Republican Party Civil War

9 Key excerpts on "Republican Party Civil War"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Movements and Parties

  Critical Connections in American Political Development

  • Sidney Tarrow(Author)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  Put simply, in the words of Matt Karp, “The largest and strongest slave society in the modern world history also produced the largest and strongest antislavery political movement in modern world history” (Karp 2019: 132). 5 I am grateful to Lis Clemens for suggesting this locution, which synthesizes the message of this chapter better than I could have done myself. 30 The “Party Period” Many scholars have seen the Civil War as the result of a conflict between elites, and indeed, as we will see, the failed Missouri Compromise left Congress divided and the party system in a shambles. Others have seen it as an episode in capitalist development, “the subordination of merchant-to-industrial capital in the US economy” (Post 2011; Karp 2019: 135) or as a species of bourgeois revolution (Moore 1966). But as Karp writes, “The triumph of the Republicans cannot be reduced to the victory of industrial capitalism, either in material or in ideological terms. On the eve of the Civil War, over 70 percent of Northerners lived in rural areas and made a living from agriculture: this distinctive society of small farmers, which formed the bedrock of the Republican Party, certainly sought economic development but hardly organized itself around the accumulation of capital” (Karp, ibid.). But although the Civil War had both elite institutional and underlying structural roots, it was the result of political struggle that had two interlaced strands – the antislavery movement and the Republican Party. As Karp argues in his seminal essay: The fusion of antislavery sentiment and mass democratic politics in the 1850s has often been regarded as a diminution of the more radical abolitionist movement that preceded it. But in crucial ways the emergence of the Republican Party as a major political force only deepened the radical potential of the antislavery struggle as a whole (Karp, ibid.).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Embracing Dissent

  Political Violence and Party Development in the United States

  • Jeffrey S. Selinger(Author)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • University of Pennsylvania Press

    (Publisher)

  As one leading scholar of American political development observes, “In no other presidential contest in American history were the contrasts with respect to central state power more starkly drawn between the two major parties.” 27 Electoral strategy changed in response to the deteriorating conditions in the South. The Republican party in the late 1870s and the 1880s gradually turned away from its role as the champion of political equality and civil rights and focused instead on expanding its constituency into the West. Re-publican party leaders built a new “ white-white North-West coalition.” 28 This shift in priorities did not occur overnight: as Valelly shows, Republican efforts to build a southern constituency persisted into the 1880s. 29 Despite continued efforts to maintain political ground in the South, Republicans’ willingness to commit political capital to the expansion of industrial capi-talism came to outweigh its dedication to political equality. 30 The Republican party’s hopes in the South, however, were not determined by the failure of Reconstruction: the failure of Reconstruction was itself a po-litical choice—and the choice to fail in this endeavor (and to commit re-sources elsewhere) was made possible by the structural changes wrought by the war. The Republican program of subsidizing western development by un-derwriting internal improvements and clearing Native Americans from the territories not only required an unchallenged stream of tariff revenue; 31 it was also a program that was only plausible in the absence of a credible seces-sionist threat. Renewed sectional violence would have prompted a realloca-tion of resources toward suppression and tilted the balance of power within the Republican party back in favor of the Radical Republicans and away from conservative Republicans’ policy aims.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Black Resettlement and the American Civil War

  • Sebastian N. Page(Author)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  The Republicans were united on just one point, that slavery not be allowed in the territories, a restriction that most commentators assumed would choke the institution. 4 Since all could see 1 Richard H. Sewell, Ballots for Freedom: Antislavery Politics in the United States, 1837–1860 (New York, 1976), 99, 185–7. 2 Eugene H. Berwanger, The Frontier against Slavery: Western Anti-Negro Prejudice and the Slavery Extension Controversy (Urbana, 1967), 125. 3 James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New York, 1988), 117–30. 4 Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War (New York, 1970), 115–16. 100 Black Resettlement and the American Civil War that the black population of the United States would keep growing, one question in particular perplexed the architects of the new party: “if we are to have no more slave states what the devil are we to do with the surplus niggers?” 5 By definition opposed to diffusion, which would have spread African Americans throughout the West, would the not-yet Grand Old Party adopt colonization instead? Certainly, for a decade from the mid-1850s, the Republican Party strived for the geographic separation of black from white Americans as the obvious solution to a conundrum that it had set itself by imagining a United States without slavery (or the controls under which that institution placed almost nine-tenths of African Americans). Such separation might assume various forms, many of which are treated in Chapter 6. Well into the Civil War, however, most Republican advocates of resettlement sup- ported a policy that they recognized as colonization, even if an improved hybrid on its Liberian rootstock. The “political colonizationists,” as the ACS dubbed them, pressed their case within the party from 1858, and saw it adopt the policy in 1862, once the Republicans were in office and fighting a war that looked ever likelier to end slavery.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Union Divided

  Party Conflict in the Civil War North

  • Mark E. Neely Jr., Mark E. NEELY(Authors)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • Harvard University Press

    (Publisher)

  First, the Civil War, unlike the two World Wars, was by no means a war of resources rather than of men. Al-though President Lincoln studiously and regularly praised the sacriªces made by the soldiers ªghting for the Union cause, he never seemed to feel that the producers behind them needed a similar boost. Economic production was not as important to the North’s victory in the Civil War as it was to the Allies’ victory in the World Wars, and to the extent that it was a factor, it came about less by government plan-ning and coercion than by the operation of free-market forces. 5 Second, the reform plank of the Republican plat-form—its opposition to the spread of slavery—deªned the party’s identity more centrally than did any particular re-form identiªed with the Democrats in 1916 or 1940. On the surface, the doctrines of political economy other-wise associated with the Republican party made it the right party in the right place for ªghting a great war in 1861. Imag-ine the Democrats in the same place, with their reputation for agrarian values and for Jeffersonian reluctance to inter-pret the Constitution boldly. It is easier to see the Republi-cans harnessing the economic and manpower energies neces-sary for a massive modern war effort. But in fact, this image of Republicans is deceptive. Their voting strength before the war was rural rather than urban, and what told on the hus-142 “ P A R O X Y S M S O F R A G E A N D F E A R ” tings was as much their political and moral message as their smokestack issues. 6 Nevertheless, as Eric Foner has proved in a book of classic stature, there was a broad range of opinion within the pre-war Republican party.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Encyclopedia of U.S. Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior

  • Kenneth F. Warren(Author)
  • 2008(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications, Inc

    (Publisher)

  The Repub-lican Party officially began in the early 1850s and was committed to the abolishment of slavery and free west-ward expansion. The first Republicans a were combina-tion of members from the Whig, Democrat, and Free Soil Parties. They collaborated on ideas based on their anger over the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which gave new territories the choice of accepting slavery. The history of the Republican Party as a party of reform meant that the structure of the local organizations—mostly at the state level—would have a somewhat different structure and greater power than their Democratic counterparts. The party first became nationally known when one of its members, John C. Fremont, was nominated for President. The Republican platform was publicized with Fremont’s slogan “free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, and Fremont.” The attempt to win the presi-dency was genuine, but with the Republican Party still a third party, it was unlikely one of its candidates would win. It was not until four years later that a Republican made it into the White House. The first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln. Success at the presi-dential level opened a completely new set of doors for the Republican Party; it finally had its chance to fulfill its original platform. Lincoln took the first step for the party’s platform by signing the Emancipation Procla-mation; later the party was able to pass the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, all supporting African-American rights. Some say that it was Lincoln’s leadership during the Civil War and his time in office that led the Republicans into a “period of dominance” that lasted over 50 years. State party organizations for the GOP took on the critical task of developing a voting base from disen-chanted Whigs and Northern Democrats, asserting an electoral role for the party organizations at a very early stage. The state organizations still exert a great deal of leverage over national party decision-mak-ing.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Encyclopedia of Politics

  The Left and the Right

  • Rodney P. Carlisle(Author)
  • 2005(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications, Inc

    (Publisher)

  William Henry Harrison won the 1840 election, only to die two days after his inaugura-tion. Although most Whigs believed that Vice Presi-dent John Tyler would continue to promote their policies, as president, Tyler reverted to his Democratic roots and promoted liberal policies instead. Abraham Lincoln deserted the Whigs for the new Republican Party. Historians believe that the Republican Party had its beginnings in Ripon, Wisconsin, on March 20, 1854, when a group of dissatisfied Democrats, Whigs, Free Soilers, and other individuals met to assert their oppo-sition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. As an effort to avert civil war, Congress was considering the repeal of the Missouri Compromise Act of 1820 and the Compro-mise of 1850. These acts had been designed to prohibit the expansion of slavery into the Northwestern Terri-tory. The growing tensions over slavery resulted in a major split in the Democratic Party in 1860, with the southern Democrats backing John Breckenridge and the northern Democrats supporting Stephen Douglas. Lin-coln won the election with less than 40 percent of the popular vote. Lincoln was never a strong partisan, and he was fond of saying that his policy was to have no policy. Lincoln believed in both individualism and equal op-portunity and was committed to preserving the Union at all costs. As the Civil War dragged on, Lincoln be-came convinced that the abolition of slavery was essen-tial to winning the war and issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all slaves in the seceded states. However, Lincoln did not believe that the abolition of slavery would bring about racial equality. He accepted separation of the races as a way to avoid further internal conflict. After the Civil War ended, Lincoln met the radical Republicans in Congress head-on over the issue of Re-construction. The Republicans wanted to hold the southern states accountable for their disloyalty, thereby ensuring that Republicans remained in power.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Republican Party of Texas

  A Political History

  • Wayne Thorburn(Author)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • University of Texas Press

    (Publisher)

  ONE NINETEENTH-CENTURY REPUBLICANISM

  On a typically hot summer day in Houston, well before air conditioning, a few hundred men gathered at the Harris County courthouse. It was July 4, 1867, the disastrous war had only recently ended, and they assembled not solely to give thanks for the peace or to look farther back and celebrate the founding of the American republic, but more specifically to create a political entity that would reflect their many hopes and dreams for their nation and their state. On that momentous day these men from various parts of the relatively young state would organize the Republican Party of Texas and affiliate their new political organization with the national party dedicated to promoting free soil, free labor, and free men.

  The Republican Party was formed at Ripon, Wisconsin, in 1854, and it was not until some thirteen years later that the party would come into existence in Texas. This is not surprising, in that this new party was firmly against slavery and in favor of preserving the Union. Although there were a number of political leaders opposed to secession, not the least of whom was Governor Sam Houston, none were willing to associate with what was perceived as a small, new, northern party prior to the end of the Civil War.1 With secession and the coming of war, those who had been opposed to leaving the Union took differing paths. Some allowed their loyalty to the state to lead them to join the Confederate forces, while others fought on the Union side. Many left the state, while those who stayed either remained quiet or were viewed as traitors to the southern cause. When the Confederacy fell and the Union was preserved, these Unionists were to temporarily play important roles in the reconstruction of civil government in Texas and in the creation of the Republican Party of Texas.

  The process of rejoining the Union and reestablishing state government took many turns and twists throughout the ten years from 1865 to 1875. As the war ended in 1865, federal officials appointed A. J. “Jack” Hamilton as governor of the provisional government of Texas. By early 1866 delegates were elected to a constitutional convention formed as a condition of reunification with the Union. Hamilton asked the convention to deny the right of the state to secede, repudiate the debt and statutes of the Confederate state government, and grant basic civil rights to the newly freed former slaves. The convention adopted a document promising basic rights of person and property to freedmen but denied to them the right to vote, hold office, or attend public schools. What became apparent during the convention was that the forces formerly allied as Unionists were now divided between those willing to accept the need for change and those wishing to restore the preexisting order.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Legislating Racism

  The Billion Dollar Congress and the Birth of Jim Crow

  • Thomas Adams Upchurch(Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • The University Press of Kentucky

    (Publisher)

  Some of the Republican migrants, such as Carl Schurz, at times seemed friendlier to the Democrats than to their own party because of hurt feelings and wounded pride engendered by years of infighting with the GOP leadership. And some even bolted and became Democrats, such as former Union general and leading Radical Republican during Reconstruction, Benjamin Butler of Massachusetts. 16 The organic nature of these nebulous factions makes it difficult to prescribe clear definitions to them. But for simplicity's sake, two groups of Republicans maybe identified. Those who favored helping black southerners in some way can be called the reformers. Those who did not favor special legislation to help black southerners (because they did not wish to reopen the sectional wounds of Reconstruction, or because they sought political power for economic benefits and maintained power by graft for themselves, their constituents, or both) might best be called money men. These rival and often conflicting factions made the challenge of racial/political reform difficult, because at least half of the GOP leadership was beholden to the machine and was thus just as concerned with economic issues as with solv-ing the southern race problem. Abraham Lincoln once remarked that the Republican Party stood for both humanitarianism and economic growth, but when the two conflicted with one another, Republican leaders would always choose the welfare of the poor and downtrodden over financial gain for themselves and the nation's business interests. But would the party of Lincoln remain true to Honest Abe's creed in 1890? Whether the party of Lincoln or even Lincoln himself had ever been true to the creed is in fact questionable.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Realignment, Region, and Race

  Presidential Leadership and Social Identity

  • George R. Goethals(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Emerald Publishing Limited

    (Publisher)

  CHAPTER 5

  THE REPUBLICAN RETREAT FROM FOUNDING PRINCIPLES: 1877–1920

  In the two decades after Grant, the Republican Party became for the most part the party of unfettered capitalism and big business. When the country was doing well economically, the GOP generally prevailed. At the same time, the Democrats were evolving once again toward being the party of the common man, or at least that of the common white man. The party included both wealthy Southerners and so-called Bourbon Democrats in the North who had strong commercial ties to Southern cotton and other industries. But it was also the party of white immigrants and white working men. It continued to struggle with the stigma of being the party that provoked the bloodshed of the Civil War. But it did well, in both presidential and congressional elections, when the economy performed poorly.

  Rutherford B. Hayes was an honest but passive president who tried to hold back the most extreme manifestations of anti-black white supremacy within the Democratic Party. A former Union general, he vetoed several bills which would have sharply curtailed black voting rights guaranteed by the 15th Amendment (Hoogenboom, 1995). But his party continued on the path of only tepid support for equality and what Lincoln had called “a just, and a lasting peace.” Hayes, like Grant, hoped for reconciliation between North and South, but without sacrificing the interests of African-Americans. He was ineffectual in achieving those goals. However, in hindsight, it does not seem that those two ends could ever have been combined in the nineteenth century. Over time, the interests of regional reconciliation and business pushed the justice imagined in the 14th and 15th Amendments to the side.

  5.1. A GENERATION OF POLITICAL PARTY PARITY

  The next four presidential (1880–1892) elections were extremely close, and the two following that (1896 and 1900) were only a little more decisive. During the same period, the two houses of Congress were generally split, with Democrats controlling the House and Republicans holding a majority in the Senate. One exception to that divide resulted from the 1878 midterm election in Hayes’ presidency, when continued economic decline and reaction against the Compromise of 1877 gave Democrats a rare Senate majority to go along with their control of the House.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book