The Panic of 1857 and the Coming of the Civil War (review)

354CIVIL WAR HISTORY torts the nature of mid-nineteenth-century politics; his book should be read together with the works of William Gienapp, Kenneth Greenberg, and Michael Holt. In addition, Summers barely discusses reform legislation . By examining what Americans tried to reform, Summers could have better explained how they defined corruption and what they expected from the political system. Finally, his interpretation of Southern secessionists is unpersuasive, mainly because he is unclear about how much Southerners used the rhetoric of corruption to justify secession, but also because he fails to link that rhetoric to political action. Historians will cast doubt upon their own virtue if they ignore this important book, for no full account ofthe political crisis of the 1850s can be rendered without it. Marc W. Kruman Wayne State University The Panic of 1857 and the Coming of the CivilWar. ByJames L. Huston. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987. Pp. xviii, 315. $32.50.) This book, a revision of a University of Illinois dissertation, does exactly what its title states. It considers the relationship between the financial panic of 1857 and ensuing depression and the coming of the Civil War, or, more specifically, the Republican victory in the election of 1860. Interestingly, the author's thesis is that the economic events of 1857 and afterhad only limited influence on the events of I860 and 1861. Most Republicans joined the party, James L. Huston argues, because of slavery issues, and "Secession occurred because the South felt it had to protect the institution of slavery" (p. 260). The panic contributed to the Republican victory only in that it heightened in the minds of economic and political thinkers the need for new banking legislation and higher, more protective tariffs as means of stabilizing the American economy. Banking legislation never "grabbed" the full attention of politicians, but the tariff issue did. By convincingly embracing the call for higher tariffs, the Republicans attracted the 1856 Americans of Pennsylvania, and hence the state, into their party in 1860, thereby providing themselves with the margin of victory in the presidential national election. Huston's point, however, is that the Republicans used the tariff issue to add votes to their basically antislavery party, not the other way around. This book, then, is more political history than economic history. One should also note that it contains a strong historiographical emphasis, a consciousness of just how this account relates to other writings on Civil War causation. On both counts Huston succeeds admirably. Some might complain that there is little new in the political account; for, certainly, the shift of BOOK REVIEWS355 Pennsylvania to the Republican column because of the tariff campaign borders on common knowledge. Nevertheless, Huston constructs the account with great clarity, and he adds information about the precise timing and means for implementing the tariff issue. Further, the book has useful insights into the perceived tariff benefits for labor as well as business owners. Historiographically, Huston provides an excellent guide not only for the older dispute between Beardian Progressives and Revisionists, but also for the more current maze of republicanism, modernization , and even "Celtic fringe" theories of Civil War causation. Indeed, the last chapter qualifies as the best, most current Civil War historiographical essay available. John V. M ering University of Arizona Gettysburg: The Second Day. By Harry W. Pfanz. (Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1987. Pp. xxii, 601. $34.95.) In two ways, this book is reminiscent of Richard J. Sommers's Richmond Redeemed: The SiegeatPetersburg (1981). First, the title ofeach book is misleading. Sommers did not cover the entire siege, but only Grant's Fifth Offensive, which lasted less than a month. Similarly, Pfanz does not describe all the action on July 2 at Gettysburg, but concentrates exclusively on the Confederate attack against the Union left, thereby omitting the fighting on the Union right at Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill. Second, both authors demonstrate extraordinary knowledge about their subject. A friend of mine at the Army Command and General Staff College, Dr. Philip J. Brookes, has a knack for coining neologisms. One of his most recent is "overstanding," which goes beyond mere understanding . In regard to historians, it...