Morrison

Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War. By Michael A. Morrison. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1997.

At the risk of quibbling about titles, Michael Morrison’s Slavery and the American West is not so much a history of slavery and west in the coming of the Civil War as it is an analytical “narrative of political affairs” which examines how that problem altered the American political landscape during the 1840s and 1850s. Morrison seeks to explore how antebellum politics based on economics and party lines on issues such as Texas annexation devolved into “sectional alignments and a fragmented political system” (4). Furthermore, he challenges the revisionist “repressible conflict” and ethnocultural theories for the causes of the Civil War, and instead “argues that the issues of expansion and slavery extension were critical to the destruction of Whiggery, the resonance of the Republican and fire-eater appeals, the disruption of the Democracy, the election of Lincoln, and the secession of the South” (10).

Americans were originally divided by party lines on the questions of expansion and slavery extension, Morrison explains, because of the parties’ differing political visions for the country. Democrats preached expansion because they “looked to an ever-enlarging frontier to preserve and maintain individual liberty” (16). Whig ideology, centered on “harmony, enterprise, and uplift,” called for more restrained expansion which would allow for development and reform at home and thus expand liberty within the established United States (21). For Morrison, the crisis that produced the Missouri Compromise was less of a foreshadowing of North-South sectionalism and more a continuation of Federalist versus Republican ideology, for those who wanted to exert more federal control over the territories and those who want to granted potential new states equal footing in the Union. Over time, however, antislavery restrictionism created a free soil revolt which upset the political balance. The idea of restricting slavery offended and ostracized the South because the prospect denied them sectional equality in the territories. The sectional crisis constituted an ideological clash between freesoilers’ vision of individual liberty versus the Southern concept of sectional liberty. The result was that by 1860 both North and South earnestly believed that “the essence and survival of liberty and democracy were at stake” (266).

Morrison deliberately frames political actors’ motives in terms of ideological consistency and a desire to restrain sectionalism. He seems to push this theme too far, however, even for a historian such as myself appreciative to the significance of ideology and skeptical of claims of historical ulterior motives (see Charles Beard). Morrison argues the Whigs nominated Zachary Taylor sincerely looking for a George Washington figure who could trump partisanship, specifically dismissing Lincoln’s sentiment that Taylor represented the most electable candidate. Stephen Douglas pushed his Kansas-Nebraska Act as an embodiment of Democratic principles which would promote party unity, not because concessions to the South would pave the way for a transcontinental railroad starting from Chicago to his political and material advantage. Morrison’s emphasis on ideological foundations risks ignoring political, economic, and other material motives—sincere ones at that—Northerners and Southerners had for seeking to restrict or extend slavery. Morrison tries to cement his explanation by asking, if sectionalism was over control of the territories, then why would the South secede and insulate itself and why would the North fight to keep the politically aggressive South in the Union? The question seems to be a nonstarter. For most Northerners, secession was intolerable because disunion was intolerable, while secession would hardly preclude the Confederacy from competing with the United States for control of the West (it did not).

Nevertheless, Morrison’s Slavery and the American West stands out as a sophisticated examination of the intellectual and ideological foundations of the sectional crisis, and thus well worthy of consideration. He successfully locates the competing visions of equality North and South in the nation’s revolutionary heritage, an approach that makes appreciable the ideological earnestness of both sides at the popular level in 1861, as well as dealing a welcome blow to the revisionist school. Similarly, Morrison succeeds in establishing the continuity of the Jacksonian political system into the sectional crisis despite the breakdown of its parties. At the same time, Morrison succeeds at another of his stated goals in establishing the South as an integrated part of the Jacksonian system rather than an uncertain political outsider.

Jonathan Steplyk

Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War. By Michael A. Morrison. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1997. 396 pp.

In his work, Slavery and the American West, Michael A. Morrison analyzes the relationship between the territorial issue and the origins of the Civil War to find the real source and essence of sectional strife. Morrison focuses upon the transformation of the partisan debate between Democrats and Whigs over territorial expansion to a regionally defined politics of the slavery extension issue during the 1840s to 1860s (1). Morrison argues that the territorial issue contributed to the coming of the Civil War by raising the issue of slavery extension but did not directly cause it. Morrison believes that the territorial issue sectionalized American politics and resulted in the election of a sectional president, Lincoln, which produced disunion and the secession crisis (276).

Morrison provides a brief historiography of the interpretations regarding the cause of the Civil War. Throughout his work, Morrison supplies an evaluation and critical analysis of each of the different schools of thought (8). The earliest interpretations centered on the idea of, “war guilt” (2). Northern writers said secession resulted from a slave power conspiracy intent on breaking up a Union it did not control while Southern writers stated claimed Northern restrictionists, upset by Congressional defeats, stirred up a sectional conflict in order to destroy the Southern rights and seize political power. The last quarter of the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth led to scholars who identified slavery as the central, virtually the only, cause of the Civil War. Whereas, Progressive historians contended that the struggle over the distribution of wealth and opposition of agrarianism and capitalism caused the War. In the 1940s and 1950s, revisionists maintained the Civil War as a needless war that followed from the inflamed public sentiment caused by small minorities. The Modernizationist view placed the value systems of Northern industrial society against the South’s anticapitalist way of life. Since the late 1960s, ‘new political historians’ emphasized that variables, such as religious affiliation and ethnicity, as well as issues like temperance and nativism, shaped political alignments and determined voting behavior (3).

Morrison dismisses the war guilt interpretation, and he does not believe evidence exists to show that a conscious conspiracy, to deny the other side a role in the government, existed in either the free or slave states. Nevertheless, both sides seemingly acted upon the conspiracy assumption. Morrison also rejects the Progressive interpretation on the basis that by the 1850s, both sections were industrializing. Morrison ultimately agrees that slavery caused the Civil War (9). Morrison argues that the issues of expansion and slavery extension remained critical to the destruction of Whiggery, resonance of Republican and fire-eater appeals, disruption of the Democratic party, the election of Lincoln, and the secession of the South (10).

Morrison attempts to root expansion and western settlement within the context of Jacksonian politics, as well as explain how specifically the territorial issue contributed to the fragmentation and sectionalization of the two-party system (6). President Tyler introduced the issue of territorial expansion into the American political system in the 1840s with the annexation of Texas. The Texas issue remained a partisan conflict but increased tension between the free and slave states. According to Morrison, expansion fell within Jacksonian and Revolutionary War ideologies of the promotion of liberty, equality, and democracy. For Morrison, the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 initiated the transition of interparty debate over expansion to the sectionalized politics of slavery extension (6). The Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act, “Bleeding Kansas,” and the LeCompton Affair continued to heighten sectional tensions and divisions. The election of Lincoln created the final sectionalization, as the South regarded Lincoln not as a representative of the entire electorate but a sectional President.

Morrison surmises that the American Revolution shaped the outlook and language of Jacksonian America. Each side in the territorial debate believed it was defending and extending the legacy of the Revolution (8). In partisan and sectional conflicts, the various sides viewed all the antebellum events through the American Revolution. Yet, because each side viewed itself as the protector of equality and liberty, the other side represented the opposition of these values. As Morrison points out, from voters’ perspective, the conflicts did not involve the North versus the South but America vs. the North or America vs. the South (279).

Morrison provides a great narrative of the events leading up to the complete sectionalization of politics and secession. His brief historiography furnishes a nice background into the different schools of thought regarding the causes of the Civil War. Morrison supports his thesis in a well-researched and well-documented work.

Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War. By Michael A. Morrison. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1997. Pp. xvii + 388.

According to Morrison “the eclipse of interparty debate between the Democrats and Whigs over expansion defines the politics of the extension of slavery.”(1) The political source of the Civil War, he submits, was anchored in the meaning of national expansion.

Morrison introduces his work with a brief review of the progression of the historiographical viewpoints relating to his topic. Early Northern writers focused on “war guilt,” laying the blame for the war squarely on the South. Southern writers, on the other hand, maintained that Northern politicians, stung by defeats in congress, openly stirred up the sectional conflict. In the last quarter of the 19th century, historians focused on the slavery question as the ultimate – in fact the only cause of the war. Progressive historians looked at the growing sectional divergence in terms of the conflict between agrarianism and capitalism, free trade and protectionism. Revisionists of the 1940s and 1950s blamed blundering politicians for what they considered to be a needless war. Historians influenced by the Civil Rights Movement asserted that it was the moral issue of slavery that gave the struggle its significance. Modernists, on the other hand, interpreted sectionalism in terms of the value systems of northern industrialism and southern agrarianism. “New political historians” since the 1960s discount slavery, territorial expansion and national politics. They identify the root causes as religious affiliation, ethnicity and issues such as temperance, nativism, and anti-Catholicism that shaped political alignments.

The author proceeds to rebut many of the more popular interpretations. Considering the “war guilt” historians, he argues that the evidence indicates “no conscious conspiracy in either the free or slave states to deny the other a role in government.”(9) For those who would counter with the states’ rights argument, he points out examples to prove that neither the north nor south maintained a consistent position regarding states’ rights. Those who would argue that the unique culture of the two sections ultimately crashed, he notes, do not take into account the commonalities of language, religion and political heritage. Morrison also argues that slavery caused the Civil War only in the broadest possible context. Likewise, he takes the economic interpretation to task. Finally, “the conflict over the territories suggests the animating effect of principles and ideology. That is, revolutionary values were axiomatic and controlling.”(10)

Morrison’s first major theme fixes the roots of expansion and western settlement within the context of Jacksonian politics. The annexation of Texas serves as his example in contending that expansion served as a means to reorganize fragmented and fluid political system. Expansion met the need for land, ameliorated class distinctions and provide new opportunities for upward mobility. The second considers how sectionalism contributed to the fragmentation of the two-party system.

The author considers the Wilmot Proviso to be the beginning of the sectional rift. It was the Proviso, he argues, that linked the slavery question to territorial expansion. The Proviso’s “antislavery opposition cast the South in an adversarial role, denying it not only the equal protection of government but a shared nationalism.” (32) The intent of the Proviso also suggests a growing split in the Democratic Party.

The basic parameters of the sectional issue were articulated and defined in the late 1840s. Northerners believed that slavery retarded the progress of the nation, degraded white workers, and disregarded the fundamental republican principles of liberty and equality. “The essence of the territorial issue was whether the national government would be administered in the spirit of the revolutionary heritage or handed over to an aristocratic power.”(6) Two divergent ideas of what America was were emerging, and each side believed that its concept upheld the intent of the founding fathers. Each side saw the other’s viewpoint as alien to the concept of America. Northerners felt they were defending autonomy against an oppressive minority. Southerners felt they were defending the rights of the minority. Democrats who took the middle ground felt that slavery in the territories was a local issue and that the federal government had no right to interfere with “popular sovereignty.”

Parties fragmented over the issues. Radical states’ righters contended that the Republican triumph in 1860 abridged the equal rights of the South in the Union and the freedom that inhered to self government. Since 1846 southern politicians had defined the territorial question in terms of the South’s equal rights in the Union. The election of 1860 convinced southerners that “the purpose of the Northern states to administer this government entirely according to their own views, purposes and prejudices.” (256) The North had succeeded in organizing a totally sectional party that had seized control of the government.

While Morrison does not offer a new interpretation, his approach is refreshing ans thought-provoking. This book is well researched and heavily documented. Forty-nine pages of bibliography provide a wealth of research material for any scholar interested in the period. In addition, more than fifty pages of notes supply additional and expanded insights. Morrison’s style is a bit wordy, and he sometimes gives the impression that he is attempting to impress his reader with his erudite presentation. Still, it offers a fascinating intellectual perspective on the causes of the sectional conflict that led to Civil War.

Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War. By Michael A. Morrison. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, c. 1997, Pp. xii, 396. $25.00, ISBN 0-8078-2319-8.)

The causes of the Civil War continues to dominate the scholarly historical literature and the book Slavery and the American West adds yet another facet to the debate. Michael Morrison contends that his study will focus on the root of expansion and western settlement within the context of Jacksonian politics thereby illustrating the importance these two components played in the disruption of the Union. While Morrison focuses on the politics and rhetoric of territorial expansion during the mid-1800s more so than the complexities of slavery within their scope, he does argue that the issue of slavery was indeed intertwined with the issues of expansion.

Morrison begins with a succinct historiography of Civil War interpretations that are helpful in refreshing the reader’s memory and also placing his study within its framework. His work objects to the Progressive interpretations that generally contend that the territorial issue and moral implications of slavery did not play key roles in causing the Civil War. Historians such as Charles and Mary Beard argue that the defining threads lay in the economic landscape of agrarianism and capitalism. Morrison contends that the territorial issue was not an abstraction, but central to political life. This theme resonates throughout his study.

He begins by examining the political history and importance of the annexation of Texas. The Texas question began with Andrew Jackson, but was not resolved until the presidency of James Polk. The author delves heavily into the political climate of Jackson’s era and shows that the president believed annexation was important, but because of the developing sectional tensions, Jackson tabled the issue. With each subsequent president the issue of Texas and its annexation dominated the political agenda. President John Tyler spent a great deal of time dealing with the annexation and by 1844 it was apparent that fresh land was needed to continue lucrative agricultural growth. By this time the North anti-annexationists blamed southern greed and their desire to expand slavery for the growing tensions between the United States and Mexico. Morrison continues his study by examining Polk’s annexation of Texas, the Wilmot Proviso, and Mexican-American War and their roles in the growing resentment and alienation developing between Northern and Southern politicians.

The strengths of Slavery and the American West are Morrison’s gift for detail and eye-catching quotes. He has looked at hundreds of manuscript collections and periodicals, which have strengthened his ability to “examine the change of American attitudes over time toward expansion and destiny”(12). While Morrison may be able to “examine attitudes,” his assertion that the study’s examination of “public and private discourse” can reveal “how it bore meaning” in the minds of Americans seems to be an overstated ability for a writer with twentieth-century values and hindsight (10).

The most interesting chapter is “Washington Redux” which examines Zachary Taylor’s role as General during the Mexican War, his presidential campaign, and subsequent election to the highest political office. Morrison discusses Taylor’s persuasive campaign speeches and credits them with coalescing a troubled and shaken public that endured the divisive discourse over the Mexican War and the Wilmot Proviso. Taylor called forth the spirit of the revolutionary fathers, particularly focusing on his idol George Washington. Morrison asserts that Taylor’s campaign rhetoric was only a temporary fix for a country that by 1848 had become dangerously sectionalized. Taylor’s personal shortcomings, his party’s disorganization and the growing sectional strife continued to plague the political and social environment of the country. The revolutionary spirit had become sectionalized, with each region using its rhetoric to bolster their political, social, and economic agendas.

The divisions continued to grow and the political machinations of Stephen A. Douglas aided in ensuring that compromise would be difficult. His proposal to admit California into the Union perpetuated the divisiveness of territorial expansion. California’s size added to the sense of urgency. The issue over slave extension continued and the Free-soilers capsulated the essence of the territorial issue saying, “whether this government shall be administered in the spirit that gave it birth, or whether the suffering and trials of the Revolution shall have been endorsed in vain…and this Government become an Aristocracy, based on slave property, and slave representation” (111). This statement represents the core tenet involved in the ultimate fragmentation of the Union. Morrison’s conclusion offers a review of the main points and again he addresses the various viewpoints espoused by historians about the causes. He focuses more on political themes, but his conclusion falls short of synthesizing his study into the framework. His research is in-depth, but the themes are not new.

Texas Christian University

Liz Nichols