Helpful Score: 1
This is one of the most laughably horrible attempts at writing history that I've ever read, and I've been grading essays by 14-year-olds for more than a decade.
It has no footnotes or endnotes. None. Based on that alone, it would be disqualified as a secondary source from any mildly demanding high school or college history classroom. On the bright side, it does include a recommended reading list. Its purpose is not to introduce readers to the range or trends of current historical research on the topic, but rather (in the author's words) "more scholars are producing books that dare to break the chains of whitewashed [!] and highly politicized history ... these books provide conservatives with what Stonewall Jackson would have called a flanking action to bring truth to high ground." Nothing politicized about that!
Quotations, particularly from Lincoln, are often cited more than a decade out of context and sometimes not even sharing the complete original sentence. How about some quotations from "secret" meetings for which no corroborating evidence can possibly exist? Why yes, and they are presented as facts that overpower all the documented contrary evidence one finds in "the partisan myths of the Union victors and modern political correctness." I will state flatly that no trained historian would ever accept such shoddy and ahistorical use of textual evidence even from an undergraduate student.
As for the content of Mr. Scruggs's argument, I think it's as weak and ridiculous as his writing. But hey, maybe Confederate apologists really have some points to make against the mainstream narrative of the Civil War; if so, I'd encourage them to try again, because it would be nearly impossible to do worse than this book.
It has no footnotes or endnotes. None. Based on that alone, it would be disqualified as a secondary source from any mildly demanding high school or college history classroom. On the bright side, it does include a recommended reading list. Its purpose is not to introduce readers to the range or trends of current historical research on the topic, but rather (in the author's words) "more scholars are producing books that dare to break the chains of whitewashed [!] and highly politicized history ... these books provide conservatives with what Stonewall Jackson would have called a flanking action to bring truth to high ground." Nothing politicized about that!
Quotations, particularly from Lincoln, are often cited more than a decade out of context and sometimes not even sharing the complete original sentence. How about some quotations from "secret" meetings for which no corroborating evidence can possibly exist? Why yes, and they are presented as facts that overpower all the documented contrary evidence one finds in "the partisan myths of the Union victors and modern political correctness." I will state flatly that no trained historian would ever accept such shoddy and ahistorical use of textual evidence even from an undergraduate student.
As for the content of Mr. Scruggs's argument, I think it's as weak and ridiculous as his writing. But hey, maybe Confederate apologists really have some points to make against the mainstream narrative of the Civil War; if so, I'd encourage them to try again, because it would be nearly impossible to do worse than this book.
Thomas F. (hardtack) -
Helpful Score: 1
This book is a massive compilation of distorted truths and myths Lost Cause Mythologists have been making up since even before the Civil War ended. I've been reading about the Civil War since I was 13 years old, and I'm 75 now. I'm puzzled how the author missed reading the hundreds of books on the War written by so many respected historians, from the North and South, which I've read, which conflict with his book. I would like to respond to the distortions and quotes---selected out of context---the author makes on every page, but I doubt I could live that long or that PBS has enough room on its servers. So let me make comments on just a few simple fabrications the author presents.
First, the author states the war was not really a "Civil War," but should be titled "The War For Southern Independence." William C. Davis, a very respected Civil War historian, with numerous books to his credit, wrote "The Lost Cause : Myths and Realities of the Confederacy." In his book, Davis, who has read thousands of letters and memoirs from Confederate soldiers and politicians, notes the vast majority called this conflict "The Civil War." Only after the war, did Lost Cause Mythologists decide it needed to be re-named. Plus, Davis is---to my knowledge---the only three-time winner of the Jefferson Davis Award for Civil War History, which is given by a group with a Southern leaning. Note the award is not called the "Jefferson Davis Award for War for Southern Independence History."
Early on in the book, the author states "The overwhelming majority of slaves...proved remarkably loyal to the families of their Southern masters." Fortunately, despite the fact this must come as a shock to their descendants, extensive literature proves otherwise. The author states anywhere from 60,000 to 100,000 black slaves served the Confederacy in military or naval capacities. He hopes you will think this means they actually fought against the Union Army and Navy. Whereas, these slaves served as cooks, servants, teamsters, trench diggers, etc. And many of them deserted to Union lines whenever they could.
Finally, the author repeats the old myth Abraham Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves, so the war wasn't about slavery. He selects---out of context---statements by Lincoln to prove this. He forgot to refer to a letter written in 1854 by Lincoln to a friend, in which Lincoln states, "If slavery isn't wrong, than nothing is wrong." The author states Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery where it existed. In this he is correct. Before becoming a Republican, Lincoln was a Whig, and the Whigs held the Constitution as a sacred document. While not mentioning slavery, the Constitution allowed it, or did until the 13th Amendment. But Lincoln, as did the slave owners, knew that for slavery to continue to exist, it must expand. And Lincoln took a stand against its expansion during the 1860 election. Cotton crop yields were already falling in the eastern southern states because the plantation owners couldn't be bothered with the expense of adding fertilizer to the fields. And slaves are human beings, they reproduce and their population grows. If the plantation owners couldn't sell their excess slaves to plantation owners in new territories, then the price of slaves would drop, as their neighbors would also have a glut of slaves. Eventually, slaves would be worth nothing and be just a drain on plantation owner assets.
I always found it amusing Lost Cause Mythologists claim the Constitution allows states to secede from the Union. Actually, they are referring to the Declaration of Independence, an historical document replaced by the Constitution of the United States. Especially since the Constitution of the Confederacy distinctly states that once a state joins the Confederacy, it is not allowed to secede.
And finally, you know how the back cover of a book contains praise by leaders in the field the book covers? Well, in this case, the book is praised by these "notable Civil War historians": a former Commander-in Chief, Sons of Confederate Veterans; a former Chaplain-in-Chief, Sons of Confederate Veterans; and a Professor of Philosophy.
But don't think I can't say anything good about this book. I will do so now. If you are a Civil War enthusiast, AND enjoy alternate history and fantasy, then this book is for you.
First, the author states the war was not really a "Civil War," but should be titled "The War For Southern Independence." William C. Davis, a very respected Civil War historian, with numerous books to his credit, wrote "The Lost Cause : Myths and Realities of the Confederacy." In his book, Davis, who has read thousands of letters and memoirs from Confederate soldiers and politicians, notes the vast majority called this conflict "The Civil War." Only after the war, did Lost Cause Mythologists decide it needed to be re-named. Plus, Davis is---to my knowledge---the only three-time winner of the Jefferson Davis Award for Civil War History, which is given by a group with a Southern leaning. Note the award is not called the "Jefferson Davis Award for War for Southern Independence History."
Early on in the book, the author states "The overwhelming majority of slaves...proved remarkably loyal to the families of their Southern masters." Fortunately, despite the fact this must come as a shock to their descendants, extensive literature proves otherwise. The author states anywhere from 60,000 to 100,000 black slaves served the Confederacy in military or naval capacities. He hopes you will think this means they actually fought against the Union Army and Navy. Whereas, these slaves served as cooks, servants, teamsters, trench diggers, etc. And many of them deserted to Union lines whenever they could.
Finally, the author repeats the old myth Abraham Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves, so the war wasn't about slavery. He selects---out of context---statements by Lincoln to prove this. He forgot to refer to a letter written in 1854 by Lincoln to a friend, in which Lincoln states, "If slavery isn't wrong, than nothing is wrong." The author states Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery where it existed. In this he is correct. Before becoming a Republican, Lincoln was a Whig, and the Whigs held the Constitution as a sacred document. While not mentioning slavery, the Constitution allowed it, or did until the 13th Amendment. But Lincoln, as did the slave owners, knew that for slavery to continue to exist, it must expand. And Lincoln took a stand against its expansion during the 1860 election. Cotton crop yields were already falling in the eastern southern states because the plantation owners couldn't be bothered with the expense of adding fertilizer to the fields. And slaves are human beings, they reproduce and their population grows. If the plantation owners couldn't sell their excess slaves to plantation owners in new territories, then the price of slaves would drop, as their neighbors would also have a glut of slaves. Eventually, slaves would be worth nothing and be just a drain on plantation owner assets.
I always found it amusing Lost Cause Mythologists claim the Constitution allows states to secede from the Union. Actually, they are referring to the Declaration of Independence, an historical document replaced by the Constitution of the United States. Especially since the Constitution of the Confederacy distinctly states that once a state joins the Confederacy, it is not allowed to secede.
And finally, you know how the back cover of a book contains praise by leaders in the field the book covers? Well, in this case, the book is praised by these "notable Civil War historians": a former Commander-in Chief, Sons of Confederate Veterans; a former Chaplain-in-Chief, Sons of Confederate Veterans; and a Professor of Philosophy.
But don't think I can't say anything good about this book. I will do so now. If you are a Civil War enthusiast, AND enjoy alternate history and fantasy, then this book is for you.
