Copperheads: The Rise and Fall of Lincoln's Opponents in the North

by Jennifer L. Weber

The Northern home-front during the Civil War was far from tranquil. Fierce political debates set communities on edge, spurred secret plots against the Union, and triggered widespread violence. At the heart of all this turmoil stood the anti-war Democrats, nicknamed "Copperheads."

Now, Jennifer L. Weber offers the first full-length portrait of this powerful faction to appear in almost half a century. Weber reveals how the Copperheads came perilously close to defeating Lincoln and ending the war in the South's favor. Indeed, by the summer of 1864, they had grown so strong that Lincoln himself thought his defeat was "exceedingly likely." Passionate defenders of civil liberties and states' rights--and often virulent racists--the Copperheads deplored Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, his liberal interpretation of the Constitution, and, most vehemently, his moves toward emancipation. Weber reveals how the battle over these issues grew so heated that Northerners feared their neighbors would destroy their livestock, burn their homes, even kill them. And she illuminates the role of Union soldiers, who, furious at Copperhead attacks on the war effort, moved firmly behind Lincoln. The soldiers' support for the embattled president kept him alive politically in his
darkest times, and their victories on the battlefield secured his re-election.

Packed with sharp observation and fresh interpretations, Copperheads is a gripping account of the fierce dissent that Lincoln called "the fire in the rear."

Genres: History, Civil War, Nonfiction, American History, American Civil War, Politics, Historical

304 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Jennifer Weber is a native of California who worked for several years in her home state as a journalist and political aide. Her principal interest is the Civil War, especially the seams where political, social, and military history come together.

Dr. Weber is co-director of the Hall Center's seminar on Peace, War, and Global Change. In addition to her work at the University of Kansas, she serves on the advisory panel for the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission.

Reviews

[Bill · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a perfectly serviceable book about an interesting topic that somehow didn’t make too much of an impression on me. Partly I think because it’s written in a dry, academic style that moves from theme to theme to theme like so many bullet points. Partly it’s because the book lacks any storytelling involving specific compelling individuals. And partly it’s due to the subject matter - Copperheads who were opposed to the Civil War were a disorganized, decentralized group, so it’s hard to make generalizations and reach grand conclusions about them.

So the book considers them as a whole, explaining the various reasons that various Northerners opposed Lincoln and his war effort. Many were opposed to a strong central government and the unconstitutional executive overreach they believed Lincoln was responsible for. Some were ambivalent about slavery and race, and would have been happy to let the South go, with slavery intact. Ultimately, military conscription proved to be the tipping point, turning restrained grumbling into loud and angry opposition.

Arguments over civil liberties and constitutionalism didn’t exactly resonate with the general public. The issue of emancipation did - while War Democrats who supported Lincoln reluctantly accepted emancipation as a war measure, Copperheads never did. But the draft was a bridge too far for many war critics. One of the best parts of the book is the thorough descriptions of anti-draft riots - not only the ones that famously took place in New York, but those that took place elsewhere as well.

Much of the book simply tracks events in the war and Copperheads’ reaction to them - Union setbacks hardened their positions, while Union victories made their arguments increasingly irrelevant. The election year of 1864 marked both the high and low points for the Copperheads, who optimistically headed into the Democratic convention, seized control of the party platform, and got one of their own on the national ticket with George McClellan.

Occurring right on the eve of Sherman's capture of Atlanta, though, the Democrats’ convention may have been “the worst-timed event in American political history,” Weber observes. Spirits soared among supporters of the war effort, soldiers who took criticism of the war personally voted in droves for Lincoln, and Copperheads’ insistence that the war couldn’t be won and that peace must come at almost any cost “left an impression of defeatism” that doomed them at the polls.

While Union battlefield victories undoubtedly helped seal the Copperheads’ fate, "in many ways,” Weber writes, "the Copperheads were brought down not by external events but by their own weaknesses.” They were unable to come up with coherent plans on how they'd end the war and achieve peace - they “would only criticize, not offer a workable alternative.” They couldn’t beat back accusations that they were disloyal. And they ultimately acted “only as naysayers and obstructionists,” never coming together to speak in a unified voice and put forward workable proposals of their own.

Perhaps the most notable part of the book is that Weber pushes back against Copperhead scholar Frank Klement, who argued years ago that the virulence of much Copperhead opposition was overstated, the result of Republican propaganda, and was never really a serious threat to Lincoln’s presidency or the war effort. Weber disagrees, and points out how devious and potentially destructive some of the Copperheads could be.

For the most part, though, the book is a straightforward retelling of the war and the various events that fueled - and ultimately deflated - the war’s critics. The antiwar movement was too disorganized to be considered much of a serious threat, and the Union’s battlefield victories drowned out their criticisms. So while the book isn’t a bad one by any means, it seems like it tries to do too much with too little, in examining the opposition that ended up not amounting to much, either.

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

What if there was a group of anti-war protestors that were organized on the home front during the Civil War? What level of impact did they have on Union war efforts? Were they to be taken seriously? This book deftly answers these questions. My favorite thing about the book, though, were the political cartoons illustrated throughout the text. They really tied the whole thing together and helped with the narrative. Overall a very good read and well worth the time spent.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting topic, but reads like a Ph.D thesis that made it into print. Which I suspect is exactly what it is.

[Louise · Rating 4 out of 5]

Weber has done her homework. The early part of the book, in particular, shows wide ranging new sources: letters, diaries, small town newspapers. This is the most important part of the book because it brings together new information and provides a basis for further scholars.

Examples from all of the northern states (or so I think, I didn't count) show how widespread the movement was. The nature of the anecdotal material does not demonstrate how deep it was. It appears to be deep in some communities and families, but the only polling data of the time, the elections of 1862 and 1864 do not reflect that depth. Weber points out the circumstantial nature of these elections and how the Copperheads' fortunes rose and fell with success on the battlefield. I held back a star, though, because in the MANY stories of people, towns and politicians I did not find a central overview.

The later part of McClellan's nomination and the election that follows while not so rich in new material, for me, it was an excellent read. Weber documents and explains how a "War" candidate and a "Peace" candidate came to be nominated in the same convention. She goes on to explain Lincoln's landslide.

The description demise of the Copperheads is brief. Maybe this is all that is merited, but it would have been good to have some examples here, especially of the aforementioned communities where the Copperheads caused loss of life and property damage.

Weber sticks with history and does not draw parallels for today. Since it is mentioned by other reviewers, I will note Weber's observation that this peace movement was one of the conservative faction of the Democratic party. Today's peace movement has its origins in the liberal faction of today's Democratic party. It seems that the only thing Copperheads have in common with those against the operation is Iraqi is being against "a" war. Weber clearly shows how racism fueled the Copperheads. This issue is not at all present in the current peace movement.

This book is a good contribution to Civil War research. Its substance and sources will surely be used for future material.

[Shelli · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book for research and I’m glad I did. In all, I feel like I have a solid understanding of what the Copperheads were about and how they influenced the Civil War. It’s a bit dry reading at times, but the important facts, quotes, and events are all there. Also, now I’ve got all these splinter topics lining up in my to-read queue. I’m determined to read that massive Lincoln biography I bought and make a study of his life. And the Civil War in general. The loss of human life from that war is staggering. This brings me back to the Copperheads. They were rightly disgusted by the death toll, but they had no plan to stop it and had no solutions. Just complaints. They didn’t understand where either side—North or South—was coming from. They just made trouble and ultimately, it can be argued, prolonged the war, hurt the effort, and gave rise to the death toll. Since their main tenet was supposedly to save lives, mission not accomplished.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

A study of the anti-war faction in the North during the Civil War. A fascinating topic usually skimmed over in textbooks and surveys of the US Civil War. Written in more of an academic style than a "popular" style.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Civil War was a time of great national trauma, an event that scarred the American psyche. It is of no surprise, then, that books and other media on the subject are published with great regularity. The vast majority of these works, from my perspective, tend to deal with the military aspect of this "fiery trial". It is thus refreshing to find Jennifer Weber's Copperheads: The Rise and Fall of Lincoln's Opponents in the North, a book dealing with the titular ideologues who attempted to obstruct Lincoln and the republicans in their prosecution of the war.

The book serves to further texture one's understanding of the conflict, detailing the motives, machinations and ideals of the Copperheads as they attempted make "the union as it was, the constitution as it is" -- a favorite slogan that Weber effectively shows had no substance behind it; the Copperheads had no plan to actually end the war amicably, much less a strategy for reintegrating an unwilling South with the North. Furthermore, Copperheads helps fill a blindspot in Civil War literature. She states in her introduction that "only three major books have been written about the Copperheads, and the last of those came out in 1960." Her work describes a fractious group of Northerners whose story has either been ignored or dismissed as inconsequential and trivial.

Weber explicitly strives to communicate four main points about her subject: that (1), dissent to the war was non-trivial; (2), hostilities between "peace men" and "war men" in the North made this a "neighbor's war" as well as a brother's war; (3), the war effort was materially diminished by inciting men to desert and draft-dodge; and (4), such war dissidents raised the ire of the men actually fighting for them. She successfully conveys all points through thorough descriptions of actions taken by individuals and groups reacting to history, and through effective employment of primary sources when available. In other words, Weber justifies the book's existence wonderfully.

I can't help but find two faults with the book, however. One of which I feel she had no control over and one which she did. Weber mentions in her introduction that the private writings of these Copperheads is scarce to nonexistant: no letters, no journals, no diaries. This weakness of history is represented within her work. I felt that I didn't know the actual people behind the sloganeering, slandering and political sabotage. How genuine were these people's motivations while saying things so disingenuously? We have no glimpse into their minds to contemplate such questions. No intellectual portraits of any of the leading figures can be made without any such documents. Thus, I can only perceive the Copperheads as a group of people who shared an ideology, not as distinct individuals with common cause.

Second, I take issue with a statement made at the beginning of the book that I feel is underexplored in the text. Weber states, "For their many faults, . . . most Copperheads were not traitors." She says "most", which presumably excludes the Northerners who attempted to aid uprisings and free Rebel prisoners of war, kill people due to the draft, and other violent schemes that never quite got off the ground due more to practicality than lack of intent. The rhetoric from war democrats, republicans and soldiers in the field, however, seems to label far more dissenters as traitorous for far less -- at times even family members were considered traitors by union soldiers if their letters did not seem supportive enough of Lincoln's intiatives. I would have liked to see some discussion on what Weber's exact definition of traitor is in the context of her above statement, and to contrast that with what the Copperheads' contemporaries felt that word meant. The line between dissent and disloyalty seemed to blur, both for those who sympathized with the Copperheads and those who merely observed their actions. Some discussion of the culpability of Copperheads regarding their rhetoric and actions would have been much appreciated.

Weber's book is a very readable entry into the body of Civil War literature, eschewing military minutiae to highlight a little-studied aspect of the war. Her detailed description of the Copperheads, their supporters and their haters furthered my understanding of the dynamics at play in one of the most important events in American history.

A NOTE ON THE KINDLE EDITION:

The kindle edition is well made. Linked table of contents, linked endnotes, what one would expect from a kindle edition these days. I noticed one typo in the text, and it did not seem to be due to the digitizing of the physical book, just a run of the mill editing mistake. Or I could've misread a perfectly valid sentence. Either way. My one issue is with the images. The image quality is on par with other kindle books, so not great. These are mainly reproductions of political cartoons appearing in periodicals like Harper's Weekly. While all images in the book have a note about them by the author, some of these cartoons have a few sentences within the image itself which are very difficult to read. Other than that a fine kindle edition that I won't mind reading again.

[Jason S · Rating 4 out of 5]

A detailed look at the divisions in the Democratic Party in the North under Lincoln. Argues persuasively that a combination of bad timing and lack of leadership lead to the collapse and failure of this movement in its attempts to thwart Lincoln and end the Civil War.

[Tim · Rating 2 out of 5]

A book that is easy to read and makes some good points. A little disorganized and some slightly contradictory statements, but overall a decent study.

[Daniel Pearse · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting look at anti-war northern war democrats and their role during the second American Civil War. Good details and and evidence of a little known aspect of that time period.

[Mark Singer · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Copperheads, aka Peace Democrats, were often dismissed in the late twentieth century by historians as overrated and toothless, but Weber demonstrates that they were dangerous and were a genuine threat to Lincoln's presidency.

[John Maniscalco · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the more intriguing figures in American history is Clement Vallandingham, a congressman from Ohio who believed the Union war effort to be a failure and advocated a reunified U.S. by making concessions to the Confederacy. I could not find a biography on him, so I opted instead to read a book on the movement of which he was a leader.

The Copperhead Movement was a true threat to the Union war effort and had three distinct phases. First, conservative strict constructionists believed the war to be illegal and that states who voluntarily entered the Union could also voluntarily leave. The logical conclusion is that Lincoln's efforts (invading the South, suspending Habeus Corpus, etc) to preserve the country's territorial integrity are the acts of a tyrant. Second, a racist phase ensued when the Emancipation Proclamation, in the eyes of many northerners, transformed the effort to a war for the union to a war for abolition, something which they believed white soldiers should not die for. And finally, a third phase entered in 1864 when a string of Confederate victories led many northerners to believe the effort to reunite the country by force was futile and advocated that concessions be made to the Confederates in order to lure them back into the Union. The Copperhead movement, while strong at times, was ultimately doomed to failure because they refused to acknowledge that the Confederacy would never agree to a peace that did not include southern independence and never promoted a viable alternative to war. Their demise was finally achieved as the Union military victories in late 1864 and early 1865 made the Confederacy's collapse all but inevitable. This book also made clear the effect that civilian criticisms had on the soldiers and how their advocacy to perpetuate the war was a major force in the defeat the peace movement.

As I see it, the Copperheads had a Constitutional leg to stand on. The Constitution is silent on secession and, in 1860, one could plausibly take the stand that the states, which created the federal government, could leave if they felt the compact they entered no longer furthered their interests. Before the surrender of the last Confederate army, there were several attempts to break off chunks of the union to form regional republics - the Hartford Convention, South Carolina during Jackson's presidency, the Northwest during the Civil War, etc. The danger of the disintegration of the country has never reemerged since the Civil War and those that advocate secession now are relegated to fringe organizations. Though we are fortunate that the Civil War put to rest any serious talk of secession, Copperheads, at the time, were advocating a stance that had been historically viable and even endorsed by Thomas Jefferson. With this philosophical and historical support, Copperheads were certainly free to disagree with Webster, and ultimately with Lincoln, both of whom believed the Union to be perpetual. To describe them as strict constructionist reactionaries, as this book does, I believe is a little unfair. Otherwise, this book's assessment of the Copperhead movement is right on.

While this book was certainly very interesting from a historic standpoint, I was struck at how similar the peace wing of the Democratic Party from 150 years ago is to today's counterpart. The assertion that an illegal war, run by an incompetent president, who uses a crisis to justify violating the civil liberties of American citizens, the emergence of an ugly racist facet of opposition to the war, delusions of what benefits the end of fighting will bring, and perhaps most disturbing, the readiness with which to accept defeat was as common in the 1860s as it is in the 2000s. The peace factions, then and now, were quite delusional and one would hope that today's "peace at any cost" advocates will be as discredited as yesterday's Copperheads.

[Glenn Robinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting recount of the politics in the Union during the Civil War. The far Left side of the Democratic Party, known as Copperheads, were against most of what President Lincoln was for and they fought him each step of the way. Obstructionists. Unlike the opposition parties of the modern era, there were widespread murders of those who did not agree with the same views of the Copperheads or the GOP.

The mid term elections, then and now, favored the party not in the White House. The peace Party wanted to settle with the South in 1862. The Democrats wanted to maintain slavery. Status Quo. There was wide spread sentiments to quit the war. Parts of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois wanted to form a new state and join the South. New York City wanted to secede and become an independent city.

By 1864, the Copperheads were powerful enough to threaten Lincoln's chances for re-election. General McClellan was the nominee, but was not a Copperhead. The Copperheads gained control of the platform and wrote an extremely one sided view and this doomed their party's chance. That said, the vote was 55% for Lincoln and 45% for McClellan. Not a landslide. The battle wins of 1864 helped sway the independent voters.

Interesting book that covers a subject that most books just glean over.

[David Bates · Rating 4 out of 5]

Arguing that anti-war sentiment was not the peripheral issue that many historians make it out to be, Weber incorporates figures such as Harrison Dodd, founder of the Sons of Liberty. An Indianapolis printer, Dodd collaborated with the Confederate government, making plans to free Confederate prisoners, attack federal arsenals and lead Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky and Missouri out of the Union. While acknowledging the western sectionalism which colored mid-western Copperheadism, Weber points out that economic complaints played a secondary role in anti-war rhetoric. She broadens the geographic frame to include the rhetoric of opposition which fueled draft riots in New York and New England, and the more passive draft dodging resistance which reached rates of almost thirty percent in the summer of 1864. Citing Clausewitz’s maxim that the prosecution of war relies on the will of the people, the strategy of the government and the skill of the commanders, Weber focuses on the means by which anti-war Democrats amplified and gave vent to war weariness and modified the political environment within which the state and national administrations carried out the war effort.

[Lawrence A · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although the book is chocked full of information concerning northern Democrats who supported the Confederacy, or who at least opposed Lincoln's war to roll back the southern rebellion and the secession of the southern states, it seemed a bit repetitive in its presentation. The historical premise is sound---the political influence of the Copperheads was real, and waxed and waned in inverse proportion to the success of the Union armies on the battlefield. Nonetheless, I had been hoping for something that provided a more analytical comparison of the relative successes of border state, midwestern, and New York Copperheads, and perhaps a quick look at how numerous northern politicians who had been sympathetic to the South prior to the war rallied round the flag after the first shots were fired---oh well, I guess that would require another book. All in all, an informative and useful work.

[Michaelpatrick Keena · Rating 4 out of 5]

Next to the mostly successful Southern armies, Lincoln faced another challenge; the Union citizens who opposed the administration's policies of revoking the writ of Habeas Corpus, sending troops to invade the South, creating the draft, the Emancipation Proclamation, his approving the arrest and imprisonment of those who "voiced" their opposition, etc. These "loyal opposition" in the North, were tagged Copperheads; and with all their being persecuted, they still almost beat Lincoln out of being re-elected.

[John Walker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Certainly a most interesting book that shows not all the north was following lock step with Lincoln during the Civil War. I saw the author on C-Span last week after her presentation had to read the book.

[Kusaimamekirai · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really interesting look at the anti war forces that rallied to some success against Abraham Lincoln during the civil war. With a strict interpretation of the constitution and a visceral hatred of emancipation, their time was short lived but influential nonetheless.

[Nisse89]

Excellent book. Echoes the contemporary scene in Washington today.

[Rosalyn Fairley · Rating 3 out of 5]

History is repeating itself. Lincoln's political struggles mirror Obama's struggles. Fascinating read for all, especially students of history.

[Chad Hastings · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very informational, but the there are signs of the writers pro-union bias.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Deep insights into the roiling politics during the Civil War. Academic, dry, and bursting with novel information. Just the way I like it!

[Andrew Petersen · Rating 4 out of 5]

interesting part of history that is ignored