Facts the Historians Leave Out - A Confederate Primer

Excellent book. There is an entire "American" history out there that hasn't been told. The struggle for Southern Independence was born out of the Declaration of Independence. "When in the course of human events..." How is it that Lee and Davis are "traitors and criminals" when they did the exact same thing that Washington and Jefferson did while they are proclaimed as patriots? Read the book. You won't be taught these things in government schools. They would much rather teach us the commonly accepted half-truth of the civil war and make sure we stay "good little sheeple".

Should be read by anyone who thinks the Confederate flag is a symbol of hate and/or racism. It will prove different to what you've always "known"--the victors write the history. 1861-1865 was not a "civil war" or a "war between the states", it was a war between two nations. It has also been referred to, accurately, as "Lincoln's war".

As a born and bred Northerner, I never questioned what I was taught in school. I'm now married to a born and bred Southerner and his statements on the Not-So-Civil War got me curious, so I bought this and a few other books like it to set myself straight - or at least hear the other side of things. This was an eye-opener! I'm now GLAD I live in the South amongst folks who prize their heritage. The "Rebel" flag is a magnet on my car, right beside my Philadelphia Eagles and University of Pennsylvania stuff! LOL! HEY -- I'm STILL born and raised Northern! If you want to open your mind, or learn more about what REALLY caused the Civil War - read this well-written book.

Only for it'so complete b@!! $***....the Confederacy was an abomination. SECESSION IS TREASON TO THE CONSTITUTION. SLAVERY IS AN ABOMINATION. If you pine for the Cause...you are p! $$!sng and s!++!ing on American veterans from WW1, WW2, every war including mine the Cold War and Desert Storm. And do not cry for crocodile tears for 9-11 or vets from the War or Terror....this is A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA tragedy not a Confederate one...I served the USN...FOREVER...

This is a great book. I wish everybody would take the time to read this book. If you're even thinking of buying this book, don't hesitate!! It will be the best $6 you spend on the store. This book was first published in 1951. The author was born in1880, shortly after the war between the states was over. He was around while people who lived through the war were still alive and could still tell it like it was. Not the political correctness that has distorted the truth more and more with each passing year. Read this short 77 page book and it will open your eyes. This book will also give you all this facts you need in the event somebody thinks you're a racist for displaying the confederate flag. Display the confederate flag proudly. There is nothing to be ashamed of. I wish more people would proudly display the confederate flag, even if it's just a license plate or sticker on your car. The flag stands for southern pride and standing up for what's right it's not about racism or hate. Arm yourself with the facts.

Ignorance is bliss. Confederacy had no right to secede, but did so anyway. Do as you wish, forget the law. Sounds familiar in the present White House and President? Of course. No one man should become an idol. Lincoln did the best he could. Reputable historians and political scientists rank Abe as the best president. I would take that ranking over the short, biased book written by a Confederate, who wanted blacks kept down as slaves, and blamed the Civil War on Northern aggression. Who seceded folks? Who fired on a federal fort in Charleston? Abe was willing to sit down with the Confederates, but the slave owners got their white folk all riled up (they were plantation owners), and seceded when many in the South had no clue. What about the desertion rate in the South? How come these misled Southerners deserted? I rest my case. I gave it a 2 stars on account of the fact that just about anyone can write a book. Don't bother reading folks as way too many false news contained therein. The only good thing I can say is that these types of books and information are permitted in the USA. Not so before the Civil War because it was illegal to mail anti-slavery material and how many anti-slavery people got slaughtered before and after the Civil War?

For a student primer it shows what really happened to the start of slavery. It also shows the cover-ups by the Northern politics movement. A must read for old and young. You'll get an idea of how the democratic party works. You be the judge.

The 'cult' historians have been brain-washing American school children for over a century about how GREAT a POTUS Abe Lincoln was.
This book helps to clarify what a monster he really was and what a puppet he was made to be by the northern industrialists. Only when Lincoln saw that he may very well LOSE 'his' war did he make it a "virtuous" cause. He and his admin. decided that they will "Free the Slaves." True scholars with open minds know that Lincoln could have ended slavery w/o one shot being fired. "The Real Lincoln" is also recommended reading.

"And at times, unruly children have to be punished. It was so with the slaves. Most of them were child-like, good natured, well-behaved. But not all!" He leaves out quite a bit, I guess that's why his book is so short. This booklet served a purpose in the 1950s in convincing white Southerners to take up resistance to the rights of black Americans, but the purpose was not enlightenment. Slavery was bad (which he offhandedly admits before pages defending it), the South held onto it last, and they had great problems with the internal restrictions Northern states were placing on it. He left that out.

This was a highly enjoyable book thats short and to the point about the facts that most historians leave out when explaining the war. Its all from a confederate's point of view and very enjoyable to know the other half of the story, the side you usually dont hear.

While this book proclaims to expose facts left out, anyone who has studied the history of the United States in depth is well aware of these socalled facts. Instead, this book is an argument that has long been refuted by the Civil War: 1) That slavery was not onerous, 2) That secession was a legitimate course of action for States, and 3) That Lincoln never intended to free the slaves. It is unfortunate that 150 years after the Civil War, that people still want to perpetuate this dissembling.

The book is not well written, very short, and not a full accounting of the history that it proclaims to be exposing.

This work is neither historical nor is it trying to be. It is a southern apologist's handbook and nothing more.
In the interest of full disclosure, the pdf that I read of this book stopped at page 17. Lets take a look at some of the logical gems contained therein.

On page five it begins an incredibly superficial survey of US history, namedropping only those founding fathers of southern birth, linking them to things such as the First Continental Congress, The Declaration, The resistance movement, etc.:
Payton Randolph, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and James Madison.
I'm not going to make this argument here, but some of these men are "complicated" and one can make points using both sides. This is why it helps to have plenty of context and evidentiary support. It's what makes a historian different from an apologist.

Transitioning to page six it mentions some of the "brilliant southern accomplishments" such as Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. Then, in error it mentions that Andrew Jackson "led our armies to victory in New Orleans" when everyone knows that the War of 1812 was already over. The author then defends the territorial acquisitions gained by James K. Polk's Mexican War. After that it mentions Chief Justice Marshall bringing "prestige" to the early court.

If I had to infer the author's conclusion of the first section it would be that Southern men founded the country, and their accomplishments were all wonderful.

Beginning on page 7, the author tries to refute the "War was about slavery" argument, and cherry picks a couple of Lincoln quotes to do so. By page 9 he asks if the southerners were fighting to preserve slavery. To answer his own question, he invokes Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Christianity. He throws some numbers out there to make the argument that the majority of soldiers weren't slave owners so "What were they fighting for?." Again, he assumes his conclusion.

Then he mentions instances of southern opposition to slavery, dropping some aforementioned names and adding a few more familiar ones.

For the record, I'm willing to grant that sometimes there is a matter of perspective between what is right or wrong, but we can gladly debate the ramifications of any of the actions and policies of these "Sons of the South" as the author so fondly describes. It is clear that the author is assuming the conclusion of his own argument. With this in mind, southern apologists aren't going to be convinced. But the subtitle of this book is called "Things Historians Leave Out.
If one wants to make the argument that the South wasn't fighting for slavery, then you have to come to terms with the Declarations of Immediate Causes issued by Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, Virginia, and Georgia.
Let's examine the Cornerstone Speech of Alexander H. Stephens.
Let's evaluate Bleeding Kansas, the Lecompton Constitution, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the South's reaction to Personal Liberty Laws from the perspective of the Popular Sovereignty argument. If one wants to attempt to discredit how historians have treated this subject, then go straight to the primary source documents issued by the states of the Confederacy and the men who led the secessionist movement.

Who is leaving arguments out?

Section four begins on page eleven with the question of who was importing the slaves and blamed it on northerners. Then he mentions that the Puritans had both black and Pequot slaves. Then he brings up slave traders in New York City.
Again, this is about how historians are bad about history. What about the secessionist movement in NYC that was directly linked to the gargantuan profits made from King Cotton? I also find it interesting that he suddenly has sympathy for the Pequot Indians when we can talk at length about how detrimental Thomas Jefferson's Indian Policies were and how Justice John Marshall's decision that indians weren't citizens but "domestic dependent nations" excluded them from Constitutional Protections (Cherokee Nation V Georgia). We can talk about Andrew Jackson's Trail of Tears and his actions against the Red Sticks in that same War of 1812. I thought these were infallible Sons of the South. Do believers of John Tilley really want to have these debates?

By page fifteen Tilley really commits his gravest error by arguing how brutal slavery WASN'T. "And, at times, unruly children have to be punished. It was so with the slaves. Most of them were childlike, good natured, well-behaved. But not all! There were those who were treacherous and dangerous and who could be controlled only by the use of force" (Tilley, p. 15).
He then talks about how many people reported slaves to be "well fed" and comfortable.
On page 17, mentioning the number of Christian slaves he asks "Do you think that they would have adopted the religion of masters who were brutal to them?"

I'm rather glad the pdf stopped when it did. Again, the premise of the book is that historians have left things out of the narrative which served to intentionally make the south "the Nation's step-child" (p. 6). The problem with this is that there has been a tremendous amount of scholarship about the Civil War since the author was alive. Even if one wants to take issue with the manner in which history is practiced, this book isn't a guidebook with which to make that argument. So much of this is special pleading.

This book is geared to members of the public who want to continue to defend the Confederate viewpoint. It takes the form of asking questions that might make sense to someone who isn't familiar with context, or who hasn't been exposed to any of the primary source material.

Other reviewers have commented that because this work is older and is therefore "closer to the war" that it is somehow more correct in its contentions. A better approach is to read what historians of different perspectives have written and then go to the archives of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis and see what THEY had to say. Then decide for yourself.

I would have liked to have read beyond page 17 to give a complete review, but these snippets alone provide evidence that the book so far has major logical flaws.