The Reconstruction Presidents (review)

Abstract

516 Rhetoric & Public Affairs presidency. This provocative book constitutes a major contribution to the literature on presidential leadership. Harold F. Bass Jr. Ouachita Baptist University The Reconstruction Presidents. By Brooks D. Simpson. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 1998; pp. xi + 276. $ 35.00. Brooks Simpson, professor of history and humanities at Arizona State University, pursues an ambitious agenda in The Reconstruction Presidents. Using a traditional perspective that is rare today, he explains the complexities of the postCivil War era by unpacking the moves and motives of its presidents: Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, and Rutherford B. Hayes. In the process, Simpson offers an insightful overview of the period's national politics that is significant for its scope and coherence. Those who found the regional detail of Eric Foner's Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution (1988) overwhelming will enjoy the direct narrative and concise plot of The Reconstruction Presidents. Readers with an interest in the period's historiography or presidential studies will be interested in the text's method as well as its substance. In the introduction, Simpson acknowledges that some will consider his book a "curiously old-fashioned study"; yet, he declares: "presidents, national politics, and policy matter.... History from the top down still has its merits ..." (ix). From that critical position Simpson interprets Reconstruction policy, emphasizing each president 's style and political pragmatism. Lincoln, according to the text, used the realities of war to advance his own desire for equal justice and his public responsibility to maintain the Union. Johnson had little interest in protecting African Americans or remaking the South's culture, and "he clearly fumbled away an opportunity to gain much of what he sought" (230). Johnson did not direct the Southern states during those brief years when they were amenable to federal intrusion, and his inflammatory discourse only served to unify a divided Republican Party. Grant was a well-intentioned administrator who battled against criticism from every corner. Without a clear policy and few options, the president vacillated between intervention and appeasement. Hayes did not intend to end Reconstruction; rather, he sought to reshape it by eliminating race as a divisive issue. He hoped that the South would recognize the advantages of a black electorate once federal troops no longer seemed to protect the rights of African Americans over the rights of European Americans. Whereas most contemporary histories of Reconstruction focus on specific regions or particular themes, Simpson's text is reminiscent of John Hope Franklin's Reconstruction After the Civil War (1961); its comprehensive overview leads to conclusions that are specific to particular moments but important because they explain Book Reviews 517 the evolution of national policy. The text's strength lies in its explanation of how each president responded to unique but similar circumstances. For example, when the reader sees Lincoln's incomplete policies set against Johnson's agenda she notices subtle yet important differences. Johnson and Lincoln began with the assumption that the Southern states had not left the Union; therefore, they were not conquered territories. Both presidents pursued similar strategies: locate and encourage Southern Republicanism through the use of amnesty and appointments. However, Simpson demonstrates that Lincoln and Johnson differed in their willingness to influence regional governments. Lincoln used a variety of methods, from persuasion to coercion, to move the South toward policies that he favored. Johnson was displeased and sometimes frustrated with the state legislatures, but he refrained from intervening too forcefully. This subtle difference was significant, because Johnson's approach led to Southern resistance rather than cooperation. Moreover, it contradicts the historical argument that Johnson simply enacted what Lincoln had drafted. Comparative history can be helpful for many reasons, but Simpson's execution is interesting because it highlights the tensions that exist among presidential personalities , the circumstances that they face, and the institution of the presidency. This tension is evident in two themes that run throughout the book. Simpson does an admirable job detailing the antagonism between the presidents and Congress. Despite common party affiliations, none of the chief executives benefited from a warm relationship with the legislative branch. Second, the text considers the efforts of each president on behalf of African Americans. Except for Johnson, Simpson argues that...