book reviews359 the status of blacks in American society, and, while he cheered on advances, he kept pushing for more, making it clear that he was not yet satisfied. Yet Douglass could never escape the fact that whatever the personal predilections of white politicians, notably Abraham Lincoln, black advancement was rarely their foremost policy priority, but rather one among many considerations. And, just as a war between whites opened the door for the abolition of slavery, the quest for reconciliation between whites closed the door to post-emancipation hopes for equality. The black future always seemed a hostage to the white present. Some of Blight's arguments encourage further inquiry. While he recognizes the dilemma faced by black leaders in retaining credibility and influence with both white leaders and black followers, we never quite find out how much influence Douglass exercised over blacks. One also yearns for more discussion of Douglass's postwar activities, when he was far more of a symbol than a leader, losing whatever ability he possessed to shape events (a matter of debate throughout the book). One example must suffice. Having made clear Douglass's opposition to prewar and wartime schemes for black emigration, Blight is at a loss to account for the black leader's enthusiasm for Ulysses S. Grant's plan to annex Santo Domingo, although the president pushed his pet project in part to offer Southern freedmen a place of refuge from violence and oppression. To explain Douglass's support as mere jingoism, as Blight does, is unsatisfying. In other places Blight seems far more understanding of the dilemmas confronting Douglass than of the equally difficult ones involving principle, pragmatism, and politics faced by Lincoln and Grant. But these criticisms should not overshadow Blight's achievement. In demonstrating the confluence of religious and political themes in Douglass 's thought, suggesting the multiplicity of influences which shaped his thought and action, and describing his response to the changes which swept through American at mid-century, Blight has crafted an absorbing interpretive narrative which contributes greatly to our understanding of this pivotal American leader. Brooks D. Simpson Arizona State University Constitutions and Constitutionalism in the Slaveholding South. By Don E. Fehrenbacher. Mercer University Lamar Memorial Lectures No. 31. (Athens and London: University of Georgia Press, 1989. Pp. xiv, 115. $16.00.) The three essays in this volume—originally delivered as the Lamar lectures at Mercer University—explore Southern constitutional practices and ideas during the antebellum era and the brief life of the Confederacy. They offer a fresh treatment of a familiar subject and make an important 360civil war history contribution to the perennial debate over Southern distinctiveness and Confederate nationalism. Professor Fehrenbacher begins by examining the antebellum Southern state constitutions, a topic which has been largely neglected by scholars. In a compact and lucid survey of developments in fifteen states over a period of eighty years, he shows that the South was in the mainstream of American constitutional development. Southerners, like other Americans of the period, tinkered incessantly with their state charters, frequently adopting new constitutions and amending old ones. Constitutional change in the South, as elsewhere, resulted in political democratization, a modest strengthening of executive power vis à vis the legislature, a popularly elected judiciary, and lengthier constitutions that placed greater restrictions on government. Moreover, like their counterparts in the North, Southern judges adopted the doctrine of judicial review and exercised the same restraint in invoking it to strike down legislation. "Even as the Union began to break apart in 1860," Fehrenbacher concludes, "there were greater differences between eastern and western states than between northern and southern states" (28). When he turns to federal constitutional interpretation, Fehrenbacher argues that Southerners did develop a distinctive approach. During the thirty years following the adoption of the Constitution, Southerners moved easily between states' rights and nationalism, as the occasion demanded. The Missouri Crisis changed things, however. Conscious of their status as a threatened minority, Southern leaders honed doctrines of state sovereignty and the concurrent majority to razor sharpness, forging a rather distinctive Southern approach to constitutional interpretation . Fehrenbacher notes, however, that Southerners did not rely exclusively on constitutional theories designed to protect minority rights. As a majority within...
Read full abstract
Oct 1, 2022
Adam Foley 
Open Access