The South Vs. The South: How Anti-Confederate Southerners Shaped the Course of the Civil War
Product ID: 17055198
Desertcart purchases this item on your behalf and handles shipping, customs, and support to South Africa.
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 this question. 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 more joined 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 states stayed 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 army of 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 , Freehling writes with piercing insight and rhetorical verve. Concise and provocative, The South Vs. the South will forever change the way we view the Civil War. Review: Important, well-written little book - It was, after all, a civil war, but so often presented as states vs. states without showing how many southerners, both white and black, fought for the Union (about 450,000) and the huge difference it made. This book filled in gaps for me and was a pleasure to read. I recommend it for anyone interested in the Civil War, black history, race relations in the U.S. Review: Treat yourself - In a sea of information by a century and a half of lies. It’s good to finally learn some truth. You’ll read this book and leave more informed.
| Best Sellers Rank | #1,149,242 in Books ( See Top 100 in Books ) #667 in Military History (Books) #684 in U.S. Civil War Confederacy History #1,425 in United States History (Books) |
| Customer Reviews | 4.6 out of 5 stars 90 Reviews |
T**R
Important, well-written little book
It was, after all, a civil war, but so often presented as states vs. states without showing how many southerners, both white and black, fought for the Union (about 450,000) and the huge difference it made. This book filled in gaps for me and was a pleasure to read. I recommend it for anyone interested in the Civil War, black history, race relations in the U.S.
T**D
Treat yourself
In a sea of information by a century and a half of lies. It’s good to finally learn some truth. You’ll read this book and leave more informed.
N**T
A Quick Internal Explanation for Southern Failure in the American Civil War
n this short and easy-to-read book, Dr. Freehling continues his thesis about the malign effects of the division of the south explored in his Road To Disunion series into the Civil War itself, demonstrating that the division of the south was a critical element in its defeat. Though Dr. Freehling sometimes plays a little fast and loose in his estimates of which proportion of the south opposed the Confederacy (his best guess, including runaway slaves who fought with the Union and Union soldiers from the Middle and Upper South, is about 1/3 of the south, a pretty fair estimate), the book demonstrates that the division among white Southerners (particularly in the Border states and the mountainous country in West Virginia and Eastern Tennessee) and black Southerners (especially when Union armies approached) was crucial in leading to the decisive defeat of the Confederacy. May that benighted region never rise again.
S**S
Short and sweet.
a union military strategist's history-in-response to Du Bois' "black reconstruction"'s framing of the civil war as a general strike against the slave power and the confederacy. From "filibusterers," to "contraband," to "garrison," a by-the-numbers explanation of how a racist Union Army could evolve into an army of liberation by positioning Southerners of all races to fight the confederacy. Short and sweet.
N**D
south vs the south
This was certainly educational. It tells you what you will not learn in public school. We were always taught all southerners hated the north.
T**S
Lost Cause
Any book by Freehling is worth reading. This concentrats on the population disparity.
H**S
Needed for College Class
I needed this book for college...it arrived on time and saved me about 25% off the bookstore price. I was able to sell it back and get 1/3 of the price back again after the class was over. Thanks.
C**T
Strong argument; weak editing
Freehling makes a strong case that disunion in the South, which was not identical to the Confederacy, aided the Union effort in the Civil War. I am unsure if it is the Kindle edition (based on the paperback) or not, but numerous typographical errors mar the text. Many singular possessive nouns lack apostrophes, the plural marker for years is often capitalized or replaced with a 5 (such as 1850S or 18505 for 1850s), and "conquor" appeared for "conquer." These errors are distracting, particularly the missing apostrophes.
Trustpilot
2 days ago
1 month ago