Prelude to Civil War the Nullification Controversy

"Prelude to Civil War" by William W. Freehling, © 1965, 1966 It seems that there was just not enough to keep these people from fighting. If it was not one thing it was another. This is the story of how South Carolina almost seceded from the Union alone in the 1830's. For some reason, that was not really clear to the participants, as well as me, why citizens of South Carolina got bothered by a tariff instituted by the federal government. There was some real problem with the slaves and the issue of freedom, and that got blown out of proportion by the fear of slave insurrection violence. There were some interesting sidelights to this story. It was a part of this argument in Congress that the famous Webster-Haynes slavery debate took place. It was also noted that slave owners understood Independence Day celebrations were not for everyone and they were troubled by trying to get the slaves to work (like it is any easier to get wage slaves to work either) and by the violence they sometimes used on them. The problem that I saw through this book was the lack of adventure or other use of the energy the rich youth had: they were spoiling for a fight; as well as getting others to allow them (South Carolinians)to be themselves.

It is impossible in history to set a definite time for the beginning or ending of an event large or small. Many 19th century historians believe the Civil War began around 1776. Dr. Freehling is of this opinion but in this book he brings us closer to the main event for a start. Why is this book important? First, it is written by the foremost historian of 19th century America. Second, while giving credence to the economic issues that covered the real causes of war, Dr. Freehling decimates the theory that the war was mainly a struggle over two unique economies and the support of states' rights. He shows clearly the real issue at hand was the threatened squeeze on the future of slavery. Third and most important the book gives us much to rethink in our evaluations and conceptions, offered in scholarly but very readable prose for which the author has become famous. Put simply, if anyone is interested in American history and knows the author this book is a must have. No one who reads William W. Freehling wastes time or energy reading his work.

For the Civil War and Age of Jackson aficionado, this is an excellent book to read. One will not be able to fly through the 360 pages, but it is very enjoyable and full of great information about the Ante Bellum south as well as the country's political landscape in that era. We know little today about how close South Carolina came to seceding from the Union. The Nullification Crisis, while a mind-numbing subject in high school and college, is brought to life here in a way that is easy to understand and follow. Freehling did an excellent job of researching and explaining the many dynamics involved in the South Carolina society in determining who was for or against nullification, secession, preserving the union and protecting slavery and why. The interplay was fascinating and, though I couldn't recite it back to you, I obtained a lot of knowledge I had never been exposed to before.With Ronald Reagan's passing, discussions turned again to our "best" or "great" presidents. Andrew Jackson's name is frequently included among our Top Ten by most historians, yet very few of us could say why he deserves to be so highly regarded. In books like this, we can see why. He is not what I would consider to be a likable man and definitely comes across as somewhat tyrannical (not just in this book), but one has to admit after reading this book that he handled the Nullification Crisis and its aftermath very deftly with a clear vision and objective: that allegiance to the Union comes first and preservation of the Union is paramount. He laid the groundwork for Lincoln's management of the Civil War, some 25-30 years later.The book is well-annotated and, though more than 35 years old is still relevant in its ideas and also in the sources it directs us to for further reading.

With the possible exception of David M. Potter's classic "The Impending Crisis," William Freehling's "Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836" is perhaps the best book written on antebellum America in the past 50 years. Originally published in 1965 and a recipient of the prestigious Bancroft Prize, Freehling's work is a beautifully written and persuasively argued case that the conventional wisdom about the nullification crisis of 1832 is grossly oversimplified and, in the end, fundamentally incorrect. Two points are central to Freehling's thesis: 1) growing anxiety over slavery and the nascent abolitionist movement - especially acute in the low country - was as important a factor in driving the aggressive states rights posture taken during the nullification crisis as was reaction to the tariff; and 2) South Carolinians themselves were as much to blame for their economic woes during the 1820s and 1830s as the "Tariff of Abominations."Freehling notes that you can often tell a lot about a society by disproportionate reactions to perceived threats. In this case, the South Carolinian response to the first faint rumblings of abolitionist agitation was far in excess to the actual threat posed in the 1820s and early 30s, according to the author. However, the extremely dense slave population in the South Carolina low country (in some areas slaves out numbered whites 5 to 1), the experience of the Denmark Vesey conspiracy in 1822, the mysterious arsonist fires in Charleston, the constant presence of Yankee peddlers and free black British seamen mixing with the slave population, and the slow but ultimately successful abolition campaign of William Wilberforce in England all conspired to create an environment of fear and doom among the South Carolina gentry. The traditional interpretation of the tariff's adverse impact in South Carolina was that the local planters were forced to trade their raw goods (in this case cotton) on the international open market but buy their end goods in a protected domestic market. Freehling concedes that there is some basis of truth to this claim, but only for a certain segment of the population. Some of the most ardent nullifiers were low country rice planters whose economic condition was relatively unaffected by the tariff and whose prices remained stable. The issue that welded the low country elite to an issue whose consequences were really absorbed by the up country was (in addition to inter marriage, school days at South Carolina College, etc.) the latter's growing fear of the abolitionists. Moreover, Freehling argues, gross absentee mismanagement of plantations, combined with a poor state financial infrastructure and a penchant to dramatically overspend for luxury items (the much needed specie often flowing outside of the state) were nearly as important in explaining the economic depression that gripped the region for over a decade as the tariff.Freehling makes his case eloquently and

If you become interested in the American Civil War you will find yourself going back further and further into our history seeking the roots of this conflict. If you don't choose to return to the Constitutional debates and compromises Freehling's book is one of the best places to begin your attempts to understand just what happened. This book is an engrossing history of the revolt of South Carolina against the tariffs and trade rules imposed by the general government in Washington D.C. It has a fabulous cast of characters beginning with John C. Calhoun and running down through the South Carolina planters and politicians who ultimately did so much to break up the Union. Andrew Jackson, as president, puts an end to what almost became an armed revolt and could have caused gunfire to errupt in Charleston Bay decades before the showdown came at Fort Sumter.I loved this book, as I did Mr. Freehling's "Road to Disunion", and only regret that the second volume of that work never did appear as promised.