Customer Reviews

1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and the War They Failed to See

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

"The year 1858 could not have started in a grander fashion than it did...in Washington, D.C." (p. 1), but subsequent events would prove the year's political events decisive as the nation moved toward civil war. The text considers these events primarily by presenting a series of vignettes focusing on the administration of President James Buchanan interspersed with extended biographical studies of individuals shortly to become famous, as well as in-depth studies of critical events transpiring during the year. Of necessity, events occurring outside of 1858 are reviewed to set the context as well as to place studied situations within their greater historical significance--but the text successfully balances the presentation of material to maintain a focus on 1858. The text presents Buchanan as an ineffectual and vindictive president out of touch with political reality and incapable of dealing with the polarized politics of the era. Buchanan, derisively known as "Old Public Functionary" (p. 4), was pro-slavery and erroneously believed the best way to lead the nation was by decree, not compromise. The general and widespread failure of his administration, more than anything else, is proposed in the text as the root cause of the Civil War.

Biographical chapters include studies on Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Abraham Lincoln, William Seward, William Tecumseh Sherman, and John Brown. Each man is presented in a method befitting his legacy, and each is matched to the impending conflict. However, while the biographies on Lee and Sherman are instructive and fascinating, in 1858 they were essentially insignificant as national figures and this is felt in the text, as their biographies to 1858 are largely disconnected from other events. Davis, suffering from "herpes...in the form of neuralgia that incapacitated his left eye" (p. 29); Lincoln, stating "that the United States could not go on with half of the country condoning slavery" (p. 96); Seward, "one of the country's most spellbinding orators" (p. 173); and John Brown, "like a biblical figure" (p. 247) are period figures well-known to any student. Their biographies are fascinating though often marred by stereotypical portrayals. A concise biography is also presented for Stephen Douglas. In-depth studies of critical events include the infamous Dred Scott decision; the Lincoln-Douglas debates; The Buchanan-Forney feud; the anti-slavery activities transpiring in Oberlin, Ohio; and Brown's various compelling and divisive actions.

The text does an excellent job of presenting a singular year in history and establishing it within the greater context of the Civil War while it suffers from a fairly unimaginative writing style with a preponderance of similarly-constructed sentences. Various kinds of typographical errors are unfortunately common. The compound effect of these defects renders the book's overall texture mechanical and uninviting: an editor's influence is conspicuously absent.

Why 1858? I found myself asking that question repeatedly the entire time I was reading this book. What made 1858 THE year to look at in regards to the coming of the Civil War. Author Bruce Chadwick tries (largely unsuccessfully, in my opinion) to argue that 1858 was the year slavery became THE main issue facing the United States and events which occurred in 1858 played a large role in bringing about the war. In his Foreword, Chadwick tells the reader he will attempt to accomplish this by weaving together seven stories of people and events, linking these disparate stories together with looks into James Buchanan's "spectacular failure" as President.

1858 weaves together seven stories all (loosely) tied together by Buchanan's Presidency. These stories are, in no particular order:

1. Jefferson Davis
2. Robert E. Lee
3. William T. Sherman
4. The Oberlin-Wellington Slave Rescue
5. William H. Seward
6. John Brown
7. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates

At first, I was intrigued by the author's decision to abandon a traditional narrative and use what I thought would be an interesting change of pace. The idea works better in theory than in the pages of 1858, however. Stories are broken up into different chapters with little regard for continuity or chronological order. For readers new to the subject, this may very well be misleading as far as a time line of these events goes.

As I stated in my introduction, my main and overriding question while reading the entire book was "Why 1858? What makes this year so special?" Unfortunately, although the author does claim he chose 1858 because it was THE year slavery became the overriding issue facing the United States, he doesn't give nearly enough reason WHY, and thus doesn't really answer my question. In essence, he argues FOR 1858, but he really gives no arguments AGAINST other years. To me, slavery had been THE issue for quite some time. A post concerning the Compromise of 1850 at Elektratig shows that slavery was very much at the forefront of the country's concerns as the 1850s opened, and that the Civil War may well have started a decade earlier had the Compromise of 1850 not happened. I can agree with the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Oberlin-Wellington Slave rescue as two MAJOR events involving slavery and an acceleration towards war. However, other events outside of this year, especially John Brown's Harpers Ferry Raid in 1859 and obviously the Presidential Election of 1860 were major events which did much to hasten the Civil War. Chadwick does argue that the seeds were sewn for these events in 1858. He stresses that John Brown's raid into Missouri and successful escape with slaves into Canada in 1858 and the Lincoln-Douglas debates led to these other events. That may be true, but the MAIN events happened in years other than 1858. Without belaboring the point too much, I believe you simply cannot make a strong case that 1858 was any more important than many other years in causing the Civil War or having slavery become THE issue facing the country. Chadwick's failure too largely explain WHY or argue against other years only drives home the point for me.

To me, deciding to include William T. Sherman was an odd choice other than to allow the author/publisher to get Ulysses S. Grant's name into the subtitle of the book. Grant is barely mentioned, and Sherman had hardly anything to do with the author's assertion that 1858 was the year slavery became the most important issue in the country. The only reason I can see to include Sherman is to show an example of a Northerner who had no strong feelings towards slavery, much like Robert E. Lee was personally opposed to slavery as a Southerner. In reading the chapters covering Sherman, I was puzzled as to what purpose his antebellum life story served to the narrative as a whole.

The subtitle of the book is especially puzzling to me. U.S. Grant is listed and he is barely mentioned in the book, pretty much only in relation to the Sherman portion of the story. Putting a famous figure into your title or subtitle only to barely mention them isn't going to win points with this reviewer. Another issue I have with the subtitle is "The War They Failed to See." Huh? Lincoln's "House Divided" speech is mentioned. So is Jefferson Davis' ascension in late 1858 as the leader of the Secession Movement. John Brown not only saw war coming, he was determined to start it himself! And lastly, Seward's "Irrepressible Conflict" speech is also stressed. It seems to me these men at least had an inkling that war was at the very least very possible if not imminent if some drastic steps were not taken with regards to slavery. I don't want to pin this on the author at all. Marketing sells books, and the subtitle screams MARKETING from a tall building. Blame the publisher here folks.

If you have lasted this long, you might believe I hated 1858. This is definitely not so. My policy is to get the bad out of the way first and move on to the good. Let's start with the author's style. Bruce Chadwick is definitely a good storyteller. Despite some continuity issues in his narrative choice as mentioned earlier, I read this 300 page book in only two sittings. I could not put it down.

Chadwick's chapters on the gross ineptitude of James Buchanan's Presidency were my favorite portions of the book. Rather than focus on the slavery issue and try to resolve it in some way, Buchanan instead completely ignored slavery when possible and blinded himself to the enormity of the problem the rest of the time. His "Don Quixote-ish schemes", as Chadwick calls them, to annex portions of Central and South America by any means possible while ignoring slavery was just one issue. In addition, Buchanan chose to fight petty feuds with two powerful men, Senator Stephen Douglas and newspaper editor John Forney, and these feuds were disastrous for the Democratic party in the elections of 1858 and the Presidential election of 1860. More than any other man, Buchanan had the power to slow or even prevent radical developments with regards to the slavery situation. Instead, says Chadwick, he did nothing while radicals on both sides led the nation to the brink of war.

I was also pleasantly surprised with the bibliography and notes. Chadwick uses a nice number of endnotes, including 747 in exactly 300 pages of text. He did use quite a few secondary sources, but for what was obviously to me a "pop history" book aimed more at the masses than to deep readers, Chadwick also looked at the papers of many of those involved in the events of the year 1858 and around 90 newspapers published at the time. A serviceable index rounds out the book.

Bruce Chadwick's 1858 sets out to prove that year was the year slavery became THE issue in the United States, but was rather unsuccessful in this regard. His arguments for 1858 as the year were sparse and his arguments against other years were non-existent. The story's continuity suffered somewhat as a result of some conscious choices on the author's part. Despite these flaws, 1858 is an enjoyable read aimed at the masses which I would be happy to recommend to readers new to the subject. Deep readers will find this material covered elsewhere in much greater detail.

I have to admit that I can't quite place this book. I would say on the one hand I was disappointed because while it did a good job of portraying the year 1858 it could have just as easily been 1856 or 1860, both of which would have been more interesting. The book spent a lot of time focusing on personal rivalries to the detriment of painting the national picture. Also certain figures who would rise to prominence in the Civil War were given great exposure yet others were barely mentioned. (Like Grant)

So all in all if you like the period, there are worse reads out there but I still think that James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom does a much better job at portraying the period.

1858: ABRAHAM LINCOLN, JEFFERSON DAVIS, ROBERT E. LEE, ULYSSES S. GRANT AND THE WAR THEY FAILED TO SEE
BRUCE CHADWICK
SOURCEBOOKS, INC., 2008
HARDCOVER, $24.95, 368 PAGES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, ENDNOTES, INDEX, PHOTOGRAPHS

The seven figures who suddenly leap onto history's stage and shape the great moments to come are: Jefferson Davis, who lived a life out of a romantic novel, and who almost died from herpes simplex of the eye; the disgruntled Colonel Robert E. Lee, who had to decide whether he would stay in the military or return to Virginia to run his family's plantation; William Tecumseh Sherman, one of the great Union generals, who had been reduced to running a roadside food stand in Kansas; the uprising of eight abolitionists in Oberlin, Ohio, also freed a slave apprehended by slave catchers, and set off a fiery debate across America; a dramatic speech by New York Senator William Seward in Rochester, which foreshadowed The War Between the States and which seemed to solidify his hold on the 1860 Republican Presidential nomination; John Brown's raid on a plantation in Missouri, where he freed several slaves, and marched them 1,100 miles to Canada, to be followed a year later by his catastrophic attack on Harper's Ferry, Virginia; and finally, Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas' seven historic debates with little-known Abraham Lincoln in the Illinois Senate race, that would bring the ambitious and determined Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States. As these stories unfold, the author shows how the country reluctantly stumbled towards that moment in April, 1861, when South Carolina opened fire on Fort Sumter. Author Bruce Chadwick offers insight into a time too often distorted by popular myths and half-truths while at the same time putting a human picture on Lincoln, Davis, Lee, and Grant. An engrossing account of a critical time in U.S. history.

Lt. Colonel Robert A. Lynn, Florida Guard
Orlando, Florida

This was a very interesting take of how the Civil War became inevitable. The parallels to current politics is very eye openning. Very quick and good read.

1858 is an historical account of three years prior to the war between the states and gives the reader insights into the thinking of A. Lincoln, J. Davis, President Buchanan, Robert E. Lee and others prior to the 1858 election. It is very enjoyable and tells why President Buchanan was not very good at his job.

Others can comment on the book more thoroughly than I can. But I quote from page 3: "...controversy still raged over the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision ... in which the high court upheld the Fugitive Slave Act, reappealed the Missouri Compromise of 1850..."

This is pretty disturbing stuff. Dred Scott had nothing to do with the Fugitive Slave Act, the Missouri Compromise was in 1820, and the Compromise of 1850 was a separate act. And it's "repealed," not "reappealed." Those who read a history book are likely to be looking for fresh insights, new information, or the like. When an author demonstrates a very flawed grasp of big issues in the era, a reader owes it to herself or himself to put the book down and find a more reliable writer -- or at least a more reliable editor. Otherwise, how can a reader be sure which of the hundreds of points the author will make in the next 200+ pages may be errors, distortions, or just plain sloppiness? The author of this book clearly has only the faintest of acquaintance with the Dred Scott decision, the pivotal event of the decade. How many other key points might be equally misunderstood?

For reliable overviews of the critical years prior to the war, one may read the early sections of Shelby Foote's trilogy, or William Freehling's "Road to Disunion," volume 2. A fine legal summary of the execrable Dred Scott decision can be found in Peter Irons' history of the Supreme Court. There doesn't seem to be a good overview of James Buchanan's presidency.

Added 7/19/10: The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861, is a great book on the run-up to the Civil War, and appears to have won a Pulitzer Prize in historical writing.

There are years in our history that have become the defining periods of events that they preclude. 1858 is one such year.

In his new book 1858, Bruce Chadwick brings to print the defining year in our nation history. In many ways this particular year is not known for what great things were done, but for things that could have been done, but were not.

Chadwick details the political environment of the year in such a way as to provide the reader with a "well that explains that" moment in regards to the cataclysmic events that would take place in the United States of America in the thirty-six short months that followed.

Abraham Lincoln was an unknown state politician in Illinois; Robert E. Lee was facing the largest challenges of his life keeping his family's land holding together. Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecusah Sherman were near destitution. Jefferson Davis nearly died. Yet these men and many others would rise to the forefront of American history in the following two years and shape our country into what it has become today.

1858 was the year of the Kansas/Missouri border clashes, John Brown, and the first year the Republican Party won election in any major political battle. Political infighting between Stephen Douglas and President James Buchanan, indirectly leading to Abraham Lincoln's election win in 1860, leaving Buchanan with the legacy of being the most naïve and least effective president in the history of our country. If not for Buchanan's unethical double-dealings, lack of focus on America's internal troubles and contemptible lack of leadership, the Civil War may not have taken place.

Author Chadwick is to be commended. 1858 is a true literary gem in the American History genre. It should be read by every citizen and shared with generations to come-lest we not forget our mistakes.

Armchair Interviews says: If you love American History, this book is a necessary addition to your library.

"1858" is a solid overview of a pivotal year in the run-up to the Civil War. Certainly, this is not an exhaustive treatment, and, as other reviewers have suggested, more in-depth analysis of the year's key personalities and events can be found elsewhere. I agree with previous comments critical of the subtitle. In particular, Grant makes a few fleeting cameos in the narrative, while lengthy chapters are devoted to Seward, Douglas, Sherman and John Brown, all of whom are absent from the subtitle. The book's primary antagonist also escapes mention: James Buchanan. Frequently ranked by historians as our worst president, the flawed and inept Buchanan chose to feud with friends and rivals within his own party and engage in fanciful foreign policy pursuits (like trying to purchase proslavery Cuba) rather than confront the deepening divisions over slavery.

Clearly, this book aims at a mass-market audience. Scholars and aficionados of the period will be disappointed. On the other hand, Average Joe readers like myself will find new information and fresh insights. For example, the friendship between the firebrand abolitionist Seward and the rabidly proslavery Jefferson Davis, or how Buchanan's meddling cost Stephen Douglas the popular vote to Lincoln in their Senate contest, providing Lincoln with the rationale for his subsequent Presidential bid. The anecdote about the slave rescuers in Oberlin, OH was also new to me. For the general reader, "1858" is time well spent.

1858 was an important year in American history. Americans were dealing with such hot button topics as:
1. The Dred Scott Decision of the Supreme Court in 1857 which ruled that a runaway fugitive slave had to be returned to his/her owner.
2. The Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 which stated that territories could vote for or against slavery. This act repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Stephen A. Douglas was the chief architect of the act. Douglas would lose the support of the southern states due to his defense of popular sovereignity. He would also split the Democratic party since President Buchannan approved of the act. This fissure would help elected the Repbulican Abraham Lincoln in 1860.
2. The Lincoln-Douglas debates in Illinois set the stage for the two men running against each other for US President in 1860.
3 The raids of John Brown in Kansas led to violence as he sought to free the slaves in that border state. Many of the slaves would escape to Canada. Brown would be hanged for his Harper's Ferry Raid on Dec. 2, 1859.
4.The Rescuers trial in Cleveland. This trial dealt with the men who had assisted a runaway slave in Oberlin, Ohio. Abolitionists were appalled at their arrest.
5. Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi becomes the leading spokesman for states rights and southern slavery following the death of John C. Calhoun.
Chadwick portrays the inept US President James Buchanan who hoped the Kansas-Nebraska act would end talk of slavery and disunion. He foolishly called for the US to invade Cuba and almost led our nation into war against Paraguay in a minor naval dispute incident. Buchanan has to be one of our worst chief executives!
We see Abraham Lincoln moving from obscurity to center stage in the great national debate over the slavery issue.
Chadwick devotes a chapter to Robert E. Lee who was trying to get his family out of debt while on a year long furlough at Arlington. We see William Tecumseh Sherman battling debt and trying several frustrating jobs from lawyer, bank president and a prsident of the Louisiana Military Academy. Little did he know he would one day lead Union forces to victory teamed with US Grant.
Chadwick devotes much of the 300 page book to examining political strategies. William Seward gave several eloquent speeches attacking slavery. The New Yorker thought he would be in good shape to become elected presidient in 1860. Little did he know that Abraham Lincoln would beat him on the fourth ballet of the Republican Convention of 1860.
My quibbles with Chadwick's book:
a, The book has many typographical errors.
b. The book would be best read by a general reader or neophyte in Civil War literature. It contains nothing that can't be found in other and better books.
c. Chadwick has a chatty style which keeps the book in the reader's hand flipping pages. A fairly good read but not profound or great!