Reconstruction in Georgia, Economic, Social, Political, 1865--1872. By C. Mildred Thompson, Ph.D. Longmans, Green, and Company, New York, 1915. Pp. 418.
The appearance of C. M. Thompson's Reconstruction in Georgia arouses further interest in the study of that period which has been attracting the attention of various investigators in the leading universities of the United States. These writers fall into different groups. Coming to the defense of a section shamed with crime, some have endeavored to justify the deeds of those who resorted to all sorts of schemes to rid the country of the "extravagant and corrupt Reconstruction governments." Lately, however, the tendency has been to get away from this position. Yet among these writers we still find varying types, many of whom have for several reasons failed to write real history. Some have not forsaken the controversial group, not a few have tried to explain away the truth, and others going to the past with their minds preoccupied have selected only those facts which support their contentions.
What has this author in question done? In this readable and interesting work the writer has shown considerable improvement upon historical writing in this field. She has endeavored to deal not only with the political but also with the economic and social phases of the history of this period. One gets a glance at the State before the war, the transition from slavery to freedom, the problems of labor and tenancy, the commercial revival, the social readjustment, political reorganization, military rule, State economy, reorganized Reconstruction, agriculture, education, the administration of justice, the Ku Klux disorder, and the restoration of home rule.
This research leads the author to conclude that the seven years of the history of the State from 1865 to 1872 marked only the beginning of the social and economic transformation that has taken place since the war. This upheaval broke up the large plantation system, removed from power the "slave oligarchy," and exalted the yeomanry of moderate means, the uplanders now in control in the South. When the Democratic rule replaced Republicanism "one set of abnormal influences were put at rest," economic and social problems becoming the all-engrossing topics, and politics a diversion rather than a matter of self-preservation. The race problem then aroused began in another age, and not being settled, has been bequeathed to a later generation. Emancipation itself would have aroused racial antagonism but Republican Reconstruction increased it a hundred fold. This was the most enduring contribution of Congressional interference.
Politically Reconstruction in Georgia was a failure. The greatest political achievement of the period was the enfranchisement of the Negro, but this was soon undone, the Southern white man having no freedom of choice--"he had to be a democrat, whether or no." Although establishing the Negro in freedom the government failed to establish him in political and social equality with the whites. "But still," says the author, "the race problem and the cry of Negro! Negro! the slogan of political demagogues who magnify and distort a very real difficulty in playing upon the passions of the less educated whites--rise to curtail freedom of thought and act."
Out of this mass of material examined one would expect a more unbiased treatment. The work suffers from some of the defects of most Reconstruction writers, although the author has endeavored to write with restraint and care. One man is made almost a hero while another is found wanting. The white Southerner could not but be a Democrat but no excuse is made for the Negro who had no alternative but to ally himself with those who claimed to represent his emancipator. The State was at one time bordering on economic ruin because the Negroes became migratory and would not comply with their labor contracts. Little is said, however, about the evils arising from the attitude of Southern white men who have never liked to work and that of those who during this period, according to the author, formed roving bands for plundering and stealing. But we are too close to the history of Reconstruction to expect better treatment. We are just now reaching the period when we can tell the truth about the American Revolution. We must yet wait a century before we shall find ourselves far enough removed from the misfortunes and crimes of Reconstruction to set forth in an unbiased way the actual deeds of those who figured conspicuously in that awful drama.
Notes
"That the idea of a 'Secretary of Peace' for the United States is no new thing was brought out in the course of a paper by P. Lee Phillips, read by President Allen C. Clark before the Columbia Historical Society, which met at the Shoreham Hotel last night.
"In the course of the paper, entitled 'The Negro, Benjamin Banneker, Astronomer and Mathematician,' it was brought out that Banneker, who was a free Negro, friend of Washington and Jefferson, published a series of almanacs, unique in that they were his own work throughout. In the almanac for 1793 one of the articles from Banneker's pen was 'A Plan of Peace Office for the United States,' for promoting and preserving perpetual peace. This article was concise and well written, and contains most of the ideas set forth today by advocates of peace. Banneker took a 'crack' at European military ideas, and advocated the abolishment in the United States of military dress and titles and all militia laws. He laid down laws for the construction of a great temple of peace in which hymns were to be sung each day.