Furman University: Thaddeus Stevens Papers On-line

Thaddeus Stevens Essay

    The end of the Civil War in 1865 concluded only the first of what would become several attempts by the federal government to "reconstruct" the South.  Congress, dominated by the moderate Republican party, and the president had differing opinions as to whose version of Reconstruction would be implemented.  One of the leading voices of the small, yet radical wing of the Republican party was Thaddeus Stevens, a Pennsylvania congressman and Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.  A close study of his speeches and letters from the period of January through November of 1865 shows that he believed Reconstruction should "revolutionize Southern habits and institutions" otherwise all the "blood and treasure" spent during the war were in vain.¹
    In selecting documents from Steven's personal and public papers, those which best portrayed the views expressed by Stevens and his colleagues regarding both Reconstruction and local politics were chosen.  For instance, the letter written by J.I. Noah, Attorney General in Pulaski, Tennessee, best exemplifies the struggles of the partially reconstructed South to honestly elect men who conscribed to the ideals of the Republican Party.²  In so doing, Noah demonstrates to Stevens the extent of corruption present in the southern states during this period.
     The second document selected, a speech by Thaddeus Stevens given in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, shows his ardent belief that Southerners who participated in secession were no longer a part of the Union and therefore had no legal claims to previous land holdings.  Stevens further stated that former Confederate lands should be redistributed to freedmen, an idea considered extremely controversial in the South and eventually dismantled by President Andrew Johnson.  Also included in this speech is Stevens' view that all soldiers who took up arms against the Federal Union were to be considered war criminals and should be dealt with accordingly.  This document also reflected Stevens' proposals as to how southern states should be handled throughout the remainder of Reconstruction.³
    The third document, another speech of Stevens made to the citizens of Lancaster on April 10, 1865, illustrates the passion underlying Stevens views on Reconstruction.  He desired that no mercy be shown to former Confederate leaders, and  proposed a vast overhaul of the Southern culture which was responsible for the enslavement of a helpless race.⁴  This address by Stevens provides insight into the general belief of the radical wing of the Republican party, which called for harsh treatment of ex-Confederates in an attempt to better Negroes.
    Two letters written by Thaddeus Stevens to President Andrew Johnson comprise the fourth selection.  These letters express Stevens' belief that Reconstruction should be handled by Congress and not the executive branch.  He states his opposition to Johnson's policies and requests that he stay his hand in the matter until Congress has had an opportunity to interject in policy-making.  In these documents Stevens' reiterates his belief that southern secessionist states were no longer legal entities and must take part in a complete institutional transformation before they could again be accepted into the Union.  These letters by Stevens also briefly allude to the issue of presidential pardons and whether they should be given to ex-Confederates for the purpose of recreating a cohesive Union.  Stevens is clearly against President Johnson granting pardons to members of the Confederate military, in part because it would make it more difficult for Congress to collect war reparations in the future, should they choose to do so. ⁵
    The Thaddeus Stevens papers serve as a microcosm of larger events and themes which occurred during Reconstruction.  It is evident through these letters the major policy differences between presidential and Congressional Reconstruction.  Lincoln's idea that secession was a conspiracy of a minority and that secessionist states never truly left the Union is clearly disputed in Stevens' correspondences.  President Lincoln, and President Johnson to a certain extent, wanted to reconstruct the political system as soon as possible, whereas Stevens and his colleagues wanted a reconstruction of the Union but not unless the South's political and social institutions were drastically altered.  Otherwise, they felt that the war had been fought in vain and the South was having to make no real concessions whatsoever.  Radical Republicans such as Thaddeus Stevens felt that under Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution the Congress was delegated authority to handle Reconstruction because it was a legislative responsibility to provide a republican government for the people.  Many of Stevens' letters, which were not included in this analysis, also provides insight into the concerns and everyday lives of local constituents, and the effects the war had on their social and economic worlds.
 
Conclusion: 

    While all documents bear some significance to the understanding of national and local political ramifications of Reconstruction, a select few provided a great deal of material in a concise manner.  Certain letters and public records were excluded on the basis of legibility, lack of pertinent information, and lack of relation to significant themes of the time, which were emphasized in classroom lectures and discussions.

    The Thaddeus Stevens' papers provide readers with an account unbiased by time, and thus the reader gains a better understanding of Stevens', and his political faction's radical view of Southern Reconstruction.  The papers as a whole served to relay information regarding the beliefs of various social clases and political groups, supplying correspondence from Stevens, members of his party, his constituents, and others.

(benson/HST41/red/stevens1.htm)