Confederate Political Economy: Creating and Managing a Southern Corporatist Nation. by Michael Brem Bonner (review)

Michael Brem Bonner aims to reassess Confederate political culture in action in order to establish a new model for understanding the political economy of the South during the Civil War. He challenges scholars who have contended that Confederate oligarchs operated an undemocratic, top-down economy and created state socialism. Instead, Bonner paints a picture of leaders who prioritized national survival over any particular economic doctrine. In their attempt to win the war, Confederate politicians worked with industrial leaders, and this cooperation unintentionally led to the creation of a corporatist state similar to twentieth-century nations. Ultimately, he concludes, "in order to fight modernization the Confederacy was forced to modernize" (202).

For Bonner, corporatism involves the shared government responsibility between public and private sectors, with each group needing the other to succeed. In the Confederacy, this symbiotic relationship was based on expediency more than any master plan. In fact, throughout Bonner's work, "expedient" serves as the ubiquitous modifier of "corporatism." According to him, this expediency distinguishes the Confederacy from later corporatist states where political leaders consciously chose corporatism rather than stumbling upon it like the South did. Bonner also uses the concept of expediency to remind readers that Confederate politicians did not intentionally embark on undemocratic policies but arrived at them as a result of a combination of wartime needs and a system that fostered this executiveled corporatism.

Needing to marshal every available resource, the Confederacy not only worked with existing businesses such as the Tredegar Iron Works but also created others. The Augusta Powder Works, which provided gunpowder for the army, serves as the classic example of the state constructing a business when the private sector could not provide what it needed. Both patriotism and profit motivated the private-sector businessmen. And, when focused on the latter, their actions did not always coincide with the Confederacy's best interests. The Confederacy's railroad policy, where the government deferred to industry leaders until the final months of the war, demonstrates both corporatism in action and the problems of allowing profit-minded businessmen to determine government policies.

Bonner has a keen eye for using specific cases and people as examples to support his argument. In addition to addressing prominent leaders such as Josiah Gorgas and Tredegar's Joseph Reid Anderson, Bonner emphasizes less well known business leaders and army officers such as "patriotic industrialist" Colin J. McRae and Lieutenant Colonel George Washington Rains. McRae served as the key factor in forging a connection between the Shelby Iron Company and the Confederate government. Defying tremendous odds, Rains created the Augusta Powder Works, which kept Confederate armies in the field and thereby demonstrated the value of expedient corporatism.

Additionally, Bonner studies a variety of specific policies to show the development of expedient corporatism over the course of the Civil War. First, he examines the Confederate Constitution. Contrary to historians who posit this document as simply the United States Constitution with protection for slavery, Bonner sees it as a fundamentally different document. In particular, it created the foundation for a strong executive and centralized power with its line-item veto, six-year presidential term, and greater presidential power over the purse. When coupled with the Confederacy's antipartyism, the lack of a Supreme Court, and the president's authority as commander in chief, it put in place a framework for executive-driven corporatism.

Second, Bonner highlights conscription and the domestic passport system to demonstrate expedient corporatism. Confederate leaders did not begin the war with the intention of implementing either policy, but events forced their hands. Not only did the government use conscription to control manpower and a passport system to control movement, but it made each policy more stringent as the war placed greater and greater demands on the Confederacy. For Bonner, wartime expediency best explains the creation and evolution of these policies, especially conscription, which not only expanded the army but through its exemption...