The South Was Right!

Rating:
Summary: The Dixie Revolution
Review: The book, the south was right is about the struggle and folly of the southern treatment. It shows in many areas how the Yankee wordsmiths have brainwashed our entire culture to make the north in a morally superior position. The book quells any such false statements and even shows us how the south was both moral and in the right.

The book was extremely good at telling both sides and showing why on both sides of the problem, that eh south was not always wrong in what they believed in. They introduced actual facts to back up these claims and really showed how great the south was. The book is only valid however if the reader uses an open mind and reads with serious thought in hand. The mere topic however will seriously cause you to stand up and read carefully because you will be shocked with the information that it holds.


Rating:
Summary: The Truth Shall Stand Forever
Review: This book is wonderful. The Kennedy's do a masterful job of dispelling over a century's worth of washington/yankee lies. Growing up Southern, one begins to realize that the touchy-feely slavery swill does not hold water. The Kennedy's speak directly to this and illustrate the true issues of Southern Independence.
This book is a "must have" for any true patriot's library. The sooner we read this book and realize what was lost at Appomattox, the sooner we can start working to reclaim our birthright.

Rating:
Summary: This book documents EVERY claim with NORTHERN SOURCES!
Review: You owe it to yourself to read this book in spite, or perhaps because of the fantasy offered by Mike Gelfand. Unlike the transparent bigot who implies that trailer parks are somehow a Southern phenomenon and lacks the gonads to sign his "review" after admitting that he has never even read the book; Mr. Gelfand does in fact use a name at the end of his divergence from reality. He is to be commended for that.

Buy it used and read it for yourself. You will quickly notice how much of the documentation is from northern newspapers of the time, from offical US governemnt documents, official correspondence of the US Army and the diaries of the Federal soldiers involved. Yes, there are some southern sources used and there are many more that could have been used. But the author's have made the two bold choices of using northern sources to provide the facts so assiduosly ignored by others and in using that tremendously controversial title guaranteed to attract the eye.

Read for yourself; unless you'd rather continue to have your "opinions" dictated to you.

If you think that the war had ANYTHING to do with slavery; answer this: "Why is it that the Gettysburg Address was made after two years of horrific, bloody war; the day after the bloodiest battle until that date; after the Confederates reached Pennsylvania; and only applied to the ceceded States and made NO interferences with Northern slaves; was delivered by the man whose own government's official histories show to be a dictator suspending the most basic human liberties of his own northern constituents with the first-ever secret police on the continent; ad infinitum?

Did you know that Massachucetts was the first colony to give legal protection to slaveholding? Did you know that Virgina, the very heart of the Confederacy, was the colony and later state to REPEATEDLY attempt to outlaw slavery, but was prevented from so doing by the english Governor and later by the New England states? Did you know that had it not been for the Fourteenth Amendment New Jersey would have maintained lifetime slavery as legal for decades AFTER THE WAR? Did you know that racism has its roots in the northern states? Is it any surprise that it continues to be strongest there to this day?

Read this book, check its references, and begin to learn the breadth and depth of the lies you have been taught as truth. If your prejudiced ideas are correct; you have nothing to fear. Who among you is man enough to read it?

Perhaps the strongest indication that everyone should read this book comes from those who denigrate it. All but one do not address the very book they "review" at all, preferring instead to vent vile racist and cultural bigotry to prove their own genetic deficiencies. Only one detractor has made ANY attempt at explaining where this book misses the mark. And while though he misses the mark and makes arguements neither founded in fact nor in any way applicable to this book or anything it contains; even he says that we should all read it.

Rating:
Summary: This book documents EVERY claim with NORTHERN SOURCES!
Review: You owe it to yourself to read this book in spite, or perhaps because of the fantasy offered by Mike Gelfand. Unlike the transparent bigot who implies that trailer parks are somehow a Southern phenomenon and lacks the gonads to sign his "review" after admitting that he has never even read the book; Mr. Gelfand does in fact use a name at the end of his divergence from reality. He is to be commended for that.

Buy it used and read it for yourself. You will quickly notice how much of the documentation is from northern newspapers of the time, from offical US governemnt documents, official correspondence of the US Army and the diaries of the Federal soldiers involved. Yes, there are some southern sources used and there are many more that could have been used. But the author's have made the two bold choices of using northern sources to provide the facts so assiduosly ignored by others and in using that tremendously controversial title guaranteed to attract the eye.

Read for yourself; unless you'd rather continue to have your "opinions" dictated to you.

If you think that the war had ANYTHING to do with slavery; answer this: "Why is it that the Gettysburg Address was made after two years of horrific, bloody war; the day after the bloodiest battle until that date; after the Confederates reached Pennsylvania; and only applied to the ceceded States and made NO interferences with Northern slaves; was delivered by the man whose own government's official histories show to be a dictator suspending the most basic human liberties of his own northern constituents with the first-ever secret police on the continent; ad infinitum?

Did you know that Massachucetts was the first colony to give legal protection to slaveholding? Did you know that Virgina, the very heart of the Confederacy, was the colony and later state to REPEATEDLY attempt to outlaw slavery, but was prevented from so doing by the english Governor and later by the New England states? Did you know that had it not been for the Fourteenth Amendment New Jersey would have maintained lifetime slavery as legal for decades AFTER THE WAR? Did you know that racism has its roots in the northern states? Is it any surprise that it continues to be strongest there to this day?

Read this book, check its references, and begin to learn the breadth and depth of the lies you have been taught as truth. If your prejudiced ideas are correct; you have nothing to fear. Who among you is man enough to read it?

Perhaps the strongest indication that everyone should read this book comes from those who denigrate it. All but one do not address the very book they "review" at all, preferring instead to vent vile racist and cultural bigotry to prove their own genetic deficiencies. Only one detractor has made ANY attempt at explaining where this book misses the mark. And while though he misses the mark and makes arguements neither founded in fact nor in any way applicable to this book or anything it contains; even he says that we should all read it.

Rating:
Summary: The South Was Right? Yeah for the Most Part!
Review: ~The South Was Right!~ is a much-needed defense of the Southern Cause, Southern Culture, Southern History, and the late Confederate States of America. In modern times, history books and public education instruction are rife with a revisionist-mythologized history. This mythology consistently disparages and demonizes the Southern Cause and paints the North as a great moral crusader with twofold motivation: the liberation of slaves in its invasion and the preservation of the Union.

The Kennedy brothers open their book by making light of the widespread mythology surrounding the causes behind the War and secession. They explain an exorbitant and disproportionate federal tax burden that was levied on the agrarian South. The South paid well over 4/5 of all federal revenues at one time! Now where were the bulk of federal expenditures spent? Asked Of Abraham Lincoln... "Why not let the South go in peace?"
Response Of Abraham Lincoln... "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" Likewise, southerners were outraged by an unconstitutional, corrupt allocation of expenditures in the north including unconstitutional subsidies to special interests. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution had no provisos for subsidies for special interests, but it not stop the paper aristocracy from pilfering the treasury with their ponzi schemes. Before the war, Lincoln said pay your tariffs or else! There was so much money in the treasury, there was a massive surplus, but the northerners insisted on maintaining the exorbitant taxes levied to spite and pilfer the south economically. He had no intent of addressing southern greviences and only spited those outside of his party with coarse threats. The authors examine the anti-slavery crusader myth that North enjoys. The Emancipation Proclamation was a pragmatic political device used by Lincoln in 1863 to eschew British and French participation and aid to the Confederacy by giving the Union a perception of moral high ground. Lincoln's great egalitarian emancipator reputation is soundly refuted as Lincoln is shown to be visibly racist in word and deed. He was indifferent to blacks and sympathetic to the abolitionists favoring their deportation. Lincoln stated, "I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of [blacks] as our equals..." I've noticed a controversial book by a black American called _Lincoln's White Dream_ has challenged the Lincoln egalitarian myth since Lincoln expressed a desire for deporting the slaves. The authors further examine the atrocities and brutality of the Yankee invaders. Some chapters though, such as the Yankee Flesh Merchants can get off the beaten path. With this chapter, for example, the authors intended to show the significant culpability and involvement of northerners in the slave trade. While their statement of facts may be on the mark, the reader may perceive the authors' harsh condemnation as rather duplicitous and overbearing, given the preponderance of slavery in the south. The transatlantic traders though based in New England were heavily involved in the slave trade in early American history.

Liberal and Marxist revisionist historians love to demonize the south with their visceral mythologizing polemics against the South (i.e. _Free Soil, Free Labor_ by Eric Foner) and the contrivance of a fictitious free labor ideology that entails a free labor market for working blacks. The key tenet of this mythology is the notion that the impetus for slavery abolition earlier in the North was that it was predominantly a moral revulsion at the institution and they abolished in the interest of the welfare of blacks. There is a plethora of documentation from letters, legislation past into law, and newspapers that clearly shows that free labor was a misnomer, since it only delineated white labor. White labor in northern states simply did not want to have to compete with the labor of blacks. For this reason, more often than not, many northern states outlawed slavery. States like New Jersey, for example, not only abolished slavery but outright forbid blacks from entering the labor market. Other states placed punitive sanctions on blacks restricting their freedom to labor; they seldom extended blacks the protections that white workers enjoyed. Granted, since its beginning the Republican Party machine did have an interest in stopping the spread of slavery though, since the spread of slavery was equated with the Democratic Parties' influence because of its agrarian constituencies.

The Kennedy brothers address the issue of race relations in the Old South. The intolerance of northerners against blacks was perhaps far more prevalent in the north than in the south. Other chapters examine race relations in the south with cheerful letters and pictures of whites interacting with blacks. And while this might be seen as making slavery seem idyllic, it certainly throws a monkey wrench in the widespread mythology of torturous labor and abuse. There were many laws against abuse. The impoverished conditions that southern blacks and whites faced during and after 1865, during Reconstruction, were horrendous and make no comparison to the quality-of-life of the slaves. A mainstream historian, Forrest McDonald, in States' Rights and the Union, even acknowledges that the conditions and privileges of the American slave were far better than that of the European serf. The authors point out other intriguing, little-known facts. Fully three-quarters of southerners owned no slaves, and many whites were yeoman farmers with small land holdings. There were white, black, Hispanic, and Native American Confederates that fought for the South. The last Confederate General still fighting was Stand Watie who led the Cherokee Braves in Oklahoma.

Several chapters specifically deal with constitutional history including: states' rights, the legality and history of secession and the nature of state sovereignty. Interestingly, the first agitators threatening secession were the Federalists in New England, in the early 19th century, and they convened the Hartford Convention because of anger of the Louisiana Purchase. Contrary to the Lincoln-Webster myth of the Union, the Union was the creation of 13 sovereign states that assembled in convention and delegated and reserved powers to a Union that they acceded to join. The so-called compact theory was acknowledged by learned American jurists, Supreme Court Justices, the Founding Fathers whether Jefferson, Madison or even Hamilton. John Taylor of Caroline wrote some masterful constitutional treatises analyzing the compact nature of the Union. The states preceded the Union and acceded to its formation in 1787. Also, the language of "perpetual union" is nowhere found in the Constitution, but rather in the text of the preceding Articles of Confederation. Likewise, the stricture of its "perpetuity" needs to be qualified by the language utilized in the Articles; "The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship...," which conveys an intent to continue the Union in perpetuity, but no where is there a disavowal of the states' sovereignty that acceding to its formation. The fact that the government under the Articles was dissolved and a new one formed says something. I've heard countless ill-reasoned arguments how the Union does not allow for a divorce, as if the states buried their sovereignty in forming a Union. The nature of federalism is dual sovereignty! The affirmation of rule by consent of the governed was enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. This principle coupled with an affirmation of intolerable abuses was the moral justification for America's War for Independence with the British. Rule by consent was thoroughly repudiated by Lincoln. I'll grant, that in preserving the Union with the bayonet, Lincoln transformed the nature of the American polity and branded a stamp on the Republic killing secession in principle. The battle continues today as to what Federalism and the Union really means? The Union of Lincoln and FDR is a top-down unitary state, and the states are just constituent administrative parts of the greater whole. The Confederacy was identical to the compact nature of the Union formed in 1787 with free and sovereign states. Concomitant to state sovereignty is the right to exercise that sovereignty in seceding from the Union that a state originally acceded to join, but never for light and transient causes. James Monroe observed two great calamities threaten the union, consolidation and disunion. The states acceding to the Confederate States did not seek to disavow a Union of states, but rather continual union within the United States as one section sought to exploit and abuse the other.

The Kennedy Brothers do a fairly good job exposing the obfuscation of history that eschews the underlying causes of the war and paints the Union cause as glorious, moral crusade. The book has some weaknesses, but the facts are usually straight, the chief being its condescending tone and disparagement of Yankees. The Kennedy's tenacious neoconfederate spirit longs to see a free and independent south yet still. I see southern secession as a lost cause and nostalgic daydreaming, but preservation and defense of southern culture is noble, and the original Southern Cause finds its vindication in sound history. Other books of interest might be: (1) When in the Course of Human Events by Charles Adams; (2) The Real Lincoln by Marshall DiLorenzo; and (3) The American Caesar by Greg Durand.