William L. Barney

Et tu, Barney?

Civil War encyclopedias, general and specialized, are numerous. Off the top of my head, I can recall owning three general references (including this one), one on Robert E. Lee's army, one on the brigades of Gettysburg, one on Union generals, and one on Confederate generals. And every one of them is longer than this.

Is that bad? I suppose it depends on your purpose. This volume is newer than the other two general references -- much, much newer than Mark M. Boatner's classic volume. That does have its advantages -- this book has many photographs, which Boatner's does not (although the other general dictionary, the Historical Times Illustrated Encyclopedia, has more photographs still). Biographical entries in this book are preceded by capsule summaries, which are handy. And the simple fact that this is newer gives it a double advantage: a lot of research has been done in recent decades, and we have also become more aware of just how deeply secession rose out of racist attitudes, not the Southern claims of "States' Rights." For the broad strokes of the war, this is the best of my references.

But you don't buy an encyclopedia to get broad strokes; you buy a history for that! Encyclopedias are supposed to be about specific details. I'm sure there are people who will find this too-slim volume adequate for their needs. But, for me at least, there just isn't enough here. (A very current example, as I write this: There is a current controversy about Fort Benning in Georgia, named for Brigadier General Henry "Rock" Benning, a brigade commander in Robert E. Lee's army. No point in looking him up in this encyclopedia, though; he's not in it.) Bottom line: I'll keep this book -- but Boatner still remains my go-to Civil War reference, despite the fact that it's older than I am.… (más)

I read the essay by Alan I. Marcus titled “Science and Technology." Examining the early field of the history of science and technology, Marcus writes, “Historians wanted to know how great inventors and great companies achieved their greatness.” (pg. 334) In this regard, “historians wanted to know what went on in the heads of geniuses or what were the milestones on the road to modern knowledge and application.” (pg. 335) Later, the postmodernists, spearheaded by Thomas S. Kuhn, “asserted that scientific knowledge was not the province of and did not reflect simply the genius of individuals but rather it was the product of communities of scientists.” (pg. 335) The postmodernists also expanded studies of technology and science from the limits of modern definitions to take into account what contemporaries in the nineteenth century would have considered science and technology, broadening the definition and subjects of historians’ inquiry. (pg. 340)… (más)

The Secessionist Impulse is a study of the politics of secession in the Deep South states of Alabama and Mississippi, leading up to the 1860 presidential election. Published back in 1974, the book has held its value much better than most works published as long ago. (It was reprinted in 2004.)

William Barney builds on the findings of another book, Crisis of Fear, Steven A. Channing's classic study of South Carolina in 1860. The Secessionist Impulse extends the analysis to Alabama and Mississippi, two states that were crucial to the "cotton aristocracy" in 1860, both for their prominence as cotton-producing slave states and for their leading position, with South Carolina, in the drive to secession.

Barney combed newspapers and political documents for the names of those Alabamians and Mississippians who were active in an 1860 presidential campaign or in the election of delegates to a state secession convention. He then used the 1860 census to determine each individual's age, occupation, birthplace, wealth, and slaveholding status. Patterns emerged.

Barney's study overturns the traditional view of pre-war southern politics, which held that large slaveholders along with rich merchants and bankers tended to be Whigs, while smaller slaveholders and the "yeomanry" backed the Democrats. In fact, wealth and the interests of large slaveholders dominated both parties. Barney found that the key determiner of whether a person supported secession in 1860 was not just wealth, but relative youth within the elite slaveholding class.

The pro-secession forces attracted "young wealth," especially in Alabama. In particular, young lawyer-planters, born in the Deep South and aspiring to acquire more land and slaves, were more likely than older planters and migrants from other states to plump for a John Breckinridge presidency, the expansion of slave territory, and ultimately, secession.

Barney's portrayal of the South's economy on the eve of war is somewhat dated (a mild critique of a book published around forty years ago!). Barney overemphasizes the admittedly commanding position of large planters in southern society, and he is perhaps too convinced of the absence of "a vigorous town life" in the Deep South. Still, his overall portrait of a "beleaguered" South devoted to the protection of slavery (not "state's rights") is convincing. Although southern politics used a rhetoric of white egalitarianism, the party system functioned to further the interests of large slaveholders and to usher ambitious, socially qualified men into the centers of power. Barney sums up, "The slave system was never questioned, only its standard-bearers at any given moment." In this analysis, 1860's sectional crisis of fear tended to advance the interests of, and to win its strongest support from, the most ambitious members of the Deep South planter elite.… (más)