The Army in Texas During Reconstruction, 1865-1870 (review)

362CIVIL WAR HISTORY why works were included or excluded. In addition, citations from contemporary newspapers seem oflittleuse. Murdock rejected avariety of sources, such as dissertations and obscure journals. With interlibrary loan available to most people interested in these topics, this does not seem a valid reason to exclude items. Both of these bibliographies can be helpful to readers interested in the literature on their topics. Murdock's bibliography fills a gap for students of the Civil War, but would have been much more useful if the annotations had been more analytical, the scope of sources broader, and the subject index more complete. Davis and Hill's work is a pioneering attempt , but is hurt by the lack of annotations and the inclusion of newspaper articles. The appendices are useless and the space would better have been utilized with a good subject index. Theseworks demonstrate some of the possible flaws in published bibliographies . They can serve as object lessons to those interested in producing the needed new works in these fields. Marvin E. Fletcher Ohio University The Army in Texas During Reconstruction, 1865-1870. By William L. Richter. (College Station, Texas: Texas A & M University Press, 1987. Pp. 280. $28.50.) From the time that Federal troops, under the command of General Gordon Granger, first entered Texas following the Civil War until the full restoration of civil government, on March 31, 1870, the United States Army played a pervasive and critical role in the reconstruction of the Lone Star State. During its five years as the primary arm of the Federal government in Texas, the army engaged in such diverse activities as freeing the slaves (done by Granger's famous proclamation of June 19, 1865), protecting the freedmen and white Unionists from the assaults of irate white conservatives , educating blacks and overseeing their reentry into the economic system, holding court for civilians in cases where justice in the civil court system was doubtful, restoring the political process, and battling Indians on the frontier. Until the passage of the Reconstruction Acts of 1867, most of the generals in charge of the District ofTexas tended to follow a conciliatory approach, seeking to work with Governor James Throckmorton and other state officials, while, at the same time, providing a degree of protection for the freedmen. These tactics failed to win acceptance of the army's role by recalcitrant white "disloyalists," however, and a constant state of tension existed between the Yankee troops and most of the white populace. As the author's statistics show, the army was unable to reduce the BOOK REVIEWS363 number of violent crimes committed against blacks and Unionist politicians . Although there were more troops in Texas than in any other exConfederate state, most were stationed on the frontier, and there were never enough soldiers in the interior to impede the determined antiNegro measures of the Ku Klux Klan and groups like it. Nor was the army able to create political stability in the Lone Star State. Between 1867 and 1870 Generals Griffin and J. J. Reynolds were able to ensure Republican political dominanceby removinglargenumbers of Conservative politicians from office and by strictly controlling the election machinery . Nevertheless, they could not bring harmony to the state's Republican party, which split over such issues as ab initio, the possible division of Texas into two or more states, and cooperation with the Conservatives . Thanks to the intervention of the army on their behalf, E. J. Davis and his Radical cohorts were able to defeat the Moderate Republican faction (led by A. J. Hamilton) and assume power in 1870, but in the fractious battle that allowed this ascendancy lay the seeds for eventual defeat. This study of the army's rolein Texas' Reconstruction has been a long time in the making (it was originally written as a doctoral dissertation at Louisiana State University in 1970), but it is a worthy addition to the lengthening list of Reconstruction studies. The author, William L. Richter , has thoroughly mined the abundant archival material on his subject and, while not neglecting the most pertinent secondary works, has leaned most heavily upon these primary sources. One might quibble with the narrow focus of the book: there is little effort...