West from Appomattox: The Reconstruction of America after the Civil War by Heather Cox Richardson

West from Appomattox: The Reconstruction of America after the Civil War Reviews

• 
  robin friedman

  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
• 
  John Gilbert

  I've come across Heather Cox Richardson via her excellent daily Facebook feed about the state of American politics. She is an historian at Boston College who uses many sources to glean the important things going on in the world of American politics and history, she has no allegiance to any news sources, which I find refreshing.
  
  I picked this book up via her posts and found it interesting in that this time period certainly plays an important part in setting up the America we see today, especially on the great divide. Having read extensively about the causes of the American Civil War as a history major at University, and of Lincoln, my favourite American president, I had not read much about the aftermath of the war. It was eye opening but mostly depressing. Heather mostly believes that the North won the battle, but lost the war. Today white Southerners still control much of the destiny of America (ie Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz to name a few), which makes for difficult reading. I found this book interesting, but far from enjoyable.
• 
  Mo

  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.
• 
  Margaret Sankey

  Particularly apropos with the "you didn't build that" controversy, a history of Reconstruction focused not on the south, but on the west--how a national mythology of independent, frontier, rough-hewn individualist cowboys brought together the recovering nation. Except that it was the post-Civil War big government's investments in things like railroads, and distribution of land under the homestead Act, and bureaucracy bringing in new territorial government into states and emigration controls that made it all possible.
• 
  Stacy

  Welp. I never really thought I would like a book about the west this much. The structure was frustrating but also fascinating. The epilogue almost had me clapping the whole time. Very interesting tie between the west, creation of the middle class, and decline of the special interest. I’d loan it, but I read on Kindle. Ps- she hated Teddy Roosevelt.
• 
  Amy Kannel

  Pretty dry at times but fascinating too.
• 
  Laz the Sailor

  I have never been a fan of History, but I was encouraged to read this book. It is written in a story-telling fashion that is mostly linear. There are many facets to this time-period, so there is a bit of back-tracking due to herding cats. But you can tell that it's an academic tome, as the introduction is longer than most chapters, and the appendices take up 25% of the volume.
  
  Bottom line: everything that is happening today started between 1865 and 1890. It's amazing that so many institutions - both business and government - were created during this period. And while the names have changed, the root problems haven't evolved much.
  
  Note that I read the Kindle version so there are no images, and there were some odd font errors.
• 
  Elise

  During the 2020 election I have been following Ms Cox for her insightful political analysis. This book examines the changes in America from the end of the Civil War through 1900. During that time, the American psyche became enmeshed with the mythos of the American West, with rugged individualism and the cowboy ideal.
  Before the civil war, the American government was relatively small. It collected tariffs and ran the post office. The war broadened powers of taxation and organization and drastically changed expectations. After the war, the government became a driver for expansion by taking land from the native Americans and dividing it out amongst farmers, ranchers and railroad builders. A rising middle class and business interests skillfully defined themselves as 'true Americans' deserving of government efforts, while limiting help for lower classes such as immigrant workers, freed slaves and women pushing for expansion of rights under the constitution. Anyone who complained of discrimination was lazy and non-patriotic. At the same time that Post Reconstruction southern governments labeled Negros as ignorant and lazy, northern businessmen labeled workers demonstrating for fair wages and an 8 hour work day as communists. I did not realize how the Paris Commune uprising in the late 1800s frightened American politicians and businessmen.
  The idea of structural inequality did not make sense to those who thought of the world in small town middle class terms. It was considered bad form to even want to be served in a restaurant or hotel where the owner didn't like your kind, be it Jews, negros or immigrants. Mainstream Americans perceived government activism as bowing to those who wanted 'extra' privilege rather than guaranteeing a level playing for all.
  
  This was a dense read with a lot of information, so I read it slowly, making notes as I read. However, it is very well written with many insights for how America reached its current political crossroads. This worked well with a book I read earlier in the year about the Prohibition years, where many of the same forces were at play.
  
  A note on the e-book edition I read. There was a consistent error in the typeface, where a word with two ff's at the end of the word such as 'off' was shown as 'o?'. Also, the edition did not have rights for any of the illustrations.
  
  Somehow I never published this review, written at the time I read the book. Ms. Cox Richardson is an outstanding historian, capable of succinctly explaining complex ideas and social structures.
• 
  Justinian

  2020-07 – West from Appomattox: The Reconstruction of America after the Civil War. Heather Cox Richardson (Author) 2007. 413 Pages.
  
  I read the authors daily column and enjoy them very much and in May I read her latest book (How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy, and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America). This book, “West from Appomattox”, was on a flash sale for kindle on Amazon and Nicholle snapped it up. This book is a fascinating read. It follows well known individuals and lesser known individuals to tell the story of American society and ideology from the end of the US Civil War up until about 1900 … the heart of the Progressive backlash to the excessed of the Gilded Age and the creeping growth from the bottom sectors. This is really how the middle Class and middle class ideology and values were created and entrenched. There is an at odds component in the making of this ideology and this is the notion of “special interests”. There were the special interests of the Freedmen and those at the bottom of the economic system and those oligarchs and trust makers at the top of the economic system. Those at the bottom were viewed in moralistic terms as seeking a hand out and not willing to help themselves. Those at the top were viewed as seeking to use the levers of power for their own enrichment. Ironically the great burgeoning middle class got where it was largely as result of government assistance but it did not see itself as a special interest, instead it viewed itself through the mythology of the west and a culture of rugged individualism. A mythology which has persisted into the 21st century given a greater push by the influences of libertarians and historical revisionism that has ramped up beginning with “movement conservatives” and Reagan. There is a serious disingenuousness with this because there is no acknowledgement of how they are themselves a special interest using government money and assistance to advance their own view of society. They also shamelessly use the levers of power to make the things conform to this view and lash out at others who do not conform as somehow not American. This is an excellent book, very well researched and written. I highlighted many passages and found through the text many references to literature of the period under discussion to follow up with and deepen my own understanding.
  
• 
  T Fool

  '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.
  
  
  
• 
  Merrie

  Had a tough time following this -- probably a reflection of distracted times and overall exhaustion vs the text -- and I wish the author had more frequently reminded readers that White American history is not the universal experience. But, extremely helpful to understand the huge transition during Reconstruction that went far beyond the South and has clear ramifications today. Would recommend the last chapter and Epilogue as standalone reads.
• 
  Tom

  West from Appomattox preceded Dr. Richardson's How the South Won the Civil War, but it certainly informs her principal scholarship. Dr. Richardson reviews the country from 1865 to 1901, and details how the slavery history of the South spread to the West and developed into the American Exceptionalism and individualism that masks or hides our racism past.
  For me, the non-historian interested in where we came from, and where we headed, her views are enlightening. Here she talks about what's in the soup:
  
  "Paradoxically, American individualists came to depend on government support while denying it to others. This process was not as simple as today’s politicians would have us think, with small-government Republicans fighting against big-government Democrats who wanted to create a welfare state.
  "In fact, in the mid-1800s, it was the Republicans, not the Democrats, who stood for big government and Democrats who insisted on government limitations. Instead, the process was a complicated story in which sectional animosities, racial tensions, industrialization, women’s activism, and westward expansion cut across party lines to create both a new definition of what it meant to be an American and a new vision of the government’s role in the lives of its citizens."
  
  Will an understanding of the past help us in our quest for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all members of our Republic? Time will tell, and some of us might run out of time.
  
  
• 
  James Bechtel

  In "West from Appomattox," published in 2007, Heather Cox Richardson defines the term Reconstruction more broadly than just the reunification of the North and South. The West plays a significant role in Reconstruction by providing a foundation for a middle-class ideology of self-reliant individualism that defined the proper relationship between the government and the individual. Perceptively, she has detailed the creation of the myth of the individualist/exceptional America that includes some people and most definitely excludes others. We are still living with this ideology. She has written a surprising book that integrates new evidence and new perspectives (at least for me some new evidence and perspectives) into a compelling history.
• 
  Mike Lund

  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.
• 
  Patricia

  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.
• 
  Mike

  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.
• 
  Brian Frydenborg

  Incredible read, filled with excellent research. You find here that modern American politics really has its roots in Reconstruction.
• 
  Lee Barry

  Excellent source of information about the Civil War.
• 
  Cam's Corner

  Heather Richardson’s West from Appomattox argues that after the Civil War, Americans struggled to “define what it meant to be an American” (1). Richardson views the role of the government from 1865 to 1901 crucial for forging American political and cultural ideologies. The middle-class emerged at this time to dictate what the government could or not do. This middle-class believed in individualism and that if a man worked hard enough, he could pull himself up by the bootstraps and become wealthy. It primarily consisted of white “economically secure and increasingly comfortable” (344) families. This middle-class, unsurprisingly, was very hypocritical. On one hand, it insisted that the others like, African Americans, Native Americans, special interest groups, failing farmers, the poor etc., disrupted their economic harmony. In their eyes, these others misused the government for handouts and an excuse not to cooperate within society. On the other hand, this same middle-class used the government to benefit themselves. This includes the creation of Yellowstone Park (144), limiting the power of trusts (232), and social welfare legislation on the bases of women’s rights on domesticity (218).
  The ideology of the West played a major role in rebuilding America. The West, according to the middle-class, embodied independence, “American individualism, family, and loyalty” (224). Its inhabitants were hardworking people that relied on no one but themselves. They built their own log cabins, raised their own cattle, mined for gold and coal, fought “courageously” against “hostile” Native Americans, and had “that buoyancy and exuberance which comes with freedom” (Turner, 14). The frontier promoted true democracy, without the influence of special interest groups, and had anti-government appeal.
  Ironically, this view of the West was superficial. The government and the railroads promised and promoted success but true success and wealth came few and far between. A majority of people who uprooted their lives felt cheated by their living conditions. For example, when Luna Kelly and her family moved to Nebraska, they lived in a dugout and encountered “centipedes, snakes; the lack of light and ventilation” (156). Grasshoppers and other insects invaded their spaces and plagued their crops. Inhabitants, contrary to middle-class beliefs, also relied on the government to protect them from Native American raids. Fed up, they got into politics and created the Granges and Farmers’ Alliances.
  A book this size is expected to fall short in some areas. For example, Richardson left out the role of religion in the late 19th and early 20th century. What role did Baptism, Methodism, and Pentecostalism play in the lives of southern Black Americans? What about anti-Catholicism and Protestant nativism? Was there even a top religion of the loosely-defined middle-class? Surely if Richardson had provided an answer to one of these questions, it would have aided her argument.
• 
  Susan Waller

  
  
  Notes:
  pg 75
  Anxious to spread settlers west and link the markets of China and the Orient with East Coast factories, Congress in 1862 offered free land to any entrepreneur willing to build a railroad line across the country, land that could be sold to finance the cost of construction.
  
  pg 81
  By 1870 girls made up the majority of high school graduates. Fewer than 2% of college age Americans went to college; women made of 21% of that group.
  
  pg 89
  For Republicans, the election (of 1868) was about the survival of the free labor system based on economic harmony for which the North had fought. Insisting that there was no class conflict in America and that all Americans were climbing upward together, they emphasized America's founding principle of republican equality. Military protection for African Americans was imperative, they argues, not to guarantee a Republic constituency, but because it was "the duty of the Government to sustain constitutions securing equal civil and political rights to all... and to prevent the people of the South from a state of anarchy."
  
  pg 170
  As mainstream opinion turned against blacks who were caricatured as wanting government benefits with work, Americans opposed the growth of national government power to protect African Americans from the widespread discrimination they faced. in 1875 the passage of the Civil Rights Act brought down the wrath of opponents, who howled that African Americans who used the law to challenge their exclusion from public places were not protesting a real disability, but rather were the degraded tools of designing politicians.
  
  pg 303
  The very act of agitating for civil rights indicated a person was unworthy of them, making it impossible to challenge increasing segregation and discrimination.
  
  pg 345
  Because members of the middle class identified their values with the interests of the country at large, the government could -and did- advance their interests, creating the paradox of a middle class that benefited mightily from government protection while its members espoused self-help and government inaction, At the same time that members of the middle class celebrated individual enterprise, self-reliance, and small government, they prompted certain forms of government inaction. The need to create taxable property during the war had made them willing to use the government to promote the individual enterprise that lay at the heart of theri vision of American life. With fewer and fewer misgivings about government action, they passed a series of laws designed to foster economic growth, After the war, this government activism gradually expanded to government prohibitions on a range of business practices, price fixing, kickbacks, and so on, which threatened the economic security of a developing middle class.
  
  
• 
  Joel Boonstra

  This took me far longer to finish than it should have. I don’t think it’s the fault of the book, and more about when I chose to read it.
  
  I always assumed “reconstruction” meant the literal rebuilding of stuff after the civil war, and maybe also the metaphorical rebuilding of a nation. And probably that’s what it generally means - if this was covered in my history classes I have forgotten it.
  
  Richardson has a different, or more expansive take on reconstruction. The final sentence of the book probably is as good a summary as any:
  
  “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.”
  
  This book is about a nation figuring out, following a war that nearly tore itself apart, who it wants to be, and who should be included (or not) in that identity.
  
  I read a book that picks up more or less where this one leaves off: “Gangsters of Capitalism” (by Jonathan M. Katz), about America’s imperial adventures in the world. Richardson’s book sets the stage for how we got to the point where we were invading countries and how we decided to justify it to others and ourselves. (For some definition of “our”)
  
  A note: avoid the Kindle edition. It’s terrible - it’s missing all of the figures and has a ton of transcription errors. It definitely made the reading experience worse.
• 
  Dale

  Published in 2007.
  
  Heather Cox Richardson is a historian I have only recently discovered because of her prolific social media presence that she developed while under Covid lockdown. She writes a daily news summary of a few paragraphs with a view towards how these events match up with historical events or trends. Plus, she takes questions from people and develops a one hour daily online lecture. They are interesting, sometimes rambling little presentations and this book shares a lot of the same features.
  
  Richardson is looking at the time right after the Civil War in American History. In the history books, Reconstruction, the Old West, the Gilded Age and the Spanish-American War are all treated a separate things. Combining all of these typical divisions of American history into one book makes for a more comprehensive study of the time period.
  
  Traditionally, they are studied separately - in a typical history book they are literally different chapters. Mostly, Richardson does this, too. Mostly - but she is very willing to cross over to the other areas of study.
  
  For example, it really impossible to understand the Old West without having an understanding of...
• 
  Samantha (Bookwyrmsam)

  Though I did gain a lot of insight into post-Civil War America from this book and I appreciated the nuanced approach to discussions of the many political topics covered throughout, I ultimately found the writing to be somewhat dry and repetitive which made it difficult to get through. While it's probably more engaging than a straight up textbook I wouldn't really recommend it unless you are particularly interested in the development of modern political party lines between the Civil War and the 1890's. All that being said, I will remind that non-fiction is not my typical reading preference so if you enjoy reading about history this might be your jam!
• 
  Dave

  I'm a fan of Heather Cox Richardson. She has an acute understanding of history and politics, with a point of view that I very much appreciate. In her book "West from Appomattox", she examines the political evolution of Civil War Reconstruction. I found it very illuminating, 4.5 stars. I rated the book 3 stars because of the writing, which I found quite dry and repetitive (too academic for me as a lay reader). This book was published in 2006. Her later writings and her current daily letter are more "user friendly". Still, if your interests include Reconstruction, this book is worth your time.
• 
  Linda

  I was familiar with most of this material from Ms. Richardson's online talks, which I found more interesting than this book.
  I was very disappointed in this Kindle edition. Every word that ended as "ff" was shown as "?" and every word that had "ff" in the middle was given as "ffi". None of the rights to include the illustrations were granted to electronic media - "Please refer to print publication"? Glad I got it on sale.
  
• 
  Jennifer Schmidt

  It was a slow read for me and I skimmed the last couple chapters... the ebook has “?” in place of “f” which was odd to read and disappointed that no permission for the graphics was granted for electronic publication. In the first half that I did enjoy, much of the content had glimpses of today’s politics. Sadly history does repeat itself