What do you think?
Rate this book
Congress at War: How Republican Reformers Fought the Civil War, Defied Lincoln, Ended Slavery, and Remade America
The story of how Congress helped win the Civil War--a new perspective that puts the House and Senate, rather than Lincoln, at the center of the conflict.
A brilliantly argued new perspective on the Civil War that overturns the popular conception that Abraham Lincoln single-handedly lead the Union to victory, and gives us a vivid account of the essential role Congress played in winning the war.
Building a riveting narrative around four influential members of Congress--Thaddeus Stevens, Pitt Fessenden, Ben Wade, and the pro-slavery Clement Vallandigham--Fergus Bordewich shows us how a newly empowered Republican party shaped one of the most dynamic and consequential periods in American history. From reinventing the nation's financial system to pushing President Lincoln to emancipate the slaves to the planning for Reconstruction, Congress undertook drastic measures to defeat the Confederacy, in the process laying the foundation for a strong central government that came fully into being in the twentieth century. Brimming with drama and outsized characters, Congress at War is also one of the most original books about the Civil War to appear in years, and will change the way we understand the conflict.
A brilliantly argued new perspective on the Civil War that overturns the popular conception that Abraham Lincoln single-handedly lead the Union to victory, and gives us a vivid account of the essential role Congress played in winning the war.
Building a riveting narrative around four influential members of Congress--Thaddeus Stevens, Pitt Fessenden, Ben Wade, and the pro-slavery Clement Vallandigham--Fergus Bordewich shows us how a newly empowered Republican party shaped one of the most dynamic and consequential periods in American history. From reinventing the nation's financial system to pushing President Lincoln to emancipate the slaves to the planning for Reconstruction, Congress undertook drastic measures to defeat the Confederacy, in the process laying the foundation for a strong central government that came fully into being in the twentieth century. Brimming with drama and outsized characters, Congress at War is also one of the most original books about the Civil War to appear in years, and will change the way we understand the conflict.
464 pages, Hardcover
First published February 18, 2020
60 people are currently reading
584 people want to read
About the author
Fergus M. Bordewich
14 books104 followersFERGUS M. BORDEWICH is the author of eight non-fiction books: "Congress at War: How Republican Reformers Fought the Civil War, Defied Lincoln, Ended Slavery, and Remade America"; "The First Congress: How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government" (awarded the Hardeman Prize in American History, in 2019); "America's Great Debate: Henry Clay, Stephen A. Douglas and the Compromise that Preserved the Union" (winner of the Los Angeles Times award for best history book, in 2013); "Washington: The Making of the American Capital" (named by the Washington Post as one f the best books of 2008); "Bound for Canaan: The Underground Railroad and the War for the Soul of America (named by the American Booksellers' Association as one of the ten best books of 2005)"; "My Mother’s Ghost," a memoir; "Killing the White Man’s Indian: Reinventing Native Americans at the End of the Twentieth Century"; and "Cathay: A Journey in Search of Old China." He has also published an illustrated children’s book, "Peach Blossom Spring" and has written the script for a PBS documentary about Thomas Jefferson, "Mr. Jefferson’s University." He also edited an photo-illustrated book of eyewitness accounts of the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre, "Children of the Dragon." He regularly reviews books for the Wall Street Journal. His articles and essays have appeared in The New York Times, TIME Magazine, American Heritage, Smithsonian Magazine, the Civil War Monitor, and many other publications. He lives in San Francisco with his wife, Jean Parvin Bordewich.
BORDEWICH WAS BORN in New York City in 1947, and grew up in Yonkers, New York. While growing up, he often traveled to Indian reservations around the United States with his mother, LaVerne Madigan Bordewich, the executive director of the Association on American Indian Affairs, then the only independent advocacy organization for Native Americans. This early experience helped to shape his lifelong preoccupation with American history, the settlement of the continent, and issues of race, poverty, and political power. He holds degrees from the City College of New York and Columbia University. In the late 1960s, he did voter registration for the NAACP in the still-segregated South; he also worked as a roustabout in Alaska’s Arctic oil fields, a taxi driver in New York City, and a deckhand on a Norwegian freighter.
He has been an independent writer and historian since the early 1970s. As a journalist, he traveled extensively in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and Africa, writing on politics, economic issues, culture, and history, on subjects including Islamic fundamentalism, the plight of the Kurds in northern Iraq, civil war in Burma, religious repression in China, Kenya’s population crisis, German Reunification, the peace settlement in Ireland, and other issues. He also served for brief periods as an editor and writer for the Tehran Journal in Iran, in 1972-1973, a press officer for the United Nations, and an advisor to the New China News Agency in Beijing, in 1982-1983, when that agency was embarking on its effort to move from a propaganda model toward a western-style journalistic one.
BORDEWICH WAS BORN in New York City in 1947, and grew up in Yonkers, New York. While growing up, he often traveled to Indian reservations around the United States with his mother, LaVerne Madigan Bordewich, the executive director of the Association on American Indian Affairs, then the only independent advocacy organization for Native Americans. This early experience helped to shape his lifelong preoccupation with American history, the settlement of the continent, and issues of race, poverty, and political power. He holds degrees from the City College of New York and Columbia University. In the late 1960s, he did voter registration for the NAACP in the still-segregated South; he also worked as a roustabout in Alaska’s Arctic oil fields, a taxi driver in New York City, and a deckhand on a Norwegian freighter.
He has been an independent writer and historian since the early 1970s. As a journalist, he traveled extensively in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and Africa, writing on politics, economic issues, culture, and history, on subjects including Islamic fundamentalism, the plight of the Kurds in northern Iraq, civil war in Burma, religious repression in China, Kenya’s population crisis, German Reunification, the peace settlement in Ireland, and other issues. He also served for brief periods as an editor and writer for the Tehran Journal in Iran, in 1972-1973, a press officer for the United Nations, and an advisor to the New China News Agency in Beijing, in 1982-1983, when that agency was embarking on its effort to move from a propaganda model toward a western-style journalistic one.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
June 27, 2022
“It is sometimes popularly supposed that Abraham Lincoln alone led the Union war effort and freed the slaves," Bordewich writes in the preface of this book, which aims to show the key role that Congressional Republicans played in winning the war, ending slavery and setting postwar policy. Many Lincoln-centric books treat his congressional colleagues as being of secondary importance, either as sources of aggravation or as pliable allies, with far less influence and impact on planning and policy than they actually had.
Bordewich sets out to reverse the traditional story, by focusing on Congress and treating Lincoln as the supporting player. While most Lincoln books focus on areas that were solely or primarily executive functions, there were numerous areas in which the executive’s and legislature’s actions and interests overlapped. And there were many more areas, not explored at all in most Lincoln books, where the legislature itself played the primary role.
Bordewich explores the latter two of those areas. And it’s the last one where he best succeeds, detailing the various issues that Congress alone had to wrestle with, while Lincoln had his hands full with other matters. For example, one of the first things the Senate had to deal with once the war started was how to function without the missing Southern states. Must they continue to count the missing states’ Senators in calculating a quorum, or would that end up recognizing or legitimizing secession? It’s the same kind of conundrum Lincoln himself often had to deal with, in balancing the reality of the situation with a refusal to acknowledge that the Confederate states had successfully seceded at all.
Bordewich is also particularly good at detailing Congress’ work with the Treasury Department to finance the war effort, an often underappreciated aspect of waging and winning the war that didn’t directly involve Lincoln. He recounts the activities of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, particularly its role in exposing weaknesses in war strategy and publicizing the Fort Pillow Massacre of Black soldiers that might otherwise have been largely forgotten. And he describes how the absence of dissenting Southern Congressmen allowed the wartime Congresses to become among the most productive in history, passing such milestone measures as the Homestead Act, Pacific Railway Act and Land-Grant College Act, as well as creating the Department of Agriculture.
While plenty of Congressmen are quoted and referenced throughout, Bordewich prevents his story from becoming a dizzying array of names and personalities by focusing on four in particular - Thaddeus Stevens, Ben Wade, William Pitt Fessenden and Clement Vallandigham. Each gets a lot more attention here than in a typical Lincoln-focused book, where they might drift in and out of the story, particularly Vallandigham, whose controversial arrest and expulsion from the country is usually about the only thing he’s known for. Here you learn a lot more about him before those events - as well as the circumstances of his odd and untimely end.
Where I think the book fell a bit short was in exploring that middle category, where the executive’s and legislature’s actions and interests overlapped. Bordewich often seems to go a little overboard in giving too much credit to Congress and too little, if any, to Lincoln. Lincoln, for example, is completely omitted from the debate about eliminating slavery in Washington, DC. In Bordewich’s telling, Congress led the effort with no input from Lincoln, passed the measure, and strong-armed a hesitant Lincoln to sign it. In more nuanced tellings, such as in Michael Burlingame’s Abraham Lincoln: A Life, Volume Two, Lincoln’s concurrent message to Congress about his compensated emancipation plan for the border states helped pave the way for passage of the DC bill, by persuading wavering congressmen who were on the fence about the issue to come down on the side of abolition.
There are also several elisions and simplifications in Bordewich’s story, such as when he first makes mention of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on the day it was issued, which makes it sound like Lincoln suddenly sprung it on his Cabinet at that very moment. While he rightfully links the Proclamation with the Second Confiscation Act that served as its foundation, he does so in a way that seems to give Congress all the credit for pushing a reluctant Lincoln to act. And in describing Senate leaders' confrontation with Lincoln in December of 1862, in which they tried to force Secretary of State Seward out, he simply says the attempt failed, without giving Lincoln credit for getting himself out of a difficult situation by outsmarting them, and emerging from the confrontation in an even stronger position.
James Oakes’s most recent books, including Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861-1865 and The Crooked Path to Abolition: Abraham Lincoln and the Antislavery Constitution, showed how Lincoln and Congressional Republicans worked in tandem - though not always in sync - to win the war and end slavery. There was a push-and-pull throughout, where sometimes Congress led and sometimes Lincoln did. Sometimes an impatient Congress pushed too far too fast, and a pragmatic Lincoln had to restrain them. I would have liked Bordewich to explore the dynamics of this relationship more, without seeming so often to make Congress preeminent and Lincoln subservient.
Bordewich rectifies this somewhat toward the end, as he portrays a stronger Lincoln who worked to wrest control of early Reconstruction policy from the Radical Republicans who thought Congress should lead the effort. And he describes how Congressional leaders like Stevens eventually came around and praised Lincoln, as their often contentious relationship eventually turned into a more cooperative one. "Stevens and Lincoln were never close and often at odds with one another,” he writes. But by the last months of Lincoln’s presidency, “their paths were now converging."
Instead of ending with the end of the war and Lincoln's death, as most Lincoln-focused books do, the epilogue carries on through Reconstruction, as the Radical Republicans fight for supremacy over Andrew Johnson, and the Radical movement ultimately splinters and then fades away as the book’s Congressional protagonists die off.
This is a readable, popular history - to the extent that such a specialized topic can be popularized - on a subject that deserves much more scholarly study. It could have been better, could have been more in-depth, and could have incorporated Lincoln more instead of sidelining him as often as it did. Nevertheless, Bordewich has made an important contribution to Lincoln and Civil War literature, by making an absorbing and convincing argument that Lincoln definitely didn’t do it all alone.
Bordewich sets out to reverse the traditional story, by focusing on Congress and treating Lincoln as the supporting player. While most Lincoln books focus on areas that were solely or primarily executive functions, there were numerous areas in which the executive’s and legislature’s actions and interests overlapped. And there were many more areas, not explored at all in most Lincoln books, where the legislature itself played the primary role.
Bordewich explores the latter two of those areas. And it’s the last one where he best succeeds, detailing the various issues that Congress alone had to wrestle with, while Lincoln had his hands full with other matters. For example, one of the first things the Senate had to deal with once the war started was how to function without the missing Southern states. Must they continue to count the missing states’ Senators in calculating a quorum, or would that end up recognizing or legitimizing secession? It’s the same kind of conundrum Lincoln himself often had to deal with, in balancing the reality of the situation with a refusal to acknowledge that the Confederate states had successfully seceded at all.
Bordewich is also particularly good at detailing Congress’ work with the Treasury Department to finance the war effort, an often underappreciated aspect of waging and winning the war that didn’t directly involve Lincoln. He recounts the activities of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, particularly its role in exposing weaknesses in war strategy and publicizing the Fort Pillow Massacre of Black soldiers that might otherwise have been largely forgotten. And he describes how the absence of dissenting Southern Congressmen allowed the wartime Congresses to become among the most productive in history, passing such milestone measures as the Homestead Act, Pacific Railway Act and Land-Grant College Act, as well as creating the Department of Agriculture.
While plenty of Congressmen are quoted and referenced throughout, Bordewich prevents his story from becoming a dizzying array of names and personalities by focusing on four in particular - Thaddeus Stevens, Ben Wade, William Pitt Fessenden and Clement Vallandigham. Each gets a lot more attention here than in a typical Lincoln-focused book, where they might drift in and out of the story, particularly Vallandigham, whose controversial arrest and expulsion from the country is usually about the only thing he’s known for. Here you learn a lot more about him before those events - as well as the circumstances of his odd and untimely end.
Where I think the book fell a bit short was in exploring that middle category, where the executive’s and legislature’s actions and interests overlapped. Bordewich often seems to go a little overboard in giving too much credit to Congress and too little, if any, to Lincoln. Lincoln, for example, is completely omitted from the debate about eliminating slavery in Washington, DC. In Bordewich’s telling, Congress led the effort with no input from Lincoln, passed the measure, and strong-armed a hesitant Lincoln to sign it. In more nuanced tellings, such as in Michael Burlingame’s Abraham Lincoln: A Life, Volume Two, Lincoln’s concurrent message to Congress about his compensated emancipation plan for the border states helped pave the way for passage of the DC bill, by persuading wavering congressmen who were on the fence about the issue to come down on the side of abolition.
There are also several elisions and simplifications in Bordewich’s story, such as when he first makes mention of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on the day it was issued, which makes it sound like Lincoln suddenly sprung it on his Cabinet at that very moment. While he rightfully links the Proclamation with the Second Confiscation Act that served as its foundation, he does so in a way that seems to give Congress all the credit for pushing a reluctant Lincoln to act. And in describing Senate leaders' confrontation with Lincoln in December of 1862, in which they tried to force Secretary of State Seward out, he simply says the attempt failed, without giving Lincoln credit for getting himself out of a difficult situation by outsmarting them, and emerging from the confrontation in an even stronger position.
James Oakes’s most recent books, including Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861-1865 and The Crooked Path to Abolition: Abraham Lincoln and the Antislavery Constitution, showed how Lincoln and Congressional Republicans worked in tandem - though not always in sync - to win the war and end slavery. There was a push-and-pull throughout, where sometimes Congress led and sometimes Lincoln did. Sometimes an impatient Congress pushed too far too fast, and a pragmatic Lincoln had to restrain them. I would have liked Bordewich to explore the dynamics of this relationship more, without seeming so often to make Congress preeminent and Lincoln subservient.
Bordewich rectifies this somewhat toward the end, as he portrays a stronger Lincoln who worked to wrest control of early Reconstruction policy from the Radical Republicans who thought Congress should lead the effort. And he describes how Congressional leaders like Stevens eventually came around and praised Lincoln, as their often contentious relationship eventually turned into a more cooperative one. "Stevens and Lincoln were never close and often at odds with one another,” he writes. But by the last months of Lincoln’s presidency, “their paths were now converging."
Instead of ending with the end of the war and Lincoln's death, as most Lincoln-focused books do, the epilogue carries on through Reconstruction, as the Radical Republicans fight for supremacy over Andrew Johnson, and the Radical movement ultimately splinters and then fades away as the book’s Congressional protagonists die off.
This is a readable, popular history - to the extent that such a specialized topic can be popularized - on a subject that deserves much more scholarly study. It could have been better, could have been more in-depth, and could have incorporated Lincoln more instead of sidelining him as often as it did. Nevertheless, Bordewich has made an important contribution to Lincoln and Civil War literature, by making an absorbing and convincing argument that Lincoln definitely didn’t do it all alone.
May 23, 2020
This is one of those books on the Civil War that I've been yearning to read, but had not been written.
Most books on the Civil war focus on the battle or the causes of the Civil War. A few deal with politics (read Lincoln and his cabinet). You might even find books that talk about cultural trends between the north and the south, but very few books focus on Congress.
Bordewich's book featured four influencial congressmen: Ohio Senator Ben Wade, Maine Senator William Pitt Fessenden, Pennsylvania Representative Thaddeus Stevens, and Ohio Representative (and Copperhead opponent of the war) Clement Vallandingham. Charles Sumner also makes an appearance, but his heyday was before the war.
Wade, who would have become president had Andrew Johnson been removed from office, was a strong proponent of black rights. He despised Lincoln and thought Lincoln was too weak to lead the country successfully through the war. Wade pushed for changes in the army, ensured the abolition of slavery in the territories, and believed the war could be won if blacks were recruited into the army. Wade was one of the sponsors of the Wade-Davis Bill---a bill that would have made it harder for Confederate States to re-enter the Union. Wade had the support to overrule a Linocln veto, but Lincoln looked at the bill, said it was interesting, and put it into his pocket---thus the origin of the term "Pocket Veto."
Fessenden was another Radical Republican, but unlike Wade he became an avid supporter of Lincoln. After the Southern Congressmen were kicked out (which is a story of its own merit) Fessenden was appointed the chair person of various financial committees. He basically controlled the purse strings during the War and helped to ensure that the country survived econonmically. When Salmon Chase's resignation from the cabinet occurred, Fessenden was the natural sucessor. Years later, when Jackson was being impeached, Fessenden was the first Republican Senator to vote "Not Guilty." David O. Stewart in his excellent book "Impeached" argues that he was partially motivated by the desire to prevent Wade from becoming president!
Thaddeus Stephens was another leader of the anti-Lincoln Radical Republicans. Like Wade, Stephens thought that Lincoln moved too slowly. Like Fessenden, Stephens was a key figure in maintaining the financial stability of the country.
Clement Vallandingham's story is of particular interest. Vallandingham was a Copperhead who opposed the war from the beginning. He supported states rights and opposed military involvement in the war. While he failed to win re-election, he was arrested for treason and tried by a military court. Lincoln had suspended Habeus Corpus---a controversial arguably unconstittional act. Vallandingham was exiled to the Confederacy but fled to Canada. In Canada he ran, in absentia, for Governor of Ohio.
One of the key interesting points in the book was the fact that when the South seceded the role of Southern Congressmen had to be determined. If the Southern Congressmen remained part of Congress, then their absence would mean that it would be difficult (if not impossible) for a quorem to exist. If they were kicked out as a result of their state's seceding, then that action would be an acknowledgment that the states secession was legit. It created a quandry that had to be resolved.
Most books on the Civil war focus on the battle or the causes of the Civil War. A few deal with politics (read Lincoln and his cabinet). You might even find books that talk about cultural trends between the north and the south, but very few books focus on Congress.
Bordewich's book featured four influencial congressmen: Ohio Senator Ben Wade, Maine Senator William Pitt Fessenden, Pennsylvania Representative Thaddeus Stevens, and Ohio Representative (and Copperhead opponent of the war) Clement Vallandingham. Charles Sumner also makes an appearance, but his heyday was before the war.
Wade, who would have become president had Andrew Johnson been removed from office, was a strong proponent of black rights. He despised Lincoln and thought Lincoln was too weak to lead the country successfully through the war. Wade pushed for changes in the army, ensured the abolition of slavery in the territories, and believed the war could be won if blacks were recruited into the army. Wade was one of the sponsors of the Wade-Davis Bill---a bill that would have made it harder for Confederate States to re-enter the Union. Wade had the support to overrule a Linocln veto, but Lincoln looked at the bill, said it was interesting, and put it into his pocket---thus the origin of the term "Pocket Veto."
Fessenden was another Radical Republican, but unlike Wade he became an avid supporter of Lincoln. After the Southern Congressmen were kicked out (which is a story of its own merit) Fessenden was appointed the chair person of various financial committees. He basically controlled the purse strings during the War and helped to ensure that the country survived econonmically. When Salmon Chase's resignation from the cabinet occurred, Fessenden was the natural sucessor. Years later, when Jackson was being impeached, Fessenden was the first Republican Senator to vote "Not Guilty." David O. Stewart in his excellent book "Impeached" argues that he was partially motivated by the desire to prevent Wade from becoming president!
Thaddeus Stephens was another leader of the anti-Lincoln Radical Republicans. Like Wade, Stephens thought that Lincoln moved too slowly. Like Fessenden, Stephens was a key figure in maintaining the financial stability of the country.
Clement Vallandingham's story is of particular interest. Vallandingham was a Copperhead who opposed the war from the beginning. He supported states rights and opposed military involvement in the war. While he failed to win re-election, he was arrested for treason and tried by a military court. Lincoln had suspended Habeus Corpus---a controversial arguably unconstittional act. Vallandingham was exiled to the Confederacy but fled to Canada. In Canada he ran, in absentia, for Governor of Ohio.
One of the key interesting points in the book was the fact that when the South seceded the role of Southern Congressmen had to be determined. If the Southern Congressmen remained part of Congress, then their absence would mean that it would be difficult (if not impossible) for a quorem to exist. If they were kicked out as a result of their state's seceding, then that action would be an acknowledgment that the states secession was legit. It created a quandry that had to be resolved.
March 15, 2020
A firsthand look at the battles waged in Congress during America's greatest crisis. The author focuses on several principal characters including Ben Wade and Thaddeus Stevens. I found the book to be very insightful and thought provoking. A fine starting place for anyone curious about the parliamentary process that occurred during the War Between the States.
June 28, 2020
Fergus M. Bordewich's Congress at War celebrates the achievements of the Civil War-era Congress, which passed a progressive agenda (including, most momentously, the 13th Amendment ending slavery) rarely equaled in American history. Bordewich frames the era's heroes as the Radical Republicans, whose outspoken, uncompromising support for abolition caused contemporaries, and generations of historians to treat them as fanatics - leaving more recent historians to rehabilitate them. He provides lively sketches of Thaddeus Stevens, the sulfurous Pennsylvanian who advocated not only abolition but racial equality; Benjamin Wade, fiery leader of Senate abolitionists; James Ashley, the idealistic Ohioan who served as floor manager for the 13th Amendment and later spearheaded Andrew Johnson's impeachment; Salmon Chase, Lincoln's egotistical Treasury Secretary; even Hannibal Hamlin, Lincoln's first Vice President whose zeal for abolition exceeded the President's (though, it must be said, exceeding his actual influence). He counterpoints them with equally colorful portraits of Democrats like Reverdy Johnson, the conservative Maryland slaveowner who became a reluctant ally of the Republican, Samuel Cox, who tried to stymie Republican control of Congress through a combination of stonewalling and procedural coup d'etats, and Clement Vallandigham, the ferociously racist Copperhead jailed while running for Governor of Ohio; and conservative Republicans like Maine's William Pitt Fessenden who opposed slavery but proved reluctant to actually end it.
Bordewich isn't the first historian to credit the Radicals for pushing abolition, and he makes a fair case that the era's achievements were largely their doing. They were responsible not only for abolition but the Homestead Act, a streamlined national currency and the creation of the Transcontinental Railroad. Nor is Bordewich the only writer to attempt to diminish Lincoln's role, depicting him as vacillating, indecisive and borderline unconcerned about slavery (inevitably quoting Lincoln's "If could save the Union" letter to Horace Greeley). Here Bordewich is less convincing, not bothering to assess how Lincoln's role as President restrained him more than Congressmen representing narrower constituencies, or how his pragmatism arguably caused more lasting changes than the Radicals. He's also blind to the excesses of the Radicals, many of whom flirted with Know-Nothingism, Anti-Masonic mummery and other berserk conspiracy theories (Ashley spent years trying to prove Johnson orchestrated Lincoln's murder) that arguably harmed their reputations as much as the Dunning School's Southern apologetics. Even so, his book is a useful reminder that behind the battles and Presidential decision-making marched a diverse, querulous but tremendously effective Congress, whose impact on American history is undeniable.
Bordewich isn't the first historian to credit the Radicals for pushing abolition, and he makes a fair case that the era's achievements were largely their doing. They were responsible not only for abolition but the Homestead Act, a streamlined national currency and the creation of the Transcontinental Railroad. Nor is Bordewich the only writer to attempt to diminish Lincoln's role, depicting him as vacillating, indecisive and borderline unconcerned about slavery (inevitably quoting Lincoln's "If could save the Union" letter to Horace Greeley). Here Bordewich is less convincing, not bothering to assess how Lincoln's role as President restrained him more than Congressmen representing narrower constituencies, or how his pragmatism arguably caused more lasting changes than the Radicals. He's also blind to the excesses of the Radicals, many of whom flirted with Know-Nothingism, Anti-Masonic mummery and other berserk conspiracy theories (Ashley spent years trying to prove Johnson orchestrated Lincoln's murder) that arguably harmed their reputations as much as the Dunning School's Southern apologetics. Even so, his book is a useful reminder that behind the battles and Presidential decision-making marched a diverse, querulous but tremendously effective Congress, whose impact on American history is undeniable.
January 29, 2024
This was a very interesting and informative narrative history of 37th and 38th Civil War Congress. It was a tumultuous and yet very productive congress. How did the congress filled with the new Republicans deal with the secession leaving empty seat in the Senate and the House? How did it go into session without a quorum? How did it finance a civil war? How did it enlist Federal troops? This congress was not always unified. Some saw the war as about slavery others about only preserving the union. Not all in congress supported Lincoln, some seeing him as weak others saw his war powers as excessive, i.e. suspension of Habeas Corpus.
However, the President and Congress, did triumph over the possible collapse of the American Republic and end slavery. One might think that any history about any Congress would be quite boring and dry. Not true of this book by historian Fergus Bordewich. I highly recommend "The First Congress", also written by Bordewich.
However, the President and Congress, did triumph over the possible collapse of the American Republic and end slavery. One might think that any history about any Congress would be quite boring and dry. Not true of this book by historian Fergus Bordewich. I highly recommend "The First Congress", also written by Bordewich.
March 15, 2021
In Congress At War Fergus Bordewich has recounted the extraordinary efforts of the 37th and 38th congresses that sat during the civil war. They oversaw the war effort, overhauled banking and finance to fund that war, passed the land grant university act, the homestead act that provided 160 acres to 1.6 million people, the trans pacific railroad, the 13th amendment ending slavery and established the Freedman’s bureau. These congresses fought rabid racism, treason and Copperhead backlash while pursuing bold transformative changes. So similar to current realities and models for the 117th Congress. Be bold.
March 30, 2020
Despite the hyperbole in the title, this book is an excellent review of the role that the Congress played in the Civil War, particularly the Radical Republicans in the Senate. It focuses on the contributions to the war effort and legislation pushed by Benjamin Wade, Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens and William Pitt Fessenden, among others. While Lincoln's leadership was unquestionably the key factor in winning the war and freeing the slaves, the author cites the many instances in which the abolitionists in Congress made considerable impact, such as the Committee on the Conduct of the War. This committee interviewed military commanders and officers in the field after battles occurred , and wrote detailed reports on its findings. The reports highlighted the incompetence of the many generals who led the Army of the Potomac prior to Grant, and were important sources of information about the war's execution for the administration and general public.
Bordewich makes note of several far-reaching pieces of legislation which were passed by Congress during the Civil War era, including the Homestead Act, the Pacific Railway Act, and the Morrill Land Grant College Act. Perhaps its most important role was in legislation dealing with slavery. Much of the book is devoted to the efforts by the Republican-led Senate to abolish slavery , despite the opposition of more moderate Republicans, Democrats and the general public. The abolitionists in Congress were generally more open about their views on how and when slavery should be ended than Lincoln; he was necessarily more opaque about how it should proceed due to his concerns about how it would be received by the voters. If he pushed too hard, it might have imperiled his chances at re-election and risk losing the war and the Union. In the end, Lincoln's sense of timing proved right, as he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 as a means to weaken the South, and upon his re-election endorsed the 13th amendment, handing out political favors to key legislators to ensure its passage. But the book underscores the contribution made by Congress to public attitudes on slavery, and its untiring efforts to pass legislation that furthered the military success of the North and the resulting freedom of African-Americans in the country as a whole.
The book's epilogue covers the Reconstruction era, and the failure of the country to fulfill its promise to bring equality to black citizens, despite the passage of the 14th and 15th amendments. Andrew Johnson's lack of commitment to the rights of former slaves and the public's weariness of the issue led to the end of Reconstruction and the eventual rise of Jim Crow. Congress , or at least its Radical Republican faction, did its part in passing the Reconstruction amendments and establishing the Freedmen's Bureau, overriding Johnson's veto on the issue several times. I think the author could have written much more than a chapter about this era, given its importance to the topic at hand. But it deserves a book-length treatment, which has been covered by other authors.
Finally, a say about the book's sub-title "How Republican Reformers Fought the Civil War, Defied Lincoln, Ended Slavery and Remade America". The Republican Reformers were not alone in these efforts; there were millions of troops , thousands of civil servants and not least Lincoln himself who played a significant role in the struggle to preserve the Union. I cannot recall a single instance in the book where the Congress "defied Lincoln"; they worked along side of him and in many cases nudged him in the abolitionists' direction, but they surely weren't at odds with him in the ultimate goal of the war.
Bordewich makes note of several far-reaching pieces of legislation which were passed by Congress during the Civil War era, including the Homestead Act, the Pacific Railway Act, and the Morrill Land Grant College Act. Perhaps its most important role was in legislation dealing with slavery. Much of the book is devoted to the efforts by the Republican-led Senate to abolish slavery , despite the opposition of more moderate Republicans, Democrats and the general public. The abolitionists in Congress were generally more open about their views on how and when slavery should be ended than Lincoln; he was necessarily more opaque about how it should proceed due to his concerns about how it would be received by the voters. If he pushed too hard, it might have imperiled his chances at re-election and risk losing the war and the Union. In the end, Lincoln's sense of timing proved right, as he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 as a means to weaken the South, and upon his re-election endorsed the 13th amendment, handing out political favors to key legislators to ensure its passage. But the book underscores the contribution made by Congress to public attitudes on slavery, and its untiring efforts to pass legislation that furthered the military success of the North and the resulting freedom of African-Americans in the country as a whole.
The book's epilogue covers the Reconstruction era, and the failure of the country to fulfill its promise to bring equality to black citizens, despite the passage of the 14th and 15th amendments. Andrew Johnson's lack of commitment to the rights of former slaves and the public's weariness of the issue led to the end of Reconstruction and the eventual rise of Jim Crow. Congress , or at least its Radical Republican faction, did its part in passing the Reconstruction amendments and establishing the Freedmen's Bureau, overriding Johnson's veto on the issue several times. I think the author could have written much more than a chapter about this era, given its importance to the topic at hand. But it deserves a book-length treatment, which has been covered by other authors.
Finally, a say about the book's sub-title "How Republican Reformers Fought the Civil War, Defied Lincoln, Ended Slavery and Remade America". The Republican Reformers were not alone in these efforts; there were millions of troops , thousands of civil servants and not least Lincoln himself who played a significant role in the struggle to preserve the Union. I cannot recall a single instance in the book where the Congress "defied Lincoln"; they worked along side of him and in many cases nudged him in the abolitionists' direction, but they surely weren't at odds with him in the ultimate goal of the war.
November 2, 2023
Very interesting and detailed book about the role Congress played during the Civil War. I have read many books about the Civil War, and about Lincoln, but this is the first one I have read that focused on the role Congress played at the time. It deals with a few of the key members in both the House and the Senate, and how they worked with (and against) Lincoln to win the Civil War, end slavery, and rebuild a divided country. Back in the 1860s our country was probably even more greatly divided than it is today. There were those who were strongly against slavery, and there were those, even in the North, who wanted to leave the institution alone. Then even once slavery was abolished there were strong battles over how to handle that situation. What should be done with the freedmen? Should they be able to own property? Should they be able to vote? There were so many differences of opinion that were so strong on each side, that there were actual physical fights on the floor of Congress. The fact that they got through it all and our country went on to thrive through the end of the 19th and into the 20th century was an amazing accomplishment. Hopefully we can do the same with the divided situation we are currently experiencing.
November 4, 2023
I wish that I could write a review that would do justice to this book.
I learned so much. I haven’t been able to stop discussing what I read and recommending this book to everyone I know. This is a must read!
I learned so much. I haven’t been able to stop discussing what I read and recommending this book to everyone I know. This is a must read!
September 29, 2020
I pulled this off the new books shelf because we really tend to overestimate the presidential effect on our law-making system and there aren't a lot of available books on this subject and era.
For good reason.
It's really a lot to cover and it's hard to make it all interesting. Not that this didn't have it's good moments and figures, Thaddeus Stevens at the forefront. But it also wasn't an easy read and you don't feel the attachment for the people as you would in, say, a book from McCullough or Doris Goodwin. Being history instead of fiction, the concluding ascension of Johnson to the role of president is rather anti-climactic and slightly depressing.
I was highly amused to recognize 18th-century versions of "Fake News," "Voter Fraud," and "President is overstepping boundaries." Some things about politics manage to stay the same.
Final note: the exchange of party beliefs and values between the past and the future is glaring. It is only too obvious that groups are influenced by individuals and that none is immune from past errors. Nor are they all incapable of laudable decisions.
For good reason.
It's really a lot to cover and it's hard to make it all interesting. Not that this didn't have it's good moments and figures, Thaddeus Stevens at the forefront. But it also wasn't an easy read and you don't feel the attachment for the people as you would in, say, a book from McCullough or Doris Goodwin. Being history instead of fiction, the concluding ascension of Johnson to the role of president is rather anti-climactic and slightly depressing.
I was highly amused to recognize 18th-century versions of "Fake News," "Voter Fraud," and "President is overstepping boundaries." Some things about politics manage to stay the same.
Final note: the exchange of party beliefs and values between the past and the future is glaring. It is only too obvious that groups are influenced by individuals and that none is immune from past errors. Nor are they all incapable of laudable decisions.
July 10, 2020
Fabulous book! Abraham Lincoln is amazing, but he did not run the Civil War by himself. I bet 99% of the US population cannot name one congressman during the Civil War.
As I read, I recalled that I had previously read bare bones mentions of Thaddeus Stevens and Sumner as abolitionists, but that was it for me. Pitt Fessenden (moderate whose support allowed the war to start, and then ended up teaming with the "radicals" to justify and fund the war, later serving as Secretary of the Treasury for a time) and Clement Vallandigham ("pro-Union," vilely racist congressman form Ohio who served as public face of the opposition to freeing the slaves and support of ending the war immediately by amending the constitution to specifically allow slavery, then secretly worked with militia groups undermining the war in the North, almost started a coup against Lincoln, faced the unique punishment of being exiled to the Confederacy, then snuck to Canada, and finally ran a martyr presidential campaign as the Democrat for the election of 1864, but he was finally ditched by the Democrats as more of his subversive activities came to life. ) didn't ring even a tiny bell to me.
Lincoln was crucial as the middle-ground, but he is sidelined in this narrative and principally seen when praised or criticized by the Congress members. The anti-slavery impetus was from Congress (though many abolitionists were strongly racist as well). The funding of the was a crucial aspect that almost ended the war before it began. The Congress passed major land and education bills that affected US society for decades to come as well. The opposition had very valid concerns about executive orders and the suspension of habeas corpus, but they also secretly funded armed rebels in the north and encouraged desertion and draft dodging.
This is not an action book. Most of it consists of explicating the political and financial realities of Union society during the war, and well-explained accounts of both sides of crucial laws and the political wrangling to get them passed or rejected. There are concise descriptions of many famous battles and campaigns to give context to the political happenings as well as the fascinating saga of Vallandigham, a Benedict Arnold in sheep's clothing, but the book is lots of talking and explaining. I loved it, but it's a little more for the history buffs out there.
As I read, I recalled that I had previously read bare bones mentions of Thaddeus Stevens and Sumner as abolitionists, but that was it for me. Pitt Fessenden (moderate whose support allowed the war to start, and then ended up teaming with the "radicals" to justify and fund the war, later serving as Secretary of the Treasury for a time) and Clement Vallandigham ("pro-Union," vilely racist congressman form Ohio who served as public face of the opposition to freeing the slaves and support of ending the war immediately by amending the constitution to specifically allow slavery, then secretly worked with militia groups undermining the war in the North, almost started a coup against Lincoln, faced the unique punishment of being exiled to the Confederacy, then snuck to Canada, and finally ran a martyr presidential campaign as the Democrat for the election of 1864, but he was finally ditched by the Democrats as more of his subversive activities came to life. ) didn't ring even a tiny bell to me.
Lincoln was crucial as the middle-ground, but he is sidelined in this narrative and principally seen when praised or criticized by the Congress members. The anti-slavery impetus was from Congress (though many abolitionists were strongly racist as well). The funding of the was a crucial aspect that almost ended the war before it began. The Congress passed major land and education bills that affected US society for decades to come as well. The opposition had very valid concerns about executive orders and the suspension of habeas corpus, but they also secretly funded armed rebels in the north and encouraged desertion and draft dodging.
This is not an action book. Most of it consists of explicating the political and financial realities of Union society during the war, and well-explained accounts of both sides of crucial laws and the political wrangling to get them passed or rejected. There are concise descriptions of many famous battles and campaigns to give context to the political happenings as well as the fascinating saga of Vallandigham, a Benedict Arnold in sheep's clothing, but the book is lots of talking and explaining. I loved it, but it's a little more for the history buffs out there.
January 17, 2023
In an era at times where the federal government can seem as dysfunctional as ever, it's nice to sometimes be reminded of what happens when it does work for the people albeit under unusual circumstances. With "Congress at War: How Republican Reformers Fought the Civil War, Defied Lincoln, Ended Slavery, and Remade America", Fergus Bordewich takes a very different look at the US Civil War through the eyes of Congress & some of the individuals without whom some of the legislation that got put through may not have happened. This book which at times can be a bit tedious to read will open one's eyes about some of the ongoing issues & functions within those 2 sessions of Congress during the Civil War including some of the more controversial ones in history as well. As a native Ohioan, I also got a bit of insight into a couple of this state's more colorful figures from that period which may even explain part of Ohio politics today. Overall, this book is definitely one that is worthwhile to pick up & read for anyone with even a passing interest in the workings of Congress especially during the Civil War.
March 14, 2020
With Congress at War, author Fergus Bordewich continues his tradition of writing well-researched yet highly readable work on a critical period in American history. The radical Republicans in the 1860s pushed Lincoln - at pushed him hard - on the conduct civil war operations as well as domestic issues.
The author focuses on several members of Congress: Ohio Senator Ben Wade, Maine Senator William Pitt Fessenden, Pennsylvania Representative Thaddeus Stevens, and Ohio Representative (and Copperhead opponent of the war) Clement Vallandingham. The struggle for political supremacy between the Lincoln administration and the Republican-dominated Congress (not to mention the Democratic opposition) continued for the duration of the war, and into post-war reconstruction, and author Bordewich does a commanding job of bringing that struggle to the reader. Highly recommended for those interested in the American Civil War, battles for political control, and the development of the America that we know today.
The author focuses on several members of Congress: Ohio Senator Ben Wade, Maine Senator William Pitt Fessenden, Pennsylvania Representative Thaddeus Stevens, and Ohio Representative (and Copperhead opponent of the war) Clement Vallandingham. The struggle for political supremacy between the Lincoln administration and the Republican-dominated Congress (not to mention the Democratic opposition) continued for the duration of the war, and into post-war reconstruction, and author Bordewich does a commanding job of bringing that struggle to the reader. Highly recommended for those interested in the American Civil War, battles for political control, and the development of the America that we know today.
May 12, 2024
I like a history book that isn’t afraid to forcibly advance a thesis, even if I don’t totally agree with it, as long as it has at least a reasonable amount of factual backing. And, Bordewich’s does. It is that St. Abraham of Lincoln most certainly did not win the war single-handedly or even close to it. Rather, Congress had a significant role, and often took the lead, both in actions directly related to the war and ancillary ones.
As Bordewich shows, one of the most important tools, beyond individual acts of legislation, was the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War. This is directly parallel to the WWII US Senate committee, helmed by Harry Truman, that propelled him to the vice presidency nomination in 1944. Chaired by Ben Wade, it repeatedly investigated tactics and command by generals, starting with McClellan, as well as material and supplies, war profiteering and more. In 1864, it took testimony from the survivors of the Fort Pillow massacre. (Nathan Bedford Forrest being allowed to survive after the end of the Civil War is itself an indictment of Reconstruction.)
At its best on 1863-64. Noting the part-time nature of Congress and how the new one wouldn’t start until 1863, Bordewich notes how the Clerk of the House, Emerson Etheridge, a Tennessee Unionist who turned anti-administration after the Emancipation Proclamation, was going to use his powers as clerk to reject the credentials of as many Republicans as he could, in collusion with Vallandigham and Sunset Cox. But, Republicans sniffed it out, and reportedly, Lincoln was OK, in extremis, of using troops to oust Etheridge.
But part of the story is Smiler Colfax being elected as Speaker for that Congress, as Galusha Grow had lost re-election to his seat in the midterms. Lincoln reportedly wanted old Illinois friend Elihu Washburne, who wouldn’t have been bad, or the odious Frankie Blair, who would have been. This was all new to me.
Also new to me were details of Hannibal Hamlin being dumped for Veep, especially how much Lincoln was allegedly involved, even to the point of allowing a nominal pro-Hamlin vote on the first ballot. It’s arguable that, at the time, the concern to get a War Democrat as Veep was reasonable. But, it appears Lincoln wanted Hamlin gone anyway. I suspect it was because he suspected Hamlin would be more and more a Radical foot inside the White House as Reconstruction ramped up.
This, then, connects to Lincoln’s pocket veto of the Wade-Davis act. And, no, contra Wade’s modern chief biographer, even if the Wade-Davis Manifesto in the New York Times after the pocket veto was overblown, the act itself was NOT.
This, in turn, though little discussed by Bordewich, would seem to tie to Lincoln’s ongoing support for colonization — yes, even up to the week of his assassination. It definitely ties to Lincoln’s “rosewater” reconstruction plans, where Speaker Julian Ashley couldn’t get a deal to admit Louisiana’s congresscritters in exchange for Lincoln accepting something at least halfway like Wade-Davis for unreconstructed states. (I'll have an even more expanded review on my blog, and this will be part of it.
Per anti-Radical historians today who say that Ben Wade as president pro tem killed chances at impeaching Andy Johnson? He was freely elected.
That said, on some items, it was pushing at an open door in general. Lincoln, old railroad lawyer, certainly supported the Pacific Railway Act and its later emendations. Ditto, being from the Illinois prairie, on the Morrill Act, the Homestead Act and the creation of the Department of Agriculture (which already existed as a bureau).
Possibly a stretch to claim the Civil War era sub-Treasury led directly to the Federal Reserve, although the National Banking Act was a step in that direction. And, Bordewich never ponders why Congress didn’t cut straight to the chase and create the third Bank of the United States.
Oh, Lincoln’s nationwide suspension of habeas corpus in fall of 1862 did NOT, in and of itself, create martial law. A journalist should know better than that. Not all people arrested and held without release went automatically to military commissions instead of civilian courts, though that was, yes, often the case, when Lincoln did go on to declare martial law. In any case, suspension of habeas corpus by itself does not create martial law. Ex parte Milligan makes this clear.
As Bordewich shows, one of the most important tools, beyond individual acts of legislation, was the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War. This is directly parallel to the WWII US Senate committee, helmed by Harry Truman, that propelled him to the vice presidency nomination in 1944. Chaired by Ben Wade, it repeatedly investigated tactics and command by generals, starting with McClellan, as well as material and supplies, war profiteering and more. In 1864, it took testimony from the survivors of the Fort Pillow massacre. (Nathan Bedford Forrest being allowed to survive after the end of the Civil War is itself an indictment of Reconstruction.)
At its best on 1863-64. Noting the part-time nature of Congress and how the new one wouldn’t start until 1863, Bordewich notes how the Clerk of the House, Emerson Etheridge, a Tennessee Unionist who turned anti-administration after the Emancipation Proclamation, was going to use his powers as clerk to reject the credentials of as many Republicans as he could, in collusion with Vallandigham and Sunset Cox. But, Republicans sniffed it out, and reportedly, Lincoln was OK, in extremis, of using troops to oust Etheridge.
But part of the story is Smiler Colfax being elected as Speaker for that Congress, as Galusha Grow had lost re-election to his seat in the midterms. Lincoln reportedly wanted old Illinois friend Elihu Washburne, who wouldn’t have been bad, or the odious Frankie Blair, who would have been. This was all new to me.
Also new to me were details of Hannibal Hamlin being dumped for Veep, especially how much Lincoln was allegedly involved, even to the point of allowing a nominal pro-Hamlin vote on the first ballot. It’s arguable that, at the time, the concern to get a War Democrat as Veep was reasonable. But, it appears Lincoln wanted Hamlin gone anyway. I suspect it was because he suspected Hamlin would be more and more a Radical foot inside the White House as Reconstruction ramped up.
This, then, connects to Lincoln’s pocket veto of the Wade-Davis act. And, no, contra Wade’s modern chief biographer, even if the Wade-Davis Manifesto in the New York Times after the pocket veto was overblown, the act itself was NOT.
This, in turn, though little discussed by Bordewich, would seem to tie to Lincoln’s ongoing support for colonization — yes, even up to the week of his assassination. It definitely ties to Lincoln’s “rosewater” reconstruction plans, where Speaker Julian Ashley couldn’t get a deal to admit Louisiana’s congresscritters in exchange for Lincoln accepting something at least halfway like Wade-Davis for unreconstructed states. (I'll have an even more expanded review on my blog, and this will be part of it.
Per anti-Radical historians today who say that Ben Wade as president pro tem killed chances at impeaching Andy Johnson? He was freely elected.
That said, on some items, it was pushing at an open door in general. Lincoln, old railroad lawyer, certainly supported the Pacific Railway Act and its later emendations. Ditto, being from the Illinois prairie, on the Morrill Act, the Homestead Act and the creation of the Department of Agriculture (which already existed as a bureau).
Possibly a stretch to claim the Civil War era sub-Treasury led directly to the Federal Reserve, although the National Banking Act was a step in that direction. And, Bordewich never ponders why Congress didn’t cut straight to the chase and create the third Bank of the United States.
Oh, Lincoln’s nationwide suspension of habeas corpus in fall of 1862 did NOT, in and of itself, create martial law. A journalist should know better than that. Not all people arrested and held without release went automatically to military commissions instead of civilian courts, though that was, yes, often the case, when Lincoln did go on to declare martial law. In any case, suspension of habeas corpus by itself does not create martial law. Ex parte Milligan makes this clear.
June 17, 2020
He manages to make the Civil War boring by producing something like a diary of Congressional speeches, confusedly unanchored by dates. I did not enjoy his long quotes from poor orators. Ken Burns made diaries work on PBS, using drama. He adds an awkward interpretation to verbatim speeches and anecdotes. He quotes stupid analogies and mimics old-fashioned words (forbearance? stanching the streaming hemorrhage? hard as gutta-percha?) Our author likes the political weeds, appreciating "the subtlest parliamentary maneuver of the session" (who cares?).
Good point that Lincoln got his best ideas from Congress, in fact from the Republican Radicals, headed by abolitionists. But it is no secret that Lincoln was not anti-slavery at first until his beliefs evolved, with Congress a major influence. He shouldn't need 480 pages and all these quotes to show this.
What's good is he shows the widespread threat of traitors in the North, like Merryman, Vallandigham, McClellan (who's better understood by reading T.J.Stiles on Custer), many in Congress and much of Baltimore. Certainly understand you'd want a strategy to placate pro-slavery Democrats, but of course that couldn't last.
Surprised to hear that the Emancipation Proclamation carried "an implicit corollary: that, when feasible, emancipated blacks would be sent out of the country." The book's notes don't hold any reference nor does my reading of the Emancipation show this.
Describing McClellan, he quotes historian John Keegan who "succinctly put it, “Fearing failure, he did not try to win.” I wish our author was that good.
Good point that Lincoln got his best ideas from Congress, in fact from the Republican Radicals, headed by abolitionists. But it is no secret that Lincoln was not anti-slavery at first until his beliefs evolved, with Congress a major influence. He shouldn't need 480 pages and all these quotes to show this.
What's good is he shows the widespread threat of traitors in the North, like Merryman, Vallandigham, McClellan (who's better understood by reading T.J.Stiles on Custer), many in Congress and much of Baltimore. Certainly understand you'd want a strategy to placate pro-slavery Democrats, but of course that couldn't last.
Surprised to hear that the Emancipation Proclamation carried "an implicit corollary: that, when feasible, emancipated blacks would be sent out of the country." The book's notes don't hold any reference nor does my reading of the Emancipation show this.
Describing McClellan, he quotes historian John Keegan who "succinctly put it, “Fearing failure, he did not try to win.” I wish our author was that good.
April 12, 2020
This is a fine history of the Civil War Congress. Bordewich moves Lincoln to the background to draw a picture of a victorious war effort engineered by the Article I branch through ruthless oversight (that would fund the war and force from power lousy generals), far-sighted commitment to a future America (via transcontinental railroad, land-grant universities, a homestead act that would birth Manifest Destiny, and scores of other measures), and a moral certainty in the importance of destroying slavery. I don't know that you can really delegate Lincoln to any irrelevancy, but there is no question the 37th and 38th Congresses were stupendous achievement led by unquestionably great men like Thaddeus Stevens and Ben Wade (one of the book's largest wastes, though, is the focus on Democratic rabble-rouser and traitor Clement Vallandingham, whose saga holds little weight in the balance of the story). I read this book out of interest not just in the Civil War but for a blueprint. There no parallel for today's republican party in our history *except* the Democrats of the 1850s and the seceded states. Both seem dedicated to America's atrophy and even its destruction. And there is a lesson in these pages: Stevens saw there could be no negotiating with the CSA and that its leaders and will must be crushed. The failure of Reconstruction to follow his guidance is a lesson I carry with me if not morally, then tactically and politically today. People like Nancy Pelosi should too. 4.5/5
April 5, 2021
Important history that I wasn't taught in school. I learned a lot about how Lincoln (and a bit about how Grant) won the Civil War. But not much about how Radical Republicans in Congress did. I didn't even know what Radical Republicans were until recently...
The book focuses on four members of Congress during the Civil War: two Radical Republicans in the House, Thaddeus Stevens and Ben Wade; a moderate Republican senator, William Pitt Fessenden; and a Copperhead (anti-war) Democrat in the House, Clement Vallandingham.
Their stories show us how productive the Civil War congresses were and the controversies they had to face. Not only did those congresses manage to finance the Union war effort that skyrocketed to $3 million per day. They also passed numerous big laws that changed American life forever, creating our system of state universities, populating the West through homesteading, and supporting railroads to connect the eastern states to the Pacific Coast.
Without Radical Republicans' help, it's possible the U.S. would have lost the Civil War and never become a continental power. So their significance is huge and learning about their role should be a bigger part of history education.
The book focuses on four members of Congress during the Civil War: two Radical Republicans in the House, Thaddeus Stevens and Ben Wade; a moderate Republican senator, William Pitt Fessenden; and a Copperhead (anti-war) Democrat in the House, Clement Vallandingham.
Their stories show us how productive the Civil War congresses were and the controversies they had to face. Not only did those congresses manage to finance the Union war effort that skyrocketed to $3 million per day. They also passed numerous big laws that changed American life forever, creating our system of state universities, populating the West through homesteading, and supporting railroads to connect the eastern states to the Pacific Coast.
Without Radical Republicans' help, it's possible the U.S. would have lost the Civil War and never become a continental power. So their significance is huge and learning about their role should be a bigger part of history education.
March 31, 2020
IF you like detailed political history AND The American Civil War, then this is the book for you. Bordwich has delved into U.S House of Representatives and U.S. Senate floor speeches, diaries, letters, and other sources to give us a warts and all look at the men who served in the legislative branch during President Lincoln's administration.
Not all of them, maybe not even most of them, liked The Rail Splitter during the war. They found it infuriating when he did not blindly follow their advice on how to win the war. Some did not like his policies on what to do with the slaves; to free them or not free them. No matter what Lincoln said or did, a great number of Republican Congressmen hated what he said and did.
This is a very detailed book with quotes about race that may anger readers that they were said on the floor of the House or Senate. By quoting them, Bordewich shows that The North was not at all united on the issues of race, and was not even united on whether The South should be defeated or allowed back in the Union. This is a book that every political history junkie will want to read as soon as it arrives in the mail, or is downloaded onto a device. Get it.
Not all of them, maybe not even most of them, liked The Rail Splitter during the war. They found it infuriating when he did not blindly follow their advice on how to win the war. Some did not like his policies on what to do with the slaves; to free them or not free them. No matter what Lincoln said or did, a great number of Republican Congressmen hated what he said and did.
This is a very detailed book with quotes about race that may anger readers that they were said on the floor of the House or Senate. By quoting them, Bordewich shows that The North was not at all united on the issues of race, and was not even united on whether The South should be defeated or allowed back in the Union. This is a book that every political history junkie will want to read as soon as it arrives in the mail, or is downloaded onto a device. Get it.
July 18, 2020
Just when you think you've read (or planned to read) every worthwhile book about the Civil War, an outstanding book like this one comes along. Many of us self-taught historians of the era tend to see the events of the War through the actions of a few, much celebrated principal protagonists--Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Lee. But as crucial to the national transformation the War achieved were the lions of the Civil War Congresses, men such as Thaddeus Stevens, James Ashley, Ben Wade and Pitt Fessenden, whose political skill and moral courage were as much responsible for Union victory and the abolition of slavery as Lincoln's wisdom and Grant's tenacity. The 37th and 38th Congresses were the engine of the War's policy, politics and finances and the creators of the most far-reaching effects on our federal government and national identity as any Congress since the First Congress of 1789. This book tells their story with engaging polish and pace. Read this book if you want a deeper understanding of how the American government met the greatest crisis ever to have faced the American republic.
August 2, 2022
This is an excellent book of Civil War History for three distinct reasons.
1) It provides on overall summary of the war throughout the book, adding enough context for even the uninaugurated into Civil War history to follow its argument, its historical actors, and the events it details.
2) The book definitively rewrites the history of some key pieces of the American Civil War. First and foremost, it demonstrates how active Congress was in setting military and political policy in the war and Bordewich goes to great lengths to demonstrate that Lincoln was not the heroic figure who bore the burden of the war himself in the White House, but a political actor with cunning and cautious political instincts just like any of the Congressional politicians of his party or his rivals.
3) Bordewich offers an understandable yet still detailed account of how the Union financed the Civil War - a topic not much discussed in other master volumes of Civil War history. Through this focus, he also details how the Civil War Congresses laid the groundwork of the expansion of the Federal government and the creation of a capitalist American continential empire in the aftermath of the Civil War.
Takeaways: Congressional action in the face of a rising slave refugee crisis pushed the Union closer to emancipation than Lincoln's own Emancipation Proclamation and Congressional oversight of the war effort was not "political meddling," but rather the judicious oversight of military by civilian elected officials who had good reason to suspect Union generals of sabotaging parts of the war effort (namely, emancipation). Moreover, the Congressional view of Reconstruction shines as nothing other than the most ideal way to rebuild the Union after the Civil War, even if the practicalities of Congressional plans and Lincoln's veto of the Wade-Davis Bill left much of Reconstruction policy unresolved and unfinished throughout the late 1860s.
In addition, the way Congress wrestled with (or even ignored) the imposition of martial law to squash Confederate operatives in Union states and territories raises interesting new questions about the extent, limits, and justifiability of curbing civil liberties during times of war and national crisis.
1) It provides on overall summary of the war throughout the book, adding enough context for even the uninaugurated into Civil War history to follow its argument, its historical actors, and the events it details.
2) The book definitively rewrites the history of some key pieces of the American Civil War. First and foremost, it demonstrates how active Congress was in setting military and political policy in the war and Bordewich goes to great lengths to demonstrate that Lincoln was not the heroic figure who bore the burden of the war himself in the White House, but a political actor with cunning and cautious political instincts just like any of the Congressional politicians of his party or his rivals.
3) Bordewich offers an understandable yet still detailed account of how the Union financed the Civil War - a topic not much discussed in other master volumes of Civil War history. Through this focus, he also details how the Civil War Congresses laid the groundwork of the expansion of the Federal government and the creation of a capitalist American continential empire in the aftermath of the Civil War.
Takeaways: Congressional action in the face of a rising slave refugee crisis pushed the Union closer to emancipation than Lincoln's own Emancipation Proclamation and Congressional oversight of the war effort was not "political meddling," but rather the judicious oversight of military by civilian elected officials who had good reason to suspect Union generals of sabotaging parts of the war effort (namely, emancipation). Moreover, the Congressional view of Reconstruction shines as nothing other than the most ideal way to rebuild the Union after the Civil War, even if the practicalities of Congressional plans and Lincoln's veto of the Wade-Davis Bill left much of Reconstruction policy unresolved and unfinished throughout the late 1860s.
In addition, the way Congress wrestled with (or even ignored) the imposition of martial law to squash Confederate operatives in Union states and territories raises interesting new questions about the extent, limits, and justifiability of curbing civil liberties during times of war and national crisis.
July 15, 2024
A good book, providing a history of the U.S. Congress during the Civil War. The author, popular historian Fergus Bordewich, concentrates this history on the 37th and 38th Congresses, from 1861 to 1865. He focuses on significant individuals such as Stephens, Wade, Fessenden, and Vallandigham, though many other members are discussed throughout the book. Bordewich takes an unapologetic partisan view, emphasizing how the Radical Republicans used their oversight and legislative powers to push forward the Party’s abolitionist and national development agendas, as well as prodding for a more effective war effort, against a sometimes reluctant and cautious Lincoln. The author does not center the story in Washington, referencing the wider situation throughout the North to explain how partisan and dangerous the war years were. Bordewich argues that the efforts of Congress played a significant role in both enabling the successful defeat of the rebellion and setting the foundation for America’s economic growth in the decades that followed. A great book for understanding the political dimensions of the Civil War.
April 19, 2020
Good, but infected by modern politics
This book provides a solid general overview of Congressional action during the Civil War but, like much written on this subject in recent years, it falls down somewhat to the degree to which it allows modern politics to bleed into its analysis. This is epitomized, for example, by the book’s repeated use of the word “Negrophobic” to describe anti-black actions or politicians, with the insertion of such a blatant anachronism distracting readers.
I think that it is also, in common with much contemporary writing, wrong in assuming that the radicals stood just one triumph away from realizing their vision, a viewpoint which ignores many of the practical political realities of Reconstruction in terms of what both Northern and Southern voters were likely to tolerate over any long duration of time. This is notable in his selection of viewpoint characters, it would have been helpful, for example, to follow the career of a border state Unionist.
This book provides a solid general overview of Congressional action during the Civil War but, like much written on this subject in recent years, it falls down somewhat to the degree to which it allows modern politics to bleed into its analysis. This is epitomized, for example, by the book’s repeated use of the word “Negrophobic” to describe anti-black actions or politicians, with the insertion of such a blatant anachronism distracting readers.
I think that it is also, in common with much contemporary writing, wrong in assuming that the radicals stood just one triumph away from realizing their vision, a viewpoint which ignores many of the practical political realities of Reconstruction in terms of what both Northern and Southern voters were likely to tolerate over any long duration of time. This is notable in his selection of viewpoint characters, it would have been helpful, for example, to follow the career of a border state Unionist.
May 18, 2020
Picked this up as a balance to Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln and it's Great Man version of history, which in this case is very deserved. I was both surprised how much behind the scenes stuff about Lincoln was removed (cause congress wouldn't know it) and also how much Congress was ignored in Rivals. Still, loved the personalities that Bordewich brings to life from Vallandigham and Stevens to Wade. Did much to make me look at Reconstruction in a different light, even if not more positively.
February 19, 2022
What a great read!
I have read many American Civil War books and this has probably been one of my favorites. Filled with smooth flowing quotations from every side of the argument: be it the suspension of habeas corpus, emancipation, suffrage, various aspects of financing the war effort (taxation, printing money, borrowing, bonds, etc.), how to treat the States attempting secession before, during and after the war, Reconstruction, the President and his Presidency, war powers, etc.; this book kept my attention in every page.
So often books filled with information get lost in the same. Bordewich did a great job limiting his bias for each character and allowing the good and bad to come forth for both Hero and Antagonist.
This will go on my, "Would read again" list.
I have read many American Civil War books and this has probably been one of my favorites. Filled with smooth flowing quotations from every side of the argument: be it the suspension of habeas corpus, emancipation, suffrage, various aspects of financing the war effort (taxation, printing money, borrowing, bonds, etc.), how to treat the States attempting secession before, during and after the war, Reconstruction, the President and his Presidency, war powers, etc.; this book kept my attention in every page.
So often books filled with information get lost in the same. Bordewich did a great job limiting his bias for each character and allowing the good and bad to come forth for both Hero and Antagonist.
This will go on my, "Would read again" list.
April 13, 2020
In most accounts of the Civil War, one hears about the Lincoln administration, or the battles fought, or the home fronts. But there have not, until this masterful work, been many works that focused on the actions of Congress during those tumultuous years.
Fergus points out some of the famous and not-so-famous legislation and men (unfortunately, they were all men) that made the Civil War Congresses stand out.
Fergus points out some of the famous and not-so-famous legislation and men (unfortunately, they were all men) that made the Civil War Congresses stand out.
March 31, 2021
The American Civil War is one of my favorite periods of history, but most of my knowledge before reading this book pertained more to the battles and elements of actual combat; I knew next to nothing about the political struggle going on behind the scenes in Washington. This book was well written, informational, and provided a clear and well-detailed thesis through which to assess the role of both Congress and Abraham Lincoln from 1861 - 1865. Really enjoyed this book!
March 28, 2020
Lively, fascinating, filled with interesting and significant characters whose collective activity in Congress shaped the outcome of the Civil War. Don't miss this, Mr. Bordewich's eighth book of American history. (But full disclosure: The author is my husband and I've read and loved every one of his fabulous books!)
September 2, 2020
This is a fantastic idea for a book that is well executed. The narrative primarily (but not exclusively) follows four congressmen: three Republicans, one Democrat. Their colorful quotes are what makes this narrative sing. I particularly enjoyed seeing their reactions to the shifting course of the war.
April 23, 2020
Political history of high quality. This book highlights the careers of several important congressmen during the civil crisis of the 1860's. A thoughtful narrative not to be missed by readers of U.S. history.
December 31, 2021
Never realized ,until this book, how fractious and important the role of congress was in winning the Civil War. An important read for anyone interested in U.S. history. But be prepared for an unvarnished treatment of the worst aspects of the American culture of that time which still echoes today.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews