Customer reviews

4.4 out of 5 stars
4.4 out of 5
73 global ratings
5 star
68%
4 star
16%
3 star
11%
2 star
3%
1 star
3%
How are ratings calculated?
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzes reviews to verify trustworthiness.

Review this product

Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

earl 's 4th
4.0 out of 5 stars He almost made it.
Reviewed in the United States on March 5, 2018
Verified Purchase
Budiansky gives a thorough and honest account of the post Civil War South, and its obsession with killing and disenfranchising its former slaves, as well as any Republican "carpetbagger" who might have the gall to implement the laws and Constitutional Amendments regarding their Rights.
Then he blunders into the modern fiction that somehow, magically, in the 1960's, everyone switched sides, and the Democrat party became the champion of disaffected black Americans, and the Republicans suddenly found white supremacy the road to power. I shouldn't have to point out to a historian the voting record of Congress regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the cynical, vote grabbing views of Lyndon Johnson regarding black Americans, or the devastating effects of the "Great Society" on black Americans and more specifically, the black family. With friends like these, who needs enemies.
Whether he's being intentionally misleading, or is simply wrong, Budiansky should be better than that.
Read more
Bryan
3.0 out of 5 stars An uneven tale of one of the darkest periods of American history
Reviewed in the United States on May 4, 2019
Verified Purchase
It's really hard to come up with a darker period of American history than Reconstruction, a brief spell of actual political progress that was brutally cut short by a wave of white supremacist violence. And the true story of that time has literally been whitewashed from history. The author looks at a handful of men and women who did their best to fight back against the forces of repression, but I just felt like it didn't all hang together as a narrative.
Read more
Robert Horn
4.0 out of 5 stars An esseintial read about the aftermath of the Civil War
Reviewed in the United States on September 26, 2015
Verified Purchase
This is a vividly written book that sheds a lot of light on some events and tactics used by many white Southerners after the Civil War to defeat civil rights, defy Federal authority, essentially re-enslave former slaves and rewrite history. We focus a lot on the Civil War and battles and heroism when we are taught about that era in our schools. Less attention is paid to the aftermath and how mistakes then affected us for another century or more. This essential is reading but it should not be read in isolation. It does not provide, nor is it meant to provide a real look at what was happening at the national level in politics, the military, security and social attitudes to give the stories in this book their proper context. Nonetheless, I highly recommend it.
Read more
Joshua Rosenblum
4.0 out of 5 stars Ultimately - The Union Lost The Civil War
Reviewed in the United States on June 11, 2009
Verified Purchase
Stephen Budiansky has written an interesting account of the post-Civil War Reconstruction era. Budiansky reminds us that from 1865 until 1877 the United States essentially fought an insurgency in the American South. And the sad fact is, that the United States lost the insurgency to the Confederacy.

The Bloody Shirt is not a straightforward history of the era but rather follows the lives and careers of several people involved in this insurgency. Through these people's stories we gain an understanding of the wider insurgency and the mistakes made by the Union which allowed the Confederacy to overturn the gains won in the Civil War and continue on their way of life.

The book focuses on people like; Albert Morgan, who was assigned as a soldier to police the Reconstruction South and later became a state senator from Mississippi, Lewis Merrill who commanded troops in reconstruction South Carolina, Adelbert Ames, also a soldier, who became the appointed governor of Mississippi, and Prince Rivers, a former slave who fought for the Union and became a county magistrate in South Carolina. Also making an appearance is General James Longstreet, the brilliant Confederate commander who later became a Republican and advocated the Union cause.

These men confront the enormously difficult challenge of trying to change a hostile culture. This culture, which could not bring itself to admit wrongdoing or guilt in any of its activities, resisted the attempt to enfranchise the black population with the rights of citizenship granted to them under the 14th 15th and 16th amendments to the Constitution.

What is lost to most modern Americans is the fact that this was truly a violent insurgency. Over 3000 people were killed after the United States raised the "Mission Accomplished" banner at Appomattox. Any black who attempted to assert their citizenship or white Republican who sought to enforce the law was a target. Arrayed against them were wide variety of terroristic paramilitary groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, who killed elected legislators, executives, newspaper people and ordinary men and women. They stole elections by the grossest and basest means possible and did not even try to hide the fact. They shot and hung people with abandon, and openly threatened the rest.

The descriptions of the activities of these terror groups shocks the conscience.

All the while, the heroic figures charged with rebuilding the culture had neither enough men, arms or authority to accomplish their mission. After four years of civil war, popular support for the reconstruction effort dwindled precipitously. The people of the United States were tired and they wanted it to be *over.* They wanted things to go back to *normal.*

Does any of this sound familiar?

Tragically instead of doubling down and developing new strategies to enforce cultural change in the American South and allocating the proper amount of resources needed for the task - the Union eventually withdrew, leaving the people left behind, blacks and white Republicans, to their own devices. They did not last long. The long night of despotism continued into the 20th century, up until the 1950s and 60s.

Of particular interest is the fact that Budiansky notes that the Confederacy not only won the insurgency in the South but completely rewrote the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction. The one thing the Southerners could not accept was that their culture had been fatally flawed. This is a common trait of pre-modern cultures and is well exemplified in a letter written by General Longstreet to the New Orleans Times that got him in hot water with his compatriots and generally considered a traitor to his tribe for 100 years:

He began by saying he was speaking with the plain and honest convictions of a soldier he said that as he thought, the South had fought, and fought well, but had lost; they were a conquered people. It was accordingly their duty to accept the terms of the victor. Even if they were in a position to resist, it would be wrong to do so. He himself had lost his rights of citizenship under the Reconstruction acts, as someone who had sworn an oath of allegiance to the union and then engaged in rebellion, "but that was one of the hazards of revolution, and I have no better cause of complaint and those who have lost their slaves." To claim now that Southerners need not concede anything to the victor was tantamount to claiming they had not known what they were fighting for in the first place. He hoped he might be forgiven the "bluntness of the soldier" to remind his fellow Southerners what had been decided at Appomattox. "The surrender of the Confederate armies in 1865," he wrote, "involved; 1. the surrender of the claim to the right of secession. 2. the surrender of the former political relations of the Negro. 3. the surrender of the Southern Confederacy. These issues expired upon the fields last occupied by the Confederate armies and there tthey should have been buried. The soldier prefers to have the sod that receives him when he falls cover his remains. The political questions of the war should have been buried upon the fields that marked their end."

In this, Longstreet was remarkable man for his time and culture. And it points out an interesting question. Why is it that modern cultures promote the concept of settlement? The feelings prevalent in the Confederate culture are the norm for humanity. All pre-modern cultures do not privilege settlement. Meaning that there is never a settlement to any particular issue - there is only a standing status quo. And the status quo will hold until the correlation of forces shifts and privileges another party. In the pre-modern world, the negotiation is never over. Once a position has been reached, it is merely a stepping off point for the next round of negotiations. But in the modern culture, the Enlightenment-based cultures, high-priority is given to final settlement of contentious issues. How is it that we have evolved this trait?
Read more
Frank J. Konopka
5.0 out of 5 stars Was Reconstruction a failure?
Reviewed in the United States on October 13, 2009
Verified Purchase
The author appears to believe that the Federal Government's Reconstruction policy after the Civil War was a failure, and a close reading of this book would tend to have the reader agree.

Once the war ended and Abraham Lincoln was killed, his idea of reintegrating the South into the country died along with him and the Northern politicians used the military to control what was happening in the defeated states. Whether or not this was a good idea it does not appear to have worked. Military occupation only tended to harden the anti-black prejudice in the South with consequences that lasted almost 100 years.

Blacks were routinely frightened, tortured and murdered, in additon to the white Republicans who came South to aid in the rejuvenation of the countryside. This book does not paint a very pretty picture of the Southern mentality or of those white Southerners who led the resistance to black civil rights.

The book is somewhat one-sided, but perhaps that is because what the author writes about is actually the way things were then. I don't know, because there are always two different ways of looking at events, and I'm sure that those from the south have an entirely different view. Facts are facts, however, so until and unless I can read something with evidence that refutes what is in this book, I will accept its conclusions.
Read more
See all reviews

Top reviews from other countries

APA
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on June 1, 2015
Verified Purchase
Perfect
Read more
See all reviews