67 customer reviews
4.3 out of 5 stars on Amazon
“Historians used to know - and it was not too long ago - that the War Between the States had more to do with economics than it did with slavery. The current obsession with slavery as the “cause” of the war rests not on evidence but on ideological considerations of the present day. Gene Kizer has provided us with the conclusive case that the invasion of the Southern States by Lincoln and his party (a minority of the American people) was due to an agenda of economic domination and not to some benevolent concern for slaves. This book is rich in evidence and telling quotations and ought to be on every Southern bookshelf.”
Clyde N. Wilson
Emeritus Distinguished Professor of History
University of South Carolina
“Gene Kizer persuasively shows how the North fought the South out of necessity to prevent economic collapse. No where else is proof of this motive made clearer with indisputable evidence. Mr. Kizer writes with authority from the desire to tell the truth. His common sense style is the product of honesty. One cannot read his work without concluding that this is a man to be trusted.”
James Everett Kibler
Professor of English
University of Georgia
Author of
Our Fathers' Fields;
Walking Toward Home;
and many other
outstanding books
I’m definitely going to order this for my bookshelf. I’m tempted to order an extra and donate it to the library. But, I’m pretty sure in today’s politically correct world, they would just throw it away.
ReplyDeleteBadger
Really! :)
DeleteI get your point and understand it. But what you might be missing (and the various authors who write on this subject are missing) is that there was a very large segment of citizens and activists in the North who were strongly opposed to slavery and were behind the war effort because they wanted to end slavery.
ReplyDeleteA different point I would like to make is that at the time of the civil war there were probably less than 10,000 people who owned slaves. But many of these people were powerful. Yes, their economic ox was gored (you can argue that the economic insult was not about slavery but I think the evidence shows that it for the most part was about forcing an end to slavery) but their anger was over the threat of losing their slaves. My point is that 10,000 people influenced and coerced the rest of the South to go to war. This was a terrible mistake since over 600,000 soldiers were killed in battle and probably twice that number had serious injuries. Were these deaths and injuries sufficient to assuage the hurt pride or perceived insult?
a very large segment of citizens and activists in the North who were strongly opposed to slavery
DeleteI do not agree that it was a large segment, but I don't know how you are defining large.
================
This was a terrible mistake since over 600,000 soldiers were killed in battle and probably twice that number had serious injuries. Were these deaths and injuries sufficient to assuage the hurt pride or perceived insult?
My goodness, the north invaded the South, not vice versa!
Jefferson Davis Pleads for Peace
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=4906&highlight=jefferson+davis
Lincoln's "First Shot" Strategy at Fort Sumter
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=4488&highlight=jefferson+davis
Major Anderson Inaugurates War
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=4366&highlight=jefferson+davis
Jefferson Davis Quotes
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=2978&highlight=jefferson+davis
Fort Sumter Was Owned By South Carolina
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=2599&highlight=jefferson+davis
We Desire Peace At Any Sacrifice Save That Of Honour
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=189&highlight=jefferson+davis
12. "I love the Union and the Constitution,but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.''
President Jefferson Davis
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=75&highlight=jefferson+davis
"My goodness, the north invaded the South"
ReplyDeleteWell, except for that Fort Sumpter thing.
In my opinion the leaders of the South knew their actions would result in a war, the formed a large army to fight a war and they did it for the benefit (at least the intended benefit) of less than 10,000 people. Ironically many of those people died in the war early on. But the nationalism they created to inspire the common man to fight didn't die with them and many truly innocent people died for some major land owners or businessman's ability to retain his wealth. In the end the lives were lost, the wealth was lost and for a generation maybe more the South was in a terrible economic and social situation. It would have been better all around if the rich Southern land owners had challenged the rich Northern businessmen to a duel rather than stir up the 100's of thousands of Southerners who fought died or lost limbs. The war wasn't necessary.
I regret the loss of the old South, the loss of a way of life, the traditions and the loss of good people. I can't help but wonder what could have been if there had been a negotiated settlement that prevented the war. A lot of good people were taken away too soon and a lot of assets and wealth was wasted.
Well, except for that Fort Sumpter thing.
DeleteYou, obviously, didn't bother to read the links:
Lincoln's "First Shot" Strategy at Fort Sumter
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=4488&highlight=jefferson+davis
Major Anderson Inaugurates War
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=4366&highlight=jefferson+davis
Fort Sumter Was Owned By South Carolina
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=2599&highlight=jefferson+davis
The premise that Fort Sumpter was Owned by SC is flawed. It was federal property. But even if you disagree you can't argue that Gen Beauregard didn't fire on federal troops.
ReplyDeleteThe larger point is that it was a mistake and a terrible waste of humanity and wealth. It wasn't a necessary war it was 'mostly' fought to protect the wealth and future of a small number of people. I think the vast majority of Southerners would have been far better off in 1861 and for a century afterwards if this could have been settled without a war. It is that simple fact that I am using to back up my point that the war was a terrible mistake. AND it was a mistake perpetuated by the elite on the common man.
The premise that Fort Sumpter was Owned by SC is flawed. It was federal property.
DeleteYou can't even spell the name of the Fort correctly. Sumter not Sumpter. I document all my replies, but you do not. If you would like to continue this conversation, document yours or go troll elsewhere.
Ft. Sumter: No Federal Right To Occupy
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=3290&highlight=sumter
South Carolina in 1805 (Statutes at Large, Volume V, p. 501) provided as follows in regard to the cessions in Charleston Harbor:
That, if the United States shall not, within three years from the passing of this act, and notification thereof by the governor of this State to the Executive of the United States, repair the fortifications now existing thereon, or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein, in such case this grant or cession shall be void and of no effect.
It may be on interest to state that Fort Sumter not only was not completed within the three-year limit stipulated in the contract, but was not completed in 1861 when Major Anderson transferred his garrison from Fort Moultrie.
==================
But even if you disagree you can't argue that Gen Beauregard didn't fire on federal troops.
You obviously don't comprehend the King's English.
Lincoln's "First Shot" Strategy at Fort Sumter
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=4488&highlight=jefferson+davis
Major Anderson Inaugurates War
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=4366&highlight=jefferson+davis
Just a conversation not a troll.
ReplyDeleteBrock.....I am in the process of reading this book. First off I am amazed at the amount of documented references this work contains. It is NOT someones opinion or agenda. Very well documented. Turns out all I learned while "sitting in the little red chairs" was a lie. Normally when I read a book I keep a highlighter and mark passages up for easy reference. Not so with this book. I might as well just dip it in a vat of highlighter. I highly recommend this book for anyone looking for truth.
ReplyDeleteI might as well just dip it in a vat of highlighter.
DeleteThank you and Thuy Kieu is like that. http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=25&highlight=thuy+kieu