Defending Dixie's Land Now on Sale

[Bilbobaggins]

Despised by Yankees, loved by true-hearted Southerners, Defending Dixies Land is now available at a reduced price!

Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War: Bishop, Isaac C.: 9798376253816: Amazon.com: Books

Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War [Bishop, Isaac C.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War

www.amazon.com

Book Review by Professor Clyde Wilson

Defending Dixie’s Land – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

 

[rittmeister]

Despised by Yankees, loved by true-hearted Southerners, Defending Dixies Land is now available at a reduced price!

Amazon.com

Book Review by Professor Clyde Wilson

Defending Dixie’s Land – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

why would a yankee care? doesn't putting stuff on sale normally mean nobody buys that stuff for the regular price?

eta: as to your amazon link ...

 

[Bilbobaggins]

why would a yankee care? doesn't putting stuff on sale normally mean nobody buys that stuff for the regular price?

eta: as to your amazon link ...

View attachment 14522

Thanks for link correction, hope this helps

Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War: Bishop, Isaac C.: 9798376253816: Amazon.com: Books

Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War [Bishop, Isaac C.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War

www.amazon.com

 

[diane]

Hi, Bilbo! Your reviews were interesting - you certainly have the approval of the Abbeville Institute!

 

[5fish]

First, I am glad to see you had another book published an impressive event in itself and I hope you stick around. I think you are just another Dunning School of Southern history which is not flattering.

I like to know the sources you used... You know slavery was dying out in the Western world about the time of our Civil War... What is the true enemy of people everywhere...

From your Amazon site:

• 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 that prompted the upper South to 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 that 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.

I do hope now that your second book is out you can stay around... Good luck with your book...

 

[Bilbobaggins]

First, I am glad to see you had another book published an impressive event in itself and I hope you stick around. I think you are just another Dunning School of Southern history which is not flattering.

I like to know the sources you used... You know slavery was dying out in the Western world about the time of our Civil War... What is the true enemy of people everywhere...

From your Amazon site:

• 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 that prompted the upper South to 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 that 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.

I do hope now that your second book is out you can stay around... Good luck with your book...

Thank you very much. As for sources, the majority come from writings from the period. I used original sources as often as possible, but I supplemented it with modern historians.

Citing my sources would be an immense project in itself, as they are numerous. Are you looking for what kind of sources are used for each category? I could give you a general idea, perhaps you could pick one or two categories, and it will give you an idea....I hope.

 

[rittmeister]

Thank you very much. As for sources, the majority come from writings from the period. I used original sources as often as possible, but I supplemented it with modern historians.

Citing my sources would be an immense project in itself, as they are numerous. Are you looking for what kind of sources are used for each category? I could give you a general idea, perhaps you could pick one or two categories, and it will give you an idea....I hope.

you do name them in the book, right?

 

[5fish]

As for sources, the majority come from writings from the period.

The last time you used the National Archives of 1930s recording of X-slaves... so this time you used writers and their works from the period. I think you can list a few writers you used and the books you chose the most in writing your book. I do not think that is too much of a request...

Have you heard of the Dunning School from the early 20th century?

The Persistence of the Dunning School

One of the most notable characteristics of Reconstruction scholarship is the need felt by many scholars to launch their studies by reviewing the evolution of Reconstruction historiography. General…

cwcrossroads.wordpress.com

 

[5fish]

Are you looking for what kind of sources are used for each category? I could give you a general idea, perhaps you could pick one or two categories, and it will give you an idea....I hope.

This could work as well I think...

 

[diane]

Thank you very much. As for sources, the majority come from writings from the period. I used original sources as often as possible, but I supplemented it with modern historians.

Citing my sources would be an immense project in itself, as they are numerous. Are you looking for what kind of sources are used for each category? I could give you a general idea, perhaps you could pick one or two categories, and it will give you an idea....I hope.

I will pick one or two categories - 1) Lincoln's motives and character flaws, and 2) the real reasons for the cotton states secession. While I do understand listing a lot of sources would not be productive (nobody is going to sort through that much, after all!) I would be satisfied with, say, three verifiable sources in each section. Would that be do-able? Lincoln left pretty much a cookie crumb trail regarding his thoughts and motives during the war - he wanted this to be known because of the magnitude of the decisions he was making. The cotton states - I'll be interested to see what caused their exit that was not intimately blended with the 'peculiar institution'.

 

[Bilbobaggins]

you do name them in the book, right?

Correct.

 

[Bilbobaggins]

The last time you used the National Archives of 1930s recording of X-slaves... so this time you used writers and their works from the period. I think you can list a few writers you used and the books you chose the most in writing your book. I do not think that is too much of a request...

Have you heard of the Dunning School from the early 20th century?

The Persistence of the Dunning School

One of the most notable characteristics of Reconstruction scholarship is the need felt by many scholars to launch their studies by reviewing the evolution of Reconstruction historiography. General…

cwcrossroads.wordpress.com

It is not to much to ask at all! That is why I wanted him to be more specific so I could better accommodate his request.

Yes I have read of the Dunning school but it has been awhile so a quick refresher would help.

 

[Bilbobaggins]

I will pick one or two categories - 1) Lincoln's motives and character flaws, and 2) the real reasons for the cotton states secession. While I do understand listing a lot of sources would not be productive (nobody is going to sort through that much, after all!) I would be satisfied with, say, three verifiable sources in each section. Would that be do-able? Lincoln left pretty much a cookie crumb trail regarding his thoughts and motives during the war - he wanted this to be known because of the magnitude of the decisions he was making. The cotton states - I'll be interested to see what caused their exit that was not intimately blended with the 'peculiar institution'.

Perfect and thank you for being specific. At work at the moment I will get back to you my friend on the Cotton states, and Lincolns flaws.

 

[Bilbobaggins]

Some of the sources I use for the cotton states are the state secession documents (I quote from EVERY state secession document in the book, Upper South, cotton states, Indian Territory etc- people are generally only exposed to the four that directly mention slavery), and I focus especially on South Carolina's placing it in its antebellum context showing it is states rights document. I also have a chapter on the Union before Lincoln and our transformation to a Nation under him, showing how documents like the SC secession can be misunderstood today. I also quoted speeches from leaders of the original confederacy (the cotton states) showing the causes of secession. I use many other documents but these are the focal points.

For Lincoln, I use his major speeches throughout his life, the actions he supported during his political career, and his early biographies written by his admirers. Really nothing special, just showing who he really was rather than cherry-picking him to create an image as we do so often today. I was just talking about Lincoln with a close friend; she could not believe what he said. I was not quoting some obscure documents, but his major public speeches!

 

[diane]

So, your book would put forth the argument against unification under a central federal government, and support an argument for autonomous states cooperating as a confederacy. This supposes a cultural and regional difference so strong a nation could not be made of the two. This actually is plausible - and slavery was the sole cause of it. The antebellum South was a society and culture that could not exist without slavery.

Still need a little more than a bone for a discussion of Lincoln's flaws. There have been literally thousands and thousands of books written about this man - I do believe every single molecule of Lincoln has been discussed at some time or other! He is the kind of person I like - full of flaws and imperfections who does the best he can, as Lincoln himself put it, "by what lights God gives me."

 

[Bilbobaggins]

So, your book would put forth the argument against unification under a central federal government, and support an argument for autonomous states cooperating as a confederacy. This supposes a cultural and regional difference so strong a nation could not be made of the two. This actually is plausible - and slavery was the sole cause of it. The antebellum South was a society and culture that could not exist without slavery.

Still need a little more than a bone for a discussion of Lincoln's flaws. There have been literally thousands and thousands of books written about this man - I do believe every single molecule of Lincoln has been discussed at some time or other! He is the kind of person I like - full of flaws and imperfections who does the best he can, as Lincoln himself put it, "by what lights God gives me."

To a minor extent, my book does argue why local governance provides self-government while centralized allows the powerful (political parties and backers and the majority) to control a distant people simply by king number and thus removing their right to be governed as they wish. But its main purpose was to show how most pre-1860 "Americans" (if you could call them that) viewed the Constitution and the Union and how drastically it was altered after the war. This shows the South was not inventing anything new nor fighting to preserve legal bondage (already secured within there states); they wanted the Union to stay as it was, while the Republicans wanted to transform us into a centralized democracy where the powerful in D.C could intrude on all the people of all the states without exterior competition or limitations. When this and its language are understood, it becomes easy to see what the South was saying. If we look back as modern post-Civil War "American" nation students, we come away with a different and inaccurate understanding of the causes of secession. Quoting documents in full, in context, and not cherry-picking statements about slavery also does a great job of this.

I agree with Lincoln, and that is how I start my chapter; I state I have not found anything new about the most famous man in American history, nor argued better than others, but given his status as the most crucial figure of the water and the degree to which historical reality is distant from the image of the man, a summary need to be given. It also fits with my central theme of the book in that what is commonly beloved about the Civil War is false.

 

[Bilbobaggins]

This supposes a cultural and regional difference so strong a nation could not be made of the two. This actually is plausible - and slavery was the sole cause of it. The antebellum South was a society and culture that could not exist without slavery.

Sorry missed this. I argue that even if slavery were not an issue (and that after slavery ended, it was still valid) the North and South were different people, and IMO, they should never have been together.

But I am also a crazy person; I think every state in America should break up into small autonomous self-governing realms with their own distinct and diverse customs so people could then move and live with other like-minded people. It would remove the anger, hatred, and political fighting that occurs under centralized systems when people fight over political power and remove others ways of life, much like 1861-1865!

 

[diane]

May I ask for clarification on a crucial point before I continue: Does your first paragraph say prior to 1860 (or the formation of the Confederate States of America), Americans were not Americans, or did not consider themselves so? Many did refer to their home states as their identity rather than the United States - but it was a bit of a 'family' idiom. To the rest of the world, Americans were Americans - not Virginians or New Yorkers.

I can't say Lincoln had much to do with the altering of the Constitution, which was handled by teams of Trumbull and Stevens. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was to insure the 13th Amendment was not circumvented, and many other supplementary legislations had to be enacted so that former rebel states did not vote for the amendments to regain Union status only to do a sneak-around in their legislatures to circumvent the Constitution. This was amazingly successful for nearly 100 years while the Federal government looked the other way. Had Lincoln had a second term, judging by his notes and statements, these maneuvers would largely have been exposed for what they were and nipped. Instead, Andrew Johnson preferred to let the South go on its way, which appeared to be back to perdition for a large number of Southerners - black ones.

Oh, I see you've added a post. Well, I don't mind states breaking off from other states and reforming as new ones but what you suggest is indeed off the wall. I don't see the advantage of forming separatist enclaves rather than working through differences to a common goal. Very few have reason to complain in the US that they cannot be themselves as long as they do not violate the law. Nothing's perfect, of course, but it still works better than what you suggest.

As to removing others' ways of life - 1860-1865 - I just can't help but smile! Sometimes others' way of life involves removing liberty, political power, culture, etc from somebody else. Kind of goes against the 'old' Constitution's guarantees!

 

[rittmeister]

May I ask for clarification on a crucial point before I continue: Does your first paragraph say prior to 1860 (or the formation of the Confederate States of America), Americans were not Americans, or did not consider themselves so? Many did refer to their home states as their identity rather than the United States - but it was a bit of a 'family' idiom. To the rest of the world, Americans were Americans - not Virginians or New Yorkers.

I can't say Lincoln had much to do with the altering of the Constitution, which was handled by teams of Trumbull and Stevens. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was to insure the 13th Amendment was not circumvented, and many other supplementary legislations had to be enacted so that former rebel states did not vote for the amendments to regain Union status only to do a sneak-around in their legislatures to circumvent the Constitution. This was amazingly successful for nearly 100 years while the Federal government looked the other way. Had Lincoln had a second term, judging by his notes and statements, these maneuvers would largely have been exposed for what they were and nipped. Instead, Andrew Johnson preferred to let the South go on its way, which appeared to be back to perdition for a large number of Southerners - black ones.

Oh, I see you've added a post. Well, I don't mind states breaking off from other states and reforming as new ones but what you suggest is indeed off the wall. I don't see the advantage of forming separatist enclaves rather than working through differences to a common goal. Very few have reason to complain in the US that they cannot be themselves as long as they do not violate the law. Nothing's perfect, of course, but it still works better than what you suggest.

As to removing others' ways of life - 1860-1865 - I just can't help but smile! Sometimes others' way of life involves removing liberty, political power, culture, etc from somebody else. Kind of goes against the 'old' Constitution's guarantees!

you really should think about divide et impera if you want to get your lands back - the more those illegal aliens fight each other the better for you

 

[5fish]

Are you talking about this? I like to point out that in parts they are complaining about Slavery not being protected by the federal government...

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp