James T. Rapier and Reconstruction (review)

Abstract

BOOK REVIEWS363 little special attention to pay to Daniel or any other child." It is difficult to quarrel with such a conclusion, but it is also disappointing to find the author so little inclined to speculate on the possible effects of the situation he describes. With that single observation he drops the subject entirely. But fortunately—though not necessarily for the sake of clarity— Bartlett has insights to offer apart from those of the psychobiographer. He is at his best, perhaps, in discussing the reaction to Webster's famed Seventh of March Speech and his subsequent defense of the Fugitive Slave Law passed as part of the Compromise of 1850. The story has been told before, and Bartlett quotes the familiar stanzas from Whittier's "Ichabod" and the usual lines from Theodore Parker's funeral oration and Emerson's journal to show how thoroughly Webster alienated the conscience of New England with his efforts in behalf of sectional reconciliation. Yet to the traditional picture Bartlett brings—by way of explaining the extraordinary depth of feeling among Webster's detractors—a fresh sense of thedeeply personal qualityof their response to his "betrayal." Had they worshipped him less ardently in the first place, it might have been otherwise, but, as Bartlettobserves, "when the gods fail, the faithful turn upon them with greater scorn and fury than that directed at mortal enemies because they have lost part of their own identity." At such times, of course, Bartlett is talking less about what Webster was than about what he meant to his contemporaries. But that may ultimately be the most revealing—and significant—thing we have to learn from analyzing the phenomenon of his "greatness." Whatever drove him to be and do what he became and did will probably remain elusive, yet somehow in the process, with all his virtues and failings, he managed to grasp the imagination of his contemporaries as few other men did. This in turn tells us a good deal about them, as Bartlett is careful to point out from time to time. Regrettably, however, he does so only in passing and devotes most of his analysis to other—less rewarding— topics. Robert F. Dalzell, Jr. Williams College James T. Rapier and Reconstruction. By Loren Schweninger. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Pp. xx, 248. $22.00.) One aim of this brief biography of James T. Rapier, a black Republican from Alabama, is to illustrate "the inadequacy of conservative stereotypes in recounting the era of reconstruction and the Negro in American history." In this purpose Loren Schweninger succeeds admirably. Rapier came from a remarkable family of former slaves and "free" slaves who were hard working and extraordinarily successful at 364civil war history business enterprise. Schooled in Nashville and Canada, Rapier devoted his energies early on in reconstruction to organizing blacks politically, first in Tennessee and shortly thereafter in his home state of Alabama. He helped establish the Alabama Republican party, served in the state's "Black and Tan" constitutional convention, twice held high positions in the Internal Revenue Service, and represented Alabama in Congress from 1873 to 1875. When he was not running for office (he was defeated once in his bid to be Alabama's Secretary of State and twice in his attempt to return to Congress), Rapier was putting his mind to the problems ofblack poverty and deprivation, helpingto organizeboth the National Negro Labor Union and its Alabama auxiliary, the Alabama Negro Labor Union. His overriding ambition for the freedmen was to help them acquire land and decent educational opportunities, and he even contributed his own funds to projects for the betterment of less fortunate members of his race. (Rapier was a successful and liberal cotton planter.) Neither threats nor bribes could deflect him from his purpose. Yet, Rapier was no fiery radical. As Schweninger observes, he "consistently opposed radical movements—land confiscation, land redistribution, the complete disfranchisement of ex-Confederates . . ." He even opposed integrated schools in practice, but advocated them in principle in order to frighten white conservatives into providing blacks with equal educational opportunities. Only once did Rapier cast moderation aside, and this was after reconstruction, when he urged blacks to abandon hopes for reform in...