What do you think?
Rate this book
Pivotal Moments in American History
Storm over Texas: The Annexation Controversy and the Road to Civil War
In the spring of 1844, a fiery political conflict erupted over the admission of Texas into the Union. This hard-fought and bitter controversy profoundly changed the course of American history. Indeed, as Joel Silbey argues in Storm Over Texas , it marked the crucial moment when partisan differences were transformed into a North-vs-South antagonism, and the momentum towards Civil War leaped into high gear.
Silbey, one of America's most renowned political historians, offers a swiftly paced and compelling narrative of the Texas imbroglio, which included an exceptional cast of characters, from John C. Calhoun and John Quincy Adams, to James K. Polk and Martin Van Buren. We see how a series of unexpected moves, some planned, some inadvertent, sparked a crisis that intensified and crystallized the North-South divide. Sectionalism, Silbey shows, had often been intense, but rarely widespread and generally well contained by other forces. After Texas statehood, it became a driving force in national affairs, ultimately leading to Southern secession and Civil War.
With subtlety, great care, and much imagination, Joel Silbey shows that this brief political struggle became, in the words of an Alabama congressman, "the greatest question of the age"--and a pivotal moment in American history.
Silbey, one of America's most renowned political historians, offers a swiftly paced and compelling narrative of the Texas imbroglio, which included an exceptional cast of characters, from John C. Calhoun and John Quincy Adams, to James K. Polk and Martin Van Buren. We see how a series of unexpected moves, some planned, some inadvertent, sparked a crisis that intensified and crystallized the North-South divide. Sectionalism, Silbey shows, had often been intense, but rarely widespread and generally well contained by other forces. After Texas statehood, it became a driving force in national affairs, ultimately leading to Southern secession and Civil War.
With subtlety, great care, and much imagination, Joel Silbey shows that this brief political struggle became, in the words of an Alabama congressman, "the greatest question of the age"--and a pivotal moment in American history.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
13 people are currently reading
207 people want to read
About the author
Joel H. Silbey
29 books2 followersA specialist in mid-19th century American politics, Joel H. Silbey was Professor of History Emeritus at Cornell University, where he taught from 1966 until his retirement in 2002. A graduate of Brooklyn College, Silbey earned his master’s degree in 1956 and Ph.D. in 1963 from the University of Iowa. In addition to teaching at Cornell, Silbey taught as an assistant professor at San Francisco State College (now San Francisco State University), the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maryland.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
July 22, 2022
Amazon reviews
Texas and the Civil War
When James K. Polk took the oath of office on becoming President of the United States of America in 1845, surely few people imagined that the man who would take the same oath fifteen years later would lead only one section of the United States, and would take that section into war against a seceding South.
Having won its independence from Mexico in 1837, the young republic of Texas sought admission to the United States. The "Texas Question" became a controversial political agenda, and potentially a sectarian issue: Texans were slaveholders, and an annexed Texas would be another slave state.
I have long been convinced that the Annexation of Texas, fervently promoted by President Polk, was the crucial first step on "The Road to Civil War". Once Texas had been annexed, war with Mexico became near inevitable. Following the war, the controversy of slavery's place in the newly acquired territories had seriously undermined the antebellum two party system, which had marginalized sectionalism and slavery in American political life. With slavery at the fore of American politics, and with the political parties realigned along sectional lines, the Union's days were numbered.
Historian Joel Silbey I think essentially accepts this line of reasoning. But in "Storm over Texas" he focuses on a tangent line of effects and causes which I think were peripheral to the main development of the Sectional Crisis - the effects of the Texas annexation, and particularly of the Polk presidency, on the Democratic Party. I think in this Silbey errs; The locus of the sectional controversy was not the democratic party, which has survived as a national party up to the late 1850s, but in one of the landmark processes leading to the war: The disintegration of the Whig party.
The Texas question was fundamental in the rise of James Polk to the presidency of the United States. Before the election of 1844, most observers would have thought that former president Martin van Buren (1836-1840), the leader of the Democratic Party, was the inevitable candidate of his party for the election. But van Buren was lukewarm about Annexing Texas. Along with doubts regarding his electibility - he had lost the 1840 race to William Harrison - van Buren's position on the Texas question sealed his faith. As a "Dark horse" compromise, Tennessee's James Polk was designated as the Democracy's candidate for Presidency.
After winning the election, Polk went on to annex Texas. After annexation came war with Mexico, and with victory, a huge enlargement of the United States, and the problem of slavery in the newly acquired territories.
Along the way, Silbey tells us, Polk managed to undermine the Democratic Party, and to alienate van Buren and his followers (later known as "barnburners"). The Barnburners felt snubbed and neglected by Polk's lack of sufficient patronage to their members, by his excessive support for anti van Buren Northern Democrats, and by his relative timidity in the settlement of the Oregon boundary question, so conspicuous given his belligerency towards Mexico.
Consequentially, it was a Northern Democrat, David Wilmot, who proposed to bar slavery from the territories, thus starting a sectional crisis that would haunt the Union until Appomattox, and van Buren himself - the architect of Andrew Jackson's Democratic Party - who headed that Free Soil party in the 1848 election.
But did it matter? True, Wilmot had proposed his famous provido, but it was most enthusiastically supported by Northern Whigs, not Democrats. Northern Democrats remained the most conciliatory elements of the Union. The Compromise of 1850 was designed and formatted by the leading Northern Democrat of the next era - Stephen Douglas.
The main victims of the partisan warfare waged by Polk and his fellow southerners were Whigs, not Democrats. The Democratic Party has managed to remain united through the election of 1856. But by 1852, the Whig party was in ruin.
Along with the Whigs, the partisan forces that kept sectionalism at bay collapsed also. As long as both political parties were national, both strived to suppress the sectional interests. Once the opponents of the Democrats were free of the cross sectional baggage, they had an interest in feeding the flames. The Democratic Party withstood the increased pressure for a while, but finally, over the fraud that was the Lecompton constitution, it broke. By 1860, there were no national political parties in the United States. With the victory of the radical Republican Party, a Northern anti-Slavery elite came to power for the first time in America. Unwilling to submit, the South seceded.
This is a well known story, and it is better told elsewhere: For example, in James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford History of the United States) and in Don Fehrenbacher's Sectional Crisis and Southern Constitutionalism . What Silbey offers is essentially a competent but inelegant history of the Democratic Party in the 1840s. It's not uninteresting, but the really significant action took place elsewhere.
Omer Belsky
---
Interesting take on an old question but not completely convincing
Storm over Texas provides an excellent overview of the political turmoil that occurred between 1844 and the election of Lincoln. As part of the pivotal movements in American history series the book strives to show how this event was a significant shift in the course of United States history and in the end it succeeds. Texas proved to be a catalyst for the political disunion that lead to the Civil War. The great enemy throughout this process according to this interpretation was former president Martin Van Buren and his involvement is one of the more interesting things to be gleamed from this version of events. Like many books in this series it takes a controversial viewpoint and defends it fairly well. It is a very difficult viewpoint to sell especially given the amount of research that has been done on this point. If you are just starting out on this area of history you will probably find this book interesting. For those that have read a lot on the civil war the argument will be fun but the book will be a fast read. Overall give it a chance and get a look at a great new argument but one that is not likely to sway a lot of people.
Lehigh History Student
Texas and the Civil War
When James K. Polk took the oath of office on becoming President of the United States of America in 1845, surely few people imagined that the man who would take the same oath fifteen years later would lead only one section of the United States, and would take that section into war against a seceding South.
Having won its independence from Mexico in 1837, the young republic of Texas sought admission to the United States. The "Texas Question" became a controversial political agenda, and potentially a sectarian issue: Texans were slaveholders, and an annexed Texas would be another slave state.
I have long been convinced that the Annexation of Texas, fervently promoted by President Polk, was the crucial first step on "The Road to Civil War". Once Texas had been annexed, war with Mexico became near inevitable. Following the war, the controversy of slavery's place in the newly acquired territories had seriously undermined the antebellum two party system, which had marginalized sectionalism and slavery in American political life. With slavery at the fore of American politics, and with the political parties realigned along sectional lines, the Union's days were numbered.
Historian Joel Silbey I think essentially accepts this line of reasoning. But in "Storm over Texas" he focuses on a tangent line of effects and causes which I think were peripheral to the main development of the Sectional Crisis - the effects of the Texas annexation, and particularly of the Polk presidency, on the Democratic Party. I think in this Silbey errs; The locus of the sectional controversy was not the democratic party, which has survived as a national party up to the late 1850s, but in one of the landmark processes leading to the war: The disintegration of the Whig party.
The Texas question was fundamental in the rise of James Polk to the presidency of the United States. Before the election of 1844, most observers would have thought that former president Martin van Buren (1836-1840), the leader of the Democratic Party, was the inevitable candidate of his party for the election. But van Buren was lukewarm about Annexing Texas. Along with doubts regarding his electibility - he had lost the 1840 race to William Harrison - van Buren's position on the Texas question sealed his faith. As a "Dark horse" compromise, Tennessee's James Polk was designated as the Democracy's candidate for Presidency.
After winning the election, Polk went on to annex Texas. After annexation came war with Mexico, and with victory, a huge enlargement of the United States, and the problem of slavery in the newly acquired territories.
Along the way, Silbey tells us, Polk managed to undermine the Democratic Party, and to alienate van Buren and his followers (later known as "barnburners"). The Barnburners felt snubbed and neglected by Polk's lack of sufficient patronage to their members, by his excessive support for anti van Buren Northern Democrats, and by his relative timidity in the settlement of the Oregon boundary question, so conspicuous given his belligerency towards Mexico.
Consequentially, it was a Northern Democrat, David Wilmot, who proposed to bar slavery from the territories, thus starting a sectional crisis that would haunt the Union until Appomattox, and van Buren himself - the architect of Andrew Jackson's Democratic Party - who headed that Free Soil party in the 1848 election.
But did it matter? True, Wilmot had proposed his famous provido, but it was most enthusiastically supported by Northern Whigs, not Democrats. Northern Democrats remained the most conciliatory elements of the Union. The Compromise of 1850 was designed and formatted by the leading Northern Democrat of the next era - Stephen Douglas.
The main victims of the partisan warfare waged by Polk and his fellow southerners were Whigs, not Democrats. The Democratic Party has managed to remain united through the election of 1856. But by 1852, the Whig party was in ruin.
Along with the Whigs, the partisan forces that kept sectionalism at bay collapsed also. As long as both political parties were national, both strived to suppress the sectional interests. Once the opponents of the Democrats were free of the cross sectional baggage, they had an interest in feeding the flames. The Democratic Party withstood the increased pressure for a while, but finally, over the fraud that was the Lecompton constitution, it broke. By 1860, there were no national political parties in the United States. With the victory of the radical Republican Party, a Northern anti-Slavery elite came to power for the first time in America. Unwilling to submit, the South seceded.
This is a well known story, and it is better told elsewhere: For example, in James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford History of the United States) and in Don Fehrenbacher's Sectional Crisis and Southern Constitutionalism . What Silbey offers is essentially a competent but inelegant history of the Democratic Party in the 1840s. It's not uninteresting, but the really significant action took place elsewhere.
Omer Belsky
---
Interesting take on an old question but not completely convincing
Storm over Texas provides an excellent overview of the political turmoil that occurred between 1844 and the election of Lincoln. As part of the pivotal movements in American history series the book strives to show how this event was a significant shift in the course of United States history and in the end it succeeds. Texas proved to be a catalyst for the political disunion that lead to the Civil War. The great enemy throughout this process according to this interpretation was former president Martin Van Buren and his involvement is one of the more interesting things to be gleamed from this version of events. Like many books in this series it takes a controversial viewpoint and defends it fairly well. It is a very difficult viewpoint to sell especially given the amount of research that has been done on this point. If you are just starting out on this area of history you will probably find this book interesting. For those that have read a lot on the civil war the argument will be fun but the book will be a fast read. Overall give it a chance and get a look at a great new argument but one that is not likely to sway a lot of people.
Lehigh History Student
October 10, 2023
A good read on the annexation of Texas on December 1st, 1845, and the sectional strife it brought with it that helped lead to the Civil War (1861-1865).
Read
May 13, 2012Storm over Texas provides an excellent overview of the political turmoil that occurred between 1844 and the election of Lincoln. As part of the pivotal movements in American history series the book strives to show how this event was a significant shift in the course of United States history and in the end it succeeds. Texas proved to be a catalyst for the political disunion that lead to the Civil War. The great enemy throughout this process according to this interpretation was former president Martin Van Buren and his involvement is one of the more interesting things to be gleamed from this version of events. Like many books in this series it takes a controversial viewpoint and defends it fairly well. It is a very difficult viewpoint to sell especially given the amount of research that has been done on this point. If you are just starting out on this area of history you will probably find this book interesting. For those that have read a lot on the civil war the argument will be fun but the book will be a fast read. Overall give it a chance and get a look at a great new argument but one that is not likely to sway a lot of people.
May 16, 2020
While the information contained within is good, this book appears to suffer largely from a strong editorial influence. Long, rambling sentences combined with repetitive, contradictory subject matter make for a long, frustrating read for what should be a brisk 200 pages.
Also, do not let the title fool you - only around half of the book is about Texas' annexation; the second half is a whirlwind of activity that the author attempts to tie back to Texas at times.
Bits and pieces of this book were very good, but I would not recommend it to anyone but the most diehard Civil War / antebellum history lovers.
Also, do not let the title fool you - only around half of the book is about Texas' annexation; the second half is a whirlwind of activity that the author attempts to tie back to Texas at times.
Bits and pieces of this book were very good, but I would not recommend it to anyone but the most diehard Civil War / antebellum history lovers.
September 23, 2020
Not really excellent enough to deserve 4 stars, but a solid 3.5 rounded up.
This is exactly what it aims to be: a clear analysis of events that roiled American politics and undermined the partisan competition that kept North and South together. It's a complicated course of political events, well-told here. Short and sweet, but covers the important points without exaggeration or dramatization. Maybe could have used just a touch of dramatization. William Freehling could have turned this into Measure for Measure. But a really good intro to the topic. Warning: There's nothing herein about the course of the Mexican War. Look elsewhere for anything but politics and politicians.
This is exactly what it aims to be: a clear analysis of events that roiled American politics and undermined the partisan competition that kept North and South together. It's a complicated course of political events, well-told here. Short and sweet, but covers the important points without exaggeration or dramatization. Maybe could have used just a touch of dramatization. William Freehling could have turned this into Measure for Measure. But a really good intro to the topic. Warning: There's nothing herein about the course of the Mexican War. Look elsewhere for anything but politics and politicians.
March 10, 2024
god i f**king hate dcush
September 17, 2015
Good history of the run up to the Civil War.
April 25, 2020
Somewhat repetitive and oddly organized but a good overview of how the annexation of TX put the US on a path to civil war.
April 1, 2023
The Historian Joel H. Sibley’s book Storm over Texas: The Annexation Controversy and the Road to the Civil War in 2005. The book is part of the Pivotal Moments in American History series. The book contains black-and-white photographs, a map, illustrations, notes, an index, and a “Bibliographic Essay” (Sibley 209-213). I read the book on the Kindle. Sibley’s book is about the national political parties of the Democratic Party and Whig Party that fell apart over the annexation of Texas in the 1840s. Sibley’s book is about political history. The book is about the transition from voting patterns of voters from voting on responding to national issues of the administration of Andrew Jackson to voting on sectional issues in a way that led to the presidential election of 1860 which led to the American Civil War. This book is many ways a sequel to the Historian Lynn Hudson Parsons’ book, The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828. The Birth of Politics is also a book about the Pivotal Movements in American History. That book is about the election of 1828 shaped politics during the administration of Andrew Jackson. Sibley’s book Storm over Texas is about the national political status quo of the 1830s that fell apart over the debate over the annexation of Texas during the administration of James K. Polk. Sibley’s book Storm over Texas is an interesting book on national-level politics in the mid-19th Century.
Works Cited:
Parsons, Lynn Hudson. 2009. The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Kindle.
Works Cited:
Parsons, Lynn Hudson. 2009. The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Kindle.
January 31, 2025
I had to read this in a single day for class and while I won’t say I enjoyed it like I enjoy my usual pleasure books it was actually more enjoyable than I thought it gives that real feel of 19th century politics that most people don’t really realize and how they weren’t cordial or nice to each other.
January 8, 2018
Read for a history class. The arguments & points Silbey makes are good, but he was very repetitive & his elaborating on the repetitions just felt like he was trying justify the 180 pages of the book. It could have been cut in half & still given plenty of the information.
January 11, 2018
A few new interesting points, and a different line of discussion about the divisions within and between the political parties that preceded the secession of the southern states. A decent book, but not all the writing or reasoning was clear or focused. Good notes and bibliography.
August 11, 2019
Somewhat dry, but it effectively argues that the stresses created by the annexation of Texas to the Union in 1845 unleashed forces which transformed national political life from partisan disputes between political parties to sectional disputes between North and South.
April 11, 2024
I thought the argument of this book was insightful. The main thesis explains how the Texas annexation split the national parties, mostly the Democrats, into more sectional lines. It did a good job supporting this, but it was a tad boring at times.
November 22, 2024
read against my will. i’m sorry silbey, i’m sure you’re a wonderful man (probably not but i’m still sorry).
January 26, 2025
A very well thought out and structured argument. The writing was a bit dry but that is fairly normal for academic works.
June 4, 2013
A very meh book, I learned more about Martin Van Buren and the intra-Democratic Party civil war over Slavery than over the annexation of Texas itself. Still a decent read, I'd say it was worth the $10 I spent on it.
September 13, 2010
I figure I should learn more about my home state and stuff. The author's thesis is that the annexation of Texas as a slave state was a HUGE factor in kicking off the civil war.
July 14, 2011
An interesting wrinkle on the cause of the American Civil War but wider reading is required before this book can be properly put into context.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews