The Political Thought of the Civil War by ed. by Alan Levine, Thomas M. Merrill, and James R. Stoner Jr. (review)

In the midst of the Civil War sesquicentennial commemoration, I attended a talk delivered by the legendary historian James McPherson and asked if he saw parallels between the partisanship of the Civil War era and that which was rapidly developing in contemporary America. He didn't. I disagreed with him then and continue to do so. The introduction to this edited volume speaks directly to those parallels: "Twenty-first-century America feels cleaved by mistrust; is keenly aware of divisions along lines of political identity, class, and race; and is skeptical of the political and cultural institutions that are supposed to bring us together" (2).

In making such statements, the editors want readers to see the parallels between the war and contemporary America. "Why does the war still speak to us?" they ask. Because it was a "genuinely constitutional moment." There is little question about this fact, but it is equally true that the war speaks to Americans on many levels that go far beyond constitutional issues. Indeed, many who are devoted to the war outside of the academy do not focus primarily on the politics or the big ideological questions.

Nonetheless, many of us who have devoted our careers to studying America's greatest conflict do focus on ideology and the Constitution. It will, then, come as something of a surprise that the editors explain they and the authors are taking a "deliberative approach" in which they are "taking seriously"—these words are used three times in the space of a page—"the political thought of the Civil War … the explanations and arguments made by the political actors as they tried to justify their actions." The volume is setting "aside the morality-play version of the war" (4–5).

My immediate reaction was disbelief. I thought political historians had been for decades taking the words of the political actors seriously. Such statements immediately prompted me to flip to the back of the book and better understand the backgrounds of the editors, two of whom are in the Political Theory Institute in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, DC. All are political scientists.

They explain further in the introduction that their rationale contrasts with "the historical approach and the philosophical one," the former of which "understand[s] the past as it was and not as we might like it to be, whereas the task of the philosopher is to seek universal truths, especially about morality and politics" (5). Ultimately, the various authors' goal "is to ponder the practical dilemmas our thinkers faced and to assess the theoretical principles they asserted in the course of responding to those dilemmas." Again, I think political historians have been doing this for a long time.

The editors then dovetail into a discussion of Civil War historiography, focusing on the work of historians who have shed light on our understanding of the conflict's most pressing political, ideological, and racial issues. The book's varying chapters, many of which are written by distinguished authors, largely do the same. They deal with questions and histories that have been wrestled with for years. To this end, historians will not find a vast number of new conclusions.

What they will find, however, are a series of well-written, thought-provoking essays that are excellent single-chapter synopses of some of the big theoretical and ideological struggles in which the political actors of the war engaged and, importantly, what historians have said about them. This is a valuable contribution to the literature, especially for upper-level undergraduates and graduate students, who will be presented with concise, very readable accounts that blend philosophy, politics, and natural rights ideology.

Readers are also given the opportunity to ponder the past and the present. The editors are intrigued by the idea of "regime" legitimacy and the...