A Notable Achievement in Historical Writing

BY J. G. DE ROULHAC HAMILTON,

Associate Professor of History in the University of North Carolina HISTORY OF the United STATES FROM THE COMPROMISE OF 1850 To THE FINAL RESTORATION OF HOME RULE AT THE SOUTH IN 1877. By James Ford Rhodes. Vols. VI. and VII. New York: Macmillan & Co.

With these two volumes Dr. Rhodes completes his monumental study of that period of our national history which is probably at this time of keener interest to the general student and reader of American history than any other. In his first five volumes Mr. Rhodes set a high standard for himself, viewing his work from whatever standpoint one might. His work has become noted for its completeness, accuracy, and impartiality, the latter too in treating of a period in relation to which impartiality has been only a rare exception. His treatment has always been thoroughly scientific and at the same time, the result has been thoroughly readable, a result, by the way, that has not always been attained by the scientific historical writer of latter days. These last two volumes do not depart from the high standard set by the preceding ones, exacting as that is. They are calm, judicious, and, at the same time, sympathetic in their treatment of those vexed and stormy years from 1866 to 1877.

The sixth volume, which carries the narrative down to 1872, begins with a discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment as a plan of reconstruction and its rejection by the Southern States. The blame of this rejection, if it can be called blame, is laid by the author, scarcely with full justice, on President Johnson and the Northern Democrats. While it is undoubtedly true that neither Johnson nor the Democratic party favored the ratification of the Amendment by the Southern States, it is also true that a majority of those States would have, almost to a certainty, rejected it even had it been strengthened by the President's approval. The South did look to Johnson with confidence at the time; its people felt with truth that he was their champion, and as such, they relied on him to a great extent. But after the conventions

called by the provisional governments had completed their work as required of them, his word ceased to have the power of law and would scarcely have been effective in securing the adoption of a measure so unpopular at the South, as the one in question was, and in which, as a final settlement, the Southern people had so little confidence. The author has clearly but little sympathy for the President, so little, in fact, that he is scarcely fair to him. It is doubtful if many at this time would agree with him that a President should resign if he is not willing to obey the voice of the people as expressed in a mid-term election. Nor does such a theory seem defensible, judged according to American precedents and political ideas. Nor can the reviewer agree with the author that the South made a great mistake in not accepting the Fourteenth Amendment. To the student of the period it does not seem otherwise than natural that a lack of confidence should have existed among the Southern people, for a Congress whose leaders discussed the impeachment of Justices of the Supreme Court for their decisions in the cases of Exparte Milligan, Ex parte Garland, and Ex parte Cummings was not of the sort that would regard pledges or hesitate to go to any lengths in the spirit that was in a few, fanaticism on the subject of human rights; in a few others, the blind pursuit of vengeance; in a larger number, a conscientious belief that in negro suffrage would be found the only possible solution of the problem of reconstruction; and in the majority, a frank desire to secure the continued supremacy of the Republican party.

A discussion of the effects of the rejection of the Amendment upon the Radical temper, and of the influences and debates leading to the passage of the first Reconstruction Act follows, and also an analysis and criticism of the acts themselves. The characterization of Stevens and Sumner here is particularly well done, as is the account of the part each played in securing the adoption of the new policy of reconstruction. There is also an extended account of the treatment accorded Jefferson Davis, which is without prejudice of any sort.

The next chapter discusses the execution of the Reconstruction Acts with a general account of military government at the South. Here President Johnson is again condemned for what the author characterizes as his folly in removing Stanton from the office of

Secretary of War, and Sheridan from the command of the fifth military district. On the grounds of policy these two acts were ones of folly without doubt, but it is unquestionable that Stanton's connection with Johnson's cabinet should have ceased long before it did and the President's greatest folly was not removing him earlier. As regards Sheridan, he had shown, and was later to show again, his utter incapacity to deal with civil problems with any degree of statesmanship and his utter unsuitability to fill a position that required tact; and while his removal was certain to cause an outcry North, there is sufficient justification for the President on the ground of principle, and in the other case it was required not only on the ground of policy, but of selfrespect. But the account of Johnson's impeachment and trial is admirable. Many, however, will fail to agree with the author that the impeachment is not a cause for regret. While it was an unboubted lesson to the Radicals and to the nation, it is scarcely an event of which a patriotic American can be proud.

In the succeeding chapter there are full and interesting accounts of the Republican and Democratic conventions of 1868 and of the campaign and election which followed. The process of reconstructing the Southern States also receives naturally a good deal of attention and the account is luminous and full of interest. The following chapter has accounts of the strained relations with France on account of her interference in Mexico, the settlement of the dispute through the diplomacy of that great foreign minister, Seward, and another of his diplomatic triumphs, the purchase of Alaska. War with France or any foreign power in 1866 would have been a national calamity, and Mr. Rhodes emphasizes the debt the nation owes Mr. Seward for his coolness and moderation in the face of great popular excitement. There is also a discussion of the important financial questions of Johnson's administration.

The limits of space prevent any attempt at a summary of the two volumes, but certain chapters deserve especial mention. Those devoted to the condition of affairs at the South are candid and impartial, but one can but be impressed with the belief that the author has failed to realize the utter horror of those years of gloom when the South was turned over to the mercy of ignorance, controlled by vice and greed, when the least fault of those

who administered the government of the South was utter incapacity, and when extravagance, fraud, and extortionate taxation that amounted to confiscation went hand in hand with oppression, robbery, murder, and rape. This criticism is not intended, however, to imply any lack of impartiality. The book may be said to be nearer the Northern standpoint than the Southern, but the author has undoubtedly drawn the picture as he sees it, even though he has failed to some extent to see real conditions.

One of the best chapters in the two volumes is the one treating of the foreign relations arising out of the war and the negotiations resulting in the Treaty of Washington and the later Geneva Tribunal of Arbitration. Not less interesting is the treatment of President Grant's impulsive attempt to interfere in behalf of Cuba in 1869, and his even more ill-advised attempt to secure the annexation of San Domingo. The latter is particularly interesting as being the main cause of Sumner's break with the Administration, which led to his deposition from the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations. Nowhere does Grant appear smaller than in this matter, and the author brings this out forcibly. While his discussion of the President is thoroughly sympathetic and, on the whole, admiring, he is not blind to his faults and mistakes, and he shows clearly the characteristics which kept him, though given probably the greatest opportunity a President ever had, from being a great chief executive. times, as for instance in the Belknap affair, one feels that he is too lenient with Grant, but on the whole his estimate is entirely just.

At

It was these failures of Grant and the administration, coupled with the growing dissatisfaction in the country with existing conditions, not only at the South, but in the North, which led to the division in the Republican party known as the Liberal Republican movement. This threatened seriously for a time the security of the Republican party, but the great mistake of nominating Horace Greeley doomed the movement to failure from the time of the Cincinnati convention. Nevertheless the author concludes that the movement was productive of great good.

In this chapter which concludes the volume, there is also an excellent account of the work of "Boss" Tweed and the final overthrow of the "Ring" through the activity of a few public

spirited men with the New York Times and Harper's Weekly as mouthpieces.

The second volume deals in the same vivid fashion with the Credit Mobilier and Sanborn Contract scandals, the panic of 1873, and the consequent financial legislation, culminating in the resumption act of 1875 and the inflation act which was vetoed by Grant. The narrative continues with accounts of the campaign and election of 1874, with the success of the Democratic party, and the struggle of the South for good government, particularly in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, where the Republicans were still in power. No better account has ever been written in a general way of the struggle then going on in the South. Mr. Rhodes has used every available authority on the subject with good judgment and clear insight, and the result is excellent.

Equally vivid is his description of the fraud and corruption in the national government during Grant's second administration, the cases of Babcock, Belknap, and Blaine receiving naturally most of the attention.

The book closes with detailed and interesting studies of the campaign and disputed election of 1876, the discussion in the country and in Congress which led to the creation of the Electoral Commission, the work of the Commission, the seating of Hayes, and the withdrawal of troops from the South with the consequent fall of the "carpet-bag" administrations.

As one finishes the last chapter, it is with a feeling of regret mingled with pleasure at the existence of such a history in complete form; and the reviewer cannot but express the hope that a history of the succeeding period may be undertaken by the gifted author. Differing from him in many points, believing him to be mistaken in his judgment in many, he finishes the reading of these two volumes with the conviction that the series as a whole will not soon be surpassed, if indeed it is not as nearly correct as a history of that period can ever be.