What do you think?
Rate this book
Politically Incorrect Guides
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War
The author of "Robert E. Lee on Leadership" busts myths and shatters stereotypes as he profiles eminent--and colorful--military generals. Revealing little-known truths, this is the Politically Incorrect Guide that every Civil War buff must have.
370 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2008
74 people are currently reading
623 people want to read
About the author
H.W. Crocker III
12 books49 followersH.W. Crocker III is the bestselling author of the prize-winning comic novel The Old Limey and several books of military history, including Triumph, Robert E. Lee on Leadership, The Politically Incorrect Guide® to the Civil War, The Politically Incorrect Guide® to the British Empire, Yanks, and Don’t Tread on Me.
His journalism has appeared in National Review, the American Spectator, the Washington Times, and many other outlets. Educated in England and California, Crocker lives on the site of a former Confederate encampment in Virginia.
His journalism has appeared in National Review, the American Spectator, the Washington Times, and many other outlets. Educated in England and California, Crocker lives on the site of a former Confederate encampment in Virginia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews
Read
September 14, 2011Nothing like publishing a book lauding the actions of a petty and tyrannical slaveocracy with a mass murderer on the cover. I can't wait for the next volume in the politically incorrect series: The Politically Incorrect guide to World War Two; potential chapters include: FDR the socialist tyrant, Hitler the misunderstood genius, and the truth behind the "Holocaust."
In all seriousness though these books are reprehensibly bad and pander to the far-right fringe lunatics who find rigorous academic work either too hard to follow, or not partisan enough.
In all seriousness though these books are reprehensibly bad and pander to the far-right fringe lunatics who find rigorous academic work either too hard to follow, or not partisan enough.
August 8, 2016
My father is an unreconstructed Southerner and for many years I tried to be just like him. I had my own rebel flags, and Confederate toy soldiers, I could spend hours defending the South from all types of criticisms... And then I grew up, and now I look back on all that with distaste. But, accordingly I feel that I am able to give a more balanced and truthful view than this book having swung from one side to the other and read quite a bit more since those unfortunate days of my youth.
First off, I can say now that history has been actually quite kind to the Confederacy contrary to Crocker's statements. It is not politically incorrect to view the Confederacy in a positive manner whatsoever. Indeed there are Confederate P.O.W. graves in my native Wisconsin that (at least not too long ago) were buried in the shadow of the rebel flag. You can go to any shop in Gettysburg, PA and pick yourself up every one of the five official Confederate flags relatively inexpensively. The Killer Angels-the highly acclaimed novel of the Battle of Gettysburg- depicts the South exactly as Crocker wants it to be depicted. Its adaptation Gettysburg goes to great leaps and strides to depict the Civil War as The Grand Lost Cause of the Confederacy. Go to any Barnes and Noble and you'll find a huge section on the Civil War and of these I would estimate that the vast majority of titles portray the South at least sympathetically, if not outrightly praising the usual "honorable men": Lee, Jackson, oftimes A.P. Hill and A.S. Johnston, and even Longstreet. Barnes and Noble even keeps Davis' self serving autobiography/history in print. Overall what I feel is generally presented as history is the Civil War as an American Iliad where one can freely admire both sides and yet still acknowledge a victor.
Now for some actual politically incorrect information: Crocker represents the whiny branch of Civil War history and what is more the wrong side. It is not enough for Crocker that the Confederacy gets to largely keep its Lost Cause mythos enforced on popular history. What Crocker wants is said mythos as well as the elimination of those unsavory factoids that seldom appear but still hurt his feelings. You won't find in this book stories of how ballot boxes in many Southern states were stuffed with pro-secession votes, because at best secession was only the opinion of 40% of the voters (see David Williams' A People's History of the Civil War which quotes leading Southern papers on the matter). You also won't read about how to discourage pro-Union voters from turning out gangs of pro-secessionists attacked pro-Union homes, accosted people on their way to vote, didn't actually print any pro-union ballots, held conventions in secret locations and of course (repeating itself in todays GOP) outright voter suppression. You also won't find any evidence of dissent in Crocker's magically built Confederacy where in real life desertion was common, pro-Union rallies were common, and resistance to Confederate authority actually spawned many guerilla organizations. You also won't read about how short sighted Southern planters didn't bother growing food, or how the Confederate government's laissez-faire economics wrecked the Southern economy far more completely than any dastardly Yankee ever did.
I do not feel it is necessary to denigrate the charitable acts of Jackson and Lee nor do I defend the rampant racism of Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, or McClellan. But, while Jackson and Lee did do some kind acts neither ended slavery, they still fought for the preservation of slavery upheld by the entirety of their Confederate government, and ultimately Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman did fight in part for the ending of slavery. Those are the facts. I also don't feel it fruitful to bother with Crocker's alternative history of the South winning the war save that an imaginary history doesn't actually count as real history.
Finally, I dispute Crocker's feelings on the Constitutionality of secession. The simplest explanation is that when the Confederate government was defeated by and surrendered to the Union armies the Civil War ultimately answered that question: secession is unconstitutional. The Southern States endorsed that view under the terms of Reconstruction whereby they ratified the Constitutional amendments passed during their rebellion. Done. If you want to get more technical the Constitution had been unanimously ratified by the newly independent United States. The Southern States in ratifying this had made certain demands that had been adopted by Northern States: namely the 3/5ths Compromise. To put that into perspective for every five slaves a Southern plantation owner owned in casting his ballot every November he was ultimately voting four times while his Northern counterpart only got to vote once! Does Crocker acknowledge this? No, because defending four votes for every one is even beyond the selling point of this book and besides Crocker couldn't get to whine some more about "political correctness."
If Secession was ever legal it was before the Southern States enforced these terms on the complete United States, and before Southern lawmakers had helped pass laws for the whole United States. The South had controlled the White House far more often than their Northern counterparts, and had forced compromise after compromise in their favor. In so doing they had expressed their satisfaction with the United States until one election doesn't go their way.
In some more actual politically incorrect terms: the South not only didn't have a right to secede, but that to take so much from the United States only to decide that 'their sacred honor' suddenly was at stake is bullshit. Furthermore, in firing repeatedly on the flag of the country they had taken so much from and had considered themselves a part of is treason by even loose interpretations of the Constitution which then ought to have warranted all the same "noble" sons of the South a date and time with a hangman's noose and not this book.
First off, I can say now that history has been actually quite kind to the Confederacy contrary to Crocker's statements. It is not politically incorrect to view the Confederacy in a positive manner whatsoever. Indeed there are Confederate P.O.W. graves in my native Wisconsin that (at least not too long ago) were buried in the shadow of the rebel flag. You can go to any shop in Gettysburg, PA and pick yourself up every one of the five official Confederate flags relatively inexpensively. The Killer Angels-the highly acclaimed novel of the Battle of Gettysburg- depicts the South exactly as Crocker wants it to be depicted. Its adaptation Gettysburg goes to great leaps and strides to depict the Civil War as The Grand Lost Cause of the Confederacy. Go to any Barnes and Noble and you'll find a huge section on the Civil War and of these I would estimate that the vast majority of titles portray the South at least sympathetically, if not outrightly praising the usual "honorable men": Lee, Jackson, oftimes A.P. Hill and A.S. Johnston, and even Longstreet. Barnes and Noble even keeps Davis' self serving autobiography/history in print. Overall what I feel is generally presented as history is the Civil War as an American Iliad where one can freely admire both sides and yet still acknowledge a victor.
Now for some actual politically incorrect information: Crocker represents the whiny branch of Civil War history and what is more the wrong side. It is not enough for Crocker that the Confederacy gets to largely keep its Lost Cause mythos enforced on popular history. What Crocker wants is said mythos as well as the elimination of those unsavory factoids that seldom appear but still hurt his feelings. You won't find in this book stories of how ballot boxes in many Southern states were stuffed with pro-secession votes, because at best secession was only the opinion of 40% of the voters (see David Williams' A People's History of the Civil War which quotes leading Southern papers on the matter). You also won't read about how to discourage pro-Union voters from turning out gangs of pro-secessionists attacked pro-Union homes, accosted people on their way to vote, didn't actually print any pro-union ballots, held conventions in secret locations and of course (repeating itself in todays GOP) outright voter suppression. You also won't find any evidence of dissent in Crocker's magically built Confederacy where in real life desertion was common, pro-Union rallies were common, and resistance to Confederate authority actually spawned many guerilla organizations. You also won't read about how short sighted Southern planters didn't bother growing food, or how the Confederate government's laissez-faire economics wrecked the Southern economy far more completely than any dastardly Yankee ever did.
I do not feel it is necessary to denigrate the charitable acts of Jackson and Lee nor do I defend the rampant racism of Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, or McClellan. But, while Jackson and Lee did do some kind acts neither ended slavery, they still fought for the preservation of slavery upheld by the entirety of their Confederate government, and ultimately Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman did fight in part for the ending of slavery. Those are the facts. I also don't feel it fruitful to bother with Crocker's alternative history of the South winning the war save that an imaginary history doesn't actually count as real history.
Finally, I dispute Crocker's feelings on the Constitutionality of secession. The simplest explanation is that when the Confederate government was defeated by and surrendered to the Union armies the Civil War ultimately answered that question: secession is unconstitutional. The Southern States endorsed that view under the terms of Reconstruction whereby they ratified the Constitutional amendments passed during their rebellion. Done. If you want to get more technical the Constitution had been unanimously ratified by the newly independent United States. The Southern States in ratifying this had made certain demands that had been adopted by Northern States: namely the 3/5ths Compromise. To put that into perspective for every five slaves a Southern plantation owner owned in casting his ballot every November he was ultimately voting four times while his Northern counterpart only got to vote once! Does Crocker acknowledge this? No, because defending four votes for every one is even beyond the selling point of this book and besides Crocker couldn't get to whine some more about "political correctness."
If Secession was ever legal it was before the Southern States enforced these terms on the complete United States, and before Southern lawmakers had helped pass laws for the whole United States. The South had controlled the White House far more often than their Northern counterparts, and had forced compromise after compromise in their favor. In so doing they had expressed their satisfaction with the United States until one election doesn't go their way.
In some more actual politically incorrect terms: the South not only didn't have a right to secede, but that to take so much from the United States only to decide that 'their sacred honor' suddenly was at stake is bullshit. Furthermore, in firing repeatedly on the flag of the country they had taken so much from and had considered themselves a part of is treason by even loose interpretations of the Constitution which then ought to have warranted all the same "noble" sons of the South a date and time with a hangman's noose and not this book.
May 23, 2012
Having already read the P.I.G. to American History, I thought I would read this book as an expansion of some of the themes covered during its own rendition of the Civil War. This book is a very interesting take of some of our most cherished beliefs about the Civil War and the many many characters and personalities of whom legends and villains are made. We are told in our 8th grade history class that the Civil War is about slavery, and are made to think of every southerner as backward and evil people who clung to slavery right up until the late 1960's. That Lincoln be an angel and Robert E. Lee be the devil. In college you are told that the war wasn't JUST about slavery that it was also about states rights, but even then we are told that both ideas and pronunciations have been relegated to the trash bin of history. I am ashamed to admit that up until a few years ago, I thought along those same lines. The plain and simple truth is that we are woefully misinformed about this bloody and largely avoidable spot on our history. Like all stories there are two sides and the State has done a very good job of rewriting history to paint its actions as angelic while condemning the south without trial. I would recommend this book to anyone who has an open mind and would like to expand their understanding of history, if not just hear another spin. The author does a great thing by profiling many battles, famous and not so famous generals. Robert E. Lee was an infinitely more principled man than Lincoln, and 600,000 dead soldiers is the reason why. I found the last chapter to be a little bit naive, but interesting to say the least. I really really enjoyed this read.
October 8, 2022
You cannot read this book without thinking three thoughts:
1) This book is nothing more than the lost cause mythos veiled under "politically incorrect", or
2) This book is nothing more than poor scholarship, or
3) This book is a legitimate attempt at presenting counterpoint to prevelant scholarship.
I'll be honest with you, at different points in this book, I thought each of those.
Let's be honest, the Civil War is a controversial period of American History. There are many people who sit on the myriad sides of the fence. I say that because the issue is not as black and white as we would like.
The history of the Civil War is very complex.
Don't get me wrong, I am the guy who wears a shirt that reads, "I read black history to better understand American history."
But efforts to paint the leaders of the Civil War as pure good or evil are often wrong. Lincoln was not an absolute pillar of virtue. Lee was not an evil man---nor was he an absolute pillar of virtue.
The origins of the war were not black and white about slavery.
Yes, at the end of the day, slavery was at the heart of what became the Civil War---but the ultimate cause of the Civil War isn't really slavery. The US Constitution left a conflict between state and federal right that eventually would have resulted in a Constitutional Crisis. This conflict could have occurred during the War of 1812 with the Hartford Convention. It could have emerged during the 1830s with nullification. If it hadn't happened with slavery in the 1860s, it might have happened over any number of other issues down the road. Perhaps women's rights? Black rights? Homosexuality?
The Constitution created a friction between state and federal powers that eventually would have led to a conflict. The conflict that forced this issue to the forefront was slavery in the 1860s.
The subjects in this book are challenging.
I feel as if the author presented some of the more controversial (and more scholarly dubious claims) at the start of the book.
The book then went into a big section that felt like a synopsis of the Men of Fire: Grant, Forrest, and the Campaign That Decided the Civil War. I really liked Men of Fire, so this section felt like the cliff notes version of that book.
The end fo the book took other semi-controversial issues and explored them..
At the end of the book, I felt as if this book was (option 3) a legitimate attempt at presenting counterpoint to prevelant scholarship.
1) This book is nothing more than the lost cause mythos veiled under "politically incorrect", or
2) This book is nothing more than poor scholarship, or
3) This book is a legitimate attempt at presenting counterpoint to prevelant scholarship.
I'll be honest with you, at different points in this book, I thought each of those.
Let's be honest, the Civil War is a controversial period of American History. There are many people who sit on the myriad sides of the fence. I say that because the issue is not as black and white as we would like.
The history of the Civil War is very complex.
Don't get me wrong, I am the guy who wears a shirt that reads, "I read black history to better understand American history."
But efforts to paint the leaders of the Civil War as pure good or evil are often wrong. Lincoln was not an absolute pillar of virtue. Lee was not an evil man---nor was he an absolute pillar of virtue.
The origins of the war were not black and white about slavery.
Yes, at the end of the day, slavery was at the heart of what became the Civil War---but the ultimate cause of the Civil War isn't really slavery. The US Constitution left a conflict between state and federal right that eventually would have resulted in a Constitutional Crisis. This conflict could have occurred during the War of 1812 with the Hartford Convention. It could have emerged during the 1830s with nullification. If it hadn't happened with slavery in the 1860s, it might have happened over any number of other issues down the road. Perhaps women's rights? Black rights? Homosexuality?
The Constitution created a friction between state and federal powers that eventually would have led to a conflict. The conflict that forced this issue to the forefront was slavery in the 1860s.
The subjects in this book are challenging.
I feel as if the author presented some of the more controversial (and more scholarly dubious claims) at the start of the book.
The book then went into a big section that felt like a synopsis of the Men of Fire: Grant, Forrest, and the Campaign That Decided the Civil War. I really liked Men of Fire, so this section felt like the cliff notes version of that book.
The end fo the book took other semi-controversial issues and explored them..
At the end of the book, I felt as if this book was (option 3) a legitimate attempt at presenting counterpoint to prevelant scholarship.
January 1, 2013
Some of the factoids are interesting, but this is such a skewed version of civil war history that after a bit one begins to doubt much of what is written. Yes, it was a war about union, but slavery and union were inextricably intertwined. Read the declarations of secession. Slavery and secession were seen as a piece. The analogy between the American Revolution and Secession is quite a stretch. NY tried to insert a clause allowing secession in it's ratification of The Constitution, and it was deemed unacceptable and not a ratification. So, they were forced to take that clause out. The agreement was for a perpetual union.
January 6, 2009
Thoroughly researched 'dummies' type guidebook that gives a passionate and reasoned defense of the southern cause. Prepare to have many sacred cows and long-standing perceptions shattered by irrefutable quotes and documentation. The South may not rise again but Mr. Crocker certainly raises up the much maligned reputation of the brave patriots who gave all in defense of a noble cause.
August 11, 2009
"If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence was a grave mistake, and the revolution to which it led was a crime.... If Washington was a patriot, Lee cannot have been a rebel; if the enunciation of the grand truths in the Declaration of Independence made Jefferson immortal, the observance of them could not have made Davis a traitor." (Gen. Wade Hampton)
June 25, 2012
Did my best to keep an open mind...for don't really care for those that pander to the far fringes of both sides. Though he did make some interesting points and the occasional eye-opener...he flat out had it wrong on so many points I will actually RUN it back to the library. Nice try on Nathan Bed Forrest, Mr. Apologist.
June 28, 2018
This book suffers from all of the problems that one would expect from a book that tries to take up the side of the Confederacy. None of this should be surprising to anyone who has studied, for example, the genuinely restrained nature of Northern efforts in the war [1] or the frankly racist slave-baiting arguments that secession advocates used to encourage rebellion in the Deep South after Lincoln's election in 1860 [2] or has thoughtfully examined the socialist tendencies of the Confederacy that contemporary libertarians often ignore [3]. This book is mainly of appeal to those who wish to parrot lies about the Civil War that can encourage unreconstructed Southern nationalists to avoid facing the flaws of their worldview, and is not the sort of book that holds a lot of personal interest for me. I knew going into this book that it would be factually inaccurate, deeply biased, and would not be particularly appealing, and that is precisely what I got, although as usual it at least was able to suggest some reading for me to tear apart if I ever feel like it.
This book is a bit more than 300 pages and is divided into five parts and fifteen chapters. The first part of the book gives the author's best attempts to argue (unsuccessfully) that the south was right to rebel (I), with two chapters that deal with slavery as the cause of the civil war (1) as well as Lincoln's supposed blameworthiness in baiting the Confederacy into attacking first (2). The second part of the book looks at the history of the Civil War in sixteen battles (II), with eleven of them being in the period leading up to and including Gettysburg (3) and the remaining five providing the somewhat happy ending of the Civil War (4). After that, the author provides some eminent Civil War Generals (III) with a marked bias in his presentation for the rebels in discussing: Lee, Thomas, Sherman, Longstreet, Forrest, Grant, Jackson, Hill, and McClellan in that order, each with their own chapter. After that there is a brief discussion of four Cavalry generals (IV) in Hampton, Sheridan, Stuart, and Custer (14), followed by some vain speculation on what would have happened had the Confederacy won, like Cuba becoming a Confederate territory (15), which seems plausible enough.
There are a lot of weaknesses and flaws in this book. The author dishonestly presents the case for rebellion and tries to sugar coat a revolutionary solution as being a constitutionally legitimate one. The western front is downplayed, the author shows a marked case of Virginiaitis, and issues of logistics are downplayed as well. The author tries to defend Forrest from accusations of massacring black soldiers at Ft. Pillow but does not attempt to demonstrate the larger issues of such matters at Olustee, Saltville, and other occasions. The author, moreover, misrepresents the targeted economic destruction of elite property by Northern generals like Sherman and Sheridan as being a use of total war while celebrating similarly destructive Confederate behavior as mere "raids." In short, the biases of this book and the author's deliberate misrepresentations of the historical record make this a book that cannot be relied upon. Like all of the books in the series, it is at least entertaining at points and the author's ready wit is certainly a positive quality, but the author's lamentable bias and poor historical skills are not made up entirely by the author at least being witty about his incorrect perspective. Alas, wit is not enough to make someone competent at writing about a subject as contention as the Civil War. There is room to be politically incorrect and factually correct that this author does not even begin to discuss.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
[2] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
[3] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
This book is a bit more than 300 pages and is divided into five parts and fifteen chapters. The first part of the book gives the author's best attempts to argue (unsuccessfully) that the south was right to rebel (I), with two chapters that deal with slavery as the cause of the civil war (1) as well as Lincoln's supposed blameworthiness in baiting the Confederacy into attacking first (2). The second part of the book looks at the history of the Civil War in sixteen battles (II), with eleven of them being in the period leading up to and including Gettysburg (3) and the remaining five providing the somewhat happy ending of the Civil War (4). After that, the author provides some eminent Civil War Generals (III) with a marked bias in his presentation for the rebels in discussing: Lee, Thomas, Sherman, Longstreet, Forrest, Grant, Jackson, Hill, and McClellan in that order, each with their own chapter. After that there is a brief discussion of four Cavalry generals (IV) in Hampton, Sheridan, Stuart, and Custer (14), followed by some vain speculation on what would have happened had the Confederacy won, like Cuba becoming a Confederate territory (15), which seems plausible enough.
There are a lot of weaknesses and flaws in this book. The author dishonestly presents the case for rebellion and tries to sugar coat a revolutionary solution as being a constitutionally legitimate one. The western front is downplayed, the author shows a marked case of Virginiaitis, and issues of logistics are downplayed as well. The author tries to defend Forrest from accusations of massacring black soldiers at Ft. Pillow but does not attempt to demonstrate the larger issues of such matters at Olustee, Saltville, and other occasions. The author, moreover, misrepresents the targeted economic destruction of elite property by Northern generals like Sherman and Sheridan as being a use of total war while celebrating similarly destructive Confederate behavior as mere "raids." In short, the biases of this book and the author's deliberate misrepresentations of the historical record make this a book that cannot be relied upon. Like all of the books in the series, it is at least entertaining at points and the author's ready wit is certainly a positive quality, but the author's lamentable bias and poor historical skills are not made up entirely by the author at least being witty about his incorrect perspective. Alas, wit is not enough to make someone competent at writing about a subject as contention as the Civil War. There is room to be politically incorrect and factually correct that this author does not even begin to discuss.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
[2] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
[3] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
Read
July 31, 2011As a lifelong "Union man" and one of the minority in my southern state who accepts the 13th-15th Amendments, I was skeptical when I downloaded this book, but this was no polemic.
Crocker outlines the South's case very succinctly and offers a sympathetic voice to Jefferson Davis, but the best part of this book are the fascinating anecdotes he mines. Not all Union Men were thrilled about freeing slaves, and not all Confederates necessarily saw slavery as something that must continue, Crocker points out. More fascinating is Crocker's insights into some of the lesser-known generals of the war: George Thomas, Philip Sheridan, James Longstreet, J.E.B. Stuart and Wade Hampton were characters that I hadn't known very much about.
North or South, you will enjoy this book for its interesting historical anecdotes and its thoughtful, "politically incorrect" (but not strident) sympathies.
Crocker outlines the South's case very succinctly and offers a sympathetic voice to Jefferson Davis, but the best part of this book are the fascinating anecdotes he mines. Not all Union Men were thrilled about freeing slaves, and not all Confederates necessarily saw slavery as something that must continue, Crocker points out. More fascinating is Crocker's insights into some of the lesser-known generals of the war: George Thomas, Philip Sheridan, James Longstreet, J.E.B. Stuart and Wade Hampton were characters that I hadn't known very much about.
North or South, you will enjoy this book for its interesting historical anecdotes and its thoughtful, "politically incorrect" (but not strident) sympathies.
March 24, 2015
I was drawn to this book initially by its lean in the direction of political incorrectness in and of itself, and not so much because I viewed myself as a Southern sympathiser. I'm a Yankee born and bred, after all. However, as I found myself plowing on into details, I was thoroughly impressed by the amount of research that went into it, especially from primary source material. For example, neither Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis believed slavery was a necessity, and both believed it would ultimately fade away. Going one step further, Gen. A.P. Hill outright detested slavery. The reason he fought for the Confederacy was because he was loyal to his state (Virginia) before all else. And therein lies the principal sticking point of the whole war, and one we ought to keep considering in the modern day: If the U.S. Federal government derives its right to rule from the consent of the governed, do the governed (or states) not have the right to take away that consent if they discern the federal gov is abusing its powers?
It is difficult to look at history this way in our era filled with special interest groups and political gerrymandering controlling things, but it gives reason to pause and think: what would our response be, and what would that of the government be, if once again a state or group of states decided to forgo its place in the union? Would it be easier or harder for them to make a case defending their actions than it was in the 1860s? Which side of that argument do you think you would pick if you had to? Though some may accuse the author's arguments of being solidly slanted against a Northern point of view and out of touch with reality, when was the last time you read a commentary on the American Civil War that didn't say the same thing? I.e., the South was all racist, Lincoln was the great unifier, and the war was essentially a morality play. This completely bypasses the notion of states' rights, which was central to the Confederates' argument that their government was legitimate. In fact, it is bordering on not treating Southerners as human beings just because some of them treated blacks as less than human (two holes don't make a whole, to coign a phrase), which was a mistake that Reconstruction made over again, but now I am straying from the point. More than anything else the book calls into question the presumptions many Americans have about the Civil War, and reminds the reader that there is always more than just the winner's side of history. And in the end, are these things really such bad perspectives to think more on?
It is difficult to look at history this way in our era filled with special interest groups and political gerrymandering controlling things, but it gives reason to pause and think: what would our response be, and what would that of the government be, if once again a state or group of states decided to forgo its place in the union? Would it be easier or harder for them to make a case defending their actions than it was in the 1860s? Which side of that argument do you think you would pick if you had to? Though some may accuse the author's arguments of being solidly slanted against a Northern point of view and out of touch with reality, when was the last time you read a commentary on the American Civil War that didn't say the same thing? I.e., the South was all racist, Lincoln was the great unifier, and the war was essentially a morality play. This completely bypasses the notion of states' rights, which was central to the Confederates' argument that their government was legitimate. In fact, it is bordering on not treating Southerners as human beings just because some of them treated blacks as less than human (two holes don't make a whole, to coign a phrase), which was a mistake that Reconstruction made over again, but now I am straying from the point. More than anything else the book calls into question the presumptions many Americans have about the Civil War, and reminds the reader that there is always more than just the winner's side of history. And in the end, are these things really such bad perspectives to think more on?
June 2, 2021
This "politically incorrect guide" should have been more accurately titled "the historically inaccurate guide" since it is nothing more than a rambling, contradictory wandering through Lost Cause propaganda. To anyone who has studied the Civil War, the author's reference choices will often seem obscure and odd. This is rightly so since the only real requirement for a book to be cited in this work is it fitting the author's twisted view that slavery did not really cause the American Civil War and the North's reaction to armed insurrection where military facilities and other public property was seized as an "over reaction." Yes, the author does discuss the military career of several Northern Officers like Ulysses S. Grant and George H. Thomas (aka "the Rock of Chickamauga"), but in each telling they are demonized for their actions against the Confederacy (the South) while being back-handedly praised for good military leadership, etc. Although I read this book, I do not recommend anyone else does unless they are studying Lost Cause mythology which often (and especially so in this case) wildly skews the context, causes, and significance of events during American's most trying period.
February 18, 2022
This book offers a very different point of view on several issues including the motivations behind the actions of several generals in this war. I like that it describes the lives of generals before and after the war so we could see a better picture of who they were as people as well as military figures.
September 7, 2019
Even though this books sounds pretty interesting, it fails in a awful way, more than half of this book is pure biography of the Generals and famous politicians during the war. I mean, you buy a book about civil war because you want to know about the whole thing, not just the main characters. Prewar economics are also a fail here. But in overall its a fine and engaging book.
July 19, 2017
The title of this book suggests that it will be full of conservative rantings. Though it does have some of that, there is actually some good factual information. The author makes the argument that the South had better generals with more respect for life on both sides of the fighting, while on the other side they had Sheridan and Sherman who openly targeted civilians and often took more losses of their men.
He also claims that the Civil War was not about slavery (a common debate for conservatives, this being not necessarily untrue I wish the statement would be modified thus: Though slavery a major cause for southern secession, it was not a main reason for the war, but instead southern secession and the desire to protect states' rights coupled with the North's desire to reserve the Union resulted in the war; however, abolishment of slavery (not being a goal for the majority of Unionists, even Lincoln) was a product of the Civil War.
He includes a section for hypothetical scenarios, like: What would have happened if the war never happened? What would have happened if the South had won? A big theme is that slavery would have been abolished peacefully in due time, similar to European countries and he cites the examples of General Lee having freed all of his slaves prior to the war; some segregation existing in the northern states, but not yet in southern states; and more abolishment groups in the south than in the north. That information all makes a good argument, but the thing about hypothetical scenarios there is no way of knowing the outcome. All we know is that the Civil War did bring about abolishment of slavery, which is like an ugly scar on US history, but unfortunately also brought reconstruction, that was packaged with the KKK, segregation, increased racism, I could go on for awhile about the negative effects of reconstruction.
Anyway, it beat my expectations but it was not fantastic.
He also claims that the Civil War was not about slavery (a common debate for conservatives, this being not necessarily untrue I wish the statement would be modified thus: Though slavery a major cause for southern secession, it was not a main reason for the war, but instead southern secession and the desire to protect states' rights coupled with the North's desire to reserve the Union resulted in the war; however, abolishment of slavery (not being a goal for the majority of Unionists, even Lincoln) was a product of the Civil War.
He includes a section for hypothetical scenarios, like: What would have happened if the war never happened? What would have happened if the South had won? A big theme is that slavery would have been abolished peacefully in due time, similar to European countries and he cites the examples of General Lee having freed all of his slaves prior to the war; some segregation existing in the northern states, but not yet in southern states; and more abolishment groups in the south than in the north. That information all makes a good argument, but the thing about hypothetical scenarios there is no way of knowing the outcome. All we know is that the Civil War did bring about abolishment of slavery, which is like an ugly scar on US history, but unfortunately also brought reconstruction, that was packaged with the KKK, segregation, increased racism, I could go on for awhile about the negative effects of reconstruction.
Anyway, it beat my expectations but it was not fantastic.
May 2, 2010
As a person who seeks the truth of all matters, these Politically Incorrect Guides are like holy testaments. Sort of. Generally speaking, though, they really do 'tell the other side of the story' that we don't get in most history books, or really at all, anywhere.
I read this book (and the P.I.G. to the South) for a project I was doing for my English class back in my last year of school. Both of these books were wonderfully written, in a rather amusing style that reminisced a little of the Dummies guide books.
This book, the guide to the civil war, really opened my eyes to what was going on in those times. How Lincoln really isn't the hero everyone thinks he is (you know the old adage 'history is written by the winners', well, it's true).
I do, truly, wish that the South had won the war. I think the world would be a better place right now, but alas, that's not how this world turned out to be.
I read this book (and the P.I.G. to the South) for a project I was doing for my English class back in my last year of school. Both of these books were wonderfully written, in a rather amusing style that reminisced a little of the Dummies guide books.
This book, the guide to the civil war, really opened my eyes to what was going on in those times. How Lincoln really isn't the hero everyone thinks he is (you know the old adage 'history is written by the winners', well, it's true).
I do, truly, wish that the South had won the war. I think the world would be a better place right now, but alas, that's not how this world turned out to be.
December 3, 2009
Whew, finally finished this book. It went back and forth from very interesting to boring and back again, many times. I do have a better understanding of the civil war though, and I am very glad that I read it.
September 10, 2013
I was impressed with how much this book made me reconsider what I thought I already knew well. I will never see the war the same way, now that I know a lot of these background details and more of the international and historical context. Very worthwhile.
June 26, 2015
Great Information
Great information that's not been shared with me before. I appreciated the quotes and their sources as many confirmed what I knew to be true, but until now, had no way to prove it as such.
Great information that's not been shared with me before. I appreciated the quotes and their sources as many confirmed what I knew to be true, but until now, had no way to prove it as such.
July 10, 2014
A more complete view of the Civil War and it's most famous generals. Things are not black and white but various shades of gray.
November 14, 2017
The lies told by the Yankees are absolutely disgusting. The continuing effort to lie about the war against the south Shows how desperately the establishment wants to destroy individual freedom.
January 10, 2022
This isn't "politically incorrect," because plenty of Neo-Nazis and white supremacists have the exact same politics; it's just plain "incorrect."
November 29, 2022
This is not a book I’d expected to read, because as a Southerner who’s been reading different views about the war for twenty years, I figured I knew what its take was already. Crocker’s comic novel about George Custer, though, piqued my interest in more of his works. I found in this politically incorrect guide a double surprise; first, it’s largely biographical, telling the history of the war through the lives of the men who made it happen, with friends meeting each other across the battlefield – and secondly, it’s distinctly Southern but not obnoxiously biased. Crocker’s appraisal of the men on both sides of the conflict makes it possible to find them interesting an admirable even if a reader disagrees with their politics or actions. While it has an odd structure, those who know little about the War and want to learn more about its background and the characters who fought in it will find it entertaining and often provocative.
Crocker begins the book with a history of the sectional disputes that led to the war, as well as the cultural and legal background that the South drew on to inspire, explain, and defend its bid for independence. In short: the States began as separate colonies, created separate Constitutions for themselves prior to the Revolution, and agreed as sovereign states to create a confederation for mutual benefit. Each region of the new country had its own economic and political interests, and increasingly those interests conflicted: the South did not like shouldering 90% of the tariff-funded Federal government’s expenses, especially when those same tariffs made the industrial goods it needed more expensive, and the North resented the wars that Southern expansionism often embroiled the Union in. Slavery was an indelible part of the competition between the sections, as the North wanted to constrain slavery not only to prevent Southern political power from growing, but to squelch competition between free labor and cheaper slave labor. The increasing militancy of northern abolitionists, which threatened to create chaotic slave revolts that could and would claim the lives of innocents (as happened with Nat Turner and John Brown’s attempted revolts – Brown’s claimed the life of at least one free black man), created a poisonous identification with and perverse loyalty between the South and the wretched institution. Faced with the threat of reckless abolitionism instigated by its political proponents, the new Republican party, the Deep South responded to Lincoln’s election by seceding from the Union. They joined it voluntarily; they would leave it voluntarily. Lincoln responded with a call to arms, prompting the Upper South to join its sister States. Few wanted a national divorce, but fewer still would tolerate remaining in an abusive relationship. A union that could only be maintained through jackboots and bayonets was no union at all.
After creating an outline of the war by taking readers quickly through a score of the conflict’s most pivotal battles, Crocker moves to the meat of the book – the biographies of a dozen or so generals from both sides who played their parts in the drama to come. This is the meat of the book not only because it constitutes nearly 2/3rds of the book’s text, but because in getting to know these men readers realize how poorly conventional narratives fit the facts. A narrative survey of a war makes it easy to reduce things to a story that makes sense, but human personalities, human characters, are rarely tidy enough to box up. Crocker’s array of characters includes titans with instant name recognition, like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, U.S. Grant, and Sherman – but he deliberately includes men with little name recognition today, like the southern Unionist George Thomas, and the slavery-opposed Confederate A.P. Hill. The review of these notables makes it obvious that while slavery was a central political cause of the war, it had almost no bearing on the reasons why men supported or opposed secession, let alone fought in the war . Many of the Union personalities here were as racist as any stereotype of the Klan, and actively despised abolitionism, while the Southern men who have grown up alongside blacks are more charitable, if paternalistic. Lee and several other Confederates believed in the Union, despaired to see it rent asunder – but their loyalty to their home states, which they considered their nations far more than the abstract entity that was a fifty-year old political agreement, took precedence. One Union general wrote to his Confederate friend before the war began that, as much as he hated to see his compatriot on the Other Side, had he been born a Virginian instead of an Ohioan, he could see himself making the same choice. The biographies deliver full, complicated takes on these men’s lives, making it possible to admire and mourn them at the same time. I found myself interested by most of the men, even the loathsome Sherman, who along with Sheridan brought total war to the American continent, denuding the southern landscape and reducing thousands of civilians to starvation. Crocker engages in some light historical editorializing along the way, commenting (for example) that Longstreet’s doubts about Lee’s plan to attack the Union center at Gettysburg became a self-fulling prophecy: he delayed his advance so long that there was little artillery ammunition left to cover the advance, exposing the his corps to far more abuse during its advance.
Although I found much of interest in this book, as a standalone title it’s a bit limited, being chiefly biographical. I didn’t need anything in the way of background personally because of prior reading in this subject, but readers new to the subject might appreciate more detail. The biographical studies, though, go a long way to helping paint a picture of the actors’ mixed motives and divided loyalties, which are overlooked in the “Civil War as anti-slavery Crusade” narrative that has lodged in the minds of people who are so badly served by the education system that they’re not positive what century the war was in. Unfortunately, as with many books, those who would learn the most from engaging with it are the least likely to try. (One thing I’ve learned about goodreads is how cretinous many readers are — one-starring books they’ve never read and never plan to read. )
Some Interesting Quotes:
“Lincoln may have been right in thinking that he was bound to preserve the Union. But it was not the Union that was preserved. A union implies that two different things are united; and it should have been the Northern and Southern cultures that were united. As a fact, it was the Southern culture that was destroyed. And it was the Northern that ultimately imposed not a unity but merely a uniformity.” – GK Chesterton
“I saw in States Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction of but the redemption of Democracy….Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization: and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.” – Lord Acton
“I wish to live under no other government, and there is no sacrifice I am not ready to make for the preservation of the Union save that of honour. If disruption takes place, I shall go back in sorrow to my people and share the misery of my native state, and save in her defence there will be one soldier less in the world than now. I wish for no other flag than the star-spangled Banner and no other air than ‘Hail Columbia’. I still hope that the wisdom and patriotism of the nation will yet save it.” – General Robert E. Lee
Crocker begins the book with a history of the sectional disputes that led to the war, as well as the cultural and legal background that the South drew on to inspire, explain, and defend its bid for independence. In short: the States began as separate colonies, created separate Constitutions for themselves prior to the Revolution, and agreed as sovereign states to create a confederation for mutual benefit. Each region of the new country had its own economic and political interests, and increasingly those interests conflicted: the South did not like shouldering 90% of the tariff-funded Federal government’s expenses, especially when those same tariffs made the industrial goods it needed more expensive, and the North resented the wars that Southern expansionism often embroiled the Union in. Slavery was an indelible part of the competition between the sections, as the North wanted to constrain slavery not only to prevent Southern political power from growing, but to squelch competition between free labor and cheaper slave labor. The increasing militancy of northern abolitionists, which threatened to create chaotic slave revolts that could and would claim the lives of innocents (as happened with Nat Turner and John Brown’s attempted revolts – Brown’s claimed the life of at least one free black man), created a poisonous identification with and perverse loyalty between the South and the wretched institution. Faced with the threat of reckless abolitionism instigated by its political proponents, the new Republican party, the Deep South responded to Lincoln’s election by seceding from the Union. They joined it voluntarily; they would leave it voluntarily. Lincoln responded with a call to arms, prompting the Upper South to join its sister States. Few wanted a national divorce, but fewer still would tolerate remaining in an abusive relationship. A union that could only be maintained through jackboots and bayonets was no union at all.
After creating an outline of the war by taking readers quickly through a score of the conflict’s most pivotal battles, Crocker moves to the meat of the book – the biographies of a dozen or so generals from both sides who played their parts in the drama to come. This is the meat of the book not only because it constitutes nearly 2/3rds of the book’s text, but because in getting to know these men readers realize how poorly conventional narratives fit the facts. A narrative survey of a war makes it easy to reduce things to a story that makes sense, but human personalities, human characters, are rarely tidy enough to box up. Crocker’s array of characters includes titans with instant name recognition, like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, U.S. Grant, and Sherman – but he deliberately includes men with little name recognition today, like the southern Unionist George Thomas, and the slavery-opposed Confederate A.P. Hill. The review of these notables makes it obvious that while slavery was a central political cause of the war, it had almost no bearing on the reasons why men supported or opposed secession, let alone fought in the war . Many of the Union personalities here were as racist as any stereotype of the Klan, and actively despised abolitionism, while the Southern men who have grown up alongside blacks are more charitable, if paternalistic. Lee and several other Confederates believed in the Union, despaired to see it rent asunder – but their loyalty to their home states, which they considered their nations far more than the abstract entity that was a fifty-year old political agreement, took precedence. One Union general wrote to his Confederate friend before the war began that, as much as he hated to see his compatriot on the Other Side, had he been born a Virginian instead of an Ohioan, he could see himself making the same choice. The biographies deliver full, complicated takes on these men’s lives, making it possible to admire and mourn them at the same time. I found myself interested by most of the men, even the loathsome Sherman, who along with Sheridan brought total war to the American continent, denuding the southern landscape and reducing thousands of civilians to starvation. Crocker engages in some light historical editorializing along the way, commenting (for example) that Longstreet’s doubts about Lee’s plan to attack the Union center at Gettysburg became a self-fulling prophecy: he delayed his advance so long that there was little artillery ammunition left to cover the advance, exposing the his corps to far more abuse during its advance.
Although I found much of interest in this book, as a standalone title it’s a bit limited, being chiefly biographical. I didn’t need anything in the way of background personally because of prior reading in this subject, but readers new to the subject might appreciate more detail. The biographical studies, though, go a long way to helping paint a picture of the actors’ mixed motives and divided loyalties, which are overlooked in the “Civil War as anti-slavery Crusade” narrative that has lodged in the minds of people who are so badly served by the education system that they’re not positive what century the war was in. Unfortunately, as with many books, those who would learn the most from engaging with it are the least likely to try. (One thing I’ve learned about goodreads is how cretinous many readers are — one-starring books they’ve never read and never plan to read. )
Some Interesting Quotes:
“Lincoln may have been right in thinking that he was bound to preserve the Union. But it was not the Union that was preserved. A union implies that two different things are united; and it should have been the Northern and Southern cultures that were united. As a fact, it was the Southern culture that was destroyed. And it was the Northern that ultimately imposed not a unity but merely a uniformity.” – GK Chesterton
“I saw in States Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction of but the redemption of Democracy….Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization: and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.” – Lord Acton
“I wish to live under no other government, and there is no sacrifice I am not ready to make for the preservation of the Union save that of honour. If disruption takes place, I shall go back in sorrow to my people and share the misery of my native state, and save in her defence there will be one soldier less in the world than now. I wish for no other flag than the star-spangled Banner and no other air than ‘Hail Columbia’. I still hope that the wisdom and patriotism of the nation will yet save it.” – General Robert E. Lee
January 21, 2023
I was impressed by H.W. Crocker III’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire, so I looked forward to reading this book. It is also good, though not quite as good in my opinion. I think this is mainly due to the subject matter. The British Empire lasted much longer than the Civil War and produced more notable figures.
This is still a worthwhile book to read for those interested in a different perspective on the conflict. Crocker makes a persuasive case that it wasn’t primarily about slavery.
This is still a worthwhile book to read for those interested in a different perspective on the conflict. Crocker makes a persuasive case that it wasn’t primarily about slavery.
January 25, 2022
This book is fantastic in so many ways that it simply dwarfs mainstream books alleging their false historical narratives to be true, which stand in direct opposition to things written at the time.
April 21, 2022
Credibility for the whole book should be shrouded by this hypocrisy. Things read ok independently but as a whole don’t make sense with a little thought.
For example the author says the southern states had a right to secede from the union because they existed independently before, weren’t being adequately served by the federal government, etc…Then makes a case on page 335-6 for imperialism and saying we should have conquered Mexico and Cuba. (And says we would have if the south won.) He brags “It wasn’t northerners who tore Texas from Mexico.” Do you see the discrepancy? Mexico and Cuba don’t have the right to stay independent when they already are but states should have the right to cede…
An example of the divisive, sweeping statements he makes thru the book can also be found on that page - “Southerners are conservatives, and conservative are realists.” This die hard support of a party for its own sake is Americas problem. He takes comfort in belonging to the group of the South , which is apparently beyond reproach. To cluster a whole part of the country, or war, as bad or good is to stop REALIST constructive thinking.
For example the author says the southern states had a right to secede from the union because they existed independently before, weren’t being adequately served by the federal government, etc…Then makes a case on page 335-6 for imperialism and saying we should have conquered Mexico and Cuba. (And says we would have if the south won.) He brags “It wasn’t northerners who tore Texas from Mexico.” Do you see the discrepancy? Mexico and Cuba don’t have the right to stay independent when they already are but states should have the right to cede…
An example of the divisive, sweeping statements he makes thru the book can also be found on that page - “Southerners are conservatives, and conservative are realists.” This die hard support of a party for its own sake is Americas problem. He takes comfort in belonging to the group of the South , which is apparently beyond reproach. To cluster a whole part of the country, or war, as bad or good is to stop REALIST constructive thinking.
August 24, 2021
About the only thing wrong with this book is the title. The war of 1861-1865, between the two nations of the United States of America and the Confederate States of America, was
NOT
a civil war. The Confederacy didn't try to overthrow the government of the United States; the two parties weren't contending for control of the US government. The Confederate states wanted only to peacefully withdraw from the voluntary association of states which they had earlier voluntarily joined, form their new confederation, and go their way in peace.
Other than that problem - and I have to admit that The Politically Incorrect Guide to the War for Southern Independence, or The Politically Incorrect Guide to the War of Northern Aggression, or The Politically Incorrect Guide to Lincoln's War just wouldn't work as well - there's nothing to complain about here. I might not care for the title, but it's a minor detail (though the nature of the war isn't).
So, having gotten that out of the way, I can sum up what I like about this book with the single word everything. Crocker provides a host of facts regarding people, battles, and principles which you won't find in standard history textbooks. There's information that blows the myth of kindly Father Abraham out of the water. There's information which demonstrates that while slavery was an issue in the war, it was not the issue, nor even the most important issue. The book documents just how unnecessary the war was - Lincoln could have prevented fighting, but instead he provoked it, and encourage it, and drove it forward in the bloodiest war in American history. Crocker shows that the main issues in the southern states' decision to secede had to do with federal interference in their affairs, and with the federal government's insistence on tariffs that benefited the north economically while hurting the south. He provides the proof that Abraham Lincoln didn't care one way or the other about freeing the slaves, never did free a single slave, and was himself a virulent bigot who wanted to ship every black person in the United States out of the country so that whites wouldn't have to live with blacks.
And if all that barrage of information which you may not ever have heard of isn't enough, Crocker's a good writer. He doesn't confuse the reader, but sets forth his position in plain, clear, comprehensible prose.
There are many books about this period in American history which are valuable, and which provide what Paul Harvey called the rest of the story. But if you can only have one, this may be the one to have.
Other than that problem - and I have to admit that The Politically Incorrect Guide to the War for Southern Independence, or The Politically Incorrect Guide to the War of Northern Aggression, or The Politically Incorrect Guide to Lincoln's War just wouldn't work as well - there's nothing to complain about here. I might not care for the title, but it's a minor detail (though the nature of the war isn't).
So, having gotten that out of the way, I can sum up what I like about this book with the single word everything. Crocker provides a host of facts regarding people, battles, and principles which you won't find in standard history textbooks. There's information that blows the myth of kindly Father Abraham out of the water. There's information which demonstrates that while slavery was an issue in the war, it was not the issue, nor even the most important issue. The book documents just how unnecessary the war was - Lincoln could have prevented fighting, but instead he provoked it, and encourage it, and drove it forward in the bloodiest war in American history. Crocker shows that the main issues in the southern states' decision to secede had to do with federal interference in their affairs, and with the federal government's insistence on tariffs that benefited the north economically while hurting the south. He provides the proof that Abraham Lincoln didn't care one way or the other about freeing the slaves, never did free a single slave, and was himself a virulent bigot who wanted to ship every black person in the United States out of the country so that whites wouldn't have to live with blacks.
And if all that barrage of information which you may not ever have heard of isn't enough, Crocker's a good writer. He doesn't confuse the reader, but sets forth his position in plain, clear, comprehensible prose.
There are many books about this period in American history which are valuable, and which provide what Paul Harvey called the rest of the story. But if you can only have one, this may be the one to have.
April 18, 2019
Having run into a copy at a Goodwill store of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War" by H.W. Crocker, a man of no minor infamy, I decided it was worth the $1 for the book even though I realized the reputation of this book as almost not the worst book out there on the U.S. Civil War in terms of accuracy, unsupported and/or deliberately misleading statements, and bias. The book did not fail to deliver on my expectations.
Crocker tries to make a constitutional case for the Southern secession as legitimate as the U.S. Revolutionary War as in "It was 1776 all over again". James Madison, "The Father of the Constitution", strongly opposed the argument that secession was permitted by the Constitution. Madison does affirm a right to revolt against conditions of "intolerable oppression" however, when does the denying the right for a wealthy elite to own slaves constitute "intolerable oppression"?
Speaking of Slavery, yes while he does talk about it he really sidesteps the issue or wallpapers it over in an inaccurate, it was not so bad - it would have ended out by its own, or Northerners were bigots too, which while very accurate, does not exempt what was done by the Southern Confederacy.
Much of the book is dedicated to cherry picking and spinning history by Crocker to build up the character of Southern military men and politicians and to degrade the character of Northern men of the same in a bizarre attempt to create the false perception that superior Southern character equals a just cause.
In the end, I am glad to have read this bizzaro account of U.S. Civil War history to educate myself when dealing with tin hat U.S. Civil War historians, but I felt cheated out of my dollar when I could have saved the money and checked it out from my local library.
Crocker tries to make a constitutional case for the Southern secession as legitimate as the U.S. Revolutionary War as in "It was 1776 all over again". James Madison, "The Father of the Constitution", strongly opposed the argument that secession was permitted by the Constitution. Madison does affirm a right to revolt against conditions of "intolerable oppression" however, when does the denying the right for a wealthy elite to own slaves constitute "intolerable oppression"?
Speaking of Slavery, yes while he does talk about it he really sidesteps the issue or wallpapers it over in an inaccurate, it was not so bad - it would have ended out by its own, or Northerners were bigots too, which while very accurate, does not exempt what was done by the Southern Confederacy.
Much of the book is dedicated to cherry picking and spinning history by Crocker to build up the character of Southern military men and politicians and to degrade the character of Northern men of the same in a bizarre attempt to create the false perception that superior Southern character equals a just cause.
In the end, I am glad to have read this bizzaro account of U.S. Civil War history to educate myself when dealing with tin hat U.S. Civil War historians, but I felt cheated out of my dollar when I could have saved the money and checked it out from my local library.
September 10, 2018
This is a great book, even for those that know a lot about the War Between The States. He gives a fair account of the personalities of the Confederate and Union generals that most would recognize. However, I could not understand why the author chose to end that section with George Armstrong Custer. Compared to the others, he seemed like an afterthought.
I listened to this book and I think it may be best to read it. That is for two reasons. In the printed book, the notes and "Books Yankees Don't Want You to Read" are in boxes in the margins. Listening to the book, they are inserted at the end of sections, which may not correspond to the place the author intended. The second is that the person reading the book mis-pronounced a lot of words that required me to think about the meaning. One example is the Confederate General Turner Ashby. Somehow, that ended up as Ashby Turner. I spent about 10 minutes trying to figure out if there might have someone named that, then I realized that the name was just wrong.
I would recommend that all history buffs read this, and make sure they read it with an open mind.
I listened to this book and I think it may be best to read it. That is for two reasons. In the printed book, the notes and "Books Yankees Don't Want You to Read" are in boxes in the margins. Listening to the book, they are inserted at the end of sections, which may not correspond to the place the author intended. The second is that the person reading the book mis-pronounced a lot of words that required me to think about the meaning. One example is the Confederate General Turner Ashby. Somehow, that ended up as Ashby Turner. I spent about 10 minutes trying to figure out if there might have someone named that, then I realized that the name was just wrong.
I would recommend that all history buffs read this, and make sure they read it with an open mind.
May 1, 2010
I decided to pick up The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War because I didn't actually know much about the War for Southern Independence and I didn't think I have the staying power for Shelby Foote's series of books. Mr. Crocker does a good job of briefly explaining the causes, battles, and personalities of the Civil War without becoming dry ... he personalizes the experience, however, his use of language is sometimes less than flowing, and he has a tendency to repeat cliches; surely there are other ways to say "so and so had his horse shot from under him." He also has a tendency to use "fancy" words that send most readers scuttling for a dictionary, and peppers the text with unexplained and untranslated Latin. This P.I.G. is a good overview, though, which is what the series intends.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews