In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK REVIEWS279 They Have No Rights: Dred Scott's Struggle for Freedom. By Walter Ehrlich. (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1979. Pp. xvi, 266. $22.50.) Whenever anyone reads a book with the intent of writing a review, an obvious question to ask is "what is the author attempting to do?" In this study of the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, it is clear thatWalter Ehrlich is trying to put the case in a clear historical perspective as well as provide insight and evaluation. The format of the book is predictable. It begins with the personal background of Dred Scott the slave and those who owned him. Next, the question of Scott's status is traced through the complex and lengthy litigation of the Missouri state court system and the federal court system all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. After narrating the proceedings before the Supreme Court, Ehrlich explains why theruling turned out as it did and what Chief Justice Roger B. Taney really said. This is the most interesting and valuable portion of the book. There is a cliché that tells us that "people believe what they want to believe." Ehrlich applies this to the Dred Scott Decision. He showshow Taney's words were twisted and taken out of context. For instance, it was not Taney who said that black people have "no rights which white men were bound to respect." That was Taney explaining the view toward the slaves held by those who endorsed the Declaration of Independence in the 1770s. Taney's entire reference to that attitude was presented in the past tense. Newspapers in 1857 chose to report it in the present tense. Many of them printed the words correctly but then gave them another interpretation. In fact, Taney himself altered the final edition of the decision (printed in May 1857) from what he had said in March 1857. This is a book that not only delves into the intricacies of the Dred Scott Decision but also views the historiography of the case up to and including the prize-winning work by Don E. Fehrenbacher. Considering what the author set out to do, he has succeeded admirably. This volume can be recommended for acquisition by all libraries with a section devoted to American history. Lewis H. Croce Mankato State University The Imperiled Union: 1861-1865. Volume I. The Deep Waters of the Proud. By WilliamC. Davis. (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1982. Pp. xviii, 316. $19.95.) No doubt the Civil War is, as William C. Davis says, "a story that demands telling and retelling as each succeeding generation tries for itself to deal with the event and the meaning of that terrible war" (pp. ix-x). Davis proposes to retell the story and to reveal many new "basic truths" 280CIVIL WAR HISTORY in three volumes, the first of which as appeared under the cryptic title, The Deep Waters of the Proud. After a running start, in which two chapters bring the narrative from 1492 to 1860, this volume devotes eighteen chapters to developments from the beginning of secession to the preliminary emancipation proclamation andits immediate consequences. Campaigns andbattlesnaturally predominate, and they are recounted with considerable verve, but politics and diplomacy receive due attention. The many new truths, however, are not readily apparent. The book is not especially strong in interpretation, though the author does make a few contentions of a generalizing sort. He argues, for one thing, that the Battle of Antietam in no sense marked a turning point, military or diplomatic. The story is told, in part, through the careers of a few participants, most notably John C. Breckinridge, whose biography is one of the author's previous books. This procedure may make for readability, but it results in a certain imbalance, for Breckinridge gets more space than either Ulysses S. Grant or Robert E. Lee. Though a synthesis of much recent writing, in addition to Davis's own, the volume does not always reflect the most up-to-date scholarly views. For instance, it presents President James Buchanan as a mere "jellyfish" and "moral coward." It fails to note the really significant differences between the Federal and Confederate constitutions...

pdf

Share