Williams, David Rich Man’s War: Class, Caste and Confederate Conflict in the Lower Chattahoochee Valley (University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia, 1998)
Will Holcomb History 2020 Book Review April 28, 2002
David Williams’ book, Rich Man’s War, sponsored by the Historic Chattahoochee Commission, focuses on the effects of the Civil War on the Lower Chattahoochee Valley. Williams weaves a general overview of the war together with the specific developments in the Lower Chattahoochee and a general statement placing the fault for loss of the war largely on the planter class. His primary thesis is that class conflict was the deciding factor in who won the war. This statement is laid out plainly in the preface where he says:
“Despite our discomfort with these realities of the class system, it was, in the end, class conflict that proved to be the crucial factor in deciding the contest between union and secession, The side that could most successfully, within its own socioeconomic confines, suppress or redirect class antagonism would emerge the victor.“1
The book focuses almost entirely on the socioeconomic effects of the war and very little on any military history. This is well in line though with the author’s purpose and also fitting given the area that he is writing about. The Lower Chattahoochee is deep in Georgia on the Alabama border. There was very little military activity there until literally at the war’s end with several battles being fought after Lee’s surrender.
The title for the book comes from the quote, ”[the Civil War is] a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.“ Williams begins supporting this statement by examining the makeup of society in the South. He outlines five main classes; the first is planters who make up about three percent of the population and hold the majority of the slaves and land. Next comes prosperous slaveholding farmers and wealthy merchants who are about ten percent of the population. Then there is the yeoman class which owns a small portion of land but few, if any, slaves and is focused more on subsistence farming than cotton for profit. At the bottom of the white social scale are ”poor whites.“ The poor whites are landless farm laborers, tenant farmers, and urban workers who made up about 25% of the population. The final class is blacks who make up about half of the general population in the Lower Chattahoochee and though there are a few freedmen, the vast majority are slaves2. The picture he paints is of wide economic disparity with the yeomen perched precariously on the brink of losing their land to the wealthy, while having almost no possibility for upward advancement.
At times the author seems to attribute a level of conscious action to the classes in creating a stratified society that overly dehumanizes the upper classes. One marked instance of this is his description of the development of racism. His statement is:
”Two centuries earlier there had been no distinctions in law or custom between white and black servants. In fact, the term slave was applied to whites as well as blacks. Like white servants, blacks typically gained freedom after serving a number of years. … The brand of racism all too common among later generations was absent in the seventeenth century. That began in the eighteenth century as the upper classes, fearing rebellion from below, took steps to divide poor whites and blacks both socially and economically.“3
He points to series of laws passed that barred interracial marriage, harsher legal treatment of blacks and eventual defining of them as slaves based on race. It is certainly arguable that there were more influences in the laws than simple racism. That the planters were merely looking to protect their workforce rather than a deliberate subversion of the lower classes is more plausible in my opinion.
Having laid out a picture of a disenfranchised lower class, Williams proceeds into the chapter ”I Don’t Want Any War,“ where he details how the planter power base controlled the political power structure and drove the entire South into a war that has very few benefits for other classes. The usual historical build up to the war proceeds: the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Sumner Affair, and the election of Lincoln. In particular he focuses on the importance of the activities of John Brown at Harper’s Ferry in stirring up fear and support among the lower classes. The dislike of the North seems to have been nearly universal, however the drive for secession was much lower, and the willingness to go to war even lower.
Regardless of who was responsible, war did happen. The economy of the Lower Chattahoochee adapted to support the new needs of the Confederacy. In particular Columbus, Georgia, was a large metropolitan area situated on a waterway fairly far away from the front lines. As the war progressed, Columbus significantly expanded its industrial base and began producing a variety of goods for the new army. The shift in industrialization provided a windfall for many and immigration to the area was fairly high for most of the war. Also, the new economic development helped to delay the incredible inflation that plagued the South as the Confederate currency depreciated when supplies ran short.
The book turns next to an examination of life in the Lower Chattahoochee with a sizeable portion of the young men off to war. Williams again paints a disparaging picture of the planter aristocracy. The practice of growing large amounts of cotton for eventual sale at the war’s end while many people were starving received an especially harsh treatment. It was argued that the high desertion rates seen as the war progressed were related in no small part to the fact that many men were getting regular letters from their wives describing their slow starvation. Also blamed for some of the suffering during the war were unscrupulous speculators and government agents who served to drive the prices of necessities even higher. Women apparently did a good job of taking on traditionally male roles and keeping the economy running, but the continued play of classes against each other undermined the efforts.
It is characteristic of Williams’ writing in general that he relies heavily on excerpts from actual writings of the period. The section dealing with the effects of war were particularly effective. Newspaper clippings served to give a good sense of the general consensus during the period and letters from the front line gave poignant examples of individual sentiments about the conflict. He did a good job of working quotations into narrative pieces. At the same time, he often did not give sufficient external context to his positions. It is certainly meaningful to hear a sentiment expressed in the actual words of a soldier or reporter during the war, but it is necessary to provide some statistical data to demonstrate that these positions were widespread. Certainly today many different positions could be found in the popular media, but that is far from making it a popular perception. It is not that Williams did not do the statistical work, there are a variety of tables in the appendix, but the information is not interpreted or incorporated into the text.
Having dealt with life on the home front, Williams moves to the life of soldiers on the front lines. Again a very large focus is on the effects of economic disparity. He discusses the twenty slave law that allowed many wealthy slave owners to avoid serving in the war. Of the wealthy that did serve many were able to get commissions as officers. He again supplies relevant pieces from the period with letters from both officers and enlisted men demonstrating their lack of respect for each other. This section is also supported with statistical data pointing out that near the war’s end half of the total army is absent either with or without leave.
Williams’ point throughout the book is that it was class conflict that caused the eventual downfall of the South instead of more traditional explanations such as the lack of a well- developed industrial base or having a lower population. It is an unconventional one, but he supports his thesis fairly well. The picture that he paints is of a society that works very much to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few people. In thinking about a society where half of the workers are charging no more than room and board for their labor it would certainly depress wages in any area that was in competition with those workers. Especially given the lack of diversity in the South’s economy. Though the plantation system may well have been a good one from a profit perspective, on the issues of economic parity, which are also important in a balanced assessment, it was nearly a complete failure.
Williams’ assessment of the planter class is at times too harsh. The only positive treatment they get is brief mentions of relief efforts early in the war, but those supposedly faded as supplies became scarcer. There are passages describing how the poor had to scrimp and substitute for common items while the planters were still enjoying lavish parties. He places the greed of the planters, both in refusing to grow edible crops and in forcing economic pressures on those that remained at home, as major contributors to the high desertion rates in the Confederate army. The issues of class division within the ranks and the exemption of large slaveholders also undercut the poorer classes’ will to serve in the military. In the end, I think that his argument can stand fairly well based on the extremely high desertion rates and that nothing could win the war for the South if they were without an army.