Customer Reviews for

The South Was Right!

Average Rating 4
( 44 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(28)

4 Star

(5)

3 Star

(2)

2 Star

(3)

1 Star

(6)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

Most Helpful Favorable Review

5 out of 5 people found this review helpful.

Darn tootin'

I am so tired of Yankees and how rude they are and coming down to the South, taking it over and basically ruining our culture and cities. Therefore, I have an extremely biased opinion on this book. I think it's great, and I think it is about time the truth came out ab...
I am so tired of Yankees and how rude they are and coming down to the South, taking it over and basically ruining our culture and cities. Therefore, I have an extremely biased opinion on this book. I think it's great, and I think it is about time the truth came out about what the Civil War was really about.

posted by 134688 on October 15, 2008

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review

Most Helpful Critical Review

4 out of 9 people found this review helpful.

A Specious Claim

The authors, and many on this comment thread, make a specious claim when they vehemntly deny the primary role slavery played in the decision of southern convention of secession to leave the union. The Kennedys try to reestablish the southern hold over the interpretatio...
The authors, and many on this comment thread, make a specious claim when they vehemntly deny the primary role slavery played in the decision of southern convention of secession to leave the union. The Kennedys try to reestablish the southern hold over the interpretation of this event in history. They are even wrong on the account that the north held sway over this interpretation for so long. The historiography just doesn't agree with them. (Please read James Loewen's books concerning US history textbooks.) Moreover, the southern secessionists themselves do not agree with them. The state of Mississippi's secession convention made it clear why they were leaving the union in the face of the anticipation of a fairly elected presidential administration when they wrote their "A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union". In it they convention states, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world". They go on to list grievances that all, every one of them, deal with slavery. I will list just a few key items for you:

"That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

It [the hostility of northern abolitionist] has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It [the Union] advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."

History is a dangerous tool left in the hands of propagandists like the Kennedys. Do your research and see how wrong these guys are.

Try Chandra Mannings examination of soldier's letters in her "What This Cruel War Was Over".

I implore you to discover this countries real history of racial hatred and institutionalized racism. It is important. (Yes, the north was just as racist).

posted by DylanVoltaire on January 16, 2010

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing all of 6 review with 1 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1
  • Posted January 16, 2010

    A Specious Claim

    The authors, and many on this comment thread, make a specious claim when they vehemntly deny the primary role slavery played in the decision of southern convention of secession to leave the union. The Kennedys try to reestablish the southern hold over the interpretation of this event in history. They are even wrong on the account that the north held sway over this interpretation for so long. The historiography just doesn't agree with them. (Please read James Loewen's books concerning US history textbooks.) Moreover, the southern secessionists themselves do not agree with them. The state of Mississippi's secession convention made it clear why they were leaving the union in the face of the anticipation of a fairly elected presidential administration when they wrote their "A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union". In it they convention states, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world". They go on to list grievances that all, every one of them, deal with slavery. I will list just a few key items for you:

    "That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

    The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

    It [the hostility of northern abolitionist] has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

    It [the Union] advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."

    History is a dangerous tool left in the hands of propagandists like the Kennedys. Do your research and see how wrong these guys are.

    Try Chandra Mannings examination of soldier's letters in her "What This Cruel War Was Over".

    I implore you to discover this countries real history of racial hatred and institutionalized racism. It is important. (Yes, the north was just as racist).

    4 out of 9 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted July 7, 2004

    Get over it.

    Yet another tired rehashing of the Souths arguments: Lincoln put forth as a despot and a tyrant (Lincoln was a realist who did the best he could with a bad situation), Sherman and Grant indicted as war criminals (perhaps so, at least in Shermans case, but they at least realised, long before Lee, that the nature of war, and the way to fight it, had forever changed), etc, etc. Since the North was not entirely opposed to slavery (I mean, there were a couple hundred odd slaves in New Jersey) the South was right. The book is not mearly politically incorrect, as the authors proudly claim, it is simply incorrect.

    1 out of 5 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 5, 2003

    Propagranda for propaganda

    A book that Joseph Goebbel would be proud of, this book tries to countered 'northern propaganda' with 'southern propaganda'. To list the follies of this book will probably required another book! Politically correct book for all neo-Confederates, the authors writes as if they are not Americans but some foreigners from some foreign land. I supposed if you are Osama or some folks who don't like our nation, you will endorsed such book like this which still openly advocate South as a separate nation and enjoy seeing the United States break up. Civil War is long over and along with it, its causes and effects. Well educated Civil War students will dismissed this book. It might however, affects the readers who are undereducated, under read and somewhat clueless about the subject.

    1 out of 5 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted July 25, 2003

    The south Was Wrong

    You cannot be serious, sir. The south was the most wrong government in the world in the mid-19th century, and nothing you add to our knowledge counters that fact.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted February 4, 2002

    The South was never right

    The minute the last gun was fired in the war of Southern rebellion, my fellow southerners began rewriting history to justify the idiotic gamble by which they wrecked their economy and society. This book pulls together most of those old whines and fallacies, and labors hard to breathe new life into them. But it's just as much a lost cause today as it was in 1865.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 4, 2002

    You've got to be kidding

    One of the worst pieces of 'scholarship' I have ever seen. The liberal use of exclamation points and all caps do nothing to hide the blatantly out-of-context quotes and myopic selection of 'facts.' This rant is revisionist history at its worst.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing all of 6 review with 1 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1