Facts the Historians Leave Out: A Confederate Primer

This work is neither historical nor is it trying to be. It is a southern apologist's handbook and nothing more.
In the interest of full disclosure, the pdf that I read of this book stopped at page 17. Lets take a look at some of the logical gems contained therein.

On page five it begins an incredibly superficial survey of US history, namedropping only those founding fathers of southern birth, linking them to things such as the First Continental Congress, The Declaration, The resistance movement, etc.:
Payton Randolph, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and James Madison.
I'm not going to make this argument here, but some of these men are "complicated" and one can make points using both sides. This is why it helps to have plenty of context and evidentiary support. It's what makes a historian different from an apologist.

Transitioning to page six it mentions some of the "brilliant southern accomplishments" such as Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. Then, in error it mentions that Andrew Jackson "led our armies to victory in New Orleans" when everyone knows that the War of 1812 was already over. The author then defends the territorial acquisitions gained by James K. Polk's Mexican War. After that it mentions Chief Justice Marshall bringing "prestige" to the early court.

If I had to infer the author's conclusion of the first section it would be that Southern men founded the country, and their accomplishments were all wonderful.

Beginning on page 7, the author tries to refute the "War was about slavery" argument, and cherry picks a couple of Lincoln quotes to do so. By page 9 he asks if the southerners were fighting to preserve slavery. To answer his own question, he invokes Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Christianity. He throws some numbers out there to make the argument that the majority of soldiers weren't slave owners so "What were they fighting for?." Again, he assumes his conclusion.

Then he mentions instances of southern opposition to slavery, dropping some aforementioned names and adding a few more familiar ones.

For the record, I'm willing to grant that sometimes there is a matter of perspective between what is right or wrong, but we can gladly debate the ramifications of any of the actions and policies of these "Sons of the South" as the author so fondly describes. It is clear that the author is assuming the conclusion of his own argument. With this in mind, southern apologists aren't going to be convinced. But the subtitle of this book is called "Things Historians Leave Out.
If one wants to make the argument that the South wasn't fighting for slavery, then you have to come to terms with the Declarations of Immediate Causes issued by Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, Virginia, and Georgia.
Let's examine the Cornerstone Speech of Alexander H. Stephens.
Let's evaluate Bleeding Kansas, the Lecompton Constitution, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the South's reaction to Personal Liberty Laws from the perspective of the Popular Sovereignty argument. If one wants to attempt to discredit how historians have treated this subject, then go straight to the primary source documents issued by the states of the Confederacy and the men who led the secessionist movement.

Who is leaving arguments out?

Section four begins on page eleven with the question of who was importing the slaves and blamed it on northerners. Then he mentions that the Puritans had both black and Pequot slaves. Then he brings up slave traders in New York City.
Again, this is about how historians are bad about history. What about the secessionist movement in NYC that was directly linked to the gargantuan profits made from King Cotton? I also find it interesting that he suddenly has sympathy for the Pequot Indians when we can talk at length about how detrimental Thomas Jefferson's Indian Policies were and how Justice John Marshall's decision that indians weren't citizens but "domestic dependent nations" excluded them from Constitutional Protections (Cherokee Nation V Georgia). We can talk about Andrew Jackson's Trail of Tears and his actions against the Red Sticks in that same War of 1812. I thought these were infallible Sons of the South. Do believers of John Tilley really want to have these debates?

By page fifteen Tilley really commits his gravest error by arguing how brutal slavery WASN'T. "And, at times, unruly children have to be punished. It was so with the slaves. Most of them were childlike, good natured, well-behaved. But not all! There were those who were treacherous and dangerous and who could be controlled only by the use of force" (Tilley, p. 15).
He then talks about how many people reported slaves to be "well fed" and comfortable.
On page 17, mentioning the number of Christian slaves he asks "Do you think that they would have adopted the religion of masters who were brutal to them?"

I'm rather glad the pdf stopped when it did. Again, the premise of the book is that historians have left things out of the narrative which served to intentionally make the south "the Nation's step-child" (p. 6). The problem with this is that there has been a tremendous amount of scholarship about the Civil War since the author was alive. Even if one wants to take issue with the manner in which history is practiced, this book isn't a guidebook with which to make that argument. So much of this is special pleading.

This book is geared to members of the public who want to continue to defend the Confederate viewpoint. It takes the form of asking questions that might make sense to someone who isn't familiar with context, or who hasn't been exposed to any of the primary source material.

Other reviewers have commented that because this work is older and is therefore "closer to the war" that it is somehow more correct in its contentions. A better approach is to read what historians of different perspectives have written and then go to the archives of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis and see what THEY had to say. Then decide for yourself.

I would have liked to have read beyond page 17 to give a complete review, but these snippets alone provide evidence that the book so far has major logical flaws.