A Moment of Insight or Confusion?

February 9, 2009

in Southern History, Teaching

1877_6thregimentI‘ve always struggled to understand what I’ve assumed to be a radical transformation that took place within the Republican Party between Reconstruction and the Gilded Age.  As the story goes various pressures within the Republican Party caused them to abandon their Reconstruction agenda along with black civil rights, which allowed white ”Redeemers” to reestablish white supremacy.  The emphasis on abandonment implies fundamental change with a moral twist; it doesn’t help that much of what I know about the Gilded Age and industrial revolution comes from the textbooks that I use in my AP classes. Most textbooks divide chapters between Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, which works to reinforce a sharp distinction between the Republican Party of Reconstruction and beyond.

I had one of those rare insights last week when it finally dawned on me that it is my preoccupation and interest in race and emancipation that has clouded my ability to more fully understand the history of the Republican Party beginning in 1855 and through the rest of the nineteenth century.  We tend to forget that the Republican Party was organized primarily around an economic agenda following the demise of the Whig Party and in the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  The Party initially took shape around the Great Lakes, which pushed hard for internal improvements and a federal government that would encourage and protect the development of industry.   Most Republicans had little interest in racial issues and insisted on preventing slavery from moving into the western territories so as to encourage white Americans to settle and free labor to thrive.  I recently finished reading Marc Egnal’s fine study of the economic origins of the Civil War.  He spends a great deal of time on the formation and evolution of the Republican Party’s platform through the war and into the early 1880s.  The book has helped me to place the focus back on the core pieces of the Party’s economic philosophy and the way in which their position on slavery reinforced it.

My aha moment occured when I realized that in the same year that federal troops were ordered back to their barracks in Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana as part of the Compromise of 1877, they were ordered by Repubican President Rutherford B. Hayes into the North.  This was in response to what one politican called “the overwhelming labor question” which could be seen in the country’s first national walkout–the Great Railroad Strike.  In the aftermath of 1877, the federal government constructed armories in major cities to ensure that troops would be on hand in the event of further labor difficulties.  In 1892 the governor of Idaho declared martial law and sent militia units and federal troops into the mining region of Coeur d’Alene to break a strike, and in 1894 federal troops were sent to Chicago to help suppress the Pullman Strike led by the American Railway Union, whose 150,000 members included both skilled and unskilled railroad laborers.    Rather than see the abandonment of the South as a betrayal of Republican values it now seems more accurate to suggest that their movement of federal troops north reflected a continued commitment to the protection of the new engines of economic expansion: Carnegie Steel, Standard Oil, and the railroads.  By 1880 foreign workers and unions constituted more of a threat to the future of capitalism than unreconstructed white Southerners.  In short, the Republican Party was carrying out the policies that had defined it from the beginning.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • LinkedIn
  • Mixx
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • PDF
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • st
  • Eric, -- I would have to go back to see if Republicans in the 1850s were talking about the kind of consolidation that took place during the post-war period. Much of what I've read tends to concentrate on the role of government in encouraging internal improvements as well as free labor for white Americans. Clearly, these are the fundamental building blocks for the aggressive economic expansion that soon took place.

    Sherree, -- Our collective memory is clearly biased against white Southerners when it comes to race and violence. We tend to overlook the fact, for example, that some of the worst racial riots occurred in northern cities following various migrations from the South, which led to job competition in urban centers.
  • st
  • Eric Roy
    Kevin:
    Although I hesitate to do so, I am going to disagree with you on this point. My understanding is that the antebellum commercial philosophy of Abraham Lincoln and like-minded Republicans envisioned an industrial prosperity that included family farmers as well as big railroads, small merchants as well as large distributors, factory workers as well as factory owners, etc. If that's true, then it would seem that post-Reconstruction Republican presidents' use of federal troops to violently break up labor strikes was not quite so much a return to original GOP economic principles as it was a mutation into a new stage of unqualified government support for and illegal intervention on behalf of monopoly capitalists, at the expense of the laborers who were originally supposed to have a full share in the Republican vision of all-American prosperity. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

    FYI, on a semi-related note, there is a thoroughly enjoyable, informative and surprising article in the February 12 issue of Salon.com, titled "How Would Lincoln Vote Today?"
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/02/12...
  • Toby
    "In essence, when all is said and done, the Civil War was about money, and black men and women were pawns for both the North and the South. That is what makes the abolitionist movement so heroic. "

    This is at best only half-true. I agree regarding the Abolitionists. But when William Garrison closed the "Liberator" in 1865, he felt it had completed its mission.

    The black men who joined the Union army played a role in gaining their own liberty. And, while Jim Crow laws were horribly oppressive, it is quite easy to see that black people had far more power over their own lives (in terms of having better educational opportunity, ownership of property and stable families) than before the war.

    The view that the Civil War was just about a bunch of Yankee capitalists trying to centralise government and enrich themselves is an old trope, and quite discredited.

    There were Indian Wars before, during and after the Civil War and I do not see what connection Sherree is trying to make. The "Trail of Tears" preceded the war by 30 years, and one of the largest Inidan uprisings (in Minnesota) happened in 1863.

    The only book I have read about the Republican party is Foner's "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men", and it always puzzled me how the Republicans so quickly lost the middle one. It seems to me to be a complex question, but I always felt that the Great Depression of the 1870s was decisive, and Kevin is on to something. I must read some of the other books mentioned.
  • What happened was a simple matter of changing time. The true radicals were rooted in or at least shared common views with the antebellum reform movements that criticized the existing order. Once the Republican Party became the existing order, concerns about perpetuating power (best achieved by working hand in glove with business interests) became paramount, especially in the second generation of party leadership. Hence the Liberal Republican revolt of 1872. I am sure Brooks would characterize this as a gross oversimplification--and with no little justification.
  • st
  • Ah! I have fond memories of talking Republicans (historical and present-day) with Professor Gienapp. He was a wonderful man, and I still grieve for him. I'm always on the lookout for other former students for reminiscing. Sorry to have bothered you!
  • Rebecca,

    No I did not have the pleasure of studying under Dr. Gienapp. I attended the less prestigious institutions of higher learning :-)
  • Craig, was your graduate professor by any chance one Bill Gienapp?
  • st
  • Will Keene
    I'm with Peter on this: "Civil War was about the institution of slavery, instead of the enslaved". What led to the rise of the Republican party was the intrusion of the 'slave power' into the north. There had been some level of political organization against slavery like the Liberty Party of the 1840s but in general the typical northerner was ambivalent about slavery as long as it seemed to have no effect on his day-to-day life. Then in the mid-1850s a combination of events--such as the Kansas-Nebraska act, the rendition of Anthony Burns, and the Dred Scott case--made it appear that the 'slave power' was reaching into the lives of northerners. The reaction was a political revolution that changed the balance of power in congress and brought Lincoln to the White House. The political and legal changes wrought by the war removed the concern of northerners about the 'slave power'. Thus after the civil war, the general public in the north drifted back to a kind of provincialism where the concerns of the emancipated slaves in distant states were of little importance.
  • Bob,

    This is not a Beardian interpretation of the coming of the war. In fact, Egnal spends quite a bit of time discussing the place of slavery in the overall Republican platform. What he sets out to do is understand how their position on slavery functioned within a party that was commited to free labor, expansion, and internal improvements. Egnal does not minimize the importance of Republicans such as Stevens and Sumner, but he does make it a point to say that w/o the war most members of the party would not have moved so far on the question of emancipation and other forms of black equality. In the end, this was not an anti-slavery party, but an organization commited to the social and economic advancement of white Americans.
  • Bob_Pollock
    Kevin,

    Do you really think it is accurate to say "the Republican Party was organized primarily around an economic agenda " ? I have not read the book you refer to. ( Didn't the Beards argue the war was all about economics years ago?) I think your overall point is good, but I still think the issue that brought the party together was slavery. To be sure, pure abolitionists may have been a minority and anti-slavery folks were anti-slavery for a number of reasons, many of which related to economics (free labor), but the Republican Party included more than just former Whigs. Certainly Southerners believed the Republicans were all about opposition to their peculiar institution. And, by the time Grant left office in 1877, the leading Radicals like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner were no longer around and the country was tired of dealing with the "negro problem." Its one thing to put down a labor dispute, and quite another to police the elections and local governments of eleven states.
  • Peter
    Kevin,
    I think you are entirely correct about the thrust of current scholarship about the Republican Party. Too often we think that because the Civil War was about slavery, that means that somehow it was about race and equality. Some northern abolitionists, and African Americans, thought it was about equality, but for the bulk of the population, it was not. So many apparent contradictions in the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction fall away if you take racial equality out of the picture. If we think about David Blight for a moment here, does it really seem so mysterious that equal rights and equal rights for blacks fell so quickly out of the picture? The primary war aim of the North was reconciliation (restoration of the Union). Slavery had to be ended not out of concern for African Americans, but because of the 3/5 clause that gave undue strength to southerners. If we take as our starting point that the Civil War was about the institution of slavery, instead of the enslaved themselves, how much more sense does the history of Reconstruction, and subsequently Civil Rights, make? If we think about popular support for the Civil War in the North, think about Leonard Richards's "The Slave Power" and Adam I.P. Smith's "No Party Now." These works demonstrate a popular coalition in the North for the Civil War coalesced around the goal of crushing unequal representation for the Slave Power, a conspiracy of vast proportions that proved it aimed at destroying the American republican experiment through secession. Toss in a dash of the work of Michael Les Benedict and even the very notion of a "Radical Reconstruction" begins to fall away. In short, the North fought against slaveholders.
  • Tom Thompson
    When I asked one of America's great labor leaders 35 years ago why he thought the party of Lincoln had turned into the rabid labor hating party that fought every progressive idea since before the New Deal, he opined that the party slipped away from the common people after Lincoln because the American Labor Movement was too weak to keep the party progressive.

    With little legal status to shore it up, labor was subject to the swings of the boom and bust economic cycles that typified the era. The industrial revolution provided obscene amounts of money to manipulate the political process and buy influence for big business in both parties. Blacks were further victimized by industry as they were commonly used as strikebreakers. The collateral damage of those fights created divisions between the races, and provided a rationale for military action against strikers.
  • Kevin, you should also look at Nancy Cohen, The Reconstruction of American Liberalism. She has a great couple of chapters about this very question. Essentially, most Republicans tended to believe that a level playing field existed in the so-called "free North," and their view of reconstruction was simply that their duty included merely introducing a level playing field in the South. This meant that blacks would very quickly be viewed as "on their own." When reconstruction failed to produce substantive equality at a fast pace, many republicans simply threw up their hands, blamed freedmen and women for their own subordination, and moved on with a traditional version of minimal-state liberalism...

    Cohen's book is fantastic and makes this argument much better than I am here....
  • Thanks for the recommendation Dave. That book was sent to me by the publisher when it was first released, but I never found the time to read it. Now I have a reason to dig it up.
  • Jason Phillips
    Good points Kevin. I just submitted a review essay of Egnal to Reviews in American History. They're planning two reviews and a response from Egnal for the September issue. The idea that Republicans abandoned African Americans after Reconstruction implies that the party embraced them in the first place. Blacks had plenty of friends in the party who seized the initiative during Radical Reconstruction, but the radicals were always a minority of the party. They certainly didn't speak for most Republican voters. Egnal's focus on economic consistency within the party reinforces a point that Amy Dru Stanley articulated in From Bondage to Contract.

    I could say a lot more about this book, but I promised RAH that my critique will appear in their journal first!
  • Hi Jason,

    Nice to hear from you. I should take some time to write up my thoughts about Egnal's new book since I learned quite a bit from reading it.
  • Kevin, excellent post! I commend your self-reflection, not an easy thing to do! I struggle with it myself.

    I have to ask, what is your opinion of the Democrat Party after Reconstruction and through this same time period in terms of race and black civil rights?

    Regards,
    Chris
  • Kevin,
    In grad school I was prodded down a similar path by a truly gifted professor (who is unfortunately no longer with us). Required reading was a sampling of speeches from the party conventions ranged from pre-war to the early 1900s. The "planks" practically beat the reader in the head - expansion, industrialization, free markets (domestic). Over and over. One might argue that the abolition movement was in perspective one nail that held the plank of expansion in the party platform. Once the war was over, it was supplanted by a solid solution to the "Indian problem." Or perhaps as you allude to, a strong labor policy became more important.

    Another way to look at the evolution of the party, consider the activities of the abolitionists after the Civil War. I've never studied the subject in detail outside the classroom, but I don't recall many of them active in the Bureau of Indian affairs, where logically they might have been drawn. Where not many active in the prohibition movements? Regardless, they were not vocal as John B. Gordon and associates came back to power.

    Please, you make me long for the days spent reading Woodward's "Tom Watson"....
  • What a great question Andrew. It completely changes the focus when we ask the what-if question regarding Lincoln and Reconstruction. The question isn't whether he would have stood by the newly-freed slaves, but whether he was a Republican committed to their core ideas. Thanks for that.
  • Kevin,
    I recently started my reading of Egnal, and was very much struck by the same point. It makes one wonder how much in step with evolving Republican values Lincoln would have remained had he lived into his 70s.

    Drew
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: