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. ( )

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. ( )

In the various discussions/writings about the Civil War, several reasons have been presented as to why the South lost, but in this book, noted historian William Freehling offers readers an additional cause for the defeat of the Confederacy. Usually historians cite the overwhelming forces and industrial development of the North as the major contributing factors, but in this book, we are shown that the framework of the Confederacy itself, may have been to blame.

The Confederacy was composed of three different sections - the Cotton states of the deep south, the middle South, and the Border States. The most vital section was the border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland) and due to their failure to secede and join the struggle, the Confederacy was hampered by a lack of manpower and transportation ports (St. Louis, Louisville, Baltimore). Divided loyalties had far more white soldiers from these states joining the Union Army as well as the industrial contributions made.

The Black population of the South also was a major factor- not simply because of the issue of slavery - but because of the volume of manpower that the North was able to utilize after Emancipation. The South lost its forced labor for creating fortifications while at the same time the North gained valuable manpower to supplement the troops.

Victory, however, was secured by the 13th Amendment. The Blacks (who had wisely assisted their struggle by doing anything to help the Union as well as fighting against their former masters) had proven themselves not to be insurrectionists, barbarians, but patriots for the Union cause. By supporting the Union in all its endeavors, the Blacks gained the white support in the vote for the 13th Amendment which finally broke the South.

In the end, it was the South's lack of recruiting the support of the black population which finally ended the South's hope of defeating the vast numbers of the North.

This book was informative, but a bit academic and very dry reading. While it gave the reader new insight into the actual reasonings for the South's defeat, it's not a book I would recommend unless someone was looking for very detailed information concerning the Civil War. ( )