What do you think?
Rate this book
The American Senate: An Insider's History
The United States Senate has fallen on hard times. Once known as the greatest deliberative body in the world, it now has a reputation as a partisan, dysfunctional chamber. What happened to the house that forged American history's great compromises?
In this groundbreaking work, a distinguished journalist and an eminent historian provide an insider's history of the United States Senate. Richard A. Baker, historian emeritus of the Senate, and Neil MacNeil, former chief congressional correspondent for Time magazine, integrate nearly a century of combined experience on Capitol Hill with deep research and state-of-the-art scholarship. They explore the Senate's historical evolution with one eye on persistent structural pressures and the other on recent transformations. Here, for example, are the Senate's struggles with the presidency--from George Washington's first, disastrous visit to the chamber on August 22, 1789, through now-forgotten conflicts with Presidents Garfield and Cleveland, to current war powers disputes. The authors also explore the Senate's potent investigative power, and show how it began with an inquiry into John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859. It took flight with committees on the conduct of the Civil War, Reconstruction, and World War II; and it gained a high profile with Joseph McCarthy's rampage against communism, Estes Kefauver's organized-crime hearings (the first to be broadcast), and its Watergate investigation.
Within the book are surprises as well. For example, the office of majority leader first acquired real power in 1952--not with Lyndon Johnson, but with Republican Robert Taft. Johnson accelerated the trend, tampering with the sacred principle of seniority in order to control issues such as committee assignments. Rampant filibustering, the authors find, was the ironic result of the passage of 1960s civil rights legislation. No longer stigmatized as a white-supremacist tool, its use became routine, especially as the Senate became more partisan in the 1970s.
Thoughtful and incisive, The American Senate: An Insider's History transforms our understanding of Congress's upper house.
In this groundbreaking work, a distinguished journalist and an eminent historian provide an insider's history of the United States Senate. Richard A. Baker, historian emeritus of the Senate, and Neil MacNeil, former chief congressional correspondent for Time magazine, integrate nearly a century of combined experience on Capitol Hill with deep research and state-of-the-art scholarship. They explore the Senate's historical evolution with one eye on persistent structural pressures and the other on recent transformations. Here, for example, are the Senate's struggles with the presidency--from George Washington's first, disastrous visit to the chamber on August 22, 1789, through now-forgotten conflicts with Presidents Garfield and Cleveland, to current war powers disputes. The authors also explore the Senate's potent investigative power, and show how it began with an inquiry into John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859. It took flight with committees on the conduct of the Civil War, Reconstruction, and World War II; and it gained a high profile with Joseph McCarthy's rampage against communism, Estes Kefauver's organized-crime hearings (the first to be broadcast), and its Watergate investigation.
Within the book are surprises as well. For example, the office of majority leader first acquired real power in 1952--not with Lyndon Johnson, but with Republican Robert Taft. Johnson accelerated the trend, tampering with the sacred principle of seniority in order to control issues such as committee assignments. Rampant filibustering, the authors find, was the ironic result of the passage of 1960s civil rights legislation. No longer stigmatized as a white-supremacist tool, its use became routine, especially as the Senate became more partisan in the 1970s.
Thoughtful and incisive, The American Senate: An Insider's History transforms our understanding of Congress's upper house.
472 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
29 people are currently reading
269 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
August 6, 2014
This book has some really great nuggets in it, and I am perhaps judging it a bit unfairly because I might be wearing myself out on public policy books (combined with a job that is all about politics).
Neil MacNeil and Richard Baker do their best to combine anecdote and history to tell the story of the Senate, an often infuriating and sometimes overly self-important component of American government. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the Senate is merely a tool in government, and those who can best use it to their advantage ultimately hold more political power. We like to talk a lot about how Congress or the Senate is "broken," but it's not broken for the people who are trying to halt the dominant party's agenda. For them, it's working perfectly.
Though a bit oddly organized, Baker and MacNeil pull out fascinating tensions over time, between the Senate and the President, between the Senate and their demands for getting elected, and tensions among the senators themselves. (After reading more about Henry Clay and his rivalries with other senators — once almost getting into a fistfight on the Senate floor — I still can't decide if Mitch McConnell's comparison of Rand Paul to Clay is a compliment or not.)
Some of the passages have actually been usurped by current events. They devote a large section in the front of the book to Citizens United, which upped the pressures of senators to raise as much money as possible to secure their seats, but the Supreme Court has gone even further in eliminating campaign spending limits this term. They also talk through the filibuster in all its various iterations, but Reid made a key change to the filibuster earlier this year — proving yet again that whoever controls the rules of the Senate holds the power.
Finally, one takeaway from the book is that the Senate has actually gone through a number of moments of concern over its relevance. It's something that senators actually seem to worry about a fair amount — is the institution an antiquated form of government? How relevant are the speeches, since they rarely sway votes? This constant insecurity is kind of fascinating.
Neil MacNeil and Richard Baker do their best to combine anecdote and history to tell the story of the Senate, an often infuriating and sometimes overly self-important component of American government. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the Senate is merely a tool in government, and those who can best use it to their advantage ultimately hold more political power. We like to talk a lot about how Congress or the Senate is "broken," but it's not broken for the people who are trying to halt the dominant party's agenda. For them, it's working perfectly.
Though a bit oddly organized, Baker and MacNeil pull out fascinating tensions over time, between the Senate and the President, between the Senate and their demands for getting elected, and tensions among the senators themselves. (After reading more about Henry Clay and his rivalries with other senators — once almost getting into a fistfight on the Senate floor — I still can't decide if Mitch McConnell's comparison of Rand Paul to Clay is a compliment or not.)
Some of the passages have actually been usurped by current events. They devote a large section in the front of the book to Citizens United, which upped the pressures of senators to raise as much money as possible to secure their seats, but the Supreme Court has gone even further in eliminating campaign spending limits this term. They also talk through the filibuster in all its various iterations, but Reid made a key change to the filibuster earlier this year — proving yet again that whoever controls the rules of the Senate holds the power.
Finally, one takeaway from the book is that the Senate has actually gone through a number of moments of concern over its relevance. It's something that senators actually seem to worry about a fair amount — is the institution an antiquated form of government? How relevant are the speeches, since they rarely sway votes? This constant insecurity is kind of fascinating.
January 2, 2026
Fantastic breakdown of the major players in the US Senate over the past two centuries as well as the evolution of the body itself.
If this were a movie, it could've ended on the note of Southern senators "who had so long stifled the hopes of their black constituents soon found themselves anxiously currying favor, trying to win their votes" as the filibuster lost its meaning for stalling civil rights measures.
If this were a movie, it could've ended on the note of Southern senators "who had so long stifled the hopes of their black constituents soon found themselves anxiously currying favor, trying to win their votes" as the filibuster lost its meaning for stalling civil rights measures.
March 1, 2014
MacNeil and Baker's "The American Senate" is a masterful piece of political literature. Each chapter is segmented in a way that allows the reader to follow the formation of the Senate from the beginning of our country's founding through its trials and tribulations. There are two chapters dedicated to the Senate's relationship with the Executive and shows how the power of the US Government has ebbed and flowed from the Executive to the Legislative branch and back again over time and how various presidents have handled the partisan composition of various Senates.
Aside from the most informative and interesting stories of history, this work offers excellent chapters on the formation and institutionalization of Senate leadership, living with the House of Representatives and a most fascinating discussion on the formation, original purpose and current misuse of the filibuster.
One must very interested in wanting to learn about the inner workings and details of the United States Senate to enjoy this book (obviously with a title such as "The American Senate" an interest in the Senate is a definite prerequisite). It is an easy reading, page turning book and anyone interested in the subject matter and wanting to learn more about the upper body of the United States Congress would definitely not want to miss this necessary, relevant and poignant contribution to political writings.
Aside from the most informative and interesting stories of history, this work offers excellent chapters on the formation and institutionalization of Senate leadership, living with the House of Representatives and a most fascinating discussion on the formation, original purpose and current misuse of the filibuster.
One must very interested in wanting to learn about the inner workings and details of the United States Senate to enjoy this book (obviously with a title such as "The American Senate" an interest in the Senate is a definite prerequisite). It is an easy reading, page turning book and anyone interested in the subject matter and wanting to learn more about the upper body of the United States Congress would definitely not want to miss this necessary, relevant and poignant contribution to political writings.
March 23, 2016
A very readable and thorough history of the U.S. Senate. Maybe more than what someone looking for a simple history of Congress might want, but just the ticket for a genuine Senate geek (which I aspire too, having worked there myself for eight years). I especially liked how the book was organized, not just as a chronological narrative, but chronological within chapters that were divided into topics such as "Dancing with Presidents: A Wary Embrace" and "Living with the House of Representatives". This book delivers on the promise of being "An Insider's History" and I recommend it to any who like me, are interested in the topic.
August 27, 2022
“The American Senate” is a history of that institution from its inception in the 1780s to publication in 2013. Organized more topically than chronologically, it aids the reader to appreciate the forces that have shaped this venerable body. Chapters cover campaign financing, the competition between the Senate and the presidents, rivalry with the House, the evolving role of leaders, investigations, the Senate’s oversight role and its tradition of debate, most associated with the filibuster.
A unique model in the body politic, the Senate shares legislative authority with the House of Representatives. Consisting of two senators from each state, it along has the authority to confirm appointments and ratify treaties.
This tome chronicle’s America’s story through the Senate’s leaders. The Great Triumvirate, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun dominated from 1820 to 1850. The “Big Four” of Nelson Aldrich, Orville H. Platt, William B. Allison, and John Coit Spooner “ran” the Senate in the 1890s and the first decade of the Twentieth Century. As that century progressed, the Senate came to be defined by its legendary leaders, Joseph Robinson, Robert A. Taft, Alben Barkley, Everett Dirksen, Lyndon Johnson and a series of more recent figures. The ability and willingness of Dirksen and Johnson to work across the aisle and with an opposition White House is a pleasant contrast to recent practice.
Given contemporary controversies over the filibuster, the examination of its evolution assists readers to understand its characteristics and significance over time. Quotes reflect presidents’ frustrations. Woodrow Wilson raged against the “Little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have renders the great Government of the United States helpless and contemptible.” Franklin Roosevelt feared that his plans for the post-war world would be upset by” a bunch of incompetent obstructionists” in the Senate Chamber.
“The American Senate” is an excellent choice for anyone seeking an introduction to Senate Lore and an understanding of how it reached its current state.
A unique model in the body politic, the Senate shares legislative authority with the House of Representatives. Consisting of two senators from each state, it along has the authority to confirm appointments and ratify treaties.
This tome chronicle’s America’s story through the Senate’s leaders. The Great Triumvirate, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun dominated from 1820 to 1850. The “Big Four” of Nelson Aldrich, Orville H. Platt, William B. Allison, and John Coit Spooner “ran” the Senate in the 1890s and the first decade of the Twentieth Century. As that century progressed, the Senate came to be defined by its legendary leaders, Joseph Robinson, Robert A. Taft, Alben Barkley, Everett Dirksen, Lyndon Johnson and a series of more recent figures. The ability and willingness of Dirksen and Johnson to work across the aisle and with an opposition White House is a pleasant contrast to recent practice.
Given contemporary controversies over the filibuster, the examination of its evolution assists readers to understand its characteristics and significance over time. Quotes reflect presidents’ frustrations. Woodrow Wilson raged against the “Little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have renders the great Government of the United States helpless and contemptible.” Franklin Roosevelt feared that his plans for the post-war world would be upset by” a bunch of incompetent obstructionists” in the Senate Chamber.
“The American Senate” is an excellent choice for anyone seeking an introduction to Senate Lore and an understanding of how it reached its current state.
July 15, 2018
An exceptional book for those interested in learning a little of the American Senate with feeling as though you were back in the class room. Easy to read and easy to understand. I would recommend this book to every American. It gives the reader a better understanding of the inertia of the Senate floor. In fact the Senate was designed that way to slow down the gait of House members responding to the immediate desires of their constituents. Story after story through the years of change in the Senate illustrate the intentions of the founding fathers and the state of congress today.
February 1, 2019
Excellent historical review of the evolution of the Senate.
Read
April 8, 2015This very episodic history of the US Senate was mostly written by one man and then finished by another after his death. As a result, it feels very disjointed, and undoubtedly a lot of connections that the reader could've made if the material was presented in a consistent chronological order are left wanting. A reader really needs to already know a lot about US history to know that while the book talks about x at one point that events y and z were also happening.
That said, if you do know enough to be able to fill in the gaps, this is a rewarding book, full of nuggets of insight and interesting, if not amusing, anecdotes. For instance, an unexpected consequence of Johnson's ability to pass civil rights legislation is that the filibuster ceased to become associated with white supremacists and as a result, soon everyone felt free to take advantage of it without stigma, empowering small minorities across the political spectrum.
The two biggest themes of the book are (a) relationship between the Senate and the Presidency and (b) the evolution of delaying tactics. US political history in the twentieth century and beyond has largely been a story of the growing power of the Presidency, but what frequently isn't said is that the growth of that power has in a number of ways been at the expense of the Senate. Likewise, the book spends considerable time on how the Senate has become increasingly indecisive, how certain features designed to encourage deliberation have morphed into something else again entirely, changing the fundamental nature of the senatorial power.
The book leaves a sense of growing dysfunction that is downright alarming but also serves as a reminder that things had never been pretty. As bad as things are now, no one is going to get challenged to a duel or beaten unconscious in the Senate.
That said, if you do know enough to be able to fill in the gaps, this is a rewarding book, full of nuggets of insight and interesting, if not amusing, anecdotes. For instance, an unexpected consequence of Johnson's ability to pass civil rights legislation is that the filibuster ceased to become associated with white supremacists and as a result, soon everyone felt free to take advantage of it without stigma, empowering small minorities across the political spectrum.
The two biggest themes of the book are (a) relationship between the Senate and the Presidency and (b) the evolution of delaying tactics. US political history in the twentieth century and beyond has largely been a story of the growing power of the Presidency, but what frequently isn't said is that the growth of that power has in a number of ways been at the expense of the Senate. Likewise, the book spends considerable time on how the Senate has become increasingly indecisive, how certain features designed to encourage deliberation have morphed into something else again entirely, changing the fundamental nature of the senatorial power.
The book leaves a sense of growing dysfunction that is downright alarming but also serves as a reminder that things had never been pretty. As bad as things are now, no one is going to get challenged to a duel or beaten unconscious in the Senate.
August 26, 2014
This book is probably considered a dry read for the most part compared to other popular history books, but that made me all the more endeared to it. I enjoyed how broad it was, covering the entire history of the Senate from many different angles, and focusing on the filibuster for the last few chapters really raised the books relevance to me in considering the current big changes happening to the Senate's procedural rules.
I found the focus on how the Senate's arguments about procedure, seniority, tradition, and many more important aspects of the upper house were very historically cyclical. Though this books lacks finess I enjoyed the random stories and facts and forward manner in which the authors approached their subject. This book definitely not only broadened my understanding of the Senate historically, it really changed how I vowed many of the modern arguments, which is one of the best complements I can give a book, along with the fact that my copy of the book is filled with post it notes and and my own exposition.
I found the focus on how the Senate's arguments about procedure, seniority, tradition, and many more important aspects of the upper house were very historically cyclical. Though this books lacks finess I enjoyed the random stories and facts and forward manner in which the authors approached their subject. This book definitely not only broadened my understanding of the Senate historically, it really changed how I vowed many of the modern arguments, which is one of the best complements I can give a book, along with the fact that my copy of the book is filled with post it notes and and my own exposition.
September 1, 2014
As the title says, this is a history of U.S. Senate. If one wants to know a lot of about the great senators, the book will probably disappoint since the book is more focused on the institution than its members, although there is a lot to be learned. Broadly the book covers different topics--filibusters, the Senate's relationship with various presidents and how the Senate handled the big issues over its history. What that means is that it sometimes goes over some of the same subject more than once which takes away from one's reading enjoyment.
July 11, 2013
Some great anecdotes and quotes in here, but the overall effect is quite muddled by overwhelming the reader with too many examples and not enough exposition. Additionally, there are several main/important examples that are rehashed in nearly word for word detail. So, I would say, this is a good scholarly work, but it's tough to recommend to those who are not excruciatingly interested in Senate trivia / going on Jeopardy.
December 19, 2013
I'm setting this one aside after reading a bit over 50%. The first 100 pages or so were compelling, but after that is started to get a little dry, and I gradually lost interest.
I know history isn't supposed to be like a novel; but then again, good historical writing brings things to life, so telling the story well is pretty important.
This is one that I'd probably finish if I didn't have another zillion books to read.
I know history isn't supposed to be like a novel; but then again, good historical writing brings things to life, so telling the story well is pretty important.
This is one that I'd probably finish if I didn't have another zillion books to read.
October 8, 2013
The book is a microcosm of the Senate itself as described in the book. Its best chapters were of the Golden Age of Webster, Calhoun, and Clay. It was written that the Senate has not been the law-giving, deliberative body it used to be with the increased use of the filibuster. The final chapters were almost exclusively on that subject, much more material than needed to be shared, in my opinion.
August 24, 2014
Read until pg. 183, skimmed the rest.
January 14, 2014
This very detailed book on the US Senate was an interesting read, but got mired down in several places.
May 1, 2017
This was a very readable book about the U.S. Senate - not having as strong a theoretical impact as a textbook would, but perhaps being more interesting. Some of the stories relayed included that Henry Ford ran for Senate (and lost) in 1918 and how televising debate in the mid-1980s may have had a bad effect on the Senate's functioning. Of personal interest was mention of the role of Senate speeches in shaping judicial interpretation of laws. This, in chapter 11, along with subsequent chapters, I found to be the most interesting of the book. The first reform of the filibuster (cloture) happened 100 years before the recent nuclear option took place (coming in response to President Wilson's criticism of a 1917 filibuster). Most fascinating was the effort to get cloture on the filibuster of the 1964 civil rights bill, supported by Everett Dirksen (R-IL), in which "Senator Clair Engle of California, dying of a brain tumor that left him speechless, was rolled into the Senate chamber in a wheelchair and voted "aye" by pointed to his eye."
A minor criticism, but I think the book would've benefited from putting the party and state after Senator's names (see prior quote as an example).
A minor criticism, but I think the book would've benefited from putting the party and state after Senator's names (see prior quote as an example).
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews