ence at the University of North Carolinanallowed Reed and a colleague to insertnsome questions measuring sectionalismnin a survey of North Carolinians done inn1971. Reed sustained several impressionsnof things he would like to say aboutnthe region in the decade since that survey,nand this book is an attempt to usenthe data from this survey to say them.nOne suspects that the results are lessnthan satisfying, even for Reed.nAn early paragraph of his concludingnchapter, for example, alludes to changesnin the South and asserts, “these changesnhave had momentous consequencesnSome of these changes… have been improvements;nothers, in my view at least,nhave been regrettable; perhaps mostnhave simply been changes. But, for betternor worse. Southerners are becomingnmore ‘modern,’—that is to say moren’American’ in many respects.” Lacking innthe book is an articulation of the analyticnfoundation that enables Reed to viewnsome chaises as “improvements,” othersnas “regrettable,” and still others with indifference.nWhat is it about modernitynthat enables him to identify it withnAmericanism and label elements ofnmodernization detrimental to the Southnand, by implication, to the nation? Onensuspects that Reed could write an intriguingnbook answering some of thesenquestions; this isn’t it. Part of the feUurencan be attributed to the data base (it isnimpossible to measure change over angeneration with a snapshot survey takennat one point in the era), part can be attributednto inadequate research (the bibliographyncontains few references to thenclassic studies of Southern political life),nand part must be attributed to the author’sninclination to elaborate on thendata he has accumulated rather than tonbring the data to bear on the questionsnthat really concern him. As a result, thenvolimie is of limited utility for academicnspecialists.n1 • Harry Williams’s essays are wonderfalnexperiences in historical scholarship.nThe author is thoroughly familiarnwith the topics he tackles, writing fromn28inChronicles of Culturenprimary sources while arguing with thensecondary literature in a usually elegantnstyle. He considers the range of humanntraits involved in all of his subjects andndemonstrates the differences that distinguishnfirst-rate leaders from lesser lights.nHe is especially insightfol when dealingnwith Civil War generals (Yankee andnConfederate) and other military leadersn(particulariy MacArthur and Eisenhower);nhe is enlightening, albeit somewhatnstrained, in his efforts to provide fevorablenhistorical assessments of Huey Longnand Lyndon Johnson. ^nWilliams’s strengths and flaws are mostnapparent when he deals with the mannwho commanded the Northern generals,nAbraham lincola Williams comprehendsnthe opposition that surroimded Lincoln,nboth Radical Republicans who wantednslavery abolished regardless of the consequencesnfor the nation’s system of constitutionalngovernment and less heatednNortherners who wanted the Union restorednregardless of the consequencesnof slavery. He explains the bases fromnwhich each of the contesting partiesnoperated, and he appreciates the tensionsnthat niaintained the conflicts and impededncooperation during the Civil War.nUnfortunately, Williams lapses into thatnmost American evasion of explanation,nlabeling Lincoln a “pragmatist” and portrayingnhim as a political physicist, pushingnhere, pulling there, always balancingnto keep things on as even a keel as possible.nOne almost gets the impression thatnLincoln was an odd sort of weather vane,nalways leaning into the prevailing windsnIn the Mailnto avoid totaling fix)m a precarious perch.nThe evasion is disconcerting becausenhowever prominently the politicalnphysicist prances on his perch whilenbalancing competing interests, the “pragmatic”nlabel encour^es historians andnstudents to concentrate on the windsnblowing aroimd him rather than inquireninto the principles that might underlienthe alleged “pragmatist” The techniqueninvariably leads historians to see thesensubjects as the product of forces aroimdnthem, rather than as leaders responsiblenfor governing the forces that would shapenlesser mortals.nJL es. Lincoln did compromise and balancenwhere he decided it was necessary,nbut unlike other compromisers of hisnera, Lincoln argued from principles thatnguided his compromises, so that he couldntell others where compromise was appropriatenand where it was not. Yes,nLincoln was pushed in a great many directionsnthat he did not particularly prefer,nlike any other democratic leader,nbut unlike most other leaders, and inncontrast to Williams’s argument, Lincolnnwas a systematic thinker whose principles,nrooted solidly in the Declaration ofnIndependence, enabled him to distinguishnmajor issues from minor ones andnto discern which compromises wouldnfurther the principles that he advocated.nThe inability to explicate the principlesnbehind Lincoln’s politics is a major feilurenof historical scholarship becausenthese principles form the key distinctionnbetween President Lincoln and thenlight Year ’84 edited by Robert Wallace; Bits Press; Cleveland. The only real problem withnthis collection of pieces by 82 poets is found on the cover, where it says that the book includesn”fiinny poems.” Can a cassette laugh track be &r behind?nThe Creative Writer’s Phrase-Finder by Edward Prestwood; ETC Publications; PalmnSprings, CA. Any writer who thinks that this book of over 9000 hackneyed expressions is helpftilnshould start thinking about another hobby.nWhatever Happened to Ote Human Race? by C. Everett Koop and Francis A. Schaeffer;nCrossway Books; Westchester, IL. With abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia on the rise, it appearsnthat the race is being tripped up at the gate.nnn