Reviewed by:

• The Political Thought of the Civil War by ed. by Alan Levine, Thomas M. Merrill, and James R. Stoner Jr.
• Matthew Warshauer

In the midst of the Civil War sesquicentennial commemoration, I attended a talk delivered by the legendary historian James McPherson and asked if he saw parallels between the partisanship of the Civil War era and that which was rapidly developing in contemporary America. He didn't. I disagreed with him then and continue to do so. The introduction to this edited volume speaks directly to those parallels: "Twenty-first-century America feels cleaved by mistrust; is keenly aware of divisions along lines of political identity, class, and race; and is skeptical of the political and cultural institutions that are supposed to bring us together" (2).

In making such statements, the editors want readers to see the parallels between the war and contemporary America. "Why does the war still speak to us?" they ask. Because it was a "genuinely constitutional moment." There is little question about this fact, but it is equally true that the war speaks to Americans on many levels that go far beyond constitutional issues. Indeed, many who are devoted to the war outside of the academy do not focus primarily on the politics or the big ideological questions.

Nonetheless, many of us who have devoted our careers to studying America's greatest conflict do focus on ideology and the Constitution. It will, then, come as something of a surprise that the editors explain they and the authors are taking a "deliberative approach" in which they are "taking seriously"—these words are used three times in the space of a page—"the political thought of the Civil War … the explanations and arguments made by the political actors as they tried to justify their actions." The volume is setting "aside the morality-play version of the war" (4–5).

My immediate reaction was disbelief. I thought political historians had been for decades taking the words of the political actors seriously. Such statements immediately prompted me to flip to the back of the book and better understand the backgrounds of the editors, two of whom are in the Political Theory Institute in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, DC. All are political scientists.

They explain further in the introduction that their rationale contrasts with "the historical approach and the philosophical one," the former of which "understand[s] [End Page 143] the past as it was and not as we might like it to be, whereas the task of the philosopher is to seek universal truths, especially about morality and politics" (5). Ultimately, the various authors' goal "is to ponder the practical dilemmas our thinkers faced and to assess the theoretical principles they asserted in the course of responding to those dilemmas." Again, I think political historians have been doing this for a long time.

The editors then dovetail into a discussion of Civil War historiography, focusing on the work of historians who have shed light on our understanding of the conflict's most pressing political, ideological, and racial issues. The book's varying chapters, many of which are written by distinguished authors, largely do the same. They deal with questions and histories that have been wrestled with for years. To this end, historians will not find a vast number of new conclusions.

What they will find, however, are a series of well-written, thought-provoking essays that are excellent single-chapter synopses of some of the big theoretical and ideological struggles in which the political actors of the war engaged and, importantly, what historians have said about them. This is a valuable contribution to the literature, especially for upper-level undergraduates and graduate students, who will be presented with concise, very readable accounts that blend philosophy, politics, and natural rights ideology.

Readers are also given the opportunity to ponder the past and the present. The editors are intrigued by the idea of "regime" legitimacy and the...

审核人：

• 内战的政治思想由ed。由Alan Levine，Thomas M.Merrill和James R.Stoner Jr.
• 马修·沃肖尔（Matthew Warshauer）

在南北战争成立一百周年纪念中，我参加了传奇历史学家詹姆斯·麦克弗森（James McPherson）的演讲，并询问他是否看到南北战争时代的游击党派与当代美国迅速发展的游牧党派之间存在相似之处。他没有。然后，我不同意他的意见，并继续这样做。这本经编辑的书的引言直接说明了这些相似之处：“二十一世纪的美国因不信任而分裂；敏锐地意识到政治身份，阶级和种族之间的分歧；并对政治和文化制度持怀疑态度应该将我们团结在一起”（2）。

在发表这样的声明时，编辑们希望读者看到战争与当代美国之间的相似之处。“为什么战争仍然对我们说话？” 他们问。因为那是一个“真正的宪法时刻”。对此事实几乎没有疑问，但战争在许多层面上都与美国人对话，这远远超出了宪法问题，这同样是事实。的确，许多致力于学院以外战争的人并没有把重点主要放在政治或重大意识形态问题上。

尽管如此，我们中许多致力于研究美国最大冲突的人的确专注于意识形态和宪法。然后，令人惊讶的是，编辑们解释说他们和作者正在采取一种“审慎的方法”，在这种方法中，他们正在“认真对待”-这些单词在一页的空间中被使用了三遍-“内战的政治思想……政治参与者在试图证明自己的行为辩护时所作的解释和论点。” 该卷正在“搁置战争的道德玩法版本”（4-5）。

我立即的反应是难以置信。我认为政治历史学家几十年来一直认真对待政治行为者的言论。这样的陈述立即促使我跳到书的后面，并更好地了解了编辑的背景，其中两名在华盛顿特区美国大学公共事务学院的政治理论研究所工作。所有人都是政治科学家。

他们在导言中进一步解释说，他们的理论依据与“历史方法和哲学方法”形成对比，后者“理解[结束] [第143页]过去是过去的，而不是我们想要的那样，而哲学家的任务是寻求普遍真理，尤其是关于道德和政治的真理”（5）。最终，各作者的目标是“思考我们的思想家所面临的实际困境，并评估他们在应对这些困境的过程中所主张的理论原理。” 同样，我认为政治历史学家已经做了很长时间了。

然后，编辑们卷入了内战史学的讨论中，重点讨论了历史学家的工作，这些史学家阐明了我们对冲突最紧迫的政治，思想和种族问题的理解。这本书的各个章节，其中许多都是由杰出的作者撰写的，大部分都遵循相同的原则。他们处理多年来困扰的问题和历史。为此，历史学家将不会找到大量的新结论。

然而，他们会发现一系列写得很好，发人深省的论文，是一些重大的政治和意识形态斗争的极好的单章概要，战争的政治参与者参与其中，而且重要的是历史学家说了他们。这是对文学的宝贵贡献，特别是对高年级的本科生和研究生而言，他们将获得简洁易读的，结合了哲学，政治和自然权利意识形态的论述。

读者也有机会思考过去和现在。编辑对“政权”合法性的想法以及...