In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

184CIVIL WAR HISTORY bül, properly noting that substantively it differed remarkably little from Lincoln's December, 1863, statement, and that after all it did not result in party cleavage. Further, his political analysis marks how wartime Reconstruction diminished not all the vitality of states. No blueprint for a centralized Leviathan issued. Instead, astonishingly swiftly, wartime Reconstruction educated northern voters and legislators to the need of enlarging equality of men in state law, as a factor of müitary conquest and occupation, and as a necessary condition for keeping the Union together. He compellingly and convincingly describes how this great expansion of Unionists' horizons grew to be the dominant party's judgment, and, as we know, the nation's commitment , however temporary. Further to justify the Beveridge Prize he received, Professor BeIz makes clearer why in 1861 the Army was the only American institution that could develop techniques and amass talent appropriate to the myriad, unforeseeable problems known as Reconstruction. He makes a sharp division—too sharp in my judgment—between institutional and administrative capacities to cope with these problems, and the constitutionalism that allowed new institutions such as the Freedmen 's Bureau, opportunities to cope (245-246). But this is a matter of stress. More important, Professor BeIz substantively accepts the fact that the Civil War's crucible temporarily melted the anti-institutionalism of the Age of Jackson, so that, for a while at least, it separates sharply from Lincoln's time. And most important, he perceives clearly that when Lee surrendered, the price of swift Reconstruction was not Negro equality but equality before law for all men, with respect to law's very limited purposes and functions. Professor Belz's Reconstructing the Union has advanced the frontier of scholarship. His book will be a new base for continuing explorations of its complex central theme. Harold M. Hyman Rice University Losing the Peace: Georgia Republicans and Reconstruction, 18651871 . By Elizabeth Studley Nathans. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1968. Pp. xii, 268. $8.00.) Elizabeth Nathans has provided us with a well researched and clearly written account of the rise and fall of the Republican party in Georgia. Following the passage of the Reconstruction Acts of 1867, a Republican party emerged in Georgia that primarily catered to the black freedmen and the white yeomanry, whüe also attracting a variety of important practical-minded or business-minded supporters. In succeeding elections , this party elected a majority to the convention rewriting the state's constitution, and then won a very narrow control of the first Re- BOOK REVIEWS185 construction state government. Despite this success, Republicans were plagued by a factionalism that achieved its most crucial expression when moderate Republicans joined in ousting all black legislators from the General Assembly, thus immediately delivering the state back into the hands of the Democratic opposition. This display of racism, together with Georgia's rejection of Grant in the presidential election of 1868, provoked a federal reintervention that brought about the reseating of the ousted black legislators and the restoration of a tenuous Republican control. The Republicans remained plagued by factionalism, whüe a revived and powerful Democratic party brought a final end to Republican power in the election of 1870. The major contribution of this volume consists of the new information and analysis that it brings to bear on the preceding political developments . The discussion of the years prior to 1867 is disappointingly skimpy. In addition, it is the provocative, central theme of this study that die Republicans could have done better if they had been more moderate, that there existed in Georgia the possibility of creating a moderate Republicanism that could have gained majority support, sustained itself without federal assistance, and initiated "a program of economic and social development for the state similar to that advanced by Henry Grady in the 1880's and urged by Atlanta business men in the twentieth century." This thesis obviously provides a stimulating contrast to other recent assertions that greater radicalism, on the federal or state level, could have furthered radical Republican success. Whüe it may be true that a more moderate Republicanism would have brought greater strength, Mrs. Nathans neither makes a convincing case...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 184-186
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.