Radical Republicans

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The Radical Republicans named themselves. They did not shy from the word. In a pamphlet directed to black voters in 1867, the Union Republican Congressional Committee offered a definition that read more like a declaration: "the word Radical... means one who is in favor of going to the root of things; who is thoroughly in earnest; who desires that slavery should be abolished, that every disability connected therewith should be obliterated."

  This faction existed within the Republican Party from the party's founding in 1854 until the Compromise of 1877, a stretch that encompassed the Civil War and the entire Reconstruction era. Their central demand was simple and absolute: the immediate, complete, and permanent eradication of slavery. But they were also a coalition riven by contradictions, fighting enemies on every front, including the man in the White House who should have been their ally. One of their most prominent leaders, Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, spent years battling first Abraham Lincoln and then Andrew Johnson. When Johnson dismissed Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, the House voted 126-47 to impeach him. The Senate fell one vote short of removal. What drove the Radicals to that confrontation, and why did Reconstruction ultimately collapse beneath them?

  12558422

• 2. Who the Radicals Were

  ›

  Many of the Radicals had once been Whigs. William H. Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State and a leading presidential contender in 1860, came from the Whig tradition, as did Thaddeus Stevens and Horace Greeley, editor of the New-York Tribune, the leading Radical newspaper. Some who had been Democrats before the war, often having taken pro-slavery positions, shifted toward the Radical camp. John A. Logan of Illinois, Edwin Stanton of Ohio, and Benjamin Butler of Massachusetts all made that journey. Even Andrew Johnson was counted among them before he became president.

  The Radicals were heavily influenced by Protestant religious ideals. Many saw slavery as evil and the Civil War as divine punishment for it. They were never formally organized; there was constant movement in and out of the group. Seward himself grew less radical as the war continued, while some prewar moderates pushed toward harder positions.

  The coalition had internal fractures on almost everything except slavery. Former Whigs in the group generally supported high tariffs while former Democrats tended to oppose them. On monetary policy, some favored hard money and others soft money and inflation. And there was a fault line over prohibition. German-American Freethinkers and Forty-Eighters, including figures like Hermann Raster and Friedrich Hecker, sympathized with the Radicals' antislavery aims but fought them fiercely on alcohol prohibition. The Radical faction's support for nativism, anti-Catholicism, and prohibition made it difficult for the broader Republican Party to hold the votes of Irish Catholic, German, and other white ethnic communities.

  The most influential Radical voices in Congress were U.S. Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts and U.S. Representative Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. Together they led the call for a war that would end slavery.

  2926251114

• 3. Conflict with Lincoln

  ›

  Moderate Republicans dominated Congress after the 1860 elections, and Lincoln worked to keep all factions inside his administration. He placed Radicals in key positions: Salmon P. Chase as Secretary of the Treasury, James Speed as Attorney General, and Edwin M. Stanton as Secretary of War. He appointed journalist James Shepherd Pike to diplomatic posts. He kept Radicals close even when they openly opposed him.

  The Radicals resented what they saw as Lincoln's deliberate slowness. They opposed his selection of General George B. McClellan to command the Army of the Potomac, believing McClellan was not prosecuting the war aggressively enough. Lincoln eventually agreed, recognizing McClellan as unfit, and relieved him of command.

  On Reconstruction, the gap became a direct confrontation. The Radicals proposed an ironclad oath that would bar anyone who had supported the Confederacy from voting in Southern elections. Lincoln blocked it. When the Radicals passed the Wade-Davis Bill in 1864, setting their own terms for readmitting seceded states, Lincoln vetoed it, citing his authority as military commander-in-chief.

  There was also a fundamental disagreement over slavery's end. Lincoln wished to partially follow the British Empire's model, financially compensating former slave owners who had stayed loyal to the Union. The Radicals demanded uncompensated abolition. In 1864, some Radicals broke away long enough to form a separate Radical Democratic Party, nominating John C. Fremont for president until Fremont withdrew.

  An important Republican critic of the Radicals was Henry Jarvis Raymond, who served simultaneously as editor of The New York Times and as chairman of the Republican National Committee. Lincoln's assassination in April 1865 removed the one figure capable of brokering these internal tensions, and opened the way for a far more direct clash.

  7086672317

• 4. War with Andrew Johnson

  ›

  Andrew Johnson was a War Democrat who had been placed on Lincoln's ticket to broaden the coalition's appeal. When he took office in 1865, the Radicals initially expected him to be an ally. His early hard-line rhetoric gave that impression. It did not last.

  Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the break point. The Radicals overrode it, the first time Congress had overridden a president on a major bill. That Act made African Americans United States citizens, forbade discrimination against them, and placed enforcement in federal courts. Johnson went on to veto 21 bills during his term. The Radicals overrode 15, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and four Reconstruction Acts. Those Reconstruction Acts rewrote Southern election laws, allowed Black men to vote, and barred former Confederate Army officers from holding office.

  The Radicals came to majority control in Congress following the 1866 elections, helped by specific episodes of violence that convinced Northern voters Johnson's softer approach had failed. The New Orleans riot and the Memphis riots of 1866 were particularly significant in shifting opinion.

  Johnson proved a weak political operator. He could not build a stable support base, and his allies were routed in the 1866 elections across the North. The Radicals now had enough votes to override his vetoes at will.

  When Johnson dismissed Secretary of War Stanton in violation of the Tenure of Office Act, the House moved on impeachment. The vote was 126-47 to impeach. The Senate held three separate votes on conviction, each returning 35-19, one short of the 36 needed. Johnson survived, though he had lost nearly all practical power. Waiting in the wings as the next in the line of succession if Johnson had been removed was Senator Benjamin Franklin Wade of Ohio.

  3661726435

• 5. Reconstruction on the Ground

  ›

  After the 1866 elections, Radical-backed governments took shape across the former Confederacy. In 10 Southern states, all but Virginia, coalitions of freedmen, carpetbaggers (Northerners who had recently moved south), and scalawags (white Southerners who supported Reconstruction) established Republican administrations.

  The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, emerged from a coalition of moderate and Radical Republicans. Its Equal Protection Clause was designed to provide constitutional backing for what statutes had struggled to protect. John Armor Bingham of Ohio is named as its principal framer. The Radicals also credited George Washington Julian of Indiana as principal framer of the Fifteenth Amendment.

  The Ku Klux Klan targeted Radicals directly. James M. Hinds, a Radical Congressman from Arkansas, was shot to death by Klan members in 1868. Amos Tappan Akerman, attorney general under the Grant administration, vigorously prosecuted the Klan under the Enforcement Acts. Grant also signed the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which Samuel Shellabarger of Ohio had drafted, specifically to give federal courts tools to break Klan violence.

  Radical-aligned governors took office across the South: Adelbert Ames in Mississippi, Rufus Bullock in Georgia, Harrison Reed in Florida, Henry Clay Warmoth in Louisiana, and Edmund J. Davis in Texas, among others. The Radical Republicans, whose reputation had been built on opposing slavery, now found themselves administering a region in open revolt against their authority. Insurgent violence against African Americans and their allies continued into the early 20th century, long after the formal Reconstruction era closed.

  The Radicals also built infrastructure. Their role in creating public school systems and charitable institutions in the South was later downplayed by hostile historians, but these programs were among the tangible outputs of their period in power.

  2287696854

• 6. Collapse and the Compromise of 1877

  ›

  General Ulysses S. Grant's election in 1868 gave the Radicals a president broadly aligned with their agenda. He signed the Civil Rights Act of 1871, used federal power to suppress the Klan, and backed Reconstruction policy through his first term. But the coalition began to fracture.

  In 1872, the Liberal Republicans broke away. They argued that Grant and the Radicals were corrupt and had imposed Reconstruction far too long on the South. Horace Greeley, the New-York Tribune editor who had once been a leading Radical voice, accepted the Liberal Republican presidential nomination and was also nominated by the Democrats. Even Charles Sumner, the dominant Radical voice in the Senate, joined the Liberal cause. Grant defeated Greeley by a wide margin. The Liberal Republicans collapsed as a movement.

  But the structural damage continued. In 1873, an economic depression hit. In the 1874 congressional elections, the Democrats swept back into control of the House. Southern state governments fell one by one to the so-called Redeemers movement. By 1876, only three states, Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina, still had Republican governments, protected by federal troops.

  The 1876 presidential election was so close and so contested in those three states that it required a political settlement. Under the Compromise of 1877, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes received the electoral votes of those states and won the presidency. In exchange, he withdrew federal troops. Without military protection, the Republican state regimes in all three states immediately collapsed.

  White Democrats retook control of every Southern state legislature. The era of Jim Crow laws began. Rights that had been extended to Black Americans during Reconstruction were progressively stripped away over the following decades. That process, according to the source, would last more than 80 years, until the Civil Rights Movement achieved its gains.

  3979827831

• 7. How History Judged Them

  ›

  William Archibald Dunning and John W. Burgess led the first systematic historical study of Reconstruction, working from Columbia University in the early 20th century. The Dunning School portrayed the Radicals as driven by irrational hatred of the Confederacy and a hunger for power. In this telling, they had dismantled Lincoln and Johnson's more measured work, installed corrupt governments run by carpetbaggers and scalawags, and imposed political rights on freed people who were supposedly unprepared to use them. Reconstruction was a dark age in the Dunning account, ended only when white Southerners reclaimed self-governance.

  In the 1930s, a revisionist wave rejected that framework. Howard K. Beale, W.E.B. Du Bois, William B. Hesseltine, C. Vann Woodward, and T. Harry Williams led this reassessment. They pushed back on the corruption charges by noting that Northern Democrats were equally corrupt. But the revisionists were not defenders of the Radicals either. Beale and Woodward cast the Radicals primarily as economic opportunists protecting Northeastern capitalism from a Democratic coalition of Southern and Western interests. Beale argued that placing Southern states under Republican control was a strategy to secure congressional votes for high protective tariffs.

  Since the 1950s, the moral weight of the Civil Rights Movement reshaped scholarly assessment again. Historians sometimes labeled neoabolitionists argued that the Radicals' civil rights achievements and their support for Black suffrage were more significant than the financial corruption that had occurred. They also drew attention to the active roles Black Americans themselves played in seeking education and land ownership during the Reconstruction years.

  In 2004, one historian argued that Northern Republicans had come to see most Black Americans as potentially dangerous to the economy, fearing they might become labor radicals in the tradition of the 1871 Paris Commune or the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. That fear, in this reading, was part of what allowed Northern Republicans to make peace with the South and abandon the Reconstruction project. The debate over what the Radicals achieved, what they sacrificed, and what they left unfinished has not closed.

  4446457868