You have confused the title of the book with the stated theme of the article written by the same authors. Surely they know their own work better than you (lol). Feel free to continue your squawking with them about what their stated theme was. However, this is what they said about it.
"We use traditional economic analysis, some of it of the Austrian and Public Choice variety, to address these principal questions and our conclusions generally run counter to the interpretations of historians. In contrast to historians who emphasize the land war and military strategy, we show that the most important battle took place at sea. One side, the blockade runners, did not wear uniforms or fire weapons at their opponents. The other side, the blockading fleet, was composed of sailors who had weapons and guns but they rarely fired their cannons in hopes of damaging their opponents. Their pay was based on the valued of captured ships. Historians often have argued that the Confederacy lost because it was overly reluctant to use government power and economic controls, but we show the exact opposite. Big Confederate government brought the Confederacy to its knees. " -Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund (authors of The Economics of the Civil War )
Not really. If anything you are guilty of confusion over its stated theme. The sentence you purport to contain its theme appears halfway down the page in the middle of the text - not exactly a common place for stating the purpose of an article. In reality, the purpose is explicitly stated in the opening paragraph: "The focus of this book is thus on the economic rationality of seemingly senseless events of the Civil War – a critical period in American history."
That you missed this seems to indicate a critical lapse in reading comprehension on your part. Surely you remember that lesson they normally teach in, oh, sometime around 2nd grade where they give you a paragraph and ask you to underline the topic sentence. What's even more pitiful on your part is that, in the case of this particular article, the topic was restated a second time in case somebody with obviously slower comprehension abilities such as yourself missed it the first time. From paragraph 2:
"The premise of the book is that historians have a comparative advantage in describing such events, but economists have the tools to help explain these events."
Did you see it that time, mac? The book is not specifically about the government of the confederacy as you claim. It is about the events of the war in general AS VIEWED THROUGH THE TOOLS OF ECONOMICS.