Congressional Democrats: 1861-1863

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS: 1861-1863 Leonard P. Curry The civil war is all too frequently viewed as a Republican war (on the part of the Union ) against the Democratic Confederacy, and when Democrats are mentioned in relation to the wartime experiences of the Union it is generally to equate the Democratic party with Copperheadism .1 All of which is an accurate reflection of Republican propaganda but bears little resemblance to reality. For the Democratic party (unlike the Republican party) was not a sectional one and its northern wing (which the Charleston convention demonstrated to be the majority) was still a force to be reckoned with. In the nonseceding states the Republicans had managed to capture only 48.8 per cent of the popular vote in the presidential election of 1860 and had outpolled the Democrats by only 150,000 votes. In seven of the twenty-two Union states participating in this election, the Republicans had failed to obtain majorities, and in two others (Indiana and Illinois) their vote amounted to about 51 per cent of the total.2 Further, Republican control of other important Union states was by no means firm, as the political events of the first years of the Civil War demonstrated. By 1863 the Democrats had elected governors in New York and New Jersey and senators from Illinois, Indiana, and !E.g., Bruce Catton, Never Call Retreat (Garden City, N.Y., 1965), pp. 106-109; Edward Channing, A History of the United States (New York, 19051925 ), VI, 420, 424, 587, 591-594; Allan Nevins, The War for the Union (New York, 1960), II, 299-322; John G. Nicolay and John Hay, Abraham Lincoln: A History (New York, 1904), IV, 370-385, VI, 223-247, VII, 361-368, VIII, 1-8; James G. Randall, Lincoln, The President (New York, 1945-1955), II, 211-215, III, 113-148, 186-211; James F. Rhodes, History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 (New York, 1912-1922), IV, 57-64, 224-229, 236-243, 426-428, V, 318; Nathaniel W. Stephenson, Abraham Lincoln and the Union (New Haven, 1918), pp. 89-91, 156-158, 239-240. In most cases little attention is given to the Democratic party and practically none to the role of the Democrats in Congress. Rhodes ( IV, 227, 423) notes the absence of Democratic obstructionism, but obviously considers the Democrats to have been relatively insignificant and somewhat suspect. Randall (II, 213, III, 193) acknowledges the Democrats to have been basically loyal and pro-Union, but has little else favorable to say. Nevins (II, 318-322) recognizes the potential and actual voting strength of the Democratic party, but obviously equates it with pro-Confederate sympathy. 2 The Tribune Almanac for 1861 (New York, 1861), pp. 39-49, 52, 54-63. 213 214CIVIL WAR HISTORY Pennsylvania. In addition, the convening of the Thirty-eighth Congress in 1863 found the Democrats in solid control of the House delegations from Illinois, Indiana, New York, and Ohio, while the Pennsylvania and Wisconsin delegations were equally divided between the Democrats and "Unionists."3 And even in the Thirty-seventh Congress the Republicans held only 106 House seats, eight fewer than in the previous Congress.4 The Democrats most assuredly cannot be dismissed as politically inconsequential during the early Civil War period. This paper is designed to explore one aspect of the national political process during these years—Democratic actions in the Thirty-seventh Congress (1861-1863). It must be said at the outset that there was never any question of the Democrats challenging Republican control of both houses of Congress. The House of Representatives eventually consisted of 181 seats and, of these, only forty-nine were ever held by the Democrats (though fifty-five Democratic representatives served in the House at one time or another during this Congress ). A contest for the Speakership did, in fact, develop, but it was a struggle within the Republican party in which the Democrats did not involve themselves. By July, 1861, there were only fourteen Democratic senators and, consequently , any challenge to the Republicans in the upper house would have been equally futile.5 Further, though its political potential remained impressive, the Democratic party had lost a...