-
7 Scalawags, the Lost Cause, and the Sunrise Attack Controversy
- University of Georgia Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
7. Scalawags, theLost Cause, and the SunriseAttack Controversy Thero to villain began innocently enough with the NewOrleans Times, one of the city's leading Democratic newspapers. The passage of the Military Reconstruction bills by Congress on March 2, 1867, prompted its editor, W. H. C. King, to publish a list of prominent former Confederates residing in New Orleans. He appealed to these men to submit their views on Reconstruction to the public, to offer guidance and leadership in the present crisis as they had during the war. Longstreet wasamong the first to respond. In a letter published on March 18, he counseled patient submission to the new, harsher legislation. Looking forward to a full restoration of constitutional government , under which the South's traditional leaders could represent the section once more, Longstreet argued, "let us accept the terms as we are in duty bound to do, and if there is a lack of good faith, let it be upon others."1 Many of Longstreet's comrades in the late rebellion held similar views on Reconstruction. His former staff officer Raphael Moses wrote an anonymous letter to the Richmond Enquirer expressing sentiments quite close to those of his chief. Robert E. Lee refused to make any political statements for publication. But since 1865 he had been advising friends through his correspondence to submit peacefully to all Northern legislation and to seek redress by reentering politics as soon as possible, even if in so doing they seemed to yield to the conqueror too quickly.2 104 HE TRANSFORMATION OF Longstreet's image from Scalawags and the Lost Cause 105 In fact, a mood of pragmatism, patience, and calm prevailed among the South's leaders at the time. General Beauregard wrote to the New Orleans Times expressing views quite close to Longstreet's. Alabama 's Governor Robert M. Patton, Wade Hampton of South Carolina , ex-Governors Henry A. Wise of Virginia and Joseph Brown of Georgia, and many newspaper editors throughout the South issued statements similar to that of Longstreet.3 The North viewed this moderation on the part of former Confederates as a good sign. When Longstreet wrote a second letter to the New Orleans press, arguing that cooperation would reduce the unavoidable Reconstruction period to the minimum possible length, the New York Times reprinted it in full.4 Unlike most of his contemporaries , however, Longstreet carried the theory of cooperation a step further. In the spring of 1867 he visited his Uncle Augustus at Oxford , Mississippi,showing his former guardian a letter he intended to release to the New Orleans press. In it Longstreet stated that as the principles of the Democratic party stood in the way of reunion, the South should cooperate freely with the Republicans. "The war was made upon Republican issues,"Longstreet wrote, "and it seems to me fair and just that the settlement should be made accordingly."Judge Longstreet needed but a glance at this letter to predict grimly, "It will ruin you, son, if you publish it." He could not dissuade his nephew, however, and the letter appeared in the June 8, 1867, issue of theNew Orleans Times.5 Longstreet's letter touched off a debate which raged from Texas to Massachusetts. As one might expect, Republicanslauded his views, while Democrats condemned them. When Southern Republicansbegan to speak of Longstreet as one of their own, the ire of their Democratic opponents increased accordingly. To understand the severitywith whichmost Southerners reacted to Longstreet, one must remember that most blamed the recent devastating war directly upon the "Black Republicans." For Longstreet to advocate cooperation with the Federal occupation troops wasacceptable , as the valor shown by Union soldiers during the war had been acknowledged and the soldiers were only doing their duty. But the slightest hint that Southerners themselves might join the abolition party was another matter entirely. The Republican party was seen as nothing less than a threat to Southern civilization. As one historian [54.173.221.132] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 01:17 GMT) io6 Longstreet's Place in Southern History has noted, "In every ex-Confederate state a new Republican party— biracial in makeup, nationally rather than sectionally oriented—constituted a presence as unsettling to traditional southern life as the Union army or the Freedmen's bureau."6 Longstreet's friend and business partner William Miller Owen had warned him as early as May that any appearance of cooperation with the Republicans would be misconstrued by the public as selfserving . Longstreet dismissed the possibility. "I...