Civil War History

226civil war history I don't see you very often, and have to pay attention to him." The substance of this possibly apocryphal quotation is borne out by published letters of Lincoln, some of which indicate his resentment at being embroiled in die bickerings over Kansas patronage. Exception might be taken to Mr. Castel's implication diat Daniel R. Anthony of Leavenworth was a blood-thirsty guerrilla of the same degenerate instincts as Quantrill, "Bloody Bill" Anderson, and George Todd, widi whom his name is linked in tin's narrative. Radical, violentiy outspoken, fiercely ambitious and egotistical, Andiony was nevertheless a bona fide and respectable businessman who setded down after the war to become one of Leavenworth's most prominent citizens. Mr. Castel also falls into the error of confusing John Brown witii "Osawatomie" Brown. The latter was Orville C. Brown, a town promoter and founder of Osawatomie, but no kin to the abolitionist. The dearth of satisfactory general histories of Kansas, to which Mr. Castel refers in his preface, is perhaps accounted for by the lack of specialized articles and books. If more scholars would concentrate on the production of monographic studies die task of producing general accounts would be gready facilitated. Many bricks must be assembled to build a wall. However, two general histories of considerable merit have been published recendy: a twovolume co-operative work, Kansas, The First Century, under die editorship of John D. Bright (Lewis Historical Publishing Co., 1956), and a one-volume history, Kansas, A History of the Jayhawker State, by William F. Zornow (University of Oklahoma Press, 1957) . Edgar Langsdorf Topeka, Kansas. E. L. Godkin and American Foreign Policy, 1865-1900. By William M. Armstrong. (New York: Bookman Associates. 1957. Pp. 268. $5.00.) from 1865 when the new york Nation was founded widi E. L. Godkin as editor until 1900 when he retired and returned to Great Britain, this weekly was probably the most influential magazine of opinion in America. This was largely true because of the vigorous style and die slashing attacks of die editor, who was eagerly attempting to purify American political life. It was much less true, according to Mr. Armstrong, because of any consistency of position on Godkin's part, for the editor was (like Senator Morse) such an individualist that he could not remain uncritical of die government even if it acted in accord with his advice. Though Godkin was highly unpredictable and the only certainty was that he would view developments with alarm, he did have an ideological set of views picked up during his education in Ireland, where he was a member of die Protestant minority which has turned out so many brilliant writers. Accepting the dismal dictates of the classical economists, he preached the doctrine of the rights of wealtii. Today he would be called a Social Darwinist. Of course he opposed governmental interference in economics—even to the extent of attacking the tariff—and vigorously criticized die rise of labor. Radier surprisingly , heopposed imperialism becausehe saw no sense in paying to govern Book Reviews227 a territory while it was being exploited. His only solution lay not in reform but in honesty in government and the recruitment of a civil service from such aristocrats as the United States turned out. Ideals like diese have a social dimension, and Mr. Armstrong suggests Godkin 's similarity to the Boston Brahmins. Consistently enough, Godkin became a member of die Saturday Club, was a friend of Charles Eliot Norton, and held Lowell to be the ideal American ambassador. Although, like the Brahmins, Godkin took a dim view of die West as appallingly vulgar and like some of tiiem, he despaired of American democracy, he converted such educated westerners as James Ford Rhodes to his views. Three chapters of the seven in this book deal widi die aftermatii of the Civil War; they include Godldn's views on Reconstruction (Chapter One), the Maximilian episode in Mexico, and the Alabama claims. On all these issues Godkin was somewhat inconsistent. For example, though he was no radical reconstructionist, he favored for a time die impeachment of President Johnson, but he was pleased when die attempt failed. This is an excellent work...