What do you think?
Rate this book
Civil War America
Thaddeus Stevens: Nineteenth-Century Egalitarian
Thaddeus Stevens is best known for his leadership of the radical Republicans in Congress during Reconstruction, and throughout the years historians have either glorified him or vilified him. Trefousse's balanced biography traces Stevens's career from his early days as a Pennsylvania lawyer and state legislator, when he became an outspoken advocate for black freedom and equality, to his long tenure in the House of Representatives, which culminated in his involvement in the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment and the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson.
336 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1997
15 people are currently reading
216 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 - 30 of 43 reviews
January 29, 2013
5 stars for Thaddeus Stevens. 3-4 stars for Trefousse's biography: he deserves a huge amount of credit for being the first to finally re-evaluate Stevens. After decades of being vilified by Southern apologists, The Great Commoner finally gets something like the Life he deserves. Trefousse's writing is pretty standard academic fare: a bit dry but informative and well-documented.
About halfway through the book nearly every chapter ends with a line like "Stevens was too far ahead of his contemporaries." His opposition to slavery, his opposition to the death penalty, his demand that blacks be allowed to serve in the Union army, his call for black suffrage after the Civil War, his insistence on Reconstruction, etc. etc. Again and again, Stevens used his position in Congress (and his sardonic wit) to advocate for these causes. Trefousse makes a strong case that Lincoln's accomplishments as president were in no small measure the result of Stevens' work in the House: Lincoln was able to take the moderate position while Stevens pushed his radical agenda and allowing Lincoln to pass off something resembling his original agenda as a compromise.
October 15, 2011
I just read a biography of Charles Sumner, so I wanted to also read one of Thaddeus Stevens, since in older, Southern-dominated, accounts they are the twin villains of the Union side of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Like Sumner, it is clear that Stevens was far ahead of his time, which makes the fact that they held leadership positions all the more remarkable. Unfortunately, author Hans Trefousse's writing doesn't work well for me, and there was some rough going along the way.
One passage I marked, comparing Stevens' and Abraham Lincoln's views, that I thought was insightful:
"Throughout the Civil War, Stevens had been critical of Lincoln. Considering the president too hesitant and slow-moving about the abolition of slavery, he failed to appreciate the chief executive's consummate political skill. But, as even contemporaries and particularly [journalist and politician Alexander] McClure realized, 'he and Lincoln worked substantially on the same line, earnestly striving to attain the same ends, but Stevens was always in advance of public sentiment, while Lincoln ever halted until assured that the considerate judgment of the nation would sustain him.' Both were dedicated to the abolition of slavery and the maintenance of the Union, and it was in fact their different ways of approaching their goal that in the end made its realization possible."
One passage I marked, comparing Stevens' and Abraham Lincoln's views, that I thought was insightful:
"Throughout the Civil War, Stevens had been critical of Lincoln. Considering the president too hesitant and slow-moving about the abolition of slavery, he failed to appreciate the chief executive's consummate political skill. But, as even contemporaries and particularly [journalist and politician Alexander] McClure realized, 'he and Lincoln worked substantially on the same line, earnestly striving to attain the same ends, but Stevens was always in advance of public sentiment, while Lincoln ever halted until assured that the considerate judgment of the nation would sustain him.' Both were dedicated to the abolition of slavery and the maintenance of the Union, and it was in fact their different ways of approaching their goal that in the end made its realization possible."
May 9, 2013
Loved it. Wonder why not more emphasis is placed on this individual in textbooks. I got interested in him after seeing the movie Lincoln. Had a hard time equating radical Republicanism of those times compared with our times. He stood up for all of the disenfranchised including Blacks, the poor, Mormons. A man truly ahead of his time. True to his values to the end. Wonder what he would have thought of the gay rights movement.
January 23, 2021
Like Schoolhouse Rock's "How a Bill Becomes a Law" without the music or humor.
This biography of radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens somehow manages to strip all the radicalism (or at least passion) out of Stevens' life and produces an exceedingly dry biography that is more akin to reading the Congressional Record than it is a biography of a man. There's a reason nobody reads the Congressional Record.
Biographies of influential Representative/Senators is always tricky because the biographer has SO MUCH material to work with on the legislative side that the result is often just a selection of floor debates or an summary of the byzantine nature of how a bill moved through committee. As legislative history goes, it's adequate. As a biography, it's lacking.
This biography of radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens somehow manages to strip all the radicalism (or at least passion) out of Stevens' life and produces an exceedingly dry biography that is more akin to reading the Congressional Record than it is a biography of a man. There's a reason nobody reads the Congressional Record.
Biographies of influential Representative/Senators is always tricky because the biographer has SO MUCH material to work with on the legislative side that the result is often just a selection of floor debates or an summary of the byzantine nature of how a bill moved through committee. As legislative history goes, it's adequate. As a biography, it's lacking.
August 20, 2015
Before writing this, I read several other reviews of the book to get a sense of the opinions of other people and found that I largely agree with many of them. The book was dry and factual. Facts are good but in order to make a book, or a life, interesting, it is imperative that the author fill in with analysis or other bits of information that bring the characters to life. Stevens was a larger than life figure and can stand on his own without Trefousse's help but his book cannot.
I have been searching for a good biography of Stevens and will continue to search since this book left so much to be desired. There was one thing I found particularly interesting. The author concluded that since the impeachment of Johnson, never again has impeachment been used as a political weapon. I found this especially curious given that the book was published in 2001. The ink was not even dry on the tabloids from the purely political impeachment of Bill Clinton. Since this was just about the only bit of analysis done by the author, perhaps readers should be grateful that he didn't engage in anymore of it. At the end of the day, Stevens deserves a better biography. He was ahead of his time and should be remembered as one of the heroes of civil rights.
I have been searching for a good biography of Stevens and will continue to search since this book left so much to be desired. There was one thing I found particularly interesting. The author concluded that since the impeachment of Johnson, never again has impeachment been used as a political weapon. I found this especially curious given that the book was published in 2001. The ink was not even dry on the tabloids from the purely political impeachment of Bill Clinton. Since this was just about the only bit of analysis done by the author, perhaps readers should be grateful that he didn't engage in anymore of it. At the end of the day, Stevens deserves a better biography. He was ahead of his time and should be remembered as one of the heroes of civil rights.
June 30, 2013
If you want to know more about the inspiring politician that Tommy Lee Jones plays in Lincoln, this is your go to book. It is slow going, very dry and factual based, and delves into politics that our current climate does not have the background for, but learning about such a unique character from the Civil War period makes you want to keep wading, however slowly, through. It's not a page turner, and while the author does on occasion make some insinuations, it is not a gossipy, sensational book. Good if you're interested in the character in history, not for a good vacation book.
October 27, 2013
Living in Stevens home of Lancaster Pa this book made my town come alive to me. I live near James Buchanan's home and pass Steven's grave site every week. It is amazing how important Lancaster was during the civil war.
August 2, 2014
Very informative about a major player during the civil war and reconstruction. I did not give it 5 stars mainly because the writing was not the greatest (compare this to anything by David McCullough and it doesn't have nearly the same feel).
February 10, 2013
Four stars for exhaustive detail.
January 24, 2013
It takes considerable talent, of a sort, to render the eventful and significant life and bombastic character of Thaddeus Stevens into a two-dimensional cutout. In that respect, I must give Trefousse credit, because this biography is just about as exciting as a Mormon adult bookstore.
Oh, he has carefully researched the facts of Stevens' life and meticulously translated them into a chronological narrative. However, along the way, he has completely eviscerated any trace of the charisma and drive which led this self-made, clubfooted second son of an alcoholic Vermont dirt farmer to become "the dictator of Congress" and foil to America's greatest President.
Thad Stevens was a force of nature. Tommy Lee Jones' masterful portrayal in the movie LINCOLN has perhaps jaundiced my perspective on this workmanlike but boring biography. Still, Stevens' whole life was something of a contradiction, and Trefousse's Joe Friday "Just The Facts, Ma'am" biography simply cannot compete with the presence of such an iconic image in the popular imagination.
Sometimes modern biographers rush in where angels fear to tread, especially when it comes to psychoanalysing historical figures. But if any American historical figure begs to be analysed, it is Thaddeus Stevens.
The subject was a consummate politician who began his career in a fringe party, the Anti-Masons. It will surprise a good many regular viewers of The History Channel to learn that the modern conspiracy theorists are simply the heirs of earlier, more zealous and equally insane groups. Throughout his very long political career, Stevens proved himself adept at forging coalitions with some of the worst xenophobes America has produced. Yet throughout this byzantine succession of sometimes incendiary alliances, there burned a very pure and almost heroic abolitionist passion.
Trefousse does not attempt to identify the source of this passion. He relates the events of Stevens' life, including some rather lurid accusations of having murdered his pregnant negro mistress in Gettysburg, a rumour which dogged him until the day he died, with all the drama of US NEWS & WORLD REPORT. Such bland reportage, especially regarding events which simple cry for elucidation, eventually becomes maddening for the reader.
Mrs. Smith, Stevens' devoted mulatto housekeeper and hostess for almost thirty years, is given less than a page in Trefousse's book. I am not interested in a Kitty Kelly "tell-all" biographies of our great men, but it seems that the exact nature of the liaison between Mrs. Smith and Congressman Stevens would be a fairly significant historical subject. What could be established definitely about the exact nature of Stevens' private passions might serve to clarify his political positions, especially in this case.
Even Stevens' bout with alopecia is marginalized in this biography. For a lifelong cripple who became an active man noted for his youthful good looks, the loss of his hair at age thirty-five must have been devastating. After all, he compensated by wearing a wig for the remainder of his days, even during times when being bald was not a social stigma. The nature itself of the very illness which resulted in the disfiguring hair loss is glossed over, yet most readers who commit themselves to reading an entire biography might be presumed to find such details of interest.
There is an infuriating catalogue of names dispersed throughout the biography. These names probably mean a great deal to graduate students writing arcane dissertations on Pennsylvania politics in the Jacksonian Era. However, the casual reader is apt to find them distracting, as I did, and sometimes even downright superfluous.
I will give the book a second reading, simply because my eyes were glazed over for much of the first. There is a part of me which finds Thaddeus Stevens to be absolutely compelling, for when I was boy growing up in Tennessee, his name was synonymous with Satan. As I became a man, my innate disgust for Stevens transmuted into sympathy and finally admiration. Nothing in this book either reaffirmed my admiration or caused me to revisit my earlier prejudices. Perhaps I missed some enlightening quality in this biography which has led me to be unfair to its author.
NINETEENTH CENTURY EGALITARIAN (a great choice for a title, one which I now cynically suspect was the choice of an editor) was a great disappointment for me. All the things I wanted to learn about who Thaddeus Stevens actually was, remain yet unknown. Trefousse informed me, in meticulous detail, about exactly what he did and when he did it, but the biographer left me ill-informed about why Stevens did those things and what he hoped to achieve.
I think Thaddeus Stevens was a contradiction. Unlike Lincoln, he could be mean-spirited, vindictive and petty. Like Lincoln, he was capable of great eloquence and benevolence. He did not possess Lincoln's poetic nature, but he could rise to the heights of an Elijah or Isaiah. Stevens himself, at the end of his life, declared himself a failure and thought his only enduring achievement was the establishment of the public school system in Pennsylvania. History has proved to be more generous.That he did more than almost any single American of the nineteenth century, Lincoln excepted, to end the evil of slavery in America is now beyond dispute.
I just want to know why! Tefousse's book, in that respect, was no help.
Oh, he has carefully researched the facts of Stevens' life and meticulously translated them into a chronological narrative. However, along the way, he has completely eviscerated any trace of the charisma and drive which led this self-made, clubfooted second son of an alcoholic Vermont dirt farmer to become "the dictator of Congress" and foil to America's greatest President.
Thad Stevens was a force of nature. Tommy Lee Jones' masterful portrayal in the movie LINCOLN has perhaps jaundiced my perspective on this workmanlike but boring biography. Still, Stevens' whole life was something of a contradiction, and Trefousse's Joe Friday "Just The Facts, Ma'am" biography simply cannot compete with the presence of such an iconic image in the popular imagination.
Sometimes modern biographers rush in where angels fear to tread, especially when it comes to psychoanalysing historical figures. But if any American historical figure begs to be analysed, it is Thaddeus Stevens.
The subject was a consummate politician who began his career in a fringe party, the Anti-Masons. It will surprise a good many regular viewers of The History Channel to learn that the modern conspiracy theorists are simply the heirs of earlier, more zealous and equally insane groups. Throughout his very long political career, Stevens proved himself adept at forging coalitions with some of the worst xenophobes America has produced. Yet throughout this byzantine succession of sometimes incendiary alliances, there burned a very pure and almost heroic abolitionist passion.
Trefousse does not attempt to identify the source of this passion. He relates the events of Stevens' life, including some rather lurid accusations of having murdered his pregnant negro mistress in Gettysburg, a rumour which dogged him until the day he died, with all the drama of US NEWS & WORLD REPORT. Such bland reportage, especially regarding events which simple cry for elucidation, eventually becomes maddening for the reader.
Mrs. Smith, Stevens' devoted mulatto housekeeper and hostess for almost thirty years, is given less than a page in Trefousse's book. I am not interested in a Kitty Kelly "tell-all" biographies of our great men, but it seems that the exact nature of the liaison between Mrs. Smith and Congressman Stevens would be a fairly significant historical subject. What could be established definitely about the exact nature of Stevens' private passions might serve to clarify his political positions, especially in this case.
Even Stevens' bout with alopecia is marginalized in this biography. For a lifelong cripple who became an active man noted for his youthful good looks, the loss of his hair at age thirty-five must have been devastating. After all, he compensated by wearing a wig for the remainder of his days, even during times when being bald was not a social stigma. The nature itself of the very illness which resulted in the disfiguring hair loss is glossed over, yet most readers who commit themselves to reading an entire biography might be presumed to find such details of interest.
There is an infuriating catalogue of names dispersed throughout the biography. These names probably mean a great deal to graduate students writing arcane dissertations on Pennsylvania politics in the Jacksonian Era. However, the casual reader is apt to find them distracting, as I did, and sometimes even downright superfluous.
I will give the book a second reading, simply because my eyes were glazed over for much of the first. There is a part of me which finds Thaddeus Stevens to be absolutely compelling, for when I was boy growing up in Tennessee, his name was synonymous with Satan. As I became a man, my innate disgust for Stevens transmuted into sympathy and finally admiration. Nothing in this book either reaffirmed my admiration or caused me to revisit my earlier prejudices. Perhaps I missed some enlightening quality in this biography which has led me to be unfair to its author.
NINETEENTH CENTURY EGALITARIAN (a great choice for a title, one which I now cynically suspect was the choice of an editor) was a great disappointment for me. All the things I wanted to learn about who Thaddeus Stevens actually was, remain yet unknown. Trefousse informed me, in meticulous detail, about exactly what he did and when he did it, but the biographer left me ill-informed about why Stevens did those things and what he hoped to achieve.
I think Thaddeus Stevens was a contradiction. Unlike Lincoln, he could be mean-spirited, vindictive and petty. Like Lincoln, he was capable of great eloquence and benevolence. He did not possess Lincoln's poetic nature, but he could rise to the heights of an Elijah or Isaiah. Stevens himself, at the end of his life, declared himself a failure and thought his only enduring achievement was the establishment of the public school system in Pennsylvania. History has proved to be more generous.That he did more than almost any single American of the nineteenth century, Lincoln excepted, to end the evil of slavery in America is now beyond dispute.
I just want to know why! Tefousse's book, in that respect, was no help.
October 10, 2012
Thaddeus Stevens was truly a remarkable man, a Republican congressman from Lancaster Pennsylvania who served during the civil war and reconstruction. Stevens was considered a member of the "radical republicans" because he believed in racial equality, universal suffrage, and equal protection under law for all people. Although these are principles that most people hold in today's socities, in the 1860's this put him on the fringe of the political spectrum with the likes of Charles Sumner, William L. Garrison, and Fredrick Douglass. During reconstruction he wanted to treat the south as conquered belligerent nation, unlike Lincoln and Johnson who believe the south never seceded because under the constitution secession was illegal, and wanted to redistribute the "conquered lands" to the newly freed slaves. This put him at odds with democrats and the more conservative members of his party. His radical beliefs and leadership in the congress helped pass the freedman bureau acts, the fourteenth amendment, and the fifteenth amendment.
Although Thad's story is great, Hans L. Trefousse is not a great writer, which is why I had to give the book a shitty rating. His sentences are long and often confusing, and he does not give enough background information about some of the people and pieces of legislation that is in the book, so I often had to go on the computer and do my own research just so I knew what he was talking about. It's to bad Thaddeus Stevens amazing life couldn't be retold by a great historical writer like Dorris K. Goodwin, Edmunond Morris, or the master, David McCullugh.
Although Thad's story is great, Hans L. Trefousse is not a great writer, which is why I had to give the book a shitty rating. His sentences are long and often confusing, and he does not give enough background information about some of the people and pieces of legislation that is in the book, so I often had to go on the computer and do my own research just so I knew what he was talking about. It's to bad Thaddeus Stevens amazing life couldn't be retold by a great historical writer like Dorris K. Goodwin, Edmunond Morris, or the master, David McCullugh.
April 24, 2013
Either this book is not really written very well, or I'm overwhelmed with the Medical Neuroscience class that I'm taking online and not really reading well. I do think it is the writer, though. He manages to use "howevers," "althoughs" and "in spite offs," etc. and then change the idea half-way through so you don't get a however, you get left hanging wondering how the rest of the sentence relates to the "however." There is interesting information in here - Stevens HATED secret societies like the Masons and actually formed a politica party called the Anti-Mason Party. It was actually a viable party in his home state of Pennsylvania for a while. The author several times theorizes that this was because Stevens had a club foot (which I didn't know)and the Mason don't allow "different" people like that into their organization. He also beats to death the idea that Stevens was the representative of the common people, the downtrodden, the poor, etc. Enough already! I get the idea!!
So if you don't mind slopping through a bad writer, this book does have interesting information about Stevens.
So if you don't mind slopping through a bad writer, this book does have interesting information about Stevens.
November 30, 2018
Stevens is an insanely fascinating and charismatic figure. The quotes of his speeches and the recounting of some of political and legislative maneuvering is great. The prose is serviceable at best, and the other people in the book are mostly ciphers. It has a bit of a feel of a school paper, with little in the way of interpretation or development of themes. All the same, I'm grateful that a full-length treatment of Stevens' life has been published in recent decades, going some way to rescue him from ugly and stupid caricatures of the Dunning School era. Stevens understood the stakes of the Civil War and Reconstruction better than almost anyone in the North (Lincoln not remotely excepted). He failed to some degree in almost everything he did in Congress, notably assuring the franchise for African Americans and distributing large Southern estates to freed slaves, but he was reliably correct both about what ought to be done and what would ensue if it were not done. The scuttling of multi-racial democracy in America for nearly a century, and the social and economic pathologies that went along with it, were entirely predicted by Stevens. He's still worth listening to.
April 23, 2018
This was a very interesting book! Sadly, I've never heard of him in school, especially sad since he had such a large part in our history. I'm glad I found this book after watching the movie Lincoln, and wanting to learn more about him. It was very scholarly and professionally written. I do wish it shared more about him and his personal life and family. This is the only reason why I gave it 4 stars. Although, I think, maybe we didn't know much because, he was probably very private about his life because of society's belief about blacks and marriage. His housekeeper Ms Smith was known by his friends and neighbors as his common law wife. I'm glad he laid the footwork for things to change. He was courageous and dedicated to his conviction that even in his burial he would not be buried where the cemetery was segregated. I look up to this man and his convictions. A person is a person no matter their skin tone. As well, a person is a person no matter how small. We all deserve LIFE, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. God bless you, Thaddeus Stevens!
May 13, 2013
In "Thaddeus Stevens: Nineteenth Century Egalitarian", Trefousse gives a thorough overview of his subject, crafting an extended narrative to flesh out Stevens' legislative accomplishments. I had known about Stevens' pioneering of 19th-century civil rights legislation, but Trefousse also drew my attention to Stevens' interest in inflationary economics and public education. Despite covering many facets of Stevens' career, the book never feels incoherent portraying its subject. However, Trefousse's prose is a bit too repetitive: there are only so many ways one can mention that Stevens' support of Anti-Masonry stemmed from his own disability before it grows tiresome. You will definitely feel that you have learned a lot after reading the book, but you may feel that you've been beaten over the head as well.
May 16, 2017
"The Great Commoner", as he came to be called, was a Gettysburg resident for almost 25 years and my interest was piqued by a recent viewing of "Lincoln." Not to mention all the local sites that pertain to him.
Equality for all seemed to be his calling card though he didn't achieve all he sought during his lifetime. Which leads one to question his oft used title as "the grim dictator of the House" (T. Harry Williams). But he helped lay the groundwork for the future. If I may quote, "His legacy was one of pointing the way. It was never one of domination." (238) He was far ahead of his colleagues.
This is a book for those of you interested in politics and events leading up to and following the Civil War. It was an interesting read though my difficulties with non-fiction continue, just can't make my way through them like I used to. :)
Equality for all seemed to be his calling card though he didn't achieve all he sought during his lifetime. Which leads one to question his oft used title as "the grim dictator of the House" (T. Harry Williams). But he helped lay the groundwork for the future. If I may quote, "His legacy was one of pointing the way. It was never one of domination." (238) He was far ahead of his colleagues.
This is a book for those of you interested in politics and events leading up to and following the Civil War. It was an interesting read though my difficulties with non-fiction continue, just can't make my way through them like I used to. :)
August 12, 2013
I couldn't finish this book. I was diving deeper into discovering more about Thaddeus Stevens for personal reasons. The problem for me was that I was more interested in his personal life than his political life, but the personal details were brief. Obviously the personal impacts the political decisions made by Thaddeus, but I couldn't follow. Too much history for me once the book starts discussing his political career and decisions as an anti-masonic man. Thaddeus remains one of my greatest inspirations, nonetheless. Very interesting man with strong beliefs that he worked to carry forth in the face of opposition.
July 18, 2009
Didn't quite finish... definitely written for those with much greater familiarity with 19th century politics than I currently have - the author throws a lot of names out there about various congressmen, etc., without explaining who they are. Mostly, I came out with a list of 19th century pieces of legislation I should probably look up, and an interest in reading a more lively biography of Stevens.
January 7, 2013
Excellent account of T. Stevens influential life. After seeing the movie, Lincoln I wanted to learn more about Mr. Stevens to understand how he became the man and politician he was. The book had some answers as to how he came to his views on human rights, slavery and how he kept to his opinions despite ridicule and being way ahead of most others especially on equal rights issues. I enjoyed this book and it was a quick easy to read book.
May 26, 2013
I was glad to read a little more about such a strong figure in 19th century politics, though I would have liked a little more insight into his psychology. I definitely came away with more of an understanding of what he stood for with respect to human rights and emancipation.
October 7, 2015
I am very thankful for the extensive research conducted by the author to give readers this wonderful, factual account of Thaddeus Stevens, one of the greatest men in American history.
This book gives us the few known facts about his personal life, such as his family and
This book gives us the few known facts about his personal life, such as his family and
September 13, 2013
Great man great book
October 2, 2018
Fascinating story
September 30, 2025
BOOK REVIEW - Thaddeus Stevens, Nineteenth-Century Egalitarian, by Hans L. Trefousse’s (09.29.25)
Born poor in Vermont, physically disabled, and self-made as a Pennsylvania lawyer, mill owner, and state legislator, Stevens sharpened his instincts for the underdog early—most visibly in his defense of tax-funded common schools and his willingness to take unpopular stands. The book tracks how these experiences matured into a comprehensive political vision: crush slavery, reconstruct the Republic on equal citizenship, and make federal power serve civil rights.
The book is at its best showing Stevens as a strategist. In Congress he helped drive wartime finance and emancipation, then moved decisively in 1865–68 to anchor freedom in constitutional text and federal statute. As de facto House floor leader of the Radicals, Stevens pushed to create the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, insisted rebel states reenter on Congress’s terms, and championed the Fourteenth Amendment’s architecture—citizenship, due process, equal protection, and federal enforcement—which became the cornerstone of modern civil rights. Stevens saw that emancipation without civil and political rights would be a broken promise; hence his advocacy for Black suffrage and for using national power to secure it.
The book treats with sensitivity Stevens’s long, loving partnership with Lydia Hamilton Smith, a free Black woman who managed his homes and business affairs and, by all contemporary accounts, shared his abolitionist commitments. Their domestic and economic partnership spanned two decades, survived public slander, and was honored in his will—details that humanize a man often reduced to sharp epigrams and parliamentary tactics.
Stevens emerges as a plain-spoken, relentless, and widely regarded (even by enemies) as incorruptible. His bluntness made him both lionized and loathed, but it also made his commitments unmistakable: he wanted a republic based on equal rights, not on planter privilege.
Stevens’s “extremism” was vindicated in the 20th century with the powerful use of the 14th Amendment to cement civil rights. The book is a valuable in recognizing the moral and constitutional imagination to Reconstruction’s legislative grind and shows how one lawyer-legislator fused conviction with craft to change the Constitution.
Quotes:
“They must come in as new States or remain as conquered provinces… Not in the Commander-in-Chief of the armies, for he can only hold them under military rule until the sovereign legislative power of the conqueror shall give them law… The future condition of the conquered power depends on the will of the conqueror.”
“I am for negro suffrage in every rebel State. If it be just, it should not be denied; if it be necessary, it should be adopted; if it be a punishment to traitors, they deserve it.”
Born poor in Vermont, physically disabled, and self-made as a Pennsylvania lawyer, mill owner, and state legislator, Stevens sharpened his instincts for the underdog early—most visibly in his defense of tax-funded common schools and his willingness to take unpopular stands. The book tracks how these experiences matured into a comprehensive political vision: crush slavery, reconstruct the Republic on equal citizenship, and make federal power serve civil rights.
The book is at its best showing Stevens as a strategist. In Congress he helped drive wartime finance and emancipation, then moved decisively in 1865–68 to anchor freedom in constitutional text and federal statute. As de facto House floor leader of the Radicals, Stevens pushed to create the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, insisted rebel states reenter on Congress’s terms, and championed the Fourteenth Amendment’s architecture—citizenship, due process, equal protection, and federal enforcement—which became the cornerstone of modern civil rights. Stevens saw that emancipation without civil and political rights would be a broken promise; hence his advocacy for Black suffrage and for using national power to secure it.
The book treats with sensitivity Stevens’s long, loving partnership with Lydia Hamilton Smith, a free Black woman who managed his homes and business affairs and, by all contemporary accounts, shared his abolitionist commitments. Their domestic and economic partnership spanned two decades, survived public slander, and was honored in his will—details that humanize a man often reduced to sharp epigrams and parliamentary tactics.
Stevens emerges as a plain-spoken, relentless, and widely regarded (even by enemies) as incorruptible. His bluntness made him both lionized and loathed, but it also made his commitments unmistakable: he wanted a republic based on equal rights, not on planter privilege.
Stevens’s “extremism” was vindicated in the 20th century with the powerful use of the 14th Amendment to cement civil rights. The book is a valuable in recognizing the moral and constitutional imagination to Reconstruction’s legislative grind and shows how one lawyer-legislator fused conviction with craft to change the Constitution.
Quotes:
“They must come in as new States or remain as conquered provinces… Not in the Commander-in-Chief of the armies, for he can only hold them under military rule until the sovereign legislative power of the conqueror shall give them law… The future condition of the conquered power depends on the will of the conqueror.”
“I am for negro suffrage in every rebel State. If it be just, it should not be denied; if it be necessary, it should be adopted; if it be a punishment to traitors, they deserve it.”
January 26, 2023
Summary: Controversial radical, but an important figure both in political and legislative history, and in the history of emancipation and reconstruction.
Many important people are less well-known than they should be. Thaddeus Stevens is one of them. I think the way that many people to do know who he is and have heard of him is because Tommy Lee Jones played him in the movie Lincoln.
Hans Trefousse's 2005 biography was the first real reevaluation of Stevens in a couple of generations. (Bruce Levine has a new biography published in 2021 that I have not read.) I picked this up on sale at Audible, which may not have been the best format.
One of the problems with the biography of Stevens is that he is a lawyer and legislator. He was known for being effective with parliamentary rules and procedures. And rules and procedures are not scintillating reading. But they are essential to the work of legislating.
Thaddeus Stevens is best known for leading the House during the Civil War and being the leader of what is commonly known as the Radical Republicans during the Reconstruction Era. He strongly favored public education, emancipation before the Civil War, and civil and voting rights after the Civil War. Radical Republicans were both organized to oppose Johnson and to push for stronger federal actions to protect Black citizens across the country and to more strongly punish former Confederate officials.
Stevens believed former Confederates were not US citizens (and therefore not subject to the bill of rights and other protections) but fell under international rules of war as a conquered territory and should be handled with military law, not civil law. This means that he did not think that the legislature should seat anyone from those territories until there were new votes by the legislature to adopt them as states. (Incidentally, Johnson was a senator from Tennessee that remained with the Union and continued to be seated in the Senate after Tennessee joined the Confederacy until Lincoln appointed him as military governor in 1862 before he was elected Vice president. So under Stevens' understanding, Johnson should have been removed from the Senate when Tennesse withdrew from the Union.) The implication of Stevens' understanding of citizenship means that the legislature would have been a smaller body with only Northern legislators, which would have changed the requirements for approving legislation, passing the constitutional amendments, vetoes, and impeachment.
Stevens was for strong federal power not just after the Civil War but as the head of the Ways and Means Committee, he advocated for increased federal taxation and script currency and more centralized federal control. The Civil War fundamentally changed the balance of state and federal power, and that is in no small part because of Stevens.
But as strong as Stevens was as a legislative leader, he was far more radical than many others he served with. While he moved people in the general egalitarian direction, the failure of Reconstruction was in part because many others were not as radical in opposition to an understanding of white racial superiority as Stevens was. Stevens believed in a strong view of reparations and, tied with that, believed that because the former Confederate territory were not US citizens, the US federal government and military had the right to confiscate property. There were various plans, but at least one of his plans included the confiscation of the land of all former Confederate citizens who owned at least $20,000 of property. That property would then be redistributed to the formerly enslaved (using a type of homestead system that Andrew Johnson used in writing the Homestead Act, which was limited to White Americans). The remaining property would be sold to pay down federal debt from the Civil War. Obviously, this did not pass, and no reparations were ever paid to the formerly enslaved, and property was largely returned to former Confederates.
Stevens was against the death penalty for former Confederate officials, but he was for punishment. But because he died in 1868 and was quite sick the last couple of years of his life, he could not see his plans for Reconstruction carried out. Those plans were unpopular, and even if he had been younger and in better health, it would have been difficult to move the country toward his egalitarian understanding of drawing Black Americans into the country as full and equal citizens.
Stevens was controversial in many ways. He rose to political prominence as an Anti-Masonic crusader. Stevens was born with a club foot, and one of the requirements of Masonic admission was rejecting anyone with a disability. Whether this was part of why Stevens was so strongly anti-Masonic was part of the discussion in the book. But in his anti-Masonic crusade, he briefly partnered with the xenophobic Know Nothing party in violation of his broader support for immigrant rights. Stevens was strongly in favor of high tariffs as a way to both fund the federal government and as a way to protect US business interests.
Stevens was also a strong supporter of US expansionism and supported Native American suppression and the expansion of US territory, including the purchase of Alaska and the attempts to purchase or conquer Caribbean land.
Stevens also was pragmatic, not convictional constitutionalist. He had no problem violating constitutional limits when it served his interests. And the focus on impeaching Johnson throughout the end of his life was questionable, even as Johnson was violating the Congressional will.
There is no question that Lincoln and Stevens had different approaches. Stevens pushed emancipation far earlier and much more racially than Lincoln did. But Lincoln likely would not have been able to write the Emancipation Proclamation without it being more moderate than Steven's plans. Stevens was cantancerous and that did not win him friends. Part of the problem with this book and any biography of Stevens is that there were so many stories about him from his opponents. Many of these stories do not seem to be based on fact but on trying to smear his reputation. The Lincoln movie shows him having a sexual relationship with his Black housekeeper. And that is a possibility, but as with many biographical details, it is very difficult to prove one way or another. Stevens never married, and he left his housekeeper a significant inheritance. But he was quite rich, and left a lot of money to many people because he did not have any biological heirs.
The book was a bit dry, and spent a lot of time exploring the historicity of various stories about Stevens. And so much of what is important about Stevens is in legislative history and speeches, which are not particularly interesting reading. I am glad to know more about Stevens, but it is hard to recommend this as an exciting book.
Many important people are less well-known than they should be. Thaddeus Stevens is one of them. I think the way that many people to do know who he is and have heard of him is because Tommy Lee Jones played him in the movie Lincoln.
Hans Trefousse's 2005 biography was the first real reevaluation of Stevens in a couple of generations. (Bruce Levine has a new biography published in 2021 that I have not read.) I picked this up on sale at Audible, which may not have been the best format.
One of the problems with the biography of Stevens is that he is a lawyer and legislator. He was known for being effective with parliamentary rules and procedures. And rules and procedures are not scintillating reading. But they are essential to the work of legislating.
Thaddeus Stevens is best known for leading the House during the Civil War and being the leader of what is commonly known as the Radical Republicans during the Reconstruction Era. He strongly favored public education, emancipation before the Civil War, and civil and voting rights after the Civil War. Radical Republicans were both organized to oppose Johnson and to push for stronger federal actions to protect Black citizens across the country and to more strongly punish former Confederate officials.
Stevens believed former Confederates were not US citizens (and therefore not subject to the bill of rights and other protections) but fell under international rules of war as a conquered territory and should be handled with military law, not civil law. This means that he did not think that the legislature should seat anyone from those territories until there were new votes by the legislature to adopt them as states. (Incidentally, Johnson was a senator from Tennessee that remained with the Union and continued to be seated in the Senate after Tennessee joined the Confederacy until Lincoln appointed him as military governor in 1862 before he was elected Vice president. So under Stevens' understanding, Johnson should have been removed from the Senate when Tennesse withdrew from the Union.) The implication of Stevens' understanding of citizenship means that the legislature would have been a smaller body with only Northern legislators, which would have changed the requirements for approving legislation, passing the constitutional amendments, vetoes, and impeachment.
Stevens was for strong federal power not just after the Civil War but as the head of the Ways and Means Committee, he advocated for increased federal taxation and script currency and more centralized federal control. The Civil War fundamentally changed the balance of state and federal power, and that is in no small part because of Stevens.
But as strong as Stevens was as a legislative leader, he was far more radical than many others he served with. While he moved people in the general egalitarian direction, the failure of Reconstruction was in part because many others were not as radical in opposition to an understanding of white racial superiority as Stevens was. Stevens believed in a strong view of reparations and, tied with that, believed that because the former Confederate territory were not US citizens, the US federal government and military had the right to confiscate property. There were various plans, but at least one of his plans included the confiscation of the land of all former Confederate citizens who owned at least $20,000 of property. That property would then be redistributed to the formerly enslaved (using a type of homestead system that Andrew Johnson used in writing the Homestead Act, which was limited to White Americans). The remaining property would be sold to pay down federal debt from the Civil War. Obviously, this did not pass, and no reparations were ever paid to the formerly enslaved, and property was largely returned to former Confederates.
Stevens was against the death penalty for former Confederate officials, but he was for punishment. But because he died in 1868 and was quite sick the last couple of years of his life, he could not see his plans for Reconstruction carried out. Those plans were unpopular, and even if he had been younger and in better health, it would have been difficult to move the country toward his egalitarian understanding of drawing Black Americans into the country as full and equal citizens.
Stevens was controversial in many ways. He rose to political prominence as an Anti-Masonic crusader. Stevens was born with a club foot, and one of the requirements of Masonic admission was rejecting anyone with a disability. Whether this was part of why Stevens was so strongly anti-Masonic was part of the discussion in the book. But in his anti-Masonic crusade, he briefly partnered with the xenophobic Know Nothing party in violation of his broader support for immigrant rights. Stevens was strongly in favor of high tariffs as a way to both fund the federal government and as a way to protect US business interests.
Stevens was also a strong supporter of US expansionism and supported Native American suppression and the expansion of US territory, including the purchase of Alaska and the attempts to purchase or conquer Caribbean land.
Stevens also was pragmatic, not convictional constitutionalist. He had no problem violating constitutional limits when it served his interests. And the focus on impeaching Johnson throughout the end of his life was questionable, even as Johnson was violating the Congressional will.
There is no question that Lincoln and Stevens had different approaches. Stevens pushed emancipation far earlier and much more racially than Lincoln did. But Lincoln likely would not have been able to write the Emancipation Proclamation without it being more moderate than Steven's plans. Stevens was cantancerous and that did not win him friends. Part of the problem with this book and any biography of Stevens is that there were so many stories about him from his opponents. Many of these stories do not seem to be based on fact but on trying to smear his reputation. The Lincoln movie shows him having a sexual relationship with his Black housekeeper. And that is a possibility, but as with many biographical details, it is very difficult to prove one way or another. Stevens never married, and he left his housekeeper a significant inheritance. But he was quite rich, and left a lot of money to many people because he did not have any biological heirs.
The book was a bit dry, and spent a lot of time exploring the historicity of various stories about Stevens. And so much of what is important about Stevens is in legislative history and speeches, which are not particularly interesting reading. I am glad to know more about Stevens, but it is hard to recommend this as an exciting book.
September 8, 2022
Good coverage of an important politician from the 19th Century who was WAY ahead of his time. Trefousse really emphasizes this fact, and I think it really shines through.
A couple complaints mar an otherwise very nice book:
-Most importantly (like many of these types of biographies) this is limited in its scope to his political life, and there is very little on the personal side -- his long term relationship with his house keeper Lydia Smith is only discussed during a single chapter and not brought back up again.
-Second, I'm still a bit confused about that transition from Anti-Masonist to Abolitionist. Maybe I just missed it, but looking back after finishing his life, that was a big turning point and was sort of glossed over.
-Finally, I found Trefousse's constant references to Stevens as 'The Commoner' to be kind of annoying (probably more so because I was reading via the audiobook).
A couple complaints mar an otherwise very nice book:
-Most importantly (like many of these types of biographies) this is limited in its scope to his political life, and there is very little on the personal side -- his long term relationship with his house keeper Lydia Smith is only discussed during a single chapter and not brought back up again.
-Second, I'm still a bit confused about that transition from Anti-Masonist to Abolitionist. Maybe I just missed it, but looking back after finishing his life, that was a big turning point and was sort of glossed over.
-Finally, I found Trefousse's constant references to Stevens as 'The Commoner' to be kind of annoying (probably more so because I was reading via the audiobook).
March 6, 2023
I recently listened to the audio version of this book and enjoyed all that I learned about Thaddeus Stevens. I am from Central Pennsylvania where he spent his adult years, so know miscellaneous facts about him. Trefousse put together an interesting picture primarily of Stevens' political and legal work which both reflected his humanitarian values and his shrewd ability to compromise to move his agenda forward. He worked like a demon. Never wavered from his egalitarian views and was never satisfied with the status quo. The narrator does a nice job keeping the listener's attention when some lengthy passages on bills Stevens introduced might lose me in a print format. And I think I got more from the audio book for this. When every word is read of a dry but excellent book, I end up preferring audio. Because the entire book is well worth reading. Definitely recommend.
September 24, 2020
Very interesting read of a very interesting man. I think it is very hard to separate the man from the reputation. a devout abolitionist, supporter of free education and Gettysburg College, a committed anti- Mason, and nearly shunned organized religion, except to where it involved his mother. Hailed from Vermont and attended Dartmouth and University of Vermont. Had a very disagreeable personality didn't care. Very principled and refused to play party politics. I would liken him to the horse that pulled the carriage guided by Lincoln. Not the best biography, but thorough coverage of this very important man that helped shape the world we know today.
July 7, 2021
An admiring biography of an admirable figure. Trefousse is good at giving us an insight into how Stevens was seen by people in his day. The book is well-researched, and doesn't veer off into completely unjustified speculation about Stevens' private life (unlike Fawn Brodie, whom he criticises for this at various points). He also answers the criticism that Stevens was a dictator of the House. In point of fact, he was frustrated in quite a lot of his efforts (most significantly the impeachment of Johnson, confiscation and redistribution of rebel property, even universal suffrage), because he was far ahead of his colleagues.
July 27, 2019
Thaddeus Stevens may have lived an interesting life, but it sure was a bore to read (listen to).
Here is a summary of what I remember to save you the trouble of reading it.
Thaddeus had a kind mother. Something, something, politics, politics, iron and trains, politics, something, free education for Pennsylvania children, politics, whiggery, politics, zzzzz..., politics, anti-slavery, politics, civil war, emancipation, politics, impeachment of Andrew Johnson, illness, death.
I do not recommend.
Here is a summary of what I remember to save you the trouble of reading it.
Thaddeus had a kind mother. Something, something, politics, politics, iron and trains, politics, something, free education for Pennsylvania children, politics, whiggery, politics, zzzzz..., politics, anti-slavery, politics, civil war, emancipation, politics, impeachment of Andrew Johnson, illness, death.
I do not recommend.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews