THE PROBLEM OF RECONSTRUCTION: THE POLITICAL REGIME OF THE ANTEBELLUM SLAVE SOUTH by FORREST ANDREW NABORS A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Political Science and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2011 DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Forrest Andrew Nabors Title: The Problem of Reconstruction: The Political Regime of The Antebellum Slave South This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Political Science by: Gerald Berk Chairman Deborah Baumgold Member Joseph Lowndes Member James Mohr Outside Member and Richard Linton Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies/Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded June 2011 ii © 2011 Forrest Andrew Nabors iii DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Forrest Andrew Nabors Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science June 2011 Title: The Problem of Reconstruction: The Political Regime of the Antebellum Slave South Approved: _______________________________________________ Dr. Gerald Berk This project studies the general political character of the antebellum slave South from the perspective of Republicans who served in the Reconstruction Congress from 1863-1869. In most Reconstruction literature, the question of black American freedom and citizenship was the central issue of Reconstruction, but not to the Republicans. The question of black American freedom and citizenship was the most salient issue to them, but they set that issue within a larger problem: the political regime of the antebellum slave South had deviated from the plan of the American Founders long before secession in 1860-1861. The American Founders had attempted to establish natural rights republicanism in the nation. The slave South section of the nation had transformed into an oligarchic political regime. The higher aim of the Republicans was regime change and the re-union of the nation on the restored principles of natural rights republicanism. To show this, I first recover the Republicans’ common analysis of the slave South, drawing from the writings and speeches of Reconstruction Republican Congressmen. I present their overlapping points of analysis and organize their analyses by the traditional theory of political regimes. I divide their analyses into the form of the iv oligarchic regime, the cause (slavery), and how the oligarchy historically developed since the founding period. Secondly, I study the slave South in three institutional dimensions. According to the Republicans, the oligarchy depended upon specific institutional arrangements in education, property, and the organization of state government. Critically drawing upon a broad array of secondary scholarship, I test their claims by examining how education, property, and government supported oligarchic rule in the slave South. My analysis concurs with the Republicans. My conclusion advances a two- regime theory of American Political Development. Reconstruction was a continuing act in a long 19th century inter-regime struggle between republicanism and a revolutionary oligarchy rising from the slaveholding South. v CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Forrest Andrew Nabors GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene University of Chicago Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, California DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Philosophy, Political Science, 2011, University of Oregon Master of Science, Political Science, 2008, University of Oregon Bachelor of Arts, General Studies in the Humanities, 1993, University of Chicago AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: American Government Political Philosophy PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Visiting Assistant Professor in Political Theory, Department of Political Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 2009-2010 Instructor, Department of Political Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 2008-2011 Instructor, Department of Political Science, Linfield College, McMinnville, Oregon, 2009 Instructor, Social Science Division, Lane Community College, Eugene, Oregon, 2009 Graduate Teaching Fellow, Department of Political Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 2004-2008 vi Vice President, Sales and Marketing, Learning.com, Portland, Oregon, 1999-2004 Director of Product Management, Chrome Systems Corporation, Portland, Oregon, 1997-1999 Vice President, Marketing, Western Reliance Corporation, Portland, Oregon, 1995-1997 GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: Lehrman American Studies Summer Institute Fellowship, in conjunction with the James Madison Program at Princeton University, 2011. vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For years my friends and family endured my never-ending reformulations of a plan to escape a comfortable business career, return to academia, earn a doctorate and become a professor. I am very grateful for their encouragement, patience and support, especially from my children Will, Emma and Harrison, my brother Scott H. Nabors, my mother Nancy Gail Smith, my father and stepmother Mr. and Mrs. William H. Nabors, my uncle and aunt Dr. and Mrs. Ward T. Smith, my dear friends Bryan and Karen Dawson, the Adler family, Ross and Rosalie MacDonald, Professor Harry Veryser, Dawn F. Graves, Debasis Bhattacharya, Professor Sean Parson, and Professor Patricia Dewey. My undergraduate professors, James H. Nichols, Jr. of Claremont McKenna College, William B. Allen, formerly of Harvey Mudd College, and Herman Sinaiko of the University of Chicago, went out of their way to support my dream to return to academia after a long lapse of time. My friends at Learning.com at first did not understand, but accepted my plan to exit the company for the Ivory Tower. They aided me in many ways to ease my transition to life in graduate school. Distinguished Hillsdale College Professors Robert Eden and Paul Rahe encouraged the direction of my research, when it seemed I could only convince my friends, family and myself of the worthiness of my project. Their thoughtful comments and honest criticism of my work are very appreciated. The political science faculty at the University of Oregon made me feel welcome here, even though my philosophical and political persuasions often depart from theirs. Professors Gerald Berk, Joseph Lowndes and Julie Novkov carefully considered and viii challenged my work, and invited frequent, friendly repartee. I am grateful for their advice, recommendations, comments, referrals and good humor. I was quite fortunate that a highly regarded history professor agreed to join my dissertation committee. Professor James Mohr helped orient my political science dissertation to the literature in his discipline, which improved my studies a great deal. My meeting with Professor Deborah Baumgold in the spring of 2004 convinced me to seriously consider attending the University of Oregon. In my years here she has supported me in every direction and in every way, professional and personal. Among my graduate school colleagues, we always knew that we could depend on her. The spiritual counsel, patriotic inspiration, and the occasional, loving kick from Pastor Michael Jaskilka, 1st Lt., USMC (Ret.), propelled me through graduate studies. He reminded me that we serve purposes greater than ourselves, and to keep going. When I was a headstrong, twelve year-old football player in Fair Haven, New Jersey, Will Morrisey gradually introduced me to great books and great teachers. In time, thanks to Will, I could stand on my own two feet in the gallery of the masters, and he and I can meet there now, as friends. To him I owe the rarest debt of gratitude. Although I have not spent as much time as I wished with Professor Harry V. Jaffa, he has been the North Star of my thoughts about philosophy and America. His achievements are more than an academic treasure but a national treasure, in my view, and my respect for him has grown with time. A long time ago his influence sealed my resolution to pursue an academic life and more recently, to research and write this dissertation. ix For Professor Harry V. Jaffa, Mr. Alec Saunders, Mr. Martin Adler, and my grandmother, Mrs. Kathryn Tolbert Smith. x TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 Southern Oligarchy, The Problem of Reconstruction ......................................... 1 The Central Issue of Reconstruction in Scholarship ........................................... 3 Antebellum Southern Oligarchy or Aristocracy in Scholarly Literature.............. 9 Methodological Approach ................................................................................. 19 Summary of Aristotelian Regime Theory........................................................... 21 The American Founders’ Natural Rights Republicanism.................................... 26 Dissertation Organization .................................................................................. 42 II. THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF SOUTHERN OLIGARCHY ..................... 44 The Problem of Reconstruction Officially Expressed by the Republican Congress Immediately After the Civil War .................................................. 44 The Ruling Class ............................................................................................... 49 The Southern Oligarchy’s White Vassal Class ..................................................