The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 Paperback – Illustrated, March 15, 2011

The story of the runup to the Civil War has been told many times, with many different points of view, and with a focus on many different elements of the evolving bitterness between the North and the South. None of these accounts has captured the relentless force and complexity of the conflict as well as David Potter's The Impending Crisis.It almost seemed natural that the United States in 1850, a nation then only just over 60 years old, was still very much growing into its transcontinental form, still encompassing two vastly different cultures - that of the patrician slaveholders of the South, stuck a bit in the past, and of the mercantile interests, surging with energy and ambition, in the North. Not only were there economic and cultural differences but the political gulf that separated the North from the South ruined one of the two great parties of the country, the Whigs, and splintered the Democratic party into two belligerent wings.Through the forces of territorial expansion and increasing imbalances in economic power, the North confronted the South with gradually louder demands to dismantle the slavery system. Slavery, however, in the South had been too firmly woven into its cotton economy, based as it was on cheap labor. In addition, many in the South felt the potential insurrection potential of having six million exploited souls in its midst.Potter tells this agonizing drama with great skill. It is, indeed, a remarkable story, full of human conflict - Calhoun drifting further and further away from his former roommate, Henry Clay; Steven Douglas - never able to grant the concept of citizenship to the black population -- arguing for the rights of popular opinion in whether or not to retain or reject slavery in the new territories against an extraordinary rising politician in the new Republican party, Abraham Lincoln; Charles Sumner, the abolitionist Massachusetts senator clubbed brutally on the floor of the Senate by his senatorial colleague from South Carolina.More than anything, Potter tracks the gradual disintegration of the political parties. Since the first election, in 1796, the winner had carried both slave and free states until 1848. After that, no winner carried both the North and the South. In fact, as Potter points out, the next winner to prevail in both sections was Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. As the Whigs weakened, a new faction, the Republican party, picked up the pieces, almost all of which were derived from the Northern states. The Democratic party was increasingly a party led by the South. In fact, by 1860, the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the election without even being on the ballot in the Southern states. This realignment of the political parties was a complicated process but Potter lets it unfold in a logical and absorbing way.By the time Potter arrives at the election of Lincoln in 1860, the story is complete. The South had far fewer natural advantages going in to the armed conflict. It had a far smaller economy, a smaller population, a sizable proportion of the population that could not be relied upon to remain orderly and submissive, and less developed transportation and communication systems. The South did, however, possess military figures of enormous skill, some with almost unnatural talents in picking the right fights at the right time. Only with the rapid promotion of Ulysses S. Grant ("Unconditional Surrender Grant") did the Union begin to turn the tide.This is book that requires time to absorb; each major topic is discussed with great care to present the context of both sides in the conflict. Each topic moves the reader along the path to understanding the core reasons for the differences between the North and the South. It is a fully rewarding experience to be led by Potter through this great story.

I would rate this as one of the most important books I have read. For the first time, I came to an understanding of many of the mysteries of the events that lead to the Civil War which seem impenetrable to a modern reader.Potter first outlines the demographic and social conditions of the United States in the period which preceded the War. The turning point was the Mexican War which upset the balance between North and South with the addition of new territories whose status regarding slavery was unclear. Potter shows that ethnically, the American population in 1850 was quite homogeous---mostly Protestants of English backgroud. Thus, ethnic diversity was NOT the cause of the tensions between North and South. Potter shows that the extreme emotions regarding Kansas and the other new territories regarding the status of slavery in them was purely theoretical...the geographical, climatic and agricultural conditions there were not conducive to a slave economy, yet the South was extremely emotionally involved in this abstract argument.The book then shows how national economic development was retarded by the South in such matters as the building of a Transcontinental Railroad and passage of the Homestead Act, both of which they opposed because they viewed them as strengthening anti-slavery elements in the US.One particularly fascinating thing Potter shows is the fact that anti-slavery sentiment overlapped with anti-immigrant feeling which was espoused by the Know-Nothing nativists. Potter says this seems irrational to a modern person, but he shows how the anti-Catholic feelings aroused by the recent Irish immigration was part and parcel of view of Catholics being part of a supposedly sexually perverted, conspiratorialist organization which they believed the Catholic Church represented, but those who held this felt the same way about the aristocratic slave-owing plantation barons in the South. Thus the new anti-slavery Republican Party went out of its way to attract nativist, anti-Catholic voters.Another interesting fact that is brought out is that many militantly anti-slavery and abolitionist people actually had little love for the Blacks and felt the best solution was to free them and then "send the back where they came from", i.e. Africa. Thus, many anti-slavery people held these views because they thought that slavery was bad for them, by giving slave owners inexpensive labor which free white laborers could not compete with, fearing that it would weaken the free labor movement in the US. Abraham Lincoln came across like this during his famous 1858 Senate race with Stephen Douglas, but Potter attributes this more to political opportunism and trying to win votes among racist Illinois voters than to real sentiments on Lincoln's part.Another valuable section deals with the legal intracicies of the Dred Scott decision. I found out that it did NOT legalize slavery in the states, only Congress was stripped of the power of prohibiting slavery in the territories. It was then believed that states were sovereign and they did have the rigth to prohibit slavery within their borders.Finally, Potter shows that up until Fort Sumter, the North thought the South was bluffing and would not go through with secession.Both the Democratic and Whig parties had both Northern and Southern branches and both had pro- and anti-slavery wings so this political balance held the country together. The collapse of the Whigs and the victory of the anti-slavery, sectional (i.e. Northern only) Republican party in the election of 1860 was the straw that broke the camel's back.I found the book a very good, well-written interesting read, and it provides a real education to the reader regarding social and political developments in a state of national crisis. Highly recommended.