History of Reconstruction in Louisiana (through 1868) . By John Rose Ficklin , late Professor of History in Tulane University. With an editorial note by Pierce Butler. [Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science. Series XXVIII, No. 1.] (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1910. Pp. ix, 234.)

The lamented death of Professor John R. Ficklin in the summer of 1907 left unfinished his long looked for monograph on Reconstruction in Louisiana. However, except for final revision, he had prepared the manuscript through the presidential elections of 1868; and it has now been brought out under the editorial supervision of his colleague, Professor Pierce Butler.

The first chapter gives a rapid review of ante-bellum politics and the rise of the secession spirit, follows the struggle between the secessionists and the “co-operationists,” describes the work of the secession convention, and then, without strict fidelity to its title—“Ante-Bellum History in Louisiana,”—sketches the opening of the war, the capture of New Orleans by Farragut in April, 1862, and the military operations in other parts of the state to the close of the war. A short chapter is given to the administration of General Butler, an administration memorable for cotton speculations, confiscations, the notorious “Order No. 28,” the new problem of negro emancipation and negro labor, and the tentative renewal of political relations with the United States Government in the election and admission of two representatives to Congress. The author is surprisingly reticent as to Butler's share in the cotton speculations, due perhaps to a failure to consult the War of the Rebellion Records. This great collection, by the way, would have furnished him with explicit information on a number of points in the administrations of both Butler and his successor, Banks. There follows a brief but clear account of the rule of the latter general, the initiation of Lincoln's experimental “ten per cent” government and the opposition it aroused in Congress, the problems as to the status to be given the emancipated slaves, the work of the constitutional convention of 1864, and the system of quasi-civil government maintained under Federal authority during the war period.

What happened in Louisiana during the first two years after the surrender of Lee was common to most of the southern states. The returning ex-Confederates recovered control almost at once and the legislature passed stringent labor laws that furnished political capital for the northern radicals. Perhaps more space than necessary is given to the familiar story of President Johnson's quarrel with the congressional radicals, but its insertion will clarify the situation for the general reader. One of the best chapters is that on “The So-Called Riot of July 30, 1866,” in which Professor Ficklin makes it clear that the radicals had no legal or moral right to recall the defunct convention of 1864, and that in all the proceedings up to the actual outbreak their attitude was provocative of trouble. The effect of the riot upon Congress and the northern public is also well told. The concluding chapters recount the passage of the Reconstruction Acts, the rule of Sheridan and his successors in Louisiana, the session of the “black and tan” constitutional convention in 1867, the acceptance by virtue of negro votes of the constitution that it framed, the final restoration of the state to the Union, the swift organization of the Democrats, now that that advantage was gained, the operations of the Knights of the White Camelia and the Ku Klux Klan, and the revelation of Democratic strength in the presidential elections of 1868 when they carried the state for Seymour and Blair by a substantial majority. Here the narrative stops abruptly.

No state of the old South suffered more indignities during the period here reviewed than did Louisiana, and one is prepared to pardon much of partisanship in the historian; but throughout the volume an admirably judicial tone is preserved, and indications of partisan spirit are almost wholly absent. There is so much of interest in the subject itself that one regrets what now and then seems to be a sketchiness of treatment. However, the most obvious criticism applies to the narrow range of sources made use of, especially as it is upon monographs such as this that the more pretentious histories must be largely based. Allusion has been made to the neglect of the War of the Rebellion Records. Another strange omission is that of the Johnson Papers in the Library of Congress, while but little attention seems to have been given to possible manuscript sources in Louisiana itself, though the task of examining them is sufficiently appalling to deter the most conscientious investigator. All of these omissions might have been remedied by the author had he lived to finish his task.

The work of the editor has been well done. There are few obvious repetitions of phrases or statements such as are common to unfinished manuscripts; and the footnotes and the index are carefully made. It is to be hoped that some competent hand will now undertake the task of carrying on the story in detail to the end of the radical regime in 1877.

Chas. W. Ramsdell .

How to cite:
Ramsdell, Charles W., "History of Reconstruction in Louisiana (through 1868)", Volume 014, Number 1, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online, Page 76 - 78. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v014/n1/review_19.html
[Accessed Sun Nov 23 12:10:09 CST 2008]