Matthew Fontaine Maury and Joseph Henry: Scientists of the Civil War (review)

340CIVIL WAR HISTORY movement which burgeoned into a crusade that was sometimes unwise, irresponsible , and ül-directed, though its ideals were on the highest level. He covers the entire field of the myriad of sects, parties, splinter groups, and radicals, as well as the unorganized masses who mildly opposed the institution for conscience' sake. Not aU who opposed slavery were abolitionists, and not all agreed on means and methods. There werethe Garrisonians—the noisy, radical group which is best known, whose vitriolic writings and preachings so enraged the South; the moral and political abolitionists—antislavery advocates in varying degrees and beliefs, even anti-Negro colonization societies and political organizations, on down or up (according to point of view) to the forthright armed raids of John Brown. Over the years the outpourings of the radicals and the intervention by force, as well as the encouragement and assistance given to escaped slaves, made a terrific impact on the pubhc mind, particularly in the South, creating a climate of distrust, hate, and political contention. Inescapably, the antislavery agitation had much to do with dividing the country and paving the road to war. The survey of the tumultuous and crucial period under study not only considers the impact of the antislavery movement but takes into account the related political, social, and economic problems, of which many phases stemmed from the slavery system. Dr. Filler, who is professor of American civilization at Antioch College, has produced a provocative original work with many new evaluations of the multitude of characters who were leaders in the reform movement, and the heroes and martyrs of the crusade, set in a fresh historical perspective. His conclusions are his own, soundly arrived at, though all readers may not be in agreement with him. For the student the work has added values in the copious footnotes and references, and in the twenty-two pages of annotated bibüography; what is important, it is adequately indexed. Boyd B. Stutler Charleston, West Virginia Matthew Fontaine Maury and Joseph Henry: Scientists of the Civil War. By Patricia Jahns. (New York: Hastings House, 1961. Pp. xü, 308. $5.95.) Matthew Maury and Joseph Henry placed all men in their debt by their laborious, painstaking efforts in observation, scientific experimentation, discovery , invention, and record-keeping. To provide a biography of these notable scientists is a worthy objective. The volume at hand sketches the career of each man. Maury moves from his proud Virginia-Tennessee beginnings through his sailing days, his great years in Washington charting the winds and currents of the oceans from the naval reports he insisted upon receiving, his frustrated efforts for the Confederacy in Richmond and England, and the bitter, postwar dechne. Henry Book Reviews341 rises from his indifferent upstate New York origin through the fascinating years of experiment and invention (electromagnet and forerunner of the telegraph, among others), the quiet period of scientific pursuits at Princeton, and the great years as organizer of the Smithsonian, guide and stimulator of other scientific seekers and inventors. The main oudines of the story are here. But difficulties arise, partly from the pattern the author sets for her book. Jumping back and forth in alternate chapters between Henry and Maury undermines any cohesive unity in the work. The men's "times" are frequendy and colorfully interjected—often, it seems, simply for the purpose of creating atmosphere but with the disturbing effect of distracting and confusing the reader. Method of investigation and use of sources also raise questions. Heavy rebanee is placed on secondary sources, some, like W. E. Woodward's debunking New American History, of dubious quality. While the Washington Star and some other primary sources have been used, examination of manuscript materials is limited largely to Henry's papers and his daughter's diary. Surely the Huntington Library's collection of the correspondence of long-time Smithsonian assistant William J. Rhees would have been helpful. Most evidence is accepted by the author at face value without attempt at critical analysis. Imprecise footnote references, relatively few in number, give only author's last name in most cases, no facts of publication, and page citations only occasionally. Unfortunately, errors of fact (Lee won at Antietam is asserted...