The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War

Interesting tidbits in places, but ridiculous overall. Crocker is an unabashed southern apologist, but his arguments (which, to be honest, I've never encountered before) make little sense to me. For one, he thinks secession perfectly legal in the respect that the Declaration of Independence was legal. However, the Declaration was about a people having no legal voice in the government. In the South's case they were partners in a contract (the Constitution) voted in the 1860 election, didn't like the outcome, so they decided to take their ball and go home. Absurd. Crocker goes on to cover 16 of the most important battles and is sure to let you know that every time the South won it was due to the utter genius of Lee and his subordinates, and every time they lost it was because the North had overwhelming force. I guess the military maxim "Win with ability, not with numbers" doesn't hold much credence with him.There are mini-biographies of many of the important generals of both sides, and there are some great anecdotes which were new to me. Also, his treatment of Grant, in particular, is much more balanced here than where Grant appears in his review of the aforementioned 16 battles. Crocker has nothing good to say about Sherman and is very selective in his treatment of him. The most absurd aspects of the mini-bios is that Crocker goes out of his way to mention that many of those covered (Lee, Jackson, AP Hill) hated slavery and were more anti-slavery than their opponents. He also makes mention that many of the northern generals were fiercely anti-abolitionist (Sherman, Thomas). So, you see, the Southerners really did have the moral high ground. The fact that they began a war that would kill 600,000 Americans so that they could protect their "peculiar institution" is just a detail. Crocker never once takes up the slavery issue directly, nor will he admit that had slavery not existed there would not have been a "states rights" argument for the South to secede.Crocker likes to whitewash history. He did so in his book about the Catholic Church (Triumph) as well. I’m a committed, apologetic Catholic, so I’m sympathetic. But his glossing over unpleasentries in that book were nothing compared to this one. Some random thoughts…The Politically Incorrect guides always have inset with “Books (insert Politically Correct Type Here) You Are Not Supposed to Read.” Crocker mentions Shelby Foote’s massive narrative as a set of books Northerners don’t want you to read. Why I don’t know. I’ve read it and Foote, while a Southerner, is generally fair.Also, Crocker seems to believe that England really did want to aid the South out of principle, but then Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and England didn’t want to be involved in a war defending slavery. The idea that England wanted to aid the South to weaken the increasingly powerful United States doesn’t seem to have crossed his mind.All of that said, the book was enjoyable, even if you’re already familiar with the Civil War. There are interesting facts given, and it was a view I’ve never really studied. If you’re a buff, check it out.