The Un-Civil War: Shattering the Historical Myths

by Leonard M. Scruggs

The book discusses honestly and frankly the real reasons for the Civil War, the way in which it was fought, and the major differences between the two sides. One of these was the strong views over the meaning and obligations of Constitutional government. The South held the traditional position of limited government and strict adherence to the protections of the Constitution, especially States Rights. The North favored a strong, centralized government and material and social programs unfettered by Constitutional limits. These issues are still very much alive.

360 pages, Paperback

First published April 28, 2011

About the author

Leonard Mike Scruggs

Reviews

[Lester De La Cruz · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book tries to retell the Civil war through the white supremacist lens. Making claims such as: The Civil war was started over states rights and not slavery, slaves enjoyed actually being slaves, The KKK sought to protect blacks in the south, and the list goes on. The only people who will believe the text in this book sought this book out to reinforce their beliefs.

[Ginger Stephens · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a most informative and enlightening book. I recommend it to anyone who is curious about the real causes of the War Between The States. I found the book interesting, with many facts and figures that are not widely known. It is a collections of articles, and that makes it a little uneven. Some of the chapters are a little dry, with tins of information. Other chapters highlight key aspects of the War with excellent story-telling and narrative.

The book uses contemporary quotes and descriptions to highlight the economic reasons for the War. It is most telling that the anti-slavery British saw the War as a fight against Northern economic tyranny and the Federal government's attempt to make it about slavery was viewed as a smokescreen.

I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about Southern history, but it needs to be approached with an open mind.

[Karl · Rating 1 out of 5]

Revisionist trash that ignores contemporary and historical accounts, in favor of a rose-tinted lens of the south.