Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by elliottzink
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War by H. W. Crocker
1.0
My father is an unreconstructed Southerner and for many years I tried to be just like him. I had my own rebel flags, and Confederate toy soldiers, I could spend hours defending the South from all types of criticisms... And then I grew up, and now I look back on all that with distaste. But, accordingly I feel that I am able to give a more balanced and truthful view than this book having swung from one side to the other and read quite a bit more since those unfortunate days of my youth.
First off, I can say now that history has been actually quite kind to the Confederacy contrary to Crocker's statements. It is not politically incorrect to view the Confederacy in a positive manner whatsoever. Indeed there are Confederate P.O.W. graves in my native Wisconsin that (at least not too long ago) were buried in the shadow of the rebel flag. You can go to any shop in Gettysburg, PA and pick yourself up every one of the five official Confederate flags relatively inexpensively. The Killer Angels-the highly acclaimed novel of the Battle of Gettysburg- depicts the South exactly as Crocker wants it to be depicted. Its adaptation Gettysburg goes to great leaps and strides to depict the Civil War as The Grand Lost Cause of the Confederacy. Go to any Barnes and Noble and you'll find a huge section on the Civil War and of these I would estimate that the vast majority of titles portray the South at least sympathetically, if not outrightly praising the usual "honorable men": Lee, Jackson, oftimes A.P. Hill and A.S. Johnston, and even Longstreet. Barnes and Noble even keeps Davis' self serving autobiography/history in print. Overall what I feel is generally presented as history is the Civil War as an American Iliad where one can freely admire both sides and yet still acknowledge a victor.
Now for some actual politically incorrect information: Crocker represents the whiny branch of Civil War history and what is more the wrong side. It is not enough for Crocker that the Confederacy gets to largely keep its Lost Cause mythos enforced on popular history. What Crocker wants is said mythos as well as the elimination of those unsavory factoids that seldom appear but still hurt his feelings. You won't find in this book stories of how ballot boxes in many Southern states were stuffed with pro-secession votes, because at best secession was only the opinion of 40% of the voters (see David Williams' A People's History of the Civil War which quotes leading Southern papers on the matter). You also won't read about how to discourage pro-Union voters from turning out gangs of pro-secessionists attacked pro-Union homes, accosted people on their way to vote, didn't actually print any pro-union ballots, held conventions in secret locations and of course (repeating itself in todays GOP) outright voter suppression. You also won't find any evidence of dissent in Crocker's magically built Confederacy where in real life desertion was common, pro-Union rallies were common, and resistance to Confederate authority actually spawned many guerilla organizations. You also won't read about how short sighted Southern planters didn't bother growing food, or how the Confederate government's laissez-faire economics wrecked the Southern economy far more completely than any dastardly Yankee ever did.
I do not feel it is necessary to denigrate the charitable acts of Jackson and Lee nor do I defend the rampant racism of Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, or McClellan. But, while Jackson and Lee did do some kind acts neither ended slavery, they still fought for the preservation of slavery upheld by the entirety of their Confederate government, and ultimately Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman did fight in part for the ending of slavery. Those are the facts. I also don't feel it fruitful to bother with Crocker's alternative history of the South winning the war save that an imaginary history doesn't actually count as real history.
Finally, I dispute Crocker's feelings on the Constitutionality of secession. The simplest explanation is that when the Confederate government was defeated by and surrendered to the Union armies the Civil War ultimately answered that question: secession is unconstitutional. The Southern States endorsed that view under the terms of Reconstruction whereby they ratified the Constitutional amendments passed during their rebellion. Done. If you want to get more technical the Constitution had been unanimously ratified by the newly independent United States. The Southern States in ratifying this had made certain demands that had been adopted by Northern States: namely the 3/5ths Compromise. To put that into perspective for every five slaves a Southern plantation owner owned in casting his ballot every November he was ultimately voting four times while his Northern counterpart only got to vote once! Does Crocker acknowledge this? No, because defending four votes for every one is even beyond the selling point of this book and besides Crocker couldn't get to whine some more about "political correctness."
If Secession was ever legal it was before the Southern States enforced these terms on the complete United States, and before Southern lawmakers had helped pass laws for the whole United States. The South had controlled the White House far more often than their Northern counterparts, and had forced compromise after compromise in their favor. In so doing they had expressed their satisfaction with the United States until one election doesn't go their way.
In some more actual politically incorrect terms: the South not only didn't have a right to secede, but that to take so much from the United States only to decide that 'their sacred honor' suddenly was at stake is bullshit. Furthermore, in firing repeatedly on the flag of the country they had taken so much from and had considered themselves a part of is treason by even loose interpretations of the Constitution which then ought to have warranted all the same "noble" sons of the South a date and time with a hangman's noose and not this book.
First off, I can say now that history has been actually quite kind to the Confederacy contrary to Crocker's statements. It is not politically incorrect to view the Confederacy in a positive manner whatsoever. Indeed there are Confederate P.O.W. graves in my native Wisconsin that (at least not too long ago) were buried in the shadow of the rebel flag. You can go to any shop in Gettysburg, PA and pick yourself up every one of the five official Confederate flags relatively inexpensively. The Killer Angels-the highly acclaimed novel of the Battle of Gettysburg- depicts the South exactly as Crocker wants it to be depicted. Its adaptation Gettysburg goes to great leaps and strides to depict the Civil War as The Grand Lost Cause of the Confederacy. Go to any Barnes and Noble and you'll find a huge section on the Civil War and of these I would estimate that the vast majority of titles portray the South at least sympathetically, if not outrightly praising the usual "honorable men": Lee, Jackson, oftimes A.P. Hill and A.S. Johnston, and even Longstreet. Barnes and Noble even keeps Davis' self serving autobiography/history in print. Overall what I feel is generally presented as history is the Civil War as an American Iliad where one can freely admire both sides and yet still acknowledge a victor.
Now for some actual politically incorrect information: Crocker represents the whiny branch of Civil War history and what is more the wrong side. It is not enough for Crocker that the Confederacy gets to largely keep its Lost Cause mythos enforced on popular history. What Crocker wants is said mythos as well as the elimination of those unsavory factoids that seldom appear but still hurt his feelings. You won't find in this book stories of how ballot boxes in many Southern states were stuffed with pro-secession votes, because at best secession was only the opinion of 40% of the voters (see David Williams' A People's History of the Civil War which quotes leading Southern papers on the matter). You also won't read about how to discourage pro-Union voters from turning out gangs of pro-secessionists attacked pro-Union homes, accosted people on their way to vote, didn't actually print any pro-union ballots, held conventions in secret locations and of course (repeating itself in todays GOP) outright voter suppression. You also won't find any evidence of dissent in Crocker's magically built Confederacy where in real life desertion was common, pro-Union rallies were common, and resistance to Confederate authority actually spawned many guerilla organizations. You also won't read about how short sighted Southern planters didn't bother growing food, or how the Confederate government's laissez-faire economics wrecked the Southern economy far more completely than any dastardly Yankee ever did.
I do not feel it is necessary to denigrate the charitable acts of Jackson and Lee nor do I defend the rampant racism of Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, or McClellan. But, while Jackson and Lee did do some kind acts neither ended slavery, they still fought for the preservation of slavery upheld by the entirety of their Confederate government, and ultimately Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman did fight in part for the ending of slavery. Those are the facts. I also don't feel it fruitful to bother with Crocker's alternative history of the South winning the war save that an imaginary history doesn't actually count as real history.
Finally, I dispute Crocker's feelings on the Constitutionality of secession. The simplest explanation is that when the Confederate government was defeated by and surrendered to the Union armies the Civil War ultimately answered that question: secession is unconstitutional. The Southern States endorsed that view under the terms of Reconstruction whereby they ratified the Constitutional amendments passed during their rebellion. Done. If you want to get more technical the Constitution had been unanimously ratified by the newly independent United States. The Southern States in ratifying this had made certain demands that had been adopted by Northern States: namely the 3/5ths Compromise. To put that into perspective for every five slaves a Southern plantation owner owned in casting his ballot every November he was ultimately voting four times while his Northern counterpart only got to vote once! Does Crocker acknowledge this? No, because defending four votes for every one is even beyond the selling point of this book and besides Crocker couldn't get to whine some more about "political correctness."
If Secession was ever legal it was before the Southern States enforced these terms on the complete United States, and before Southern lawmakers had helped pass laws for the whole United States. The South had controlled the White House far more often than their Northern counterparts, and had forced compromise after compromise in their favor. In so doing they had expressed their satisfaction with the United States until one election doesn't go their way.
In some more actual politically incorrect terms: the South not only didn't have a right to secede, but that to take so much from the United States only to decide that 'their sacred honor' suddenly was at stake is bullshit. Furthermore, in firing repeatedly on the flag of the country they had taken so much from and had considered themselves a part of is treason by even loose interpretations of the Constitution which then ought to have warranted all the same "noble" sons of the South a date and time with a hangman's noose and not this book.