Edmund J. Davis of Texas: Civil War General, Republican Leader, Reconstruction Governor (review)

The second installment in TCU Press's Texas Biography Series, Carl H. Moneyhon's Edmund J. Davis of Texas reevaluates one of the more controversial and misunderstood figures in Texas history. Moneyhon, a leading and well-respected authority on Reconstruction in Texas, provides a revisionist portrait of Davis and situates his character and political philosophy at the heart of the narrative. Moneyhon's sympathetic portrayal duly resurrects Davis's historical significance by painting him as a progressive visionary who did not cower before the state's pro-Confederate elite. Davis is thus celebrated as an uncompromising Unionist, Radical Republican, racial egalitarian, champion of public education, enforcer of the law, and supporter of government-funded internal improvements. Although these very qualities unfairly tarnished Davis's legacy for generations—largely due to the myths of carpetbagger and scalawag rule—Moneyhon successfully rehabilitates his historical memory and position.

Davis, like many prominent mid-nineteenth-century figures, enjoyed a full and varied career. He served as district attorney and later a state judge at Brownsville during the 1850s. Although he was a Democrat, Davis developed into an ardent Unionist, vehemently opposed secession, and refused to express loyalty to the Confederacy. He accordingly commanded the First Texas Cavalry (U.S.) during the Civil War and operated throughout the state in hopes of bringing Texas back into the Union. After the war, Davis joined the Republican Party and emerged as a leading radical voice in the Constitutional Convention of 1866, and then as president of the Convention in 1868-69. He was elected governor of Texas in 1869, but was defeated by Richard Coke four years later. Nevertheless, Davis remained throughout the rest of his life a prominent spokesman and adherent to Republican policies. His positions clearly were antithetical to the secessionist orientation of many rival politicians. Thus, Moneyhon asks, "What moved this man to take stands so out of step with those around him" (xi)?

Moneyhon lucidly answers this question by underscoring a host of themes related to Davis's intellectual development, character, and political beliefs. He portrays Davis as a man of integrity who was driven by duty, responsibility, and determination. When events forced him into action—whether as an outspoken Unionist, officer in the United States Army, or Radical Republican governor—Davis proceeded with conviction and was emboldened by his principles, regardless of his success or the opposition's strength. Specifically, his political philosophy, which functioned in concert with these characteristics, allowed Davis to act forcefully and decisively, and assured him that his actions were undertaken in Texas's best interest. His Unionism in particular was bred through a strict adherence to the law, profound obedience to American nationalism, and disillusionment with southern secessionists. Moreover, he believed unwaveringly that the legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction must be upheld and defended. After the Civil War, Davis supported the restriction of former secessionists' political rights and approved the ab initio question, which would declare null and void all state acts authorized since secession. His position on African American equality was especially revolutionary, yet earned him the scorn of many mainstream Texans. Davis nonetheless believed in unrestricted black suffrage, which he argued "was essential for loyal reconstruction" (99). As governor, he fought tirelessly to ensure that black Texans were protected from the waves of mob violence directed at their newly obtained political rights. Although Davis's "efforts to [these] ends proved less than effective," Moneyhon concludes that "the goals he fought for proved to better reflect the ideals of the nation than those of so many of his contemporaries" (199, xi-xii). This is certainly a fitting tribute to a man long misjudged both in the popular and scholarly mind.