The South Was Right!: A New Edition for the 21st Century

by James Ronald Kennedy, Walter Donald Kennedy

THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT! A NEW EDITION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

IN 1991, THE KENNEDY BROTHERS first published The South Was Right!, launching the modern movement of Southern awareness and activism. To date the first and second edition of this book has sold over 135,000 copies!

Not for the faint of heart, The South Was Right! is an authoritative and well-documented study of the mythology behind "Civil War" history and its ongoing effects.


In their new edition for a 21st century audience, the Kennedys have updated their message to provide guidance for the harsh conditions against liberty and even the survival of the South that face us in this time.

If you love the South, you need this book!

◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


PASSAGES FROM THE NEW EDITION


"The central theme of this book is that the Northern majority used unconstitutional, illegal, and immoral methods to change the Original Constitutional Republic of Sovereign States into a centralized, supreme, federal government that is now (2020) controlled by an evil leftist shadow government."

"Through aggressive war and post-war unconstitutional political acts, the Yankee Empire changed the nature of the government from a voluntary compact among sovereign states to an empire established by the Northern majority via the conquest of the numerical minority of the South."


"After Reconstruction the South accepted its secondary place in the newly created Yankee Empire in exchange for nominal control of the puppet governments foisted upon the Southern States and agreed not to secede from the newly created 'indivisible' nation. The Yankee Empire broke the bargain! The South is no longer 'patriotically' required to remain loyal to the Yankee Empire..."


"If Southerners continue to remain pacified subjects of a supreme federal government that is actively engaged in anti-South, cultural genocide, then the South will turn into another Detroit, Chicago, Zimbabwe or Venezuela...."

"If the ruling elites in Washington reject the demands of the people for a government more respectful of our rights, then it will be faced with the prospect of the Southern people-as well as people in conservative "red counties" across America following the lead of Lithuania (1990) and England via Brexit (2016) as we demand the right of self-determination."

"This book is a call to action to all people who love liberty and truth."

Genres: History, Civil War, Nonfiction, American History, American Civil War, Politics, Historical

527 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1991

Reviews

[Rodney Harter · Rating 1 out of 5]

The book claims to have been well researched. There are too many distortions within the first 35 pages that I checked. Furthermore, one becomes highly skeptical of any supposed learned discussion that is fraught with hyperbole and name calling. Basically, the book is intellectually dishonest.

[Jennifer · Rating 1 out of 5]

About as scholarly as The Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

[Erik · Rating 2 out of 5]

When I moved to South Carolina, I wanted to broaden my horizons and at least appreciate the Deep South's self-vision. All I got out of this book was a series of logical fallacies based on some historical and moral arguments that were more desperate justification than concrete proof.

Before the southern masses jump down my throat, let me say that the South certainly had some reasoning in their decision to succeed: the greatest being a threat to their economic interests and what they perceived as their individual freedoms. However, what the Kennedy Brothers claim beyond that is merely their interpretation superimposed on historical fact.

They would have you believe that "Southern Culture" is a distinct, cohesive culture juxtaposed against an antagonistic "Northern Culture." They would have you think that the decision to succeed was unanimous and popular. They would be argue that the South's crusade was not about slavery at all but states' rights. And they would be wrong.

As excellently described by Christopher Collier in Decision in Philadelphia, each part of the colonies before and after the Constitution Convention were equally distinct but geographically limited (Georgia would be worlds different from Virgina, Virgina from Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania from Connecticut, etc.) - limiting the extent of a unified southern culture. The decision to succeed was ultimately widely supported only when Lincoln called a draft to put the Southern Insurrection - in fact, Tennessee never actually voted to join the Confederacy and Kentucky tried to maintain neutrality as best it could. Finally, if the Civil War was truly about states' rights, I ask you why no other states that had previously lost either power or territory succeeded outside of the slave states - New England had suffered early in the nation's history under federalism as had the plains states later on.

The question comes down to this: what legitimately justifies the succession of a state or group of states from the Union? I'm sorry to say that the Kennedy brothers have presented no such framework.

[Rory Aylward · Rating 1 out of 5]

Lost Cause Apologist nonsense by two charlatans masquerading as historians.

Someone cited this as a reference in a debate and after trying to read it I was embarrassed for them. It must have required a lot of effort to get all this nonsense in one little book, but the authors were clearly determined.

This would make a good litmus test; if you give this book to someone and they like it, then they are too dumb to discuss the Civil War with.

[Doug Hauser · Rating 5 out of 5]

Changed the way that I looked at the Civil War drastically. That comes from a born and raised Yankee who agrees more with the South on states rights and voting requirements.

[Deanne · Rating 5 out of 5]

I very much appreciated the brothers Kennedy taking the time to write this excellent book! We have indeed been fed the 'Victors version' of history in regards to the "War for Southern Independence".
This book caused me to reevaluate what I had been taught and what I had come to believe was the truth about that war of long ago. After reading the thought provoking comments from slaves of the south given after the end of the war, I realized that all was not as we were taught to believe. I even lived in the south when I was but a child, and I was at a complete loss to understand why the people of the south seemed to have such a defeated attitude so many years after the War for Southern Independence had come to an end. (Over a hundred years to be exact.)
This book caused me to start researching different viewpoints on the War for Southern Independence. I am presently reading, 'Lincoln, Messiah or Monster' by George L Christian; 'Lincoln as the South Should Know Him' by O.W. Blacknall; 'A View of the Constitution' by William Rawle, (This book was originally published in 1825 and was used as a textbook at West Point. The oddest thing about it is that the primary focus of the book is succession and the right of the states to seek after it); and lastly, 'The Real Lincoln', by Charles Minor.

After reading this book, I re-read the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858 and then 'Democracy in America'. I must say I gleaned a much deeper understanding of the true Lincoln and what de Tocqueville meant when he said, "They [the people of a Democracy] want equality in freedom, and if they cannot have that, they still want equality in slavery."

I strongly recommend this book to anyone sincerely seeking after a leadership education as one must have a true and balanced education and understanding of history, not just the 'victors version' of history.

[Barry · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are not too many books that relate the "other side" of the story of the war between the states.... confederates were not exclusively racists or slave owners, there were just as many of those types on both sides of the conflict. A fine rebuttal to the attack on southern culture that has been going on since the end of that unecessary war.

[Cindylou · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent, well documented book. Some say that the language is a bit intemperate, but I have seen far more intemperate language in books by "respected" historians like Samuel Eliot Morrison (but that is alright because he says "politically correct" things.) Considering how much the South has been trashed by hypocritical Northern "historians" who cover up or excuse things like the fact that the sanctimonious New England "abolitionists" grew fat and rich on the slave trade(which they continued in right up to the end of slavery in Brazil, 1889), the systematic and Presidentialy approved terrorism with which the war was conducted(EXACTLY the kind of thing the US government hypocritically condemns when used by OTHER countries), it is understandable that the authors get rather worked up at times.
Actually, there is a lot that they could have put in to support their thesis that they left out. For example, how when both sides were bothered by the Indians in the Southwest while trying to fight each other, local commanders on both sides proposed an "extermination" policy towards the Indians. The difference is that Jefferson Davis rejected the idea as "an infamous crime", while Lincoln APPROVED the same idea from HIS commander.So much for Honest Abe, the "great humanitarian"! And Gen. George McClellan, when he took over from John Pope, denounced and rejected "the infamous orders of MR John Pope",saying that he was going to take the "highest Christian ground in the conduct of the war, and forbid all pillaging and looting'. saying that he was not going to return his men to their families as "a set of wicked and demoralized robbers".

[Victor Nguyen · Rating 1 out of 5]

As an actual historian, this book was an appalling thing to read. Every time I opened up this book to read on, I kept hoping that some curtain would be pulled back and it would be revealed as one very long sick joke. If only this book was comedy. These Kennedys have contributed nothing but pure crap and unadulterated farce to historical study. While it is true that no historical scholarship is completely objective and devoid of opinion, this was less scholarly than a half-assed high school research project on the US-Mexico border wall. It was like a bad college newspaper op-ed piece that kept digging deeper into a hole of ignorance while simultaneously covering the writers in righteous fecal stench of feigned indignation and specially concocted bullshit. If a no star review was possible, this deserved it. That would be the only rating appropriate for these sad white men trying to seek some glory by passing alternative historical fiction as well-researched fact. Worst Kennedys ever, and you can quote me on that. See me after class, gentlemen. You've got a lot to unlearn.

[Shing Lin · Rating 1 out of 5]

I would've given this book a zero if I could.

Honestly, from the title I could already tell this would be so biased. I had no idea why I even read a bit of this book. Basically, this is just stating all the wrongs the North did, while depicting that the South was right all along, ignoring why the Union Army fought with them for the first place. And, besides, this country used to be a whole. When the Confederates formed, it was, in my opinion, totally illegitimate. What did the author mean that we, America, are a vicious aggressor?

I would advise you to not read this if you do not have a strong idea in what you believe in. It's very tilting and persuasive- sort of desperate to prove that they are right and Northerners are wrong.

[Caleb · Rating 1 out of 5]

Few American conflicts are as poorly understood as the Civil War. The modern historical narrative is extremely biased against the South, and there are very few modern historians willing to push back. This book attempts to fill that void, but fails utterly as an academic text, due to the authors' decision to use the book as a soapbox for their own political and social views.

That's not to say the book has zero value. It is very well (if selectively) researched, and is worth looking at for the bibliography alone. There is also a lot of genuinely interesting information. Unfortunately, this information is often interwoven with conjecture and opinion, which makes extracting useful information somewhat difficult. (Notably, even the League of the South panned the book for similar reasons.)

In particular, the Kennedys' have an open hatred for both the Yankees and modern liberals, and that hatred leaks into the pages and tarnishes it. They also go too far in their defense of the Confederacy, essentially portraying them as completely innocent, while portraying the Union as mustache-twirling villains. (Sentences like "the evil schemes of the Yankees" are commonplace, as are rants about "the modern liberal media".) These positions are as one-sided as the prevailing anti-South narrative, and greatly undermines the book.

They also have a habit of going on strange rants, for example talking at great length about Muslim African slavers and even quoting their private correspondence. If this was done simply to contextualize the European slave trade, it would be warranted, since naturally the European slave trade did not appear from a vacuum. But the authors go much farther with their comparison, and seem more interested in shifting blame than just offering historical context.

This mindset permeates the entire book. At one point, the authors make the dubious claim that slaves were rarely abused, and compared slaveholders who whipped their slaves to "abusive parents". Claiming that like abusive parents, abusive slaveholders were a small minority who simply got the most attention.

This reasoning culminates in a chapter that explores interviews with freed slaves. The chapter contains a plethora of quotes where freed slaves talk about how difficult it was during Reconstruction, and how much affection they had for their former owners. These interviews are actually quite interesting and of historical merit. But the authors use them to openly argue that slavery was a positive institution, and that blacks were better off enslaved than freed. Even as a southerner who believes in the principle of secession and is sympathetic to the Confederacy, this went too far, and erased any remaining credibility the book had.

I wish I could give this book a higher rating. Not many books openly tackle northern revisionism, much less with the amount of thought and research that went into The South is Right. But the book utterly lacks nuance, and instead of providing a balanced account, essentially revises history in the opposite direction. Most damningly, the book openly defends slavery as a moral institution. Southern historians already face an uphill battle, books like this not only fail as academic texts, but hurt the cause.

[Pat Dugan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a must read for all who WISH the South would have won!

[Jeff Ford · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating apology for southern secession. In no way are the authors presenting an impartial history nor do they pretend to do so. The truth is likely somewhere between the extremes of northern villainy presented in The South Was Right! and the view that the South was on wrong side of history that pervades the mainstream. I found the book to be well written and the author's arguments that a Yankee Myth exists and that the South had a right to secede to be sound.

[Meagan Statton · Rating 1 out of 5]

Terrible. If negative stars was an option, that's what I would have given it.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

The TRUTH about the South.

[Chief Straight-arrow · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned that Lincoln was the first dictator of America. He was no different than Adolf Shickelgruber, AKA Adolf Hitler. He was like many liberals of today. Ate up with his imagined importance!

[Adam C · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'd do zero stars if I could. Read this because a friend recommended it. It's a really poor attempt at rewriting history. Don't bother reading this garbage.

[Noble Reader · Rating 1 out of 5]

One can ascertain from the title what this book is about and there is quite a plethora of these books out there. Yet while some arguments such as 'states rights' can be made, the Kennedys have gone a Crusade, launching justifications for every conceivable action while demonizing the North. The question is, can this book gain the sympathy of outsiders as the South had once hoped.

Apart from the multitude of fights, the main theme that the Kennedys seem to try to convey is the notion of "States Rights" and "Principles of Freedom". In the opening move, the Kennedys says of the Civil War was, "Imperialist powers attempt to force the conquered population to accept the imperial myths". If such is the view, then it can be agreed upon that the South is a part of the United States and condemn Jefferson Davis and other states from seceding. For such actions IS indeed illegal and treasonous. Yet, later in the chapter the name 'Civil War' is not an apt name for the dark period in US history, but rather 'Southern Independence". Independence from what? If the authors view the Southern Confederation as an 'Independent Nation' with Jefferson Davis as the Confederate President, desiring to gain sympathy from foreign powers... then the antics about the Imperialism is null for the North came down and won the war, because the 'North' does not recognize Jefferson Davis nor the Confederate States as an Independent Country, and therefore you were 'conquered'.

This is followed by many 'myths' such the first to bring slavery, which if one thinks about, the United States didn't form almost 170 years after Jamestown. And all that time we were ruled by British Parliament, and a plethora of Georges. By the number of times the authors contradicts there own argument is truly astounding. While bashing the North, which if fairly viewed, can be justified, the authors proceed to say that in the South with slavery and the abuses, "Just because we see some, doesn't justify all..." yet they proceed to nitpick every action and thought by Northerners.

But the troubling argument comes from two points. 1. Blacks also fought for the South. (And? Just because some Jews helped the Nazis, doesn't justify it either) [the reason for this remark is that the authors did resort to name calling. 2. Probably the most convoluted part of their argument - that it was the South's Moral Right to be Free? Quoting the founding fathers and John Milton and trying to rally the cause that the South is truly adhering to the principles of the Revolutionary War. The authors failed to understand that we are not a democracy, but a Republic. Claiming that it is only a "very small minority" that were "financially interested in the institution of slavery". Ah, but isn't it always the majority dying for the minority. Look at Germany, Russia, China. Alas, the authors forgets the many slave uprisings that happened in America - if the South clamors to be Free and Independent, can not a slave also have the same desires?

This is thoroughly disappointing, for while states DO have RIGHTS, they are not to infringe upon the Rights of other Citizens. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is for EVERY INDIVIDUAL. This goes beyond the Missouri Compromise, but to the entirety of the United States. The arguments presented is really poorly put together, often coming across as convoluted, contradictory petty jabs rather than a scholarly take-down. If it was meant to convince readers and gain sympathy... sadly, like the South, they did not win this war. 1/5 Stars,

[Savanna Kaiser · Rating 5 out of 5]

As you might imagine, this book is hard to describe. The title alone draws much emotion and creates inevitable intrigue. I borrowed it from my brother’s bookshelf, eager to read “the other side” of the history we all grew up knowing. And boy, did this book deliver.

From its first page to its last, there is SO much information and so many pieces of history I’ve never read before. The authors in no way make an argument for slavery, but rather point out the many various motives, first-hand accounts, and recorded actions of those involved both North and South.

The readers get to travel quite a journey and uncover lots of pieces to a much-larger puzzle. We learn how the states lived and co-existed prior to the war and read the words of many well known individuals from that time, including many founding fathers as well as President Lincoln and President Davis. Chapters cover everything from the far-reaching effects and influences of the Constitution and competing political agendas to the myths surrounding the Civil War now and then and even some eerie coincidences between the government from that day and today.

Read the rest of my review here...

[John Murphy · Rating 5 out of 5]

A MUST READ for anyone who cares about the truth. Put aside all of your pre-conceived notions and read this book if you believe in freedom. Well researched, cited and presented. If this book doesn't change your perspective, then you just aren't being intellectually honest.

Includes the CSA Constitution and a comparison to the US Constitution...were you taught about THAT in school? Did you know the CSA Constitution specifically addresses abolishing slavery? Did you realize that 90% of the entire US economy was based on tariffs paid by the South prior to secession? Did you realize that the states effectively seceded from the US when they stopped following the Articles of Confederation and that Rhode Island was an independent state for almost a year and a half during that time?

How about the fact that more slaves/former slaves died as a result of northern troops (battle, forced conscription, pillaging, etc.) and reconstruction than EVER died under slavery?

So many half truths and outright lies have been spread about the South and this book does an excellent job of laying them out. My absolute highest recommendation no matter which side you think you are on.

[Scott Martin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Where to begin with this one? Admittedly, I am a big proponent of free speech. 1st amendment the best, right? I am open to at least see what another viewpoint is…so, went with this book. Welp, that this book was written by a ranking member of the Sons of The Confederacy should probably tell you what the going in thesis was going to be. In that way, it didn’t disappoint. Welcome to a textbook of States’ Rights, race relations were really good in antebellum South, the South generally had very few slave owners, the Yankees are evil and the reason it all went bad, Jefferson Davis was good and the best time for Southern government was between 1890-1940.

While the work tries to use everything from Hill, Locke, Milton, the Articles of Confederation and the Final fall of the Warsaw Pact to justify that the Civil War was the justified War for Southern Independence…yeah, a LOT of cherry-picking, selective memory and religious adherence to the Lost Cause. While the authors can’t avoid slavery, they minimize it/blame the Yankees for the problems. Of course, this scion of the South somehow ignored ALL the documentation related to each of the States that seceded from the Union all and slavery as a key reason and in their state constitutions. Also, some slaves did serve along side their masters in the war, but if they were all deep down really supportive of their masters and the South, why didn’t the CSA mobilize these volunteers and let them fight? Would have all but negated the Union advantage in manpower. Then again, slaves with guns in the South?

So many instances of selective descriptions and some outright factual errors. Lee didn’t own slaves, and was for ending slavery? Guess the authors hadn’t seen Lee’s correspondence on the matter. Oh, and their analysis on Reconstruction? Surprised they didn’t throw in some pictures from Birth of a Nation to illustrate the ills of the Yankees. Also, 1890–1940, a period when the South was in a good position politically and could govern themselves…just coincidentally matched up with the time of segregation and Jim Crow laws (they don’t state that, but you can read between the lines).

The book isn’t wrong to point out that the North was not that accommodating to African-Americans, that the North had profited from slavery and that Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus. However, the South does come by its reputation honestly for poor race relations and the brutality of slavery. The South did suffer after the war, but they did little to truly rebuild, despite the fact that at the Federal level, Southern politicians proved especially powerful (ignored in the South-as-victim narrative).

This version was published in the early 1990s, but I am sure the general principles are the same. Surprised that this wasn’t pushed as a counter to all the reexaminations of the Civil War and Reconstruction in the late 2010s/2020s. Then again, the errors and selective analysis is so blatant that few could promote it with a straight face.

[Terrie Wiederich · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was born and raised in the Rocky Mountains and consider myself a very patriotic individual. My son, who spent his teen and college years in the south has very strong opinions about the war between the North and the South. I started this book ONLY because I wanted to understand why he is so adamant in his position.
The authors use the term "Evil North" so many times that I had to force myself to keep reading. (After all, I was doing this to try to understand my sons feelings.) I am well read enough that I realized the vast majority of accusations made against northerners was probably true and I pressed on.
Finally I got about halfway through the book and read some things that tied my stomach in a knot. Hoping that this was just sour grapes I did some quick research on the web and learned that what these authors were saying was pretty much true. I am a 'feeler' by nature and this new information has rocked my world somewhat. I'm doing myself a favor and putting the book down. I hope to be able to finish it sometime in the future.
All my life, since the civil rights movement, it has seemed there was a 'side' people wanted me to be on. Of course, I've always wanted to be on the side of 'right.' As I've grown older I've begun to learn there is no real right side. This book has reinforced that belief. If you can bring yourself to get past the title and obvious bias of the authors you will find yourself learning much you didn't know about the history of our country. Please just don't assume something you don't agree with is untrue. Take the time to research it. I think it will be well worth your while.

[Ryan MacFarlane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ever hear a phrase, "don't judge a book by its cover"? Well, this would be one of those cases. If the Cross of St. Andrew's is a turn off, leave your preconceptions on the sofa and take some time to challenge the accepted view of history.
Find out what Soviet occupied Poland, the Baltic States, and English occupied Scotland and Ireland all have in common with the South.
Learn about America's long history of secession.
Understand the continuing Yankee campaign to exterminate and destroy the Southern cultural identity.
If this book does not alter some of you views about the War of Southern Independence, let it at least challenge some of the "self-evident facts" you learned in school.

[Brandon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting take on the civil war. While I wouldn't take this as a complete and historically accurate work, I do believe that it relays some arguments that are not made in most pieces about the same topic.

Without any bias between north and south, I do believe this is something a civil war buff should pick up and read through for a unique view point.

[Bryan Murray · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read this book to get a better idea of how many people continue to adhere to "Lost Cause" thinking. It is awful. It is not well researched and reads more like propaganda than a true historical document. If there were less than one star, I'd give it.

[Camille Simpson-Russ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Awesome.
Life Changing.

[Chadbogue · Rating 5 out of 5]

Southern veiw what it cause the war and much differnet than the Northern view on war that taught in public school.

[Chad · Rating 5 out of 5]

Awesome...the Kennedy's are Confederate national treasures.

[Roger Quesnell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eye opening revelation of history that I never learned. A must read for every government schooled citizen.

[Diane Quist · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an incredible book with a Southern Perspective! It's only fair you get their opinion concerning the Civil War.