Parties, Politics, and the Sectional Conflict in Tennessee. 1832-1861 (review)

74CIVIL WAR HISTORY Koistinen divides his book into two parts. Part I discusses what he terms the "pre-industrial phase" of warfare. The American Revolution is the focus of this section. For Koistinen, the mobilization for the American Revolution was the most complex in American history because "the process of warfare created the nation" (? i). The Mexican War, and especially the American Civil War, represent the transitional phase between the preindustrial and industrial stages ofwar mobilization. Although the title indicates that the volume begins with the colonial era, the book, in fact, starts with the Revolution. But the main focus is on the Civil War period. Indeed, the author devotes six of his ten chapters to the mobilization efforts, both military and civilian, ofthe Union and the Confederacy. Koistinen's argument is not particularly new or revisionist. Rather, he has synthesized an enormous amount of literature on war mobilization. For example, his coverage of Confederate mobilization echoes the work of Richard Goff, Robert C. Black III, and Douglas Ball. Although he states in his notes that he utilized primary sources extensively, the citations are composed overwhelmingly of secondary literature. Still, those notes are invaluable, for they approximate a bibliographic essay (in the absence of a comprehensive bibliography). Koistinen states that his research interests he in the twentieth century and that he views nineteenth-century warfare and its political economy from a twentiethcentury perspective. That bias is reflected in his treatment of the Civil War years. Indeed, the book's emphasis on the roots oftotal war in the Civil War period allows Koistinen to lay the groundwork for his second volume. Beating Plowshares Into Swords does not conclude with any startling revelations or path-breaking interpretations. Nonetheless, it provides the scholar and student with a comprehensive synthesis of some of the best monographs on war, mobilization, and the evolution of the American political economy. Mary A. DeCredico United States Naval Academy Parties, Politics, and the Sectional Conflict in Tennessee. 1832-1861. By Jonathan M.Atkins. (Knoxville: University ofTennessee Press, 1997. Pp. xviii, 371. $38.00.) The republican synthesis has come at last to Tennessee. Jonathan M. Atkins's aim is to reshape our understanding ofantebellum politics in theVolunteer State by drawing on the insights of modern political historians who have traced the long-lasting influence of the Founding Fathers' ideology. He has succeeded admirably. Atkins rejects the notion, put forth by Richard P. McCormick and others, that the Whig and Democratic parties were essentially vote-getting machines devoid of ideological substance. In Tennessee at least, says Atkins, the parties BOOK REVIEWS75 were highly ideological. They shared a republican worldview that depicted America's cherished liberties as perpetually threatened by corrupt, self-seeking interests. Where the two parties differed was in their response to the continuing crisis of freedom: Whigs believed that economic development and an activist government would safeguard liberty, while Democrats feared that too much of either would destroy it. This basically chronological study thoroughly analyzes the political maneuvering and propagandizing that marked Tennessee's first party system from its birth in the late 1830s to its demise after the i860 election. (Scholars will still want to consult Paul H. Bergeron's Antebellum Politics in Tennessee, however, especially for detailed analysis of election returns.) Atkins challenges the assertion of William J. Cooper, Jr., that at the heart of antebellum Southern politics was the defense of slavery. In Atkins's view, the defense of slavery was but one element ofthe republican agenda. Whig and Democratic politicians got elected not simply by assuring the voters of their fidelity to slavery but by promising that their party's measures would better protect the citizens' freedoms, including the freedom to own slaves. Until 1861 the overwhelming majority of Tennessee voters of both parties rejected Southern-rights extremism and agreed that slavery and liberty would be safe only in an undivided Union. Atkins offers a persuasive explanation for the state's consistently conservative response to the sectional conflicts that drove many other Southern states toward fire-eating radicalism and secession. Likewise , he makes clear how and why the state abruptly changed course with the outbreak of war. Most Tennessee citizens immediately aligned themselves with the...