I bought this book after reading an interview that Professor Williams gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. I was not disappointed in the book itself -- it is an interesting premise generally. It is also a part of Southern history that has received short shrift in academia over the years.

The main complaint I have regarding the book is that the same points are made ad nauseum throughout the book -- the poor whites were the ones fighting the war, the rich whites did not grow foodstuffs on their plantations which led to food shortages and strong resentment, and the 20-slave law exacerbated both of these issues.

This book is intriguing on many levels, but it could be organized thematically a bit better.

Another nail in the coffin of the Lost Cause, this books shows how little united the Confederacy actually was. Did you know, for example, that half a million Southerners fought for the Union? How about that half of Lee's army had deserted *before* Gettysburg?

Williams is particularly good at throwing light on why the South was so divided. He traces it all, basically, to class war - "a rich man's war and a poor man's fight." He shows how planters led the South into secession (and kept the government in their hands to the very end), did their best to stay out of the fight (are you familiar with the 20-slave exemption?), used their muscle to get the poor into the fight (the draft and impressment), and helped starve the new nation (by planting cash crops instead of food and by scamming to government).

The only reason I'm not giving this 5 stars is that a lot of the evidence is very incidental - an editorial here, an incident there, a letter over there. I, personally, would have liked to have seen more numbers. For example, of the 300,000 white Southerners who fought for the Union, how many were from border states, how many from the mountains? I do realize that those numbers might be a little hard to come by. I also feel that the sheer number of incidents the author marshalls are probably more than enough. The cumulative effect really is quite overwhelming.

Another thing the incidental approach was good for (though I'm not sure this was the author's intent) was getting across how awful the war could be for the Unionists (actually, for all concerned). There was very little chivalry involved in the massacres, beating of women, forced marches of Indians, shooting of black prisoners, etc. Seems almost like a tune-up for the reign of terror that would be Reconstruction (check out The Bloody Shirt: Terror After Appomattox for that).

Generations of students have been taught that the South lost the Civil War because of the North's superior industry and population. This book suggests another reason: Southerners were largely responsible for defeating the Confederacy.

Prof. David Williams lays out REVISIONIST-upsetting arguments. Because of this book the history of the Civil War will never be the same again.