Ballots for Freedom: Antislavery Politics in the United States, 1837-1860 (review)

184CIVIL WAR HISTORY the renters' main concern was immediate profit. The author stresses the point that, although almost all hired hands set farm ownership as a goal, few succeeded in reaching it. For the vast majority of farm laborers, their mediocre and demanding jobs became a dead-end. This work contains a good index, useful charts and maps, and an excellent bibliography, which indicates that the author has probed a formidable array of primary sources. Especially impressive is Schob's use of a large number of farmers' diaries and accountbooks, newspapers, county histories, and agricultural periodicals, and his perceptive recognition of the limitations of those sources. Occasionally one runs across statements in the book that are practically meaningless or, at best, not very enlightening. For example, when discussing the hired hands' response to religion, Schob concludes that, "In the final analysis, some farm hands attended religious services while others did not" (p. 244). Also, the author sometimes makes assertions for which no evidence is cited and which cry out for further amplification and analysis. For instance , he declares that, "Local hands exercised a more independent political attitude and voted according to personal preference" (p. 240). Yet he cites no source for this generalization and drops the discussion of the subject. Yet, these are minor criticisms. This is a general topic that has been too long neglected, perhaps because it was so difficult to research and synthesize. Fortunately, it was developed by a fine scholar, who has made an important contribution to the field of agricultural history. This book can be read with both interest and profit by anyone concerned with gaining a fuller understanding of early nineteenth century American history. Gerald W. Wolff University of South Dakota Ballots for Freedom: Antislavery Politics in the United States, 1837-1860. By Richard H. Sewell. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976. Pp. xv, 379. $12.95.) Antislavery political parties have not generally enjoyed a good historical reputation, as scholars have repeatedly subjected the motives of their members to serious questioning. Generally, historians have concluded that their drive for office and political power led them increasingly to a sacrifice of the principles of antislavery and racial justice. A lack of commitment to these principles led them to steer a safer and more politically expedient course. In his study of the Liberty, Free Soil, and Republican parties, Richard Sewell has concluded that while these parties were highly pragmatic organizations , their members did maintain their antislavery principles when- BOOK REVIEWS185 ever possible. In so arguing, Sewell makes some significant points, but does not present a totally convincing case. Recent comprehensive studies of both the Free Soil and antebellum Republican parties are available, making Sewell's contributions in these areas somewhat limited. No comparable study of the Liberty party has been produced, however. The greatest value of Sewell's book is in providing such a history of the Liberty movement , emphasizing both ideology and the events that shaped that ideology. He successfully describes the origins of the political antislavery movement noting how the frustrating failures in the petition campaign and the policy of questioning Democrats and Whigs led some to conclude that a third party was necessary. Overcoming tremendous resistance to political activity from Garrison and other abolitionists, the movement was launched in 1839. In addition to better known Liberty leaders such as James G. Birney and Joshua Leavitt, Sewell notes the highly important roles played by more obscure abolitionists such as Alvan Stewart and Myron Holley. Liberty leaders are pictured throughout as "intelligent reformerpoliticians " rather than "doctrinaire visionaries" (p. 82). Surprisingly , the majority conceded that there were constitutional barriers to immediate emancipation and instead directed their efforts to containing slavery where it already existed. They argued that such restriction would place slavery on the road to ultimate extinction. They also advocated depriving the institution of any special favors from the national government. Salmon P. Chase's doctrine of the divorce of the federal government and the slave system rather than immediate abolition had long been accepted by all but a small group of Eastern Liberty leaders. Although disappointingly brief in his account of the Liberty role in the election of 1844, Sewell provides an accurate account...