returning to her penitent husband.nDexter’s son Fred likewisenfinds his real courage not undernrebel fire during the war, butnyears later in a quiet resolve tonignore his wife’s penurious recommendationnthat he deny hisnaging father his costly officenprivileges. It’s not the sort ofnthing to inspire hallelujahs, butnthe affirmation of the values ofnthe hearth resounds to its ownnsubtle harmony. (BC) DnIn Praise ofnConfusionnBarbara Villet: Blood River: ThenPassionate Saga of SouthnAfrica’s Afrikaners and of life innTheir Embattled Land; EverestnHouse; New York.nSeldom does an author deservenplaudits for creating confusion,nbut for her work in writingnthis book, Barbara Villet does.nConfusion has become a valuablencommodity in any analysisnof the current situation in SouthnAfrica because prevailing dogmasnof liberal journalists havenmade objectivity so rare. Thenruling Afrikaners, according tontheir popular representation, arensingularly oppressive villainsnwhose apartheid policies constitutenthe essential cause of sufferingnamong blacks not only innSouth Africa but also—in someninexplicable way—throughoutnsub-Saharan Africa. In the liberalnview, the solution is as simplenas the problem: immediate majoritynrule by the blacks. Drawingnupon her wide experience innSouth Africa and deep understandingnof its history, Mrs.nVillet reduces this reassuringlyntidy and simplistic set of beliefsnto a shambles of baffling ironiesnand perplexing ambiguities.nThe Afrikaners have oftennbeen oppressive in their treatmentnof blacks, but this oppres­nmnChronicles of Calturension derives not from any peculiarnmalignity, but from a complexntangle of fervent Calvinism,ngeographical and historical accidents,nand their own past subjugationnunder imperialisticnBritain. Apartheid has imposednunfair hardship upon blacks, yetnSouth African blacks enjoy betterneducation and a higher standardnof living than blacks in jinynother African nation. Black majoritynrule might solve some ofnSouth Africa’s problems; however,nbecause most Africannblacks are accustomed to tribalnrather than democratic ideals,nexperiments in democracy innother African nations have oftennBetween the Dustcovernand the Deep Blue SeanM.E. Bradford: A Worthy Company:nBrief Lives of the Framersnof the United States Constitution;nPlymouth Rock Foundation;nMarlborough, New Hampshire.nIf ever there was one, this is anbook which must not be judgednby its cover—or at least not by itsndustcover. Prepared by itsnzealous publisher, this dustcovernmilitantly exclaims thatnthis book establishes “the predominantninfluence of thenChristian faith on the foundingnof the nation” by proving thatn”50 (and perhaps 52) of the 55nFramers of the United StatesnConstitution were Christians.nNot humanists, not Deists, notnagnostics—Christians!” Suchnbilling is deceptive: the table ofncontents which labels each of thenFramers by religious affiliationntells the reader almost as muchnabout their devotional attitudesnas the sketches which follow. It isnindeed amusing that the publishernis so eager to roll up thenhistorical score for Christians!nthat among the 50 Framers sonlabeled is an Episcopalian de­nbeen violent and shortlived.nMoreover, Afrikaners who knownhow British expansionists ruthlesslynmanipulated the blacksnagainst them for the sake ofnmineral wealth are understandablynfearful of Soviets andnCubans now maneuvering to donthe same. Surely South Africa is,nas an Afrikaner interviewed bynMrs. Villet declared, “the puzzlenof the earth.” It would bennice if Mrs. Villet could offer ansolution to this puzzle, but hernkind of honest evaluation of thennumber and intricacy of thenpieces must certainly precedenany successful effort to put themntogether. Dnscribed by Professor Bradford asn”an unscrupulous, charmingnopportunist, a great host andngiver of parties, but deviousnnonetheless.”nActually, Bradford’s intent,nas explained in his introduction.nis primarily to explore “the individualnFramer’s constitutionalntheory, [and] the variety ofnUnion which he hoped to seencreated,” while merely “touch-n[ing] upon the professional, personal,neconomic, intellectualnand religious life” of these men.nPerhaps those attracted by thennnevangelistic cover will be disappointednthat Dr. Bradford’snbook is so little concerned withnNew Jerusalem, but those whonwant to understand better thenterrestrial visions of the Constitutionnshapers will find this anworthwhile study. Though brevitynnecessitates some simplificationn(Madison is treated in 14npages; Washington in 10), Bradford’sngrouping of the Framersninto two classes of Antifederalistsnand four classes of Federalists,non the basis of their attitudesntowards the powers to bengranted to the federal government,nseems both sound and illuminating.nWhat Bradfordnmost clearly illustrates is thatnalmost all the Framers of thenConstitution were concernednthat they not create a federalngovernment which would imposenany orthodoxy uponnlocalities. Most of them sharednRoger Sherman’s belief thatnsince “diversity” providedn”security against the abuse ofnpower,” it would “not comportnwith American interests if thenFederal government were to interferenwith the government ofnparticular states.” At the time,nthis meant allowing the Southernnstates to practice theirn”peculiar institution” of slaverynand permitting Connecticut andnMassachusetts to maintain Congregationalismnas their officialnreligion. The notion of a teleocraticnnational government enforcingna uniform set of theoreticaln”rights” was, Bradfordndemonstrates, foreign to virtuallynall of them. Today, they undoubtedlynwould be horrified atnthe way liberal legislators,njudges, and bureaucrats havensubscquentiy imposed their ownnvision of a secularized egalitarianismnupon America by usingnthe phrases “general welfare”nand “necessary and proper” asnsledgehammers for demolishingnthe 9th and 10th Amendmentsnspecifically intended to protectnlocal autonomy. (BC) •n