Irish Americans who supported the movement for the repeal of the act of parliamentary union between Ireland and Great Britain during the early 1840s encountered controversy over the issue of American slavery. Encouraged by abolitionists on both sides of the Atlantic; repeal leader Daniel O'Connell often spoke against slavery; issuing appeals for Irish Americans to join the antislavery cause. With each speech; American repeal associations debated the proper response to such sentiments and often chose not to support abolition. In American Slavery; Irish Freedom; Angela F. Murphy examines the interactions among abolitionists; Irish nationalists; and American citizens as the issues of slavery and abolition complicated the first transatlantic movement for Irish independence.The call of Old World loyalties; perceived duties of American citizenship; and regional devotions collided for these Irish Americans as the slavery issue intertwined with their efforts on behalf of their homeland. By looking at the makeup and rhetoric of the American repeal associations; the pressures on Irish Americans applied by both abolitionists and American nativists; and the domestic and transatlantic political situation that helped to define the repealers' response to antislavery appeals; Murphy investigates and explains why many Irish Americans did not support abolitionism. Murphy refutes theories that Irish immigrants rejected the abolition movement primarily for reasons of religion; political affiliation; ethnicity; or the desire to assert a white racial identity. Instead; she suggests; their position emerged from Irish Americans' intention to assert their loyalty toward their new republic during what was for them a very uncertain time.The first book-length study of the Irish repeal movement in the United States; American Slavery; Irish Freedom conveys the dilemmas that Irish Americans grappled with as they negotiated their identity and adapted to the duties of citizenship within a slaveholding republic; shedding new light on the societal pressures they faced as the values of that new republic underwent tremendous change.
#1755807 in Books Louisiana State Univ Pr 2004-06-01Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 1.72 x 6.06 x 9.60l; 2.06 #File Name: 0807129313512 pages
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. A good history of the Army of the CumberlandBy jpha01Years ago I toured the battlefields of Shiloh; Stones River; Perryville; Chickamauga; and Chattanooga. Since then; I discovered a distant Union ancestor who fought in the Army of the Cumberland (first as part of the XX Corps; then later as part of the IV Corps). This discovery sparked my interest once again in the Tennessee "out West" battlefields and the Army of the Cumberland in particular. I find that this book fills a void; since there seems to be little published in recent years on the AofC. Until I read this book; I did not realize how deep the roots of this army were in (Unionist) Kentucky. I knew that Buell had been relieved after Perryville; but I did not know how poor his relations were with Washington and how reluctant he was to move his army. Rosecrans seemed to be a great improvement at first; but quickly it was seen that his tactical ability did not match his ability to maneuver his army. He pulled out a victory at Stones River; but as in the case of Chickamauga; he let the enemy take the offensive. No matter how much one is tempted to defend Rosecrans; his defeat at Chickamauga and his supply problems at Chattanooga (although much of this was not Rosecrans' fault) inevitably led to his relief. He had won no friends in Washington; a lot of it due to the general's own sarcasm and belligerence towards his superiors. This left George H. Thomas to be the last commander of the AofC. Unfortunately; Thomas had developed no warm relationship with either Grant or Sherman. He also avoided politics as much as he could; and as a native Virginian who stayed with the Union cause; he had no political friends and probably for a while was even somewhat suspect. He performed well whether on the defensive or the offensive; despite the charges of being "slow;" "cautious;" and "deliberate." I realize there is a group of historians who recently have written new biographies of Thomas with the view that he did not get the credit he deserved. I think that Daniel recognizes this but in many instances believes that some of what is claimed is not necessarily supported by contemporary accounts. To give Daniel credit; he often footnotes what other historians have written; even those with a different point of view. I do have a few criticisms; some which other reviewers have mentioned: the lack of good maps. It would have been nice to have more photographs; especially of the division commanders. After all; the purpose of a book is that some of these men should not be forgotten--it would have been nice to see some photos of them. Unless I missed it; in the order of battles appendix he seems to have left out Stones River. All in all; this is a good history of an army. It can't be easy to write a history of an army from its first organization to its demise. Daniel has a good writing style; and his put together a fascinating mixture of personalities; politics; and tactics that will keep the reader interested.2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. WorthyBy Michael E. FitzgeraldA quite interesting topic; the Army of the Cumberland generally gets only passing attention in most works as its major battles; Stones River and Chickamauga; are covered. Here Larry Daniel provides an in-depth coverage; from its inception as the Army of the Ohio until its final battles at Franklin and Nashville. Generally speaking; like the Army of the Potomac; it was a poorly led army until after the ascension of Grant. Once Grant takes overall command; placing Sherman in charge; this Army performs well under George Thomas.After Sherman's victory at Atlanta; the Army of the Cumberland is detached to address John Bell Hood's Army of Tennessee as it seeks to redirect the Federal advance into Georgia by itself advancing into Tennessee; but Hood's army is destroyed by Thomas at Franklin and annihilated at Nashville. The second largest Union Army when it was under Don Carlos Buell; this army served in all the actions in middle Tennessee and participated in Shiloh as well. The Cumberland army engaged the Confederates across five times the territory as the Army of the Potomac with one half to one third fewer men; yet its achievements in the Central Theater rivaled those of its eastern counterpart.This is a good work by Mr. Daniel; well written and well researched. He is not shy about delving into the politics; discord and poor leadership that prevented this army from achieving its full potential.1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Well DoneBy Satyrman63A very well written book but short on maps. If I had not been familiar with the Tennessee/Kentucky area I would have been lost for the first 2/3 of the book.Overall though one will learn quite a bit about the composition and politics of the army. The book is a little light on describing the actual battles but if one really enjoys reading about the Civil War then major engagements like Shiloh; Chicamauga and others are already well know.
