But There Was No Peace: The Role of Violence in the Politics of Reconstruction by George Rable

by George C. Rable

Rable, George C.

Genres: History, American History, Civil War, Race, 19th Century

Paperback

About the author

George C. Rable is the Charles Summersell Professor of Southern History at the University of Alabama.

Reviews

[Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

George Rable’s But There Was No Peace is an examination of violence—random and organized—and its effect on the politics of the time. He starts by examining southern society in the wake of their defeat in 1865 and finishes in 1877 when Reconstruction ended. He covers the breadth of the south with sections focusing on events in Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and other states. However, for the most part Rable keeps his discussions general. He does not discuss in detail the men that participated in these acts of violence. He discusses the men that were involved in the policymaking that resulted in or from the violence. He walks the reader from the first murmurings of violence through to what he calls the “highly probable” if not “inevitable” failure of Reconstruction. A failure that resulted from the southern conservatives to policies that they believed were unfair, restrictive, and discriminatory because they lacked a voice in the creation of those policies.

All of this is to lead the reader through to his conclusion that Reconstruction was counterrevolutionary and it plays a large role in the failure of Reconstruction. Rable argues that historians have spent too much time focusing on the weakness of the north in the implementation of their policies and ideologies while overlooking the strength and southern resistance. Through political terrorism and violence, the southern conservatives brought about what the Civil War did not and could not. Guerrilla violence and resistance proved to be more effective than the organized resistance of armies and generals. However, Rable does not lay the blame for Reconstruction’s failure solely at the feet of southern conservatives; he spends much time discussing what instigated the violence. He claims that the north’s attempts to restructure society and provide places in society for the recently freed men created a unity and nationalist pride that the Civil War failed to produce in the Confederacy. To make this argument Rable draws upon a variety of sources. He looks at newspapers, memoirs, diaries, personal letters, official correspondence, and government documents. He draws on personal letters to demonstrate the condemnation the officials in the south expressed for the violence that they failed to voice publicly.

Rable provides an examination of violence for the whole Reconstruction period. Other authors address violence as a part of their greater narrative. This dedicated discussion is invaluable reference while providing a different interpretation of why Reconstruction failed. Dunning and his school blamed the freedmen for the failure of Reconstruction while others condemned the north for its weakness in enforcing the new laws or for their “extreme” new edicts that were intolerable to the southern conservatives. Rable provides good insight that assign blame more equally.

Overall, Rable’s writing is a joy to read. He is thorough and detailed. However, there are places where more information would be useful to a general reader who is not well versed in the history of Atlantic World. With his liberal use of psychology and other social scientific means, it feels that he is appealing to a broader audience than just other historians. More information on what happened on the Caribbean island of Saint-Domingue would be helpful especially since he leaves the reader feeling that it is a crucial component to his argument what with having it referenced in a chapter title and all. For a broader audience a short paragraph about Saint-Domingue would enhance their understanding. He should also define the specialized terms that he uses. “In the language of social psychology, black suffrage was the ‘cue’ in the environment that could stimulate aggression once the populace had been sufficiently ‘aroused.’” Unless the reader has a background in social psychology, they will require more information to ascertain what Rable is getting at with this phrasing.

[Ashley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rable posses a lot of interesting arguments for the rationality of the violence ignited during the Reconstruction. I relied heavily on this book when writing a paper for an African American history course. It definitely opens a lot of new perspectives on the circumstances of the South, but should be read in conjunction with other texts on the same period as it's not extensive enough to be taken in alone.

[Taylor · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very thorough history (with some historiographic commentary) of the Reconstruction period and analysis of the changing origin and role of violence during it. I was drawn in by the title expecting a parade a horrible, Klan-driven massacres, but in fact was surprised to learn the Ku Klux Klan has an outsized place in our minds (probably because its renaissance in the 1900s) and was more of a non-example for how to use terrorist tactics to achieve political ends.

This is an extremely detailed account of Reconstruction to Redemption in the states under military Reconstruction; I had to stop and find a more general history to better situate myself, and I wouldn't recommend to a generalist reader because of the level of detail and the antiquated language (hotpsur, speculation, shopworn, anyone?). But if you're able to skim the detail for the analysis, it would still be worth it. Otherwise, I'd recommend reading the preface, introduction, and above all the epilogue, and trusting that the pages in between offer plenty of evidence for the author's conclusions.