Storm over Texas: The Annexation Controversy and the Road to Civil War (Unabridged) [Audio Download]

The author has a good writing style for history but his central thesis, that Texas' annexation was the pivotal point in the North-South separation, is undermined by his own story. Mr. Silbey points out how the Mexican WAr, Wilmot Proviso and most significantly, the Nebraska-Kansas crisis were more important steppingstones en route to disunion in 1861. True, Texas did precipitate the war with our southern neighbor, which, in turn, led to Wilmot, et al, but Silbey does not convince that these events would not have occurred otherwise. Clearly, the South's agenda to overturn the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was not going to need much of an excuse to manifest itself, Texas or no Texas. Being a Texan, I would like to think that we are responsible in a more or less indirect way for almost 50% of the present US, since the Mexican War did result in our reaching sea to sea as desired by the Manifest Destiny-ers. That case I could defend, but alas Mr. Silbey's contention vis-a-vis the Civil War would need a better attorney than either myself or evidently himself as well.

That the annexation of Texas in 1845 was the key event leading to the Civil War is Sibley's main thesis in this book. Since 1835 when Texas first petitioned for annexation, the South had always looked eagerly at the territory as a means to expand slavery. The North recognized that point, but the consensus was that the issue was not fit for national debate. But Martin Van Buren, in 1835, even though he believed with the South that slavery was a partisan issue, sided with the North in opposing annexation. When the issue surfaced again in 1843, the debate had shifted to strictly sectional lines. Soon all issues of national debate were conducted on sectional lines. As George Pugh said in 1856, "Let us turn from the constant jealousies of the North toward the South, and the South toward the North, to proceed in that path of national achievement which now invites our care," but it was not to be. With the Wilmot Proviso of 1846, sectional debate (and animosity) on the slavery issue was heightened greatly. It seemed that what Daniel Barnard of New York had predicted in 1845 was coming true: "As certain as truth and God exist, the admission of Texas into this Union will prove, sooner or later, an element of overwhelming ruin to the Republic." Silbey's account is succinct and well-presented. Recommended.

When one picks up a book written by an academic historian, one must be prepared to enter a literary world in which precise and dispassionate interpretation of sources makes for an exposition that may be less captivating than more lusciously contrived popular history and historical fiction. The reward for exposure to scholarly interpretation is an opportunity to understand and test a thesis, the very process of which may provide a more usable understanding of modern political currents.

Much of Dr. Silbey's scholarship has been devoted to the rise of national political parties in the era of Van Buren. The collapse of this system and its replacement by political movements sensitive to sectional interests clearly fits the category of a "pivotal moment in American History." That the seeds of this transformation should be found in the politics surrounding the Annexation of Texas may seems strange in the context of the American History we were all taught in high school about the inevitability of our pursuit of our Manifest Destiny. Dr. Silbey opens up this debate and reminds us that the achievement of political consensus regarding major policy issues can be an unpredictable, uncontrollable and even a destructive process. An appreciation of the importance of visionary leadership and the building of consensus holds immediate lessons for us today.

Important, too, is Dr. Silbey's distinction between "partisanship" and "sectionalism" in the era before the Civil War. In our era, the "reds and blues" of the political landscape are derived from social issues which are so profound as to be said to define "two Americas". In this context it is useful to undertand the role of "partisanship" in forging political parties with broad national appeal and the price paid when broad appeal collapses in the face of highly emotionally charged social perceptions.

Dr. Silbey's book is, indeed, pure history and the excitement of a reading of his book is not so much the history he relates but, rather, the consoling sense that we have been there before and, armed with understanding, we may be able to do a better job next time.