H. W. Crocker, III

A swift read that is hard to follow at time - a common pitfall of any book that deals with the entire history of Europe (among other things) in 400+ pages. As a conservative Catholic who is not as well versed on Church history as I'd like to be, I found some of this book unsettling. Not that it challenged my core beliefs at all, but Crocker is quick to whitewash over many of the unsavory characters in Church history. While I get that the Renaissance popes were not the monsters that some make show more them out to be, simply writing off Popes leading armies in wars of conquest as a necessary evil in an ugly world seems a weak argument to me. Perhaps I'm too entrenched in the peaceful, stateless images of John Paul the Great and Benedict XIV.

But the book is entertaining, and does cover some of the more controversial stands of the Church and proves that opposition to things such as abortion is not something that came up in the 1960s. Also, the case that the Church is truly the apostolic Church Christ willed to carry out his mission on Earth is well made. show less

For readers who like their history romantically delusional and full of plucky, grown-up boys busy with the White Man's Burden:
"... the British Empire, for all its occasional missteps and outrages [sic], was a global, Shakespearean stage on which Britons could take part in a glorious adventure, playing Hotspur to headhunters and Henry V to Hottentots. If that sounds boyish, it is meant to, because the Empire was boyish; it trained boys to its tasks in schools of self-denial, cold dirty baths, show more bad food, long runs, stiff upper lips, the imperial languages of Greek and Latin, 'playing the game,' and embracing the ideal of service. It was an advanced form of commercial, military, and political outdoor recreation for Boy Scouts (themselves a creation of the British Empire). Young men, straight out of school, could find themselves in distant lands acting as lawgivers to primitive tribes and dangerous brigands; they were men of conservative sentiments, liberal ideals, and boyish pluck....

"Alas that day [when the British Empire is supplanted] is here, ushered in by United Nations bureaucrats, liberal internationalists, native kleptocrats, liberated Islamists, and Third World Communists and National Socialists, all of whom emerged as Europe's empires retreated. The retreat of the British Empire was not progress - either for Western Civilization or in many cases for the countries achieving independence. .... Many a Briton thought it his duty, in the words of the scholars Lewis H. Gann and Peter Duignan, 'to carry civilization, humanity, peace, good government, and Christianity to the ends of the earth.' That duty still exists for those who want it, and perhaps it would repay our study to see how Britain's imperialists actually did it." pp. 8-11

Here Crocker explains the natural revulsion of proper Englishmen to the "aboriginal Irish":
"As for the native Irish, they were regarded as the American settlers later regarded Indians - the farther away one was from them, the more sympathetic one might be to their plight; the closer one was, the more one took the view that pushing these poor, unproductive, and occasionally savage people out of the was was a simple act of advancing civilization." pg. 101

Alas, I read this for a book club. Or at least I read half of it. I never finished, because I spent too much time going to other sources for accurate accounts of events, thus learning more history but in a back-door way. show less

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 show more 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. show less

Although claiming to be a history of the Roman Catholic Church, this is an apologetical work from a convert from the Anglican church. No one has ever tried to write a history of the church from the start to present day. The conclusion of the author is that Christendom needs to be reestablished for western democracy be preserved. Crocker says that Jesus was nonpolitical, did not condemn slaver as ungodly, and accepted private property. Jesus didn't want to change the world but to change show more hearts, according to Crocker. Crocker says the Catholic church is the only institution to combat American liberalism and the future Brave New World predicted by Aldus Huxley. This is a strange book with no path to this new Christendom merely warnings unless Christendom be reestablished. show less