Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Citizens and soldiers: party competition and the debate in Pennsylvania over permitting soldiers to vote, 1861–64

2004; Routledge; Volume: 5; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/1466465042000257855

1743-7903

Jonathan White,

Race, History, and American Society

Abstract Political historians of the Civil War era frequently downplay the role of the Democratic Party. Studies of the Democrats in wartime often describe the loyal opposition as able to do little more than react to the policies of the Republicans in power. This has been particularly true regarding the debate over whether or not soldiers should be allowed to vote. Most historians assume that Republicans supported permitting soldiers to vote because it was the patriotic, ‘right’ thing to do, and that Democrats then opposed soldier voting because soldier suffrage bills were Republican war measures and because the Democrats believed the Union army would vote overwhelmingly Republican. In point of fact, the Democrats developed their arguments against soldier voting before the Republicans developed their position in favor of it. Moreover, the Democratic position was rooted in deeply held beliefs, dating back to seventeenth‐century England. Democrats opposed permitting soldiers to vote because they believed soldier voting would destroy the republican liberty of American citizens. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Herman Belz, Ira Berlin, William A. Blair, David Grimsted, James A. Henretta, Mark E. Neely, Jr., and Leslie S. Rowland for reading through drafts of this article. I also especially thank Mark Neely for telling me about soldier voting and getting me started on this project while I was an undergraduate. Notes For the revisionist work on the Democratic Party, see Frank L. Klement, The Copperheads in the Middle West (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), The Limits of Dissent: Clement L. Vallandigham & the Civil War (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1970), and Dark Lanterns: Secret Political Societies, Conspiracies, and Treason Trials in the Civil War (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1984); Joel H. Silbey, A Respectable Minority: The Democratic Party in the Civil War Era, 1860–1868 (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977); and Jean H. Baker, Affairs of Party: The Political Culture of Northern Democrats in the Mid‐Nineteenth Century (New York: Fordham University Press, 1998 [1983]). Even though historians generally accept the idea that most northern Democrats were loyal during the Civil War, many historians still think of the Democrats as oppositional or merely reacting to Republican actions. For example, Leonard P. Curry and Jean H. Baker have concluded from their examinations of congressional roll‐call votes that the Democrats were basically loyal because they supported most of the wartime congressional legislation endorsed by Republicans. To a large extent, the focus of these interpretations is on how the Democrats reacted to Republican policy positions. Baker writes: ‘Democrats made few positive contributions to the statutes of the Thirty‐seventh Congress; rather they reacted to Republican proposals. In only a few instances did their amendments modify bills, or their resolutions represent the final position of the Congress.’ See Leonard P. Curry, ‘Congressional Democrats: 1861–1863,’ Civil War History 12 (1966), pp.213–29; Jean H. Baker, ‘A Loyal Opposition: Northern Democrats in the Thirty‐Seventh Congress,’ Civil War History 25 (1979), pp.139–55 (quotation pp.142–3). All of this is not to say that historians do not offer other useful explanations for Democratic actions during the war. Baker, for example, convincingly argues that republican ideology and Burkean conservatism influenced Democratic decision‐making. Mark E. Neely, Jr., The Union Divided: Party Conflict in the Civil War North (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002), pp.118–40. Neely states: ‘Because the Constitution gave the opposition party almost no role in war, the two‐party system mattered less to the war effort than is often thought. That constitutional fact of life has been reflected unconsciously in this historical literature, which offers few studies of the Democratic Party during the Civil War.’ Ibid., p.120. I find Neely's central argument, that two‐party competition was not beneficial to the Union war effort, convincing. Josiah Benton, Voting in the Field: A Forgotten Chapter of the Civil War (Boston: Plimpton Press, 1915), pp.307–8. Other scholars who adopt Benton's explanation include Harold M. Hyman, A More Perfect Union: The Impact of the Civil War and Reconstruction on the Constitution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1973), p.204, James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New York: Ballantine Books, 1988), p.804, and Arnold M. Shankman, The Pennsylvania Antiwar Movement, 1861–1865 (Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1980), pp.172–3. Samuel T. McSeveney argues that the Republicans were consistent in their position on soldier voting from the beginning to the end of the war. See McSeveney, ‘Winning the Vote for the Connecticut Soldiers in the Field, 1862–1864: A Research Note and Historiographical Comment,’ Connecticut History 26 (1985), pp.115–25. Pennsylvania Legislature, Acts of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: John Bloren, 1813), p.213; Pennsylvania Legislature, Laws of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg: Packer, Barrett and Paree, 1839), pp.519, 528–9, hereafter cited as Laws of Pennsylvania (1838–9). New Jersey passed soldier suffrage legislation in 1815 but repealed the law in 1820. See Benton, Voting in the Field, pp.269–70. ‘The Election – The True Policy,’ Philadelphia Inquirer, 4 Oct. 1861; ‘The “No Party” Ticket,’ Philadelphia Inquirer, 5 Oct. 1861. ‘Politicians in Camp,’ Philadelphia Inquirer, 4 Oct. 1861; ‘The Great Revolution of Public Sentiment,’ New York Evening Post, 13 Dec. 1862. In the October elections in Pennsylvania, the official results were 11,851 soldiers voting Republican and 8,178 Democratic. ‘The Election in the Camp – A Dispirited Affair,’ Philadelphia Inquirer, 9 Oct. 1861; ‘The Voting in Camps,’ (Harrisburg) Pennsylvania Daily Telegraph, 14 Oct. 1861. Pennsylvania Legislature, Legislative Documents. Miscellaneous Documents Read in the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg: Boyd Hamilton, 1862), pp.1321–4, 1328–422. There were seven contested elections for seats in the state General Assembly, but only four of them concerned the soldier vote. Pennsylvania Legislature, Journal of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, of the Session Begun at Harrisburg, on the Seventh Day of January, A. D. 1862 (Harrisburg: A. Boyd Hamilton, 1862), pp.277–9. ‘The War for the Union: From Philadelphia,’ New York Daily Tribune, 22 Nov. 1861. Politicians and newspapermen were not the only ones concerned about the soldier vote. Just as their stances on the issue were based on immediate political concerns, so too, many other civilians opposed permitting soldiers to vote based on their own impressions of the outcome of the elections. For example, one Republican woman wrote to her nephew in November 1861: ‘What an unfortunate thing that the troops were allowed to vote. There seems to be much trouble in regard to them.’ See Julieann Elizabeth Whitaker to Samuel W. Pennypacker, 12 Nov. 1861, Pennypacker Mills, County of Montgomery, Schwenksville, Pa. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court was made up of four Democrats and one Republican. Chief Justice Walter H. Lowrie, a Democrat, was elected to the bench in 1851. The other Democrats were George W. Woodward, who joined the bench in 1852, and James Thompson and William Strong, both elected in 1857. The lone Republican, John M. Read, was elected to the court in 1858. At some point during the war Strong became a Republican, but it is unclear if it was before or after this case. ‘Legal Intelligence,’ Philadelphia Inquirer, 27 Nov. 1861. Ibid. The Republicans immediately contested the result. In May 1862, in another case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled unconstitutional the law permitting soldiers to vote (see below), so when the Court of Quarter Sessions decided these contested elections, in October 1862, they reversed their decision, and, excluding the soldiers' votes, decided in favor of the Republican candidates. This lower court ruling was then sustained by the state supreme court in November 1862, with the high court's Democratic majority upholding the election of the Republican candidates. See Ewing v. Thompson, 43 Pa. 372 (1862), and Ewing v. Filley et al., 43 Pa. 384 (1862). For the opinions of the lower court, see Thompson v. Ewing, 1 Brewster's Reports 67 (1861–62), and Stevenson v. Lawrence, 1 Brewster's Reports 126 (1861–62). Hulseman and Brinkworth v. Rems and Siner, 41 Pa. 399–401 (1861). Ibid., pp.401–2. For more on the widespread nature of this nonpartisan sentiment, see Neely, Union Divided, pp.7–34. ‘Should the Army Vote Count or Not?’ Philadelphia Inquirer, 16 Jan. 1862. Emphasis added by Woodward. Woodward focused on the different qualifications for suffrage in the constitutions of 1790 and 1838 because the legislators who wrote the voting act of 1839 had failed to take into account the qualifications for suffrage in the new constitution that had not appeared in the constitution of 1790. According to Woodward, the legislators had been negligent in hastily patterning the act of 1839 after that of 1813. Another feature new to the constitution of 1838 was the addition of the word ‘white’ to the qualifications of eligible voters. A race requirement had not been a part of Pennsylvania's constitution of 1790. Chase v. Miller, 41 Pa. 418–26 (1862). See note 14 for the May 1862 case. ‘The Decision of the Supreme Court,’ (Harrisburg) Patriot and Union, 24 May 1862. See, also, ‘The Opinion,’ (Wilkes‐Barre) Luzerne Union, 28 May 1862. Shankman, Pennsylvania Antiwar Movement, p.100; Tribune Almanac and Political Register for 1864 (New York: The Tribune Association, 1864), p.58. Abraham Lincoln to Carl Schurz, 10 Nov. 1862, in Roy P. Basler et al. (eds.), The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln 8 vols. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1953–55), vol.5, pp.493–5; A. Ricketts to Levi C. Turner, 28 Aug. 1862, quoted in Mark E. Neely, Jr., The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp.57–8. Three northern states passed legislation permitting soldiers to vote just prior to the 1862 elections (all three in September). In Minnesota, the issue of soldiers voting was first raised in Democratic newspapers, but Republican politicians quickly seized the issue. See Lynwood G. Downs, ‘The Soldier Vote and Minnesota Politics, 1862–65,’ Minnesota History 26 (1945), pp.188–93. In Wisconsin, Republicans passed a similar measure. Frank L. Klement is critical of the Republican Party's motivation: ‘The party politicians visualized a controlled soldiers' vote, … as a medium which would enable Republicanism to keep the stage and the state's governmental machinery. If soldiers were allowed to vote in the field, under the supervision of their Republican regimental officers … it would be possible to develop a vote reserve that could save the day for straggling administration candidates.’ See Frank L. Klement, ‘The Soldier Vote in Wisconsin during the Civil War,’ Wisconsin Magazine of History 28 (1944–45), pp.37–8. In Iowa, the soldier voting law adopted in September 1862 appears to have had bipartisan support. See Benton, Voting in the Field, pp.47–50. Republicans in most northern states did not push for soldier suffrage laws until the 1863 sessions of their state legislatures. Thaddeus Stevens to Henry L. Dawes, 23 Oct. 1862, in Beverly Wilson Palmer and Holly Byers Ochoa (eds.), The Selected Papers of Thaddeus Stevens 2 vols. (Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1997), vol.1, p.325. Stevens to Edward McPherson, 30 Oct. 1862, and McPherson to Stevens, 31 Oct. 1862, in ibid., p.326. Stevens introduced a soldier voting bill in Congress that would have implemented some of these ideas, but it was never put to a vote. See H.R. 9, 38th Cong., 1st Sess. Pennsylvania Constitution (1838), art. 10. Pennsylvania Legislature, Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of the Session Begun at Harrisburg, on the Sixth Day of January, 1863 (Harrisburg: Singerly & Myers, 1863), pp.164–6; Pennsylvania Legislature, Journal of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, of the Session Begun at Harrisburg, On the Sixth Day of January, 1863 (Harrisburg: Singerly & Myers, 1863), pp.171, 908–13. After passing the amendment, the Senate began consideration of a soldier voting bill; however, it was tabled because many legislators opposed adopting a bill that allowed soldiers to vote outside of the state before the amendment to the constitution had been ratified. In 1863, the Pennsylvania Senate had 21 Republicans and 12 Democrats, while the House of Representatives had 45 Republicans and 55 Democrats. In 1864, the Senate was made up of 17 Republicans and 16 Democrats, while the Republicans gained a majority in the House of 52 Republicans to 48 Democrats. See Shankman, Pennsylvania Antiwar Movement, p.100. Palmer (ed.), Stevens, vol.1, p.408. Hugh McAllister to James A. Beaver, 12 Sept. 1863, James A. Beaver Papers, 1855–1914 (bulk 1881–96), Accession 1941‐000H, Historical Collections and Labor Archives, Special Collections Department, University Libraries, Pennsylvania State University; McAllister to Beaver, 10 Sept. 1863, ibid.; ‘The Soldiers Vote,’ (Bellefonte) Democratic Watchman, 13 Oct. 1863. In 1864, many Democrats in the lower house of the General Assembly crossed party lines in support of the amendment – only two voted against it and seven abstained (out of forty‐five). In the state senate, however, only two of sixteen Democrats bolted their party and voted for the amendment. Despite the action of the Democratic legislators who voted for the amendment, the Democratic party‐line was still strongly against it. On 24 March 1864, for example, the Democratic paper in Harrisburg, the Patriot and Union, devoted its entire front page to an anti‐amendment speech delivered in the state senate by William A. Wallace. Those Democrats who voted for the amendment in either house might have done so for several reasons, including fear of the political consequences for opposing it (state elections were held every year), or a genuine belief that allowing soldiers to vote was the correct policy to pursue. See Pennsylvania Legislature, Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, of the Session Begun at Harrisburg, on the Fifth Day of January, 1864 (Harrisburg: Singerly & Myers, 1864), pp.235, 492–500; Pennsylvania Legislature, Journal of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, of the Session Begun at Harrisburg, on the Fifth Day of January, 1864 (Harrisburg: Singerly & Myers, 1864), pp.95, 368–71, hereafter cited as House Journal (1864). George Bergner (ed.), The Legislative Record: Containing the Debates and Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Legislature for the Session of 1864 (Harrisburg: ‘Telegraph’ Steam Book and Job Office, 1864), p.1024, hereafter cited as Legislative Record (1864); ibid., p.1026. These ideas were internalized by many Democrats. See, for example, J. Stable to Jeremiah S. Black, 23 Sept. 1863, Jeremiah S. Black Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. House Journal (1864), pp.95, 1019. Two amendments on other subjects were also approved by the people of Pennsylvania on 2 August 1864. Chase v. Miller, 41 Pa. 427 (1862). Republicans chastised Democrats for this line of reasoning. See, for example, William E. Chandler, The Soldier's Right to Vote. Who Opposes It? Who Favors It?, or, The Record of the M'Clellan Copperheads Against Allowing the Soldier Who Fights, the Right to Vote While Fighting (Washington, D.C.: Lemuel Towers, 1864), pp.8–9. William A. Wallace, Reasons of Hon. Wm. A. Wallace, of Clearfield, For His Vote on Amendments to the Constitution (n.p., 1864), pp.3–4, 6, 8; Jean H. Baker, Affairs of Party: The Political Culture of Northern Democrats in the Mid‐Nineteenth Century (New York: Fordham University Press, 1998 [1983]), pp.143–76, 291. Wallace, Reasons, pp.2–4, 6–7 (emphasis in the original). Samuel Gramly Diary, 31 July 1864, Accession MSVF XXX‐0055U, Pennsylvania State University Archives, Special Collections Department, University Libraries, Pennsylvania State University; Pennsylvania Legislature, Miscellaneous Documents Read in the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg: Singerly and Myers, 1864), pp.1566–7, hereafter cited as Legislative Documents (1864); Gramly Diary, 3 Aug. 1864 (Centre county voted against the amendment by a vote of 2,319 to 2,228. See Legislative Documents [1864], p.1566); Louis A. Meier (ed.), ‘The Diaries of Hiram Corson, M.D.: Civil War Years, 1862–1865,’ Bulletin of the Historical Society of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 33 (2002), p.250. Pennsylvania Legislature, Laws of the General Assembly of the State of Pennsylvania, Passed at the Session of 1864 (Harrisburg: Singerly & Myers, 1864), pp.990–99. This last provision could have led to fraud through soldiers voting twice (via mail and in camp); however, it is likely that most soldiers were not familiar enough with the law to have done this. Legislative Record (1864), pp.505–9, 1025. On the temper of the debate, see Alexander K. McClure, Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: John C. Winston, 1905), vol.2, p.129. McClure, Old Time Notes, vol.2, pp.129–31. See also ‘Message of Andrew G. Curtin, Governor of Pennsylvania, to the Legislature, Jan. 4, 1865,’ in Reports of the Heads of Departments, Transmitted to the Governor of Pennsylvania, in Pursuance of the Law, for the Financial Year Ending November 30, 1864 2 vols. (Harrisburg: Singerly & Myers, 1865), vol.1, p.10; Margaret McKelvy Bird and Daniel W. Crofts (eds.), ‘Soldier Voting in 1864: The David McKelvy Diary,’ Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 115 (1991), p.403; C. L. Ward to Manton Marble, 30 Sept. 1864, Manton Marble Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Laws of Pennsylvania (1864), pp.995–6. Ibid., p.996; McClure, Old Time Notes, vol.2, pp.129–30; Geo. W. A. to Marble, 2 Oct. 1864, Marble Papers. Many Pennsylvania Republicans were dissatisfied with Governor Curtin's bipartisan selection of commissioners. Simon Cameron wrote to President Lincoln complaining that he had no confidence in many of Curtin's appointments. Cameron therefore ‘selected over one hundred reliable men whose expenses we have paid out of our own fund, to visit every part of the Army in the field and secure our full vote.’ Upon hearing of Cameron's actions, Curtin was ‘much surprised’ and ‘much pained to hear that’ his appointments had been ‘regarded as an insult to’ the Lincoln administration. See Simon Cameron to Abraham Lincoln, 18 Oct. 1864, Andrew G. Curtin to Abraham Lincoln, 6 Oct. 1864, and Richard M. Blatchford to William H. Seward, 1 Oct. 1864, all in the Abraham Lincoln Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Jeremiah McKibben to George B. McClellan, 22 Sept. 1864, George B. McClellan, Sr., Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C; McClure, Old Time Notes, vol.2, pp.130–31. George R. Agassiz (ed.), Meade's Headquarters 1863–1865: Letters of Colonel Theodore Lyman from Wilderness to Appomattox (Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1922), pp.263–4; Charles A. Dana to Col. J. H. Taylor, 9 Nov. 1864, Edwin M. Stanton letterbooks, Edwin M. Stanton Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. See also Official Records, ser.1, vol.42, pt.3, pp.570–72; McClure, Old Time Notes, vol.2, pp.130–31. McKelvy, ‘Diary,’ p.393; Jeremiah McKibbin to McClellan, 2 Sept. 1864, McClellan Papers; McClure, Old Time Notes, vol.2, pp.129–30. (West Chester) Village Record, 30 July 1864; ‘The Special Election,’ (Wilkes‐Barre) Luzerne Union, 27 July 1864. During the 1863 gubernatorial election, the Luzerne Union had insisted that soldiers should be allowed to vote, but only at home in their election districts. The headline to this article was telling: ‘Woodward and Civil Liberty against Curtin and Despotism. Where Soldiers Can Vote,’ in ibid., 7 Oct. 1863. The quotation describing the Democratic effort comes from a pre‐election letter from a member of the Democratic State Central Committee in Philadelphia: C. L. Ward to Marble, 30 Sept. 1864, Marble Papers; ‘The Election!,’ (Bellefonte) Democratic Watchman, 18 Nov. 1864; votes calculated from the Tribune Almanac and Political Register for 1865 (New York: The Tribune Association, 1865), p.54. Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1967), pp.61–2.