In this carefully researched and elegantly written book; Lavinia Stan and Lucian Turcescu examine the relationship between religion and politics in ten former communist Eastern European countries based on extensive fieldwork carried out in that region over the past decade. Contrary to widespread theories of increasing secularization; Stan and Turcescu argue that in most of these countries the populations have shown themselves to remain religious even as they embrace modernization and democratization.Church-state relations in the new EU member states can be seen in political representation for church leaders; governmental subsidies; registration of religions by the state authorities; and religious instruction in public schools. Stan and Turcescu outline three major models of interaction between the religious and political spheres: the Czech church-state separation model; in which religion is private and the government secular; the pluralist model of Hungary; Bulgaria and Latvia; which views society as a group of complementary but autonomous spheres - for example; education; the family; and religion - each of which is worthy of recognition and support from the state; and the dominant religion model that exists in Poland; Romania; Estonia; and Lithuania; in which the government maintains informal ties to the religious majority.Church; State; and Democracy in Expanding Europe offers critical tools for understanding church-state relations in an increasingly modern and democratic Eastern Europe. It is a book designed for both careful observers of post-communist realities in the new European Union member states and the members of the general public who are curious about the place of religion in countries that; for decades; were governed by self-avowed atheistic regimes.
#118255 in Books Joel H Silbey 2007-01-01Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 5.60 x .80 x 8.70l; .82 #File Name: 0195315928256 pagesStorm Over Texas The Annexation Controversy and the Road to Civil War
Review
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful. Should Have Been Titled "A Short History Of The AnteBellum Era"By Larry CosgroveThe research behind this book is fine; and Sibley puts together a highly readable review of the people and processes that took America into a bloody conflict. That said; the chapters soon turn away from the original premise of this history lesson: that Texas (in effect) was the catalyst which started the Civil War. Only cursory attention is given to the various players; and not enough (in my opinion) to the likes of John C. Calhoun; Sam Houston; and Zachary Taylor. On the plus side; the author seems to realize the importance of John Tyler (the "Accidental President") in the process of turning the Union into a "House Divided".Just OK; and not for Civil War or American history buffs who will want to know more.7 of 7 people found the following review helpful. Great research; impossible premiseBy Shawn S. SullivanJoel H. Silbey's Storm over Texas and the Road to Civil War is part of a marvelous series by the Oxford University Press; Pivotal Moments in American History. While Silbey clearly has the credentials to write and opine on such topics; and indeed backs it up with extensive research; his premise; that the annexation of Texas led to the Civil War is indeed a difficult one to prove and; sadly; one even he was not up to. Clearly any expansion of the peculiar institution westward was going to tilt the balance of federal power - so weather it was Texas; Nebraska; Kansas or even the Oregon Territories is a matter for debate. Silbey does indeed show the early stages of radical sectionalism as a result of the Texas debate and the schism that had been long in developing. He also does a very commendable job in showing how the Whigs and Democrats both were effected by and affected the growing debate over a slave economy in one part of the country and a free market in another. He doesn't shy away from racist comments frequently made and nearly implicit in the minds of even abolitionist northerners. I found the book to be very educational; if certainly misnamed. The pivotal "moment" wasn't really the Annexation of Texas but rather the period of westward expansion and the questions inherent therein regarding the spread; or containment; of slavery. If Professor Silbey had allowed himself this latitude the book would have been more compelling then him trying to prove something highly difficult or impossible. With that said; this still is a valuable addition to the series.6 of 7 people found the following review helpful. Texas and the Civil WarBy Omer BelskyWhen 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.
