| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 104.4

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 199 words from this article are provided below; about 440 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the American Historical Association, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time. AHA members can go to the AHA individual membership section to locate their member numbers.
If you are not a member of the American Historical Association, you can:: • Join the AHA and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the American Historical Review.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the American Historical Review (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the American Historical Review.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 104.4 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Canada and the United States

Charles M. Hubbard. The Burden of Confederate Diplomacy. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. 1998. Pp. xvii, 253. $38.00.

The failure of Confederate diplomacy during the American Civil War has been the subject of debate for more than one hundred and thirty years. Charles M. Hubbard's excellent study offers succinct yet thorough insight into Southern diplomatic problems and questions at the center of that debate. 1

Too often, the debate has been fueled by students isolating and homing in on the pros and cons of specific aspects of Civil War diplomacy to the neglect of the total efforts of all the players and factors involved. For Hubbard, however, there is little ground for debate. 2

Confederate diplomacy, which sought both European recognition and intervention, was flawed from the beginning because it focused on the inaccurate assumption that cotton was king in Europe as it was in the southern states. Their singular faith in cotton did not allow members of the Confederacy to take into account the diverse economy and political stability in Great Britain. Their narrow view reflected a southern appreciation of the commodity rather than its value to Europeans. . . .

There are about 440 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.