Customer Reviews

The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is not and it does not pretend to be an in-depth analysis of all relevant aspects of Reconstruction or a detailed narrative of all of the events that took place in this period. Rather, it is an excellent summary of the revisionist scholarship about Reconstruction that gained currency in the '50s and '60s, and it is essential reading for anyone interested in this era of history.

The Dunning view of Reconstruction, which had almost universal scholarly and popular acceptance from the turn of the 20th Century until the '50s, held that rapacious and vindictive Radical Republicans hijacked the Reconstruction process from the just and magnanimous policies of Andrew Johnson and installed in the South state governments dominated by unscrupulous and incompetent white carpetbaggers and scalawags. These state governments were monuments to misgovernment and corruption, and the entire region (indeed, the entire country) breathed a collective sigh of relief when the white "redeemers" finally forced them out of office. The black freedmen were portrayed as ignorant, infantile, incapable of self-government, and prone to political and economic manipulation in this account of Reconstruction.

Revisionist scholars, beginning as early as 1909 with W.E.B. DuBois seminal paper about the subject but really not gaining momentum until the '50s, held that the Dunning school was substantially in error about the progress and nature of Reconstruction, and that this error was largely caused by bald racial prejudice. While the Radical Republicans did have crass economic motives, they honestly believed that the freedmen ought to have civil and political rights. While the Reconstruction state governments were often corrupt and incompetent, they were not out of the ordinary for state governments of the time, and the redeemer governments were frequently as bad or worse. Despite the corruption and the base motivations that did exist, much was accomplished during Reconstruction that should inspire pride: the Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution, which guaranteed blacks civil and political rights; the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875, which guaranteed blacks the equal use of public accomodations and which provided the Federal government with the legal basis to prosecute those who would deny the black man his civil rights; the institution of truly republican governments in the former Confederacy; the beginning of the reconstruction of the South's infrastructure, which had been largely destroyed by the Civil War; and the foundation of such worthwhile institutions as state-supported schools.

Stampp does an admirable job of summarizing both the historiography of Reconstruction and the revisionist view of it. His prose may be somewhat dry at times, but nevertheless it is lucid and engaging in its totality. The key merit of this book is not, however, its groundbreaking scholarship -- indeed, there is nothing groundbreaking about this book -- or its literary style. This has been an enormously influential book because it makes revisionist scholarship about Reconstruction accessible to the masses. In so doing, it has performed the invaluable task of popularizing the revisionist conclusions about Reconstruction, thus making popular acceptance of our later-day Reconstruction, the Civil Rights movement, more readily attainable.

As wonderful and influential as this book is, it is not without its shortcomings. Stampp does an insufficient job of citing his sources. This is, in part, because this book is largely the written and polished version of lectures about Reconstruction that he has given over the years; unfortunately, understanding why there are so few citations does not excuse it. His ending bibliographical essay, while very useful, ultimately does not take the place of detailed in-text citations, and his book suffers for it.

Secondly, his depiction of the freedman leaves something to be desired. One of the great modern-day complaints about the Dunning school of Reconstruction is that it does not treat Reconstruction-era blacks as actual agents in Reconstruction history. They have no will, and they are not actors in the drama. Rather, they are acted upon. Stampp certainly does not share the racist assumptions of the Dunning scholars that he seeks to replace, but he does share with them the assumption that the black man was not a prime actor in this story. It is rather amazing to me that Stampp discusses the freedman as incessantly as he does and yet fails to talk much about him.

Neither of these two criticisms should take that much away from this otherwise excellent book. Read it as an introduction to the era, and treasure it for its salutary historical influence.

Call this effort from the great historian Reconstruction deconstruction. He deconstructs the notion, all too lazily accepted even today, that Reconstruction was a failed political movement, the only accomplishment of which was pocket-lining by Carpetbaggers from the North.

Far from it, Stampp convincingly argues. While he does not deny that the Radical Reconstructionists had a political agenda that included punishing the South and forcing through a pro-industrial, high-tariff program that a populist South was bound to oppose, he also points out Reconstruction wrought many positive changes, including bringing the newly freed African-American into the political process.

Stampp also is able to show the social programs launched by the Reconstructionists under the aegis of the Freedmen's Bureau were necessary in a South that was all too eager after the war to force black citizens into a new servitude. For example, the federal officials were instrumental in monitoring court proceedings in the South, ensuring that justice was served for all citizens, not just those holding money and political power.

The reasons for Reconstruction's demise have been well documented, and Stampp does not shy from acknowledging the obvious instances of corruption and soaring taxes. But he points out that in the decades following the end of the war, corruption was hardly unique to southern governments and that tax increases were to be expected in states and local communities whose infrastructures had been badly damaged by war.

Finally, Stampp reminds us, lest we forget, that Reconstruction failed because of a determined effort by diehard white supremacists and secret organizations such as the Klan. This effort was best characterized by the Mississippi Plan of 1875, in which anti-Reconstructionists set out openly to ensure that black citizens would not make it to the polls to vote. This perversion of democracy spelled the end until the 1950s, essentially, of efforts by the U.S. to achieve political and social equality for blacks.

This is essential reading for students of American history. It represents an important contribution to the literature that illuminates this country's self-inflicted racial problems.

A cohesive and well-written account of Reconstruction by a world-renowned historian. Stampp does not present a flowing narrative of historical events, rather he gives his own revisionist perspective on the policies of both the Johnson administration and the Radical Republicans. An excellent work of scholarship, accessible to both the student and those with a general interest in American history - Thoroughly recommended.

The standard view of reconstruction up to the middle of the last century was that it was very bad: the radical Republicans, opposed to Lincoln's desire to show leniency toward the people of the South after the rebellion was terminated, went out of their way to see that the South was "punished." Historians began revising this view during the 1960s; Stampp's book is among the best of these revisions. Stampp admits there were many mistakes committed by the radical Republicans, and their idealistic aims, especially toward the blacks, might not have been so pure, but he believes if it wasn't for the radicals there would be no 14th or 15th Ammendments to the Constitution. As with most controversies, there is probably truth to be found on both sides of the argument. Stampp develops his argument carefully and fairly. What was truly tragic was the utter failure of the government (and the people) to prevent or even care any longer about the South's "experiment" with two separate societies, which began in earnest after Grant's two disastrous terms as President. Jim Crow would end up being almost as bad as slavery itself.

What amazed me the most about this book by Kenneth Stampp is its readability. The book is suprisingly entertaining despite what some may consider its dry subject matter. Although, some of the revisionist ideas of Mr. Stampp have been taken to task by recent historians, The Era of Reconstruction still remains one of the essential tools for any student of American history.

Mr. Stampp can perhaps be taken to task for some of the far-fetched psychological connections he makes when trying to surmise the motiviations of historical personages, most notably Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, but the fact that Stampp used psychology in his historical speculations is remarkable because of the fact that his work was written in the mid sixties. By delving deeper than any historian before him into the motivations behind reconstruction, Stampp's work remains fresh and readable even today.

I bought this very old book (1965 edition) from the second hand booksellers in Ankara. I did not have a chance to read it for years. I must admit I had a prejudice against the book and the subject. I thought that after Howard Fast's Road to Freedom no book can surpass it in the field of Reconstruction Era (1865-1877). I was wrong! I am really happy that I was wrong, I learnt a lot from the late Mr. Kenneth Stampp albeit too late.

The writer carefully builds the scene during the Civil War, probably the bloodiest period in US history. He describes the various aspects of the Northern and Southern sides basing the foundation of his analysis to the class interests of either side. After examining the Northern side he concludes that the rapidly developing capitalism has created a new strata in the society. New industrial bosses are step by step dethroning the usual old generation of Northern elite who held on to power during previous periods. Stampp sees in this elite the seeds of the future US imperialism. With regards to Lincoln, Stampp clears the picture even more brilliantly. He uses the argument of abolution of slavery only as an argument for his fight to preserve the union. Even Lincoln does not have a clear solution for the Negro question

Stampp is utterly correct when he declares that most of the Republicans are not quite devastated by the early death of Lincoln. As Lincoln sought to deal with the Negro Question without the Congress, the Republicans (Radicals most of all) are happy to pursue their own solution for the problem. However the new president Grant is not what he say he is. His Presendial Restoration attempts will be thwarted by the Congress paving the way for the Radicals dominating the scene.

Stampp is curiosly cathes the bull by the horns as he describes the failure of giving the land formerly belonging to white owners to be distributed to the emancipated slaves. The class conscious Northerns, even the Radicals' reforms have limits. They only want to emancipate the slaves, they are not bothered how they will survive after centuries of bonding. It is a free country, so let them take care of themselves!

After the Johnson impeachment of 1867 the Radicals are powerfull and have allies in the South. The scalawags (poor white men), carpetbaggers (Northerns arriving south) and freed Negros. The first to get off the Reconstruction will be scalawags. The poor white men from the South think that they ought to be compensated as they are members of the superior race. The carpetbagger Northern entrepreneurs arriving South joins the powerful White elite in reconstructing the devastated South. The Negro is emancipated from the slavery to be bonded into another form of slavery. Quoting from Stampp: "The negro was first freed, then enfranchised then launched into practical politics and then mercilessly beaten into reasonable subjection."

Stampp asks rightly why the federal government did not resist the southern white elite when they forced, blackmailed and killed the negroes to vote for them. He mentions that the Northernmen were not at all leftists fighting for ideals but businessmen caring for their gains. As the southern economy was beginning to revive with the help of huge railroad constructions, the Northern powerful bosses came to realise that if they demanded the rights for the Negroes and the lowly classes they would be encouraging the communists and radical revolutionaries. This was not small talk as the year was 1871, the yearof the Paris Commune! So the Southern states were left to their own devices, re-forming the social slaver of the Negroes and the poor whites.

A very easily readable book, a must for the interested history reader of the era. Despite being old, yet remains unchallenged. Ought to be re-printed. Bravo Mr. Stampp. Rest in pace...

Stampp really helps to dissuade readers of the old Reconstruction interpretations that still exist. These old interpretations from the Dunningite era need to be exposed, deconstructed, and put in their proper place--an example of what happens when personal biases and agendas are placed before history, thereby leading to a slanted, subjective view. Stampp sets things straight, and really sheds new light on our nation's past, and turns traditional beliefs upside-down.

February is Black History Month

Back in the days of my personal `pre-history' the Reconstruction period directly after the American Civil War ended in 1865 was cast as the time of the scalawags, carpetbaggers, Black Codes and ultimately after a determined fight by the `right' people in the South `redemption'. In short a time of shame in the American experience and, at least implicitly, a racist slap at blacks and their supporters. Well so much for that nonsense.

There certainly was plenty that went wrong during radical reconstruction in the South but the conventional high school history textbooks never got into the whole story. Nor did they want to. The whole story is that until fairly recently this radical reconstruction period was the most democratic period in the South in American history, for white and black alike. The book under review, or rather some essays done by Professor Stampp on this subject that led me to this book, went a long way toward a better understanding of the period when I entered my `history' long ago.

Professor Stamp, as he must, starts off his book by describing the political problems associated with most of the earlier studies of Reconstruction done by those influenced by Professor Dunning and his school in the early 20th century. That picture presented, as I described in my opening sentence, the familiar corrupt and scandalous activities associated with this period. Needless to say this position dovetailed very nicely with the rationale for Jim Crow in the pre-1960's South. Moreover, in the hands of its northern liberal devotees nicely covered up the burgeoning corruption of the northern- based `robber barons'. There is an old adage that history is written by the victors. Whatever the truth to that assertion early Reconstruction history was written by the losers, or rather their apologists once removed.

The Reconstruction era was dominated by three basic plans that Professor Stampp describes in some detail; the Lincoln `soft' union indivisible efforts; the Johnson `soft' redemption plans; and, the radical Republican `scorched earth' policy. In the end none of these plans was pursued strongly enough to insure that enhanced black rights gained through legislation would lead to enlightened citizenship. Stampp presents detailed critiques of all these plans and some insights about the social and cultural mores of the country at the time that does not make for pretty reading.

The professor then goes on to try to demystify what the radical reconstruction governments did and did not do. That there were scandalous activities and more than enough corrupt politicians to go around goes without saying. However like most myths there is a snowball effect about how bad things really were that obliterates the very real advances for black (and some poor whites) like public education, improved roads and increased state facilities that were anathema to the planting class that formerly ruled the South.

The last part of the book deals with the conservative counter-revolution to overthrow the radical governments culminating the well-known Compromise of 1877. The actions of that rabble, rich and poor whites alike formed in militias and other para-military operations like the Klan, is certainly not pretty reading. Moreover it took about a century and a `cold' civil war during the 1960's (a battle that continues today) to even minimally right that situation. For those that need an in depth, definite study of this subject you must turn to the master Eric Foner and his monumental Reconstruction, 1863-1877. However, if you want an earlier, shorter but nevertheless informative overview of Reconstruction this is your first stop.

I have read the books by Stampp, Foner, Dubois, and Dunning and find that each of them has hold of a part of the history of the "elephant" (as in the blind men trying to describe something) known as Reconstruction. Dunning and his "Dunning School" on the subject was academically and historically accurate and cannot be discredited, but neither can Stampp be challenged on his attempt to revise the history of the "tragic decade" and the scar left behind by the attempt to reconstruct the southern states in the image of the "radical" members of Congress and the United States military. However, Stampp comes to the subject matter with his own bias and prejudices based on ethnicity and "liberal" politically-correct scholarship. The "elephant" was long gone before any of these writers described Reconstruction 1865-1877, so all we can do in the name of intellectual honesty is read them all with the awareness that
Stampp is no more valid than Dunning.