The Political Crisis of the 1850s

by Michael F. Holt

Book Overview

Holt sees the Civil War as representing a breakdown in America's democratic political process, more specifically the Second Party System of Whigs and Democrats. He demonstrates this system's success, beginning in the 1820s and 1830s, in confining sectional disputes safely within the political arena. With the breakdown of vital two-party competition in the 1850s, sectional issues increasingly took on ideological dimension, causing, Americans North...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 039395370X
• ISBN13: 9780393953701
• Release Date: September 1983
• Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company
• Length: 352 Pages
• Weight: 0.70 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 5.1" x 7.7"

Customer Reviews

Graduate Student Review

Professor Holt's book could almost be considered a companion book to Eric Foner's Free Soil, Free Labor. Much of the same ground is covered but with a slightly different twist. Foner focused on the slavery verses the free labor perspective. Holt focuses more on the political perspective. Holt's main thesis states that the political crisis of the 1850s was the loss of the political parties ability to deal with, or contain, the sectional differences between North and South. Before the 1850s the political parties had priorities which did not pit North against South. Because both parties had members that were sympathetic towards both northern and southern interests, these interests and loyalties kept the sectional issues at bay from the 1820s to the 1840s. During the 1850s the old party loyalties collapsed and the parties that rose out of the ashes were drawn on sectional lines. Holt considers that the disunion of the political parties was slavery in conjunction with the dynamics of partisan behavior. Holt shows that from the 1820s to the 1840s how the Democrat's politics were different from the National Republicans concerning the issues of economics and personalities. Despite this they were still able to ignore their sectional differences. This status quo held fast even through the acquisition of new territories in the western part of the United States. Holt spends some time analyzing the Presidential elections from 1836 to 1860. He explains the party dynamics of each election and has tables explaining the margins between each election. (pp. 232-234) Further into the book Holt discusses the Compromise of 1850 and its effect on the political parties. With a period of prosperity and revision of constitutional rules and regulations in many states the economic differences were destroyed. The political unrest caused the parties to split on sectional issues. This was done to strengthen their parties, but instead of strengthening the parties it weakened the fabric of the Union. The parties became completely sectionalized and focused on their own separate agendas due to the critical events of the late 1850s. It was during this time that the Republican Party became a totally pro-northern entity. At the same time northern and southern Democrats became divided. This, according to Professor Holt, is what led to the secession of the southern states and the Civil War after the election Abraham Lincoln in 1860. The book is well organized and every topic flows logically and builds on one another. Professor Holt uses seven tables that use indexes to show party differences, variances by economic issues, states, and years. There is a selected bibliography that Holt states is not the complete listing of the references used in the writing of the book. He used mainly primary sources for the book, the bibliography reflects the secondary sources used. In addition, there is a footnotes section that is broken down by chapter. Profes

Overemphasis on political containment, but otherwise good

Part of the author's title is indisputable: the Northern-Southern divide over slavery and all of its attendant subtleties and ramifications was a crisis only waiting to happen in the 1850s. But the author places greater importance on what he sees as the political crisis of that era. Regardless, this book is a fine effort in capturing the richness of the party politics in the two decades leading to the Civil War.It is the author's essential point that a robust democratic polity requires political parties that compete on a somewhat equal basis, inspire widespread party loyalty and, in essence, control the more fractious issues or interpretations of the times. That is exactly the role that the author suggests that the Second Party system consisting of the Whigs and Democrats played from Andrew Jackson's presidency to the early 1850s. The expansion of slavery into new territories and states was the most contentious issue of the day. The Northern and Southern wings of both the Democrats and the Whigs adopted particular positions on such controversies as the Wilmot Proviso and the Compromise of 1850 that kept the public looking to the political realm for solutions. The author notes that themes of republican virtue, that is, defense of freedom and independence and opposition to tyranny in its various guises, were the basis of the parties' positions.But that political status quo fell apart as both the slavery issue and nativism could not be contained within the Second Party system. While the author views this development as the beginning of the political crisis of the 1850s, others may see the rise of new political parties as the essence of political responsiveness. The Know Nothing party had a meteoric rise in the mid-1850s but just as quickly the Republicans rose in the late 1850s and elected Abraham Lincoln to the presidency in 1860. The author contends that political elites should be able to manage controversial issues of the day. But the fact is that the adherents of anti-slavery, nativism, and free soil of the 1850s overwhelmed the political alignments formed in the 1830s. The author comes close to suggesting that the Republicans were irresponsible opportunists by forming a party on sectional lines with sectional interests.The essential question that the author asks is why did slavery become an issue in the 1850s. After all, it had existed for the first sixty years of the nation. But his explanation of Second Party system breakdown seems inadequate. In the first place the Whig Party broke up in the South as a result of the Compromise of 1850. Secondly, a series of slavery-related developments in the 1850s exacerbated the situation. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, the entire state constitution fiasco in Kansas, and the Dread Scott decision all convinced Northerners that an oligarchic Slave Power had gained the upper hand in extending slavery. Those reactions drove political realignment along sectional lines.However, a salient point of the author's, and in

Right to secede or not?

Volumes of information lend credence to a state's right to secede from the Union. Even the US Supreme Court in 1862 (during the war) ruled that states did, indeed, have the right to secede from the Union, but that the question was currently being decided on the battlefield. Given that even Southerners were starting to 'see' the end of slavery in the South, and not even considering that after Northerners made their fortunes capturing, transporting, and selling Negroes into slavery, then the question comes down to this - did one part of the country have the right to declare war and invade another section of the country (in violation of the Constitution) when that section being invaded (the South) was acting within its Constitutional rights? Does might make right? Do two wrongs make a right? If slavery was bound to die out anyway, was the loss of life worth it ending 10 or 20 years sooner - given that it had existed for 100 of years - and not even mentioning that the north wanted to free the slaves, but offered no constuctive alternative except "you're free, there's the highway'. (which, in my opinion, is why the black community and youth are still suffering to this day).

Beyond rudimentary answers

Serious students of the Civil War have to address three important questions regarding its origins. First, one must account for the timing of the conflict. Slavery was a national political issue since at least the Missouri Compromise of 1820. What made 1861 different from other flashpoints in the slavery debate such as the annexation of Texas, the 1850 Compromise, the Dred Scott decision, and the recognition of Lecompton? Second, one must account for rise of the Republicans over the Free Soilers and Know Nothings after the demise of the Whig party in the early 1850s. All three were against the expansion of slavery so what made the Republicans unique? Finally, one must explain why the lower South seceded first, the middle South seceded second, and the upper South remained with the Union.This book attempts to provide answers to these questions by examining the American political system at the time. It does NOT 'dismiss' slavery as a cause of the war but rather adds a much needed layer of analysis to address these sophisticated questions. If war is truly an extension of politics, then this book is well justified in its focus.

This is the leading book on the decade before the Civil War.

Michael F. Holt's book has the merit of offering not only a cogent explanation for the coming of the Civil War, but for the coming of secession when it did. His general argument has been adopted by professors at all of the leading schools, making Holt the leading scholar in the field.