The Journal of Negro History, Volume 2, 1917

by Various

Some Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes

While on a visit to Cleveland, Ohio, some time ago, the guest of my good friend George A. Myers, my attention was called to Rhodes' History of the United States. This was due, no doubt, to the fact that Mr. Myers had been in correspondence with Mr. Rhodes relative to certain points in the career of the late M. A. Hanna, brought out by Mr. Rhodes, which, in the opinion of Mr. Myers, were not accurate. In glancing over one of the volumes, I came across the chapters giving information about what took place in the State of Mississippi during the period of Reconstruction. I detected so many statements and representations which to my own knowledge were absolutely groundless that I decided to read carefully the entire work. I regret to say that, so far as the Reconstruction period is concerned, it is not only inaccurate and unreliable but it is the most biased, partisan and prejudiced historical work I have ever read. In his preface to volume six, the author was frank enough to use the following language: "Nineteen years' almost exclusive devotion to the study of one period of American history has had the tendency to narrow my field of vision." Without doing the slightest violence to the truth, he could have appropriately added these words: "And since the sources of my information touching the Reconstruction period were partial, partisan and prejudiced, my field of vision has not only been narrowed, but my mind has been poisoned, my judgment has been warped, my decisions and deductions have been biased and my opinions have been so influenced that my alleged facts have not only been exaggerated, but my comments, arguments, inferences and deductions based upon them, can have very little if any value for historical purposes."

Many of his alleged facts were so magnified and others so minimized as to make them harmonize with what the author thought the facts should be rather than what they actually were. In the first place, the very name of his work is a misnomer: "History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the Final Restoration of Home Rule at the South in 1877." I have emphasized the words "to the final restoration of home rule at the South in 1877" because those are the words that constitute the misnomer. If home rule were finally restored to the South in 1877, the natural and necessary inference to be drawn is that prior to that time those States were subjected to some other kind of rule, presumably that of foreigners and strangers, an inference which is wholly at variance with the truth. Another inference to be drawn is that those States had enjoyed home rule until the same was revolutionized or set aside by the Reconstruction Acts of Congress and that it was finally restored in 1877. If this is the inference which the writer meant to have the reader make, it is conclusive evidence of the fact that he was unpardonably and inexcusably ignorant of the subject matter about which he wrote. As that term is usually and generally understood, there never was a time when those States did not have home rule, unless we except the brief period when they were under military control, and even then the military commanders utilized home material in making appointments to office. Since the officers, however, were not elected by the people, it may be plausibly claimed that they did not have home rule. But the State governments that were organized and brought into existence under the Reconstruction Acts of Congress were the first and only governments that were genuinely republican in form. The form of government which existed in ante-bellum days was that of an aristocracy. That which has existed since what Mr. Rhodes is pleased to term the restoration of home rule is simply that of a local despotic oligarchy. The former was not, and the present is not, based upon the will and choice of the masses; but the former was by far the better of the two, for whatever may be truthfully said in condemnation and in derogation of the southern aristocracy of ante-bellum days, it can not be denied that they represented the wealth, the intelligence, the decency and the respectability of their respective States. While the State governments that were dominated by the aristocrats were not based upon the will of the people, as a whole, yet from an administrative point of view they were not necessarily bad. Such can not be said of those who are now the representatives of what Mr. Rhodes is pleased to term home rule.

On page 171 of his seventh volume, Mr. Rhodes says: "Some Southern men at first acted with the Republican party, but they gradually slipped away from it as the color line was drawn and reckless and corrupt financial legislation inaugurated." That thousands of white men in the South, who identified themselves with the Republican party between 1868 and 1876, subsequently left it, will not be denied, but the reasons for their action are not those given by Mr. Rhodes. In fact, there is no truth in the allegation about the drawing of the color line and very little in the one about corrupt or questionable financial legislation. The true reason why so many white men at the South left the Republican party may be stated under three heads: first, the Democratic victories of 1874 which were accepted by southern Democrats as a national repudiation of the congressional plan of Reconstruction; second, the closeness of the Presidential election of 1876 together with the supposed bargain entered into between the Hayes managers and southern Democratic members of Congress, by which the South was to be turned over to the Democrats of that section in consideration of which the said southern Democrats gave their consent to the peaceable inauguration of Hayes; third, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States by which the doctrine of States' Rights was given new life and strength.

It is true there are some men whose party affiliations are based upon principle and convictions regardless of consequences personal to themselves. Occasionally there are found some who are even willing to be martyrs, but they are exceptions to the general rule. The average man is politically ambitious. He desires political distinction and official recognition. In determining his party affiliations, therefore, he is more than apt to cast his lot with the party through which he believes that ambition may be gratified. After the consummation of the events above referred to, the conviction became settled in the minds of white men at the South that the Democratic party in that section would be, for a generation, at least, the only channel through which it would be possible for any one to have his political ambition realized. Hence, thousands of those who had previously joined the Republican party returned to the Democratic since that party presented the only hope of their future political salvation.

Mr. Rhodes would lead one to infer that the southern white men who came into the Republican party in the South between 1868 and 1876 were not among the most intelligent, cultivated, refined and representative men of that section. As a rule, they were men who belonged to, and were identified with, what was known as the "Southern aristocracy." Such men, for instance, as Ex-Governors Orr of South Carolina, Parsons of Alabama, Reynolds of Texas, and Brown of Georgia. Also such men as Mosby, Wickham, and subsequently Mahone, Massey, Paul, Fulkerson and Riddleberger, of Virginia. General R. E. Lee was known to have leanings in the same direction, but since he was not politically ambitious, his views were not made a matter of public discussion. In addition to Ex-Governor Brown of Georgia, they included such men as General Longstreet, Joshua Hill, Bullock and many others of like caliber. Even Ben Hill was suspected by some and accused by others of leaning in the same direction. In Louisiana, not less than 25 per cent. of the best and most substantial white men of that State became identified with the Republican party under the leadership of such men as Ex-Governor Hahn and the Honorable Mr. Hunt (who was appointed Secretary of the Navy by President Garfield), Wells, Anderson and many others. General Beauregard was known, or at any rate believed, to be in sympathy with these men and the cause they represented, although he took no active part in politics. But it was in my own State of Mississippi, where I had an intimate knowledge of, and acquaintance with, the solid and substantial white men who identified themselves with the Republican party and whose leadership the newly enfranchised blacks faithfully followed. They included such men as James L. Alcorn, who was elected Governor of the State by the Republicans in 1869 and to the United States Senate by the legislature that was elected at the same time. Alcorn was one of the aristocrats of the past. He served with Mr. Lamar in the secession convention of 1861 and was a general in the Confederate Army.

Mr. Rhodes failed to inform his readers of the fact that the Democratic candidate for Governor against Alcorn, Judge Louis Dent, belonged to that much abused class called "carpet baggers," but who, like thousands of others of that class, both Democrats and Republicans, was a man of honor and integrity. The same was true of Tarbell, Powers, Pierce, McKee, Jeffords, Speed and others of the same type in both parties. In addition to Alcorn, there was Col. R. W. Flournoy, who also served with Mr. Lamar as a member of the secession convention and who was the Republican candidate for Congress against Mr. Lamar in 1872, also Judge Jason Niles, who served as a member of the State legislature, Judge of the Circuit Court and member of Congress. His able and brilliant son, Judge Henry Clay Niles, is now the United States District Judge for that State, having been appointed by President Harrison. He has the reputation of being one of the best and finest Judges on the Federal Bench. The State never had before and has not had since, a finer judiciary than it had under the administrations of Alcorn, Powers and Ames, the three Republican Governors. In referring to the three justices of the State Supreme Court, Mr. Rhodes made the statement that eligible material in the Republican party was so scarce that, in order to get three competent judges the Governor was obliged to select a Democrat. This is not true. Chief Justice E. G. Peyton and Associate Justice H. F. Simrall were both southern Republicans. Justice Tarbell, though a so-called "carpet bagger," was also a Republican and an able judge, who enjoyed the confidence and respect of the bench and bar. When he retired from the bench he was made Second Comptroller of the United States Treasury.

In addition to these able and brilliant men, I feel justified in naming a few others, such as R. W. Millsaps, in whose honor one of the educational institutions at Jackson was named; W. M. Compton; T. W. Hunt; J. B. Deason; W. H. Vasser; Luke Lea, who was at one time United States District Attorney; his son, A. M. Lea, who subsequently held the same office; J. L. Morphis, who was one of the first Republicans elected to Congress; Judge Hiram Cassidy, who was the recognized leader of the bar in the southern part of the State; his able and brilliant son, Hiram Cassidy, Jr.; and his law partner, Hon. J. F. Sessions. Among the circuit and chancery court judges there were such jurists as Messrs. Chandler, Davis, Hancock, Walton, Smyley, Henderson, Hill, Osgood, Walker, Millsaps, McMillan, and Drane. Moreover, there were thousands of others, such as J. N. Carpenter and James Surget, men of character, wealth and intelligence, who had no ambition for official recognition or political distinction, but who were actuated by what they honestly believed to be conducive to the best interests of their country, their State and their section. In fact, the southern white men that came into the Republican party were typical representatives of the best blood and the finest manhood of the South, than whom no better men ever lived. And yet to read what Mr. Rhodes has written, one would naturally assume that the opposite of this was true, that the Republican party in that section was under the domination of northern "carpet baggers," a few worthless southern whites and a number of dishonest and incompetent colored men. This, no doubt, is the false, deceptive and misleading picture which had been painted from the vividness of his partial, mistaken, prejudiced and diseased imagination.

That many mistakes were made during the progress of Reconstruction cannot and will not be denied. No friend and supporter of the congressional plan of Reconstruction will maintain that every thing was perfect. On the contrary, it is frankly admitted that quite a number of grave blunders were made; but they were not confined to any one party. Neither Republicans nor Democrats can justly lay claim to all that was good or truthfully charge the other with all that was bad. Of those who were selected as representatives of the two parties, the Democrats had, in point of experience and intelligence, a slight advantage over the Republicans; but in point of honesty and integrity the impartial historian will record the fact that the advantage was with the Republicans. How could either escape error? The Civil War had just come to a close; sectional animosity was bitter and intense. The Republican party was looked upon as the party of the North and, therefore, the bitter enemy of the South. The southern white men who joined the Republican party were accused of being traitors to their section and false to their own race and blood; they were called Scalawags. Through a process of intimidation, chiefly by means of social ostracism, independent thought and action on the part of southern whites, during the early period of Reconstruction, were pretty effectually prevented. Through such methods, they were quite successfully held under the subjection and control of those whose leadership they had been accustomed to follow.

Under such circumstances, the reader may ask the question, why was it and how was it that so many of the best white men of that section joined the Republican party? The answer is that, prior to the election of General Grant to the presidency in 1868, very few of them did so. It was never a question of men. It was always a question of party. Under such circumstances, thousands of white men were obliged to vote for certain Democratic candidates who were otherwise objectionable as against certain Republicans who were otherwise acceptable. In like manner, thousands of colored men were obliged to vote for certain Republican candidates who were otherwise objectionable as against certain Democrats who were otherwise acceptable. The wonder, therefore, is, not that so many, but that so few mistakes were made; not that so many, but that so few objectionable persons were elected to important and responsible positions.