The U.S. Congress: Men Who Steered Its Course, 1787-1867 (review)

BOOK REVIEWS163 torical figures, to the advancement of historical knowledge, to the encouragement of the skills of author-editors, or to the students and instructors for whom the books are ostensibly designed. Needless to say, such potpourri collections do not maximize the potential of library budgets. Jack J. Cardoso State University of New York, College at Buffalo The U.S. Congress: Men Who Steered Its Course, 1787-1867. By Marjorie G. Fribourg. (Philadelphia: Macrae Smith Company. 1972. Pp. v, 280. $5.95.) The author's purpose in writing this book is largely utilitarian, as she begins by dedicating her work "to anyone who wants to influence the future of the Congress of the United States" (p.xi). If Congress should ever decide to assert its authority again, it would be well, she argues, for legislators and laymen alike to begin by reviewing the activities of past legislatures. With this as her basic thrust, Fribourg has written a popular account of the evolution of Congress between 1787 and 1867. The author makes no attempt to use any of the sophisticated quantitative techniques of voting analysis, which, in recent years, have been applied to the study of legislatures. Congress faced many severe problems during these years, and was forced constantly to adjust its strategy and tactics in order to survive. The legislative branch was plagued by a lack of internal discipline, both personal and institutional, and by an unremitting barrage of challenges to its effectiveness from the outside. One major result of these struggles and accommodations was a pendulum-like pattern. Basically weak Congresses appeared during the first two decades in question, followed by relatively strong ones from 1809 to 1828, under the leadership of Henry Clay. The period from 1828 to 1865, on the other hand, witnessed a decline of congressional influence, due mainly to the growing importance of presidential power, factionalism, sectionalism and state rights, as democracy, slavery, and two major wars dominated the scene. During the first years of Reconstruction, however, this trend toward impotence was reversed, as Congress began once again to take charge, gaining increasing power over both the states and the executive branch. To help delineate these and other factors, Fribourg has focused upon the activities of certain political leaders, all of whom she clearly admires for their talent, flexibility and unique contributions to the survival of Congress. The most important of these individuals are Hamilton , Madison, Clay, Benton, Van Buren, Buchanan, Douglas, John Quincy Adams, Joshua Giddings and Justin Morrill. The author is at her best when describing how these men and Congress , as a whole, met their problems, however haltingly. Congress, 164CIVIL WAR history very clearly, for example, enlarged the number of standing committees, thus increasing its efficiency, aiding in the rise of experts, like Giddings and Morrill, and, in the House, helping to clear the way for the development of a strong Speaker. At the same time, the Congress managed successfully to augment its control over finance and executive spending , and also to make more effective use of its investigatory powers. Again, Fribourg shows how a system of discipline slowly emerged in the House, through the use of parliamentary devices to limit debate, and expedite business. Yet the House was also able to tolerate a man like John Quincy Adams, who fought the gag rule to insure the freedom and rights of congressmen and their constituents. The book, however, is not without faults. The useful aspects of this study are too often obfuscated by a detailed recitation of facts that are generally well known. Moreover, the author's interpretations of events are often rather unsophisticated. With respect to Jay's Treaty, for example , she offers one single and simplistic explanation for the failure of the United States to obtain a better settlement from Great Britain. "Unfortunately," she says, "Hamilton talked too much behind Jay's back, disrupting the negotiations. As a result, Jay won few concessions, and Washington was appalled" (p.78). Again, she describes the Confederation period as a time of total gloom and failure, showing no indication , either in the text or the bibliography, that she has any familiarity whatever with the works of Merrill Jensen. There are a few other...