Many accounts of the secession crisis overlook the sharp political conflict that took place in the Border South states of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri. Michael D. Robinson expands the scope of this crisis to show how the fate of the Border South, and with it the Union, desperately hung in the balance during the fateful months surrounding the clash at Fort Sumter. During this period, Border South politicians revealed the region's deep commitment to slavery, disputed whether or not to leave the Union, and schemed to win enough support to carry the day. Although these border states contained fewer enslaved people than the eleven states that seceded, white border Southerners chose to remain in the Union because they felt the decision best protected their peculiar institution. Robinson reveals anew how the choice for union was fraught with anguish and uncertainty, dividing families and producing years of bitter internecine violence. Letters, diaries, newspapers, and quantitative evidence illuminate how, in the absence of a compromise settlement, proslavery Unionists managed to defeat secession in the Border South.

"The Union" meant meant many things to Americans in the years between the Revolution and the Civil War. Nagel's thesis is that the idea served as a treasure-trove of the values and images by which Americans tried to understand their nature and destiny. By tracing the idea of Union through the crucial, formative years of America's history, he makes clear the nature of the intellectual and emotional responses Americans have had to their country.

Five freshly decapitated human heads are thrown onto a crowded dance floor in western Mexico. A Mexican drug cartel dismembers the body of a rival and then stitches his face onto a soccer ball. These are the sorts of grisly tales that dominate the media, infiltrate movies and TV shows, and ultimately shape Americans' perception of Mexico as a dangerous and scary place, overrun by brutal drug lords. Without a doubt, the drug war is real. In the last six years, over 60,000 people have been murdered in narco-related crimes. But, there is far more to Mexico's story than this gruesome narrative would suggest. While thugs have been grabbing the headlines, Mexico has undergone an unprecedented and under-publicized political, economic, and social transformation. In her groundbreaking book, Two Nations Indivisible, Shannon K. O'Neil argues that the United States is making a grave mistake by focusing on the politics of antagonism toward Mexico. Rather, we should wake up to the revolution of prosperity now unfolding there. The news that isn't being reported is that, over the last decade, Mexico has become a real democracy, providing its citizens a greater voice and opportunities to succeed on their own side of the border. Armed with higher levels of education, upwardly-mobile men and women have been working their way out of poverty, building the largest, most stable middle class in Mexico's history. This is the Mexico Americans need to get to know. Now more than ever, the two countries are indivisible. It is past time for the U.S. to forge a new relationship with its southern neighbor. Because in no uncertain terms, our future depends on it.

Is secession legal under the United States Constitution? "One Nation, Indivisible?" takes a fresh look at this old question by evaluating the key arguments of such anti-secession men as Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln, in light of reason, historical fact, the language of the Constitution, and the words of America's Founding Fathers. Modern anti-secession arguments are also examined, as are the questions of why Americans are becoming interested in secession once again, whether secession can be avoided, and how an American state might peacefully secede from the Union.

Powerful but divergent interests come together in the turbulent political climate of the US. They converge for a common purpose: to fragment the Union that was won so bitterly 150 years ago. In-the-woods libertarians who resented any governmental influence in their lives joined with religious conservatives who felt that modernity had just crossed too many lines. There were wounded men who could not stop themselves from blaming the government, and there were unprincipled opportunists who did not care what they did so long as they got paid. And there were those whose vocation had become self-aggrandizement, who shared the shallow morals of that group. Behind it all was money. In this era of American civilization, it was possible to amass eye-popping amounts of capital, and those who had it used it to amass even more. Opposing them are men and women who are neither rich nor powerful. There are responsible politicians who understand their charge to preserve the Union. There are responsible public servants who take their job as a public trust. And there are the outliers, patriots who use their sometimes-legal skills to preserve the USA in ways that trusted public officials cannot. Can war be avoided? Can the Union survive?

The debates between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina gave fateful utterance to the differing understandings of the nature of the American Union that had come to predominate in the North and the South by 1830. To Webster, the Union was the indivisible expression of one nation of people. To Hayne, the Union was the voluntary compact among sovereign states. The Webster-Hayne Debate consists of speeches delivered in the United States Senate in January of 1830. Herman Belz is Professor of History at the University of Maryland. Please note: This title is available as an ebook for purchase on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and iTunes.