Abraham Lincoln, Constitutionalism, and Equal Rights in the Civil War Era (review)

book reviews59 Abraham Lincoln, Constitutionalism, and Equal Rights in the Civil War Era. By Herman BeIz. (NewYork: Fordham University Press, 1998. Pp. xi, 265. $32.00.) Herman BeIz is no revolutionary. In this collection of essays, which serves as a well-deserved retrospective for a distinguished career, the author repeatedly disputes the widely held notion that the Civil War was a revolutionary moment in American legal and political history. BeIz, a professor at the University ofMaryland , is a familiar and respected figure within the community of Lincoln scholars . In other circles, however, he is perhaps better known as a neo-conservative constitutional scholar who has written extensively—and sometimes combatively —such politically charged topics as affirmative action and civil rights. This collection reprints nine of Belz's most important contributions on Lincoln and nineteenth-century constitutionalism while providing some provocative new ideas on the period in rather extensive introductory and concluding essays. There is also a lengthy bibliography that includes a wealth of citations from law journals and political science quarterlies that do not often appear in the works of other Civil War historians. The first three chapters focus on elements of Lincoln's statesmanship. BeIz finds that the wartime president acted as a rational, moderate executive during a period of grave national crisis. He rejects the arguments of earlier generations of revisionists who considered Lincoln's assertions of power dictatorial. He also dismisses those who have more recently identified Lincoln with a revolutionary tradition in American legal thought, claiming that by working vigorously to preserve the nation, Lincoln was only following his constitutional prerogatives. The rest ofthe book, however, effectively abandons the discussion ofPresident Lincoln and focuses instead ont he constitutional politics of wartime race legislation and the legal ramifications of postwar Reconstruction. In some of these essays, BeIz demonstrates a superb narrative command, weaving together, for example, a fascinating account ofcongressional emancipation policies. Yet some readers will be disturbed by his willingness to debate contemporary hot-button issues, such as affirmative action, in the context of reviewing Reconstructionera developments. Any collection of essays taken from across a single scholar's career will face certain inherent challenges: updating old material, creating coherent themes, and avoiding repetition. Unfortunately, this particular effort seems to have struggled more than usual with those obstacles. The sections do not fit together neatly, and there is significant repetition of arguments and citations. Even more troubling, out of nine chapters, four were originally published in the 1970s, including a brief historiographie essay on the "new orthodoxy" in Reconstruction studies that seems almost pointless to reproduce twenty-five years later. Some readers will feel cheated by chapters on the Lincoln administration and suspension ofcivil liberties that completely ignore such important recent monographs as those from David H. Donald (Lincoln, 1995), Mark E. Neely Jr. (The 6oCIVIL WAR HISTORY Fate ofLiberty, 1991), and Philip S. Paludan (The Presidency ofAbraham Lincoln , 1995). Nevertheless, the question of whether, or how, the Civil War represented a revolutionary moment in American history is one that continues to attract interest in the classroom and from academic journals. This collection only reconfirms that BeIz remains one ofthe most important and provocative voices in that debate. Matthew Pinsker Lancaster, Pennsylvania PoliticalAbolitionism in Wisconsin, 1840-1861. By Michael J. McManus. (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1998. Pp. xi, 288. $39.00.) This book has three goals: to downplay the importance of ethnic and religious issues and attitudes in the formation of the Republican party; to demonstrate that abolitionism, moral antipathy toward slavery, and opposition to Southern political power were not as incompatible (and not as easily separable) as most historians have assumed; and to show that states rights opposition to slavery deserves a more important place in accounts of the Republicans' rise to power than historians have accorded it. On one level, McManus succeeds. He proves that the sectional issue, not opposition to Catholic immigrants, fueled Wisconsin politics in the 1850s. The anti-immigrant Know Nothing organization (especially on the state level) was nearly stillborn. He shows that in the mid and late 1 850s the case ofAbelman v. Booth harnessed a states rights component of the Republican party that found expression in attempts to...