Posted on 05/31/2008 10:34:42 PM PDT by neverdem
During the Civil War, when the issues of right and wrong were clear, one of President Lincoln’s appointees, General George McClelland, betrayed him. The anti-war Democrats to whom McClelland pandered were called “Copperheads.” They rallied around McClelland to defeat the president politically, when they could not defeat the armies of America militarily. McClelland had a pretty high opinion of himself. He knew what Lincoln did not: That the war come not be won, that giving up and bringing the troops home was the only sensible answer, and that the president was not much of a leader.
Democrats overwhelmingly supported this type of defeatism and these Copperheads would shrink from almost nothing to insure that the war ended, whatever the sacrifice already made to preserve the Union and whatever the costs of allowing the Union to dissolve. These Copperheads did not really care about moral issues, like Lincoln and his Republicans did. Slavery was an abomination in the South and democracy scarcely existed, but McClelland and the Copperheads did not care.
The public approval ratings for Lincoln – if there had been such ratings in 1864 – would have shown him as the least popular president in history. The mainstream media of the time pilloried him mercilessly. Although Lincoln was intelligent, lesser men, like McClelland, considered him a buffoon. Although Lincoln had an almost transcendent nobility, lesser men, like McClelland, considered him no more than a crass pol. Although Lincoln would be judged by history to be great, lesser men, like McClelland, judged him to be ordinary.
McClelland was putty in the hands of the treacherous Copperheads. His own sense of self-importance made McClelland feel that he was much more important to the war effort than the Republican Party or the Republican president. He fancied himself at the center of things, when actually he was an incompetent whose time spent in the administration prolonged the war.
McClelland was a Scot, coming out of the long history of brave Scots. The man history has called Braveheart is the icon of this heroic tradition. But McClelland was anything but a William Wallace. While Braveheart martyred himself for his nation, for his king, Robert the Bruce, and for human freedom, the Scottish-American McClelland placed himself about his leader and his nation: He, McClelland, not his nation or its leader was the focus of all that mattered to him.
History has not been kind to McClelland or the Democrats he served. McClelland did not serve his nation or the principles of liberty upon which his nation was founded. He had a chance for greatness, but his self-importance got in the way. There is no “McClelland Memorial,” nor should there be. Tenacious and loyal lieutenants of Lincoln like Grant and Sherman would earn a place in history. Sherman, unlike McClelland, was so lacking in personal ambition that the political phrase “Shermanesque” has become associated with complete rejection of crowns of office (“If nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve.”) Grant spent the end of his life writing magnificent memoirs, as he was painfully dying, so that his family would not live in poverty. Those lieutenants of Lincoln, although not perfect, were real men, great men, noble men, men of history. McClelland is only remembered as a disloyal, self-centered whiner.
McClelland and his Copperheads of Lincoln’s times are, of course, the McClellan and his modern Copperheads of Bush’s times. Historians can argue about the merits of the Civil War, although overwhelmingly the consensus of historians is that it was an awful, but essential, war – a grim duty for any good American. No one, however, can dispute that if McClelland deigned to serve as the commander of the Army of the Potomac, that he had a duty to prosecute the war with diligence and duty, not to undermine the war and Lincoln to feed his own appetite.
No one should dispute, either, that Scott McClellan, the moral descendent of the earlier McClelland, could have rejected the premise for Operation Iraqi Freedom, eschewed the benefits of serving in the Bush Administration, and honorably opposed the administration and its war. Or he could have been like Grant or Sherman, loyal despite the hardships and second-guessing that inevitably follow in the wake of long wars. Or McClellan could have followed the path of least moral resistance, of lowest personal risk, of greatest ease and comfort – he could have served as Press Secretary when that brought him gain and then become friends of the Copperheads when that brought him greater gain.
When McClellands of any age commit the sin of serpentine behavior in the course of ordinary politics, most of us can forgive the crass avarice, the sick vanity, the emaciated values that motivate such weak souls to wickedness. But when vastly better men and women place themselves in harm’s way, when they lose their lives and limbs, their bodies and their blood, then only the most craven, heartless and venal creatures can profit by their sacrifice. Such a creature was McClelland and is McClellan.
Don’t most historical works render the name of the Civil War general as “McClellan?”
Only because that was his name.
Yes, but this column is a work of fiction.
I’m sure the Scotts are not proud of this particular descendent of the land of Sir William Wallace. May Scott’s soul rot in hell as the traitor he is to the U.S.A.
Well said.
“McClelland” ? Wow, that’s a big goof that ruins the effectiveness of the entire article. A quick check of Wikipedia could’ve cleared it up in 30 seconds.
Amen!
for later reading
That is his correct name. Could this piece be a bit of a preemptive strike to keep the GOP from making the tie-in between the copperheads (RATs) of old and the New Copperheads (RATs) of today. They are the same party with the same goal of destroying the Constitution if not the nation.
George B McClellan had at least one characteristic that drove Lincoln up the wall. Lincoln couldn’t get him to engage the Confederates. Time and time again, McClellan let opportunity to attack slip through his fingers.
He reminds me of the Major General trying to get the police to arrest the pirates, in Pirates of Penzance. The cops kept repeating “We go, we go”. Finally the Major General says “Damme, you won’t go!” Lincoln had to have similar feelings about George B.
As for Scott, hope he enjoys his 30 pieces of silver.
“During the Civil War, when the issues of right and wrong were clear”
Do tell.
Actually, the McClellan equation only goes so far. McClellan the General, albeit ineffective in command, was much admired by the troops. McClellan the Twerp doesn't seem to have been admired by anyone at any time.
The rat party has never stopped being the Copperheads. They were the ones that coarsened the White House with Jackson’s four day drunken party including horses inside the White House. They were the ones who gave us the KKK. They were the ones who passed the Jim Crow laws. They fought every effort to integrate America. They made welfare the enemy of the Black and poor family. They wanted to surrender during the Civil War. They surrendered in Viet Nam. They are trying to surrender now. They are always working to keep us dependent on middle east oil. New Copperheads? When did they EVER stop being the Copperheads?
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks neverdem. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Yep, lots of clarity about the war in Manhattan for instance...
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.