Customer Reviews

West from Appomattox: The Reconstruction of America after the Civil War

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

 

 

Conventional history teaches that Reconstruction failed due to racism and apathy, while viewing it as a Southern issue. Heather Cox Richardson moves Reconstruction into mainstream America, viewing it not as a Southern issue but as part of national development and westward expansion. Doing this transforms the thin gruel of reconstruction history into a complex, layered dish full of unexpected and very new treats. Reconstruction changes from a fight between President and Congress, to an issue that challenges America's ideals and is national in scope.

This book links Reconstruction, westward expansion, questions on suffrage, controlling business, tariffs and the development of the middle class into one coherent movement. This is modern inclusive history, as it should be written! Nat Love, child of ex-slaves, cowboy and Pullman porter, Samuel Gompers, Andrew Carnegie, Julia Ward Howe, Wade Hampton, Buffalo Bill, Sitting Bull and many others populate the book. They are included not to be inclusive but because they have something to say. In every case, they help with the narration by personalizing history and making the national problem a personal one. The result is a fuller richer picture of America and the development of American ideals from 1865 to 1901.

The author, an associate professor at the University of Massachusetts, is not the conservative member of the university staff. Her politics show up as sympathy for the labor movement, African Americans and/or Native Americans. For the most part, this is neither excessive nor detracts from the fairness of the narration. The exception is in the Epilogue where she attacks the policies of Presidents Regan and Bush. If you share her liberal politics, this will be the highpoint of the book for you. If you do not, stop reading when you reach the Epilogue and close the book. You will have read a very thought provoking history presenting a detailed and unique view of America and Reconstruction.

The period of US History between the US civil war and the Theodore Roosevelt administration is currently an extremely overlooked period, and it is nice to see a book that takes a good look at this time frame. You can see the starts of many aspects of US life in the twentieth century that began in this both relatively peaceful era (at least compare to other time periods) where various "special interests" began to take shape - the women's movement, large corporations/"trusts", African Americans, etc. Richardson's thesis is that the individuals who came out on top by Roosevelt's presidency was a rather nebulous group known as the middle class -mostly white, mostly male, mostly owning a small but definite chunk of the US economy (small businesses, farms, etc.).

A few things you should know before reading this book. First of all, this is a pretty general survery of late 19th century America squished into 360 pages- it does not focus on westward expansion specifically, nor the southeast US, as the title may make you think. Richardson picks notable individuals that span the race and economic spectrum. It is the breadth rather than depth that is both this book's main strength AND weakness. As far as bias is concerned, I would disagree with other reviewers in that there's any obvious liberal bias - her coverage of the haymarket riots, for example. If anything, she is biased towards the middle class in this book. Her epilogue bashing Reagan as a pseudo-cowboy was surprising to me.

In terms of flow, at some points its very nice, at other times it is as stiff as a college textbook (I could easily see this being a part of a junior/senior undergraduate course).

I'm glad I read this book, and I recommend it, despite some flaws.

Heather Cox Richardson's West from Appomattox covers a period of history that has been seemingly rather ignored by contemporary historians, namely the Reconstruction period and westward expansion in the mid to late 1800s. Cox synthesizes much history and puts it into its broader context quite well. Much of her writing is academic in nature and not of the narrative form many readers of recent historical accounts have come to expect. Specifically, Richardson studied under the master of this period, David Herbert Donald. While the breadth of her research and knowledge is as impressive as any, her ability to convey the information in a way that brings in any person with even a passing interest in the topic is not her strength. I think she has much to say and, should she want to write history in a form other than a graduate text level, she would be well served to read how David Kennedy, David Herbert Donald, James McPherson or even Doris Kearns Goodwin actually write. That said, those who would like to really bone up on what changes the United States went through from 1865 to 1900, predominately politically and somewhat economically, would be well advised to read this book.

In "West from Appomatox", Professor Heather Cox Richardson focuses on the role of the American West in defining the American experience and the American character in the decades following the Civil War to the present. Richardson is Associate Professor of History at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

The story of Reconstruction is usually viewed as involving the victorious North and the defeated South. In the opening chapters of her book, Richardson gives a good brief summary of the Reconstruction era. But she does not stop there. She goes on to show how the West became emblematic during Reconstruction, for both Northerners and Southerners, of the promise of America. The idealized image of the American West came to symbolize "individualism. economic opportunity, and political freedom." (p. 221) In many ways, Richardson's view of the importance of the West is similar to that of the great early historian of this period, Frederick Jackson Turner. Richardson indeed brefly discusses (pp 281-283) Turner's famous thesis of the end of the American frontier and its significance.

The West became attractive to Northerners as a place for independence and opportunity, where the corruptions of large businesses and the agitation of the labor unions could be put aside. For Southerners, the West became a place to escape from the poverty that followed the Civil War and from the difficulties of Reconstruction. With the idealizing of the West, for Richardson, came a view that all Americans shared the same interests and the same ways of achieving success -- that they were "working their way up together." (p.1) This view led to the formation of a broad middle class, opposed on one side to the large concentrations of economic power in corporations and financial institutions and on the other side to "special interest groups" such as labor unions, African Americans, the poor, and strident advocates of women's rights. The emerging middle class viewed these groups as seeking special favors and entitlements while the middle class saw the role of the government as preserving impartiality and equality in its treatment of all people. The groups on the outside of this consensus, in their turn, pointed to structural factors in the United States which promoted inequality and unfairness and which required government intervention to correct. The middle class also tended to overlook the many affirmative government actions necessary to sustain its own view of America.

Richarson develops her narrative from the Reconstuction Era through the first appearance of "Liberal Republicanism" in 1872, to the terms of the reforms of Grover Cleveland, and through President McKinley and the Spanish American War. The political figure that most exemplifies, for Richardson, the spirit of this era is Theodore Roosevelt, who gets a great deal of attention in his early reforming years in New York City, in his venture to the West, as the leader of the Rough Riders on San Juan Hill and as the President. Richardson also devotes a great deal of attention to Owen Wister's novel, "The Virginian" as emblematic of American values at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Richardon's narrative tells of both broad events and of individuals that she sees as representative of some aspect of the development of the United States during the post-Civil War period. These individuals include, among others, former Confederate General Wade Hampton, Julia Ward Howe, the African American cowboy Nat Love, Buffalo Bill, Samuel Gompers, Indian leaders such as Sitting Bull, Geronimo and the Commanche leader Quanah. Their stories are told together with the broader historical narrative of Richardson's account, and sometimes interfere with its flow.

Richardson sees in the rise of the American middle class that followed the Civil War the sources of the divisions that continue to characterize American society between those who favor government intervention to assist disadvantaged groups and those who oppose it, even while benefiting from government activism themselves. Richardson finds much to be said for both sides, and for the opportunity for advancement and independence created by the emerging middle class, even though her sympathies clearly lie on the side of an activist government role. She writes, (p. 7): "America is neither excellent nor oppressive; rather it is both at the same time. In 1865, Americans had to reconstruct their shattered nation. Their solution "reconstructed" America into what it is today."

This is a thoughtful study of American history with provocative observations on the American character.

Robin Friedman

Heather Cox Rrichardson conludes her book, "West From Appomattox," with the statement, "Ultimately, the story of reconstruction is about how a middle class formed in America and how its members define what a nation would stand for." The book is not an easy read but it outlines clearly how this middle class was formed and how its influence grew. Since we are, most of us, members of the middle class it is important to understand the process and its implications. The book's focus is on the period of reconstruction following the Civil War with emphasis on western expansion. It is recommended that the reader first read Owen Wister's book, "The Virginian" as the author alludes to it often. Richardson's book is chuck full of food for thought and should be studied as well as read. Much contained therein suggests an intimate understanding of today's events. The book is for the serious student of American history and the rewards for time spent are great.

Heather Cox Richardson, West from Appomattox

I have been searching for something on reconstruction after the civil war written since Eric Foner's books. I found it in Ms Richardson's book but not in the way I was seeking. Her book reglosses post civil war history from the perspective of the dialogue between might ex pre facto be called the entitlement society versus the ownership society. This is certainly an interesting way of thinking about American society in the last 35 years of the nineteenth century and it does show how racist Southerners were able to reassert their despotic political control over the South. Nonetheless I missed being able to read about the nitty gritty of failed reconstruction in the South. I misconstrued her subtitle. Ms. Richardson's reconstruction is that of American society back with a racist South using it minority political clout to get its way and the entitlement which owners insisted for themselves while denying it to blacks, workers and women which was beginning to be hedged in by emerging social reform. Her book is interesting and worthwhile to read but I still want a historian's update of the subject I originally sought. Charlie Fisher author of Dismantling Discontent: Buddha's Way Through Darwin's World

I am not going to say much because I agree with all the positive comments made by the other reviewers... after reading this excellent book I had a much better understanding of present day history and how it unfolded after the Civil War.

I really wanted to like this book since it covers a period that's often neglected in modern historical literature and the author teaches at my alma mater. She's rather accessible, writes well enough and is quite knowledgeable. Indeed Richardson is considered one of the better young historians in the U.S. and shows plenty of imagination, which is often lacking in her profession.

By and large, the majority of passages in Richardson's book are unobjectionable. However, Richardson clearly comes across as liberal, and although she says she tried the write the book from the perspective of Americans during the late 19th century, she filters her views through the modern race-class-gender prism so common on the academic left. It was off-putting enough to prevent me from finishing the book. Evidently there are some lessons she never fully absorbed from her mentor, the late and great historian David Herbert Donald.

As for the book's overarching theme, Richardson's premise about the importance of the West in the American imagination is overstated. Many things occupied the minds of Americans during the Gilded Age and the middle class was no monolithic ideological entity. Its views were complicated and sometimes contradictory, buffeted by the strong cross-currents of intense political combat and rapid economic change brought on by the rising industrial state.

More specifically, Richardson gives short shrift to the politics of the era and does not paint a sufficiently detailed portrait of the South. Too much history from the bottom up and not enough from the top down.

By modern standards, America was a crueler, harder, less just and more unequal society a century ago - just like the rest of the world. By all means paint an honest picture of the past, with all its glories and foibles. Yet younger historians like Richardson could stand to learn from the greats in her profession from the not-so-distant past, who were able to convey these truths with as little moral preening and ideological distaste as possible. Even though Richardson is commendably subtle about it, it's always there. Some readers might be more sensitive to it than others - staunch liberals probably won't even notice what I consider it's objectionable tenor.

Richardson clearly has talent. What she lacks is a more dispassionate approach. Her book is not a bad one, but it could have been much better.

First off, I am an 11th grade student, and I had to write an essay on the Reconstruction Period based on the book for my AP US History 2 class.

The book has very good information, more than enough to write my essay and get a good grade (95/100), but this has to be the most boring book I have ever read. Its content is very dry and the book took me far longer to finish than I had anticipated. The book throws facts at you left and right, and when writing the essay, it was kind of difficult to pinpoint what was the most important information as the book made it all seem equally important.

If I remember correctly, the book also had at least one good sized excerpt from another book, which dragged the book on, and the fact that the same opinion was floating from page to page was annoying (special interests are bad etc. etc.)

I was one of the few in my class that actually read the entire book and did not skim it, and I know that most everyone in my class shared my opinion of the book. (heck, even my teacher did)

I realize this review is not at all in depth, but I think what I have written is ample to describe it to a young crowd and those who do not enjoy history.

Overall, this book is very spot on factually, but is an extreme bore. I recommend only to history buffs.

In my experience as a high school and college student, the period between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 20th century is not well covered in American histories. Unfortunate since we seem to be fighting the same battles now within our nation as those that the Civil War supposedly decided. I have often wondered just what did happen in that 35-year period between 1865 and 1900. When I saw West from Appomattox, I was eager to become better educated about this period in American history. I have to say that I am rather disappointed. I have three complaints: thesis, content and style. Richardson's thesis is that it was in this period that the middle class emerged as the dominant political power in America. The middle class believed in individualism and worked to disenfranchise African Americans, immigrants and the wage earner while, at the same time, limiting the power of business, specifically, of large corporations. Nice idea, but I find it hard to buy into. In fact, it seems that, while a middle class did emerge in the post-Civil War period, it was not more powerful politically than the individuals and corporations that embodied the Gilded Age. Was it truly the middle class, north and south, that worked to disenfranchise African Americans? No doubt, they had something to do with it, but it seems incredible to ignore the role that Southern planter culture played in this. And, if the middle class were so powerful politically, why is it that the period between 1880 and 1900 probably saw the most unequal distribution of wealth of any time in American history, the present, perhaps, excepted? To say the least, I don't find Richardson's thesis convincing. In terms of content, I was frustrated by the degree of repetition of a single idea. OK. OK. I get it. Now, rather than hit me again with the idea, back up your thesis with some facts. There is some anecdotal narrative, but the history is pretty weak when it comes to exploring legislation, court cases or "big events" of the era. I had the feeling throughout that Richardson only touched the surface but, for some reason, would not or could not dig deeper with detail. And, where are the figures (as in "facts and figures") to support her thesis? For example, towards the end of the book, she mentions that due the disenfranchisement of blacks (which, of course, she blames on the middle class), lynching became a routine and accepted way to deal with blacks in the south. It would be very interesting to see figures showing the number of lynchings per decade or per 5-year period between 1865 and 1900. Did lynching become steadily more accepted and commonplace as she implies? Somehow, I recall that lynchings were most numerous in the period between 1870 and 1880. Maybe I am wrong, but figures would help. And, in making such a big deal about the rise of the middle class, it would be interesting and informative to see some figures here. How did median income change in the period covered by the book? How about mean income? Was there a change in average family size? What was the change in rural/urban mix during that time? How many immigrants entered the country per decade? What was their economic contribution? What was their degree of economic mobility? None of these things are discussed at all. That seems, to me, to make this history a rather weak one. Finally, there is the issue of style. What in the heck has happened to the idea of editors taking control of the author and insisting that they write in prose that is clear and easily understood? It is just not acceptable that I should have to read a sentence two or three times to understand it, not because the concepts are difficult, but because the syntax is tortuous. Authors of the last decade or so seem to have abandoned the principle that two short, clear sentences are preferable to one long, muddled sentence. And, of this, Richardson is very guilty. I accept that it takes 25 or 50 pages to become accustomed to an author's style and then the reading becomes easier. After 300 pages of this one, it was still not easy. And there were only 50 pages left! I am, frankly, sorry that this history is such a disappointment. This is a period of American history that is undercovered. I was hoping for much more than was delivered.