Dem nominee George McClellan holding the severed head of
President Lincoln in a cartoon during the 1864 presidential campaign.
Pajamas brings to our attention salient comments by Secretary Condi Rice likening critics of the Civil War with today’s critics of the Iraq War (a front on that thing known as the War on Terror). And she’s right on the mark.
Rice likens Iraq and Civil War critics
WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is drawing a parallel between the Iraq war and the Civil War. Both had their critics but both were justified, she says.
In both cases, it was the right decision to fight and see the wars through, Rice, a southern-born African-American, said in an interview with Essence Magazine.
Asked if she still thought the decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 was right, considering the cost in lives and treasure, Rice said, “Absolutely.”
Rice then offered a parallel between critics of the administration’s Iraq policies and “people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War (in this country) to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold.”
“I’m sure that there were people who said, “why don’t we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves.”
Rice doesn’t have to just be “sure,” she is, in fact, factually correct. We’ve all heard the cliche, ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same’ and today’s Defeatist Democrats are proving that point daily.
It was the 1864 Democrat Convention Party Platform that exposes the defeatist nihilism which ruled the party then as it does now. Lincoln was up for re-election, and the Dems nominated the incompetent and passive (and fired by Lincoln) Civil War General George B. McClellan as their presidential candidate. Their platform, in part said this:
Resolved, That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretense of a military necessity of war-power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view of an ultimate convention of the States, or other peaceable means, to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States…
Resolved, That the aim and object of the Democratic party is to preserve the Federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired, [including the right to hold slaves] and they hereby declare that they consider that the administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution — the subversion of the civil by military law in States not in insurrection; the arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial, and sentence of American citizens in States where civil law exists in full force; the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press; the denial of the right of asylum; the open and avowed disregard of State rights; the employment of unusual test-oaths; and the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear arms in their defense is calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union and the perpetuation of a Government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.
Resolved, That the shameful disregard of the Administration to its duty in respect to our fellow citizens who now are and long have been prisoners of war and in a suffering condition, deserves the severest reprobation on the score alike of public policy and common humanity.
Resolved, That the sympathy of the Democratic party is heartily and earnestly extended to the soldiery of our army and sailors of our navy, [but hey, they support the troops!] who are and have been in the field and on the sea under the flag of our country, and, in the events of its attaining power, they will receive all the care, protection, and regard that the brave soldiers and sailors of the republic have so nobly earned.
In other words, the Defeatist Dems of 1864 were against the war, but supported the troops, and regularly accused President Lincoln and his administration of trashing the Constitution and violating everyone’s civil rights.
Sound familiar?
Of course the human rights of Southern slaves was of no concern to the Dems. The platform was a perfect illustration of the Dems intention for a so-called peace, rejecting the notion that the Civil War and the social and cultural issues that fueled it was worth fighting and worth winning.
Rice is absolutely correct–both wars were and are worth fighting. And while she gives a bit of lip service to CW defeatists, saying that many felt emancipation would “hold,” everyone knew that was absurd. The 1864 Dem platform statement, “the rights of the states unimpaired,” was a direct reference to slave holding. Perhaps Rice prefers to think that Northern Dems were supportive of emancipation. They were not.
There’s another interesting article on point found at the Northern Illinois University Digitization Project. Titled, “Lincoln’s Challenge, 1864,” this paper addresses the attitudes toward Lincoln, the war and emancipation. It reads in part:
Even as his armies pushed deep into Virginia, Abraham Lincoln faced his greatest challenge in 1864. Many northerners had tired of war. Democrats began denouncing Grant as a “butcher.” “Patriotism is played out,” declared one newspaper. “Each hour is but sinking us deeper into bankruptcy and desolation.” Thus while Lee’s armies teetered on the verge of destruction, the Confederate cause saw its last, bright hope flicker in the fall of 1864. Southerners considered their northern sympathizers to be “large and strong enough, if left to operate constitutionally, to paralyze the war and majority party.” 1 {…}
While McClellan did not embrace the prospect of an immediate armistice, he did argue that the war had gone on too long, and hoped to secure an early peace by offering the Confederacy generous terms…
Where disgruntled Republicans had once considered new candidates to replace Lincoln, they now embraced him as a victorious leader. Democrats attacked Lincoln as “Abe the Widowmaker” and “Abraham Africanus,” the proponent of miscegenation. But Union victory had ruined the southern Democrats’ campaign. In November of 1864 American voters returned Abraham Lincoln to office by a half-million vote majority.
Secretary Rice can indeed be sure that the same attitudes, the same defeatism, and the same hope for our nation’s failure at war drives today’s Dems as it did the Dems of 1864. And like that conflict, the future of not only this nation, but of the world, hangs in the balance.
Predictably, Leftists are beside themselves with her comparison. This little history lesson will remind today’s leftists of their depravity and the ultimate failure. Pajamas links to two of the more vociferous complainers. But really, thou doth protest just a tad too much. The Dem Party Platform of 1864 could have easily been written by Murtha, Sheehan and the ACLU. While today’s Dems would wholeheartedly embrace McClellan, a general whose tenure consisted of avoiding the fight because he was against the goal, and yet ran a political campaign based on being in the war, before he was against it.
Wait, I’m confused now. Did I just write about McClellan (1864) or Kerry (2004)? And that burning of Atlanta–just like Ghhhhhhengis Khan.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Rice Likens Iraq Wars Critics to Those of US Civil War:
The US Secretary of State compares the critics of both wars, saying that, in spite of their respective nay-sayers, both struggles were justified. “I’m sure that there were people who said, ‘why don’t we get out of this now, take…
We are talking about a different country with Iraq. The American Civil War was ours and we fought it. The Iraqi people must stand up for themselves. They must fight their own “good fight” or it will not stand.
I’m sorry. Did I get confused for one second and forget that it was supposed to be about WMD? Did I forget for one second that Saddam Hussein was on Bin Laden’s hit list? I guess I did because here WE are in Iraq fighting that —– fight for him.
Meanwhile, our own national debt has grown by leaps and bounds.
Uh-huh. Well, Condi. At least you are not in immediate danger of being removed from the list of Tammy’s most favorite people. That’s something at least.
[Well, that petty sarcastic jab at our host adds so much to your comment. At least it exposes your frame of mind. You also used an obscenity in this post that has been removed. Consider yourself warned--ed.]
And remember! Abe Lincoln was murdered by a democrat activist actor.
Vicki,
I couldnt care less if we are talking about a major fight for our civilization for your comparison that there is a difference that it is fought overseas instead of here. The distinction matters little to me.
Much of the American public has become complacent, that is a major explanation why the Dems will win. I will agree the GOP does not have a strong basis to run this time other than more of the same, which many are tiring of. Perhaps we need 2 years of Dem control of Congress to remind many of us what life would be like under alternative leadership.
Also however, Bush and the GOP are in this predicament because of his views on illegal immigration. He has alienated much of the base, and jeopardized representatives that should be reelected. He got reelected in 2004 with Iraq going on, so as angry as people are about Iraq, that is not what is costing Bush and the GOP. The illegal immigration question however is a key variable and why the GOP could well get hammered this November. The national security question while important, will not dig the GOP out of the hole this time it certainly appears.
I always think though, who would OBL rather see have power, the Dems or the GOP? Suddenly however, seeing another report on ABC News website that Pakistan has a deal working with al Qaeda to let them be in the tribal areas is a sad commentary on Bush’s policy regarding Pakistan. If Musharraf gets killed or ousted, count Pakistan as the newest member of the Axis of Evil. This one with nukes. At least Bush had the sense to cut a deal with India.
The reasonable question behind Vicki’s jab is the question of whether Iraq is a vital interest of the US or a dangerous distraction. I can’t claim to make a definitive answer; I’m not sure it’s possible to definitively answer until the history books are written. Vicki argues that the Civil War was vital but Iraq was not. But the validity of the Civil War was far from clear in its time. As you can see, many Americans of the day (including legal scholars and most Democrats) considered the Constitution to be a voluntary compact from which one could withdraw. Some of those seceding states were of the original 13 colonies, and they could have avoided ever signing on in the first place. Sure, now that it’s receded into history, it’s unimaginable that secession could have been allowed, but this is spoken in hindsight, and largely based upon the precedent that was set there. But Vicki might point out, for example, that Vietnam clearly wasn’t a vital interest, in that the bad guys won and the world didn’t come to an end. But the Domino Theory seemed valid at the time, at least to some people. We thought Vietnam was vital. And I might also point out that England and France declared war on Germany when Germany marched into Poland; where’s the vitality in that? WWII would never have happened if only England and France had minded their own business. That’s what the Germans argued, anyway, and the isolationist factions in America agreed. And WWI was triggered by an assassination in the Balkans; no reasonable person would expect such an incident to set off a world war. Even in hindsight, that makes no sense. I’m not just trying to be rhetorical; most things are confusing while they’re in their initial stages. The US sat out the initial stages of WWII (even though the conflict was indeed vital and we should have been in there earlier); then one fine day we were suddenly and through no choice of our own in the middle of it. Well, that was nice and simple, because we didn’t have to think, but our passivity almost handed the world over to the Fascists. So you see, we’re always doomed to murk and mistakes as things go down, even though they’re clear in retrospect. That’s an odd quirk of time: Our lives run forwards but we understand life backwards. God apparently has a sense of humor. Anyway, back to Iraq, the vitality of the thing (if indeed there is any) lies essentially in the engagement of the Islamofascists on their home turf. You may feel nostalgic for pre-invasion Iraq, but remember that that was a deteriorating stalemate. Sooner or later, either we were going to engage Saddam or he was going to get out of his cage. 9/11 convinced George Bush that we needed to engage the enemy in a proactive rather than a reactive way. A reversal from Bill Clinton’s “put it off” approach. In retrospect, this was Clinton’s big mistake in international affairs. Iraq was an instigator, and Saddam’s hands were very bloody and very guilty. That’s the argument, and it makes sense. But then, so did the Domino Theory. Again, we’re all theorizing, but only history will answer for sure. I hope George Bush got it right, because these are dangerous times. Mistakes are unavoidable, but too many of them will kill us.
Sorry; I felt like ranting.
The Left is beside itself with rage because Rice implies that liberals have taken leave of any moral purpose. She is right, of course. When the going gets tough, liberals run. Our enemies understand this. So does Rice. She is actually trying to shame them.
They know this, as does she, and it angers them no end. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that Leftists are capable of shame. I know they are capable of rationalization.
It seems that Secretary Rice has unknowingly admitted to what I think has been Bush’s biggest mistake in Iraq. Because we did not go in with overwhelming destructive force (and still have not exercised it) our enemies have been allowed to rise up and gain a foothold in Iraq. And for that reason the war has dragged on, allowing the parallel universe of the peace movement to gain a foothold in America and around the world.
So along with the help of the MSM, the peace movement bangs their drums to wear people down and coerce them into thinking we need to get out of Iraq before the enemey is destroyed.
Great correlation by Condi (if we could just get her actions to be as good as her words). Tammy’s analysis was also good. Thanks for the link showing the Democratic Platform of 1864 – loved the comparisons to present day Democrats. History truly does repeat itself. Hopefully, the world won’t continue to ignore the current terrorist regimes like they did Hitler and others.
While Iraq may not be our country, I do believe that we (meaning all people that enjoy our freedom and libery – and not just Americans) have a responsibilty to help those that are oppressed by evil regimes. I feel especially strong about this as a woman, because it is usually woman and children receiving the worst treatment in these situations. And it doesn’t stop with Afghanistan and Iraq – we (again – not just Americans) have the same responsibility in other parts of the world.
We must also consider that the world has changed a lot since 1864. For the most part, the US was our world then. The world has gotten smaller and what happens in the Middle East and other parts of the world does affect us. We can’t just pull out and ignore it.
I wish to comment on Vicki’s remarks; however, I must first acknowledge I thoroughly loved Condi Rice’s statements, and Tammy, you did an absolutely EXCELLENT job in pointing out the defeatism of the past in relation to today. I’m sure McClellan would be enjoying a very vocal spot in today’s political landscape, or maybe even with Katie Couric, were he alive today.
Vicki: Defeatism is a deterrent to victory whether during The Civil War or in today’s War on Terror. It is a mindset employed by those who are pessimistic and are usually more smitten with their own quest for power than actually defending the country in which to exercise it!
There is also more taking place in the War on Terror than the fight occurring overseas. Do you not recognize that we are in the midst of a Civil War in America today? It may not include physical altercations, air attacks or bombings on our streets, but there is indeed a war being waged on the homefront for the heart and soul of our nation. It is dividing us greatly (one observation is at least we can see who wants to put us at risk in our own country), assaulting our way of life and putting our president and troops in peril during a very serious time. Whoever emerges victorious will determine the fate of America’s future, not to mention the War on Terror, and the fate of millions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I might also add one cannot deny the very words and actions of Lincoln’s time in relation to today. This is a very obvious and serious case of ‘History Repeating Itself 101′. We are at a crossroads now just as we were in 1864.
Let’s look at this mirror: there was a slave issue during the Civil War just as there exists a slave issue in the Middle East. Arrogant elitists declare Iraqis and Afghanis are not ready for freedom. Do you not see how this very discrimination parallels with the 1864 defeatist position of Democrats?
We can also observe that many factions divide Iraq as well. We hear some factions may become a different country from Iraq – seceding – as some states declared in Lincoln’s time. Also for Lincoln’s part, it was necessary to hold the union together in order to confront the issue of slavery. Had McClellan won, the subjugation of black men, women and children would have continued. Who knows if there would even be an America as we know it. I cannot help but think that today’s Democrats would (or will) allow their own defeatism to continue the suffering of millions under barbaric Islamic Fascist F(rea)ks.
I am also quite perplexed as to why one would care if Saddam Hussein is on Bin Laden’s hit list. I’m more concerned that my president is on that list along with our military and the rest of this country. Whatever hatred supposedly exists between Hussein and Bin Laden, you can be assured that they – and all Islamic Fascist F(rea)ks – are more united in their hatred toward us and, of course, Israel. That being said, the hatred alone serves as a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Whether the instruments are suicide bombers, brainwashing tactics, chemical bombs, nuclear bombs, or using our planes as bombs, it all stems from an indescribably evil and hate-filled mindset first. I’m not sorry to see the likes of Uday and Qusay Hussein erased from this planet. Certainly the sword of Zarquowi was a weapon of mass destruction – and I’m not sorry we took care of that!
As for the deficit: Freedom has a price. Perhaps eliminating some entitlements and federal dollars spent on aid to countries that hate us would be a more reasonable approach than stiffing the military and our national security.
It is pretty comfortable for Americans during this time of war as we are able to conduct our lives as we please. We can live this way since ’someone’ has the foresight and determination to take this battle to the Idiot Savage Islamic Fascist F(rea)ks because 9/11 really did happen, and we don’t want it to happen again. ‘Someone’ recognizes that if we face the tests of our time and do not back down, greater days will lie ahead for this country. I’m so grateful that ’someone’ has more in common with the greatness of Lincoln than with a forgotten defeatist loserman.
America did not become who she is by throwing in the towel and adopting French as the national language. We did not adopt ‘defeatism’ as an acceptable platform, either. We rejected him in 2004 just as we did in 1864.
You must log in to post a comment.