80civil war history consensus would seem in order. While Reconstruction may not appear very radical from a modern perspective, surely the commitment to equal civil and political rights did in an era less than a decade removed from slavery. (The term "Radical Republican," one must remember, was not invented by modern historians.) And while it is true that the most radical politicians were in a small minority among Republicans, this hardly means that there was no substantive difference between the two major parties. Most white Republicans shared at least some of the racist assumptions that prevailed in the nineteenth century, but the Republican party everywhere supported minimal guarantees of civil rights and everywhere encouraged black political participation—if for no other reason than its dependence for survival on black votes. Except perhaps in Virginia, where as Maddex shows political alignments were atypical, Democrats everywhere resisted such guarantees and participation and when necessary engaged in a violent campaign of terrorism to undo them. Recollection ofwhat happened in the southern states after the overthrow of Reconstruction governments should be sufficient to dispel the notion of Repubhcan and Democratic identity. This volume is useful for a number of reasons. It contains concise summaries of political Reconstruction in six southern states; itfacilitates comparison among those states; and it provides a good guide to prevaiUng historical views of southern Reconstruction. At the same time, most of these essays are methodologically traditional, conceptually unanalytical, and thematically debatable. Although all of them are solid works by experts, they indicate the degree to which the political history of southern Reconstruction is still a field in its infancy. Peter Kolchin University of New Mexico The Saints and the Union: Utah Territory During the CivilWar. By E. B. Long. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1981. Pp. 310. $12.95.) Historians have given Uttle attention to events in Utah Territory during the Civil War. They generally note that the government sent a small column of California Volunteers to take station near Salt Lake City to protect the overland trail from hostile Indians and keep the Mormons in line. Scant mention is made of what church authorities felt and said about the course and nature of the war and the part they were forced to play in it—or what territorial governors and General Patrick Connor, the military commander in Utah, said about the intransigent Mormons. In The Saints and the Union, Civil War authority E. B. Long addresses these questions. Combing Brigham Young's journals, sermons, and correspondence , Connor's mihtary dispatches, and Salt Lake City newspapers, Long presents a wealth of material that vividly illustrates BOOK REVIEWS81 the paranoia, suspicion, and fear—real or feigned—that characterized the poles of authority—civil, military, and religious—in Utah during the war years. Although a reportorial exercise rather than an analytic study, this volume provides valuable insights into attitudes, propaganda, and incipient demagoguery in the West during the Civil War. The book may be dividedinto two parts. Thefirstpart (fivechapters) describes prevailing views toward Mormonism, Utah's unique geographical position in the West, the withdrawal of federal troops, Mormon desire for isolation from the war, the problem of polygamy, and the short-term Mormon militia service on the overland route. In this section, Brigham Young is on center stage, voicing suspicions about everything. He fears and mocks Lincoln, condemns Douglas, and declares that the Mormons will be the salvation of the Union, when North and South collapse from exhaustion. Long presents his material chronologically, with extended quotes carrying much of the story, an approach that occasionally causes the narrative to appear rambling and patched together. The author's abbreviated commentary provides Unkage for the quoted matter. The remaining eight chapters focus on the army's role in Utah. The theme becomes more sophisticated, with Young, Connor, and federal officials raiUng about each other (generally on paper), hurling accusations , and fueling local tensions. Yet there are no confrontations, no disorders, no overt acts. Connor ignores Mormon criticism and goes about his business of protecting trails and chasing hostile Indian bands. Long has an eye for personality. Brigham Young comes through as a strong charismatic leader, yet a man who uses poor grammar and stoops...
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Open Access
Jun 1, 2021
Judy Lofton 
