-
A House Divided: Sectionalism and Civil War, 1848-1865 (review)
- Civil War History
- The Kent State University Press
- Volume 35, Number 2, June 1989
- pp. 180-181
- 10.1353/cwh.1989.0005
- Review
- Additional Information
180CIVIL WAR HISTORY the reader with clear and substantial overviews of bondage's history in both societies, while at the same time structuring his introduction, six chapters, and epilogue so that each can stand on its own as a fully comparative essay. Unfree Labor is essentially a social history of servitude, and pays only slight attention to important economic questions about the domestic trade in bondsmen or the relative importance of slaves and serfs as capital investments . Although the author intends to treat "such major topics as the economics of forced labor and opposition to slavery and serfdom" in a subsequent volume (xii), one might wonder whether such an analytical separation of social from economic history is advisable in a work that insists upon the noncapitalist character ofnineteenth-century bondage. Those scholars who have long been skeptical of Eugene Genovese's portrait of a precapitalist and paternalistic South may not be convinced by Kolchin's U.S./ Russian framework. Yet all historians must stand in awe before the breadth of his research and the clarity of his comparative analysis. Shearer Davis Bowman University of Texas A House Divided: Sectionalism and Civil War, 1848-1865. By Richard H. Sewell (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988. Pp. 223. Cloth $22.50; Paper $9.95.) This volume in the American Moment Series is a well-written, traditional, and brief narrative of the period from the end of the Mexican War to the conclusion of the Civil War. Sewell's work is weighted toward political rather than social history. The book, in fact, shows the value oftraditional political history which is too often ignored in our rush to reconstruct the social texture ofsociety. At the same time, ofcourse, it limits what the book can offer. Those accustomed to, or interested in, other aspects of the sectional division and the coming ofthe war, as well as the conduct ofthe war on the battlefields and on the home front, will have to look elsewhere. But that is no condemnation. What Sewell does he does very well, and in a generally entertaining way. The interpretation ofthe coming ofthe war, and the way it was waged, as well as its legacy are not especially controversial. Sewell, however, suggests that he is attempting to "refocus"attention on slavery as the basic cause of the division. It's unclear who would dispute this any longer. When he discusses some ofthe more controversial problems Sewell occasionally leaves the reader uncertain. A leading problem, for instance, concerns the expansion of slavery, and the old "natural limits" thesis. Could slavery have expanded , or could it not? At one point Sewell implies that it could when he cited Jefferson Davis's view that slave labor could be used in commercial argiculture in southern California, and others who "boasted of slavery's perfect suitability to southwestern mining operations" (22-3). Later, BOOK REVIEWS181 however, he noted that few Southerners expected Kansas to become a slave state, and one of the reasons he gives is that "natural conditions seemed inhospitable to slavery" (64). The author is especially good on the Civil War, although one of his conclusions is dubious. He argued that Lincoln was forced "into curtailment of civil liberties" by opposition in the North (112). This was a reference to the "dark lantern"societies, but Frank Klement's study ofthose alleged groups has shown that they were paper thin. They were no threat to anyone and could hardly have forced Lincoln's hand. There are occasional slips or overstatements. An example ofthe latter is the remark that "the crusade against American slavery was nearly as old as the institution itself (17). It is hard to find much of a "crusade" in the seventeenth or early eighteenth centuries. An example ofthe former is the identification of Chancellor William Harper as a Virginian (13). He was, rather, a leading South Carolinian, and an active supporter ofnullification. These, however, are quibbles, and overall the book is a carefully done overview of widely held interpretations of the coming and the conduct of the war. One disappointment perhaps is that there are no new questions asked. Thomas D. Morris Portland State University The Politics of Community: Migration...