******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Best regards, Andrew Stewart - - - Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/ Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <h-rev...@lists.h-net.org> > Date: July 19, 2020 at 7:13:50 AM EDT > To: h-rev...@lists.h-net.org > Cc: H-Net Staff <revh...@mail.h-net.org> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Socialisms]: Bekken on Keith, 'When It Was Grand: > The Radical Republican History of the Civil War' > Reply-To: h-rev...@lists.h-net.org > > LeeAnna Keith. When It Was Grand: The Radical Republican History of > the Civil War. New York Hill and Wang, 2019. 352 pp. $30.00 > (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8090-8031-1. > > Reviewed by Jon Bekken (Albright College) > Published on H-Socialisms (July, 2020) > Commissioned by Gary Roth > > When Republicans Were Radicals > > _When It Was Grand: The Radical Republican History of the Civil War_ > focuses on the emergence of the Republican Party from the 1850s > through the brief triumph of Reconstruction, with particular emphasis > on its Radical faction and their determination to bring an end to > slavery. The Radicals, LeeAnna Keith contends, dominated the > Republican Party in its early years, transforming the American polity > in the process: "The Radicals were culture warriors, committed to a > nearly mystical vision of representative government based on free > labor. Prizing equal opportunity and expansion, they championed > government spending for education and transportation > infrastructure.... These Republicans appealed to populism without > demonizing capital" (p. 4). This is a stirring narrative, with much > emphasis on armed conflict and political intrigue. But some of the > broader facets of this radicalism are eclipsed by the focus on what > was indisputably the major issue of the day. Keith notes the > important role of women's suffrage advocates in the movement and the > insistence of many (by no means all) Radicals on full racial > equality, not simply an end to the institution of slavery. But while > slavery was certainly the central issue, the struggle for its > abolition was part of a larger social ferment that saw the formation > of utopian colonies, the emergence of unions, and movements for > religious and social reform. Indeed, as it was moving from the Whigs > to the Republicans, the _New York Tribune_ published a series of > articles praising Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualism and gave Karl > Marx a regular column that ran for a decade. > > The political system was already in crisis when debates over the > expansion of slavery forced the long-suppressed issue to the fore. > Keith suggest that Stephen Douglas was (inadvertently) "the founding > father of the Republican Party" through his 1854 Kansas-Nebraska > bill, which overturned the Missouri Compromise in an effort to > appease increasingly aggressive southern slaveholders (p. 10). But > the two-party system was already in tatters. Never a stable political > formation, the Whigs had been united primarily by their opposition to > Andrew Jackson and their commitment to building infrastructure to > promote commerce and industry. Democrats and Whigs shared a common > commitment to preserving the status quo on slavery, if only because > the South's electoral strength made it difficult to win national > elections without carrying at least some southern states. But the > status quo was not sustainable. Southern politicians saw westward > expansion as an existential threat to their political dominance and > so demanded the extension of slavery to the new > territories--something that was both economically untenable and an > intolerable affront to the growing numbers appalled by slavery. > Ultimately, this dispute shattered both parties. Western Democrats > like John Wentworth originally condemned abolitionists as fanatics, > but could tolerate neither the expansion of slavery nor their party's > increasingly implacable opposition to internal improvements. > (Wentworth correctly saw Chicago's future as inextricably bound up > with the development of canals and railroads.) In 1848 he opposed the > new Free Soil Party on the grounds that it threatened to deliver > Illinois's electoral votes to the Whigs he still despised (noting in > his _Chicago Democrat_ that Whig presidential nominee Zachary Taylor > was a slave owner). Free Soilers, Know-Nothings, Anti-Nebraska > Democrats (such as Wentworth), and the remnants of the Whigs > ultimately coalesced under the Republican Party banner, united by > little else but their opposition to slavery's expansion. > > Keith discusses the coalescing of these forces and the early battle > (political and military) for Free Kansas as a struggle that drew > abolitionists and homesteaders alike to fight the slave interests for > control of the new territory. Both preachers and abolitionists > embraced the need for force, portraying rifles as religious weapons > in the cause of moral purification. Struggles against the Fugitive > Slave Act were equally militant, and brought the reality of slavery > home to communities that previously experienced it as a distant > tragedy. But slaveholders, too, were enraged by the changing > politics, accustomed to deference from the national government and > seeing the source of their wealth under siege. As the federal > government stepped up to enforce slavery, the Radical (and even many > moderate) Republicans were reinforced in their fervor, forced to > choose between allowing African Americans to be taken into captivity > in their hometowns and resistance. The slave catchers were armed and > often supported by local law enforcement, so perforce their opponents > must take up arms as well. Hundreds of rescues across the northern > states fostered a spirit of resistance to injustice that Keith argues > became part of the "genetic code" of the emerging Republican Party. > When Sherman Booth faced trial for his part in a Milwaukee uprising > that smashed down a courthouse door to free an alleged slave, he > proclaimed that "I would prefer to see every federal officer in > Wisconsin hanged on a gallows" than to abide the Fugitive Slave Law > (p. 36). > > Many government officials sided with resisters, though Keith > sometimes confuses political expedience for conviction. For example, > she suggests that Judge Benjamin Curtis "was silently aligned with > the liberators" when he presided over the trial of seven Bostonians > charged with attempting to liberate a fugitive slave from federal > custody. But the evidence she offers (pp. 39-41) suggests rather the > opposite. Curtis encouraged the grand jury to indict, denounced > "organized disobedience [as] rebellion," and dismissed the charges > only as the defense was about to launch its case. In doing so, Curtis > denied them the opportunity they coveted to use the courtroom as a > platform and avoided the danger of a jury acquittal that would have > further undermined the Fugitive Slave Law. As resistance mounted, > Democrats relied on their control of the federal government, > particularly the Supreme Court, to hold back the tide. Their victory > in the 1856 election and the 1857 Dred Scott decision made it clear > that a radical break was needed. There was no role for moderation > under the circumstances, and so the Radical Republicans' history of > extralegal action proved attractive to many. Even many moderates > supported John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry, rhetorically and > financially. Back in Chicago, Wentworth's newspaper, which just a > couple of years earlier had vehemently denounced abolitionists as > fanatics, devoted several columns to praising Brown's heroism. > Radical Republicans advocated full citizenship rights for African > Americans as well as integrated public facilities, and used their > growing control of northern states to openly support fugitives in > their flight to freedom--even hosting one in the New York State > capitol building. In Ohio, an integrated force of five hundred armed > abolitionists freed John Price from the slavers and the federal > marshal who had captured him. > > So the Radical Republicans were a real force, and their rhetoric and > their agitation played a significant role in hastening the inevitable > conflict. And yet it is not true that they "dominated their party," > even if they may have "transformed the nature of government to > achieve their goals" (p. 6). The need to eventually wage all-out war > and then reconstruct the South certainly led to a stronger federal > government, both absolutely and in relation to the states. Yet the > Radicals were but one of several factions in the party. Leading > Republicans like Abraham Lincoln carefully navigated these currents, > avoiding talk of abolition or equality and trying to rein in those > (like Wentworth) who were less circumspect. Moderate Republicans > opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories, sometimes > hinted at gradual emancipation, and professed to believe that absent > active federal government support slavery would succumb to natural > extinction. But they were politicians first and foremost, wary of > frightening more conservative voters by advocating active resistance > to what even the most timid among them recognized as a monstrous > evil. > > Even so, the attack on Harpers Ferry was undertaken with the > financial support of many eminently respectable men, and its defeat > badly frightened leading Republicans. Though some feared being > implicated, more were concerned that it would drive away moderate > voters. Nonetheless, Radicals like Henry David Thoreau rallied to the > cause, and many Radicals soon found the courage to join in. Here, as > elsewhere, Keith tells a stirring tale, giving a lively rendition of > the plotting and the subsequent scramble to frame the failed > uprising. Plots and intrigue are Keith's forte; _When It Was Grand_ > is less about ideas and social factors than the maneuvers of > politicians and generals, although, as she makes clear, many of the > most radical experiments (such as arming battalions of former slaves > or confiscating plantations) arose more out of the expedience of the > hour than out of a grand vision. Indeed, as she notes in her > conclusion, few Republicans had close relationships with African > Americans or were willing to embrace them as equals. > > Along with LeeAnna Keith's previous book about the end of > Reconstruction (_The Colfax Massacre: The Untold Story of Black > Power, White Terror, and the Death of Reconstruction_, 2008), and her > work in a number of archival collections, the notes to _When It Was > Grand_ indicate a deep familiarity with the literature. It is a book > well worth reading, even if its conclusion simultaneously attributes > too much power to the Radicals and accordingly too much venality to > the party's abandonment of the freed slaves and of Reconstruction: > "Achieving victory, [Radicals] stood astride what they called > conquered provinces, intent on creating a revolutionary new social > order. Their aims were not pure, and even during the Civil War the > Radicals manifested a venality and love of power that coexisted > uneasily with their humanitarian goals" (pp. 290-91). Keith > attributes the abandonment of the crusade for racial justice to > Radical Republicans' becoming conservatives, and certainly some did. > But the Republicans' subsequent alignment with big business and > conservative social values is less shocking if one realizes that it > never was, nor sought to be, a revolutionary party. The Radicals were > always on the political margins, and slavery was for many part of a > broader emancipatory vision. But events--coupled with the Radicals' > determination to confront the slave power when more "prudent" > politicians sought accommodation--forced the party's hand, leading to > an all-too-brief window in which it seemed a more egalitarian nation > might be at hand. Other historians--notably Eric Foner in several > volumes, including _Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution_ > (revised edition 2014), but also a number of local histories such as > Douglas Egerton's _The Wars of Reconstruction_ (2014)--have done a > better job of analyzing that moment and the reasons why the Radical > vision did not prevail. > > Citation: Jon Bekken. Review of Keith, LeeAnna, _When It Was Grand: > The Radical Republican History of the Civil War_. H-Socialisms, H-Net > Reviews. July, 2020. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=54972 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com