Emory historian Carter, author of the classic Scottsboro: A Tragedy
of the American South (1969), has painstakingly examined a subject
on which there is near-unanimity - the failure of postwar Southern
leadership in the brief period of mild Presidential Reconstruction
(1865-67) - in order to make a slight but significant correction:
the leaders were not die-hard Rebels (or plantation elite) but
conservatives of varied background; a substantial number were ready
to support industrial development and ("even more surprisingly")
development of efficient small-scale farming. But they were undone
by ingrained Southern fear-and-dread of blacks, which manifested
itself in terror of insurrection; by failure to anticipate Northern
shock at the coercive Black Codes of 1865-66; and by Democrat
Johnson's alienation of Republican congressional moderates in then
vetoing civil rights legislation. (The outcome: Congressional or
Black Reconstruction.) Carter develops this argument on several
fronts. One is the nature of the leadership: Johnson's seven
Southern gubernatorial appointees were neither secessionists (all
had opposed secession until late 1860) nor Union loyalists (i.e.,
they were generally acceptable to the South); more crucially, the
white Southerners elected to Congress in the fall of 1865 - and
denied seats - were not unreconstructed RebeLs every one (as
charged by W.E.B. Du Bois and repeated by historians since) but a
conservative mix (of whom "only seven had been secessionists"). On
another front, white Southern willingness "to accept almost any
form of government that would bring order to a disordered land" was
overborne by a tradition of extra-legal repression and Johnson's
lack of clear, firm racial policies. Finally, economic
self-reconstructionists faced many a dilemma: if, for instance,
states repudiated their debts (as the federal government demanded),
what would happen to private debts? if private debtors were allowed
to postpone repayment (as impoverished citizens demanded), would
this not delay recovery? In shading the usual grim picture, Carter
confesses himself more depressed: the best that moderate,
practical, conciliatory Southerners could do was not very much. As
a revised interpretation, however, this has ramifications for any
treatment of the Reconstruction period - even one as cut-and-dried
as Burke Davis' The Long Surrender (below). (Kirkus Reviews)
In the months after Appomattox, the South was plunged into a
chaos that surpassed even the disorder of the last hard months of
the war itself. Peace brought, if anything, an increased level of
violence to the region as local authorities of the former
Confederacy were stripped of their power and the returning foot
soldiers of the defeated army, hungry and without hope, raided the
already impoverished countryside for food and clothing. In the wake
of the devastation that followed surrender, even some of the most
virulent Yankee-haters found themselves relieved as the Union army
began to bring a small level of order to the lawless southern
terrain.
Dan T. Carter's When the War Was Over is a social and political
history of the two years following the surrender of the Confederacy
-- the co-called period of Presidential Reconstruction when the
South, under the watchful gaze of Congress and the Union army,
attempted to rebuild its shattered society and economic structure.
Working primarily from rich manuscript sources, Carter draws a
vivid portrait of the political leaders who emerged after the war,
a diverse group of men -- former loyalists as well as a few mildly
repentant fire-eaters -- who in some cases genuinely sought to find
a place in southern society for the newly emancipated slaves, but
who in many other cases merely sought to redesign the boundaries of
black servitude.
Carter finds that as a group the politicians who emerged in the
postwar South failed critically in the test of their leadership.
Not only were they unable to construct a realistic program for the
region's recovery -- a failure rooted in their stubborn refusal to
accept the full consequences of emancipation -- but their actions
also served to exacerbate rather than allay the fears and
apprehensions of the victorious North. Even so, Carter reveals,
these leaders were not the monsters that many scholars have
suggested they were, and it is misleading to dismiss them as
racists and political incompetents. In important ways, they
represented the most constructive, creative, and imaginative
response that the white South, overwhelmed with defeat and social
chaos, had to offer in 1865 and 1866. Out of their efforts would
come the New South movement and, with it, the final downfall of the
plantation system and the beginnings of social justice for the
freed slaves.
General
Imprint: |
Louisiana State University Press
|
Country of origin: |
United States |
Release date: |
April 1985 |
First published: |
April 1985 |
Authors: |
Dan T. Carter
|
Dimensions: |
229 x 152 x 24mm (L x W x T) |
Format: |
Paperback
|
Pages: |
304 |
Edition: |
New |
ISBN-13: |
978-0-8071-1204-5 |
Categories: |
Books >
Humanities >
History >
General
Books >
History >
General
|
LSN: |
0-8071-1204-6 |
Barcode: |
9780807112045 |
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!