Clique em uma foto para ir ao Google Livros
|
Carregando... The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil Warde H. W. Crocker III
   Nenhum(a) Ainda não há conversas na Discussão sobre este livro.   ) cwflatt | Mar 10, 2012 |  ) torrey23 | Jun 16, 2011 | For one, he thinks secession perfectly legal in the respect that the Declaration of Independence was legal. However, the Declaration was about a people having no legal voice in the government. In the South's case they were partners in a contract (the Constitution) voted in the 1860 election, didn't like the outcome, so they decided to take their ball and go home. Absurd. Crocker goes on to cover 16 of the most important battles and is sure to let you know that every time the South won it was due to the utter genius of Lee and his subordinates, and every time they lost it was because the North had overwhelming force. I guess the military maxim "Win with ability, not with numbers" doesn't hold much credence with him. There are mini-biographies of many of the important generals of both sides, and there are some great anecdotes which were new to me. Also, his treatment of Grant, in particular, is much more balanced here than where Grant appears in his review of the aforementioned 16 battles. Crocker has nothing good to say about Sherman and is very selective in his treatment of him. The most absurd aspects of the mini-bios is that Crocker goes out of his way to mention that many of those covered (Lee, Jackson, AP Hill) hated slavery and were more anti-slavery than their opponents. He also makes mention that many of the northern generals were fiercely anti-abolitionist (Sherman, Thomas). So, you see, the Southerners really did have the moral high ground. The fact that they began a war that would kill 600,000 Americans so that they could protect their "peculiar institution" is just a detail. Crocker never once takes up the slavery issue directly, nor will he admit that had slavery not existed there would not have been a "states rights" argument for the South to secede. Crocker likes to whitewash history. He did so in his book about the Catholic Church (Triumph) as well. I’m a committed, apologetic Catholic, so I’m sympathetic. But his glossing over unpleasentries in that book were nothing compared to this one. Some random thoughts… The Politically Incorrect guides always have inset with “Books (insert Politically Correct Type Here) You Are Not Supposed to Read.” Crocker mentions Shelby Foote’s massive narrative as a set of books Northerners don’t want you to read. Why I don’t know. I’ve read it and Foote, while a Southerner, is generally fair. Also, Crocker seems to believe that England really did want to aid the South out of principle, but then Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and England didn’t want to be involved in a war defending slavery. The idea that England wanted to aid the South to weaken the increasingly powerful United States doesn’t seem to have crossed his mind. All of that said, the book was enjoyable, even if you’re already familiar with the Civil War. There are interesting facts given, and it was a view I’ve never really studied. If you’re a buff, check it out. ( ) sergerca | Aug 29, 2009 | sem resenhas | adicionar uma resenha
Pertence à série
Think you know the Civil War? You don't know the full story until you read The Politically Incorrect GuideTM to the Civil War Bestselling author and former Conservative Book Club editor H. W. Crocker III offers a quick and lively study of America's own Iliad--the Civil War--in this provocative and entertaining addition to The Politically Incorrect GuideTM series. In The Politically Incorrect GuideTM to the Civil War Crocker profiles eminent--and colorful--military generals including the noble Lee, the controversial Sherman, the indefatigable Grant, the legendary Stonewall Jackson, and the notorious Nathan Bedford Forrest. He also includes thought-provoking chapters such as "The Civil War in Sixteen Battles You Should Know" and the most devastatingly politically incorrect chapter of all, "What If the South Had Won?" Along the way, he reveals a huge number of little-known truths, including why Robert E. Lee had a higher regard for African Americans than Lincoln did; how, if there had been no Civil War, the South would have abolished slavery peaceably (as every other country in the Western Hemisphere did in the nineteenth century); and how the Confederate States of America might have helped the Allies win World War I sooner. Bet your history professor never told you: * Leading Northern generals--like McClellan and Sherman--hated abolitionists * Bombing people "back to the Stone Age" got its start with the Federal siege of Vicksburg * General Sherman professed not to know which was "the greater evil": slavery or democracy * Stonewall Jackson founded a Sunday school for slaves where he taught them how to read * General James Longstreet fought the Battle of Sharpsburg in his carpet slippers This is the Politically Incorrect GuideTM that every Civil War buff and Southern partisan--and everyone who is tired of liberal self-hatred that vilifies America's greatest heroes--must have on his bookshelf. Não foram encontradas descrições de bibliotecas. |
Current DiscussionsNenhum(a)Capas populares
 Google Books — Carregando...GênerosClassificação decimal de Dewey (CDD)973.7History and Geography North America United States Administration of Abraham Lincoln, 1861-1865 Civil WarClassificação da Biblioteca do Congresso dos E.U.A. (LCC)AvaliaçãoMédia: (3.79)
É você?Torne-se um autor do LibraryThing. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1