that a society could be ‘evil’ because of differences inits ideology” (158). It is an intriguing claim but one

that relies on the belief that children unquestioninglyinternalize the messages fed to them. Although Kor-

das does at times usefully incorporate the voices ofthe era’s children in order to demonstrate how suc-

cessfully dominant ideologies were inculcated, herfocus is primarily on adult-authored texts, many of

which are so transparent in their didacticism that itseems difficult to imagine that they were consumedwithout skepticism and resistance. Her emphasis on

classroom films is particularly problematic: thisreviewer remembers rolling her eyes at the ham-fisted

moralizing of such films, even in elementary school.Perhaps Baby Boomer dissent against Cold War ideals

occurred not because children had been so welltrained in its ideology but because they had tired of

the training itself.

–-Karen J. Renner

Northern Arizona University

The Politics of Faith during the Civil WarTimothy L. Wesley. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State

University Press, 2013.

In the midst of the various memorials and com-

memorations of the Civil War, one expects a multitudeof books on various aspects of the war and the culture

surrounding it. With exceptions like George C. Rable’sGod’s Almost Chosen Peoples: A Religious History of

the Civil War (2010), most recent scholarly work hasexamined the importance of religion in the lives of sol-

diers and has all but overlooked the role of religiousrhetoric on the home front. Timothy L. Wesley, how-

ever, delivers an engaging book-length study, The Poli-tics of Faith during the Civil War, that details andexamines the rhetorical practices of the clergy, their

national organizations, and their congregations.The introduction acknowledges many of the

study’s limits, including a lack of attention to Judaismbecause of a dearth of records and archival materials.

The introduction also states the book’s purpose, help-ing readers orient themselves more fully to the parame-

ters of Wesley’s study: “This book chronicles andassesses the efforts of civil and church authorities tocontrol and/or censor the political behavior of wartime

ministers and the ways in which those efforts werereceived or resisted by Americans in the pews and,

even more importantly, the pulpit” (7).

The book’s arrangement eschews chronology,instead moving thematically. The first chapter delves

into Northern and Southern clergy’s reactions toslavery and related issues as the country approached

the war. Chapter 2 explores “how the war blurredthe lines between piety and politics” (32). Wesley

relies on archival records, estimating the membershipnumbers of various US Christian denominations and

quoting from and analyzing letters, opinion pieces,newsletters, sermons, and speeches. The prominenceof political rhetoric among preachers in the North

was apparent to politicians of the period, includingLincoln, and Wesley clarifies ministerial influence

over the country. A particular advantage of this textover others is its examination of both important reli-

gious figures whom history has remembered (such asPresbyterian Reverend Thomas Brainerd) and those

it has often overlooked (such as Catholic ArchbishopJohn J. Hughes).

Chapters 3 and 4 tackle connections between patri-otism and the dangers inherent in a clergyman’sappearance of disloyalty. Wesley explains these con-

cerns: “when the leading lights of wartime denomina-tionalism assembled in governing bodies, disloyalty

was the most commented-upon ministerial behavior”(76). These chapters detail specific and varied examples

of acts or speech that were considered disloyal and thepenalties such clergy faced. The research’s depth and

breadth tell a compelling story, one often omitted fromother explorations of the Civil War. The fifth chapterconsiders the debates among ministers “over the

degree to which the Christian church should, throughits ministers, involve itself in the nation’s greatest

political crisis” (94).The Confederacy receives more prominent treat-

ment in Chapters 6 and 7. First, Wesley investigatesthe role of clergy in the nation-building of the South;

this was especially important because even seeingthemselves as separate from the North “did not make

it easy for them to abandon old loyalties” (122).Preachers helped cultivate Confederate loyalty early,and Wesley helps readers understand “the role that

preachers continued to play in the political lives ofsoutherners away from the battlefront but nevertheless

under the gun” (142 emphasis in original). The sectiondetails the lives of ministers who found themselves

jailed and/or tortured for either speaking against theConfederacy or for failing to speak out in support of it.

Wesley’s analysis in these chapters adds more depth toan already solid argument.

Book Reviews 371

Finally, the eighth chapter explores the roles ofBlack church leaders. The most important contribu-

tion in this portion of the book is research into the“virtually limitless collective African American politi-

cal future” and the divisions among them regarding“some of the key political issues of the day, issues

such as colonization and military enlistments” (169).He argues, “black clergymen of the war and immedi-

ate postwar years were every bit the equals of whitechurch leaders in their political abilities, their politi-cal significance, and yes, their political differences as

well” (193).The book will appeal to a wide audience. In each

chapter, Wesley brings in scholarship from those fewacademics who have explored similar projects about

religion and its influence before and during the CivilWar. While filling in important gaps in the scholarship,

the book presents a compelling picture of the role ofreligious rhetoric in the lives of citizens and politicians.

–-Robin Gray Nicks

University of Tennessee at Knoxville

Presidents and the Dissolution of the

Union: Leadership Style from Polk to

LincolnFred I. Greenstein. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press, 2013.

Leadership is something innate—although individ-ual abilities can be developed, the capacity to set an

example to others cannot be taught. Good leadershipnot only determines the future of entire nations but canchange people’s outlook on life. This is as true in politics

as in other spheres—education, industry, or sport.Fred L. Greenstein’s Presidents and the Dissolution

of the Union offers an invaluable guide for anyone inter-ested in the do’s and don’ts of leadership. He surveys

the careers of six presidents—James K. Polk, ZacharyTaylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Bucha-

nan, and Abraham Lincoln—and assesses their perfor-mances during a time of profound social and political

upheaval. Greenstein’s style is accessible with a mini-mum of scholarly apparatus; the result is a highly enter-taining text that can be devoured at one sitting.

James K. Polk had considerable advantages—hewas a strong personality with an ability to get things

done. On the other hand he lacked foresight: many ofhis territorial acquisitions provoked a hail of criticism

that came to a head in the Civil War (14). A born com-municator, Polk was one of the first presidents to out-

line his policies in an administration newspaper, eventhough he remained blissfully unaware of some of their

possible outcomes. Polk might have benefited fromgreater consultation, but this was not his way; he was

an obsessive who quite literally worked himself todeath. He passed away only four months after leaving

office (27).A career soldier, Zachary Taylor lacked the ability

to communicate with his colleagues or with the people

in general. He had a violent temper, which did notendear him to anyone at a time when consummate

political skill was called for to manage the country’saffairs (40). His lack of education counted against him;

at times he was taciturn when he should have been vol-uble; on other occasions he made pronouncements

when silence might have been more prudent. MillardFillmore was almost entirely the opposite kind of char-

acter—an efficient organizer and problem-solver whoquickly learned about things he did not previouslyknow. Although described by contemporary commen-

tators as “stolid, bland, and conventional,” he nonethe-less handled any crises—such as the Texas/New

Mexico border conflict—with aplomb (55). Greensteinbelieves that Franklin Pierce was a “gregarious nonen-

tity” (59), proclaiming his devotion to the Union butentirely devoid of purpose. Eventually his party

rejected him, and he retired after one term to his farmin New Hampshire. James Buchanan’s term of officeproved equally disastrous. Four of his cabinet mem-

bers were Southern shareholders; two were Northern-ers sympathetic to the South; and the final member

was too old to be of any use. Both verbose and pedan-tic, Buchanan had little understanding of the nation;

nor did he embrace any real policy goals. Whenever acrisis arose, he was apt to take to his bed.

Much has been written about Lincoln’s leadershipqualities. Greenstein is full of praise for his communi-

cative skills, his vision for the nation (as embodied inthe Gettysburg Address), and his mastery of politicalchicanery. He could outmaneuver his rivals without

alienating them (108). Lincoln’s only real blind spotwas his view of race; while detesting slavery and show-

ing no signs of racial prejudice against African Ameri-cans, he did believe that the best solution for

emancipated slaves was for them to colonize anotherterritory (109).

The book ends with an assessment of all six presi-dents’ merits and demerits. Lincoln was by far and

372 Book Reviews