-
7/23/2019 - The New Orthodoxy in Reconstruction Historiography;
1/9
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Reviews in
American History.
http://www.jstor.org
Review: The New Orthodoxy in Reconstruction HistoriographyAuthor(s): Herman BelzReview by: Herman BelzSource: Reviews in American History, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Mar., 1973), pp. 106-113Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2701693Accessed: 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 contentin 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 [email protected].
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 02:02:28 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2701693http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2701693http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/ -
7/23/2019 - The New Orthodoxy in Reconstruction Historiography;
2/9
106
REVIEWS
IN AMERICAN HISTORY /
March 1973
grateful hat
ProfessorMyers
has reintroduceds to the worldof
theseplanters.
n
the long
run the legendof antebellum
plendor
can do no harm, and it may even serve as an antidote to the
equally
pious
but newer myths
bout
slaves.
But only
at
some
peril will Americans
orget he price exacted
n blood and racial
squalor to preserve
he antasies f the Children f Pride, title
forus all to
bear.
BertramWyatt-Brown
Department f
History,
Case Western eserveUniversity
Mr. Wyatt-Brown's
tudy,Lewis,Tappan and
the EvangelicalWar
against
Slavery
was
recently
ssued
in
a
paperback
edition by
Atheneum
ublishers.
THE NEW ORTHODOXY IN
RECONSTRUCTION
HISTORIOGRAPHY
Robert Cruden,
The Negro
in Reconstruction. nglewood
Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
969. Pp. ix
+
182, bibl.,
ndex,$5.95 (cloth),
$2.45 (paper).
Thomas H. O'Connor,
The DisunitedStates:
The
Era of CivilWar
and Reconstruction. ew
York:
Dodd,
Mead & Company,1972.
Pp. xi
+
272,
maps, llus.,bibl., ndex,$3.95
(paper).
Allen W.Trelease, Reconstruction: he Great Experiment.New
York: Harper
& Row, 1971.
Pp. xii +224, illus., bibl., index,
$4.95.
A decade
ago
a survey
of
Reconstruction
istoriography
on-
cluded
that while the
interpretation
f the
Dunning school
had
been
pretty
well
refuted,
o new
synthesis
ad
emerged
o take ts
place. Clearly this
is no
longer
the
case.
In
recent
years
studies
havebegunto appearwhich ignifyhecrystallizationfa viewof
Reconstruction
hat will probably
emain
tandard
or some
time
to
come.
Three new
books
by Thomas
H.
O'Connor,
Robert
Cruden,
and Allen W.
Trelease
give
evidence of
this
synthesis.
Directed owardthe student
nd general eader,
hey on irm hat
the
battle in
which
the revisionists
ngaged
o
long
s
over.
They
also suggest,
however,
hat
a
new
orthodoxy s formingwhich
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 02:02:28 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 - The New Orthodoxy in Reconstruction Historiography;
3/9
BELZ /
ReconstructionHistoriography
107
itself s
open
to
question.
This
new
orthodoxy
oes not
go
so
far
as
to
say,
as a new Civil War revisionism
ould
have
it,
that the
new birth f
freedom f which
Lincoln poke never ccurred, hat
the CivilWar dead died invain.No one who studiesReconstruc-
tion
can
quite
come to
that
conclusion.Nevertheless,here
s a
tendency
in recent
revisionism-and
t
can be seen
in
these
books-to
conclude not
only
that Reconstruction
ailed,
but that
it was
fatally
flawed
from the
very
outset because it did not
revolutionize andholding
n
the South. As the
conservative
southern
view no longer
finds erious expression, new line of
conflict appears to be
emergingbetween
a liberal political
interpretation hich argues
that substantial
hough
short-lived
gains were made by blacks duringReconstruction,nd a more
radical economic
interpretation
hich holds that
very
little of
significance as
accomplished,
r at least
very
ittlerelative o
what
was
possible.
Revisionist
conclusions arrived
t
over the
past
thirtyyears
provide heunderpinningnd
interpretiveramework
f the three
books
under
consideration.
Howard
K.
Beale
established
the
fundamental
heme of
revisionistnquiry
n
1940
when he asked
whethertwasn'ttime to study heperiodwithout ssuminghatcarpetbaggersnd SouthernwhiteRepublicanswere wicked,that
Negroes were
incompetent,
nd that white southernerswed a
debt
of
gratitude
o the
restorers
f
white supremacy.
eale also
urged
an
analysis
of the motivating orces
n
Reconstruction.
o
the
early
revisionists,oncernedwith
the
Radical
governments,
issues
of
economic and political power stood out.
As attention
turned o understandingow Radical policiescame
to be adopted
anyway,
t
began
to
appear
that
democratic dealism
was involved
as well.
Racism,
a force that was
candidly
acknowledged
f
differentlyescribed n the conservativenterpretation,as also
figured
n
recent
tudies.However
hey are related,
heseare seen
as the
dynamic
orces
n
Reconstruction.
Cruden,
O'Connor,
and
Trelease all
assignmajor responsibility
for
bringing
n
Radical
Reconstruction o Andrew
Johnson,
who
by refusing
o
compromise
orcedmoderate
Republicans
o
join
with
Radicals
in
adopting
he Reconstruction ct
of
1867.
Only
slightly
ess
responsibilityelongs
to
southerners hemselves
or
rejecting
he
Fourteenth
Amendment nd
adopting
the
foolish
tacticof masterly nactivity This is to say that heRepublican
party
t the
very
east foun
it
expedient-there
s
disagreement
s
to whether
nything
more
was involved-to
take an
increasingly
hard line
in an
attempt
to
protect
southern freedmen
nd
Unionists.
Within the
Republican
party,
moreover,
moderates
rather than
radicals occupied the most influential
ositions,
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 02:02:28 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 - The New Orthodoxy in Reconstruction Historiography;
4/9
108
REVIEWS IN
AMERICAN
HISTORY
/ March
1973
though
he
latter
pointed
the
way.
Accordingly
he
congressional
policywas harsher han t need have
been.
But
when
all is
said
and
done, these
books
argue,
t
was not
by any
objective
tandard
harshpolicy.Military uledidnot fallhardly n theSouth,andin
establishing ew
governments
nly
a
smafl
proportion
f
adult
white
males
was
disfranchised.
ruden,
O'Connor,
and
Trelease
also
show that blackswere
a
majority
n
only
one
legislative
ody,
and in
no state did
they
hold office n
approximate
roportion
o
their
numbers.
Radical Reconstruction as not
Black
Reconstruc-
tion.
Nor
was
it alien
rule which
depended
mainly
n
outsiders.
Trelease makes the
simple
but sensiblepoint that
what was
at
stake
was not home
rule,
but
who should
rule
at
home. Without
beingdoctrinaire,he threeauthors nterprethe policiesof the
Radical
governments
s an
enlightened
esponse
o
problems
hat
the
planter-professional-businesslass had
ignored
efore he
war.
A
lot
of
money
was
spent
and taxes went
skyhigh,
but
it
was
to
good
purpose.
Pointing
o the
establishment
f a
public
school
system,
the
extension of social
services,
nd the
passage
of
legislation
protecting poor
people,
Cruden,
O'Connor,
and
Trelease
conclude that
democracy
made
notable advances
during
Reconstruction.
While heseworks blysummarize herevisionistutlook,they
also
contain
distinctive
oints
of
interpretation.
he
motivation f
congressional
econstruction
s one
of
them.Cruden
holds that
economic and
political
interests
etermined
Republican
policy
toward
the
South.
He
doesn't
deny
that
the
black
codes
made
Republicans
pprehensivebout
the
safety nd
well
being
of
the
freedmen, nd
he
notesthat
business
nterests
n the
Republican
party
did not agree
on all
aspectsof
national
conomic
policy.He
contends,
however, hat
because each
interest
ad
something
o
lose from a restoration f southern ower,northernapita sts
were
willing
o
go
along
with the
Radical
plan
of
Negro
suffrage.
But
it
was
not ust a
matter
f going
long.
Cruden
tates
hat he
business
interests
made
an offer
of
collaboration, on
terms
ensuring he
protection f
private
property,
whichthe
Radicals
could not
afford
o turn
down
(p. 25).
Cruden
seemsto
have
got
this dea from
DuBois, and it
doesn't
seemany
less
schematic,
r
any
better
documented, han
it did
in
1935.
Although
Cruden
adds that
the
purely
political
ogic of
staying n
power lso
led to
the policy of 1867, the structure f the argument ompelsthe
inference
hat
the
purpose
of
keeping
power
was to
promote
economic
interests. release
and
O'Connor,
in
contrast,
ontend
that
ideals
of
liberty nd
equality
motivated
Republicans.
Most
Republicans,
Trelease
asserts, were
sincerely
nterested
n the
welfare f
the
Negro and
recognized
hat
mancipationlone
was
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 02:02:28 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 - The New Orthodoxy in Reconstruction Historiography;
5/9
BELZ / Reconstruction
Historiography 109
not enough. At the least blacks were entitled o civil and legal
equality.
While
acknowledging
he
motive
of
partyrule,
Trelease
identifies hiswithgenuine
ommitment
o
the
heart nd soul of
the entireUnionwareffort,..the successful rusade gainst lavery
and disunion pp. 47,
49).
Although
none of these books
argues
he containment hesis-
that the
purpose
of
giving
lacks
equal rights
n
the
South
was
to
keep
them from
comingNorth-theydevote
much attention o
racism.Cruden's
fairnessn handling outhernwhite upremacys
noteworthy. e explains t as
a
psychological ecessity ollowing
the destruction
f an
independent outhernyeomanry nd as a
response
o
the
traumaof defeat nd the emergence f blacks as
freemen (pp. 42, 91). Trelease, in contrast, implydescribes
southerners' elief that
Negroes
were ess than
human and ought
to be
treated kindly,
ike
dumb animals pp. 21-22). All three
authors
ee
racism, ortherns
well
as
southern,
s the
basis of the
restoration f
conservative ontrol.Yet because racial prejudice
was
pretty
much a
constant, hough ssuming
ifferent
orms,
t
does not
by
itself
xplain
the failure f
Reconstruction.
Blacks became
free,
but not
equal:
that is
the
major
and
irrefutable
act
which
informs hese
works
as it has most recent
considerationsf Reconstruction. till,these books add, not all
was
for
naught.
For
all the
adversities
hey
uffered lacks did not
lose
citizenship,
nor was
public
education
denied
them.
The
Fourteenth nd FifteenthAmendmentswere not
upheld,
but
neitherwere
they
repudiated; ogether
with
parts of civil
rights
laws they provided
a basis for the Second Reconstruction
century
later.
Expediency
forced the assertion of
principle,
Cruden
observes,
ut
the
principle
nunciatedwas
equality (p.
160). Cruden argues
further, owever,
hat
Reconstruction ro-
vided blacks withmeaningfulreedom t the timeand must be
counted a
qualified
success
(p. 111).
For black
power
was a
realityduring
Reconstruction.
lacks
were not mere pawns
n
a
struggle
etween
whites.
The
right
o vote
gave
them
bargaining
power
which
they
used to
win gains n
education,
ivilrights,n
social
reform.
he
dependence
of
white
politicians
n black
votes
was
further
vidence
of black
power. Defending
he tactics of
maneuver ather
han confrontationhat
black
leadersemployed,
Crudendescribes
system
f
interest
roup
iberalism hat
enabled
blacksto feelthattheir roblemswerebeingdealtwith.
Yet as an attempt
o integrate lacks ntoAmerican ociety n
an
equal basis,
Reconstruction
ailed. And
the
reason
it
did,
Cruden and Trelease
suggest
n
company
with
a
number f other
historians
n
recent
years,
is
that it did not
give
land
to
the
freedmen. ruden states
that
congressional olicy
was
radically
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 02:02:28 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 - The New Orthodoxy in Reconstruction Historiography;
6/9
110
REVIEWS IN
AMERICAN
HISTORY
/
March
1973
defective
because
it
paid
little attention to the economic
adjustments
eeded to
make
blackstruly
ree.
If
freedomwereto
be
meaningful
nd
equality
assured,
he
writes,
then the federal
governmentmust assumephysicalprotection f the black man,
promote his welfare, nd
underwrite
is independenceby land
distribution
p. 161).
Trelease s equallycertain hat
whatblacks
needed most to achieve
real freedom,
elf-respect,nd equality
was
land.
Accordingly,
hegreatest ailure f Reconstruction
as
its failure o
give the freedmen
and of their wn. This
weakened
thepolicy
from
he outset
and
contributed
o its lateroverthrow
(pp. 24, 27, 75, 138; cf. O'Connor,
p. 204).
Behind
all this seems
to be the idea that political
equalityby
itself s prettymeaningless,hat without conomicpowerwe are
leftwith
merebourgeois
iberty. hatmay be true, nd
then gain
it may not be. The point s
thatthe truth
f the assumption-for
t
is
not
a conclusionbut an often unexamined
premise-is
not so
utterly eyond
dispute nd self-evident
s to be made
the basis of
historical
nterpretation.
et that s
what
we seem to be getting:
explanations
f what happenedby referenceo what
mighthave
been
and how
things ught
o
havebeen,
untilwe understand
ow
Reconstruction
ould
have
worked.
likethe deaofredistributing
propertys muchas thenext person,but I think hatto make t
the
key
to
interpretations
f
Reconstructions
unhistorical.
Historians
have
rediscovered
Thaddeus Stevens'
proposal
to
confiscate southern
property
and
give
forty
acres
to
every
freedman.
he number
f
Republicans
who
supported
his
plan
s
acknowledged
o be
small,
but
theirexistence
s taken
as
proof
that
an alternative
xisted,
hat therewas
a
decisivemoment
ut
of
which
an
entirely
ifferent
nd more
satisfactory
olutionto
the
problem
of
Reconstruction
ould
have
come.
Thus
historians
refer o fatefuldecisions nwhichCongress oteddown Stevens'
confiscation
cheme
(see O'Connor, p.
207).
Yet Stevens' bill
never
came close
to a
vote.
Freedmen's
Bureau
legislation
f
course did,
and
it contained and
allotment eatureswhichhave
been
interpreted
s
a
golden opportunity
f
not
an
outright
mandate
to
give
blacks economic
security.William
McFeely,
for
example,
hofds
hat
General0.
0.
Howard
had it
in
his
power
to
define
the nation's commitment
o
the
ex-slaves,
but that
the
Yankee
stepfather
ailed
to meet his responsibility nd let
AndrewJohnson ive outhernersack theirand.There s not the
slightest
ttempt
n
this and
otherworkswhich ament he ack of
economic
revolution
o
examinethe
legal
aspects
of
confiscation,
the
definition f
abandoned
property,
he
congressional
ntention
with
respect
o the
title
o abandoned
property,
he
effect
pon
it
of executive
pardon.
All
this-which
s to
say
the
way contempo-
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 02:02:28 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 - The New Orthodoxy in Reconstruction Historiography;
7/9
BELZ / Reconstruction
Historiography 111
raries iewed
the matter-is
gnored.
t has seemed
necessary nly
to point
out that
confiscation
hreatened
rivate roperty
nd
was
rejected,
s
though
t were
a real ssue that
hung
n the
balance.
In contrast o thecertaintyf historians hose nvokingf the
land
reform hesis
ssumes
he
proportions
f a
new
orthodoxy
s
the uncertainty
f
people
at
the
time as to the best course to
follow. Still, those who
cared most about
making
lack freedom
meaningfulnvariably rgued
for the
right
o
vote.
Can
we
really
dismiss his vidence
by saying,
s Kenneth
tampp
does inThe Era
of Reconstruction,
hat
people
then did not understand the
sociology
of
freedom ?
Frederick
Douglass
is oftencited
for
his
judgment
f
1880
that
Reconstruction ailed
because
t
didn't
give
land to thefreedmen. ut in an 1866 analysis f Reconstruction
the
only
reference ouglass
made to land was to
say
that
universal
suffrage ught
to be
the
law
of the
land.
This
was
the
way
to
protectblack liberty.1
And
in
the crisis f 1866-67, when
a real
turning
oint
seemed
to
be
reached
concerning
he liberty nd
rights f Negroes, tevens
did not ask for confiscation.
e asked
for
military protection
and
Negro
suffrage.2
Like
other
Republicans
e believed
n
putting
irst
hings irst.
But suppose and had beengiven o the freedmen.f
historians
are goingto speculateabout land reform hey oughtto probe
further
hanthey
have.
Charles nd
Mary
Beard held that t was
an
almost nsuperable ask to give civilrights o personswho
lacked
economic
power.
Yet
they
saw littlereason to
believe
that
f
the
freedmen ad been
given
and
they
would have had
the
capital
or
the
proprietary
kill
or
knowledge
o hold
it
against
peculators
and sharpers
n
general.
Howard K.
Beale
asked what would
have
happened
had the
planters'
statesbeen divided
mong he
former
slaves. The question was
perhaps
more
rhetorical han
historical,
but sympathetic houghhe was to the idea, Beale too seemedto
see
difficulties.
id a
description
f the freedmen
s illiterate, ith
no conception
of
the meaning of terms such as government,
suffrage,
nd
free
labor
mean
acceptance
of the
traditional
conservative iew
of the
Negro, Beale asked? Nevertheless
hat
description
eemed to
him
accurate.
Since Beale's
day
we have
been disabused
of racial
attitudes hat
perhaps
ffected is view
of
the
matter, ut what does the evidence uggest?
Historians ave
not
generally
eld that
the
Homestead
Act of 1862 turned
the
conditionof poor white farmers round, and the meliorative
measures
of
Progressivism
nd the New Deal often have
been
judged
inadequate if not failures.Why would land reform n
Reconstruction
ave worked ny better?
It
is
easy
to
criticize
Republicanpolicy for not giving
and to
the
freedmen;
fter
ll,
even
in
Russia,
t
is
said,the emancipated
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 02:02:28 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 - The New Orthodoxy in Reconstruction Historiography;
8/9
112
REVIEWS IN
AMERICAN HISTORY
/
March
1973
serfswere given and.
Aside
from he fact that Russian serfs id
not hold
the land as private
roperty
ut
rather
ommunally,
o
that they remainedunfree n significant ays, one might skwhether ome economic gainswere not made by blacks during
Reconstruction.
n
Black Reconstruction
n
America,
DuBois
described
exceptionaland lucky Negroeswho got land on a
considerable cale.
The
land
holdings
of
Negroes
ncreased ll
over
the
South,
he
wrote.
Cruden
too
states that while
the
number f freedmenwho bought
and
was small,
t
was significant
for
t showed hatblacks
could
survive
n a
competitiveociety
p.
45). The revisionist cholar
Francis
B.
Simkins
believed
that
Reconstructionwas not trulyradical because it did not giveNegroes and,their nlyeffective eapon nbattling or conomic
competence and social equality.
Yet
Simkins
lso held that the
freedmen bargained
themselves nto
an
agricultural ituation
unlike
slavery
nd fromtheirpoint
of
view
advantageous.
The
abandonment
f the communal haracter f the Southern lanta-
tion,
he
wrote,
bestowed
upon
the Negroes the American
farmer's deal
of
independent
xistence. 3This conclusion eems
startling,
or
while
the difference etween
slavery
and share-
croppingmaybe acknowledged, he latterobviouslydidn'tgiveblacksthe securestatus hatSimkins' tatementmplies.Yet was
the establishment
f
the
principle
f
independent
and
holding,
s
in
the
Southern
Homestead Act
of
1866,
not
important?
t
depends
on
one's
point
of
view.
If
historianswho
emphasize
and
reform ndorse this
principle,
s theyseemto, then
the
change
described
y
Simkins ssumes
greater ignificance.
Not
all recent tudents
f
the
period accept
what
I
have
called
the
new
orthodoxy.
John
nd LaWanda
Cox,
W.
R.
Brock,
Harold
M. Hyman, nd RembertW. Patrick, mong thers, old thatcivilrightswas the main ssueand thatReconstructionailedbecause
the
guarantees
f the Fourteenth nd Fifteenth
mendments,
nd
the Civil
Rights and Enforcement
cts,
were but
fitfully
nd
irresolutely
aintained. inally, hey
were
all
but
abandoned.And
why
was that? Because liberal theories of
government
nd
prevailing onstitutional
deas restrictedwhat even the
most
ardent
Radicals
thought
houldbe
done,
and
because the drive
or
political
and civil
equality
was
in
part a response o a crisis, nd
the crisis
had
passed.
When
his
happened
t
became clear-and
thetroublewas-not thatthegrant f political iberty o the freedmen
lacked
an
economic
basis,
but that
it did not
rest
on
a firm
emotional
and
ideological
commitment. nderneath t all racial
prejudiceremained, eading southerners
o aggress gainstblacks
and northernerso
acquiesce
in the
aggression. ut it is well
to
recall
the
Beards' observation n
emancipation: Nothing ike
this
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 02:02:28 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 - The New Orthodoxy in Reconstruction Historiography;
9/9
HALLER / Family Fictions
113
had ever
happened
n
history,
t least on such a
scale. 4
Instead
of
saying hatReconstruction ailed, tmight
e
more ccurate
o say
that
t
was,
alas,
onlypartially
uccessful.
n
any event,
he
crux
of
it was civilrightsndpoliticalfreedom. hesewere the essential
elements f the
republicanism
or
which
the
war was fought,
nd
to extend
which
was
the
purpose
of
Reconstruction.ntegrating
the
freedmen nto the
polity
was
a
principal
focus
of
this
undertaking,
nd
it intensifiednd hastened he
processby which
it was
accomplished.
But as the
coming
of the
war involvednot
only the
dehumanizing
ffect
f slavery
ponblacks,
but also and
per a s more
mportantly
ts
debilitatingnd
corrupting
ffect n
repub canism,so Reconstructionnvolvedmore
than
adjustment
to Negroemancipation.n thelargest ense t aimedat improving
the
system f
republican iberty
hathad flourished
n
one section
of the federal
epublic, nd mustnowprevailn all of
it.
Herman
Belz
Department
f History,
UniversityfMaryland
An
article by
Mr. Belz, Changing
Conceptions of Constitu-
tionalism n the Era of World War Two and the Cold War,
appeared
n the December
1972
issue
of
The Journal f
American
History.
1.
Frederick
Douglass, Reconstruction,
Atlantic
Monthly December 1866), pp.
761-65.
2. Congressional
lobe, 39 Cong.,
1
sess., pp. 4303-04
(July28, 1866).
3. Francis B.
Simkins, New Viewpoints of SouthernReconstruction, ournalof
Southern
History February1939), p. 52.
4. Beard
and
Beard,
The Rise
of AmericanCivilization,
Vol. II, p. 116.
FAMILY FICTIONS
RichardSennett, amilies
gainst he City:
Middle ClassHomes of
Industrial Chicago,
1872-1890. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 970. Pp. x + 258, $8.50.
Families against the City
is
a
study
of
family
tructure nd its
relationship o occupation in a forty-block
ensus tract on
Chicago's
near
West
Side
during
he 1870s
and
1880s. According
to Professor
ennett, he area that he labels
Union Park was at
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 02:02:28 UTC