Product Description

A gripping look at terrorist violence during the Reconstruction era

Between 1867, when the defeated South was forced to establish new state governments that fully represented both black and white citizens, and 1877, when the last of these governments was overthrown, more than three thousand African Americans and their white allies were killed by terrorist violence. Drawing on original letters and diaries as well as published racist diatribes of the time, acclaimed historian Stephen Budiansky concentrates his vivid, fast paced narrative on the efforts of five heroic men—two Union officers, a Confederate general, a Northern entrepreneur, and a former slave—who showed remarkable idealism and courage as they struggled to establish a “New South” in the face of overwhelming hatred and organized resistance. The Bloody Shirt sheds new light on the violence, racism, division, and heroism of Reconstruction, a largely forgotten but epochal chapter in American history.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #946323 in Books
• Published on: 2008-12-30
• Format: Bargain Price
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 336 pages

From Publishers Weekly
Journalist and military historian Budiansky (Her Majesty's Spymaster) pulls no punches in this hard-hitting examination of the most sordid aspects of Reconstruction in the South from 1865 to 1876. The brutal war of terrorist violence that he surveys certainly has not escaped the history books. But this worthy effort goes a long way toward highlighting the most venal aspects of how, in the 10 years after the Civil War, the white Southern power structure managed to erect the Jim Crow laws that for nearly a century legalized many aspects of racial discrimination. Budiansky also highlights men and women of courage, idealism, rectitude, and vision who confronted the establishment: Pennsylvania-born U.S. Army major Lewis Merrill, who fought the Ku Klux Klan in South Carolina; Prince Rivers, a former slave and Union army Colored Troop sergeant who became a state legislator and trial judge in South Carolina; and Maine-born Adelbert Ames, a Union general who served as Mississippi's provisional military governor. Budiansky brings the unpleasant details of the era alive in a smoothly written narrative. (Jan. 28)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review
“If ‘Profiles in Courage’ had not already been taken, it would have made the perfect title for this linked set of portraits honoring five men who risked everything to fight for the principles that had cost so many lives.”
—The New York Times

About the Author
Stephen Budiansky is a journalist and military historian whose writings frequently appear in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Atlantic Monthly. His previous books include Her Majesty’s Spymaster, Air Power, and Battle of Wits.

Customer Reviews

"I know I is not to be any worse off in the grave than I is now." *
One of the abiding misconceptions about the American Civil War is that the opposing armies parted with dignity, mutual respect, and even a certain degree of amiability at war's end. Joshua Chamberlain, the hero of Little Round Top, famously writes that he ordered his men to salute the brave Confederate soldiers who laid down their arms at Appomattox. Thus began the myth of a happy ending.

But historians have long recognized that civil wars are especially violent and acrimonious, and even after peace accords are signed, aftershocks of rage and recrimination continue. Given its horrible bloodletting, it would be strange if the American Civil War were an exception to this general rule. Author Stephen Budiansky, in one of the most horrifying books I've ever read, documents the decade following Appomattox and concludes two things: the war didn't really end in 1865, and the North didn't achieve the victory it thought it did.

When the "official" war ended, die-hard Confederates and secessionists seethed with anger and a stubborn refusal to submit. John Richard Dennett, a young "Nation" reporter who traveled through the South for 8 months after the war ended, concluded that nearly every Southerner he encountered was convinced that the emancipation of the slaves had reversed the natural order of things, and would eventually mean that an "inferior" race, bolstered by Republican carpetbaggers, would dominate a "superior" one. Given that a black revolt was one of the antebellum South's worst nightmares, this post-war conviction was a powerful incentive to violence.

The violence grew so rapidly over the next ten years, with some 3,000 black and white elected officials murdered, elections rigged, communities terrorized by Ku Klux and "rifle society" members, and Federal laws regulating local treatment of freedmen contemptuously ignored, that Budiansky doesn't hesitate to refer to the period as one of terrorism. The atrocities he documents are staggering. Over and over I found myself comparing them to recent human rights violations in Bosnia or Africa.

In September 1874, for example, Louisiana fire-eaters revolted. Citizens refused to accept the legally-elected Republican governor. A neo-Confederate puppet state government was set up and fighting broke out in the streets of New Orleans between state militia loyal to the Federal government (commanded by no less a figure than James Longstreet) and members of the infamous White League. Longstreet's militia were trounced. The "Shreveport Times," as well as other regional papers, explicitly advocated killing any Republicans or blacks elected to public office.

Or take the predominantly black town of Hamburg, South Carolina, most of whose elected officials were freedmen. in 1876, white toughs disrupted a July 4th town parade. The commander of the black militia that was marching in the parade protested, and just a few days later a white army, led by two ex-Confederate generals and a thug who would later become a U.S. senator, invaded Hamburg. The town sheriff was murdered and mutilated, nearly 30 members of the black militia were rounded up, and seven of them were singled out and murdered. Then the white thugs vandalized the town.

These and scores of other acts of terrorism went largely unpunished. Southern grand juries refused to indict; indicted defendants were usually acquitted or given laughably light sentences. By 1876, when Federal troops officially withdrew from the South, ex-slaves had been put in their place. As one southerner of the time observed, blacks were better off as slaves than as freedman. As slaves, they were valuable property. As freedmen, they weren't worth the dirt it took to bury them after they were murdered.

Budianksy's book is a sober but essential read, especially for anyone who believes that the Civil War "fixed" the plight of the southern black, that erstwhile blue and gray enemies clasped hands in friendship when the war ended, or that slavery wasn't the real cause of the war. But his book is also inspiring in its documentation of the men and women, black as well as white, who did their best (but for the most part failed) to bring law and order to the violence-torn South. All in all, highly recommended. Readers who find Budianksy's book interesting may also want to read Nicolas Lemann's Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War.
_____
* Testimony of a 30-year old mulatto man beaten nearly to death by white terrorists who insisted that he hand over his guns. The mulatto repeatedly told his attackers he had no guns. Then, sobbing, he told the court: "I hasn't got anything in the world but myself, for I hasn't got any family, nor any parents, nor any land, nor any money, and I know I is not to be any worse off in the grave than I is now."

Popular History of Reconstruction
Stephen Budiansky has written a popular history of the Reconstruction era. His is no easy task, as Reconstruction falls far behind the Civil War as a subject of popular interest, despite their closeness on the historical timeline, and despite the fact that many of the Civil War's main players (such as James Longstreet, who's featured here) were very active in both. "The Bloody Shirt" is a well-researched and well-written account that focuses on several individuals and events rather than try to examine the period as a whole. The author explores Reconstruction in Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina--the Deep South states that were the heart of the large plantation economy.

The main problem I had with the book was its emphasis on description rather than analysis. It reads like dispatches from the Reconstruction "front." That's fine, to a point, but at times it is more a string of primary sources than a monograph. Very often, letters and newspaper editorials, frequently printed whole, are left to speak for themselves. Much of this information could've been boiled down--and more importantly, should've been commented upon. For example, at one point, one Southern newspaper makes reference to "Colfax." Those familiar with the Reconstruction period will know this means the "Colfax Massacre" of 1873, which happened in Louisiana (if one wants to read about that, he/she can read the recent book "Redemption" by Nicholas Lemann).

Most importantly, the book lacks sufficient political context. The last portions of the book deal with the infamous Hamburg massacre (or, as Democrats fashioned it, the Hamburg "riot") in South Carolina. Budiansky unfortunately, doesn't give us much context about Reconstruction politics in that state. Despite the violence there, it was one of the last Reconstruction governments to fall and was the only one to have a mostly black legislature. The Republicans survived in South Carolina largely because of the state's majority black population. Budiansky doesn't lay this out, and makes it seem as if African Americans were merely victims of some last-minute white terror. By that point, however, Reconstruction had failed, and it was not because of events in South Carolina alone.

The extent to which Democrats resorted to violence and fraud was inexcusable, but Budiansky doesn't examine some of the faults of the Reconstruction governments. Republican mismanagement and corruption enabled Democrats to build their case for overthrowing Republican rule (on this subject, check out Thomas Holt's "Black Over White" about the Reconstruction government in South Carolina). As overstated or even outright false as many Democrats' claims were, there was mismangement and corruption among Republicans. That does not justify the Democratic backlash, but even the Republican governments' legitimate expenses--for things as seemingly basic as public education and infrastructure projects--were hotly debated by Southerners.

Nevertheless, Budiansky is correct in saying that the real cause for overthrowing Reconstruction was not fiscal conservatism--which he addresses in the case of the Republican Governor Ames of Mississippi--but white anger with "Negro rule." And he is also correct in showing that African Americans were eventually abandoned by Northerners who had grown tired with events in the South. Once the Federal government decided blacks weren't worth defending, the radical Republican governments could not succeed.

If Budiansky's sympathies are with the right people, another problem I had with the book was its fragmented nature. As soon as we are introduced to some figures and events in Reconstruction, we are whisked away to somewhere else. The passages about James Longstreet are well written, but Longstreet feels dropped in from nowhere. No sooner does he appear then he is gone.

In sum, Budiansky's description of the violence of the period is well done, and he certainly is passionate in his defense of the white-black coalition governments. This is a good place to start for someone who is not well versed in the Reconstruction period. If I were to suggest an academic book about terror after Lee's surrender, I would suggest Richard Zuczek's "State of Rebellion," about Reconstruction in South Carolina. As a work of popular history, Budiansky's book illustrates some of the features of Reconstruction, but it doesn't break any new ground in the field of study. And those looking for a more comprehensive study might want to check out Eric Foner's "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution."

Very Effective
This is actually an excellent book. I gave it a 4 instead of a 5 only because it wasn't what I expected, plus it's not the kind of history I typically like.

As others have said, it does seem to be just a series of loosely strung-together vignettes, with very little analysis. On second thought, though, the particular vignettes the author chose are really very telling. And there is a real flow, from the early hopes of reconstruction to its tragic denouement. Similarly, there really isn't that much need for analysis - the facts really do speak for themselves.

In fact, this is the real strength of this book, in my opinion. The behaviour evidenced in this book is so awful (and typically so hidden and swept under the rug) that it really makes me wonder about this country, and how we can ever overcome a past like this.

If you're interested in more books along these lines, try:

The Slave Ship: A Human History

Buried in the Bitter Waters: The Hidden History of Racial Cleansing in America

Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism

Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II

The Day Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre, the Supreme Court, and the Betrayal of Reconstruction

At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America (Modern Library Paperbacks)