Customer Reviews

Bitterly Divided: The South's Inner Civil War

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Another nail in the coffin of the Lost Cause, this books shows how little united the Confederacy actually was. Did you know, for example, that half a million Southerners fought for the Union? How about that half of Lee's army had deserted *before* Gettysburg?

Williams is particularly good at throwing light on why the South was so divided. He traces it all, basically, to class war - "a rich man's war and a poor man's fight." He shows how planters led the South into secession (and kept the government in their hands to the very end), did their best to stay out of the fight (are you familiar with the 20-slave exemption?), used their muscle to get the poor into the fight (the draft and impressment), and helped starve the new nation (by planting cash crops instead of food and by scamming the government).

The only reason I'm not giving this 5 stars is that a lot of the evidence is very incidental - an editorial here, an incident there, a letter over there. I, personally, would have liked to have seen more numbers. For example, of the 300,000 white Southerners who fought for the Union, how many were from border states, how many from the mountains? I do realize that those numbers might be a little hard to come by. I also feel that the sheer number of incidents the author marshalls are probably more than enough. The cumulative effect really is quite overwhelming.

Another thing the incidental approach was good for (though I'm not sure this was the author's intent) was getting across how awful the war could be for the Unionists (actually, for all concerned). There was very little chivalry involved in the massacres, beating of women, forced marches of Indians, shooting of black prisoners, etc. Seems almost like a tune-up for the reign of terror that would be Reconstruction (check out The Bloody Shirt: Terror After Appomattox for that).

Generations of students have been taught that the South lost the Civil War because of the North's superior industry and population. This book suggests another reason: Southerners were largely responsible for defeating the Confederacy.

Prof. David Williams lays out REVISIONIST-upsetting arguments. Because of this book the history of the Civil War will never be the same again.

This is a great book that addresses the myth about how "united" the South was during the American Civil War. In all reality, a second war was going on among Southerners.

During the rebellion, many Southern's moved up North and some joined the United States Military. Others joined when Union armies entered their hometowns in the South. Nearly 300,000 Southern's served in the Federal Army during the War of the Rebellion, and every Southern state, except South Carolina, raised Unionist regiments. Southern Unionists were mostly used as anti-guerrilla forces and as occupation troops in areas of the rebellion occupied by the Union.

Many rebel deserters joined antiwar organizations that had been active in the South since the war's beginning. Others joined draft dodgers and other anti-Confederates to form gangs to fight off any rebs trying to arrest them.

The truth is, most Southern's didn't even want to leave the Union. Most of the men in gray were only fighting to protect their homes and didn't care which side won or lost, just as long as their loved ones were safe. And when the war ended, plenty of people in the South were just as happy as most of the people in the North.

On a personal note, I've been fascinated by American Civil War history for most of my life, and despite being born and raised in the deep South, and currently still living there, I have always been more sympathetic towards the Union cause, so this book was very inspirational to me and made me not feel so alone. :) It's comforting knowing that plenty of other Southern's felt the way I feel during the War Between the States, and I admire their bravery. I am from Texas and there was talk of Texas seceding from the Union a few years ago, so I felt about 1/10th of what loyal Southern's must have felt back in 1861 and I personally hope the Union lives forever.

I studied under a professor at a Louisiana university who was doing similar research to Dr. Williams. The facts on the ground in Louisiana were similar to what Dr. Williams describes, but there was not apparently any real Unionist sentiment amongst the poor farmers, who were largely apolitical. Rather, there was the sentiment that their families would starve if drafted into the Confederate armies, because most of them were subsistence farmers who raised a small cash crop on the side, whose families depended upon their labor to have food on the table. As a result many Louisiana men of draft age lit out for the swamps and came out only to labor in their fields when their lookouts (generally small children) reported no press gangs in the area, and press gangs that entered the swamps did not exit (possibly an inspiration for the film "Southern Comfort"). Note that Union troops foraging through the countryside to take food from families for the use of the army often came under attack from the same gangs of men who were evading the Confederate press gangs, we found descriptions of such actions in a number of family letters on both sides, so it is not that they were ardent Unionists, it was more that they were ardent "keep food on my family's table"-ists.

In short, Dr. William's facts appear to be correct. But he may be overstating the depth of Unionist sympathy in the Deep South (as vs. the border states), where the facts seem to be more along the lines of Jefferson Davis (who had been appointed President by the secession convention -- not by popular vote -- based upon the fact that he'd adopted a new hat for the U.S. Army as his great accomplishment as Secretary of War) not understanding that families would starve if he drafted everybody he wanted to draft, and the people he wanted to draft clearly not wanting that to happen. At the end of the war, all the letters we looked at showed that Jefferson Davis was probably the most hated man in the South -- hated as an out-of-touch dictatorial tyrant by the small farmers, hated as an incompetent muddle-head who lost the war for them by the large planters. The later myth of the "Lost Cause" that turned Davis into a saint of said cause with counties named for him all over the South appears to have been invented out of whole cloth, because we had a hard time finding *anybody* in Louisiana who liked the man in 1865.

Civil War historiography has been done to death with tales of the "lost cause" of the so-called "War of Northern Aggression" like all things historical the truth is not nearly as simple as some would have you believe.

1. The votes for the ratification of disunion were by no means uniform or unanimous in many parts of the south.
2. Large areas of the southern countryside were outside of the control of Confederate authorities almost from the beginning of the war and stayed that way.
3. Despite their partial as loyal manservants bewitched by the idea of emancipation slaves (sorry servants) had no personal stake in or love for the institution of slavery.

The fact of the matter is that I know of only 6 other books that deal with the issue of southerners who remained loyal to the Union. There has not been a lot of work done on the subject. Hence while I incredibly interested in and sympathetic to the overall thesis of the work it seems like the author was pulling in every half remembered family story and unsubstantiated rumor that he could get his hands on. He is certainly enthusiastic about his subject matter but enthusiasm alone does not make up for a lack of material. Its a shame because if he had just tightened the book up a little it would have been much better.

Overall-Yet another one of those books that makes you wonder if the causality account of 600,000 that you see for the Civil War is a more conservative figure then the actual number.

Well, to start off this is my first delve into Civil War history since we never got to it in HS and college classes. It was very interesting to read how the South was basically at war with itself, along with the North, during the Civil War, and that it contributed to the final outcome of the war.

I think the author was so consumed with trying to prove his point that he used examples ad nauseum throughout. I have told several friends about the book and will probably loan it to them with the hint to read the first chapter, the last 10 pages, and then skim the rest of the book to get an overview. While not a long book, I wonder if it needed to be the length that it was or could have had several pages edited out.

From what I've read, this is the first book that takes a look at the South during the Civil War in this light, so if you are a Civil War history buff, it may be right up your alley.

I bought this book after reading an interview that Professor Williams gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. I was not disappointed in the book itself -- it is an interesting premise generally. It is also a part of Southern history that has received short shrift in academia over the years.

The main complaint I have regarding the book is that the same points are made ad nauseum throughout the book -- the poor whites were the ones fighting the war, the rich whites did not grow foodstuffs on their plantations which led to food shortages and strong resentment, and the 20-slave law exacerbated both of these issues.

This book is intriguing on many levels, but it could be organized thematically a bit better.

Excellent account of the Civil War from a different perspective. The South defeated itself during the war. Many great insights on how the South was very divided. It truly was a rich man's war and the lower class soldiers did not have much to gain. They were not slaveholders and they wondered why should they sacrifice themselves for soemthing where they wre not involved. Therefore they deserted and even joined the Union. The many stories and deep research are really eye opening. It sounds to me the South did nto have a good plan from the start. Coupled with the lack of producing food and the overabundance of cotton production only aded to the South's woes.

Definitely an insightful point of view that offers little in the order of biases. I can't see why some people see that this book is prejudiced against the south. It relies on facts and exploits the weak plan by the South.

As a Yankee, I read this fascinating book from cover to cover. I married a southern guy years ago who happened to inherit over 80 letters written by his South Carolina great-great grandfather who fought for the Confederacy and survived. The letters beginning in 1861 mention how excited the southerners are, but by the last letter in February, 1864, it's obvious how sad and disappointed he is. My husband's ancestor only owned three slaves and was not exempt from serving. He did not desert and fought reluctantly toward the very end. Sadly he died five years after the war ended, leaving behind a legacy of hatred and prejudice. Thankfully my husband's dad married a teacher from the north who refused to raise her sons with the prevailing southern attitudes that prevailed in the sixties. PS - We sold the original letters after my father in law died to a Yankee collector!

The writer was redundant to the extreme throughout the book. All too often pounding a tack with a sledgehammer. One would get the idea that a very, very small minority supported the Confederacy at best. It's a book that was long overdue. Too much of the old "solid south" myth has survived for too long. But it is so onesided one wonders how the Confederacy came into being at all! Worth reading but a better balanced account would have been desirable for this reader!