Hi Brenda:

Thanks to Hayes Lowe's input, I got an Interlibrary loan copy of Dr. Gillette's "Jersey Blue" and have just finished reading it. Slavery was an issue that had economic and political components. The "three fifths compromise" on which the Constitution was based gave the slave states disproportinate representation in Congress from the beginning. In the 1860's, these economic and political factors outweighed the moral/personal considerations which people today automatically associate with the word. New Jersey Democrats were generally anti-slavery ["don't bring them here"] but felt that resolution to the problem was a matter for local people [i.e. the individual states] to solve.

New Jersey was tagged as a "copperhead" state during the war by disgruntled Republicans who could not gain domination of state and local politics. Democrats had controlled New Jersey state politics since the time of Andrew Jackson. By the 1860's, they were opposed by a coalition of Whig/Republicans [high tarrifs, Federal spending for internal improvement projects, etc.] and remnants of the "Know-Nothing" American Party [anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, prohibition of liquor, etc.]. When the war came, the Democrats fragmented into "pro-war" and "peace" factions.

The "peace" Democrats were generally referred to as "copperheads" and they exerted less direct influence over New Jersey state participation in the war than is generally supposed. Republicans labeled anyone who objected to the war as a "copperhead" and "disloyal." However, the Republican coalition and the "pro-war" Democrats combined to provide New Jersey's fair share of men and materials to support the Union war effort. Dr. Gillette's thesis is that the condemnation of New Jersey as a "copperhead" state during and long after the war was undeserved.

In Delaware, "peace" Democrats were more numerous and frequently ended up as civilian detainees in Fort Delaware. Fort Delaware hosted some Salem County, New Jersey "copperheads" too. The ticket out, after a suitable period of incarceration, was to take the Oath of Allegiance. This arbitrary arrest and detention business went on throughout the war.

The Confederate military prisoners of war at Fort Delaware supplemented their meager government rations and actually survived comparatively well on outside "care packages" containing food, clothing, and money. These came from a circle of church related people, and from pre-war "friends of the family" living in northern communities. The Ho Ho Kus family was much closer to the New York City detention centers/prisons than to Fort Delaware, but Fort Delaware POWs received help from folks as far away as New York City and Cincinnatti. One Louisiana captain from Shreveport wrote to a total stranger, the Reverend Jacob Ott Miller in York, Pennsylvania, and asked for direct assistance. Reverend Miller sent him exactly what he asked for.

Question for you: Have you come across any information that suggests that the Ho Ho Kus family you are researching provided aid to Confederate prisoners of war? I don't want to bore our Louisiana friends further with this New Jersey "loyalty" discussion, but I would like to discuss this in more detail with you, so please contact me by e-mail at >>>hsimmons@voicenet.com<<<

Relative to "Union loyalty" in Louisiana, the sugar planters in South Louisiana relied on high protective tarrifs on imported sugar to make their outrageous fortunes. Slave labor was not inexpensive, but it did provide a stable workforce. Conversely, cotton planters made more money when tarrifs were low or non-existant. The Whigs and Republicans were the parties of protectionist high tarrifs while the Democrats tended towards "free trade" - Louisiana sugar planters were quite often "loyal Unionists" during the war. A good book on this subject is Charles P. Roland's "Louisiana Sugar Plantations During The Civil War" (LSU Press, 1957, paperback reprint 1997).

And then there were my own people in Winn Parish. Many of these small farmers were not necessarily "pro-Union" but were very much anti-war. To them it was a "rich man's war and a poor man's fight" of which they wanted no part.

I look forward to hearing back from you on the Ho Ho Kus family!

Hugh Simmons
Fort Delaware Society
hsimmons@voicenet.com

P/S: Another book I would recommend to anyone interested in the "slavery versus economics" issues of the war is Thomas J. DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War" (Prima Publishing, 2002). Mr. DiLorenzo is an economics professor [tenured I hope!] and a Civil War buff.