Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Where did the term "Radical Republican" come from? I know that Radical Republicans is term for a group of Republicans in the early Republican party in the mid 1800s, but was the term used at the time or later added by historians? Did they take pride in the term or was it derogatory?

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

up vote 8 down vote accepted

The term Radical Republican comes from the Dunning School (Burgess-Dunning School or Progressive School). This was the majority viewpoint from 1900-1950. It was derogatory. A "radical Republican" is motivated by vindictiveness, revenge and party politics, rather than national reconstruction, healing after the Civil War or a genuine motivation to help the freed slaves. Dunning was a historian who lived during Reconstruction and gave that term to the Congressional Republicans of that era.

As this school of histiography is discredited, finding objective information on it is very difficult. According to the Lew Rockwell Blog, Dunning used 5 classifications for Republicans: Presidential, Southern, Conservative, Moderate and Radical. So not all the Republicans were considered "radical" during Reconstruction. Thadeus Stevens was his usual example of a radical Republican.

Dunning identifies five basic theories considered by Congress for readmitting the Southern states into the Union. The first two, the "Southern" and the "Presidential," were quite similar. To simplify, President Lincoln and his successor, President Johnson, felt that secession did not change the Confederate states or their relation to the Union. So they should be readmitted as painlessly as possible by such devices as freeing slaves, nullifying secession and taking an oath of allegiance to the Union. Basically, this was the same plan put forth by Southern states. Many Conservative as well as Moderate Republicans probably could have accepted a version of these two theories.

At the other extreme, the Radical Republicans offered the "state suicide" theory and the "conquered-province" theory. The first, advocated by Charles Sumner, essentially maintained that Southern states had abdicated all rights they had under the Constitution and had therefore become territories subject to the jurisdiction of Congress. Consequently, Congress could dictate the specific conditions, however extreme, for a resumption of the designation of statehood. Sumner said of his theory that "for a while the freedman will take the place of the master, verifying the saying that the last shall be first and the first shall be last."

The "conquered-province" theory, put forth by Thaddeus Stevens, was similar to Sumner’s "state suicide" theory; however Stevens insisted that the Southern states should not even be considered territories. They were "belligerent enemies" of the Union, so placing them under military rule was justified as was subjecting them to "the absolute will of the United States government." Stevens also proposed that plantations be confiscated and divided up among the freedmen.

share|improve this answer

This term was the go-to term for the more deeply committed hard war Republicans by historians for the next 75 years or more. They tended to be the ones committed to winning the war, freeing the slaves, and assuring in Reconstruction that slaves were not essentially re-enslaved again.

They managed two out of three.

It was a 'thing' for a long time to try and draw a large distinction between Lincoln and this group, but I never found that too convincing. It always appeared to me it was a way to malign this first try at Civil Rights without saying it right out.

share|improve this answer
1  
There was a fair amount of distance between Lincoln and the abolitionists in the late 1850's (the time of the Lincoln/Douglas debates). During the course of the Civil War, Lincoln shifted to a more radical abolitionist stance, moving closer to the "Radical Republicans". What you do not answer (and I don't know either), is the OP's questions: "Was the term used at the time or later added by historians?" and "Was it derogatory or did they take pride in it?" –  Mike May 2 at 2:40
1  
The term before the war to try and malign Republicans of any stripe was "Black Republicans" because they supposedly were for race mixing. And I did say that the term was in vogue by later historians. If it were used at the time, historians have expanded its meaning since it refers to nearly the entire leadership aside from (supposedly) Lincoln and Andrew Johnson. –  Oldcat May 2 at 16:48

In the 1860s, the newly coined "Republican" party in the United Stages waged the Civil War 1) to preserve the Union and 2) to free (and empower) the black slaves.

Unlike mainstream Republicans like Abraham Lincoln, the "Radical" Republicans had those priorities reversed; empower the blacks first, come what may to Southern white opinion, and 2) to restore the Union only on punitive terms to the Southern states. Under the so-called Wade-Davis bill (which was never enforced), it would have required 50 percent of voters in the Southern states to allow readmittance into the Union, instead of President Lincoln's 10 percent. Under those circumstances, some states might not have rejoined the Union. Moreover, they were "ahead of their time" in wanting to give full voting privileges and full equality to African Americans, which was finally effected in the United States in the 1960s.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.