What do you think?
Rate this book
The Political Crisis of the 1850s
Professor Holt's book provides a lucid and provocative interpretation of the coming of the Civil War.
Holt sees the Civil War as representing a breakdown in America's democratic political process, more specifically the Second Party System of Whigs and Democrats. He demonstrates this system's success, beginning in the 1820s and 1830s, in confining sectional disputes safely within the political arena. With the breakdown of vital two-party competition in the 1850s, sectional issues increasingly took on ideological dimension, causing, Americans North and South to see in them dangerous threats to cherished republican institutions. No longer manageable within the arena of politics, sectional differences had to be resolved with in the arena of battle.
The Political Crisis of the 1850s offers a clearly written account of politics (state and federal), sectionalism, race, and slavery from the 1820s through to the Civil War, brilliantly combining the behavioral and ideological approaches to political history.
Holt sees the Civil War as representing a breakdown in America's democratic political process, more specifically the Second Party System of Whigs and Democrats. He demonstrates this system's success, beginning in the 1820s and 1830s, in confining sectional disputes safely within the political arena. With the breakdown of vital two-party competition in the 1850s, sectional issues increasingly took on ideological dimension, causing, Americans North and South to see in them dangerous threats to cherished republican institutions. No longer manageable within the arena of politics, sectional differences had to be resolved with in the arena of battle.
The Political Crisis of the 1850s offers a clearly written account of politics (state and federal), sectionalism, race, and slavery from the 1820s through to the Civil War, brilliantly combining the behavioral and ideological approaches to political history.
330 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1978
1 person is currently reading
147 people want to read
About the author
Michael F. Holt
13 books17 followersMichael F. Holt is Langbourne M. Williams Professor of American History Emeritus at the University of Virginia. He earned his B.A. from Princeton in 1962 and his Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins in 1967.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
February 3, 2017
Holt is a terrible writer and he fails to make the past come alive. However, his argument that the parties did not collapse due to the rising sectional crisis is well argued. The implication is that the fall of the parties made the sectional crisis worse. Holt never doubts that slavery was the central reason, but he avoids the monotony of other Civil War books that ignore other reasons in a pell-mell attempt to fight against the Lost Cause.
April 5, 2016
This dense look at the politics of the 1850's/lead-up to the Civil War provided precisely the context I was hoping it would.
In the framework of this text, consider:
-People get their news from an echo-chamber environment - propaganda rather than news. Things like a a building being torched in Missouri was loudly touted as proof of the violence that the slave-holding public would do to those against slaver and was referred to as a bloody massacre. There were 0 casualties. There were no major injuries. So the Republicans loudly and publicly drew in voters by exaggerating lies about fatalities.
-Being a political outsider (literally, the "Know Nothings" back then) is seen by a sometimes radical majority as the only reasonable course of action
-Rather than compete nationally, the Republicans chose to only put forth their candidate in one section of the country, choosing to let the other party/ies fight it out/weaken each other, thereby winning election with exclusively with a sectional coalition.
-The fear of "Slave Power" (how the Republicans took power) was not, in fact, based on wholly altruist abolition. While there were indeed people who morally could not stand slavery, "Slave Power" was actually the fear in the North that, should slavery expand (as the aftermath of/reaction to the Kansas-Nebraska compromise proved), northerners would lose all economic and political power to the southern system with its lower labor costs.
There is more - much more, in fact - but the conditions that led to the Civil War fire are being stoked by Republicans again. This text is a very interesting read when considering the lens of Trump voters and Bernie Supporters.
In the framework of this text, consider:
-People get their news from an echo-chamber environment - propaganda rather than news. Things like a a building being torched in Missouri was loudly touted as proof of the violence that the slave-holding public would do to those against slaver and was referred to as a bloody massacre. There were 0 casualties. There were no major injuries. So the Republicans loudly and publicly drew in voters by exaggerating lies about fatalities.
-Being a political outsider (literally, the "Know Nothings" back then) is seen by a sometimes radical majority as the only reasonable course of action
-Rather than compete nationally, the Republicans chose to only put forth their candidate in one section of the country, choosing to let the other party/ies fight it out/weaken each other, thereby winning election with exclusively with a sectional coalition.
-The fear of "Slave Power" (how the Republicans took power) was not, in fact, based on wholly altruist abolition. While there were indeed people who morally could not stand slavery, "Slave Power" was actually the fear in the North that, should slavery expand (as the aftermath of/reaction to the Kansas-Nebraska compromise proved), northerners would lose all economic and political power to the southern system with its lower labor costs.
There is more - much more, in fact - but the conditions that led to the Civil War fire are being stoked by Republicans again. This text is a very interesting read when considering the lens of Trump voters and Bernie Supporters.
December 25, 2012
An important work that has shaped the way antebellum historians explain the political chaos of the 1850s and the coming of the Civil War. Holt argues that the Whig v. Democrat 2nd Party system effectively constrained sectional political divisions by organizing voters into two parties that competed nationally, and argued about issues (other than slavery) that mattered to Americans. By the end of the 1840s, the traditional issues that had divided Whigs and Democrats had been resolved or no longer mattered as much to voters, and as voters no longer saw meaningful differences between the two parties, they felt more free to abandon them for third party alternatives. Eventually many joined the new Republican party, the first sectional party with a chance to win the electoral college. It was not so much the explosive issue of slavery which tore apart the Whig and Democratic parties, but the fact that the parties had become so similar on just about every other issue that mattered to voters.
The Political Crisis of the 1850s is an important book, but written in an academic style. For a more readable presentation of Holt's perspective, I would recommend his more recent book, the Fate of Our Country.
The Political Crisis of the 1850s is an important book, but written in an academic style. For a more readable presentation of Holt's perspective, I would recommend his more recent book, the Fate of Our Country.
April 7, 2013
Ultimately, I found Holt's text a bit one note and his prose dry (but effective). By emphasizing the importance of the Second Party System in checking sectional anxieties, Holt offers an important contribution to literature on the political processes that lead to secession and the Civil War. The text is detailed and the arguments are well supported.
However, the narrow focus on party strips the period of the emotional and moral dimension so critical to explaining why the nation eventually went to war. By sidestepping the moral dimension of chattel slavery, Holt under accounts for the pressure that abolitionists put on politicians and the public.
Finally, although Holt uses many primary sources, they rarely appear in the body of the text. This is clearly Holt's voice. It is probably a question of taste, but I prefer a little more direct quotation of historical actors. Here there is entirely too much paraphrasing-- one loses a sense of the language employed in these political debates.
This is an important text despite its narrow focus. I suggest reading it in combination with a book that explains the moral/activist dimension of the era's political thought.
However, the narrow focus on party strips the period of the emotional and moral dimension so critical to explaining why the nation eventually went to war. By sidestepping the moral dimension of chattel slavery, Holt under accounts for the pressure that abolitionists put on politicians and the public.
Finally, although Holt uses many primary sources, they rarely appear in the body of the text. This is clearly Holt's voice. It is probably a question of taste, but I prefer a little more direct quotation of historical actors. Here there is entirely too much paraphrasing-- one loses a sense of the language employed in these political debates.
This is an important text despite its narrow focus. I suggest reading it in combination with a book that explains the moral/activist dimension of the era's political thought.
September 23, 2018
Michael Holt's grasp of local, state, and national politics from 1830 to 1860 is astounding, but Holt's prose is too technical by half. He is largely unsuccessful in organizing this book's vast amount of information in a readable manner. The tiny font doesn't help, either. Holt breaks with Eric Foner, who was becoming a historical star in the 1970s. Foner thinks slavery was the fundamental cause of the political crisis of the 1850s and the Civil War. Holt, calling himself a "revisionist," says that slavery was not the fundamental cause. Arguments about slavery were really arguments about sectional conflict and "ethnocultural" differences, such as anti-Catholic prejudice. In other words, Holt says that the inability of politicians in the Second Party System to manage sectional conflict and give voters palatable choices was the main reason the Civil War happened.
Notwithstanding my distaste for dry political science literature, I think Holt errs by ignoring social and cultural currents in this period and focusing wholly on politics. More importantly, I am disturbed by the degree to which Holt downplays the ideological debates about slavery. Holt's repeated desire to say "But the sectional disputes weren't *really* about slavery" seems like a dodge. The book therefore veers uncomfortably close to the implication that Northern Whigs/Republicans and Southern Democrats were equally to blame for the national crisis, given their political mistakes. When you tie the parts of Holt's argument back to slavery, you see that (a) slavery affected EVERYTHING, from sectionalism to debates over trade policy, in the mid-nineteenth century, and (b) from a moral and human rights perspective, it is ridiculous to imply that all political actors were equally guilty and equally innocent.
When Holt says that Foner is old-fashioned to list slavery as the Civil War's cause, it is in fact Holt who, in 2018, sounds old-fashioned.
Notwithstanding my distaste for dry political science literature, I think Holt errs by ignoring social and cultural currents in this period and focusing wholly on politics. More importantly, I am disturbed by the degree to which Holt downplays the ideological debates about slavery. Holt's repeated desire to say "But the sectional disputes weren't *really* about slavery" seems like a dodge. The book therefore veers uncomfortably close to the implication that Northern Whigs/Republicans and Southern Democrats were equally to blame for the national crisis, given their political mistakes. When you tie the parts of Holt's argument back to slavery, you see that (a) slavery affected EVERYTHING, from sectionalism to debates over trade policy, in the mid-nineteenth century, and (b) from a moral and human rights perspective, it is ridiculous to imply that all political actors were equally guilty and equally innocent.
When Holt says that Foner is old-fashioned to list slavery as the Civil War's cause, it is in fact Holt who, in 2018, sounds old-fashioned.
July 20, 2025
I have mixed feelings about giving this book 3 stars because Holt's thesis is insightful and historically important. Whereas Civil War causation is often traced to slavery and/or sectional conflict between the North and South over ideology Michael F. Holt shows that the cause of the outbreak of hostility which led to the Civil War can be traced to the breakdown of the second American party system comprised of the Whigs and Democrats. Up until the mid 1850s, Holt asserts, the two parties were able to contain and redirect sectional conflict over slavery to other political issues by offering two viable alternatives to voters. Once the parties began to lose their distinctives people lost faith in the parties which led to the Whig party collapsing, the rise of the (entirely Northern) Republican party and a reshuffling of party allegiances based on section. Holt, in particular, points out that this reason alone explains the timing of the outbreak of the Civil War.
As I said, this thesis is incredibly insightful and important and it helps explain the timing of the Civil War. But Holt often tries too hard and, as historians often do, tries to disprove other legitimate possibilities in order to fortify his own thesis and, at times, tries to overprove his thesis. This is totally unnecessary seeing as many factors can contribute to an historical event. I also found his writing to be less engaging than other Civil War causation historians such as Eric Foner. This doesn't downgrade the content or importance of his thesis but it does make it less appealing to engage with.
All in all, this is an important book to read and I highly recommend it.
As I said, this thesis is incredibly insightful and important and it helps explain the timing of the Civil War. But Holt often tries too hard and, as historians often do, tries to disprove other legitimate possibilities in order to fortify his own thesis and, at times, tries to overprove his thesis. This is totally unnecessary seeing as many factors can contribute to an historical event. I also found his writing to be less engaging than other Civil War causation historians such as Eric Foner. This doesn't downgrade the content or importance of his thesis but it does make it less appealing to engage with.
All in all, this is an important book to read and I highly recommend it.
July 17, 2020
"The Second Party System, in fact, was near death before January 1854, when the Nebraska bill was introduced, because the dynamics of interparty conflict that sustained it had already been largely eroded. The two-party system collapsed because Whig and Democratic voters lost faith in their old parties as adequate vehicles for effective political action, and they lost faith because social, economic, and political developments between 1848 and 1853 blurred the line that divided Whigs from Democrats on a host of issues. ... Once agreement, or seeming consensus, on issues had replaced conflict between the parties at the national, state, and local levels, therefore, the ties that bound voters to their old parties frayed and often completely snapped. The result of their disillusionment in 1852 and 1853 was apathy, abstention, and alienation." (102-3)
"What united the men who passively abstained in 1853 with those who actively bolted to new parties was a mounting antagonism to politicians and the mechanisms of the old parties, like conventions, which enhanced their control over the rank and file." (133)
"Once faith in those parties collapsed, however, a sense of crisis developed that government was beyond control of the people, that it had become a threatening power dominated by some gigantic conspiracy, and hence that republican institutions were under attack. Politicians in the North and South responded to this sense of crisis by making an enemy in the other section the chief menace to republicanism who would enslave the residents of their own section." (258-9)
"What united the men who passively abstained in 1853 with those who actively bolted to new parties was a mounting antagonism to politicians and the mechanisms of the old parties, like conventions, which enhanced their control over the rank and file." (133)
"Once faith in those parties collapsed, however, a sense of crisis developed that government was beyond control of the people, that it had become a threatening power dominated by some gigantic conspiracy, and hence that republican institutions were under attack. Politicians in the North and South responded to this sense of crisis by making an enemy in the other section the chief menace to republicanism who would enslave the residents of their own section." (258-9)
November 25, 2022
First review on here. I read this book years ago, but it was the first book that really distilled the death of the Whig Party, claiming it was a toss up between the Know Nothings and the Republican Party. Basically the Know Nothings (a nativist political party) became associated with lawless mobs, while claiming immigrants would create … lawless mobs something they themselves were doing. Overall good political analysis I think if you are already familiar with the events leading to the Civil War. If you ARE NOT familiar with the major events and developments leading to the Civil War, I would start elsewhere.
June 6, 2017
Oy gevalt!!! [Yiddish expression meaning both "oh my God" and "enough already."]
This book is poorly written--even for an ACADEMIC book. And that's really saying something, because academics generally write poorly.
The prose is uninspired and workmanlike. It doesn't scintillate or excite. Paragraph structure is confusing and arbitrary, often with no effective topic sentence acting as an introduction for what follows. The author beats his points to death, restating them several times--and each time is less focused and more rambling. The text contains a great deal of arcane detail. Though its completeness is laudable, there is so much detail that the author's points are often lost in the abundance of data. Perhaps some of the detail could have been put into footnotes? Transitions between paragraph and different sections are awkward and poorly constructed.
The book reads as if the author took his first draft, proofread it for typos and punctuation, and submitted it without the essential (for ANY writer) steps of analysis of what's been written; asking how well organized it is and how well it makes the author's point; and then REWRITING to improve the argument.
This is sad, because the topic is important and interesting. Holt is clearly a master of his topic. The argument the author is attempting to make is an important contribution to antebellum studies. The depth of his research is amazing. The underlying arguments are sound and convincing. But my god, it's hard to stay focused on the argument. I am reading this for a course in American History; otherwise I would not finish it.
Rating for readability: Zero stars.
Rating for the underlying argument: 5 stars.
Average: 2.5 stars.
This book is poorly written--even for an ACADEMIC book. And that's really saying something, because academics generally write poorly.
The prose is uninspired and workmanlike. It doesn't scintillate or excite. Paragraph structure is confusing and arbitrary, often with no effective topic sentence acting as an introduction for what follows. The author beats his points to death, restating them several times--and each time is less focused and more rambling. The text contains a great deal of arcane detail. Though its completeness is laudable, there is so much detail that the author's points are often lost in the abundance of data. Perhaps some of the detail could have been put into footnotes? Transitions between paragraph and different sections are awkward and poorly constructed.
The book reads as if the author took his first draft, proofread it for typos and punctuation, and submitted it without the essential (for ANY writer) steps of analysis of what's been written; asking how well organized it is and how well it makes the author's point; and then REWRITING to improve the argument.
This is sad, because the topic is important and interesting. Holt is clearly a master of his topic. The argument the author is attempting to make is an important contribution to antebellum studies. The depth of his research is amazing. The underlying arguments are sound and convincing. But my god, it's hard to stay focused on the argument. I am reading this for a course in American History; otherwise I would not finish it.
Rating for readability: Zero stars.
Rating for the underlying argument: 5 stars.
Average: 2.5 stars.
July 29, 2015
This is an excellent review of the political causes that led up to the American Civil War. Holt’s viewpoint that a breakdown in the faith of the electorate (white men) in the ability of the political parties of the pre-Republican Party era to represent them was a key factor that made the war possible is very well argued. His statement, “The sectional conflict over slavery had been crucial in causing the Civil War, but the basic issue had less to do with the institution of black slavery than has been thought,” is foundational to his thesis. (page 258) Unfortunately, the view of the people (white men) in the 1850’s that the Whig and the Democratic parties were incompetent and impotent is held by many today regarding the Democrats and the Republicans. It makes you wonder what’s next when people feel they are not being represented politically. Back then, there was a bloody civil war.
August 14, 2013
Very convincingly argued and insightful to read.
What would have made this a better work it the prose wasn’t so dry. This book isn’t short on substance but it is quite a chore to read.
I feel now I have a more nuanced and deeper understanding of what was going on at the time and why things ended as they did.
What would have made this a better work it the prose wasn’t so dry. This book isn’t short on substance but it is quite a chore to read.
I feel now I have a more nuanced and deeper understanding of what was going on at the time and why things ended as they did.
November 1, 2007
Assigned to me during an undergrad with the forewarning that this was an example of the type of dry, dusty tomes that a graduate student in history would be expected to read. It is indeed dry and dusty, but an interesting analysis nonetheless.
July 17, 2012
People say Holt is dry but the way he weaves his well-supported arguments together isn't.
January 14, 2013
While this work is a bit academic in nature, it is a good examination of the political environment of the decade preceding the American Civil War.
September 10, 2020
Required reading for the "US History, 1787-1877" graduate seminar
August 29, 2018
Very informative perspective on the Antebellum period in the United States. Shows a more complex causality to the Civil War than is typically touted.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews