Prologue to Conflict: The Crisis and Compromise of 1850 (review)

BooKBiviEws293 point is a familiar one: that "violence inflicted on the early abolitionists and the suffering they endured led others to take up their cause." Moreover, it seems to this reviewer that Tomldns' thesis that "the same psychological dynamic underlies the commitment of the group and the individual" is at best questionable, and that his generalizations as to "why and how" Garrison , Phillips, Weld, and Bimey became "attached to abolitionism" do not adequately come to terms either with the personalities of these individuals or with the major social, intellectual, and political currents which led some men to choose the cause of the slave, others to ignore or reject it It should also be noted that Donald G. Mathews provides a useful essay on the career of Orange Scott, an important but neglected abolitionist figure. Other contributions deal with only familiar themes or personalities— i.e., Irving Bartlett's portrayal of Phillips in the role of "patrician as agitator," Howard Temperley's comparative analysis of problems facing British and American abolitionists, and Benjamin Quarles's vignette on Frederick Douglass. Essays by two contributors Fawn Brodie and Howard Zinn—are characterized by special pleading. Brodie's "Who Defends the Abolitionists?" assumes that no one does and is a vigorous vindication. While this reviewer is sympathetic toward the abolitionists, it seems to him that antislavery historiography has progressed far beyond the stage of good guys versus bad guys. Thus it is somewhat difficult to understand just what audience Brodie was attempting to reach. Zinn, writing on the "Abolitionists, Freedom -Riders, and the Tactics of Agitation," recognizes the positive role of agitation in a democratic society, but does not seem to understand its limitations. Richard O. Curry University of Connecticut Prologue to Conflict: The Crisis and Compromise of 1850. By Holman Hamilton. (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1964. Pp. viii, 236. $5.00.) One should expect agreement among historians as to the literal terms of an event so significant as the Compromise of 1850. But when Robert R. Rüssel surveyed the historiography of the Compromise a decade ago, he found it to be a maze of confusion and substantially differing descriptions. Professor Holman Hamilton, in Prologue to Conflict, has taken his cue from Russet's critique and clearly delineated the legislation's actual words and meaning. His discussions of the Utah and New Mexico territorial laws, the Texas boundary settlement the admission of California, the Fugitive Slave Act, the slave trade regulations for the District of Columbia, and the crucial role of the Texas bond lobby are lucid and probably definitive. Moreover, Hamilton's work should finally lay to rest the myths and aura surrounding the role of Henry Clay and his feubw Whigs. The determinative votes came from the Democratic party, primarily led by Stephen A. Douglas. Hamilton's 294CI VIL W AR HIS TOR Y analysis of the various congressional roll calls leaves little doubt of the Democrats' paramount role. Any discussion of the Compromise of 1850 inevitably must involve a projection of its future implications and its place in the coming of the Civil War. The Compromise must be a classic example of unrealized legislative ambitions—if indeed there were any. For example, the fugitive slave settlement only further exacerbated the problem, the slave trade continued to flourish in the national capital, and some slavery persisted in Utah and New Mexico. Four years later, the same basic issue over slavery in the territories erupted again in the Kansas question. Hamilton is well aware that the Compromise did not alleviate sectional discord. But were the various acts of 1850 effective and meaningful enough to avert the national tragedy? Here Professor Hamilton is confusing and indecisive . By stating that "firebrands of North and South" provoked the needless tragedy," he implies that the legislation could have averted civil war. The distortions of the North's "fantastic caricature" of slavery and the South's conviction of northern weakness, Hamilton writes, dominated national thinking and undermined any chance for a successful and workable compromise. In other words, extremism tragically triumphed over moderate men and measures. Yet he seemingly contradicts this by indicting "the tendency of democratic government to procrastinate, to adopt make-shift measures, in...