Book Reviews and Notices slavery, for example, merits only 10 pages of 483. More serious is the tendency to lump together men with complex and varying positions on slavery under vague "anti-slavery" labels, and the fact that the 10 pages in question often attempt to put the best possible face on what was really a profoundly disturbing situation. Professor Davis speaks now and then about various instances of social and intellectual change, but he does not deal with the basic change which might well be the central subject of an essentially analytical book. Virginia in 1776, perhaps even in 1790, occupied a central position in the affairs of the western world, but by 1830 the society was an increasingly parochial one under attack by many intellectuals. The tale of how Virginia moved in so short a time from the center to the periphery, would indeed be worth telling. We cannot quarrel seriously with Professor Davis for not having chosen this theme; he has, after all, given us a valuable book. If Intellectual Life in Jefferson's Virginia is not the kind of book which one can read with excitement in several sessions, it is a monograph which deserves a place on the historian's shelf as a work to be consulted again and again for many years to come. One Nation Indivisible: The Union in American Thought, 1776-1861. By Paul C. Nagel. (New York:. Oxford University Press, 1964. vii 4- 328 pages, preface, notes, index. $7.00.) Reviewed by James M. Banner, Jr., Social Science Research Council Research Training Fellow Rarely have Americans agreed on the nature of their union. When the Republic was small, its population relatively homogeneous, its economy simple, Americans already argued about their nation's character and destiny. From what was the union formed? For what ends does the union exist? What form ought the union to take? These were, and remain, compelling questions; and, as Professor Nagel shows, answers to them before 1861 were remarkably varied. Most Americans agreed that the union was an experiment, but many doubted that the union would, or should, last. If the experiment proved a failure, the union could readily be dissolved. Disunionist sentiment thus found an early home in the United States. Many believed that the union was embodied in a compact but debated the character of the compact. Some thought it derived from Nature, others that it evolved from changing circumstances, still others that it was an irrevocable contract. As is well known, many claimed that this national compact had been concluded between the people, others that the states had agreed to it. To some, the nation was a fellowship of citizens, to others a fraternal union of states. Many believed that the union was bent on a mission; some thought the mission was guided by a divine hand while others saw in American fortunes the force of Liberty herself. 206