The Politics of Union (review)

BOOK REVIEWS267 The Politics of Union. By James A. Rawley. (Hinsdale, 111.: The Dryden Press, 1974. Pp. iv, 202.) There is no one volume history of Northern politics during the Civil War, and it is Professor Rawley\s purpose here to fill that gap. The work begins with a short review of the political situation before the war and carries through until Lincoln's death. The war tested American political institutions, the Constitution, the President, Congress and the party system, as well as the commander-in-chief, the military and the money, taxing and banking powers of the government and the judicial system. According to the subsequent chapters, all survived with more or less flying colors. After the first chapter reviews pre-Sumter events and the second concentrates of Lincoln's actions in the spring of 1861, the focus and emphasis shifts primarily to the Congress. The author is well acquainted with the activities and work of the Congress and eight of the thirteen chapters deal primarily with the Congress and its efforts to push "a more effective prosecution of the war" (p. 43). Rawley's basic theme seems to be that Congress pushed the war effort the most and had the most effect in creating the "politics of union." This is in contrast to most works on the Civil War which usually give so much credit to Lincoln for saving the Union. It is a welcome and necessary corrective. Congress should have been given its due long ago. It was a bit surprising to find, however, that a Congress which had so actively forged the bonds of union and the necessary sinews of war was "unaware of the imminence of peace and the urgent need to provide for civil governments in the South," (p. 179) it adjourned in the winter of 1865 and left postwar reconstruction up in the air for nine months. Or, maybe it is not so surprising when one considers the things Congress has left undone through inactivity in the last 200 years. The last chapter sums up the nationalistic achievements of the government, mostly the Congress, during the war. This work is one of the Berkshire Studies in History series and therefore contains no footnotes, which those who are addicted to notes may not like. It is a synthesis of Rawley's own work and many others (as is stated in the introduction) and he has done a good job of summary. It is a welcome addition to the historical literature of the period and it does fill the gap in wartime politics succinctly and judiciously. John D. Morris Kent State University ...