Southern Mountain Republicans 1865-1900

Politics and the Appalachian Community

Gordon B. McKinney

• Publisher: The University of North Carolina Press
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780807897249, 9780807813003
• eBook ISBN: 9781469644134
• Topic: Storia
• Subtopic: Storia nordamericana

The mountaineer stereotype--violent people who preserve a traditional lifestyle and vote Republican--has been perpetuated through the years. McKinney found that the impact of the Civil War and the absence of blacks, rather than economic and geographical factors, were responsible for the persistence of Republican voting patterns. Also, mountain Republicanism was the conscious creation of politicians in a five-state region to shape their party to conform to local political conditions.

Originally published 1978.

A UNC Press Enduring Edition -- UNC Press Enduring Editions use the latest in digital technology to make available again books from our distinguished backlist that were previously out of print. These editions are published unaltered from the original, and are presented in affordable paperback formats, bringing readers both historical and cultural value.

CHAPTER 1

MOUNTAIN REPUBLICANISM: THE CONTEXT

One of the most persistent stereotypes in American history has been that of the independent, ignorant, violent, and poor southern mountaineer. This image, created by novelists, scholars, and politicians in the late nineteenth century, has persisted in such diverse parts of American society as federal poverty programs and the comic pages of daily newspapers. Despite the efforts of a number of writers who have demonstrated the mythological nature of this picture of the mountain population, the people of Appalachia are still regarded as different from all other Americans.¹ At the same time, a second school of interpretation has suggested that the mountain people can best be understood as “victims” of predatory outside capitalists, who destroyed the mountain economy and culture.² Popular acceptance of these mental constructs has discouraged rigorous investigation into the history of the mountain region.

Instead, most observers have been content to point out the qualities and experiences that helped to create the stereotype. The seemingly unusual political history of the mountain people offers an opportunity to test the validity of this image.³ Unlike most southern whites in the years between 1861 and 1865, the mountain men resisted secession and often fought against the Confederacy. After 1865, many mountain voters joined the Republican party and remained the only large group of white southerners in the party until the 1950s.⁴ A number of interpretations have been offered to explain this phenomenon, but they have all shared the common idea that there was something unique about the mountain people. These unusual character traits or patterns of loyalty were generally regarded as unchanging. Thus mountain republicanism became almost an inherited physical abnormality, similar to possessing six fingers.

This type of explanation of the creation and persistence of mountain republicanism denies the complexity of historical developments in Appalachia. Equally significant is the fact that the two major interpretations of Appalachian history are contradictory. First, there is the conflict between the representation of the mountain people as living in a static and isolated society and the claim that the Applachian people can best be understood as being crushed by the dynamic changes brought by industrialization. Clearly, one cannot have revolution and an unchanging society at the same time. Another set of images maintains that the mountain people were passive actors on the stage of history, who were plundered by outsiders; at the same time, they were the independent and courageous people who overcame southern nationalism and racism to maintain their own identity. Again, this paradox cannot be resolved within the bounds of the traditional mountaineer stereotype. Thus, it is necessary first to present a narrative of the events surrounding the appearance and growth of mountain republicanism. Only after that process has provided information for analysis can explanations of mountaineer political behavior be attempted.

Ironically, one of the significant features of politics in the Gilded Age was the prominent role played by self-constituted geographical communities that tried to create an appealing image for themselves. In fact, the organization of local groups is one of the most consistent themes in United States history.⁵ Even in the midst of national crises, such as war and economic collapse, Americans have sought to preserve local traditions. This tendency has been encouraged by the religious diversity, racial and ethnic heterogeneity, and the geographical dispersion of the American people. Each small segment of society has sought to protect its autonomy. These efforts to retain local hegemony have been reflected in many American institutions and practices. The innumerable independent Protestant congregations, the splintered public school system, and the ubiquitous social and service clubs attest to the power of local interests in the United States. In politics this situation has been institutionalized in the division of power among national, state, county, municipal, and township governments. Few other nations in the world have such a complex federal system.⁶

Another important attribute of these communities was that they often appeared in response to outside pressure. In many cases, people would not recognize common characteristics until they became involved in resisting a challenge to their normal routine. An excellent example of this process, and one that had an impact on southern mountain politics, was the debate over slavery. Forced by racial prejudice and economic self-interest to defend a common labor and social system, the inhabitants of the slave states discovered a common heritage. By 1861 many southerners were willing to leave the Union and to fight against the national government in order to defend what appeared to be local rights. Thus, the creation of local groups not only was a matter of geographical proximity, but also indicated a recognition that a community of interests existed.

The Civil War and Reconstruction provided a number of instances of centralized power that encouraged local political organizations to be more conscious of local interests during the Gilded Age that followed. The fighting required a greater concentration of military, economic, and political power than Americans had ever experienced before. The creation and provisioning of two great armies required that many citizens accept government direction in their lives for the first time. Some recognized the opportunities and seized economic and political advantages that depended upon a strong national government for sustenance. A relatively well-disciplined group of Republicans was able to continue the program of central direction through part of Reconstruction, but by 1869 local groups were reasserting themselves.⁷

Most Americans were not favorably impressed by their brief experience with a strong federal government. The war had brought economic problems and death to every town in the country, and Reconstruction brought government-imposed changes in the daily lives of a large number of citizens. When the war ended, the suffering continued for many. Widows, disabled veterans, and the financially ruined were constant reminders of the price paid in defending national causes. Probably more important was the growing realization that despite the sacrifices, the effort had been in vain. This was most apparent in the South, where the slaves were freed and military units helped to determine who would govern. Northern communities discovered, however, that they could not escape the demands of the more powerful national government, either. Blacks had to be allowed to vote in the North as well as the South; unwilling consumers in every state paid high prices caused by tariffs and were forced to underwrite corrupt financial arrangements with the nation’s railroads. Many Americans turned to local leaders to defend them against these changes in their life.

The events of the Civil War and Reconstruction helped to forge a particularly strong bond among southern white voters. Political coalitions made up of members of all antebellum political parties joined together to resist programs imposed by the federal government and to prevent blacks from gaining political power. Mountain whites were attracted by this appeal to their regional pride. On the other hand, many of them were repelled by the glorification of the Confederacy that also became a part of the Democratic party’s campaign rhetoric. Despite this qualification, the South was once again defining itself as a single region and calling on the whites of the area to indicate their support of this idea by voting for Democratic candidates.

Political parties in the United States had to adapt to these same historical developments. All politicians had to reconcile disparate demands made upon them by local, state, and national organizations. Since the parties had to deal with conflicting community demands, they made no attempt to make their policies ideologically consistent. In fact, Gilded Age party platforms were notorious for saying nothing specific. Henry Adams captured the essence of the successful politician in this era when he wrote, “Ratcliffe was a great statesman. The smoothness of his manipulation was marvelous. No other man in politics … could—his admirers said—have brought together so many hostile interests and made so fantastic a combination…. The beauty of his work consisted in the skill with which he evaded questions of principle.”⁸ Adams was voicing his criticism of contemporary politics, but many Americans felt that Ratcliffe and similar real-life politicians were a necessity. These men were required to give their primary loyalty to local concerns, no matter how much these activities might conflict with the national party platform. The guiding principle during the years between 1872 and 1892 was not an ideology but the defense of the community.

Another result of the federal government system in the United States was the decentralized party structure that evolved. Since each party had to appeal to voters on three levels, each segment of the organization had to be allowed great flexibility in its own sphere. The state parties have always maintained their independence from the national organization. Any attempt by the national leadership of the party to dictate to state leaders has always been fiercely resented and has often led to open revolt. There was no way for the national chairman or committee effectively to discipline recalcitrant underlings. The state party had its own independent constituency, and as long as it pleased these voters national leaders could not challenge the dissenters. Robert D. Marcus has delineated this process in great detail in his study of the Republican party in the Gilded Age. He showed the lack of continuity in national leadership between presidential nominating conventions, and the great importance of local considerations in the decisions made at these gatherings.⁹

The place of local groups in the party structure was also secure, as indicated by studies of politics in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Party affiliation was strongly influenced by such demographic variables as the ethnic and religious backgrounds of the voters.¹⁰ These self-defined units could not be coerced into conforming to partisan dictates; instead, the political organizations sought to make concessions to them. When a community did become identified with a party, it supported that political group loyally, particularly in the Gilded Age when most eligible voters cast ballots and did not split their tickets.¹¹ Local leaders, therefore, had a firm base with which to work as long as they retained community approval. State leaders who tried to replace the local men found that they risked alienating a group of voters needed by the party. The result was that the local leader protected the community, in part to preserve his own independence.

However, other powerful forces, the new ideas and groups created by the industrial revolution in the United States, threatened the autonomy of the community in the Gilded Age. Antebellum inventions, such as the railroad and the telegraph, invaded almost every part of the country. News and products from distant cities competed with local happenings and goods for public attention. Conversely, the natural resources and products of each locality had a greatly expanded market, and it seemed as if fortunes were there for the taking. Thus, every town eagerly sought to be connected to these new national transportation and communication systems.

What followed was not the expected riches, but the disintegration of the geographically based community. Local businessmen and farmers suddenly found themselves part of a national, and in some cases an international, economy. Profits were determined by forces beyond the control and understanding of the local merchant. Even during good times farmers and rural businessmen found that railroads were not necessarily their allies, since corporations and urban communities paid lower rates and enjoyed other significant competitive advantages. Frequently, local business concerns were absorbed or replaced by units of large industrial empires whose decisions on such crucial matters as plant location and employment levels were not influenced by the needs of the local population. The relationship between workers and factory owners was more likely to be strictly economic instead of personal. A feeling of alienation and impotence swept through whole towns and destroyed their cohesion.¹²

The search for order amid the chaos of the industrial revolution quickly spread to all parts of American society.¹³ Corporations needed standardized procedures that would allow them to produce, transport, and merchandise their goods throughout the country. Uniform gauges for railroads and common accounting practices were different aspects of the same movement. The new industrialized society needed people trained to run the new system, and national standards were soon applied to these professional workers. Doctors, lawyers, educators, engineers, and, increasingly, government officials were required to earn college degrees and pass specialized examinations to be certified. To insure that only a small group of qualified persons entered the professions, each specialty organized a governing body to protect its self-proclaimed standards. The result was, for example, that the village doctor owed his primary allegiance to the American Medical Association and the practice of medicine rather than to the values of the community.

Unlike the battle between national and local levels of political parties where rural groups retained power, the local groups could not defeat these new nationalizing forces. In fact, new communities—based no longer upon geography but on occupation and economic interest—were being formed. The older leaders found that the local community itself was disintegrating. The needs and desires of their constituents now transcended local jurisdictions and required policies and decisions that could be made only at the national level. Not unexpectedly, American politics reflected these changes.¹⁴ The new professionals and businessmen demanded that the parties recognize their concerns. They attacked the political machines dedicated to community interests, and beginning in the 1890s the nationally oriented middle class began to challenge for control of the nation’s politics. The old bosses fought back fiercely, but many were eventually overwhelmed. The political organizations created to act as community spokesmen could not survive the destruction of the local interest groups that had supported them.

One of the most widely perceived geographical communities during the Gilded Age was that formed by the inhabitants of the mountain regions of the upper South. Significantly, this grouping together of the mountain population was a new development. Before the Civil War, there was no recognition that the mountain people represented a distinct segment of the American people. Antebellum journalist Frederick Law Olmsted interviewed a mountain farm owner and related his impressions in a chapter entitled “Tennessee Squire.”¹⁵ Olmsted pictured the man as ignorant and lazy—characteristics that would contribute to the later stereotype—but referred to him as a southerner rather than a mountaineer. In politics much the same situation prevailed. None of the political leaders or voters in one mountain region claimed any special relationship with those in other states.

The events of the secession crisis and the Civil War served as the starting point of the mountaineer community identity. As early as 1869, novelists began to create a national image of the mountain people as unusual and cut off from the main developments in American life.¹⁶ Virtually all mountain people rejected this description of themselves and defiantly maintained that they were simply Americans. This reaction against the literary image did not prevent Republicans in the mountains from attempting to create a community feeling based on the events of secession and the Civil War. While few denied the significance of these experiences, many mountain men refused to agree that they had made the highland population into a distinct group. Most of these dissenters preferred to view themselves as southerners and to support the Democratic party.

The Republican party during Reconstruction, in fact, did not seem to offer a satisfactory alternative to the Democrats for many mountaineers. The party was associated with federal laws that freed the slaves and gave blacks the right to vote—programs that were intensely unpopular among mountain whites and kept many of them from joining the party. When the Republicans passed legislation in 1875 that extended civil rights to blacks, the highlanders deserted the party in large numbers. Only the fact that the Republicans were regarded as the defenders of the Union allowed them to retain a following among those mountain men who had opposed the Confederacy. The only question that remained to be answered was which party represented the lesser evil.

The end of Reconstruction settled the issue for many mountain voters. As long as the Republicans did not use the power of the federal government to attempt to secure greater rights for blacks, the mountain men ignored the issue. At the same time, Republicans made a concerted effort to emphasize local issues and to sponsor candidates representative of the highland population. When lowland Democrats continued to slight the demands of the mountain people of their states, increasing numbers of mountaineers found the Republican party attractive. Forming their political organization into a structure reminiscent of the Union army, Republican leaders recalled Civil War memories to counter Democratic appeals to mountain voters to remain southerners on racial matters. Soon Republican leaders began to act as regional advocates, defending the mountaineers against the slanders of outsiders and trying to attract outside investors to the region.

Although the Republicans gained strength in the mountain counties, there were serious limitations to their advances. Just as most other community political organizations in the Gilded Age, the mountain Republican leadership formed ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Tables
• Preface
• 1: Mountain Republicanism: The Context
• 2: The Civil War and the Origins of Mountain Republicanism
• 3: Reconstruction in the Mountains
• 4: The Mountain Republican Party-Army
• 5: Emergence of the Party-Army
• 6: The Party-Army in Control
• 7: Racial Policy, Industrialization, and Violence
• 8: Destruction of the Bosses and New Republican Leadership
• 9: Reaction, Defeat, and Disfranchisement
• Appendix
• Notes
• Selected Bibliography
• Index