Dr. Freehling, in this first of two excellent works on the long course of action that led to disunion and the dissolution of slavery in the United States shows great analysis of controversies that demonstrated division within the south, within political parties, within southerners themselves and ultimately hints at the division to come (in Volume 2, a similarly masterful work). A skillful use and analysis of contemporary debates and even personal correspondence makes this a definitive work on the long slide of the fragile Union towards civil war over the one non-negociable issue it faced during its early years. This book is highly recommended, with its sibling, for the reader who wishes to understand (even if they disagree with) the southern view during the years before the Civil War.

This is a great book, but I sometimes felt it was a bit repetitive, hence it is not quite a 5-Star read. Freehling's style is easy on the eyes and brain and the entire narrative is fascinating. His search for "a south" was intriguing.
If you like American History this is a must read.

Succeeds only in making the lead-up to the Civil War unreadable. The author has an aversion to using commas in his writing.

I have read both volumes of Professor Freehling's "Road to Disunion" and consider his work to be of the highest scholarship, impeccably researched, and very informative. Unfortunately, Professor Freehling's writing style seems to indicate that his work was prepared more for the perusal of his fellow Ph.D's than for the reading public. It is lamentable for those having an interest in this period of our history that he did not take a cue from writers and historians of this era such as Shelby Foote, Douglas Southall Freeman, Carl Sandburg, Allan Nevins, and Bruce Catton whose works are highly informative but at the same time very readable, flowing, actually entertaining.

One has to actually experience Professor Freehling's sentences and paragraphs to appreciate the difficulty of grasping some of them. He seems never to have met a suffix--and few prefixes--which he did not like. Social and political factions, groups, and sub-groups are inevitably named and labelled resulting in an exponential proliferation of nouns such as Secessionists, Unionists, Dis-unionists, Separatists, Cooperationists, Abolitionists, Borderites, Paternalists, Egalitarianists, Nativists, ex-Whigs, anti-slavery Democrats, Calhounism, Van Burenites, etc., ad infinitum. More than a few casual readers will likely find that a glossary, however sophomoric it might seem to Professor Freehling, would be helpful. I found myself reading many sentences two, three, even four times before feeling satisfied that I had grasped the intended meaning. Several entire paragraphs, after being subjected to similar scrutiny, were simply abandoned as I moved on through the work, resigned that, if I should ever be able to digest them, it simply would not be worth the effort.

On a substantive note, Professor Freehling, especially in Volume II, appears to conclude that the proponents of slavery, in their efforts to defend and protect their "peculiar institution" infringed and trampled upon the "Republicanism" of other whites, and tended thereby even to enslave such whites. He seems to offer this conclusion as an explanation for the fervor which opponents of slavery brought to the struggle against it. The primary example offered of such infringement of "Republican" rights is the fact that for a number of years, the Democratic Party was controlled by a minority centered in the lower south, and that through the Democratic Party, then the major party in the nation, this southern minority in effect exercised control over a nationwide majority. Other more concrete examples of infringement of "rights" were southern efforts to "gag" and censor abolitionist communication designed to agitate and incite resistance to slavery in the south, and actual violence offered to those inclined to go in person among slaves and non-slaveholding whites for such purposes. Southerners felt justified in such action by the basic necessity of self-preservation due to the omnipresent threat of slave violence, a threat which would be exacerbated if violent tendencies should be inflamed by agitation.

It is unimaginable to me that any Yankee soldier--indeed anyone opposed to the South and/or slavery--in the Civil War ever said or thought that his (or her) "Republicanism" was threatened by the South or that any white person was in danger of enslavement by the South. Even if Professor Freehling's conclusion is considered as merely an articulation of some unspoken gutteral response to slaveholders, what purpose is served by such a contrived articulation? Is it the result of academic pressure to forever derive and construct some new insight or theory upon one of the most studied and exposed eras of history? If the people who lived in that era did not articulate their motivation in such terms, and if nobody else in today's society views the matter in such terms, what is the value of expounding upon history in such contrived fashion?

My conclusion is that Professor Freehling's somewhat strained efforts to bring new insights to an old story have rendered his telling of the story unnecessarily difficult to follow. I do recommend reading his work, but I would not recommend that the casual reader plunge into it without some prior familiarization with the history of the era. Potter's "The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861" may be considered one of the leading works on the subject prior to the publication of "Road to Disunion", and the casual reader might be well-advised to take them in chronological order.

Due to the author's difficult style (which I would describe as awkward rather than boring) it took me a couple of years to slog through this book. I found myself constantly setting it aside to read more interesting works. Ultimately, I disciplined myself to finally finish it, and I'm glad I did. Despite Mr. Freehling's dense prose, there's a lot of very insightful analysis here, for anyone willing to overlook the author's stylistic shortcomings.

The first part of the book takes the reader on a tour of the antebellum South, and exposes the many regional differences that made the South difficult to unite. Freehling also describes the attitudes of the Southern slave-holding gentility. "Massa" could be a tyrant with the "darkies", but lenient and overly-indulgent with his own family. He wanted to be feudal lord over all, yet still clung to some of the ideals of Jacksonian democracy. At times, Freehling loses his objectivity and wears his anti-Southern bias on his sleeve, but overall his analysis rings true.

The remainder of the book explores the various controversies, such as the Gag Rule, the Nullification Crisis, the Annexation of Texas, the Wilmot Proviso, and other events that threatened to shatter the fragile Union. One surprising omission from this list is New England's threat to secede during the War of 1812. Although it had nothing to do with slavery and the South, it certainly falls under the topic of disunion. I was disappointed that Freehling didn't even mention it.

"The Road to Disunion" is not a light and easy read by any stretch, but it's packed with information. I would recommend it for any serious student of the Civil War and its causes.

Due to the author's difficult style (which I would describe as awkward rather than boring) it took me a couple of years to slog through this book. I found myself constantly setting it aside to read more interesting works. Ultimately, I disciplined myself to finally finish it, and I'm glad I did. Despite Mr. Freehling's dense prose, there's a lot of very insightful analysis here, for anyone willing to overlook the author's stylistic shortcomings.

The first part of the book takes the reader on a tour of the antebellum South, and exposes the many regional differences that made the South difficult to unite. Freehling also describes the attitudes of the Southern slave-holding gentility. "Massa" could be a tyrant with the "darkies", but lenient and overly-indulgent with his own family. He wanted to be feudal lord over all, yet still clung to some of the ideals of Jacksonian democracy. At times, Freehling loses his objectivity and wears his anti-Southern bias on his sleeve, but overall his analysis rings true.

The remainder of the book explores the various controversies, such as the Gag Rule, the Nullification Crisis, the Annexation of Texas, the Wilmot Proviso, and other events that threatened to shatter the fragile Union. One surprising omission from this list is New England's threat to secede during the War of 1812. Although it had nothing to do with slavery and the South, it certainly falls under the topic of disunion. I was disappointed that Freehling didn't even mention it.

"The Road to Disunion" is not a light and easy read by any stretch, but it's packed with information. I would recommend it for any serious student of the Civil War and its causes.

Many good reviews have already been written so I am going to keep this short and sweet. If you want to read a good, in-depth look at the social and political history and ultimate causes of the Civil War, this is an excellent place to start. Freehling covers just about every conceivable topic in the years 1776-1854 that caused friction between the North and South, but also touches on many social and political topics that are sometimes overlooked. He also writes some great mini-biographies of the many differing players and you will walk away with an excellent working knowledge of many topics, such as Thomas Jefferson and his thoughts on slavery, the Missouri Compromise, Virginia's slavery debate of 1832, the Wilmot Proviso, Texas' Annexation, and much more.

The only potential negatives are that Freehling's writing style does take getting used to and the book is massive. For quick readers, not a big deal. For slower readers like me, plan on investing time in this book.

In the end, I would highly suggest this for any people looking to bone up on antebellum U.S. history and/or causes of the Civil War.

I debated giving this one 3 stars but the information in it is very good. A thurough evaluation of the subject. If you want a detailed history, this is it.

On the downside, it is a dense read. It took me a while to plow through the entire book. Part of this is the density of info but much is due to writting style. I also found it to be a bit redundant in parts, particularly early on (especially Part II, which you might want to just skip). Another reviewer stated it helps to know the background prior to opening this tome and I agree.

For a much easier intro to the topic, try: "The Approaching Fury: Voices of the Storm, 1820-1861 (Voices of the Storm)" by Stephen B. Oates.

Visiting a bookshop in 1990 I faced a choice of two books to purchase: America in 1857 by Kenneth Stampp and The Road to Disunion Vol. I by Wm. Freehling. Having read Freehling's book on the nulification crisis, I very fortunately chose The Road to Disunion. One of the most important revelations in this book is the tracing of the secesson movement's seeds to the forming of the United States. To any one acquainted with Freehling's writing will not be surprised by the depth of his research and thought provoking text. His views are always overviews that narrow their scope to individual incidents.

I spent seveteen years badgering the author for the second volume of this work. Readers now who have not yet read this book are more fortunate because they have the benefit of seeing the complete work at once. This is a volume well worth reading on its own, but it is a much better read when followed by volume two.

Bill Freehling is without doubt the dean of 19th century American history, a great human being with an appreciation of human feeling and a strict code of research taking the author wherever it will. There are no preconcieved notions of how history should be percieved.

After a long time, in which a combination of increased workload and diversified reading interests have kept me away, it is good to be back to the world of antebellum 19th century America. Meeting Thomas Jefferson, John C. Calhoun, Andrew Jackson and a dozen secondary characters feels a little like coming home. But as the saying goes, you can dip into the same river twice. William W. Freehling's antebellum South is both familiar and foreign. Freehling brings forward a provocative thesis, which throws a bright light on some elements of the period, but also blinds you to some vital aspects.

I have previously read Freehling's brilliant essay collection, The Reintegration of American History: Slavery and the Civil War. That was one of the best books about 19th century America I've ever read. Using cultural history, comparative studies, biography, and even autobiography, Freehling brought a provocative new thesis to the field of 19th century antebellum South.

According to Freehling, the South was torn between two conflicting, contradictory ideologies - Aristocratic Paternalism, the 18th century view that the enlightened rich should govern all others, black and white and female, and Jacksonian 'Herrenvolk Democracy' - the view that America is the republic of the free white male, where the color line separates the master race - the Herrenvolk - from the inferior black folk.

The idea that the clash between these two ideologies, and indeed, the fractions between the various, and very different, elements of the South, is Freehling's key argument. And it illuminates many things:

The clash between Paternalists and Herrenvolk Democrats was most evident during the struggles for control of the legislations of Southern states, particularly Virginia. There, the lines were drawn most sharply between aristocratic slaveholders and slaveless white folks.

Freehling's high concept is also a part of the explanation for episodes such as the Texas annexation and particularly the gag rule. Slavocrats insisted that antislavery petitions to the United States Congress would not only be ignored, but actively rejected, thus 'gagging' opposition to Slavery and making a mockery of the democratic process. The gag rule was designed and led by South Carolina extremists, the most radical faction of the aristocrats.

But the explanation works less well when describing the major sectional conflicts - as one approaches the 1850s, Paternalists and Democrats all but disappear, and the struggle becomes one between Free and Slave states, with the Upper South and the Lower North trapped between them. This is a familiar story, and while Freehling tells it well, he does not really add much to the description.

A major point that is scored is Freehling's description of Slavery's malcontents. There really was, particularly in Texas and in Kentucky, an antislavery undercurrent, and Freehling does a superb job of describing its protagonists and enemies. As long as the North left the South alone, Southern Slaveholders could probably squash such movements, but their existence helps explain Southern fear of the rise of the Republican party - a strong Northern ally that could help Southern fifth columnist destroy the Peculiar institution from within.

But for the most part, Freehling's book fails to meet expectations. The title is more than a little Misleading - The Road to Disunion does not really show a path that led to the irreconcilable conflict. Unlike the events of 1848-1860, when each event called for its successor - the Compromise of 1850 led to the destruction of the Whig party in the lower south, which led to the radicalization of the Southern Democratic Party, and to the Kansas-Nebraska act and so on, the earlier incidents were fairly disjoint. The Virginia Slavery debate, the Nullification crises, the Gag rule - all ended without any real increase in animosity. Nor do we see "secessionists at Bay" - with marginal exceptions, until the late 1840s, few major Southerners were bona fide disunionists. Rather, like John C. Calhoun, they wanted to weaken the Union in order to save it.

For all of its sophistication and scale, Freehling's account feels incomplete. Mainly, I think, because until the middle 1840s, the themes Freehling invokes (sectionalism, slavery, colonialism) were relatively minor elements of political scene, where the major issues were banks, Indian genocide, internal improvements and the fans and enemies of `King Andrew` Jackson.

Ultimately, I think the road to disunion was not paved by Southern extremists. Southerners tried mainly to preserve their way of life against a world that was rapidly changing - Industrial rather then Agricultural, increasingly National rather than Local, and yes, Democratic rather than aristocratic. For all their belligerency, the Slavepower was essentially passive and fearful, lashing out in desperation against a new, modern world where there was place neither for slaves nor for masters.

After a long time, in which a combination of increased workload and diversified reading interests have kept me away, it is good to be back to the world of antebellum 19th century America. Meeting Thomas Jefferson, John C. Calhoun, Andrew Jackson and a dozen secondary characters feels a little like coming home. But as the saying goes, you can dip into the same river twice. William W. Freehling's antebellum South is both familiar and foreign. Freehling brings forward a provocative thesis, which throws a bright light on some elements of the period, but also blinds you to some vital aspects.

I have previously read Freehling's brilliant essay collection, 'The Reintegration of American History'. That was one of the best books about 19th century America I've ever read. Using cultural history, comparative studies, biography, and even autobiography, Freehling brought a provocative new thesis to the field of 19th century antebellum South.

According to Freehling, the South was torn between two conflicting, contradictory ideologies - Aristocratic Paternalism, the 18th century view that the enlightened rich should govern all others, black and white and female, and Jacksonian 'Herrenvolk Democracy' - the view that America is the republic of the free white male, where the color line separates the master race - the Herrenvolk - from the inferior black folk.

The idea that the clash between these two ideologies, and indeed, the fractions between the various, and very different, elements of the South, is Freehling's key argument. And it illuminates many things:

The clash between Paternalists and Herrenvolk Democrats was most evident during the struggles for control of the legislations of Southern states, particularly Virginia. There, the lines were drawn most sharply between aristocratic slaveholders and slaveless white folks.

Freehling's high concept is also a part of the explanation for episodes such as the Texas annexation and particularly the gag rule. Slavocrats insisted that antislavery petitions to the United States Congress would not only be ignored, but actively rejected, thus 'gagging' opposition to Slavery and making a mockery of the democratic process. The gag rule was designed and led by South Carolina extremists, the most radical faction of the aristocrats.

But the explanation works less well when describing the major sectional conflicts - as one approaches the 1850s, Paternalists and Democrats all but disappear, and the struggle becomes one between Free and Slave states, with the Upper South and the Lower North trapped between them. This is a familiar story, and while Freehling tells it well, he does not really add much to the description.

A major point that is scored is Freehling's description of Slavery's malcontents. There really was, particularly in Texas and in Kentucky, an antislavery undercurrent, and Freehling does a superb job of describing its protagonists and enemies. As long as the North left the South alone, Southern Slaveholders could probably squash such movements, but their existence helps explain Southern fear of the rise of the Republican party - a strong Northern ally that could help Southern fifth columnist destroy the Peculiar institution from within.

But for the most part, Freehling's book fails to meet expectations. The title is more than a little Misleading - The Road to Disunion does not really show a path that led to the irreconcilable conflict. Unlike the events of 1848-1860, when each event called for its successor - the Compromise of 1850 led to the destruction of the Whig party in the lower south, which led to the radicalization of the Southern Democratic Party, and to the Kansas-Nebraska act and so on, the earlier incidents were fairly disjoint. The Virginia Slavery debate, the Nullification crises, the Gag rule - all ended without any real increase in animosity. Nor do we see "secessionists at Bay" - with marginal exceptions, until the late 1840s, few major Southerners were bona fide disunionists. Rather, like John C. Calhoun, they wanted to weaken the Union in order to save it.

For all of its sophistication and scale, Freehling's account feels incomplete. Mainly, I think, because until the middle 1840s, the themes Freehling invokes (sectionalism, slavery, colonialism) were relatively minor elements of political scene, where the major issues were banks, Indian genocide, internal improvements and the fans and enemies of `King Andrew` Jackson.

Ultimately, I think the road to disunion was not paved by Southern extremists. Southerners tried mainly to preserve their way of life against a world that was rapidly changing - Industrial rather then Agricultural, increasingly National rather than Local, and yes, Democratic rather than aristocratic. For all their belligerency, the Slavepower was essentially passive and fearful, lashing out in desperation against a new, modern world where there was place neither for slaves nor for masters.

After a long time, in which a combination of increased workload and diversified reading interests have kept me away, it is good to be back to the world of antebellum 19th century America. Meeting Thomas Jefferson, John C. Calhoun, Andrew Jackson and a dozen secondary characters feels a little like coming home. But as the saying goes, you can dip into the same river twice. William W. Freehling's antebellum South is both familiar and foreign. Freehling brings forward a provocative thesis, which throws a bright light on some elements of the period, but also blinds you to some vital aspects.

I have previously read Freehling's brilliant essay collection, 'The Reintegration of American History'. That was one of the best books about 19th century America I've ever read. Using cultural history, comparative studies, biography, and even autobiography, Freehling brought a provocative new thesis to the field of 19th century antebellum South.

According to Freehling, the South was torn between two conflicting, contradictory ideologies - Aristocratic Paternalism, the 18th century view that the enlightened rich should govern all others, black and white and female, and Jacksonian 'Herrenvolk Democracy' - the view that America is the republic of the free white male, where the color line separates the master race - the Herrenvolk - from the inferior black folk.

The idea that the clash between these two ideologies, and indeed, the fractions between the various, and very different, elements of the South, is Freehling's key argument. And it illuminates many things:

The clash between Paternalists and Herrenvolk Democrats was most evident during the struggles for control of the legislations of Southern states, particularly Virginia. There, the lines were drawn most sharply between aristocratic slaveholders and slaveless white folks.

Freehling's high concept is also a part of the explanation for episodes such as the Texas annexation and particularly the gag rule. Slavocrats insisted that antislavery petitions to the United States Congress would not only be ignored, but actively rejected, thus 'gagging' opposition to Slavery and making a mockery of the democratic process. The gag rule was designed and led by South Carolina extremists, the most radical faction of the aristocrats.

But the explanation works less well when describing the major sectional conflicts - as one approaches the 1850s, Paternalists and Democrats all but disappear, and the struggle becomes one between Free and Slave states, with the Upper South and the Lower North trapped between them. This is a familiar story, and while Freehling tells it well, he does not really add much to the description.

A major point that is scored is Freehling's description of Slavery's malcontents. There really was, particularly in Texas and in Kentucky, an antislavery undercurrent, and Freehling does a superb job of describing its protagonists and enemies. As long as the North left the South alone, Southern Slaveholders could probably squash such movements, but their existence helps explain Southern fear of the rise of the Republican party - a strong Northern ally that could help Southern fifth columnist destroy the Peculiar institution from within.

But for the most part, Freehling's book fails to meet expectations. The title is more than a little Misleading - The Road to Disunion does not really show a path that led to the irreconcilable conflict. Unlike the events of 1848-1860, when each event called for its successor - the Compromise of 1850 led to the destruction of the Whig party in the lower south, which led to the radicalization of the Southern Democratic Party, and to the Kansas-Nebraska act and so on, the earlier incidents were fairly disjoint. The Virginia Slavery debate, the Nullification crises, the Gag rule - all ended without any real increase in animosity. Nor do we see "secessionists at Bay" - with marginal exceptions, until the late 1840s, few major Southerners were bona fide disunionists. Rather, like John C. Calhoun, they wanted to weaken the Union in order to save it.

For all of its sophistication and scale, Freehling's account feels incomplete. Mainly, I think, because until the middle 1840s, the themes Freehling invokes (sectionalism, slavery, colonialism) were relatively minor elements of political scene, where the major issues were banks, Indian genocide, internal improvements and the fans and enemies of `King Andrew` Jackson.

Ultimately, I think the road to disunion was not paved by Southern extremists. Southerners tried mainly to preserve their way of life against a world that was rapidly changing - Industrial rather then Agricultural, increasingly National rather than Local, and yes, Democratic rather than aristocratic. For all their belligerency, the Slavepower was essentially passive and fearful, lashing out in desperation against a new, modern world where there was place neither for slaves nor for masters.