Customer Reviews

Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

With the possible exception of David M. Potter's classic "The Impending Crisis," William Freehling's "Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836" is perhaps the best book written on antebellum America in the past 50 years. Originally published in 1965 and a recipient of the prestigious Bancroft Prize, Freehling's work is a beautifully written and persuasively argued case that the conventional wisdom about the nullification crisis of 1832 is grossly oversimplified and, in the end, fundamentally incorrect.

Two points are central to Freehling's thesis: 1) growing anxiety over slavery and the nascent abolitionist movement - especially acute in the low country - was as important a factor in driving the aggressive states rights posture taken during the nullification crisis as was reaction to the tariff; and 2) South Carolinians themselves were as much to blame for their economic woes during the 1820s and 1830s as the "Tariff of Abominations."

Freehling notes that you can often tell a lot about a society by disproportionate reactions to perceived threats. In this case, the South Carolinian response to the first faint rumblings of abolitionist agitation was far in excess to the actual threat posed in the 1820s and early 30s, according to the author. However, the extremely dense slave population in the South Carolina low country (in some areas slaves out numbered whites 5 to 1), the experience of the Denmark Vesey conspiracy in 1822, the mysterious arsonist fires in Charleston, the constant presence of Yankee peddlers and free black British seamen mixing with the slave population, and the slow but ultimately successful abolition campaign of William Wilberforce in England all conspired to create an environment of fear and doom among the South Carolina gentry.

The traditional interpretation of the tariff's adverse impact in South Carolina was that the local planters were forced to trade their raw goods (in this case cotton) on the international open market but buy their end goods in a protected domestic market. Freehling concedes that there is some basis of truth to this claim, but only for a certain segment of the population. Some of the most ardent nullifiers were low country rice planters whose economic condition was relatively unaffected by the tariff and whose prices remained stable. The issue that welded the low country elite to an issue whose consequences were really absorbed by the up country was (in addition to inter marriage, school days at South Carolina College, etc.) the latter's growing fear of the abolitionists. Moreover, Freehling argues, gross absentee mismanagement of plantations, combined with a poor state financial infrastructure and a penchant to dramatically overspend for luxury items (the much needed specie often flowing outside of the state) were nearly as important in explaining the economic depression that gripped the region for over a decade as the tariff.

Freehling makes his case eloquently and convincingly. For those with a serious interest in early 19th century American history - especially those interested in economic development, states rights doctrine, or the impact of abolitionism - this book cannot be more highly recommended.

If you become interested in the American Civil War you will find yourself going back further and further into our history seeking the roots of this conflict. If you don't choose to return to the Constitutional debates and compromises Freehling's book is one of the best places to begin your attempts to understand just what happened.

This book is an engrossing history of the revolt of South Carolina against the tariffs and trade rules imposed by the general government in Washington D.C. It has a fabulous cast of characters beginning with John C. Calhoun and running down through the South Carolina planters and politicians who ultimately did so much to break up the Union. Andrew Jackson, as president, puts an end to what almost became an armed revolt and could have caused gunfire to errupt in Charleston Bay decades before the showdown came at Fort Sumter.

I loved this book, as I did Mr. Freehling's "Road to Disunion", and only regret that the second volume of that work never did appear as promised.

For the Civil War and Age of Jackson aficionado, this is an excellent book to read. One will not be able to fly through the 360 pages, but it is very enjoyable and full of great information about the Ante Bellum south as well as the country's political landscape in that era. We know little today about how close South Carolina came to seceding from the Union. The Nullification Crisis, while a mind-numbing subject in high school and college, is brought to life here in a way that is easy to understand and follow. Freehling did an excellent job of researching and explaining the many dynamics involved in the South Carolina society in determining who was for or against nullification, secession, preserving the union and protecting slavery and why. The interplay was fascinating and, though I couldn't recite it back to you, I obtained a lot of knowledge I had never been exposed to before.

With Ronald Reagan's passing, discussions turned again to our "best" or "great" presidents. Andrew Jackson's name is frequently included among our Top Ten by most historians, yet very few of us could say why he deserves to be so highly regarded. In books like this, we can see why. He is not what I would consider to be a likable man and definitely comes across as somewhat tyrannical (not just in this book), but one has to admit after reading this book that he handled the Nullification Crisis and its aftermath very deftly with a clear vision and objective: that allegiance to the Union comes first and preservation of the Union is paramount. He laid the groundwork for Lincoln's management of the Civil War, some 25-30 years later.

The book is well-annotated and, though more than 35 years old is still relevant in its ideas and also in the sources it directs us to for further reading.

Despite the fact that this was first published in 1965, Freehling's work is still the source for the Nullification Controversy. To be sure, the book is at times tedious and because of the nature of nullification, at times it is very theoretical, but if you want to learn about nullification and the crisis that occurred because of it, read this book. I've read reviews of Freehling's other work where people complain of his writing style, but I thought this book actually read very well and Freehling explained things in a very concise, easily understood manner. At times, I must admit I found it hard to keep the theoretical aspects straight or all the players who were involved, but after reading this book, you will come away with an understanding of the nullification crisis.

According to William Freehling -- and the evidence he amasses is extraordinarily convincing -- it really was "all about slavery"! The Civil War, that is, so if you, dear reader, have stubbornly asserted otherwise through the course of your benighted life, you'd better shun this book. It's always painful to be forced to admit that you were wrong!

Freehling's title - Prelude to Civil War - is apt and intentionally challenging. The 'Nullification' controversy of the late 1820s and 1830s ostensibly focused on tariffs. Drawing from the speeches and writings of the advocates of Nullification, however, Freehling finds explicit and ample evidence that: 1) the most ardent advocates of the "right' of a state to nullify a federal law were consciously and cleverly using the tariff conflict as a 'dress rehearsal' for resistance to any federal interference with slavery; 2) while raging against the tariff, the most radical 'nullifiers' were already advoacting and preparing for secession decades before the election of Lincoln; 3) among the more moderate nullifiers, nullification was taken to be a means of 'preserving' the Union by severely curtailing the role of the Federal government; 4) the exposition of a 'States' Rights' interpretation of the Constitution always amounted essentially to a strategic defense of the institution of slavery. In other words, the State's Right South Carolinians valued above all was the right to perpetuate the state's primordial Wrong, to maintain their unique planters' oligarchy based on slavery, essentially their Right to a culture of arrogant indolence, lording it over the rest of ill-bred humanity.

South Carolina, in the decades from the Revolution to Secession, was a distinctive society, economically, politically, and culturally at odds not only with the northern Free states but also with the other states of the slavocracy. Its economy was based on rice and premium long-staple cotton in the dominant tidewater region, but short-staple cotton in the piedmont, putting the state thus in uncomfortable competition with the slave states farther west. It had the largest percentage slave population in the slavocracy, with more than half of the human beings in the tidewater being slaves of African origin. It had a desperately unhealthy disease climate; mortality among both the slaves and those who drove them was horrific. Carolina's code of chivalry, scorning both honest labor and 'sordid' entrepreneurship, resulted in severe underdevelopment of financial institutions and of physical infrastructure. In another great book, David Hackett Fischer's 'Albion's Seed', the argument is made that Virginia and Carolina had in fact been populated originally by English 'cavaliers' and Englishmen of cavalier cultural sympathies, at least partially accounting for the persistent cultural antagonisms between the South and the 'Roundhead' North.

It's a huge flaw in the basic, high-school level program of study of American history that nearly all the attention is given to 'national' events and developments. In fact, from the end of the Revolution until the Civil War, the most interesting and portentous developments were taking place in the various states, and the various states' histories reveal more about the dynamics of American growth than anything that happened in Washington DC. At the most obvious level, the budgets of the several richer states were larger and more complex than the budget of the Federal government in any year before the Civil War. Business patterns, especially corporation law, were evolving in the state legislatures and state courts, not in DC. To study antebellum America as a unified nation-state is to observe the wagging tail and ignore the dog. William Freehling's focused study of South Carolina, 1816-1836, is a superb model of states' historiography, and nicely written, too!

It is impossible in history to set a definite time for the beginning or ending of an event large or small. Many 19th century historians believe the Civil War began around 1776. Dr. Freehling is of this opinion but in this book he brings us closer to the main event for a start.
Why is this book important? First, it is written by the foremost historian of 19th century America. Second, while giving credence to the economic issues that covered the real causes of war, Dr. Freehling decimates the theory that the war was mainly a struggle over two unique economies and the support of states' rights. He shows clearly the real issue at hand was the threatened squeeze on the future of slavery. Third and most important the book gives us much to rethink in our evaluations and conceptions, offered in scholarly but very readable prose for which the author has become famous.
Put simply, if anyone is interested in American history and knows the author this book is a must have. No one who reads William W. Freehling wastes time or energy reading his work.

Focused on South Carolina politics in the period surrounding the Nullification Crisis, this is a superb exploration of the nature of Southern politics and society. Freehling produced a revisionist account of the Nullification Crisis. Prior accounts had stressed the economic embarrassment of cotton planters and reaction to the so-called 1828 Tariff of Abominations as the primary cause of the Nullification controversy. While not minimizing the importance of economic factors, Freehling produced a multifactorial explanation incorporating a sophisticated understanding of the Southern commitment to slavery. For example, Freehling points out that strong support for Nullification came from lowland rice planters who were not strongly affected by the collapse in cotton prices. By the mid-1820s, Carolina planters were feeling stresses from several directions. The collapse of cotton prices imposed considerable strains on cotton planters, particularly in the Piedmont. The Denmark Vesey conspiracy increased anxiety, particularly in lowland counties where blacks outnumbered whites, about possible slave rebellions, and the first stirrings of Northern anti-slavery sentiment produced what can only be termed a hysterical reaction among South Carolina planters. Carolina planters were also very aware of international trends, such as the increasing success of the anti-slavery movement in Britain. Freehling develops a very nice analysis of how these anxieties were inherent in the peculiar position of the planters. Convinced that they were natural aristocrats and inculcated with a disdain for commercial activities, they were also entrapped in an essentially colonial economy dependent on outside credit and markets. Slaveholders in a republic ostensibly based on natural human rights, they were exposed to the contradictions of their positions on a daily basis. In these circumstances, the Nullification movement was not only an effort to wrest more favorable economic conditions but also an effort to forestall Northern action on slavery.

Freehling does a masterly job of combining a close analysis of South Carolina politics with social and economic history. He is also particularly good on the relationship between local-regional politics and national politics. His conclusion that the responses of South Carolinians were driven to a very large extent by deep seated anxiety and ambivalence about slavery is argued convincingly. The analysis is embedded in a first rate narrative of events leading up to, during, and after the Nullification Crisis per se. Multiple aspects of the narrative and analysis are outstanding. Freehling's accounts of the complex internal politics of South Carolina are presented in seamless and consistently interesting fashion. His close analysis of Nullification doctrines and the role of John Calhoun is particularly illuminating, as is his description of how the Jackson administration responded to the Crisis.

Freehling concludes with an excellent section on the consequences of Nullification and associated events. It would leave many South Carolina radicals convinced that only secession would suit their interests. It would show them also that this would be possible only with the cooperation of the at least some other Southern states. It would lead also to a "positive" defense of slavery; efforts to portray slavery as a beneficial institution, something quite important for the future. Finally, the over-reaching response of South Carolinians and other Southerners to very modest anti-slavery efforts, epitomized by the Nullification Crisis and associated events like the subsequent Gag Rule controversy, provoked considerable Northern suspicion of Southern motives. South Carolina radicals were the abolitionists best friends.

Ironically, this book was assigned to me as an undergraduate social studies major in the early 70's and like many lazy students, I tried my best to skim through the volume and to read no more of it than was absolutely necessary to be prepared for class and to pass the exams.

Now, over 30 years later, I have taken the book from my shelf, dusted it off, and actually read it cover-to-cover.

I am happy to report that it is a wonderful study of the period that clarifies the motivations behind the complex series of actions and reactions of those who lived through it.

At the same time I am extremely sad to report that it would have been a great read when I was twenty ... better later than never certainly applies here!

"Prelude to Civil War" by William W. Freehling, © 1965, 1966

It seems that there was just not enough to keep these people from fighting. If it was not one thing it was another. This is the story of how South Carolina almost seceded from the Union alone in the 1830's. For some reason, that was not really clear to the participants, as well as me, why citizens of South Carolina got bothered by a tariff instituted by the federal government. There was some real problem with the slaves and the issue of freedom, and that got blown out of proportion by the fear of slave insurrection violence. There were some interesting sidelights to this story. It was a part of this argument in Congress that the famous Webster-Haynes slavery debate took place. It was also noted that slave owners understood Independence Day celebrations were not for everyone and they were troubled by trying to get the slaves to work (like it is any easier to get wage slaves to work either) and by the violence they sometimes used on them.
The problem that I saw through this book was the lack of adventure or other use of the energy the rich youth had: they were spoiling for a fight; as well as getting others to allow them (South Carolinians)to be themselves.

This is an excellent book on antebellum America and some of the root causes of the U.S. Civil War. It is a well-crafted work that is easy to follow, but not necessarily an easy read. Freehling succinctly states that the apprehension over slavery is because of early slave revolts, such as the Denmark Vesey conspiracy in 1822. He is able to demonstrate how these anxieties played into the secessionist movement. Freehling illustrates that because of these types of events, and fear of future revolts; South Carolinia's state government grows highly oppressive stopping British sailors from freely intermingling with free blacks, and even trying to prevent discourse that is negative toward slavery. These actions are done while simultaneously decrying the Federal governments "Tariff of Abominations."

He further postulates that when a society disproportionately reacts to perceived threats it indicates their own fears or ambivalence to the direction the society is moving. Freeling shows that while there were planters harmed by the tariff others were not such as the low country rice planters who were some of the most vocal nullifiers. Rather, nullification is a fear driven reaction to the rise of abolitionist's movements and the likes of William Wilberforce, and have influenced studies on the development of states rights and the impact of abolitionism.

Freeling's arguments are not only convincing but also well written and relevant to today's political debates on state v federal rights.