Reconstruction and Redemption in the South (review)

BOOK REVIEWS79 the freedmen. And these, the Republicans were, with good reason, concerned to rectify. But this is a minor lapse, attributable primarily to the author's determination to see Johnson on his own terms rather than judge him. Otherwise, Sefton's Johnson is a finely crafted and convincing analysis, the best biography to date. Michael Perman University of Illinois at Chicago Circle Reconstruction and Redemption in the South. Edited by Otto H. Olsen. (Baton Rouge and London: Louisiana State University Press, 1980. Pp. 250. $17.50.) This is a collection of six essays, each of which deals with political Reconstruction in a postbellum southern state. Jerrell H. Shofner writes on Florida, Sarah Woolfolk Wiggins on Alabama, William C. Harris on Mississippi, Jack P. Maddex, Jr., on Virginia, Otto H. Olsen on North CaroUna, and Joe Gray Taylor on Louisiana. As is usually the case with such collections, some essays are stronger than others—this reviewer was especially impressed with Maddex's piece—but all the authors are experts who havepreviously written state studies ofReconstruction, and each is able to build on his or her previous work to present a concise summary of political developments. Each also provides a brief, up-todate bibliographical essay. Although there are differences among these essays—some of the authors see Reconstruction as doomed to failure while others feel that more daring strategies might haveproduced Republican success—what is most striking are their similarities. Methodologically, they are all conservative. The authors resort to no quantification, models, or political science theory to tell their stories, which arelargely descriptive. As a result, unlike recent studies of Reconstruction politics in the North, these essays seem curiously out of phase with the main thrust of modern political history. Thematic similarities are also apparent. All the authors portray Reconstruction as "an abject failure" (p. 205). All insist that, despite the usual term "Radical Reconstruction," Reconstruction was not in fact very radical. Indeed, four of the authors argue that there was precious little difference between RepubUcans and Democrats. Republicans "differed Uttle in their racial and economic ideas from their native white Conservative-Democratic opponents," writes Shofner (p. 13); "Democrats and RepubUcans in Alabama were in many respects far more alike than different, and neither party had a corner on virtue or vice," agrees Wiggins (p. 47); Louisiana whites "were Republicans primarily because they were opportunists," explains Taylor (p. 222). Perhaps so, but a certain amount of skepticism concerning this new 80civil war history consensus would seem in order. While Reconstruction may not appear very radical from a modern perspective, surely the commitment to equal civil and political rights did in an era less than a decade removed from slavery. (The term "Radical Republican," one must remember, was not invented by modern historians.) And while it is true that the most radical politicians were in a small minority among Republicans, this hardly means that there was no substantive difference between the two major parties. Most white Republicans shared at least some of the racist assumptions that prevailed in the nineteenth century, but the Republican party everywhere supported minimal guarantees of civil rights and everywhere encouraged black political participation—if for no other reason than its dependence for survival on black votes. Except perhaps in Virginia, where as Maddex shows political alignments were atypical, Democrats everywhere resisted such guarantees and participation and when necessary engaged in a violent campaign of terrorism to undo them. Recollection ofwhat happened in the southern states after the overthrow of Reconstruction governments should be sufficient to dispel the notion of Repubhcan and Democratic identity. This volume is useful for a number of reasons. It contains concise summaries of political Reconstruction in six southern states; itfacilitates comparison among those states; and it provides a good guide to prevaiUng historical views of southern Reconstruction. At the same time, most of these essays are methodologically traditional, conceptually unanalytical, and thematically debatable. Although all of them are solid works by experts, they indicate the degree to which the political history of southern Reconstruction is still a field in its infancy. Peter Kolchin University of New Mexico The Saints and the Union: Utah Territory During the CivilWar. By E. B. Long. (Urbana: University...