Copperheads, Then and Now - The Democratic legacy of undermining war efforts.

National Review Online ^ | March 19, 2007 | Mackubin Thomas Owens

[neverdem]

March 19, 2007, 6:00 a.m.

Copperheads, Then and Now
The Democratic legacy of undermining war efforts.

By Mackubin Thomas Owens

While recovering from surgery recently, I had the good fortune to read a fine new book about political dissent in the North during the Civil War. The book, Copperheads: The Rise an Fall of Lincoln’s Opponents in the North, by journalist-turned-academic-historian Jennifer Weber, shines the spotlight on the “Peace Democrats,” who did everything they could to obstruct the Union war effort during the Rebellion. In so doing, she corrects a number of claims that have become part of the conventional wisdom. The historical record aside, what struck me the most were the similarities between the rhetoric and actions of the Copperheads a century and a half ago and Democratic opponents of the Iraq war today.

In contradistinction to the claims of many earlier historians, Weber argues persuasively that the Northern anti-war movement was far from a peripheral phenomenon. Disaffection with the war in the North was widespread and the influence of the Peace Democrats on the Democratic party was substantial. During the election of 1864, the Copperheads wrote the platform of the Democratic party, and one of their own, Rep. George H. Pendleton of Ohio, was the party’s candidate for vice president. Until Farragut’s victory at Mobile Bay, Sherman’s capture of Atlanta, and Sheridan’s success in driving the Confederates from the Shenandoah Valley in the late summer and fall of 1864, hostility toward the war was so profound in the North that Lincoln believed he would lose the election.

Weber demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the actions of the Copperheads materially damaged the ability of the Lincoln administration to prosecute the war. Weber persuasively refutes the view of earlier historians such as the late Frank Klement, who argued that what Lincoln called the Copperhead “fire in the rear” was mostly “a fairy tale,” a “figment of Republican imagination,” made up of “lies, conjecture and political malignancy.” The fact is that Peace Democrats actively interfered with recruiting and encouraged desertion. Indeed, they generated so much opposition to conscription that the Army was forced to divert resources from the battlefield to the hotbeds of Copperhead activity in order to maintain order. Many Copperheads actively supported the Confederate cause, materially as well as rhetorically.

In the long run, the Democratic party was badly hurt by the Copperheads. Their actions radically politicized Union soldiers, turning into stalwart Republicans many who had strongly supported the Democratic party’s opposition to emancipation as a goal of the war. As the Democrats were reminded for many years after the war, the Copperheads had made a powerful enemy of the Union veterans.

The fact is that many Union soldiers came to despise the Copperheads more than they disdained the Rebels. In the words of an assistant surgeon of an Iowa regiment, “it is a common saying here that if we are whipped, it will be by Northern votes, not by Southern bullets. The army regard the result of the late [fall 1862] elections as at least prolonging the war.”

Weber quotes the response of a group of Indiana soldiers to letters from Copperhead “friends” back home:

Your letter shows you to be a cowardly traitor. No traitor can be my friend; if you cannot renounce your allegiance to the Copperhead scoundrels and own your allegiance to the Government which has always protected you, you are my enemy, and I wish you were in the ranks of my open, avowed, and manly enemies, that I might put a ball through your black heart, and send your soul to the Arch Rebel himself.

It is certain that the Union soldiers tired of hearing from the Copperheads that the Rebels could not be defeated. They surely tired of being described by the Copperheads as instruments of a tyrannical administration trampling the legitimate rights of the Southern states. The soldiers seemed to understand fairly quickly that the Copperheads preferred Lincoln’s failure to the country’s success. They also recognized that the Copperheads offered no viable alternative to Lincoln’s policy except to stop the war. Does any of this sound familiar?

Today, Democratic opponents of the Iraq war echo the rhetoric of the Copperheads. As Lincoln was a bloodthirsty tyrant, trampling the rights of Southerners and Northerners alike, President Bush is the world’s worst terrorist, comparable to Hitler.

These words of the La Crosse Democrat responding to Lincoln’s re-nomination could just as easily have been written about Bush:  “May God Almighty forbid that we are to have two terms of the rottenest, most stinking, ruin working smallpox ever conceived by fiends or mortals…” The recent lament of left-wing bloggers that Vice President Dick Cheney was not killed in a suicide bombing attempt in Pakistan echoes the incendiary language of Copperhead editorialist Brick Pomeroy who hoped that if Lincoln were re-elected, “some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good.” 

Antiwar Democrats make a big deal of “supporting the troops.” But such expressions ring hollow in light of Democratic efforts to hamstring the ability of the United States to achieve its objectives in Iraq. And all too often, the mask of the antiwar politician or activist slips, revealing what opponents of the war really think about the American soldier.

For instance, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Rep. Charles Rangel have suggested that soldiers fighting in Iraq are there because they are not smart enough to do anything else. Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois has suggested a similarity between the conduct of U.S. troops in Iraq and that of Nazi soldiers in World War II. His Illinois colleagues, Sen. Barack Obama, claimed that the lives of soldiers lost in Iraq were “wasted.” And recently William Arkin, a military analyst writing online for the Washington Post, said of American soldiers that they are “mercenaries” who had little business taking critics of the war to task.

The Copperheads often abandoned all decency in their pursuit of American defeat in the Civil War. One Connecticut Copperhead told his neighbors that he hoped that all the men who went to fight for the Union cause would “leave their Bones to Bleach on the soil” of the South. The heirs of the Copperheads in today’s Democratic party are animated by the same perverted spirit with regard to the war in Iraq. Nothing captures the essence of today’s depraved Copperhead perspective better than the following e-mail, which unfortunately is only one example of the sort of communication I have received all too often in response to articles of mine over the past few months.

Dear Mr. Owens

You write, "It is hard to conduct military operations when a chorus of eunuchs is describing every action we take as a violation of everything that America stands for, a quagmire in which we are doomed to failure, and a waste of American lives."

But Mr. Owens, I believe that those three beliefs are true. On what grounds can I be barred from speaking them in public? Because speaking them will undermine American goals in Iraq? Bless you, sir, that's what I want to do in the first place. I am confident that U.S. forces will be driven from Iraq, and for that reason I am rather enjoying the war.

But doesn't hoping that American forces are driven from Iraq necessarily mean hoping that Americans soldiers will be killed there? Yes it does. Your soldiers are just a bunch of poor, dumb suckers that have been swindled out of their right to choose between good and evil. Quite a few of them are or will be swindled out of their eyes, legs, arms and lives. I didn't swindle them. President Bush did. If you're going to blame me for cheering their misery, what must you do to President Bush, whose policies are the cause of that misery?

Union soldiers voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln in 1864, abandoning the once-beloved George McClellan because of the perception that he had become a tool of the Copperheads. After Vietnam, veterans left the Democratic party in droves. I was one of them. The Democratic party seems poised to repeat its experience in both the Civil War and Vietnam.

The Democrats seem to believe that they are tapping into growing anti-Iraq War sentiment in the military. They might cite evidence of military antipathy towards the war reflected in, for example, the recent CBS Sixty Minutes segment entitled “Dissension in the Ranks.”  But the Democrats are whistling past the graveyard. The Sixty Minutes segment was predicated on an unscientific Army Times poll, orchestrated by activists who now oppose the war. The fact remains that most active duty and National Guard personnel still support American objectives in Iraq. They may be frustrated by the perceived incompetence of higher-ups and disturbed by a lack of progress in the war, but it has always been thus among soldiers. The word “snafu” began as a World War II vintage acronym:  “situation normal, all f****d up.”

Union soldiers could support the goals of the war and criticize the incompetence of their leaders in the same breath. But today’s soldiers, like their Union counterparts a century and a half ago, are tired of hearing that everything is the fault of their own government from people who invoke Gitmo and Abu Ghraib but rarely censure the enemy, and who certainly offer no constructive alternative to the current course of action.

The late nineteenth century Democratic party paid a high price for the influence of the Copperheads during the Civil War, permitting Republicans to “wave the bloody shirt” of rebellion and to vilify the party with the charge of disunion and treason. If its leaders are not careful, today’s Democratic party may well pay the same sort of price for the actions of its antiwar base, which is doing its best to continue the Copperhead legacy.

 —  Mackubin Thomas Owens is an associate dean of academics and a professor of national-security affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He is writing a history of U.S. civil-military relations.

[happygrl]

Michael Medved has stated that the only rationale for awarding reparations would be if the payee was the Democratic Party.

Why any descendent of slaves in this country would vote Democrat is jaw-dropping.

[happygrl]

Actually, I think the Actor with the most venom currently is George Clooney.

[mosesdapoet]

I don't believe some of these replies. Those against this review show their ignorance of American history. Copperheads were northern democrats and others who were against the war and sympathized with the south. The analogy is the sympathy with the enemy. The term really identifies many in the anti war, anti military movement captured and used by the democrats who would sell out our troops and leave them hanging just to gain power. I would encourage the term Copperhead be used in any reference to a politician selling out our troops and I for one have through my website http://www.theusmat.com/ and where it applies used this attribution. "Copperhead"

[Spok]

"Actually, I think the Actor with the most venom currently is George Clooney."

That's a tough call. Tim Robbins is definitely a contender. I've actually always thought Martin Sheen was just too dumb to be taken seriously (should never have been allowed to breed), as is Alec Baldwin.

[happygrl]

I've actually always thought Martin Sheen was just too dumb to be taken seriously (should never have been allowed to breed

Well, look at his whelps....

[kidd]

The South has switched to GOP only recently. Here is a map from the 1976 election:

[Verginius Rufus]

I don't think it is quite true to say that all Confederates were Democrats. In 1860 the remnants of the Southern Whigs supported the Constitutional Union Party. After their own state seceded, many Southerners who had opposed secession still felt it was their duty to support their own state in the conflict. I imagine there must have been some Whigs among them.

[stainlessbanner]

Your interpretation of the term has some inconsistencies. Many copperheads were not "sympathizing with the enemy" as much as they were against centralized government/finances, higher taxes, and conscription to fight other states in the Republic.

The GOP position leaves little room for constructionists who believe in sovereign rule and decentralization.

Also when you bring up Democrats who sold out for gain, don't forget the carpetbaggers, robber barons who gladly took advantage of the South. US Grant's numerous scandals and reconstruction policies were not exactly high points either.

[since 1854]

Good point, but the Whig Party was dead years before the Civil War. The Constitutional Union Party was not a party at all, just a presidential ticket for John Bell.

[Non-Sequitur]

Many copperheads were not "sympathizing with the enemy" as much as they were against centralized government/finances, higher taxes, and conscription to fight other states in the Republic.

If they were against centralized government/finances, higher taxes, and conscription to fight other states then why would they have ever support the confederacy?

[since 1854]

Good point, SB, but the rebels started conscription a year before the U.S. government did. What's more, all rebel troops were required to remain in the Confederate army for the duration of the war, no matter what their original terms of service had been, but U.S. troops were free to go home when their terms of service ended.

And, don't forget that over a quarter of southern soldiers fought against the Confederacy. Cheers,

[Non-Sequitur]

We need a President with the balls to suspend habeus corpus like Lincoln did...

Lincoln had a Constitutional justification to suspend habeas corpus - the Southern insurrection. Bush doesn't.

[Non-Sequitur]

Jefferson Davis hoped that a Confederate victory at Gettysburg would result in a truce-with an intact Confederacy.

Then Jefferson Davis was a fool.

And never forget it was an activist actor who killed Lincoln...imagine Martin Sheen or Alec Baldwin with guts.

John Wilkes Booth avoided service in the war, hardly the sign of an activist. And whatever courage he had came from the bottom of a brandy bottle. A true Southron patriot. </sarcasm>

[bassmaner]

YEAH! We have to suspend freedom so that we can fight the people who would suspend our freedoms! do I have that right? In fact, who needs freedom for all men, anyway? What a quaint idea! The fact is that only the good guys need freedom..., or at least only the good guys DESERVE freedom!

I understand your opinion, and until 9/11 I would have agreed with you 100%. But we are living in an age where a handful of evil foreigners exploited the freedoms we take for granted to commit a horrific, murderous act of war against us in the name of their hateful "religion". And there are Americans who hate their country and their elected leaders so much that they give aid and comfort to these terrible enemies. We see them enable the Islamonazis every time they burn an American flag, equate the duly elected president with Adolf Hitler, and wave pictures of Communist mass murderers in their ridiculous marches. If America was not facing an existential threat from the outside, I would simply laugh and roll my eyes at these idiots. But in today's world of instant worldwide communications and the 24-hour news cycle, our enemies see our "protestors" working tirelessly to help their cause. That, in a word, is treason when American troops are giving the fullest measure of devotion to their country on the battlefields in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

The fact is that liberty means idiots have the right to say outrageous things, wrong things, hateful things, and not have to worry about suffering political reprisal for it. It is, in fact, that freedom that allows you to (among other things) post one of the most blatant stupidities I have seen in a while in this forum and not have the Stasi come knocking at your door.

Look, I don't come to this opinion lightly. I am a libertarian in almost every way -- I want government out of my life, and I want to make my own decisions without some anonymous bureaucrat in Washington, Harrisburg, or elsewhere telling me what or what not to do. But I recognize that the governments 'prime directive' if you will is to provide for the common defense against all enemies - both foreign and domestic. I despise the fact that government takes my money through taxes and 'redistributes' it to moochers and looters who are parasites on society. I resent government telling me where and what I can smoke, ordering me to wear a seatbelt when I drive, 'regulating' how many gallons my toilet can flush, etc. But I want government to do what the Founding Fathers of this nation intended it to do: provide me and my fellow citizens with a nation not under danger of annihilation from evil enemies who despise freedom.

Our fathers knew that the greatest danger was NOT the Jacobean anarchists (the eighteenth century version of communists and leftists), but government itself.

And thankfully, the communists and leftists never gained they power they needed to destroy the system the fathers devised. But they have (perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not) allied themselves with the Islamonazi killers. They have become the "useful idiots" that would be the first to lose their heads if the Islamonazis ever emerge victorious.

I despair of the "conservatives" on FR who are nothing but fascists who think they can avoid being spotted as such simply by wrapping themselves in a flag.

I resent the term "fascist" in this context. In every major conflict we ever were involved with (prior to Vietnam), the government had restricted war resisters to some degree. Although some on the paleocon fringe may consider Lincoln to be a fascist, he did what was necessary to preserve the union and the freedoms we take for granted. Seditionists were arrested and imprisoned during WW1. Japanese nationals were interned during WW2. Strict censorship of wartime reporting by the media was imposed. And through it all, we came through unscathed -- freedoms intact. Notably, it's been the "liberals", "progressives", etc. or whatever the latest incarnation that the socialists give themselves that have done the most to deprive us of liberty, and yet, they're the ones today screaming the loudest to surrender the battle to the enemy. They have, IMHO, crossed the line from "free speech" to treason. They need to be stopped, before they successfully enable the enemy to commit an atrocity that will dwarf 9/11.

Fighting the enemy with all available tools is not fascism. Wanting to stop fifth columnists from giving aid and comfort to the enemy is not 'wrapping oneself in the flag'. It's common sense. It's wanting to LIVE AS A FREE AMERICAN.

[Ditto]

I don't think it is quite true to say that all Confederates were Democrats. In 1860 the remnants of the Southern Whigs supported the Constitutional Union Party.

They were called "Unionists" and they were not necessarily old Whigs -- many were Democrats and I'd guess only a very few were "closet" Republicans (i.e. anti-slavery in any degree). The position of the Loyalists was that unilateral secession was not constitutional and that the Federal government had taken no action against the Southern states that justified revolution.

If you think the Northern Copperheads were somehow treated unfairly, you should read up on what the Confederates did to Loyal Union men who even so much as spoke out. It will disabuse you of the notion that the Confederacy was some bastion of constitutional liberty and tolerance. It was anything but.

The North was infinitely more tolerant of public anti-war sentiment than the Confederacy was.

[ProudCopperhead]

Once again you demonstrate your collosal ignorance. At least your moniker is apt.

[Non-Sequitur]

Once again you demonstrate your collosal ignorance. At least your moniker is apt.

If you don't think that all of those apply to the Jefferson Davis government then it is you displaying a colossal level of ignorance and not I.

[stand watie]

inasmuch as MOST FReepers, who know ANYTHING about you, think you're NUTS, your opinion counts for NOTHING, ZILCH, NADA.

don't you get tired of being thought a DUMB-bunny???

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

the COPPERHEADS of the 19th century were RIGHT & on the side of FREEDOM.

the 21st century "peaceniks" are WRONG & are on the side of OPPRESSION.

that's a HUGE difference.

free dixie,sw

[driftless2]

I grew up and lived in La Crosse, Wisconsin for most of my life. I was never taught about Marcus "Brick" Pomeroy at school. I was informed about him by my older brother when I was in my twenties. I gather the city elites were too ashamed of Pomeroy and wanted to forget him.