Politics, Principle, and Prejudice: 1865-1866 (review)

BOOK RSVISWS Politics, Principle, andPrejudice: 1865-1866. By LaWanda Coxand John H. Cox. (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963. Pp. xiii, 294. $6.00.) One of the most prominent and promising movements in current historical writing is the attempt to place the story of Reconstruction in a new perspective and particularly to measure the motivations of the dominant Republicans who devised the Reconstruction program. Recent scholarship has set forth a number of views that, if not universally accepted, still have been challenging enough to force attention: that Andrew Johnson, instead of being a courageous constitutionalist, was a stubborn theorist who bears heavy responsibility for the break with Congress; that the Radical Republicans, instead of being South-haters or rapacious politicians, were men of considerable principle ; that the Republicans, instead of being henchmen of business, represented diverse economic interests and had no common economic policy; and that the South, instead of being a pathetic conquered land, was a region of fierce resistance to the necessary results of the war and by its actions brought about a harsher peace settlement. The latest entry in the revisionist process is a thoughtful book by LaWanda and John H. Cox, who have previously collaborated in studies of the Freedman 's Bureau. Their book follows in large part the latest trends. They are critical of Johnson, they believe that the Radicals have been misrepresented in history, and they think that the South had a lot to do witìi sabotaging any chances for a reasonable settlement. But they differ in part with the prevailing interpretation, and they offer some fresh suggestions as to the meaning of Reconstruction politics. On the latter score, they emphasize the plans of certain leaders and elements to create a new conservative party that would isolate the Radicals and subordinate the whole Reconstruction question. The promoters of the new party idea did not necessarily have the same ends in view. Johnson hoped for an organization devoted to his leadership and controlled by Democrats. Secretary of State Seward, on the other hand, desired a party of moderates but with a Republican orientation. The net results of these efforts was the same, however, claim the authors—the obvious purpose to force the Radicals out of the Union organization forced the latter to react aggressively in self-defense. In short, the Radicals were more sinned against than sinning. The authors deny the present popular assumption that Johnson was a narrow and legalistic theorist. On the contrary, they assert, the President was a practical politician who very much wanted a second term and who worked hard to get it. His motives in vetoing the Civil Rights Bill were not constitu203 204CIVIL WAR HISTORY tional. He was responding to Democratic pressures, and he thought that the veto would rally conservative support in his new party. The authors are most severe on Johnson with respect to his racial prejudices. It was these emotions, they state, that drove him to break with Congress. The mass of the Republicans were committed to civil rights, although not necessarily suffrage, for the freedmen, the authors contend, and on this stand the Radicals were indistinguishable from most Republicans. If Johnson had cooperated with the moderates, the Radicals could never have seized control of the party and of Reconstruction. The Cox viewpoints deserve respectful attention. But they need also to be received with some critical scrutiny. Some of their notions, while stimulating and possibly correct, are highly tentative. There undoubtedly was a great deal of speculation about forming a new party. It was a period of flux. The Republicans were a young party and had partially lost their identity in the wartime Union party. The Union party had also absorbed some of the Democrats. Not unnaturally some men thought in terms of a new party. But it seems to this reviewer that part of the Cox evidence represents nothing more than the efforts of some politicians to continue the advantages of the Union organization in the postwar years. Similarly, the contention that civil rights was "the issue of Reconstruction" and the unifying thread among Republicans is, to the reviewer's mind, an open question. There were other factors as well, and any writer...