What do you think?
Rate this book
West from Appomattox: The Reconstruction of America after the Civil War
The story of Reconstruction is not simply about the rebuilding of the South after the Civil War. Instead, the late nineteenth century defined modern America, as Southerners, Northerners, and Westerners gradually hammered out a national identity that united three regions into a country that could become a world power. Ultimately, the story of Reconstruction is about how a middle class formed in America and how its members defined what the nation would stand for, both at home and abroad, for the next century and beyond.
A sweeping history of the United States from the era of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, this engaging book stretches the boundaries of our understanding of Reconstruction. Historian Heather Cox Richardson ties the North and West into the post–Civil War story that usually focuses narrowly on the South, encompassing the significant people and events of this profoundly important era.
By weaving together the experiences of real individuals—from a plantation mistress, a Native American warrior, and a labor organizer to Andrew Carnegie, Julia Ward Howe, Booker T. Washington, and Sitting Bull—who lived during the decades following the Civil War and who left records in their own words, Richardson tells a story about the creation of modern America.
A sweeping history of the United States from the era of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, this engaging book stretches the boundaries of our understanding of Reconstruction. Historian Heather Cox Richardson ties the North and West into the post–Civil War story that usually focuses narrowly on the South, encompassing the significant people and events of this profoundly important era.
By weaving together the experiences of real individuals—from a plantation mistress, a Native American warrior, and a labor organizer to Andrew Carnegie, Julia Ward Howe, Booker T. Washington, and Sitting Bull—who lived during the decades following the Civil War and who left records in their own words, Richardson tells a story about the creation of modern America.
416 pages, Hardcover
Published March 28, 2007
10 people are currently reading
372 people want to read
About the author
Heather Cox Richardson
12 books1,377 followers Heather Cox Richardson is a professor of history at Boston College and an expert on American political and economic history. She is the author of seven books, including the award-winning How the South Won the Civil War. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Guardian, among other outlets. Her widely read newsletter, Letters from an American, synthesizes history and modern political issues.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
December 22, 2025
Reconstruction And The American West
In "West from Appomatox", Professor Heather Cox Richardson focuses on the role of the American West in defining the American experience and the American character in the decades following the Civil War to the present. Richardson is Associate Professor of History at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
The story of Reconstruction is usually viewed as involving the victorious North and the defeated South. In the opening chapters of her book, Richardson gives a good brief summary of the Reconstruction era. But she does not stop there. She goes on to show how the West became emblematic during Reconstruction, for both Northerners and Southerners, of the promise of America. The idealized image of the American West came to symbolize "individualism. economic opportunity, and political freedom." (p. 221) In many ways, Richardson's view of the importance of the West is similar to that of the great early historian of this period, Frederick Jackson Turner. Richardson indeed briefly discusses (pp 281-283) Turner's famous thesis of the end of the American frontier and its significance.
The West became attractive to Northerners as a place for independence and opportunity, where the corruptions of large businesses and the agitation of the labor unions could be put aside. For Southerners, the West became a place to escape from the poverty that followed the Civil War and from the difficulties of Reconstruction. With the idealizing of the West, for Richardson, came a view that all Americans shared the same interests and the same ways of achieving success -- that they were "working their way up together." (p.1) This view led to the formation of a broad middle class, opposed on one side to the large concentrations of economic power in corporations and financial institutions and on the other side to "special interest groups" such as labor unions, African Americans, the poor, and strident advocates of women's rights. The emerging middle class viewed these groups as seeking special favors and entitlements while the middle class saw the role of the government as preserving impartiality and equality in its treatment of all people. The groups on the outside of this consensus, in their turn, pointed to structural factors in the United States which promoted inequality and unfairness and which required government intervention to correct. The middle class also tended to overlook the many affirmative government actions necessary to sustain its own view of America.
Richarson develops her narrative from the Reconstruction Era through the first appearance of "Liberal Republicanism" in 1872, to the terms of the reforms of Grover Cleveland, and through President McKinley and the Spanish American War. The political figure that most exemplifies, for Richardson, the spirit of this era is Theodore Roosevelt, who gets a great deal of attention in his early reforming years in New York City, in his venture to the West, as the leader of the Rough Riders on San Juan Hill and as the President. Richardson also devotes a great deal of attention to Owen Wister's novel, "The Virginian" as emblematic of American values at the beginning of the 20th Century.
Richardson's narrative tells of both broad events and of individuals that she sees as representative of some aspect of the development of the United States during the post-Civil War period. These individuals include, among others, former Confederate General Wade Hampton, Julia Ward Howe, the African American cowboy Nat Love, Buffalo Bill, Samuel Gompers, Indian leaders such as Sitting Bull, Geronimo and the Commanche leader Quanah. Their stories are told together with the broader historical narrative of Richardson's account, and sometimes interfere with its flow.
Richardson sees in the rise of the American middle class that followed the Civil War the sources of the divisions that continue to characterize American society between those who favor government intervention to assist disadvantaged groups and those who oppose it, even while benefiting from government activism themselves. Richardson finds much to be said for both sides, and for the opportunity for advancement and independence created by the emerging middle class, even though her sympathies clearly lie on the side of an activist government role. She writes, (p. 7): "America is neither excellent nor oppressive; rather it is both at the same time. In 1865, Americans had to reconstruct their shattered nation. Their solution "reconstructed" America into what it is today."
Richardson's book is a thoughtful study of American history with provocative observations on the American character.
Robin Friedman
In "West from Appomatox", Professor Heather Cox Richardson focuses on the role of the American West in defining the American experience and the American character in the decades following the Civil War to the present. Richardson is Associate Professor of History at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
The story of Reconstruction is usually viewed as involving the victorious North and the defeated South. In the opening chapters of her book, Richardson gives a good brief summary of the Reconstruction era. But she does not stop there. She goes on to show how the West became emblematic during Reconstruction, for both Northerners and Southerners, of the promise of America. The idealized image of the American West came to symbolize "individualism. economic opportunity, and political freedom." (p. 221) In many ways, Richardson's view of the importance of the West is similar to that of the great early historian of this period, Frederick Jackson Turner. Richardson indeed briefly discusses (pp 281-283) Turner's famous thesis of the end of the American frontier and its significance.
The West became attractive to Northerners as a place for independence and opportunity, where the corruptions of large businesses and the agitation of the labor unions could be put aside. For Southerners, the West became a place to escape from the poverty that followed the Civil War and from the difficulties of Reconstruction. With the idealizing of the West, for Richardson, came a view that all Americans shared the same interests and the same ways of achieving success -- that they were "working their way up together." (p.1) This view led to the formation of a broad middle class, opposed on one side to the large concentrations of economic power in corporations and financial institutions and on the other side to "special interest groups" such as labor unions, African Americans, the poor, and strident advocates of women's rights. The emerging middle class viewed these groups as seeking special favors and entitlements while the middle class saw the role of the government as preserving impartiality and equality in its treatment of all people. The groups on the outside of this consensus, in their turn, pointed to structural factors in the United States which promoted inequality and unfairness and which required government intervention to correct. The middle class also tended to overlook the many affirmative government actions necessary to sustain its own view of America.
Richarson develops her narrative from the Reconstruction Era through the first appearance of "Liberal Republicanism" in 1872, to the terms of the reforms of Grover Cleveland, and through President McKinley and the Spanish American War. The political figure that most exemplifies, for Richardson, the spirit of this era is Theodore Roosevelt, who gets a great deal of attention in his early reforming years in New York City, in his venture to the West, as the leader of the Rough Riders on San Juan Hill and as the President. Richardson also devotes a great deal of attention to Owen Wister's novel, "The Virginian" as emblematic of American values at the beginning of the 20th Century.
Richardson's narrative tells of both broad events and of individuals that she sees as representative of some aspect of the development of the United States during the post-Civil War period. These individuals include, among others, former Confederate General Wade Hampton, Julia Ward Howe, the African American cowboy Nat Love, Buffalo Bill, Samuel Gompers, Indian leaders such as Sitting Bull, Geronimo and the Commanche leader Quanah. Their stories are told together with the broader historical narrative of Richardson's account, and sometimes interfere with its flow.
Richardson sees in the rise of the American middle class that followed the Civil War the sources of the divisions that continue to characterize American society between those who favor government intervention to assist disadvantaged groups and those who oppose it, even while benefiting from government activism themselves. Richardson finds much to be said for both sides, and for the opportunity for advancement and independence created by the emerging middle class, even though her sympathies clearly lie on the side of an activist government role. She writes, (p. 7): "America is neither excellent nor oppressive; rather it is both at the same time. In 1865, Americans had to reconstruct their shattered nation. Their solution "reconstructed" America into what it is today."
Richardson's book is a thoughtful study of American history with provocative observations on the American character.
Robin Friedman
December 11, 2016
As the title suggests, West from Appomattox: The Reconstruction of America After the Civil War deals with Reconstruction. Rather than sticking to the traditional narrative of North and South, Richardson includes the West. She attempts to include the frontier lands of the Texas and the territories into this story. For the most part the narrative follows a familiar pattern only this time the effects of Presidential and Congressional Reconstruction on the Western parts of the country are included. Richardson includes the origins of cattle drives and “Cow Boy[s]” as part of this narrative. However, not as much time is spent on the “West” as one would expect given the title. Despite this, Richardson ties westward expansion, the gold rush, and the rapid increase of the non-Indian population in territories to the story of Reconstruction.
These elements are included to add to Richardson’s argument. She seeks to answer the question “Clearly there is a stark regional contrast in American though between the reality of government activism and Americans’ image of it. How did nineteenth-century Americans negotiate this contrast? … How did nineteenth-century Americans justify the expansion of government activism and still retain their wholehearted belief in individualism?” Richardson explores the dialectical tensions between the ideal of free labor and self-determination and the reality of government aid. The West is included because she says these issues play out most clearly in the West, which was unhampered by the baggage and stigma of the war and the Western states and territories lacked long established governments and laws that would complicate the paradox of the middle-class advocating for self-determinism and condemning special interest groups while receiving government aid.
To tell this story Richardson uses narrative from characters that fit her definition of middle class was “Regardless of how much money they made those who believed they could make it on their own saw themselves as part of the ‘great middle’ between rich monopolists and the lazy poor.” This allows her to include a diverse cast of characters including Wade Hampton, Buffalo Bill, Julia Ward Howe, Sitting Bull, Andrew Carnegie, among others. Her definition of “middle class” allows for the inclusion of Hampton, who was the wealthiest man in antebellum South Carolina and lost his position after the war, and Carnegie, the steel giant that made his fortunes in industry after the war.
To tell the story of her host of characters Richardson pulls from their memoirs and letters to construct her “narrative history.” It is her focus on these primary source documents that led her to exclude other famous figures of the time, they failed to leave behind journals, correspondence, or memoirs to provide insight into their daily lives and feelings. Richardson wanted to immerse herself, and by extension the reader, in the world of the late 1800s. Her use of primary sources aides her in this endeavor, because the reader often encounters excerpts from Julia Ward Howe’s journals describing how she felt about the changes that were taking place around her.
Richardson’s focus is unique. Few monographs of Reconstruction touch on the West at all, even though it was disagreements over whether new states should allow slavery or not. And fewer still claim to deal with the West as thoroughly as Richardson claims to do. Her overall narrative, the struggles over labor and the paradox of ideals versus reality, is not new, it is the arena that is new. It places the story of Reconstruction in the “Wild West” among the American folk heroes of Buffalo Bill, John Henry, and many others; a time and place that seems utterly detached from the Civil War in many aspects. While the majority of the book deals with familiar places and themes the sections on the West are enlightening and unique.
The context combined with the narrative format makes the book compulsively readable and accessible. As mentioned earlier, less of the book focuses on the West than the title leads one to believe, which is disappointing. The information it does include about different Native American tribes, clashes between settlers, railroad men and Native Americans and their origins, combat that initial disappointment. Richardson tries to tie her narrative to the 2004 presidential election map which she uses to open and close her book. This, however feels strained. More than 100 years pass between the end of Reconstruction and the 2004 election, demographics have changed, cities are no longer dealing with the growing pains of industrialization, instead they are struggling to create post-industrial identities. It may have been better to connect the historic idea of the West and the modern idea of the West and wilderness and use that to frame the narrative.
These elements are included to add to Richardson’s argument. She seeks to answer the question “Clearly there is a stark regional contrast in American though between the reality of government activism and Americans’ image of it. How did nineteenth-century Americans negotiate this contrast? … How did nineteenth-century Americans justify the expansion of government activism and still retain their wholehearted belief in individualism?” Richardson explores the dialectical tensions between the ideal of free labor and self-determination and the reality of government aid. The West is included because she says these issues play out most clearly in the West, which was unhampered by the baggage and stigma of the war and the Western states and territories lacked long established governments and laws that would complicate the paradox of the middle-class advocating for self-determinism and condemning special interest groups while receiving government aid.
To tell this story Richardson uses narrative from characters that fit her definition of middle class was “Regardless of how much money they made those who believed they could make it on their own saw themselves as part of the ‘great middle’ between rich monopolists and the lazy poor.” This allows her to include a diverse cast of characters including Wade Hampton, Buffalo Bill, Julia Ward Howe, Sitting Bull, Andrew Carnegie, among others. Her definition of “middle class” allows for the inclusion of Hampton, who was the wealthiest man in antebellum South Carolina and lost his position after the war, and Carnegie, the steel giant that made his fortunes in industry after the war.
To tell the story of her host of characters Richardson pulls from their memoirs and letters to construct her “narrative history.” It is her focus on these primary source documents that led her to exclude other famous figures of the time, they failed to leave behind journals, correspondence, or memoirs to provide insight into their daily lives and feelings. Richardson wanted to immerse herself, and by extension the reader, in the world of the late 1800s. Her use of primary sources aides her in this endeavor, because the reader often encounters excerpts from Julia Ward Howe’s journals describing how she felt about the changes that were taking place around her.
Richardson’s focus is unique. Few monographs of Reconstruction touch on the West at all, even though it was disagreements over whether new states should allow slavery or not. And fewer still claim to deal with the West as thoroughly as Richardson claims to do. Her overall narrative, the struggles over labor and the paradox of ideals versus reality, is not new, it is the arena that is new. It places the story of Reconstruction in the “Wild West” among the American folk heroes of Buffalo Bill, John Henry, and many others; a time and place that seems utterly detached from the Civil War in many aspects. While the majority of the book deals with familiar places and themes the sections on the West are enlightening and unique.
The context combined with the narrative format makes the book compulsively readable and accessible. As mentioned earlier, less of the book focuses on the West than the title leads one to believe, which is disappointing. The information it does include about different Native American tribes, clashes between settlers, railroad men and Native Americans and their origins, combat that initial disappointment. Richardson tries to tie her narrative to the 2004 presidential election map which she uses to open and close her book. This, however feels strained. More than 100 years pass between the end of Reconstruction and the 2004 election, demographics have changed, cities are no longer dealing with the growing pains of industrialization, instead they are struggling to create post-industrial identities. It may have been better to connect the historic idea of the West and the modern idea of the West and wilderness and use that to frame the narrative.
June 2, 2016
'Reconstruction' takes on a new meaning, at least from what high schools have taught about it -- that hour or two of discussion sandwiched between the Civil War and trust-busting.
Here it represents not only the failure of the country to merge black with white, but it shows the formation of an . . . ideology (?) . . . still pursued today.
The South came to be seen as a place where 'free labor' could now thrive once the 'advantage' of slave labor was removed. But the idea of free labor meant your ability to negotiate with an employer for your services.
That ability may have existed antebellum in the North, but with the rise of industrial power, an employee even there might never even be in the same building with his employer. The power differential was greatly different.
Any recognition of that disproportion sounded like the 'mob mentality' of the 1871 Paris Commune. Unions were utterly distrusted. Any favoritism was, including tariff protection for large businesses.
But while people opposed the large business combinations surrounding steel and oil and notably railroads, no common approach, no common solution gelled. No countervailing power base from which to address the issue.
Government action? The South saw it as continued invasion, forced racial distortion. The North felt it wrongly interfered with the nature of man-to-man contract.
Somehow the West, with its space arrogated from tribal peoples, seemed like opportunity. But even there, the small land holder got squeezed, and those larger interests that managed well got enormous help from the government, despite its sense of self-made individualism.
Women? If they fit into the scheme of home life, they earned praise. As to their 'free labor' based on equal suffrage: forget about it -- again, government interference.
What came out of this was our notion of the American 'middle class'. Its reality is there, for some. The reality of its myth lies at the pit of American anxiety.
Here it represents not only the failure of the country to merge black with white, but it shows the formation of an . . . ideology (?) . . . still pursued today.
The South came to be seen as a place where 'free labor' could now thrive once the 'advantage' of slave labor was removed. But the idea of free labor meant your ability to negotiate with an employer for your services.
That ability may have existed antebellum in the North, but with the rise of industrial power, an employee even there might never even be in the same building with his employer. The power differential was greatly different.
Any recognition of that disproportion sounded like the 'mob mentality' of the 1871 Paris Commune. Unions were utterly distrusted. Any favoritism was, including tariff protection for large businesses.
But while people opposed the large business combinations surrounding steel and oil and notably railroads, no common approach, no common solution gelled. No countervailing power base from which to address the issue.
Government action? The South saw it as continued invasion, forced racial distortion. The North felt it wrongly interfered with the nature of man-to-man contract.
Somehow the West, with its space arrogated from tribal peoples, seemed like opportunity. But even there, the small land holder got squeezed, and those larger interests that managed well got enormous help from the government, despite its sense of self-made individualism.
Women? If they fit into the scheme of home life, they earned praise. As to their 'free labor' based on equal suffrage: forget about it -- again, government interference.
What came out of this was our notion of the American 'middle class'. Its reality is there, for some. The reality of its myth lies at the pit of American anxiety.
January 13, 2020
Incredible Book. Highly recommended for those interested in not only Historical events, but the cultural and political forces behind those changes.
Reconstruction as a complete history of the United States between 1865 to 1900, rather than just the transformation of the Southern states. Issues include: Civil Rights, Labor Unions, Women’s Sufferage, Expansion West, Railroad and Trust Monopolies, Political Parties and all the public agitation going with those issues. By the end of the Spanish American War (1898) the nation had started to unify behind a national identity and an identifiable middle class was emerging.
Reconstruction as a complete history of the United States between 1865 to 1900, rather than just the transformation of the Southern states. Issues include: Civil Rights, Labor Unions, Women’s Sufferage, Expansion West, Railroad and Trust Monopolies, Political Parties and all the public agitation going with those issues. By the end of the Spanish American War (1898) the nation had started to unify behind a national identity and an identifiable middle class was emerging.
November 14, 2018
A more inclusive look at the reconstruction era of the US, pulling in the influence of the West on the North and South. Also notable for describing how various women played significant roles throughout the period plus some explanations of how literature and music reflected the times.
Food: Because this is a slow, thoughtful read, I suggest pairing this book with a sippy sort of drink: a little cup of espresso or a mug of hot cider or even a glass of red wine. Hot chocolate is too slurpy to be appropriate.
Food: Because this is a slow, thoughtful read, I suggest pairing this book with a sippy sort of drink: a little cup of espresso or a mug of hot cider or even a glass of red wine. Hot chocolate is too slurpy to be appropriate.
August 4, 2019
The book is a good survey of US history from the end of the Civil War through 1905, particularly as it relates to the expansion westward. However, the books fails to persuade the reader that her thesis, that the new 'middle class' used the federal government to advance their individualistic ethos as opposed to a more collective ethos, holds water.
September 24, 2017
Incredible read, filled with excellent research. You find here that modern American politics really has its roots in Reconstruction.
June 29, 2020
Excellent source of information about the Civil War.
November 5, 2015
She weaves an interesting tale of the Reconstruction of America and not just the South and how it lasted until 1901, but she makes many blanket statements about Teddy, about the middle-class's supposed hypocrisy for centralization and trying to compare the cowboy image of the 19th century to the 2004 election snare her book from better reviews and real research or analysis.
Very evident she is writing this one sided and that side is left. She would need to update her book now in 2015 with the acceptance that WMDs were found in Iraq and others shipped to Syria were discovered, thus negating her pretense that being a cowboy led W. into Iraq. She also gets things confused as she tries saying the cowboy image was used by W. in the 2004 election when in actuality it was 2000 whereas 2004 was more of a "who was a real veteran" then "I'm a 10-gallon hat wearing cowboy".
Claiming in one image that Teddy was mirroring his riding partner thus asserting he was not a real outdoorsman, cowboy, whatever, is a tragic blanket statement not backed up by her, as well as her claim that Teddy did nothing really in the west to be a cowboy, when in reality, those who opposed him and new him out west still acknowledge that he was legit and not a fancy lad pretending to be a cowboy.
Her use of Wounded Knee, Quanah Parker and Geronimo may have the partially educated seething about the white man and how the white man will never accept civilized Indians, but she hides from you Chief Plenty Coups, a more successful story, and a man accepted by the same she claims hated Parker's attempts at middle-class imagery as well as forgetting for whatever reason that the Sioux and Sitting Bull's demise is also laid on Canadian hands, for they chose to starve out the Sioux to get them to leave their land as well as threaten violence if they did not leave since the Canadians feared the Sioux would stay despite no material help from the Mounties. And still rejects the facts that many outrages done to Indians were done by other tribes with our help or resulted in the Indian's first strike, not a defense only policy wrongly attributed to Indians. Calling the Black Hills sacred to the Sioux is also laughable since they took it from the Cheyenne by force, who took it from the Kiowa, who took it from another and so on by violent conquest, same goes for the Comanche, whose annihilation of southwest tribes are brushed under the rug.
She is right that Reconstruction was a national happening, not just delegated for the South alone, but was the Reconstruction of America strictly a thing caused by the middle class, in the West, thus making them government hypocrites legit? Or that the cowboy image was the result? or that only GOPers use the cowboy image? Well as goes history research, that is debatable. One classic reminder is that whereas Bush 41 never embraced the cowboy image, or really any western-influence image, Dukakis (if we want to use Richardson's claim that a cowboy image is the same as a better veteran image) on the other hand embraced that 'go-get 'em' image and disastrously rode that Abrams to humiliating defeat and as a image of -headdesk- that still resonates with us today.
I give merit to her in some areas of her work, I will confidently trash her in other areas, but still find this a decent example of looking at Reconstruction nationally. Though she needs to refine and rework some of this.
Given that she writes for Salon and only bashes the GOP while overlooking more serious scandals and issues of the Left, says a lot about how her bias will taint her research and the answers to her thesis which really seem to have had an answer she accepted before she researched anything... writing for Salon as a place on intellectual honesty or bravado would be like a more conservative historian doing the same for FOX. It's pathetic really.
Very evident she is writing this one sided and that side is left. She would need to update her book now in 2015 with the acceptance that WMDs were found in Iraq and others shipped to Syria were discovered, thus negating her pretense that being a cowboy led W. into Iraq. She also gets things confused as she tries saying the cowboy image was used by W. in the 2004 election when in actuality it was 2000 whereas 2004 was more of a "who was a real veteran" then "I'm a 10-gallon hat wearing cowboy".
Claiming in one image that Teddy was mirroring his riding partner thus asserting he was not a real outdoorsman, cowboy, whatever, is a tragic blanket statement not backed up by her, as well as her claim that Teddy did nothing really in the west to be a cowboy, when in reality, those who opposed him and new him out west still acknowledge that he was legit and not a fancy lad pretending to be a cowboy.
Her use of Wounded Knee, Quanah Parker and Geronimo may have the partially educated seething about the white man and how the white man will never accept civilized Indians, but she hides from you Chief Plenty Coups, a more successful story, and a man accepted by the same she claims hated Parker's attempts at middle-class imagery as well as forgetting for whatever reason that the Sioux and Sitting Bull's demise is also laid on Canadian hands, for they chose to starve out the Sioux to get them to leave their land as well as threaten violence if they did not leave since the Canadians feared the Sioux would stay despite no material help from the Mounties. And still rejects the facts that many outrages done to Indians were done by other tribes with our help or resulted in the Indian's first strike, not a defense only policy wrongly attributed to Indians. Calling the Black Hills sacred to the Sioux is also laughable since they took it from the Cheyenne by force, who took it from the Kiowa, who took it from another and so on by violent conquest, same goes for the Comanche, whose annihilation of southwest tribes are brushed under the rug.
She is right that Reconstruction was a national happening, not just delegated for the South alone, but was the Reconstruction of America strictly a thing caused by the middle class, in the West, thus making them government hypocrites legit? Or that the cowboy image was the result? or that only GOPers use the cowboy image? Well as goes history research, that is debatable. One classic reminder is that whereas Bush 41 never embraced the cowboy image, or really any western-influence image, Dukakis (if we want to use Richardson's claim that a cowboy image is the same as a better veteran image) on the other hand embraced that 'go-get 'em' image and disastrously rode that Abrams to humiliating defeat and as a image of -headdesk- that still resonates with us today.
I give merit to her in some areas of her work, I will confidently trash her in other areas, but still find this a decent example of looking at Reconstruction nationally. Though she needs to refine and rework some of this.
Given that she writes for Salon and only bashes the GOP while overlooking more serious scandals and issues of the Left, says a lot about how her bias will taint her research and the answers to her thesis which really seem to have had an answer she accepted before she researched anything... writing for Salon as a place on intellectual honesty or bravado would be like a more conservative historian doing the same for FOX. It's pathetic really.
September 16, 2015
'After the war, individuals -- taxpayers -- had a new and powerful interest in their government and were concerned about who should be able to vote about how their money was spent. The correct sphere of government was no longer an academic question, but of personal financial interest to every American. This new relationship between government and citizens meant that the question of who should have a voice in government took on great practical meaning. ... Those in 'the middle' between rich and poor firmly opposed government intervention on behalf of ... 'special interests,' insisting instead that the government should promote the good of all Americans. By skillfully defining those who believed in economic and social harmony -- themselves -- as true Americans rather than a special interest, while denigrating activist workers, African Americans, Populists, robber barons, and so on as un-American, middle-class Americans could argue for government intervention on their own behalf without fearing the destruction of the American system of government." (2-3,5)
"By 1880, California workers were strong enough to force presidential aspirants to endorse the exclusion of the Chinese from America, an extraordinary policy that replaced the belief that labor created value with the idea that labor was a commodity in a world of economic conflict." (180)
"From the North came the idea that any American could improve his lot; from the South came the idea that those who had done so should control the government. In Lincoln's America, everyone could rise to economic security, but by 1896 this openness had been revised. Facing the specter of disaffected Americans trying to control government and use it for their own benefit, mainstream Americans had come to believe that many would fail, that this was their own fault, and that they should be isolated from power before they destroyed society." (300)
"By 1880, California workers were strong enough to force presidential aspirants to endorse the exclusion of the Chinese from America, an extraordinary policy that replaced the belief that labor created value with the idea that labor was a commodity in a world of economic conflict." (180)
"From the North came the idea that any American could improve his lot; from the South came the idea that those who had done so should control the government. In Lincoln's America, everyone could rise to economic security, but by 1896 this openness had been revised. Facing the specter of disaffected Americans trying to control government and use it for their own benefit, mainstream Americans had come to believe that many would fail, that this was their own fault, and that they should be isolated from power before they destroyed society." (300)
October 28, 2014
Heather Cox Richardson’s West from Appomattox: The Reconstruction of America after the Civil War has a clear thesis that can readily be identified as a reconceptualization of the process and legacy of Reconstruction. Richardson clearly argues that during Reconstruction, the Liberal Republican ideology of individualism—embodied in rhetoric concerning the West—shaped a “middle class” worldview that endures into the present. While much of Richardson’s development in the book can be read as an intensification of Foner’s arguments that emphasize the fundamental role of Republican ideology concerning free labor, Richardson goes on to explain how this ideology adapted to what has commonly been referred to as the failure of Reconstruction. As Foner had emphasized the free labor platform for the 1860 presidential election, Richardson describes the 1868 election as a struggle for “the survival of the free labor system based on economic harmony for which the North had fought.” By the time of the presidential election of 1872, Richardson articulates that America was creating a middle ground that began to leave the sectional tensions between the North and South—economically and otherwise—in the past. By looking toward the West, which symbolized “economic opportunity, political purity, and social equality,” Americans from all sections of the nation began to embrace a middle-class ideology that wedded the northern free labor vision with the southern ideas of proper government. While Richardson does not engage as thoroughly and directly with a reconstruction historiography as Foner does in A Short History of Reconstruction, her argument is written in such a way that it establishes itself as a new idea.
January 24, 2015
An interesting take on the idea of Reconstruction. Distinct from Foner's materialist school of Reconstruction history, Richardson looks at Reconstruction as a process that extends into the beginning of the twentieth century and geographically beyond the borders of the former Confederacy, into the West and outward into American imperialism. Richardson makes a strong case for the task of Reconstruction being less answering the questions of the Civil War -- what does Union mean and what does freedom for former slaves look like -- and more about forging a truly national identity, especially when it comes to politics and American self-conceptions. It is in Reconstruction that our national identity went hand-in-glove with middle class values, and when the notion of "special interests" threatening governance for the good of all people became part and parcel of national rhetoric. For Richardson, the middle class's ascendancy is the story of Reconstruction, and that rode on the back of the idea of individual industry, bootstraps, and the independent, self-sufficient American as embodied in the cowboy. The most interesting moment comes in her depiction of 1877, the traditional endcap of Reconstruction, almost hidden in the middle of a chapter, and the body of her argument emerges: Reconstruction ends when Americans no longer fear Confederates will destroy the Union, but that trade union and labour agitation will. It is a fascinating perception, and one with intense resonance for twenty-first century America.
July 6, 2016
Grade: B+
A well-written look at the Reconstruction Era through a narrative of a number of individuals such as Carnegie, Muir, Jane Addams, Leland Stanford, Geronimo, Samuel Gompers, and a host of other players from 1865-1901. The discussion revolving around big business, government intervention, special interest, and capital vs. labor, are not only relevant today, but show that in 100+years very little has changed and we are still grappling with the same issues from the Reconstruction Era. Definitely worth a read - enjoy.
A well-written look at the Reconstruction Era through a narrative of a number of individuals such as Carnegie, Muir, Jane Addams, Leland Stanford, Geronimo, Samuel Gompers, and a host of other players from 1865-1901. The discussion revolving around big business, government intervention, special interest, and capital vs. labor, are not only relevant today, but show that in 100+years very little has changed and we are still grappling with the same issues from the Reconstruction Era. Definitely worth a read - enjoy.
September 1, 2012
This book sheds light on the major themes of our political discourse today. Small versus big government, protecting middle class from special interests, big business versus labor. It is interesting that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I take away one star because the writing is dense and somewhat disjointed in some chapters.
August 19, 2010
An excellent book that sheds light on how many of our current political, social and economic debates started.
April 27, 2015
An overview of reconstruction era America and the west. A little in the weeds on the politics of the era.
November 24, 2016
Outstanding. Gives a very good account of how America moved westward after the Civil War. Covers the period of 1865 - 1900.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews