David Williams (6) (1959–)

An excellent and necessary book which details resistance in the south against the secessionist movement and then the confederacy itself. This is history that many in the south would like you to never hear and there are monuments everywhere down here to convince us that secessionism was a nationalist movement that had everyone on board. This is simply not true.

There isn't much new here so nobody need be shocked by Williams conclusions. Yes the confederate armies had serious desertion show more problems practically from the start, yes nearly 1 out of 3 southerners who fought in the war fought for the north. Yes there was severe social unrest within the south; we need only look at the bread riots in Richmond, the capital of the confederacy, for a prominent example of this.

Williams puts a good amount of focus on the issue of class within the confederacy. Southern planters who had the most to gain and were most vocal in starting the war were exempt from the draft if they owned 20 or more slaves. Also, the planter class largely refused to plant edibles over cash-crops even though the confederacy was starving. This is why we see the famous saying "rich man's war, poor man's fight".

This book is full of fascinating stories and fresh analysis. Sometimes it feels as if Williams may be blowing some of the problems out of proportion, but I don't think it hurts his overall conclusions at all.

Warning: this book is not for the "south will rise again" modern day confederate patriot crowd. show less

Were African Americans "happy" to be enslaved in America? You might think so, if you believe the some on the right wing, insisting that slavery was “good” for people of color.

The facts, however, are somewhat different.

In David Williams’ new books, documentation of the lengths that enslaved people went to obtain freedom for themselves and without the benevolent assistance of white Americans puts the lie to any myth of the “happy” slave.

Williams, a professor of history at Valdosta show more State University, claims that President Lincoln’s decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation was in fact prompted by the large numbers of enslaved people fleeing as soon as they could once the war began. With their status unclear—they wished to be considered as free people, and even to serve in the Union army, but the law still considered them the property of their former owners—Lincoln needed to clear up their status.

But the myth of the “Great Emancipator” quickly took precedence in our national narrative. Williams has gone a long way toward remedying this situation by returning to the once well-known term “self-emancipation,” which was the way by which most enslaved people gain their freedom.

The real value in this book—in addition to Williams’ top-notch scholarship, amply cited—is in restoring the agency to those people who refused to adopt the servile attitude that the institution of slavery intended to force upon them.

These people, the ancestors of many of today’s African American citizens, were not at all “happy” with their condition, and took steps on their own to end their enslavement. That’s valuable information, which makes this a necessary addition to the scholarship of American slavery.

Reviewed at Lit/Rant: www.litrant.tumblr.com show less

It is one of those common truisms of US history that the Civil War was fought over slavery and that Abraham Lincoln is to be universally lauded for his abolitionist spirit that led to the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. It is, in fact, one of the defining moments in American history. However, according to author David Williams, this focus on the role Lincoln played in the war and emancipation is overstated and, worse, hides the crucial role that African Americans themselves played show more both towards the outcome of the war and the abolition of slavery. Without them, things could have gone very differently.

For the north and for Lincoln, the war was not about abolishing slavery but about preserving the union. Despite the fact that Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, he did not believe that it was in the interest of the nation or within the limits of his powers to end the institution. At the beginning of the war, in fact, slave owners on both sides of the conflict were assured that Washington had no intention of freeing the slaves. Northern troops were instructed that should any runaway slaves try to enter their camps, they were to be returned to their owner. But it soon became clear that this was impracticable, not least because of the huge numbers of slaves who saw the war as a fight for their freedom and sought asylum in Union camps. It also seemed unreasonable to many Northern officers to return slaves to the enemy who could then use them against the Union. Instead, these runaway slaves were labeled as contraband and were allowed to stay, in many cases, making themselves indispensible to the smooth operations of the camps.

Many blacks tried to enlist but the north at first refused to accept them. However, as the war continued into its second year and the north was faced with a series of defeats and a severe shortage of available white men, it became clear they no longer had any choice. The Union finally and reluctantly agreed to allow blacks to enlist. However, they were paid less than whites and were limited in the ranks they could achieve. Many black leaders began to demand that, if they were willing to fight and die for the Union, they should have the same rights as whites including the right to freedom. As the demand for abolition became louder and as it became more apparent that the war couldn’t be won without black troops, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation despite his own reluctance and opposition from most northerners. He convinced them to accept it by arguing that, if freed, blacks would have no reason to leave the south and many who had already migrated north would return there.

Williams also paints a very bleak picture of life for blacks after emancipation. Once the war was over, freedom turned out to be, to a great extent, an illusion for many. They had thought that they would be given the land that they had worked for so long. However, the land was sold to northern speculators and, in many cases, was eventually restored to the original owners. Blacks became, in most cases, sharecropper, a situation which almost inevitably led to debt servitude. With this and the new ‘Jim Crow’ laws which were enacted throughout the south, along with the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and lynchings, many African Americans found themselves no better off than they had been before the war.

Good history, like good science, doesn’t just parrot accepted views; it unapologetically challenges, tests, and, if the original history doesn’t stand up to vigorous scrutiny, it provides compelling evidence for its new perspective. Williams does this exceedingly well in I Freed Myself. He uses both primary and secondary sources to prove his thesis including contemporaneous documents and newspaper articles. But this is no dry dusty tome, putting the reader to sleep with its pompous, pedagogical erudition. His writing style is clear, concise, and cogent, but most of all, it is extremely interesting, compelling, and very readable. show less

This is a fascinating look at the South leading up to and during the Civil War, showing it to be a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. I was unaware of the deep divisions within the South and this book was an eye-opener about the class conflict and many guerrilla anti-war and deserter enclaves that existed and fought their own battles. Highly recommended.