powerful nation impelled by motives of material interest was eager to interfere in the struggle startled the people and deepened the gloom.1

"The President tells me," wrote Sumner to Lieber, "that he now fears the fire in the rear' - meaning the Democracy, especially at the Northwest-more than our military chances." 2 Governor Morton of Indiana had telegraphed the Secretary of War: "I am advised that it is contemplated when the Legislature meets in this State to pass a joint resolution acknowledging the Southern Confederacy, and urging the States of the Northwest to dissolve all constitutional relations with the New England States. The same thing is on foot in Illinois." 3 The legislatures of these States were Democratic, having been chosen the previous autumn as a result of the conservative reaction. Morton's alarming apprehensions came far from being realized, but his legislature quarrelled with him and refused its support to his energetic measures for carrying on the war. The Republican members took his part, and the wrangle became so bitter that finally the legislature adjourned without making the necessary appropriations for the maintenance of the State government during the ensuing two years. In Illinois, resolutions praying for an armistice, and recommending a convention of all the States to agree upon some adjustment of the trouble between them, passed the House, but failed by a few votes to obtain con

1 Although I have brought the facts in juxtaposition, I know of no evidence which indicates that Greeley's intercourse with Mercier had any effect towards inducing this offer of mediation from France.

2 Jan. 17, Pierce's Sumner, vol. iv. p. 114.

3 Jan. 3, O. R., vol. xx. part ii. p. 297. See Morton's despatch of Jan. 2, p. 294. The information which he gave Stanton by letter, not daring to trust the telegraph, was: "It has been discovered within the past two weeks that the treasonable political secret organization having for its object the withdrawal of the Northwestern States from the Union, which exists in every part of this State, has obtained a foothold in the military camps in this city. The testimony of a number of soldiers has been taken, showing up the whole matter clearly and conclusively. Some important arrests have been made, and investigation is still going on." -- MS. War Department Archives.

sideration in the Senate. This legislature likewise fell out with its Republican governor.1

The term "6 Copperhead," which originated in the autumn of 1862, is now used freely. It was an opprobrious epithet applied by Union men to those who adhered rigidly to the Democratic organization, strenuously opposed all the distinctive and vigorous war measures of the administration and of Congress, and deeming it impossible to conquer the South were therefore earnest advocates of peace. It might not be accurate to say that all who voted the Democratic ticket in 1863 were, in the parlance of the day, "Copperheads," but such an inclusion would be more correct than to limit the term to those who really wished for the military success of the South and organized or joined the secret order of the Knights of the Golden Circle. In the Western States, at all events, the words " Democrat " and " Copperhead" became, after the middle of January, practically synonymous, and the cognomen applied as a reproach was assumed with pride.2

1 Indiana in the War of the Rebellion. Official report of W. H. H. Terrell, Adj. Gen., p. 240 et seq.; Chicago Tribune, Jan. 14, 15, 22; N. Y. Tribune, Jan. 10, Feb. 14, 17; N. Y. Times, Feb. 13; Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1863, pp. 510, 529; Life of O. P. Morton by Indianapolis Journal, chap. viii. "Illinois is not alone in harboring a party that makes treason its watchword. While the echoes of the traitorous speeches that signalized the opening of the session of the Legislature at Springfield are still ringing in our ears, we have from Indiana the unwelcome news that the would-be rebels at Indianapolis are confederated with those of Illinois." "The Copperheads of the Legislature have undertaken to carry things with a high hand in the interest of the rebels. . . but it is beyond their strength to wrench Illinois from her Union moorings and annex the State to the dominions of Jeff Davis."-Chicago Tribune, Jan. 14, 22.

2 I have made and had made a considerable search for the first use of the term "Copperhead." The earliest that I have found it employed is in the Cincinnati Commercial of Oct. 1, 1862, in an article entitled "Comfort for 'Copperheads.'" The writer charges the Gazette (a rival Republican journal) with a course which is "driving the fighting Democrats into the ranks of the Vallandigham party." In the Commercial when used afterwards, Copperhead is printed without the quotation marks. It occurs several times in October, November, and December, 1862. The curious may also find several illustrative uses of the word in the Chicago Tribune, Jan. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 22; N. Y. Tribune, Jan. 12, Feb. 11; N. Y. Times, Feb. 13.

The Western partisans also gloried in the name "Butternut." "The War Democrats," in contradistinction from those who favored peace, acted at elections in the main with the Republicans, voting the Union ticket, as it was called in most of the States. It may safely be said that the men who adhered with fidelity and enthusiasm to the Democratic organization and name, found their notions represented by either Horatio Seymour, of New York, or Clement L. Vallandigham, of Ohio, both of whom had the peculiar ability which establishes political leadership. The tendency of the Eastern Democrats was to gravitate to Seymour, that of the Western Democrats to the more extreme views of Vallandigham. After the fall elections Seward wrote, "Party spirit has resumed its sway over the people." This is indicated by a contrast of the inaugural message of Seymour as governor of New York, January 7, 1863, with the speeches he made during the canvass. His inaugural displayed less moderation and no magnanimity. He was trenchant in criticism, but did not seem to appreciate the difficulties under which the government labored, nor to understand that the utmost forbearance was required of one in his high position. Nevertheless the course which he laid out was in the main the right one for the opposition, and, while his message was exasperating to the Republicans, there is little in it that ought to receive condemnation at the judgment bar of history.2

1

Robert C. Winthrop in Boston, Nov. 2, 1864, spoke as if he were not ashamed of the name. "Abandon the Constitution," he said, "and the Ship of State is left tossing upon a shoreless sea, without rudder or compass, liable at any moment to be dashed to pieces on the rocks. And though I have no heart for pleasantry on such a topic, let me add that if in such a case the good old ship shall escape such a catastrophe and be rescued from final wreck, it will be only because she will have been treated in advance to a thorough sheathing of copper from stem to stern."

Harold Frederic wrote a graphic story entitled "The Copperhead," in which the hero is a striking character.

1 Nov. 15, 1862, Life of Seward, vol. iii. p. 143.

2 The message is printed in the Public Record of H. Seymour (1868), p. 88. The Indiana legislature declined to receive Governor Morton's message, but passed a joint resolution thanking Governor Seymour "for the able

it

Far otherwise is it with the speech of Vallandigham, January 14, in the House of Representatives. "I learned my judgment from Chatham," he said: "My lords, you cannot conquer America.' And you have not conquered the South. You never will. . . . The war for the Union is, in your hands, a most bloody and costly failure. The President confessed it on the 22d of September. . . . War for the Union was abandoned; war for the negro openly begun, and with stronger battalions than before. With what success? Let the dead at Fredericksburg and Vicksburg answer. And now, sir, can this war continue? Whence the money to carry on ? Where the men? Can you borrow? From whom? Can you tax more? Will the people bear it? . . . . Will men enlist now at any price? Ah, sir, it is easier to die at home. I beg pardon; but I trust I am not discouraging enlistments.' If I am, then first arrest Lincoln, Stanton, and Halleck, and some of your other generals; and I will retract; yes, I will recant. But can you draft again? Ask New England, New York. -the Northwest. gave you all, all

--

Ask Massachusetts.

Ask Massachusetts. . . . Ask not Ohio She thought you were in earnest, and more than you demanded. Sir, in blood she has atoned for her credulity, and now there is mourning in every house, and distress and sadness in every heart. Shall she give you any more? But ought this war to continue? I answer, no-not a day, not an hour. What then? Shall we separate? Again, I answer, no, no, no! What then? . . Stop fighting. Make an armistice." Accept at once friendly foreign mediation, "the kindly offer of an impartial power to stand as a daysman between

and patriotic defence of the Constitution, the laws and liberties of the American citizen."

The feeling of the Democrats is well described by August Belmont, himself a Democrat who had confidential relations with the New York leaders, in his letters of Nov. 25, 1862, to Lionel de Rothschild, London, and of Dec. 6, 1862, to E. G. W. Butler, New Orleans. — Letters privately printed, pp. 73, 75.

1 Although the communication from the Emperor of the French had not yet been received, rumors were now rife that he would offer mediation.

the contending parties in this most bloody and exhausting strife. . . . If, to-day, we secure peace and begin the work of reunion, we shall yet escape; if not, I see nothing before us but universal political and social revolution, anarchy, and bloodshed, compared with which the Reign of Terror in France was a merciful visitation."

1

Under a constitutional government, where speech and the press are free, we must grant the necessity of an opposition in time of war, even when the Ship of State is in distress. It is not difficult to define a correct policy for the Democrats during the civil conflict, when, as was conceded by every one, the republic was in great danger. In Congress they should have co-operated to the full extent of their power with the dominant party, in its effort to raise men and money to carry on the war; and in any opposition they ought to have taken the tone, not of party objection, but of friendly criticism, with the end in view of perfecting rather than defeating the necessary bills. While in the session of this Congress which ended March 4, 1863, they failed to rise to this height, they did not, on the other hand, pursue a policy of obstruction that would be troublesome if not pernicious. It is doubtful whether, under the able and despotic parliamentary leadership of the majority in the House by Thaddeus Stevens, they could by obstructive tactics have prevented the passage at this session of the two bills which gave the President control of the sword and the purse of the nation; but a serious attempt in that direction, with all that it involved, would have thrown the country into convulsions.2 There must therefore be set down

1 Globe Appendix, pp. 55, 59, 60. The opinion of Republicans is well expressed by Cutler in his diary: "We had in the House a full exhibition of treason in Vallandigham's speech, in which he counselled peace and submission to the rebels." Jan. 17, p. 297.

2 The Democrats had able men in the House. Vallandigham, George H. Pendleton, and Samuel S. Cox, of Ohio, and Daniel W. Voorhees, of Indiana, were ready debaters, possessing likewise the quality of leadership. The Democrats were not strong enough in the Senate (having 8 to the Republicans 31 and Unionists 10) to venture on obstruction, had they been so disposed.