American history suffers from two great stains: Slavery and the Civil War/War Between the States/War of Southern Succession/War of Northern Aggression. What name you choose reflects your conclusion about the war. Perhaps the Europeans have it best. They call it the "American War."
Most war history is not only the victor's history, but it is also colored by the result of the war, which can obscure the causes of the war. This is the author's main argument: that the war to preserve the Union has been recast as the war to end slavery, thus making the war a noble cause. The war indeed did end slavery, but its causes and the sentiments of the participants were far more complex. The exploration of this complexity is the politically incorrect aim of the book: That while slavery was of course immoral, so too was this war -- perhaps even more so. And without this war, slavery may have ended in a manner far better for everyone, including the slaves.
In the victor's history the loser is vilified. Among these villains we have a large proportion of people who were highly regarded prior to the war, and even after the war, including the grandsons of many of the country's founding fathers. What motivated these noble countrymen? What motivated the Union leaders? The answers do not correspond with a politically correct noble war to end slavery. The answers point to a stain in American history as dark as the stain of slavery.
While it can be said that this book is about the war from the Confederate point of view, it's really about the war from a point of view that considers many moral issues other than just slavery. If you are open to exploring this complexity, you will enjoy this book.
This book desperately needs editing down. Far too many words for too little content.
Report Inappropriate Content