The Reintegration of American History: Slavery and the Civil War (review)

book reviews259 which "espoused independence for the new nation," and ridiculed the "false promises of abolitionists." Woodcraft, of course, appeared in the same year as Uncle Tom's Cabin, and Watson places Simms with Stowe, rather than Hawthorne and Melville, because of Woodcraft's heavy political implications. The lost war found Simms still defending the South, arguing that the region was not "required to repudiate its past" and that it must avoid "fawning submission to Northern influence." Some instances found Simms approving of the extralegal law enforcement of the many "Regulator" groups that sprang up during Reconstruction. Watson's case is clear and well supported. The writing is crisp and to the point, and the documentation is both extensive and unobtrusive. Plus, Watson seems objective about Simms's place as fiction writer. Although devoted to one specific point, this book is full enough to serve well as an introduction to Simms. And indirectly, I think it says much about the South's struggle to be its own place and to be part of a nation at once. William Koon Clemson University The Reintegration ofAmerican History: Slavery and the Civil War. By William W. Freehling. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Pp. x, 321. $14.95.) In these sometimes verbose but always thought-provoking essays, William W. Freehling discusses numerous political and social aspects of slavery from the era of the Founding Fathers to the end of the Civil War. Topics considered include the antislavery attitudes of the Fathers; the pervasive paternalism of Southern white males over both their families and their slaves; essays comparing the racial thought ofJames Thomwell, George Fitzhugh, and John C. Calhoun; the causes ofthe Civil War; and an explanation for the Confederate defeat. Eight of the essays have already appeared in print and the remaining three were presented as papers. But as Freehling explains, although the essays range over the thirty-year period of his professional career, the earlier ones have been reedited and their theses revised where necessary. One inconvenience the reader may encounter is repetition. Although it is not a major distraction, Freehling details the decline of slavery in the border South in several of the essays, using almost the same detail and description in each. This is also true with his conclusions about Lincoln's election. Regarding Lincoln's election, Freehling, unlike many previous historians, maintains that it did threaten slavery. Through use of federal patronage and with the support of antislavery Republicans in the upper South, Lincoln and Northern Republicans would have encouraged post-nati emancipation, the freeing of slaves upon reaching a certain age, usually twenty-eight. This method had been used in many of the Northern states following the Revolution and was acceptable because it allowed slaveholders to benefit to some extent from their slaves' 2Ö0CIVIL WAR HISTORY labor and to sell them further south before their freedom date arrived, thus enabling Northern whites to rid their states of the black population. Freehling maintains that people in the border South would have found post-nati laws acceptable because slavery was weakening there and they feared living in a biracial society. The idea is interesting, but it presumes that the Republican party would have remained in power long enough to accomplish the goal. Also, it might have been more difficult to achieve than Freehling implies, given border state opposition to Lincoln's gradual, compensated emancipation scheme in 1 862. At the same time, he was pushing the idea of colonization. Perhaps Freehling's most thoughtful observations come in his chapter explaining the Confederate defeat. A chief factor, according to him, was the loss of manpower—the 600,000 slaves who fled the plantations of the lower South. Slave flight proved Southern white notions about paternalism to be false. More importantly, the drain ofblack manpower made it more difficult for the Confederacy to raise food, ship supplies, and build fortifications. While both sides suffered losses through military desertions and draft resistance, there was no such mass exodus in the North. And, Freehling also points out, nearly 500,000 black and white Southerners served in the Union military, and this number was probably more than half the size of the entire Confederate...