WASHINGTON D.C. - On this thirtieth of May, the United States is nearly halfway through an election year pursued while in the midst of a great war. Support for the president has reached an all-time low. He has been compared to a baboon, and called a "syphilitic drunkard." His military experience before gaining the presidency consisted of a short term in the state militia, where he displayed little prowess, and he's now responsible for a war that shows every sign of being bogged down into a bloody stalemate, with little to show besides increasing casualty lists.
As one observer has said "The Republicans harp on cowardice, defeatism, lack of patriotism, disloyalty, and even treason among the Democrats. The also hold up [the challenger]'s record military record to ridicule. For their part, the Democrats emphasize the 'ignorance, incompetence, and corruption of [the current] administration' and counted on war-weariness to get them votes. [The president] has been subjected to almost unprecedented abuse in the opposition press ever since becoming president. During his campaign for re-election, however, [the] vituperation reached new heights."
We are speaking, of course, about President Abraham Lincoln, a man who is dedicated to reversing a major Supreme Court decision (Dred Scott vs. Sanford), and has impinged on citizens basic civil rights by suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus. His proclamation of September, 1862 'gave full power to close down "hostile, anti war newspapers," and to arrest individuals for protesting the war.' According to Chief Justice Taney, such action violates the Constitutional separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches.
Additionally, he has yet -despite repeated requests- to provide a plan to bring the South back into the Union. In fact, the president (in typical simplistic fashion) calls such a plan "a merely pernicious abstraction."
President Lincoln served less than three months in the Illinois militia, thirty years ago. In fact, not only did he never face combat, he mustered out early from his last enlistment. In contrast to this we have the Democratic candidate, former general George McClellan, who graduated second in his class from West Point in 1846, and won three brevets for gallant conduct during the Mexican War. McClellan further distinguished himself as an observer of the Crimean War.
The Democratic Party platform is understandably critical of Lincoln's reliance on military measures, and states in part "that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war .. immediate efforts be made for the cessation of hostilities ... and peace be restored on the basis of a Federal Union of the states." In other words, to seek a diplomatic solution that addresses the root causes of the current conflict.
Former Ohio congressman Clement Vallandigham, banished from the United States by Lincoln and currently living in Canada, had this to say about his persecutor: "You have not conquered the South; you never will. Money you have expended without limit, blood poured out like water ... Defeat, death, taxation, and sepulchres ... these are your only trophies."
President Lincoln also faces criticism with his conduct of the war, once thought to be one of his strongest issues with voters. The euphoria induced by the great victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg nearly a year ago has dissipated into a more-realistic realization that the Army has made little progress since then.
General Sherman's attempt to bring Confederate General Johnston to battle have been nearly fruitless, until last week's attack at New Hope Church. This battle lasted three days, until Sherman -in a de facto admission of failure- decided to try to avoid Johnston by maneuvering around his right flank, instead of defeating the rebel in battle.
General Grant has met similar obstacles in the East. Despite the high hopes created by his promotion to Lieutenant General two months ago, Grant is currently mired in a part of Virginia appropriately called the Wilderness. The Union General in chief has spent the last three weeks doggedly attacking Robert E. Lee with little to show for it except increased casualties. In fact, in only three battles (Wilderness, 5/5-5/7; Spotsylvania, 5/10-5/12; Drewry's Bluff, 5/12-5/16) Federal forces have suffered over thirty-two thousand casualties in less than two weeks.
If events continue in this manner, Mr. Lincoln can expect to be soundly defeated this fall, as a rebuke for his terrible conduct of the war.
(Ed. note: all quote are contemporary Civil War sources.)
Nice!
I am linking to this ASAP. And sending it to Charles.
Er, of course, for much of the war, the north _was_ prosecuting it incompetently. It wasn’t until he sacked McClellan that the war even started to begin to go well. Possibly the only thing that save Lincoln’s job was the fact that it was McClellan who ran against him...
If Bush were to fire Rumsfeld and Rummy were to run on the Democrat ticket, we might have something approximating a good analogy. Of course, Bush seems more likely to give Rummy a raise than to give him the axe...
While comparing Bush to Lincoln is a stretch on several fronts--at bare minimum, it's way historically premature--it nevertheless is an interesting perspective, if nothing else to see just how harsh the criticisms were, and how easy it is to lose perspective.
Just like it's so easy to day to lose perspective and think that Iraq is going disastrously despite the massive successes and tiny numbers of casualties.
Andrew,
The analogy would be perfect if, say, the former Army Chief of Staff (who has been critical of the President's military policies) were to run against President Bush - as for prosecuting the war incompetantly, what people in May of 1864 were concentrating on, just as the people of May of 2004, are the trees rather than the forest.
By May of 1864 the Confederacy was already finished - there was zero chance of Lee obtaining a military decision in favor of the South as the resources of the South were nearly exhausted, only sufficient for a holding action. By that time in the war, the South was cut in two, Sherman threatened Atlanta, Grant was punishing the Army of Northern Virginia in a manner Lee could not sustain, only one major port remained open for the South to bring in foreign supplies and the chances of outside intervention to assist the South were gone for good. The war was won - all that needed be done was to persist in it...but the people, weary after years of war and not fully understanding the full picture, were ready to run Lincoln out of office and accept defeat at the hands of the defeated.
The news appeared bad, you see - it appeared that we were suffering disporportionate losses in Virginia; it appeared Sherman was stymied before Atlanta; it appeared that the South's ability to resist was unshaken. Appeared. Key word.
The news, today, appears bad - because its presented in a bad way and, also, its becoming more and more clear that the Bush Administration has been unable to communicate our massive and continuing successes to the American people. Fallujah, for instance, is widely credited as an American quasi-defeat, even though it was and remains a major victory.
The enemy is on the ropes in Iraq - we have punished them in a manner they cannot sustain. There really isn't a bottomless reservoir of men who are willing to throw their lives away for the problemmatical chance that if 50 of them die, they might kill an American. Propaganda broadcasts to the contrary, they really aren't in great spirit and don't think they've beaten us anywhere. We keep the pressure up just a bit longer, they will fold their tents and go home - those who are not dead.
As for the domestic political situation - aside from an about two-week period immediately following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush has been villified by his political opponents since day one of his Administration - there was no "honeymoon" period at all...and as President Bush strides from success to success, his opponents become more shrill in their denunciations - he is, after all, variously accused of being an idiot, an evil genius, a tool of international Jewry, vengeful-minded, corrupt, a drunkard, dishonorable, dishonest, and all manner of additional insults as his opponents think them up. Lincoln fared about the same - after a brief blooming of national unity following Fort Sumter, he was attacked, attacked and attacked in the most unfair and outrageous manner - like President Bush, not so much attacked for what he did, but for things his opponents made up about him.
In the end though, and quite justly, its results that count - if, by November 2nd, the results of President Bush's administration seem overall for the benefit of the nation, he will be returned to office by a large majority - sweeping in, very likely, greatly increased majorities in the House and Senate for his Party.
I believe whole-heartedly that this will eventuate - because while a lie can travel from Maine to Florida before truth has its boots on, the truth is a-dawning out there and people are beginning to perceive the immense succes our military is bringing us - and the excellent Presidential leadership which brought it about.
people are beginning to perceive the immense succes our military is bringing us - and the excellent Presidential leadership which brought it about.
The military is succeeding despite the chaotic shambles that has become this mythical 'Presidential leadership'. A constant refrain has been, don't point out this bomb or that attack and say, Iraq's in chaos and its all Bush's fault. Fair enough. Now y'all don't turn around pointing the successes and saying what a great leader Bush is. We've got a fantasticly autonomous military filled with med of character. Put 130,000 of them in a foreign country, spend as much money on them as you care to ask for, and EXPECT RESULTS. Open bloody warfare between the two main factions of the civil leadership of the military, and Bush gets 'Leadership' points??? Bush's got a couple of good speech writers and an incredible military, and little else.
Very interesting piece though, I have to admit. Since I'm not gonna even try to pit my wits against the military history buffs around here, let me just say:
Its not the same! Because I say so. Thank you.
Though I'll admit he showed definite leadership qualities in starting the war.
And by saying so, Andrew, you have fallen into the same trap of simplistic reasoning that so many others have. In fact, one of the reasons I like using this analogy is that there are so many levels of meaning or interpretation available.
Actually Lincoln did a good job. One of the problems at that time was that most military leaders had no idea how to conduct modern operations. Recall that the Prussian General Staff was an innovative idea at that time. BTW, which sacking of McClellan did you have in mind? The first, or the second (official) one?
You make the same mistake that many reader do by focusing on Virginia as the decisive theatre. It turns out that the early decisive battles were fought in the West, starting with the capture of Forts Henry and Donelson by General Grant in January of 1862. By April '62 Pope had captured Island No. 10. About the same time Grant decisively repulsed the Confederates at Shiloh, in a major defensive victory for the Union, as opposed to a defeat, if Generals McClellan, Burnside, or Hooker had been in charge. On April 24 we see the Battle of New Orleans, where Admiral Farragut drives past the forts guarding the mouths of the Mississippi. The next day they dropped anchor off New Orleans, and on May 1 General Butler occupied the city for the Union. While the South was not quite cut in half (this would not happen until the capture of Vicksburg and Port Hudson the following year), significant progress had been made against the Confederacy in the West.
Alas then, as today, the general populace didn't percieve the true thrust of the war. They tended to focus on the failures in the East, to the detriment of the successes in the West. We must also keep in mind the increasing level of interference by Congress in the conduct of the war. Sound familiar?
Your claim that "the only thing that save Lincoln’s job was the fact that it was McClellan who ran against him" does not stand up to examination. By the end of August, Lincoln firmly expected to be defeated. Why? Because of the percieved lack of progress of the Union armies.
Dear god in heaven---are you actually trying to paint Bush as another LINCOLN?
You're taking an administration seething with corruption and profiteering, that has continually lied to the American people, and sent brave men and women to die in a for-profit war---and wrap them in the mantle of the Greaqt Emancipator?
Dubya is in office today because his party illegally disenfranchised 56,000 (mostly) african-american voters in Florida, and you dare to stack him against the man who who (belatedly) ended slavery in the US?
Dubya is an inarticulate son of wealth who skated by with C's in schools he entered through affirmative action. Lincoln was an eloquent son of modest means who educated himself far more effectively than Yale educated Dubya.
Lincoln represents greatness and the better angels of our nature. Bush represents mediocrity and the corruption of money and power.
Not a fair comparison at all.
Don - You bet I'll compare him to Lincon, and have been for some time.
New flash.... Abraham Lincoln wasn't ABRAHAM LINCOLN!... until the war ended and he was martyred. While he served, as Esmay's post is all about, he was held in similar vituperative contempt by millions of... well.... Democrats, not to even mention Southerners.
Have you even bothered to read history? "Seething with corruption", etc. Ever heard of Salmon Chase? William Seward? Edward Stanton? They were... corrupt... but accused of being... CORRUPT!!! Relentlessly.
Florida - we are all tired of the whining. Recounts showed Bush won. In a tie (which it basically was), letter and intent of the constitution state clearly that LEGISLATURES, not courts, make the call, because courts are answerable only to themselves, legislatures to voters. Bush won the counts, the Florida Leg would have picked him, the US Congress would have picked him, that's why the Dems chose the unanswerable courts... where they lost anyway.
Wah, wah, wah. MoveOn, as some are wont to say.
Lincon - considered a backwoods hick, looked down upon by many in his own party, incuding has cabinet... at first.
- Willfuly entered into a war, where he really DID have the option not to, he simply could have divided the nation peacefully. That was unacceptable, thus his "warmongering".
- Saw the inevitablity of a clash between modernizing, industrial, FREE values... and stagnating, unevolving, agricultural-based slave society. Saw that the mere EXISTENCE of the former could not help but threaten the latter, and thus hostility was inevitable. For Southerners, it really was about their "way of life".. a very destructive one. Lincoln saw this, millions chose not to.
Went into the war, not to stop slavery, but to save the union. Finished it to end slavery. Remeniscent of Bush going in for WMD, but the fact is he has been saying it is about ending toxic autocracy in the ME from day one, for all who care to listen.
These times have always reminded me of our Civil War, because that was about the incompatibility of industrial free societies and stagnant slave-owning ones. Now it is about iformationalised, globalized societies and backwards, misogynist, stagnant autocracies/theocracies, using Islam as a weapon in their self-perpetuation.
The point is NOT that Bush is "holy", "sacred", deseving of a Linconian monument, etc. The point IS that Lincoln wasn't either.... until quite some time after he was dead. Esmay's entire post is about the eternally fascinating truth that history just keeps going round and round and round. To not take that into account is to just blow hot air, which could better be used for ballons.
--
"Well, it was a hard battle today, but the field is ours. And I finished the day by choosing to give the Rebs one more thumping and voted for Old Abe."
Union soldier, November, 1864
After what was said about and done to President Clinton over a sexual indiscretion, I think that today's climate is not only predictable, but inevitable. Where's the outrage, you might ask? You accidentally stepped on it while watching Fox News. Sorry.
Don: no, I'm not saying Bush is at the same level as Lincoln, although Andrew does have a point; no one looked at Honest Abe and said "wow, there goes a major American icon, to be ranked with George Washington, and who 'represents greatness and the better angels of our nature.'"
My point (and Dean picked up on it quite nicely) is that in May 30, 1864, the widespread opinion was that the war was a bloody shambles, and the Lincoln administration was making no progress while they killed more soldiers.
Most people can't seem to get the concept that those people weren't reading a history book, they were living it. We pick up (say) something by Bruce Catton or the Dupuys, and we already know how it all ends; we've heard it a million times. It is, in a way, pre-destined. To us. To the people living at the time, no such comfort. They were just as as nervous and uncertain about the future as we are today. Which is the whole point.
Apparently the quotes I put up in the original article did not make an impression on you regarding just how viciously Lincoln was treated before the war was won, and he was assassinated. Considering the dogmatic and completely unfactual nature of your post, explaining reality to you won't make an impression either. It would be like arguing with one of those people who insist that the moon landings were a hoax, and that NASA is running a cover-up about the "Face" on Mars.
John: saying "someone else started it" doesn't work for kids, and it doesn't work for me. Besides which, if you still refuse to accept the basic fact that Clinton was impeached for perjury, NOT "a sexual indescretion," you disappoint me.
Max,
You are wise not to dispute we who are versed in matters military, but you err when you say that President Bush started the war...he didn't; strictly speaking, the war started on November 4th, 1979...and we only began fighting it in ernest after the 9/11/01 attacks.
Casey, I totally understood the qoutes you put up and the point you were trying to make. I just thought they was obvious and facile, so I thought I'd look underneath them.
As for my "unfactual nature," are you trying to tell me that Bush got straight As? Or that he got into Yale on his own merits? Or that the 56,000 disenfranchised Florida voters don't exist (even thought Katherine Harris has admitted to it?---go to www.blackboxvoting.org for the whole ugly story)
I realize you've decided to back Pres. Bush, and want to present him in the best possible light. I'm just telling you that comparing him to truly great men will not raise his stature---it will reveal him for the small, incompetent leader he is.
As for Florida: conspiracy, conspiracy,.... No way that argument will ever stop.
Don, you miss his point. In May 1864, Lincoln's admin was riven with appearances of corruption, he was considered a liar (started a war for one purpose and now saying something else). If the north had lost, would we have the same view of lincoln. What if he was not assasinated, would his memory be held so dear?
Casey's point is that at the time no one knew that things were going to get better and the naysaying almost finished him.
John -
It's off topic, but just to throw it in...
"where was the outrage"? Well, mine was in a letter I sent to the head of the GOP, six GOP Senators, and then-candidate Bush, over, of all things, Elian Gonzalez, whom I believe holding against his perfectly fit father's rule was a horrendous violation of the family values the party stands for. In essence, I told them I was quitting the GOP (admittedly symbolic), because I was fed up with relentless and unceasing attacks on the sitting President of the United States, completely in violation of the national interest and party values, all because... "We hate the SOB!" Funny thing is, I sent it off to Senators who were demanding hearings on the Miami raid, and within 48 hours I never heard another peep.
I only bring this up to show that I beleived a number of Republicans acted like idiots in the '90's. What astonished me is that Clinton had them for lunch because of it.... but now BUSH does the EXACT same thing to his adversaries, who are acting in the EXACT same utterly idiotic fashion (when the stakes are a hundred times higher, I might add). It remains to be seen in November, but when Dems use their adversaries foolishness against them, and then fall into the exact same trap themselves seven years later.... well, just who are being the "morons" now?
I'm not going to respond, since it's getting off topic.
I now return you to our CURRENT TOPIC. Ahem.
Dean, damn good post...despite the efforts to either draw too much comparison to today or by Don's desperate efforts to belittle it, it's interesting reading...teaches us to keep an open mind about how events can take unexpected turns...keep 'em coming, this is good stuff...the grownups out here appreciate it...
If Bush is successful, then he will have emancipated far greater numbers of people than Abe Lincoln could even dream about freeing. The audacity of his action is amazing, and his eventual place of honor as an American icon will be secure if he is successful. If he fails, he will be another Wilson - a visionary who was unable to accomplish his vision.