The New Orthodoxy in Reconstruction Historiography

Review: The New Orthodoxy in Reconstruction Historiography
Author(s): Herman Belz

Review by: Herman Belz
Source: Reviews in American History, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Mar., 1973), pp. 106-113
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2701693
Accessed: 08-03-2015 02:02 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Reviews in
American History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 02:02:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
106
REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY / March 1973
gratefulthatProfessorMyershas reintroducedus to the worldof

theseplanters.In the long run the legendof antebellumsplendor
can do no harm, and it may even serveas an antidoteto the
equally pious but newer mythsabout slaves. But only at some
peril will Americansforgetthe priceexacted in blood and racial
squalor to preservethe antasiesof the "Childrenof Pride,"a title
forus all to bear.
BertramWyatt-Brown
Departmentof History,
Case Western
ReserveUniversity
study,Lewis,Tappan and the EvangelicalWar
Mr. Wyatt-Brown's
against Slavery was recentlyissued in a paperback edition by
AtheneumPublishers.
THE NEW ORTHODOXY IN

RECONSTRUCTION HISTORIOGRAPHY
Robert Cruden,The Negro in Reconstruction.EnglewoodCliffs,
1969. Pp. ix + 182, bibl.,index,$5.95 (cloth),
N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
$2.45 (paper).
Thomas H. O'Connor, The DisunitedStates: The Era of CivilWar
and Reconstruction.New York: Dodd, Mead & Company,1972.
Pp. xi + 272, maps,illus.,bibl.,index,$3.95 (paper).
Allen W. Trelease, Reconstruction:The Great Experiment.New
York: Harper & Row, 1971. Pp. xii +224, illus., bibl., index,
$4.95.
conA decade ago a surveyof Reconstructionhistoriography
of the Dunningschool had
cluded that while the interpretation
been prettywellrefuted,no new synthesishad emergedto takeits
place. Clearlythis is no longerthe case. In recentyears studies
the crystallization
of a viewof
have begunto appearwhichsignify
Reconstructionthatwill probablyremainstandardforsome time
to come. Three new books by Thomas H. O'Connor, Robert
Cruden, and Allen W. Trelease give evidence of this synthesis.
Directedtowardthe studentand generalreader,theyconfirmthat
the battle in whichthe revisionists
engagedso long is over.They
also suggest,however,that a new orthodoxyis formingwhich
BELZ / ReconstructionHistoriography
107
itselfis open to question.This new orthodoxydoes not go so far

would have it, that the
as to say, as a new CivilWarrevisionism
new birthof freedomof whichLincolnspoke neveroccurred,that
the Civil War dead died in vain. No one who studiesReconstruction can quite come to that conclusion.Nevertheless,thereis a
tendency in recent revisionism-andit can be seen in these
books-to conclude not only that Reconstructionfailed,but that
it was fatallyflawed from the very outset because it did not
revolutionize landholding in the South. As the conservative
southernview no longerfindsseriousexpression,a new line of
conflict appears to be emergingbetween a liberal political
which argues that substantialthough short-lived
interpretation
gains were made by blacks duringReconstruction,and a more
which holds that very littleof
radical economic interpretation
significancewas accomplished,or at least verylittlerelativeto
whatwas possible.
Revisionistconclusionsarrivedat over the past thirtyyears
of the three
framework
and interpretive
providethe underpinning
books under consideration.Howard K. Beale established the
fundamentaltheme of revisionistinquiryin 1940 when he asked
whetherit wasn't timeto studythe periodwithoutassumingthat
and SouthernwhiteRepublicanswere wicked,that
carpetbaggers
Negroes were incompetent,and that white southernersowed a
debt of gratitudeto the restorersof whitesupremacy.Beale also
urgedan analysisof the motivatingforcesin Reconstruction.To
the early revisionists,concernedwith the Radical governments,
issues of economic and politicalpower stood out. As attention
turnedto understanding
how Radical policiescame to be adopted
anyway,it began to appear that democraticidealismwas involved
as well. Racism, a force that was candidly acknowledgedif
has also
describedin the conservativeinterpretation,
differently
figuredin recentstudies.Howevertheyare related,theseare seen
as the dynamicforcesin Reconstruction.
Cruden,O'Connor, and Trelease all assignmajorresponsibility
forbringingon Radical Reconstructionto AndrewJohnson,who
by refusingto compromiseforcedmoderateRepublicansto join
with Radicals in adoptingthe ReconstructionAct of 1867. Only
belongs to southernersthemselvesfor
slightlyless responsibility
rejectingthe FourteenthAmendmentand adopting the foolish
." This is to say thattheRepublican
tacticof "masterlyinactivity
as
partyat thevery east foun it expedient-thereis disagreement
to whetheranythingmore was involved-to take an increasingly
hard line in an attempt to protect southern freedmenand
Unionists. Withinthe Republican party, moreover,moderates
rather than radicals occupied the most influentialpositions,
108
thoughthe latterpointedthe way. Accordinglythe congressional

policywas harsherthanit need have been. But whenall is said and
done, these books argue,it was not by any objectivestandarda
harshpolicy. Militaryrule did not fallhardlyon theSouth,and in
establishingnew governmentsonly a smaflproportionof adult
white males was disfranchised.
Cruden,O'Connor, and Trelease
also show thatblackswerea majorityin onlyone legislativebody,
and in no state did theyhold officein approximateproportionto
theirnumbers.Radical Reconstructionwas not Black Reconstruction. Nor was it alien rule whichdependedmainlyon outsiders.
Trelease makes the simple but sensiblepoint that what was at
stake was not home rule,but who should rule at home. Without
being doctrinaire,the threeauthorsinterpretthe policies of the
Radical governments
as an enlightenedresponseto problemsthat
the planter-professional-business
class had ignoredbeforethewar.
A lot of moneywas spentand taxes went skyhigh,but it was to
good purpose. Pointingto the establishmentof a public school
system, the extension of social services,and the passage of
legislation protecting poor people, Cruden, O'Connor, and
Trelease conclude that democracymade notable advancesduring
Reconstruction.
Whiletheseworksably summarizetherevisionist
outlook,they
also containdistinctive
pointsof interpretation.
The motivationof
congressionalReconstructionis one of them. Cruden holds that
economic and political interestsdeterminedRepublican policy
toward the South. He doesn't deny that the black codes made
Republicansapprehensiveabout the safetyand well beingof the
freedmen,and he notes thatbusinessinterestsin the Republican
partydid not agreeon all aspectsof nationaleconomicpolicy.He
contends,however,that because each interesthad somethingto
lose from a restorationof southernpower, northerncapitaists
werewillingto go along withthe Radical plan of Negrosuffrage.
But it was not just a matterof goingalong.Crudenstatesthatthe
business interestsmade an offer of collaboration, on terms
ensuringthe protectionof privateproperty,which the Radicals
could not affordto turndown (p. 25). Crudenseemsto havegot
thisidea fromDuBois, and it doesn't seem any less schematic,or
any better documented,than it did in 1935. AlthoughCruden
adds that the purelypoliticallogic of stayingin poweralso led to
the policy of 1867, the structureof the argumentcompels the
inferencethat the purpose of keeping power was to promote
economic interests.Trelease and O'Connor, in contrast,contend
that ideals of libertyand equalitymotivatedRepublicans."Most
Republicans,"Trelease asserts,"were sincerelyinterestedin the
welfareof theNegro"and recognizedthatemancipationalone was
BELZ / ReconstructionHistoriography
109
not enough. At the least blacks were entitledto civil and legal
equality.While acknowledgingthe motiveof partyrule,Trelease
identifiesthiswithgenuinecommitment
to "the heartand soul of
the entireUnionwareffort,..
.the successfulcrusadeagainstslavery
and disunion"(pp. 47, 49).
Althoughnone of these books arguesthe containmentthesisthatthe purposeof givingblacks equal rightsin the South was to
keep them fromcomingNorth-theydevote much attentionto
racism.Cruden'sfairnessin handlingsouthernwhitesupremacyis
noteworthy.He explainsit as a psychologicalnecessityfollowing
the destructionof an independentsouthernyeomanryand as a
responseto the traumaof defeatand the emergenceof blacks as
free men (pp. 42, 91). Trelease, in contrast,simplydescribes
southerners'belief thatNegroeswere less than humanand ought
to be treated kindly,like dumb animals(pp. 21-22). All three
authorssee racism,northernas well as southern,as the basis of the
restorationof conservativecontrol.Yet because racial prejudice
was prettymuch a constant,thoughassumingdifferent
forms,it
does not by itselfexplainthefailureof Reconstruction.
Blacks became free, but not equal: that is the major and
fact which informsthese works as it has most recent
irrefutable
considerationsof Reconstruction.Still, these books add, not all
blacksdid not
was fornaught.For all the adversities
theysuffered
lose citizenship,nor was public education denied them. The
Fourteenthand FifteenthAmendmentswere not upheld, but
neitherwere they repudiated;togetherwith parts of civil rights
laws they provided a basis for the Second Reconstructiona
century later. Expediency forced the assertion of principle,
Crudenobserves,but "the principleenunciatedwas equality" (p.
160). Cruden arguesfurther,however,that Reconstructionprovided blacks with meaningfulfreedomat the time and must be
counted "a qualifiedsuccess" (p. 111). For black power was a
realityduringReconstruction.Blacks were not mere pawns in a
strugglebetweenwhites.The rightto vote gave thembargaining
powerwhichtheyused to win gains in education,civilrights,an
social reform.The dependenceof whitepoliticianson black votes
was furtherevidence of black power. Defendingthe tactics of
thatblack leadersemployed,
maneuverratherthan confrontation
Crudendescribesa systemof interestgroupliberalismthatenabled
blacksto feelthattheirproblemswerebeingdealtwith.
Yet as an attemptto integrateblacks intoAmericansocietyon
an equal basis, Reconstructionfailed. And the reason it did,
Cruden and Trelease suggestin companywith a numberof other
historiansin recent years, is that it did not give land to the
freedmen.Cruden states that congressionalpolicy was "radically
110
defective" because it paid little attention to the economic

neededto makeblackstrulyfree."If freedomwereto
adjustments
be meaningfuland equalityassured,"he writes,"then the federal
governmentmust assume physicalprotectionof the black man,
promote his welfare,and underwritehis independenceby land
distribution"(p. 161). Trelease is equally certainthatwhatblacks
and equality
needed most to achieve real freedom,self-respect,
was land. Accordingly,the greatestfailureof Reconstructionwas
its failureto give the freedmenland of theirown. This weakened
the policy fromthe outsetand contributedto its lateroverthrow
(pp. 24, 27, 75, 138; cf. O'Connor,p. 204).
Behind all this seems to be the idea thatpoliticalequalityby
thatwithouteconomicpower we are
itselfis prettymeaningless,
leftwithmerebourgeoisliberty.That maybe true,and thenagain
it maynot be. The pointis thatthe truthof the assumption-forit
is not a conclusionbut an oftenunexaminedpremise-isnot so
as to be made the basisof
utterlybeyond disputeand self-evident
Yet that is what we seem to be getting:
historicalinterpretation.
explanationsof what happenedby referenceto what mighthave
been and how thingsoughtto have been,untilwe understandhow
could haveworked.I like the idea of redistributing
Reconstruction
propertyas much as the next person,but I thinkthatto makeit
of Reconstruction
is unhistorical.
the keyto interpretations
Historianshave rediscoveredThaddeus Stevens' proposal to
confiscate southern property and give forty acres to every
freedman.The numberof Republicanswho supportedthisplan is
acknowledgedto be small,but theirexistenceis taken as proof
that an alternativeexisted,that therewas a decisivemomentout
solutionto
of which an entirelydifferentand more satisfactory
the problemof Reconstructioncould have come. Thus historians
referto fatefuldecisionsin whichCongressvoted down Stevens'
confiscationscheme (see O'Connor, p. 207). Yet Stevens' bill
never came close to a vote. Freedmen's Bureau legislationof
course did, and it containedland allotmentfeatureswhichhave
been interpretedas a golden opportunityif not an outright
mandate to give blacks economic security.WilliamMcFeely,for
example,hofdsthatGeneral0. 0. Howard had it in his powerto
define the nation's commitmentto the ex-slaves,but that the
"Yankee stepfather"failed to meet his responsibilityand let
back theirland. Thereis not the
AndrewJohnsongivesoutherners
slightestattemptin thisand otherworkswhichlamentthe lack of
economicrevolutionto examinethe legal aspectsof confiscation,
intention
the definitionof abandoned property,the congressional
withrespectto the titleto abandonedproperty,the effectupon it
of executivepardon.All this-whichis to say the way contempo-
BELZ / Reconstruction Historiography
111
rariesviewedthe matter-isignored.It has seemednecessaryonly

to pointout thatconfiscationthreatenedprivatepropertyand was
rejected,as thoughit werea real issuethathungin thebalance.
In contrastto the certaintyof historianswhoseinvokingof the
land reformthesisassumesthe proportionsof a new orthodoxyis
the uncertaintyof people at the time as to the best course to
follow. Still, those who cared most about makingblack freedom
meaningfulinvariablyarguedforthe rightto vote. Can we really
dismissthisevidenceby saying,as KennethStamppdoes in The Era
of Reconstruction,that people then did not understand"the
sociologyof freedom"?FrederickDouglass is oftencited forhis
failedbecause it didn'tgive
judgmentof 1880 thatReconstruction
land to the freedmen.But in an 1866 analysisof Reconstruction
the only referenceDouglassmade to land was to say thatuniversal
suffrageought to be the law of the land. This was the way to
protectblack liberty.1And in the crisisof 1866-67, when a real
turningpoint seemed to be reached concerningthe libertyand
rightsof Negroes,Stevensdid not ask for confiscation.He asked
for military protection and Negro suffrage.2 Like other
Republicanshe believedin puttingfirstthingsfirst.
But suppose land had been givento the freedmen.If historians
are going to speculate about land reformthey ought to probe
thantheyhave. Charlesand MaryBeardheld thatit was an
further
almost insuperabletask to give civilrightsto personswho lacked
economic power. Yet they saw littlereasonto believethat if the
freedmenhad been givenland theywould have had the capitalor
the proprietaryskill or knowledgeto hold it againstspeculators
and sharpersin general.Howard K. Beale asked what would have
happenedhad the planters'estatesbeen dividedamongthe former
slaves.The question was perhapsmore rhetoricalthan historical,
but sympatheticthoughhe was to the idea, Beale too seemedto
see difficulties.
Did a descriptionof thefreedmenas illiterate,
with
no conception of the meaning of terms such as government,
suffrage,and free labor mean acceptance of the traditional
conservativeview of the Negro, Beale asked? Neverthelessthat
descriptionseemed to him accurate. Since Beale's day we have
been disabusedof racialattitudesthatperhapsaffectedhisviewof
the matter,but what does the evidencesuggest?Historianshave
not generallyheld that the HomesteadAct of 1862 turnedthe
condition of poor white farmersaround, and the meliorative
measures of Progressivism
and the New Deal often have been
judged inadequate if not failures.Why would land reformin
Reconstruction
haveworkedanybetter?
It is easy to criticizeRepublicanpolicy fornot givingland to
the freedmen;afterall, even in Russia, it is said,the emancipated
112
serfswere givenland. Aside fromthe fact that Russian serfsdid

not hold the land as privatepropertybut rathercommunally,so
that they remained unfreein significantways, one mightask
whethersome economic gains were not made by blacks during
Reconstruction.In Black Reconstructionin America, DuBois
described"exceptional and lucky" Negroeswho got land "on a
considerablescale." "The land holdingsof Negroesincreasedall
over the South," he wrote. Cruden too states that while the
numberof freedmenwho boughtland was small,it was significant
forit showedthatblackscould survivein a competitivesociety(p.
45). The revisionistscholar Francis B. Simkins believed that
Reconstructionwas not truly radical because it did not give
weapon in battlingforeconomic
Negroesland, theironlyeffective
competenceand social equality. Yet Simkinsalso held that the
freedmen bargained themselvesinto an agriculturalsituation
unlike slaveryand fromtheirpoint of view advantageous."The
abandonmentof the communalcharacterof the Southernplantation," he wrote, "bestowed upon the Negroes the American
farmer'sideal of independentexistence."3This conclusionseems
startling,for while the differencebetween slaveryand sharecroppingmay be acknowledged,the latterobviouslydidn't give
blacks the securestatusthat Simkins'statementimplies.Yet was
of the principleof independentland holding,as
the establishment
in the Southern Homestead Act of 1866, not important?It
dependson one's point of view. If historianswho emphasizeland
reformendorsethis principle,as they seem to, then the change
describedby Simkinsassumesgreatersignificance.
Not all recentstudentsof the period accept what I have called
the new orthodoxy.Johnand LaWandaCox, W. R. Brock,Harold
M. Hyman,and RembertW. Patrick,amongothers,hold thatcivil
rightswas the main issue and that Reconstructionfailedbecause
and
the guaranteesof the Fourteenthand FifteenthAmendments,
the Civil Rights and EnforcementActs, were but fitfullyand
maintained.Finally,theywereall but abandoned.And
irresolutely
why was that? Because liberal theories of governmentand
prevailingconstitutionalideas restrictedwhat even the most
ardentRadicals thoughtshouldbe done, and because the drivefor
political and civil equality was in part a responseto a crisis,and
the crisishad passed.Whenthishappenedit became clear-and the
troublewas-not thatthegrantof politicallibertyto the freedmen
lacked an economic basis, but that it did not rest on a firm
emotional and ideological commitment.Underneathit all racial
prejudiceremained,leading southernersto aggressagainstblacks
and northerners
to acquiesce in the aggression.But it is well to
recallthe Beards' observationon emancipation:"Nothinglikethis
HALLER / Family Fictions
113
had everhappenedin history,at least on such a scale."4 Insteadof

sayingthatReconstruction
failed,it mightbe moreaccurateto say
thatit was, alas, onlypartiallysuccessful.In anyevent,the cruxof
it was civil rightsand politicalfreedom.These were the essential
elementsof the republicanismforwhichthe war was fought,and
to extend which was the purposeof Reconstruction.Integrating
the freedmeninto the polity was a principal focus of this
and it intensifiedand hastenedthe processby which
undertaking,
it was accomplished.But as the comingof the war involvednot
only the dehumanizingeffectof slaveryupon blacks,but also and
per a s more importantly
itsdebilitating
effecton
and corrupting
repubicanism,so Reconstructioninvolvedmore than adjustment
to Negroemancipation.In the largestsense it aimedat improving
the systemof republicanlibertythathad flourishedin one section
of the federalrepublic,and mustnow prevailin all of it.
HermanBelz
Departmentof History,
University
ofMaryland
An article by Mr. Belz, "ChangingConceptions of Constitutionalismin the Era of World War Two and the Cold War,"
appearedin the December 1972 issue of The Journalof American
History.
1. FrederickDouglass, "Reconstruction,"Atlantic Monthly (December 1866), pp.

761-65.
2. CongressionalGlobe, 39 Cong., 1 sess., pp. 4303-04 (July28, 1866).
3. Francis B. Simkins,"New Viewpoints of Southern Reconstruction,"Journalof
SouthernHistory(February1939), p. 52.
4. Beard and Beard, The Rise of AmericanCivilization,Vol. II, p. 116.
FAMILY FICTIONS
RichardSennett,Familiesagainstthe City:Middle ClassHomes of
Industrial Chicago, 1872-1890. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity
Press,1970. Pp. x + 258, $8.50.
Families against the City is a study of familystructureand its
relationshipto occupation in a forty-blockcensus tract on
Chicago's nearWestSide duringthe 1870s and 1880s. According
to ProfessorSennett,the area that he labels "Union Park" was at

The New Orthodoxy in Reconstruction Historiography

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The New Orthodoxy in Reconstruction Historiography

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Review: The New Orthodoxy in Reconstruction Historiography

Author(s): Herman Belz

REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY / March 1973

gratefulthatProfessorMyershas reintroducedus to the worldof