Rank-and-File Voters and the Coming of the Civil War: Caldwell County, Kentucky, as Test Case

Rank-and-File Voters and the Coming of the Civil War: Caldwell County, Kentucky, as Test Case Christopher Waldrep Did class replace party in the secession crisis? The role ofparty and class remains a matter of dispute among historians with some scholars describing the Democratic party as the "vehicle" of secession while others argue that "secession had become a slaveholders' movement."1 In those states of the upper South where voters and legislators rejected secession, realignment , if it occurred at all in the 1 850s, is even more ofa mystery than in the secessionist South. This study focuses on the decisions made by Whig voters, as identified in the 1 848 election, when they voted in 1 852 and after in one county in Ken1 Forthe Democrats as the "vehicle" ofsecession see Thomas Alexander, "The Civil War as Institutional Fulfillment,"JournalofSouthern History67(Feb. 1981): 21. Forsecessionas"a slaveholders'movement" see David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 (New York: Harper and Row, 1976), 504. See also William J. Cooper, Jr., The South and the Politics of Slavery, 1828-1856 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1978), which argues forthe primacy of slavery. Steven Channing, in Crisis of Fear: Secession in South Carolina (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970), wrote that race rather than party was paramount. Daniel Crofts has written that Unionism was not confined to nonslaveowners but its greatest appeal lay in low slaveholding areas. "The Union Party of 1861 and the Secession Crisis," Perspectives in American History 1 1(1977-78): 327-76. Michael P. Johnson, Towarda Patriarchal Republic: The Secession ofGeorgia(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1977), found that in the secession crisis slaveholding replaced party allegiance as the central consideration. But, in a study of North Carolina, Marc W. Kruman, in Parties and Politics in North Carolina , 1836-1865 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1983), repeatedly referred to the number ofslaves owned by legislators to show that there was no difference in slaveownership between those for and against secession. Carl N. Degler used Southern Claims Commission records to argue that many slaveowners supported Unionism. Degler concludes that the role ofslavery in moving individual southerners to a Unionist or secessionist political position was "not obvious. " The Other South: Southern Dissenters in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), 122. J. Mills Thornton III, in Politics and Power in a Slave Society: Alabama, 1800-1860 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1978), found that support for secession was most intense in yeomen areas. Civil War History, Vol. XXXV, No. 1, ® 1989 by the Kent State University Press 60CIVIL WAR HISTORY tucky. Data recovered from Caldwell County poll books2 answers three basic questions. First, what were the characteristics ofthe Whig rank-andfile ? An understanding of the role of class in the secession crisis first requires an understanding ofthat role in the Second Party System. Did Whig voters go into the 1 850s older, richer, or more business-minded than the Democrats? The stereotype ofthe Whigs as the broadcloth party has been a favorite target of researchers for years, some of whom have argued that there were no differences between the parties.3 The point to the debate is that it hardly makes sense to argue that slaveowners switched parties unless we can first identify one party with the slavocracy. Secondly, when did Whig voters abandon their opposition to the Democratic party? Was it in the 1850s, 1860, 1861, or even later? Finally, were some elements of the Whig party more likely to turn to secession than others? More to the point, were Whig slaveowners quicker to leave their party and support secession than nonslaveowners? Since this sample of voters is from Kentucky, correlative questions arise: were Kentucky slaveowners typical of all slaveowners ? Were slaveowners politically motivated chiefly by their economic station or by the locality where they resided? One disadvantage of the methodology selected for this study must be conceded at the outset. By the 1864 and 1868 elections the names of only a few 1848 voters recur in Caldwell County poll books, 125 and 221 respectively . Subdividing the surviving sample into categories by occupation, wealth, and voting habits yields very small numbers. With...