State of Rebellion: Reconstruction in South Carolina (review)

356civil war history with the Exxon Valdez disaster. On the other hand, Salecker convincingly demolishes the argument that "military necessity" justified unsafe steamboat conditions . Other vessels were available to take the surplus passengers. Despite various investigations, "no one would ever be punished for the tremendous loss of life." In addition, the disaster was quickly overshadowed by the momentous events ofApril 1 865. To this day, no monument commemorates Sultana's victims—"ordinary citizens and common soldiers"—while the vessel lies buried in an Arkansas soybean field. Nevertheless, the explosions aboard Sultana and two other steamboats in 1 865-66 did result in two positive developments. All tubular boilers were replaced with more conventional, and safer, flue boilers. In addition, the forerunner of the Hartford Insurance Company was founded in 1866. Steamboat inspection was beefed up and steamboats, in the future, became safer. Those improvements were small consolation to the families of the 1,700 people who died, as Gene Salecker shows, because of the greed of a few men. Kenneth J. Blume Albany College of Pharmacy State ofRebellion: Reconstruction in South Carolina. By Richard Zuczek. (Columbia : University of South Carolina Press, 1996. Pp. xi, 250. $29.95.) Reconstruction in South Carolina has proven fertile historical terrain. Thomas Holt's Black Over White (1977) and Julie Saville's The Work ofReconstruction (1994), for example, worked the soil and blossomed accordingly. Likewise with Richard Zuczek's State ofRebellion. For the most part, the author tills well and prunes judiciously. The fruits of Zuczek's labor, however, may leave some hankering for a more varied dish. Nine focused chapters explore the grim, unpalatable, and violent world of Reconstruction in South Carolina. Zuczek's thesis is clear and intelligent; his subjects white and reactionary. For Zuczek, the behavior of conservative white Carolinians was pivotal in bringing Reconstruction to an end. As such, State of Rebellion details their resistance to Republicans' attempts to give meaning to emancipation. Wedded to this thesis is Zuczek's eminently sensible contention that historians divorce study of the Civil War from Reconstruction at the risk of masking the military continuities between the two. Conservative whites during Reconstruction continued to war against federal and state Republicanism by attempting to co-opt opponents, employing political abstention from the polls, committing outright fraud, and resorting to armed, military coercion. There is much to praise in this book. The writing is elegant and the research extensive. The sections on the Klan—in particular the timing of Klan violence and the federal government's futile efforts to curb it—are excellent. Felicities of style abound: "Conservatives' worst fears went unrealized; Republicans—at book reviews357 the state and federal levels—dealt in bluff, while conservatives dealt in blood" (108). Zuczek is strongest when charting the continuity of conservative resistance even as it changed its forms, and the examination of the 1876 straight-out campaign and attendant rioting is exceptionally thoughtful. Zuczek's book has been well-served by a good press.The presentation is attractive, the typographical errors are few. Certainly, one hopes the book will soon appear in paperback, for students will be stimulated by this study. But few books are without some flaws, and State ofRebellion is no exception . Consider, for example, Zuczek's application of the war analogy. In downplaying the extent of black resistance to conservative white violence during Reconstruction, he misses a good opportunity to bolsterhis thesis. ForZuczek, the warring parties are white conservatives and a rather amorphous Republicanism . But as Julie Saville has demonstrated, South Carolina low country freedpeople often resisted military-style violence with like. Zuczek's black fighters , by contrast, make few and fleeting appearances, and his reluctance to give extended commentary to black resistance renders his war analogy a little fuzzy. Zuczek begs other questions. Was it stingy funding that handcuffed the Freedmen's Bureau or, rather, their own prejudiced attitude toward the assiduity ofblack labor?Was corruption in the Republican party as extensive as Democrats charged? Certainly, Zuczek sensibly argues that such excoriations helped splinter Republicans and unify Democrats; but were the accusations accurate? Perhaps the most troubling aspect ofZuczek's book concerns his willingness to slight contingencies of geography and, especially, class. Violence in the...