286
Indiana Magazine of History
Madison counseled Virginia officers to surrender nothing to the
claims of Connecticut and New York in the squabble over western
lands, and he showed marked concern for the future of Mississippi
navigation and the future of the Kentucky country; yet his anguish
over lack of cooperation between the states in military affairs, his
awareness that sectional rivalry was leading to fiscal ruin, and his
steady support of attempts to adopt the Impost mark him by 1781 as
a Virginian who was prepared t o embrace much of the program advocated by Robert Morris and his associates. To what degree Madison
and his correspondents were moved toward this position as a result
of the pillaging of their native state is problematical, but if there is
one dominant theme that runs through this volume it is the war effort
and the growing realization of the helplessness of American arms
without the shield of French men-of-war. After reading this volume,
it is not difficult to comprehend the Francophilism of southern Republicanism which developed in the 1790's.
While it is no fault of the editors, whose meticulous research is
evidenced in a wealth of footnotes, Madison as a personality is scarcely
recognizable. How much more alive to us John Adams and Thomas
Jefferson become as we read the contemporary editions of their papers.
Not so in the case of Madison, who is entirely admirable in his devotion
to duty, clearheaded in his analysis of events, but scarcely arresting.
Entirely lacking is the passion and vehemence of Adams or the wideranging fascination with life in all its variety that Jefferson showed
from youth to old age. A t times, too, the thoroughness of the editors
in choosing to publish everything that Madison wrote unnecessarily
burdens the reader with repetition or with such useless items as a
weekly report of the Virginia delegation to Governor Thomas Nelson
saying only that there is nothing to report (p. 232).
Scholars will be delighted, however, to find the confusion of being
unable to identify a correspondent or his relation to events being
discussed a thing of the past so f a r as this edition is concerned.
Gaillard Hunt would surely be astounded by the depth of research
which goes into the post-Boyd manuscript editions. The speed with
which dissertations may now be completed because of this quarrying
should be obvious to sharp-eyed graduate students.
Wabash College
Stephen G. Kurtz
Prologue to Conflict: The C r i d and Compromise of 1850. By Holman
Hamilton. ([Lexington] : University of Kentucky Press, 1964.
Pp. viii, 236. Maps, notes, appendixes, biographical essay, index.
$5.00.)
Much has been written concerning the mid-century controversy
and settlement, but no one has gone so carefully into its multifarious
implications as has Professor Hamilton. He does not neglect the older
trio-Clay,
Webster, and Calhoun-involved in this sectional drama,
but he emphasizes the role of numerous other figures and pays particular
attention to procedures and developments in the House of Representa-
Book Reviews
287
tives. The political and sectional angles of the issues involved are
explored in precise fashion; in fact, there are appendixes indicating
the political alignments and votes of House and Senate members on
key legislative proposals. Convincing evidence is presented that the
Democrats were more responsible for the Compromise than the Whigs
and that the North more strongly favored it than did the South. Webster
is not regarded as very influential in securing northern votes for the
Compromise. Clay’s leadership was weakened as a result of his unsuccessful fight for the Omnibus Bill. But Douglas, with the ability
to put together winning political combinations, is credited with doing
much to get the final measures enacted. The author, while recognizing
compromise as in the American tradition, feels that it might have
been better for the future welfare of the country if President Taylor’s
uncompromising stand had been put to the test in 1850.
A factor influencing settlement of the Texas-New Mexico dispute
was the bondholders’ lobby. The aim was the assumption of certain
Texas obligations by the United States in return for that state’s recognition of boundary claims by New Mexico. While members of Congress
do not appear to have held the bonds in question, they had much
pressure exerted upon them by William W. Corcoran and other lobbyists
who did hold bonds or were acting for those who did.
In interesting fashion the monograph suggests the implications of
the whole package of legislative enactments for the 1850’s. The Compromise, in some respects, worked out in either unexpected or undesirable
ways. The territorial settlement, as Douglas viewed it, established a
precedent for the later Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Fugitive Slave Law,
supposed to be a southern gain, caused increasing resentment of the
South. California, though a free state, sent to the Senate individuals
generally favorable to the South.
Hamilton, using quite a variety of sources and writing in a dispassionate manner, reveals well the spirit and temper of the era with
which he deals. On at least one matter of judgment, however, the
reviewer can scarcely agree with him. That is that President Pierce,
had he had more imagination and qualities of leadership, might have
eased sectional tensions by effective political solution of most of the
economic problems of the 1860’s. Pierce admittedly had his shortcomings,
but without them the checkered pattern of economic cross-currents would
indeed have been difficult to resolve.
Ohio State Univereity
Henry H. Simms
William McKinley and His America. By H. Wayne Morgan. (Syracuse,
N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1963. Pp. xi, 696, Illustrations,
notes, index. $9.00.)
McKinley, Bryan, and the People. By Paul W. Glad. Critical Periods
o f History Series. (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1964.
Pp. 222. Tables, bibliographical essay, index. $3.96.)
These two new books about late nineteenth-century American politics
differ considerably in both intent and execution. Yet in what is probably