COMMUNICATIONS
OLD COPPERHEADS AND NEW
The editorial in the September number of the Wisconsin Magazine of History entitled “Consolation for the Present Crisis,” has prompted me to enlarge upon one of its themes. Those of our citizens who feel disturbed by the presence among us of an anti-war element may find encouragement in a further recital of the doings of the anti-war advocates in Wisconsin half a century ago.
Shortly after the firing on Fort Sumter, when the North was roused to the utmost pitch of excitement, the democratic members of the legislature together with certain citizens of Madison, arranged for a peace mass meeting in the assembly chamber for the purpose of devising some compromise which should suffice to avert the impending war. At the appointed time the chamber was thronged with citizens, and a number of speeches were made by legislators and townsmen conveying various proposals of compromise which should be tendered the southern people. These addresses were vigorously applauded by a large proportion of the audience. Before the close of the meeting, however, there were calls for Senator Dean, a republican whose loyalty to the government was unquestioned. Greeted with tumultuous applause, he proceeded, after a few stirring sentences about the duties of citizenship, to say: “Compromise? Yes, we will compromise with them! We will send a million free men down through the southern states and drive the whole confederate army into the Gulf of Mexico!” The applause which greeted this sentiment shook the building, and lasted ten minutes or more. The meeting immediately adjourned, leaving the peace advocates without a program.
As the war progressed, and the future seemed dark indeed, another peace meeting was called at Madison, to be held in Capital Park. Noted speakers were engaged, and it was expected that a great demonstration in favor of ending the war would be staged. By this time Camp Randall had come into being as the principal military encampment for Wisconsin’s soldiers. Naturally the men did not
look with enthusiasm upon the impending peace meeting. On the appointed day two or three hundred soldiers, having secured leave of absence from camp, dragged a six-pound cannon to capitol square; loading it with canister, they planted it in front of the speaker’s stand, with the quiet assurance to those in charge of the meeting that as soon as a treasonable word should be uttered the orator and all on the platform would be blown to hell. Under these circumstances the meeting proved very tame, the speeches being confined to deprecating the necessity for the war and hoping it would soon be over.
The Copperheads, as they had come to be called, did not omit any opportunity to flaunt their sentiments before the supporters of the government. In Madison alone probably hundreds of old-fashioned copper cents (a coin nearly an inch and a quarter in diameter) were filed down so as to leave only the Indian head in profile. To this a pin was affixed for attachment to the coat lapel, and the coins were worn to afford evidence that the wearer was a Copperhead in sentiment. Loyal citizens responded to this challenge by filing the eagle out of the silver quarter and wearing it as a badge. One prominent citizen, who wore the copperhead for over a year, lived to say that it was the one action of his life of which he was heartily ashamed.
There is today no such villification and abuse of President Wilson as was heaped upon Lincoln during the Civil War. After every Union defeat the Copperheads would say: “What did we tell you? You can never whip the South!” Some of the newspapers were so disloyal in sentiment that they were suppressed by military authority. In fact, the situation was very grave. In comparison with it the current pacifist machinations appear tame and insignificant. The great mass of the people, however, were determined to stand by the government till victory should be achieved. They persevered in this determination and the Union was preserved. So will it be today, whether the end comes in one year or five, whether the cost be five billions of dollars or fifty. There must be no compromise. Let the fight be to the finish.
Sincerely yours,
E. C. Mason.
Madison, October 1, 1917.
I have been reading the report of the sixty-fourth annual meeting of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin which I received yesterday. I was interested in the article by the pioneer missionary, especially as much of his work was done in a part of Wisconsin where I labored years ago. On page 184, in a note about Rev. Isaac Baird, it is said that he was appointed to Odanah, which is correct. Such positions must be filled by appointment. I may say that, unless my memory deceives me, the work at Odanah was of more consequence than Father Verwyst’s remarks would indicate. But it is said that Mr. Baird was removed to Crystal Falls, Michigan. I think it should rather be that Mr. Baird accepted a call to the pastorate of the church at Crystal Falls or to be its stated supply. If the writer of the word had written “Mr. Baird removed,” there would be no objection to the statement from a Presbyterian standpoint. But “was removed,” that is another matter.
In a speech delivered in the British House of Commons, July 9, 1845, Macaulay said, “All staunch Presbyterians think that the flock is entitled, jure divino, to a voice in the appointment of a pastor, and that to force a pastor on a parish to which he is unacceptable is a sin forbidden by the Word of God as idolatry or perjury. I am quite sure that I do not exaggerate when I say that the highest of our high churchmen at Oxford cannot attach more importance to episcopal government and episcopal ordination than many thousands of Scotchmen, shrewd men, respectable men, who fear God and honor the Queen, attach to this right of the people.” And to go to the fountain head, in “The Buke of Discipline” by John Knox, are these words. “It apperteneth to the Pepill and to every severall Congregation, to Elect thair Minister.” I quote verbatim et literatim. There is much more to the same effect. Excuse me for this screed, but I spent a good many years in Wisconsin as a Presbyterian minister and was used to having this question “speired at me” as the Scotch would say, when I returned from a meeting of presbytery, “Have you been sent back for another year?” When I explained to those people the Presbyterian way of doing, no one but said, “I believe that is the best way.” Yet many Presbyterians in Wisconsin wish to deny to the people that right. The note I
refer to was written by a man who did not know the Presbyterian way of doing or else was one of the Presbyterians I referred to just above.[96] But those Presbyterians did not know the history of their own church. A great fight for democracy is on and we must fight for democracy in the church as well as in the state if we are to make the democracy of the state a success. See Fiske’s Beginnings of New England. Hence I do not wish the Wisconsin Historical Society to help even by a note the autocratic tendencies of some Wisconsin Presbyterians. Let us advance in democracy by going back to the time when people chose their bishop—you know the story of the election of Ambrose of Milan.
I remain
Yours faithfully and gratefully,
Angus Sillars.
Fairmount, Ill., July 24, 1917.
[96] The editor of the Society, rather than Father Verwyst, author of the article is responsible for the footnote statement which Mr. Sillars calls in question. It is freely admitted that he “did not know the Presbyterian way of doing.”