Houses Divided: New Perspectives on Antiwar Dissent in the American Civil War

ABSTRACTHOUSES DIVIDED: NEW PERSPECTIVES ON ANTIWAR DISSENT IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR by Mark Ciccone The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2020Under the Supervision of Professor Lex Renda Since the conclusion of the American Civil War, antiwar dissent in the Union and the Confederacy has predominantly been viewed through the lens of political treason alone, with limited exploration of other factors—judicial, social, economic, personal—which motivated its expression. Both explicitly and implicitly, the individuals and movements that advocated peaceful negotiations to end the conflict, or protested what they viewed as illegitimate or unjust war policies enacted by Washington, D.C. or Richmond, or demonstrated their opposition through riots, flight or armed rebellion have been cast as traitors, conspirators and otherwise denigrated or discounted by Northern triumphalist-tinged narratives, and the “Lost Cause” school of history. Furthermore, acts of dissent in both North and South which are not traditionally viewed as antiwar, or as having any noteworthy impact upon either region’s war effort or domestic policy, have also been marginalized, adding to the monolithic perception of Civil War dissent as ineffectual, limited to certain parties and societal elements, and being motivated by political ideologies alone. In order to comprehend better the scope and nature of antiwar dissent in the American Civil War, and its true effect on the military and legislative efforts of the Union and Confederacy, it is necessary to extend the definition of dissent to new events, personalities and factions including those previously examined as isolated elements in broader Civil War histories, or as targets of analytically limited case studies. This extension must also include actions and rhetoric not intended as antiwar dissent, yet had similar indirect effects, and which provoked similar repression or reforms from the Lincoln and Davis administrations aimed towards nullifying perceived threats to their war efforts or domestic popular strength. This dissertation makes such an extension, concentrated in the judicial, political and grassroots areas of Civil War studies. Through this new analysis, the varied forms and wider prevalence of antiwar dissent, explicit and implicit, becomes clear, as does its influence on Northern and Southern war policies and on modern debates concerning personal liberties, the legality of dissent in wartime, and the powers of the state in war and peace

Not Our Fight: The Roots and Forms of Anti-War Electoral Dissent in Civil War Wisconsin, 1860-1865

Although it has been discussed and examined at great length, the history of Civil War-era Wisconsin remains controversial in many ways. Though this state remained a loyal, integral part of the Northern bloc for the duration of this conflict, it was simultaneously divided deeply along political lines--Republican, Democratic, and the extreme wings of both parties--which brought about serious legislative and, at times, physical conflict between the parties and among their constituents over the nature of the state\u27s participation in the Civil War, and the war\u27s intended goals. And for the entirety of the war, there remained serious opposition on the part of many Wisconsin politicians, newspaper editors, and common citizens to the wartime and domestic policies of the Lincoln Administration. The basis for this antagonism lay in the growing comprehension of the Civil War\u27s societal impact, exemplified by the measures taken by Lincoln and the Republicans to conduct it, and prepare for its long-term aftermath. As emancipation, conscription, and increased executive control of monetary and constitutional policy became law, a significant number of Wisconsin voters--both immigrant and native-born--came to regard these shifts as infringements upon their livelihoods, rights, and race, reversing their prior favorable views of the Republican Party\u27s economic and racial stances. Combined with newspaper reports of corruption in the army and Washington, and of appalling losses for little gain on the battlefields, these sentiments became the anchor for domestic dissent against the Republican Party in Wisconsin, and a recurring base of electoral support for the Democratic opposition for the duration of the war. In the end, Union success on the battlefield, and the continuous use of propaganda by the Republicans labeling their Democratic and grassroots opponents as traitors, became the deciding factors in maintaining the Republican dominance of Wisconsin offices and policies. The key primary sources for examining this area of Wisconsin history are best found in the pronouncements from the Legislature and Governor\u27s office, official tallies of state referenda and elections, and the archives of the state\u27s markedly pro-Democrat and -Republican papers. Respectively, these reveal the efforts of the Republican-dominated state leadership to maintain their wartime preeminence in the face of ever-present criticism, illustrate the effect of these opinions upon the democratic process, and provide an excellent gauge of public and editorial opinion of state and national policy. Though in the end unable to remove the ruling party and agenda of its time, the collective antiwar sentiments and actions of the Badger State\u27s citizenry proved a potent influence on state and national policy. This thesis is a narrative of one of the most contentious periods in Wisconsin history, and a telling example of the power of dissent in all its forms in Civil War America

Using microbiological data to improve the use of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections: A protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis

Background: Resistance to antibiotics is rising and threatens future antibiotic effectiveness. ‘Antibiotic targeting’ ensures patients who may benefit from antibiotics receive them, while being safely withheld from those who may not. Point-of-care tests may assist with antibiotic targeting by allowing primary care clinicians to establish if symptomatic patients have a viral, bacterial, combined, or no infection. However, because organisms can be harmlessly carried, it is important to know if the presence of the virus/bacteria is related to the illness for which the patient is being assessed. One way to do this is to look for associations with more severe/prolonged symptoms and test results. Previous research to answer this question for acute respiratory tract infections has given conflicting results with studies has not having enough participants to provide statistical confidence. Aim: To undertake a synthesis of IPD from both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies of respiratory tract infections (RTI) in order to investigate the prognostic value of microbiological data in addition to, or instead of, clinical symptoms and signs. Methods: A systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Medline and Ovid Embase will be carried out for studies of acute respiratory infection in primary care settings. The outcomes of interest are duration of disease, severity of disease, repeated consultation with new/worsening illness and complications requiring hospitalisation. Authors of eligible studies will be contacted to provide anonymised individual participant data. The data will be harmonised and aggregated. Multilevel regression analysis will be conducted to determine key outcome measures for different potential pathogens and whether these offer any additional information on prognosis beyond clinical symptoms and signs. Trial registration: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42023376769

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Funder: laura and john arnold foundationBACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care