Summary: Controversial radical, but an important figure both in political and legislative history, and in the history of emancipation and reconstruction.
Many important people are less well-known than they should be. Thaddeus Stevens is one of them. I think the way that many people to do know who he is and have heard of him is because Tommy Lee Jones played him in the movie Lincoln.
Hans Trefousse’s 2005 biography was the first real reevaluation of Stevens in a couple of generations. (Bruce Levine has a new biography published in 2021 that I have not read.) I picked this up on sale at Audible, which may not have been the best format.
One of the problems with the biography of Stevens is that he is a lawyer and legislator. He was known for being effective with parliamentary rules and procedures. And rules and procedures are not scintillating reading. But they are essential to the work of legislating.
Thaddeus Stevens is best known for leading the House during the Civil War and being the leader of what is commonly known as the Radical Republicans during the Reconstruction Era. He strongly favored public education, emancipation before the Civil War, and civil and voting rights after the Civil War. Radical Republicans were both organized to oppose Johnson and to push for stronger federal actions to protect Black citizens across the country and to punish former Confederate officials more strongly.
Stevens believed former Confederates were not US citizens (and therefore not subject to the bill of rights and other protections) but fell under international rules of war as a conquered territory and should be handled with military law, not civil law. This means that he did not think that the legislature should seat anyone from those territories until there were new votes by the legislature to adopt them as states. (Incidentally, Johnson was a senator from Tennessee that remained with the Union and continued to be seated in the Senate after Tennessee joined the Confederacy until Lincoln appointed him as military governor in 1862 before he was elected Vice president. So under Stevens’ understanding, Johnson should have been removed from the Senate when Tennesse withdrew from the Union.) The implication of Stevens’ understanding of citizenship means that the legislature would have been a smaller body with only Northern legislators, which would have changed the requirements for approving legislation, passing the constitutional amendments, vetoes, and impeachment.
Stevens was for strong federal power not just after the Civil War but as the head of the Ways and Means Committee. He advocated for increased federal taxation and script currency and more centralized federal control. The Civil War fundamentally changed the balance of state and federal power, which is partly because of Stevens.
But as strong as Stevens was as a legislative leader, he was far more radical than many others he served with. While he moved people in the general egalitarian direction, Reconstruction’s failure was partly because many others were not as radical in opposition to an understanding of white racial superiority as Stevens was. Stevens believed in a strong view of reparations and, tied with that, believed that because the former Confederate territory were not US citizens, the US federal government and military had the right to confiscate property. There were various plans, but at least one of his plans included confiscating the land of all former Confederate citizens who owned at least $20,000 of property. That property would then be redistributed to the formerly enslaved (using a type of homestead system that Andrew Johnson used in writing the Homestead Act, which was limited to White Americans). The remaining property would be sold to pay down federal debt from the Civil War. This did not pass, no reparations were ever paid to the formerly enslaved, and the property was largely returned to former Confederates.
Stevens was against the death penalty for former Confederate officials, but he was for punishment. But because he died in 1868 and was quite sick the last couple of years of his life, he could not see his plans for Reconstruction carried out. Those plans were unpopular, and even if he had been younger and in better health, it would have been difficult to move the country toward his egalitarian understanding of drawing Black Americans into the country as full and equal citizens.
Stevens was controversial in many ways. He rose to political prominence as an Anti-Masonic crusader. Stevens was born with a club foot, and one of the requirements of Masonic admission was rejecting anyone with a disability. Whether this was part of why Stevens was so strongly anti-Masonic was part of the discussion in the book. But in his anti-Masonic crusade, he briefly partnered with the xenophobic Know Nothing party in violation of his broader support for immigrant rights. Stevens was strongly in favor of high tariffs as a way to both fund the federal government and as a way to protect US business interests.
Stevens was also a strong supporter of US expansionism and supported Native American suppression and the expansion of US territory, including the purchase of Alaska and the attempts to purchase or conquer Caribbean land.
Stevens also was pragmatic, not convictional constitutionalist. He had no problem violating constitutional limits when it served his interests. And the focus on impeaching Johnson throughout the end of his life was questionable, even as Johnson was violating the Congressional will.
There is no question that Lincoln and Stevens had different approaches. Stevens pushed emancipation far earlier and much more racially than Lincoln did. But Lincoln likely would not have been able to write the Emancipation Proclamation without it being more moderate than Steven’s plans. Stevens was cantankerous and that did not win him friends. Part of the problem with this book and any biography of Stevens is that there were so many stories about him from his opponents. Many of these stories do not seem to be based on fact but on trying to smear his reputation. The Lincoln movie shows him having a sexual relationship with his Black housekeeper. And that is a possibility, but as with many biographical details, it is very difficult to prove one way or another. Stevens never married, and he left his housekeeper a significant inheritance. But he was quite rich, and left a lot of money to many people because he did not have any biological heirs.
The book was a bit dry, and spent a lot of time exploring the historicity of various stories about Stevens. And so much of what is important about Stevens is in legislative history and speeches, which are not particularly interesting reading. I am glad to know more about Stevens, but it is hard to recommend this as an exciting book.
Thaddeus Stevens: Nineteenth-Century Egalitarian by Hans Trefousse Purchase Links: Paperback, Kindle Edition, Audible.com Audiobook