William W. Freehling

This is a fantastic concept in an otherwise dull field, but unfortunately the author veers right into the tropes of civil war writing. Much of this book is mulling over the thoughts and feelings of Lincoln and the generals. The third of the book dedicated to "black anti-confederates" is especially disappointing. Freehling seeks a middle-ground between the Lincoln the Emancipator narrative and the Slaves Freed Themselves story. He calls this Cooperation, but still tells a strong-man history of Lincoln while reducing blacks and slaves to the role of doing what Lincoln hoped they'd do—reducing their agency. In fact, we don't get the names or narratives of any specific black southerns and the author constantly attempts to make "black people did X" points, reducing them to a monolith of predictable behavior. Instead we get accounts of what white people thought about black people. True, he details various battles with black regiments, and how they often made better soldiers than whites in spite of meager training, support, or respect for their lives. But he also qualifies that the only useful resistance slaves did was non-violently run away. Hell, he compares this Cooperation narrative—the necessarily union of blacks and whites to create change—to the civil rights movement. The analogy falls totally flat, unless you believe black people were predictably following the strategizing of Lyndon Johnson.… (mehr)

I was a bit disappointed in this book. I expected it to say more about actual white resistance to the Confederates in th south --the "republic of Jones," the "tories" of East Tennessee, William Holden's campaign for governor in North Carolina etc. Instead, it largely disregards those movements as atypical, saying most white southerners in the actual Confederacy did support the war until nearly the end. The points it does make are significant -- that the true border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and what became West Virginia) had very few slaves and little interest in fighting to keep them -- in Kentucky a large majority of adult white males did not fight for either side. Confederate invasions of Kentucky and Maryland failed to inspire the risings they expected, and though Missouri was more bitterly divided the key city f St. Louis was solidly Unionist and provided logistical support (notable Eads' turtle ironclads) for Grant's river campaign. The other main focus was on the black support for the Union, especially the escaped slaves who served as laborers and soldiers for the Union army. He also discusses the belated Confederate attempt to recruit black soldiers. One of his interesting points is that most slaves in the Deep South never saw a Union army or had the chance t to escape.… (mehr)