As the title indicates, this book treats Abraham Lincoln's activities as a US Representative in the 30th Congress (1847-1849). The author of this book, who is basically a political consultant, can't write to save his life. The book is just a jumble of facts, with no analysis to speak of, and often there seems to be no rhyme or reason to what appears, much less any indication of a broader understanding of the political and historical significance of the facts. Some paragraphs are just one sentence, other ones are longer but contain disparate subjects that don't relate to each other.
The House was controlled by the generally anti-slavery Whigs during this session, and Lincoln was the sole Whig from Illinois (and seemingly a staunch opponent of slavery). The author talks about slavery from the modern perspective, which means that it's all awful and there's no sense of what the "other" side was up to. More to the point, one of the issues in historiography is what Lincoln himself thought. In "dealing" with this issue, DeRose doesn't give a very clear indication of what the various views are (vaguely characterizing the hostile interpretations as "insincerity, opportunism, or tardiness", 230-31), and can vouch for Lincoln's acceptability to modern notions on race by pointing out a commendation by an abolitionist and noting that Lincoln always voted against slavery in Congress. That's all good and well, but there's a world's difference between opposing slavery in the ante bellum period and being a holder of modern ideas about race. But you wouldn't get any sense of that from this book.
The lack of any sense of historical acumen or biographical understanding can be readily gleamed from the pathetic epilogue entitled "The Emancipation of Abraham Lincoln". I have no idea what he is supposed to have been "emancipated" from (or by whom), and frankly I doubt the author does, either. The chapter is just a meaningless miscellany of disjointed anecdotes concerning the later careers of people Lincoln knew in Congress as these (somehow) pertain to Lincoln's later life. Or so I would guess (there really is no logic here).
Apart from talk of slavery, the big issue of the day was how to deal with the war with Mexico, which the president (Polk) started and the Whigs opposed. One gets the impression that the author thinks the situation comparable to the Democrats opposing Bush on Iraq and Afghanistan and that he would support the Democrats just as he does the Whigs. But nothing is explained very clearly.
Another hot issue that's barely treated is the dispute over "internal improvements", meaning the constitutionality of the Federal government spending money on local projects like canals and railroads. The Democratic view, going back to Jefferson and strongly endorsed by Andrew Jackson, was hostile to such spending, which the Whigs (like their successors the Republicans) were in favor of it. The author discusses at length a speech Lincoln gave in favor of a bill authorizing money on such a project (in Illinois!), and here's his treatment of the actual issue: "Lincoln compared this argument [i.e., President Polk's view that such spending was unconstitutional] in Polk's hands to a gun that fires wide of the mark and knocks the shooter over. Lincoln held up treatises on American constitutional law as proof of his point, and argued that states couldn't afford to make the improvements. How could they? Could they pay for a new improvement from the proceeds of another?" (183). This is nonsense as presented. First, how is Polk supposed to have harmed himself with his argument? Nothing said here supports any such conclusions. As for the actual issue of constitutionality, the author seems to imagine that waving around some books on law somehow settled the matter. On what grounds exactly? What were Polk's arguments about the unconstitutionality of such spending? Didn't he have books to wave around of his own? And then the author shifts through non-sequitur to the argument that the states couldn't afford such spending. Well, if they couldn't, how could the Federal government? In any event, if one viewed the matter as unconstitutional, the practicalities of how deep the pockets of various levels of government are are irrelevant. Presumably, the author (as a vested member of the democratic ruling class of today) takes it to be self-evident that of course the Federal government can spend whatever it wants on whatever it wants, and the views of somebody from the nineteenth-century like Jefferson or Jackson or Polk that don't fit in with modern sensibilities are seemingly of no consequence to the author (or more probably don't even register as acceptable views at all with him).
Finally, the last big issue of relevance to Lincoln was the nomination by the Whigs of Gen. Zachary Taylor (who had just won renown in the Mexican War that the Whigs opposed) as their candidate for the 1848 presidential election, despite the fact that very little was known of the man's views (and he was a southern slave-holder, a strange candidate for the anti-slavery Whigs). Lincoln supported Taylor's nomination for practical reasons (the next most likely Whig candidate, Henry Clay, was considered unlikely to win). After Lincoln's faction got their wish and Taylor was nominated (later to win the election), the author comments: "…the Whigs had completed one of the most cynical acts in American political history… But that doesn't mean they were wrong" (209). What a disgusting and contemptible attitude. This man has (according to the book cover) been a "political strategist who for sixteen years has elected candidates up and down the ballot across five different states". Small wonder the political system is so dysfunctional if the only criterion for evaluating a campaign is whether it can win or not.
If you want a concatenation of disconnected facts of no particular significance, here's your book. If you want any substantive analysis of Lincoln in his contemporary context or of the historical importance of the actions he took and the events he was party to, this book is a waste of paper.