In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

 v Debates over Liberty and Loyalty I   and third years of the war, Republicans and Democrats renewed their political battles, reflecting the monumental issues Ohio residents faced. Public debates were increasingly volatile as people considered and reconsidered Union war aims, civilian loyalty, and issues of race. Most could agree that they were fighting the war to preserve the Union. For Ohioans the Union protected their freedoms, especially their ability to live and labor without threats from slave labor, political demagogues, or lawlessness. Supporters of both parties in Ohio questioned which, if any, of their liberties could be sacrificed in wartime. Republicans maintained that an internal enemy threatened the Union war effort. Equating dissent with disloyalty, some Republicans in Ohio organized vigilance committees and formed mobs that vented their wrath against Democratic newspaper offices and outspoken political opponents.1 For their part, Democrats defended their right to free speech and countered that Republicans perverted the Constitution , were disloyal to their Revolutionary heritage, and flouted the rule of law. Democrats charged that Republicans deprived civilians of the writ of habeas corpus and subjected communities to oversight by zealous military officials. These debates were furthered by fears that their own homes were not safe. Ohioans had long conceived of themselves as people on the border, stationed at the front lines of the dominion of free labor. The proximity to Kentucky and Virginia and military movements in both areas created anxiety, especially for people in the southern half of the state. Reports in newspapers detailed Confederate military movements and raised suspicions that Confederate operatives moved undetected throughout the state, prompting local officials to request that the state secure its borders. The public consternation over casualties at Shiloh was quieted by a series of Union victories on the western rivers. The Union advance through Kentucky into Tennessee and then northern Alabama, aided by the capture of Forts Henry and Donelson and the occupation of Nashville, was capped by the Union navy’s capture of New Orleans on April , . During the same period, a fleet of Union gunboats and steam-powered rams moved south on the Mississippi River. Memphis fell to the Union on June . The victories in the western theater raised morale in Ohio, distracting public attention temporarily from General George B. McClellan’s  unwillingness to attack Robert E. Lee. When McClellan finally moved toward Richmond , Ohioans monitored newspapers, waiting for news of the fall of the Confederate capital. Instead, they read of the Seven Days’ Battles, in which the clash between McClellan’s Army of the Potomac and Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia in the last week of June resulted in thirty thousand killed and wounded.2 When a newspaper editor in Gallipolis learned of the battle, he was disappointed and paraphrased Horace. “A mountain has labored,” he wrote, “and brought forth a mouse.”3 The army’s success in the west was celebrated in Ohio even as it raised troublesome issues. The Union army occupied vast expanses of Confederate territory and had to sustain itself. Soldiers, including many regiments from Ohio, struggled to secure supply lines amid opposition from Confederate loyalists and the guerrilla bands that were supported by Confederate communities. As Ohio soldiers came into contact with Southerners—Unionist and Confederate, black and white—they considered and reconsidered the Union’s policy toward Confederate property. Their friends, families, and neighbors at home did likewise. Confederate civilian resistance and military resilience convinced many members of both parties in Ohio that the government needed to pursue a more aggressive war that would target Confederate resources and property—including slaves. In his speech to Congress on March , , Lincoln had urged Congress to support gradual, compensated emancipation for the border states. Just days later, Congress passed an article of war that prohibited officers from returning slaves to their masters. When Union general David Hunter abolished slavery in the areas occupied by his Department of the South, Lincoln revoked his order but reserved the right to emancipate slaves in occupied areas. In July, Congress passed the Second Confiscation Act, which allowed for the confiscation of Confederate property , deeming slaves captives of war and “forever free.” In Ohio, these measures met a mixed response. Radicals thought these policies did not go far enough toward full emancipation. Moderates believed the Confiscation Act strengthened the war effort, while conservatives saw in the orders, revocation, and legislation a sign that the war was being fought to end slavery. Against this backdrop, Ohioans debated with renewed vigor “the negro question,” or...

Share