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

[m1west]

This is an indisputable fact. The south started the civil war over states rights and fired the first shots. It was not the North attacking the south over slavery.
Another indisputable fact. The tribal kings in Africa had a slave market long before the colonials came along. Actually England spent a lot of money and lives to stop it in the end as the African kings didn't want to stop.
Is slavery moral or right, not in my book, but every race has been a slave at one time or another and likely will be again. Folks just need to get over it.

 

[Danielart]

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).

Issac everyone has at our fingertips first hand accounts about Slavery which we all have access to.
And to be frank it is all universally horrific to even contemplate that this nation built any fortune on the backs of slavery.
There's no equivocating that and there is no "Grand Ole Dixie" tradition which white washes the fact that human beings were "owned".
This is why your point about how some were treated well and it was not all that bad for many smacks of denial and ahistorical.
It is also why your opinion just on the historical merits alone is very weak ( at best) and troubling.

Where is your moral outrage about Slavery? Why the "well it was not universally bad" take?
Why is that an epiphany worthy of salvaging the troubled history of slavery?
The right to be a human being was what the South deprived African slaves.
You are missing the moral outrage which this tragic history deserves which is why your work is suspect and deserves the criticism it is getting.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

Issac everyone has at our fingertips first hand accounts about Slavery which we all have access to.
And to be frank it is all universally horrific to even contemplate that this nation built any fortune on the backs of slavery.
There's no equivocating that and there is no "Grand Ole Dixie" tradition which white washes the fact that human beings were "owned".
This is why your point about how some were treated well and it was not all that bad for many smacks of denial and ahistorical.
It is also why your opinion just on the historical merits alone is very weak ( at best) and troubling.

Where is your moral outrage about Slavery? Why the "well it was not universally bad" take?
Why is that an epiphany worthy of salvaging the troubled history of slavery?
The right to be a human being was what the South deprived African slaves.
You are missing the moral outrage which this tragic history deserves which is why your work is suspect and deserves the criticism it is getting.

The fact that you make these sorts of claims proves what I have said; we are only allowed a tiny portion of history to determine what slavery was like while ignoring the vast majority of historical documentation!!!

So, for example, here is a source that provides thousands of first-hand accounts of slavery from the perspective of slaves themselves (your video used them). I quote from and utilize this source over a hundred times in my books but could have done so many more hundreds of times.

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

In these interviews with former slaves, you will find the good, the bad, and the ugly of slavery, but your video and what the typical American is allowed to hear is only the bad while the majority are ignored. You have been deceived, willingly or not. I do not care if you buy my book; instead, do what I did and read those interviews (it is best to do so by state). You will find slavery, for most, was radically different from what you have been allowed to hear on the subject. This is just one source; I utilize many sources from the period that agree with these interviews. Eventually, if you read those sources that, as you say, are at our fingertips (so no excuse for ignoring them), you will discover a genuine historical understanding of slavery, which might drive you to do what I did, say hay, we can still condemn slavery but at least let's tell the truth about it!!

As for your questions can all be answered in the "preview" section of my book on Amazon. And you carry many false assumptions in them as well, showing how deeply ingrained the propaganda has become. So just as an example, here is a small section of my book


The truth is much different. It was Southern theologians like Rev Thomas Smyth in The Unity of the Human Races Proved to be the Doctrine of Scripture, Reason, and Science with a Review of the Present Position and Theory of Professor Agassi, and South Carolinian slavery apologists like the Rev James Thornwell, who wrote in response to Northern scientists like Samuel Morton and Loius Agassiz’s claims that blacks were a separate lesser species from whites.

“It is a public testimony to our faith, that the negro is one blood with ourselves- that he has sinned as we have, and that he has equal interest with us in the great redemption. Science falsely so called [1 Tim 6.20] may attempt to exclude him from the brotherhood of humanity...arguments which link them with the brute. But the instinctive impulses of our nature, combined with the plainest declarations of the word of God, lead us to recognize...his moral, religious and intellectual nature the same humanity in which we glory as the image of God. We are not ashamed to call him our brother.”
-Rev. J H Thornwell The Rights and Duties of Masters Charleston South Carolina Steam-Power Press of Walker & James, 1850

With our modern devaluing of humanity, the slaveowner held higher regard for his slave than we free men do for each other. While the “evil” master did horrible things, they were the exception, not the rule. Slaves and their masters typically had a good relationship that was beneficial to both parties. Just because slaves were legal “property” in the same way as a wagon does not conclude the human, often Christian master, would not view his slave as made in the image of God.

“They share our physical nature, and are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh; they share our intellectual and spiritual nature ; each body of them covers an im- mortal soul God our Father loves, for whom Christ our Saviour died, and unto whom everlasting happiness or misery shall be meted in the final day….they are men, created in the image of God, to be acknowledged and cared for spiritually by us, as we acknowledge and care for the other varieties of the race, our own Caucasian or the Indian, or the Mongol…They are our constant and inseparable associates ; whither we go they go; where we dwell they dwell; where we die and are buried, there they die and are buried; and, more than all, our God is their God… they patiently nurse us and ours in long nights and days of illness ; our for-tunes are their fortunes; and our joys their joys; and our sorrows are their sorrows.”
-Dr Jones Address on the First Confederate General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church on the First day Augusta , GA dec, 4, 1861 Quoted in R.Q Mallard wrote Plantation Life Before Emancipation

 

[power1]

Issac everyone has at our fingertips first hand accounts about Slavery which we all have access to.
And to be frank it is all universally horrific to even contemplate that this nation built any fortune on the backs of slavery.
There's no equivocating that and there is no "Grand Ole Dixie" tradition which white washes the fact that human beings were "owned".
This is why your point about how some were treated well and it was not all that bad for many smacks of denial and ahistorical.
It is also why your opinion just on the historical merits alone is very weak ( at best) and troubling.

Where is your moral outrage about Slavery? Why the "well it was not universally bad" take?
Why is that an epiphany worthy of salvaging the troubled history of slavery?
The right to be a human being was what the South deprived African slaves.
You are missing the moral outrage which this tragic history deserves which is why your work is suspect and deserves the criticism it is getting.

Maybe you can answer a question no one has answered yet. Why does no one seem to think bad of the people who sold their own people into slavery? I keep hearing slavery was bad and I agree. What I cannot agree with or understand is the people who gathered up other people and sold them into slavery and are not blamed for anything. You seem to blame the South for slavery. Why don't you feel the same about those who captured and sold slaves to begin with?

 

[m1west]

Maybe you can answer a question no one has answered yet. Why does no one seem to think bad of the people who sold their own people into slavery? I keep hearing slavery was bad and I agree. What I cannot agree with or understand is the people who gathered up other people and sold them into slavery and are not blamed for anything. You seem to blame the South for slavery. Why don't you feel the same about those who captured and sold slaves to begin with?

No one wants to talk about that aspect, but it was the African tribal policy. Just like the Aztecs and Incas of South America, thats what they did. Attack other tribes, take there resources and make slaves from the inhabitants. The American Indian operated in the same manner and were among the last to give up slaves.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

Maybe you can answer a question no one has answered yet. Why does no one seem to think bad of the people who sold their own people into slavery? I keep hearing slavery was bad and I agree. What I cannot agree with or understand is the people who gathered up other people and sold them into slavery and are not blamed for anything. You seem to blame the South for slavery. Why don't you feel the same about those who captured and sold slaves to begin with?

I have a section that asks the same thing and points out that no one has done more to end the enslavement of Africans than white Christians, and no one has done more to perpetuate the enslavement of blacks than other blacks.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

No one wants to talk about that aspect, but it was the African tribal policy. Just like the Aztecs and Incas of South America, thats what they did. Attack other tribes, take there resources and make slaves from the inhabitants. The American Indian operated in the same manner and were among the last to give up slaves.

Also, African American slave owners in South Carolina were among the last to give up their slaves; the federal government had to send in troops to force them to shut down the plantations.

 

[chowderman]

I have a section that asks the same thing and points out that no one has done more to end the enslavement of Africans than white Christians, and no one has done more to perpetuate the enslavement of blacks than other blacks.

reminds me of Kameltoes Harris and her word salad speecheds . . . . lots of fluff and big words with no substance.

who owned, who operated, who profited from the ships buying/transporting slaves to the western hemisphere?
would the slave trade have existed without them?
would the black tribes taking other black tribes prisoners, to be sold as slaves, continued that practice if there were no ships&slave traders to sell them to?

citing southern abolitionist 'preachers' as an argument 'proving' kind and gentle treatment of slaves is utterly ludicrous.
there were staunch slave supporters in 'the north' and there were staunch abolitionists in the south.

as to the book: "Independently published (April 9, 2023)" basically implies no publisher found it a feasible project, so you published / marketed your own view point(s) as a non-scholarly work of truth.
Reviews:
"I really wanted to read this book but it is almost unreadable."
"Bishop wants to make the case that Slaves were treated well and the version we are accustomed to is just Northern propaganda.
He’s basically full of crap and his premise .. despite being rehashed many times over the decades.. doesn’t hold any weight whatsoever. Slavery is a monstrosity.. period."

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

reminds me of Kameltoes Harris and her word salad speecheds . . . . lots of fluff and big words with no substance.

who owned, who operated, who profited from the ships buying/transporting slaves to the western hemisphere?
would the slave trade have existed without them?
would the black tribes taking other black tribes prisoners, to be sold as slaves, continued that practice if there were no ships&slave traders to sell them to?

citing southern abolitionist 'preachers' as an argument 'proving' kind and gentle treatment of slaves is utterly ludicrous.
there were staunch slave supporters in 'the north' and there were staunch abolitionists in the south.

as to the book: "Independently published (April 9, 2023)" basically implies no publisher found it a feasible project, so you published / marketed your own view point(s) as a non-scholarly work of truth.
Reviews:
"I really wanted to read this book but it is almost unreadable."
"Bishop wants to make the case that Slaves were treated well and the version we are accustomed to is just Northern propaganda.
He’s basically full of crap and his premise .. despite being rehashed many times over the decades.. doesn’t hold any weight whatsoever. Slavery is a monstrosity.. period."

Great point; as I stated, the transatlantic slave trade would not have been profitable had not Africans rounded up and readily exported their own people so slave traders could also profit. I am glad the Confederacy outlawed the slave trade, as did many southern states before the civil war. Unfortunately, the United States maintained the practice for over a hundred years!!!!

The majority of black slaves went East, not West. Before they ever went West, they were sold to India, the middle east, etc., for thousands of years.

That citation of Southern leaders had nothing to do with their treatment of slaves, only the Southern view (as opposed to some Northern scientists) that the slave was 100% human and had the same value as whites. Context matters!!!!

Yes, formatting mistakes have occurred with the ebook version and are being worked on as we speak. The other reviewers could not cite anything in my book and only gave a random opinion with no factual basis. I am not concerned with such reviews.

BTW- Many authors purposely self-publish as I have for numerous reasons. Do a quick Google to see why traditional publishing is on the way out and why self-publishing is better for the AUTHOR.

 

[chowderman]

verified buyers are not random opinions.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

verified buyers are not random opinions.

Unsupported opinions I believe are random.

 

[chowderman]

Unsupported opinions I believe are random.

so people who read your book have unsupported opiniond.
right. got it.
this is why you have to self-publish.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

so people who read your book have unsupported opiniond.
right. got it.
this is why you have to self-publish.

All I was saying is that his statement was an unsupported opinion, nothing more nothing less.

Pus, I am pretty sure it is free ebook reading if you have the account. No guarantee he read much at all.

 

[FTG-05]

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.

Are you saying that democrats weren't the slave owners? Why not just say it then, with data to prove your point? Why the snotty and condescending replies?

Next thing you know, you'll be up in here hawking a book on how the democrats aren't the party of pedophiles.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

Are you saying that democrats weren't the slave owners? Why not just say it then, with data to prove your point? Why the snotty and condescending replies?

Next thing you know, you'll be up in here hawking a book on how the democrats aren't the party of pedophiles.

The Antebellum Democrats were not the same as the modern. That should be clear to anyone familiar with them. You will be hard pushed to find anyone before 1860 who would agree with the modern Democrats on anything!!! The Republicans however have remained basically the same.

Republicans were slave owners also and the majority of democrats were not slave owners in 1860. But generally, southern democrats were the "slave party." As inaccurate as that label is.

 

[power1]

Even at the height of slavery the % of people who owned slaves was very small. Not a lot of people could afford them.

 

[Danielart]

All I was saying is that his statement was an unsupported opinion, nothing more nothing less.

Pus, I am pretty sure it is free ebook reading if you have the account. No guarantee he read much at all.

You're not a historian..period.
Second, your take on the Happy Slave is the nonsense and purely meant to push a counter Southern narrative.
Slaves were not exactly "free" to express themselves nor were they empowered or educated to think for themselves.
The fact that once freed they were treated with extraordinary malice and hate speaks to the fact that the now free people were not worth much now that they were not owned.

Your Southern bias argues that this is "the Truth" while the historical record shows just the opposite.
Your stuff is fertile material for the Klan and David Duke but not for anyone else.

 

[Danielart]

Maybe you can answer a question no one has answered yet. Why does no one seem to think bad of the people who sold their own people into slavery? I keep hearing slavery was bad and I agree. What I cannot agree with or understand is the people who gathered up other people and sold them into slavery and are not blamed for anything. You seem to blame the South for slavery. Why don't you feel the same about those who captured and sold slaves to begin with?

This is the whataboutism fallacy.
In other words, deflect away from the problem here and point to the problem there.
That sort of fallacious arguing does not deal with the issue at hand but deflects which is why it is a fallacy.

The problems of slavery were ( and are) global which does not excuse it which is what the subtext of Bishop's and the Southern propagandists strategy is.
"Look mom they do it too and at least we feed our slaves and give them a room!"

So why not deal with what We had going on before the war?
The fact is we ( the Southern USA) had the largest Slave economy in the world in the 19th century.

Conclusion​

The findings in this working paper contribute to longstanding discussions among researchers as to the role of the institution of slavery in the country’s economic development. While some scholars and commentators argue that it was a minor factor in the economic trajectory of the United States, this research provides additional evidence that this brutal system of exploitation was vital to the country’s economic growth and the development of U.S. capitalism.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

You're not a historian..period.
Second, your take on the Happy Slave is the nonsense and purely meant to push a counter Southern narrative.
Slaves were not exactly "free" to express themselves nor were they empowered or educated to think for themselves.
The fact that once freed they were treated with extraordinary malice and hate speaks to the fact that the now free people were not worth much now that they were not owned.

Your Southern bias argues that this is "the Truth" while the historical record shows just the opposite.
Your stuff is fertile material for the Klan and David Duke but not for anyone else.

The falsehood and bias in this post is precisely why my book is needed, thank you for the encouragement and reminded all the work was worth it!!!

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

Book Review by Processor Wilson!!!

It has not yet been published, but I will provide the link when it has. However, Clyde Wilson, professor emeritus of history at the University of South Carolina, sent me the text that will be published soon.


It is a well-established truth that the South, despite being under the ban of righteous mainstream “America” for two centuries, has always attracted admirers from outside. Intelligent and earnest admirers from above the Potomac and Ohio and from across the sea. It is still happening even in these terrible times when the South has been banished to one dark little corner labeled “slavery and treason.” For strong evidence I present Isaac C. Bishop’s new book Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About the South and the Civil War (available amazon paperback and Kindle). When I got a ways into this book I jumped in the air and clicked my heels, although it is unseemly and unsafe at my age. Mr. Bishop is a lifelong Vermonter who has done his own thinking and his own research. Research broader and deeper than that of a great many “professional historians” who are becoming more and more experts in cherry-picking evidence from the past. Mr. Bishop’s initial impulse came from his uneasiness at the woke America all around him. An overweening, crony capitalist central government and falling moral standards did not seem to him what the Founding Fathers had intended. He wanted to know what had happened to his country.

A little reading showed him that he had been lied to about an imaginary wonderful Lincoln and about some other things and prompted an exploration of the genuine historical sources. What he found supported every position of Southerners toward the nature and meaning of the great bloodletting of 1861—1865. He came to understand that that’s when the rock started rolling downhill, that the results of the Late Unpleasantness were related to the Present Unpleasatness.

Bishop takes on every issue in the catalogue—slavery, the real confederal nature of the Union before 1861, the greed and malice that fueled the Yankee invasion, the Republican establishment of state capitalism---a government of the rich that leaves most of the people behind--- the atrocious Lincoln Myth, Northern racism, black Confederates, and much else. Bishop bases his case on many sources that are long neglected and draws new insights from them. This a real historian---the real thing who follows the evidence without moralistic or ideological assumptions. He also quotes a good deal from the works of several Abbeville scholars.

The South’s long standing attraction for serious and honest people is understandable. Because for serious and honest people who have looked at the truth, the Confederacy was a heroic epic fight for independence. The vicious, massive and ruthless invasion and conquest of the South by an aggressive class of Northerners was not a holy war of emancipation. It was marked by heavy elements of greed and malice, had no interest in the welfare of the black people, and destroyed the intentions of the Founders. Dixie was not the sole sinner but was in fact the lesser sinner of those days.

America will not come to honest terms with itself until it begins to admit the realities that this author has uncovered. In my time I have written probably 200 or more book reviews. I have never used the comment “you ought to get this book.” I am using it now.

 

[power1]

You're not a historian..period.
Second, your take on the Happy Slave is the nonsense and purely meant to push a counter Southern narrative.
Slaves were not exactly "free" to express themselves nor were they empowered or educated to think for themselves.
The fact that once freed they were treated with extraordinary malice and hate speaks to the fact that the now free people were not worth much now that they were not owned.

Your Southern bias argues that this is "the Truth" while the historical record shows just the opposite.
Your stuff is fertile material for the Klan and David Duke but not for anyone else.

They were not worth much because they nothing worth anything to anyone. They had no way of making a living. They were not educated and had very little skills. When they didn't have someone to tell them what to do they usually did nothing. There was just not a demand for former slaves.

 

[Melensdad]

This is the whataboutism fallacy.
In other words, deflect away from the problem here and point to the problem there.
That sort of fallacious arguing does not deal with the issue at hand but deflects which is why it is a fallacy.

The problems of slavery were ( and are) global which does not excuse it which is what the subtext of Bishop's and the Southern propagandists strategy is.
"Look mom they do it too and at least we feed our slaves and give them a room!"

So why not deal with what We had going on before the war?
The fact is we ( the Southern USA) had the largest Slave economy in the world in the 19th century.

Conclusion​

The findings in this working paper contribute to longstanding discussions among researchers as to the role of the institution of slavery in the country’s economic development. While some scholars and commentators argue that it was a minor factor in the economic trajectory of the United States, this research provides additional evidence that this brutal system of exploitation was vital to the country’s economic growth and the development of U.S. capitalism.

Your post very much matches my basic understanding. I was a political science and history major with a business minor as an undergrad and dis study the politics and economy of the South, the slave economy did was not necessarily an economic engine driving the US economy, rather it was a smaller part of the success, but it cannot be discounted nor can it be trivialized as the South was pretty dependent upon slavery for forced labor. Granted unskilled labor, but the jobs were generally manual labor jobs so education and advanced skills were not needed. The economy of the north was primarily industrial production and more highly skilled, the north was more of the economic engine for the nation but there is no question that the economy of the south was still larger than many European nations.

 

[power1]

Southerners found out that a few pieces of equipment and a flock of geese could replace the slaves and was much cheaper.

 

[Melensdad]

Southerners found out that a few pieces of equipment and a flock of geese could replace the slaves and was much cheaper.

True, but the equipment wasn't commercially available and basically didn't exist until the later years of slavery. So it is a bit disingenuous to dismiss it so easily.

 

[chowderman]

you have yourself freely admitted to no scholarly qualifications.

reviewing your "sources" and claims, you have cherry picked / selected sources to be "unquestioned truth" and denied all other accounts to be false / incomplete / untrusted.

your work is simply not defensible.

regardless of "how well" _some_ slaves were treated, the fact remains they were property - to be owned, to be bought, sold, traded.
the slave has no say in that. families were separated, young females commanded a premium selling price based on their ability to produce - willingly or not - more slave babies.

many white "masters" - including famous ones - held slaves. and held some in particular fondness, and fathered many childen by their favorite female slave(s). that's history. it does not indicate slaves had some mystical wonderful life.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

The problems of slavery were ( and are) global which does not excuse it which is what the subtext of Bishop's and the Southern propagandists strategy is.
"Look mom they do it too and at least we feed our slaves and give them a room!"

Maybe first read my book before drawing conclusions. I point out uncomfortable facts such as black slave owners, I never say that justified slavery. I tell uncomfortable truths about slavery, I allow people who observed it and experienced it tell us what it was like, but I never justify it. Please do not lie about things you have not read.

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

Your post very much matches my basic understanding. I was a political science and history major with a business minor as an undergrad and dis study the politics and economy of the South, the slave economy did was not necessarily an economic engine driving the US economy, rather it was a smaller part of the success, but it cannot be discounted nor can it be trivialized as the South was pretty dependent upon slavery for forced labor. Granted unskilled labor, but the jobs were generally manual labor jobs so education and advanced skills were not needed. The economy of the north was primarily industrial production and more highly skilled, the north was more of the economic engine for the nation but there is no question that the economy of the south was still larger than many European nations.

I cannot disagree with this post!!!

 

[Isaac C Bishop]

you have yourself freely admitted to no scholarly qualifications.

reviewing your "sources" and claims, you have cherry picked / selected sources to be "unquestioned truth" and denied all other accounts to be false / incomplete / untrusted.

your work is simply not defensible.

regardless of "how well" _some_ slaves were treated, the fact remains they were property - to be owned, to be bought, sold, traded.
the slave has no say in that. families were separated, young females commanded a premium selling price based on their ability to produce - willingly or not - more slave babies.

many white "masters" - including famous ones - held slaves. and held some in particular fondness, and fathered many childen by their favorite female slave(s). that's history. it does not indicate slaves had some mystical wonderful life.

And neither do you, further your claims about my book are even more baseless because you have not read it!! I prefer a professor and historians take on my book better then yours, especially since he actually read it!!!

Book Review by Processor Wilson!!!

It has not yet been published, but I will provide the link when it has. However, Clyde Wilson, professor emeritus of history at the University of South Carolina, sent me the text that will be published soon.


It is a well-established truth that the South, despite being under the ban of righteous mainstream “America” for two centuries, has always attracted admirers from outside. Intelligent and earnest admirers from above the Potomac and Ohio and from across the sea. It is still happening even in these terrible times when the South has been banished to one dark little corner labeled “slavery and treason.” For strong evidence I present Isaac C. Bishop’s new book Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About the South and the Civil War (available amazon paperback and Kindle). When I got a ways into this book I jumped in the air and clicked my heels, although it is unseemly and unsafe at my age. Mr. Bishop is a lifelong Vermonter who has done his own thinking and his own research. Research broader and deeper than that of a great many “professional historians” who are becoming more and more experts in cherry-picking evidence from the past. Mr. Bishop’s initial impulse came from his uneasiness at the woke America all around him. An overweening, crony capitalist central government and falling moral standards did not seem to him what the Founding Fathers had intended. He wanted to know what had happened to his country.

A little reading showed him that he had been lied to about an imaginary wonderful Lincoln and about some other things and prompted an exploration of the genuine historical sources. What he found supported every position of Southerners toward the nature and meaning of the great bloodletting of 1861—1865. He came to understand that that’s when the rock started rolling downhill, that the results of the Late Unpleasantness were related to the Present Unpleasatness.

Bishop takes on every issue in the catalogue—slavery, the real confederal nature of the Union before 1861, the greed and malice that fueled the Yankee invasion, the Republican establishment of state capitalism---a government of the rich that leaves most of the people behind--- the atrocious Lincoln Myth, Northern racism, black Confederates, and much else. Bishop bases his case on many sources that are long neglected and draws new insights from them. This a real historian---the real thing who follows the evidence without moralistic or ideological assumptions. He also quotes a good deal from the works of several Abbeville scholars.

The South’s long standing attraction for serious and honest people is understandable. Because for serious and honest people who have looked at the truth, the Confederacy was a heroic epic fight for independence. The vicious, massive and ruthless invasion and conquest of the South by an aggressive class of Northerners was not a holy war of emancipation. It was marked by heavy elements of greed and malice, had no interest in the welfare of the black people, and destroyed the intentions of the Founders. Dixie was not the sole sinner but was in fact the lesser sinner of those days.

America will not come to honest terms with itself until it begins to admit the realities that this author has uncovered. In my time I have written probably 200 or more book reviews. I have never used the comment “you ought to get this book.” I am using it now.

 

[chowderman]

spin away.

still does make your fantasies real.
Clyde Wilson is a documented fruitcake of your same opinion stream - so there is that.

"
Book Review by Processor Wilson!!!
"
what is a processor?

historians will not "take on your book" simply because you base your entire premise on seriously minute "data" as proving the majority.

Abbeville? oh crap. we have ancestors lived, died and buried there.

people who bought your book, found it unreadable. documented purchases. deny that.

the "north" did not instigate warfare. the instigation of warfare had zip comma zero to do with slavery, regardless of your cocked up rationale.
but, please feel free to disagree with real history.

 

[Danielart]

This is an indisputable fact. The south started the civil war over states rights and fired the first shots. It was not the North attacking the south over slavery.
Another indisputable fact. The tribal kings in Africa had a slave market long before the colonials came along. Actually England spent a lot of money and lives to stop it in the end as the African kings didn't want to stop.
Is slavery moral or right, not in my book, but every race has been a slave at one time or another and likely will be again. Folks just need to get over it.

There's no question Slavery was invented in the Confederacy.
There's no question that Slavery has always existed.

The problem is when these facts are used as a "defense for Dixie".
There is no "defense for Dixie".

Dixie was wrong, Slavery was always an abomination, and the Slave industry in the South was immoral and only fought for due to how profitable it was. Humans were chattel and no amount of "Southern manners" or "saving our traditions" or nonsense about State's Rights inoculates the parties involved from an objective evil.