Partisanship and Racial Attitudes in U.S. Civil War Enlistment

Q1 Social Sciences Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics Pub Date : 2022-09-12 DOI:10.1017/rep.2022.19
K. Ramanathan, Nathan P. Kalmoe
{"title":"Partisanship and Racial Attitudes in U.S. Civil War Enlistment","authors":"K. Ramanathan, Nathan P. Kalmoe","doi":"10.1017/rep.2022.19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, we investigate why millions of northern white men volunteered to fight in the Civil War. Prior studies have found that Republican partisanship played a significant role in boosting Union enlistment but do not test the competing hypothesis that views about slavery and race motivated them instead. Such views were highly salient among party elites before and during the war, which was sparked by a presidential election between parties divided over the expansion of Black enslavement. However, among the white mass public, we argue that partisanship rather than race-related attitudes explains patterns of war mobilization. Linking Union war participation records with election returns, we show that county-level war participation is better explained by Republican partisanship rather than views about the status of Black Americans (as measured by support for equal suffrage referenda and the Free Soil party). Analyzing a sample of partisan newspaper issues, we further show that Republican elites de-emphasized slavery as they sought to mobilize mass war participation while antiwar Democrats emphasized antiabolition and white supremacy, suggesting each party’s elites saw antislavery messaging as ineffective or even detrimental in mobilizing mass enlistment. This analysis offers additional evidence on the power of partisanship in producing mass violence and sheds more light on political behavior during a critical period in the history of U.S. racial politics.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"45 1","pages":"460 - 483"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2022.19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In this article, we investigate why millions of northern white men volunteered to fight in the Civil War. Prior studies have found that Republican partisanship played a significant role in boosting Union enlistment but do not test the competing hypothesis that views about slavery and race motivated them instead. Such views were highly salient among party elites before and during the war, which was sparked by a presidential election between parties divided over the expansion of Black enslavement. However, among the white mass public, we argue that partisanship rather than race-related attitudes explains patterns of war mobilization. Linking Union war participation records with election returns, we show that county-level war participation is better explained by Republican partisanship rather than views about the status of Black Americans (as measured by support for equal suffrage referenda and the Free Soil party). Analyzing a sample of partisan newspaper issues, we further show that Republican elites de-emphasized slavery as they sought to mobilize mass war participation while antiwar Democrats emphasized antiabolition and white supremacy, suggesting each party’s elites saw antislavery messaging as ineffective or even detrimental in mobilizing mass enlistment. This analysis offers additional evidence on the power of partisanship in producing mass violence and sheds more light on political behavior during a critical period in the history of U.S. racial politics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国内战入伍时的党派关系和种族态度
在这篇文章中,我们调查了为什么数百万北方白人自愿参加内战。先前的研究发现,共和党的党派关系在促进联邦入伍方面发挥了重要作用,但没有验证有关奴隶制和种族的观点反而促使他们入伍的竞争性假设。这种观点在战前和战争期间的党内精英中非常突出,这场战争是由两党在黑人奴隶制扩张问题上产生分歧的总统选举引发的。然而,在白人大众中,我们认为是党派关系而不是种族相关的态度解释了战争动员的模式。将联邦战争参与记录与选举结果联系起来,我们发现县级战争参与可以更好地用共和党的党派关系来解释,而不是用对美国黑人地位的看法来解释(以对平等选举权公投和自由土地党(Free Soil party)的支持来衡量)。通过分析党派报纸问题的样本,我们进一步表明,共和党精英在试图动员大规模参战时不强调奴隶制,而反战的民主党人则强调反废奴和白人至上主义,这表明两党精英都认为反奴隶制的信息在动员大规模入伍方面是无效的,甚至是有害的。这一分析为党派之争在制造大规模暴力中的作用提供了额外的证据,并为美国种族政治历史上关键时期的政治行为提供了更多的线索。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics
Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics Social Sciences-Anthropology
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Responsiveness to Coethnics and Cominorities: Evidence from an Audit Experiment of State Legislators Introduction to the Final 2023 Issue The Advantage of Disadvantage: Costly Protest and Legislative Responsiveness By LaGina Gause, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2022 Counting the State: State Resistance and Federal Enumeration of Latinos 1930–1970 Anger, Fear, and the Racialization of News Media Coverage of Protest Activity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1