Southern Agriculture During the Civil War Era, 1860-1880 (review)

BOOK REVIEWS343 how the Civil War has lasted in our consciences and been blurred into a need for grasping its meaning for this country today. It is there in the meaning for this country that the historian must ask about the uses of literature, or at least how it is used in this volume, for historical discovery. Uneven in quality, a number of these stories are uneven also in perspective and partisanship, The vast majority (only three concern the North) are about the Confederacy thus bias the reader's sense of what that war meant to the entire country. Too, the tone of many of them go from personal to ironic, with little room for the war's impact on character. Yet character, individual and group, under the crucible ofthat horrible test of human fortitude, is what should come through in works of fiction. Of course, at times it does But mainly the reader is left shocked by the mayhem of that first of modern wars where military might so exceeded the means of individuals to fight. Yet, for all the Confederate bias and preoccupation with bloodshed, there are insights in a number of these stories of which the editor no doubt is unaware but which do add to the historian's understanding of those times. Especially is this true in the Ernest Gaines piece in which generational conflict is shown to influence slave actions as well as white masters. The little-known Robert Morgan deserves much more attention, because in his story he plunges to the heart of the divisions within the Civil War South. By describing the building of a sluice for water as a contrast to the Yankee-supporting small farmers, Morgan reveals the multiple varieties of tensions that may well have destroyed the Confederacy's morale. Lastly, Fred Chappell, in his send-up of the National Archives, claims that we have finally had enough ofCivil War ancestor worship and need to get on to the business of living in the present. So a search of these stories with an eye to the past perhaps allows new theses to emerge to make, once again, that time important to more than just those who thrill only to the sounds of gunfire. Jon L. Wakelyn Kent State University Southern Agriculture During the Civil War Era, 1860-1880. By John Solomon Otto. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994. Pp. xi, 171. $49.95.) The purpose of this volume, according to author John Solomon Otto, is to provide the "first book-length history of Southern agriculture from i860 to 1880" (ix). Otto succeeds in fulfilling that ambitious objective. He has tapped a wide variety ofprimary and secondary material to produce a comprehensive and informative account of agricultural change during the Civil War era. The book opens with a useful summary of developments from 1607 to i860, tracing westward expansion and settlement, agricultural commercialization and regional specialization, and the adoption of new methods of production. It then 344CIVIL WAR HISTORY moves on to a detailed analysis of the effects of the Civil War and its aftermath on Southern agriculture. Disrupted markets, crippled transportation, reduced access to labor, damage from combat, and poorly administered government policies during the war brought sharp declines in agricultural production, extensive destruction of agricultural capital, and widespread ruin to agricultural lands. Despite the farmers' increased emphasis on grain and meat production, the Confederacy experienced chronic shortages of foodstuffs throughout the conflict. Following the war, the South faced the formidable task of rebuilding its agricultural system. Military occupation and political reconstruction made that task more difficult, but wartime devastation and the abolition of slavery created the major obstacles to recovery. Still, by 1 880, production of a number of commodities— most notably cotton and grains—had returned to or acceded prewar levels, more land was under cultivation than in i860, and the value of farms and agricultural capital had partially rebounded. Part of that revival recalled antebellum conditions and practices, but much was different. Unquestionably, the most significant change came in the status of former slaves. After the freedmen realized that the federal government had no intention of following through on an implied commitment to set them up as independent...