"Radical" Political and Economic Policies: The Senate, 1873-1877

"RADICAL" political and ECONOMIC POLICIES: The Senate, 1873-1877 Glenn M. Linden Since the late 1930's historians have shown an increased interest in the reconstruction period. Beginning widi articles by Francis B. Simkins and Howard K. Beale and continuing with the work of C. Vann Woodward, T. Harry WiUiams, and David Donald, there has been much new evidence concerning the nature and achievements of reconstruction .1 Slowly but surely the older traditional view as developed by James F. Rhodes, Charles W. Burgess, and William A. Dunning and popularized by Claude Bowers in The Tragic Era has been modified. In no area of reconstruction is tins revision more evident than in the increased attention being given to Radicals and Radicalism. In 1956, David Donald wrote a provocative essay in Lincoln Reconsidered in which he called for a reexamination of Radical Republicans and a réévaluation of their significance. "The Radical Republicans," he said, "were only one of die many factions tiiat pulled for control of the Lincoln administrations. . . . Perhaps, dien, it is time to discard the Malevolent Radical, along widi the Copperhead Democrat and the Diabolical Southerner, as a stereotyped figure of evil."2 In 1960, Eric McKitrick, in Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction, concluded that the Radical legend was die result of political partisanship and that it "once signified litde more than the extreme position on any given issue, one which men could and did move in and out of widi 1 Francis B. Simkins, "New Viewpoints of Southern Reconstruction," Journal of Southern History, V (February, 1939), 49-61; Howard K. Beale, "On Rewriting Reconstruction History," American Historical Review, XLV ( July, 1940 ), 807827 ; C. Vann Woodward, Reunion and Reaction; the Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction (Boston, 1951); T. Harry Williams, "An Analysis of Some Reconstruction Attitudes," Journal of Southern History, XII (November, 1946), 469-486; David Donald, "The Scalawag in Mississippi Reconstruction," Journal of Southern History, IX (November, 1944), 447-460. 2 David Donald, "The Radicals and Lincoln," Lincoln Reconsidered (New York, 1956), pp. 126-127. 240 surprising ease."3 In 1963, die English historian W. R. Brock, in An American Crisis, attempted to divide Radicals from Moderates on the basis of a key vote in the House of Representatives on the Reconstruction Act of 1867. He found that "If Pennsylvania is left out of die account Radicalism appeared as die political programme of die more recently settled and rural areas; old settled areas, especially those widi a number of developing towns and diversified economic activities , tended to be anti-Radical. Here perhaps is a hitherto unsuspected influence of the frontier upon American history."4 In 1965, David Donald, in The Politics of Reconstruction 1863-1867, attempted to identify Radicals and Moderates by die use of selected roll call votes in die House of Representatives. He found diat a congressman's votes ". . . were determined less by abstract ideas tiian by die degree of strengtìi and security each felt in his home district."5 Thus die degree of Radicalism was proportionate to the strength of the Republican party in a congressman's constituency. Harold Hyman's volume, The Radical Republicans and Reconstruction (1967), covered the years 1861-1870. It was Hyman's contention that Radicals remained true to certain basic principles Uiroughout the entire period, especially protection and support of the Negro and his political condition. He stated that most Americans supported the Radicals in die 1860"s but were unwiUing to support them in the 187Cs. "The altering concerns of tiieir countrymen left the Radical remnant seriously out of phase with newer political currents. Radicals did not lose principles; most white Americans lost interest in tìiose principles."8 While most of the research in the reconstruction period has been on its earlier years, it is becoming increasingly clear that many commonly accepted ideas about reconstruction may not be true for its later years. It is at least debatable whether Radicalism, once established as a program in the lSWs, did not change in die 1870's; whedier die Radicals of earlier days were still committed to die same reconstruction program; and whether Radical strength remained constant in certain areas or if it did not begin to...