have been channeled into a differentncourse? Could the woeful mistakesn— committed by all parties involvedn— have been obviated? Could thenSouth have been spared the war’s legacynof poverty, bitterness, and racialnantagonism?nCertainly the agents of the AMAnwould have answered yes to the lastnquestion, for they saw the moment asnripe for rectifying old errors, extirpatingncancers from the body politic, andnerecting in the South a social order ofnwhich New England could be proud.nThey had to reckon, however, with thenrecalcitrance of white Southerners, anpeople defeated but not supine. Dennettnattested to “the hatred of Northernnpeople, which makes itself manifestnmore or less distinctly in nearly everynSouthern community.” He shouldnhave expected no less, especially sincenhe surveyed a ravaged Columbia,nSouth Carolina, remarking that “one isneverywhere surrounded by ruins andnsilent desolation.”nThe AMA teachers were perplexednby the former Confederates’ passionatenaversion. Couldn’t Southerners comprehendnthat they were being profferednthe blessings of Yankee civilization?nEven more puzzling to these eagernyoung women was the resistance of thenblacks to their ministrations. Yes, thenfreedmen wanted schools and teachers,nbut increasingly they clamored fornblack teachers and for schools administerednby members of their own race.nThey also resisted the schoolmarms’nadjurations to comport themselves likenproper New Englanders, to quit drinking,nsmoking, and snuffling after scarletnwomen. Above all, they were tonstop wailing, moaning, and shouting innchurch. There was also that curiousnidentity that former slaves felt withntheir homeland. As a black AMAnteacher from North Carolina put it: “Inam proud to say that I am a daughternof the South with no taint of Yankeeismnin my veins.” A bond existednbetween white and black Southerners—nan intertwining of the twonraces that the Yankee mind could notnfathom. The future of the South hadnto be forged out of this relationship;nblue-coated soldiers and well-intentionednschoolteachers from Ohio andnMassachusetts could only retard thenworking out of a distinctively Southernnmodus Vivendi.nUnfortunately, the white Southerner’snaversion to Yankees did not extendnto Northern capitalists, or at least notnto their capital. Dennett encounterednfellow New Englanders scouting thenSouth with money to invest and discoverednmore than a few Southernersneager to swallow the bait. Atlantansnwere already panting for progress andneconomic development, and fromnNew Orleans Dennett wrote: “As fornNorthern capital, they welcome it.”nThe citizens of Atlanta and New Orleansnhad minor-league counterpartsnthroughout the South — bustling entrepreneursnwho saw the destruction ofnthe old order as an invitation to getnrich.nNearly 40 years ago Vann Woodward,nin his Origins of the New South,nargued that the war toppled the oldnplanter elite, replacing it with a regimenof lawyers and businessmen who laidnthe foundations for the “New South.”nProfessor O’Brien gives an intriguingntwist to Woodward’s thesis, contendingnthat in Guilford County the “planterbusinessman-attorney”nrose to prominencenon the eve of the war, held onnduring the conflict, and in the yearsnafter engaged in a flurry of enterprisenthat helped transform North Carolinaninto the South’s most industrializednstate. Although they owned plantations,nthese men honored no exclusivelynagrarian ethos; land was simply anothernform of income, and they readilynspeculated in their broad acres. Theynpossessed, in O’Brien’s words, a “vigorousnentrepreneurial spirit” thatndreamed of cities and factories as thensalvation of the South. This entrepreneurshipnwas for whites only; and evennfor whites, save for a select few, it lednnot to general prosperity but to exploitationnby absentee investors.nIf neither Northern schoolteachersn(backed by Yankee bayonets) nornSouthern entrepreneurs could set andifferent course for the South, thennwho could? For starters, the federalngovernment might have pursued a differentnpolicy. Until the North weariednof coercing the South and removed thenlast of its troops in 1877, Washingtonnfocused almost exclusively on enforcingnvoting rights (crucial for Republicanndominance in the South and thennation) and civil equality for blacks, thenvery programs guaranteed to incensenwhite Southerners. Attention wouldnnnhave been better directed toward mitigatingnracial friction and establishingnblacks on a sound economic footing.nDennett observed that the freedmennexpected to receive land grants fromnthe federal government — a hopenquickly dashed. Many plantations laynabandoned, their former owners eitherndead or too impoverished to pay taxes.nThese lands could have been parcelednout to black farmers; instead they werensold to whites, often Northerners.nAnother alternative existed: Thengovernment could have establishednwilling blacks on the virgin lands of thenCreat Plains, an area that later wouldnbe settled and cultivated by whitenfarmers. This would have enhancedneconomic prospects for the freedmennand, by reducing the black populationnof the South, eased white anxietiesnover the presence in their midst ofnthree and one-half million formernslaves. Why did the North not graspnthis opportunity? The answer liesnlargely in the bitter antiblack sentimentnthat infected the North, especially thenMiddle West that provided the bulk ofnsettlers for the Plains states. The cry ofn”free soil for free men” had reverberatednthrough the Midwest in the 1850’s;nthis sentiment implied not only hatrednof slaveholders and the institution ofnslavery, but of blacks as well. ThenRepublican Party, dependent uponnMidwestern votes, had no intention ofnalienating its main constituency bynpromoting the settlement of blacks innthe new lands west of the Mississippi.nThat leaves one possibility for whatncould have been a dramatic alterationnin the future course of the South.nPerhaps this possibility asks too muchnof human nature, for it would havenrequired an embittered, defeated peoplento shoulder the burden of creatingnan equitable society. A genuine paternalismnhad existed among slaveholdersnin the antebellum period. To note thisnis not to ignore the horrors of the slavensystem but to say that many slaveholdersnwere decent men who refused tonbrutalize their bondsmen. Lamentably,nthis paternalism was severely batterednby defeat, emancipation andnYankee coercion. But suppose the oldnpaternalism had somehow reassertednitself Suppose that former slaveholdersnhad seen justice in the hopes of blacksnand had voluntarily rewarded their formernslaves with land. Some form ofnMAY 19881 37n