Journal Review: "The Radicals' Abandonment of the Negro During Reconstruction" by Patrick W. Riddleberger
I recall many months ago eagerly researching the Stalwart faction of the Republican Party during the Gilded Age, and desperately seeking more information about its members. I came across this journal on JSTOR, which stated that the faction's members included Radical Republicans Benjamin Wade, Oliver P. Morton, and Zachariah Chandler. First off, it should be noted that the journal is describing the setting of the 1872 presidential election, where the Republican Party split into the "regulars" and the insurgent "Liberals." During 1872, the term "Stalwart" as a reference to the pro-Grant faction became during the mid-1870s. Although the leading Grant loyalists became the core of the Stalwart faction later during the Hayes presidency, the evidence suggests that they were not yet known by that term during 1872.
The argument of Riddleberger in the journal suggests that the Grant loyalists and the Liberal Republicans were alike, and argues that both abandoned Southern blacks into the hands of Jim Crow Democrats, though in "different ways." (p. 89) He argues that Wade and Chandler were mere opportunists; while the notion of Zach Chandler's civil rights advocacy being grounded in opportunism has been concurred in a biography by Mary K. George, Hans L. Trefousse's biography of "Bluff Ben" Wade makes it clear that the Ohio Radical Republican obviously was not. As a Whig Party member, Wade aligned with the "Conscience Whigs" in opposition to the party's "moderate" faction which caved into supporting Democratic racist laws in the Ohio legislature. I'll continue on Wade a bit later.
Morton's political career was marked by flip-flopping. According to Eric Foner's book about Reconstruction, he aligned at one point with the "Conservative Republicans" (I'll write about this topic soon in a separate post) and seized upon regressive sentiments in Indiana to reduce the power of Radical Republicans. (Foner, p. 222–23) However, Morton later became a Grant loyalist, and joined the Stalwart faction subsequently. As for Riddleberger's argument in the journal that Morton accepted the Compromise of 1877, the notion appears to have an overly dubious nature, as the Stalwarts were united in opposition towards the "New Departure" policy of President Hayes and its conciliatory leniency towards Southern Democrats. Chandler most certainly was not supportive of Hayes's abandonment of Reconstruction, thus deeming Riddleberger's assertion largely a ludicrous one. Even into his final days before succumbing to untimely death, Chandler outspokenly advocated racial equality while many within party ranks long abandoned hope of Reconstruction pursuits.
As for Wade, the leading argument in insinuating him as an "opportunist" relies primarily on pointing to his personal prejudices and usage of the n-word in a few instances of private correspondence. In the journal, Riddleberger uses this as the main basis for the argument. (pp. 89–90) However, as noted in the Trefousse bio, Wade understood his prejudices were wrong, and they did not interfere with his lifelong advocacy of civil rights. Riddleberger also relies on mere presumptions and not verified facts, providing no substantiation in his claim that Wade's antagonism towards Hayes's betrayals were motivated for business reasons as opposed to concerns over Democratic Party racism. Riddleberger appears to have missed the following published letter by Wade (Trefousse, pp. 318–19):
I do remember it, after what has since transpired, with indignation and a bitterness of soul that I never felt before. You know with what untiring zeal I labored for the emancipation of the slaves of the South and to procure justice for them before and during the time I was in Congress, and I supposed Governor Hayes was in full accord with me on this subject. But I had been deceived, betrayed, and even humiliated by the course he has taken . . . I feel that to have emancipated these people and then to leave them unprotected would be a crime as infamous as to have reduced them to slavery once they are free.
Now, in p. 90 of the journal, Riddleberger at the very least states that the pro-Grant Republicans maintained a civil rights advocacy longer than the Liberal Republicans did. However, the entire journal contains the problem of attempting to portray the two factions as having equal ground by portraying the Grant allies as worse than they were while glorifying the Liberals. In pp. 91–92, Riddleberger argues that the Liberals were "genuinely shocked" by the perceived corruption of the Grant Administration, and portrays their cause as rooted in authenticity. The overriding theme is that Riddleberger assumes the Liberal Republican movement was grounded in honest intentions, in contrast to his presumption of the pro-Grant "regular Republicans" being supposed opportunists.
I shall rate the journal two out of five stars. Some factual substance is addressed, although the overt skew, bias, and double standards present in Riddleberger's writings are neither worthy of praise nor deserving of much trust.
For further information:
Comments
Post a Comment