Most Helpful Customer Reviews
18 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Rub, October 4, 2010
This review is from: Year of Meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the Election that Brought on the Civil War (Hardcover)
A quite good account of the immediate political run-up to the Civil War. Professor Douglas R. Egerton's book should be read by anyone with an interest in how the various political parties and factions handled, or mishandled, the presidential election campaign of 1860 and, afterward, the months leading to Abraham Lincoln's inaugural in March of 1861.
Many general history books on the period glide over such events as Senator Stephen Douglas' campaign foray into the South, the Peace Convention, or the details of the formation of Jefferson Davis' cabinet. "Year of Meteors" is a full account, essential to understanding of why planters and firebrands acted to take the South out of the union and what compromises had been attempted to prevent this disunion.
Professor Egerton is right in placing slavery (not economics or constitutional theory) front and center as the reason so many soldiers died in the 1860s.
I personally do not value Senator Douglas as much as does the author, but I do value this book and highly recommend it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good, Old-Fashioned Abolitionist Take on the 1860 Presidential Election, March 19, 2011
This review is from: Year of Meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the Election that Brought on the Civil War (Hardcover)
I actually started this book by first reading the Appendix and the Acknowledgements, and it left me with a sense of foreboding. The author, a college professor based in New York, is (surprise!) very liberal.
In the Acknowledgements, he oddly concludes by saying George McGovern's 1972 Presidential campaign "now stand(s) vindicated" (page 341). McGovern himself, however, once observed "For years, I wanted to run for President in the worst possible way - and I'm sure I did!" In the Appendix, Egerton labels the George W. Bush administration as "failed" (337). That seems a premature judgment for an historian - would he say the same of Harry Truman, whose party also lost the next election by a wide margin? Finally, Egerton makes sure to point out that the modern-day Republican Party is now the dominate party of the American South (338). He no doubt wanted to make this point because the American South is the clear villain in Egerton's book.
Yet, I am pleasantly surprised to report that this is actually a good book, if you read it with the understanding that it is written from an old-fashioned, immediate abolitionist perspective. I have read a number of Presidential campaign books, and I would rank this among the better ones (my personal favorites are "The 103rd Ballot" - 1924 - and "Dark Horse" - 1880). It is, indeed, a comprehensive survey of the momentous election of 1860. There is little or no cultural history covered here. It's all politics - smoke-filled rooms, speeches, floor fights in legislative and convention halls, and electoral map strategizing. And, that's what I like in my Presidential campaign books.
Egerton also wisely does not devote much attention to the winner - Abraham Lincoln. The story of his rise from long-shot to surprise nominee is a well worn yarn, and the sections devoted to his campaign are actually among the slowest. The author focuses on the other candidates, especially Stephen Douglas, and it really is fascinating. I also learned a lot about the largely forgotten campaigns of John Bell and John Breckinridge.
There are only two qualms I have, one light-hearted, the other more serious. Light-heartedly, while I found it interesting to read about Gerrit Smith and the Liberty Party, Egerton puts way too much emphasis on Smith as a potential spoiler for the Republicans. Smith finished fifth in the popular vote that year, and he only got about 500 votes (or 0.01%) nationally. Egerton, I suspect, knew he was making too much of Smith's candidacy - because he never does tell us how many votes Smith actually got.
A more serious problem is Egerton's all-out determination to lay the entire cause of the Civil War on the issue of slavery alone. On this basis of argument, everything the South does seems incomprehensible or simply evil to the reader. He then personifies this incomprehensible, evil South in the words and deeds of fire-eaters Edmund Ruffin and, especially, William Yancey. When they eventually meet their personal dooms in 1865 and 1863, respectively, we the readers take grim satisfaction.
However, Egerton should know better than this because among his sources is Volume II of "The Emergence of Lincoln" by Allan Nevins. According to Nevins, it was not one cause unattached to anything else, and it was not one section alone, that was to blame for the war. After a thorough analysis of its many alleged causes, Nevins concludes on page 468: "The main root of the conflict (and there were minor roots) was the problem of slavery with its complementary problem of race-adjustment; the main source of the tragedy was the refusal of either section to face these conjoined problems squarely and pay the heavy costs of a peaceful settlement." I would also recommend, in that same book, the long chapter on "Slavery in a World Setting," which offers a very fair analysis of the slavery problem in the South. Why wouldn't Egerton listen to Nevins? As a speech writer for JFK, he was very liberal himself.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Dammit, Elections Matter, December 17, 2010
This review is from: Year of Meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the Election that Brought on the Civil War (Hardcover)
Recently while watching a CSPAN program, I was reminded that the sesquicentennial of the US civil war/war between the states is fast approaching. And, of course, the presidential election that arguably brought on that war took place 150 years ago this fall. Thus it is appropriate that a book on the 1860 election should appear.
YEAR OF METEORS is historian DOuglas R. Egerton's study of what I have long believed is the single most important presidential election in US history. That is because the election's results caused states to secede from the union, and when the newly elected president of the US refused to allow their secession, the war came.
This book is almost entirely political history. Egerton begins with an examination of the political scene (issues, ideologies, events, candidates) on the eve of the election. He then devotes four chapters to each of the political parties which contested this election: Democrats (Stephen Douglas) and Southern break-away Democrats (John Breckinridge); Constitutional Union (John Bell) and Liberty (Gerritt Smith); and Republican (Abraham Lincoln). Next comes a chapter describing events, issues, and candidates during the fall campaign and then one on the secession of the lower-South states. There follows a chapter on the establishment of the CSA government and the formation of Lincoln's administration. We are also reminded of the several attempts at a Compromise of 1860 and that a Peace Convention met in the District of Columbia in February 1861 following the first phase of secession. An Epilogue describing events leading immediately to the outbreak of the war concludes the work.
When I came across this book something inside me said "it's about time a historian published a modern history of this election". I was somewhat excited. However, after finishing it, my attitude is slightly different. I found the book not terribly interestingly written and felt a need rather than a desire to finish it. I'm not certain why I felt this way. Maybe I've already read too much on this period and its political characters. Perhaps the book is so politically oriented and might have benefitted from the inclusion of a little more non-political material. Yes, I know: elections are very political events!
So I tried to identify some of the parts of the book which I found especially interesting. The author's treatment of Stephen Douglas (he begins and ends the book with Douglas) is one. And I really enjoyed the sections on Virginia fireater Edmund Ruffin, a slightly bizarre figure, and the young group of Republican Party partisans during the fall campaign known as "Wide Awakes". More profiles and topics along these lines would have been helpful in adding variety. I also would have liked to have seen a chapter describing how common people in various sections of the country reacted to and responded to Lincoln's victory in November.
I definitely would prefer to see more interpretation and analysis from the author. In the book he pretty much gives us narrative history. Greater inclusion of interpretation and maybe even some conjecture would have made the book more attractive for me. For example, would Douglas' election as president likely have led to delay of or even prevention of secession and war? I don't know, but I have long wondered about this and would like to see Egerton's views.
A couple miscellaneous comments in closing. The book badly needs a bibliography. With the huge number of sources cited in the notes, the lack of a bib is appalling and inexcusable. What is the matter with editors and publishers? As for the book's title, in case anyone is wondering, it is taken from a Walt Whitman poem.
And yes, elections do matter.
3.75 stars
Tim Koerner December 2010
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
