| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 107.1

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 256 words from this article are provided below; about 479 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, 107.1 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Canada and the United States

William W. Freehling. The South vs. the South: How Anti-Confederate Southerners Shaped the Course of the Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press. 2001. Pp. xv, 238. $25.00.

William W. Freehling, who has written extensively on the antebellum South and the sectional conflict over slavery, adds his name to the list of able historians like Carl N. Degler, Richard N. Current, and Stephen V. Ash who have studied southern internal divisions during the Civil War. Freehling focuses on anti-Confederate whites in the border slave states (the southern "white belt," as he refers to the Upper South) and blacks in the Lower South (the southern "black belt"). He writes that President Abraham Lincoln pursued a policy of "first go after whites" for the Union in the border and middle South and then secure the support of ex-slaves in the black belt. In 1861–1862, Lincoln, as other historians have also pointed out, employed a light-handed touch to save the border states of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. Although many whites from these states donned Confederate gray, the overwhelming number fought for the Union or remained at home during the war. Freehling demonstrates the tremendous losses in manpower, resources, industry, and transportation incurred by the Confederacy when it failed to win the border states. He ties these losses to the defeat of the South. Historians, Freehling writes, forget their observations about the early struggle over the border states when they sum up why the Confederacy failed to win its independence. . . .

There are about 479 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.