Johnson, Grant, and the Politics of Reconstruction , and: Reunion without Compromise: The South and Reconstruction, 1865-1868 (review)

Abstract

84CIVIL WAR HISTORY hammered out in Congress was not social in character nor did it envisage such sweeping change as the author implies. Related to this view of New York reform as an aspect of a coherent and defined policy of national Reconstruction, there is the implication throughout the book that belief in affirmative governance prevailed at that time. It is doubtless true that staunch Republican politicians, their fervent followers, and firm reformers embraced such a posture, particularly just after the war, but it would be misleading to give the impression that the electorate generally did. Northerners tended to be more conservative than progressive in regard to a positive role for government, for both individualism and laissez faire prevailed and were to undercut and upset reformist plans. Another problem with the book, not unconnected with previous problems , is the blurring of factional lines within the state Republican party, by frequent use of the term radical to mean all Republicans. A more detailed analysis of Republican leadership and support might have proved fruitful in examining the different issues of state reform and national politics. Other additions to the study could have strengthened it: a systematic assessment of the electoral results which accrued from reform in the cities would enrich the analysis and strengthen the argument of the initial political efficacy of reform. Additional detail about the administration of the laws enacted would be instructive and interesting . Finally, this reviewer would have liked to have seen the results of research in more New York City newspapers and a greater number of upstate newspapers to gauge more fully editorial and to some extent popular reaction to the reform program. Similarly, a wider reach into manuscript collections of all political persuasions might have proved profitable and provided more political perspective and sharpened critical evaluation. Despite these qualifications, this book is an excellent monograph with an interesting and provocative interpretation; the work is one of the best recent state studies on the North. The analysis of New York reform and postwar politics is first-rate. The author demonstrates control of diverse sources and of different strands to his story, and presents a probing historical analysis enriched by sound political insight and enlivened by a vigorous and graceful prose style. The overall performance, distinguished by craftsmanlike work and intellectual worth, establishes Mohr as a highly competent historian with a most promising future. William Gillette Rutgers University Johnson, Grant, and the Politics of Reconstruction. By Martin Mantell. (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1973. Pp. 209. $8.50.) BOOK REVIEWS85 Reunion without Compromise: The South and Reconstruction, 18651868 . By Michael Perman. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Pp. ix, 376. $17.50.) Few topics have excited as much interest among historians in recent years as the turbulent and controversial years of Reconstruction. Numerous historians—Eric McKitrick, David Donald, W. R. Brock, Harold Hyman and LaWanda and John Cox, to name but a few, have looked closely at Andrew Johnson, Congress and Reconstruction policies in the years after the Civil War. Now two young historians, Martin Mantell and Michael Perman have examined this period and present new evidence that warrants the careful consideration of all Reconstruction scholars. Professor Martin Mantell, in Johnson, Grant and the Politics of Reconstruction , focuses on a number of critical elements in the years of 1867 and 1868—the struggle between Johnson and Grant over the reconstruction of the South, the response of the Republican party to the new postwar situation, the place of the South in the national political system, and the efforts of the Democrats to regain power. While he argues that the years 1867 and 1868 have been too long neglected, his major concern is with Ulysses S. Grant and his relationship with President Johnson. It is his contention that "the major role of Grant in the postwar years has been little appreciated." (p. 2). Since Grant was the General of the Army and for five months both Secretary of War and General of the Army, Mantell argues that he was influential in the implementation of Reconstruction policies and that his dealings with Johnson were in fact "an intricate duel on a tight rope, as it were, with Johnson using...