Rating: 
Summary: Freehling Writes a Definitive History of Disunion
Review: Mr. Freehling states in his preface that he had originally planned on writing about the Southern secession crisis of 1860-61, but he quickly realized that the subject was far too complicated to adequately and thoroughly cover it in such a limited time period. He discovered that, in order to give a complete picture of the road to disunion, he had to begin his study around the mid-1700s. After reading the result of his work, The Road to Disunion, I could understand and appreciate why he had to do so. This remarkable book covers the very complicated and, amazingly, still controversial topic of Southern secession with clarity, thoroughness, and even wit. Mr. Freehling chronicles the political and social history of the South and its place in American history in a way that is highly informative, highly researched, and highly readable.Mr. Freehling relies heavily on the actual words of the southern political and social elite to paint a detailed and absorbing picture of ! the various crises that incrementally pulled the US apart. He provides the reader with a wealth of information and details on the Gag Rule Controversy, the Missouri Compromise, and the annexation of Texas among others, and his skill as an historian and as a writer make all these events extremely clear and understandable for perhaps the first time. He also gives the reader a richly detailed portrait of the South that cracks, if not shatters, the idea of "a unified South". Mr. Freehling describes the diversity of the region, the differences in commerce, in attitudes, in climate, and ultimately, the people. This absorbing portrait allows the reader to see the South in three dimensions, and makes the accomplishment of bringing most of the south into a southern confederacy through the efforts of southern political leaders such as Robert Barnwell Rhett, Howell Cobb, and John C. Calhoun much more intriguing. Ultimately, The Road to Disunion accomplishes one major tas! k; it demonstrates that the issue of slavery was THE primar! y factor in the breakup of the Union. Freehling shows that the Civil War was a direct result of a history of Southern political and class arrogance, of a small group of influential people clinging to an antiquated feudal system that enslaved a race of people, and a series of subsequent clashes between ideologies. Great-grandpa Silas may have rightly said he was fighting for his rights or to protect his home and family, but the causes of the conflict in which he fought have much more complicated beginnings. Regardless of Silas' motives, he was by default fighting for the preservation of slavery.
Rating:
Summary: Do your self a favor and buy this book now.
Review: Mr. Freehling's book was my introduction to Ante-bellum history. It was not hard to understand and shed a blinding light on this period of America's past.
Those who complain about this book or call it dull are only revealing their own shortcomings.
Don't overlook this wonderful book because you read a few bad reviews from lazy readers.
Rating:
Summary: A Chess-Player's Guide to Pre-Civil War Politics
Review: The cut-and-thrust of national and local party politics accurately captured, move-by-move, with insights into how the personal character of the participants, regional and local economic interests, and party ideologies all interacted to melt down the national Whig Party and break our country into two warring sections. Tremendous primer for anyone interested in how national political parties win elections and shape history, applicable to today's political environment. Portrays the political conflicts that arose within the nation, and within the region, that attempted to create a free white man's republic coexisting with and supporting private islands of absolute enslaved despotism. Phenomenal level of historical detail, with fine research to back up major points of analysis.
Rating: 
Summary: Awful
Review: This book is weird. The cover makes it "look" interesting, but looks are deceiving in Freehling's case. His writing style is downright weird--he intersperses what seem to be fictional accounts with his actual history, and uses strange colloquialisms that no serious historian would ever even think of putting into a scholarly publication (I mean, who even says "blackassed?") I had to read this book for a history graduate course in fall 2002, and it was hated by all in the class (even the professor), except the sole southerner. If you want to become informed about the secession crisis, read a US history textbook, but do NOT read this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Warning!!
Review: This book should *only* be read by those who are already well educated on all the issues it covers. It is written by a "subject expert" to other "subject experts". The book was assigned for a class I took, and was roundly hated. If one was already quite conversant on the subject, and was fascinated by it, it would probably be a good read. Its greatest failing, in my opinion, was Freehling's propensity for referring to things (as if the reader already understands), rather than explaining.
Rating:
Summary: A Definitive History of an Impending Crisis
Review: This is one of those must-have books for anyone interested in the origins and causes of America's bloodiest conflict. Author William Freehling focuses not only on the seeds of sectional disunion, between North and South, but places particular emphasis on the disunion within the South itself. It was this political and social reality that long delayed secession and war. "The Road to Disunion" tells a complicated tale, peopled by larger than life characters (among them, Andrew Jackson, John C. Calhoun, and Henry Clay); it is a story that Freehling takes us through step by step to 1854--through the Missouri Compromise, the Nullification Crisis, the Annexation of Texas, the Compromise of 1850. Each event is one more inexorable step down that terrible road, at the end of which, unbeknownst to those involved, lay national tragedy. And lurking just below the surface at every turn and straightaway was the major divisive issue that remained unresolved at the birth of the United States--slavery. Like Kenneth Stampp ("America in 1857") and most other modern historians, Freehling dismisses the revisionism that dominated the history of the antebellum period for much of the first half of the twentieth century. While tariffs, internal improvements, and other issues certainly contributed to the eventual break between the two halves of the nation, it was the attempts by slaveholders to protect the "peculiar institution" that was the root cause of civil war. By manipulating the democratic process, often through undemocratic means, the "Slave Power", a minority in the greater republic, was able to protect its interests and to expand slavery into new territories. Almost no one comes off smelling like roses in Freehling's account, particularly not the southern wing of the Democratic party and its "doughface" northern allies, who between them bear much of the responsibility for the coming conflagration. In reading some of the other reviews of Freehling's book, I noticed that many readers found his prose difficult. It does have an odd rhythm to it, I'll admit, but once I was past the first few pages I found my self caught up in the flow of words. In the end, I have probably reread this book on an average of once per year. I look forward to the long-promised Volume 2.
Rating:
Summary: History writing at its best, a noteworthy achievment.
Review: This is the single best analysis of the reasons for the origin of the rift between north and south that I have ever read (that amounts to approx 100 books). Mr. Freehling has captured the social and political problems of the US between 1776 and 1854, and how and why these problems grew, what the meant to the individuals involved(movers and shakers and the more general population). Clear, concise, through. Adds immeasurably to an understanding of America befor the Civil War. Who are we? this helps explain. Robert E. (Bob) Hooper
|
