| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 106.3

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 187 words from this article are provided below; about 504 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, 106.3 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Canada and the United States

Judith Ann Giesberg. Civil War Sisterhood: The U.S. Sanitary Commission and Women's Politics in Transition. Boston: Northeastern University Press. 2000. Pp. xiv, 239. $40.00.

Judith Ann Giesberg's book is a welcome addition to the growing literature on women's participation in the Civil War. Giesberg argues that the generation of women who ran and staffed the major commission branches between 1861–1865 challenged antebellum separate spheres ideology and, in doing so, created an expanded role for women in the political culture with important consequences for Gilded Age and Progressive reform movements. "The Sanitary Commission served as an interim structure," Geisberg asserts, "the missing link . . . between the localized female activism of the first half of the century and the mass women's movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries" (p. 11). Hence, she correctly views the years from 1861–1865 as a critical "transitional" period for women's politics. Giesberg disagrees with George Fredrickson and Lori D. Ginsberg's interpretation of these same upper and middle-class women as rejecting prewar humanitarian, female-centered reform for an elitist and repressive brand of reformism. . . .

There are about 504 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.