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

BOOK reviews357 serving definition of U.S. interests as not only contrary to European commercial dominance but also synonymous with local development needs; and 4) the difficulties the U.S. faced in dealing with the anti-Americanism that logically followed such self-indulgent rationalizing. Readers of this journal will probably find of greatest interest Schoonover's descriptions of Southern diplomats and his statistics on Gulf Coast trade with Central America, rather than his appendix attacking the U.S. "exceptionalist " tradition and the historiography on the King Cotton question. Indeed, while one recognizes that the strength of traditionalist, consensual, and exceptionalist tendencies within U.S. diplomatic historiography require direct attack, the author is given to repeating the same points within several of the different chapters or episodes. Virtually no Latin American historian would doubt the reality of what the author calls "social imperialism" (the export of both surplus goods and people to relieve domestic crises) and "imperial rivalry " (an inability to recognize the imperialist distortions one's own society brings to a client state, while denouncing similar intent on the part of one's rivals; the basis of both policymakers' delusions and the naively "exceptionalist " tradition). However, the frequent repetition of these claims/passages suggests quite the contrary in U.S. diplomatic history circles, at least according to Schoonover. Central Americanists will await the promised monographs on U.S., French, and German commercial relations with the region. While these case studies are of considerable interest, the author has a deserved reputation for archival and statistical detail that can only be glimpsed here in passing in a more traditionally "diplomatic" history, albeit one based on research in at least four languages and nearly a dozen countries on both sides of the Atlantic . Indeed, Schoonover's language and archival competencies are perhaps more powerful challenges to and indictments ofthe "exceptionalist" school of monolingual and State Department/presidential papers-based work than any of his more theoretical broadsides. Lowell Gudmundson Mount Holyoke College Peddlers and Post Traders: The Army Sutler on the Frontier. By David Michael DeIo. (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1992. Pp. 274. $29.95.) Recent developments in the writing of military history have greatly broadened the scope of the field. Historians have been encouraged to consider in greater detail than ever before the complex relations between military institutions and the rest of society. David Michael DeIo, an independent scholar living in LoIo, Montana, has taken advantage of this widening interest to produce a survey history of the sutler or post trader in the U.S. Army. Although Delo's emphasis is on the sutler's service to the military, he also shows the 358 civil war history sutler's influence on western development generally, especially in the postCivil War era. In a straightforward chronological narrative, DeIo traces the development of the sutler from the impromptu arrangements associated with the colonial militia to the demise of the institution as a result of the army assuming the responsibility for the services provided by the institution. Some constants endured throughout the formal changes in the relation between the sutler and the army. Among these were the importance of influence, political or monetary , in securing appointments as sutlers or traders; the possibility of astute businessmen using their position to amass large fortunes; and the dependence of the officers and men on the sutler to provide goods and services not otherwise available. DeIo illustrates each stage of the development of the sutler with case histories that lend a human aspect to what could have been a dull institutional history. In his introduction, the author suggests that part of his intent is to rehabilitate the reputation ofthe sutler, who was often viewed as taking advantage ofhis monopolistic position to gouge his soldier customers. Nevertheless, the author seems unable to make up his mind on this issue. For example, he begins his chapter on the Civil War sutler by declaring it to be "a tale of greed that was fed by opportunity" (103) but concludes that the sutler "was no agent of the devil" (138). Delo's writing is generally straightforward and easy to read, although he occasionally lapses into obscurity. Personally, I wish he had...

pdf

Share