C. B. WALTER.

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.”