In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

“TEXAS OUT-RADICALS MY RADICALISM” Roots of Radical Republicanism in Reconstruction Texas Carl H. Moneyhon In July 1867 the Texas Republican Party held its first statewide convention, at Houston. The platform produced by the delegates , many of whom had roots in the state’s antebellum politics , marked the new party as an organization possessing one of the most radical agendas in the state’s history. It supported a complete reconstitution of the state’s electorate when it pledged its support to the reconstruction policy of Congress, a policy that at least temporarily enfranchised blacks for participation in a constitutional convention . The new party went further, however, placing itself in support of continued enfranchisement and the implementation of policies that recognized equality of all, regardless of race or color, before the law. Subsequently that party would go even further, advocating a public school system open to all, legislation allowing blacks access to the state’s public lands for homesteading, and equal protection for all of the state’s people before the law.1 Explaining the emergence of the Texas Republican Party has been a difficult task, since unlike in other former Confederate states few carpetbaggers played a role in its creation. Instead of ideas introduced by outsiders, Texas Republicanism reflected the acceptance by a considerable number of white Texans who had been residents of the state before the war of ideas, some of which were considered heretical in those years. Scholars have paid little attention, however, to how this took place. Charles Ramsdell, the earliest scholar of this era, recognized the change in attitudes toward black suffrage, but did not speculate on its cause. As to the programs of the subsequent Republican 14 Carl H. Moneyhon government, Ramsdell ascribed much of the program to the designs of the men who took power, the results of the designs of a governor who was self-willed, obstinate, pig-headed almost beyond belief, and had no regard for the popular will. In similar manner, W. C. Nunn, in his Texas under the Carpetbaggers, saw them simply as opportunists seeking to build a political machine on black suffrage.2 Recent scholarship, however, has shown the earlier interpretations of Ramsdell and Nunn largely to be wrong. Texas Republicans were not unusual men. In fact, most of them had played a role in the state’s antebellum politics. Some even had distinctive careers. The one characteristic most of these men held in common was their opposition to secession in 1860. Some, but not all, maintained their loyalty to the Union throughout the Civil War years. Scholars have clearly identified the type of men who became Republicans, and examined their policies, but the process by which they became radicals has remained unclear. This essay seeks to illuminate what lay behind the transition of the Unionists of the 1850s into the Radical Republican Texans of 1870.3 Prewar Texas Unionists hardly possessed a radical political philosophy , even in the context of the state’s antebellum politics. Edmund J. Davis, later to be one of the most radical of the Republican leaders, was typical. Prior to the war he was an active Democrat, and at a party meeting in Corpus Christi in August 1855 he helped draft an address that clearly accepted the legitimacy of slavery. These resolutions stated strong opposition to congressional interference with the institution of slavery in any of the states or territories, and endorsed popular sovereignty as a solution to the territorial dispute. The resolutions provided further support for the institution of slavery when they also asked for “the acquisition of Territory when it becomes necessary for the preservation or protection of our institutions.” As late as May 1860, another future radical leader, Andrew J. Hamilton, announced his candidacy for Congress as an Independent Democrat and his support of a platform that made little mention of slavery and certainly gave no support for any abolitionist goals. Instead Hamilton explained his candidacy as being based simply on his opposition to the regular Democratic nominee’s support of secession to resolve the sectional crisis. Hamilton only mentioned slavery when he denounced plans to reopen the slave trade. His major appeal was for the support of all men “who are opposed . . . to Secession, and other Disunion issues, all who are friends to the National Democracy.”4 In the subsequent crisis of secession and the outbreak of war, many of the future Republicans ultimately opposed secession and refused to provide their support for the Confederate war effort...

Share