Reviewed by:

• United States Reconstruction across the Americas ed. by William A. Link
• Joseph A. Fry

William A. Link, the editor of this initial volume in the Frontiers of American South series provides a lucid and informative introduction. He contends that a proper understanding of US Reconstruction requires an “analysis” that reaches “beyond national bounders” (3). Essays by Rafael Marquese, Don H. Doyle, and Edward B. Rugemer impressively realize this objective.

Marquese focuses on the growth and demise of slavery and the labor systems that replaced it in the United States and Brazil. This national juxtaposition is not new, but he argues persuasively that, rather than being distinctly independent and different, developments in the two most important slave economies in the Western Hemisphere were interconnected and influenced one another. Marquese establishes the US–Brazil nexus in several informative ways. Prior to the American Civil War, this connection economically and politically reinforced Brazilian slavery. The consistently proslavery US government provided a reassuring ally for Brazilian slaveholders, and by the 1850s, the United States had become the principal market for coffee, Brazil’s primary slave-produced crop. Following the American war and the abolition of slavery in both the United States and Cuba, [End Page 64] Brazil’s isolated position in the Western Hemisphere contributed to its gradual ending of slavery by 1888.

As this process unfolded, owners of Brazil’s coffee plantations continued to observe US developments, where sharecropping by both freed slaves and poor whites maintained and expanded cotton production. In contrast to the relatively decentralized form of management under sharecropping, Brazilian coffee planters developed the colonato system, a free-labor alternative that sustained “centralization of managerial decisions” while employing former slaves and Italian immigrant workers (34). Buttressing his theme of US–Brazil connections, Marquese notes that the burgeoning postwar US market was the primary consumer of both American cotton and Brazilian coffee and that the vast expansion of US grain production displaced the Italian agricultural workers who immigrated to Brazil.

While Marquese emphasizes Brazilian observation of US developments, Rugemer focuses on US responses to the October 1865 rebellion of free blacks against government rule in Morant Bay, Jamaica. The rebellion derived from blacks’ systematic depravation following abolition in 1833. The rebels killed 22 people and sacked twenty plantations. British authorities responded by killing 85 and executing another 354. Rugemer lucidly explains the historical context for these explosive racial tensions by demonstrating how Jamaican blacks had received no land, no legal protections, and no political rights when freed in 1833. As the US war ended, black Jamaicans were overwhelmingly poor, illiterate, and unable to vote.

Word of this rebellion reached the United States as policymakers debated the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the First Reconstruction Act of 1867. Did events in Jamaica portend developments in the American South? Responding to this question, US newspaper editors and public figures utilized the rebellion to buttress their positions. Those who sought to establish and safeguard the rights of black people cited the need to avoid the depravation suffered by freed slaves in Jamaica. Others were more concerned about the threat of black-on-white violence and emphasized the need to restrict black people’s rights and freedom. Both sides cited Morant Bay as a disaster to avoid, and this “intersection” of postemancipation events “in the Atlantic world” convincingly illustrates Rugemer’s contention that it is necessary to look beyond domestic influences and considerations when recounting US Reconstruction (107).

Unlike Marquese and Rugemer, who focus on slavery and its aftermath, Doyle employs US foreign relations in the late 1860s as the vehicle for analyzing Reconstruction in global terms. He contends that US foreign policy was primarily defensive, sought to safeguard republicanism in the Western Hemisphere, and was strikingly successful, given the “massive withdrawal of European empires from the Americas” (49). From this perspective, Emperor Napoleon III’s failed attempt to impose a [End Page 65] French-sponsored monarchy in Mexico was the most serious European threat to US ideological and security interests and the...

审核人：

• 整个美国的美国重建版。威廉·A·林克（William A.Link）
• 约瑟夫·弗莱

威廉·A·林克（William A. Link），《美国南方边疆》丛书的初始卷的编辑，提供了清晰而有益的介绍。他认为，对美国重建的正确理解需要进行“超越国界”的“分析”（3）。拉斐尔·马克斯（Rafael Marquese），唐·H·道尔（Don H.Doyle）和爱德华·B·鲁格默（Edward B.

Marquese专注于奴隶制的增长和消亡以及在美国和巴西取代了奴隶制的劳动力系统。这种国家并置并不是什么新鲜事，但他有说服力地指出，西半球两个最重要的奴隶经济体的发展不是相互独立和不同，而是相互联系并相互影响的。马克斯（Marquese）通过多种信息方式建立了美巴西关系。在美国内战之前，这种联系在经济和政治上加强了巴西的奴隶制。一直实行奴役制的美国政府为巴西奴隶主提供了一个令人放心的盟友，到1850年代，美国已成为巴西奴隶主粮的主要咖啡市场。[完第64页]巴西在西半球的孤立地位促使其到1888年逐渐结束奴隶制。

随着这一过程的展开，巴西咖啡种植园的所有者继续观察美国的发展，在那里，被释放的奴隶和贫穷的白人共同进行了农作物种植，从而维持了棉花的生产。与农作物种植相对分散的管理形式相反，巴西咖啡种植者开发了科洛纳托系统，这是一种自由劳动的替代方案，在雇用前奴隶和意大利移民工人的同时，维持了“管理决定的权力下放”（34）。Marquese支持他的美国与巴西联系的主题，并指出，战后迅速发展的美国市场是美国棉花和巴西咖啡的主要消费国，美国谷物生产的大幅扩张使移民到巴西的意大利农业工人流离失所。

马克斯（Marquese）强调巴西对美国事态发展的观察，而鲁格默（Rugemer）则侧重于美国对1865年10月叛乱自由黑人反对牙买加莫兰特湾政府统治的反应。叛乱源自黑人在1833年被废除后的系统堕落。叛军杀死22人，并解散了20个种植园。英国当局对此作出反应，杀死了85人，并处决了354人。卢格默（Rugemer）通过展示牙买加黑人在1833年获释后如何没有土地，没有法律保护和没有政治权利来解释这些爆炸性种族紧张局势的历史背景。 ，牙买加黑人非常贫穷，文盲，无法投票。

当决策者辩论1866年《民权法案》和1867年《第一部重建法案》时，这种叛逆的消息传到了美国。牙买加的事件是否预示着美国南部的事态发展？针对这个问题，美国报纸编辑和公众人物利用叛乱来支持自己的立场。那些寻求建立和维护黑人权利的人说，有必要避免牙买加被释放的奴隶遭受的堕落之苦。其他人则更担心黑白暴力的威胁，并强调有必要限制黑人的权利和自由。双方都说莫兰特湾是要避免的灾难，

与专注于奴隶制及其后果的马克斯（Marquese）和鲁格默（Rugemer）不同，杜伊尔（Doyle）在1860年代后期采用美国对外关系作为从全球角度分析重建的工具。他认为，美国的外交政策主要是防御性的，旨在维护西半球的共和主义，并且由于“欧洲帝国从美洲撤军”而取得了惊人的成功（49）。从这个角度看，皇帝拿破仑三世的失败企图强加一个[尾页65]在墨西哥的法国主办的君主制是美国意识形态利益和安全利益的最严重的威胁，欧洲...