Northwest Ohio Political Sentiment During the Civil War

NORTHWEST OHIO POLITICAL SENTIMENT DURING THE CIVIL WAR

Brian Yager

A Thesis

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

May 2016

Committee:

Michael Brooks, Advisor

Dwayne Beggs

Brian Yager

Michael Brooks, Advisor

This thesis explores the political sentiment of Northwest Ohio during the Civil War. First, it explores the relevant literature pertaining to the political environment in the Union. Next, it examines Northwest Ohio newspapers’ election coverage for the following elections: 1860 presidential election, 1863 gubernatorial election, and 1864 presidential election. For each of these elections, the newspaper coverage is compared to the election results in order to better understand the political attitudes of Northwest Ohioans. The study finds that a conflict of visions existed between the two major political parties, which did not cease in a time of war. Additionally, it reveals that Northwest Ohio differed from other parts of the Union because it was a racially conscious society and a slight majority approved of the war to end the rebellion. iv

For My Parents v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A special thanks to the committee members on my thesis, Dr. Michael Brooks and Dr.

Dwayne Beggs, for their valuable time and advice, which this thesis would not be possible without them. Both of them have provided much appreciated feedback and suggestions, especially for writing style. I would also like to thank Dr. Rebecca Mancuso whose term paper assignment in her Local History course inspired me to explore Civil War political sentiment at the local level. A final thank you to Cody Osterman, Olivia Zolciak, Autumn Reddell, and Danielle Watson for their writing style suggestions on my individual chapters. vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

LITTERATURE REVIEW ...... 6

CHAPTER I. 1860 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ...... 33

Introduction ...... 33

Political Movements ...... 34

Political Candidates ...... 36

The Republican Newspapers’ Election Coverage ...... 39

The Democratic Newspapers’ Election Coverage...... 55

Conclusion ...... 79

CHAPTER II. 1863 OHIO GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION ...... 81

Introduction ...... 81

Political Movements ...... 82

Political Candidates ...... 85

The Republican and Union Party Newspapers’ Election Coverage ...... 88

The Democratic Newspapers’ Election Coverage...... 94

Political Sentiment and Political Tension among Union Soldiers ...... 99

Conclusion ...... 104

CHAPTER III. 1864 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ...... 106

Introduction ...... 106

Political Candidates ...... 107

The Republican and Union Party Newspapers’ Election Coverage ...... 110

vii

The Democratic Newspapers’ Election Coverage...... 120

Conclusion ...... 130

CONCLUDING ANALYSIS ...... 132

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 138

Primary Sources ...... 138

Secondary Sources...... 139

INTRODUCTION

This thesis explores the political sentiment of Northwest Ohio during the Civil War by analyzing the Northwest Ohio campaigns in the 1860 presidential election, 1863 Ohio gubernatorial election, and the 1864 presidential election. The following elections were selected to analyze because it can be argued that these were the most significant elections during the Civil

War. In particular, the 1860 presidential election was between four candidates: Abraham Lincoln

(Republican Party), Stephen Douglas (Northern Democratic Party), John Bell (Constitutional

Union Party), and John Breckenridge (Southern Democratic Party). These candidates represented sectional interests that led to the Civil War. The importance of the 1863 Ohio gubernatorial election between John Brough, the Union Party candidate, and Clement Vallandigham, the

Democratic Party candidate, would determine Ohio’s involvement in the war and whether Ohio would continue to be complicit with the Lincoln administration. The 1864 presidential election between Lincoln (Union Party candidate) and George McClellan (Democratic Party candidate) would decide how the war would have been conducted, especially whether a hard line policy or conciliatory policy would have been used. Further, studying these elections in Northwest Ohio will reveal the political attitudes of the region during the Civil War, which will show how the region may differ from other areas.

The Northwest Ohio region in 1860 differed from the other regions of Ohio as well as the rest of the Union because it was less industrialized and was mainly agrarian focused. For example, the counties of Henry, Ottawa, and Paulding only had 15, 18, and 9 industrial centers, respectively.

On the other hand, these counties were more focused on agriculture. For example, Paulding County produced 127,593 bushels of corn as well as other crops. The crops primarily produced in

Northwest Ohio were corn, oats, and wheat. Additionally, the leading industrial centers in 2

Northwest Ohio were the following counties: Seneca (178), Lucas (170), and Crawford (116). On the other hand, other regions, such as Southern and Northeast Ohio, had industrial centers, such as

Hamilton County and Cuyahoga County with 2,102 and 380 industrial establishments, respectively.1 Northwest Ohio also had fewer private banks and capital than other areas of the state. For example in the year of 1864, Defiance and Lucas County each had one private bank, with capitalization of $3,000 and $15,000, respectively.2 Fewer banks made it more difficult for the region to industrialize because manufactures had less access to loans and capital than other regions. Additionally, the area was mostly composed of forests and swamps during the Civil War era.3 Some of the counties, such as Hancock, Sandusky, Seneca, and Williams, were considered to be “newly settled” in 1863.4 Because these political entities were relatively new at the time of the war, they did not have the time as well as the resources to have established infrastructure, which would make industrialization easier. Northwest Ohio may have exhibited different political interests from the other regions because residents may have approached policies with an agrarian mindset.

The region was also primarily white, with a lower population density compared to other regions of Ohio. For example, the following counties of Northwest Ohio in 1860 had less than

15,000 people: Defiance, Fulton, Hardin, Henry, Ottawa, Paulding, Putnam, and Van Wert.

These population numbers were relatively small when compared to other regions of the state, which had many counties with populations greater than 15,000. The largest population center in

Northwest Ohio in 1860 was Seneca County with only 30,893 people. This number was

1 Fourth Annual Report of the Commission of Statistics to the Governor of the State of Ohio for the Year 1860 (Columbus: Richard Nevins, State Printer, 1861), 63-66, and 87. 2 Ibid, 35-36. 3 Eugene Roseboom, The Civil War Era: 1850-1873, vol. 4, History of the State of Ohio, ed. Carl Wittke (Columbus: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1944), 73. 4 Seventh Annual Report of the Commission of Statistics to the Governor of the State of Ohio for the Year 1863 (Columbus: Richard Nevins, State Printer, 1864), 54. 3 relatively small when compared to other population centers in the state, such as Hamilton County in Southern Ohio that had a population of 216,095. There were even a few counties in Northwest

Ohio that did not have any persons of color, which included Henry, Ottawa, and Wood counties.

Moreover, the only other county in 1860 to not have any persons of color was Geauga in

Northeast Ohio.5 The majority of the counties were experiencing more than a 10 percent increase in population in the Civil War era as well. Only Seneca County and Huron County were experiencing a decrease in population.6 Many of naturalizations in the probate and common pleas courts in the region during the Civil War era were from Germany and Ireland. For example,

Crawford County had the most naturalizations in this region in the year ending in July 1, 1864, which was 138, including 84 and 47 from Germany and Ireland, respectively.7 This meant that only 17 or rather 12.3 percent were from other countries. These racial demographics as well as its population growth rate and having a lower population density may have caused this region to be more racially conscious than other parts of the state. Moreover, this may have played a role in how its electorate approached elections.

This study will take the approach of scrutinizing six newspapers of Northwest Ohio, and then comparing the coverage with the election results. In order to provide a balanced perspective of the political sentiment, three Democratic newspapers and three Republican newspapers were selected to analyze for each election. For the 1860 presidential election, the Democratic newspapers that were selected were the Bucyrus County Forum (Crawford County), the Defiance

Democrat, and the Hardin County Democrat. The Republican newspapers that were chosen for

5 Fourth Annual Report of the Commission of Statistics to the Governor of the State of Ohio for the Year 1860 (Columbus: Richard Nevins, State Printer, 1861), 124-169. 6 Roseboom, 5. 7 Eight Annual Report of the Commissioner of Statistics to the Governor of the State of Ohio. For the Year 1864 (Columbus, Richard Nevis, 1865), 80-81. 4 this election were the Bucyrus Weekly Journal (Crawford County), The Weekly Perrysburg

Journal (Wood County), and the Williams County Leader. On the other hand, both the 1863 and

1864 elections will use the following newspapers: the Bryan Democrat (known as The Bryan

Weekly Democrat in 1864), the Bryan Republican (known as The Bryan Union Press in 1864),

The Crawford County Forum (Democrat), the Bucyrus Weekly Journal (Republican), the

Defiance Democrat, and The Weekly Perrysburg Journal (Republican).8 Although newspapers may not always be truthful, they are very persuasive in shaping public opinion. Additionally, newspapers were the main source for political news during this time period. The election results may reveal whether newspapers were effective in influencing the electorate, as they were the primary source of information to the electorate. Further, the local newspapers may show the attitudes that a particular region had by covering particular topics more than others. Due to the scattered and inconsistent nature of individualized primary sources such as diaries and letters, these sources were not used in the analyses of the 1860 presidential election and the 1864 presidential election. However, the analysis of the 1863 Ohio gubernatorial election uses family letters of Northwest Ohio residents, found in the Bowling Green State University’s Center for

Archival Collections because there was an adequate amount of evidence to reveal the attitudes among Union soldiers. Family papers may reveal political attitudes that were not observed in public, especially if they were private letters.

The overall purpose of this thesis is to show the uniqueness of Northwest Ohio’s political attitudes during the Civil War. Additionally, it will illustrate which issues were considered to be

8 Bowling Green State University Library, Center of Archival Collections, Newspapers. the Bryan Democrat, the Bryan Republican, The Crawford County Forum, the Bucyrus Weekly Journal, the Defiance Democrat, the Hardin County Democrat, The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, the Williams County Leader are all available at the Center for Archival Collections at Bowling Green State University Library on microfilm. The Crawford County Forum is listed as the Bucyrus Crawford County Forum. 5 the most important to the electorate of the Northwest Ohio. It will also illustrate regional perceptions on issues, such as race and the purpose for the war. The importance of these findings is that it will demonstrate how this region differed from other parts of the Union, especially with the region’s distinctive characteristics. Therefore, this study will contribute to an understanding of more complex Union during the Civil War by raising the question to how different as well as how ideologically divided other areas in the Union were.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The vast majority of the literature relevant to the political sentiment in Northwest Ohio is mainly focused on the political tendencies of the nation as a whole. These works typically examine either politics in general or a particular political movement or party. This literature also reveals some of the common interpretations of the political sentiment from a macro perspective, which may or may not be in agreement with the findings of a micro perspective, because each political region is different and unique. Additionally, there are some studies that focus on a particular region, such as Ohio. None of these studies, however, has much of a focus on

Northwest Ohio. These studies will further show why previous literature on the North’s political sentiment in general as well as regional are important to understanding the political sentiment of

Northwest Ohio during the Civil War. Further, it will reveal the ways in which Northwest Ohio differed from other regions.

The first known general study considered in this historiographical review on northern politics during the Civil War is James Rawley’s The Politics of Union: Northern Politics during the Civil War. Rawley’s book explored the tension between the Republican Party and the

Democratic Party.9 He pointed out that “[t]he study of Northern politics is therefore a study of tension.”10 However, he believed that this tension was beneficial to the Union because local populations became more engaged in politics as well as providing a check against the federal government expanding its authority. Further, Rawley argued that “healthy competition [fosters] efficiency.”11 His analysis demonstrated that the main issues that both political parties focused on were whether actions, such as confiscation, the draft, liberating slaves, and suspending the

9 James Rawley, The Politics of Union (Hinsdale, The Dryden Press, 1974), 3. 10 Ibid, 3. 11 Ibid. 7 writ of habeas corpus, were necessary and constitutional.12 His examination of Northern politics also left the impression that the Union Party’s main goal was preserving the Union by doing what was necessary to win the war, while the Democratic Party wished to preserve the

Constitution and to prevent the nation from becoming a dictatorship. These ideological differences led to the Union Party accusing the Democrats of being “traitors,” while the

Democrats alleged that supporters of the Union Party worshiped black people. Additionally, the author claimed that the Democrats did not have an identifiable leader,13 which implied that the party was not very influential and ineffective. Further, Rawley’s overall analysis of Northern politics during the Civil War did not support his argument that the two-party system was a strength because he did not show that the Democrats were able to put enough pressure on the

Republicans to change policy directions on important issues, such as forcing the Republicans to make compromises with the Democrats.

One historian who did not address the issues of whether the two-party system gave the

North an advantage was James McPherson, who briefly discussed the politics of the North in

Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil Era, which discussed some important of the factors of the political sentiment in the North. He pointed out that the ideas of Vallandigham became the

“platform of the Peace Democrats,” which focused on a peace treaty followed by negotiations of reunion and preserving the institution of slavery. Additionally, the author pointed out that many

Democrats held this belief. He even claimed that there were economic reasons for the opposition in the Midwest because “trade routes along the Mississippi were removed.”14 McPherson claimed that undecided voters were more focused on military success than other issues as well.

12 Ibid, 25, 62, 85, and 109. 13 Ibid, 119 and 161. 14 James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New York, Oxford University Press, 1988), 592- 593. 8

Additionally, he argued that the Republicans were more effective at labeling the Democrats as traitors than the Democrats were classifying them as “miscegenationist[s].”15 He came to this conclusion by implying that the undecided voters determined the outcome of the 1864 presidential election where Abraham Lincoln defeated George McClellan. This overall analysis suggested that the Republicans’ success contributed to military victories. McPherson’s analysis of the politics in the North did not appear to explicitly answer the question of whether he felt the two-party system was a strength or weakness, but it did suggest that most of the electorate was focused on war effort than other issues, such as the role of the Constitution and the continuation of slavery.

Phillip Paludan’s analysis of the Union during the Civil War in his book, A People’s

Contest: The Union and the Civil War: 1861-1865, supported Rawley’s claim that the two-party system was a political advantage for the North. He noted that the electoral system demonstrated that the majority of the electorate supported the war effort than were against it. Additionally, the author pointed out that the existence of dissent allowed the Union Party to remain “united.”

Paludan also claimed that most of the population was allowed to openly disagree with the

Lincoln administration’s policies, although the administration did infringe on some people’s civil liberties. Another consequence of the war that the author pointed out was that the

“Jeffersonian/Jacksonian traditions” (states’ rights with no government intervention in the marketplace) of managing the nation fell out of favor. Instead, Paludan claimed that the

“Hamilton heritage” (stronger federal government with intervention in the marketplace) in governing the nation reemerged because it was necessary for the war effort.16 Further, this

15 Ibid, 790-791. 16 Phillip Shaw Paludan, A People’s Contest: The Union and Civil War 1861-1865 (New York, Harper & Row, 1988), 378. 9 analysis inferred that the two-party system was beneficial to the Union because the political process that the nation was founded on continued throughout the war, which revealed that the majority were in favor of the war, while a minority got to voice its opinion.

Another historian, Mark Neely, explored the politics in the North during the Civil War in his book, The Union Divided: Party Conflict in the Civil War North. Although Neely would agree with Rawley that the two-party system led to tension, he would disagree with the idea that the two-party system gave the North a distinct advantage. Moreover, his analysis left the impression that the two-party system had the effect of diverting attention away from the war effort to defeat the Confederacy by focusing on how to handle the internal political opposition. In particular, Neely pointed out that the Union Party under the leadership of Lincoln would attempt to silence critics by shutting down Democratic newspapers and infringing on civil liberties by the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. This led to the arrest of Clement Vallandigham, an outspoken critic of the war effort.17 Additionally, Neely further backed his claim that the two- party system was a weakness by claiming that when members of the political opposition of the war attained state government positions, they favored legislation, which would hinder the war effort.18 Further, his analysis showed that the two-party system appeared to be a weakness because both political parties were reluctant to make compromises with one another in desperate times.

The politics of the North were further explored in Adam Smith’s No Party Now: Politics in the Civil War North, which argued against Neely’s belief that the two-party system was a weakness. Instead, Smith argued that the two-party system “mobilized loyalty” and “managed

17 Mark E. Neely, The Union Divided: Party Conflict in the Civil War North (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2002), 100 and 102. 18 Ibid, 39-40. 10 dissent,” which the Confederacy was unable to do with their political system. He argued that the supporters of Lincoln considered the Democrats as traitors because they desired a peace agreement to end the war and labeled the Republicans as a despotic form of government. The author also claimed that the followers of Lincoln believed in nonpartisanship and were devoted to the Union. The author also pointed out that both radical republicans and conservatives put their differences aside to unite against the Copperheads.19 Further, Smith’s examination suggested that the two-party system was a strength because it united people who believed in preserving the Union against those whose ideas went against saving the Union.

The analyses of the general political sentiment discussed here illustrated the existing ideological differences and raised the question of whether the two-party system was beneficial to the Union. My research on Northwest Ohio political sentiment during the Civil War suggests that there were ideological differences between the two parties. In particular, my thesis is in agreement with the ideas that there were differences on whether certain policies, such as the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, were constitutional. However, it is unable to completely answer the question whether the two-party system was a strength. It does show that the Union

Party and the Republican newspapers spent much time criticizing their opposition, which took away from the war effort. On the other hand, there are insignificant sources to show how effective the Democratic newspapers were in encouraging soldiers to dessert or resist the draft.

Additionally, during the political campaigns of 1863 and 1864, there were no coverage of any local draft riots. This would make one wonder whether two-party system was actually a weakness in Northwest Ohio during the Civil War.

19 Adam Smith, No Party Now (New York, Oxford University Press, 2006), 5, 160,and 162. 11

There have also been studies that have focused primarily on the Copperheads and the

Democratic Party. These particular studies provide insight to how influential the Copperheads and the Democratic Party were. More importantly, they explored the positions that they held.

Some accounts have a negative portrayal of the Copperheads and the Democratic Party, because they depict them as “defeatist,” “southern sympathizers,” and archaic. On the other hand, there were some interpretations that portrayed the Copperheads and the Democratic Party more positively, because they were seen as committed to their party’s principles. Additionally, there has been attention on whether this group hindered the war effort as well. Some historians agreed with the claim that the Democrats hindered the war effort, while others disagreed with this assessment.

One of the earliest studies of the Copperheads was by Ray Abrams and W.H. Hutter, who explored how the Copperheads portrayed blacks in their newspapers. In fact, they pointed out that this opposition against the Lincoln administration and the Republicans was “political” due to a “dislike of abolition.” The authors also noted that the Copperheads’ newspapers argued that slavery was beneficial to society and that blacks were inferior to whites.20 The Northwest Ohio newspapers that I examined showed that the Democrats were concerned with both political and racial issues. They claimed that the Copperheads’ newspapers considered abolition to be a creation of “New England ‘fanaticism’” as well.21 Few of the Northwest Ohio Democratic newspapers that I examined explicitly mentioned their disagreement with the presumed values of

New Englanders. Abrams and Hutter also argued that the Copperheads’ beliefs related to blacks were shared by a “considerable portion” of the Northern population.22 This appeared valid in

20 Ray H. Abrams and W.H. Hutter, “Copperhead Newspapers and the Negro,” The Journal of Negro History 20, no. 2 (April 1935), 131-133. 21 Ibid, 149. 22 Ibid, 152. 12

Northwest Ohio during the Civil War because both the Democrat and the Republican newspapers attempted to persuade the electorate to vote for their party by ensuring that they opposed the idea of granting blacks equal status of whites.

Wood Gray developed one of the first in-depth studies on the Copperhead movement in his book, The Hidden Civil War: The Story of the Copperheads. He pointed out that this movement was strongest in the Midwest and would eventually decline in 1865. Gray’s study had a negative portrayal of the leaders of the movement by claiming that they were either political opportunists or sympathetic to the Confederate cause. He also noted that they were defeatists.

According to Gray, this movement tried to gain support by its “dislike and jealously of New

England,” uneasiness of a powerful central government, and the negative effect of abolishing slavery. Other issues that he noted were that the movement was focused on the management of the war effort, arbitrary arrests, the draft, and economic issues.23 These were common issues that the Northwest Ohio Democratic newspapers discussed. However, Gray’s negative portrayal of the Copperhead positions never addressed whether these were legitimate concerns.

Contrary to Gray’s interpretation as well as other historians, Frank Klement’s The

Copperheads in the Midwest provided a very different analysis than the norm. He described the

Copperheads as supporters of states’ rights, individual liberty, and the glorification of the idea of an agrarian nation. The author also portrayed this movement as one that opposed the “new

America,” which had a “stronger government” and was based on an industrialized economy. In particular, he pointed out that people became Copperheads because of arbitrary arrests and increasing authoritarian powers of the government.24 These appeared to be concerns that the

23 Wood Gray, The Hidden Civil War: The Story of the Copperheads (New York, The Viking Press, 1942), 14, 63- 64, 100, and 139. 24 Frank L. Klement, The Copperheads in the Middle West (Gloucester, Peter Smith, 1972), 17 and 267. 13

Copperheads had in Northwest Ohio during the Civil War because the Democratic newspapers often discussed these issues. The author’s book left the impression that the Copperheads were not particularly influential and did not make much of a difference in politics. For example,

Klement commented on how the Copperheads failed to win elections in 1864. He even described this event as a “decisive defeat.”25 This left the impression that the Copperheads were ineffective and not persuasive enough to create a strong opposition to the Union Party. However, my research on the Northwest Ohio political sentiment during the Civil War demonstrates that the

Copperhead movement was a little more influential than Klement’s portrayal, because there were counties that consistently voted Democratic during the Civil War.

Another examination of the Copperheads and the Democratic Party during the Civil War was developed by Joel Silbey who explored these groups in his book, A Respectable Minority:

The Democratic Party in the Civil War Era, 1860-1868. He argued that the Democratic Party was “competitive” against the “dominant Republicans,” because it defeated the leading party in the North on several occasions during the Civil War.26 One factor that may have contributed to the Democrats not achieving the status that Republicans had was when the author noted that the

Democrats took on an unpopular position, which was opposing an administration during the time of war.27 However, the Democratic Party remained committed to its principles and communities, which allowed it to maintain its competitiveness. Silbey also noted that the Democrats differed from the Republicans on the war because they thought the war was meant to preserve the Union and felt that it should have only a “limited impact on American society.” Instead, the author claimed that the Democrats began to oppose the war effort when the Lincoln administration

25 Ibid, 239. 26 Joel H. Silbey, A Respectable Minority: The Democratic Party in the Civil War Era, 1860-1868 (New York, W.W Norton & Company, 1977), X-XI. 27 Ibid, 90-91. 14 began emancipating the slaves because they felt that the cause of the war changed into an abolition one.28 Further, Silbey’s analysis of the importance of Democratic principles and ideological differences between the Democrats and the Republicans appeared to be valid in the

Northwest Ohio newspapers during the Civil War, especially with the author’s emphasis on

Democratic principles.

Similar to Klement’s argument was Richard Curry’s, which explored the Copperheads and the Democrats as well as how they differed from the Republicans. In particular, he argued that the Copperheads and Peace Democrats were of traditional values, while they perceived the

Republicans and Confederates as “revolutionary groups.” The author noted that the Copperheads and the Democrats felt that the Republicans desired to “transform” the nation. Curry believed that this transformation of the Union through abolition and industrialization was strongly rejected by the Copperheads and the Democrats.29 Moreover, this meant that the Copperheads and the

Democrats were resisting change and preferred to maintain the nation as it was before the

Republican Party. Curry also argued that the Democrats and the Republicans were both

“bankrupt in their ideology.” For example, he noted that the Republicans were primarily focused on economic reforms, such as giving subsidies and having internal improvement projects, instead of social reforms, such as racial equality laws.30 The author also discussed how the Republicans exaggerated the positions of the Democrats. For example, he claimed that Republicans used propaganda, such as the ‘Great Northwest Conspiracy of 1864,’ to falsely accuse the Democrats of treason, because they opposed the Republicans’ effort of handling the war. Further, he argued

28 Ibid, 49-50 and 190. 29 Richard O. Curry, “Copperheadism and Continuity: The Anatomy of a Stereotype,” The Journal of Negro History 57, no. 1 (January 1972), 33. 30 Ibid, 35-36. 15 that the Democrats were not traitors because they desired to preserve the Union as it was, instead of transforming it.31

Contrary to the arguments of Klement, Silbey, and Curry’s arguments, Robert Abzug’s interpretation attempted to bring about a different approach to understanding the Copperheads.

He argued that the peace movement caused some to engage in “direct action as a means of protest” in addition to voting.32 This seemed to have suggested that the Copperheads hindered the war effort by their behavior, rather than through the polls. Abzug also noted that the

Copperheads primary concern was resistance to abolition, blacks, industrialization, and tyranny.

In particular, he noted that the Democrats’ tyranny claim was a consequence of the Republicans’ efforts to silence opposition, arrest of Vallandigham, and implementation of the draft.

Additionally, the author claimed that they used these issues to attract supporters based on their

“fear[s] and grievance[s].”33 Some of these elements were confirmed in the Northwest Ohio political newspapers. However, the direct action claim was rarely mentioned in the Northwest

Ohio newspapers. In particular, this may have not been mentioned as a method by the

Democratic newspapers to downplay the peace movement as not being patriotic.

Another interpretation was when Jennifer Weber examined the Copperheads in

Copperheads: The Rise and Fall of Lincoln’s Opponents in the North. Her work was in response to Klement’s analysis on the Copperheads and she attempted to disprove his theory that the

Copperheads were not a “threat” to the Republicans. She described them as “obstructionists,” which meant that the Peace Democrats hindered the war effort by openly attempting to persuade

31 Ibid, 30-32. 32 Robert H. Abzug, “The Copperheads: Historical Approaches to Civil War Dissent in the Midwest,” Indiana Magazine of History 66, no. 1 (March 1970), 54. 33 Ibid, 53-54. 16 men to oppose the draft as well as abandoning the army.34 The primary sources that I examined for my thesis demonstrated that the Northwest Ohio Democratic newspapers disapproved of the draft, but there was no mention of them explicitly motivating soldiers to desert. Additionally, the author also considered the Copperheads to be irrational and that their policies did not take into account the situation the North was in to preserve the Union. Her study noted that the

Copperheads were committed to the Union, and believed that Lincoln was violating the

Constitution.35 Weber’s analysis attempted to downplay whether the Copperheads were justified for this concern. The Northwest Ohio Democratic newspapers showed that this was one of the primary issues that they were focused on. Her analysis also neglected that some of the concerns of Peace Democrats may have restricted the Republicans’ actions on civil liberties. Further,

Weber should have justified her position more effectively that the Copperheads’ positions were misguided.

One of the more recent critiques of the Copperhead movement was by Thomas Rodgers.

His particular analysis scrutinized both Klement, Silbey, and Weber’s analysis. In particular, he believed that these scholars as well as others needed to examine Northern politics through the framework of “ideological concerns,” which were embedded in the parties prior to the Civil War and remained throughout the war. Additionally, he argued that scholars should use a “subjective rationality model,” instead of the liberal-rational approach that other scholars previously used.36

The author noted that the role of localism was important as well. He believed this explained why

“Catholics immigrant enclaves” resisted the federal government’s war effort.37 He also discussed

34 Jennifer L. Weber, Copperheads: The Rise and Fall of Lincoln’s Opponents in the North (New York, Oxford University Press, 2006), 6, 10, and 216. 35 Ibid, 6. 36 Thomas E. Rodgers, “Copperheads or a Respectable Minority,” Indiana Magazine of History 109, no. 2 (June 2013), 146. 37Ibid, 145. 17 that the Republicans and the Democrats perceived each other differently. For example, Rodgers argued that the Democrats believed that the Republicans were “cultural imperialists” who were unwilling to compromise, while the Republicans saw the Democrats as sharing identical positions of the Confederate government and would hinder the war effort.38 The author’s analysis pointed out characteristics that could be used when examining the political sentiment in

Northwest Ohio, such as both political parties had ideological differences and the role that localism played into these political beliefs.

The Northwest Ohio Democratic newspapers that I have examined confirmed these historians’ analyses on the Copperhead movement’s concerns about issues, such as the effect of ending slavery and a strong central government, because they were the focus of the newspapers’ coverage during the Civil War elections. However, some of these historians appeared to downplay whether these were legitimate issues to the Copperhead movement. My research on the Northwest Ohio political sentiment during the Civil War revealed that this was a legitimate issue in Northwest Ohio during the Civil War because of the amount of coverage on this topic.

The Northwest Ohio Democratic newspapers also examined in my thesis did not explicitly mention sympathies with the Confederacy. However, some may infer that they were sympathetic in that the Northwest Ohio Democratic newspapers were in favor of limited government and opposed to the liberation of blacks. Additionally, these newspapers showed that they disagreed with the handling of the war and that some, such as those who supported Vallandigham, believed in peace. This could be perceived as a defeatist mentality or as a different method of restoring the

Union. There was also the issue of whether this political movement hindered the war effort, which has proven to be difficult to answer in my research.

38 Ibid, 114-115. 18

William Zornow’s examination of the Union Party in Lincoln & the Party Divided illustrated that there was division within the party, just as there was in the Democratic Party. The author argued that the public played a role in keeping the “Unconditionals” (radicals of the party) in check.39 The author described Lincoln as falling into the moderate faction of the Union Party, which was primarily focused on winning the war to preserve the Union. He also noted that this faction wanted to gradually liberate slaves and use them to colonize other lands. On the other hand, Zornow claimed that there were the Unconditiationals, who favored the immediate liberation of slaves, making blacks socially equal to whites, and the confiscation of Confederate property. The author claimed that Unconditionals desired Republicans to dominate the political and economic spheres of the South as well. Additionally, he noted that the Democrats perceived the Lincoln administration to be inefficient, “corrupt,” and a dictatorship. Further, Zornow argued that the Democrats’ “fear” of civil liberties disappearing as a result of the continuation of the Lincoln administration’s policies was a real concern to them despite the fact that American institutions prevented this from happening.40 The different factions of the Union Party that

Zornow described did not seem to be present in Northwest Ohio during the Civil War. Instead, the Union Party and the Republicans’ newspapers in the region appeared to be united on the idea how to best manage the war effort and opposed the idea of granting equal social status to blacks.

Zornow also pointed out that the Democrats’ ideology was unable to be successful during the

Civil War because of the “chaos” that the war caused. Additionally, the author claimed that the

Union Party defeated the Democrats’ concerns by playing on the electorate’s “emotions” and

39William Frank Zornow, Lincoln & the Party Divided (Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1954), 39. 40 Ibid, 6-7 and 15-16. 19 labeling the opposition as traitors.41 This observation appeared to be valid in Northwest Ohio as evidenced by the newspaper coverage and election results.

In addition to scholars who examined the Copperheads, the Democrats, and the

Republicans, Chandra Manning explored soldiers’ interpretations of the Civil War in What This

Cruel War Was Over. Manning pointed out how soldiers from Ohio overwhelmingly rejected the

1863 Ohio gubernatorial Democratic candidate, Clement Vallandigham. She claimed that these soldiers felt that he was a “traitor.” The author also pointed out that the Union soldiers were strong supporters of the Emancipation Proclamation as a military necessity.42 My thesis research confirmed the finding that Vallandigham was depicted as a traitor by many Northwest Ohioans.

However, the private letters of soldiers that I examined did not confirm that that they were supportive of the liberation of slaves. The author also noted how white Union soldiers’ views changed throughout the war as they encountered blacks. In particular, the author noted that positive encounters with blacks led to white Union soldiers changing their mindset on the issues of slavery and racial equality.43 My research was unable to confirm this claim as the firsthand accounts I examined did not discuss encounters with blacks. Overall, Manning’s analysis on

Northern soldiers suggested that the majority of them supported the Union Party, which my research on the political sentiment in Northwest Ohio confirmed.

Along with the examination of the political sentiment of the North during the Civil War at the national level, other scholars have focused on particular regions, such as Ohio. These analyses provided a better understanding of how other scholars interpreted the political sentiment in Ohio. In particular, they revealed the ideological differences between both the Republicans

41 Ibid, 7-8. 42 Chandra Manning, What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 2007), 118-119. 43 Ibid, 221. 20 and the Democrats during the war. These studies also illustrated what scholars perceived to be the most important political issues of Ohioans during the Civil War. The depictions illustrated that the Democrats preferred a limited government and opposed the liberation of slaves, while the Republicans and the Union Party were concerned with winning the war at all costs. Further, these studies were in agreement that the majority in Ohio supported the war effort and approved of the management of the war by the Union Party.

One of the first analyses on Ohio politics during the Civil War was George Porter’s Ohio

Politics during the Civil War Era. His particular analysis pointed out that the Democrats joined together on issues pertaining to “personal liberties” and using the war effort to liberate slaves.

However, the author claimed that the majority of the Democrats did not agree with

Vallandigham’s Peace Platform.44 My analysis of Northwest Ohio Democratic newspapers supports Porter’s claim that the Democrats were concerned about personal liberties and how they believed that the Lincoln administration was changing the cause of the war from preserving the

Union to liberating slaves. The author also pointed out that the Union Party attempted to appeal to voters on that “national existence” was in jeopardy, while focusing less on how the war effort was handled and liberating slaves.45 Moreover, preserving the nation was the most important issue to those who backed the Union Party. This claim is valid when examining the political sentiment of Northwest Ohio during the Civil War. Further, Porter’s depictions of Ohio politics during the Civil War accurately identified some of the common themes portrayed in Northwest

Ohio newspapers.

Another early analysis on Ohio’s role during the Civil War was by Eugene Roseboom.

He pointed out that the Democrats attacked the Republican administration for not upholding the

44 George H. Porter, Ohio Politics During the Civil War Period (New York, Columbia University, 1911), 148. 45 Ibid, 172. 21

Constitution and trying to bring about a dictatorship. In particular, the author noted that the

Democrats pointed to the Republican administration’s acts of liberating slaves and implementing a draft. He also described supporters of Clement Vallandigham’s Democratic candidacy for the

Ohio governorship of 1863 as “poorly educated” who were from “backward” rural areas. In particular, he described these voters as opposing the “the draft, taxes, abolitionists[,] and

Negroes.” Roseboom also claimed that the “unskilled Irish laborers” found Vallandigham’s candidacy to be attractive over the concern of blacks migrating to the north to compete for jobs with them. On the other hand, the author argued that the backers of the Union Party were “more educated and prosperous both in city and country.” He also noted that Protestant clergy supported the Union Party.46 Further, this examination of the Civil War politics depicted the

Democrats negatively, and suggested that they appealed to lower income and lesser informed individuals. On the other hand, the followers of the Union Party were seen more positively, because the author portrayed them as higher income and more informed voters. My research on the Northwest Ohio political sentiment confirms the claim that Roseboom made about the issues concerning Democrats and they were concentrated in rural areas, which were away from large urban centers. However, there appears to be insufficient amount of sources related to the

Northwest Ohio political sentiment to confirm the income and education levels of the political sentiment.

W. Sherman Jackson’s focus on Ohio Civil War politics centered on the role that race played into politics. He argued that the Democrats focused on issues, such as the consequences of liberating slaves. In particular, Jackson claimed that the Democrats raised the issue that blacks

46 Roseboom, 419-421. 22 would have attained “political and social equality.”47 This theme often appeared in the Northwest

Ohio Democratic newspapers warning of the potential consequences of a Union Party victory.

Jackson also pointed out how the Republicans and the Union Party handled the issue of race. In particular, he argued that they portrayed the liberation of slaves and the enlistment of blacks in the army as a military necessity. Additionally, the author suggested that the Republicans and the

Union Party perceived their electoral successes as approval for their racial policies, which encouraged them to further pursue these policies.48 My research on the Northwest Ohio political sentiment during the Civil War supports Jackson’s belief of how the Democrats and the Union

Party differed on racial issues. However, it showed that the Union Party downplayed racial equality.

Another analysis of Ohio Civil War politics was discussed in George Knepper’s Ohio and Its People, which rightfully pointed out that both the Republicans and the War Democrats supported the Lincoln administration, giving him the majority of state support. However, he did point out that the Peace Democrats existed in Ohio and were “outspoken” who openly attacked

Lincoln’s policies. 49 The author depicted this movement as one that hindered the war effort by interfering with officials who attempted to recruit men for the war. For example, he noted that

“[a]ntiwar extremists” were persuading others to resist the draft and engage in devastation.

Additionally, he noted that riots occurred over the draft and being anti-black, which were mainly in rural areas composed of both German and Irish immigrants. However, Knepper pointed out these riots were not nearly of the magnitude of the riots in New York. The author also pointed out that some of the War Democrats left the Union Party to go back to the Democrats because

47 W. Sherman Jackson, “Emancipation, Negrophobia and Civil War Politics in Ohio, 1863-1865,” The Journal of Negro History 65, no. 2 (Summer 1980), 255. 48 Ibid, 256-257. 49 George W. Knepper, Ohio and Its People (Kent: Kent State University Press, 2003), 228. 23 they felt that Lincoln was unable to be persuaded to change his policies and feared black migration to Ohio.50 His analysis suggested that although the Democrats were effective in negatively affecting the war effort, they were not influential enough to change the state of Ohio into a Democratic majority.

One book that provided an in-depth analysis of Ohio during the Civil War was James

Bissland’s Blood, Tears, & Glory: How Ohioans Won the Civil War. The study provided insight to the role of the Copperheads and the Radical Republicans as well as the primary factor that influenced the electorate in Ohio. He depicted Vallandigham and the Copperheads as holding positions that many people agreed with, but did not present these ideas in public because they were afraid of potential consequences of opposing the war effort. The author also noted that

Vallandigham and the Copperheads were “loyal” to the Union, but disagreed with how the war was handled, and favored peaceful negotiations instead. Additionally, the Copperheads were angered at the role abolitionists were playing in the war effort. As a result of holding these positions, the pro-war movement considered these positions as treason. However, the

Copperheads felt that this movement hindered the war effort, and made victory less likely. Both the Republicans and the War Democrats opposed this ideology. Bissland also pointed out that this ideology was “vague” and “impractical.”51 Bissland’s analysis demonstrated that the

Copperheads existed in Ohio, but were ineffective influencing legislation and winning elections.

On the other hand, he portrayed the Radical Republicans, who desired the war to be conducted more severely,52 as being more influential during the war. In particular, he noted that this movement played a crucial role in Lincoln replacing a Democratic Postmaster General,

50 Ibid, 228 and 237-239. 51 James Bissland, Blood, Tears, & Glory: How Ohioans Won the Civil War (Wilmington: Orange Frazer Press, 2007), 277-279. 52 Ibid, 145. 24

Montgomery Blair, with former Ohio Governor, William Dennison.53 Overall, Bissland contributed military successes in influencing the elections, rather than party ideologies. In particular, he noted that John Brough and Abraham Lincoln were elected (as Ohio governor in

1863 and the United States president in 1864, respectively) as a result of battlefield victories, such as Vicksburg and Gettysburg.54 Further, Bissland’s examination suggested that Ohio mostly remained loyal to Union, while there was the existence of an anti-war opposition that did have a small amount of influence.

The literature examined here illustrated that the common traits among the political opposition appeared to be visible in the Northwest Ohio newspapers. However, there were conflicting interpretations to the role of the Copperheads, because some perceived them of being very influential, while others believed that they were not effective in influencing changes within the state. Another problem that this literature has is that it does not place an emphasis on the importance of Northwest Ohio for being the Democratic stronghold in Ohio. However, some of the literature did point to characteristics, which would make it a Democratic stronghold, such as being both rural and isolated.

Along with scholars who examined Ohio’s state politics during the war, there have also been studies that have focused on examining other states’ politics during the Civil War. These particular studies provide insight to whether state politics differed from state to state in the

Union. Moreover, they will reveal which issues were national and local. The local studies that will be discussed here examined the politics in the states of California, Connecticut, Illinois,

Indiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. These particular states were in different parts of the Union.

California was once a territory in the west; Connecticut was in the North East; Illinois, Indiana,

53 Ibid, 161. 54 Ibid, 319 and 372. 25 and Michigan were in what was considered to be the Middle West; and Pennsylvania experienced one of the Civil War’s most important battles, Gettysburg, unlike the other states discussed here.

One of these studies was by Gerald Stanley, which explored Civil War politics in

California. His discussion of California’s politics centered mainly on race. In particular, Stanley argued that voters agreed with the Republicans’ position of the Emancipation Proclamation as a military necessity. Additionally, the author claimed that the Republicans felt that the blacks would have remained in the South after the war because of the climate.55 His analysis gave the impression that this political sentiment was shared by the majority of Californians. In particular, he noted that the Democrats failed to convince the electorate that blacks were going to achieve equal status of whites.56 Although Stanley mostly discussed race as an important issue in

California politics, he claimed that the railroad bills may have been of equal importance.57 This suggested that California’s regional interests appeared to be different from elsewhere in the

Union. More railroads connecting California to the rest of the Union would improve the state’s commerce with other states by having the means of transporting goods faster. Further, other states may have not placed a greater importance on railroad bills if they had a sufficient amount of them.

John Glen, Thomas Rogers, Saundra Taylor, Stephen Towne, and Nancy Turner provided a brief insight to the political sentiment of Indiana during the Civil War. Unlike California,

Indiana was closer to the war as it borders Kentucky, a border state. Their analysis mostly focused on suggesting primary sources for further study. However, the authors’ study did discuss

55 Gerald Stanley, “Civil War Politics in California,” Southern California Quarterly 64, no. 2 (Summer 1982), 121 and 122. 56 Ibid, 121. 57 Ibid, 128. 26 briefly the changes and the political issues that occurred in Indiana during the Civil War. In particular, they pointed out that during this time period Indiana was experiencing changes, which were “modernizing” the state. These changes they claimed were the emergence of cities, industry, European and southern black migration, and railroad expansion.58 The study also contributed the Republicans’ successes in the state due to alleging the Peace Democrats as traitors as well as the internal division among the Democrats.59 The success of the Union Party argument appeared to have some validity, elsewhere in the Union, such as certain counties in

Northwest Ohio. One weakness to this study is that it does not focus on the major political issues and ideological differences between the two major parties, other than one favored war, while the other opposed. Overall, the study showed that Indiana differed from other regions because of migration to the state, and it was less industrialized compared to other states.

A state that was even closer to the war and experienced a major Civil War battle was

Pennsylvania, which Wayne Smith examined its politics through other interpretations. He noted that there was some form of opposition to the draft throughout the state.60 This suggested that the draft was an important issue to those who did not support Lincoln. Additionally, Smith pointed out how there were regions in Pennsylvania, such as Philadelphia, which had its reasons for opposing the war and being a “Democratic stronghold.” In particular, the author claimed that this was a result of the “elites” of the city having an economic relationship with the South. Another reason he pointed out that others have noted was that there were Scottish and Irish immigrants who perceived potential black migration as an economic threat in the labor market. Smith even

58 John M. Glen, Thomas E. Rogers, Saundra B Taylor, Stephen E. Towne, and Nancy K. Turner, “Indiana in the Civil War Era,” Indiana Magazine of History 92, no. 3 (September 1996), 255. 59 Ibid, 257. 60 Wayne Smith, “Pennsylvania and the American Civil War: Recent Trends and Interpretations,” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 51, no. 3 (July 1984), 222. 27 noted that conservative Catholics supported the Democrats because of their feud with “nativists,” while moderate Catholics backed the Union. Additionally, he claimed that there was a conflict between the “industrialists” and the “traditional elite.”61 This particular analysis revealed how

Pennsylvania differed from other places in the Union because of different demographics and the economic relationships that some had with the South.

Along with Stanley’s analysis, Joanna Cowden examined the Civil War Democrats in

Connecticut. Her analysis portrayed the Peace Democrats as having legitimate concerns about the effects the war had on changing the nation. She noted that the Peace Democrats garnered favorability when they suggested more Union military victories led to the further assault on

“individual liberties,” “states’ rights,” and an “unintrusive federal government.” On the other hand, the War Democrats did not view the federal government with the same level of animosity.

The author also made the argument that voters supported the Democrats either because of party loyalty or shared the concern about losing both individual rights and states’ rights. She pointed out that they believed this was a reality because of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and possibilities of conscription. The author pointed out another issue that improved the image of the Democrats among voters was the Emancipation Proclamation because individuals felt that blacks should have been beneath whites in status. Additionally, she noted that this war was

“revolutionary” and brought “fundamental changes to the Union,” which drastically altered it from being a “small-scale” agrarian society.62 Further, her analysis demonstrated that the Peace

Democrats were primarily concerned with civil liberties and racial issues in Connecticut.

61 Ibid, 222-223. 62 Joanna D. Cowden, “The Politics of Dissent: Civil War Democrats in Connecticut,” The New England Quarterly 56, no. 4 (December 1983), 543 and 551-553. 28

Similar to the political disagreements that Cowden found, Martin Hershock came to a similar conclusion of the ideological differences among the Republicans and the Democrats in

Michigan. In particular, he argued that the Civil War politics in Michigan were dominated by partisan politics. Additionally, Hershock believed that partisan politics was beneficial to the war effort because it caused the Republican Party’s different factions to come together to oppose the

Democratic Party. However, the author never considered the Democrats to be serious competition with the Republicans because there were not many of them.63 His analysis left the impression that the Democrats opposed the Republicans because they felt that the Republicans’ partisan politics dominated policies. For example, Hershock pointed out that Democrats criticized the Republicans for being unwilling to have bipartisanism agreements. He even noted that the Democrats believed the primary reason why the South left the Union was that it felt that

Lincoln would have violated its constitutional rights. Further, the author noted that the

Democrats felt that the Lincoln administration and the Republicans ultimate goal was “despotic government.”64 His analysis also rightfully pointed out that there were ideological differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. In particular, Hershock noted that the Democrats believed that the Union could have only survived by “traditional party principles,” which focused on a strict interpretation of the Constitution and smaller government. On the other hand, he pointed out that the Republicans’ ideology centered on national welfare and expanded government authority when it was necessary for the war effort.65 This analysis demonstrated the role that partisan politics played in Michigan during the civil war in which there were two

63Martin J. Hershock, “Copperheads and Radicals: Michigan Partisan Politics during the Civil War Era, 1860-1865,” Michigan Historical Review 18, no. 1 (Spring 1992), 30, 68. 64 Ibid, 38, 40, 61. 65 Ibid, 43-44 and 49. 29 conflicting ideologies. Further, the Republicans were focused on the general welfare of the nation, while the Democrats preferred less government involvement.

Another study was conducted by Michael Kleen, and this research focused on the politics in Illinois. In particular, his analysis primarily focused on the Copperheads and the Democrats, but he did discuss the tension they had with the Republicans. His analysis showed that the state was “equally divided.” In particular, he noted that Northern Illinois was primarily Republican, while Southern Illinois was mostly Democrats. However, he noted that political opposition did exist in these areas. The author noted that Illinois had immigrants from Southern states, such as

Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia as well. As a result of this migration, Kleen claimed that this showed how there were southern interests in the state.66 This migration showed how Illinois differed from other states because it had immigrants with connections to the South. The author also argued that the Republicans’ actions caused the Copperheads and the Democrats to dissent.

Kleen claimed that the Copperheads and the Democrats’ reactions to the Republicans’ policies, such as draft riots, “defend[ed] their political rights.” He also noted this type of behavior of direct resistance only occurred in a “few isolated instances.”67 Additionally, the author pointed out that the Democrats perceived making compromises with the Republicans meant that they should have to approve every Republican proposal, while not having their interests represented.68

Further, the author noted that the Copperheads and the Democrats’ opposition to the Republicans was that “they personally felt threatened by the war and the policies of the Lincoln

66 Michael Kleen, “The Copperhead Threat in Illinois: Peace Democrats, Loyalty Leagues, and the Charleston Riot of 1864,” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 105, no. 2 (Spring 2005), 72-74. 67 Ibid, 71-72 and 79. 68 Ibid, 72-74. 68 Ibid, 71-72, 79, and.87. 30

Administration,” especially with how the Union handled its critics.69 Overall, this study illustrated that demographics played an important role in Illinois’ Civil War partisan politics.

The common themes that these micro studies revealed were that both ideological differences as well as concerns over civil liberties and blacks gaining racial equality existed.

These traits were reflected in the overall political sentiment of the Union. However, there were minor differences in the political divisions in the states that the micro studies explored. The analysis on California would make one wonder whether some of the Californian electorate feared despotism, like others did in both Michigan and Connecticut. Additionally, the microstudies on both Illinois and Pennsylvania illustrated that some of their population had relationships to the

South, which had an effect on their political sentiment that differed elsewhere in the Union. The analysis of Michigan’s politics during the Civil War also appeared to be most similar to

Northwest Ohio, which may have been explained by its geographical location and demographic similarities. In particular, both my study and Hershock’s study suggested that both regions had an ideological difference, which focused on the interpretation of the Constitution and civil liberties as well as the best solution to restore the Union. The overall importance of these regional studies discussed here shows that each state in the Union differed in what the electorate placed as the most important issue. However, all of them seem to be in agreement that each state was in favor of preserving the Union by any means necessary.

The overall literature on Northern political sentiment suggested that there were a variety of reasons why voters seemed to have supported and opposed a particular party, based on their ideology. The most common reasons to support the Union were that voters believed in the importance of preserving the Union, believed that Lincoln’s policies were necessary, and felt that

69 Ibid, 79. 31 supporting the Democrats was treasonous. On the other hand, scholars are more split on why some of the electorate supported the Democrats. Some reasons were that voters may have been sympathetic to the South, desired to maintain white men’s social position in society, resisted tyranny, and feared social change. The literature also suggested that the Union soldiers were overwhelmingly in support of the war as well. The studies that were examined here, which focused on particular regions, showed that the political sentiment varied from region to region, especially on which one was the most important. Further, all of the studies examined here provided additional insight to how the political sentiment varied among groups and regions.

My research suggests that many of these issues discussed appeared here to have relevance to the Northwest Ohio region. However, it demonstrates that the political sentiment that backed the Union was primarily concerned with the war effort and believed that emancipation and other policies were perceived as necessary to win the war. Additionally, the

Union Party and the Republican newspapers downplayed blacks gaining equal social status of whites. There were some economic concerns as well. These revolved around the idea of how to best expand the economy, which centered on government intervention in the forms of tariffs and subsidies. This particular claim did not appear as important in the other literature that I examined here. On the other hand, my research confirmed the claim made by some scholarly studies discussed here that the main concerns of the Democrats were that the Lincoln administration was infringing on civil liberties and opposed to the idea of liberating blacks because of potential consequences, such as migrating to the North and driving down wages of lower white skilled workers. Another reason that was rarely discussed in the literature examined that my research found was that the Democrats opposed the war over economic concerns, such as higher taxes.

My research also found that Northwest Ohio differed from other regions because it was a very 32 race conscientious society, since the region was primarily white and had a smaller population density, which played a role in how the newspapers handled racial issues. Further, the political sentiment in Northwest Ohio showed that both parties were ideologically driven and believed that their position was right, while a slight majority voted in favor of preserving the Union.

CHAPTER I. 1860 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Introduction

Due to sectional interest, the American nation was on a verge of disunion if one of the divisive candidates got elected. A conflict of vision between free labor and slave labor existed where compromises failed to satisfy both parties. Policies, such as the Kanas-Nebraska Act and the Fugitive Slave Act, angered many of those who were opposed to slavery. Additionally, the pro-slavery movement wished to preserve its slavery institution. On the other hand, others desired to prevent the growth of slavery and wished to restrict it to the states where it already existed. There was also an existence of an abolitionist movement, whose followers wanted slavery to be abolished throughout the nation. One contributing factor to the abolitionist movement was influential literature, such as William Lloyd Garrison’s The Liberator and

Harriett Beecher-Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. This literature raised both moral and ethical questions of slavery. Some claimed that the literature influenced individuals, such as John Brown who attempted to jump start a slave revolt and was even willing to give up his life to use violence to achieve his political goals at Harpers Ferry.

Political candidates would emerge who would represent different regional interests. The

Republican Party nominated Abraham Lincoln to represent the North’s economic interests, which focused on free labor. Stephen Douglas represented the National Democratic Party, who favored limited government and “popular sovereignty.” The South preferred an advocate of slavery who would look out for its regional’s interest, which was John Breckenridge. John Bell was the leader of the Constitutional Union Party, which downplayed the issue of slavery.

Historian James McPherson described the elections 1860 as “unique,” because [t]he campaign 34 resolved itself into two separate contests: Lincoln vs. Douglas in the North; Breckinridge vs. Bell in the South.”70

Because of these different regional interests, the presidential election of 1860 illustrates that each region in the nation had its own unique political sentiment that were concerned about different issues. This chapter examines the political sentiment in Northwest Ohio in an effort to demonstrate how the region was divided over particular issues. It will also reveal why members of the electorate supported certain candidates as well as how political views in Northwest Ohio may have differed from other regions.

Political Movements

Four political parties with their own vision of the United States emerged in the spring of

1860 to compete for the presidency. They were the Republican Party, the National Democratic

Party in the North, the Democratic Party in the South, and the Constitutional Union Party.

Although differences existed between these parties, none of the parties were in favor of emancipation nor disunion.71 These parties were concerned about the best method to handle slavery, especially concerning the newly acquired land in the territories. One concern among these issues was whether these approaches to deal with national issues were constitutional. In particular, they were focused on how much authority the federal government had to intervene in states’ domestic and economic policies.

The Republican Party’s platform revolved around its position as anti-slavery. It was opposed to reintroducing the slave trade, believed that the federal government (Congress) had the authority to prevent the expansion of slavery into the territories, and did not want to interfere where slavery already existed. Other issues focused on giving subsidies to railroad companies to

70 McPherson, 223. 71 Rawley, 8. 35 expand to the pacific, “protecting the rights of naturalized citizens,” “protective tariff,” and

“homestead law.”72 Moreover, the Republican platform focused on improving the industrialization of the United States by protecting and aiding industry.73 The Republican Party also had a faction within the party known as the “Wide Awakes,” whose slogans were “Free

Speech, Free Homes, Free Territory” and “Union, Liberty and Honor.”74 This faction was also known to be composed of men who were fit to serve in the military.75 Further, the Republican

Party was focused on restricting slavery and growing the economy through government intervention.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party of the North favored territorial expansion, preferred the federal government not interfering with the economy, and opposed federal funding of internal improvement projects.76 Additionally, its political views remained similar to the

Jacksonian Democrat era.77 During this period, the Jacksonian Democrats were focused on opposing national banks, supporting hard money, being suspicious of a powerful executive and internal improvement projects, and desiring low tariffs.78 The Democratic Party in the South separated from the National Democratic Party over disagreements with the northern Democrats on the issue of slavery. The northern Democrats preferred states to decide whether slavery existed, while the southern Democrats desired slavery being federally recognized.79

The Constitutional Union Party was composed of Whigs who believed the best method of handling the slave issue was to avoid it.80 Additionally, historian David Hackett Fischer noted

72 Ibid. 73 McPherson, 220-221. 74 David Hackett Fischer, Liberty and Freedom (New York, Oxford University Press, 2005), 306. 75 Ibid. 76 Silbey, 27. 77 Ibid. 28. 78 Rawley. 16. 79 Ibid, 7-8. 80 McPherson, 221. 36 that “[it] had a single plank: ‘the Constitution, the Union and the enforcement of the laws,’ which they called ‘the greatest principles of public liberty and national safety.’”81 This meant that the

Constitutional Union Party believed that the nation should have been governed like the “old republic,” with a focus on the Constitution.82 This particular party was considered to have taken a moderate approach to slavery.83 The Constitutional Party differed from the other parties because they were focused on the “old republic” and desired to govern the nation before sectional interests arose.

However, the differences that existed created a conflict of visions with much tension.

According to historian Joel Silbey, the Democrats and the Republicans had ideological disagreements over issues, such as “government power, the nature of personal rights and individual liberty, and the proper mode and policies for promoting the general welfare.”84 These differences would have been observed in the political campaigns of both parties in which each side believed it was right, while the others were wrong. Further, these four political parties had a conflict of vision over policy making and the direction of the country, which would lead to an intense political campaign.

Political Candidates

The Republican candidate was Abraham Lincoln who was from Illinois and served one term in the House of Representatives. He also failed to get elected into the Senate.85

Additionally, Lincoln was a lawyer who represented railroad companies.86 Although Lincoln personally opposed slavery and believed it “‘was morally wrong’ and freedom was the ‘eternal

81 Fischer, 302. 82 Ibid, 302. 83 Ibid, 301. 84 Silbey, 24. 85 Rawley, 12. 86 David Herbert Donald, Lincoln (New York: Simon & Shuster, 1995), 154. 37 right,’” he only wanted to prevent the institution from entering newly acquired territories. He also respected the laws at the time and believed that they should have been enforced, including the Fugitive Slave Act. This position was not supported by some of those in the Republican

Party.87 In order to appeal to a wider range of voters, Hannibal Hamlin was selected as the Vice

Presidential candidate. Hamlin was from Maine and once a Democrat.88 Lincoln mainly concentrated on gaining support from the states in the North. He also did not attempt to reach voters in the South as his name was absent on the ticket of ten states in the South.89

The Democratic candidate was Stephen Douglas, who was a senator representing Illinois.

He was a strong advocate for “popular sovereignty,” which meant that the states should have the right to decide whether they wanted to be a free state.90 Additionally, Douglas portrayed himself as the “national candidate,” a politician who was the only one that could preserve the Union.91

Douglas also believed that national interests could have been best served if the nation was powerful, while the federal government’s authority was restricted. Moreover, he believed the people of the United States could have only been the ones to control the Western Hemisphere if the national government would not interfere with them. He also had a strict interpretation of the

Constitution and felt that slavery could not be abolished as it was included in the document.92

Herschel Johnson was his Vice Presidential candidate. Johnson was from Georgia where he practiced law and owned a plantation.93 Douglas attempted to attract supporters from each

87 Fischer, 305. 88 McPherson, 220. 89 Rawley, 8-9. 90 Ibid, 7. 91 McPherson, 224. 92 Fischer, 305. 93 C.J. Ramage, “Herschel Vespasian Johnson,” The Virginia Register 7, no. 10 (February 1922), 736 and 741. 38 different region, but focused more time on the South in hopes of persuading the region into supporting him over Breckenridge.94

John Breckenridge, who was from Kentucky and served as the Vice President to James

Buchanan, was the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party in the South.95 Breckenridge’s positions were that he opposed disunion and believed in “[t]he Constitution and the equality of the states.”96 Breckenridge was also a strong believer of limited government, racial inequality by denying blacks civil rights, and an “absolute protection of ‘personal property.”97 The vice presidential candidate for the Southern Democratic Party was Joseph Lane, who was living in

Oregon, but originally from North Carolina. He was a strong supporter of slavery as well.98 The primary support of the Breckenridge and Lane ticket was in the South, especially with those who favored secession.99

The other candidate for president was John Bell, who represented the Constitutional

Union Party. Bell was from Tennessee and a slave owner.100 He was also considered to be one of the forefathers of the “old Whig Party.”101 According to Fischer, “[Bell] had supported the great compromises and was the only southerner in Congress to vote against the Kansas-Nebraska

Act.”102 His vice presidential candidate was Edward Everett who was from Massachusetts.103

Both of these candidates were in agreement with preventing the South from seceding.

94 Fischer, 305. 95 Rawley, 7. 96 Fischer, 303. 97 Ibid. 98 McPherson, 222. 99 Fischer, 303. 100 McPherson, 221. 101 Fischer, 302. 102 Ibid. 103 McPherson, 221. 39

Furthermore, the majority of Bell’s supporters were from “moderate voters in the upper South and lower North.”104

Each of these candidates had a different vision of what the United States should become.

This vision was based on their parties’ ideology as well as their regions’ interests. However,

Fischer pointed out that Douglas differed from the rest because “[he] was the only candidate in

1860 who campaigned actively in every part of the United States and tried to reach the people in every town.”105 On the other hand, Lincoln focused on the North, while Bell and Breckenridge concentrated their efforts on winning support from the South. As a result of these regional interests, Northwest Ohio newspapers almost exclusively focused on supporting either Lincoln or

Douglas because they were from the North and represented northern interests. Breckenridge and

Bell were rarely discussed.

The Republican Newspapers’ Election Coverage

The Republican newspapers in Northwest Ohio focused the majority of their coverage on

Lincoln and Douglas. Their minimal coverage on Breckenridge and Bell’s presidency campaigns suggested that the election in the North was between Lincoln and Douglas. The primary political issues that the Republican newspapers mainly focused on were slavery and the Homestead Bill.

The common themes they presented throughout their political campaign coverage was that

Lincoln was “Honest Abe,” and the Republicans were morally right on divisive issues, such as slavery. On the other hand, the Republican newspapers depicted that the Democrats were immoral and desired to oppress others. Further, this newspaper coverage demonstrated a conflict of vision between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

104 Fischer, 303. 105 Ibid, 305. 40

One of the more important issues for the Republican newspapers was its belief in free labor, which they believed was better than slave labor. One particular column in the Williams

County Leader discussed that the major differences between the Republican Party and the

Democratic Party were that the Republicans believed in free labor, while the Democrats took the position of slave labor. The column pointed out that the Republicans’ position on free labor was proof that they believed in the “[f]reedom and the equality of man.” On the other hand, the

Northern Democrats were mild in their support of slavery, while the Southern Democrats staunchly preferred slave labor. The column also noted that slave labor protected the “privileged class.”106 This meant that free labor, unlike slave labor, had social mobility, and thus had the possibility of becoming part of the privileged class. Further, the column argued that the

Republicans’ position was correct because freedom was one of the primary principles on which the nation was created.107 Another column in The Weekly Perrysburg Journal criticized the

Democrats of choosing Hershel Johnson as the Vice Presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket because he opposed free labor. The column pointed out that this was demonstrated by

Johnson’s ownership of a Georgia plantation, which used slaves. It also alleged that Johnson stated that “capital should own labor whether white or black.” Moreover, he believed that every laborer should be property of the owners of production.108 The Republican newspapers’ argument in favor of free labor was used to influence the electorate of Northwest Ohio to support the Republican Party because free labor was depicted as a founding principle of the country.

In addition to favoring the free labor ideology, the Republican newspapers attempted to make the argument that the Republican Party served the interest of whites by opposing slavery.

106 “Young Man—Your First Vote,” Williams County Leader, October 4, 1860, 2. 107 Ibid. 108 “Farmer and Mechanics,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 4, 1860, 1. 41

For instance, The Weekly Perrysburg Journal alleged that a supporter of Stephen Douglas in

Toledo, Patrick Galloway, decided to back Lincoln for a variety of reasons instead. In particular, it noted that Galloway believed that allowing slavery to flourish throughout the states where the issues were undecided would have only “injure[d]” the white race.109 This particular example showed how one voter perceived voting for Lincoln was in the best interest of the white race.

Another column in the Williams County Leader noted that that the slave population in the South was expected to increase to 60 million. Further, it pointed out if this continues the nation will become “a republic of slaves,” rather than a democracy for white men.110 The Republican newspapers preferred to maintain a demographic white majority by not reopening the slave trade.

In fact, one column in The Weekly Perrysburg Journal noted that “southern papers” reported demographic statistics in which the black population increased by “33 1-3 percent” from 1850 to

1860. Further, if this growth rate continued, the black population would have increased to 14.3 million in 1900. Additionally, the column pointed out that this did not include the reopening of the slave trade. Moreover, if the Democratic Party reopened the slave trade, the number would have been much higher. The Republican newspapers argued that the consequence of this policy would have made the nation a country of black slaves, rather than its perceived original intent of being for whites.111 These column aimed at suggesting to the voters of Northwest Ohio that the

Republicans would best protect the interest of whites and maintain the nation as being one for mainly whites. Further, this may have resonated with many of the electorate in Northwest Ohio because the region was an overwhelmingly majority white population, and this policy would directly align with its interests.

109 “Things Are Working,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, November 1, 1860, 2. 110 “Sixty Million Slaves,” Williams County Leader, October 18, 1860, 1. 111 “Fourteen Million Slave!,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 11, 1860, 2. 42

The coverage of the Republican newspapers also suggested that the Democrats were misleading voters on the issue of blacks being as equal as whites. Moreover, they argued that it was the Democratic Party who was most in favor of blacks having the same rights as whites. One column in The Weekly Perrysburg Journal provided examples of why they considered

Democrats to be hypocrites. It argued that the Democratic majorities in the states of Maine,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Ohio enacted laws to provide blacks with more rights. Additionally, the column even noted that Martin Van Buren’s Vice President candidate,

Richard Johnson, was married to a black woman. On the other hand, it claimed that the

Republican Party was in favor of new territories and states, such as Kansas, being only for whites.112 Another column in The Weekly Perrysburg Journal alleged that Douglas’ Vice

Presidential candidate, Hershel Johnson, engaged in a sexual relationship with black women who had Johnson’s offspring.113 These columns alleged that white Democrats perceived the blacks to be equals because they have advocated providing more rights and were even willing to have sexual relationships with them. To further show how the Democrats were in favor of blacks, the

Bucyrus Journal alleged that that blacks attended a meeting of Douglas supporters.114 The theme of these columns were to suggest that the Democrats were in favor of black equality compared to the Republican Party. Moreover, according to a number of newspaper accounts supporting the

Democrats meant supporting racial equality.

Coverage by the Republican newspapers supported Lincoln’s position to end the expansion of slavery as well as attempting to appeal to the foreign born to back Lincoln and the

Republican Party. For example, one column in The Weekly Perrysburg Journal provided an

112 “Douglas Democracy in Favor of Negro Equality,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 4, 1860, 1. 113 “Negro Equality,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 4, 1860, 2. 114 “A Club of Douglasite Negroes,” Bucyrus Journal, October 11, 1860, 2. 43 excerpt of one of Lincoln’s speeches in which Lincoln claimed the federal government had the authority to prevent the expansion of slavery. Additionally, he used a snake analogy to illustrate how bad it was to allow the expansion of slavery. Moreover, Lincoln noted that slavery was an evil that needed to be restricted in its current area instead of expanding into freshly new territories.115 Another column claimed that the Democrats supported legislation that enslaved both Irish and Germans who were arriving in the country for at least 14 years, “at least until he

(the immigrant) [could] read and write,” and become an advocate for slavery. Further, it noted the Democrats were opposed to the idea of free labor, and they believed that “capital should own labor.”116 This column was used to target both Irish and German voters to support the Republican presidential candidate because Douglas and the Democratic Party would have only oppressed them. The Weekly Perrysburg Journal also depicted Douglas’ popular sovereignty position as opposing the free labor ideology. The particular position allowed the majority to dictate to the minority by enslaving them if they wanted to.117 Another column in The Weekly Perrysburg

Journal even claimed that that the “know-nothings” had influences over the Democratic Party. It suggested that “Germans” and foreigners should have been concerned with this,118 because the

“know-nothings” were anti-immigrant. The newspaper also alleged in a different column that

Douglas’ “non-intervention” approach on slavery has led to the further expansion of slavery. In particular, this approach allowed slavery to expand as far west as the “gulf of California.”

Additionally, the column claimed that Douglas assisted in the “repeal of the Missouri

Compromise,” which increased the expansion of slavery north of the compromise.119 These

115 “Old Abe on Snakes,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 11, 1860, 1. 116 “White Men of the North Read,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 25, 1860, 2. 117 “The kind of Slavery that Steedman Endorses,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 4, 1860, 2. 118 “In Strong for Fusion,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 25, 1860, 2. 119 “Douglas versus Douglas,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 4, 1860, 2. 44 columns were intended to influence immigrants of Northwest Ohio to vote for Lincoln because the Republican Party’s legislation towards the territories were more likely to benefit them.

The Democratic Party was also depicted as opposing freedom in the Republican newspapers. In particular, a column in The Weekly Perrysburg Journal had excerpts of influential Democrats that favored slavery. In fact, it noted that Senator Mason of Virginia claimed that “[f]ree society has failed,” and Senator Hanmond stated, “Men are not born entitled to equal rights.” Another example was Richard Enquirer who said that slaves were taken care of better than free laborers. Others claimed that slavery was a normal institution. Moreover, the column depicted the Democratic Party to be a “vile party.”120 The Democratic Party was also portrayed as being tyrants. In fact, one column noted that Douglas desired using a “Sedition

Law” to silence those who opposed the expansion of slavery by putting them in jail. Another

Democrat, James Steedman, wanted to hang those who held this same position.121 This column intended to show voters of Northwest Ohio that the Democrats were opposed to both freedom and civil liberties, such as the First Amendment. Along with The Weekly Perrysburg Journal’s criticism on Douglas’ position on slavery, the Bucyrus Journal was also critical. One particular column pointed out how Douglas was a strong believer protecting the “Slave Code.” It demonstrated this by how Douglas’ policies allowed slavery to extend into the territories.

Additionally, the column claimed that Douglas’ doctrine on slavery was that it should exist in the territories because of the “Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.”122 This particular column attempted to show to the electorate of Northwest Ohio that Douglas desired the whole

Union to be slave states, rather than his idea of “Popular Sovereignty” in which states’ would

120 “Modern Democracy,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 11, 1860, 1. 121 “Voters ---Read!,” Williams County Leader, October 11, 1860, 2. 122 “Mark Well,” Bucyrus Journal, October 4, 1860, 2. 45 decide for themselves on the slave issue. The importance of these columns aimed to warn

Northwest Ohio that electing Douglas and the Democratic Party in power would have led to despotism.

Another issue discussed in the Republican newspapers was the Homestead Bill. The

Williams County Leader had columns that attacked Stephen Douglas’ position on the Homestead

Bill. One column alleged that he voted “for the negro,” or rather in support of the slaveholders who wanted to use slaves to labor the territories instead of giving the land to the “foreign paupers.”123 The Williams County Leader even published a speech by Owen Lovejoy, an abolitionist and a U.S. congressman representing the state of Illinois, who blamed the Democrats for why the Homestead Bill did not pass. This speech excerpt was the only column on the first page of the newspaper, which was the last issue before the election; this demonstrated how important the Homestead Bill was during the election. In particular, Lovejoy claimed the

Democrats did not support the bill because of political reasons. He believed that if the

Democrats would have allowed young men to migrate to the new territories that slavery would have not prospered there. Additionally, he pointed out that he Democrats desired for the better lands in the territory to be given to the “capitalists,” while the rest went to the men that migrated there, such as the swampy areas. Another issue that Lovejoy pointed out that the Democrats wanted foreigners to wait until they became citizens to be able to take advantage of the

Homestead Bill. He also claimed that this demonstrated that the Democrats were against the interests of German, Irish, and Scandinavian immigrants, who they claimed to have represented.

Lovejoy also criticized how the Democrats wanted to charge .25 cents per acre, while the

Republicans wanted to give the land free, while charging only $10 for basic fees. Further,

123 “Homestead Bill – How Douglas Sweat,” Williams County Leader, October 18, 1860, 1. 46

Lovejoy raised the question of what the government would do with the money it received from the sales of the land. 124

Lovejoy also argued that the Homestead Bill would have expanded Christianity in the territories as well as foster the development of a middle class. He noted a middle class was important to society because if it became one of an aristocracy and slaves, the republic would cease to exist, such as it did in Rome. His speech also criticized Breckenridge and Douglas for allowing slavery into the territory. Lovejoy even criticized Douglas’ idea of popular sovereignty by stating, “He means (popular sovereignty) the right of the people by vote to enslave men.” He then argued that the founding fathers desired for the territories to be free from slavery. Lovejoy stated that allowing slavery into the territory would have led to despotism because it would have created slavery where it did not exist before. This also meant that if the territories could create slavery, they could also take away the first amendment by determining what religions could be practiced and what newspapers were read. He even noted that the Constitution allowed for slavery in sovereign states. 125 Lovejoy’s speech also focused on what the Republicans hoped for a better future. He noted that they wanted “all men to be created equal.” However, Lovejoy claimed that the “African race is not equal” to the European race, and that many perceived the nation to be for “white men.” On the other hand, he felt that “all men” should be considered legal to prevent despotism. Additionally, Lovejoy wished that the slave states would end slavery on their own. His speech also pointed out that the Fugitive Slave Act was unconstitutional because it was not mentioned in the Constitution. Moreover, he believed that this law should have been dealt with at the state level instead of the federal level.126

124 “Speech of Hon. Lovejoy,” Williams County Leader, November 1, 1860, 1. 125 Ibid. 126 Ibid. 47

Along with Lovejoy’s criticism of the Fugitive Slave Act, other Republican newspapers criticized Douglas’ support of it. The Bucyrus Journal had a column titled “Keep it Before the

People,” which criticized Douglas’ position on the Dred Scott decision. In particular, it noted that he supported Congress to have authority to make laws regarding property protection.127 Both

Lovejoy’s speech and other Republican newspapers’ coverage suggested to the voters that slavery was immoral, and that the United States would be better off in the future without slavery.

The Republican newspapers also mentioned the importance of tariffs. These were seen to be an important issue to protect manufacturing. A column in the Williams County Leader noted that people in Ohio should have been supportive of this issue because it was a national issue intended that would have benefited the nation as a whole.128 Portraying tariffs as a national issue was intended to convince voters that the Republican Party was concerned about the nation as a whole, rather than only the North. Another column in the Bucyrus Journal claimed that German immigrants were in favor of both tariffs and the Homestead Law.129 Protecting industry may have also meant creating jobs for immigrants. It can be inferred from the Republican newspapers that they used the tariff issue to appeal to the Northwest Ohio electorate’s sectional interests of developing manufacturing to make the region independent from others and creating jobs for

German immigrants in the region.

Along with defending the North’s sectional interests and explaining how its sectional interests would make the nation better off, a column in the Bucyrus Journal’s harsh criticism of the Democratic Party argued that the party opposed national interests. In particular, it blamed the

Democratic officeholders for voting down legislation. Some of the bills that Democrats voted

127 “Keep it Before the People,” Bucyrus Journal, October 4, 1860, 2. 128 “Correspondence,” Williams County Leader, October 18, 1860, 2. 129 “Lincoln Accessions in New York,’” Bucyrus Journal, October 18, 1860, 2. 48 against were the Homestead bill, Pacific Railroad bill, Overland California Mail bill, recognizing

Kansas as a free state, and making polygamy illegal in Utah. On the other hand, the Democrats voted in favor of making Kansas, Nebraska, and New Mexico slave states. Additionally, they added more than eight billion dollars to the national debt.130 The column’s analysis attempted to show how the Republicans preferred greater federal authority to transform the nation into a better place to live. On the other hand, it portrayed the Democrats to the electorate of Northwest Ohio as being immoral and financially irresponsible.

Douglas’ constituents were seen as corrupt in the Republican newspapers. One particular column in the Williams County Leader alleged that Douglas was a debtor. Additionally, it claimed that much of his money came from speculators whose large amounts of loans were from the Artisan Bank. These loans were not paid back and caused the bank to collapse in which depositors were out.131 A column in the Bucyrus Journal also accused Douglas of corruption.

This column alleged that Douglas was spending one million dollars to defeat Lincoln in New

York. It describe this form of spending as “infamous bribing.”132 These columns suggested to the electorate of Northwest Ohio that the Democrats were corrupt and attempted to resort to unethical means to get their candidate elected. Moreover, the Democrats were unable to win the election if they allowed the people to decide for themselves without being influenced.

The Republican newspapers even accused the Democrats of engaging in voter fraud. One particular column in the Bucyrus Journal claimed that the Democrats were creating bogus names which put the Democratic names above the Republican names, misleading the electorate to vote for the candidate that they did not approve of. This plan was meant to deceive voters into voting

130 “Ought The Democracy Again be Trusted,” Bucyrus Journal, October 18, 1860, 2. 131 “Where Some of Douglas’ Money Came From,” Williams County Leader, October 18, 1860, 1. 132 “$1,000,000 to Defeat Lincoln,” Bucyrus Journal, October 25, 1860, 2. 49 for the Douglas instead of Lincoln because the Republican votes would be counted towards the

Democratic votes.133 Another column on the same page cautioned voters to inspect their tickets to make sure they appeared exactly as the one it showed in the newspaper.134 The Bucyrus

Journal reported that Douglas’ supporters were engaging in fraud in New York as well. It suggested that if Lincoln did not maintain a majority of 40,000 in that state that the Democrats were involved in “corruption and fraud.” They also claimed that much of the fraud was occurring as a result of Douglas receiving large donations there.135 Another column in the Bucyrus Journal noted German immigrants were having their tickets taken away from them in Bucyrus since they were going to vote for the Republicans. However, the Germans did stand together and voted.136

On the other hand, the Republican newspapers downplayed accusations of Republican voter fraud. The Bucyrus Journal claimed that Republicans did not interfere with Democrats attempting to vote for their candidates and not try to steal the election.137 These columns attempted to warn the Northwest Ohio electorate that the Democrats were attempting to steal the election because they were unable to persuade them to vote for their candidates by convincing them that their ideas were better.

Douglas was also depicted as an alcoholic in the Republican newspapers. A column in the Williams County Leader alleged that Douglas gave a speech in Dubque, while he was drunk at the time. For instance, it accused Douglas of beginning the speech by stating, “Me great man; drink heap of whiskey; talk loud.”138 Additionally, the column claimed that Douglas referred to

Lincoln as a “coward” and claimed he would “hang Breckenridge and Lincoln, like John

133 “Beware of Fraudulent Tickets,” Bucyrus Journal, November 1, 1860, 1. 134 “Electoral Ticket,” Bucyrus Journal, November 1, 1860, 2. 135 “Their Working Tools,” Bucyrus Journal, November 1, 1860, 2. 136 “The German Vote,” Bucyrus Journal, October 18, 1860, 2. 137 “Falsehoods,” Bucyrus Journal, October 18, 1860, 2. 138 “Douglas Speech in Dubuque,” William County Leader, October 25, 1860, 1. 50

Brown.” Douglas would also point out to how whiskey made him a better man.139 Another column in the Bucyrus Journal alleged that Douglas would drink whisky and smoke a cigar after his final speech of his political campaign. It claimed that he would drink cocktails for breakfast as well.140 These particular columns were used to depict Douglas as an alcoholic who would be an embarrassment to the oval office if he was elected. They also raised the concern to the electorate of how sober Douglas would be governing the nation as a whole. This would cause them to question whether Douglas would be competent and make sound decisions if elected president.

The Republican newspapers often attacked both Douglas and Johnson for not possessing the qualities that the nation needed in its leaders. One column in The Weekly Perrysburg Journal refuted the Democratic newspapers claims that Douglas shared the same principles as the founding fathers. In fact, it noted that George Washington desired slavery to be abolished by law and that James Monroe considered it to be an “EVIL.” It even pointed how Thomas Jefferson

(the president that Democrats claim to base their values from) perceived slavery to have a negative aspect to it as well. Moreover, the column noted that Douglas was “indifferent to the question of freedom,” and would approve of the territories having slavery, which was also a form of “despotism.” 141 This column was used to show voters that Douglas differed from the values of the founding fathers. The Republican newspapers often criticized Johnson’s allegiance to the

South as well. Along with attacking him on his position of slavery, they also questioned his loyalty to the Union. One column in The Weekly Perrysburg Journal claimed that he was once a supporter of states leaving the Union. In fact, it noted that in 1850, he was involved with a group

139 Ibid. 140 “Pungent,” Bucyrus Journal, November 1, 1860, 2. 141 “The Contrast: The Early Fathers and Douglas,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, September 6, 1860, 1. 51 in Georgia that favored disunion and often wrote about the right to secede.142 These columns raised concerns to the electorate of Northwest Ohio of whether Douglas and Johnson would be committed to governing a free nation because both approved of slavery.

The differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party were often discussed in the Republican newspapers. For instance, the Bucyrus Journal attempted to differentiate the Republican Party from the others by claiming it was the only one that had principles. One column noted that the other political parties did not stand for anything and were described as mobs. It argued that the rest of the parties only existed because of their “hatred of the Republicans.” Further, this opposition would not unite the country if it gained control of the presidency and the government.143 This column served a purpose of suggesting that the other parties would have divided the country if they got elected. Moreover, the Republican Party was more likely to unite the country. Another column in The Weekly Perrysburg Journal discussed the differences between the Douglas Democrats and the Republicans. In fact, it claimed that the

Democrats were similar to the “know-nothings.” In particular, the Republicans alleged that that they were in favor of “free speech, free soil, and freedom of religious,” while the Democrats were against these ideas. Additionally, the author suggested that the Republicans approved of allowing only whites to settle in the new territories with free homes, whereas the Democrats desired that whites “must go there and work by the side of the black slave[s].”144 This suggested that the Republicans served the white population’s interest more and favored freedom. Further, both of these columns suggested to the electorate of Northwest Ohio that the Republican Party’s values were what society needed.

142 “Pot calls Kettle Black,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 11, 1860, 1. 143 Bucyrus Journal, November 1, 1860, 2. 144 “Adopted Citizens,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 4, 1860, 1. 52

Another column in The Weekly Perrysburg Journal had a column titled, “Some of the

Reasons why we Support Lincoln,” which depicted him as an “honorable man,” “honest,” fiscally responsible, and the best for the nation. It noted that he respected the legality of slavery where it already existed, but opposed the expansion of it in the new territories. He also opposed the reopening of the slave trade. Lincoln was in favor of the Homestead policy, which gave

“poor laboring [men]” land in the territories. Lincoln was even compared to Andrew Jackson for opposing corruption. He was considered as someone to follow the Constitution as well.

Additionally, Lincoln voted against going to war with Mexico because of the costs for a war and that the United States would not gain anything from it. Lincoln was also in favor of internal improvements, such as building more railroads.145 These characteristics of Lincoln that this column pointed out made him more of a viable leader than Douglas to the electorate of

Northwest Ohio because he was perceived to possess a higher moral standards than Douglas, and would do what was best for the nation.

The role of the South’s acceptance of Lincoln elected as president was considered as irrelevant by many of the Republican newspapers because of the South’s interdependency with the North. One column claimed that the South would never accept Lincoln as a president. It also noted that Douglas had no problems with the South, which was perceived to be a region of disunionists. Moreover, Douglas only disapproved of those who were against him.146 One column had a statement made by John Forsyth, a supporter of Douglas in Alabama, who claimed that the South would leave the union if a “black president” was elected by a “purely sectional vote because the slave states would have no place in the union.147 However, another column even

145 “Some of the Reasons why we Support Lincoln,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 11, 1860, 2. 146 “Won’t Submit to Lincoln,” Williams County Leader, October 11, 1860, 1. 147 “Another Disunionist,” Williams County Leader, October 11, 1860, 1. 53 claimed that separation of the Union would not have been practical for the South. In fact, it claimed that it would only last for six months if it would happen. The argument behind this was that the South would need an army to protect its frontiers as well as keeping slaves in their place.

This also posed a tax problem on the South. Another issue was an alliance with Britain was unlikely. Thus, the South would have come to their senses and realized that seceding was not practical.148 Therefore, the electorate in Northwest Ohio should have not been concerned about the potential consequences of electing Lincoln since it would be against the South’s interest.

There was also political commentary in Republican newspapers that focused on the potential consequences of the status of the Union depending on who was elected. There was a column in the Bucyrus Journal that warned about the potential ending of the Union. This column alleged that if the South lost the election that it would leave the Union and name Breckenridge as its president.149 However, another column on the same page alleged that many in the South respected Lincoln and were willing to cooperate with him.150 Another column in the Bucyrus

Journal noted that Lincoln gave a speech in Cincinnati in which he claimed that the Republican

Party would not interfere in how the South governed itself and would follow the compromises made in previous agreements. He also suggested this approach was similar to how George

Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison approached the South.151 The Bucyrus

Journal even suggested in a second column that Lincoln would respond if the South attempted to secede.152 These columns downplayed the potential consequences of the South losing the

148 Williams County Leader, October 11, 1860, 1. 149 “Stuff,” Bucyrus Journal, November 1, 1860, 2. 150 “How Lincoln Wins Them,” Bucyrus Journal, November 1, 1860, 2. 151 “Lincoln and the South,” Bucyrus Journal, October 11, 1860, 2. 152 Bucyrus Journal, October 11, 1860, 2. 54 election. Additionally, they reassured the electorate that Lincoln and the Republican Party were most likely to unite the country.

Columns also appeared in the Williams County Leader depicted Douglas as unwinnable.

One column noted Douglas supporters were now backing Lincoln. Moreover, it argued that the election was really between Lincoln and Breckenridge.153 Another column referred to Douglas as

“The Stump Candidate.” It suggested that the states that Douglas campaigned in were backing

Lincoln. The column even claimed that Lincoln increased his support by 11,000 voters when

Douglas travelled to Ohio.154 These two columns suggested that Douglas was losing support and that the electorate in the north realized that Lincoln was the only chance of defeating

Breckenridge. A third column even stated, “Give every Douglas man who prefers Lincoln to

Breckenridge, a ticket. Many of them will vote with us and let us give old Abe 500 majority in

Williams.”155 This suggested that Lincoln and Breckenridge were the only two serious candidates. Additionally, voting for Douglas would have been tantamount to not voting, because he did not have a chance of winning.

Another issue that the Republican newspapers warned voters about was the possibility of the vote going to the House or the Senate. One particular column noted that a supporter of

Douglas, Col. Forney from Pennsylvania, realized that Douglas was unelectable and there would be negative consequences if Lincoln did not get the necessary electoral votes where the election would end up in either the House or the Senate. If this was to happen, the House would choose

Breckenridge for president. On the other hand, if the House would fail to accomplish this, the

Senate would give the presidency to Joe Lane. Further, it noted if Lane became the president, the

153 “Charge, Freemen Charge!,” Williams County Leader, November 1, 1860, 2. 154 “THE STUMP CANDIDATE,” Williams County Leader, November 1, 1860, 2. 155 “Rally, Friends, Rally!,” Williams County Leader, November 1, 1860, 2. 55 separation of the nation would have become a reality.156 Another column in the Wood County

Leader alleged that James Brady, “Breckenridge candidate for Governor of New York,” preferred Lincoln to Douglas.157 These columns aimed at convincing the electorate to choose

Lincoln because there would be negative consequences for the nation if he was not elected, such as disunion.

The election results demonstrate that the Republican newspapers’ coverage may have been influential in Lincoln’s victories in Williams County and Wood County, while less influential in Crawford County where he was defeated. In particular, Lincoln had winning percentages of 56.5 percent and 60 percent in Williams County and Wood County, respectively.158 This may have been caused by voters’ approval of Lincoln’s Homestead Bill position as well as how he represented northern sectionalist interests. However, Lincoln’s defeat in Crawford County by 688 votes159 suggested that the majority of the electorate in Crawford

County opposed his platform and may have believed that the Union could have only been better preserved by Douglas. However, examining the election results showed that the Republican newspaper coverage may have played a role in the election results with its positive portrayal of

Lincoln, and negative depictions of Douglas.

The Democratic Newspapers’ Election Coverage

The Democratic newspapers focused the majority of their coverage on portraying

Douglas as the best candidate for the nation as a whole, while Lincoln and the other candidates were depicted as favoring sectional interests. Additionally, they mostly covered the election as

156 “Lincoln or Breckenridge,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, November 1, 1860, 2. 157 Williams County Leader, October 11, 1860, 1. 158 Secretary of State, Ohio, “Annual Report of the Secretary of State to the Governor of the State of Ohio: For the Year of 1860,” in Message and Reports to the General Assembly and Governor of the State of Ohio, for the Year 1860 (Columbus: Richard Nevins, 1861), 301-302. 159 Ibid, 284. 56

Douglas versus Lincoln. Moreover, the majority of the Democratic criticism was placed on

Lincoln and the Republicans. They were seen as the primary cause of sectionalism because of their supposed obsession with the slave issue. On the other hand, Douglas and the National

Democratic Party were portrayed as the only ones who could unite the country by allowing states to have greater autonomy over domestic issues. As a result, the Democratic newspapers were attempting to influence the electorate to vote for Douglas in order to save the country from disunion and the Republicans.

The Hardin County Democrat had a column that provided an overview of the differences between the Democrats and Republicans. It pointed out that the latter was opposed to self- government, whereas the former supported it. Moreover, the Republicans believed that Congress should have been allowed to dictate the affairs of states and local communities. Another issue was that the Republicans believed in raising taxes for more government expenditures, whereas the Democrats were opposed to it. It claimed that one of the expenditures that the Republicans were spending taxpayers’ dollars on was their personal consumption of whiskey. Another issue was the idea of who should govern the nation. The Democrats believed that the nation should have been governed by whites only, whereas the Republicans desired to give blacks voting rights, and thus make them participants in the governing process.160 This particular column served the purpose of reminding the electorate of Northwest Ohio that that the main differences between the Republicans and the Democrats were that the latter was in favor of limited government and excluded blacks from the political system. These issues that were briefly discussed in the Hardin County Democrat would appear throughout Democratic newspapers in

Northwest Ohio.

160 “If you believe,” Hardin County Democrat, October 5, 1860, 1. 57

The Republican Party was often referred to as the “Negro Party” in the Democratic newspapers. One column in the Hardin County Democrat claimed that the Republican Party had two primary goals, which were to abolish slavery throughout the nation and to make blacks equal in every way to white people in terms of both “civil and political rights.” The column also pointed out how the Republicans were deceiving supporters by falsely claiming that the party approved of states’ rights, while infringing on them over the slave issue. It claimed that the states controlled by Republicans invalidated the Fugitive Slave Act and passed legislation to make blacks equal citizens to whites. The Republican leaders were even criticized for how they approached slavery. In particular, it claimed that Seward used slavery as a “political weapon,” while Chase desired “universal negro freedom and universal negro suffrage.” Further, the column alleged that voting for Lincoln meant supporting black liberation and opposing states’ rights.161 Another column in the Hardin County Democrat even stated that the Republican Party

“loves the freedom of the nigger more than the Union.” It even alleged that the Republicans were unable to give a “speech,” “write an article,” or have a “conversation” that was at least thirty minutes, which did not address the “nigger question.”162 Moreover, the column implied that the

Republican Party was obsessed with the question of slavery, rather than the Union itself.

The Democratic newspapers attempted to portray blacks as inferior to whites as well. One column in The Crawford County Forum was titled “LATEST NEWS FROM AFRICA,” which suggested that blacks were better off in the United States living under white rule than they would be in Africa. The column mentioned that the King of Dahomey celebrated the life of his father by sacrificing 2,000 blacks, and then selling them as food to the local population. It then argued that

161 “The Republican a Negro Party,” Hardin County Democrat, October 26, 1860, 1. 162 “The Political Sentiments of some of the Leaders of the Republican party and warm Supporters of Mr. Lincoln.” Hardin County Democrat, October 19, 1860, 1. 58 blacks were not murdered or used as food in the United States. Additionally, the column claimed that there were some in the country that believed that blacks should have not been forced to work.163 This example was used to show how whites and blacks were different as well as justifying the status of blacks in the United States. Moreover, it portrayed blacks as being better off in the United States as well as incapable of living as equals as whites because of the conditions that blacks lived in when they governed themselves in Africa.

The coverage of race relations by the Democratic newspapers claimed that only the

Democratic Party would maintain the racial hierarchical structure, while the actions of

Republicans at their meetings suggested that they believed in racial equality among blacks and whites. One column in The Crawford County Forum was titled “All who are Opposed to Negro

Equality with the whites, vote for Senator Douglas.” It claimed that only if Douglas was elected would the Union be preserved.164 This meant that the Republican Party was divisive on the issue of racial equality among whites and blacks, and that this may separate the Union because there was opposition to this sentiment. A column in the Defiance Democrat even claimed that during a

Republican meeting in Hocking County, a group of blacks went and sat next to a group of whites.165 It then followed up with a quote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”166 Another column in The Crawford County Forum alleged that four wagons filled with blacks had a banner, which read ‘Negro Equality,’ during a Republican demonstration in New Boston. Another incident in Logan involved blacks eating at the same dinner table of the

Republicans. This column then noted that the consequences of the Republicans being elected

163 “LATEST NEWS FROM AFRICA.,” The Crawford County Forum, October 12, 1860, 2. 164 “Opposed to Negro Equality with the whites, vote for Senator Douglas,” The Crawford County Forum, November 2, 1860, 2. 165 Defiance Democrat, November 3, 1860, 2. 166 Ibid. 59 would lead to blacks attaining the right to vote throughout the state, such as the political equality they gained in Cleveland.167 These examples attempted to reconfirm the belief that the

Republicans strongly believed that blacks should have been given the same status of whites.

The Republican Party was criticized by the Democratic newspapers for its position on

“free labor.” In particular, the Defiance Democrat referred to the Republican Party as “Black

Republicans” who wanted to end slavery in the South. Additionally, the Defiance Democrat warned of the potential consequences of this policy in the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. It argued that freeing blacks in the South would cause them to migrate to these Midwest states and compete with whites for jobs. This would result in lower wages. The column also noted that blacks who migrated north would become Republican voters.168 This meant that the Republicans would have been importing voters in the North to ensure that the Midwest became Republican.

Another column in The Crawford County Forum discussed how the Republicans in the state of

Ohio voted against amending the State Constitution to prohibit blacks from voting, while the

Democrats voted for the amendment.169 One column in the Hardin County Democrat went as far as claiming that the Republican legislature passed a resolution, which granted citizenship to all

“free persons” born within the state, regardless of color.170 Another column in The Crawford

County Forum illustrated how the Republicans in other states engaged in similar actions and supported the right for blacks to vote. For example, the state of New York allowed blacks with property values of at least $250 the right to vote, and even proposed to allow all of them to vote.

Judges in Ohio also ruled that multi-racial men could vote as well.171 A column in The Crawford

167 “Foot Falls.,” The Crawford County Forum, November 2, 1860, 1. 168 Defiance Democrat, October 13, 1860, 1. 169 “Remember It.,” The Crawford County Forum, October 5, 1860, 2. 170 “The Republican Party in Regard to Suffrage.,” Hardin County Democrat, October 19, 1860, 2. 171 “Let it be Remembered,” The Crawford County Forum, October 5, 1860, 3. 60

County Forum was even titled “A Negro better than a Naturalized Citizen.,” which noted that the

Republicans in Massachusetts put black suffrage ahead of German and Irish immigrants.172 The purpose of these columns were to warn Democratic voters that they should oppose the

Republican platform because it meant lower wages as well as making the Democratic Party less significant in the Midwest by importing voters who will most likely vote Republican.

Along with the Democratic newspapers attacking the Republican’s free labor position, they also alleged that the Republican Party believed that blacks should have the same rights as whites. In particular, one column in the Defiance Democrat pointed out how the Republican

Party refused to admit that they supported the idea of blacks being equal to whites in a political sense, but statements made by Republicans inferred that the party was in favor of blacks receiving equal treatment as whites. This column pointed to how the Republican platform stated that “all men are created equal,” which implied that this included blacks. However, the column noted that some Republicans were rejecting this idea for political reasons.173 The column also pointed out how known Republicans, such as Salmon Chase and Benjamin Wade, supported the idea of blacks as being equal as whites. For example, it quoted Wade stating, “I know no high, no low, no black, no white- all are created by one God, and all men are entitled to the same privileges.”174 This type of coverage was used to illustrate how the Republicans were attempting to deceive the public on the issue of blacks being equal to whites. Additionally, it aimed at persuading voters to oppose the Republican Party for being dishonest as well as the potential consequences of blacks gaining equal status as whites.

172 “A Negro better than a Naturalized Citizen.,” The Crawford County Forum, October 12, 1860, 1. 173 “The Republicans and the Doctrine of Negro Equality,” Defiance Democrat, October 6, 1860, 1 174 Ibid. 61

There were other concerns about potential consequences of liberating blacks, which also included political and social concerns. A column in the Hardin County Democrat suggested that the Republican Party’s focus on granting universal black equality took away focus on more important issues, such as foreign policy and domestic issues.175 One column in The Crawford

County Forum also claimed that there were 84 interracial marriages between black males and white females in Massachusetts. It also noted that abolitionists were prevalent in this area.176

Another column in the same paper noted that blacks engaged in jury duty and black children were allowed to sit in school in the same seats as white children.177 These columns warned the electorate that the social hierarchy would have been drastically altered if blacks were liberated.

Moreover, this aimed at playing on the fear of whites who did not want blacks marrying family members or having blacks playing a role in determining outcomes at trials.

Another potential consequence of liberating blacks that the Democratic newspapers mentioned was the idea of them taking over the country. One column in The Crawford County

Forum discussed how the blacks desired to become the “masters and dictators” instead of having an equal social position as whites.178 Another column in The Crawford County Forum alleged that members who were initiated in the Wide-Awake Clubs had to agree with the idea of blacks being a “supreme political being.”179 Further, the Democratic newspapers were alleging that the

Republicans would transfer the control of the nation from whites to blacks. This portrayal is another example of how the Democrats attempted to appeal to racially concerned voters in

Northwest Ohio.

175 “Negro all the Time,” Hardin County Democrat, October 26, 1860, 2. 176 The Crawford County Forum, October 5, 1860, 1. 177 “Let it be Remembered,” The Crawford County Forum, October 5, 1860, 3. 178 “DARKEY WIDE AWAKES.,” The Crawford County Forum, October 12, 1860, 2. 179 “How Wide-Awakes are Initiated.,” The Crawford County Forum, October 26, 1860, 4. 62

Although the Democratic newspapers accused the Republican Party of believing in black superiority, they claimed that there were groups that the Republicans felt were inferior. One column in The Crawford County Forum alleged that a Republican, John Wilson of Indiana, perceived both the Dutch and the Irish of being inferior to other groups. Wilson noted that both were intellectually inferior to other groups because the Dutch had a dirty appearance and were pipe smokers, while the Irish were alcoholics who swore often.180 Another column in the Hardin

County Democrat emphasized that the Republicans placed a greater importance on blacks’ rights over German and Irish immigrants’ rights. For example, in Massachusetts, runaway slaves were entitled to “citizen rights” after one year of residing in the state, whereas foreign born Germans and Irish who had to live in the state for at least seven years before they attained these rights. The column also discussed Wilson’s views, which reflected the Republicans’ perceptions of German,

Irish, and Dutch immigrants.181 This served the purpose of attempting to convince voters of

Dutch and Irish descent to not support Republicans because of their attempt to hierarchize race that places the Germans, Irish, and Dutch at the bottom.

The Democratic newspapers also used Lincoln’s position on slavery to show how he was a divider. For instance, one column in the Defiance Democrat referred to the “destruction of the

South” as a motive for ending slavery.182 This column was meant to show the electorate that

Lincoln’s election would cause much division in the nation and that he was unwilling to compromise with others. This may also cause the electorate to feel that if Lincoln was elected president then the South may have attempted to leave the Union because of Lincoln’s inability to compromise with issues that were important to preserve the union.

180 The Crawford County Forum, October 26, 1860, 2. 181 Adopted Citizens of the Pha. ses. of Republicanism. Hardin County Democrat, October 19, 1860, 2. 182 “Republican Principles,” Defiance Democrat, October 13, 1860, 1. 63

The Democratic newspapers also attempted to differentiate Douglas and the rest of the candidates by claiming he was for the Union as a whole, whereas others were in favor of different regional interests. In particular, Lincoln was portrayed to be the candidate representing the North’s interests, while the other two were representing the South’s interests.183 Additionally, the Crawford County Forum pointed out that Lincoln was backed by “one half of the Union,” and was a “SECTIONAL CANIDATE.”184 The newspaper also told voters to support Douglas who were against “sectionalism, fanaticism, treason & insurrection.”185 Douglas was seen as the only candidate that could bring a “unity of feeling” to the nation as well.186 Another column in the Defiance Democrat discussed Douglas’ position on slavery in the territory. In fact, it used a statement of Douglas that noted that the territories should have the right to make their own decision on whether they wanted to have slavery and that this doctrine should have applied elsewhere.187 There was even a column in The Crawford County Forum that pointed out how

England and the rest of Europe preferred Lincoln because this would have led to the separation of the Union. Therefore, the United States would have had a lesser position in the world.188

Further, these columns aimed at convincing the electorate to support Douglas because he had the best interests of the nation as a whole compared to the others who were only interested in the best interests of their respected regions. Additionally, they showed that Douglas was a supporter of states’ rights, and believed that it was best for the states to have a greater autonomy of governance.

183 The Crawford County Forum, November 2, 1860, 2. 184 “One Half of the Union,” The Crawford County Forum, November 2, 1860, 2. 185 “Let all who are opposed to sectionalism, fanaticism, treason & insurrection, vote for Douglas,” The Crawford County Forum, November 2, 1860, 2. 186 “If you would bring a unity of feeling to our distracted country, vote for Douglas,” The Crawford County Forum, November 2, 1860, 2. 187 Defiance Democrat, October 13, 1860, 2. 188 The Crawford County Forum, October 26, 1860, 3. 64

The Defiance Democrat also had an excerpt of one of Douglas’ speeches that he delivered in Fort Wayne, which opposed the idea of sectional interests and would further clarify

Douglas’ position on slavery. In this speech, Douglas noted that “sectional parties” did not exist when the country was being formed. He also noted that the Constitution itself did not determine which states were to be either free or slave states. Douglas even criticized Lincoln’s position that the Union would have only survived if it was either all free or all slave states. He noted that if this “Republican doctrine” was applied to when the country was originally formed then the

Union would have been all slave states because the twelve slave states would have outvoted the one free state (Massachusetts). The Republicans were also considered to be hypocrites in that they would allow states to make the decision when to become a free state, but were opposed to individual territories making the decision whether to have slavery. Douglas also pointed out that the Republicans’ position on the territories was comparable to the Tories’ position during the

American Revolution. Both positions believed that the highest legislative branch (Parliament or

Congress) had the authority to determine how the colonies (American Revolution) or territories

(Civil War) should have been governed, which went against the idea of self-government. He also noted that the Republicans were to be blamed for creating a sectional divide by passing legislation over slavery, which would either alienate the free states or the slave states. In fact, these policies led to two different sectional parties: the “Black Republican party” (north) and the

“secession or disunion party” (south). Both of these parties believed in intervention in the slave issue, which would reflect their position on slavery, instead of allowing for the states to decide.

Additionally, these sectional parties created hatred among its members of the opposing geographical regions. Moreover, they have become “enemies” of the union. Therefore, Douglas argued that the intentions of the founding fathers were to provide each state the opportunity to 65 abolish slavery on their own accord.189 This speech attempted to appeal to Northwest Ohio voters who were strong believers of preserving how they thought the founders intended the nation ought to be. This demonstrated that there was concern over how the nation was evolving away from its founding principles as well.

Another column in the Hardin County Democrat provided excerpts of a speech Douglas gave in New England. This speech discussed similar ideas to his other speech in Fort Wayne, and would even discuss the potential consequences of the Republican intervention doctrine as despotism. Douglas argued this because he believed that the Republicans’ position on slavery as being immoral would take away power from states and local communities to decide for themselves whether an institution was “right” or “wrong.” Moreover, he argued that this was a

“principle” of self-government. Douglas even argued that the Republicans’ argument of justifying interfering with institutions that people decide for themselves was the same argument that despots used in taking power away from the people. He even noted that the Constitution restricted the federal government’s role to diplomacy with foreign nations, regulating commerce,

“coin money,” and national defense.190 The importance of these columns was to show Northwest

Ohio voters that Douglas was a constitutionalist and in favor of states’ rights. More importantly, these columns served the purpose of explaining to voters that slavery should have been a state issue instead of a national issue because the Constitution never addressed the question of which areas should be free and slave. Thus, Douglas meant to differentiate himself from the rest of the candidates by reminding the voters that he intended to rule by the Constitution, which was a compromise between states, rather than to divide the nation.

189 “Douglas’ Fort Wayne Speech,” Defiance Democrat, October 20, 1860, 1. 190 “ABSTRACT OF THE SPEECH OF JUDGE DOUGLAS.,” Hardin County Democrat, October 12, 1860, 1. 66

The Defiance Democrat had another excerpt of a speech by Stephen Douglas, which focused on the Homestead Bill. Douglas claimed that the Homestead Bill and other financial interests of the nation were not a priority of the Republican Party. He argued this because the

Republican Party was mainly concerned about the slavery issue. Douglas pointed out that the slavery issue diverted much attention away from other important issues, such as the Homestead

Bill. He was against public auctions of land, and only believed that the land should be used for

“actual settlement and cultivation.” Douglas believed using the land in this matter would contribute to greater prosperity for the nation, but would have not been implemented until the slavery question was revolved.191 This column attempted to show the Northwest Ohio voters that they supported Douglas because his priority for the nation was increasing its prosperity, rather than focusing on the slave question, which he believed should have been a state issue.

The Democratic newspapers also attacked Lincoln and Hamlin’s position on the

Homestead Bill, while praising Douglas’ position. For example, one column in The Crawford

County Forum discussed Hamlin’s opposition to the bill. It noted that he voted against it.

Additionally, this column claimed that Lincoln’s refusal to provide an opinion on the issue raised questions whether he supported Hamlin’s stance. On the other hand, the column boasted about

Douglas’ support for the bill. It noted that he once proposed a bill to provide 160 acres of land to any man that would live on the land and cultivate it. Additionally, Douglas desired to have foreigners treated “equally” with citizens in dispersing the land.192 This column raised issues about the consistency of the Republican Party’s platform on the Homestead Bill issue as well as how the bill would be implemented under them. Another column in The Crawford County

Forum pointed out the hypocrisy of the Republicans on the Homestead Bill as well as other

191 “Douglas on Homestead Bill,” Defiance Democrat, November 3, 1860, 2. 192 “Who are Opposed to the Homestead Bill.,” Crawford County Forum, November 2, 1860,1. 67 issues. Regarding the Homestead Bill, it reiterated how Hamlin voted against it, while the

Republicans alleged that they were free homes. It also argued that Lincoln backed the speculators over the settlers when he was a state legislator pertaining to newly settled territories in Illinois as well. The column also criticized the Republicans as hypocritical on supposedly believing in freedom. This was demonstrated by noting that the Republicans did not believe that the people in the territories had a right to decide how they should be governed, and instead preferred Congress making laws to rule over them. Another issue that was discussed was how the

Republicans had sectional interests based on a geographical area and were willing to risk disunion over the slave issue. It argued that allowing the people in those territories to decide on the issue themselves would have yield the best outcome. It also suggested that this outcome would have also saved money as well as maintained “peace and prosperity of twenty-five millions of white people” instead of sacrificing them for “four or five millions blacks.”193 This particular column suggested that self-governance would deter civil war by allowing the people of the territories to decide for themselves, instead of the federal government deciding for them. The importance of self-governance and concerns over the Republican’s inconsistency on the

Homestead Bill that the Democratic newspapers emphasized was meant to cause Northwest Ohio residents to not trust the Republican Party.

The Democratic newspapers attacked the Republicans’ platform on the economy as well.

For example, a column in the Defiance Democrat summarized the Republican platform, which showed how it was different than the Democratic platform. In particular, it claimed that the

Republicans planned to elevate the status of blacks at the expense of whites, especially white foreigners. Additionally, the column addressed the economic positions of the Republican Party.

193 “A few Things to Remember.,” Crawford County Forum, November 2, 1860, 1. 68

It noted that the party preferred paper currency to hard currency as well as tariffs to free trade.

More importantly, it claimed that the economic philosophy of the Republican Party was that the government’s purpose was to “take care of” the wealthy, while the wealthy would “take care of the [p]oor.”194 This column suggested that the Republicans’ policies were aimed at benefiting the wealthy and the blacks, while making others worse off.

In addition to the Republicans’ platform on the economy, the Democratic newspapers even criticized the Republicans as being hypocrites over the economy. One column in The

Crawford County Forum pointed out that the Republican government in Ohio alleged that it would have reduced taxes before coming into power. On the other hand, the opposite happened.

It noted that taxes in the state increased by $517,726.52 in 1860. Additionally, the column claimed that Crawford County’s taxes increased from $26,000 to $39,000 in 1860. Further, it pointed out that the increases were going to Republican officials rather than other county commitments, such as public works. The column’s solution on reducing taxes was to elect

“honest” Democrats who would lower taxes.195 The Democratic newspapers used columns, such as this one, to inform the electorate that if they continued to vote for Republicans, they would become financially worse off by paying more taxes.

The Democratic newspapers often portrayed its party as emboldening the principles of the early days of the republic as well. A column appeared in The Crawford County Forum discussed how the Democratic Party was a strong believer of the Constitution. It also noted that the Democrats believed in “civil and religious freedom” and were in favor of “equal and exact justice for all.” Further, the column claimed that the party was opposed to sectionalism.196

194 “For the Democrat,” Defiance Democrat, October 20, 1860, 2. 195 “Republican Economy!,” The Crawford County Forum, October 4, 1860, 5. 196 “The Democratic Party,” The Crawford County Forum, October 5, 1860, 2. 69

Douglas’ policies were often compared to that of Thomas Jefferson as well. The Hardin County

Democrat ran column after column that drew parallels between Douglas and Jefferson. For example, one column claimed that Jefferson favored popular sovereignty. In particular, it noted that his and the Continental Congress’ plan of 1784 was the “broadest popular sovereignty,” because it allowed states to write their own State Constitution as they pleased.197 A second column claimed that Jefferson believed that this idea extended to slavery as well.198 These columns were aimed at targeting conservatives who were focused on preserving the ideas of the

“old republic.”

The Defiance Democrat also attempted elevate Stephen Douglas’ popularity among his constituents by comparing him to Andrew Jackson. In fact, it noted that Douglas was similar to

Jackson because they were both “self-made” and “self-educated” men who came from poverty.

Additionally, it noted that they shared similar political ideologies because they both opposed

“corrupt monopolies and federal aggression.” More importantly, they were both popular among the masses. The column even compared the Republicans’ treatment of Douglas to the

Federalists’ treatment of Jackson. For example, it noted that the Republicans’ slanders of

Douglas’ wife and mother was tantamount to the Federalists’ smears of Jackson’s wife and mother.199 The comparison demonstrated how it was possible for Douglas to overcome the adversity that Jackson experienced when getting elected president. Further, this column attempted to make Douglas more appealing to Northwest Ohio voters by showing them that it was possible to overcome difficult circumstances in life to achieve the highest position in the

197 “Jefferson Popular Sovereignty,” Hardin County Democrat, October 26, 1860, 1. 198 “The Slavery Prohibition Explained,” Hardin County Democrat, October 26, 1860, 1. 199 “Parallels between Jackson, and Douglas,” Defiance Democrat, October 6, 1860, 1. 70 nation. Moreover, Douglas was portrayed as representing the idea that the United States offered opportunities that other places in the world that did not offer.

On the other hand, the Democratic newspapers frequently criticized the Republicans of being contradictory to what the old republic stood for. A column in the Hardin County Democrat attacked Republican newspapers contrasting Lincoln with Henry Clay. It alleged that Lincoln betrayed Clay and the Old Whig Party by siding with the Abolitionists.200 This column had aimed at convincing members of the Old Whigs Party to oppose Lincoln because his values were against what the party stood for. Another column in the Hardin County Democrat refuted the

Republican Party’s supposed platform of ‘the Union, the Constitution, and the enforcement of the Laws.’ It argued that the Republicans were deceiving voters because their principles were the opposite of the Constitution. The column also compared the representatives of the Republican

Party to the Free Soil Party because they favored “‘AN IMMEDIATE DISSOLUTION’ of the

Union.”201 These columns were meant to warn Northwest Ohio voters that that Lincoln and the

Republicans were against the values of the old republic, and that electing them would fundamentally transform society to something that the nation was not intended to be. More specifically, the Democratic newspapers portrayed the Republicans’ vision of the United States as preferring a bigger government. Lincoln was also depicted as favoring a strong federal government that superseded the state governments. A column in The Crawford County Forum noted that he approved of Congress dictating “domestic relations” to the states and territories, which was an overreach of its power. Additionally, this suggested that Lincoln was against the

Constitution, and wanted to take authority away from the states and territories.202 The

200 “No Old Line Whig Can Do It,” Hardin County Democrat, October 26, 1860, 1. 201 “Are the Republicans in Favor of the Union?,” Hardin County Democrat, October 19, 1860, 1. 202 “Voters of Crawford County,” The Crawford County Forum, November 2, 1860, 2. 71

Democratic newspapers used columns, such as this one, to convince voters that their local autonomy would disappear under Republican rule.

Along with being considered a divider, the Democratic newspapers portrayed Lincoln as having a suspect character. The Defiance Democrat alleged that Lincoln gave money to Jim

Lane and John Brown to purchase riffles to use in Kansas.203 This suggested to the electorate that

Lincoln may engage in unethical practices if elected. Lincoln was criticized for his opposition to the Mexican American War as well. For example, a column in The Crawford County Forum pointed out how he voted against the vote of thanking General Shields for his brave deeds. It then told veterans of the Mexican American War that they should take this into consideration before voting for Lincoln.204 This was used to attempt to show how Lincoln was unpatriotic and was not a friend to the military. Further, these columns raised the question of what type of behavior would Lincoln engage in if he was elected.

There were even columns in the Democratic newspapers that attacked the character of

Republicans. One column in The Crawford County Forum referred to some Republican supporters as in favor of “[i]nfidelity, abolitionism, free loveism, and socialism.” Additionally, it noted that some of these Republicans considered the Church to be corrupt. The column also claimed that these same individuals would mock the bible as well. The column even had a quote by a Republican that indicated the infidelity in the Republican Party: “So long as man believes in

God, he is not free.” Further, the column claimed that “German infidels” support the Republican

Party, while “christian [sic] Germans” mostly back the Democrats.205 Republicans were even depicted as being violent. One particular column in The Crawford County Forum alleged that a

203 Defiance Democrat, October 13, 1860, 2. 204 “Lincoln’s Congressional Record.,” The Crawford County Forum, October 12, 1860, 1. 205 “THE INFIDEL CONVENTION,” The Crawford County Forum, October 26, 1860, 2. 72

Republican meeting in Holmes ended with a riot by Republicans who were armed with knives.206

These portrayals of Republicans attempted to persuade the electorate of Northwest Ohio to oppose them because they were seen as violent and anti-religious.

The Democratic newspapers often attacked the abolitionists as being part of the

Republican Party as well. For instance, one column in The Crawford County Forum alleged that the abolitionists changed their name to the “Black Republicans.” It also pointed out how this group provoked John Brown and desired to sell the nation back to Britain.207 Another column on the same page criticized the Republicans as using John Brown as a martyr. It read:

“[Republicans] dress their women in black and parade them in public processions in deep morning for poor old John Brown.”208 Further, it noted that this action demonstrated that the

Republicans approved of Brown’s actions.209 A third column on the same page claimed that an abolitionist, William Redpath, traveled to Haiti in an attempt to get the Haitian government to finance a 2,000 slave insurrection in the South. However, the Haitian government refused because it was afraid that the United States would have retaliated and taken over Haiti.210 A column in the Hardin County Democrat even blamed the abolitionist faction of the Republican

Party for a slave revolt in Texas. 211 It stated that “[t]hey (Abolitionists and Lincoln) have instructed them (slaves) to burn their masters’ dwellings and stables and barns, to poison them in their meals, to massacre them, to commit outrage on their wives and daughters.”212 These columns were used to warn the public about the mischief that the abolitionists were involved in.

206 “REPUBLICAN ‘LAW AND ORDER.’” The Crawford County Forum, October 12, 1860, 2. 207 “The Abolitionist,” The Crawford County Forum, November 5, 1860, 1. 208 The Crawford County Forum, October 5, 1860, 1. 209 Ibid. 210 “More Abolition Mischief.,” The Crawford County Forum, October 5, 1860, 1. 211 Hardin County Democrat, October 12, 1860, 2. 212 Ibid. 73

Further, they attempted to demonstrate that the Republicans had no respect for the law by supporting a group that favored using violence to achieve their goals.

The Republicans were also depicted as being canards and frauds in Democratic newspapers. For example, the Defiance Democrat noted that some Republicans falsely claimed that they supported the same principles as Washington, Adams, and Jackson. However, these leaders allowed the expansion of slavery by allowing states to enter the union as slave states, which demonstrated that the Republicans did not share the same principles.213 Another column in

The Crawford County Forum accused the Republicans in Crawford County of attempting to steal the election. It alleged that Republicans were giving out fraudulent tickets as well as illegally voting.214 One column in The Crawford County Forum even accused the Republican Party of allowing blacks to vote in Ohio, which was a violation of the state constitution.215 The

Democratic newspapers retracted the Republican newspapers’ accusations of Douglas as an alcoholic. One column in The Crawford County Forum discussed how Douglas’ wife got into a dispute with a Republican who alleged that Douglas left a train being drunk without witnessing the event. Douglas’ wife told the man that this was untrue and that she was aware of her husband’s behavior.216 Another column in the Hardin County Democrat claimed that the people who were alleging that Douglas was a drunk were drunks themselves, thus their argument had no merit. It also claimed that Douglas would have been unable articulate his positions if he was an alcoholic, and that he was “one of the greatest Statesmen and orators of the age.”217 A second column in the Hardin County Democrat noted that the Republicans should have been more

213 “No More Slave States,” Defiance Democrat, October 27, 1860, 2. 214 “DIRTY WORK.,” The Crawford County Forum, October 12, 1860, 2. 215 “Negro Voters in Ohio,” The Crawford County Forum, October 26, 1860, 3. 216 “Mrs. Douglas and her Husband’s Slanderer – Brace of the White Caveated “Decency” Suddenly Taken Down,” The Crawford County Forum, October 26, 1860, 1. 217 “Douglas and his Habits,” Hardin County Democrat, October 5, 1860, 1. 74 consistent in their position of opposing Douglas for allegedly being a drunk. Conversely, the newspaper argued that the Republicans should also not support their own candidates, such as

Gordon Stewart, who had reputations of drinking significantly more than Douglas. More importantly, it contended that the Republicans should have avoided attacks on personal habits, such as the Democrats did.218 The Republicans were also criticized for their personal attacks on

Douglas. One column in The Crawford County Forum discussed how the Republicans were attacking Douglas’ wife and mother. In particular, it noted that the Republicans insulted

Douglas’ mother in banners, songs, and speeches. Additionally, the column disagreed with the

Republican’s tactic, and believed they should have avoided attacking Douglas’ wife and mother because they did not have a real argument.219 This raised the concern to voters that the

Republicans engaged in dirty politics.

Along with being portrayed as canards and frauds in the Democratic newspapers, the

Republicans were seen as trying to influence the election in favor of Lincoln. One column in the

Defiance Democrat alleged that the Republicans attempted to deny foreigners from their naturalization to prevent them from voting in the election in Dayton, Ohio. In particular, it pointed out that the Republicans created an “Obstruction Committee,” which was “composed of

Republican lawyers and officeholders” for the purpose of interfering with the probate courts through legal methods as well as objections.220 The Defiance Democrat also had a column that alleged that Republicans were trying to deceive voters into voting for Breckenridge over

Douglas.221 On the same page, another column pointed out that Democrats should have avoided voting for Breckenridge because it was unlikely that he would have won a state in the north.

218 “Tit For Tat.,” Hardin County Democrat, October 5, 1860, 2. 219 “Indelicacy.,” The Crawford County Forum, October 19, 1860, 1. 220 Defiance Democrat, October 27, 1860, 2. 221 Defiance Democrat, November 3, 1863, 2. 75

Moreover, the Democrats best chance for defeating Lincoln in the north was to vote for

Douglas.222 These columns were used to convince voters that the Republicans were trying to rig the election in favor of Lincoln because they were unable to win without devious methods.

These newspapers also attempted to convince Breckenridge and Bell supporters to vote for Douglas instead. One column in the Hardin County Democrat pointed out that General S.W.

Andrews, a resident of Ohio, was a Breckenridge supporter that was voting for Douglas. It claimed that his reason was that Douglas was the “strongest man to beat Lincoln” and “that it is the duty of all true Democrats to ‘vote solid against Lincoln.’”223 Another column in a different issue attempted to discourage voters from backing Breckenridge because he was a relative of

Aaron Burr, and both of these men desired a “Southern Confederacy.”224 The Democrats also raised the concern of the role that Bell played in the election. One column suggested that Bell was taking away votes from Douglas. It argued that this was throwing away a vote, which would have led to Lincoln being elected. Moreover, it noted that voters should take into consideration who would have the best chance of defeating Lincoln.225 Another column also pointed out that both Bell and Douglas’ supporters were in agreement with the idea that the federal government should have not interfered with states’ issues, such as slavery.226 The Hardin County Democrat even had a column that pointed out that Breckenridge was unable to win any free states.227 These columns attempted to influence voters who were Democratic leaning to join together and vote for one candidate over Lincoln because they would have had a higher probability of defeating him.

222 Ibid. 223 “Out for Douglas.,” Hardin County Democrat, November 2, 1860, 2. 224 Hardin County Democrat, October 26, 1860, 2. 225 “The Bell Men of Ohio,” Hardin County Democrat, November 2, 1860, 1. 226 “The Failure of the Democratic Party.,” Hardin County Democrat, November 2, 1860, 2. 227 Hardin County Democrat, October 19, 1860, 2. 76

Further, they argued that in Northwest Ohio, the most viable candidate of the North to defeat

Lincoln was Douglas.

The Democratic newspapers also warned of the potential consequences of electing

Lincoln, which focused around disunion. The Crawford County Forum even warned, “If You would save the Union, which is now in imminent peril, vote for Douglas.”228 The Defiance

Democrat alleged that another consequence would have been a “negro insurrection.”229 One column that appeared in the Hardin County Democrat also attempted to motivate young voters to vote for Douglas to preserve the union, rather than voting for disunion as well. This particular column noted that “the blood of twenty-five millions of white people is of greater importance than five millions of blacks, who are not suffering half so much as the free blacks.” Additionally, it noted that younger voters should have voted to resolve the slave issue peacefully.230 Moreover, this column suggests that if Lincoln was elected, there was a risk of war and disunion. Further, the column warned voters that war was not worth the cost of liberating slaves. This column may have also attempted to get young voters to think of potential consequences of them fighting in a war to abolish slavery because they were of fighting age.

Douglas was also often depicted as the only national candidate who would have prevented a civil war. The Defiance Democrat listed thirty reasons why Stephen Douglas should be president. The majority of these reasons revolved around on how Douglas was true to

“Democratic principles” and was the only president who had the best interest of the nation.231

Moreover, Douglas was depicted as a uniter, instead of a divider, such as Lincoln. It claimed that

228 “If You would save the Union, which is now in imminent peril, vote for Douglas,” The Crawford County Forum, November 2, 1860, 2. 229 “Facts of a Republican Triumph,” Defiance Democrat, November 3, 1860, 2. 230 “Why Young men can’t Vote the Republican Ticket – What they will do.,” Hardin County Democrat, October 26, 1860, 2. 231 “Thirty Two Reasons Why Judge Douglas Should be Elected President,” Defiance Democrat, October 13, 1860, 4. 77

Douglas believed in “equal justice” for both the North and South. Additionally, he was a “friend” to different social groups, including the poor, worker, and wealthy. The column also pointed out how Douglas would have “protect[ed] American industry, capital, commerce, and inventions” as well.232 Another column appeared in The Crawford County Forum pointed out that Lincoln and

Breckenridge would have divided the country and disrupted peace unlike Douglas. It suggested that electing either Lincoln or Breckenridge would have caused a civil war because of their focus on sectional interests.233 The Hardin County Democrat provided excerpts of a speech by Robert

Winthrop who pointed out that the free states and the slave states could have resolved their differences through “moderation and reason.” On the other hand, he pointed out that “extreme parties” would not resolve these problems, especially when one of them were referring the South as “a land of barbarianism.” Winthrop even noted that these parties were not attempting to win electoral votes outside the region that they represented.234 Further, this raised the concern to how one would not expect disunion if a party got elected who was only focused on its sectional interests, rather than were willing to compromise with the other side.

A column in a different issue of the Hardin County Democrat also alleged that Douglas would resolve the slavery question, which saved time and money as well as preventing disunion.235 The Hardin County Democrat had another column that differentiated the Democrats from the Republicans as well. This particular column implicitly implied that the Democrats were

“liberal” and willing to “concede to others.”236 Further, Democrats embodied the Democratic spirit of “toleration.”237 On the other hand, it inferred that the Republicans were “intolerant,

232 Ibid. 233 “For the Forum,” The Crawford County Forum, October 19, 1860, 3. 234 “Speech of Hon. Robert C. Winthrop.,” Hardin County Democrat, October 12,1860, 2. 235 “Vote for Douglas.,” Hardin County Democrat, October 19, 1860, 2. 236 “Democracy the Shield of the Union.,” Hardin County Democrat, October 19, 1860, 2. 237 Ibid. 78 illiberal, unjust – it demand immunities and privileges which it denies to other men.”238 These columns served the purpose of reaffirming that Douglas was the only candidate who represented the nation as a whole, including the different regions and social classes.

The Defiance Democrat and The Crawford County Forum may have aided Douglas in garnering enough support to win those counties. This is demonstrated by the fact that Douglas won 56 percent and 55 percent of the vote in Defiance County and Crawford County, respectively.239 This leads one to believe that voters in these counties may have preferred states’ rights to federal authority and felt that Douglas was the only national candidate because the

Democratic newspapers in these areas focused on this message. They may have also rejected the

Republican Party’s position on slavery because they may have seen this issue as a distraction from other issues that they considered more important, such as the financial system and free trade. On the other hand, the Democrats only garnered 44 percent of the vote in Hardin

County,240 which suggested the majority felt that Lincoln represented its interests more.

Moreover, the electorate of Hardin County may have felt that Douglas did not do enough on the

Homestead Bill while he was in the Senate. Additionally, they may have felt that the Democratic newspapers exaggerated the Republicans’ position on blacks, and believed they went too far on the issue to the point that they lost credibility with the local population. Further, the overall

Democratic newspaper coverage in the Northwest Ohio region suggested that the Democrats existed and had strong disagreement with the Republican platform.

238 Ibid. 239 Secretary of State, Ohio, “Annual Report of the Secretary of State to the Governor of the State of Ohio: For the Year of 1860,” in Message and Reports to the General Assembly and Governor of the State of Ohio, for the Year 1860, 284. 240 Ibid, 288. 79

Conclusion

The presidential election of 1860 in Northwest Ohio confirms the claim made by historians the role that sectionalism played in the Union. In particular, it shows that the election in the north was between Lincoln and Douglas, while the election in the south was between

Breckenridge and Bell. This can be observed by the minimal coverage of Breckenridge and Bell in both the Democratic and Republican newspapers. It also reveals that the primary political issues in Northwest Ohio were the Homestead Bill, slavery, race issues, and federal authority.

Voters most likely backed Douglas if they believed in the idea of “Popular Sovereignty” and preferred the federal government to not intervene in state affairs. On the other hand, voters most likely backed Lincoln and the Republicans if they preferred greater federal authority over states and opposed slavery. However, it is important to note that both parties approved of federal authority when it was convenient for them on the issue of the Fugitive Slave Law. The

Democrats supported this issue even though it violated state sovereignty by forcing states to return property to its owners in a different state. Additionally, some of the Republicans were against it even though they supported the federal government in having the authority to determine whether slavery should be allowed in the territories. Both the Republican and

Democratic newspapers portrayed their parties as favoring the racial interests of white, while opposing the idea of blacks being considered as equal to whites. On the other hand, they differed on how they wanted to achieve this. The Republicans claimed that they supported this by restricting blacks to the South, while the Democrats preferred them to remain slaves. The electorate may have taken these issues into consideration when choosing their candidate at the polls. Identity politics also played a role in the election as each newspaper was trying to influence voters of certain ethnic backgrounds to choose their candidate. The 1860 presidential 80 election in Northwest Ohio raises the question of how other regions in the nation differed on the major political issues because each region had different demographics, economic, political, and social interests.

CHAPTER II. 1863 OHIO GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION

Introduction

The Civil War was at its apex in 1863. The Union would gain significant victories at

Gettysburg and Vicksburg, which would change the course of the war and give momentum to the

Union where the chance of winning the war became more probable. However, with these important victories within an ongoing war, the Union held elections for political offices, which could change the course of the war. The existence of an anti-war sentiment in the Union demonstrates that not everyone was in favor of the war.

There were a variety of reasons why people opposed the war. Some opposed the war because they believed in a peaceful restoration of the Union. Others felt that the war efforts brought draconian laws that infringed on their constitutional rights. On the other hand, many people supported the war efforts, believing that the war was necessary because this was the only way to end slavery and preserve the Union. There were also some people who financially profited from the war.

Some members of the Democratic Party backed political candidates who opposed the war.

One of those candidates was Clement Vallandigham who ran in the Ohio gubernatorial election of

1863 against John Brough, who supported the war effort. This election illustrates the complexities of the political sentiment in Ohio, where there were varying perspectives of the war. The political campaigns of both political candidates show the tension between opposing viewpoints. According to James Bissland, author of Blood, Tears, & Glory: How Ohioans Won the Civil War, “The Ohio gubernatorial election campaign of 1863 turned into an all-out-fight that makes modern American election campaigns look like tea parties.”241 He further noted that both political groups used

241 Bissland, 319. 82

“insults, lies, and accusations at the other.”242 This chapter examines the political attitudes presented in the newspapers and how did this influence the electorate as a whole? There has been an insufficient amount of scholarship focusing on the Ohio gubernatorial election of 1863. This chapter intends to explore this election in more detail focusing on a particular region, which is

Northwest Ohio. Further, it will explore the complexities of the political sentiment by examining the political attitudes of newspapers and individual residents of Northwest Ohio. There were newspapers that were highly influential in particular areas of Northwest Ohio while others were not.

Political Movements

Copperhead was a term used to describe Lincoln’s opponents.243 Historian Jennifer Weber described the Copperheads as preferring presidents who governed based on limited government, the way that Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson did.244 The author pointed out that the

Copperheads were composed of three different groups of people: Southerners who migrated to the

North, immigrants, and conservative Jacksonian Democrats. In particular, conservative Jacksonian

Democrats believed that secession was legal because the Constitution never addressed the issue.245

Immigrants and southerners who migrated to the North feared that if blacks were given freedom, they would have to compete with them for unskilled jobs. This would also decrease wages for unskilled labor by increasing the amount of labor available to employers.246 Additionally, historian

George Knepper mentioned other groups in Ohio that opposed the war including German pietests, the Moravians, and the Quakers. These groups were considered to be pacifists and desired peaceful

242 Ibid. 243 Klement, 1. 244 Jennifer Weber, “Lincoln’s Critics: The Copperheads,” Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association 32, no. 1 (Winter 2011), 33. 245 Ibid, 34. 246 Gray, 99. 83 reconciliation.247 Others opposed the draft leading to draft riots, including one in Holmes County, which was the result of the residents perceiving that their “local autonomy” was violated.248 Some also opposed the war because of the costs associated with it. For example, a column in the The

Crawford County Forum noted that the war cost Crawford County $2,292,777.57 for the first two and a half years of the war. Additionally, the war destroyed existing infrastructure and natural resources outside of Ohio, as well as many lives. Further, the column argued that the benefit of freeing blacks was not worth the costs.249

The Copperheads’ platform focused primarily on restoring the United States to how it was before the war began with a focus on states’ rights and protection of civil liberties. They preferred restoring the Union through peaceful negotiations. The Copperheads also opposed Abraham

Lincoln’s policies because they perceived them as frequently violating the Constitution.250 In particular, they considered Lincoln’s biggest assault on the Constitution was when he suspended the writ of habeas corpus. This led to the imprisonment of newspaper editors and others who disagreed with Lincoln’s policies.251 The Copperheads felt that the draft was unconstitutional as well. They argued that this particular issue was reserved for the states to decide since it was not mentioned in the Constitution.252 Further, the Copperheads preferred peace and what they considered to be a Jeffersonian interpretation of the Constitution.

Another movement was the pro-war movement, which created the Union Party. This political party in Ohio was composed of both Republicans and “War Democrats.” The creation of

247 George W. Knepper, Ohio and Its People (Kent: Kent State University Press, 2003), 227. 248 Kenneth H. Wheeler, “Local Autonomy and Civil War Draft Resistance: Holmes County, Ohio,” Civil War History 45, no. 2 (June 1999), 157. 249 “To the Tax Payers of Crawford County-The Facts and the Figures- What it Costs the County to Cary on the War for ‘Freedom’ or Negro Equality,” The Crawford County Forum, September 11, 1863, 2. 250 Roseboom, 404. 251 Weber, “Lincoln’s Critics: The Copperheads,” 34. 252 Gray, 139. 84 this party was the pro-war sentiment’s response to their displeasure with Republican governor

William Dennison.253 According to historian Eugene Roseboom, “People saw in him (Dennison) only a cultured gentleman who wrote long messages in a verbose, stilted style and had neither the spirit nor the capacity to organize the State for war.”254 The public’s perception of Dennison was caused by his inexperience in military issues and the incompetence of his underlings.255

Furthermore, the Union Party’s goal was to replace ineffective public officials with more competent ones.

In contrast, the Union Party largely avoided discussing the issue of slavery, and instead focused on preserving the Union through the use of force.256 The Union Party’s campaign strategy downplayed the issue of slavery and equality for blacks. They also assured the people of Ohio that they should not be afraid of how these issues will affect them. In particular, “Black Laws” were implemented in 1807 and 1830, which prevented blacks from having certain political rights that whites possessed.257 The main platform of the Union Party was to continue the war until the South rejoined the Union.258

These movements were oppositional in ideology. The Union Party believed that the Union could only be preserved by military force. On the other hand, the Copperheads saw the use of military force as a method to destroy the Union.259 The Union Party felt that measures, such as the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, was necessary in a time of war to maintain order. On the contrary, the Copperheads believed this to be a violation of rights granted under the Constitution.

253 Bissland, 188. 254 Roseboom, 381. 255 Ibid. 256 Bissland, 188. 257 Jackson, 251. 258 “Facts for the Voters of Ohio to Ohio Remember!,” Bryan Republican, October 1, 1863, 2. 259 Weber, Copperheads: The Rise and Fall of Lincoln’s Opponents in the North, 141. 85

Both movements backed their preferred candidate that represented their best interest in the 1863

Ohio gubernatorial election.

Political Candidates

John Brough was the governor’s candidate for the Union ticket. His appearance was described to be heavy and messy, and he chewed tobacco.260 He worked in the railroad industry as the president of the Bellefontaine Line prior to his election. Before Brough entered the railroad industry, he and his brother started a publication, the Cincinnati Enquirer. Additionally, he served as the state auditor of Ohio for the years of 1839 to 1845.261 He was considered to be a “War

Democrat and a successful businessman.”262 Brough had strong support from his party, especially by Lincoln. Other highly regarded public officials from Ohio campaigned for him, such as

Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase, Senator Benjamin Wade, and Senator John Sherman because they perceived his adversary, Vallandigham, to be a serious threat to their party’s ultimate goal to end the war if elected.263 Brough stated that his political position was, “This war ought not to cease until slavery is entirely extinct.”264 His statement demonstrates there would be no peace until slavery was abolished. Brough also believed that military force was the only practical solution to end the war.265 His candidacy appealed to War Democrats and Republicans.266

Vallandigham was the Democratic candidate for the gubernatorial election. His physical description was that he was “strongly built” and had shiny dark hair.267 Before becoming a politician, Vallandigham worked as a lawyer. He was elected to Congress representing Ohio in the

260 Bissland, 319. 261 Roseboom, 417. 262 Knepper, 235. 263 Ibid, 236. 264 “The Difference,” Bryan Democrat, August 27, 1863, 2. 265 Bissland, 319. 266 Ibid. 267 Ibid, 277. 86 year of 1858 as well. Similar to Brough, he had experience in the publication industry because he was an editor and co-owner of the Dayton Empire.268 Vallandigham was popular among the

Copperheads, who also disapproved of the war. Many people thoughout the Union perceived both

Vallandigham and the Copperheads as Confederate sympathizers.269 Prior to his campaign,

Vallandigham was arrested by General Burnside for speech that Burnside considered to interfere with recruiting.270 Vallandigham was eventually handed over to the Confederacy and spent 24 days there after being exiled by Lincoln.271 While he was there, he “declared himself a ‘prisoner of war’ and a loyal citizen of the United States.”272 Vallandigham stated that his position was, “Devoted to the Union from the beginning I will not desert it now in the hour of the surest trial.”273 He was against secession and even suggested a compromise to bring the South back into the Union.

Vallandigham believed that the war could have been ended by a peaceful solution, and his political support came from “Peace Democrats.”274

Both of these gubernatorial candidates differed in many ways, especially with their viewpoints on the war as well as how the state of Ohio should be governed. According to Frank

Klement, a biographer of Vallandigham, “Vallandigham’s supporters saw him as a symbol of states’ rights, civil liberties, and peace.”275 On the other hand, “Brough’s devotees saw him as a symbol of patriotism, fidelity, and the new nation.”276 Further, Klement pointed out that both political camps strongly believed that their position was correct, while the others were dead

268 Roseboom, 406. 269 Bissland, 277. 270 Gray, 145. 271 Bissland, 318. 272 Ibid, 317. 273 “The Difference,” Bryan Democrat, August 27, 1863, 2. 274 Bissland, 317-319. 275 Frank L. Klement, The Limits of Dissent: Clement L. Vallandigham & The Civil War (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1970), 229. 276 Ibid, 229. 87 wrong.277 The 1863 gubernatorial election demonstrates that both candidates were passionate about their position on the war. This also illustrates that there was a conflict of visions, which led to a high degree of political tension that was demonstrated in the political coverage in newspapers as well as private family letters of their political supporters.

During the election, Vallandigham campaigned in Canada when he was in exile. He relocated his campaign operations to Windsor, Canada in August 1863 to be closer to Ohio.278 In particular, Windsor was geographically closes to Northwest Ohio. This region was largely based on an agrarian economy, which was similar to the economy of the Confederacy. One may think because of these economic similarities that they may have similar values, which would cause

Northwest Ohio voters to favor Vallandigham.

However, Brough won the majority of the counties in Northwest Ohio. For instance, he won Wood County with 2,829 votes to Vallandgham’s 1,182. On the other hand, Vallandigham - who performed relatively poorly in the election - won more counties in the Northwest Ohio region compared to the other regions in Ohio. He won the following counties in Northwest Ohio: Allen,

Crawford, Defiance, Putnam, Seneca, and Wyandot. One of Vallandigham’s widest margins in the election was when he won Crawford County with 2,948 votes to Brough’s 2,157.279 Crawford

County was considered to be one of two of the largest Copperhead and peace sentiment areas, especially since it had one of the highest percentages of men drafted for the war.280 The election results in Northwest Ohio clearly show that this region was more divided than the other regions of the state.

277 Ibid. 278 Knepper, 235. 279 Secretary of State, Ohio, “Annual Report of the Secretary of State to the Governor of the State of Ohio: For the Year of 1863,” in Message and Reports to the General Assembly and Governor of the State of Ohio, for the Year 1863 (Columbus: Richard Nevins, 1863), 403-404. 280 Roseboom, 409. 88

The Republican and Union Party Newspapers’ Election Coverage

Republican newspapers in Northwest Ohio focused their coverage of the election by portraying Vallandigham as a traitor. However, historian James Blissland argued that

Vallandigham was not a traitor because his loyalty was with the Union and he disagreed with the

South’s decision to leave it. Vallandigham differed from the majority of Northern politicians during the Civil War because he preferred peace over war.281 This belief would make it very difficult for many to not see him as a traitor, especially as the intensity of the war grew. In fact, the Bucyrus Weekly Journal, The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, and the Bryan Republican focused most of their gubernatorial election coverage to portray Vallandigham as a traitor and to warn voters of the consequences if the people elected him. For example, one particular column in the

Bryan Republican explicitly referred to him as “the traitor Vallandigham.”282 On the other hand, these newspapers created a binary relationship where Brough was depicted as a good Union man, compared to Vallandigham, the traitor. Brough desired to win the war as soon as possible.

The Republican newspapers painted the image that Vallandigham was a traitor who was representing the interests of the Confederacy, and they argued that this justified his arrest in 1863.

The Weekly Perrysburg Journal published parts of a speech by Senator John Sherman that justified

Vallandigham’s arrest and opposed his election as governor. He argued that Vallandigham had been arrested because he was aiding the enemy. Additionally, Sherman claimed that Vallandigham was guilty because he did not speak out against the rebellion and did not vote in agreement with any bills that aimed at strengthening national defense. Furthermore, Sherman pointed out that there would have been negative consequences for the soldiers if Vallandigham got elected.283 The

281 Bissland, 319. 282 “The War Democracy and Vallandigham,” Bryan Republican, October 8, 1863, 2. 283 “The Campaign of Ohio. The Political Traitor Unmasked. Vallandigham‘s Record Reviewed. Speech by John Sherman,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, August 12, 1863, 1. 89

Weekly Perrysburg Journal also had columns that frequently brought up how Vallandigham was arrested and a traitor. One column by an anonymous individual referred to him as being an “outlaw in Canada having been convicted of complicity with the Rebels.”284 Additionally, Henry Reinish wrote in The Weekly Perrysburg Journal that Vallandigham suggested to the Confederate leaders to reinforce Vicksburg to assist him in his election over Brough.285 The Bucyrus Weekly Journal portrayed Vallandigham as being an ally to the Confederacy as well. In fact, one column claimed that he was involved with providing weapons to the Confederacy, and further depicted him as an

“arms dealer.” This column attempted to back up its conclusion by including the text of the letter that he sent for the request.286

Vallandigham’s supporters and the Copperheads generally bore brunt of Republican criticism. A column in the Bucyrus Weekly Journal described the supporters of Vallandigham as being sympathetic to the South’s revolt against the Union. They were considered to be unpatriotic for their disapproval of the war efforts to suppress the rebellion. Further, every Rebel was perceived as being a supporter of Vallandigham.287 Poems also appeared in Republican newspapers to communicate a satirical image of their opposition; for example, one particular poem was titled, “The Copperhead,” which was a parody based on Edger Allen Poe’s famous poem “The

Raven.” This particular poem made references to the Copperheads as traitors and favoring the

South in the war:

“Blast the reptile! [I]s he mad? Has dire disaster made him sad? Or, was he ever blithe and glad? What means his song of ‘Constitution?’ Will it hush the din of battle?

284 “Facts for the Voters of Ohio to Ohio Remember!,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 7, 1863, 1. 285 Henry Reinish, “Vallandigham’s Treason Daily Unfolding,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, September 9, 1863, 2. 286 “Interesting Letter-Mr. Vallandigham as Purchasing Agent for Muskets,” Bucyrus Weekly Journal, September 25, 1863, 1. 287 “Who are for Vallandigham?” The Bucyrus Weekly Journal, September 11, 1863, 2. 90

Will it still the canon’s rattle? Will this vain and idle prattle stop this hellish revolution? Stop the mouths of traitors here, and cleanse the nation of pollution?” Quote the reptile, “Constitution!”

“Be that word our sign of paring! Snake or friend?” I shrieked, upstarting; Get thee back again to Dixie, Or by Heaven! I will fix ye! I will bruise thy head like sixty, and stop thy song Constitution! Bruise thy head and stop thy song, and spill thy blood upon the cushion. Leave no slime nor scale as token [o]f folly thou hast spoken. Leave my loneliness unbroken, take thy form from off my cushion. Take thy fangs from out my heart, and take thy coil from off my cushion.” Quote the reptile, “Constitution!”288

In addition to presenting them as traitors, the Bucyrus Weekly Journal stereotyped the

Copperheads and Vallandigham’s supporters as angry and aggressive. One column discussed how a Copperhead engaged in a political conversation with an elderly and disabled man, and assaulted him with a pitchfork over political disagreements. The event ended when a woman took away the pitchfork from the Copperhead man and threatened to injure him with it. The Bucyrus Weekly

Journal blamed this behavior on the teachings of Vallandigham.289 Additionally, the newspaper associated draft rioters with Vallandigham’s campaign, and having no respect for authority.290 The violent behaviors that the Bucyrus Weekly Journal described were used to encourage voters to distance themselves from the Vallandigham movement.

Along with labeling Vallandigham’s supporters as violent and aggressive, the Bucyrus

Weekly Journal claimed that his associates were attempting to engage in voter fraud. In particular, a column alleged that Vallandigham’s friends were planning to bring voters into counties to increase the probability of his election. However, the Bucyrus Weekly Journal argued this tactic

288 “The Copperhead,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, August 19, 1863, 1. 289 “Copperhead Outrage,” Bucyrus Weekly Journal, September 25, 1863, 3. 290 “Who are for Vallandigham?,” Bucyrus Weekly Journal, September 11, 1863, 2. 91 would be unsuccessful because the local governments were keeping track of the actual voters in each county. Additionally, Ohio had harsh penalties for those who engaged in voter fraud.291 The

Bucyrus Weekly Journal’s claim suggests that Vallandigham was engaging in illegal activity to steal the election.

Newspapers challenged Vallandigham in other ways. An advertisement appeared in the

Bucyrus Weekly Journal, offering a $50 award to any supporter of Vallandigham that could prove that he was a “good Union man,” using his record as a politician. The advertisement wanted examples of statements that Vallandigham made opposing secession, pertaining to the need to supress the South, and condemning the people involved in the revolt as “traitors.” On the other hand, if Vallandigaham’s supporters were unable to demonstrate this, they should have admitted that he was a “traitor.” 292 This example of challenging Vallandigham’s supporters to demonstrate his loyalty showed the confidence of Brough’s followers.

Republican newspapers in Northwest Ohio also published stories warning voters of potential consequences if Vallandigham were elected governor. The Bucyrus Weekly Journal had a column titled, “Do you want to be drafted?,” which warned voters of an impending draft if

Vallandigham was elected. The argument was that his victory would motivate the South to continue to wage their war, necessitating more soldiers for the North to carry out the war. The column pointed out that the draft had been suspended, and that a draft would not have to take place if the Union army accomplished its goal.293 The column by the Bucyrus Weekly Journal implies that Brough was more focused on winning the war, whereas Vallandigham would hinder the war

291 “Importation of Voters,” Bucyrus Weekly Journal, September 18, 1863, 2. 292 “Vallandigham $50 Reward,” Bucyrus Weekly Journal, September 25, 1863, 2. 293 “Do You Want to be Drafted,” Bucyrus Weekly Journal, September 25 1863, 2. 92 effort. If elected, Vallandigham would have been unwilling to cooperate with the federal government to assist in the war efforts by refusing to send soldiers and supplies.

There were even Democrats who opposed Vallandigham, and decided to vote for Brough because they perceived him to be the lesser of two evils. The Weekly Perrysburg Journal published articles that discussed Democratic opposition to their own party’s candidate, Vallandigham. Many of the columns discussed Democratic opposition from other regions, such as the southern parts of

Ohio, rather than only Northwest Ohio. For example, a statement from the editor of the True

Democrat appeared in The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, claiming that Vallandigham had a “rebel heart,” and would have aided the Confederacy by staying in the North.294 A Democrat from Putnam

County perceived the Copperheads to be traitors in a poem titled “The Copperhead Party.”295

Additionally, newspapers discussed War Democrats’ conventions, which encouraged votes against

Vallandigham and show that members of his own party rejected him. For example, one column in the Bucyrus Weekly Journal reported that a meeting to condemn Vallandigham’s election campaign was largely attended by War Democrats. The column also advocated for the war to continue until the South was defeated.296 These columns suggest that the primary issue for some

Democrats was winning the conflict by military means.

In addition to Democratic disapproval of Vallandigham, The Weekly Perrysburg Journal included columns about the German opinion throughout the state, which showed that many

Germans disliked Vallandigham. This was also a way to persuade German voters in Northwest

Ohio to support Brough over Vallandigham. According to The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, the only German newspaper to back Vallandigham was located in Cincinnati. One column noted that

294 “Democrats After Vallandigham,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, August 19, 1863, 2. 295 A Douglas Democrat, “The Copperhead Party,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, September 30, 1863, 1. 296 “War Democrat’s Convention,” Bucyrus Weekly Journal, September 25, 1863, 2. 93

1,500 subscribers of this particular paper stopped their subscriptions because it favored

Vallandigham, and reiterated that Vallandigham was a traitor, and thus opposing him was a vote for a constitutional government. Further, Germans who did not support him were considered to be

“intelligent Germans.”297 Another column appeared in The Weekly Perrysburg Journal that discussed why German Democrats backed Brough instead of Vallandigham. Although there were issues that the German Democrats disagreed with, the primary issue for them was defeating the

Confederate States of America.298 These columns in The Weekly Perrysburg Journal were meant to convince German voters in Wood County to support Brough over Vallandigham.

Republican newspapers refuted claims that Democratic newspapers made against Brough focusing on issues of soldiers’ treatment. For example, the Bryan Republican rebutted Democratic newspapers’ accusations that Brough refused to transport wounded Union soldiers on his trains. In particular, a column from August 6, 1863 claimed that the Democratic newspapers had no credibility because they supported Vallandigham. The Bryan Republican pointed to

Vallandigham’s record and alleged that he did not vote once in two years to increase soldiers’ wages.299 Further, it stated, “’Not a dollar,’ the gentleman in Canada tells us, did he, in two year’s service in Congress, vote to pay the hard-earned wages of our noble soldiers-nor ‘a man’ to reinforce their ranks, decimated and weakened by battle and disease!”300 This column claimed that

Vallandigham did not vote for salary raises for the military and also provided an excerpt of a speech by Brough addressing the Democratic newspapers’ accusations. Brough argued that he refused to transport soldiers at half the cost because he believed that soldiers should have received full benefits. He also claimed that his railroads transported “tuns of the collections made by the

297 “The Germans on Vallandigham,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, August 19, 1863, 2. 298 “Mr. Vallandigham and the Germans,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, August 6, 1863, 2. 299 “’Railroad’ Gun Spiked,” Bryan Republican, August 6, 1863, 2. 300 Ibid. 94 soldiers’ societies and sanitary commissions” at no charge.301 This column served the purpose of disproving the Democratic newspapers claims of both Brough’s refusal to not transport wounded soldiers and that Brough had not done anything for them.

It is clear Brough’s support came mostly from those who favored the war. The perception of Vallandigham as a traitor also had the negative effect of discouraging the public from voting for him because it made them feel that they were siding with the enemy, and thus betraying their country. However, the election results show that the Bucyrus Weekly Journal was not as effective in persuading the voters in Crawford County as The Weekly Perrysburg Journal and the Bryan

Republican had in Wood County and Williams County, respectively. Brough won Williams

County and Wood County by voting percentages of 64 percent and 71 percent, respectively, while he lost Crawford County with only 42 percent of the vote.302

The Democratic Newspapers’ Election Coverage

Democratic newspapers, the Bryan Democrat, The Crawford County Forum, and the

Defiance Democrat, overwhelmingly favored Vallandigham and opposed the war. These newspapers had a similar binary approach to their depictions of the gubernatorial candidates. The

Democratic newspapers focused most of their coverage to portray Vallandigham as honest and principled, while depicting Brough as corrupt. Moreover, the Democratic newspapers attempted to undo the image painted by the Republican newspapers that Vallandigham was a traitor. In particular, these newspapers aimed at gaining political support for him by targeting voters who believed that the government was becoming too authoritarian and abusive of its power by their efforts to silence the opposition to the war.

301 Ibid. 302 Secretary of State, Ohio, “Annual Report of the Secretary of State to the Governor of the State of Ohio: For the Year of 1863,” in Message and Reports to the General Assembly and Governor of the State of Ohio, for the Year 1863, 403-404. 95

Democratic newspapers made a strong effort to refute the claim by the Republican newspapers that Vallandigham was a traitor. For example, the Defiance Democrat had a column quoting Vallandigham: “I am not a friend of the Confederate States or their cause, but its enemy.”303 Further, he desired to preserve the Union. However, the column noted that he preferred a peaceful strategy in ending the rebellion. Because the Union did not approve of Vallandigham’s approach to the conflict, he was arrested in his home and “subjected to a mock trial by a tribunal having no jurisdiction over him.” Further, he was forced into exile for stating political opinions that were contrary to the establishment. The implication of Vallandigham’s arrest suggested that constitutional rights were eroded due to habeas corpus’ suspension. Moreover, “free speech, liberty of the press, the habeas corpus, [and] the rights of home” were being infringed upon.304 The column bluntly stated why the electorate should support Vallandigham: “If Ohioans do not elect the citizen who has been trampled on, they show themselves unworthy of the great rights bequeathed to them- by their fathers.”305

The following week the Defiance Democrat had a column that claimed that Lincoln acknowledged that he had Vallandigham arrested without real cause, but claimed that the suspension of habeas corpus gave him this authority. 306 According to the column, “If this idea is practically carried out, it will give President Lincoln more power than any monarch on the earth.

The point now is-Abolition despotism or free government.”307 The suspension of habeas corpus was becoming an increasing issue, because it allowed the government to arrest people who made statements that they disagreed with. For example, the Republicans had a man arrested who was in

303 “The Nomination of Vallandigham,” Defiance Democrat, July 4, 1863, 1. 304 Ibid. 305 Ibid. 306 “Speech of Judge Thurman at Vallandigham Ratifications Meeting in Cleveland,” Defiance Democrat, July 11, 1863, 1. 307 Defiance Democrat, July 11, 1863, 1. 96 a county school house that said a comment that they disapproved of. This man was sent to Fort

Lafayette after the incident.308 Another column by the Defiance Democrat argued that only the

Democratic Party could restore the rights given by the Constitution.309

The Defiance Democrat would publish letters, speeches, and responses sent by

Vallandigham to give him an opportunity to defend himself from such accusations. He refuted a claim that he wanted to amend the constitution to separate it into four confederate states.

Vallandigham reiterated that he only wanted to preserve the Union and prevent a reoccurrence of secession.310 The Defiance Democrat even published speeches that Vallandigham gave at Niagara

Falls while he was in exile. In one particular speech that he delivered, he discussed the importance of preserving both the Union and the Constitution, while stating his grievances against what he considered to be “tyrants” in power.311

Vallandigham’s supporters also disagreed with his arrest. A petition from Cincinnati circulated in newspapers in Northwest Ohio. This petition referred to Vallandigham’s imprisonment as an “illegal trial” and “inhuman imprisonment,” which infringed on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.312 Another column from the Bryan Democrat condemned the implications of Vallandigham’s trial, which was the loss of “personal liberty” of Vallandigham and others who were arrested for similar actions. Further, the column pointed out that the opposition was “afraid of the people” on the question of liberty.313

The Defiance Democrat also highlighted a meeting that was held in Toledo for supporters of Vallandigham, where a letter he wrote was read to a large crowd. The letter stated his position

308 Ibid. 309 “The Democracy do not admit Negros into their processions,” Defiance Democrat, October 3, 1863, 1. 310 C.L. Vallandigham, “A Card from Hon. C.L. Vallandigham,” Defiance Democrat, July 25, 1863, 1. 311 C.L. Vallandigham, “Mr. Vallandigham’s Address to the People of Ohio: Niagara Falls, Canada West, July 15th,”1863, Defiance Democrat, July 25, 1863, 2. 312 Defiance Democrat, May 30, 1863, 2. 313 “Will Vandigham Be Elected,” Bryan Democrat, August 27, 1863, 2. 97 to preserve both the Union and the Constitution. The letter also urged that the South should come back to the Union, which would give southerners the constitutional rights that they once had, such as “a free press, free speech, free elections, liberty of conscience and opinion, due process of the law, judicial trial, trial by jury, no midnight arrests, no martial law, no military orders of commission, no provosts marshals, [and] no military governors.”314 Further, Vallandigham told supporters that he wanted to restore the “Union as it was,” while depicting Brough as full of “hate” and “revenge” for the South.315

Democratic newspapers often compared and contrasted Vallandigham to Brough and to other leaders, especially in terms of character and position on liberty. The Crawford County Forum perceived Vallandigham to be honest and standing for principle even when it was unfavorable and had penalties. He was compared to Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry because he favored liberty over tyranny, and spoke out against it. The column also described Vallandigham as having superb overall political ability and being a better orator and debater than Brough.316 A column in the

Defiance Democrat, titled “Handy Paragraphs,” compared Vallandigham and Brough, arguing that

Vallandigham was not a traitor because he was distributing his own personal record.317

This column also pointed out that he voted to raise the salaries of soldiers by $2 a month.

The main criticisms against Brough were that he was not a true Democrat because he went against the party’s positions. In particular, it claimed that Brough engaged in wasteful spending and even had his own railroad, which he profited from. Additionally, Brough agreed with the Republicans’ creation of the National Bank, went against states’ rights, and believed that the Union should only be preserved if slavery was abolished. There were also criticisms of Brough for not allowing

314 C.L. Vallandigham, “Letter from the Democratic Governor of Ohio,” Defiance Democrat, August 29, 1863, 3. 315 Ibid. 316 “A Noble Trio,” Bucyrus County Crawford Forum, July 31, 1863, 2. 317 “Handy Paragraphs,” Defiance Democrat, August 1, 1863, 1. 98

Vallandigham to come back to Ohio. In particular, the column claimed that he had no “manliness or honor in his bloated carcass” because of his refusal to allow Vallandigham to return.318 These columns suggested to voters that they should prefer Vallandigham over Brough because Brough was perceived to be dishonest and corrupt, while Vallandigham had more integrity.

Targeted, harsh criticism of Brough was also common. The Defiance Democrat had a column that claimed that the only reason why he had the draft postponed was because of the upcoming election and that the issue could have negatively affected his chances of being elected.319

Brough was reproached for not assisting families with volunteers serving in the military and encouraging men to volunteer. Editors suspected that the primary reason why he was running was to serve the interests of the railroad industry. Additionally, the newspapers also attempted to portray Brough as not being true to his principles since he left the Democratic Party back in 1832 because he favored nullification, which the party opposed.320

Some of Vallandigham’s supporters backed him specifically because they disapproved of the draft and did not want to serve in the military. For example, J.F. Martin, a resident of Erie

Country,321 was a supporter of Vallandigham, who went to Canada to avoid being drafted. He preferred to work in Canada and make $3 to $5 less a month than to serve in the Union army.322

Martin’s political support for Vallandigham illustrates how others like him would support the

Peace Democrat’s candidacy because they did not want to get drafted and go to war, and hoped that Vallandigham would likely be opposed to sending soldiers to war.

318 Ibid. 319 Defiance Democrat, August 29, 1863, 2. 320 “Pointed Resolutions,” Defiance Democrat, August 1, 1863, 1. 321 Center for Archival Collections, “MS 393 - The Belkofer Family Letters: Carter/Martin/Morgan Families (Kelley's Island, Ohio),” Bowling Green State University Library, http://ul2.bgsu.edu/finding_aids/items/show/635 (accessed September 9, 2014). 322 Bowling Green State University Library, Center for Archival Collections, “MS 393 - The Belkofer Family Letters: Carter/Martin/Morgan Families, J.F. Martin to Brother, Sister, Father, and All Relatives,” September 8, 1863. 99

The Democratic newspapers in Northwest Ohio likely had some success in persuading the voters to elect Vallandigham in some counties. The Crawford County Forum assisted the

Democrats in taking Crawford County by 791 votes, giving him a voting percentage of 58 percent.

Voters chose Vallandiham for a win in Defiance County by 168 votes where he had a voting percentage of 53 percent. On the other hand, the Bryan Democrat appeared ineffective in persuading voters in Williams County, as Brough won the county by 998 votes and Vallandigham only had a voting percentage of 36 percent.323 The election results showed that there were some voters who rejected the Republican newspapers’ claims that Vallandigham was a traitor. However, many did not agree with the Democratic newspapers’ assertions.

Political Sentiment and Political Tension among Union Soldiers

The Union soldiers from Northwest Ohio were less politically divided than the civilians because they overwhelmingly favored Brough. The election results demonstrated that

Vallandigham received very few votes from Union soldiers. For example, he only had seven soldiers’ votes (1 percent of the vote) compared to Brough’s 549 (99 percent of the vote) in Wood

County. Even in the counties that Vallandigham won, he had substantially fewer soldiers’ votes than Brough. In Crawford County, he had only 24 soldiers’ votes (8 percent of the vote) compared to Brough’s 268 (92 percent of the vote).324 The most often cited reason for the disparity in soldiers’ votes was that the soldiers were often emotionally driven to vote one way based on their belief in that Vallandigham was a traitor. According to historian George Knepper, “There is some evidence that pro-Union soldiers on occasion intimated comrades from voting for

323 Secretary of State, Ohio, “Annual Report of the Secretary of State to the Governor of the State of Ohio: For the Year of 1863,” in Message and Reports to the General Assembly and Governor of the State of Ohio, for the Year 1863, 403-404. 324 Ibid. 100

Vallandigham.”325 This statement suggests that there were some soldiers who preferred

Vallandigham, but voted for Brough due to intimidation. It also illustrates the complexity of the political sentiment among soldiers. Additionally, Northwest Ohio newspapers also attempted to persuade soldiers to vote for their preferred candidate by discussing how their candidate advocates more for the Union soldiers’ interests.

The Democratic newspapers discussed how Vallandigham and Brough differed on their treatment of soldiers. The Bryan Democrat published a statement by Vallandigham about how he supported bills in Congress to ensure injured soldiers received their pensions and their guaranteed pay.326 Another column published by the Bryan Democrat titled “Who is the Soldier’s Friend!” attempted to influence votes for Vallandigham by discussing how he and Brough differed regarding the treatment of soldiers. According to the article, “Vallandigham voted in Congress to give every soldier who would enlist to put down the rebellion, 160 acres of land, in addition to the

$100 bounty money heretofore allowed.”327 On the other hand, when Brough was the President of the B. & I. Railroad, he rejected to transport “sick and wounded soldiers” on his railroad.328

Another column pointed out that Brough’s railroad was the only one that made soldiers pay retail price for tickets.329 The Bryan Democrat also invoked race, arguing that Brough was more concerned with the well-being of blacks than the soldiers who were fighting to preserve the Union.

Additionally, the newspaper depicted blacks as being “lazy, dirty[,] [and] lousy,” while the soldiers were portrayed as “brave, weary sick soldiers.”330 Although the Bryan Democrat made these claims that attempted to create a more favorable image to the soldiers, there were many who

325 Knepper, 236. 326 “Cut this out and send it to the Soldiers in the Army,” Bryan Democrat, September 3, 1863, 2. 327 “Who is the Soldier’s Friend!,” Bryan Democrat, August 27, 1863, 2. 328 Ibid. 329 “The difference,” Bryan Democrat, August 27, 1863, 2. 330 Bryan Democrat, September 17, 1863, 1. 101 disagreed with their position. An anonymous soldier even wrote to the Bryan Democrat that some disagreed with a bill that Vallandigham proposed in Congress to decrease the wages of officers while increasing the wages of private soldiers.331 This statement by a Union soldier that was published in the Bryan Democrat demonstrated that there was much disagreement with their position on Vallandigham pertaining to treatment of the Union soldiers. The election results in

Williams County showed that the Bryan Democrat was ineffectual in persuading soldiers to vote for Vallandigham because he only got two soldiers’ votes compared to Brough’s 363. This resulted in Vallandigham only receiving .5 percent of the soldier vote compared to Brough’s 99.5 percent in Williams County.332

Although the majority of the military supported Brough, Vallandigham did have a few supporters there. The Defiance Democrat had a column titled “Soldiers for Vallandigham,” claiming that a man in the area received a letter from his soldier brother that mentioned that the majority of the men were going to vote for Vallandiham.333 It stated, “This shows that the authorities cannot keep the soldiers from thinking, however, easily they prevent them from talking and reading, by suppressing free speech, and prohibiting them the use of Democratic newspapers!”334 However, considering how few soldiers voted for Vallandigham, the credibility of this column must come into question. Nonetheless, he did receive a few soldiers’ votes.

Although Vallandigham did get a few votes from soldiers, other historically Democratic soldiers voted for Brough because they saw Vallandigham as a traitor. An excerpt of a letter from an anonymous soldier appeared in the Bryan Republican, which discussed how he had always been a

331 Bryan Democrat, August 27, 1863, 2 332 Secretary of State, Ohio, “Annual Report of the Secretary of State to the Governor of the State of Ohio: For the Year of 1863,” in Message and Reports to the General Assembly and Governor of the State of Ohio, for the Year 1863, 404. 333 “Soldiers for Brough,” Defiance Democrat, August 1, 1863, 1. 334 Ibid. 102

Democrat, except for the upcoming gubernatorial election because the Democrats endorsed

Vallandigham. He believed that “death is too good for them (Vallandigham and his supporters).”335

Several private letters from soldiers reveal their negative attitudes towards Vallandigham and the Copperhead movement. For example, a member of the 21st Ohio Volunteer Infantry and a resident of Wood County, Guy Morgan,336 had strongly negative feelings. He noted that the

Copperheads were enemies to the nation and were supporting the Confederate States of

America.337 However, he did not provide specific examples, but rather stated a general opinion of how he felt about the upcoming election. Guy Morgan’s opinion appeared to be common among the Union soldiers.

Private letters from other Union soldiers from Northwest Ohio shared the same feelings as

Guy Morgan. George Kryder, a resident of Huron County serving in the Third Volunteer Ohio

Cavalry, 338 referred to Vallandigham in a letter to his wife as a “vile traitor… who [has] done so much mischief in Ohio.”339 John Jefferson Parsons, a resident of Wood County and a sergeant in the Union army, frequently wrote to The Weekly Perrysburg Journal and provided his opinion on the 1863 Ohio gubernatorial election.340 One of Parsons’s letters written on September 8, 1863 showed his dissent of Vallandigham and the Copperhead movement. He considered the followers of this movement to be turncoats.341 In another letter Parsons composed on October 14, 1863, he

335 “Vallandigham Among the Soldiers,” Bryan Republican, August 6, 1863, 2. 336 Center for Archival Collections, “MS 190 - Hill/Morgan Family Papers,” Bowling Green State University Library, http://ul2.bgsu.edu/finding_aids/items/show/621 (accessed September 9, 2014). 337 Bowling Green State University Library, Center for Archival Collections, “MS 190 - Hill/Morgan Family Papers,” Guy Morgan to Friend, April 20 1863. 338 Center of Archival Collections, “MS 163 - George Kryder Papers,” Bowling Green State University Library, http://ul2.bgsu.edu/finding_aids/items/show/485 (accessed September 9, 2014). 339 Bowling Green State University Library, Center for Archival Collections, “MS 163 - George Kryder Family Papers,” George Kryder to Elizabeth Sweetland Kryder May 11, 1863. 340 Center for Archival Collections, “MMS 1826 - John Jefferson Parsons Papers,” Bowling Green State University Library, http://ul2.bgsu.edu/finding_aids/items/show/1843 (accessed September 9, 2014). 341 Bowling Green State University Library, Center for Archival Collections, “MMS 1826 - John Jefferson Papers,” John Jefferson Parsons to Editors of Journal, September 8, 1863. 103 noted that citizens were voting against the interest of the Union if they supported Vallandigham.342

In particular, he described Vallandigham as a “God-forsaken traitor,” which he stated,

“Nevertheless, it is a fact.”343 An excerpt from a wounded soldier appeared in The Weekly

Perrysburg Journal, which discussed whether the soldier would vote for Vallandigham when he returned home. The soldier responded with “I am going home to shoot him or any man that votes for him.”344 These statements illustrate how emotional the 1863 Ohio gubernatorial election was, and that the Union soldiers, such as Parsons had nothing but disdain for anyone who opposed the war.

Parsons’s letter on October 14, 1863 also discussed the political sentiment in his regiment in which 252 of 281 men polled went for Brough while the rest for Vallandigham. Additionally, he noted that out of the 281 men, 35 of them were from Wood County, all of whom went for

Brough.345 Another sergeant in the Union army, J.T. Inman, from the 21st Ohio Volunteer regiment,346 claimed that there were only eight soldiers in his regiment that voted for

Vallandigham. Inman also pointed out that these same soldiers voted in favor of the draft, which made him question why the soldiers voted for Vallandigham since he was against the draft.

Interestingly, Inman noted that there were no quarrels over the election.347 These examples illustrate the complexities of the political sentiment among the military, especially the reasons why some Union soldiers in Northwest Ohio voted for Vallandigham. They either were uniformed on what they were voting for, or favored Vallandigham’s other views, such as his position on liberty.

342 Ibid, October 14, 1863. 343 Ibid. 344 “Ohio Wounded Soldiers’ Opinion of Vallandigham,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, September 30, 1863, 1. 345 Bowling Green State University Library, Center for Archival Collections, “MMS 1826 - John Jefferson Parsons Papers,” John Jefferson Parsons to Editors of Journal, October 14, 1863. 346 Center for Archival Collections, “MS 484 mf - Weddell Family Papers,” Bowling Green State University Library, http://ul2.bgsu.edu/finding_aids/items/show/469 (accessed September 11, 2014). 347Bowling Green State University Library, Center for Archival Collections, “MS 484 mf - Weddell Family Papers,” James I. Inman to William Weddell October 18, 1863. 104

On the other hand, Brough’s supporters indicate that they supported their country’s decision to continue to fight the war.

After examining newspapers, private soldiers’ letters, and the election results pertaining to soldiers’ votes in Northwest Ohio, it is clear that the majority of soldiers from Northwest Ohio strongly favored Brough. This could be partially explained by the effectiveness of the Republican newspapers in depicting Vallandigham as a traitor, which so many soldiers reiterated in private letters to family and friends. The Democratic newspapers appeared to be ineffectual in undoing the “traitor” perception that many soldiers’ held.

Conclusion

This examination of the 1863 Ohio gubernatorial election reveals the complexities of the political sentiment in Northwest Ohio. In particular, the election results, newspapers, and private family letters show that the population of this region was rather divided with the majority favoring the pro-war candidate Brough. Republican newspapers and private family letters show that

Brough’s primary support came from those who wished to continue the war, either being pro- abolition, believing that the war was the only means to preserve the Union, profiting from the war, or perceived Vallandigham to be a traitor. In particular, the Republican newspapers, in order to support Brough, frequently cited that Vallandigham was a turncoat who was aiding the

Confederate States of America. On the other hand, the Democratic newspapers and private family letters show that Vallandigham’s political support primarily came from those who believed the government was setting a dangerous precedent with the suspension of habeas corpus, the Union should be preserved by more peaceful means, soldiers’ lives were not worth losing to end slavery, and those who feared the draft. The primary reason that the Democratic newspapers supported

Vallandigham was that they believed that they lost constitutional rights since the war began. 105

Northwest Ohio residents’ attitudes show that this region was rather divided, which demonstrates that there were various reasons to either favor or disapprove of the war.

The election results, as well as the newspapers and private family letters, also reveal that civilians were much more divided on the important issues than the Union soldiers. Brough clearly won the soldiers’ vote, but there were a few soldiers who did not vote for Brough as the election results demonstrated. This could have been caused by Republican newspapers being more successful in depicting Vallandigham as a traitor. Many soldiers who were residents of Northwest

Ohio reiterated this claim in their private letters. Additionally, soldiers who volunteered for the war were far more likely to believe that the only way that the South’s rebellion could have ended was through military force.

The implications of this examination contributes to a larger picture. This analysis demonstrates that the Union was rather divided. It also shows that slightly more people preferred the war than opposed it. However, the Copperhead movement did exist and had a following even though they were unable to get their candidate elected as the Ohio governor. In particular,

Northwest Ohio had more anti-war sentiment than other parts of the state. The newspapers played an important role in the election as well. They demonstrate how their editorials could influence their readers’ attitudes towards a candidate. Additionally, an inquiry worth exploring for future research is the impact that immigrants had on the 1863 Ohio gubernatorial election since some counties in Northwest Ohio were considered to be newly settled in 1863 and there were many

German immigrants in Northwest Ohio. This examination also raises the question regarding to how divided the Union was elsewhere, especially in Border States.

106

CHAPTER III. 1864 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Introduction

In 1864, the North was on the verge of winning the Civil War, especially since the southern military had few military victories after General Robert E. Lee’s failed northern invasion. Additionally, the fall of Fort Donnellson and Vicksburg split the South in half. On top of this, the Union military brought Tennessee back to the Union by military force, while

Sherman’s March to the Sea began, which demonstrated the vulnerability of the South. Although a northern victory seemed probable, there was still opposition to the war as well as those who disagreed with President Abraham Lincoln’s policies throughout the war. One of the critics of

Lincoln was a former General of the Army of the Potomac, George B. McClellan. McClellan ran against Abraham Lincoln on the Democratic ticket for the 1864 presidential election. This election decided the remaining course of the Civil War as well as restructuring the Union once the South returned.

One of the key political battlegrounds in the Civil War was Ohio. According to Historian

James Bissland, author of Blood, Tears, & Glory: How Ohioans Won the Civil War, “The 1864 presidential campaign was as vicious as any seen in the twenty-first century.”348 Each candidate had speakers in Ohio trying to garner support for their respected election. In particular,

McClellan put together a team, which included Samuel Cox, General George Morgan, Rufus

Ranney, and Clement Vallandigham.349 This was a unique combination because this group had ideological differences among its members, especially on the issue to support the war. On the other hand, the members of the team that Lincoln assembled were more in ideological agreement

348 Bissland, 371. 349 Roseboom, 434. 107 with one another. This included “three war governors, [William] Dennison, [David] Tod and

[John] Brough, Senators [Benjamin] Wade and [John] Sherman, and [Salmon] Chase.”350

This chapter will examine the political sentiments of Northwest Ohio during the 1864 presidential election. In particular, it will examine both the Democratic and the Republican newspapers in the region to reveal the political attitudes that were presented to the public.

Additionally, the presidential election results in Northwest Ohio will be analyzed to show how the newspapers’ attitudes may have influenced the electorate’s voting behavior because they controlled the flow of information to the public.

Political Candidates

Abraham Lincoln, the war candidate, was the presidential candidate for the Union ticket.

The Union Party was composed of both the Republicans and the War Democrats, which was formed in the state of Ohio because of dissatisfaction with the Ohio governor William Dennison in 1863.351 Lincoln was from Illinois and a former lawyer and member of Congress. His vice presidential candidate was Andrew Johnson from Tennessee. Johnson was selected because he was a War Democrat and from a border state, which helped broaden the Union ticket’s appeal.352

Lincoln desired reelection to end the rebellion through military means, which he may have believed would reunite the states and bring about harmony among them.353 Additionally, his approach to the war took a harder line than others. One example of this approach was the

Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in the Confederate States of America.354 Another important position that Lincoln held was that he advocated for stronger banks and more internal

350 Ibid. 351 Bissland, 188. 352 Ibid, 371. 353 Donald, 540. 354 Ibid, 354. 108 improvement projects to grow the economy.355 Further, the Union ticket’s strategy was to attract support from both the War Democrats and the Republicans.

Being an incumbent, Lincoln had an advantage for reelection, but some of his policies may have negatively affected his political support. According to Historian Bissland, Lincoln’s actions of the previous year of forcing Vallandigham into exile became “a civil rights embarrassment to the administration.” Further, he noted that Lincoln should have avoided addressing this issue.356 However, some may have perceived Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus to be necessary in order to maintain order in the Union during the time of war. The

Emancipation Proclamation was another policy that may have negatively influenced his political base, especially since some could have interpreted this policy as changing the cause of the war from preserving the Union to ending slavery. These particular policies may have made it more difficult to attract moderates because this group wanted to preserve the Union as it was instead of remaking it.

The Democratic ticket featured George B. McClellan as the presidential candidate and

George Pendleton as the vice candidate. McClellan was a former general in the Union army originally from Pennsylvania who was a supporter of the war effort, but believed in preserving the Union as well as the institution of slavery.357 According to historian Wood Gray, the

Democratic Party decided to nominate McClellan as their candidate to attract moderates.

McClellan’s position on the war was to continue fighting, but he wanted to pursue the Union military policy from the beginning before Lincoln initiated the Emancipation Proclamation and wanted to negotiate reunion.358 Moreover, McClellan strongly disagreed with Lincoln’s

355 Ibid, 76. 356 Bissland, 371. 357 Ibid. 358 Gray, 183. 109

Emancipation Proclamation, which was one of Lincoln’s policies that he felt would not bring about a peaceful reunion.359 Furthermore, McClellan stated his position as follows: “The Union was originally formed by the exercise of a spirit of conciliation and compromise. To restore and preserve it, the same spirit must prevail in the hearts of our people.”360 However, George

Pendleton was from Ohio and selected as the vice presidential candidate because he was an advocate of “peace-now, negotiate later.”361 This particular choice was meant to appease the

Peace Democrats and the Copperheads who were the biggest critics of Lincoln’s policies.

Further, the Democratic ticket aimed at achieving victory by appealing to both the moderates and the Peace Democrats.

Although the Democratic ticket featured McClellan and Pendleton, some of the Peace

Democrats were less supportive of the ticket, such as Clement Vallandigham who ran for Ohio governor the previous year. According to historian Frank Klement, “they (the Copperheads) were unable to unite behind a single Copperhead as their choice for the presidency of 1864.”362

Further, he pointed out that their disagreements among whom to put their full support behind led to McClellan’s nomination.363 In particular, they mostly opposed McClellan’s nomination because he was seen as someone not bringing an immediate end to the war if elected, which was also one of their core positions. For example, Vallanadigham claimed that if McClellan was elected to replace Lincoln that the war would continue and more lives would have been lost.364

However, John Waugh, author of Reelecting Lincoln, claimed that McClellan was “ideologically comfortable with [the Peace Democrats]” because he agreed with them on the position that

359 John C. Waugh, Reelecting Lincoln: The Battle for the 1864 Presidency (Cambridge, Da Capo Press, 2001), 17. 360 “Read the Platforms! McClellan’s Platform,” Defiance Democrat, November 5, 1864, 4. 361 Bissland, 371. 362 Klement, The Copperheads in the Middle West, 231. 363 Ibid, 230-231. 364 Klement, The Limits of Dissent: Clement L. Vallandigham & The Civil War, 279. 110

Lincoln was unable to successfully bring both the North and South together.365 Another issue that McClellan had to deal with was being perceived as a weak commander because of his military performance. These were issues that both McClellan and Pendleton had to address in order to unify the base and attract enough voters to win the election.

Both of the opposing candidates had a conflict of vision of both how the war effort should be conducted and the Union should have been governed. McClellan seemed to have believed in a conciliatory policy, which aimed at making reconciliation easier. However, Lincoln appeared to have thought that the hard war policy would have won the war earlier. Additionally, they both differed on civil liberties. Lincoln gave the impression that he believed in restricting them in a time of war because having them unrestricted may have hindered the war effort because it allowed for dissent in the Union. On the other hand, McClellan appeared to have believed in restoring them because a free society would no longer exist with them restricted.

These candidates’ political positions demonstrated a conflict of vision, which led to a fierce campaign effort on both sides to discredit the other, while elevating themselves in the minds of the voters.

The Republican and Union Party Newspapers’ Election Coverage

The Republican newspapers’ coverage on Northwest Ohio focused on emphasizing the importance of preserving the Union, while criticizing their opponents. Additionally, they often did not discuss the views shared by the Radical Republicans and the abolitionist movement because they may have perceived this to have negative consequences with the voters in

Northwest Ohio, especially because of the demographics of the area. In particular, the

Republican newspapers appeared to be trying to target moderates instead of radicals, because

365 Waugh, 17. 111 radicals did not seem to be prevalent in large numbers and there was a Copperhead movement in

Crawford County. Furthermore, the Republican newspapers focused on other issues, such as the importance of preserving the Union, because they may have realized that selling the war on slavery to the public would be disastrous since it did not personally affect voters of Northwest

Ohio. The news coverage, as well as the election results, may reveal how many of the voters agreed with the Union Party platform.

The differences between Lincoln and McClellan’s platforms were often discussed in the

Republican newspapers. In particular, the Bryan Union Press had a column titled “Union or

Disunion. Lincoln or M’Clellan [sic]. Choose ye between them. The Two Platforms,” which provided residents of Williams County the Republican newspaper interpretation of the two platforms. The column began by telling their readers that if they preferred the war to end soon and achieve “permanent peace” that was based on “freedom” for the “whole Union,” they should vote for the Union Party. On the other hand, if their readers preferred a “disgraceful disunion,” and to betray “American patriot[s],” they should vote for the Democratic Party. It also claimed that the Union was fighting to preserve the union, uphold the Constitution, “not to compromise with the rebels,” and to end slavery since this was considered to be the “cause, and… the strength of the rebellion.” Other platform issues were focused on growing the economy by expanding foreign immigration and the railroad system. The platform also wished to “promote the use of the National Currency.” On the other hand, the Democratic Party’s platform was mostly focused on how it strongly disagreed with the current administration’s conduct, such as

“suppression of freedom of speech and the press.” Additionally, they believed that the current administration was taking away states’ rights. 366 The Bryan Union Press’s analysis of the two

366 “Union or Disunion. Lincoln or M’Clellan. Choose ye between them. The Two Platforms,” The Bryan Union Press, November 3, 1864, 2. 112 platforms demonstrated that each party had a conflict of vision. However, it portrayed the Union

Party’s platform more positively, because it pointed out how the Union planned to grow the economy, while restoring peace.

Many columns in the Republican newspapers discussed why McClellan should not be voted in. A column in The Weekly Perrysburg Journal was titled “Some of the Reasons why

McClellan should not be elected,” which made the argument that his record as military commander was evidence that his policies would have been beneficial to the Confederacy. In particular, the newspaper claimed that the South showed respect to McClellan when he was the

General of the Army of the Potomac. They also approved of McClellan’s “passive yielding.”367

Another column in The Bryan Union Press even referred to McClellan as a “coward” and a

“general with non-combative principles.” Additionally, it alleged that he and his officers stayed away from the combat.368 Further, McClellan was depicted as a weak military commander who was unable to defeat the Confederacy. His character and loyalty to the Union were also questioned by the Republican newspapers. One column in the Bucyrus Journal accused

McClellan of proposing to serve for the Confederate army at the outbreak of the war. However, it noted that the Confederate government refused to give McClellan his preferred position. This led to McClellan serving in the Union army because he could get his desired rank there. Moreover, he was insulted by the Confederate army’s counterproposal, so he decided to take up arms against them.369 A column that appeared in The Bryan Union Press also criticized McClellan’s supposedly shady character. In particular, it accused McClellan of “defrauding the Treasury” because it claimed that McClellan was still receiving his military salary; this was used for living

367 “Some of the Reasons why McClellan should not be elected,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 12, 1864, 1. 368 “McClellan’s Record,” The Bryan Union Press, October 13, 1864, 1. 369 “To the Members of the National Union Club, Philadelphia,” Bucyrus Weekly Journal, October 1, 1864, 1. 113 expenses, while he was campaigning for president.370 Another column indicated that if

McClellan was elected, slavery would have remained intact, while the South would have remained a separate nation.371 These columns suggested to voters the negative consequences of electing McClellan because his presidency would have been in the best interests of the

Confederacy.

Along with discussing reasons why McClellan should have not been elected, the

Republican newspapers would occasionally depict him as having dictatorial qualities. For example, McClellan was accused of violating the Constitution when he sent “the entire

‘Democratic’ portion of the Maryland Legislature” to Fort Lafayette. The column argued that this action was more of a constitutional violation than Lincoln’s orders of “arbitrary arrest of rebels.” Moreover, McClellan’s action was perceived to be worse than Burnside’s arrest of “the traitor” Vallandigham for political dissent.372 Another column noted that McClellan was the first one to suggest the use of the draft to increase the size of the army. It also claimed that McClellan laid the groundwork for the Emancipation Proclamation when he professed, “the ‘right of

Government to appropriate permanently to its own service claims to slave labor should be asserted.’”373 The Republican newspapers used these columns to portray McClellan as more of a tyrant than Lincoln, especially since the Democratic newspapers often claimed that Lincoln governed like a despot.

The Republican newspapers would also often accuse the Democrats of trying to steal the presidential election for McClellan. The group affiliated with the Democrats that was accused of rigging the presidential elections the most were the Copperheads. One column in the Bucyrus

370 “McClellan’s Salary,” The Bryan Union Press, October 13, 1864, 4. 371 “Two Letters from General Fremont?,“ The Bryan Union Press, October 6, 1864, 1. 372 Bucyrus Weekly Journal, October 8, 1864, 1. 373 Ibid. 114

Journal was titled “Copperheads Try to Rob Soldiers of Their Votes,” which accused

Copperheads in New York of “forging names in soldier ballots, breaking open envelops, taking out Lincoln tickets and putting in those for McClellan.”374 In fact, it noted that a man named

“Donahue” confessed that he engaged in voter fraud. This confession would possibly lead to discovering more Copperheads who were involved in this incident. 375 A column below this one was titled “Copperhead Fraud in the 5th and 10th Districts,” which showed how Copperheads’ attempts to rig elections were also occurring in Northwest Ohio. Two Copperheads, Charles

Lamison and George Baxter, were accused of having a plan in which they would import

Copperheads in the 5th and 10th Congressional districts of Ohio to swing the election in favor of

Copperhead backed candidates. In particular, their plan aimed at sending people to vote into the counties of Augulaise and Henry because they leaned Democrat, and thus would not question their voting eligibility..376 This particular column demonstrated that the Republican newspapers perceived that Northwest Ohio had a high Copperhead population who were dedicated to preventing Lincoln’s reelection. Another column on the same page of the newspaper claimed that the Copperhead’s plans of voter fraud were widespread in Ohio where they composed the majority of the population.377 Their scheme was “to vote early in the day in citizen’s clothing, and then at a later hour, don soldier’s uniform and smuggle into the ballot box another vote, either at the same or some adjoining poll under the control of their friends.”378 These columns depicted a negative image of the Copperheads as unethical frauds who would violate voting laws in order to increase the likelihood that their candidate would get elected.

374 “Copperheads Try to Steal Soldiers Their Vote,” Bucyrus Weekly Journal, November 5, 1864, 1. 375 Ibid. 376 “Copperhead Fraud in the 5th and 10th Districts,” Bucyrus Weekly Journal, November 5, 1864, 1. 377 “Copperheads Intend a Huge Fraud in Ohio,” Bucyrus Weekly Journal, November 5, 1864, 1. 378 Ibid. 115

Along with the Copperheads depicted as engaging in voter fraud, the Republican newspapers also considered them to be traitors. One column in The Weekly Perrysburg Journal noted that McClellan was backed by the Copperhead party, including “the convicted traitor,

Vallandigham.”379Another column considered them to be “sympathizers of Jeff Davis and his conspirators.”380 There was also a column that criticized the Copperheads for only discussing rising prices pertaining to the “Abolition country” as a reason not to vote for Lincoln, while avoiding to mention the high inflation in the “Democratic country,” the Confederacy. It also claimed that the Confederacy’s capital, Richmond, Virginia had a higher rate of inflation as a result of Sheridan’s military actions.381 This particular column served the purpose of showing the country that it alleges the Copperheads’ support was in much worse condition than the Union.

Moreover, if McClellan got elected president, the Union would have a similar inflation problem.

The reasons for the negative coverage of the Copperheads depicted as traitors and having allegiance to the Confederacy was best explained by a title in another column: “McClellan in

Bad Company, A Good Illustration.” This column claimed that a Copperhead was the closest to being a “rebel.”382 Further, this column, as well as other ones that mention Copperheads as

“traitors,” attempted to leave an impression on voters that they would be siding with the enemy if they voted for McClellan.

In addition to the negative attacks on McClellan, the Republican newspapers also produced columns that discussed the Union generals who supported Lincoln. For example, The

Weekly Perrysburg Journal had a column with excerpts of a letter by General Benjamin Butler supporting Lincoln’s reelection. In this letter, Butler discussed the importance of being loyal to

379 “Vallandigham,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 19, 1864, 2. 380 “Rally Round the Flag!,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 5, 1864, 2. 381 “Prices,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 19, 1864, 2. 382 “McClellan in Bad Company, A Good Illustration,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 19, 1864, 4. 116 the Union. Additionally, he noted that Lincoln’s regime had “administrative zeal” as well as better policies.383 Another column posted quotes by Generals Grant, Hooker, Meade, Burnside,

Logan, Dix, Sherman, Seymour, Smith, and Sickles. Logan’s quote was the most blunt of the potential consequences if McClellan was elected: ‘The greatest victory of the rebels, greater than fifty Manassas’s, and the only one that can give them a particle of hope, will be to defeat the war party at the incoming campaign.’384 These columns were used to influence voters to support

Lincoln over McClellan by showing how the Union generals believed that the war could have only been won by Lincoln. Further, it would leave the impression that electing McClellan would demonstrate the loss of morale in the Union to continue the war.

Opposition to McClellan throughout the military was also discussed in the Republican newspapers. The Bryan Union Press printed one column, titled “The Army of the Potomac will not vote for McClellan,” allegedly written by a Union officer in the Army of the Potomac that claimed that the army that was once commanded by McClellan refused to vote for him. One of the critiques this column had against McClellan was that it did not believe that he would appoint competent commanders, such as Generals Grant and Sherman, who would make victory possible.385 Additionally, another column pointed out how the overwhelming majority of the

Union was supporting Lincoln. For example, it noted that in Sheridan’s army Lincoln received

16,000 votes compared to McClellan’s 2,000 votes.386 Another column in The Bryan Union

Press even included a letter that a Union soldier wrote to his father, which discussed the importance of who was elected. In fact, the soldier claimed that if McClellan was elected president, then the Confederate States of America would have gained its independence. On the

383 “Butler for Lincoln,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 12, 1864, 3. 384 “What Our Leading Generals Say,” The Weekly Perrysburg Journal, October 26, 1. 385 ““The Army of the Potomac will not vote for McClellan,” The Bryan Union Press, October 6, 1864, 2. 386 “Straws,” The Bryan Union Press, October 6, 1864, 2. 117 other hand, Lincoln’s reelection would prevent this outcome from happening.387 Another letter by a different soldier appeared on the same page, which mentioned that the Confederate’s best chances of independence was if McClellan was elected because of the peace platform, which wanted the war to end as soon as possible.388 These columns demonstrated that the army refused to support a former military general, which also indicated that McClellan was disliked by his former peers. They were also meant to influence voters to support the war effort by voting for

Lincoln who had the best the interest of the troops.

The Republican newspapers also depicted the Union’s cause as liberating the South from tyranny. One particular column in The Bryan Union Press claimed that the Union Party was fighting to uphold the Constitution by defeating despotism in the South. Further, it claimed that the Union Party believed in giving the South “the blessings of self-government.”389 The Bryan

Union Press also had columns that claimed that there were Southerners who wished to preserve the Union. One particular column, which was allegedly written by Southerners, discussed the importance of electing a president who would preserve the Union and defeat their “rebel leaders.”390 Another column on the same page had a copy of a document written by “Loyal

Southern Men.” This document made the accusation that Southerners had no civil liberties under the Confederate government. Additionally, they claimed that the South was ruled by “ambitious men” who “enslaved” them. They noted that they preferred preserving the Union over the institution of slavery.391 These columns served the purpose to show that this war was about the

387 WM Coulter, “Army Letters,” The Bryan Union Press, October 20, 1864, 1. 388 AJ Long, “Letter from the 68th REGT,” The Bryan Union Press, October 20, 1864, 1. 389 “The Chicago Convention: Appeal of the National Union Committee of the United States,” The Bryan Union Press, October 6, 1863, 1. 390 J.A. Stuart, WM. C. Hicks, WM. H. Smith, Robt. S. Hiflin, and A.A. West, “The Presidency,” The Bryan Union Press, November 3, 1864, 1. 391 “An Important Document. Appeal from Loyal Southern Men to Governors of the Loyal States. Destruction of Civil Liberty in the South. Rebel Machinations in the North. The People for Reunion,” The Bryan Union Press, November 3, 1864, 1. 118 importance of preserving the Union as well as liberating Southerners who were being oppressed by the Confederate government. Additionally, it left the impression that loyal Southerners were held hostage by an extremist group. Further, these columns benefited Lincoln by showing voters that the Union needed to be preserved for these reasons.

Along with the Republican newspapers stressing the importance of preserving the Union, they also attempted to distance themselves and the Union Party from the idea of making blacks as equal to whites. For example, the Bucyrus Journal had a column, titled “The ‘Nigger’ and

Democrats,” which claimed that the Democrats were supporters of this idea. In fact, it noted that

Thomas Jefferson stated “that all men are created equal.” Additionally, the column pointed out that the Democratic Party provided blacks with the “rights of suffrage in New York.” It also claimed that the Democrats played a role in making them more equal citizens in Maine, New

Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Ohio.392 These statements were used to show how it was the

Democratic Party that historically favored racial equality, rather than the Republican Party. The column also noted that Richard Johnson, the Democratic Vice President under Martin Van

Buren, was married to a black woman and had “mulatto children” with her. Moreover, if Van

Buren died in the office, the first lady would have been a black woman.393 This example was used to show the voters that a known Democrat believed that blacks were equal to whites to the extent that he was even willing to marry and have children with one. This particular column was used to reinforce the idea to the voters that the Republican Party opposed blacks being equal to whites, while the Democratic Party embraced the idea.

Although the Republican newspapers tried to reinsure voters that they and the Union

Party were opposed to blacks being as equal with whites, they opposed slavery on moral

392 “The Nigger and Democrats,” Bucyrus Weekly Journal, October 22, 1864, 2. 393 Ibid. 119 grounds. A column in the Bucyrus Journal bluntly stated, “If Mr. Lincoln should fall,

Christianity would be more or less impaired in its power for good on earth; because the worst feature of barbarianism, that which justifies a barter in human flesh, would be legalized.”394

Moreover, if McClellan was elected president, the slavery institution would have continued to exist, and thus result in a “retrogression of a nation back to barbarianism.” The column noted that most of the Christian ministers opposed slavery and supported Lincoln as well.395 Further, this particular column served the purpose of convincing the voters that slavery needed to be ended because it went against the teachings of Christianity. This column avoided discussing the idea of blacks being as equal whites because it may have alienated voters who felt that blacks were inferior to whites. Moreover, many abolitionists in this region appeared to be less interested in racial equality, but rather wanted to preserve the racial hierarchy.

The Bryan Union Press and The Weekly Perrysburg Journal may have influenced voters to vote against McClellan. Lincoln won his reelection by 533 votes in Williams County and

1,118 votes in Wood County.396 Additionally, this implied that it was likely that the voters in these counties agreed with the political beliefs that were presented in the Republican newspapers since Lincoln received the majority of the votes. On the other hand, the Bucyrus Journal appeared to be less influential in Crawford County because the Republican Party was defeated by the Democratic Party by 1,189 votes.397 This can also be inferred that the views presented in the

Republican newspapers were less reflective of the population of Crawford County. However, although the Republican newspapers in these regions appear to have some influence in the

394 Bucyrus Weekly Journal, October 29, 1864, 1. 395 Ibid. 396 “Executive Documents,” in Message and Annual Reports for 1864, made to the Fifty-Sixth General Assembly of Ohio, at its Second Session, Begun and Held in the City of Columbus, January 3, 1865 (Columbus, Richard Nevins, 1865), 698. 397 Ibid, 681. 120 region, they appeared to be less influential than the 1863 Ohio gubernatorial election. The voting percentages for Lincoln’s 1864 reelection were lower than for the 1863 Ohio Republican gubernatorial candidate, John Brough. In particular, Lincoln had voting percentages of 38 percent, 60 percent and 64 percent compared to Brough’s 42 percent, 64 percent, and 71 percent in the counties of Crawford, Williams, and Wood, respectively.398 This implied that these newspapers were not as effective at depicting McClellan as weak as they were in portraying the

Democrat’s 1863 gubernatorial candidate, Vallandigham, as a traitor.

The Democratic Newspapers’ Election Coverage

The Democratic newspapers’ strategy was focused on depicting Lincoln as a corrupt tyrant, while portraying McClellan as a man of principle. Additionally, they avoided making

McClellan appear to be a weak and ineffective military commander. They also portrayed the importance of this election to be over restoring the Constitution to the way the founders originally intended. However, there was much coverage to negatively depict Lincoln and the

Union Party. This negative coverage served the purpose of influencing voters to vote for

McClellan over Lincoln. Further, the election results, with the campaign coverage, will reveal how residents may have perceived each candidate.

The Democratic newspapers often attacked Lincoln for being supportive of blacks. The

Weekly Bryan Democrat even claimed that Lincoln’s decision to turn the war into a “negro crusade” had negative consequences. The newspaper claimed that this particular action led to

8,000 Union prisoners of war to take an “oath of allegiance to the Confederate government.” It also noted that this “has prolonged the captivity of 60,000 of our brave boys in the various prison

398 “Executive Documents,” in Message and Annual Reports for 1864, 683-684 and 698. and Secretary of State, Ohio, “Annual Report of the Secretary of State to the Governor of the State of Ohio: For the Year of 1863,” in Message and Reports to the General Assembly and Governor of the State of Ohio, for the Year 1863, 403-404. 121 houses and cattle yards of the South.”399 Further, this column illustrated that the Democratic newspapers were portraying Lincoln’s most important priority as liberating slaves, which has increased resistance of the South to continue on the war as well as alienating those who believed the war’s purpose was to preserve the Union. Its main purpose was to convince voters to oppose

Lincoln in order to end the war sooner.

Lincoln was also often portrayed in the Democratic newspapers as representing minorities and being corrupt. A column in the Defiance Democrat even described his “political family” as “100,000 dishonest contractors,” “100,000 shoddy makers,” “5,000 political preachers,” “10,000 Abolitionists who love Niggers,” “100,000 Black Republicans,” “Fred

Douglas,” “Anna Dickinson,” “100,000 other-strong minded women,” “50 or 60 weak sisters in

Chase’s Department,” and “100,000 Nigger soldiers.”400 This column was meant to show the public that Lincoln was supported by special interests, which did not reflect the interests of the nation’s people as a whole. Additionally, it indicated that much corruption was involved, especially by being backed by dishonest contractors and “shoddy makers” who were some of the primary beneficiaries of Lincoln’s policies.

In addition to supporting blacks, the accusations made by the Democratic newspapers on how Lincoln and Johnson planned to steal the election attempted to persuade the voters to back

McClellan over Lincoln. For example, one of these claims in the The Weekly Bryan Democrat was that Johnson, the military governor of Tennessee, intentionally disenfranchised Tennesseans from voting in the election because they opposed his party. Additionally, Lincoln refused to allow the Democratic soldiers of New York to vote because he had the War Department deny the

399 “8,000 Union Soldiers take the Oath of Allegiance to Jeff Davis,” The Weekly Bryan Democrat, November 3, 1864, 1. 400 “Lincoln’s Friends,” Defiance Democrat, October 8, 1864, 4. 122 collection of votes from soldiers in New York. 401 Another column in the Defiance Democrat alleged that “[s]everal regiments of New York soldiers in the Army of the Potomac have given heavy majorities for McClellan.”402 This particular claim made The Weekly Bryan Democrat appear more credible to the public with this claim of Lincoln suppressing voters in New York, especially if there was a perception that Lincoln had valid reasons to suppress their votes because they would be against him. The Weekly Bryan Democrat column also suggested that Lincoln used “bribery,” “arbitrary arrests,” “intimidation” and “corruption” in order to guarantee himself reelection. It even suggested that Lincoln may have plans to make himself president for life.403

The goal of this tactic may have been to perceive Lincoln and Johnson as having dubious characters with ulterior motives. Further, it aimed at causing the voters to distance themselves from such politicians.

Congress also was accused of aiding the reelection of Lincoln in a column in the The

Crawford County Forum. In particular, it claimed that Congress was deferring land taxes until after the election. While Congress was deferring these taxes, they were relying on greenbacks, bonds, and both income and licenses taxes. However, the column reminded the public that after the presidential election the bonds and greenbacks would be paid by land taxes.404 This particular column served the purpose of reminding the public that the current federal government would do anything to ensure Lincoln remained in power, including deceiving the American people on taxes.

Along with The Crawford County Forum having a column pointing out how Congress was deferring land taxes, the Democratic newspapers also had other columns that primarily

401 “Lincoln and Johnson Intend to Elect Themselves,” The Weekly Bryan Democrat, November 3, 1864, 2. 402 Defiance Democrat, October 29, 1864, 2. 403 “Lincoln and Johnson Intend to Elect Themselves,” The Weekly Bryan Democrat, November 3, 1864, 2. 404 “The Coming Taxation,” The Crawford County Forum, October 28, 1864, 1. 123 focused on the tax and inflation consequences if Lincoln was reelected. Other columns from the

Democratic newspapers focused on how the poor would have been made worse off under

Lincoln’s policies. One particular column from The Crawford County Forum alleged the consequence of Lincoln’s reelection would mean that the poor would have to pay higher prices for necessities, such as butter, pork, and sugar.405 A column from the Defiance Democrat was titled “The ‘Good Times’ Promised by Lincoln and the Wide Awakes in 1860,” which took a comical approach of taxation by claiming, “You have ‘GOOD TIMES’ in paying taxes!” It also pointed out how under the Lincoln administration, people were taxed on everything.

Additionally, taxes were paid by the working classes, so the wealthy could earn “gold interest on untaxed bonds.” This taxation policy of taking from working class Americans and giving it to wealthy Americans would cause the country’s eventual bankruptcy.406 Additionally, another column in The Weekly Bryan Democrat reminded the public that they own the war debt. Further, it stated that the people’s “houses and farms are mortgaged to pay” the $150 million debt.407 The

Weekly Bryan Democrat also accused Lincoln of receiving his pay in gold, while the soldiers in the Union army were paid in greenbacks, which were only worth “38 cents on the dollar.”408

Moreover, gold was considered to be more valuable because it had intrinsic value and acted as a hedge against inflation, whereas greenbacks did not have these characteristics, and paper currency considered by many people to be worthless. These columns served the purpose to influence the voters by convincing them that their economic well-being would be made worse off

405 “Let Every Poor Man Hurrah for Lincoln,” The Crawford County Forum, October 28, 1864, 2 406 “The ‘Good Times’ Promised by Lincoln and the Wide Awakes in 1860,” Defiance Democrat, October 15, 1864, 2. 407 “Land Owners Remember,” The Weekly Bryan Democrat, October 20, 1864, 2. 408 “Lincoln Draws his Salary in Gold,” The Weekly Bryan Democrat, October 20, 1864, 1. 124 if they reelected Lincoln because his policies would take from the poor, either through inflation or taxes, and enrich the wealthy.

Some of these Democratic newspapers’ columns that criticized Lincoln’s reelection campaign had a racial epitome to them as well. For example, one column in The Crawford

County Forum described Lincoln’s position on the war as “No Peace Until the Niggers are

Freed!”409 This served the purpose of reminding the voters that Lincoln’s primary purpose for continuing the war was to end slavery rather than to preserve the Union. Another column discussing taxation claimed that tax dollars were going to “support the pauperized negroes.” In fact, the column noted that in one department there were 71,253 blacks in which 20,457 were dependent on government rations. Additionally, the column claimed that the government was providing between 125,000 and 150,000 blacks with food. Further, the government’s actions were costing taxpayers more than $500,000 a day. This behavior of the government was also perceived by the author as making blacks permanently dependent on the government, which would have only been supported by the whites working and paying taxes to subsidize the new way of life that the government was creating for blacks.410 Another column, which was allegedly written by “A Working Man,” pointed out all of the taxes that he paid so to the government would improve the status of blacks. The taxes ranged from food to clothing. Further, he noted that there was no way of avoiding taxes and that one would have to pay them either working or being unemployed. The author also bluntly stated that whites were becoming slaves as a consequence of these tax policies.411 The Defiance Democrat had one column that gave reasons to vote Democrat, which gave one that stated, “Let All who are opposed to making slaves of

409 “Lincoln’s Platform,” The Crawford County Forum, October 21, 1864, 2. 410 “Half A Million Week! – Something for Taxpayers to Consider,” The Crawford County Forum, October 28, 1864, 1. 411 A Working Man, “Lincoln Taxation,” The Crawford County Forum, October 28, 1864, 1. 125 white men for the purpose of making ‘free men’ negroes, vote the Democratic ticket.”412 These depiction of blacks were meant to demonstrate to the public that they were becoming a tax burden and one of the reasons why they were paying higher taxes.

In addition to depicting Lincoln’s policies to end slavery being a tax burden, the

Democratic newspapers made the argument to the public that it was Lincoln’s policies in favor black equality, which was delaying an end to the war. For example, a column in the Defiance

Democrat bluntly stated that “it is well understood fact that all the victories won by Lincoln under his negro equality policies only tend to prolong the war and make settlement more impossible.”413 It supported this claim by indicating that gold increased in value when Sherman conquered Atlanta,414 which meant that the war was becoming more expensive and an increase in gold was usually accompanied by a weaker dollar. The Democratic newspapers used these columns to persuade voters to consider the costs of continuing the current course of the war, hoping that the voters will vote in their best financial interest.

Another consequence of Lincoln’s reelection the Democratic newspapers presented to the public was the draft. The Crawford County Forum warned the voters with a column titled “The

War to Continue for Years – Future Drafts Already Arranged.” It bluntly stated, “THAT THE

LARGEST DRAFT HAS YET BEEN MADE WILL BE ORDERED AT THE BEGINNING OF

THE YEAR 1865.”415 This column also pointed out that the army must remain large to enforce

Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation after the war.416 Another column in The Weekly Bryan

Democrat pointed out that General Grant wanted another draft because he suffered 100,000

412 “Vote the Democratic Ticket,” Defiance Democrat, October 29, 1864, 2. 413 Defiance Democrat, October 22, 1864, 1. 414 Ibid. 415 This sentence was in capital letters throughout. “The War to Continue for Years – Future Drafts Already Arranged,” The Crawford County Forum, October 21, 1864, 2. 416 “The War to Continue for Years – Future Drafts Already Arranged,” The Crawford County Forum, October 21, 1864, 2. 126 causalities, while “he is no nearer capturing Richmond than when he left the Rapidan.”417

Moreover, the Union commander, whom was handpicked by Lincoln, was losing men without any positive results. The Democratic newspapers used these columns to suggest that Lincoln’s poor handling of the war required more soldiers. Therefore, if the voters did not want to get drafted, they should instead vote for McClellan.

The Democratic newspapers also depicted Lincoln as dishonest as well as being a flip flopper on certain issues. A column in The Crawford County Forum included an excerpt from one of Lincoln’s speeches from September 1859 in which he claimed that, “I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists, BECAUSE THE

CONSTITUTION FORBIDS IT, and the general welfare does not require us to do so.”418 This demonstrated that Lincoln was dishonest because when he first ran for president he claimed that he would not interfere with the institution of slavery, while once he was in power, he interfered by implementing the Emancipation Proclamation. This column would also raise concerns to the voters on whether Lincoln was credible because he previously deceived the public.

Along with being accused of being a shady character, Lincoln was depicted as a tyrant as well. One particular column in the Defiance Democrat even compared Lincoln to Louis XIV who claimed, “I am the state.”419 Additionally, he was described as being a “weak and embecile

[sic] country lawyer in the White House [who] feels himself to be the Government.” 420 Further,

Lincoln was governing the opposite of the previous presidents and “responsible government.” 421

A column in the Defiance Democrat claimed that one reason to vote against Lincoln’s party was

417 The Weekly Bryan Democrat, October 13, 1864, 1. 418 This sentence appeared in the column in this manner in order to emphasize the language. “Lincoln Five Years Ago,” The Crawford County Forum, October 28, 1864, 1. 419 Defiance Democrat, October 29, 1864, 2. 420 “Mr. Lincoln assumes TO BE THE Government,” Defiance Democrat, October 29, 1864, 2. 421 Ibid. 127 that the Democratic Party was “opposed to the establishment of military despotism.”

Additionally, it depicted Lincoln’s regime as going against the Constitution and violating the

“laws of the land.”422 Another column in the Defiance Democrat even blamed Lincoln’s supposed despotism as the “cause of more deaths and more misery than any man of modern man of whom modern history makes history.”423 Even more powerful was a column in The Weekly

Bryan Democrat, which stated: “The rivers of blood that have poured since July 1862, along the country of Gettysburg to the Weldon railroad have all been created soely [sic] by Lincoln’s attempt to secure the presidency for another four years.” 424 Moreover, Lincoln used the war as a means for him to be reelected, while neglecting the lives of Union soldiers. This meant that he was abusing his power. These columns attempted to convince the voters that Lincoln was a despotic ruler who would take away their constitutional rights, while inferring that the only way they could prevent this was by voting for McClellan.

There was much criticism of Lincoln’s handling of the war effort as well. In particular, a column in the Defiance Democrat criticized the president’s actions for not exchanging prisoners with the South, especially since 40,000 Union soldiers were in southern prisons. It believed that

McClellan’s election was the only way that these soldiers would have returned home.425 The

Defiance Democrat also provided a transcript of a letter McClellan sent to Lincoln, which noted that the war must be fought against “armed forces and political organizations,” instead of a war waged on unarmed civilians. The war also should not have allowed the “confiscation of property, political executions, territorial organization of States, or forcible abolition of slavery.”426

422 “Vote the Democratic Ticket,” Defiance Democrat, October 29, 1864, 2. 423 Defiance Democrat, October 26, 1864, 1. 424 “Grant’s Position,” The Weekly Bryan Democrat, October 13, 1864, 2. 425 Defiance Democrat, October 1, 1864, 1. 426 George McClellan, “Headquarters Army of the Potomac, Campy Near Harrison’s Landing, VA., July, 1862,” Defiance Democrat, October 1, 1864, 1. 128

Additionally, McClellan claimed that the only reason why the war was fought was to preserve the Union.427 The Defiance Democrat used these columns to illustrate to the public that Lincoln showed no concern for the well-being of the Union soldiers fighting the war as well as unarmed southern civilians.

Along with criticism against Lincoln’s military policy, the Democratic newspapers also alleged that many the Union soldiers preferred McClellan to Lincoln. One column claimed that several Union generals supported McClellan, including Hancock, McClernaud, Burnside,

Schofield, and McCook.428 Another column quoted Burnside saying, “He (McClellan) is an honest, Christian-like and conscientious man; and let me add one thing, he has the soundest head and the clearest military perception of any man in the United States.”429 The Weekly Bryan

Democrat also alleged that polls revealed that McClellan was winning the soldiers’ votes. For example, it claimed that the soldiers receiving medical treatment at a hospital in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania preferred McClellan to Lincoln by 350 to 17 votes. Additionally, a full regiment in

Cairo, Illinois also backed McClellan by a vote of 918 to Lincoln’s 79.430 These columns were meant to dismiss the claims made by the Republican newspapers that soldiers overwhelmingly favored Lincoln. Additionally, they attempted to influence the perception voters had of

McClellan as being patriotic and a supporter of the troops.

A column appeared in the Defiance Democrat, which provided an overall comparison of

McClellan to Lincoln. It suggested that McClellan would bring a “pure and incorruptible administration” to replace Lincoln’s corrupt regime. In particular, the column claimed that

Lincoln’s administration allowed for the wasting of millions of dollars in rewarding his

427 Ibid. 428 “Support for McClellan,” The Weekly Bryan Democrat, October 6, 1863, 2. 429 “What Gen Burnside says of McClellan,” The Weekly Bryan Democrat, October 6, 1864, 2. 430 “The Way the Tide Runs,” The Weekly Bryan Democrat, October 6, 1864, 2. 129 constituents. Moreover, Lincoln was perceived as desiring four more years of war as well as higher taxes necessary to pay for these costs. Additionally, Lincoln’s policies would lead to higher inflation as well as price increases in gold and silver. Further, Lincoln’s policy would have led to bankruptcy. On the other hand, McClellan was depicted as someone who wanted to reduce taxes by putting a check on corruption as well as ending the war peacefully. He would also restore the value of the dollar and bring back a stable currency. The column also suggested that McClellan desired to restore habeas corpus, and make the government a nation of laws again. Under Lincoln, people were arrested without due process as a result of the writ of suspension of habeas corpus. Another difference was that Lincoln was described as having neither statesmanship nor dignity, “whose vacillating mind is controlled by events.”431 On the other hand, McClellan was described as having “spotless purity of distinguished patriotism, ripe scholar, of exalted talent, of glorious repute, of solid understanding, and of dignified demeanor.”432 Moreover, Lincoln was depicted as a corrupt despot who represented the interests of the elites, while McClellan was seen as honest and looking out for the interest of the nation as a whole rather than only the elites.

After analyzing the Democratic newspapers’ coverage in the counties of Crawford,

Defiance, and Williams, the election results may reveal how much influence they had on the election in these regions. The County Crawford Forum and the Defiance Democrat may have assisted the Democratic Party in securing Crawford County and Defiance County, respectively in the presidential election. Further, the Democrats won Crawford County and Defiance County by

1,189 and 421 votes, respectively.433 These newspapers’ coverage may have had also a greater

431 Defiance Democrat, November 5, 1864, 2. 432 Ibid. 433 “Executive Documents,” in Message and Annual Reports for 1864, 683-684. 130 influence than the 1863 Ohio gubernatorial election, because McClellan’s 1864 presidential bid won the counties of Crawford and Defiance with voting percentages of 58 percent and 62 percent, respectively, compared to Vallandigham’s 1863 Ohio gubernatorial bid with percentages of 53 percent and 57 percent. Additionally, similar to Vallandigham’s 1863 Ohio gubernatorial bid, McClellan lost in Williams County, but had a higher percentage of the votes, which was 40 percent compared to 36 percent.434 This suggested that the attitudes presented in The County

Crawford Forum and the Defiance Democrat were most likely shared by the residents of

Crawford County and Defiance County, because the election results showed that voters in the region preferred McClellan over Lincoln. Although these attitudes were not shared by the majority in Williams County, they were more likely shared by more voters than the previous year as election results show.

Conclusion

The Republican newspapers’ political attitudes demonstrated that Lincoln’s support came from those that saw McClellan to be weak. On the other hand, the political attitudes depicted in the Democratic newspapers revealed that the majority perceived Lincoln to be a despot. Both sides accused one another of stealing elections as well as depicting their adversaries’ candidate as having serious character flaws. They also associated their political opponents as opposing the

Constitution, being supporters of making blacks equal to whites, and requiring more military drafts because of their policies. Further, this examination of the political sentiment in Northwest

Ohio during the 1864 presidential election was comparable to the 1860 presidential election and the 1863 Ohio gubernatorial election in that it demonstrated that the region was divided and not

434 “Executive Documents,” in Message and Annual Reports for 1864, 698. and Secretary of State, Ohio, “Annual Report of the Secretary of State to the Governor of the State of Ohio: For the Year of 1863,” in Message and Reports to the General Assembly and Governor of the State of Ohio, for the Year 1863, 403-404. 131 everyone approved of Lincoln’s policies. In particular, it also revealed that a conflict of vision existed in which the Democrats disagreed with the war effort and preferred a weaker federal government, while the Republicans wanted to continue the war where the South was fully conquered and favored a strong federal government.

132

CONCLUDING ANALYSIS

This analysis of Northwest Ohio political sentiments during the Civil War reveals how the region differed from the rest of Ohio as well as other regions in the Union. More importantly, it illustrates the political beliefs of residents living in a newly settled, agrarian free-labor, based society during the Civil War. The political newspaper coverage shows there was an intense conflict of vision between the Republicans and the Democrats, as each of the parties had their own views on how the nation should be governed. These competing newspapers with differing ideologies would energize their rhetoric to ensure that their ideology prevailed, accusing the opposing side of engaging in unethical behavior and appealing to particular groups.

There were some commonalities that existed in the newspaper coverage in the

Democratic, Republican and Union Party’s, newspapers. Each side alleged that they were upholding the Constitution of the United States. They also claimed that only their policies would eliminate the need of the draft and would end the war faster. Each of the partisan newspapers even accused the other side of attempting to steal the election through voter fraud. Another commonality between the two competing political factions was that both used identity politics to appeal to voters. For instance, both attempted to appeal to German immigrants, especially with the Homestead Bill during the 1860 presidential election. They also each alleged that the other side did not represent the interests of particular groups and that these groups were supportive of their candidates. These commonalities show that certain political behavior tended to reoccur throughout each election during the Civil War, and newspapers attempted to convince their readers that only their candidates would lead the nation to prosperity.

The political newspaper coverage also provided insight into the primary concerns of the

Democratic and Republican constituents in Northwest Ohio during the Civil War. The 133

Democratic supporters were mostly concerned with the loss of civil liberties, and they perceived the Constitution to be violated by the Republican majority in office. They also held the belief that the Republicans were marginalizing them, and that their policies would reduce their political representation. This belief was the result of policies of emancipation, which raised the issue of whether freed slaves would migrate to the North and increase the electorate size of the

Republicans. Another important concern they had was the disagreement over how the war was fought. Many Democrats endorsed the policy of pursuing peace first. However, there were some who approved the policy of continuing the war, but not engaging in total war, which meant not taking the war to the civilians. On the other hand, the principal issue of the Republicans was to preserve the Union by winning the war at any means necessary, including what is known today as “total war.” This also meant suspending civil liberties in a time of war because outspoken opposition would hinder the war effort. Republicans believed that these particular policies led to efficiency, and, thus, would bring an immediate end to the war. They perceived a conciliatory military approach to result in a stalemate. More importantly, the partisan newspaper election coverage illustrates a conflict of vision of how the nation should be governed, which either reflected Jeffersonian vision (limited government and free markets) or the Hamiltonian vision

(strong federal government with government intervention in the marketplace). The Democrats desired that the government not intervene in the economy, which meant no central bank, no paper currency (hard currency), and opposition to internal improvement projects. On the other hand, the Republicans wanted a country, which that on government incorporating these elements.

In the end, the Hamiltonian vision prevailed when the electorate as a whole elected those who sided with this doctrine in a time of war. 134

This thesis also provides insight to the political ideology the voters in Northwest Ohio held when comparing the election results of the 1860 presidential election, the 1863 Ohio gubernatorial election, and the 1864 presidential election. These results suggested that voters may have perceived Brough to be less extreme than Lincoln because he had a higher percentage in final electoral results. This may have been caused by the Republican newspapers stressing the slavery issue more in the presidential elections of 1860 and 1864, whereas they avoided addressing the issue in the 1863 gubernatorial election. This was despite the fact that the

Republicans attempted to reinsure voters that the Republican Party and the Union Party’s platform would not make blacks as equal to whites. Additionally, Brough received a higher percentage among the army when compared to Lincoln in the 1864 presidential election. In the following counties examined in this study, Crawford, Defiance, Williams, and Wood, Brough had voting percentages of the army of 92 percent, 89 percent, 99 percent, and 99 percent, respectively, compared to Lincoln’s 71 percent. 76 percent, 94 percent, and 85 percent.435

Although McClellan campaigned on a peace platform, the Democratic newspapers may have persuaded the army vote by emphasizing that McClellan was a “military man,” whereas Lincoln was not perceived to be so. Moreover, these voters who backed McClellan may have felt that he would have understood their needs as soldiers. Additionally, Brough had the advantage of going against a non-military man, Vallandigham. Military generals were perceived to have a higher status than those who were not. Although Lincoln may have been perceived to be more extreme

435 “Executive Documents,” in Message and Annual Reports for 1864, made to the Fifty-Sixth General Assembly of Ohio, at its Second Session, Begun and Held in the City of Columbus, January 3, 1865, 683-684, and 698. and Secretary of State, Ohio, “Annual Report of the Secretary of State to the Governor of the State of Ohio: For the Year of 1863,” in Message and Reports to the General Assembly and Governor of the State of Ohio, for the Year 1863, 403-404. 135 than Brough, he still won both of his presidential elections, which suggested the public slightly agreed more with his political ideology during the Civil War era.

In addition to Brough possibly being perceived to be more moderate than Lincoln,

Northwest Ohio voters seemed to be mixed on whether they approved Lincoln’s reelection at the same level. The electorate in both Crawford and Defiance County, two historically Democratic- leaning counties during the Civil War era, appeared to have viewed Lincoln as being more of a radical in 1864 than 1860. This can be observed in the election results where Lincoln’s voting percentages declined by about three percent and one percent in Crawford County and Defiance

County, respectively.436 Voters in these counties may have felt that Lincoln was more of a radical because of his Emancipation Proclamation to liberate slaves in the South, which some considered to change the purpose of the war from preserving the Union to ending slavery.

However, voters in both Williams and Wood County, who historically voted Republican during the Civil War era, seemed to have approved of Lincoln’s style of governing because they reelected him at a higher voting percentage, a margin of about four percent each.437 This may have been the result of voters agreeing with Lincoln’s handling of the war as well as the need to resolve the slave question by ending it. From this analysis, one can infer that voters perceived

Lincoln’s policies to be partisan driven and that he refused to compromise, which made

Republican counties vote in greater amounts for him, while Democratic counties voted in larger numbers against him. Further, Lincoln seemed to have polarized Northwest Ohio more, as evidenced by the increased opposition in Democratic regions.

436 Ibid, 683-684. and Secretary of State, Ohio, “Annual Report of the Secretary of State to the Governor of the State of Ohio: For the Year of 1860,” in Message and Reports to the General Assembly and Governor of the State of Ohio, for the Year 1860, 284. 437 Ibid, 698 and Ibid, 301-302. 136

The election results also suggested that the voters may have felt that both Douglas and

McClellan’s political ideology were more moderate than Vallandigham because they both had a higher voting percentage than him, except for Douglas in Crawford County. Moreover, both had at least two percent or more of the electorate in the counties of Defiance, Williams, and Wood.

For instance, Douglas and McClellan had higher voting percentages than Vallandigham in Wood

County, which was about ten percent and seven percent, respectively.438 Additionally, McClellan had a significantly higher military vote when compared to Vallandigham with the counties examined in this study. In the following counties of Crawford, Defiance, Williams, and Wood,

McClellan had the military vote percentages of 29 percent, 24 percent, 6 percent, and 15 percent, respectively, compared to Vallandigham’s 8 percent, 11 percent, 1 percent, and 1 percent.439

More interesting was the fact that McClellan had a lower civilian percentage than Vallandigham in Crawford County, which was known to have a high Copperhead sentiment. In this particular region, Vallandigham won a civilian vote percentage of 61 percent compared to McClellan’s 53 percent.440 This suggested that the voters in Crawford County may have not believed that

McClellan was a strong believer in the peace platform. They may have also either felt that

Lincoln’s military policies were more likely to end the war sooner if the war was to continue, or that there was a need to protest their dissatisfaction with McClellan. However, McClellan’s overall increase in the voting percentage of the counties examined indicated that the voters elsewhere agreed with McClellan’s moderate political ideology compared to Vallandigham’s

“peace now” ideology.

438 Ibid, 683-684 and 698. and Secretary of State, Ohio, “Annual Report of the Secretary of State to the Governor of the State of Ohio: For the Year of 1863,” in Message and Reports to the General Assembly and Governor of the State of Ohio, for the Year 1863, 403-404. 439 Ibid. 440 Ibid, 683. and Ibid, 403. 137

Overall, the election results reveals that the overall political sentiment in Northwest Ohio during the Civil War slightly favored continuation of the war. However, there were certain counties in Northwest Ohio where the majority preferred peace, such as both Crawford County and Defiance County. Another factor that appeared to influence how the electorate in Northwest

Ohio voted was race. For example, when comparing both the 1860 and 1864 presidential election results to the 1863 Ohio gubernatorial election results, the Republicans won the presidential elections by a smaller vote. This could be partly explained by that in the 1863 Ohio gubernatorial election, the Republican newspapers were more effective at avoiding the race issue than during their coverage during the presidential elections. Another issue was that Lincoln’s policies of liberating blacks were seen more negatively by voters. The complexity of Northwest Ohio shows that the Union was rather divided and each region had its own interests and concerns of what the

Civil War meant and how the aftermath would change the course of the country.

This study illustrated that in a time of war, voters slightly more believed that the

Hamiltonian approach to govern a nation was more effective than the Jeffersonian approach because voters preferred candidates, such as Lincoln, who represented that vision and seemed to have felt that this method was the most effective in mobilizing resources for the war effort. This micro study of Northwest Ohio political sentiment during the Civil War contributes to a broader idea that warrants further research, which focuses on the belief that each region is heterogeneous.

The analysis also raises additional questions about how divided the Union was elsewhere, especially in border states, such as Maryland, as well as states that were known to have draft riots, such as New York. Further, it reveals that each region is unique and have different concerns where they emphasize various issues that are of most importance.

138

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

The Belkofer Family Letters: Carter/Martin/Morgan Families, Bowling Green State University Center for Archival Collections, MS 393.

Brackney Family Papers, Bowling Green State University Center for Archival Collections, MMS 891.

Bryan Democrat (also known as The Weekly Bryan Democrat), May 1863 - November 1864

Bryan Republican (also known as The Bryan Union Press), May 1863 - November 1864

Bucyrus Journal (also known as Bucyrus Weekly Journal), October 1860 - November 1864

The Crawford County Forum, October 1860 - November 1864

Defiance Democrat, October 1860 - November 1864

Eight Annual Report of the Commissioner of Statistics to the Governor of the State of Ohio. For the Year 1864. Columbus: Richard Nevis, 1865.

“Executive Documents.” Message and Annual Reports for 1864, made to the Fifty-Sixth General Assembly of Ohio, at its Second Session, Begun and Held in the City of Columbus, January 3, 1865. Columbus: Richard Nevins, 1865.

Fourth Annual Report of the Commission of Statistics to the Governor of the State of Ohio for the Year 1860. Columbus: Richard Nevins, State Printer, 1861.

George Kryder Papers, Bowling Green State University Center for Archival Collections, MS 163.

Hill/Morgan Family Papers, Bowling Green State University Center for Archival Collections, MS 190.

John Jefferson Parsons Papers, Bowling Green State University Center for Archival Collections, MMS 1826.

Hardin County Democrat, October 1860 – November 1860.

The Perrysburg Weekly Journal, October 1860 - November 1864

Secretary of State, Ohio, “Annual Report of the Secretary of State to the Governor of the State of Ohio: For the Year of 1860,” in Message and Reports to the General Assembly and Governor of the State of Ohio, for the Year 1860. Columbus: Richard Nevins, 1861. 139

Secretary of State, Ohio. “Annual Report of the Secretary of State to the Governor of the State of Ohio: For the Year of 1863,” in Message and Reports to the General Assembly and Governor of the State of Ohio, for the Year 1863. Columbus: Richard Nevins, 1863.

Seventh Annual Report of the Commission of Statistics to the Governor of the State of Ohio for the Year 1863. Columbus: Richard Nevins, State Printer, 1864.

Weddell Family Papers, Bowling Green State University Center for Archival Collections, MS 484 mf.

Williams County Leader, October 1860 – November 1860.

Secondary Sources

Abrams, Ray H. and W.H. Hutter, “Copperhead Newspapers and the Negro.” The Journal of Negro History 20, no. 2 (April 1935): 131-152.

Abzug, Robert H. “The Copperheads: Historical Approaches to Civil War Dissent in the Midwest,” Indiana Magazine of History 66, no. 1 (March 1970): 40-55.

Bissland, James. Blood, Tears, & Glory: How Ohioans Won the Civil War. Wilmington: Orange Frazer Press, 2007.

Cowden, Joanna D. “The Politics of Dissent: Civil War Democrats in Connecticut.” The New England Quarterly 56, no. 4 (December 1983): 538-554.

Curry, Richard O. “Copperheadism and Continuity: The Anatomy of a Stereotype.” The Journal of Negro History 57, no. 1 (January 1972): 29-36.

Donald, David Herbert. Lincoln. New York: Simon & Shuster, 1995.

Fischer, David Hackett. Liberty and Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Glen, John M., Thomas E. Rogers, Saundra B Taylor, Stephen E. Towne, and Nancy K. Turner. “Indiana in the Civil War Era.” Indiana Magazine of History 92, no. 3 (September 1996): 254-273.

Gray, Wood. The Hidden Civil War: The Story of the Copperheads. New York: The Viking Press, 1942.

Hershock, Martin J. “Copperheads and Radicals: Michigan Partisan Politics during the Civil War 140

Era, 1860-1865.” Michigan Historical Review 18, no. 1 (Spring 1992): 29-69.

Jackson, W. Sherman. “Emancipation, Negrophobia and Civil War Politics in Ohio, 1863-1865,” The Journal of Negro History 65, no 2 (Summer 1980): 250-260.

Kleen, Michael. “The Copperhead Threat in Illinois: Peace Democrats, Loyalty Leagues, and the Charleston Riot of 1864.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 105, no. 2 (Spring 2005): 69-92.

Klement, Frank L. The Copperheads in the Middle West. Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1972.

Klement, Frank L. The Limits of Dissent: Clement L. Vallandigham & The Civil War. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky,1970.

Knepper, George W. Ohio and Its People. Kent: Kent State University Press, 2008.

McPherson, James. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Manning, Chandra. What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007.

Neely, Mark E. The Union Divided: Party Conflict in the Civil War North. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.

Ramage, C.J. “Herschel Vespasian Johnson,” The Virginia Register 7, no. 10 (February 1922): 736-743.

Rawley, James. The Politics of Union. Hinsdale: The Dryden Press, 1974.

Roseboom, Eugene. History of the State of Ohio: The Civil War Era 1850-1873. Vol. 4. Edited by Carl Wittke. Columbus: Ohio State: Archaeological and Historical Society, 1944.

Paludan, Phillip Shaw. A People’s Contest: The Union and Civil War 1861-1865. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.

Porter, George H. Ohio Politics During the Civil War Period. New York: Columbia University, 1911.

Rodgers, Thomas E. “Copperheads or a Respectable Minority.” Indiana Magazine of History 109, no. 2 (June 2013): 114-146.

Silbey, Joel H. A Respectable Minority: The Democratic Party in the Civil War Era, 1860-1868. New York: W.W Norton & Company, 1977.

Smith, Adam. No Party Now. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 141

Smith, Wayne. “Pennsylvania and the American Civil War: Recent Trends and Interpretations.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 51, no. 3 (July 1984): 206-231.

Stanley, Gerald. “Civil War Politics in California.” Southern California Quarterly 64, no. 2 (Summer 1982): 115-132.

Waugh, John C. Reelecting Lincoln: The Battle for the 1864 Presidency. Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2001.

Weber, Jennifer L. Copperheads: The Rise and Fall of Lincoln’s Opponents in the North. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Weber, Jenifer L. “Lincoln’s Critics: The Copperhead’s,” Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association 32, no. 1 (Winter 2011): 33-47.

Wheeler, Kenneth H. “Local Autonomy and Civil War Draft Resistance: Holmes County, Ohio.” Civil War History 45, no. 2. (June 1999): 149-159.

Zornow, William Frank. Lincoln & the Party Divided. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1954.