Skip to comments.Lincoln and the Copperheads
Posted on 02/02/2013 5:07:52 AM PST by iowamark
In January 1863, Abraham Lincoln made a remarkable confession. He was, he told a senator, more worried about the fire in the rear than he was about the Confederates to his front...
Disgusted Republicans termed them Copperheads, after the poisonous snake...
By January 1863, their assaults on Lincoln, combined with the poor performance of the armies, were taking a toll on civilian morale. Midwesterners spoke openly about seceding and establishing another new country or aligning with the Confederate States of America.
Lincolns critics were harsh, uncompromising and relentless. They said Lincoln was a tyrant, bent on amassing power and ruining democracy. They demanded an immediate end to hostilities, believing contrary to all available evidence that the Southern states would return to the Union if only Lincoln would stop the shooting. They wanted to keep slavery...
As Lincoln worried about the state of the home front, an important shift was taking place among soldiers. They were distressed about the 1862 elections, where Peace Democrats had performed quite well, gaining seats in the House, several state legislatures and the governorships of New York and New Jersey. The men thought Copperheads did not believe in their cause, honor their suffering or respect the sacrifice of their fallen friends.
As a result, soldiers, even many Democrats, were increasingly aligning themselves with Lincoln. Along the way they became more open to emancipation, and by April 1863 most embraced Lincolns proclamation. The Copperheads, with their mystical thinking, never realized this, and they and the Democrats generally would pay a heavy political price for their misreading of the political landscape.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Oh, I get it.
The NY Times is saying Obama’s critics are just like Lincoln’s, racist (”sympathetic to slavery”) and unpatriotic. With the 150th of the Emancipation Proclamation this year, get ready for more of this Chicago-style race-baiting crap, another naked attempt to smear anyone who isn’t a leftist.
HOWEVER, the comparison isn’t a good one, because Lincoln did not try to deliberately menace the US economy, especially the energy sector, like Obama has. Lincoln didn’t try to kill coal-mining, or stall oil distribution (Keystone), or attack anyone successful as being suspect, just because they were successful.
Obama HAS done all of that, and more.
Obama is no Lincoln. Remember that this year, amid all the leftist adulation.
Hooray for the Copperheads.
Not so subtle suggestion comparing modern-day Conservatives to Copperhead DEMOCRATS during the Civil War. So I guess that Mark Levin is now Clement Vallandigham?
And NOW—the Secretary of State is not only a Copperhead; he’s an ACTUAL TRAITOR—having given assistance and support to our country’s enemies in time of ACTUAL WAR.
Anybody else see a problem, here?
May we all live in “interesting times”.
The Copperheads were Democrats. Democrats acted just like Copperheads with regard to the War on Terror.
The article is generally true. But I would hope that she would also write another one giving the credit that is due the Radical Repulicans - the true abolitionists that pushed Lincoln to making the war about emancipation sooner than he would have on his own.
This is also the story of the civil rights where the so called southern democrats were really republican racists.
I just have to wonder if in the twisted mind of this writer she realizes that it would make more sense to switch her allegiance to the side which she celebrates rather than try to rewrite history.
Lincoln praised the Declaration of Independence in almost every speech he made. Obama disdains that document.
Lincoln praised the DOI the same way that Obama praises the Bill of Rights...with rhetoric, not actions.
“They said Lincoln was a tyrant, (check) bent on amassing power (check)and ruining democracy (check).”
Those copperheads were pretty smart. No way they could see Obama in our future, but it was Lincoln, who determined once and for all that the federal government reined supreme, that eventually allowed a dictator be elected.
“They demanded an immediate end to hostilities, believing contrary to all available evidence that the Southern states would return to the Union if only Lincoln would stop the shooting.”
True. Had Lincoln stopped hostilities early on there was a good chance that Southern states would have come back to the union. By 1863...not so much.
I was talking about the DOI that John Hancock signed. Not the pro-slavery assault on unalienable rights that South Carolina passed in Dec, 1860.
“Hooray for the Copperheads.”
They were Democrats.
The governments of the seceding states were filled with Democrats.
Looks to me like the Democrats have been trying to destroy this country for a long time.
Some of us don’t stand with them.
Rhetoric aside, follow the money. It’s nearly always about power and money——Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.
Abraham Lincoln U.S. Congress, 1847
A little over 10 years later after the South attempted precisely that, Lincoln, when asked, Why not let the South go in peace? replied; I cant let them go. Who would pay for the government? And, what then will become of my tariff?
Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861
The Central idea of the story was to compare the Copperheads of that century to Freepers and others of this century who oppose Obama.
Certainly I am not standing with Democrats when I oppose Obama.
When I say Hooray for Copperheads I say it to commend them for standing against Lincoln, not to praise Democrats of today.
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
Thanks iowamark. RINOs and CINOs reject Lincoln.
The NY Times is saying Obamas critics are just like Lincolns, racist (sympathetic to slavery) and unpatriotic. With the 150th of the Emancipation Proclamation this year, get ready for more of this Chicago-style race-baiting crap, another naked attempt to smear anyone who isnt a leftist.
This is from their online Civil War Sesquicentennial blog, not from the newspaper.
Not everything is about Obama.
That is one of those questionable Lincoln quotations.
If the slave states didn't want high tariffs, they could have stayed in Congress and defeated or moderated them.
Maybe it is all about money as you say, but in those days, slaves and slavery were a pretty big investment in some states -- big enough to secede to protect and big enough to fight for.
Feel free to scan them all for coded messages about Obama -- the post about the cavalry, or the ironclads, or the Irish brigage, or the canals.
But that sort of thing can make somebody go batty.
The same as saying Hooray for Bill Ayres.
Total BS and even Robert E. Lee would have called you on that.
Take your revisionism somewhere where there are people stupid enough to buy it.
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.......... In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” Slavery where it existed was OK. Not paying duties and imposts not so much.
There wasn't anything the Republicans could do about slavery in the slave states, and trying to do anything about it would have split the country.
What Lincoln and the Republicans were concerned about was the spread of slavery -- and the break-up of the union. Giving guarantees to slaveowners in the slave states if it would preserve the union was an acceptable policy for them.
How was the federal government's presence felt in 1860? How did most people interact with it? The mails, the courts, the customhouses, maybe the land offices in the West.
Maintaining forts, delivering the mails, collecting import taxes were ways that the federal government could maintain that the union was intact, and work or wait to resolve the situation. So it's not surprising that the collection of import duties, like the delivery of the mails was mentioned in Lincoln's inaugural address.
The idea that "it was all about tariffs" was something that developed after the war when it was clear that support for "slaveowners' rights" wasn't an appealing issue to most people.
But if you really want to say that the Civil War was all about money and power that would apply to both sides. Don't pretend that there weren't strong economic motivations on the secessionist side that were even less legitimate than what you ascribe to Lincoln and the unionists.
Lincoln implied the use of force/violence in his address not over the ‘spread’ of slavery but amongst other things the collection of those ‘duties and imports’. Tariffs had been an issue with many of the Southern states for decades. South Carolina threatened succession in 1832 not over slavery but tariffs. Tariffs were a powder keg with the South. Slavery was the fuse. As it appears opinions are fairly set on this subject, I will peacefully ‘secede’ from further comment.
The fire in the Union rear was not nearly as great as the one burning in the Confederate rear. And the means Lincoln used to fight his fire was not nearly as heavy-handed as the methods the Confederates used to suppress southern citizens.
Democrats, committing treason in support of race based slavery. Rather like Democrats supporting treason in support of communist slavery.
Okay, so I get the last word.
Slavery was the great issue of the 1850s. The country was up in arms over the expansion of slavery (and the threat to freedom it implied) and the spread of abolitionism (and the explicit threat to slavery it carried). Nobody was very excited about the tariff. Nobody was screaming about the tariff in 1860.
That doesn't mean most supporters of the union cared about slavery. They were concerned about the fate of the union. And it doesn't mean that all confederates cared only about slavery. Many of them only supported secession because of Lincoln's call for an army to keep the Deep South states (which largely did secede because of slavery) in the union.
But without slavery, there wouldn't have been a war. The tariff question was one that could have been resolved peacefully. By 1860. the slavery question couldn't. It was only after the war, after slavery became a dirty word that the myth that the war was fought over tariffs came into its own.
And Lincoln himself? This whole caricature of him obsessed by the tariff doesn't ring true. Tariffs were one way you knew which country you were in and where the border was, and the continued existence of the country within the existing borders under the existing laws was what mattered to him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.