Tammy Bruce: Defeatist Democrats Aren't Anything New

Defeatist Democrats Aren't Anything New

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.

Posted by Tammy · September 5, 2006 05:07 PM · Permalink
History | Politics

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://tammybruce.com/mt/pings.cgi/912

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Defeatist Democrats Aren't Anything New:

» Rice Likens Iraq Wars Critics to Those of US Civil War: from Pajamas Media
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... [Read More]

Tracked on September 5, 2006 06:37 PM

» Condi Versus The Copperheads from Ed Driscoll.com
On the second anniversary of 9/11, James Taranto wrote:"Everything may have changed on Sept. 11 two years ago, but not necessarily in the ways one would have expected. American politics is the most striking case in point. Given the bipartisan... [Read More]

Tracked on September 5, 2006 08:45 PM

Comments

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.]

Posted by: Vicki at September 5, 2006 07:08 PM

And remember! Abe Lincoln was murdered by a democrat activist actor.

Posted by: Evil Roy at September 5, 2006 09:03 PM

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.

Posted by: WK at September 5, 2006 09:49 PM

By Category

By Month

Defeatist Democrats Aren't Anything New

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment