New book Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War

[Isaac C Bishop]

New book Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War by Isaac C. Bishop is an all-encompassing defense of the South. Available on Amazon.

Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1- Look Away!!! Politically Incorrect Information About Life as a Southern Slave
Chapter 2- I'll Take my Stand-Causes of Southern Secession: The Cotton States
Chapter 3- I'll Take My Stand Causes of Southern Secession-The Upper South
Chapter 4- Old Times There are not Forgotten- The Union Before Lincoln
Chapter 5- To Live And Die In Dixie - Black Support For The Confederacy
Chapter 6- I Wish I Was in the Land of Cotton- Southern Agrarians vs. Northern Industrialization
Chapter 7- Treatment of Minorities North vs. South
Chapter 8- Will, the Real Abraham Lincoln Please, Stand up?
Chapter 9- Politically Incorrect Information About Slavery
Chapter 10- The Old Times are Gone with the Wind
Conclusion

 

[Melensdad]

So are you going to engage with us and tell us about the book? Why did you write it, what was your motivation? What are your credentials/background for being an expert on the topic?

Or are you a one-post wonder who spams our forum and leaves?

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

So are you going to engage with us and tell us about the book? Why did you write it, what was your motivation? What are your credentials/background for being an expert on the topic?

Or are you a one-post wonder who spams our forum and leaves?

Thank you for the interest. Allow me to quote my blurb for details

"History is the propaganda of the victorious," observed Voltaire, and the history of America's so-called "Civil War" is no exception…It is under that prevailing narrative that Isaac. C. Bishop, a native of New England and the author of Defending Dixie's Land, came to find his interest in the South. Steeped in that narrative, he accepted it without question…With further research, the Truth began to reveal itself to the author, culminating in this fine book. The Truth cannot be killed. It may be buried alive, but it will not die. Like an archaeologist, Bishop has discovered the tomb of the Truth, and with this book he has rolled the stone away.
- H. V. Traywick, Jr. Author of Empire of the Owls: Reflections on the North’s War Against Southern Secession

The Southern Confederacy and its war for independence has always had defenders among informed students of history. These defenders have appeared in every generation. Some of them are from north of the Potomac or even across the Atlantic. The case for the South is here made again. For the future health of America It must be repeated until it sinks in.
-Clyde Wilson Emeritus Distinguished Professor of History, University of South Carolina

Are you interested in knowing the actual history of your country, or are you content with the propagandized version the winners of wars conjure up to feed schoolchildren? When it comes to the story and tradition of the U.S. South, and especially the events surrounding the Civil War (1861–1865), you may need to brace yourself. What you think you know about it is likely untrue – and not just by a little.

Isaac C Bishop is a lifelong New-Englander who happened to become interested in southern culture. But when he began to earnestly study its history and folklore, he was shocked by what he learned. Thus began an intense multi-year quest to unearth a true story which resulted in Defending Dixie's Land. Should you choose to set aside your preconceived biases and “take the red pill” with the author, you will discover:

• How the United States government was originally meant to function, and by what means that system was usurped in the mid-1800’s
• The real reasons the cotton states initially seceded
• The entirely different factors which prompted the upper South to then also secede
• An accurate picture of what life was like for minorities in both the North and South, and, as inherently wrong as the institution of slavery has always been on planet earth, why southern slaves generally viewed their situation as preferable
• Character traits and motives of Abraham Lincoln which shatter the humanitarian hero image painted in our minds
• Eye-opening facts about African-American support for the Confederacy, the history and current status of slavery worldwide, insights into the true enemy of free peoples everywhere, and more.

Defending Dixie's Land is an all-encompassing defense of the Southern cause; readers will no longer view American history the same.

 

[Melensdad]

I'm more interested in what YOU have to say about the questions I asked than in copy and paste replies

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

I love the South. I love its culture, its politics, its people, its worldview. I was born and raised in New England and accepted the standard explanations for the South and the Civil War. But as I began to read original sources and other perspectives, I found I was not given the whole truth, so I wanted to correct many of the falsehoods Americans have about the South and the civil war

 

[m1west]

Although slavery was a component. States rights is what started it. Remember the south succeeded and attacked the north in the first battles.

 

[chowderman]

. . . . the whole truth . . . .
can you name any bit of history that has not been romanticized / modified / adapted / Cliff-noted / etc. by so many authors / people / politicians / etc etc etc - - - to the point of being only partially true?

very few histories (of anything) are simple straightforward events.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

. . . . the whole truth . . . .
can you name any bit of history that has not been romanticized / modified / adapted / Cliff-noted / etc. by so many authors / people / politicians / etc etc etc - - - to the point of being only partially true?

very few histories (of anything) are simple straightforward events.

Agreed.

 

[power1]

My great grandmother was born and raised on a plantation. She told me stories about her life. Her stories are quite a bit different than what is told in books. I tend to believe people who lived the life rather than the people who write books about what they think is true. Also had relatives who were slaves. That part was kept secret until an elder family member told the story on her death bed.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

My great grandmother was born and raised on a plantation. She told me stories about her life. Her stories are quite a bit different than what is told in books. I tend to believe people who lived the life rather than the people who write books about what they think is true. Also had relatives who were slaves. That part was kept secret until an elder family member told the story on her death bed.

You might find these interviews of former slaves to your liking. I often quote from this source in my chapter on slavery.

About this Collection | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938 | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938 contains more than 2,300 first-person accounts of slavery and 500 black-and-white photographs of former slaves. These narratives were collected in the 1930s as part of the Federal Writers' Project (FWP) of the Works...

www.loc.gov

 

[chowderman]

I think one has to exercise some caution when talking "books about what they think is true."
example: "Gone With the Wind" is a book - a novel - not a historical documentary. it is entertainment fiction - not intended to be educational or factual or scholarly . . .

if you are old enough to have grandparents born in 19th century . . . and with an accommodating background . . . you probably heard stories told by your grandparents that young people of today cannot relate to, have zero clue about 'life back then' and consequently simply dismiss all that sort of 'history' as rubbish.
my grandfather was born in 1897, grandmother in 1898. knew them both very well from childhood through my late twenties.
they were eye witnesses to: automobiles, telegraphs, telephones, home refrigerators, airplanes, television, WW1, WW2, the Atomic Age, people walking on the moon. can you imagine being born in the era of waterwheels, and taking a jet plane to Hawaii for vacation?

the Millennials and Gen-Z types have no fricking clue about how life once was - and consequently dismiss it all.
"Which icon is that?" - not gonna' fly long term . . . and no, AI is not going to make up for it.
from my FIL, I have the Foxfire series 1-4. absolutely stunning reading about how people did stuff pre-modern.

as is painfully obvious, "history" is no longer taught in elementary/high schools - it has become pushed into the world of academics and "researchers" - and indeed,,,, we may very well wind up repeating many of those historical mistakes.

 

[power1]

You might find these interviews of former slaves to your liking. I often quote from this source in my chapter on slavery.

About this Collection | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938 | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938 contains more than 2,300 first-person accounts of slavery and 500 black-and-white photographs of former slaves. These narratives were collected in the 1930s as part of the Federal Writers' Project (FWP) of the Works...

www.loc.gov

The slaves in my family tree were not blacks. They were Cherokee Indians. Not all slaves were black.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

The slaves in my family tree were not blacks. They were Cherokee Indians. Not all slaves were black.

Agreed, but slaves nonetheless. I also have a chapter on the Cherokee (I love Stand Watie) and other tribes who sided with the Confederacy (who were also slave owners). The chapter focuses on the treatment of the tribes by the federal government and the Confederate government. The latter was far more accommodating and treated the tribes as equals.

 

[m1west]

At one time or another all races of people were enslaved.

 

[FTG-05]

The Civil War wasn't between the North and the South.

It was America vs. slave owning Democrats.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

The Civil War wasn't between the North and the South.

It was America vs. slave owning Democrats.

If you accept the standard narrative, sure. If you read this book it just might change your mind!!! Or at least it will ruin your current perception.

 

[Danielart]

Thank you for the interest. Allow me to quote my blurb for details

"History is the propaganda of the victorious," observed Voltaire, and the history of America's so-called "Civil War" is no exception…It is under that prevailing narrative that Isaac. C. Bishop, a native of New England and the author of Defending Dixie's Land, came to find his interest in the South. Steeped in that narrative, he accepted it without question…With further research, the Truth began to reveal itself to the author, culminating in this fine book. The Truth cannot be killed. It may be buried alive, but it will not die. Like an archaeologist, Bishop has discovered the tomb of the Truth, and with this book he has rolled the stone away.
- H. V. Traywick, Jr. Author of Empire of the Owls: Reflections on the North’s War Against Southern Secession

The Southern Confederacy and its war for independence has always had defenders among informed students of history. These defenders have appeared in every generation. Some of them are from north of the Potomac or even across the Atlantic. The case for the South is here made again. For the future health of America It must be repeated until it sinks in.
-Clyde Wilson Emeritus Distinguished Professor of History, University of South Carolina

Are you interested in knowing the actual history of your country, or are you content with the propagandized version the winners of wars conjure up to feed schoolchildren? When it comes to the story and tradition of the U.S. South, and especially the events surrounding the Civil War (1861–1865), you may need to brace yourself. What you think you know about it is likely untrue – and not just by a little.

Isaac C Bishop is a lifelong New-Englander who happened to become interested in southern culture. But when he began to earnestly study its history and folklore, he was shocked by what he learned. Thus began an intense multi-year quest to unearth a true story which resulted in Defending Dixie's Land. Should you choose to set aside your preconceived biases and “take the red pill” with the author, you will discover:

• How the United States government was originally meant to function, and by what means that system was usurped in the mid-1800’s
• The real reasons the cotton states initially seceded
• The entirely different factors which prompted the upper South to then also secede
• An accurate picture of what life was like for minorities in both the North and South, and, as inherently wrong as the institution of slavery has always been on planet earth, why southern slaves generally viewed their situation as preferable
• Character traits and motives of Abraham Lincoln which shatter the humanitarian hero image painted in our minds
• Eye-opening facts about African-American support for the Confederacy, the history and current status of slavery worldwide, insights into the true enemy of free peoples everywhere, and more.

Defending Dixie's Land is an all-encompassing defense of the Southern cause; readers will no longer view American history the same.

You did not answer the question..but rather fell back on your talking points without having to present your credentials. Look these arguments which you have presented are not "new". In fact they have been used and reused innumerable times since the end of the Civil War. Your "shocking discovery" about the "truth" has not held up despite the fact that it has been presented as truthful history for decades and decades.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

You did not answer the question..but rather fell back on your talking points without having to present your credentials. Look these arguments which you have presented are not "new". In fact they have been used and reused innumerable times since the end of the Civil War. Your "shocking discovery" about the "truth" has not held up despite the fact that it has been presented as truthful history for decades and decades.

Apologies. But the poster asked for the purpose and content of the content of the book; the blurb's purpose is to give that summary. As for credentials, I have none in the academic respect other than being a product of modern education and, thus, a great test subject. However, that is an advantage because it allowed me to discover independently, read various sources, and seek material not deemed appropriate for proper education.

I am not attempting to make new arguments, only to go BACK into history and say this is what actually happened. It was only new and "shocking" to me because I was given the current modern version of history, and when you go BACK in history, one cannot help but be shocked at the level of misinformation that occurs today.

 

[Danielart]

Apologies. But the poster asked for the purpose and content of the content of the book; the blurb's purpose is to give that summary. As for credentials, I have none in the academic respect other than being a product of modern education and, thus, a great test subject. However, that is an advantage because it allowed me to discover independently, read various sources, and seek material not deemed appropriate for proper education.

I am not attempting to make new arguments, only to go BACK into history and say this is what actually happened. It was only new and "shocking" to me because I was given the current modern version of history, and when you go BACK in history, one cannot help but be shocked at the level of misinformation that occurs today.

Issac,

Thanks for being frank but I am afraid you're at a very serious disadvantage if you are not scholar in American history.

You're making a hell of a lot of universal comments on the Civil War that quite frankly just do not have merit.
Your claim that you know the "truth" given what you have discovered by living in the South and admiring Confederate generals is an excruciatingly weak historical argument.

Your ongoing commentary on how well Slaves were treated ( based on your research) fly directly in the face with primary sources that are widely known about how Slaves were indeed treated. If you are going to maintain this position on how well slaves were treated, I should hope you realize you will need to contend with the primary source Frederick Douglas whose witness and testimony on slavery are damning to the nth degree. The fact that Douglas would only be able to have a voice or even safe harbor in the North does NOT speak well of the South by any means.

I can go on and on, but frankly Issac, you're making claims which have no merit. Despite the fact that some Slave owners were more humane that others, the other fact is that a slave was "owned" and thereby his/her life was not theirs. You cannot possibly neglect this fact and expect to be taken seriously.

I'm sorry to say this bluntly, but you're work has very little merit and many of your claims are weak ( I am trying to be charitable).

 

[power1]

According to my great great grandmother slaves would kill young white children. By the time she learned to walk she carried a gun when she left the house. Until the day she died she carried some type of gun even if she never left her kitchen. I can remember she would show me her latest pistol when I would go for a visit.

 

[Melensdad]

According to my great great grandmother slaves would kill young white children. By the time she learned to walk she carried a gun when she left the house. Until the day she died she carried some type of gun even if she never left her kitchen. I can remember she would show me her latest pistol when I would go for a visit.

I'm pretty sure there was a lot of killing of the slaves too. History is rife with examples.

No doubt that slaves felt better about their situation, no doubt that some reacted in violent manners, but also no doubt that they were treated badly in most situations and the hatred and prejudice swung both ways.

 

[power1]

I'm pretty sure there was a lot of killing of the slaves too. History is rife with examples.

No doubt that slaves felt better about their situation, no doubt that some reacted in violent manners, but also no doubt that they were treated badly in most situations and the hatred and prejudice swung both ways.

Men would buy a female slave and breed their own slaves. Look at a lot of census from the old days and you can see the white man married the female slave and fathered many children. The census would list them as mulatos.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

Issac,

Thanks for being frank but I am afraid you're at a very serious disadvantage if you are not scholar in American history.

You're making a hell of a lot of universal comments on the Civil War that quite frankly just do not have merit.
Your claim that you know the "truth" given what you have discovered by living in the South and admiring Confederate generals is an excruciatingly weak historical argument.

Your ongoing commentary on how well Slaves were treated ( based on your research) fly directly in the face with primary sources that are widely known about how Slaves were indeed treated. If you are going to maintain this position on how well slaves were treated, I should hope you realize you will need to contend with the primary source Frederick Douglas whose witness and testimony on slavery are damning to the nth degree. The fact that Douglas would only be able to have a voice or even safe harbor in the North does NOT speak well of the South by any means.

I can go on and on, but frankly Issac, you're making claims which have no merit. Despite the fact that some Slave owners were more humane that others, the other fact is that a slave was "owned" and thereby his/her life was not theirs. You cannot possibly neglect this fact and expect to be taken seriously.

I'm sorry to say this bluntly, but you're work has very little merit and many of your claims are weak ( I am trying to be charitable).

I appreciate your concern, but it seems you have made many "Universal comments" about my book that are unfounded, which you would know had you read it. For example, I cite many historians and, more vitally, original sources, including Fredrick Douglass!!! In addition, I have quoted former slaves directly dozens, perhaps over one hundred times in my book as well as northern abolitionist, European observers, northern soldiers, northern newspapers, historians, etc, who all describe slavery in terms of how it actually was because they observed it. Not the few isolated incidents we have been told about today and then paint the entire system monolithically. By accepting the standard narrative and believing it to be true shows why my book is needed.

So, I'm sorry to say this bluntly, but you're post has very little merit and your claims are weak ( I am trying to be charitable).

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

I'm pretty sure there was a lot of killing of the slaves too. History is rife with examples.

No doubt that slaves felt better about their situation, no doubt that some reacted in violent manners, but also no doubt that they were treated badly in most situations and the hatred and prejudice swung both ways.

Since killing slaves was a common occurrence, could you provide statistics please? Because I do in my book, as well as laws that protected such occurrence in EVERY southern state where they read the same penalty applies if someone kills a slave as "a free white man."

 

[Melensdad]

Just because the laws were on the books does not mean the murders didn't occur. History is full of examples. No need to actually provide a laundry list of abuses by slave owners in our forums. Not discounting that some slave owners treated their slaves with a reasonable level of respect, not discounting that some may have been treated well. Just pointing out the obvious.

 

[power1]

Slaves cost money. How many farmers do you know that would buy livestock then decide to just kill it? There were slave auctions. If a farmer wanted to get rid of a slave for any reason they would send it to an auction. Why in the hell would you think killing slaves was common practice?

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

Men would buy a female slave and breed their own slaves. Look at a lot of census from the old days and you can see the white man married the female slave and fathered many children. The census would list them as mulatos.

How often did this slave breeding occur? I provide some historical data to show it was very rare.

Today many mixed race couples have families, many slave woman desired owners, I have stats on mulattoes as well. Let me ask you, was rape legal? That is, could any master rape his female slaves as he wished? What kind of support do you offer for this?

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

Just because the laws were on the books does not mean the murders didn't occur. History is full of examples. No need to actually provide a laundry list of abuses by slave owners in our forums. Not discounting that some slave owners treated their slaves with a reasonable level of respect, not discounting that some may have been treated well. Just pointing out the obvious.

Agreed, but I never said murder never occurred. However I will say that the murder rates among blacks is far higher today then during slavery.

 

[power1]

How often did this slave breeding occur? I provide some historical data to show it was very rare.

Today many mixed race couples have families, many slave woman desired owners, I have stats on mulattoes as well. Let me ask you, was rape legal? That is, could any master rape his female slaves as he wished? What kind of support do you offer for this?

All you have to do is look at some old census. While doing some research on family trees I saw lots of it. Most of the time they had 20 or more kids.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

All you have to do is look at some old census. While doing some research on family trees I saw lots of it. Most of the time they had 20 or more kids.

Busy family. I worked with a lady whos mother had 19 children, that is the most that I have heard of.