By: Ingrid Leverett

Ingrid Leverett — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:41:37 +0000

I agree with your comments, Vikki. The subtitle of the book revives the bogeymen that motivated my father to become a scholar and historian in the first place: superstition, rumor, myth, half-truth, wishful thinking and sensationalism. I simply do not understand how the subtitle was permitted to go into print.

I, too, hope we can get Dad’s book re-published by University Press of Mississippi. I know that house would be his first choice.

–Ingrid

By: renegadesouth

renegadesouth — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:41:20 +0000

Ingrid, what I find reprehensible about the STATE OF JONES is that the authors subtitled it “The Small Southern County that Seceded from the Confederacy,” when what they argue in the book is NOT a story of secession-within-secession, but that of an insurrection against the Confederacy. If they don’t know the difference they certainly should, especially given their claims of having written a scholarly book.

They have since tried to paper over their marketing effort to have it both ways–that is, suggest to readers that Jones County seceded even though no evidence supports their subtitle–by arguing that Jones County EFFECTIVELY seceded from the Confederacy simply by fighting against it. Well, they can’t have it both ways. Not only is there no evidence for the old secession myth, but as the authors well know, both Newt Knight and Jasper Collins denied during their lifetimes that any such act ever took place.

I do hope that the University of Mississippi Press brings your father’s book back into print.

Vikki

Comments on: Ingrid Leverett responds to State of Jones, by Sally Jenkins and John Stauffer

By: Ingrid Leverett

By: renegadesouth