Hubbry Logo
Northern Democratic PartyNorthern Democratic PartyMain
Open search
Northern Democratic Party
Community hub
Northern Democratic Party
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Northern Democratic Party
Northern Democratic Party
Northern Democratic Party
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Northern Democratic Party was a leg of the Democratic Party during the 1860 presidential election, when the party split in two factions because of disagreements over slavery. They held two conventions before the election, in Charleston and Baltimore, where they established their platform.[1] Democratic Candidate Stephen A. Douglas was the nominee and lost to Republican Candidate Abraham Lincoln, whose victory prompted the secession of 12 Southern states and the formation of the Confederate States of America.

Key Information

History

[edit]

Sectional confrontations escalated during the 1850s, the Democratic Party split between North and South grew deeper. The conflict was papered over at the 1852 and 1856 conventions by selecting men who had little involvement in sectionalism, but they made matters worse. Historian Roy F. Nichols explains why Franklin Pierce was not up to the challenges a Democratic president had to face:

As a national political leader Pierce was an accident. He was honest and tenacious of his views but, as he made up his mind with difficulty and often reversed himself before making a final decision, he gave a general impression of instability. Kind, courteous, generous, he attracted many individuals, but his attempts to satisfy all factions failed and made him many enemies. In carrying out his principles of strict construction he was most in accord with Southerners, who generally had the letter of the law on their side. He failed utterly to realize the depth and the sincerity of Northern feeling against the South and was bewildered at the general flouting of the law and the Constitution, as he described it, by the people of his own New England. At no time did he catch the popular imagination. His inability to cope with the difficult problems that arose early in his administration caused him to lose the respect of great numbers, especially in the North, and his few successes failed to restore public confidence. He was an inexperienced man, suddenly called to assume a tremendous responsibility, who honestly tried to do his best without adequate training or temperamental fitness.[2]

In 1854, Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois—a key Democratic leader in the Senate—pushed the Kansas–Nebraska Act through Congress. President Franklin Pierce signed the bill into law in 1854.[3][4][5] The Act opened Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to a decision by the residences on whether slavery would be legal or not. Previously it had been illegal there. Thus the new law implicitly repealed the prohibition on slavery in territory north of 36° 30′ latitude that had been part of the Missouri Compromise of 1820.[4][6] Supporters and enemies of slavery poured into Kansas to vote slavery up or down. The armed conflict was Bleeding Kansas and it shook the nation. A major re-alignment took place among voters and politicians. The Whig Party fell apart and the new Republican Party was founded in opposition to the expansion of slavery and to the Kansas–Nebraska Act. The new party had little support in the South, but it soon became a majority in the North by pulling together former Whigs and former Free Soil Democrats.[7][8]

During the Civil War, Northern Democrats divided into two factions: the War Democrats, who supported the military policies of President Lincoln; and the Copperheads, who strongly opposed them. No party politics were allowed in the Confederacy, whose political leadership, mindful of the welter prevalent in antebellum American politics and with a pressing need for unity, largely viewed political parties as inimical to good governance and as being especially unwise in wartime. Consequently, the Democratic Party halted all operations during the life of the Confederacy (1861–1865).[9]

Partisanship flourished in the North and strengthened the Lincoln Administration as Republicans automatically rallied behind it. After the attack on Fort Sumter, Douglas rallied Northern Democrats behind the Union, but when Douglas died the party lacked an outstanding figure in the North and by 1862 an anti-war peace element was gaining strength. The most intense anti-war elements were the Copperheads.[9] The Democratic Party did well in the 1862 congressional elections, but in 1864 it nominated General George McClellan (a War Democrat) on a peace platform and lost badly because many War Democrats bolted to National Union candidate Abraham Lincoln. Many former Democrats became Republicans, especially soldiers such as generals Ulysses S. Grant and John A. Logan.[10]

Party platform

[edit]

The Northern Democratic Party declared their support for the policies laid out at the 1856 Democratic convention in Cincinnati. They resolved not to change any of the policies but suggested the additions of resolutions in relation to the nature and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, as well as the powers of Congress over slavery.[11]

  • They resolved that the party will obey the decisions of the supreme court on the questions of constitutional law.
  • That the United States has a duty to provide protection to all citizens, at home and abroad, whether they are native or foreign.
  • That the Democratic party will insure the construction of a railroad to the Pacific coast as soon as possible, to facilitate fast communication between Atlantic and Pacific states,
  • That they support the acquisition of Cuba, as long as the terms are agreeably to the United States and Spain.
  • That the attempts to defeat the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile, undermine the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.
  • That while Territorial Governments are in existence, the measure of restriction imposed by the Federal Constitution on the power of the Territorial Legislature over the subject of the domestic relations shall be respected and enforced by every branch of the General Government.

Copperheads

[edit]
Main article: Copperhead (politics)

In the 1860s, the Copperheads, also known as Peace Democrats,[12] were a faction of Democrats in the Union who opposed the American Civil War and wanted an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates.

War Democrats

[edit]
Main article: War Democrats

War Democrats in American politics of the 1860s were members of the Democratic Party who supported the Union and rejected the policies of the Copperheads (or Peace Democrats). The War Democrats demanded a more aggressive policy toward the Confederacy and supported the policies of Republican President Abraham Lincoln, when the American Civil War broke out a few months after his victory in the 1860 presidential election.[13]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Northern Democratic Party

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Northern Democratic Party was the northern faction of the Democratic Party during the 1860 presidential election, which nominated Senator of for president and of Georgia for vice president after a with over the expansion of into federal territories. This faction emerged from the Democratic National Conventions in Charleston and , where southern delegates rejected the principle of —allowing territorial residents to decide on —and demanded a federal slave code, prompting their walkout and the formation of a separate southern ticket led by . The party's platform reaffirmed the 1856 Cincinnati resolutions, endorsing Supreme Court decisions such as on slavery in territories while prioritizing territorial legislatures' authority under , alongside pledges for a , enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, and honorable acquisition of . Douglas campaigned vigorously, logging over 30,000 miles by train to defend unionism and warn against , but the Democratic split fragmented the vote, enabling Republican Abraham Lincoln's victory with just 39.8% of the popular vote and no southern electoral votes. Though short-lived as a distinct entity, the Northern Democratic Party's emphasis on compromise over southern demands highlighted irreconcilable sectional tensions, contributing directly to southern and the onset of the Civil War; Douglas's death in June 1861 further diminished its influence, as remaining northern Democrats grappled with wartime loyalty amid accusations of disunionism. Its platform's rejection of mandatory federal protection for marked a defining moderation compared to southern positions, yet critics, including Republicans, viewed it as insufficiently oppositional to slavery's spread, underscoring the faction's role in the era's causal chain toward national fracture.

Formation and Origins

Split at the 1860 Democratic National Convention

The 1860 opened on April 23 in , with 303 delegates from across the party assembled to nominate a presidential candidate and adopt a platform amid escalating sectional tensions over slavery's expansion. The platform committee's deliberations quickly exposed irreconcilable divisions: a Southern minority report, backed by delegates from slave states, proposed a federal slave code requiring Congress to enact laws actively protecting slavery in federal territories, interpreting the Supreme Court's decision as mandating such safeguards. Northern delegates, comprising the majority and led by supporters of Senator , advocated instead for —the principle that territorial residents should decide slavery's status through local legislation—and non-interference by the federal government, aligning with the 1856 platform and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. On , after heated debate, the convention adopted the Northern-backed platform plank affirming and congressional non-intervention by a vote of 165 to 138, prompting 59 delegates from ten slave states—primarily representatives—to walk out in protest, decrying the outcome as a betrayal of Southern rights. With the party fractured, presidential balloting ensued but stalled: Douglas secured a plurality on each of 57 ballots, peaking at 152 votes, yet fell short of the two-thirds (202 votes) required under party rules, as Southern holdouts and anti-Douglas Northerners blocked consensus. The convention adjourned sine die on May 3 without a nominee, rescheduling for June in to attempt reconciliation. The reconvened session in from June 18 to 23 saw further division, as credentials challenges excluded most Charleston walkout delegates, and an additional 68 Southern delegates withdrew upon the refusal to reopen platform debates or reseat bolters, leaving roughly 200 predominantly Northern delegates. This rump assembly, representing the Northern faction, promptly nominated Douglas on the second ballot with the requisite two-thirds of remaining votes, endorsing the Charleston platform and solidifying the party's split into a Northern wing committed to and Union preservation, against a Southern counterpart that would soon nominate on a pro-slavery protectionist ticket. The deadlock underscored causal fault lines over slavery's territorial extension, where Southern demands for federal enforcement clashed with Northern deference to local , rendering national Democratic unity untenable.

Nomination of Stephen A. Douglas

The , having adjourned without a nominee from its April 23–May 3 session in , due to irreconcilable disputes over 's territorial expansion, reconvened in , , on June 18, 1860. With the majority of Southern delegates excluded after losing credentials challenges for supporting the rival Southern convention, of emerged as the nominee of the Northern-aligned faction, securing the necessary two-thirds majority on the convention's second ballot following the seating of pro-Douglas delegations. He was paired with , former , as the vice-presidential candidate to balance regional appeal. The platform adopted reaffirmed the 1856 Cincinnati Platform's core tenets, including federal non-interference with in existing states and allowing territorial residents to decide the institution's fate without congressional mandate. Douglas's path to nomination was shaped by his "Freeport Doctrine," articulated during the second Lincoln-Douglas senatorial debate on August 27, 1858, in . Responding to Abraham Lincoln's query on reconciling the 1857 ruling—which declared powerless to ban in territories—with , Douglas asserted that territorial legislatures could effectively exclude through "unfriendly legislation," such as refusing to enact police regulations protecting slave property. This position upheld local democratic control over abstract judicial protections for , appealing to Northern voters wary of federal imposition but infuriating who viewed it as undermining Dred Scott's intent to safeguard slaveholders' rights nationwide. Douglas personally influenced the faction's consolidation by rejecting platform compromises demanded by Southern holdouts, insisting on adherence to as the party's unifying principle against both Republican "irrepressible conflict" rhetoric and Southern calls for a congressional slave code. His stature as the incumbent senator and leading advocate for Union preservation positioned the Northern Democrats as defenders of constitutional democracy, framing the ticket as a bulwark against Republican sectionalism in the North and disunionist in the South. This emphasis on pragmatic helped rally Northern party loyalists around Douglas, solidifying the split faction's identity distinct from the Southern Democratic alternative.

Ideology and Platform

The Northern Democratic Party's defining position on slavery centered on , the doctrine asserting that settlers in federal territories held the exclusive right to determine slavery's status through local democratic processes, free from congressional dictation. This principle rejected both Northern abolitionist efforts to impose bans and Southern demands for federal guarantees of slavery's protection in territories, positioning the party as a defender of territorial self-government and constitutional restraint. The doctrine gained legislative form in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, signed into law on May 30, 1854, which organized the territories of and while repealing the Missouri Compromise's prohibition on north of the 36°30′ parallel. Sponsored by Senator , the act substituted for prior federal restrictions, enabling territorial legislatures or conventions—elected by resident settlers—to resolve the issue, with the intent of diffusing national strife by localizing decisions and avoiding imposed moral or sectional outcomes. Northern Democrats argued this approach aligned with the framers' emphasis on republican self-rule, as territories mirrored the states' sovereignty in forming constitutions without external veto. The party's 1856 platform explicitly endorsed this framework, affirming that "the people of the Territories, being free and sovereign therein, have the sole and to form their own constitutions and domestic institutions, and to decide the question of therein, independently of all congressional interference." Northern Democrats opposed the Republican platform's call for outright of in territories, viewing it as an unconstitutional federal overreach that violated property rights under the Fifth Amendment and undermined the equality of states by privileging one sectional interest. They contended that such bans equated to indirect assaults on in the states themselves, fostering disunion rather than harmony, whereas empirically deferred conflict to empirical territorial majorities, as demonstrated by the act's design to let 1854-era settlers—predominantly from free-soil backgrounds in some areas—resolve disputes peacefully through ballots.

Defense of the Union and Opposition to Secession

The Northern Democratic Party asserted the perpetuity of the Union under the , viewing as an unconstitutional act of revolution rather than a legal right. Party nominee repeatedly warned during the 1860 campaign that disunion would undermine the foundational compact binding the states indissolubly, emphasizing that the federal government possessed authority to enforce its laws and maintain national integrity without yielding to threats of separation. This stance aligned with the party's affirmation of federal supremacy in its June 1860 platform, which condemned state encroachments on national laws as "hostile in character, subversive of the , and revolutionary in their effect," thereby implicitly rejecting nullification or as legitimate responses to political disputes. In the wake of Abraham Lincoln's November 1860 election, Northern Democrats positioned themselves as mediators, advocating constitutional amendments to safeguard slavery's existence in Southern states and territories south of the 36°30' parallel, as proposed in the introduced on December 18, 1860. This effort, backed by six Border State and Northern Democrats on the committee, sought to extend the line westward while prohibiting congressional interference with slavery where it legally existed, aiming to defuse Southern grievances through legal entrenchment rather than territorial expansion or abolitionist agitation. By critiquing Republican sectionalism as provocative yet insisting on compromise over immediate coercion, the party argued that preserving the Union intact would avert the economic devastation and that armed conflict would inevitably cause, prioritizing constitutional fidelity to containment of sectional tensions.

Economic and Constitutional Principles

The Northern Democratic Party championed strictly for revenue purposes, opposing protective measures that elevated duties to shield domestic industries at the expense of consumers and exporters. This stance reflected a commitment to low tariff rates, as seen in Democratic resistance to the of March 2, 1861, which raised average duties from about 20% to nearly 47%, arguing it disproportionately benefited sectors while increasing costs for agricultural producers and laborers reliant on affordable imports. Northern Democrats, aligning with broader party doctrine, viewed such as market-distorting and potentially provocative of retaliatory foreign trade barriers, thereby threatening export-dependent Northern economies like those in grain and livestock. On , the party advocated a hard money standard based on specie— and silver—to maintain stability and protect wage earners from depreciation. Northern Democrats warned that reliance on paper , such as the greenbacks authorized by the Act of February 25, 1862, would fuel , eroding the of fixed incomes among urban workers and farmers. Leader exemplified this preference, endorsing hard money alongside an to insulate the economy from banking fluctuations, a position that resonated with constituents skeptical of fiat expansions that burdened debtors and laborers. Constitutionally, Northern Democrats emphasized strict construction of federal powers, deriving authority solely from enumerated grants in the and resisting encroachments that exceeded those limits. This fidelity informed their platform's pledge to uphold rulings on constitutional questions, ensuring governmental actions remained within prescribed bounds. Echoing the 1856 Democratic platform, they affirmed the federal government's limited scope, advocating rigorous adherence to constitutional text to prevent overreach in economic or infrastructural matters, such as aid for projects like a Pacific railroad only through permissible means. Such principles appealed to agrarian and working-class voters wary of centralized fiscal experiments that might undermine local autonomy and fiscal restraint.

Internal Factions

War Democrats

The War Democrats represented the pro-Union wing of the Northern Democratic Party, advocating military action to defeat the Confederate rebellion and restore federal authority after the attack on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. This faction, drawing from party moderates who had backed Stephen A. Douglas's 1860 campaign, prioritized national preservation over sectional grievances or opposition to Republican leadership, offering pragmatic endorsement of the war effort to avert permanent dismemberment of the United States. Figures such as Andrew Johnson and Horatio Seymour exemplified this stance by promoting enlistment drives and cross-party cooperation, including Seymour's role in organizing New York state defenses following Lincoln's initial troop call-up. Their contributions proved vital to the Union's early sustainability, as War Democrats supplied key congressional votes for emergency funding and troop authorizations, ensuring passage of measures like the July 1861 bill allocating $500 million for military operations and expanding the to 500,000 men—votes that diluted Republican dominance and sustained bipartisan legitimacy for the conflict. By facilitating volunteer in Democratic strongholds, they helped swell Union forces beyond initial targets, with northern Democratic communities contributing disproportionately to regiments in states like and during 1861-1862. This support extended to endorsing frameworks for disciplined warfare, such as the 1863 , which codified humane treatment of combatants and civilians to limit excesses amid total mobilization. Within the party, War Democrats faced accusations from Peace Democrats of betraying decentralized constitutional traditions by acquiescing to expanded federal powers, including and suspension of , which critics deemed erosions of and preludes to abolitionist overreach. Proponents countered that such compromises reflected causal necessity: Confederate success would shatter northern commerce, disrupt revenues, and invite foreign intervention, rendering ideological purity subordinate to the empirical imperative of Union victory and economic stability. This realism underpinned their rejection of negotiated , viewing it as capitulation to rather than resolution of disputes.

Peace Democrats and Copperheads

The Peace Democrats, derisively termed Copperheads by Republicans in allusion to the venomous eastern copperhead snake (Agkistrodon contortrix), symbolized perceived treachery toward the Union war effort. This label, applied as early as 1861, evoked the snake's stealthy danger, contrasting with the faction's self-identification as constitutional loyalists seeking to constrain federal overreach. Under leaders like Clement Vallandigham, an Ohio congressman and vocal critic of emancipation and conscription, they pressed for immediate armistice to avert further devastation, framing prolonged conflict as a violation of republican governance and individual rights. At the 1864 Democratic National Convention in Chicago on August 29–31, the platform crystallized their stance by declaring the war a "failure" after four years and resolving that "immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the States or other peaceable means, to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States." This rejected unconditional surrender, which they argued extended unnecessary carnage—already numbering over 200,000 deaths by mid-war tallies—without reconciling sectional animosities rooted in economic and political divergences rather than mere abolitionist zeal. Their case rested on observable military realities, highlighting stalemates like the on September 17, 1862, the bloodiest single day of the war with approximately 22,717 casualties yet no substantial strategic breakthrough, as proof that yielded diminishing returns. Escalating Union desertions, totaling over 200,000 recorded incidents by war's end and symptomatic of morale erosion under indefinite campaigns, further underscored the futility of coercion over conciliation. Positioned as principled dissenters, Peace Democrats invoked constitutional safeguards against executive warmongering, prioritizing the preservation of lives and against ideologically driven escalation that, in their view, risked national dissolution.

Key Figures and Leadership

Stephen A. Douglas

Stephen Arnold Douglas (April 23, 1813 – June 3, 1861) served as a Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois from 1847 until his death, emerging as the preeminent leader of the party's Northern wing. He played a central role in forging the Compromise of 1850, a package of five bills that admitted California as a free state, abolished the slave trade in Washington, D.C., strengthened the Fugitive Slave Act, and organized the New Mexico and Utah territories under popular sovereignty, thereby postponing national conflict over slavery's territorial expansion. In 1854, Douglas authored and steered through Congress the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which organized those territories and repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 by allowing settlers to decide slavery's status via local vote, a doctrine he championed as a democratic check against federal overreach that aligned with his vision of decentralized governance to sustain the Union. Though the act precipitated violence in "Bleeding Kansas" and intensified sectional divisions, Douglas's advocacy reflected a pragmatic federalism aimed at accommodating diverse interests without centralized imposition, crediting his efforts with averting earlier rupture despite the long-term ignition of conflict. The 1858 Senate campaign debates against Abraham Lincoln elevated Douglas's profile, as he robustly defended popular sovereignty against Republican moral absolutism on slavery, arguing it empowered territorial residents to exclude the institution if they chose, thereby nationalizing the concept and solidifying his stature among Northern Democrats who prioritized Union preservation over abolitionist fervor. Despite losing the 1860 presidential election to Lincoln amid the Democratic split—where Northern delegates backed his nomination on a popular sovereignty platform while Southerners bolted—Douglas's moderate stance defined the faction's identity as unionist compromisers wary of both Southern disunion and Northern radicalism. Following Lincoln's election and Southern secession, Douglas conferred with the president-elect in December 1860 and, after the April 12–13, 1861, Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, publicly endorsed Lincoln's April 15 call for 75,000 volunteers, recommending an increase to 200,000 troops and declaring that Democrats must "square up to the enemy" to defend federal authority and suppress rebellion. Douglas faced sharp rebukes: branded him a betrayer for rejecting as unconstitutional, while Republicans derided him as a "" for past concessions to slave interests that enabled territorial expansion. Yet, empirical outcomes underscore his causal contributions to stability—his compromises bought a of relative peace before , fostering a Northern Democratic of constitutional and martial resolve that influenced early support among moderates, even as his death from acute curtailed his direct leadership. His final speeches rallying Illinoisans for enlistment exemplified this, urging unconditional loyalty to the Union as the bedrock of democratic self-government, a legacy that tempered factional extremism in the party's formative crisis.

Clement Vallandigham and Other Prominent Voices

, an congressman and leading figure among Peace Democrats, delivered a prominent anti-war speech on May 1, 1863, to approximately 10,000 listeners in , where he denounced the Lincoln administration's policies, including and the suspension of , as violations of constitutional liberties. Arrested by Union forces on May 5, 1863, under General Ambrose Burnside's General Order No. 38 prohibiting expressions of sympathy for the Confederacy or disloyalty, Vallandigham was tried by military commission and convicted on May 7 for discouraging enlistments and expressing opposition to the war. President commuted his prison sentence to banishment behind Confederate lines on May 19, 1863, an action Vallandigham challenged in Ex parte Vallandigham (1863), petitioning the U.S. on grounds that the military trial and habeas corpus suspension were unconstitutional encroachments on civilian rights; the Court declined jurisdiction, ruling the matter non-reviewable in civil courts. His exile symbolized broader Copperhead resistance to perceived Republican censorship and overreach, galvanizing anti-war sentiment without evidence of personal , as Vallandigham later escaped to and returned clandestinely to Ohio in 1864 to resume political activity. Other Copperhead voices amplified rhetorical challenges to the war's prosecution, emphasizing its prolongation as futile and burdensome while rejecting outright . Samuel S. Cox, a congressman from (later New York), allied closely with Vallandigham and contributed through fiery speeches critiquing and policies as inflammatory distractions from restoring the Union, with one 1858 address on "miscegenation" reprinted by Copperhead outlets to stoke opposition to Republican orthodoxy. Fernando Wood, former (serving 1860–1862), exemplified urban Copperhead dissent by advocating peace negotiations and equivocating during the July 1863 draft riots, repeatedly calling for suspension of conscription amid widespread unrest over its class inequities, though he did not endorse violence or disunion. These figures, operating in Democratic strongholds like the Midwest and New York, sustained internal party critique by framing the conflict as administratively mismanaged—highlighting military failures and resource strains—rather than Confederate-inspired, thereby preserving a focused on constitutional limits and war termination short of Southern independence. Despite accusations of Confederate leanings from Republican sources, empirical records show their advocacy centered on negotiated to avert further Union dissolution, with no documented involvement in subversive plots beyond public oratory.

Electoral History

1860 Presidential Election

In the presidential election held on November 6, Douglas, the Northern Democratic nominee, garnered 1,376,124 popular votes, equivalent to 29.5% of the national total, alongside 12 electoral votes from and a portion of . This performance reflected robust support in Northern industrial and urban areas, yet fell short due to the Democratic Party's fracture at the Charleston and conventions, where Southern delegates rejected Douglas's stance and nominated Breckinridge instead. The resulting vote split—Breckinridge securing 847,953 votes (18.1%)—enabled Lincoln's Republican ticket to prevail with 1,865,908 votes (39.8%) and 180 electoral votes, without carrying a single slave state. Northern Democrats fused with other anti-Republican tickets in states like and New York, capturing divided electoral votes and demonstrating tactical adaptability amid the four-way contest. Douglas's extensive campaign, spanning over 180 speeches, warned that Republican success would precipitate Southern disunion, a forecast confirmed when seven states— (December 20, 1860), (January 9, 1861), (January 10), (January 11), Georgia (January 19), (January 26), and (February 1)—ordained ordinances before Lincoln's March 4 inauguration. The 's outcome underscored the Northern Democratic split's decisive electoral impact: combining Douglas and Breckinridge tallies yielded 2,224,077 votes, surpassing Lincoln's total and indicating a unified Democratic Party's likely national plurality. Douglas's retention of his U.S. seat in 1858, via legislative despite Lincoln edging the popular legislative vote (125,275 to 121,375), affirmed the Northern faction's competitive strength absent Southern defection.

Midterm Elections and State Contests (1861–1863)

In the 1862 congressional elections, held amid early Civil War setbacks including the Peninsula Campaign's failure and the , Northern Democrats expanded their House delegation from 44 seats in the 37th to 75 seats in the 38th , representing a net gain of 31 seats across loyal states. These gains were concentrated in Midwestern states like , , and , where Democrats capitalized on voter frustration with Union military performance and the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation's shift in war aims, securing approximately 45% of the popular vote in contested districts. State-level contests further demonstrated Democratic resilience. In New York, , a Northern Democrat critical of emancipation's expansion of the conflict, defeated Republican on November 4, 1862, with 208,466 votes to Wadsworth's 203,695, securing the governorship by a narrow margin of 2,347 votes. In Pennsylvania's concurrent elections, Democrats flipped multiple congressional districts and strengthened legislative positions, though Governor Andrew G. Curtin's Union ticket retained overall state executive continuity into 1863. declined nationally by about 10-15% from 1860 levels due to wartime mobilization diverting eligible men, yet Democratic strongholds saw heightened participation driven by opposition to federal previews and supply shortages. The 1863 Ohio gubernatorial race highlighted Democratic persistence despite government interventions. Clement L. Vallandigham, running from exile after his May 1863 military arrest and banishment for anti-war speeches, led the Democratic ticket to 186,672 votes against Unionist John Brough's 288,761, achieving roughly 39% of the civilian vote share even as soldier ballots favored Brough by 41,467 to 10,000. This outcome, in a key Midwestern battleground, underscored and draft resistance mobilizing Democratic voters, with turnout exceeding 80% in Democratic counties despite suppression efforts. Overall, these results affirmed Northern Democrats' national vote share hovering at 40-45%, sustaining party infrastructure amid escalating casualties and economic strains.

1864 Presidential Election

The Democratic Party, representing Northern Democrats, convened its national convention in Chicago from August 29 to 31, 1864, where delegates nominated General George B. McClellan as the presidential candidate on the first ballot, with 174 votes out of 233 needed. The party's platform, known as the Chicago Platform, included a prominent "peace plank" resolving that "immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities" through negotiations, reflecting widespread war fatigue after over three years of conflict and mounting casualties exceeding 600,000 combined Union and Confederate deaths by mid-1864. This plank appealed particularly to Peace Democrats disillusioned with prolonged warfare, promising an armistice to halt bloodshed and address economic strains like inflation and draft resistance in Northern cities. McClellan, a War Democrat and former Union general dismissed by Lincoln in 1862, publicly repudiated the peace plank in his September 8, 1864, acceptance letter, asserting that the Union must be restored by force if negotiations failed and rejecting any peace conceding Southern independence. He campaigned on a platform of vigorous prosecution of the war to preserve the Union, combined with criticism of Lincoln's administration for military mismanagement, emancipation policies, and suspension of , while advocating conditional negotiations only after battlefield successes. This stance alienated strict Peace Democrats but unified Northern Democrats around restoring pre-war constitutional limits, emphasizing and opposition to centralized federal power amid events like the fall of on September 2, 1864, which bolstered Lincoln's prospects. In the November 8, 1864, , held only in Union-controlled states excluding most of the South, McClellan secured 1,811,754 popular votes, or 45 percent of the total 4,034,798 cast, performing strongly in urban centers like and among immigrant-heavy districts weary of and high casualty rates from battles such as the Wilderness campaign earlier that year. He won 21 electoral votes from (3), (3), and (all 11 at-large, as no popular vote due to divided loyalties). Lincoln, running on the National Union ticket with , prevailed with 55 percent of the popular vote and 212 electoral votes, aided by soldier voting favoring the by margins up to 80 percent in some units. The election highlighted the Northern Democratic challenge's vulnerability to shifting military fortunes; Sherman's Atlanta victory shifted momentum toward Lincoln just as absentee soldier ballots were tallied, underscoring Republican dependence on positive news to counter Democratic critiques of prolonged stalemate, though McClellan's 45 percent share reflected substantial anti-administration sentiment amid pre-Appomattox uncertainties.

Role in the Civil War Era

Support for Union War Effort Among Moderates

War Democrats provided critical bipartisan endorsement for the Union's initial mobilization following the Confederate bombardment of on April 12, 1861, helping to legitimize President Lincoln's emergency measures against accusations of partisan overreach. Prominent figures like Senator rallied public and congressional support, with Democrats in the 37th Congress voting alongside Republicans to authorize 500,000 volunteers and $400 million in funding during the from to , 1861, ensuring the 's early viability without immediate Southern Democratic obstruction. This cross-party consensus, as evidenced by near-unanimous passage of the July 1861 army bill, underscored the moderates' commitment to restoring the Union through force while rejecting as unconstitutional. Beyond legislative backing, War Democrats bolstered the military through widespread voluntary enlistments prior to the of March 3, 1863, which introduced conscription amid declining volunteers. Thousands of Northern Democrats joined Union regiments, particularly in the under Democratic general , who organized the army's core structure from July 1861 onward and drew on ethnic Democratic constituencies like Irish immigrants for manpower in key eastern theater operations. Their participation, driven by appeals to national preservation rather than abolition, sustained troop levels during 1861–1862 campaigns, such as the , where Democratic-led units helped offset early Confederate advantages despite internal grumblings over strategy. In , moderates exercised a restraining influence on radical excesses, notably by diluting or opposing measures like the First Confiscation Act of August 6, 1861, which sought broad seizure of rebel property including slaves employed in insurrectionary efforts. Democratic opposition, rooted in constitutional concerns over retroactive forfeiture and fears of provoking border state defections, limited the act to property directly used in aiding rebellion, thereby preserving fragile Union loyalty in slaveholding areas like and without compromising core war aims. This pragmatic moderation, while sparking tensions with Republican Radicals, arguably prevented policy-induced fractures that could have undermined enlistment cohesion and prolonged the conflict.

Advocacy for Negotiated Peace and Armistice

Peace Democrats, a faction within the Northern Democratic Party also known as Copperheads, contended that the Civil War's escalating costs rendered unconditional military victory unattainable and advocated for an armistice to enable constitutional negotiations aimed at restoring the Union. As early as January 1863, prominent leader Clement Vallandigham outlined a plan in his Mount Vernon address calling for an immediate armistice without formal treaty, withdrawal of Union armies to pre-secession borders, and a national convention to address sectional grievances, including slavery's future through lawful amendment processes rather than coerced abolition. This approach echoed sentiments in Democratic state conventions and congressional speeches throughout 1863, where members argued that prolonged conflict eroded Union loyalty in the South and empowered abolitionist radicals, shifting war aims from preservation to transformation and delaying reintegration on moderate terms. Their realism drew on empirical indicators of war fatigue, prominently citing the of July 13–16, 1863, which resulted in at least 119 deaths, widespread property destruction, and violent backlash against and policies as proof that domestic unrest threatened Northern cohesion. Peace Democrats maintained that such events demonstrated the draft's unpopularity and the risks of sustaining a protracted campaign, warning that continued absolutism in pursuit of total surrender would alienate Southern unionists— opposed to —who favored negotiated reunion over devastation. By late 1863, following Union setbacks like Gettysburg and Vicksburg, they intensified calls for cease-fire resolutions in district conventions, predating the 1865 by proposing similar mediated talks to avert further and fiscal strain, positioning themselves as pragmatic defenders of against ideological overreach. This advocacy framed not as capitulation but as a causal necessity for sustainable , asserting that military coercion alone could not constitutionally resolve without fracturing the Union irreparably, and that would allow deliberation on or gradual phase-out via , preserving democratic processes amid mounting casualties exceeding 200,000 by mid-1863. Critics within the faction, however, attributed some sentiment to Confederate , though core arguments rested on observable failures like recruitment shortfalls and riotous dissent signaling the limits of coercive reconstruction.

Controversies and Oppositions

Criticisms of Lincoln's Policies

Northern Democrats condemned President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ of , first authorized on April 27, 1861, as a flagrant violation of constitutional limits on executive authority, arguing that Article I, Section 9 reserved suspension power exclusively to Congress during cases of rebellion or invasion. In (May 28, 1861), Chief Justice declared the suspension unconstitutional, asserting that the president lacked unilateral power to override judicial process, a position Northern Democrats invoked to portray Lincoln's action as dictatorial and enabling unchecked military arrests that bypassed civil courts and protections. Lincoln's persistent disregard of Taney's ruling, extending the suspension nationwide by 1863, amplified Democratic charges of executive tyranny, as it facilitated the detention of civilians suspected of disloyalty without evidence or trial, undermining by centralizing coercive power in Washington. This policy resulted in thousands of arbitrary arrests across the North, with records indicating over 13,000 civilian detentions for political reasons by war's end, often targeting Democratic critics and ordinary citizens on vague suspicions of aiding the Confederacy, further eroding and local . Northern Democrats, emphasizing , viewed these measures as preempting state judiciaries and legislatures, converting the Union into a military that prioritized federal consolidation over constitutional balance. The , issued January 1, 1863, faced vehement Democratic opposition as an unconstitutional seizure of private property without compensation, contravening the Fifth Amendment's and takings clauses by declaring slaves in Confederate territories free while exempting Union-held areas where slavery persisted. Critics like those in Midwestern Democratic circles argued it represented not principled abolition but a expedient military ploy amid Union setbacks, such as after the , exceeding presidential war powers under Article II by dictating domestic property relations in states beyond federal control and provoking unnecessary Southern resistance. From a standpoint, the proclamation intruded on state-level , treating slaves as chattel subject to owner rights rather than federal , and failed to address slavery's persistence in loyal border states like and . Lincoln's conscription policies under the (March 3, 1863) drew fire for imposing unequal burdens that exacerbated class divisions, as the $300 commutation fee and substitute provisions allowed affluent men to evade service while drafting poorer whites, with local bounties—often $500 to $1,000 in Northern cities—still favoring those with means to negotiate exemptions or delays. Democrats highlighted how this system fueled resentment among working-class voters, viewing it as a federal overreach infringing states' militia prerogatives under the and Tenth , transforming voluntary enlistment into coerced servitude that prioritized national quotas over equitable state obligations. The issuance of greenbacks via the Legal Tender Acts of 1862 and 1863 was lambasted by Northern Democrats as an inflationary assault on sound money principles, forcing unbacked paper currency into circulation in violation of the Constitution's contract clause and historical specie standards, which debased savings and burdened debtors unevenly while enriching speculators tied to federal financing. Publications like the Democratic Old Guard accused the policy of corrupting commerce by undermining states' rights to regulate local economies free from depreciated federal tender, with inflation rates surging over 80% by 1864, hitting wage earners hardest and exemplifying executive fiat over legislative and market discipline.

Accusations of Disloyalty and Government Suppression

Republicans frequently labeled Copperheads as traitors disloyal to the Union war effort, particularly associating them with secret societies such as the Knights of the Golden Circle and the Sons of Liberty, which were accused of fomenting conspiracies to undermine federal authority and aid Confederate sympathizers in the North. These groups, rebranded in some Midwestern states as part of the Copperhead movement, were alleged by Union officials to harbor plans for armed uprisings and desertion networks, prompting charges that extended beyond rhetoric to purported treasonous actions. A key case was the May 5, 1863, arrest and military commission trial of Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham, convicted for a public speech denouncing the war as a "wicked, cruel, and unnecessary" conflict that declared Lincoln a king and encouraged resistance to conscription, with prosecutors arguing it gave aid and comfort to the enemy. The U.S. Supreme Court in Ex parte Vallandigham (1863) declined to overturn the conviction but affirmed military jurisdiction over such dissent amid wartime exigencies, setting a precedent for suppressing antiwar speech perceived as seditious. Government responses included widespread arrests without civil trials under the suspension of , targeting Copperhead leaders and sympathizers in states like and , where military districts authorized detentions of suspected plotters. Newspaper suppressions exemplified this crackdown; on May 18, 1864, federal troops seized the offices of the New York Journal of Commerce and the after they published a forged falsely attributing a 400,000-man draft call to Lincoln, halting publication for days amid claims of intentional deception to incite draft riots. While some Copperheads did assist deserters—evidenced in trials revealing localized networks for harboring draft evaders—the scale of alleged nationwide plots was contested, with historical analyses indicating Republican amplified fears to discredit Democratic opposition. Postwar assessments and legal reversals underscored elements of exaggeration in disloyalty charges; the Supreme Court's ruling on April 3, 1866, declared military trials unconstitutional for civilians in areas with functioning civil courts, leading to the release of Indiana Copperhead Lambdin P. Milligan and invalidating similar convictions against alleged members, suggesting overreach in equating with . Empirical indicators of broader Copperhead loyalty included Democratic support for initial war funding measures, such as the 1861 emergency sessions of where Northern Democrats voted alongside Republicans for loans and appropriations totaling over $500 million by 1862, and sustained tax compliance in Democrat-heavy states that contributed to federal revenues funding 60% of Union expenditures through internal taxes by war's end. Critics of the suppressions, including postwar Democrats, argued these actions eroded republican principles by prioritizing security over , though proponents cited isolated evidences of Copperhead collaboration with Confederate agents as justification for preemptive measures.

Racial Views and Resistance to Emancipation

Northern Democrats predominantly adhered to white supremacist ideologies, viewing as inherently inferior and unfit for social or political equality with whites. Stephen Douglas, a leading figure in the party, articulated this stance during the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates, declaring that he opposed "negro equality" and "negro citizenship" because the government was established "on the white basis... by white men, for the benefit of white men & their posterity forever." Such sentiments were widespread among party members, who argued that racial separation was a natural order and that integration would degrade white labor and society. Party leaders resisted on grounds that it would unleash a flood of freed slaves into Northern states, undercutting white wages through cheap labor competition and sparking social disorder. Northern Democrats condemned the of September 22, 1862, as an unconstitutional executive overreach that prioritized abolition over Union preservation, with figures like decrying it as a shift from military to racial war aims. In , they mounted staunch opposition to the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery; the measure failed in the House in June 1864 due to Democratic resistance, passing only in January 1865 after Republican electoral gains, with just 7 of 80 voting Democrats supporting it alongside 86 Republicans. Similarly, initial Democratic hostility extended to the Fourteenth Amendment's , which many saw as conferring undue rights on blacks. This resistance mirrored broader Northern white sentiment, where faced popular rejection beyond party lines; for instance, referenda on black rights in states like in 1862 and in 1863 overwhelmingly barred black migration or , with margins exceeding 90% against in some cases, underscoring racism's normalization across laboring classes fearful of economic displacement. While proponents argued such opposition averted immediate racial upheaval in the North, it causally contributed to prolonging the war by foreclosing compromises that might have contained without full abolition, as Democrats rejected concessions tying Union restoration to .

Decline and Legacy

Postwar Reintegration into the Democratic Party

Following the Confederate surrender at Appomattox on April 9, 1865, the distinct factions within the Northern Democratic Party began to dissolve, with War Democrats providing a transitional link to the broader Reconstruction-era Democratic opposition. Andrew Johnson, a prominent War Democrat from who had supported the Union war effort, ascended to the presidency upon Lincoln's assassination and implemented a lenient Reconstruction policy that emphasized quick restoration of Southern states without stringent conditions on former rebels. This approach aligned with moderate Democratic priorities but clashed with in Congress, culminating in Johnson's by the on February 24, 1868, and Senate on May 26, 1868, which underscored the faction's vulnerability to partisan attacks and eroded its independent influence. Copperhead advocates of negotiated peace, having lost credibility amid the Union's military triumph and facing postwar stigma from Republican dominance, were largely sidelined within the party, though elements of their emphasis on limited federal power persisted in Democratic rhetoric against Reconstruction. At the in from July 4–9, —a former New York governor with prior sympathies for peace Democrats—was nominated for president, signaling the absorption of factional remnants into a unified platform. The convention's resolutions declared the unconstitutional, demanded immediate state restoration to the Union, affirmed as a matter, and called for universal for political offenses, while treating and as settled issues without reviving explicit demands. Reintegration accelerated through legislative measures like the , enacted on May 22, 1872, which lifted office-holding disqualifications under the Fourteenth Amendment for approximately 150,000 former Confederates (excluding about 500 high-ranking officers), backed by Democrats and moderate Republicans despite Radical opposition. This restoration enabled to reclaim political control, bolstering the national party's viability and allowing Northern holdouts—diminished by wartime electoral losses and Republican majorities—to realign under a shared anti-Reconstruction banner focused on federal restraint and reconciliation. The process reflected pragmatic adaptation to Union victory, with the party's empirical weakening from sustained defeats (e.g., minimal congressional gains until ) compelling consolidation over factionalism.

Long-Term Influence on American Politics

The Northern Democratic Party's substantial electoral performance in , securing approximately 45 percent of the popular vote for its nominee , illustrated the depth of antiwar sentiment in the North and reinforced the two-party system's durability during national crisis. This level of opposition, concentrated in Midwestern states like and , compelled the Republican administration to navigate persistent political checks, averting the consolidation of unchallenged federal authority that might have emerged in a less contested environment. By sustaining viable dissent, the party ensured that debates over war powers and executive overreach—such as suspensions and —remained central to postwar constitutional discourse, influencing interpretations of Article I limits on congressional war declarations. The faction's insistence on negotiated over fostered a tradition of constitutional realism within Democratic ranks, emphasizing empirical costs over ideological absolutism in policy formulation. The Civil War's toll, estimated at 620,000 deaths, underscored the potential consequences of rejecting , a calculus that resonated in later Democratic critiques of moralistic interventions. This legacy manifested in the party's recurring role as a to expansive , as seen in 20th-century conservative Democrats' resistance to unchecked centralization, thereby preserving institutional balances against one-party dominance. Though often maligned for racial conservatism that slowed emancipation's momentum, the Northern Democrats' focus on and pragmatic resolution contributed to enduring skepticism of centralized power, shaping the party's contributions to balanced . Their platform's rejection of unlimited war aims prefigured anti-interventionist undercurrents in U.S. politics, prioritizing causal assessments of over abstract commitments to by force. This strain helped maintain partisan pluralism, evident in the Democratic Party's resurgence and its function as a foil to Republican hegemony through the .

References

  1. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/democratic-party-platform-1860-douglas-faction/
  2. https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/1860-election.htm
  3. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/northern-democratic-party-platform-1860
  4. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=3&psid=3950
  5. https://www.historians.org/teaching-learning/aha-historical-collections/16-months-to-sumter/chronology-of-major-events-leading-to-secession-crisis/
  6. https://www.americanheritage.com/douglas-deadlock-disunion
  7. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/election-1860
  8. https://hddev.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/32284
  9. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-american-political-development/article/reconsidering-the-southern-veto-the-twothirds-rule-at-democratic-national-conventions-18321936/C7CBA0881EF7355C6B4B3FC83CF35DEF
  10. https://millercenter.org/president/lincoln/campaigns-and-elections
  11. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/stephen-douglas
  12. https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/freeport-doctrine.htm
  13. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/lincoln-douglas-debates/
  14. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1856-democratic-party-platform
  15. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/democratic-party-platforms/
  16. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Kansas_Nebraska_Act.htm
  17. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/kansas-nebraska-act
  18. https://civilwaronthewesternborder.org/encyclopedia/douglas-stephen
  19. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Crittenden_Compromise.htm
  20. https://www.history.com/articles/crittenden-compromise-slavery-civil-war
  21. https://13thamendment.harpweek.com/hubpages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=02Crittenden
  22. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/crittenden-compromise
  23. https://resources.ohiohistory.org/ohj/browse/displaypages.php?display%5B%5D=0086&display%5B%5D=19&display%5B%5D=40
  24. https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html
  25. https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5292&context=gradschool_dissertations
  26. https://www.ohioacademyofhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2003Weaver.pdf
  27. https://naucenter.as.virginia.edu/blog-page/fight-upon-us-douglas-democrats-respond-fort-sumter
  28. https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/copperheads.html
  29. https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/the-war-democrats-big-night/
  30. https://libraries.psu.edu/about/collections/unearthing-past-student-research-pennsylvania-history/democratic-party-and-its
  31. https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2018/04/the-lieber-code-the-first-modern-codification-of-the-laws-of-war/
  32. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0032.105/--lincoln-s-critics-the-copperheads?rgn=main%3Bview=fulltext
  33. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0032.105/--lincoln-s-critics-the-copperheads?rgn=main;view=fulltext
  34. https://study.com/academy/lesson/copperheads-overview-history.html
  35. https://www.americanheritage.com/most-unpopular-man-north
  36. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Clement-L-Vallandigham
  37. https://www.ohiocivilwarcentral.com/clement-vallandigham/
  38. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1864-democratic-party-platform
  39. https://www.nytimes.com/1864/08/30/archives/from-chicago-the-democratic-convention-immense-gathering.html
  40. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/antietam
  41. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=masters202029
  42. https://www.senate.gov/senators/FeaturedBios/Featured_Bio_Douglas_Stephen.htm
  43. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3278
  44. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/lincoln-douglas-debates
  45. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/civil_war/DouglasSpeech_FeaturedDoc.htm
  46. https://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/this-day-in-politics-june-3-1861-118544
  47. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senator_Stephen_Douglas_Dies.htm
  48. https://www.naucenter.as.virginia.edu/blog-page/fight-upon-us-douglas-democrats-respond-fort-sumter
  49. https://www.knoxhistory.org/index.php/local-history/historic-markers/vallandighams-speech
  50. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol7/iss1/3/
  51. https://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/6760
  52. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/68/243/
  53. https://www.historynet.com/the-peculiar-banishment-of-clement-l-vallandigham-2/
  54. https://www.ohiocivilwarcentral.com/samuel-sullivan-cox/
  55. https://www.americanheritage.com/new-yorks-bloodiest-week
  56. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24436131
  57. https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1860
  58. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/1860
  59. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/united-states-presidential-election-of-1860/
  60. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/1860
  61. https://www.nps.gov/kemo/learn/historyculture/wardeclared.htm
  62. https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/1858-midterm.htm
  63. https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/congress/map/1862
  64. https://emergingcivilwar.com/2016/11/01/1860s-politics-the-challenges-of-1862/
  65. https://www.nga.org/governor/horatio-seymour/
  66. https://www.librarycompany.org/mcallisterexhibition/section5.htm
  67. https://resources.ohiohistory.org/ohj/browse/displaypages.php?display[]=0082&display[]=88&display[]=104
  68. https://78ohio.org/war-time-elections/1863-gubernatorial-race/
  69. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/democrats-nominate-mcclellan-to-challenge-lincoln-aug-31-1864-227488
  70. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=432
  71. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1837494
  72. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/14/article/420537
  73. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/george-b-mcclellan-1864-election-broadside
  74. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/1864
  75. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/1864
  76. https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1864
  77. https://www.britannica.com/topic/War-Democrat
  78. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/civil_war/SenatesWorkContinues.htm
  79. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/enrollment-act-1863-conscription-act
  80. https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/union-and-confederate-politics.html
  81. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/ConfiscationActs.htm
  82. https://www.britannica.com/event/Confiscation-Acts
  83. https://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/civil-war/congressional-action-inaction/confiscation-acts/index.html
  84. https://civilwarmonths.com/2023/01/14/constitution-peace-reunion/
  85. https://dsc.duq.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1991&context=etd
  86. https://www.historians.org/presidential-address/james-m-mcpherson/
  87. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/apush/copperheadspeace-democrats
  88. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/ex-parte-merryman/
  89. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/may-28/lincolns-suspension-of-habeas-corpus-is-challenged
  90. https://www.aei.org/articles/suspending-habeas-corpus-a-lincolnian-guide/
  91. https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/lincolns-prisoners/
  92. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2716655
  93. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0031.104/--bill-of-lading-delivers-the-goods-the-constitutionality?rgn=main%3Bview=fulltext
  94. https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/rising-up-against-the-civil-war/
  95. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/etd/article/2571/&path_info=Mosvick_umiss_0131A_12011.pdf
  96. https://www.journalofthecivilwarera.org/2016/10/bubble-greenbacks-corruption-politics-looking-backwards/
  97. https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/knights-of-the-golden-circle
  98. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/imh/article/download/9470/12652/24897
  99. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/ex-parte-vallandigham/
  100. http://users.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/courses/may2003/vallandigham_commission.htm
  101. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstreams/c1b6731c-05ea-4be9-9af2-5581c3f4e144/download
  102. https://www.nytimes.com/1864/05/19/archives/the-forged-proclamation-public-excitement-and-indignation.html
  103. https://newseumed.org/tools/critical-debate/1864-lincoln-administration-seizes-opposition-newspapers
  104. http://users.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/milligan_copperhead_conspirator.htm
  105. https://www.taxnotes.com/lr/resolve/tax-history-project/an-army-of-officials-the-civil-war-bureau-of-internal-revenue/103rf
  106. https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/senate-passes-the-thirteenth-amendment.htm
  107. https://www.snopes.com/articles/463909/democrats-opposed-amendments-slavery/
  108. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jillistathistsoc.113.3-4.0121
  109. https://greatamericanhistory.net/the-thirteenth-amendment/
  110. https://millercenter.org/president/johnson/campaigns-and-elections
  111. https://www.nps.gov/anjo/andrew-johnson-and-reconstruction.htm
  112. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=wvuhistoricalreview
  113. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/party-platforms-of-1868/
  114. https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/why-remember-amnesty-act-reconstruction/
  115. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=11&psid=4520
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.