The Fragile Fabric of Union: Cotton, Federal Politicsm and the Global Origins of the Civil War (review)

Not since the 1970s and the debate over Time on the Cross has there been such an outpouring of books on the antebellum southern economy as during the past several years. Brian Schoen's work joins recent (and forthcoming) studies by authors such as John Majewski, Peter Coclanis, Gavin Wright, Walter Johnson, Frank Towers, and Diane Barnes. Although not unified by a thesis, The Fragile Fabric of Union is a thoughtful contribution to this literature, particularly valuable for its discussion of how "King Cotton" shaped the diplomacy and outlook of the South.

With emphasis on Georgia and South Carolina, Schoen's work examines the politics and economy of the cotton states from the writing of the Constitution to secession. Scholars will find the book, which rests upon an impressive array of primary and secondary works, brimming with insights. For example, Schoen has much to say about the role of slavery in forming the Constitution, including the conflicts between the Upper and Lower South over the new frame of government. Similarly valuable is Schoen's examination of the crosscurrents in the decision of the Cotton South to support Jefferson's Embargo. Here was a section that cried out for free trade but backed a coercive, nationalist policy.

Probably the most valuable aspect of the work is Schoen's examination of the impact of cotton on the mindset and international relations of the South. Planter confidence boomed in the 1840s with the turn toward free trade in the United States and Britain and the acquisition of Mexican territory. Schoen notes that by the 1850s, southerners believed King Cotton would ensure European support for the preservation of their institutions, expansion around the Caribbean rim, and perhaps the reopening of the slave trade. In 1860–61 secessionists assured doubters that demand for the fiber would guarantee diplomatic recognition. Schoen remarks, "It is perhaps not too much of a stretch to say that, without cotton and the international demand for it, there would not have been secession or a Civil War" (259). Largely because of southerners' faith in their chief staple, notes Schoen, secession was a rational act, "eagerly embarked on by men and women seeking to advance their interests within a larger world" (269).

In making the case for the influence of King Cotton, Schoen closely examines the changing patterns of transatlantic commerce as well as the views of European nations. He also makes clear that the planters' optimism was poorly grounded. King Cotton's acolytes systematically overlooked European criticisms of slavery and the growing importance of northern grain in international trade.

Less persuasive is Schoen's treatment of another theme: the diversification and "modernization" of the southern economy. Repeatedly, he asserts that the South embraced "modern economic thought" and was evolving beyond a narrow dependence on the export of farm products (115). "Regardless of what labor was used," Schoen notes in a discussion of the 1850s, "a growing number of planters, farmers, and merchants in the Cotton South placed their limited liquid capital and more bountiful rhetoric into new businesses and increased manufacturing, especially in textiles and ironworks" (207). But he admits that little came of such efforts because of the "Lower South's unwavering commitment to growing and selling cotton" (256).

Scholars may find some of the other discussions in The Fragile Fabric of Union more familiar—and wonder at times about the book's larger unities. Schoen marches across well-tilled soils in examining such issues as the Missouri controversy, nullification, and the annexation of Texas. A more serious problem is the lack of an overall argument. At times it is hard to know how individual analyses build on one another. In broadest terms, the book describes an arc that begins with a weak region dependent on the federal government and ends with a belligerent section emboldened by the power of "King...