Book Review: Storm over Texas by Joel H. Silbey

Storm Over Texas: The Annexation Controversy and the Road to the Civil War
Joel H. Silbey
Copyright 2005

Oxford University Press

Pivotal Moments in American History series

In this book, author Joel Silbey claims that the long-running controversy over whether or not to bring the republic of Texas into the United States was a key point on the path to the Civil War.

The author clearly researched this book very well and he provides many quotes and evidence to support his arguments about the effects this controversy produced.

He does not claim that the arguments over Texas immediately led to an inevitable Civil War, but, rather, shows how it began the process that led to war, perhaps like a small chip in a windshield that can lead to worsening problems over time. He explains how the disputes over Texas affected the workings of American political parties and how partisan politics gradually shifted to a more "sectional" political reality thanks in part to this controversy.

Though this book concerns political events, it also describes the American political system of the era, which relied on two major political parties (Democrat and Whig) to define and debate issues. Sectionalism had popped up occasionally before The Texas issue, but had always calmed back down letting political debate remain set along partisan lines, a tradition that started to change with the dispute over Texas.

The author does an outstanding job of showing the inter- and intra-party workings of this system, particularly of the Democrats and how these workings started slowly evolving during and after after the Texas controversy. It was within the Democratic party where the first signs of the effects of the Texas issue began to become evident in 1844 and 1845 and where sectionalism began to grow and seep outward. 

Politicians like Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, James Polk and John C. Calhoun all played prominent roles as this drama slowly unfolded, such as Van Buren and his supporters growing disenchanted with Polk, leading to disputes within the Democratic Party and Van Buren becoming a Free Soil Party candidate. Calhoun, meanwhile contributed greatly to the reappearance and growth of sectionalism.

Additional events after the annexation - starting with the debates over the Wilmot Proviso and continuing with issues such as the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Preston Brooks' attack on Charles Sumner, Bleeding Kansas and the Dred Scott decision - continued the path that annexation had started, resulting in secession after the 1860 Presidential election. The Kansas-Nebraska act comes across as the one event that provoked a quick and strong reaction, but even it was only building on feelings, disagreements and changes that had sprouted up after the debate over Texas.

This is a good book, very informative, especially on how the political system and parties worked and how the annexation of Texas affected them. The author's writing flows fairly well, making this book a good read.  Sibley provides much evidence from many sources to support his points and he weaves many different quotes into his narrative in a fine, readable fashion. His work provides a fine perspective on American politics in the years before the Civil War and how, with a blow from the debate over Texas, the chip in the American windshield led to a full fracture in April 1861.

Horsing Around: Some Thoughts on the Democratic Party Before the 1864 Election

With the 150th anniversary of the historic 1864 Presidential election approaching quickly, I have recently discovered some information I did not know before, and also confirmed some understanding of the Democratic Part issues that I had not thought about lately.

One tidbit that especially intrigued me was that the chairman of the 1864 Democratic Convention was August Belmont, who owned successful horse breeding farms in New York and Kentucky. Horse racing fans know that the third race of the sport's "Triple Crown" is the Belmont Stakes, now held at Belmont Park in New York. This race was named for August Belmont. Those interested in his career in the horse industry and the vast influence he wielded in it should read How Kentucky Became Southern by MaryJean Wall. It is a fine book about Kentucky history and memory, and frequently discusses Belmont's horse breeding business, which shifted between Kentucky and New York.

More information on the history of Belmont Stakes, though not with a lot of details of its namesake can also be found right here as well as on other links on that page. A longer, more detailed article, including information on his financial career and actions during the war years is at this link.

In the political arena, Belmont favored prosecuting the war before any reunion with the Confederate states, while the most vocal, and perhaps best-known, Democrat, Clement Vallandigham, preferred to end the war and reunite the nation immediately. This was the "peace without victory" philosophy that Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate George Pendleton also shared.

The party's Presidential nominee, General George B. McClellan, opposed this concept and his letter accepting the party's nomination repudiated the party's "peace plank" that was a key part of the party's platform. This led Vallindigham to refuse to campaign for McClellan.  This fissure was not as severe as the one the party faced in 1860 when it divided into two factions that each nominated its own candidate, but it does show that 4 years of time had only shifted the internal argument from one between Northern and Southern Democrats to one between War and Peace Democrats, and from how government should or could handle slavery to whether or not to continue the war effort.

August Belmont, courtesy newyorksocialdiary.com

Patrotism Before Complexion

I recently received a copy of he "small edition " of the Cincinnati Daily Gazette of December 31, 1862 and found this little commentary on one of the main issues of the time especially with the Emancipation Proclamation scheduled to be signed by President Lincoln the next day

The story refers to another Cincinnati newspaper, the Cincinnati Daily Enquirer.

Patriotism Before Complexion

The Enquirer objects to the raising of black troops for service against the rebels. Does not its objection go more than skin deep? Is it not opposed to the raising of any kind of troops to fight the Democratic rebellion? But if, as the Democratic leaders recommended, the Democrats are to stay at home to vote, somebody must be had to do their duty in the field. In time of danger men fall to their level. Then a man is estimated by what he does, not by his complexion or race. And it will hardly be denied that a black man who offers his life in the war against the rebels is a vastly better man than a white man who stays at home to vote to aid them.