The House: The History of the House of Representatives Paperback – October 2, 2007

A few months ago, I read The Most Exclusive Club, Lewis Gould's history of the modern U.S. Senate. When I saw that a book about the House of Representatives was coming out, I knew that it would be a good companion piece to Gould's book. Then I saw it was by Robert Remini, the fabulous biographer of Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay and Daniel Webster and knew that this book was a must-read. And though Remini has expanded beyond the Jacksonian era he has specialized in, he has still written a great book.Naturally enough, Remini starts at the beginning of the House in 1789. In the early going, the institution was trying to define itself and its role in the government. With travel to the capital so difficult (first in New York, then Philadelphia and finally Washington), it wasn't surprising that most Congressmen served only a couple terms. Although there were big names in the first Congresses (such as James Madison), few stood out for their actual work in the institution. That would come with the next generation in the early 1800s: Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun would thrust the House into greater prominence. Clay in particular is something of a star, transforming the Speakership into a position of power.In the tug of war between Congress and the Presidency, first one side would have the advantage, then the other, but in the antebellum era, the legislative branch probably had the edge overall. Unfortunately, as regional differences grew greater, the level of debate got lower and sometimes even descended into violence. Nonetheless, Remini has even less good to say about the post-Civil War House, which was ineffective and filled with corruption. In the 20th century, probably the greatest single development was the rise of the perpetual politician; Congressmen (and eventually Congresswomen) began serving for decades instead of just a few sessions. As a result, seniority came to be a big issue, and the South (where representatives were rarely ousted) came to dominate committees and clog up legislation, particularly on civil rights. Eventually, some of this would be cleaned up, but new issues would rise as Congress entered the present era, as the members became constant campaigners and more media-savvy.Essentially, within 500 pages, we get a history of the United States from the perspective of the House of Representatives. In addition, in appendices, we get lists of all the Speakers and Congressional leaders as well as sergeants-at-arms and other positions as well as other miscellaneous information. Overall, Remini retains objectivity, even with more recent politics. For example, while he is critical of Newt Gingrich for making reducing civility in the House, this is not a criticism of Gingrich's politics but rather his behavior. Remini has plenty of good and bad to say about both Republicans and Democrats. This is one reason that his book is better than Gould's decent but sometimes slanted book; another reason is that Remini is just a better writer. This is a great book by a great writer and highly recommended for those who enjoy reading American history.

This text was actually a required one for one of my political science classes, but it was a very enjoyable and detailed history of the Congress that we all have all come to know and hate. Great book.

This book is rather informative. I'm only a few chapters into it, but I would say that so far it is something that should be required reading in high schools across America. In reading this book, one not only learns about the House of Representatives in Congress, but about its interplay with the Senate and the Executive Branch. The hallmark of a good book is that it contextualizes issues for the reader. This book, so far, meets that standard.

Great, in depth and informative.

Robert Remini does the almost impossible job of making a thorough history of an important institution into highly interesting reading. Not an easy task. Remini brings the House alive full of its many characters in over two hundred and forty plus years of existence. Whether a casual or serious student of American politics, you will gain a deeper appreciation of what makes Congress tick. I highly recommend.

Robert Remini was a distinguished historian, but I am not even sure he wrote this book. Its chapters are so different in style and substance from each other that it reads as if a group of graduate students wrote it. It is also filled with mistakes of fact and emphasis that Professor Remini would not have made. For example, in discussing the praise-worthy actions of House Speaker James G. Blaine, Remini offers the following: "On one occasion when Ben Butler of Massachusetts attempted to sneak a bill through the house to force Southern states to permit blacks to vote, Blaine presided 'in full evening dress," having been summoned from a dinner party, to defeat Butler's scheme. The session lasted from 7:30 in the evening until 4:00 the following afternoon and, according to one report, Blaine never once left his post, except for a moment during the calling of the roll, which could not be interrupted by any member. Food and refreshments were brought to his desk to help sustain him, and Butler's force bill was rejected." Remini is praising Blaine's efforts to keep black folks from voting. Somehow, that surprises me, based on what I know about Professor Remini (whom I never met). There are many, many errors of fact in the book, to the point where one cannot rely upon it at all. A sad effort, indeed.

I have to say, that given the scope of the subject, Robert Remini has done a very good job in detailing the history of the House of Representatives. However, even with all of the information that was in it, I had to fight through large sections of it. Every few years, the House rules were changed and Remini examines them in depth. Sometimes this is important in explaining the rise and fall of the prominence of the Speaker, but a lot of it could have been streamlined. Also, the House is made to look somewhat better than it probably is. Remini probably felt he had to burnish their image by only reluctantly going into a couple of the scandals that emerged from the House. Individual members might have been unpleasant, but the institution always is made to look good. Even the feud over the compromise of 1850 that almost shut the government down is made to look a more like a mild disagreement. Given the cast of characters (and many of these representatives truly are characters), I feel like the people that made up the House were frequently given a passing nod. Only a handful of representatives are profiled and most, no matter their impact on events, are ignored completely in comparison to the examination of conflicts over the rules.