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

12 “he was always Preaching the Union” The wartime origins of white republicanism during reconstruction MichaelW. Fitzgerald historians have long been perplexed by the native white republicans of the reconstruction era, or “scalawags,” as the contemporary slur described them. at the turn of the twentieth century, the Dunning school demonized them as apostates. Postwar loyalists were “an unpleasant and violent part of the population,” as walter lynwood fleming wrote.1 since the 1950s, the revisionist rehabilitation of reconstruction has improved their reputation, but the centrality of race in this literature leaves their intent somewhat indistinct. by all accounts, the mass of white republicans were not enticed by the prospect of social equality. wartime Unionism instead inspired them, but understanding republicans’ motivation is difficult, in part because scalawag scholarship has been characterized by excess attention to low-hanging fruit.2 historians gravitate too readily toward the stories of the most articulate scalawags . Prominent leaders have full individual studies, and collective biographies compare republican leaders and officeholders to their Democratic opponents. The modern literature tends to emphasize their normality, their rootedness in antebellum political life. but politicians respond to individual motives of patronage and self-interest, so scholars should also seek the voices of more typical white reconstruction supporters. fortunately the records of the southern Claims Commission allow less-prominent republicans to enter the historical record because agents transcribed or paraphrased the statements of witnesses with limited literacy. This source has its biases: claimants sought federal recompense for damage by Union troops on the basis of demonstrable loyalty and residence in a war-torn locale.3 one cannot rely too confidently on these data as a sample, but there are too few sources containing life histories of scalawags to disregard this evidence. officials evaluated their claims, providing independent verification, and historians have used these statements to hear unlettered rural voices in other contexts. Dylan Penningroth, for example, explored the informal property holding of former slaves.4 more recently, margaret storey used these materials to illuminate the Unionist subculture.5 but with the exception of storey’s work, scholars have been slow to pan the postwar reconstruction stories from this river of wartime evidence. republican voters spoke volubly about where their dissident politics fit in with wartime origins of white republicanism / 221 the trajectory of their lives. The focus here will be on alabama, a state where a large Unionist presence generated substantial evidence—thirty-six reels of microfilm in the accepted claims alone.6 many additional claimants likely supported reconstruction , voted “Union” as the common phrase went, but that terminology is ambiguous chronologically and otherwise.7 here we consider only individuals characterized by terms like “republican,” “pro-reconstruction,” “Grant voter,” or “Ku Klux Klan victim.” being identified so explicitly suggests pronounced republican beliefs. for example, henry stutts, according to one Democrat, would “rather vote for a nigger than one of my sort now.”8 voters of such conviction describe a wartime experience quite distinct from that of the more familiar reconstruction spokesmen. an examination of the higher reaches of the republican leadership suggests why. a number of studies have concluded that across the south, prominent scalawags tended to be men of political experience, education, and substantial wealth. James alex baggett’s study concluded that in social background, they resembled their Democratic counterparts except for their politics.9 future republicans were outspoken anti-Confederates, though the specifics differed depending on context. on the whole, they were consistent, and there is no call to minimize their bravery or commitment. but they also had the means and connections to cushion the consequences those less well situated might expect. all Unionists shared the weight of unfavorable public opinion; all perceived themselves as operating under coercion or direct threat; and many were arrested by the Confederate authorities. These experiences fused future republicans together across class lines. but the specifics of Confederate repression differed drastically, given the socially stratified character of the slaveholder republic. To be direct, prosperous dissidents mostly avoided the more searing forms of wartime trauma. Charles hays provides an archetype of the experience of elite dissent, as a rich black belt planter who later became a republican congressman. in 1860, hays entered political life as a public supporter of stephen Douglas for president, an urgent anti-secession position that many future republicans shared. when the war came, he refused to volunteer until the draft forced his hand. in his postwar pardon application, he explained that he had asked friends to find him a staff position...

Share