The South vs. the South : how anti-Confederate southerners shaped the course of the Civil War /

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Author / Creator:Freehling, William W., 1935-
Imprint:Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, ©2001.
Description:1 online resource (xv, 238 pages) : illustrations, maps
Language:English
Subject:
Format: E-Resource Book
URL for this record:http://pi.lib.uchicago.edu/1001/cat/bib/11137298
Hidden Bibliographic Details
ISBN:9780198029908
019802990X
9780195156294
0195156293
9780195127164
0195127161
9780199832071
0199832072
0195130278
9780195130270
Digital file characteristics:text file
Notes:Includes bibliographical references (pages 207-230) and index.
Restrictions unspecified
Electronic reproduction. [S.l.] : HathiTrust Digital Library, 2010.
Master and use copy. Digital master created according to Benchmark for Faithful Digital Reproductions of Monographs and Serials, Version 1. Digital Library Federation, December 2002. http://purl.oclc.org/DLF/benchrepro0212
digitized 2010 HathiTrust Digital Library committed to preserve
Print version record.
Summary:Annotation Why did the Confederacy lose the Civil War? Most historians point to the larger number of Union troops, for example, or the North's greater industrial might. Now, in The South Vs. the South, one of America's leading authorities on the Civil War era offers an entirely new answer to thisquestion. William Freehling argues that anti-Confederate Southerners--specifically, border state whites and southern blacks--helped cost the Confederacy the war. White men in such border states as Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland, Freehling points out, were divided in their loyalties--but far morejoined the Union army (or simply stayed home) than marched off in Confederate gray. If they had enlisted as rebel troops in the same proportion as white men did farther south, their numbers would have offset all the Confederate casualties during four years of war. In addition, when those statesstayed loyal, the vast majority of the South's urban population and industrial capacity remained in Union hands. And many forget, Freehling writes, that the slaves' own decisions led to a series of white decisions (culminating in the Emancipation Proclamation) that turned federal forces into an armyof liberation, depriving the South of labor and adding essential troops to the blue ranks. Whether revising our conception of slavery or of Abraham Lincoln, or establishing the antecedents of Martin Luther King, or analyzing Union military strategy, or uncovering new meanings in what is arguably America's greatest piece of sculpture, Augustus St.-Gaudens' Shaw Memorial, Freehlingwrites with piercing insight and rhetorical verve. Concise and provocative, The South Vs. the South will forever change the way we view the Civil War.
Other form:Print version: Freehling, William W., 1935- South vs. the South. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, ©2001 0195127161 0195130278
Review by Booklist Review

The author of an award-winning study titled Secessionists at Bay 1776^-1854 (1990), the first volume of his Road to Disunion, incisively argues how lethal opposition by Southerners was to the Confederate cause. Those Southern dissenters were unionists, on whom Lincoln initially banked to quench the fire-eaters who engineered secession in 1860^-61. However impotent they were in restoring their states to the Union, the Southern anti-Confederates hampered the secessionist war effort in many ways. Freehling points out those ways and forcefully stresses that Lincoln's political imperative--denounced by abolitionists then and viewed critically by historians since--was to temporize on proclaiming emancipation. Lincoln's delaying tactics placated whites in crucial border states, especially Kentucky, even as blacks who escaped slavery voted for freedom with their feet. Skillfully weaving them into the military aspects of his lively narrative, Freehling uses statistics concerning Southern whites and blacks in Union blue to demonstrate the crucial enervation of Confederate military strength they indicate. A masterful account of the South's internal "house divided." Gilbert Taylor

From Booklist, Copyright (c) American Library Association. Used with permission.
Review by Publisher's Weekly Review

Historians have offered many different explanations for the North's triumph over the South during the Civil War. In this work, the University of Kentucky's Freehling (The Road to Disunion) dissects the role played by a failure of border states (Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky) to unify with the seceding states. As these border states developed an industrial economy (to replace their extinct tobacco-based economy), they became more similar culturally and politically to the North, he argues. And like most Northern whites, whites living in the border states were not as strongly against slavery as they were for preserving their own "lily-white utopia." Lincoln knew that in order to win the war, according to Freehling, he would have to appeal to the border states' desire to remain with the Union, and in order not to alienate them he had to maintain his ambiguous stance on slavery and emancipation. Moreover, Freehling claims, historians have failed to appreciate fully the corrosive effect runaway slaves had on the Confederacy's ability to promote its proslavery position among its border neighbors. Though the argument that runaway slaves and border-state whites were critical to the outcome of the war is not quite as new as Freehling makes it out to be, his discussion of these two groups together in one volume is a valuable contribution to Civil War literature. B&w illus. and maps. (Mar.) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved

(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Review by Library Journal Review

The most recent work by Freehling (history and Otis A. Singletary Chair in Humanities, Univ. of Kentucky) examines causes and outcomes of the Civil War. His Prelude to Civil War analyzed the nullification crisis, while The Road to Disunion, Vol. 1: Secessionists at Bay, 1776-1854 examined the diversity of the South. Here, Freehling postulates that anti-Confederate Southerners, primarily border-state whites and Southern blacks, influenced military outcome by contributing thousands of troops to the Union cause, bolstered by Lincoln's exemplary and cunning statecraft, the Union's anaconda strategy, and the failure of Northern Democrats and foreigners to support the disunionists. This had a profound impact on the war, for the Confederacy needed both manpower and production capacity to realize its aims. Thoroughly and exquisitely researched, Freehling's analysis is provocative and novel. Maps of germane battles and places illustrate the text. Recommended for academic libraries. Kathleen M. Conley, Illinois State Univ., Normal (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

(c) Copyright Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
Review by Booklist Review


Review by Publisher's Weekly Review


Review by Library Journal Review