Many leading historians have argued that the Constitution of the United States was a proslavery document. But in The Slaveholding Republic; one of America's most eminent historians refutes this claim in a landmark history that stretches from the Continental Congress to the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln.Fehrenbacher shows that the Constitution itself was more or less neutral on the issue of slavery and that; in the antebellum period; the idea that the Constitution protected slavery was hotly debated (many Northerners would concede only that slavery was protected by state law; not by federal law). Nevertheless; he also reveals that U.S. policy abroad and in the territories was consistently proslavery. Fehrenbacher makes clear why Lincoln's election was such a shock to the South and shows how Lincoln's approach to emancipation; which seems exceedingly cautious by modern standards; quickly evolved into a "Republican revolution" that ended the anomaly of the United States as a "slaveholding republic."
#488388 in Books imusti 2015-11-02Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 6.60 x 1.10 x 9.30l; 1.22 #File Name: 0195147987320 pagesOxford University Press
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Five StarsBy Siraj I. MuftiAn excellent book on the subject.0 of 1 people found the following review helpful. This book is a disappointment. Instead of taking the issue of Arab Islamist ...By arlingtonianMany have awaited Esposito's response to the retreat and end of Islamist democracies after the Arab Spring; his being a prominent voice for decades advocating that Islamists need to be understood and respected as democrats instead of hunted down as an enemy of democracy. This book is a disappointment. Instead of taking the issue of Arab Islamist failures head on; he and his co-authors claim democracy is alive and well in the Islamic world; moving from Turkey to Iran (!) to Pakistan (!!) to Indonesia to Senegal before getting around to Tunisia and last Egypt. Leaving out Syria; Yemen; Libya and the rest of the Arab world altogether. He could have done much better.When he does get around to the Islamists he has been writing about since 1996; the core from al-Afghani through al-Banna into Khomeini's Iran; Turabi; and the various offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood; Esposito lapses into apologetics instead of analysis. It was the "Deep State" and "faux liberals;" that brought down Egyptian democracy; the book says; not possibly that few in Egypt wanted democracy unless they were running it; that large numbers of Egyptians flocked to the most illiberal al-Nour party; and that Egypt's liberals proved too lazy; too incompetent; and too unpopular to compete in democratic elections.Tunisia to date has turned out much better for democracy; partly because Ghannoushi made courageous decisions to allow democratic transfers of power to opponents; and partly because Tunisia is easily the most European of Arab countries. Esposito et al avoid Syria like the plague; as it is clear to all Syrians that their Islamists are the main opposition to Assad; and that Islamist in the Syrian context means little more than Sunni supremacist. The pro-democracy aspect dropped out so soon there and in Libya that it makes one wonder whether Islamist ideals are compatible with democracy. Precisely the conclusion the authors seek to refute; but they could have done a much better job if they had dealt with the post-Arab Spring evidence head on instead of wandering about the Islamic world looking for anything they could call democracy.
