ence; Hawthorne, whose views resembledrnMelville’s but who was in sorrowfulrndecline; gentle Whittier, who, nearlyrnunique among abolitionists, hated thernsin of slavery but not the slaveholdingrnsinner; Emerson, the morally irresponsible,rnegotistical, nasty, self-serving prototypernof the American liberal intellectual.rnIt is a measure of our low contemporaryrnestate that Reconstruction, the mostrncorrupt and shameful episode of thernwhole of our national history, is now regardedrnas a great achievement, faultablernonly because it did not go far enough.rnYet Melville was so appalled by the onsetrnof Radical Reconstruction following arnbrief period of civility at the end of thernwar that he literally stopped the pressesrnto revise his book, adding a long poem,rn”Lee in the Capitol,” and a prose “Supplement,”rnboth pleas to the North forrnmagnanimity and moderation. Thesernwise documents should be read by allrndecent Americans concerned with understandingrnregional and racial conflicts.rnMelville’s apprehension of the war asrna tragedy in which no sweeping selfcongratulationrnwas justified by eitherrnside, though premature, was prophetic: itrnwas the view that most decent Americans,rnNorth and South, came to have ofrnthe war when passions had finally diedrnaway. Melville thus anticipated whatrncame to be a kind of national consensusrnin the late 19th and early 20th centuriesrnregarding the American Civil War. Thisrnconsensus, worked out in countless veterans’rngatherings and public orations,rnwent something like this: Southernersrnwould acknowledge that they were gladrnthat the Union had been preserved andrnslavery abolished. They would be, moreover,rngood citizens ever after. In return,rnNortherners would acknowledge thatrnSoutherners, though in error, had foughtrncourageously and honorably in the warrnand would promise to respect their historyrnand its symbols. This agreementrnheld for a long time, until 1993 in fact,rnwhen the United States Senate violatedrnit by its churlish action against the UnitedrnDaughters of the Confederacy, althoughrnSoutherners have faithfully keptrntheir part of the agreement. Even morernrepulsive than the Senate majority’s actionrnwas the historical ignorance it displayedrnand the vulgarity of the accompanyingrnremarks. The senators shouldrnbe reminded of the warning given byrnMelville’s fictional Lee, when he wasrncalled before the Reconstruction Committeernof the Senate:rnPush not your triumph; do notrnurgernSubmissiveness beyond the verge.rnThe historical Lee had been morernprudent and reticent. crnFROM COVER-UP TO WHITEWASHrnTHE MARTIN I.UTHP:R K I N ( ; , J R . ,rnPI.ACilARISM STORYrnKdiled by Iheodore Pappasrn: aiKl liaiKllmL; cliar>2cs inclLii.rn” A work ()(• j^reat .serioiisiiess, cxprcs.scdrnin a lucid style (a rare combinaCion).”rn—John Liikacsrn” I would not want it .said, a century from now, thatrnthere was no one willinj^ to stand by Ibeodore Pappasrnin his advocacy of the intej^rity ol’the academy . . . “rn—/’nun the hOrcword by Jacob Neiisnerrn”The sordid tale of what has become olOurrninstitutions of learninj^ and scholarship.”rn—Samuel FrancisrnTO ORDER BY CREDIT CARD, CALL: 1-800-383-0680rnOR SEND CHECK OR MONEY ORDER (MADE PAYABLE TO THE ROCKFORD INSTITUTE) TO:rnKing Book, 934 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103rn(Discounts available for bulk orders.)rn34/CHRONICLESrnrnrn