Ohio History Journal

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1864

IN OHIO

BY ELIZABETH F. YAGER, M. A., B. A., B. S. IN EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION

A brief resume of early Ohio politics serves to show

that the state had been for the most part Democratic, 30

far as national politics were concerned. The Democrats

who drew up the first constitution controlled the electoral

vote until 1836; in 1836 and in 1840, William Henry

Harrison carried the state, and Henry Clay secured the

electoral vote in 1844. Ohio went Democratic again in

1848 and in 1852; but in 1856 and 1860 the Republican

presidential nominee won in the Buckeye state.

In 1861 the Unionists got control of the legislature,

and David Tod, a former Douglas Democrat, but now a

Unionist, became Ohio's second war governor. In the

fall of 1862, however, the congressional election resulted

in a victory for the Democrats. In spite of the fact that

the Unionist legislature had gerrymandered the state to

secure the election of Unionists, the Democrats won

fourteen of the nineteen seats on a platform which de-

nounced Lincoln's disregard for the Constitution, the

Emancipation Proclamation (on the ground that it

would flood Ohio with negroes), and the Abolitionists.

This victory of the Democrats was in large measure due

to the failures of the Northern armies, the draft, military

arrests, and the President's conservatism. In 1863, for

their gubernatorial candidate, the Democrats chose

(548)

The Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio   549

Clement L. Vallandigham, who was a martyr in the eyes

of the Peace Democrats. The campaign was waged on

the issue of whether the Administration's war policy was

a success or failure. In the election, in which more votes

were cast than in any previous election in Ohio, John

Brough, the Unionist candidate, won by a majority of

101,264 votes, an eleven percent majority. The military

victories in July at Vicksburg and Gettysburg were of

very great help to the Unionists in this election.

PRE-CAMPAIGN POLITICS IN OHIO

The main political events in Ohio in the early part

of 1864 were the convention of War Democrats on the

8th of January, the Jackson Day Celebration, the Union

legislative caucus of February 26th, the Democratic

State Convention of March 23d, and the Union State

Convention of May 25th.1

A group of Democrats who called themselves War

Democrats, unable to accept Vallandigham, the Demo-

cratic nominee for governor, because of the peace doc-

trines for which he stood, had formed a permanent state

organization and had come out against the election of

Vallandigham in the fall of 1863. In the resolutions

they had adopted, protesting against abolition as well

as secession, they had declared it the right and the duty

of the government to execute the laws by force if neces-

sary; they had declared for a vigorous prosecution of

1 Throughout this study, "War Democrats" has been used to desig-

nate those members of the Democratic party who were for continuance

of the war to restore the Union and who remained in the party, as con-

trasted with "Peace Democrats" who put the emphasis upon peace measures.

"Unionist" includes here both the radical and conservative factions of

the Administration party. " National Union" was the name given to the

Republican party at the regular Republican national convention.

550      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

the war until the rebellion should be crushed and for

peace on no terms except unconditional submission to

the Constitution and laws of the United States; and they

pledged themselves to obey all the laws of the United

States and to sustain the Administration, although they

disapproved of many of its acts, such as the Emancipa-

tion Proclamation and illegal arrests.2

This group came together again at Columbus, Janu-

ary 8, 1864. According to newspaper accounts, James

Roosa of Warren presided, W. M. Ramsey of Hamilton

was secretary, and some of the principal members were

J. E. Egly, P. Mallon and Stone of Hamilton, B. Burns

of Richland, J. L. Gleason of Cuyahoga, T. Niles of

Champaign, W. J. Flagg of Scioto, Colonel Richardson

of Monroe, and Colonel Ward of Warren.

This convention reaffirmed the principles that had

been adopted September 22, 1863, and nominated four

delegates to the convention of the War Democrats of

the Northwest which was to meet in Cincinnati on the

first Wednesday in May to nominate presidential candi-

dates if it were then desirable. Since there was oppo-

sition to the proposed selection of a state ticket because

of the unsettled political conditions, no state ticket was

put in the field. The state central committee was to call

another state convention when the time was ripe for

such action.3

The element that was represented by this group evi-

dently went back into the Democratic fold in 1864 or

2 Address to the Democrats of Ohio, state convention of War Dem-

ocrats.

3 The Ohio State Journal, Jan. 9, 1864; the Daily Express, Jan. 8

and 9, 1864; the Cincinnati Commercial, Jan. 9, 1864; the Columbus Gazette,

Jan. 15, 1864; the Herald, Jan. 12, 1864.

Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio  551

they were of so little-influence that they did not select a

state ticket. The newspapers carried no news of the Cin-

cinnati convention, so it may be inferred that it was

never held.

There were three Jackson Day Celebrations at Co-

lumbus in 1864. The War Democrats, who held their

convention on the same day, had a supper in the evening.

The Vallandigham Democrats also had a dinner on Jan-

uary 8th and there were toasts by such men as George

L. Converse, an Ohio senator, on state rights, Sam Med-

ary, editor of the Crisis, on the Kentucky and Virginia

Resolutions, Representative Mayo of Butler County,

who referred to Vallandigham as "the patriot and

statesman exile."4  The speeches, however, were not so

radical as one would expect from the Vallandigham

Democrats. Not to be outdone by the Democrats, the

General Assembly met in the House and listened to a

speech by G. V. Dorsey of Miami County, whose main

theme was the similarity between Jackson and Lincoln,

and who drew a parallel between the Jackson "Procla-

mation of Union" in 1832 and Lincoln's "Proclamation

of Freedom" in 1862.5

The next political event in Ohio, one to which Salmon

P. Chase attached much importance, was the caucus of

the Union members of the Ohio legislature at Columbus

on February 26th to register whom they preferred for

the nomination at Baltimore.

Salmon P. Chase, the Secretary of the treasury, a

possible candidate for the nomination at Baltimore,

being a resident of Ohio, looked with much interest upon

4 The Crisis, Jan. 13, 1864.

5 The Ohio State Journal, Jan. 9, 1864.

552        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

the outcome of this caucus. Indeed, he considered it so

important that, in a letter to his old friend and partner,

Flamen Ball, he expressed his position that he would

not allow his name to be used if Ohio expressed a pref-

erence for another.6

Secretary Chase had friends among political leaders

in Ohio. September 11, 1863, Samuel Galloway of

Franklin County breakfasted with Chase and talked of

Ohio affairs and spoke encouragingly of Chase's politi-

cal prospects in Ohio.⁷ United States Senator John

Sherman preferred the nomination of Chase to that of

Lincoln but was willing to abide by the action of the

Baltimore convention.⁸ Sherman's official franks were

used to circulate some of the copies of the Pomeroy

Circular9, although the Ohio Senator wrote to the Cin-

cinnati Gazette that this had been done by mistake of his

clerk.10

James C. Hall of Toledo, Ohio senator from the 33d

district, and W. D. Lindsley, Ohio representative of

Erie County, must have been leaders in the Chase-for-

president movement in the Ohio legislature. In a letter

of January 18th to Senator Hall, Secretary Chase ac-

knowledged receipt of a letter from Hall, discussed the

6 Chase to Flamen Ball, Feb. 2, 1864, Warden, R. B., Anz account of

the private life and public service of Salmon Portland Chase, 569-570.

7 Ibid., 541.

8 John Sherman to the editor of the Cincinnati Gazette, Cincinnati

Gazette, March 3, 1864.

9 The Pomeroy Circular was a letter circulated widely by mail in

February, 1864. It was sent out by a committee of senators, representa-

tives, and citizens, organized in January to secure the nomination of

Secretary Chase as the Unionist candidate. This circular took the posi-

tion that ". . . radical ideas, the policy of a vigorous prosecution of

the war, and the safety of the country would be subserved better by the

choice of Chase for President than by that of Lincoln." Rhodes, J. F.,

History of the United States . . . IV, 4.8.

10 The Cincinnati Gazette, March 3, 1864.

Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio  553

movement which had as its purpose the nomination of

Chase, expressed his desire for the support of Ohio, and

promised to acquiesce cheerfully if the majority pre-

ferred another.11

Representative Lindsley must have informed Chase

that the Ohio legislative caucus would be likely to en-

dorse Lincoln, because on February 1st Chase wrote to

Lindsley that "* * * such action as you say is con-

templated in Ohio will be received by me with perfect

respect and acquiescence, as a declaration that the legis-

lative representatives of our cause prefer another to my-

self."12

The caucus of the Union members of the legislature

met at Columbus on the evening of February 26th. The

newspaper accounts of this caucus were very meager.

Some reported that about eighty of the Union members

of the Legislature were there at the beginning of the

meeting, while others had it that about sixty-three were

in attendance. The proceedings resulted in the adoption

of the following resolution offered by Senator Connell

of Fairfield: "Resolved, that the loyal people of the

state of Ohio, and the soldiers in the army, are in favor

of and demand the renomination of Abraham Lincoln,

as the Union candidate for the presidency."

There is some evidence that some of those who at-

tended this caucus did not favor the immediate adoption

of a resolution endorsing the renomination of Abraham

Lincoln. The Ohio State Journal, a strong Administra-

tion paper, reported that one of the members moved that

there be a delay and that the subject be referred to a

11 Wardel, 560.

12 Ibid, 568.

554      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

committee. A correspondent of the Cincinnati Com-

mercial, who wrote that he was a member of the caucus

and who said that the reporters were requested not to

publish their notes, gave the only detailed account of

the caucus published. In this letter to the Commercial,

he wrote that five of the men at the caucus -- Senators

Gunckel of Montgomery, Eggleston of Hamilton, Devin

of Knox, and Representatives Stanton of Hamilton and

Odlin of Montgomery -- spoke in favor of a delay, that

two--Devin and Odlin -- urged that a committee be

appointed to report at a later meeting, that two of these

were for delay since they desired a fuller attendance,

and that Senator Gunckel offered a resolution for a ten-

day delay which provoked a great deal of discussion but

was in little favor. This correspondent of the Commer-

cial wrote further that after the resolution for the re-

nomination of President Lincoln was passed a few freely

expressed their sentiments that Chase had been discour-

teously treated and that not enough were present to take

such action. According to this writer, Senators Day of

Portage, Stevenson of Ross, West of Logan, Jamison

of Harrison, Maginnis of Muskingum, Connell of Fair-

field and Speaker Hubbell expressed themselves in favor

of a resolution to endorse Lincoln immediately.13

Perhaps, the report of two newspapers as to who

signed and who refused to sign the resolution passed by

the caucus and sent around later to all the Union mem-

bers of the legislature, gives some clue as to what mem-

bers were especially strong for Chase.14 The accounts

in these papers said that three members of the House

13 The Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 29, 1864.

14 The Cincinnati Gazette, March 5, 1864,; the Cleveland Leader,

March 9, 1864.

Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio  555

were absent and that six refused to sign. These six

were McGill and Stanton of Hamilton, Carroll of Ma-

honing, Riber of Pickaway, Lind of Stark, and Forbis

of Tuscarawas. Six senators were reported to have re-

fused to sign since the action was premature. These

men were Eggleston, Whetstone and Weasner of Ham-

ilton, Williamson of Cuyahoga, Howard of Champaign,

and Hall of Lucas. One senator, Kenny of Ashland

and Richland, refused to endorse the resolution.

That Chase considered the action of this caucus to be

very damaging to the chances for his nomination, is evi-

denced by the letter he wrote through Senator J. C. Hall

to his friends in Ohio and elsewhere. To Secretary

Chase the recent action of the Union members of the

Ohio legislature indicated that his Ohio friends did not

prefer him and he felt it was his duty to ask that his

name be considered no further.15 Two days later, in a

letter to A. G. Riddle, then consul at Matanzas, Secre-

tary Chase wrote that "* * * our Ohio folks don't

want me enough if they want me at all, to make it proper

for me to allow my name to be used."16

Chase as a candidate for the Republican nomination

came up again in Ohio in May when a circular issued

by some one from Hamilton, Butler county, urged the

Union State Convention to endorse him for the nomi-

nation at Baltimore.17 In this circular, it was argued

that Lincoln should be held to the one-term principle,

that the nomination of Lincoln would be an endorsement

of the improper course of the Blair family who seemed

15 Chase to J. C. Hall, March 5, 1864, Schuckers, Jacob W., The life

and public services of Salmon Portland Chase  . .  .", 502-503.

16 Warden, 576.

17 The Ohio State Journal, May 10, 1864.

556      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

to rule the Administration, that Chase was entitled to

the presidency because of the part he played in the Ad-

ministration as Secretary of the treasury. And the Cin-

cinnati Volksblatt, a German newspaper, after ener-

getically supporting Lincoln, came out May 21st for

Chase several days before the Union State Conven-

tion.18

But Secretary Chase was not endorsed by the Union

State Convention for the presidential nomination. The

second of the resolutions, which were not discussed on

the floor of the convention, recommended the renomina-

tion of Abraham Lincoln, and the four men selected as

delegates-at-large to the Baltimore Convention, were

very favorable to the Administration.

An examination of Ohio Unionist newspapers in the

early months of 1864, leads one to believe that then the

current of Unionist opinion in Ohio was for Lincoln as

the logical Unionist nominee. The danger of change

and derangement of the administration in war time was

a weighty argument in Lincoln's favor. The northern

Ohio newspapers especially were for Chase, but they

said that it was the cause, and not men, that was para-

mount, so under the circumstances they endorsed Lin-

coln for renomination.

March 23d the Democratic state convention met in

Columbus to select a state ticket and delegates to the

Chicago Convention.19 The conservative wing of the

party outmaneuvered the peace wing. Before the chair-

man of the state central committee got there, Fitch of

18 The Ohio Statesman, May 23, 1864; the Enquirer, May 24, 1864;

the Cleveland Herald, June 19, 1864.

19 The Ohio Statesman, March 24, 1864; the Cincinnati Gazette, March

25, 1864.

Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio  557

Cleveland, a committeeman, called the convention to

order, and on Fitch's motion George Rex of Wayne

County, an anti-Vallandigham Democrat, became the

presiding officer.20 Sam Medary, the editor of the

Crisis, a Peace Democrat, complained of this and

charged that the convention was organized before half

of the delegates got into the hall.21

The election of delegates-at-large to the Chicago

Convention resulted in the selection of only one Peace

Democrat among the four men elected by the conven-

tion. The peace men nominated were Medary, the

editor of the Crisis, George H. Pendleton, then United

States congressman from the First district, Ohio Sena-

tor Willet of Williams County, and William Corry of

Cincinnati. Clement L. Vallandigham was nominated

as an independent candidate by Jackson of Crawford

County. The more conservative men nominated were

ex-Senator William Allen of Ross County, Judge Thur-

man of Columbus, G. R. Morgan of Knox County, and

R. P. Ranney of Cuyahoga. On the first ballot Thurman,

Allen, Pendleton, in the order named, got a sufficient

number of votes and were declared elected. Ranney

with 201 1/3 and Vallandigham with 196 2/3 votes stood

next. The names of the others were then withdrawn

and the contest left to Vallandigham and Ranney.

Vallandigham missed being elected by the very close

vote of 216 1/3 to 211 2/3. A great deal of confusion

resulted when the result of the vote was announced and

the Peace Democrats demanded that the vote be read by

counties, but this was declared to be out of order. An

20 The Ohio Statesman, March 24, 1864; the Cincinnati Gazette,

March 25, 1864.

21 The Crisis, April 6, 1864.

558      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

examination of the vote by counties shows that the dele-

gates of the counties in the southwestern and south cen-

tral part of the state were for the most part for Vallan-

digham, and that the majority and often all of the dele-

gates of more than half of the northern counties of

Ohio cast their votes for Ranney. The result of the

election of delegates-at-large meant that three of these

four men would support a war nominee at the Demo-

cratic National Convention.

The platform adopted by the Democratic State Con-

vention was very mild and brief, although it was am-

biguous and made to fit the tastes of all shades of Dem-

ocrats. As one paper put it, "* * * * instead of

laying the planks of the platform down flat, they laid

them edgewise."22 In brief, the platform declared, 1st,

that the Democrats of Ohio pledged themselves to re-

spect the Constitution and to preserve the Union, 2d,

that they "* * * would hail with delight any and

every honorable effort toward a restoration of the nor-

mal condition of the Union, to wit: internal peace and

harmony, and fraternal affection between the several

States comprising it; ** * *" and that they opposed

the continuance in power of the present administration

because its measures prevented these results, 3d, that

they opposed carrying on the war to subjugate, to de-

prive of sovereignty, or to impair the constitutional

rights of the states, and believing that civil liberty would

be destroyed by continued war for such objects, they

demanded that peaceable means be immediately used to

get an honorable settlement and to restore the Union

under the Constitution, and 4th, that mob spirit was due

22 The Cleveland Herald, March 25, 1864.

Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio  559

to the violation of the Constitution and laws by the Re-

publicans and that "* * * the present Administra-

tion has sown the seeds from which we are now reaping

a harvest of crime."

The Union state convention which met May 25th at

Columbus was very regular in its proceedings.23 Ex-

Governors Tod and Dennison, Columbus Delano of

Knox, and G. V. Dorsey of Miami County were chosen

delegates to the Baltimore Convention.

The resolutions, unanimously adopted, were the fol-

lowing: 1st, that Ohio renewed her pledge to sustain

the Government with all her men and money to suppress

the rebellion; 2d, that the people of Ohio demanded the

renomination of Abraham Lincoln and that the Conven-

tion recommended this demand to the National Union

Convention; 3d, that they congratulated the country on

the military successes and thanked the army and navy

for their services, which they accepted " * * * as a

guarantee that, under Providence, final victory will

speedily come, and this rebellion be forever crushed;"

4th, that they were proud of the "* * * * ability,

fidelity and patriotism * * *" shown by Ohio in the

field, the cabinet, and in the councils; 5th, that the Union

party of Ohio pledged itself to support " *  * the

great measures which have marked the administration of

Abraham Lincoln, * * *" and especially to "  * *

approve the pending amendment to the Constitution to

make the States of the Union 'all free' and all Repub-

lican -and, therefore, forever one and indivisible."

A period of three months intervened between the last

23 The Ohio State Journal, May 26, 1864; the Daily Express, May 26,

1864.

560      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Socicty Publications

of these organized expressions of political sentiment and

the beginning of the campaign proper in September.

Some indication of the temper of public opinion in

the state in 1864 is necessary to a clearer understanding

of the November election. In the summer there was a

great deal of dissatisfaction with the Administration be-

cause of the gloomy military outlook. To counteract

this, the Cleveland Leader, after trying to prove that

the worst of the task of crushing the rebellion was over,

said that "the whole question is, will the people have

the courage to complete their great work?"²⁴ And the

Sandusky Register rather rebukingly said that "of all

things this is not the time for loyal men to be

moaning and complaining."25  When in August there

was on foot a movement to get both Abraham Lincoln

and John C. Fremont to withdraw from the race in order

that a stronger candidate might be nominated upon

whom the Unionists would concentrate, the Cincinnati

Gazette felt that the masses would enthusiastically ap-

prove even a new convention and a new candidate in

order to defeat the peace party.26

The silence of the Administration papers on the

President's policies leads one to infer that Ohio people

generally were not enthusiastic about them. The Cin-

cinnati Gazette was the only Ohio Unionist paper of im-

portance which undertook to criticize the acts of the Lin-

coln government. It held that the Emancipation

Proclamation did not emancipate the slaves;27 that the

Proclamation of Amnesty, being a standing amnesty,

24 The Cleveland Leader, Aug. 13, 1864.

25 The Sandusky Register. Aug. 13. 1861.

26 The  Cincinnati Gasette, Aug. 27, 1864.

27 Ibid., April 6, 1861.

Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio        561

served as a guarantee of immunity from punishment

and thus encouraged the continuation of the war as long

as the South had hope of success;28 it disapproved of

the use of the negroes as troops then and reminded the

North that her race prejudice had not been lessened

enough to admit of such practice, and urged, further-

more, that the negroes who fought for the North could

be sold and kidnapped legally in the states they were

defending;29 it protested against the so-called "abduc-

tion of Arguilles" as a violation of the sanctity of

asylum;30 and it criticized Lincoln's reasons for vetoing

the Wade-Davis bill, since it was not unconstitutional

for Congress to do by law what the President had done

without law.31

Dissatisfaction with the Administration was ex-

pressed in a desire for peace.     The President's letter

of July 18th to the peace negotiators at Niagara in which

he made the abolition of slavery a pre-requisite to peace,

led some to believe that he did not want peace. The

Democratic papers took the opportunity to charge Lin-

coln with carrying on the war not for the Union but for

the negro. The Ohio Statesman printed side by side the

letter of July 18th and the part of Lincoln's inaugural

address in which he declared that a state had a right to

control its own domestic institutions.32   The Cleveland

28 Ibid., Feb. 25, 1864.

29 Ibid., April 26, 1864.

30 Ibid, May 30, 1864. Don Jose Arguilles, acting lieutenant governor

of Colon, had captured a slave expedition, sold the slaves and escaped to

the United States. United States officials had arrested the fugitive and

had given him up to the Cuban authorities. This extradition resulted in

the adoption by the radical Republicans of a plank favoring the right of

asylum.

31 The Cincinnati Gazette, July 12, 1864.

32 The Ohio Statesman, Aug. 4, 1864.

562       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Leader, which had come out for the renomination of

Lincoln in December, 1863, testified to the general de-

sire for peace, and said that it was, therefore, the duty

of the Administration to listen to peace propositions if

the South was ready to end the war without destroying

the Union. This paper believed that the people would

approve an armistice of thirty or sixty days if the Gov-

ernment saw fit.33

The desire for peace and dissatisfaction with the

policy of the Administration found expression in part

through the peace meetings which were held generally,

throughout the state, during the latter part of July and

the month of August. These were non-partisan gather-

ings at which speeches were made and resolutions

adopted expressing the grievances of the people and

their disapproval of further war. How large a body

of the citizens of Ohio these peace meetings represented,

it is impossible to know. The resolutions adopted at the

various meetings were similar in complaints and de-

mands. They expressed reluctance to support the war

to free the negro, held that peace and Union could be

restored without further war, and demanded an imme-

diate end to the fighting. The President was requested

to revoke the draft, because the 50,000 required from

Ohio would take away from the factories and the farms

one-half of the able-bodied men. At one of these peace

meetings, held by the citizens of Butler County on

August 16th, those present resolved that they would

33 The Cleveland Leader, Aug. 17, 1864. Upon the suggestion of

Henry Raymond, Lincoln's campaign manager, on August 24th, the Presi-

dent drafted instructions to Raymond to confer with Jefferson Davis for

a peace on the basis of the Union alone, but this draft of instructions was

never used, Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln, Complete works . . .,

II, 568.

Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio  563

not compel any resident of Butler County to go into the

army   "* *  *   even should it prove necessary to give

effect to this decision by force and with arms."³⁴ The

heavy burdens of taxation, the violations of civil liberty

by the Administration, the draft system by which the

rich were allowed to escape from army service, and dis-

crimination in laws in favor of New England were also

complained of.

There is other evidence that the people did not take

very kindly to the ordering out of the state militia and

the calls for more troops. The governor's ordering the

state militia to do garrison duty for 100 days to relieve

the regular army men so that they could go to the front,

was said by the Cleveland Leader to have caused

"* * * quite a flutter of agitation."³⁵ No doubt, this

withdrawal of about 30,000 men from active business

pursuits in the state did fall rather heavily. The Cleve-

land Herald said that "grumblers have suddenly in-

creased in number, since the call for five hundred thou-

sand more men."36

THE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN IN OHIO

The Democratic campaign proper opened in Ohio

September 7, 1864, when meetings were held in various

cities to ratify the action of the Democratic Convention.

The action taken at Chicago had resulted in a sort

of compromise between the Democratic factions. The

platform, which in its main plank said that the war was

34 The Cincinnati Commercial, cited in the Enquirer, Aug. 18, 1864;

Complicity of Democracy with treason, 10-11.

35 The Cleveland Leader, April 5, 1864.

36 The Cleveland Herald, July 26, 1864.

564      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

a failure and demanded that efforts be made to end hos-

tilities by means of a convention of the states to restore

peace "on the basis of the federal Union of the states",

was expected to be acceptable to the Peace Democrats.

The vice-presidential nominee, George H. Pendleton of

Cincinnati, was a Peace Democrat. General George B.

McClellan, whom   the Democrats nominated for the

presidency, was counted upon to get the votes of the

soldiers and the War Democrats. Early in the war he

had been at the head of the Union army, in that position

had come to be known by the men in the field, and was

popular among them. His position that the war should

be carried on solely to restore the Union was the same

as that of a large number of Democrats.1

That there were very many Democrats in Ohio who

did not want a war man as the Democratic nominee had

been evidenced at the Convention by the votes of the

Ohio delegates, many of whom had been instructed by

the districts which had sent them. On the first ballot

the Ohio Delegates had cast ten and one-half votes for

Thomas H. Seymour of Connecticut, eight and one-half

for General McClellan, and two for Horatio Seymour of

New York. On the final ballot they had stood 15 for

McClellan and six for T. H. Seymour.2

Clement L. Vallandigham of Dayton, Ohio, the

leader of the Peace Democrats, who got the plank he

wanted into the Chicago platform, took the stump for

the Democratic nominee and declared that he had sacri-

1 In two public speeches, one at West Point, June 15, 1864, and the

other at Lake George, June 25, 1864, McClellan had reiterated this position

which he held while at the head of the army.

2 The New York Tribune, Sept. 1, 1864; Chicago Post, Aug. 30, 1864,

cited in the Enquirer, Sept. 3, 1864.

Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio  565

ficed none of his principles in accepting McClellan,

whom he was satisfied did not represent coercion and

war, as had been supposed.³ But McClellan's letter of

acceptance, in which he emphasized his army career, de-

clared the Union to be the one condition of peace, and

said nothing about the proposed immediate cessation

of fighting and a convention of the states, made it hard

for the Peace Democrats to continue to support him.

When this letter came out, Vallandigham, who was

on his way to Pennsylvania to make speeches, turned

back and went to Cincinnati where it was rumored that

he was working to prepare the way for a bolt. His

speaking appointments were withdrawn. Vallandigham

sulked for about two weeks and then again supported

McClellan, after he was "* * * convinced that he

would have considerable influence in shaping the policy

of the Democratic candidate, if he was elected * * *."4

But Vallandigham did not endorse McClellan's position.

In his next campaign speech, denying that the Demo-

cratic platform and McClellan's letter harmonized, Val-

landigham said that McClellan did not express the sen-

timents of the Democratic party and regretted that his

letter tended to change the issue from one of peace or

war to one of how the war should be conducted.5 From

then on Vallandigham made an extensive campaign-

speaking tour through Ohio and other States, expound-

ing peace and Union doctrines and eulogizing McClel-

lan, who he said, would abide by the Democratic prin-

ciples as expressed in the party platform.

3 Vallandigham at Dayton, Sept. 7, 1864, Cincinnati Commercial, Sept.

8, 1864.

⁴ Vallandigham, James L., A life of Clement L. Vallandigham, 367.

5 Vallandigham at Sidney, Sept. 24, 1864, Cincinnati Commercial, Sept.

26, 1864.

566      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

It seemed to the Crisis, a Peace Democratic paper,

that McClellan by his letter repudiated the Democratic

platform and made one of his own for the coercion of

sovereign states.6  The Crisis was one of the two or

three Democratic newspapers which never supported

McClellan; although it said he was the lesser of the two

evils, it reminded its readers at the same time never to

forget that they were state rights Democrats.7

The Cincinnati Enquirer, another peace paper, re-

fused to quarrel with McClellan's position, and accepted

him, since it said that peace and Union would come with

his inauguration, and he would not get an opportunity

to use coercion.8

But in Ohio as in some other Western states, there

were some extreme peace and state rights Democrats,

who did not like it because the Democratic platform was

silent on the state rights principles of the Democratic

party, and who could not accept McClellan as the nomi-

nee. October 18th and 19th, at a mass convention at

Cincinnati of about 50 volunteer delegates from Ohio, Il-

linois, Indiana, and Iowa, two Ohio men figured promi-

nently. William M. Corry of Cincinnati served as

chairman of the convention. Nomination as an inde-

pendent candidate was urged upon ex-Congressman

Alexander Long of Cincinnati, who on the floor of the

Chicago Convention had been unsuccessful in getting

the first of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 put into

the Democratic platform, since Samuel Cox of Colum-

bus, who had seconded the nomination of McClellan, by

moving the previous question choked off its considera-

6 The Crisis, Sept. 14, 1864.

7 Ibid., Sept. 21, 1864.

8 The Cincinnati Enquirer, Sept. 13, 1864.

Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio  567

tion. Alexander Long refused to become an independ-

ent candidate, because he felt it was too near the election

to accomplish much by putting an independent nominee

in the field. Resolutions adopted at this convention de-

clared among other things that the war was unconsti-

tutional, that negro slavery was the only possible con-

dition for the welfare of the white laborers, that the

convention stood by the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,

and that they were for unconditional negotiations for

peace.9

Ohio was also represented at a convention of Demo-

crats in New York City on November 1. The men who

came together from twenty-five states represented those

Democrats who felt it their duty to support the Admin-

istration during this crisis, regardless of party affilia-

tions. Four Ohio men were there, one of whom was a

Union Ohio state senator, and another of whom had

been a delegate from the eighth district to the Chicago

Convention and there had voted for McClellan for the

nomination. 10

In Ohio the Democrats carried on a rather extensive

speech-making campaign. Since there was to be a con-

gressional election in October, many of the candidates

for congress took the stump in their districts and dis-

cussed political issues. Besides the congressional can-

didates, the more notable of the Democratic speakers

were Vallandigham, the Democratic candidate for gov-

ernor in 1863, William Allen of Chillicothe, Allen Thur-

man of Columbus, General George Morgan, a McClellan

delegate from the thirteenth district to the Chicago Con-

9 Cincinnati convention, October 18, 1864, for the organization of a

peace party. . . .

10 The Crisis, Nov. 2, 1864; Ibid., Nov. 16, 1864; the Ohio State Jour-

nal, Nov. 5, 1864.

568     Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

vention, and Ranney and George W. Payne, both Cleve-

land War Democrats.

Since the Democratic platform admitted of peace or

war as the issue and McClellan's letter of acceptance

made the issue the purpose for which the war should

be conducted, the Democratic speakers and papers in

Ohio which inclined toward peace emphasized peace or

war as the issue, and those which were willing that the

fighting should go on to preserve the Union stressed the

purpose and the means to be used in carrying it on.

The Democratic speakers and papers were especially

concerned with trying to show that the party in power

had caused the war, that they had changed it from a

war for the preservation of the Union to one for the

abolition of slavery, that the Republican party was now

unable to end the war, and that the Democrats would

have averted it and now would get peace and Union if

put into power. They argued that Lincoln's policies of

confiscation, and emancipation, and reconstruction had

united the South, divided the North, intensified and pro-

longed the war, and made peace and Union impossible.

The policy of the Administration was termed one of sub

jugation and extermination, since the South would

never consent to peace on the condition of the abolition

of slavery. Lincoln's letter of July 18th to the nego-

tiators at Niagara in which he laid down the abolition

of slavery as a pre-requisite to negotiations was termed

"Lincoln's platform."11 Time and again, the Demo-

cratic speakers and newspapers urged that it was im--

possible to restore the Union except by a policy of com-

promise and conciliation, that the Chicago platform pro-

11 The Ohio Statesman, Sept.-Oct.. 1861

Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio  569

posed a convention of the states as a means toward con-

ciliation, and that Mr. McClellan had declared the

preservation of the Union to be the one condition of

peace.

In the Democratic campaign, appeal was made to

race prejudice. The Administration was charged with

carrying on the war for negro equality. Amalgamation

was threatened as the result of such equality. The use

of negroes in the army was criticized; General Morgan

even said that a vote for Lincoln would be a vote for

negro generals.12 The Ohio Statesman reminded the

people that M. de Tocqueville, a Frenchman who had

visited the United States in the early part of the 19th

century, had said that the South could emancipate her

slaves and intermingle with them or retain slavery, and

that any intermediate measures would soon cause a race

war and likely the extirpation of one of the races. In

comparison with such a terrible war, said the Ohio

Statesman, this struggle would be "but child's play."13

In the campaign in Ohio, the Democrats made a great

deal of the alleged ill-treatment of McClellan at the

hands of the President. It was said that if Lincoln had

not interfered, McClellan would have ended the war and

restored the Union in 1862, that McClellan had showed

that it was practicable to take Richmond and that all

the victories had been due to his policies. The more

enthusiastic war Democrats in their speeches reviewed

McClellan's military career in the Mexican and the Civil

wars. It was alleged that General McClellan had been

removed from the command of the army, because he

12 General Morgan at Cincinnati, Oct. 25, the Cincinnati Enquirer, Oct.

26, 1864.

13 The Ohio Statesman, Sept. 27, 1864.

570      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

was too capable to suit the Abolitionists and because he

could have restored the Union. The newspapers carried

excerpts from letters written by McClellan in which he

declared for fighting solely to preserve the Union, or-

dered his subordinates to respect the constitutional

rights of the unarmed inhabitants of the South, opposed

confiscation, political executions, territorial organiza-

tion of the states and forcible abolition. It was prom-

ised that McClellan, whom the Plain Dealer termed "the

patriot soldier", would make peace within a month after

his inauguration.

The Democratic papers took every opportunity to

attack the President. The Ohio Statesman, which re-

ferred to President Lincoln as "* * * the tyrant,

the knave, and the indecent joker * * *",14 wrote

that "any one of Lincoln's dirty jokes will afford an all

sufficient reason why every decent man should vote

against him.15 The Plain Dealer called him "a third

rate lawyer from Springfield, Illinois, who once kept a

whisky still up a hollow, split 3,000 rails, now splits

the American Union, and calls for negro songs on a

crimson battlefield, yet has the audacity to aspire again

to the chief magistracy of this great Republic.16 The

Enquirer regretted that the people could get no consola-

tion from having Lincoln as the destroyer of their lib-

erties, since, unlike Caesar, Napoleon and Cromwell,

Lincoln was not a military hero who could dazzle the

people by his exploits.17 To the Plain Dealer, Lincoln

was "* * * a miserable failure, a coarse filthy joker,

14 The Ohio Statesman, Sept. 1, 1864.

15 Ibid., Sept. 28, 1864.

16 The Plain Dealer, Sept. 6, 1864.

17 The Enquirer, Oct. 20, 1864.

572      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

a disgusting politician, a mean, cunning and cruel tyrant

and the shame and disgrace of the nation."18

Some appeal was made to the people's love of civil

liberty, but it was not prominent as it had been in the

gubernatorial campaign in 1863, since there had been

no recent flagrant violations of civil liberty among the

people of Ohio. Even Clement Vallandigham, who in

June of 1864 had come back from his exile in Canada

to Ohio, was not molested by government authorities.

But there were protests against suppression of news-

papers and free speech, arrest without warrant and im-

prisonment without trial. One paper said that the issue

of the campaign was liberty versus despotism.19 When

speaking during the campaign, Vallandigham usually

took occasion to refer to the alleged violation of free-

dom of speech in his case and declared that to the Dem-

ocrats the Constitution was the same in war as in peace

times. The defeat of the Administration was said to

be the only safety against the increasing centralization

of the general government. Dark pictures of the re-

sults of Lincoln's reelection were painted. History was

referred to as teaching that government by force in the

South would necessarily result in government by force

over a disfranchised and subjugated people at home.

It was stated that in four more years under Lincoln

popular suffrage would be no more. The Enquirer urged

all to go to the polls and vote, because "it may be the

last polls that may again be open on American soil to

receive the votes of freemen; * * *."²⁰ The En-

quirer also said that the issue was even more momen-

18 The Plain Dealer, Sept. 13, 1864.

19 The Ohio Statesman, Oct. 6, 1864.

20 The Enquirer, Nov. 1, 1864.

Presidential Campaign of 186₄ in Ohio  573

tous than was that of 1860, since the shadow of empire

was now added to the clouds of war. "It lurks behind

the frightful figure of Abraham Lincoln -- there is the

chariot and kingly crown -- there is the threatened ex-

tinguishment of the experiment of free government."21

The Democrats also used economic arguments. Un-

der the Democratic administrations, they reminded the

voters, the country was always prosperous, and they

promised that if given a chance, the Democrats would

restore prosperity. They made much of the enormous

war debt, of the burdensome and increasing taxes, of

the unsound condition of the currency, and of the high

prices of necessities. Bankruptcy and ruin, they said,

would result if a change in the administration were not

made. The war was characterized as a rich man's war,

carried on for the financial benefit of Eastern capitalists.

The Administration was criticized for its reckless ex-

penditure of money and for alleged corruption and

frauds. It was threatened that the class that owed the

debt would be able to make the laws, lay the taxes and

in other ways run the government.22

The Democrats tried to make light of the news of the

victories of Sherman in September and October. The

Crisis said that such news should be taken in small doses

until November 8.23 The Plain Dealer said that Sheri-

dan was nobly carrying out the ideas of General McClel-

lan which had been so long disregarded.24 The Repub-

licans, who held meetings to celebrate the victories of

the field, were accused of using the victories for partisan

aggrandizement. The Ohio Statesman reminded its

21 Ibid., Nov. 5, 1864.

22 Ibid, Oct. 3, 1864.

23 The Crisis, Sept. 28, 1864.

24 The Plain Dealer, Sept. 21, 1864.

574      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

readers that military victories during the Lincoln ad-

ministration would result in peace since the war was be-

ing carried on not against political organizations and mil-

itary combinations but against ideas and institutions.25

"Every victory achieved by our armies in the field," it

said, "is an overwhelming argument in favor of the elec-

tion of a president who can and will make use of vic-

tories as a means of putting an end to the war."26

The past record of the Democrats was referred to as

indicative of their future record. It was argued that

a change could not be worse. The Administration was

charged with prolonging the war for selfish ends. Fre-

quently, a vote against Lincoln was referred to as being

one against any future draft of men.

With the October congressional election in which the

Democrats won only two of the nineteen seats as con-

trasted with the fourteen of the nineteen which they

secured in 1862, the Democratic campaign almost ceased

so far as speech-making was concerned.

THE NATIONAL UNION PARTY'S CAMPAIGN

IN OHIO

The National Union Convention was held early in

June, but the active campaigning of the National Union

party did not begin in earnest in Ohio until September,

after the Democrats had nominated their candidate and

the gloomy military situation of the summer was fast

disappearing. The national convention of the party,

which had met at Baltimore, June 7 and 8, had nom-

inated President Lincoln on a platform which in its es-

25 The Ohio Statesman, Sept. 27, 1864.

26 Ibid., Sept. 29, 1864.

Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio  575

sentials approved the policies and acts of the Adminis-

tration, mentioning specifically the Emancipation Proc.

lamation and the acts to abolish slavery and the use of

former slaves as soldiers, favored a constitutional

amendment to abolish slavery, a liberal and just foreign

immigration policy, speedy construction of a railroad to

the Pacific, economy in expenses, and disapproved for-

eign interference in the Western hemisphere.

A few days before the National Union Convention,

the Fremont movement had found expression in a na-

tional convention, which had been held at Cleveland,

Ohio. The names of two Ohioans, Bird B. Chapman of

Elyria and W. H. Shupe, were signed to the B. Gratz

Brown call for this convention. As to the strength of the

Fremont movement in Ohio, if the newspapers then pub-

lished in Ohio reflected public opinion at that time or

helped to form it, one may infer, I think, that a consid-

erable number of the Germans of Ohio favored Fre-

mont for the presidency in the early part of 1864 and

that there was more unanimity on the candidate than

on the expediency of an independent movement. Prob-

ably the position of the Waechter am Erie, the Cleve-

land German paper, may be considered to have repre-

sented the position of the more conservative Germans.

It was opposed to a division among the members of the

Administration party since such a division would work

not for the benefit of the radical Germans but for the

interests of the Democrats and would force the Balti-

more Convention to be more conservative.1  After the

two conventions were over, this same paper felt that

1 The Waechter am Erie, cited in the Cleveland Leader, March 17,

1864.

576      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Fremont had not been induced to start a new party on

principle but because of Lincoln and that he was not the

same Fremont as in 1856; it compared Fremont's attack

upon the Administration to that of the Copperheads; it

took issue with the Fremont platform, which declared

that the war had destroyed slavery and contended that

slavery was dead only where the Union armies were; it

criticized Fremont for opposing the confiscation of rebel

property and distribution among former slaves and set-

tlers, which was in the Radical Republican platform,

and it asked whether this did not look as though Fre-

mont were speculating on his nomination at Chicago; it

did not consider the Arguilles case as a violation of the

right of asylum, since the Government delivered up a

slave dealer.2

The Toledo Express, another German paper of Ohio,

endorsed the Fremont movement until July when it came

out for the reelection of Lincoln on the plea that unity

of the Administration party and loyalty were identical.3

The Cincinnati Volksblatt never did support Fre-

mont. But according to the Cleveland Herald, a Fre-

mont German daily, the Ohio Democrat was to begin

publication August 5.4 Another Fremont German news-

paper reported to have begun publication in August was

the Volks Zeitung.5

In the Ohio papers for the summer of 1864, I found

only one notice of a Fremont meeting, which was re-

2 The Waechter am Erie, cited in the Sandusky Register, June 22,

1864.

3 The Toledo Express, cited in the Enquirer, July 2, 1864; the Toledo

Express cited in the Cleveland Herald, July 8, 1864.

4 The Cleveland Herald, Aug. 17, 1864.

5 The Cincinnati Commercial, Aug. 26, 1864; Ibid., Oct. 20, 1864.

Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio  577

ported to have been held in Cincinnati, June 29, and at

which a Colonel Grant of Missouri was the speaker.6

During the summer, there was little political cam-

paigning. Success for the National Union Candidate

appeared to be very slight, because the Administration

was blamed for the lack of military successes, and be-

cause, by his demand for the abolition of slavery as a

prerequisite to negotiations, Lincoln was considered as

having made peace impossible. The Administration

papers in Ohio were noticeably silent concerning Lin-

coln and the Union party's cause. The editors spent

their time trying to convince their readers that the worst

of the job in putting down the rebellion was over.

In the fall, due to the victories of Farragut, Sher-

man, and Sheridan, the crushing of the rebellion and

peace with Union seemed nearer at hand. And with the

opening of the active campaign in September the pros-

pects for the success of the National Union party

brightened.

Mass meetings and campaign addresses were a very

important part of the Republican campaign. Besides

the nominees for Congress, some of the prominent

Unionists of Ohio who took an active part in the cam-

paign were Governor Brough, ex-Governors Tod and

Dennison, Senators Sherman and Wade, and ex-Secre-

tary of the Treasury Chase, who by the 17th of Septem-

ber had decided to promote the reelection of President

Lincoln.7

No doubt, the most effective campaign argument that

6 The Cincinnati Enquirer, July 1, 1864.

7 Schuckers, J. W., The life and public services of Salmon Portland

Chase, Chase's Journal, 511.

578      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

was used by the orators and newspapers, was the one

that the war was not a failure as the Chicago platform

had declared. When the news of the victories reached

Ohio, the Union rallies that were held to celebrate them

must have had a tremendous effect in arousing enthusi-

asm for the cause of the Union party. It was argued

that it was now no time to give up the fighting when the

rebellion was so near to being crushed. At a Cleveland

Union meeting, Governor Brough, who spoke subse-

quent to John Sherman, referred to Sherman as being

not so good a speaker as his brother, William T. Sher-

man; he said that there were two peace commissions in

the field to bring the South back to the Union, which had

as their presidents Grant and Sherman.8 In some of

the newspapers there were maps, showing the territory

that had been taken from the rebels, with accompanying

statistics as to the comparative loss in man-power and

territory of the two sections. During a speech at Lan-

caster Job E. Stevenson used two maps of the United

States from one of which had been cut the South to

show the territory the United States would lose if the

independence of the South were granted, and from the

other of which had been cut the part of the South that

had not yet been conquered.⁹ The Ohio State Journal

in an editorial head-line referred to one of Sheridan's

victories in the Shenandoah as "another hole in the Chi-

cago platform".10 In Cincinnati, Thomas Buchanan

Read wrote on the spur of the moment "Sheridan's

Ride", which was delivered October 31st by a retired

actor at Pike's Opera House at a complimentary festival

8 Brough at Cleveland, Oct. 1, the Sandusky Register, Oct. 4, 1864.

9 Stevenson at Lancaster, Sept. 1, Cincinnati Gazette, Sept. 20, 1864.

10 The Ohio State Journal, Sept. 21, 1864.

Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio  579

to the actor in recognition of his aid to the soldiers.11

The Chicago platform was attacked especially by

Governor Brough, whose speech at Circleville on the

Democratic platform was printed by the National Union

Association at Cincinnati and distributed as campaign

literature. The Governor maintained that the principles

declared were hypocritical and inconsistent; he pointed

out that the Democrats condemned not the Southern

rebellion but the Administration, that the Democrats

wanted an armistice, which would mean the retiring of

our armies from the land they had subdued, that the

crushing of the rebellion was at hand, and that in the

platform they were opposed to the suspension of the

writ of habeas corpus and to arbitrary arrests, although

McClellan, their nominee, was the first to make arbi-

trary arrests. The plank which expressed sympathy

for the soldiers was construed by the Governor as an

insult, as pity for the soldiers and not thanks to them.

Holding that the Peace Democrats were responsible for

the prolongation of the war, he declared that, if Mc-

Clellan were elected, they and not McClellan would run

affairs.12

The Chicago platform was also attacked by Charles

D. Drake, who, when speaking at Cincinnati, charged

that the Democrats had deliberately proposed a conven-

tion of the states when they knew that constitutionally

it took two-thirds of the states to call a convention and

that it would be impossible to obtain such a number. He

contrasted the term, "ultimate convention" with "imme-

diate convention" and said that in the meantime between

11 The Cincinnati Commercial, Nov. 10, 1864.

12 Ibid., Sept. 5, 1864; Brough, John, The defenders of the country

and its enemies. . . .

580      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

the end of hostilities and the convention the army would

be halted in its advance and the Union gone forever.

He stressed the idea that the only hope of the Union was

hammering it together.13

At the hands of the newspapers and the campaign

speakers, McClellan came in for his share of criticism.

He was held responsible for the failure of the first two

years of the war and his alleged military blunders were

paraded before the people. A campaign document got-

ten up by a Cincinnati man, a collection of affidavits by

several people, attempted to show that, as a general, Mc-

Clellan had sympathized with the South and had acted

accordingly.14 His lack of experience in civil affairs

was contrasted with the experience of the President.

Time and again, it was argued that although McClellan

had declared for the war for the Union, he would be con-

trolled by the Peace Democrats and their Chicago plat-

form. McClellan's record as commander of the Union

army in which capacity he had been the first to propose

an unconditional draft, and to arrest the legislature of a

state, was contrasted with the views of the Peace Demo-

crats.

George H. Pendleton, the Democratic vice-presiden-

tial nominee, was termed a rank secessionist of the Cal-

houn stripe.15 People were reminded that he would have

the casting vote in the Senate and that he would become

president if McClellan should die.

Of President Lincoln little was said or written. Now

and then, his patience, experience, honesty of purpose

and goodness of heart were referred to. Senator John

13 Drake at Cincinnati, Oct. 1, Ohio State Journal, Oct. 5, 1864.

14 General McClellan's record. . . .

15 Ohio State Journal, Oct. 6, 1864.

Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio  581

Sherman in a speech at Sandusky said that the people

knew all of the President's faults but could never know

all his virtues.16

Economic arguments were little used. It was said

that it would be cheaper to go on and finish the war,

because then the Union would be restored and the South

would help pay the war debt.

The issue stressed was Union or Disunion. Why

elect the Democrats and break the Union when the war

was about over? The Democratic platform-makers

were characterized as fast friends of the South and

slavery, and it was argued that, if these men were at the

head of affairs, the South would be granted independ-

ence, since the Democrats wanted peace more than na-

tional honor. An honorable Union peace, they held,

could be obtained only by whipping the South, which

could not be done on the Chicago platform.

After the congressional election in October, when the

National Union party elected all its candidates, except

two, since the party was sure of carrying Ohio in No-

vember, the campaign became much less intense and

some of the speakers went to other and doubtful states

to help there.

THE ELECTION

On October 11th, Ohio held a state and congressional

election. That the Democrats considered it to be of

great importance, as indicating how the November elec-

tion would go, was evidenced by the appeal made Octo-

ber 1st, by the Ohio Democratic State Central Commit-

tee, which said that "victory in October secures victory

in November."1

16 Sherman at Sandusky, Oct. 1, Sandusky Register, Oct, 3, 1864.

1 The Ohio Statesman, Oct. 3, 1864.

582      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

The October election resulted in a significant victory

for the National Union party of Ohio. In contrast with

the election of 1862 when only five Unionist members

were elected, seventeen of the nineteen congressional

districts returned Unionist congressmen. In the tenth,

thirteenth, and sixteenth districts, it was the soldiers'

vote that won the election for the Administration party.

The fifth district, made up of counties in the northwest-

ern part of Ohio, and the twelfth, including counties in

the south central part of the state, alone went Demo-

cratic. On the home vote, the Unionists had a three

per cent majority; the total Unionist vote, including the

home and soldier vote, was fifty-seven per cent of the

whole.2

Considering the total number of votes cast in the

different congressional districts, one finds that the vote

was twelve per cent lighter than it was in the guberna-

torial election of 1863, when the total vote had ex-

ceeded any other previous vote cast in Ohio by eight

per cent; that, as compared with that of 1863, the Union-

ist home vote fell off seventeen per cent, the Unionist

soldiers' vote decreased twenty-five per cent, while the

Democratic home vote fell off only two per cent, and

the Democratic soldiers' vote made a gain of seventy-

one per cent over that of 1863.

The Democratic newspapers made the most of the de-

crease in the votes cast by their opponents and predicted

that McClellan would carry Ohio on the home vote,

while the Union State Executive Committee, in an ap-

peal to Ohio Union voters, urged the necessity of a full

2 The election returns for the elections discussed in this chapter are

taken from the Ohio Annual Reports of the Secretary of State for 1863

and 1864.

Presidential Campaign of 186₄ in Ohio  583

vote in November, which had not been cast in October

due to the indifference of many.3

Between the October and the November elections,

the political campaigns waged by both parties since Sep-

tember died down considerably. The Administration

party was confident of a victory in November. In this

they were not disappointed.

Lincoln carried Ohio by a majority of 60,055. His

vote was fifty-six per cent of the total Ohio vote; fifty-

three per cent of the home vote and eighty-one per cent

of the army vote were cast for him.

Although the army vote did not change the outcome

of the election in Ohio, but simply raised the Unionist

majority, McClellan carried forty counties on the home

vote, but the soldiers' vote put seven of these into the

Unionist ranks. These counties had been close on the

home vote: in only one, Van Wert, was the Democratic

home majority three per cent of the total vote; in Cler-

mont and Ross, the Democratic majority was two per

cent; in Montgomery, the Democrats had a majority of

316 votes, in Stark, 194, in Hardin, 38, and in Mus-

kingum, 14.

Comparing the home vote with that of 1863, when

33,947 more voted than in the presidential election of

1860, one finds that 23,186 fewer votes were cast for

Abraham Lincoln than for John Brough; General Mc-

Clellan got 10,537 more votes from Ohio than did Clem-

ent L. Vallandigham; and there were 12,649 fewer home

votes in 1864 than in 1863. The large gain in the Dem-

ocratic home vote probably represented those Democrats

3 The Sandusky Register, Oct. 25, 1864.

584      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

who in 1863 voted for John Brough, because Clement

L. Vallandigham was a peace man. The falling off in

the Union vote was general and rather uniform in all

the counties. In only four counties was there an in-

crease in the Union home vote: in Ashland, an increase

of 195 votes; in Greene, 68; in Lawrence, 15; in Mus-

kingum, 519. The 12,649 fewer home votes in 1864 than

in 1863 can be considered as being the votes of those

who do not exercise their vote except upon extraor-

dinary occasions.

The army vote in 1864 amounted to 51,434, an in-

crease of 7,514 over that of 1863. That Ohio had at least

twice that many soldiers in the field of 1864, is a low es-

timate. Abraham Lincoln received fourteen votes more

from Ohio soldiers than did John Brough, although the

Cincinnati Gazette had estimated that since 1864, 20,000

Ohio Unionist voters had been added to the army

strength of the Ohio Unionists. The Ohio Statesman,

after comparing the soldiers' vote in the October elec-

tion with that of the gubernatorial election of 1863 and

noting the increase of seventy per cent in the Demo-

cratic field vote, predicted that the Democrats would

gain proportionately in the army as at home and that

McClellan would probably divide the army vote evenly.4

But although the Ohio Democratic soldiers' vote in the

November election in 1864 represented an increase of

321 per cent over that of 1863, it was only eight per cent

of the total Ohio army vote vast. McClellan, of whom

Rutherford B. Hayes had said, "no commander was ever

more loved by his men  * * *",5 had been counted

4 The Ohio Statesman, Oct. 15, 1864.

5 Hayes to his wife, Sept. 6, 1864, Williams, C. R. Diary and letters

of Rutherford Birchard Hayes. . . . II, 504-505.

586      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

upon to get a very large soldiers' vote. That he did not

can be accounted for in large part by the peace plank in

the Chicago platform, the Union victories in the fall and

the consequent much improved military situation.

The contest was not a close one in Ohio. New York

was really the only state in which there was doubt as to

the outcome. Undoubtedly the election would have been

closer but for the military victories of the fall.

Too much importance cannot be put upon the great

improvement in the military situation in the fall of 1864

as a determining factor in the winning of the election

for the Administration party. In the summer of 1864,

in Ohio, as elsewhere, there had been a greal deal of

dissatisfaction with the Administration, which was

largely due to the enormous loss of lives on the battle-

fields without any substantial gains to show for it. Then

people naturally grew weary of the burdens of the war

and, in their strong desire for the end of it, they were

inclined to believe that the Administration was respon-

sible for the prolonged fighting, since President Lincoln

had made the abolition of slavery a pre-requisite to peace.

But as in 1863, due in large part to the victories at Get-

tysburg and Vicksburg, the political tide in Ohio had

been turned in favor of the Administration party, so in

1864, by the victories of Farragut, Sherman, and Sheri-

dan, the masses were reinvigorated in spirit and the ma-

jority decided to finish the war and to reelect President

Lincoln since it is not best to change administrations in

the midst of a war.

Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio       587

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIOGRAPHIES AND WORKS OF STATESMEN

Bloss, G. M. D., Life and Speeches of George H. Pendleton.

Miami Printing and Publishing Company, Cincinnati, 1868.

Michie, General Peter S., General McClellan (The Great Com-

manders Series). D. Appleton and Company, New York 1901^.

Nicolay, John G., and Hay, John, Abraham Lincoln, Complete

Works, Comprising His Speeches, Letters, State Papers, and

Miscellaneous Writings. 2v. The Century Company, New York,

1894.

Schuckers, J. W., The Life and Public Services of Salmon

Portland Chase. D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1874.

Warden, Robert B., An Account of the Private Life and Pub-

lic Services of Salmon Portland Chase. Wilstach, Baldwin and

Company, Cincinnati, 1874.

Williams, Charles Richard, ed., Diary and Letters of Ruther-

ford Birchard Hayes, Nineteenth President of the United States.

2v. The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Co-

lumbus, 1922.

Vallandigham, Clement L., Speeches, Arguments, Addresses,

and Letters of Clement L. Vallandigham. J. Walter and Com-

pany, New York, 1864.

Vallandigham, Reverend James L., A Life of Clement L.

Vallandigham. Turnbull Brothers, Baltimore, 1872.

DOCUMENTS

Annual Report of the Secretary of State to the Governor of

the State of Ohio, for the Year 1863. Richard Nevins, Colum-

bus, 1863.

Annual Report of the Secretary of State to the Governor of

the State of Ohio, for the Year 1864. Richard Nevins, Colum-

bus, 1864.

GENERAL

A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion Compiled and

Arranged from Official Records of the Federal and Confederate

Armies, Reports of the Adjutant Generals of the Several States,

the Army Register and Other Reliable Documents and Re-

sources. Dyer Publishing Company, Des Moines, Iowa, 1908.

McKee, Thomas Hudson, The National Conventions and Plat-

forms of all Political Parties, 1789 to 1904. . . . 5th ed., rev.

and enl. Friedenwald Company, Baltimore, 1904.

588       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

McPherson, Edward, The Political History of the United

States of America, During the Great Rebellion. . . . 2d ed.

Philip and Solomons, Washington, 1865.

Proceedings of the First Three Republican National Conven-

tions of 1856, 1860 and 1864. . . . Johnson, Minneapolis, 1893.

Reid, Whitelaw, Ohio in the War, Her Statesmen, Generals

and Soldiers. 2v. Eclectic Publishing Company, 1893.

Rhodes, James Ford, History of the United States from the

Compromise of 1850 to the Final Restoration of Home Rule to

the South in 1877. 7^v. The Macmillan Company, New York,

1902-1906.

Stanwood, Edward, A History of the Presidency from 1788

to 1916. 2d ed. 2v. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and

New York, 1916.

NEWSPAPERS

Ashtabula Sentinel (Unionist), 1864.

Ashland Union (Unionist), 1864, weekly.

Cincinnati Commercial (Unionist), July-Dec., 1863; 1864;

weekly.

Cincinnati Enquirer (Democratic), 1864.

Cincinnati Gazette (Unionist), July-Dec., 1863; 1864.

Cleveland Herald (Unionist), July-Dec., 1863; 1864.

Cleveland Leader (Unionist), July-Dec., 1863; 1864.

Cleveland Plain Dealer (Democratic), 1864.

Crisis (Democratic), Columbus, Ohio, 1864; weekly.

Columbus Express (Unionist), 1864; weekly.

Columbus Gazette (Unionist), July-Dec., 1863; 1864.

Ohio State Journal (Unionist), July-Dec., 1863; 1864.

Ohio Statesman (Democratic), 1864.

Fayette County Republican (Unionist), 1864; weekly.

Guernsey Times (Democratic), Cambridge, Ohio, 1864,

weekly.

Hillsborough Gazette (Democratic), Jan. 7, 14, 28; Feb. 4,

11, 25; March 10, 31; April 7, 28; May 5, 12, 19; June 30; July

21; Aug. 25; Sept. 8, 22, 29; Oct. 6; Nov. 1O, 17, 1864.

Hocking Sentinel (Democratic), Logan, Ohio, 1864, weekly.

Morgan County Herald (Unionist), McConnelsville, Ohio,

1864; weekly.

Ohio Patriot (Democratic), New Lisbon, Ohio, Jan. 1, -- May

20, 1864; weekly.

Buckeye State (Unionist), New Lisbon, Ohio, 1864; weekly.

Ohio Democrat (Democratic), New Philadelphia, Ohio, 1864;

weekly.

New York Tribune (Republican), July-Dec., 1863; 1864.

Presidential Campaign of 1864 in Ohio        589

Norwalk Experiment (Democratic), Jan. 7 -- June 16, Sept.

15 -- Nov. 1O, 1864; weekly.

Painesville Telegraph (Unionist), 1864; weekly.

Sandusky Register (Unionist), 1864; weekly.

Toledo Blade (Unionist), 1864.

Wayne County Democrat (Democratic), Wooster, Ohio,

1864; weekly.

PERIODICALS

The American Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important

Events of the Year 1864. . . . D. Appleton and Company, New

York, 1871.

PAMPHLETS

Brough, John, The Defenders of the Country and Its Enemies,

the Chicago Platform Dissected. National Union Association,

Cincinnati, 1864.

Cincinnati Convention, October 18, 1864, for the Organization

of a Peace Party, Upon State-Rights, Jeffersonian, Democratic

Principles and for the Promotion of Peace and Independent

Nominations for President and Vice-President. [1864?]

Complicity of Democracy with Treason. Ohio State Journal,

Columbus, 1865.

Copperhead Conspiracy in the Northwest, an Expose of the

Treasonable Order of the "Soms of Liberty." Union Congres-

sional Committee, New York, 1864.

Democratic Campaign Documents for 1863 and 1864. The

Society for the Diffusion of Political Knowledge, New York,

1863-1864.

General McClellan's Record, His Sympathy with the South,

Read for Yourselves. [1864?]

George H. Pendleton, the Copperhead Candidate for Vice-

President. His Hostility to the American Republic Illustrated

by his Record as a Representative in the Congress of the United

States from the State of Ohio. Union Congressional Committee,

Washington, 1864.

State Convention of War Democrats, Address to the Demo-

crats of Ohio. [1863?]