{"title":"一个被奴隶制分裂的国家:在走向内战的同时铭记美国革命作者:迈克尔·f·科林(书评)","authors":"E. K. Cheng","doi":"10.1093/jahist/jaw398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"WINTER 2016 79 of the Panama Congress in 1826, Mueller asserts that Benton’s speech was a “critical turning point in the creation of master race democracy” (128). It seems like an odd moment to highlight as a watershed, and without more evidence the claim is not fully supported. Yet these sorts of minor quibbles are inevitable with any work and they do not undermine Mueller’s larger argument about nationalism and white supremacy. In light of Mueller’s decision to make master race democracy an organizing principle of the book, it is curious that the book does not engage a wider scholarship. There is only a glancing discussion of major works on race and democracy, and even those discussions tend to look at older works, such as Reginald Horseman’s Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial AngloSaxonism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986) For decades, scholars from George Fredrickson to James Oakes and Edward Baptist have debated the relationship between race and American democracy. Given the rich complexity that Mueller accomplishes, this reader was left wanting to hear more about how Benton’s career might help us rethink these classic debates. Yet Mueller can only be faulted so much for these decisions. All books are selective in what they include. In selecting this topic, Mueller has struck gold. It is unquestionable that between the 1820s and 1850s the Senate was a crucible of American politics. The most contentious issues of the Second Party System, from Indian Removal to slavery’s expansion, took on their most heated partisan dimensions in the upper chamber. It is a curious fact, then, that so little is written on important figures like Benton. This biography fills a gap in knowledge. Mueller is to be commended for the skill with which he recreated Benton’s career. It will excite historians of Missouri and anybody seeking a deeper understanding of this formative period in American politics. Scott Heerman University of Miami","PeriodicalId":338407,"journal":{"name":"Ohio Valley History","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"One Nation Divided by Slavery: Remembering the American Revolution while Marching toward the Civil War by Michael F. Conlin (review)\",\"authors\":\"E. K. Cheng\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jahist/jaw398\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"WINTER 2016 79 of the Panama Congress in 1826, Mueller asserts that Benton’s speech was a “critical turning point in the creation of master race democracy” (128). It seems like an odd moment to highlight as a watershed, and without more evidence the claim is not fully supported. Yet these sorts of minor quibbles are inevitable with any work and they do not undermine Mueller’s larger argument about nationalism and white supremacy. In light of Mueller’s decision to make master race democracy an organizing principle of the book, it is curious that the book does not engage a wider scholarship. There is only a glancing discussion of major works on race and democracy, and even those discussions tend to look at older works, such as Reginald Horseman’s Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial AngloSaxonism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986) For decades, scholars from George Fredrickson to James Oakes and Edward Baptist have debated the relationship between race and American democracy. Given the rich complexity that Mueller accomplishes, this reader was left wanting to hear more about how Benton’s career might help us rethink these classic debates. Yet Mueller can only be faulted so much for these decisions. All books are selective in what they include. In selecting this topic, Mueller has struck gold. It is unquestionable that between the 1820s and 1850s the Senate was a crucible of American politics. The most contentious issues of the Second Party System, from Indian Removal to slavery’s expansion, took on their most heated partisan dimensions in the upper chamber. It is a curious fact, then, that so little is written on important figures like Benton. This biography fills a gap in knowledge. Mueller is to be commended for the skill with which he recreated Benton’s career. It will excite historians of Missouri and anybody seeking a deeper understanding of this formative period in American politics. Scott Heerman University of Miami\",\"PeriodicalId\":338407,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ohio Valley History\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ohio Valley History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jaw398\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ohio Valley History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jaw398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
One Nation Divided by Slavery: Remembering the American Revolution while Marching toward the Civil War by Michael F. Conlin (review)
WINTER 2016 79 of the Panama Congress in 1826, Mueller asserts that Benton’s speech was a “critical turning point in the creation of master race democracy” (128). It seems like an odd moment to highlight as a watershed, and without more evidence the claim is not fully supported. Yet these sorts of minor quibbles are inevitable with any work and they do not undermine Mueller’s larger argument about nationalism and white supremacy. In light of Mueller’s decision to make master race democracy an organizing principle of the book, it is curious that the book does not engage a wider scholarship. There is only a glancing discussion of major works on race and democracy, and even those discussions tend to look at older works, such as Reginald Horseman’s Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial AngloSaxonism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986) For decades, scholars from George Fredrickson to James Oakes and Edward Baptist have debated the relationship between race and American democracy. Given the rich complexity that Mueller accomplishes, this reader was left wanting to hear more about how Benton’s career might help us rethink these classic debates. Yet Mueller can only be faulted so much for these decisions. All books are selective in what they include. In selecting this topic, Mueller has struck gold. It is unquestionable that between the 1820s and 1850s the Senate was a crucible of American politics. The most contentious issues of the Second Party System, from Indian Removal to slavery’s expansion, took on their most heated partisan dimensions in the upper chamber. It is a curious fact, then, that so little is written on important figures like Benton. This biography fills a gap in knowledge. Mueller is to be commended for the skill with which he recreated Benton’s career. It will excite historians of Missouri and anybody seeking a deeper understanding of this formative period in American politics. Scott Heerman University of Miami