Over the last two years, when I’ve raised points about Southern Unionists, the topic of Northern Copperheads has entered the picture.
I think the two groups are commonly seen in the most basic terms… people in two separate geographic regions that supported the government (or “cause”) in power in the other geographic region. But, I think a great deal is lost in that, and, it’s not exactly accurate.
So, the next question is… If they aren’t truly comparable, then how are they different? Allow me to point out a few details…
One of the most basic facts in the formula is that Southern Unionists were in the “embattled land”. Many of these Unionists remained in the South, despite the government in power. Some remained quiet, some were operatives, some were activists… even to the point of wearing blue.
On the other hand, Copperheads were not in the embattled region. If they were so supportive of the Confederacy…. to what lengths would they go? How many actually made a commitment to the Confederacy in the form of support, ranging from verbal, to financial, and service to the Confederacy… even to the point of wearing gray?
Incidentally, I’ve linked to the Wikipedia definitions for both groups. While I don’t necessarily believe these are complete and accurate (effective) definitions, I do think they provide some material for consideration.
Was one more committed to an idea than the other? Also, again, were they really comparable?
Susan Evelyn McDowell Cole
January 29, 2011
I don’t think you can compare the two. Not all of the war was fought in Virginia, just a lot of it was. There was Gettysburg, Nashville, Missouri. There is also the fact that part of Virginia split off and became a separate state known as West Virginia and sided with the North.
Much of the action was also happening outside the South. Abraham Lincoln was steadily expanding the country coast to coast and settling the country out west. California was already a state and provided most of the volunteer Army so that regular Army troops with real experience could head east to fight the Civil War. General Patrick Edward Connor commanded those volunteer troops in California and Utah. So what do you call him? A Union General or a pioneer?
Susan Evelyn McDowell Cole
Robert Moore
January 29, 2011
Hi Susan,
Not sure I follow you as I’m not focusing on Virginia alone.
On one hand, we have Southern Unionists (Southerners throughout the South who remained faithful to the Union); on the other, Northern Copperheads (those in the North who supported the Confederate “cause”, in some form or fashion). I guess what I’m looking for is a comparison of dedication to respective causes and the individual circumstances in which they were in. I think that Southern Unionists had far more at stake and took greater risks in maintaining their philosophies (those who kept quiet even took steps that would get themselves killed). On the other hand, there are Copperheads who were vocal, and I have heard that some were killed. In fact, I think I saw a marker in Ohio that dealt with one instance in which a Copperhead was killed for being outspoken.
I think there are parallels, but also believe that Copperheads don’t quite compare in their sacrifice or circumstances, except, perhaps in the border states.
West Virginia being, really, a border state, offers some challenges to the comparison, as supporters from both sides could be found in that state. As someone remarked on Twitter (in response to this post), the answer to the question there is… yes, and no. Class divided Southern Unionists into radicals and (richer) moderates; latter would be comparable, former would not.
Robert Moore
January 29, 2011
Susan,
I think I understand why you may have thought I was just referring to Virginia, as you are new to my blog and my blog header suggests that I have a strong concentration on the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. I do focus a great deal of attention there and on western Maryland, but my attention on Southern Unionists is throughout the South. So, it may be that, from the way the blog presents itself, my question wasn’t fully understood. If so, that’s ok. Thoughts then, on the question as reconsidered?
Craig Swain
January 30, 2011
Robert, I think we chatted on this a time or two before
.
Perhaps in some regards the SouthUns (Southern Unionists) and the Copperheads were mirror images of each other. That is to say inverses where left is right and right is left. I think where the comparison diverges from that mirror is how the respective government reacted to the dissent.
And as you point out, SouthUns were “in the combat zone.” Only early in the war were Copperheadish elements of the north even close to the contested territories. Certainly made a difference.
Robert Moore
January 30, 2011
Craig,
I don’t know about the divergence. Take for example, Maryland, where the WofHC was suspended to address those pushing for secession. Likewise, we see the WofHC suspended in different places in the South to deal with the SouthUns (I sort of like that, by the way). So, in this case, the reactions by the different governments was similar (although, it was the states that reacted in the South, and the Federal govt reacting more, I think, in the North).
Also, it seems to me that a marker was added to the HMDb within the last year or two about a Copperhead killed in Ohio (or somewhere up that way). Does that ring a bell? I tried to find it again, but was unable to do so. I wanted to link to it.
Craig Swain
January 30, 2011
Yes, but those were localized reactions. Force applied by local authorities reacting to the Copperheads. Nothing like the use of military force in a broad, sweeping operation, such as occurred in Arkansas (after the suspension of Habeas Corpus there).
Also consider the tactics of the dissenters. Much of the northern dissenters (I hesitate to call them all copperheads) worked through the political system. Was that an option in the South?
Robert Moore
January 30, 2011
That is true regarding the localized reaction. Makes me think back, also, to an event that took place in Page County. The Unionist was taken into custody, but the court kept coming back that it didn’t believe it had jurisdiction to prosecute on the basis of treason.
I’ve seen where some Unionists tried to remain in politics in the Confederate government. I can’t quite imagine how awkward this must have been, and I can’t, for the life of me, see anyway they were effective as dissenters in those roles. The dissenters in the North had that advantage over their mirror images in the South.
Susan Evelyn McDowell Cole
January 31, 2011
According to Wikipedia, the revolt in West Virginia was led by James McDowell and before West Virginia actually became a state it was known as the free state of McDowell. After the Civil War was over, despite efforts from John Campbell, the state was never reunited.
Isn’t there a Samuel McDowell Moore in your background, Robert? Could you enlighten us on the hardheadedness of the McDowells?
Susan Evelyn McDowell Cole
Robert Moore
February 1, 2011
No, no relation to Sml. McD. Moore.