1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and the War They Failed to See

by Bruce Chadwick

PRAISE FOR 1858 "Highly recommended―a gripping narrative of the critical year of 1858 and the nation's slide toward disunion and war…Readers seeking to understand how individuals are agents of historical change will find Chadwick's account of the failed leadership of President James Buchanan especially compelling." ―G. Kurt Piehler, author of Remembering War the American Way "Chadwick's excellent history shows how the issue of slavery came crashing into the professional, public, and private lives of many Americans…Chadwick offers a fascinating that James Buchanan, far from being a passive spectator, played a major role in the drama of his time. 1858 is a welcome addition to scholarship of the most volatile period of American history." ―Frank Cucurullo, Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial As 1858 dawned, the men who would become the iconic figures of the Civil War had no idea it was about to Jefferson Davis was dying, Robert E. Lee was on the verge of resigning from the military, and William Tecumseh Sherman had been reduced to running a roadside food stand. By the end of 1858, the lives of these men would be forever changed, and the North and South were set on a collision course that would end with the deaths of 630,000 young men. This is the story of seven men on the brink of a war that would transform them into American legends, and the events of the year that set our union on fire.

Genres: History, Civil War, American History, Nonfiction, Politics, American Civil War, Presidents

384 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2008

Reviews

[Bill · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m about to dig into some James Buchanan biographies, but I kind of wasn’t in the mood just yet for a friendly revisionist account, or a cheeky “Worst President Ever!” type of treatment, so I pulled this book off the shelf because I was intrigued by its structure. In describing the events leading up to disunion and Civil War, the book alternates between chapters on some of the major political players and events of 1858, and chapters on what was going on in the Buchanan White House at the time. So for every chapter that focuses on someone confronting the problem of slavery, there’s a contrasting chapter focusing on Buchanan trying to ignore it.

It was a promising idea, but the execution didn’t wow me. I found the book to be simultaneously too narrowly focused, by centering on the events of a single year, and too broad, by including a dizzying array of characters and a whole lot of background on events that occurred prior to 1858, so that much of the book didn’t focus on this single year at all. 

Even the book’s subtitle, and the cover image prominently featuring Abraham Lincoln, seem designed more for marketing purposes than to accurately describe the book. “Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and the War They Failed to See” might be more accurately phrased as “A bit of Abraham Lincoln, a good chapter on Jefferson Davis, an unnecessary chapter on Robert E. Lee, one paragraph on Ulysses S. Grant, plus chapters on James Buchanan, Stephen Douglas, William Seward, William Tecumseh Sherman, John Brown and much, much more!”

The Lincoln-Douglas debates, arguably the most notable events of 1858, are the book’s centerpiece, such as it is. There are also good chapters on others who were, or were poised to become, pivotal political figures of the time, such as Jefferson Davis and William Seward. But the chapters on future Civil War generals like Lee and Sherman seem unnecessary, as they weren’t prominent players in 1858 and didn’t have much to offer in terms of weighing in on the debates of the day. And other chapters on 1858 events like the Oberlin-Wellington fugitive slave rescue and John Brown’s Christmas raid into Missouri are written well enough and dramatically described, but they just add to the perception of a book that seems somewhat disconnected and disjointed, as a collection of unconnected tales in which the only flow from one chapter to another is the mere progression of time from January to December 1858. 

So, unlike a book like Ecstatic Nation: Confidence, Crisis, and Compromise, 1848-1877, which stitches together multiple stories to tell a sweeping cultural history of an era, this book comes across as more of a series of distinct character sketches and events loosely tied around the theme of a single, somewhat arbitrarily-chosen antebellum year, that don’t ultimately come together to form a cohesive whole. 

And what to make of James Buchanan, then, whose presence hovers over the entire book? As the book progresses, some of the alternating chapters focusing on the Buchanan White House seem perfunctory - they’re short, or don’t have much to do with Buchanan at all, so they seem designed more to serve the book’s fixed structure than to most effectively tell the book’s story. Regardless, it’s fair to say that Chadwick is not a Buchanan fan, as each Buchanan-focused chapter generally shows the president fiddling while the country burns, preoccupied with petty political disputes and failed attempts to declare the issue of slavery settled in the hopes that simply saying so will make it true. Buchanan “was certainly not the sole cause of the Civil War,” Chadwick writes, “but his ineffectiveness as chief executive dealt a crippling blow to the nation.” And, just to twist the knife a bit more, he goes on to conclude that Buchanan ignored the issue of slavery “so he could spend time feuding with Stephen Douglas, threaten a war with Paraguay, try to annex Cuba, and open his niece’s mail.”

Ouch. It’s probably a more accurate portrait of Buchanan than one that would be offered by either a friendly biographer or a mocking author looking to crown the “worst president ever.” It’s just a shame that Chadwick’s portrait of Buchanan isn’t contained within a better book.

[Ron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four stars is a gift, but this is a good book. So much of our understanding of the Civil War extends no further than the battles--except for the inane argument about what it was about--States Rights or slavery. ("Yes.") Chadwick goes back before Fort Sumpter to examine how the lives of seven men took turns in 1858 which made the Civil War almost inevitable. (In fact, the Dred Scott decision, the Panic of 1857, James Buchanan's inauguration all in 1857 make a good case for that year being the point of no return.) He does a good job.

But Chadwick chose to make Buchanan's failed presidency the framing story of it all, and with good reason. "His policies as president created so much havoc and eventually resulted in the Civil War." Buchanan may not have cause it by himself but, for one elected in hopes of preventing a national split, he disappointed just about everyone.

This is a history book: with 747 end notes filling 29 pages. I don't think Chadwick found a quote he didn't like. He seems to assume the reader has no background in the period, so often traces the entire lives of his subjects before getting to his point.

Odd that he made only a single, one-line reference to the Second Great Awakening, which others have credited with a shaping role.

Overall, well done. A good read.

[Joe · Rating 5 out of 5]

President James Buchanan
Jefferson Davis
Robert E. Lee
Stephen Douglas
Abraham Lincoln
William Seward
Ulysses S. Grant
William Tecumseh Sherman
John Brown

Historian Bruce Chadwick profiles nine of the key players/instigators of the Civil War and shows where they were and what they were doing in the momentous year of 1858. As someone who probably has studied the Civil War more than most, I found much to surprise me in this slim volume.

Jefferson Davis, the future president of the Confederacy, emerges as an especially surprising figure. I had been acquainted with his considerable gifts and experiences, still found much to surprise me about him. Apparently he contacted herpes simplex during his military service during the invasion of Mexico and he suffered through incredible agonies for much of the rest of his life. On occasions he would be too weak to stand and would have to be carried into congress wrapped up like a mummy and carried on a litter to cast votes. Though this is hard to explain or even conceive, Davis' relative "kindness" to his slaves was a matter of much discussion among his fellow Southerners. He paid for his slaves' weddings (at a time when marriage between slaves was not legally recognized) and bought expensive clothes for his slaves to wear on Sunday. Fellow planters mocked him for tipping his hat to female slaves he met on the street and said that if anyone wanted to know the latest fashions they need not go to Paris or Milan, but merely to visit the slave quarters of Jefferson Davis.

James Buchanan also emerges as an interesting figure. Buchanan couldn't understand why everyone was so worked up over the slavery issue and was ecstatic about the Dred Scott decision, thinking the matter had been laid to rest and would fade away on its own. He was obsessed, like many presidents after him, with foreign adventures abroad. He had plans to seize Sonora and Cuba as future American states and actually deployed troops in Paraguay in an attempt to expand the American Empire.

In 1858 William Tecumseh Sherman was selling firewood on the streets of San Francisco to make ends meet and Ulysses S. Grant was running a roadside food stand. These men failed at everything aside from the only thing they were ever good at: killing. They'd have to wait two years.

Chadwick does a great job in dispelling any notion of the inevitability of the Lincoln presidency. Lincoln's election in 1860 was the most unlikely thing in the world. It was fascinating to read this most celebrated of all American presidents was only a few years earlier a fantastically far-fetched idea.

There's much more but I'm getting a crick in my neck from typing for too long.

[Pop · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not worth the effort to write a review.

[Terence · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite inexcusably poor copy editing (a particular bete noire of mine since that's my profession - the national anthem of the French Revolution was La Marseillaise not Marseilles) and, at times, clunky writing, 1858 is a fascinating look at a pivotal period of American history - James Buchanan's disastrous presidency.

Chadwick primarily focuses on the lives of men who would figure large in the Civil War: Jefferson Davis, Robert Lee, Abraham Lincoln, John Brown and William Sherman. He takes a few side trips to explore the political/social background of the period and look at the lives of a few lesser characters such as William Seward. As someone not overly familiar with this period of history, I enjoyed many of the revelatory passages. For example, how little the tactics of political campaigning have changed in 150 years. Operatives resorted to the lowest of low tactics to smear their opponents; votes were determined by appeals to emotion and group identity more than reasoned thought.

And it was instructive to learn about the parallels between the careers of Lincoln and Barack Obama (though the author, quite rightly, never brings up contemporary topics).

Another interesting parallel to our current politics is the vicious in-fighting that plagued the Democrats in Illinois, where Buchanan, loathing Stephen Douglas, did everything he could to deny Douglas victory. He wound up dividing the Democrats, who were routed in both the 1858 and 1860 elections. And how did Buchanan cope? Willful obliviousness to the situation and foreign adventures that ended disastrously.

[Jud Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Of the sub-genre of books-whose-title-is-a-date, I've now read three: April, 1865; 1775; and now this book, the only one of the three that didn't succeed in making the argument that its date-in-title was without question a watershed span of time.

Which is not to say that this isn't a good book. It is very well worth reading. The character sketches in particular of its leading personages -- James Buchanan, Robert E. Lee, William T. Sherman, Jefferson Davis, Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Douglas, among others -- are not only vivid and well-rounded, but emphasize certain character traits (e.g. Davis's temper and Lincoln's ambition) that provide the key to the character.

There is also much to be learned, from such trivia that the great detective Pinkerton was a conductor on the Underground Railroad to such important facts as James Buchanan's vigorous prosecution of a Manifest Destiny foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere (an almost-war with Paraguay and designs on Cuba) along with his political scheming to thwart fellow-Democrat Stephen Douglas.

But the notion that 1858 was somehow a key year is defeated by the very history in the book: slavery had been THE divisive issue in the US since its Constitution was being drafted. And as to the book subutitle's assertion that Davis, Lincoln, Lee, and Grant "failed to see" a coming civil war is not borne out, particularly in the case of Davis, who seems to have been calling for secession for some time before 1858. Another example is the case of John Brown: 1858 is when he rescued a group of slaves and daringly led them to freedom in Canada, an important event no doubt in contributing to the divisive climate, but surely not as important as the 1859 raid on Harper's Ferry.

Fortunately for the book, its narrative is chronologically quite broad -- there is no attempt to limit the discussion to the single year. This might weaken the argument that 1858 was a critical year, but the result is that Chadwick effectively describes the general political climate in the antebellum US.

A better book, in my mind, would have been one that contrasted Buchanan and Lincoln. 1858 is the critical year for the latter, in terms of establishing a national reputation, by way of his senate campaign with Douglas, the high point of which were their legendary debates, very effectively described in this book. Lincoln in fact won the popular vote, but at the time state legislatures still elected the senators, and Douglas carried that vote. Still, the campaign established Lincoln as a force to be reckoned with in the explosive growth of the new Republican party.

As for Buchanan, he is shown to be nothing near the vapid doormat of his popular, post-Civil War reputation. He acts with energy and even dynamism; unfortunately his energy and dynamism were ill-advised, misdirected, and blundering. He engaged in "petty disputes" with members of his own party, like Douglas, thus contributing to divisions that would ultimately lead to the disastrous (for the Democrats) presidential election of 1860. Most damning, he "dismissed the slavery issue in Kansas and elsewhere. He never understood the fury at the Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave Act by millions of Americans. ... [H]e ignored the threat of John Brown, dismissing him as a fanatic," and similarly ignored the "ever more outrageous and inflammatory views" being spread in the South.

This view seems to me to have more than a little of the presentist fallacy in it. The Civil War being the disaster that it was, surely -- one might think, with Chadwick -- Buchanan would want to try to recognize and resolve this burning issue. I don't see why that should be the case. Buchanan, a political ally of the Southerners, seems to have shared their view that slavery was an institution of the future. As such, his "international swashbuckling" was not a petty effort to ignore the clanging tocsin of future civil war so much as it was an effort to expand the "Slave Power" so that it could not be challenged.

[Stuart · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found the book very interesting, and it was fascinating to have in depth portraits of individuals and events during a critical year leading up to the War. The only downside is the incredibly numerous incidents of sloppy writing. Some were amusing, some irritating, and a few downright confusing. The book provides a good example of the need for careful editors with sharp pens. Nonetheless, I recommend the book overall.

[T.J. Gillespie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Having read Mark Kurlansky's 1968, Charles Mann's 1493, Adam Goodheart's 1861 in recent years (and looking forward to Bill Bryson's upcoming 1927), I have really enjoyed the single year focus found in many new history books. It was therefore somewhat disappointing to realize that this isn't quite in the same league.

At first 1858 seems like an odd year to focus on. John Brown's attack on Harper's Ferry is 1859; The Dred Scott decision was 1857; 1860 is the presidential election year. Even 1850 seems more likely as it was the year of the famous compromise, California became a state, the Fugitive Slave Law was passed, the Scarlet Letter was published, and Harriet Tubman became a conductor on the Underground Railroad.

In contrast, three of the principal figures of this book--Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and William T. Sherman--were having pretty uneventful--boring, even--years. Lee was in Arlington, Virginia managing a family estate and deciding whether or not to retire from the army; Sherman, having suffered a financial blow, was selling corn at a food stand in Kansas and thinking about getting back into the army. And Jeff Davis took a vacation to Maine.

Instead of a singular unifying narrative--other than James Buchanan's incompetence--the book offers separate discrete chapters on individual life stories. They aren't focused on 1858 or even just on the years before the war. As a result we get a chapter on Jefferson Davis career during the Indian Wars and long, drawn out details of Robert E. Lee's property management abilities. Some details are interesting--Jeff Davis captured Chief Black Hawk during the Black Hawk War and he suffered from debilitating herpes outbreaks throughout his life--but many aren't. At times if feels like a more apt title would be Brief Biographical Sketches of People from the Civil War or maybe Before They Were Famous: Rebs and Yanks Edition.

Chadwick does save his best story telling for two important events that did take place in 1858: the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Oberlin Slave Rescue. These three chapters (since there are two on the debates) are worthwhile and informative. But for the most part, I point readers in the direction of the superior 1861 by Adam Goodheart, one of the best of the recent Civil War books.

[Josiah · Rating 2 out of 5]

As the title suggests, this book follows the events in 1858 that presaged the Civil War, which specific chapters focusing on Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, William Seward, Robert E. Lee, John Brown, Stephen Douglas, President Buchanan, and William T. Sherman (oddly, despite being listed in the subtitle there is no chapter on US Grant, who only appears briefly in the Sherman chapter). Some of the chapters are quite interesting, particularly those focusing on Buchanan and Douglas. But others, particularly the Sherman chapter, are disorganized and seemingly irrelevant to the larger focus of the book, and the author's frequent repetitions get old quickly.

More troubling are the glaring factual errors in the book. For example, Chadwick says that Buchanan won "nineteen out of forty-one states" in the 1856 presidential election, when in fact there were only thirty-one states at the time. He also says that "The success of the Republicans in the elections of 1855, 1856, and 1857 had decreased the number of Democrats in the House from ninety-three to fifty-three." The reality is that the Democrats went from having 81 to 127 House seats in the 1856 election, and picked up three more between 1856 and 1858. Both of these errors, I should add, are from the first chapter. Given errors such as these, it is hard for me to credit any fact in the book that I can't independently verify, which functionally meant that I couldn't really learn anything new from the book.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although a decent overview of several of the major issues that shaped the political climate of the day, with particular emphasis regarding the importance that the debate about slavery had on the future of the union, the book as a whole was not very tightly written and at times lost focus. Two chapters towards the end of the book in particular stood out for their lack of connection to the rest of the work. Added on at the end of the book chapters on the violent, vigilante abolitionist John Brown and a brief overview of Gen Techumpsa Sherman had little to do with the rest of the work and only distracted the reader from Chadwicks main points which agree with existing castigation of the Buchannan presidency in the years leading up to the war.

[Marti Knight]

Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Douglas, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, William Tecumseh Sherman, John Brown - this is an amazing cast of characters! Bruce Chadwick makes it all fascinating - shades of David Baldacci.

[Brian Eshleman · Rating 4 out of 5]

No huge revelations on any of the cast in the coming Civil War drama, but seeing them juxtaposed helps to highlight the tension that was building in the country. How long warm personal relationships like that between archetypes Davis and Seward withstood sectional tension is also remarkable.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read 1858 in the dust and murk of a 2009 summer, a year when I was neck-deep in American history, and more importantly, in the personalities that shaped (or unshaped) it. Bruce Chadwick’s book had a compelling thesis—it tried to recreate the psychic and political temperature of the year 1858, a moment just before the boil, when America was stretching at the seams but hadn’t yet combusted into full-blown Civil War. The book was bursting with ideas, but what it left unsaid, what it failed to predict (as its subtitle screams), is what I feel I intuited with a kind of eerie clarity.

Chadwick introduces us to four titans—Lincoln, Davis, Lee, and Grant—each on the cusp of history, yet all of them apparently blind to the storm about to break over them. That’s the book’s central irony. They lived 1858, but none of them saw what was inevitable. Not Lincoln, in his morally tormented eloquence; not Davis, clinging to a union he would eventually abandon; not Lee, still married to the Union in military service; not even Grant, obscure, jobless, drunk. The Civil War was coming—ravenous and righteous—and they all blinked.

Reading this as a younger history obsessive, I found myself screaming internally: How could you miss it? But, of course, hindsight is a cruel mistress. The deeper I went, the more I realized: they were each trapped in their own timelines, their personal myths, their little moral universes. In many ways, Chadwick makes it painfully clear—they failed to see the war because they could not, would not, believe that America could turn on itself so violently.

By 2009, I had already read my fair share of Civil War literature, from Shelby Foote’s sweeping prose to Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Lincolnian intimacy. Chadwick, though, offered something slightly different—he gave us a kaleidoscope of personalities as they were before they became icons, before their fates hardened. What makes 1858 truly unsettling is that it’s not a book about war—it’s a book about the refusal to see it coming.

Reading it, I kept thinking of the eerie parallels with our own times (as one does, always). The gradual polarization. The boiling vitriol. The bitter deadlock in legislatures. In 2009, these seemed like metaphors. By 2025, they feel like prophecies. I now teach my students about that year—1858—not just as a prelude to the Civil War, but as a case study in national myopia.

There was a strange kind of power in reading this book as a young adult. Because while Chadwick told me what they failed to see, I saw through. Maybe it was arrogance. Maybe the self-righteousness of youth. But I remember finishing the book, closing it with a kind of stern clarity, as if I had read a tragedy that hadn’t been written yet.

I talked about it endlessly to whoever would listen. I remember one particularly intense evening where I tried to convince a friend (over coffee and Oreos, naturally) that 1858 was the most important year in American history. He smiled, possibly humoring me. But I still think I was right.

1858 is not a perfect book. Sometimes it tries to do too much, sometimes the transitions feel forced. But it remains with me—not just as a study in foresight and blindness, but as a cautionary tale. History doesn’t always scream before it explodes. Sometimes it whispers. Sometimes it’s 1858. And you’re in the middle of it. And you don’t even know.

[Keith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bruce Chadwick has presented us with an overview of the events of 1858, what he calls a pivotal year in the lead up to the Civil War. He does this by presenting mini-biographies and profiles of some of the key figures of the era including Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Douglas, Jefferson Davis, Ulysses Grant, William Sherman, John Brown, and William Seward. Chadwick presents us with compelling stories of these men - Davis nearly dying from an attack of herpes; Seward and Douglas presuming the Presidential nominations; Sherman and Grant both facing failure in their non-military endeavors. While these stories are fascinating in their own right, they do not really present an overall theme or give the reader an insight as to the coming conflict. Chadwick proposes that the failure of these men, and almost all of America for that matter, was due to a lack of perception. What he does not factor in, however is that civil war was not on the minds of anyone (with the notable exception of Brown). Failure to have the clairvoyance of future sight does not detract from the acts of these men. It's not at all clear how Chadwick feels about what these men should have done differently to influence the events of 1858 and how it might have prevented war.
The person who does come out badly, and who Chadwick makes no bones about his feelings for is President James Buchanan. In most historical polls, Buchanan is usually regarded as one of the worst Presidents this country has ever had, and Chadwick strongly reinforces that contention. Each of the mini-bios is interwoven with a narrative of Buchanan's capers throughout the year. The President is shown as incompetent, petty, vindictive, vain, and completely misguided. He totally misreads the circumstances of the day, regarding slavery as something to be dismissed and not as the central issue ripping the country apart, and believing that his legacy will be to expand the borders of the United States into Cuba, most of Central America and even Paraguay. It is Buchanan that makes the whole story of the year one thread, but not in a good way.
Overall, Chadwick is unconvincing in his argument about 1858 being THE crucial year. The Dred Scott decision was in 1857; Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859. Any one of those years could arbitrarily be called the most important. Certainly the events of that year and the individuals involved were important, but there is not a strong case that it was more important than any other.
I have one other minor quibble with this book. Chadwick has an annoying habit of putting modifying phrases in strange places in sentences so as to make them difficult to understand without going back to reread. He also slips into some casual cadence, especially when he was talking about Buchanan.
I think this book does some good shedding some light on the personalities of the time, although biographies of all these men do the job much better. I don't regret reading this book, but I feel like Chadick promised something he could not deliver.

[Jeffrey Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Okay. Not that great a book, really. Somewhere between the concept and the editing, Either Chadwick lost track of his concept or either he or his publisher started mis-selling the book. Of the characters in that very listy, poorly edited or selected title, Lincoln seems (by the book’s reporting) to have foreseen in his “house divided” speech a coming conflict over slavery, such that either the author or his opponents accused him of predicting or provoking a war. U.S. Grant doesn’t even figure in the book, and Jefferson Davis also seems to see a war coming. Note that President James Buchanan, the major player whose willful ignoring of the building of the slavery crisis provides the book’s spine, returned to in every other chapter, isn’t even mentioned in the title. Chadwick’s story for Sherman doesn’t relate to the war at all; there’s no relationship between his struggles in civilian life and the coming war, not even an ironic one. You might say that that is the point of Chadwick’s thesis vis-à-vis Sherman, but he never answers the question of why he should pick Sherman as one of the book’s subjects: There’s no more reason to treat Sherman’s trail through that year than anyone else’s. Chadwick treats 1858 as a key, pivotal year, but he would have done better to treat a two- or three-year span—1857-1858 or 1857-1859—than 1858 by itself. Too many of the pivotal events that he cites take place outside of 1858. But then, Kenneth Stampp wrote a book that looks at 1857 as a pivot year—a book which was one of Chadwick’s sources. I’m grateful for the info that Chadwick provides, but his writing isn’t that great. Toward the end of the book, he has a habit of telling you things he’s already told you, as if he hadn’t. He credits William Seward with persuading Great Britain to remain neutral and not to formally recognize the Confederacy as an independent nation, but in Amanda Foreman’s A World on Fire (see my review), it seems that Seward may not deserve nearly as much credit as do the circumstances, and even Lord Lyons and Charles Francis Adams, our ambassador to Britain.

[Belinda Earl Turner · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book actually covers more than just the year 1858. It gives information about several of the men who had important roles in the years leading up to, during, and after the Civil War. These men include Ulysses S. Grant, William Tecumseh Sherman, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, Stephen Douglas, William Seton, John Brown, and President James Buchanan.
Buchanan whose administration was the last before the Civil War spent most of his four years in office ignoring the controversy over slavery. He spent much of his time attempting to defeat fellow Democrats who faced re-election and had offended him somehow. He also had a great desire to annex parts of Mexico and Central America, and make them part of the U. S. He did nothing to try and avoid war.
This book gives an even handed account of this period in U. S. history, and I recommend reading it. The South did have heroic men who led to the best of their abilities. Some didn’t own slaves of their own, but fought for the Confederacy because “those people were down here”, and they were not going to fight against their own states and families. And yes, they were, I think worthy of remembrance and statues.
❤️✝️✡️❤️

[Steve Smits · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having read many books on the Civil War and the antebellum years, I didn't know much about President Buchanan and the events of 1858. Buchanan is usually mentioned supefically as a failure to take actions to avoid the conflict. This book confirms this but adds details about his misguided presidency. He undertook a retribution campaign against Stephen Douglas (over Douglas's opposition to the phony Lecompton constitution in the Kansas territory) which likely cost Douglas the 1860 presidential election. Buchanan was an imperialist undertaking harebrained initiatives to annex through coercion countries in the Carribean, Central and South America.

The book also highlights the pre-war stories of figures who emerged to dominate the country in the war years: Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, William Seward, Douglas, Lincoln, and John Brown. He provided insights into their public affairs that further advanced the country to the war.

For anyone interested in how events moved toward in Seward's famous words the "irrepressible conflict" this is a worthwhile read.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting if sometimes scattered history of the role 1858 played in the lead-up to the Civil War, including the failure of Buchanan's leadership and the rapid electoral successes the Republican party gained. There are scattered chapters on men like Davis, Lee, Grant, and Sherman which seem frankly incidental to the actual point of the book, though they do offer biographical detail that is interesting in its own merits. Who knew that the savage Sherman was capable of beautiful bird sketches? The meat of the book is the persistent role Kansas and related political action (the Dred Scott decision, John Brown's raids, etc) had in turning slavery into a white-hot issue of the day. Buchanan, however, was more interested in foreign policy -- particularly, in acquiring Cuba and expanding DC's power into South America.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked this book. Bruce Chadwick is a good storyteller. He makes several historical figures 3-dimensional and very human. He also does a great job tying together a series of crucial, and that may appear at first to be unconnected, events that happened in 1858 together to paint a complex picture of a country heading towards civil war but very few of these people realize that.

He uses President James Buchanan as a connecting thread. Buchanan is arguably the worst U.S. President. He largely ignored the raging conflict over slavery. In fact he tried to distract the country from the conflict over slavery by promoting several schemes to take over several countries in the Caribbean, Central and South America & portions of northern Mexico by promoting Americans to settle there and take over businesses & the governments, by purchasing or annexing countries or through military conquest.

Buchanan had a long career as a diplomat, cabinet member and member of Congress. But he wasn't well respected. Andrew Jackson appointed him Minister to Russia but said he did it to get Buchanan as far away as possible and that he would have appointed him Minister to the North Pole if he could.

Buchanan held grudges and used the power of the Presidency through political appointments and government contracts to build up people he favored or to destroy those he opposed. His feud with Senator Stephen Douglas harmed the Democratic Party and helped Lincoln in his race against Douglas for a U.S. Senate seat from Illinois. Buchanan's feud with his former ally John Forney in Pennsylvania led Forney to support Douglas and helped the Republican Party to make tremendous gains in Pennsylvania in the 1858 and 1860 elections.

Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis contracted herpes (probably when he was a soldier in the Mexican War). It damaged his eyesight and nearly killed him several times during his life. Davis and his family took a vacation in Maine in 1858 while he was recovering from a severe attack. Davis was very well received in Maine and the rest of New England. He made several conciliatory speeches during his trip. When he returned to the South he found himself under attack politically for being too friendly with northerners. So Davis did a 180 and became a leading spokesman for the secession movement.

Robert Lee took an extended leave from the U.S. Army to return to Virginia and try to sort out his father-in-law's (George Washington Parke Custis)estate, which included Arlington House and two other plantations in Virginia. The plantations and Arlington House were largely neglected toward the end of Custis' life. Lee's wife Mary by this time was pretty much of an invalid due to rheumatism.

Chadwick paints an unflattering picture of Lee's relations with his slaves. Lee also tended to avoid confrontations. During this period Lee struggled with deciding whether he should resign from the U.S. Army. He was still on leave when he was summoned to take command of the U.S. Marines who retook Harpers Ferry in 1859 during John Brown's raid.

In 1858 John Brown led a raid into Missouri from Kansas to free several slaves. One slave owner was shot & killed by one of Brown's followers. Brown led his followers and the freed slaves north and eventually to freedom in Canada (crossing at Detroit). He gained national attention from this action. After the slaves escaped to Canada, Brown went to Ohio to visit the "Rescuers" from Oberlin, Ohio, who were in prison following the rescue of a runaway slave from slave catchers who were trying to return him to his master in Kentucky.

The Oberlin Rescuers became national celebrities when they chose to stay in prison rather than be released on bond while they were being tried one by one. Swarms of people visited them in prison. Their story re-energized the Abolitionist movement which had a tremendous setback in the 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision.

New York Senator William Seward was a political enemy but a personal friend of Jefferson Davis. Davis couldn't understand how Seward could tell him that Seward really had no personal convictions even though he became a leader of the Republican Party and nationally known for his opposition to slavery. Seward's "Irrepressible Conflict" speech predicted a civil war being fought over slavery.

Meanwhile, back in Illinois, Abraham Lincoln had a series of debates with Stephen Douglas during their campaign for a U.S. Senate seat. Douglas was widely considered to be the country's foremost debater. But Lincoln was no slouch at debating. Douglas came out on top in the first Lincoln-Douglas debate but then Lincoln came back strong in the subsequent debates. Lincoln won the popular vote but the state legislature voted for U.S. Senator and Douglas won the vote in the legislature so he was re-elected. But Lincoln became a nationally recognized figure and Douglas' position on slavery during the debates (he favored letting territories decide if they would be free or slave territories) cost Douglas the support of the South in the 1860 election.

William Tecumseh Sherman left the U.S. Army and tried being a banker in California after the Mexican War. He felt that he was a failure even though Sherman's actions allowed his bank to survive the financial panic of 1857 when many banks failed. In 1858 Sherman was reduced to trying to sell corn by the roadside in Kansas to people heading west to the Colorado gold rush. While in St. Louis, Sherman met another failed U.S. Army soldier, U.S. Grant, who was selling bundles of firewood on the street corners. Of course both men went on to become the leaders of the Union armies that won the Civil War.

Even if you're not a Civil War buff you'll enjoy this book and learn some good history lessons along the way.

[Erik Snell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most people probably won’t agree with me after they read this book. I think I’m in a unique narrow little piece of the population who enjoyed this read more than most would. If you look at it from the point of view of the Civil War this is basically a miniature prequel. I say mini because it really only fills you in on what was happening with many of those who would play large rolls later in 1958 just before thing’s really turned into the Civil War. I know a lot about these men both before during and after the war. But this book did give me some more insight into details of their past I didn’t know much about. I can’t say the book itself did an excellent job of filling in gaps that rounded these characters out but it did fit well with what I already knew. If you don’t have my extensive knowledge you’ll probably find this little piece of history lacking in any sort of broad view or of rounding out the characters. The organization of the book seemed a little odd too in that it was all over the place with essentially a chapter for each person but each chapter never really feeling like a stand alone story beginning to end.

[Paul Decker · Rating 5 out of 5]

I appreciated Chadwick's approach of telling the stories about significant characters of the Civil War and what they were doing in the pivotal year in 1858. Chadwick is especially hard on Buchanan who did his best to ignore the slavery issue and concentrated on foreign policy, which ended up being a detriment to our country on both accounts. Recommended to history buffs - especially those interested in the Civil War.

[J · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author focuses on one key player at a time. The format lends itself to going into depth on each key player. I especially learned a lot about Seward. There were new insights on each person. The final chapter brought it all together but the details of the individual chapters was the most important for me.

[Jane Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Civil War Story

This is an interesting history. It gives a good view of what was happening to the major players to the run up to the Civil War. More than usual details is given. It helps a great deal in understanding what led up to the war

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting review of the events and people leading up to the civil war. I learned some things that I had not known before. Reminder that history repeats itself; things today seem just as confused, messy, splintered as in 1858.

[Ian Hastings · Rating 5 out of 5]

We spend so much time talking about slavery and it's role in the buildup to the Civil War. It was interesting to see where the major players were 3 years prior, and the other world events (James Buchanan wanted the US to take over most of Central and South America, as well as Mexico?)

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting read that attempts to tie disparate person’s lives into a coherent tale. The details of the separate stories are at times more than is needed. It doesn’t quite make a smooth whole. Anecdotes of 1858 is what it should have been called.

[Tom M · Rating 4 out of 5]

The personalities profiled in 1858, played pivotal roles in the Civil War. I knew the names but not the man. They are presented in such a way that one learns much about the man and the events that shaped them.

[RK Byers · Rating 2 out of 5]

some pretty detailed history, but when the writer described Jefferson Davis as being "good to his slaves", things went sideways and stayed there.

[shane hampton · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pretty entertaining book on a very interesting and exciting time in American history. I have read other books by this author, and while not exhaustive in research he makes up for it in his prose.

[Peter Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good overall read. Interesting perspective on a number of important figures during a critical time in our history.