In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Civil War History 49.3 (2003) 307-308



[Access article in PDF]
Enemies of the Country: New Perspectives on Unionists in the Civil War South. Edited by John C. Inscoe and Robert C. Kenzer. (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2001. Pp. 272. Cloth $45.00.)

A quick glance at the book review section of any historical journal will reveal that Unionism is receiving wide attention today. Scholars have become intrigued with the notion of loyalty in the midst of disloyalty and the varying degrees to which Southerners committed themselves to secession. One of the latest and finest studies of this subject is a collection of essays, appropriately entitled Enemies of the Country, which has been assembled by two of the leading authorities on Unionism, John Inscoe and Robert Kenzer.

Probably the most striking aspect of this book is the kaleidoscope of Unionist experiences the reader encounters. From the beginning, the editors proclaim the futility of trying to make generalizations about anti-Confederate people and their sympathies. Typically, Unionism is associated with the poor, slaveless class from the mountains and Pine Barrens of the South. Those elements and sections are represented here, but so is a much wider spectrum of Southern society and places. Unionists were white and black, native and foreign born, rich and poor, rural and urban, and were found among all trades and professions, political parties, and genders.

The editors have carefully and judiciously chosen the essays that make their point. While contributors John Inscoe, Gordon McKinney, Keith Bohannon, and Robert Tracy McKenzie explore the more traditional Appalachian hotbeds of Unionism, others such as Thomas Dyer, William Warren Rogers, and Carolyn Stefanco deal with the little known aspect of urban Unionism. Their essays all examine situations in which educated, wealthy Southern city folks (some of whom were northern transplants) tried with varying degrees of success to conceal their allegiance to the old flag and to maintain their loyalty to the old Union while surrounded by rebels. Stefanco's essay on Nelly Gordon, the northern-born wife of a Confederate officer from Savannah, is particularly fascinating, revealing the family and community pressures that were exerted against "Tories" either to conform or to leave. On the other hand, Jonathan M. Berkey's sketch of David Hunter Strother shows just how difficult it was for residents of the Valley of Virginia-as it was for Jimmy Stewart's character in the movie Shenandoah—to remain neutral when their towns and neighborhoods constantly changed hands. Sometimes, Unionists even found their economic well-being at odds with their principles. McKenzie points out that the desire to profit from their Confederate masters induced Unionist merchants in Knoxville to keep their mouths shut, no matter how much leaders such as Parson Brownlow tried to stir them into resistence. Finally, Anne Bailey and Kenneth Barnes remind us that Unionism could take a violent twist and that it spread beyond the boundaries of the Mississippi River to the furthest reaches of the Confederacy.

The editors concede that the sheer diversity of Southern Unionists and their experiences makes developing any firm definition of Unionism or a succinct portrait of a [End Page 307] typical Unionist an impossible task. Anti-Confederate sympathy fluctuated over time and place; it could be aggressive or passive; it sprang from a number of philosophical, personal, and local sources. The one characteristic that seems to be common among all Unionists is that they coped with their situation and withstood intimidation by bonding together, with either family or a larger community.

Inscoe and Kenzer have produced an outstanding, insightful study of one of the most complex subjects in Civil War history. They have demonstrated, beyond the work of previous writers, the amazing and often contradictory nature of Southern Unionism, overturning old interpretations and expanding what we thought we knew about the subject. In the process, they have proven that on the subject of Unionism or attempts to synthesize the experience of Unionists, the historian should be advised: there are no clear and simple answers.

 



W. Todd Groce
Georgia Historical Society

...

pdf

Share