On Rewriting Reconstruction History Author(s): Howard K. Beale Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Jul., 1940), pp. 807-827 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the American Historical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1854452 . Accessed: 04/03/2011 13:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press and American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org ON REWRITING RECONSTRUCTION HISTORY1

FOR many yearsboth Northernersand Southernerswho wroteon Reconstructionwere dominatedby sectionalfeelings still embittered by the Civil War. Men of the postwardecades were more concerned with justifyingtheir own positionthan theywere with painstakingsearch fortruth. Thus HilaryHerbert and his corroboratorspresented a South- ern indictmentof Northernpolicies, and Henry Wilson's historywas a brieffor the North.Few Southernerswere writing history. Northern historianslong acceptedthe thesisof Radical Republicansthat Radicals had saved theUnion bytheir Reconstruction program, that their Demo- craticopponents were traitors,and thatAndrew Johnson was a drunk- ard and an incompetent.A much-neededrevision came at about the turnof the century,associated principally with Rhodes and the "Dun- ning school".For the firsttime meticulous and thoroughresearch was carriedon in an effortto determinethe truthrather than to prove a thesis.The emphasisof the Dunning schoolwas upon the harm done to the South by Radical Reconstructionand upon the sordidpolitical and economicmotives behind Radicalism.Rhodes and the Dunning group drew a pictureof a South that-but for outsideinterference- mighthave made a happyand practicalreadjustment suited to thenew social,economic, and politicalorder. Rhodes, however, while crediting the President'sfaults to weaknessrather than to wickedness,yet ac- ceptedthe older pictureof AndrewJohnson and blamed his mistakes for much of the disasterthat overtook the South. Then still another group rehabilitatedJohnson. Dewitt rewrotethe storyof the impeach- mentas earlyas 1902.2 Schouler'slast volume,which appeared in 1913, carriedthe revisionfurther.3 In the twentiesa groupof historianscom- pleted the processwith severaldetailed studies of Johnson'scareer.4 About the same timeBowers gave the publichis rathersuperficial but

1 Based on a paper read at a mcetingof the SouthernHistorical Association oi November3, 1939. 2 David MillerDewitt, The Impeachmentand Trial of AndrewJohnson (New York, I 903). 3 JamesSchouler, History of the UnitedStates of Americaunder the Constitution, Vol. VII (New York,I913). 4 RobertW. Winston,,Plebeian and Patriot(New York, 1928); Lloyd Paul Stryker,Andrew Johnson: A Studyin Courage (New York, 1936); George FortMilton, The Age of Hate (New York, I930). 807 8o8 Howard K. Beale widelyread study of theperiod.5 His workwas basedon theserious studyof the revisionists.It acceptedtheir reinterpretations. But it departedso farfrom the older pro-Republican point of viewthat it becamealmost a Democraticcampaign document. Feeling that the pendulumhad swungtoo far, several younger historians have initiated a newrevision. As faras ithas gone, this latest rewriting seems to stand uponsubstantial ground. Yet its point of view has not become "classic", as theDunning reinterpretation did.The ideasof theDunning school stilllargely influence writing on theReconstruction period. It would seem thatit is now timefor a youngergeneration of Southernhistorians to ceaselauding those who "restoredwhite supre- macy"and insteadto beginanalyzing the restorationists' interests to see justwhat they stood for in opposingthe Radicals. Such a studyof Reconstructionwill certainly rehabilitate some of the Radical leaders in theSouth, even as theequally denounced President of the United States was rehabilitateda few years ago. A constituentfor whom Sumner had obtaineda Freedmen'sBureau appointment once wrote Sumner from theSouth: "After six months of intimate association I have determined on thestartling proposition that a manis notnecessarily a saint because black,nor a devil,because white." 6 Even Northernhistorians would universallyaccept this once "startling proposition". Yet someof them have approacheddangerously near to its converse.In acceptingthe terms"" and "scalawag"historians have almost inevitably acceptedcertain contemporary biases along with the suggestive names. Is it not timethat we studiedthe history of Reconstructionwithout firstassuming, at leastsubconsciously, that and Southern whiteRepublicans were wicked, that Negroes were illiterate incom- petents,and thatthe whole white South owes a debtof gratitudeto therestorers of "whitesupremacy"? Some younghistorians, most of themSoutherners, have already answeredthis question affirmatively byproceeding to writehistory in a new spirit.Just as Rhodes,Dunning, Dunning's pupils, and others of theDunning school rendered a servicea generationago by careful researchesinto political sources and by writingwith an attitudefreed fromthe war animositiesof theirfathers, so anothernew generation has begunto retellthe story in termsof the economic and socialforces at workand withoutthe preconceptions that limited the earlier group. Of the Dunningschool itself a few,like MildredThompson, Flem-

5 Claude G. Bowers,The TragicEra (Cambridge,Ig2g). 6 j. C. Beecherfrom Summerville, , to CharlesSumner, OCt. 25, 1867, SumnerMSS., LXXIV, WidenerLibrary, Harvard University. On RewritingReconstruction History 809 ing,and Garner,delved into social and economiclife, though without seeingits full implication; Miss Lonn and MissThompson, to a certain extent,and Garner,notably, escaped from the restrictingframes of referenceof theothers.7 Years ago AlexMathews Arnett led the way in reinterpretationof Georgia Bourbons.8 Among the younger historians to whomwe mustturn for reinterpretation areFrancis B. Simkins,C. Vann Woodward,Horace Mann Bond,Vernon L. Wharton,Paul Lewinson,Roger W. Shugg,James S. Allen.And there is one,no longer young,W. E. BurghardtDu Bois,whose race and socialphilosophy givehis work, Black Reconstruction,9 freshness. Du Bois'svolume is far too wordy;it is distortedby insistenceupon moldingfacts into a Marxianpattern.10 Yet in describingthe Negro'srole Du Bois has presenteda massof material,formerly ignored, that every future his- torianmust reckon with. Allen's application of Marxiantheory to the periodhas also forcedupon those of us whodo notaccept his general interpretationcertain important modifications of our own pointsof view." From a non-Marxianpoint of view Shugghas describedin one statethe class struggle between merchants and planters,on theone hand,and smallfarmers and laborers,on theother, and has pointed out thatthis conflict began in -ante-bellum days and continuedthrough Populism.'2Lewinson pioneered ten years ago in restudyingthe Negro's placein Southernhistory.'3 Wharton, a native Mississippian, in a study of theNegro in hisstate from i86o to I89o, haspresented facts that are

7 Ella Lonn, of course, like several othersof the group, was not a studentof Dunning's,but she is nonethelessone of themost distinguished members of the "". 8 The PopulistMovement in Georgia: A View of the "AgrarianCrusade" in the Light of Solid-SouthPolitics (New York, i922). 9 New York, 1935. 10 Some Marxistswould disown Du Bois. Yet his interpretationhe owes to Marx's influence.Perhaps it would be fairerto Marx to call Du Bois a quasi-Marxist. 11 Recanstruction(New York, I937). 12 Originsof Class Strugglein Louisiana: A Social Historyof WhiteFarmers and Laborersduring Slavery and after,I840-I875 (University,La., I939). Unfortunately, thoughhe does an admirablejob in tracingthe class struggleand its implications,Shugg merelymentions casually in passingmany of the most importantfactors, such as cor- ruptionunder the Conservativesbefore Radicals came intopower, the relationof business to government,the profitthat respectable Southern whites made fromRadical corruption, the failureof the Radicals to accomplishimportant social reforms,and theireffect upon education.This is a pitysince he has broughtsuch fine understanding to thedevelopment of his major thesis.Furthermore, by his failureto carryhis studyon throughthe days of the restorationistsup to the full floweringof Populism,he failsto shed the lighton Reconstructionitself that a comparisonof Bourbonconservatism with the Radicalismit overthrewwould have made possible. 18Race, Class,and Party(New York, 1932). 8IO HowardK. Beale revolutionaryin theirsignificance for Reconstruction history.'4 In a mostprovocative study of Alabama, Bond has revealed the determining influencethat business interests exerted upon the political struggles in thatstate.15 In hisstudy of the Georgia Bourbons, whom he calls"New DepartureDemocrats", Woodward has brought understanding towhat has been a veritable"dark age" in Americanhistory."6 Simkins and Woody,in theirwork on stillanother state, have been unusually fair- mindedtoward the Negro and thewhite Reconstructionist and have showninterest in social and economicforces.' Simkins'swork on South Carolina,together with his varioussuggestions of otherim- portantfactors, ranks him as a leaderin fundamentalreinterpretation.18 It is mypurpose to suggestfurther studies and changedpoints of viewnecessary to a fullunderstanding of Reconstruction. What I say mustbe tentative.It can merelyraise questions and suggestwork that needsdoing, for until much work of thisnewer sort is done,we shall nothave the facts from which to generalizewith any assurance. First,we need to stoppassing judgment on personsand to begin studyingforces. It is notso importantto knowwhether a few more or a fewless carpetbaggers or so-called scalawags were righteous or iniqui- tousas it is to knowwhat social and economicforces brought them to powerand motivatedthem. Furthermore, it is timeto stopdefending or attackingopponents of Radicalrule and to discoverwhat the Con- servatives'interests were and what forcesactually controlled their actions.Our judgmentsupon either group are relativelyunimportant in history.An understandingof the bewilderingcomplexity of con- flictinginterests and socialphenomena of theday has beenlost in the midstof historians'proud or unconsciouspartisanship for or against Radicals,Conservatives, Negroes, scalawags, or restorersof white supremacy.

14 "The Negroin Mississippi,I865-I890", MS. Ph.D. dissertationat theUniversity of NorthCarolina. 15 Negro Educationin Alabama: A Studyin Cottonand Steel (Washington,I939). See also "Social and EconomicForces in AlabamaReconstruction", Journal of NegroHis- tory,XXIII (July,1938), 290-348. 16 Tom Watson,Agrarian Rebel (New York, 1938), pp. 52-190. See also "Tom Watsonand theNegro in AgrarianPolitics", Journal of SouthernHistory, IV (Feb., 1938), 14-33, and an unpublishedarticle, "Bourbonism in Georgia",read at the 1937 meeting of the SouthernHistorical Association in Durham. 17 FrancisButler Simkins and RobertHilliard Woody, South Carolinaduring Recon- struction(Chapel Hill, 1932); Simkins,The Tillman Movementin South Carolina (Durham, 1926). 18 See, e.g., his "New Viewpointsof SouthernReconstruction", Jour. Southern Hist., V (Feb., 1939), 49-6I. On RewritingReconstruction History 8 i I

Secondly,we can understandReconstruction only if we studyit in itssetting. Most Southerners have treated the Reconstruction period in Americanhistory as if it wereSouthern history, whereas even the his- toryof theSouth during this period can be understoodonly as partof our nationalhistory. We mustcease considering Reconstruction as a heart-rendingstory of oppressedand oppressingpersonalities isolated in timeand space.For instance,the corruption of SouthernRadical legislatureshas been usuallyattributed to thepeculiar nature of the Northernerswho camesouth, the lack of characterof Southernmen whosupported them, and thenaivete of newly freed Negroes. It seems probablethat more important as causesof corruptionwere the same factorsthat at thesame time were corrupting Northern state legisla- tures,the purely Democratic Tweed Ring in New YorkCity, and con- gressmenand membersof the Grantadministration in Washington. It seemslikely that the same factors caused corruption then that caused it amongSouthern ruling whites when in Van Buren'sday numerous SouthernDemocratic land agentsstole public funds. Public office has beenused to furtherpersonal interests under the Bourbons who threw theRadicals out and in ourown day by the conservative friends of busi- nesswhom Huey Long displacedand by Long'sfollowers who had denouncedtheir predecessors. And thereare other Southern states that cannotcast stones at Louisiana.Radical corruption will not be under- stoodby thosewho insistthat it was a peculiarRadical phenomenon ofthe period I868-77.19 Similarly,the extravagance ofRadical legislatures can be understood onlyas partof a nationalera of expansionthat affected Western and Northernstates, Northern cities, and theFederal government. All of thesewere using public funds lavishly and unwiselyto further"prog- ress".2 So, too,have other Americans done-including Southern aristo- 19 For instance,in Louisiana,where corruption under the Radicalsattained as serious proportionsas anywhere,Shugg pointsout thatin the Conservativeloyalist convention of I864 therewas an "enormouswaste of publicmoney by a bodyin whichneither carpet- baggersnor corruptNegroes were present".He ascribesthis in partto "the blundersand peculations"of members"too unaccustomedto politicsto be well tutoredin the manage- mentof public affairs"(pp. 202-203). He concludesthat it is "importantto realizethat no race, class,or partycould lay a virtuousclaim to clean hands" (p. 226). 20 In the bad situationin Louisiana Shugg again pointsout that,irrespective of party,"politicians bribed legislators for partyand parishfavors, and businessmen and corporationsbribed the politiciansfor economicprivileges". He quotes a congressional reportthat testifies: "The legislativecorruption involves both parties. Among the principal moversof legislativejobs were wealthy,influential, and highlyrespectable democrats." He cites GovernorWarmoth's testimony "on Democraticvotes for four railwaysub- sidies" (ibid.). The pityis thathe did not investigatethis factor in his class strugglewith thesame thoroughnessand finespirit that he appliedto otheraspects of thatclass struggle. 8I 2 Howard K. Beale cratsin Jackson'sday, Bourbons after Reconstruction, and Americans of all sectionsagain in the I920's. Writersof Reconstructionhistory havefelt it unimportantto study the causes and effectsin theSouth of thepanic of I873. Yet thesecauses and effectswere important in deter- miningthe political history of Southernstates. Furthermore,the influx of Northernersinto the South needs to be separatedfrom the usual assumption that for Northerners to move into the Southwas somehowproof of viciousor vindictivenatures. This postwarmigration must be studiedapart from emotions and as oneof themany movements of populationthat have been important in our nationaldevelopment. We needto studyits causes and effectswithout advancemoral judgment on theparticipants, just as we studythe West- wardmigrations at all stagesof our history,the movement of South- ernersinto the Northwest long before the Civil War, the migration of countryfolk to cities,of Europeansto America,of FrenchCanadians to New England,of SouthernNegroes to Northerncities in thetwen- tiethcentury, and of thousands of young white Southerners ofour own day to the North.Usually the hope was forbetter economic oppor- tunities.Many Northerners who came south were honest citizens seek- ing to contributeto the well-beingof theirnew homelandthrough activitiesthat would have been welcomed had theymoved west instead ofsouth. Only when we have ceased condemning them and have studied theNortherners who movedsouth and differentiatedthem according to thevarious motives and interests and typesthey represented shall we understandtheir part in Reconstruction. Manyof theseverest critics of Reconstruction governments hold up the ante-bellumSouth as America'snearest approach to Utopia.We needto remind ourselves constantly that it was this ante-bellum life that had fastenedignorance or inexperienceupon millions of whit -s as well as Negroesand thatit was thisignorance and inexperiencethat caused troublewhen Radicals were in power.The Northhad thenand the nationhas now a similarproblem of makingdemocracy work among ignorantand inexperiencedpeople. Yet, in spiteof the labors of educa- tionalleaders, the wealthySoutherner of ante-bellumdays, except wherethe power of poorermen forced it on him,seldom recognized theneed for general education of eventhe white masses.2' When he

21 Shugg, for instance,points out: "Nothingwas done to remedythese conditions [the inadequaciesof populareducation] because of the indifferenceof wealthyplanters and Creolestoward popular education. Their apathy was chieflyresponsible for the failure of freeschools in Louisiana beforethe Civil War" (ibid., pp. 74-75). The ruralnature of the South made schoolsmore difficult to establishthere than in Northerntowns. But On RewritinqReconstruction History 813 returnedto power afterReconsruction the rulingwhite was niggardly in providingeducation for poor men. We cannot understandRecon- structionwithout recognizing the partthat ignorance and inexperience playedin government. Furthermore,the tendencyto cut Reconstructionoff from the Civil War that precededit and the Bourbon and Populist eras that followedhas led to misinterpretation.No one would thinkof trying to understandthe Confederationperiod without relation to the Amer- ican Revolutionand the ConstitutionalConvention and the Federalist regime.We need to restudyas a whole theperiod from I850 to theturn of the centuryin orderto understandthe segment of it thathas usually been boundedby theyears i865 and i877. Many of us have acceptedBeard's pronouncementthat the Civil War was a revolution.Du Bois triedto apply it unqualifiedlyto the period but failed because he did not comprehendthe importancein Southernlife of the yeomanfarmer, who was neitherslaveowning nor "poor white".And his effortto portraythe Negro and certainwhites of the rural South as a typicalproletariat distorted unfortunately the revolutionarythesis. Yet, in spiteof Du Bois's misuseof it, thishypo- thesisof Beard's has validity.The revolutionaryhypothesis, however, mustnot be overdone.The periodwas complex.Many of the actorsin the revolutionwere unconsciousof it; othershad mixed motives.Yet beginningeven beforeI850 and extendingover severaldecades there occurreda revolutionin Americanlife. The revolutionwas twofold. An agrariangroup heretoforedominant in the nationwas overthrown by an industrialand urban interest.Simultaneously in the South a rulingorder was overturned.The ante-bellumSouth was not nearlyso pure an aristocracy,socially or politically,as contemporarydefense theoristsor later romanticistswould have one believe.Many regions werecontrolled by middle-classfolk or recentlyself-made men; in many places Jacksoniandemocracy still retainedstrength. The struggleof yeoman farmerand laborer against planterand merchantthat cul- minatedin Populism had alreadybegun.22 Nor was the post-bellum a comparisonof Southernschools with schoolsin the old Northwestand even in the trans-MississippiWest, also ruralregions, will indicatethe importanceof otherfactors in the South. Southernersrepeatedly point out thatbeginnings had been made,but in most places those beginningswere largelyhopes for the future.School statuteswere often permissoryrather than mandatory.Even wherelarge amountsof moneywere spent,the influenceof planterssometimes got the moneyfor planter schools and leftother people's childrenunschooled. Historians of educationhave too long boastedof statutoryenact- mentsand have failedto look at schools-or lack of them. 22 See, e.g., Shugg'sstudy.

AM. HIST. REV., VOL. XLV.-56 814 Howard K. Beale period thoroughlydemocratic, even under the Radicals.23Yet, with properreservations and qualifications,it is stilltrue for many parts of the South thatcontrol by largeproperty holders of political,economic, and sociallife, based on slavelabor, was displacedby a moredemocratic way of life,based on freelabor, and thatthis change not onlyemanci- pated Negro slaves but gave poor whitemen a chance to seek more politicalpower.24 It is in termsof thistwofold revolutionary hypothesis thatthe period needs to be re-examined. Historiansto whom politicshas seemed an all-engrossingend in itselfhave failed to comprehendthat thousands of whiteSoutherners duringReconstruction wanted nothing from politicians but a chanceto live their lives undisturbed.They were quietly going about the stupendoustask of rebuildingthe South's shatteredeconomic and social life and theirown fortunes.One reasonfor the defeatof Lee's armiesin i865 was the war-wearinessof the people back home. Men were tiredof war, of strife.They wantedpeace. They were willingto forgettheir cause, cease arguingwith the North,take oaths of alle- giance,even swallowtheir former prides, if onlythey could have peace. If we understandthis, it ceasesto be puzzling thatthousands of South- ernersremained politically indifferent through the various turnsof politicalfortune, that many accommodated themselves to Radical rule, and that some supportedit. Some preferredmilitary rule to further strife.To many it was the Radical personnelthat was objectionable. There were many white Southernerswho felt equal dislike for the and the Loyal League and forthe same reason.Many Southernersfinally supported those who "restoredwhite supremacy", not so much because theycared who held officeas becausethey were

23 Shugg pointsout that in Louisiana the tendencytoward centralization put "im- perial power" into the governor'shands underthe Constitutionof I868. Even here the authoritiesShugg citesmake one wonderif he has in thismerely too easilyaccepted the. judgmentof criticsopposed to Radicalpurposes. 24 Shugg pointsout that in Louisiana "the postwaryears" were "the seedtimeof the labor movement"(ibid., pp. 300-30I). Labor became importantin politics(ibid., pp. I98-99). Even underthe Conservativerule of I864 therewere "no representativesof the old slaveholdingregime" in the convention,which was "in thehands of a new order of men with littleor no experiencein public life". "Debates reveal theirliberal inten- tionsbut not the educationof gentility.They came froma social class whichhad never beforebeen importantin Louisiana politics.The factthat theyoccupied seats of power was of even greaterrevolutionary significance than the new organiclaw which they compiled"(ibid., p. 203). "The fundamentalissue" in the electionof I864, saysShugg, "was whetherLouisiana should be restoredto thecontrol of plantersand merchantsunder the old constitution,or put in the handsof a majorityof loyalwhite people under a new organiclaw" (ibid.,p. I98). On RewritingReconstruction History 8I5 tired of constantturmoil that was injuriousto nonpoliticalpursuits. ManySoutherners opposed to its democratic phase were sympathetic withthe industrial phase of therevolution. These men were ready to supportJohnson governments if theywere friendlyto businessin- terests.They would support Radical governments on thesame terms. Andthey could as easilysupport Bourbons in theirturn. Reconstruction can be understoodonly if the Southern movement for development of industryis treatedas a wholefrom ante-bellum days to thetwentieth century.The desirefor industrialization and railroadbuilding, mani- festedin thecommercial conventions and in thelarge grants of state aid duringthe fifties, was not killedby thewar. Many saw a lesson forthe South in thecontrast between Northern wartime prosperity and Southerneconomic weakness. Not onlyin theNorth but in theSouth modernindustry grew up behindthe noiseof politicalcontroversy. Textiles,coal, iron and steel,tobacco factories, railroads, and millvil- lageswere as importantas loyalleagues, klans, and blackcodes, but theyhave beengenerally ignored by historians.There were charges, evenbefore the war, that the national Democracy was sellingout to business.It is significantthat during war Governor Joseph E. Brown, in thename of staterights, opposed 's ideal of a South- ern nationalityand thatBrown was on good termswith the ruling group duringthe Civil War, underJohnson Conservatism, under Radicalrule, and underthe Bourbons. His Radicalrecord did notpre- venthis returningto powerunder white supremacy. The keyto his careerwas his interestin using politicalpower to favorbusiness de- velopmentin generaland his own vestedinterests in particular.It matteredlittle whether it was carpetbaggersand Negroesor Bourbon politicianswho granted the favors to business,just so thefavors were granted.Similarly in Alabamathe same group of menwere powerful enoughto get stateaid fortheir business ventures from ante-bellum plantergovernments, the Conservative Johnson governments, the Radi- cal Republicans,and the Bourbonswho restoredwhite supremacy. Holdenin NorthCarolina, too, needs restudying by someone not prej- udicedby his supportof theRadical cause. Historianshave been so busydenouncing Radicals that they have not botheredto discoverwho profitedfrom Radical extravaganc- andfrom later Bourbon rule. Certainly few Negroes profited personally. Somewhite Radicals did; manydid not.The wholedebt story needs revising.Restudy will reducethe size of the debtin severalstates. MississippiRadicals, for instance, were for years credited with leaving 8 i 6 Howard K. Beale

a $20,000,000 debt.So respectablea personas CongressmanSt. George Tucker firstgave currencyto this.Jabeth L. M. Curry,E. Benjamin Andrews,and othersaccepted it as "fact".Actually Radicals contracted in Mississippionly a nominalcurrent sum of about $500,000,for the reason that the Radicals,over the protestof theirConservative oppo- nents,put a clause into the Constitutionof i868 forbiddingthe pledg- ing of statefunds to aid corporations.25In Alabama the Conservatives claimed,and Flemingaccepted their claim, that they reduced a debtof $30,000,000to less than$Io,ooo,00o. In realitypart of the $30,000,000 debt existedonly in theircampaign charges against Radicals. The por- tion theyreduced was mostlypotential debt thatthe statemight have had to assumeon behalfof railroadshut in returnfor which the state would, by foreclosure,have come into the possessionof valuable rail- road properties.The so-calledreduction of the debtwas broughtabout not by paymentor repudiationbut by "adjustment"highly advan- tageousto the railroads,to whichBourbon leaders were allied.26 Only a partof the debtof any statewas contractedfor the chemises and spittoonsthat have so intriguedhistorians. Past failureto collect taxes and arrearsin paymentson financialobligations placed heavy burdensupon thegovernments. Extraordinary expenditures were neces- saryfor the rehabilitation of a war-ruinedSouth. Bourbons economized by cuttingoff public services,such as education,important to the masses. The larger portionof the debts financedgrants or guaranteesto railroads.Often those who restoredwhite supremacy had favoredcon- tractingsuch debts under Radical rule and under Bourbonrule con- tinued to extend public aid to privateventures. In some of the "bestcitizens" profited by thefloating of theRadical bonds that they and their party later repudiatedand their descendants denounced.27

25 JamesW. Garner,Reconstruction in Mississippi(New York, I9O1), pp. 320-23, and conversationswith Wharton, who has used manuscriptletters dealing with the subject. 26 Bond,"Social and EconomicForces in AlabamaReconstruction", four. Negro Hist., XXIII (July,I938), 336-46,and Negro Educationin Alabama,pp. 54-6I. Apparentlyin Louisiana a largeamount of moneywent for graft, but even therea considerableamount sponsoredbusiness ventures. Shugg, pp. 202, 225, 226-27, 229. 27 A. Ray Newsome,"Report of an Investigationof thePassage of theReconstruction Bond Ordinancesand Acts of NorthCarolina of I868 and I869" (1928), MS. reportin the possessionof the author;conversations with Newsome, I938-39; BenjaminU. Ratch- ford, "A Historyof the North Carolina Debt, I7I2-1900", MS. Ph.D. dissertationin 1932 at Duke University;Cecil KennethBrown, A StateMovement in RailroadDevelop- ment (Chapel Hill, 1928). On RewritingReconstruction History 8I7

In Alabamathe same railroad men were important politically from theI850's to thedays of whitesupremacy, whatever the political com- plexionof thosewho heldthe offices. It is interestingthat in Alabama the Southernnames of RobertPatton, James W. Sloss,Luke Pryor, GeorgeHouston, Albert Fink, Sam Tate,V. K. Stevenson,John T. Milner,and JosiahMorris keep recurring in thatimportant story of the interrelationshipofbusiness and politics. Morris, a Montgomery banker, wieldedpower behind the scenes. Pryor as a memberof the legislature was workingfor railroad grants in I853-54 and was stillimportant in the i88o's.Sloss, an ante-bellumstorekeeper who turnedrailroad and coal and steeloperator, for several decades had powerwith legislators, whetherConservatives, Radicals, or Bourbons.Patton, a colleagueof Sloss, as provisionalgovernor under Johnson'splan advocated and validatedthe bondsthat provided $i2,ooo a mile forthe railroads sponsoredby theSloss group. Then underthe Radicals he was vice- presidentof one of theSloss railroads that benefited when the Radicals increasedthe grant from $I2,000 to $i6,oooa milein whatFleming savagelycondemns as "carpetbagfinanciering". One of thelobbyists was an agentof RussellSage, but another was a leaderin thedevelop- mentof Alabamacoal and ironand an agentof Morris,the Mont- gomerybanker.28 In Alabama,the Conservatives leased the penitentiary andconvicts out to businessmen for profit as in slavedays. The Radicals discontinuedthe practice in I872.' In MississippiJohnson Conserva- tivesbegan the convict-leasesystem. General Gillem, under military rule,gave a contractto one favoredcapitalist that carried almost abso- lutecontrol over the convicts, most of whom were Negroes. The Radi- cal governortried to destroythe system. The Bourbonrestorationists carriedit toextremes until two investigations finally forced its abandon- mentin theConstitution of I890.0 In Georgia"white supremacy" meant the supremacy of the business interestsof Brown,Gordon, and Colquittover the interests of thou- sandsof smallfarmers who laterrevolted under the Populist banner. Toombsand Stephens,who reallyrepresented the Old South,saw, unlikelater historians, the significance of thepolitical situation and,

28 Bond, lour. Negro Hist., XXIII, 313-48, and Negro Education in Alabama, pp. 38-62. 2i [Alabama] Inspectorsof Convicts,First Biennial Report. . .to the Governor, from Octoberz, 1884, to Octoberz, s886 (Montgomery,i886), pp. 351-53. 30Wharton, pp. 443-5I. Even afterI890, however,the use of convictsseems to have continued"in illegal and irregularfashion" until the coming of Vardaman to powerin 1904. Whartonto H. K. Beale,Oct. 23, 1939. 8 i 8 Howard K. Beale alongwith Watson, who subsequently led thePopulists, opposed these "restorersof whitesupremacy". Yet withBrown providing the business acumen,Colquitt speaking for religion to claim God's sanction for their activities,and Gordonrepresenting the military hero in politics,the BourbonTriumvirate were able tc usethe banner of "white supremacy" and Grady'sslogan of a "New South"to furthertheir business in- terests.And theywere ready to retainNegroes in officeand useNegro votesto maintaintheir "white supremacy" against white farmers who organizedto protect small-farmer interests.31 Indeed there seems to have been a strikingsimilarity between waving the banner of "whitesu- premacy"and waving the "bloody shirt" in theNorth. Both were waved simultaneouslybya dominantparty to avoidbeing turned out of office by a majorityof farmerswho objectedto theuse of governmentfor furtheringthe interests of businessgroups. The otherphase of therevolution involved substituting democratic foraristocratic institutions within the South. From the point of view of restoringa happilyunited nation it was unfortunatethat we had Radical Reconstruction,unfortunate that any attemptwas made to impose,from without, changed ways of lifeupon the South. It is im- portant,however, also to consider Reconstruction from the point of view of political,social, and economic revolution within Southern life. From thispoint of view,Southern planters were generously treated and escapedmuch of the disaster that often overtakes a defeated ruling class. A largepart of theirsuffering resulted directly from civil war and the overthrowof an establishedpolitical and economicsystem and would haveoccurred had therebeen no Radicalreconstruction or Republican rule.In thepresent revolution in Germany,the Russian Revolution, the FrenchRevolution, and to some degreein our own American Revolutionprivileged members of theold regimewere "liquidated" or drivenout, and theirproperty -was confiscated. In theSouth a part of theolder planter aristocracy was temporarily deprived of its political privileges,but it was notdeprived by political means of its property or itslife. It was notdriven out of its homeland. Why were the Southern leadingfamilies so gentlydealt with in revolutionarychange? The answerrequires much further study of theperiod. It liespartly in theNorthern Radicals. They have usually been lumped together in praiseor condemnation.Actually they represented strikingly different pointsof view,tied together only by certaincommon interests and a commondesire to retainpower for their party. Thad Stevensand 31 Woodward,Tom Watson, pp. 52-72. On RewritingReconstruction History 8I9

CharlesSumner agreed with the businessmen who backed the party in wantinga hightariff, which the South's return might endanger. But Stevensand Sumnerwere idealists in theirconcern for the Negro and humanrights. Stevens at leastwas genuinelya radical.He wantedto confiscateplanter property and divideit amongNegroes. The Repub- lican partynever seriously considered this, because, while it would haveserved certain party purposes, the majority of Republicanleaders and partymembers had notthe least interest in socialrevolution, even in a distantsection. They were men of propertywho wouldnot en- dangerthe sanctityof propertyrights for Negroes or poorSouthern whitemen any more than they would divide ownership of theirown factoriesor farmswith Northern workingmen. There were sighs of Northernrelief when death removed Stevens's troublesome radicalism. The Negrowanted forty acres and a mule,but his Republican backers had no seriousthought of turningpolitical into social and economic revolution. We need studiesof theNegro under Reconstruction in the spirit of Bell IrvinWiley's study of the Negro in the Confederacyand VernonWharton's "Negro in Mississippi"before we cananswer many questionsthat arise.32 Our pictureof himis unfortunatelycolored by theracial prejudices of contemporarieswho deemed even fundamental Negro civil rightsand politicalactivity unspeakable. Even Simkins and Woodyin theirexcellent book never quite got away from instinc- tive assumptionthat their race mustbar Negroesfrom social and economicequality. It is timeto forgetfeelings about the Negro and studyReconstruction to see whatthe Negro really was and whyhe did notgain more from Reconstruction. Fairminded investigation will probablydisclose that few Republicans or responsibleNegroes, even at theheight of Negroand carpetbagrule, carried their insistence upon political,civil, and educationalequality over into attempts at social mingling.33James Lynch, for instance, while secretary of state,and

32 Wiley,Southern Negroes, i861-i865 (New Haven, 1938). AlrutheusA. Taylor's books on the Negro in Virginiaand South Carolina duringReconstruction were sig- nificantas pioneerwork by a Negro but, like the older historiesby white historians, leave muchto be desired. 33 Shugg thinksthat in Louisiana the Radical stand for Negro equalityand the Southernwhite's belief that civil rightsfor Negroes would mean miscegenationwere disastrousto the Negro and Radical causes. Yet the Negro leadersclaimed that"social equalitymeant nothing more to the intelligentNegro than the rightof any man, what- ever his color,to come and go in public places,and to pursuehis own happiness,pro- vided he did not infringethe equal rightof another.. . . There was no thoughtof racial intermarriage,even among the uneducated,but only of the admissionof freedmen 820 Howard K. Beale

John R. Lynch while congressman,submitted to Mississippi's"Jim Crow" cars and restaurantswithout protest.34 One Marxian writer chargedme with accepting"uncritically . . . the traditionalrole of the Negro",35because I said "plantationhands were not onlyilliterate but 'had no conceptionof . . . the meaning of termslike government, morality,suffrage, or even free labor."'"36 Yet this seems true none- theless.On the otherhand, many more Negroes were educatedand able than one would have thoughtpossible so soon afterslavery and more than historianshave led us to believe.Wharton made a number of interestingdiscoveries about the relationof the two racesin Missis- sippi.37For instance,carpetbaggers frequently disliked the Negro. They avoided social contactswith him. They "made littleeffort to conceal their distastefor him". Federal troopsoften sided with Democrats againstNegroes. Radical Republicanswere not eager to do more for Negroes than "to grant them the franchiseand solicittheir votes". The Negroes did not demand many offices."Even in the minorityof counties. . . [that]had Negro and Republicanmajorities, the freedmen seldom obtained many offices."The twelve Negro sheriffswere "a moderatelysatisfactory group, most of whom were at least capable of exercisingthe functionsof theiroffice. . . . Little differencecan be discoveredin the administrationof their countiesand that of the countiesunder Democraticcontrol." Efficient local leadersof Negroes rapidlydeveloped all over the state.Of the six Negroeswho held high office,four were men of ability,leadership, education, and integrity, who did the statehonor; two were obscurelocal politicians,one intel- ligent and educated but both dishonest.The Negroes favored,and Revels,a Negro, supportedin the United StatesSenate the removalof whitepolitical disabilities. Many Negroes workedwell underthe new labor system.A good manysucceeded as farmers,at leastuntil the crop failureof I867 ruinedthem. Ben Montgomery,a formerslave, rented and then boughtthe Davis plantationsand took nationalprizes with his cotton.His son establisheda prosperousall-Negro town.38 to civil societyso thatthey might be freeto walk the streets,frequent public institutions, attendschools, and appearin courtsof law like othercitizens" (pp. 222-23). 34 Wharton,pp. 427-30. 35 RichardEnmale in the "editor'sforeword" of Allen's work,page Io. 36 Howard K. Beale, The CriticalYear (New York, 1930), pp. I86-89. 37 Some of these thingsare alreadyknown to recentstudents like Lewinson,but theyhave not yetfound their way into the pictureusually drawn of Reconstructioneven by historians. 38 Wharton,pp. 66-70, I06-107, 250-52, 275-78, 285-33 I. On RewritingReconstruction History 82I

Supposeslaveowners' estates had beendivided? We readmuch to- dayfrom Southern whites in supportof the view that the poorer South- ernwhite man cannot improve his lot until the Negro's lot is improved alongwith it. AndrewJohnson, Wade Hampton,and AlexanderH. Stephenswanted to give educatedand property-holdingNegroes the suffrage.Suppose that, on somesuch plan as theDawes and Burkeacts forIndians, the Negro had beengiven land and thenhad beentreated as a ward? Supposehe had graduallybeen givencontrol of land distributedto him as he becameeconomically experienced? Suppose he had beengranted real rather than merely nominal citizenship as he individuallybecame competent? What would have been the effect upon the Negro?Upon the South?Upon theproblem of farmtenantry? Fromthe point of viewof theRadical aim, of evenpolitical equality, was theNegro not right in his desirefor forty acres and a mule,and werenot his whitefriends unrealistic in thinkingthey could secure politicalprivileges for him without a basis for them in economic rights? Wereupper-class Southern whites trying to workout a systemof labor desirablefor the South and satisfactory toNegroes as wellas towhites? Or werethey, in formulatingtheir Negro policies and in demanding whitesupremacy, merely determined, like Northern capitalists in their laborpolicies, to keepfor their own benefita plentifulsupply of de- pendent,ignorant, docile workers? And whatof thepoorer white man? Werehis interestsreally op- posed to thoseof the Negro,or is thisjust anothershibboleth en- couragedby menwhose interests were opposed to bothNegroes and smallwhite farmers? Bourbon leaders were motivated in partby the socialfactor that the racial prejudice of whites toward Negroes created; theydid sharewith many poorer white men dislikeof Negrorule. Yet Bourbonsupremacy also embodied the conservative swinging back of thependulum that frequently has followedthe excesses of revolu- tion.Planters shared the new aristocracywith men of businessand were oftendominated by them.In overthrowingthe Radicals,the Bourbonsfastened upon the Southa governmentthat served badly theinterests of poorer white men who had for a timeappeared to have a chanceof obtaining greater political power. It tookthe Populists years to winback some of thedemocratic privileges lost in Bourbonrestora- tion.In manycases the Bourbons maintained control over a majority of whitemen by raising fear of theNegro and at thesame time using Negro votesin black countiesto overbalancewhite majorities else- where.For a timethey continued to allow Negroesto hold office. 822 Howard K. Beale

Manyof thesame devices for control of electionsthat they had per- fectedin regainingwhite supremacy in theface of Negromajorities theycontinued to useto retainpower against Populist white majorities. The ireof poorerwhites thus aroused probably was importantin the disfranchisementof Negroes and the strengtheningof "Jim Crow" laws,both of which,be it remembered,in most states occurred in the lateeighties and nineties,not with the restoration of whitesupremacy in theseventies. We needto studythe origins of thisPopulist-Bourbon controversyin Reconstruction to see whatits bearingon politicsand economicconflicts was. A Grangermovement, usually ignored, developed some strength in the South.Why was it not stronger?What commoneconomic in- terestsdid Negroand whitefarmer have? Why did theyfail to unite successfullyin the face of commoneconomic enemies?39 In some statesNegroes were an overwhelmingmajority of the Radical electorate. Butin Tennessee,at least,and probablyfrom the eighties on in North Carolina,whites constituted a majority of theRepublicans. In North Carolinawhites could have controlled all theassemblies of theperiod had somewhites not joined blacks against other whites. Even in Missis- sippiwhites outnumbered Negroes in popularassemblies. For instance, theConstitutional Convention of i868contained only i6 Negroesin a membershipof IOO. The Southernwhites-about 6o-could have con- trolledthe convention had 33 of themnot sided with the minority of Negroesand carpetbaggers.4Why did thisco-operation of blacksand whitesfor common ends break down? In Arkansas,Georgia, North Carolina,Tennessee, Texas, and Virginiaregistered whites outnum- beredregistered Negroes even in i868. If the old thesisholds that nativewhites were almost solid against Radical rule, why did not these whitemajorities prevent Radical rule? If theywere not solid against Radicalrule, why were they not? The numberof whitesdisqualified fromvoting has probablybeen exaggerated, though that number in-

39Shugg's analysis (p. 30I) indicatesthat it was the racial issue that broke the movementof small farmersand laborersagainst planters and merchantsand drove the formerinto the camp of the latter.He shows,for instance,that in I865 Negroesand whitesjoined in a commonlabor movement.In a strikein thatyear the opponentsof labor tookpains to dividewhite and Negrolabor. When the Radicalswere finally turned out it was because,under fear of Negrodominance, white farmers and whitelaborers had joined with people of theirown race who were theirclass enemiesagainst people of theirown classinterests who wereof anotherrace. 40 Wharton,pp. 265-66. These figuresare estimatesmade by Whartonafter thorough investigation.It is difficultto get informationabout all membersof such a body. On RewritingReconstruction History 823 cludedmany of the South's old leaders. How manywere disqualified ?41 A good manyeligible citizens did not vote.Was it becauseof care- lessnessabout registering, indifference, boycott, or unwillingnessto sue forpardon or take oaths of loyalty? We need to restudyReconstruction in each state,freed from pre- conceptionsof theright and wrongof Reconstructionand determined to discoverjust what lasting influences Reconstruction exerted. Carpet- baggers,Negroes, Southern Radicals, Conservatives, moderates, Bour- bons,businessmen, various classes of farmers,laborers, all needcareful analysisas to motives,purposes, economic interests, their relation to Reconstruction,and theeffects of Radicalrule and itsoverthrow upon theirinterests. We needto reanalyzethe Radicals, the Independents of theseventies and eighties,and thePopulists to see to whatextent these threegroups that tried political co-operation of Negroesand whites were partsof a commonmovement. The originof modernindus- trialism,of themodern farm problem, of thepower of businessover Southernstate governments, of Southern labor problems, all needin- vestigating.The South'srelation to cropfailures such as theone in I867, to businessdepressions, to the Westward movement, immigration restriction,the nationallabor movement, the antimonopolycrusade, Grangerism,and othernational phenomena requires study. An analysis of the romanticismin art and literaturethat appeared in the South duringReconstruction and just afterwardwould probablyexplain muchabout Southern attitudes toward this period, both then and now. We knowfull well the shortcomings ofRadical governments. We need to knowmore of theiraccomplishments.42 For instance, the constitu- tionsdrawn up by theRadicals long outlived the Radicals. They con- tainedmany interesting features. They tendedto centralizeadminis- trativepower. They remodeledthe judiciaryand the taxingsystem. Not onlydid theRadicals carry on thegovernment through troubled times,they did a good deal towardrestoring public buildings, roads, bridges,schools, and courtsthat war had destroyed.They established new socialservices and wouldhave established them better had they not been inexperiencedin administration.The openingof schools, courts,and otherpublic agencies to Negroesput a newburden upon 41 See William A. Russ, jr., "CongressionalDisfranchisement, i866-i898" (MS. Ph.D. dissertationat the Universityof Chicago), pp. 107-14, and "Registrationand Disfranchisementunder Radical Reconstruction",Mississippi Valley HistoricalReview, XXI (Sept., I934), I63-80. 42 Shugg thinks that in Louisiana Radical reformswere "conspicuousfor their absence"(p. 225). In somestates they were important. 824 Howard K. Beale government,as did theincreased relief problem and theoversight of new racialrelationships. This all tookmoney. That meantincreased taxes,particularly upon land. Furtherinvestigation is necessary, but thereis evidencethat the increased taxes required for social services were an importantcause of the tax-payingelements' resentment of Radicalrule. Even the new taxeswere still not high.But Southern propertyowners were not educated to paying for services for poor men. The taxpolicies and publicservices of the Radicals and Bourbonsneed comparing.Bourbons sometimes merely shifted administrative burdens fromstate to county,creating an appearanceof economythat was not real.43Where Bourbons did reduceexpenses, was it notoften at highcost in humanvalues? Radicaladministration needs reappraising. There were bad spots, but therewere also good. We have heardtoo littleabout the good underRadicals and too littleof thebad underConservative adminis- trationsthat preceded and followed them. South Carolina suffered from dishonestofficials. Some states, however, were as welladministered by Radicalsas at anyother time during this era. Honesty and dishonesty werenot monopoliesof any one group.In Mississippi,for instance, Garnerpoints out that"there were no greatembezzlements or other casesof misappropriationduring . . . Republicanrule". In thewhole post-bellumperiod he foundonly three cases: a Republicantreasurer of the Natchezhospital who took $725i,, a coloredlibrarian who stole books,and a Democraticnative white treasurer who embezzled more grandlyto the amountof $61,962.44 A restorationistDemocrat, how- ever,elected in I875, made awaywith $3I5,6I2.45 In NorthCarolina Conservativesstarved the schoolsuntil Ashley, the superintendent, resigned.Then the Republican governor, Caldwell, appointed Alexander McIver,"a sincereand honestman ... keenlyanxious to buildup the schools".To succeedMcIver, Governor Caldwell, in theface of pres- surefor a politicalappointment, chose Kemp P. Battle,a muchrespected educator.In I874 theConservatives, on theother hand, elected to the

43 For instance,in Mississippistate taxes in I875 under the Republicanswere 9?/4 mills and countytaxes ioY4 mills.In 1877 underthe Democraticrestorationists the state taxes were reducedto 5 mills,but the countytaxes were raisedto I6. This meantthat actuallythe Democratsincreased the total stateand countytax burdenfrom 20 to 21 mills and yet, accordingto Wharton,gave no bettergovernment. Wharton to H. K. Beale,Oct. 23, 1939. 44 Pp. 322-23. 45Wharton,pp. 329-30. Withoutspecially seeking them, Wharton has run across severalother cases of "Bourbonembezzlement". Wharton to H. K. Beale, Oct. 23, 1939. On RewritingReconstruction History 825 superintendencyStephen D. Pool, who stolePeabody Fund money. The Conservativegovernor, Brogden, then chose another political ap- pointee,a cousinof thedefaulter.48 Was the Southerndislike of Radicalrule causedby bad govern- mentor ratherby dislikeof Northernand Negroparticipation in it whethergood or bad? ManySoutherners would not have liked even idealconditions of life so longas theyowed them to Northernimposi- tionor to Northerngenerosity. To whatextent was dislikeof North- ernerswho had beatenthem in wara causeof Southernopposition to Radicalrule? How importantwere the factors usually portrayed in criticismof Radicalrule, and how importantwas unadulteratedracial prejudicethat would have resented Utopian conditions ifNegroes had playedan importantpart in them?47These emotionalfactors need measurementand analysis. Thereare no adequateunbiased studies of educationunder Recon- struction.48Many blunders were made. The upheavalof civilwar had alreadyinjured such ante-bellumsystems as therewere. At bestthe taskwas difficult.It took experience to teachfriends of theNegro that for the averageNegro vocationaltraining was morevaluable than cultural.One oftengets the impression that Radicals imposed mixed Negroand whiteschools everywhere. How oftenoutside of one or two stateswas thisactually done? Educationalaccomplishment fell far shortof thetheory of thelaws. Yet theRepublicans in theirconstitu- tionsdid give manywhite men theirfirst assurance of a freeschool system.How muchbenefit to theNegro was theRepublican writing of Negroeducation into the fundamental law? We need to restudy educationto see howoften the new theories became realities. To what extentdid Radicalsimprove school administration? How manyschools

46 J.G. de RoulhacHamilton, Reconstruction in NorthCarolina (New York, I914), pp. 6II-I9. 47 Shugg believesthat in Louisiana "at firstneither race was solidlyunited against the other,nor were the spoils of officetheir only concern".He writes:"Carpetbaggers foughtplanters and merchantsfor the possession of richnatural resources and thecontrol of black and white labor. The carpetbaggerswere defeatedbecause theyturned from economicto politicalexploitation, preyed upon whitesmore thanblacks, and arrayedall classesof the formerrace againstthe latter.The finaltriumph of plantersand merchants, with the essentialsupport of whitefarmers and laborers,was a counterrevolutionwhich crushedthe bewilderedand abortiveattempts, first of white,and thenof black,labor, to rule the stateand mold societyin theirown images" (p. 197). 48 The authorcannot except Edgar Wallace Knight'sInfluence of Reconstructionon Educationin the South (New York, 1913). What we need, both beforeand afterthe Civil War, underRadicals and Bourbons,is a studyof actualeducational conditions, not a listingof argumentsbased on statutesenacted. 826 Howard K. Beale did theybuild? How manyteachers did theyhire? How manymen did theybegin educating who had nothad schoolsbefore? It is upon theanswers to suchquestions that they must be judged.Bourbons cut schoolexpenses. How muchinjury to the schoolswas wroughtby Bourbon"economy"? We haveevidence that in at leastone state it was twentyyears before schools began to recoverfrom Bourbon neglect.49 In how manyother states was thistrue? It is interestingthat in North Carolina,where their school record was notgood, the oft denounced Radicalstried to restorethe ante-bellum school system and extendit to Negroes;schools suffered grievously under the Bourbons;another Republicangovernor, Russell, twenty years later, championed the schools.50Did the Radicalsor theirBourbon successors do greater injuryto theschools? Was it the'Radicalsor theCivil War thatde- stroyedante-bellum accomplishment? To what degreedid Radical legislationlay the foundationsof futureeducational advancement? Finally,some of theRepublicans tried to establisha moredemo- craticpolitical system. Again theyblundered. It tookmore than the ballotto makeintelligent citizens out of ignorant Negroes and whites. Negrovoters were ignorant, childlike, and inexperienced.In slavery theyhad beenkept so bythe Southern slaveowners who now criticized themfor these very qualities when Negroes did theirnot veryable bestto play the role of citizens. But many whites also were ignorant and inexperiencedin democracy.Some of themost condemned aspects of RadicalReconstruction were merely the manifestations ofa democratic revolutionin a regionhabituated to aristocratic control. There are strik- ingsimilarities between scenes enacted in Southerncapitals and thatin Washingtonat Jackson'sinaugural. In bothcases "the people came into theirown". The experiencewith sudden democratization was not a happyone. It couldnot have been happy even had theNegroes been excludedfrom it. It shouldbe rememberedthat the Southerners who overthrewthe Radicals showed themselves as unwillingto share

49 For instance,Stuart Grayson Noble, who, accordingto Wharton,has made the only intelligentstudy of Mississippischools, concludes: "The schoollaws, passed by the legislatureof I876, had in view the curtailmentof expenses.They certainlydid not have in view the wreckingof the publicschool system and the abandonmentof Negroeduca- tion. Yet, as a resultof these laws, the efficiencyof the systemwas greatlyreduced" (FortyYears of the Public Schoolsin Mississippi,New York, I9I8, p. 48). Noble points out that the schools for whitesresumed progress again only after189o and that the progressdid notbecome important until after I900. 50 It was Aycock,of course,successor to Russell,who firmlyestablished North Caro- lina's schoolsystem. But it shouldbe rememberedthat Russell fought for schools as one of the chiefaims of his administrationwhen schoolswere not a popularcause. On RewritingReconstruction History 827 powerwith poor whitemen in Populistdays as withpoor Negroes and whitemen in Radicaldays. Was nota partof theoffense of the Radicalleaders that they sought to servethe interests of poormen?5' One ofthe most persistent evidences of unfitness for office raised against theRadicals by historians, even by Simkins and Woody,is thefact that Radicalswere men who did notpay taxes and did notown property; in short,that they were poor. The Populiststried for years to establish democraticinstitutions and succeededonly slightlybetter than the Radicals.No, the Radicalattempt to establishdemocracy was not a success.But the Conservative white solution has beenlittle better, save forproperty owners. It has keptthe Negro in his placeby creating a caste system.It has kept millionsof whitesdependent and docile politicallyby keepingthem dependent economically as millworkers and tenantfarmers. But it hasnot, through schools and economic com- petence,yet made the poorerwhite men adequatecitizens of the democracywe all like to feelwe believein. Here in the Bourbon- Radicalconflict is thedilemma of democracyor, indeed, of anyform of government.One alternativeseems to be ruleby non-tax-paying, non-property-holdingmenwho seek to servethe interest of a majority but throughinexperience or ignoranceserve it badly.The otheralter- nativeseems to be ruleby menof propertywho havethe experience and knowledgenecessary to servethe majority efficiently, but whose interestsmake them choose to servetheir own minority group instead. Throughthoughtful study of theconflict of idealsunder the Radicals and Bourbonswe mightattain the wisdom to discovera thirddemo- cratictechnique that would avoid both of theusual alternatives. HOWARD K. BEALE. The UniversityofNorth Carolina.

51 So littledid Bourbonpolicies serve poor men's intereststhat a few yearsof their rule led to a greatrevolt of Populistsand Alliancemenagainst them in behalfof small farmersand poor men.