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 3 review with 2 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 7, 2004

    Dissent even in the South !

    I actually would have given this book 1 star, but in terms of sheer 'chutzpa', it deserves 2. But really, if the South was so 'right', why did 100,000 southerners desert and fight on the Union side, why did large regions of the South support the union throughout the war (hill country in Texas, most of West Virginia, eastern Tennessee, northern Georgia, parts of North Carolina) ? Obviously, many, many southerners during 1861-65 disagreed with the basic premise, 'The South was Right'.

    0 out of 4 people found this review helpful.

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

    Posted December 5, 2002

    Revisionist history

    Some of the discussion here reminds me of living in Germany. There are many older Germans who really want to believe that their grandfather fought in a just war, and they then try to reconstruct arguments in favor of why Germany really was not that bad, or they only focus on a few minor points, while leaving out the big picture. Actually, my grandfather was from Georgia, and my ancestors landed in Virginia in 1620, so my family also fought for the South (I am a Yankee). There is no side in any war that is 100 % evil and bad. Even the Nazis could come up with some arguments (Hitler built the autobahn, we were fighting against global communism, the Eastern front campaign was to hold back Communism and save Europe, Stalin killed more people than Hitler, the Allied bombers killed 600,000 civilians), etc. etc. etc. In college, I took a semester-long course on the Civil War. In it, our professor asked us, "If a man from Mars who represents total objectivity, were to come down to earth, what would he think and how would he decide". It was a kind of litmus test for deciding on issues historically. To me there is no doubt that such an objective observer would find that the South was WRONG, not right. Morally, the South wanted to break America up into thousands of units. If the South had won (a near impossibility, given that the North produced 10 times as much ammunition and cannon), the so-called "Confederacy" would have broken into thousands of units - into total feudalism. My grandfather's Georgia is kind of like that today. Imagine if the South had won ! There would be no U.S.A., just feudalistic units, and the strong would write the rules. Too bad if you are "colored". The South also fired first on the North. And all you Confederate-supporters who always say "the North sustained twice as many casualties as the South" [thus trying to prove that the Southerner was a better fighter], please remember that the Union was attacking and attacking armies always have twice as many casualties. I kind of admire the courage of the author to write this book. But please remember, the South firing on the North at Fort Sumpter resulted in over 500,000 American dead. It ripped our country apart. Anyone who wants to celebrate that is a lunatic. Please do like Germany and Japan. Admit your cause was lost and take it like a man, and build a better, more successful society.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

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

    Posted February 14, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing all of 3 review with 2 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1