Copperheads and Unionists in the North

​

Thanks to movies like “Gangs of New York” and “Copperheads” there is some knowledge of Northern resistance to the war and specific lack of enthusiasm for abolitionism. Abolitionists were a very small but influential group. Anti-war opposition on the other hand, was large and diverse but ultimately lacked political power. Given that the narrow demographic of those wanting war was generally limited to the more radical progressive evangelicals and secular progressives along with some business and financial interests, this would seem reasonable although not intuitive considering the way the war is conveyed in the educational system. So who were these nonconformists in “Yankeedom”?

​

Copperhead was a general name applied to anti-war Democrats in Union states based on what was probably a random incident in April 1861. The Philadelphia Inquirer received a mail bag from Florida that contained two venomous snakes on April 8th. The story was amplified in the Daily Courier the next day and then in the New York Times claiming that the snake mailing incident was intentional and calling it “unmanly warfare”. By the 15th the story had evolved to the point where the snakes were mailed directly to the president with the intent of killing him. The Washington Intelligencer started debunking the story on April 13th eventually concluding the snakes were biological specimens being sent to the Smithsonian.  It’s also possible they simply entered an open mail bag on their own.  Either way the name stuck when Col. Frank P. Blair called the Maryland state legislature a “nest of Copperheads”. In contested states in the North there were large pockets of southern sentiment as there were unionist areas in the South as well. Maryland would have likely succeeded if not put under federal control and Delaware may have also.(1 pp. p. 78-79, 116-150)

​

Copperheads reacted to government overreach based largely on the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the draft, and the federal income tax. They were motivated by a combination of philosophical, economic, and personal factors and were not isolated to any particular area ranging from New York to the Midwest.   They were not abolitionists and generally didn’t want economic competition from Blacks, either free or slave, while also seeing a real possibility of mass civil unrest were they allowed to migrate north(2 pp. p. 129-36). This concern could also be extended to southerners in general fleeing an economically devastated region.  One questionable study indicated that a majority were from Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland however the sample was small and the data probably not homogenous (1 p. 94). The area with the highest Yankee populations would have had the fewest dissenters while areas like the southern parts of the Midwest states and all areas with high immigrant populations would have had the greatest copperhead density. Determining what the Copperhead population really was is difficult without better statistical data but based on the closeness of the 1864 presidential election, even with Union troops stationed as guards at polling places, it could be concluded that at least 30% of the population had some copperhead sympathies.

​

There were some Copperhead protestant clergy in the North prior to and at the start of the war but were largely driven out of their pulpits.  Historian Harry S. Stouts described the situation saying, “By 1864 the pulpit, in effect, was a political platform for Republican rule…. Northern sermons were shamelessly partisan, implying to the listeners that they would be sinful to vote Democratic”(1 p. 55).  Catholics, on the other hand, were overwhelmingly Democratic and did not support the Republican policies in general and progressive Protestantism in particular which is why they tend to be featured in accounts of Copperhead resistance during this period.  Catholics were also roughly equal in number to Protestants in the North by the start of the war.

​

Frank Clement, in his book Copperheads of the Middle West provides several examples of copperhead positions that show them to be in line with standard antebellum Democratic platforms, a sample of which is shown below:

​

“The Hastings Minnesota Democrat (newspaper) labeled the Morrill tariff as “a monster of iniquity and injustice.” Canton Ohio, Stark County Democrat said “the crazy descendants of Plymouth Rock” had hearts “as bloodless as the Rock.” James Craven threatened that the Northwest should “cut loose from the New England States.” Midwestern Democrats Daniel Voorhees and Lambdin P. Milligan denounced the “cupidity” of New England protectionists. He also denounced the tariff policy which enriched “manufacturing monopolists” by “subjecting the great agricultural west to onerous and unequal burdens.” (1 pp. 95-96)

​

When Habeas Corpus was suspended to silence war critics somewhere between 10,000 and 40,000 dissenters were imprisoned for periods of time ranging from a few weeks to more than two years with incidents peaking around elections and significant political events (1 pp. 88-89). The war power measures were put in place by the summer of 1861 and Lincoln spoke forcefully of the need to do this saying “Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs who should be arrested, exiled or hanged” (3 p. 162).  Many of those imprisoned were newspaper editors and political figures (3 p. 161) but the practice also extended down to people who could be considered ordinary citizens who wouldn’t salute the cause.  Lincoln described this sort of passive dissenter by saying, “The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy; much more if he talks ambiguously—talks for his country with ‘buts’ and ‘ifs’ and ‘ands’” (3 p. 167) .  Almost none were charged with any sort of crime. After the war the Supreme Court ruled that these actions were illegal as neither the congress nor the President have the right to suspend writ of habeas corpus even in wartime as long as civil courts are operating which they were. Copperhead prisoners were held in New York in what John A. Marshall, who worked as an attorney for the victims of Federal arbitrary imprisonment, referred to in his book titled American Bastille in 1869. The prison was known throughout the nation and everyone who thought of passive or active descent knew this was their potential fate.

​

The most notable arrest of the period was that of Democratic Congressman Clement Vallandigham who was a consistent outspoken critic of Lincoln and his administration. After Lincoln enacted numerous measures following Fort Sumter without congressional approval which was constitutionally required, Vallandigham catalogued these in a speech stating, “every principal act of the administration since has been a glaring usurpation of power, and a palpable and dangerous of that very Constitution which this Civil War is professedly waged to support…The Constitution cannot be preserved by violating it.” Vallandigham continued to be a constant problem for Lincoln until April of 1863 when Union General Ambrose Burnside, commander of the Department of Ohio issued General Order 38 that prohibited political speech “declaring sympathies for the enemy”. Vallandigham responded by giving another speech where he called the war “a wicked, cruel, and unnecessary war” and that it wasn’t being waged for the preservation of the Union but “for the purpose of crushing out liberty and erecting a despotism”.  He further encouraged others to do likewise, “the sooner the people inform the minions of usurped power that they will not submit to such restrictions upon their liberties, the better”. On May 5th he was arrested at his home, found guilty after a two day trial and banished. An attempt was made to turn him over to confederates but Vallandigham was not a secessionist and was not accepted. He eventually made his way to Canada where he ran for Governor in absentia.  (1 pp. 88-85)

​

Another more representative case is that of Dr. Edison Olds who gave a speech on 26 July, 1862 where he criticized the spirit of abolitionism which had driven the country to ruin and secessionists for attempting to destroy the government. He went on to criticize the governor of Ohio for targeting Democrats with Draft Board selection. He was found to be guilty of discouraging the draft and arrested on August 12, 1862.  He was eventually released on December 12, 1862 and was greeted by a large crowd upon his return where he condemned the “Jacobins (reference to French revolution and Resign of Terror) now in power” and went on to say “The first object of free people is the preservation of their liberty”. He then went on to catalog the violations of the Constitution inflicted on him personally.(1 pp. 88-89)

​

The most notable copperhead going into the war, although the term hadn’t been established as yet, was former President Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire.  Seward specifically recognized him as a potential problem from the outset and he was a consistent critic throughout the course of the war. Another example of a prominent copperhead was the Democratic governor of New York, Horatio Seymour. He was a strong believer in state sovereignty and defied Lincoln’s call for a draft quota calling it unconstitutional. He held fast to this position until threatened with federal invasions. Likewise, the mayor of New York City, Fernando Wood tried to turn New York into a free city independent of higher government authority. In 1863 NJ copperhead governor Joel Parker said, “Slavery was no more the cause of war than gold is the cause of robbery” (4 p. 82) . There were a number of armed conflicts between union troops and groups of Copperheads throughout the war some of which are listed below with the New York draft riots being the most notable which was also the subject of the movie “Gangs of New York”.

​

• Illinois' Governor Yates reported an "insurrection in Edgar County; Union men on one side, Copperheads on the other, they have had two battles."

• The 109th Illinois had to be disbanded because its men were Southern sympathizers. Tens of thousands more deserted when the Emancipation Proclamation was announced.

• In Indiana thousands of draft resisters hid in enclaves. Quoting from the governor: "Matters assume grave import, two hundred mounted armed men in Rush county have today resisted arrest as deserters . . . southern Indiana is ripe for revolution.”

• Williamson County Illinois seceded from the State of Illinois and was forced back in but that didn’t stop many of its men from attaching themselves to the 15th Tennessee Infantry in order to fight for the Confederacy

• In New York City a draft protest turned into a rampaging mob of 70,000. This lasted four days because all the available troops were at Gettysburg. They returned and fired into this New York crowd, killing nearly 2,000 of their own divided "community."

 

The response to the emancipation Proclamation in the Union Army was just short of mutiny. One soldier from Vermont wrote in January a few weeks following the proclamation, “it is nothing uncommon for a Capt. To get up in the morning and find half his company gone.” It is estimated that as many as 200,000 Union troops deserted around this time frame and eventually as many as 350,000.  It was also fairly easy for potential soldiers to avoid inscription by either going to Canada or simply disappearing into the hills outside of the reach of enrollment officers and estimates of draft dodgers are in the area of 90,000. (5 pp. 18-19)

​

Another large grouping of non-Yankee voters in the North was War Democrats and conservative Republicans who favored the war for preservation of the Union but didn’t subscribe to Evangelical political activism in general and specifically were either neutral or against abolition for the same reasons Copperheads held that position. They were, however, ardent anti-secessionists and their opinions about the South and the confederacy were in many cases about as strong as those of the abolitionists. Methodist parson William Gannaway Brownlow, a Unionist from Tennessee had this to say: “If I had the power, I would arm and uniform in the Federal habiliments every wolf and panther and catamount and tiger and bear in the mountains of America; every crocodile in the swamps of Florida and South Carolina; every Negro in the Southern Confederacy, and every devil in hell, and turn them on the rebels in the South, if it exterminated every rebel from the face of God’s green earth – every man, woman and child south of Mason and Dixon’s line.”(1 p. 53)

Many War Democrats in the Border States were slave owners and along with other slave owners in the South believed that slavery had a much better chance of survival with the Union and that secession in one way or another would spell the end to the institution. The original 13th amendment, the Corwin Amendment, which was proposed with all the states of the Confederacy already having left the union, was to give permanent constitutional protection to slavery anywhere it existed. This created the somewhat surprising situation of Union officers and some soldiers who were slave owners fighting against confederates who were not slave owners.

​

Two prime examples of War Democrats were General McClellan and General Grant. McClellan ran against Lincoln in 1864 and lost a close election due, at least in part, to having Union soldiers stationed at the polls (6 p. 6) and the first application of mass mail in voting.  In 1861 Grant, who was both a Democrat (at the time) and slave owner said this about his motives in fighting the war:

"'Sir,' said Grant, 'I have no doubt in the world that the sole object is the restoration of the Union. I will say further, though, that I am a Democrat--every man in my regiment is a Democrat--and whenever I shall be convinced that this war has for its object anything else that what I have mentioned or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the purposes of the abolitionists, I pledge you on my honor as a man and a soldier that I will not only resign my commission, but will carry my sword to the other side, and cast my lot with that people.'"(7 p. 33)

​

Bibliography

​

1. White, D. Jonathan. Northern Opposition to Mr. Lincoln's War. Waynesboro, Virginia : Abbevuille Institute Press, 2014.

2. Fleming, Thomas. A Disease in the Public Mind - A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Boston MA : Da Capo Press, 2013.

3. DiLorenzo, Thomas J. Lincoln Unmasked. New York, New York : Three Rivers Press, 2006.

4. Knapp, Chalres Marrian. New Jersey Politics During the Civil War and Reconstruction. s.l. : Columbia University, 1924.

5. Kilpatrick, Sale. Emancipation Hell The Tragedy Wrought by Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Colombia, South Carolina : Shotwell Publishing, 2015.

6. Chodes, John. Washington's KKK The Union League During Southern Reconstruction. Columbia, South Carolina : Shotwell Publishing, 2016.

7. Cazauran, Augusts R. The Democratic Speakers Handbook. s.l. : Cincinnati Miami Press, 1868.