"Richard A. Sauers and Peter Tomasak have done an impressive job of researching the National Archives and local newspapers to uncover the fascinating details about the Fishing Creek Confederacy in 1864. Their insightful and detailed book is by all means the best case study of anti-Lincoln ferment in the North during the Civil War. It is a welcome addition to the growing literature on life and politics in the Union homeland ."—Earl J. Hess, author of The Civil War in the West: Victory and Defeat from the Appalachians to the Mississippi
The Fishing Creek Confederacy: A Story of Civil War Draft Resistanceby Richard A. Sauers, Peter Tomasak
One hundred fifty years after the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln is thought of as one of the best presidents of the United States. However, most Americans forget that he was elected with only 40 percent of the popular vote. Many Democratic newspapers across the North mistrusted
One hundred fifty years after the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln is thought of as one of the best presidents of the United States. However, most Americans forget that he was elected with only 40 percent of the popular vote. Many Democratic newspapers across the North mistrusted Lincoln’s claim that he would not abolish slavery, and the lukewarm support evidenced by them collapsed after Lincoln announced his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in the fall of 1862. The advent of a national draft in the spring of 1863 only added fuel to the fire with anti-Lincoln Democrats arguing that it was illegal to draft civilians. Many newspaper editors advocated active resistance against the draft.
Governor Andrew Gregg Curtin of Pennsylvania was a staunch supporter of the Lincoln administration. The commonwealth supplied more than 360,000 white soldiers and 9,000 black soldiers during the conflict. However, there was sustained opposition to the war throughout the state, much of it fanned by the pens of Democratic newspaper editors. Though most opposition was disorganized and spontaneous, other aspects of the antiwar sentiment in the state occasionally erupted as major incidents.
In The Fishing Creek Confederacy, Richard A. Sauers and Peter Tomasak address the serious opposition to the draft in Columbia County, Pennsylvania, in 1864. Egged on by the anti-Lincoln newspaper editors, a number of men avoided the draft and formed ad hoc groups to protect themselves from arrest. The shooting of a Union lieutenant confronting draft evaders in July 1864 resulted in military intervention in the northern townships of the county. The troops arrested more than one hundred men, sending about half of them to a prison fort near Philadelphia. Some of these men were subjected to military trials in Harrisburg, the state capital, that fall and winter. The arrests led to bitter feelings that were slow to die. The military intervention eventually impacted a Pennsylvania gubernatorial election and led to a murder trial.
Sauers and Tomasak describe the draft in Pennsylvania and consider how Columbia County fit into the overall draft process. Subsequent chapters take the reader through the events of the summer of 1864, including the interaction of soldiers and civilians in the county, the prison experiences of the men, and the trials. Later chapters cover the August 1865 Democratic rally at Nob Mountain and the effects of the draft episode after the war was over, including its influence on the 1872 election for governor, the 1891 murder trial, and the formation of the official Democratic version of the events, which has been used by historians ever since.
The Fishing Creek Confederacy is the first book to address this episode and its aftermath in their entirety. Sauers and Tomasak present the story and try to disentangle the often contradictory nature of the sources and how both amateur and professional historians have used them.
Read an Excerpt
The Fishing Creek ConfederacyA Story of Civil War Draft Resistance
By Richard A. Sauers Peter Tomasak
University of Missouri PressCopyright © 2012 The Curators of the University of Missouri
All right reserved.
Chapter OneColumbia County Goes to War, 1861–1862
Three days after Confederate forces opened fire on Fort Sumter, President Abraham Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 three-month militia members to suppress the Southern rebellion. Pennsylvania's quota was fourteen regiments of infantry, or about 14,000 soldiers. But the response to the insult to the national flag was so great that the commonwealth sent twenty-five regiments to war within the space of ten hectic days. Many Democrats who had opposed the election of a Republican, "abolitionist" president put aside their differences to unite against the rebellion.
One of the Pennsylvania counties that remained strongly Democratic was the centrally located Columbia County, astride the main branch of the Susquehanna River southwest of Wilkes-Barre. White settlers had begun moving into the future county in the 1770s, when the Susquehanna was the western limit of European settlement. The majority were Scots-Irish and Germans, with a smattering of Welsh and Dutch families. Originally part of a mammoth Northumberland County, Columbia was created in 1813 by taking twelve townships from Northumberland. Danville became the county seat of this new county, which was further divided when Montour County was carved from it in 1850. By that time, the courthouse had been transferred to Bloomsburg and it remained there after Montour was created. The county's main occupations were farming and lumbering, with a few coal mines in the southern townships.
Since its creation, Columbia County had generally voted along Democratic lines. The county had gone for James Buchanan in the 1856 presidential election, then voted for Democrat William F. Packer for governor in 1857 and Henry Foster in the hotly contested gubernatorial election of 1860. Later that year, county residents voted for president, giving Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge 2,367 votes, while Lincoln received 1,873 votes. Democrat Stephen A. Douglas and John Bell, running on the National Union Party ticket, received only one hundred votes between them.
The newspapers of Columbia County were heavily Democratic in tone. The oldest of the three active Bloomsburg papers was the Columbia Democrat, which had begun publication in 1837. Levi Tate was the editor in 1860, having purchased the paper in 1847. Tate, originally from Lycoming County, was a staunch Democrat, as clearly shown in his editorials. A second Democratic paper, the Star of the North, had appeared in 1849. Williamson H. Jacoby was the Star's editor. Finally, the Columbia County Republican had begun circulation in March 1857, with Dr. Palemon John as editor. There was a single newspaper in Berwick, the Gazette, which had begun publication in 1853 as the Investigator. Levi Tate purchased this paper in 1855 and changed its name. Tate sold the paper three years later. When the war began, Jeremiah S. Sanders was the owner.
The two Bloomsburg Democratic papers favored Breckinridge in the 1860 election and, like other such newspapers across the country, doubted president-elect Lincoln's words that he would not interfere with slavery. Many Democrats equated Republicans and abolitionists. They were the ones to blame for the increasing sectional problems, trumpeted the Democratic papers. Slavery was legal under the Constitution, and if abolitionists were muzzled, the country would be in much better shape. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 must be upheld and Southerners allowed to reclaim their property. Abolitionists were acting against the law by shielding runaways.
However, the Democratic Party was beginning to splinter in 1860. The Democratic State Convention met in Reading on February 29 to select the delegation that would attend the national party's April convention in Charleston, South Carolina. That delegation would pledge its support to the presidential candidate selected there. But the rancor and partisan bickering in Charleston derailed the selection of any candidate. The party's leaders instructed delegates to reassemble in Baltimore in June to resolve this issue. However, this convention split into two factions, one of which nominated Kentuckian John C. Breckinridge, the other Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. Pennsylvania's delegation reflected the national split between the two candidates.
Editor Tate of the Columbia Democrat instructed his readers to cast their votes for Breckinridge, using two columns to provide a detailed list of reasons the Kentuckian was more qualified to be president than Douglas. Breckinridge was the "only candidate in the field worthy the confidence and support of the party; and the only one that can save the party from destruction." He would support the Constitution and have only one political theory for the entire country. Furthermore, Breckinridge was not ashamed of his principles and was "a sound unflinching Democrat" of the national persuasion instead of a sectional candidate. Breckinridge opposed disunion but also stood for state sovereignty, including the right of any person to bring his property into any territory he so wished. "[A]ll such property is equally entitled to protection from aggression or destruction."
Tate also warned what would happen should Lincoln be elected president:
There is danger to the Union—imminent danger, and the election of Lincoln would unquestionably precipitate the crisis. Disguise it as they may—treat it with levity as our Republican opponents choose—the election of Tuesday next may sound the death knell to the Union, and many of our Northern people will repent, when too late, their hasty and inconsiderate action in forcing the issue upon our Southern brethren. We speak earnestly and feelingly on the subject, and would urge upon our Democratic friends, and all others who love the Constitution, and the Union, to turn out in their strength at the Presidential election, and cast their votes in such a way as will assist in saving the Republic from the dangers which threaten its continued existence.
An example of the attacks on the Republican Party was penned by twenty-one-year-old law student Charles B. Brockway. Answering a polemical attack by the Columbia County Republican, Brockway assailed those Republicans who believed in racial equality and charged the Democratic Party with defending slavery. Brockway singled out Ohio and Massachusetts as Republican states that advocated Negro equality. How could Massachusetts give equality to Negroes and prohibit white foreign immigrants from voting until they had lived there for seven years? And yet, Brockway wrote, Negroes stolen from the South could vote in Massachusetts after one year's residence. Even Salmon Chase of Ohio and Abraham Lincoln of Illinois both advocated Negro equality, Brockway wrote.
Many Democrats believed that Abraham Lincoln and his abolitionist friends were responsible for the divided country. An anonymous Pennsylvanian wrote that President Lincoln had "stultified himself and ignored the truth of history." This writer complained that Lincoln had uttered numerous falsehoods in his inauguration speech, daring to proclaim that the South had nothing to fear from a Republican administration. It was the triumph of the Republican Party that had wrecked the federal union, declared this writer. A "Benton Boy" wrote a letter to the Columbia Democrat that appeared in its issue of August 24, 1861, blaming the war on "black and blue coat preachers" who favored the Negro. These two examples are only two of many that show how rank-and-file Democrats had been informed by their editors and leaders that Republicans and abolitionists were responsible for the country's ills. For a largely racist audience, it was much easier to cast blame on abolitionists and Republicans—whom they equated—than to scrutinize the paradox in the Constitution that allowed slavery in a country that proclaimed "all men are created equal."
When Lincoln appointed Carl Schurz ambassador to Spain, the Star of the North raised its voice in contempt. Decrying Schurz as an "infidel abolitionist calumniator of the Declaration of Independence and its signers" (Schurz had attacked the signers for their inclusion of slavery), the paper could only conclude:
To this end its [administration] first act is to hasten forth its emissaries to defame the Southern institutions as infamous and unworthy of recognition by a Christian people, and doing this there is no possible escape from the conclusion that its own purpose must be to extinguish in its own Union that institution which it teaches other nations is an abomination with which they should hold no alliance. Every voluntary act of the Administration, unmistakeably points to the "extinction of slavery."
And yet, when Fort Sumter was fired upon, most Northerners united against the rebellion. It was suddenly unfashionable and unpatriotic to criticize the government. Levi Tate succinctly espoused the mainstream Democratic viewpoint in the Columbia Democrat on April 20, 1861:
Now that war has commenced—no matter who is at fault—it is the duty of all our citizens, irrespective of party, to stand by the old flag, with its glorious stars and stripes, and support the Government in all proper and legitimate efforts to bring the contest to a successful issue. The first blow was struck by the Secessionists, and now it becomes the duty of every patriot to lend his aid in sustaining the honor and glory of our common country. If we have a Government that is capable of protecting and perpetuating itself, this is the time to exert its strength, and the people must stand by it no matter who is at the helm. We go for our country, our whole country, and nothing but our country.
But the paper's editor made it known to all that all good Democrats must aid the government, no matter who was at the helm.
The Democratic press response in Columbia County mirrored that across the North during the spring of 1861. In every war, it is hard for the opposing political party to both support the administration and be critical. The Democratic Party in 1861 was in this situation. When Fort Sumter was fired upon, much of the Democratic Party rose to support the Lincoln administration. The South had fired the first shot, and the honor of the national flag must be upheld. However, a smaller faction of the party, which became known as "Peace Democrats" in the fall of 1862, was less enthusiastic about supporting an administration it held to be an abomination. Many Peace Democrats were in favor of the ill-fated Crittenden Compromise, a plan engineered by Kentucky Senator John J. Crittenden in December 1860. Crittenden proposed constitutional amendments designed to protect slavery where it existed and enforcement of the fugitive slave laws to appease the South and thus keep the states united. However, the measure failed in the Senate shortly before Lincoln was sworn into office.
A number of Peace Democrats wished the South well and advocated a peaceful separation rather than war. These conservatives read the Constitution very narrowly. This document did not contain any references to secession, so they reasoned that secession was entirely legal. In fact, some thinkers in this line of reasoning believed the South was merely continuing the American idea of leaving a repressive government for a better way of life, as had happened in 1776. New York City mayor Fernando Wood actually suggested that the city secede from New York State, which he argued was too closely involved with abolitionist interests to do the city any good. New York had many commercial ties with the South and it was in the city's best interests to continue them, argued Wood. Conservative Democrats also were suspicious of big government and were among the most vocal Lincoln opponents whenever the administration made any attempt to curtail civil liberties or tinker with their strict view of the Constitution.
Many Peace Democrats were also suspicious of the Lincoln administration, a situation echoed by the Columbia County Democratic newspapers. They simply did not believe Lincoln's inaugural speech when he said that the South had nothing to fear from his administration. Peace Democrats equated Republicans with abolitionists and were suspicious that given the chance, the Republicans would stop at nothing to get rid of slavery. In turn, Republican editors accused the Peace Democrats of treason and aiding the enemy by trying to undermine the administration in a time of crisis. Already by mid-1861, anti-administration Democrats were being called "Copperheads" by Republican editors looking for any antiwar instigators across the North.
Criticism of the Lincoln administration was very muted as the war erupted in April 1861. In Pennsylvania, as noted above, the rush to enlist was so overwhelming that the state easily filled its quota. A number of companies formed were turned away after the state raised twenty-five regiments. But the men in these companies remained together, and when the state legislature authorized the raising and equipping of the Pennsylvania Reserves, many of these companies formed the core of this body of troops. One such company was the Iron Guards from Columbia County. Led by Captain William W. Ricketts, this unit became Company A of the Sixth Pennsylvania Reserves. This was the first full company from Columbia County to enter the service. Several men from the county enlisted in companies raised in adjacent counties, while others enlisted individually in other units. One such man was law student Charles Brockway, the letter writer who had so severely criticized the Lincoln administration. Putting aside his political leanings, Brockway enlisted in the Iron Guards, but transferred to Battery F, First Pennsylvania Light Artillery, in early July.
The day after the Union defeat at Manassas, President Lincoln issued another call for troops, the term of service to be three years. During the remaining days of summer, throughout the fall of 1861, and on into the winter of 1861–1862, Pennsylvanians continued to enlist, albeit in lesser numbers than at the start of the war. After this first wave of recruiting and enlisting finally spent itself, the commonwealth had placed over 130,000 in uniform. Columbia County supplied Company G of the Fifty-Second Infantry, D of the Eighty-Fourth Infantry, and part of the complement of Battery F, Second Heavy Artillery.
When active military operations began again in the early months of 1862, Democratic criticism continued to be muted because of Union military successes. In February, troops led by Brigadier General Ambrose E. Burnside moved into North Carolina and won a victory at Roanoke Island, then in March fought another battle that resulted in the capture of Newbern, the state's second-largest city. Meanwhile, Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant's soldiers captured Forts Henry and Donelson in Tennessee, forcing the Confederates to retreat southward into Mississippi as other Union troops occupied Nashville, the Tennessee capital. The Battle of Shiloh on April 6–7, though a bloodbath that shocked the people back home on both sides, resulted in a Union victory as Southern troops withdrew from the field. Flag officer David Farragut's capture of New Orleans, the South's largest city, was yet another boost to Northern hopes that the war would be over in 1862. With Major General George B. McClellan and the Army of the Potomac on the Yorktown peninsula, threatening the Confederate capital, it did indeed seem that the Yankees would crush the Rebellion in the coming months. Anticipating such a result, the War Department on April 3 ordered recruiters to suspend activities and close their facilities. There were enough troops in the field to end the Rebellion.
Pennsylvania Democrats continued to criticize the administration when they got the chance. Existing editorials in state newspapers indicate that much of the antipathy was the result of the Lincoln administration's eroding of civil liberties. Article I of the Constitution specified that "[t]he privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Lincoln had suspended habeas corpus in April 1861 to safeguard the railroads leading to Washington, but when a Maryland secessionist was arrested, he sued, and the Supreme Court, via Chief Justice Roger Taney, ruled that Lincoln had acted illegally in suspending the writ. But Lincoln simply ignored Taney's decision. Newspapers across the country argued both sides of this civil liberties case. The Constitution compounded the problem by omitting to specify which branch of the government could suspend the writ. The Democrats complained that the administration claimed "military necessity" for its policies. Pennsylvanians were subject to arrests, insults, mob violence, threats, and abuse. Editor Tate wrote that "Every true Democrat will exert all his power to crush out the wicked and unholy rebellion that is now raging, and in bringing traitors North and South to that just punishment they deserve." By this time, the rallying cry of the Democratic Party had changed: "The Constitution as it is, the Union as it was."
Excerpted from The Fishing Creek Confederacy by Richard A. Sauers Peter Tomasak Copyright © 2012 by The Curators of the University of Missouri. Excerpted by permission of University of Missouri Press. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Meet the Author
Richard A. Sauers is Executive Director of the Western Museum of Mining and Industry located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He is the author of several books, including America's Battlefields. He lives in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Peter Tomasak is an independent historian and the author of several books including Lopez, PA: The Early History of Sawdust City. He lives in Edwardsville, Pennsylvania.
and post it to your social network
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
See all customer reviews >