Furman University: Thaddeus Stevens Papers On-line

Thaddeus Stevens Interpretive Essay

After all of the dust had finally settled on the battlefields between the North and the South, a new war was just getting started. This discrepancy concerned who would control the reconstruction of the South--the Congress or President Johnson. Magnifying this battle was the drastic difference of the two plans for reconstruction. President Johnson had a very submissive plan for the reconstruction of the South. He thought the defeat on the battlefield and a pledge of loyalty to the Union was sufficient, and there was no need for any further retribution. On the other hand, the Radical Republicans led by Thaddeus Stevens, were the loudest voice in the Congress and they favored a stricter punishment to make an impression on the rebellious Southerners.[1] They also wanted to assure the progression of the freedmen in society. Legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Reconstruction Act of 1867, and the Fourteenth Amendment are reflections of these two ideals. A deeper understanding of the specific logistics of the power struggle can be seen as we viewed Stevens' correspondence and speeches. We specifically looked at the months from 29 March 1866 through 25 September 1866. During this six month time period, there were very few letters to or from Stevens that both were legible and relevant to the reconstruction of the South. Most of the irrelevant letters were personal favors or requests. We also selected letters over speeches because we concluded that the letters would contain less biases and a truer picture of Stevens' viewpoints. Therefore we chose two letters written by Stevens that were appropriate and two letters written to Stevens that were unique in content and authorship. The letters chosen reflect some of the highlight issues that arose during this battle over reconstruction: race relations, universal suffrage, Constitutional issues, editorial responses to reconstruction, and political upheaval.

In this letter Stevens is replying to John Gyger's question, "What effect will the success of the President's views have on national securities?".[2] His response helps us clearly to lay out the viewpoints from both sides of the battle. President Johnson believed he, by Constitution, had the power to orchestrate the reconstruction of the South. Furthermore, he contested that the Southern States had never really left the Union and they should be represented in Congress. As a result, he believed that the work done by Congress at that time was null and void because the Congress was not legitimate.[3] Stevens contests that argument. He believes that the power to control reconstruction is vested upon the Congress. He stated that if the Congress was legitimate enough to appropriate funds for the War without the Southern States, which supposedly never left the Union, then it is certainly legitimate enough to control reconstruction.[4] This layout of the viewpoints of both sides of the argument highlights two issues in the battle for the power of controlling reconstruction: the difference in the Constitutional interpretations of President Johnson and those of Congress, as well as the deep rooted dissension between President Johnson and the Radical Republicans. Also, Stevens states if these views from the President are supported, it will be "injurious" to the country's security.[5] He obviously views this as an abuse of the Executive power and an obstruction of the Congresses right to check the Executive power. This obstruction of the checks and balances system and the Constitution is to Stevens' an attack on basic Republicanism, and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution--the basis in which Stevens uses to later lead the charge for Johnson's impeachment.

We selected this letter from William Strather to Thaddeus Stevens for its unique merit and character. Strather, a white Southerner from Georgia, appears to support Stevens' ideals for reconstruction of the South. He claimed that the policies of President Johnson would simply breed more hostility and would lead to further warfare. In addition, his letter gives us a clear picture of the state of the South. The freedmen worked hard, but were still controlled by the plantation owners. But, the most conflicts actually occurred between the Irish immigrants and the freedmen. He also addressed the issue of black suffrage. To Strather, the popular Southern idea of allowing freedmen to vote as their former masters wished was ludicrous. At the same time, while most were totally against universal suffrage, most also would like to have the black votes on their side of tally sheet--a lingering white supremacy ideal.[6]

While we thought it was interesting to see a first hand account of the state of the South at that point as well as the views on universal suffrage, we also found some other very unique characteristics about this letter. For one, we thought it was worth noting the fact that a white southerner from Georgia was supporting the radical plan for reconstruction. This supports the theory that the South was very divided from the very beginning in its attempt to break away from the Union.[7] Going one step further, though, and assuming that Strather is an avid Union supporter as well as a Stevens supporter, we found it interesting that he laced his letter with underlying paternalistic tones. He refers to the freedmen as the "poor negroe." He also wrote as if he were the spokesmen for the freedmen and has the overtone that he is "graciously" looking out for these people who work hard, but are just "incapable socially."[8] We found these characteristics to possibly be a truer picture of the South than Strather wanted to tell--whites accepting emancipation by force but trying to undermine the freedmen.

In these two letters from Estwick Evans to Thaddeus Stevens, Evans, the editor of the Philadelphia Tribune, tried to get Stevens to help him fund an expansion of his weekly paper to a daily paper. In the first letter, Evans tries to point out all the benefits that Stevens would gain by funding such an expansion. Evans wrote that his power would be a great way for Stevens to express his "principles & views." He also stated his discontent with the President, implying the fact that the Tribune would be a great place to battle the President.[9] In the second letter, Evans goes right to the issue at hand and asks Stevens directly for the loan to upgrade his paper.[10]

These two letters are significant to the reconstruction period for several reasons. One issue is Evans is trying to get the media involved in the real day-to-day issues of politics, rather than just factual news. He tried to point how beneficial it would be for Stevens to have his opinions, especially those concerning reconstruction and President Johnson, in print daily.[11] A second illustration, is the issue of patronage from a politician to an influential news source. Evans, in pointing out his deep discontent with Johnson whom he believes "dreams of Dictatorship, & the Army, and Grant," pledges support to Stevens.[12] In return for this support Evans expects Stevens to help finance his expansion (which would benefit Stevens with daily print). In short he wants money in exchange for political news backing. This "deal" illustrates the likely possibility for biases in the newspapers. It also provides a breeding ground for the bribery and corruption that so overwhelms the politics in the five years following the Civil War.

In this letter Thaddeus Stevens writes to William D. Kelley in deep concern about a recent National Union Convention.[13] This Convention is organized by Johnson and his supporters, mostly Democrats. At the Convention, delegates from Massachusetts and South Carolina paraded along with Frederick Douglass and other abolitionists to celebrate national reconciliation and social equality.[14] This "parade" promoting social equality worried Stevens and he expresses this concern to Kelley.[15]

Stevens is uneasy about the effect this "parade" might have on the upcoming Congressional elections. He fears that it could cause an emotional uprising which would rekindle old prejudices of the Republican party. A wave of reminder of these old prejudices could obviously be detrimental in the elections by swinging many votes away from the Republican party. "Thaddeus Stevens did not believe that elevating the Negro meant degrading or 'emasculating' the white man. He sensed, however, that talk of 'social equality was dangerous in politics."[17] He did not want "social equality" to be a central issue in the fall campaigns. Stevens knew to continue to override Johnson's vetoes, as he had in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it was essential to keep enough votes to retain a Republican controlled Congress.

The era following the Civil War, while calm on the military battlefield, was chaotic on the political battlefield. There was a tug of war struggle going on between President Johnson and the Radical Republicans in Congress over who would control the reconstruction of the South. Thaddeus Stevens, being the leader of the Radical Republicans in Congress, played a major role in the power struggle. To get a better idea of the intricacies of Stevens' viewpoints we looked at his correspondence during a six month period in 1866. Upon deciding on several unique, relevant letters we touched on many major issues of this political battle. These letters presented the different interpretations of the Constitution between the Congress and the President, a unique letter from a Southern supporter of Stevens, an editor trying to sway Stevens as a patron, and a letter showing Stevens' fear of "social equality" becoming a major political issue. These issues show us a variety of aspects of the struggle of reconstruction and allow us to add a few more pieces to the puzzle, creating a clearer picture of this period in American history.

[1] William L. Barney, The Passage of the Republic(Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1987), p.238.

[2] Letter from Thaddeus Stevens to John Gyger, 21 September 1866.

[3] George Brown Tindle and David E. Shi, America, A Narrative History(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996), 4th ed., Vol. I, pp.765-6.

[4] Letter from Thaddeus Stevens to John Gyger, 21 September 1866.

[5] Letter from Thaddeus Stevens to John Gyger, 21 September 1866.

[6] Letter from William Strather to Thaddeus Stevens, 28 April 1866.

[7] William L. Barney, The Passage of the Republic(Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1987), pp.209-10.

[8] Letter from William Strather to Thaddeus Stevens, 28 April 1866.

[9] Letter from Estwick Evans to Thaddeus Stevens, 24 August 1866.

[10] Letter from Estwick Evans to Thaddeus Stevens, 26 August 1866.

[11] Letter from Estwick Evans to Thaddeus Stevens, 24 August 1866.

[12] Letter from Estwick Evans to Thaddeus Stevens, 24 August 1866.

[13] Letter from Thaddeus Stevens to William D. Kelley, 6 September 1866.

[14] George Brown Tindle and David E. Shi, America, A Narrative History(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996), 4th ed., Vol. I, p.768.

[15] Letter from Thaddeus Stevens to William D. Kelley, 6 September 1866.

[16] Letter from Thaddeus Stevens to William D. Kelley, 6 September 1866.

[17] Fawn M. Brodie, Thaddeus Stevens, Scourge of the South(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1959), p.287.

(benson/HST41/green/stevens5.htm)