The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 83, July 1979 - April, 1980 Page: 95
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
as any sane researcher must, he had to call halt to his digging, else a
broad-ranging inquiry of this sort would never be completed. As Mc-
Crary knows, additional source collections exist, such as the Smith-
Brady investigation commission report, concerning occupied Louisiana.
In correspondence, McCrary and I concurred that their exploitation
might have added useful detail to Lincoln and . . . The Louisiana Ex-
periment. But my Smith-Brady copies and transcripts suggest that none
of McCrary's basic judgments would likely have been altered by their
use. And so, I carp not at all on the score of relevant but essentially cor-
roborative research omissions. Instead I applaud McCrary's brave and
imaginative purposes and achievements.
Here is a description and analysis of an entire state's society and
politics as affected by national military occupation and its resulting
(bilt by no means inevitable) political and racial democratization. Mc-
Crary considers carefully the novelty of federal intrastate interventions
in a state-based society where, in 1861, no national institution had
backlogs of relevant experience, talent, or confident authority. Only a
year after the dismal takeover of Fort Sumter, where the national gov-
ernment could not protect a handful of soldiers in one of its own forts, it
mounted a substantial combined operation (the most difficult military
effort) and, half a continent away, began the reconstruction of Louisi-
ana. The resulting military occupation commenced that contraction of
the Confederacy which became the dominant theme of the experiment
in rebellion, leading to military emancipation and Appomattox. Lou-
isiana was not, as McCrary suggests, merely "Mr. Lincoln's [reconstruc-
tion] model." The state generated alternative models affecting race,
Reconstruction, and civil leadership over the military, against which
White House and Capitol Hill inhabitants reacted happily or nega-
tively. McCrary's perception is correct that the Union effort, largely
developed in the field not in Washington, was innovative and imagina-
tive. He is also correct that Union policy makers' dedication to the re-
juvenation of state and local government, laws, and policies, fatefully
limited the changes that the national presence might initiate, especially
in race equality matters, as distinguished from irreversible emancipa-
tion, that greatest leap forward. The employment in Louisiana by
Lincoln's orders, of state constitutional conventions (pp. io3-10o5, esp.
fn. 73) foreshadowed every national effort to follow, including the 1864
Wade-Davis bill, Johnson's 1865-1866 executive orders, and the 1867
Military Reconstruction laws and their amendments.
I take added comfort from McCrary's additional agreement with me
Here’s what’s next.
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 83, July 1979 - April, 1980, periodical, 1979/1980; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101207/m1/115/: accessed August 19, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.