fighting the Union. He was trending towards micromanagement, but the author seems a bit sympathetic towards him. Or, at least, Davis is not as bad as the other folks in the CSA.
This work offers some good insight into the politics of the CSA, noting that it was trying to run a federal/state government all while running a war. Yet, the failure of stable political leadership, while not as immediately devastating as military set-backs, put the Rebels in a position that they could not afford to be in. Political unity wouldn’t have solved all the problems, nor helped with the justification for the war, but it might not have resulted in the devastating failure that did happen.
Offered some good insight, but could be a little too sympathetic to the CSA at times. Still, has some value.
This work offers some good insight into the politics of the CSA, noting that it was trying to run a federal/state government all while running a war. Yet, the failure of stable political leadership, while not as immediately devastating as military set-backs, put the Rebels in a position that they could not afford to be in. Political unity wouldn’t have solved all the problems, nor helped with the justification for the war, but it might not have resulted in the devastating failure that did happen.
Offered some good insight, but could be a little too sympathetic to the CSA at times. Still, has some value.
October 16, 2025
I really enjoyed the behind the scenes stories of the men involved in running the war for the south. This is the first book I read with all the details about how the men behaved in the government of the Confederacy.
February 18, 2018
saved itself in the very last few pages from being a complete disaster.
June 29, 2010
Overall, this was a very easily digestible and enjoyable book to read. At the core of "Dixie Betrayed", Eicher is making two arguments. They are arguments that have been made many times before. First, that the ideological nature of the states rights argument probably doomed the C.S.A., and second, that Lost Cause romanticism has created a distortion of the true narrative of the American Civil War. These are good arguments to make.
I feel like this book was intended to be approachable to a wide audience but will not serve much of a purpose for veteran Civil War scholars. In essence, I liked this book and learned a great deal from it but something about it makes it feel like it isn't quite the stuff that a professor teaching me the subject would assign.
I think this book best serves people looking for a general study of the Civil War in a quick and painless fashion and anyone who has never looked at a good argument against the Lost Cause outlook of the war.
I feel like this book was intended to be approachable to a wide audience but will not serve much of a purpose for veteran Civil War scholars. In essence, I liked this book and learned a great deal from it but something about it makes it feel like it isn't quite the stuff that a professor teaching me the subject would assign.
I think this book best serves people looking for a general study of the Civil War in a quick and painless fashion and anyone who has never looked at a good argument against the Lost Cause outlook of the war.
August 2, 2011
If you find yourself thinking that your government is dysfunctional, read this book. This book & Jefferson Davis and His Generals cover this topic pretty well. Forget all the Lost Cause mythology. States rights and a loose confederation of states can't win a war like a coordinated central government can when it gets its act together like the Union eventually did.
July 10, 2016
Not much to say about this chronicle of back-biting, infighting, hypocrisy, and incompetence. It is, however, oddly--perhaps even perversely--reassuring that human beings never change. Society survived the lunacy then, and it will, like as not, survive this latest round of national hysteria and ineptitude.
Read
June 16, 2015great book
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews