_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.