Politics and Culture of the Civil War Era: Essays in Honor of Robert W. Johannsen (review)

J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 7 65 in line to vote in 1944 and tells his readers that, “I do not want to make too much of this. Life magazine left much to be desired. Its treatment of African Americans was a mere token”(p. 279). Overall, despite the sporadic problems of Gregory’s work, his book is a much-needed and fresh look into the discourse of American migration studies. And, his far-reaching thesis does indeed uncover the ubiquitous connections between southern white and black migrations as well as perceptively expose the cultural appropriation of southern culture by northern society. CRAIG STUTMAN Temple University Politics and Culture of the Civil War Era: Essays in Honor of Robert W. Johannsen. Edited by Daniel McDonough and Kenneth W. Noe. Selinsgrove, Pa.: Susquehanna University Press, 2006. 346 pp. $60.00. ISBN 1-57591-101-0. This volume honors the life and career of Robert W. Johannsen, longtime professor of history at the University of Illinois. Johannsen, one of the premier scholars of the antebellum and Civil War eras, is best known for his work on Stephen Douglas and for a forty-year career teaching both undergraduate and graduate students. His former students span the continent, serving and teaching at various institutions. This volume is a fitting tribute to Johannsen. The first chapter is a biography of Johannsen and a summary of his work written by friend and fellow historian John Hoffman. At the end of the volume, Hoffman includes a comprehensive bibliography of Johannsen’s publications. This biography and bibliography alone are a fitting tribute to Johannsen’s life and work, but the volume also includes a tribute to him in a foreword and introduction. For those who do not personally know Johannsen, these words give insight into the role this man has played as not only a professor but also a mentor to many young historians. Like Johannsen’s own work, many of the chapters focus upon late Jacksonian era politics, especially within the Democratic Party. Robert Sampson and Michael Conlin contribute essays that primarily deal with Manifest Destiny and its role in shaping both the Democratic Party and the emerging conflict that resulted in the Civil War. James L. Huston and Willard Carl Klunder concentrate upon the controversial and divisive subject of popular sovereignty and how the debates on this concept exacerbated rather than alleviated the growing conflict between North T H E A L A B A M A R E V I E W 66 and South. Matthew Norman contributes an outstanding essay on the historic rivalry between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, including a discussion of what may have been Douglas’s finest hour as he rallied behind Lincoln at the beginning of the Civil War despite their obvious differences. Colin McCoy provides a fascinating look at northern Democrats who joined the Republican Party. Bryon C. Andreasen, David A. Raney, and Kenneth W. Noe offer essays on religious aspects of the Civil War. Daniel McDonough breaks slightly from the volume’s overall theme by discussing the career of Ambrose Burnside. The concluding essay by Bruce Tap is a discussion of Zachariah Chandler’s role in negotiating the dismissal of Montgomery Blair from the Lincoln cabinet prior to the election of 1864. The work concludes with information about the contributors. As in any compilation of essays, some are better than others. Editor Noe’s essay on I. T. Tichenor gives interesting insights into the conflict that ministers serving in Civil War armies experienced. This reviewer noticed only one small error in detail. Editor McDonough’s essay is excellent but, save the political aspects of Burnside’s miseries, seems to fit little with the volume’s other contributions. Andreasen’s essay on Copperhead Christians is both delightful and insightful, especially his stellar research in small Democratic newspapers. One of the best essays is McCoy’s discussion tracing the origins of the Republican Party and the difficulties of political coalition building. Both Huston’s and Klunder’s essays are well written. The other essays are good, just not as strong as these. The work is relatively clean and well-edited...