Propaganda for Men Who Instigated the Civil War
Peter Charles Hoffer, Three Speeches that Saved the Union: Clay, Calhoun, Webster, and the Crisis of 1850 (New York: NYU Pres, September 9, 2025). Softcover: $32. 384pp, 6X9”. ISBN: 978-1-479838-83-7.
***
“How three skilled orators navigated a polarized political landscape. For the generation of politicians who inherited the Republic and the Union, the opening months of 1850 were a desperate time filled with increasing animosity between free and slave state leaders over issues of the expansion of slavery. Following the end of the Mexican-American War and the subsequent expansion of American territory came a series of fiery debates over how this new territory would be governed, and whether to allow California’s admission to the Union as a ‘free state.’ …The first ever deep content analysis of the three most eventful speeches delivered in the US Senate… Analytical study of the roles of the ‘great triumvirate’ of American political leaders—Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun and Daniel Webster—played in preserving the American Union.” I explained my perspective on “Henry Clay” in the preceding review of his biography. After the main pro/anti-slavery propagandist Thomas Clarkson (1760-1846) died in 1846, Clay and these other speakers must have hired some other ghostwriter, who more sincerely favored the anti-slavery side, thus leaving the US finally towards a belated abolition. “All three were lawyers… Practicing law meant knowing and using ‘terms of art’ correctly, and knowing which words would sway a jury—or a nation. Despite their opposing viewpoints, these skilled orators urged for some kind of compromise that would diffuse the possibility of civil war.” Though the demand for a “compromise” hints that they might have been recycling Clarkson’s earlier double-sided rhetoric. “Providing all three speeches in their entirety, alongside a running commentary framing the political climate and manner in which each of these speeches were delivered, Hoffer demonstrates how intractable the slavery issue had become, how near a civil war was, and how it was prevented—at least for a time… Study of a nation that three speeches pulled from the brink of dissolution.” It took a civil-war to end this dispute probably because there was no rhetorical way to end it when the press was financially self-interested in profiting from the continuation of slavery. If these speeches had sincerely helped avoid conflict; they would have shifted history so that there would not have eventually been a civil-war.
In these 1850 debates, Clay proposed compromises such as California being a free state and other newly-acquired regions to be sovereign territories (probably meaning slavery could be legal in them). Calhoun argued for South’s secession to preserve slavery. Webster insisted that Northern states had to protect southerners by enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. This 1850 debate really began the argument for separation of southern states instead of helping to prevent this movement. Mexico had abolished slavery previously; when Mexico lost territories in the Mexican-American War (1846-8), Mexicans who were now in American territories objected to the introduction of slavery on anti-slave lands, and this began stirring calls for separating to enforce slavery legally in southern regions, including this newly acquired from Mexico Texan region. California was also part of Mexico. California had tried to remain an independent nation before it was peacefully negotiated to enter as a state. Discussions about separating California or Texas into independent countries gave this idea that the south could similarly separate. Rather than being voices for peace, these three speakers introduced this idea into the mainstream media, and this served to propagate for the Southern declaration of separation in later years (3).
The introduction and most of this book instead puffs these guys as being “hypnotic”, and for “saving the nation”. This is not a useful contribution to further understanding of the truth of this subject. It is neatly presented and reasonably well researched, but it restates old pufferies.
--Pennsylvania Literary Journal: https://anaphoraliterary.com/journals/plj/plj-excerpts/book-reviews-summer-2025/

Up until the last paragraph of this book, I believed its title to be incorrect - but the conclusion convinced me!

I freely admit that I went into this book biased. I have long been passionate about the abolitionist movement. Even though it is unquestionably horrible that so many died in the Civil War, American chattel slavery needed to be eradicated, and I don’t believe politicians should have just let enslaved people suffer for another hundred years because “slavery would have ended eventually.”

So these speeches did not, in one sense, save the Union; the Confederate states seceded and the Civil War happened in part because of tensions fanned by the Fugitive Slave Act that followed these speeches. However… What if the Compromise of 1850 didn’t happen, and the South seceded that year? The president at the time may have just let them go, with the “peculiar institution” still in existence - whereas Lincoln did not! I had always thought of the Compromise of 1850 as worsening the plight of enslaved people, which is still true, but the conclusion of this book made me realize that without the Compromise, American chattel slavery might have lasted a lot longer. Of course, we can never know that for certain, but it was an excellent point!

This book is informative about that important and difficult time in American history as seen through speeches by three of the greatest orators of the era. This book dissects speeches by Clay, Calhoun, and Webster in early 1850. The format has Hoffer interspersing explanation and analysis throughout the body of each speech, pausing every few paragraphs or so. I was expecting more analysis of some rhetorical strategies (Hoffer did this in places), but a lot of it was just providing specific historical context, which I appreciated. It is nice to have it all in one place with the speakers’ references explained. I also appreciate that Hoffer does not treat the speakers as perfect; he is right to call out their errors and their slaveholding. (There was one brief error in the book, at least to my understanding: Hoffer claims “The Constitution did not mention slavery”, but it did refer to slavery in Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3: “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”)

Overall, this is an informative read and I recommend it to history buffs who enjoy close readings of important speeches.

Thank you to NetGalley and NYU Press for the free eARC. I post this review with my honest opinions.