Excellent material. Poor presentation.Cole-James gang weren't heroes, don' be foolish. They were out for revenge (against?) and adventure. Not like they had any real opportunities after the end of the War. Conquered nations generally don't.I am surprised at the "professors" whose scope of knowledge about these disenfranchised people (and they were, read some real history) which rivals that of most 6th graders.
Grateful none of these educators were my college profs.
Or, no wonder American education is dismal.

Ive lived in Missouri most of my life and the James-Younger game are still seen as heroes to this day. There are still fairs that celebrate them. They are thought of as Robin Hood here. On another note every cave in missouri claims that Jesse James had that cave as his hideout. Personally I just think they were out for revenge and got carried away

To call the james gang something akin to somali pirates is like comparing say alexander the great was only a ancient version of bush jr. You clearly choose to see the civil war as something that was good, or that it was somehow the south's fault. Keep in mind the reality was that the North was the aggressor, the invaders who conquered, raped, and pillaged no diifferently then the barbarians did to rome. The North did this because the south did what they had the right to do under the idea of state's rights and leave the union peacefully. The south didnt say hey you northerners have to have slave laws the same as us. Its matter of history how poorly treated the south was after the war. How abused and preyed upon they where by blue belly scum who couldnt let go of the war any better then modern soldiers do and they where free to wander about in gangs with practically no one but men like the names brothers to protect thier own.Robin hood is a better comparison. Dont think his hands where magically clean. When you rob someone if they fight back they die its the way it works.

To accurately judge history, we must first take a step back and remember that our world is vastly different from that which we are studying. This biography is by no means a romantisized re-telling of the story of Jesse James. In anything there is bias, but not very much exists in this Biography. That said: Rules, ideals, and society are different in the times of post-Civil War. James believed whole-heartedly in the Confederacy. He fought for his beliefs like any person who is passionate about their beliefs would. He fought with all his heart. Tactics may change from person to person, but dedication is still there. To say that this biography supports murder and robbery is asinine. It was an interesting, accurate account of a life when times were different. Society helps mold us into the people we are and this is no different for James. History is written by the winners. How different would this biography of Jesse James be if the Confederacy had won? Would Jesse James be as infamous as he is without the Union's triumph?