Death before Dishonor

This was an excellent read with well stated (mostly unbiased) information. I found many points of consideration and thoughtful subject matter I had not before looked it. The stated sources are accessible to further confirm the authors findings. I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys a well rounded history.

This book is an atrocity. It is written by a non-historian who knows nothing about history. It is badly written, poorly reasoned, and a complete waste of time. There could not possibly be a worse book written about the Civil War. Don't waste your time or money on this one.

I received this book as a gift and was very impressed with the factual presentation. All of the material can be verified in other presentations and by historical documents. Our society seems to want to rewrite the history of our nation and remove any history which may make anyone uncomfortable. Altogether this is a good read and it presents a part of our history as it actually happened. And yes, it was a dark spots in our history, but it is our history.

Yet another publication promoting the biggest pack of abject LIES & DISTORTIONS about one of the darkest chapter's in the history of the United States... and I didn't even have to read the book to make this confident declaration!Of course, it would be easy (and justifiable) to call into question someone's critique of an alleged historical treatise without having first done the proper honor of reading the material for him/herself, except that in this instance the promotional summary regarding this book's contents & allegations speaks volumes in and of itself.Right away, the author shows his disconnect from the facts of American Civil War history by offering us the following old, rehashed, tired, worn-out, and THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED claims desperately employed by the "Lost Cause"/"War Between the States" apologists:(1) Re: "For example The idea that the war was about slavery is wrong, the US congress declaration of 1861 made that crystal clear." -- This claim is true only when viewing it from the perspective of the so-called "Northern" states. It should be common knowledge by now that President Lincoln had rallied the US congress to back him up not over the issue of chattel slavery but around his every intent of 'preserving the Union' regardless of slavery; whereas the "Confederate South" mounted an insurrection (which the US Constitution granted the Federal Government full authority to "suppress") intent on fracturing the "United" States, all the while emphasizing incessantly, unrelentingly, and unapologetically that the major (if not only) reason they were breaking with the Union was over the issue of what they referred to as "slave property."(2) Re: "Over 3000 slave owners were black has been ignored..." -- The fact that Blacks, for any variety of reasons, had the occasion to be slaveholders themselves has NEVER been side-stepped! This is yet another Pro-Rebel/Anti-Yankee lie that has been allowed to perpetuate unencumbered by rabid defenders of the "Southern Cause" who persistently hold it up like a soiled diaper, and by the hushed reservations of others who miss every opportunity to point out that any "slaves" that were ever owned by Blacks were likewise "Black" and ONLY "Black," thus reaffirming that chattel slavery in the US was not only a "generational" system but was also an institution that was established and sustained upon an inflexible "race-based" foundation.(3) Re: "[T]he contribution of around 100,000 black troops who fought for the south [has been ignored]." -- How does one "ignore" something that never existed in the first place? It would be just as valid an argument to declare that Scandinavians ignored the six million plus kangaroos that frolicked about the whole of Northern Europe prior to contact with the Roman Empire. The fact that the numbers of "Black Confederate Troops" keep flip-flopping all over the place (3,000? 20,000? 50,000? 100,000? square-root of negative-zero times infinity-cubed thousand?) ought to be evidence enough that the entire idea was mostly fabricated by post-Confederacy revisionists to try to save face. But the fact that there has NEVER been any "solid" and "irrefutable" documented and/or documentable evidence found that could easily substantiate this desperate (and relatively recent) red herring has done nothing but hurt this "Lost Cause" myth, not to mention the fact that the Secessionist States left in their wake quite the long & deep "paper trail" detailing their determined and absolute REJECTION of any calls or considerations to arm Blacks (free or enslaved) and recruit them as trained combatants. Whenever/Wherever it's said that Blacks "served" in the CSA military, it did not necessarily carry the same meaning then & there as we ascribe to it in our modern century.(4) Re: "Lincon's [sic] Proclamation did not free any slaves in the north." -- This is true. Technically, it didn't free any slaves in the "South" either, for when he signed it into effect he was issuing the proclamation against what had by that time declared itself a rebellious "foreign nation"-- the "Confederate States" --whose "guaranteed rights" under the "UNITED STATES" Constitution (including their "right" to hold another human being in perpetual and generational bondage) were no longer in effect and thus considered invalid and null and void in their case. But one only needs read the actual E.P. to see that President Lincoln's primary issue of concern was the preservation of Union, as he issued his Proclamation only against those states [quote] "in rebellion against the United States" [unquote], which exempted the "Northern" states by default but also the "Southern" or otherwise "Slave-Holding" states and territories which had not rebelled.(5) Re: "Lincoln far from being an abolitionist constantly opposed any for[m] of integration. [Etc., etc., etc.]" -- This is not news to "real" historians and sincere students of American History. Everyone who delves into the mind & politics of Abraham Lincoln knows that Mr. President was an avowed racist who practically wore it as a lapel pin... just as the MAJORITY of European-Americans were likewise, even amongst many of those who were considered "sympathetic whites." So even if this insight into President Lincoln is not quite the common knowledge as it should be, upon its discovery it would be in no wise surprising, with perhaps the most shocking revelation being his proposed idea of recolonizing African-Americans back to the African continent or to South America.(6) Re: "Lincoln also held sham elections and arrested the entire state legislator [sic] of Maryland and threw them in jail to prevent a vote on secession." -- FLAT...OUT...WRONG! The truth: In April1861 a riot mob of Pro-South thugs launched an unprovoked attack against a regiment of the 6th Massachusetts Volunteers who were passing through Baltimore en route to D.C., ending in both military and civilian casualties, resulting in then-Governor Thom Hicks to call for a special General Assembly to consider the question of secession... and when a bill and resolution came up for a vote that summer they failed because the legislators-- INCLUDING many of the "PRO-SOUTH" delegates & senators --did not believe they had the authority to secede, nor did they really want to, hoping to keep Maryland "neutral" because economically they relied equally heavily on both North and South. It wasn't until late in August of that year, when the G.A. had adjourned, that Federal troops and Baltimore police arrived with orders to arrest "Pro-Confederate" members of the G.A., which had come only AFTER the rallying for Maryland secession had gone down in legislative defeat once already and would likely have done so again when the session was due to reconvene in mid-September.(7) Re: "Lastly the Confederate flag that is the subject of so much hate was never a flag representing the Confederate States of America. It was a battle flag used solely on the battlefield." -- Again, deliberate misrepresentation in an attempt to play the deniability game. While it is indeed true that the "Southern Cross" banner had as its origin the "battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia," it would later find itself INCORPORATED into the 2nd and 3rd redesigns of the *OFFICIAL* flag of the National Confederacy when the new design(s) was/were intended to permanently retire the 1st Official design-- the "Stars and Bars" --as a means of eliminating any confusion between it and the "Stars and Stripes." And lest we forget... late in the following century, during waning days of the "Jim Crow" era, is when several "Dixie" states resorted to re-flying the "Southern Cross" banners in an "official" capacity as a visible sign of protest against the passing & enforcement of "Civil Rights" legislation: so by that time these "Dixie" states recognized the Confederate "Southern Cross" as symbolic of a "pseudo-National" identity (or as many today will describe it, as a symbol of "Southern Heritage/Pride") -- so even in this "unofficial" capacity it is and always has been associated and identified with and representative of the "Confederate States of America."Mr. Challis makes even more of the "Lost Cause" deception that he's bought into available for scrutiny with the Amazon's preview ("Look Inside") feature where he shares the opening few pages of his compilation, including, most disturbingly, his propogation of one of the biggest Confederate whitewashes & cover-ups of all time, namely, that only a 'small minority' of the Confederate population owned slaves, when in fact the average number of slave-holding families in the rebellious Southern states ran anywhere from 20% (Arkansas) upwards of 49% (Mississippi).Being that Mr. Challis is relatively new to America, it is genuinely hoped that he is likewise just as new to American history and is merely naive to the deceptive tactics, distortions of logic, and selective "evidences" most commonly employed by those who have been described as "Neo-Confederates." If his interest in this touchy chapter of our history is genuine and sincere, I'd encourage him to consider other more investigative and deeper researched publications to confront all of the In-Defense-of-the-Confederacy propaganda that's been finding itself being floated about lately -- especially when it turns out that the "True" stories really are so much more exciting & intriguing than the "Make-Believe" fantasies.

Stephen presents factual history which is well researched and concise but compelling read. It highlights the worrying trend to denial and corruption of truth.