The Copperheads were a group of extremely conservative Democrats who opposed many of the choices the Lincoln administration made. They believed in an extremely strict interpretation of the constitution, where the words were not intended to be interpreted or manipulated in any way that varied from its original meaning. They also believed that anything not mentioned in the Constitution directly was not something that was intended to be protected or enforced by federal law. The rise and fall of this political group can be clearly seen through three distinctive phases. The first phase was the secession of the southern states, the second being the Emancipation Proclamation, and the third being Union armies defeats throughout their southern campaigns. While not a largely intimidating group merely by numbers, the influence on public opinion towards the Lincoln administration and the war was all the power the Copperheads needed to be a serious player in Civil War politics. The Copperheads would call out President Lincoln’s actions, specifically suspending the writ of habeas corpus, his rejection of the South’s announcement of secession, and The Emancipation Proclamation. By suspending the writ of habeas corpus, President Lincoln essentially ignored the normal steps that action would have originally needed to go through, meaning going through the judicial branch of the government. By choosing to extend his presidential powers during wartime, the Copperheads believed that President Lincoln was violating citizens’ constitutional right to habeas corpus and undermining the separation of powers between federal government branches clearly outlined in the constitution. Chief Justice Roger Taney deemed Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus uncons... ... middle of paper ... ...his made it difficult for citizens to join their cause due to them being unaware of what the Copperheads’ goals ultimately were. The nature of the Copperheads was too much protesting without enough action, and this was not enough of a platform for large groups of people to get behind. The Copperheads were a larger, more significant, and more influential group than has been documented throughout post-Civil War history. The anti-war sentiment in the north was a strong one, but the powerful nationalistic viewpoint that the successes of the Union army and the love for President Lincoln were just too powerful and overwhelming to give the Copperheads a chance of true power during this fiercely political period in American history. Works Cited Weber, Jennifer L. Copperheads: The Rise and Fall of Lincoln's Opponents in the North. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
In Edward Ayers’ book, In The Presence of Mine Enemies, he argues how rather than being vastly different, the North and South, from 1859-1863, were actually more similar than different. Though he focuses mainly on how the two were similar, he also includes differences between the North and South as well. Ayers effectively argues his point through the use of primary sources from The Valley of the Shadow archives.
In, “Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War,” Charles B. Dew analyzes the public letters and speeches of white, southern commissioners in order to successfully prove that the Civil War was fought over slavery. By analyzing the public letters and speeches, Dew offers a compelling argument proving that slavery along with the ideology of white supremacy were primary causes of the Civil War. Dew is not only the Ephraim Williams Professor of American History at Williams College, but he is also a successful author who has received various awards including the Elloit Rudwick Prize and the Fletcher Pratt Award. In fact, two of Dew’s books, Tredegar Iron Works and Apostles of Disunion and Ironmaker to
A numerous amount of generals and soldiers of the south had a predisposed idea regarding what every person was fighting for, and from the looks of it, they were more so on the same page. When referring to what the war was being fought over, Englishmen Pickett used an analogy that gives reference to a “gentlemen’s club”, and not being able to maneuver out of it (Shaara 88). The men believed that the war conceived out of the misinterpretation of the constitution in regards to what or what not they had the right to do. In all, a large number of those fighting believed that the confederate army fought to protect the southern society, and slavery as an integral part of
The American Civil War not only proved to be the country’s deadliest war but also precipitated one of the greatest constitutional crises in the history of the United States. President Lincoln is revered by many Americans today as a man of great moral principle who was responsible for both preventing the Union’s dissolution as well as helping to trigger the movement to abolish slavery. In retrospect, modern historians find it difficult to question the legitimacy of Lincoln’s actions as President. A more precise review of President Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War, however, reveals that many, if not the majority, of his actions were far from legitimate on constitutional and legal grounds. Moreover, his true political motives reveal his
To begin, Jacksonian Democrats believed that they were guardians of political democracy, and with that they guarded the Constitution as well. With the situation of the Acts and Resolutions of South Carolina, the decision was made with the belief that it wasn’t beneficial for other states to “print, publish, and distribute newspapers, pamphlets, tracts and pictorial representations calculated and having an obvious tendency to excite the slaves of the southern states” (Doc F). While this may have prevented conflict at the moment, this was a clear betrayal of the very 1st amendment, which calls for freedom of speech, and of the press. These unalienable rights
Thomas Jefferson's strict interpretation not only stretched on political views, but religious views as well. Creating the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom, Jefferson gave states the right to make those decisions, and the federal government had no say in religion (1). Politically, Jefferson was of strict interpretation, yet he did through-out his presidential terms made loose interpretations of the Constitution. This was mainly shown in the purchase of Louisana. At first, Jefferson wanted only New Orleans to keep the mouth of the Mississippi out of French possesion. If that would fail, he was even willing to make an alliance with Britain. When hearing that the United States had bought all of the Louisana Territory, Jefferson soon began to fret over whether it was unconstitutional (a loose interpretation). When Jefferson first took office, he appointed a new Treasury Secretary Gallatin, and kept most of the Federalist policies laid down by Alexander Hamilton in place. All the ideas the Democratic-Republicans were against, Thomas Jefferson kept all of them except for the excise tariff. Against war, Jefferson decided to size down the army during his administration. But the pasha of Tripoli declared an outrageous amout of money by the United States, and with the United States saying no, cutdown the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consolate (4). Jefferson was forced to go against his views, and build up the army against the North African Barbary States in the First Barbary War (4). And last, but not least, Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807 not only changed from strict to loose interpretations, but changed New Englanders minds as well (1)(5).
...mfortable and stubborn, resisting the change that was coming about in the country. The North being so eager to expand and industrialize the country and establish their independency from the British. Somewhere along the road, the states stopped working toward a common goal and became more concerned with their own well-being. With each attempt made to keep the states united, they were only building up more harsh feeling toward each other. Even with all the ill feelings between the regions because of their sectionalism, the South succeeding from the union and a war being fought within our own nation, our people against our people, the United States managed to struggle through the sectionalism of 19th century and remain one nation, united.
A successful army requires discipline, but Confederate soldiers refused to concede authority to anyone they did not vote for, at least in the beginning. Confederate soldiers were also prone to shirking duties they deemed menial, and some even left the army without dismissal if they believed they had served long enough. In the uppermost chain of political command, Jefferson Davis proved deficient in quelling the media outlets which railed against his decisions at nearly every turn. Davis gave deference to the right of free speech no matter how damaging it was. Donald then uses these points to highlight the Union Army and Lincoln administration’s successes. The North had the advantage of numerous immigrant conscripts who were used to being ordered around, so the pecking order was easily established from the beginning. In the political realm, Abraham Lincoln did not let Constitutional rights obstruct his goals; Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and threw defamatory journalists into prison. The Union thus had the unity it needed to achieve victory in the face of the South’s
...ll was politically motivated became obvious when the House voted to extend the act from its original one year proposed to the expiration of John Adams term, March 3, 1801. The victory of the Republicans, who ran on a platform of anti-sedition, in the election of 1800 showed that Americans were much more interested in personal freedom that what Federalist thought. It is understandable that in time of war some positions need to be taken to assure the countries well being; as seen in later wars when the Japanese were sent to camps in the west coast. But when these acts of concern start to eliminate certain right and freedoms or violate the constitution; they should be abolished. Thankfully, the American people have the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights to bring them back from the edge, and to force those positions in office governing for themselves into accountability.
...iduals plotting conspiracy and selling out their promises for a considerable length of time before 1860, and that they were not going to stop short of their objectives. The main thing that might have avoided war might be the acknowledgement of bondage by the United States or the surrender of the United States of every last one of states and regions it held that called itself the Confederacy. Since that might not have finished subjugation, then the response is that there was no elective however to have a clash, a war. Subjugation was the issue, it was the reason. It was an ascertained arrangement by the individuals who decided to ensure servitude by selling out their kinsmen and turning rebellious--to secure subjugation, and not a legendary thought of "state's rights" on the grounds that the main right they thought about was the right to subjugate an alternate race.
James Oakes’ The Radical and the Republican narrated the relationship between two of America’s greatest leaders: Frederick Douglass, the “radical” abolitionist, and Abraham Lincoln, the “Republican” politician. He did an astonishing job of demonstrating the commonalities between the views of Douglass and Lincoln, but also their differences on their stance of anti-slavery politics and abolitionism. Despite being on the same side of the argument of slavery, Douglass and Lincoln went about their opinions separately. Lincoln held a more patient and orthodox stance on anti-slavery, while Douglass was proven to be obstinate and direct with
The people of the North and South each believed fiercely in their cause, one for a free people the other for life servitude. Neither group, based on the documents presented were willing to budge regarding their beliefs. They North wanted to abolish slavery completely and the South could not understand why they had to give up their way of life because the concept was so ingrained in them as a people. The two completely different ideals could not co-exist peacefully and therefore the eventual climax of this issue, the war, was an inevitable
Throughout the Jacksonian era the Jacksonians proved to be violators of the United States Constitution and not the guardians they believed themselves to be. Both the Jacksonians and President Jackson went against the Supreme Courts regarding cases that were said to be constitutional. An instance in which the Jacksonian Democrats violated the Constitution was in the "Trail of Tears". The Supreme Court stated that the Jacksonian Democrats' actions were unconstitutional because they had issued the "Indian Removal Act". By doing this, they were in violation of the treaty of New Echota. In the 1832 decision Worcester v. Georgia, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the Cherokees had their own land and that they did not need to follow Georgia law in their own territory. This ruling of the Supreme Court did not stop Jacksonians from driving the Cherokees off of their land. Jackson used the Constitution to benefit himself when he vetoed the national bank, even after the Supreme Court had already ruled that the bank was constitutional. When South Carolina declared a reduced tariff void and threatened to secede, President Jackson responded in an unconstitutionally. He threatened to send militia to enforce the tariff and the Jacksonian Congress passed a bill approving this military force, if necessary. This was in direct violation of the Constitution. They continued to violate the Constitution by placing censors on the mail and intercepting abolitionist literature or mail into or from the south. This was an infringement on the Constitution because it violated the first amendment.
Roark, J.L., Johnson, M.P., Cohen, P.C., Stage, S., Lawson, A., Hartmann, S.M. (2009). The american promise: A history of the united states (4th ed.), The New West and Free North 1840-1860, The slave south, 1820-1860, The house divided 1846-1861 (Vol. 1, pp. 279-354).
Throughout the Jacksonian era the Jacksonians proved to be violators of the United States Constitution and not the guardians they believed themselves to be. Both the Jacksonians and President Jackson went against the Supreme Courts regarding cases that were said to be constitutional. In the Supreme Court case of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee Nation. This ruling of the Supreme Court did not stop Jackson and the Jacksonians from driving the Cherokees off of their land, and by doing this the Constitution was violated. Also, when dealing with the south, Jackson and the Jacksonians were not guardians of the US Constitution. In vetoing the national bank, Jackson did so because he thought that the act that created it was not compatible with the constitution. However, the Supreme Court had already ruled that the bank was constitutional. In this act Jackson and the Jacksonians were not guarding the constitution, but they were utilizing it to suit their own needs. However sometimes the Judiciary and Executive branches agree such as the incident when South Carolina declared a reduced tariff void and threatened to secede, President Jackson responded in an unconstitutional manner. Jackson threatened to send militia to enforce the tariff implementation and the Jacksonian Congress passed a bill approving this military force, if necessary.