Reviewed by: Divided Union: The Politics of War in the Early Republic William B. Skelton Divided Union: The Politics of War in the Early Republic. By Scott A. Silverstone. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-8014-4230-3. Notes. Index. Pp. vii, 273. $42.50. In this tightly reasoned monograph, political scientist Scott A. Silverstone contributes to the field of "democratic peace research," the study of the circumstances under which democratic governments resort to or refrain from the use of military force. In particular, he challenges the "realist" school, which finds the key determinant in national leaders' assessment of the external balance of power. Instead, Silverstone stresses internal factors within democratic regimes, especially the federal system in the case of the United States. By federalism, he means the institutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches and between the federal government and the states—and, equally importantly, America's regional diversity and decentralized, states-based political system that make it difficult for leaders to mobilize support for military action. Silverstone begins with a lengthy and provocative analysis of the American decision-making process, drawing heavily from the arguments of James Madison and John Jay in the Federalist Papers. He maintains that eighteenth- and nineteenth-century America was composed of "asymmetrical" territorial communities, regional interests that differed widely on social, economic, and political issues, including matters of war, peace, and national expansion. By denying congressional support, and by threatening future electoral retribution, these territorial interests were frequently in a position to constrain presidents and other national leaders from resorting to military force or pursuing extensive agendas of territorial acquisition. Moreover, the localized nature of the electoral system undercut the potentially centralizing influence of political parties, causing congressmen to side with their constituents on controversial issues of foreign policy even if it meant breaking national party discipline. The result was an inclination toward peace in national security decision making. In the later chapters of Divided Union, Silverstone tests his theory by examining a series of historical cases involving decisions on the use of military force or national expansion during the early national and antebellum eras, in his opinion a neglected period of American foreign relations. These include crises with Great Britain in 1807, 1809, and 1812; the controversy with Spain over the acquisition of East Florida in 1813; the Anglo-American war scare over Oregon in 1845-46; the outbreak of the Mexican War and subsequent debate on territorial gains; and recurring tensions with Mexico and with Spain over Cuba during the 1850s. In the majority of these cases, alignments of territorial interests, sometimes acting for widely differing motives, prevented advocates of military force and extensive expansionism from mobilizing successful political coalitions. The main exceptions were the declaration of war against Great Britain in 1812 and the decision to order American forces into disputed territory and subsequent declaration of war against Mexico in 1846. In the first case, a temporary alliance of war-minded [End Page 558] northwestern and southern congressmen barely overcame the strong opposition of the Northeast to armed conflict. The second case resulted from unilateral action by President James K. Polk, who committed troops to a situation where bloodshed was likely without allowing a deeply divided Congress an opportunity to challenge him. Once troops were engaged in combat, antiwar congressmen faced the prospect of appearing unpatriotic if they withheld support, and large majorities in both houses voted for Polk's cynically drafted declaration of war. The empirical chapters of Divided Union break little new ground. At least since Frederick Jackson Turner, historians have recognized the significance of sectionalism in early American politics, and Silverstone bases his case studies almost entirely on standard secondary works. To dismiss this study would be a mistake, however. Silverstone addresses big questions about matters of war and peace in America's federal system, and he develops a carefully reasoned, nuanced, and persuasive theory on the central importance of regional politics in restraining the use of military force. Divided Union represents traditional political science at its best—clearly argued, accessibly written, and rooted in extensive historical evidence. It deserves a wide readership, including military and diplomatic historians interested in national...
Read full abstract
Dec 1, 2011
Ben Lombardi 
Open Access