The American Civil War is perhaps one of the most written about topics in the field of history, and there are certainly many who devote their time to the events preceding it. In Rachel A. Shelden’s book, Washington Brotherhood: Politics, Social Life, and the Coming of the Civil War, tells a story beyond the events individuals are familiar with. Rather, Shelden discusses the events during the Antebellum period through a social and personal lens of Washington’s political aristocracy. In doing so, she connects familiar events to personal experiences, allowing for a more insightful view of the Civil War.
Shelden begins by outlining the details of political life in Washington. She suggests that the unique situation that politicians were put into, “helped to define federal policy making from the earliest days of the new nation.” (Shelden, 3) While politicians had clear viewpoints on certain issues, that did not mean they hated others who did not share them. As is evident from this book, these men had frequent contact with varying political backgrounds and often discussed matters across party lines in cultural situations. …show more content…
(Deyle, 64; Shelden, 15) Deyle describes the subject from a purely economic standpoint, citing the need to expand slavery into new territories as a means of creating a larger need for slaves. (Deyle, 64) Shelden on the other hand, does not directly cite economics. Instead, she indicates that a “Small group of anti-slavery Democrats” thought that Polk wanted to expand slavery to Texas, and met over dinner to discuss the issue. (Shelden, 15) Both books points are clearly backed up in these points, and while they are discussing the same events, they are going about it in very different
Shelden begins by outlining the details of political life in Washington. She suggests that the unique situation that politicians were put into, “helped to define federal policy making from the earliest days of the new nation.” (Shelden, 3) While politicians had clear viewpoints on certain issues, that did not mean they hated others who did not share them. As is evident from this book, these men had frequent contact with varying political backgrounds and often discussed matters across party lines in cultural situations. …show more content…
(Deyle, 64; Shelden, 15) Deyle describes the subject from a purely economic standpoint, citing the need to expand slavery into new territories as a means of creating a larger need for slaves. (Deyle, 64) Shelden on the other hand, does not directly cite economics. Instead, she indicates that a “Small group of anti-slavery Democrats” thought that Polk wanted to expand slavery to Texas, and met over dinner to discuss the issue. (Shelden, 15) Both books points are clearly backed up in these points, and while they are discussing the same events, they are going about it in very different