What do you think?
The South Was Right
Napoleon defined history as "fiction agreed upon". It's written by victors and often one-sided. This book tells a story from the other side. It shakes the foundation of everything you've been taught about the American "Civil War".
To begin with, Samuel Steel explains why the phrase "Civil War" is misleading, and gives the struggle an appropriate name. He argues that the seceded states were exercising their constitutional rights, and that the real reason behind war was not, as most people believe, slavery. "Slavery could not long have survived in the South with the sentiment of the whole outside world, and multitudes of its own people, against it."
He questions the sincerity of Webster's celebrated speech which became a school classic. He paints a realistic picture of Southerners at the time, intelligent human beings who fought on principle, not semi-barbarians who owned slaves.
Steel is an accurate and thorough man. His arguments are well founded and thought evoking. You will find much truth here if you're open minded enough.
"To say that the South was wrong simply because the North won, is to cast a serious reflection on the intelligence of such men as Lee, and many others."
To begin with, Samuel Steel explains why the phrase "Civil War" is misleading, and gives the struggle an appropriate name. He argues that the seceded states were exercising their constitutional rights, and that the real reason behind war was not, as most people believe, slavery. "Slavery could not long have survived in the South with the sentiment of the whole outside world, and multitudes of its own people, against it."
He questions the sincerity of Webster's celebrated speech which became a school classic. He paints a realistic picture of Southerners at the time, intelligent human beings who fought on principle, not semi-barbarians who owned slaves.
Steel is an accurate and thorough man. His arguments are well founded and thought evoking. You will find much truth here if you're open minded enough.
"To say that the South was wrong simply because the North won, is to cast a serious reflection on the intelligence of such men as Lee, and many others."
48 pages, Paperback
First published June 20, 2010
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
September 7, 2023
On slavery: “While it was an evil, it was not all evil. As a rule the negroes were treated kindly, and cruel treatment was the exception…”
“It had the benefits for the slave, too, for it trained ignorant Africans to habits of civilized life, and was a great industrial school for the race.
These are just a few of the choice quotes that made this book such and abhorrent read. Time and time again the author discusses states rights and northern overstep into southern affairs and these are fair criticisms to consider overall, but when the issue is states rights to own slaves nothing you can say can justify the southern cause.
For every semi decent argument made he makes 10 more to demonstrate a lack of understanding of human rights and the human condition and he continuously fails to provide adequate evidence to support even the most basic of arguments.
“It had the benefits for the slave, too, for it trained ignorant Africans to habits of civilized life, and was a great industrial school for the race.
These are just a few of the choice quotes that made this book such and abhorrent read. Time and time again the author discusses states rights and northern overstep into southern affairs and these are fair criticisms to consider overall, but when the issue is states rights to own slaves nothing you can say can justify the southern cause.
For every semi decent argument made he makes 10 more to demonstrate a lack of understanding of human rights and the human condition and he continuously fails to provide adequate evidence to support even the most basic of arguments.
December 17, 2023
I recently found myself in the mood for a thought-provoking read that could challenge some of my preconceived notions. The title of the book, "The South was Right," caught my attention and seemed like the perfect choice.
The central theme of the book revolves around the idea that the South's defeat in the Civil War doesn't necessarily equate to it being in the wrong regarding the decisions leading up to the conflict. Samuel Augustus Steel structures his narrative around two fundamental questions: 1) Was it legally permissible for states to secede? 2) Should the Confederate states have seceded?
Steel presents substantial evidence supporting the legality of states' secession from the Union. He argues that the Constitution was established by the states as individual entities, and their act of secession didn't revoke their status as sovereign states, including the right to withdraw from the Union. This is underpinned by the notion that secession was a reserved right of the states rather than an expressly granted power to the Federal Government in the Constitution. Steel also references legal texts used at West Point before the Civil War, acknowledging states' rights to secede. Furthermore, he highlights that Congress's efforts to readmit states after the Civil War wouldn't have been necessary if the states hadn't left in the first place. Finally, he speculates that the decision not to prosecute Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders after the war may have been an attempt to avoid a legal ruling that could have confirmed the legality of secession.
Having established the legal basis for states to secede, Steel delves into the question of whether they were morally justified in doing so. He points to the North's actions, such as restricting the expansion of Southern states, as evidence of the hostility they faced, justifying their secession. He also emphasizes the North's failure to adhere to the Constitution, particularly Section 2, Article IV, concerning the return of fugitive slaves, making a legal, though not necessarily moral, argument that the North had violated the Constitution. Steel also argues that, given time, the Confederate states might have come to a moral conclusion against slavery on their own, as many other slaveholding societies had done.
In choosing this book, I achieved my goal of reading something I didn't expect to agree with entirely. While I don't find myself in complete agreement with all of Steel's arguments, I do believe he presents some compelling points, particularly regarding the legal aspects of states' right to secede.
The central theme of the book revolves around the idea that the South's defeat in the Civil War doesn't necessarily equate to it being in the wrong regarding the decisions leading up to the conflict. Samuel Augustus Steel structures his narrative around two fundamental questions: 1) Was it legally permissible for states to secede? 2) Should the Confederate states have seceded?
Steel presents substantial evidence supporting the legality of states' secession from the Union. He argues that the Constitution was established by the states as individual entities, and their act of secession didn't revoke their status as sovereign states, including the right to withdraw from the Union. This is underpinned by the notion that secession was a reserved right of the states rather than an expressly granted power to the Federal Government in the Constitution. Steel also references legal texts used at West Point before the Civil War, acknowledging states' rights to secede. Furthermore, he highlights that Congress's efforts to readmit states after the Civil War wouldn't have been necessary if the states hadn't left in the first place. Finally, he speculates that the decision not to prosecute Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders after the war may have been an attempt to avoid a legal ruling that could have confirmed the legality of secession.
Having established the legal basis for states to secede, Steel delves into the question of whether they were morally justified in doing so. He points to the North's actions, such as restricting the expansion of Southern states, as evidence of the hostility they faced, justifying their secession. He also emphasizes the North's failure to adhere to the Constitution, particularly Section 2, Article IV, concerning the return of fugitive slaves, making a legal, though not necessarily moral, argument that the North had violated the Constitution. Steel also argues that, given time, the Confederate states might have come to a moral conclusion against slavery on their own, as many other slaveholding societies had done.
In choosing this book, I achieved my goal of reading something I didn't expect to agree with entirely. While I don't find myself in complete agreement with all of Steel's arguments, I do believe he presents some compelling points, particularly regarding the legal aspects of states' right to secede.
December 19, 2023
I found this book while I was shopping on the Target app. I was shocked that Lost Cause narratives would be sold so brazenly in the year of our lordt 2023.
Then I found out that this book was published in 2021.
The daughters of the confederacy are still at it, folks.
Then I found out that this book was published in 2021.
The daughters of the confederacy are still at it, folks.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews