Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, move, oversight, protect, rollback, Administrators
51,035
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − + − + Line 12:
Line 12: − + − + Line 30:
Line 30: − + − + Line 47:
Line 47: − + − + − − Jennifer Weber's ''Copperheads'' (2006) agrees more with Wood and Milton than with Klement. She argues first,there was great strength in Northern antiwar sentiment, so that Peace Democrats came close to seizing control of their party in mid-1864. Second, she shoes peace sentiment led to deep divisions and occasional violence across the North. Third, she concludes the peace movement deliberately weakened the Union military effort by undermining enlistment and the operation of the draft. Indeed, Lincoln had to divert combat troops to retake control of New York City from the peace rioters in 1863. Fourth, Weber shows how the attitudes of Union soldiers affected partisan battles back home. The soldiers' rejection of copperheadism and their overwhelming support for Lincoln's reelection in 1864 was decisive in securing the Northern victory and the preservation of the Union. The Copperheads' appeal, she argues, waxed and waned with Union failures and successes in the field. + Line 70:
Line 69: − + Line 80:
Line 79: − − <references/>+
no edit summary
The '''Copperheads''' were a powerful [[Democratic Party|faction of the Democratic party]] in the North who opposed the [[American Civil War]], wanting an immediate peace settlement with the [[Confederate States of America]] knowing that meant independence for the Confederacy and the continuation of slavery. They bitterly opposed the U.S. government under [[Abraham Lincoln]], denouncing him as a tyrant; some collaborated with Confederates and were tried for treason fo so doing. Their opponents in the Democratic Party were supporters of the war called [[War Democrats]]. The Copperheads battled the War Democrats and usually succeeded in taking control of the Democratic party in most the northern states. After the war the Republicans for decades ridiculed many Democras as "Copperheads" even if they were passive during the war.
The '''Copperheads''' were a powerful [[Democratic Party|faction of the Democratic party]] in the North who opposed the [[American Civil War]], wanting an immediate peace settlement with the [[Confederate States of America]] knowing that meant independence for the Confederacy and the continuation of slavery. They bitterly opposed the U.S. government under [[Abraham Lincoln]], denouncing him as a tyrant; some collaborated with Confederates and were tried for treason fo so doing. Their opponents in the Democratic Party were supporters of the war called [[War Democrats]]. The Copperheads battled the War Democrats and usually succeeded in taking control of the Democratic party in most the northern states. After the war, the Republicans for decades ridiculed many Democras as "Copperheads" even if they were passive during the war.
The name ''Copperheads'' was given to them by their opponents the [[Republican party]], after a hard-to-spot venomous snake. Copperheads reinterpreted this insult as a term of honor, and wore copper liberty-head coins as badges. They were also called "Peace Democrats" and "Butternuts". The most famous Copperhead was Ohio's [[Clement L. Vallandigham]], who was a vehement opponent of President Lincoln's policies. For many years after the war Republicans ridiculed Democratic politicians for taking support from Copperheads who were treasonous during the war.
The name ''Copperheads'' was given to them by their opponents the [[Republican Party]], after a hard-to-spot venomous snake. Copperheads reinterpreted this insult as a term of honor, and wore copper liberty-head coins as badges. They were also called "Peace Democrats" and "Butternuts". The most famous Copperhead was Ohio's [[Clement L. Vallandigham]], who was a vehement opponent of President Lincoln's policies. For many years after the war Republicans ridiculed Democratic politicians for taking support from Copperheads who were treasonous during the war.
==Agenda==
==Agenda==
==Early Action==
==Early Action==
The antiwar movement made little headway until the severe military reverses the Union suffered in 1862. As battlefield defeats and casualties mounted, Northern morale slumped and Copperheads grew more numerous and more vocal in denouncing the Lincoln administration. In [[Illinois]], Peace Democrats tried to push a reactionary anti-modern constitution through a state constitutional convention in 1862, but the Republicans managed to defeat it. However across the North the Democrats scored major gains in the Congressional and state elections of 1862, primarily because they focused the attacks on the Preliminary [[Emancipation Proclamation]], issued by Lincoln in September. That was their proof that Lincoln was in league with the [[abolitionists]], determined all along to use the war to inflict a social revolution upon [[the South]]. Lincoln's general suspension of [[habeas corpus]] appeared to confirm the Copperheads' allegation that the administration had no regard for sacred [[civil liberties]] in its relentless drive for conquest in an unjust war.
The antiwar movement made little headway until the severe military reverses the Union suffered in 1862. As battlefield defeats and casualties mounted, Northern morale slumped and Copperheads grew more numerous and more vocal in denouncing the Lincoln administration. In [[Illinois]], Peace Democrats tried to push a reactionary anti-modern constitution through a state constitutional convention in 1862, but the Republicans managed to defeat it. However, across the North the Democrats scored major gains in the Congressional and state elections of 1862, primarily because they focused the attacks on the Preliminary [[Emancipation Proclamation]], issued by Lincoln in September. That was their proof that Lincoln was in league with the [[abolitionists]], determined all along to use the war to inflict a social revolution upon [[the South]]. Lincoln's general suspension of [[habeas corpus]] appeared to confirm the Copperheads' allegation that the administration had no regard for sacred [[civil liberties]] in its relentless drive for conquest in an unjust war.
In 1863, rumors, which many Republican editors believed and circulated, alleged that a Copperhead conspiracy proposed to detach states from the Northwest for the Confederate cause, or break open prisoner of war camps that held thousands of Confederates. The existence of such conspiracies is impossible to tell, and no overt actions actually took place. However, heightened Copperhead activity caused a backlash among soldiers, who grew increasingly embittered against dissenters who they believed were killing their comrades by undermining their efforts at the front and prolonging the war.
In 1863, rumors, which many Republican editors believed and circulated, alleged that a Copperhead conspiracy proposed to detach states from the Northwest for the Confederate cause, or break open prisoner of war camps that held thousands of Confederates. The existence of such conspiracies is impossible to tell, and no overt actions actually took place. However, heightened Copperhead activity caused a backlash among soldiers, who grew increasingly embittered against dissenters who they believed were killing their comrades by undermining their efforts at the front and prolonging the war.
Some Copperheads tried to persuade Union soldiers to desert, and had some success in southern Illinois. They did talk of helping Confederate [[prisoners of war]] seize their camps and escape. They sometimes met with Confederate agents and took money. The Confederacy encouraged their activities whenever possible.<ref>Tidwell, 1995. pp. 155-20.</ref> Most Democratic party leaders, however, repelled Confederate advances.
Some Copperheads tried to persuade Union soldiers to desert, and had some success in southern Illinois. They did talk of helping Confederate [[prisoners of war]] seize their camps and escape. They sometimes met with Confederate agents and took money. The Confederacy encouraged their activities whenever possible.<ref>Tidwell, 1995. pp. 155-20.</ref> Most Democratic Party leaders, however, repelled Confederate advances.
==Newspapers==
==Newspapers==
Early in 1864, a new group, the Sons of Liberty, partially bankrolled by the Confederate government, began devising plots to seize Union arsenals, liberate Confederate prisoners held at [[Rock Island]], Illinois, capture the federal arsenal at [[Springfield]], Illinois, and spearhead a Northwest rebellion. All their schemes were foiled either by government double agents or by their own leaders' incompetence, and became campaign fodder for Unionist attacks on the Democratic party.
Early in 1864, a new group, the Sons of Liberty, partially bankrolled by the Confederate government, began devising plots to seize Union arsenals, liberate Confederate prisoners held at [[Rock Island]], Illinois, capture the federal arsenal at [[Springfield]], Illinois, and spearhead a Northwest rebellion. All their schemes were foiled either by government double agents or by their own leaders' incompetence, and became campaign fodder for Unionist attacks on the Democratic party.
==[[United States presidential election, 1864|Election of 1864]]==
==Election of 1864==
{{See also|United States presidential election, 1864}}
Vallandigham and other Copperheads operated behind the scenes at the 1864 Democratic convention in Chicago, causing it to adopt a largely Copperhead platform. However, it chose a pro-war presidential candidate, dismissed General [[George B. McClellan]]. He promptly rejected the platform, and the contradiction severely weakened their chances to defeat Lincoln's reelection.<ref>Klement (1998)</ref>
Vallandigham and other Copperheads operated behind the scenes at the 1864 Democratic convention in Chicago, causing it to adopt a largely Copperhead platform. However, it chose a pro-war presidential candidate, dismissed General [[George B. McClellan]]. He promptly rejected the platform, and the contradiction severely weakened their chances to defeat Lincoln's reelection.<ref>Klement (1998)</ref>
Two central questions have run through the historiography of the Copperheads: how serious a threat did they pose to the Union war effort and hence to the nation's survival? And to what extent and with what justification did the Lincoln administration and other Republican officials violate civil liberties to contain the perceived menace?<ref>Charles W. Calhoun, "The Fire in the Rear," ''Reviews in American History'' 35.4 (2007) 530-537 online at [[Project Muse]]</ref> Neither question can be conclusively answered, as the Copperheads often operated secretly, and there were no public-opinion polls in the 1860s.
Two central questions have run through the historiography of the Copperheads: how serious a threat did they pose to the Union war effort and hence to the nation's survival? And to what extent and with what justification did the Lincoln administration and other Republican officials violate civil liberties to contain the perceived menace?<ref>Charles W. Calhoun, "The Fire in the Rear," ''Reviews in American History'' 35.4 (2007) 530-537 online at [[Project Muse]]</ref> Neither question can be conclusively answered, as the Copperheads often operated secretly, and there were no public-opinion polls in the 1860s.
The first book-length scholarly treatment of the Copperheads appeared in 1942, shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. In ''The Hidden Civil War'', Wood Gray decried the "defeatism" of the Copperheads; he argued they deliberately served the Confederacy's war aims. Also in 1942 George Fort Milton published ''Abraham Lincoln and the Fifth Column'', which likewise condemned the traitorous Copperheads and praised Lincoln as a model defender of democracy.
The first book-length scholarly treatment of the Copperheads appeared in 1942, shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. In ''The Hidden Civil War'', Wood Gray decried the "defeatism" of the Copperheads; he argued they deliberately served the Confederacy's war aims. Also in 1942, George Fort Milton published ''Abraham Lincoln and the Fifth Column'', which likewise condemned the traitorous Copperheads and praised Lincoln as a model defender of democracy.
The chief revisionist historians, who generally favor the Copperheads, are Frank L. Klement, who devoted most of his career to debunking the idea that the Copperheads represented any real danger, and Richard O. Curry. Klement and Curry have downplayed the treasonable activities of the Copperheads, arguing that they were traditionalists who fiercely resisted modernization and wanted to return to the old ways.
The chief revisionist historians, who generally favor the Copperheads, are Frank L. Klement, who devoted most of his career to debunking the idea that the Copperheads represented any real danger, and Richard O. Curry. Klement and Curry have downplayed the treasonable activities of the Copperheads, arguing that they were traditionalists who fiercely resisted modernization and wanted to return to the old ways.
Klement in the 1950s argued that the Copperheads' activities, especially their supposed participation in treasonous anti-Union secret societies, were mostly false inventions by Republican propaganda machines designed to discredit the Democrats at election time. Curry sees Copperheads a poor traditionalists battleing against the railroads, banks and modernization. In his standard history ''Battle Cry of Freedom,'' (1988) James M. McPherson asserted that Klement had taken "revision a bit too far. There was some real fire under that smokescreen of Republican propaganda."
Klement in the 1950s argued that the Copperheads' activities, especially their supposed participation in treasonous anti-Union secret societies, were mostly false inventions by Republican propaganda machines designed to discredit the Democrats at election time. Curry sees Copperheads as poor traditionalists battling against the railroads, banks, and modernization. In his standard history ''Battle Cry of Freedom,'' (1988) James M. McPherson asserted that Klement had taken "revision a bit too far. There was some real fire under that smokescreen of Republican propaganda."
Jennifer Weber's ''Copperheads'' (2006) agrees more with Wood and Milton than with Klement. She argues first, there was great strength in Northern antiwar sentiment, so that Peace Democrats came close to seizing control of their party in mid-1864. Second, she shoes peace sentiment led to deep divisions and occasional violence across the North. Third, she concludes the peace movement deliberately weakened the Union military effort by undermining enlistment and the operation of the draft. Indeed, Lincoln had to divert combat troops to retake control of New York City from the peace rioters in 1863. Fourth, Weber shows how the attitudes of Union soldiers affected partisan battles back home. The soldiers' rejection of copperheadism and their overwhelming support for Lincoln's reelection in 1864 was decisive in securing the Northern victory and the preservation of the Union. The Copperheads' appeal, she argues, waxed and waned with Union failures and successes in the field.
==Bibliography==
==Bibliography==
* Lendt, David L. "Iowa and the Copperhead Movement." ''Annals of Iowa'' 1970 40(6): 412-426.
* Lendt, David L. "Iowa and the Copperhead Movement." ''Annals of Iowa'' 1970 40(6): 412-426.
* Milton, George F. ''Abraham Lincoln and the Fifth Column'' (1942)
* Milton, George F. ''Abraham Lincoln and the Fifth Column'' (1942)
* Nevins, Allan. ''The War for the Union'' (4 vol 1959-1971), the standard scholarly history of wartime politics and society.
* Nevins, Allan. ''The War for the Union'' (4 vol 1959-1971), the standard scholarly history of wartime politics and society.
* Silbey, Joel H. ''A Respectable Minority: The Democratic Party in the Civil War Era, 1860-1868'' (1977) [http://www.questia.com/read/105266888?title=A%20Respectable%20Minority%3a%20%20The%20Democratic%20Party%20in%20the%20Civil%20War%20Era%2c%201860-1868 online edition]
* Silbey, Joel H. ''A Respectable Minority: The Democratic Party in the Civil War Era, 1860-1868'' (1977) [http://www.questia.com/read/105266888?title=A%20Respectable%20Minority%3a%20%20The%20Democratic%20Party%20in%20the%20Civil%20War%20Era%2c%201860-1868 online edition]
* Stampp, Kenneth M. ''Indiana Politics during the Civil War'' (1949) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/indiana-politics-during-the-civil-war-by-kenneth-m-stampp.jsp online edition]
* Stampp, Kenneth M. ''Indiana Politics during the Civil War'' (1949) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/indiana-politics-during-the-civil-war-by-kenneth-m-stampp.jsp online edition]
* Wertheim, Lewis J. "The Indianapolis Treason Trials, the Elections of 1864 and the Power of the Partisan Press." '' Indiana Magazine of History'' 1989 85(3): 236-250.
* Wertheim, Lewis J. "The Indianapolis Treason Trials, the Elections of 1864 and the Power of the Partisan Press." '' Indiana Magazine of History'' 1989 85(3): 236-250.
* Wubben, Hubert H. ''Civil War Iowa and the Copperhead Movement'' (1980).
* Wubben, Hubert H. ''Civil War Iowa and the Copperhead Movement'' (1980).
===Notes===
===Notes===
{{reflist}}
[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:American Civil War]]