Posted on 06/21/2004 5:28:53 AM PDT by SJackson
An electoral loss by Lincoln in 1864 would have greatly altered U.S. history. The situation is similar today.
On Jan. 5, 1762, the Czarina Elizabeth died. Russia was in the midst of the Seven Years' War, fighting alongside Austria and France and against the Prussia of Frederick the Great. Prussia was on the verge of defeat: Before he learned of the czarina's death, Frederick wrote to an aide, "We ought now to think of preserving for my nephew, by way of negotiation, whatever fragments of my territory we can save from the avidity of my enemies." But Elizabeth's death changed everything. Her successor, the Czar Peter III, was an admirer of Frederick, and Russia withdrew from the war. Frederick prevailed on the battlefield and emerged the winner in the treaties signed in 1763.
A change in leadership in wartime can change the outcome of the war. It's not always true: Adolf Hitler took heart when Franklin Roosevelt died April 12, 1945. He thought Roosevelt's death would rescue him as Elizabeth's death had rescued Frederick. But Harry Truman carried on the war, and before the end of the month Hitler was dead in his bunker. Still, leadership change in a war is risky business.
Consider the presidential election of 1864. The defeat of the incumbent, Abraham Lincoln, would have made an enormous difference. Union casualties were heavy throughout the year. It was widely expected that Gen. George McClellan, ousted from heading the Union army by Lincoln in 1862, would be the Democratic nominee and that he would win. Lincoln was renominated by the Republican National Convention in June, but through September many prominent Republicans were plotting to choose another nominee. Lincoln clearly stood for continued prosecution of the war, and the Republican platform came out strongly for the abolition of slavery. The Democrats were united around McClellan at their August convention but divided on policy. The Copperhead wing of the party wanted immediate peace, and it managed to write the party platform.
Is the 2004 election as consequential as the election of 1864? The answer to that question depends on what you think John Kerry's military and foreign policy would be, and there is room for thinking many things.
Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations argues that a Kerry foreign policy would not be much different from George W. Bush's. He would be boxed in, Mead suggests, by events: As Kerry has said, he would not withdraw from Iraq; he would have to be concerned about Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programs; he would largely continue our policy toward China (not much altered since Richard Nixon went to Beijing); he would not be able to propitiate a France whose central foreign policy aim is to block U.S. power.
There is something to say for Mead's argument, but I take a different view. Bush, in his formal National Security Strategy statement and in his actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, has transformed U.S. foreign policy more than any president since Truman. The very violence of Kerry's denunciations of Bush; his contempt for the president, which he makes no effort to conceal; the suggestion that America under Bush is totally isolated from the world — these positions will have consequences. They affect what other nations and what the terrorists think the U.S. will do and thus have a role in determining how they will act.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Even if the stated policy did not change (and I think it would), the level of competence would drastically decline. If you don't really believe in the War, you cannot fight it effectively. Kerry's staff would make a bunch of bad decisions (either on purpose, or through stupidity).
Pollster Scott Rasmussen recently reported that 62% of Americans agreed that the world would be a better place if other countries became more like the United States, while only 14% believed it would be a worse place. But there is a big difference between Republicans and Democrats. Fully 81% of Bush voters but only 48% of Kerry voters agreed with the statement.
This illustrates the ruinous effect the New Left has had on our national political landscape. Less than half of Kerry's voters believe America is a country worth emulating! That is remarkable. It means that a significant minority of American electorate is losing or has lost all confidence in America's political system. One must ask what they would do to change it.
Maybe I'm being overly dramatic here. Not sure. Maybe its just the passion of having a President in office that they despise.
Yes, the level of competence would decline drastically. Radical leftists always have one thing in common: they are utterly incompetent at national defense, because deep down they don't believe that America projection of power in defense of purely national interests is a moral thing.
There would also be a host of changes that are difficult to see. The rebuilding of the CIA's HUMINT capacity would be shut down very quickly, I suspect. Our intelligence apparatus would wither significantly. Our military would be cut as well. This is what radical leftists do to institutions they are uncomfortable with.
Let's just make it the Death of Osama. We're about to turn Saddam over to Iraq, and there's talk he could end up being freed. A nice bullet between the eyes could have settled that question easily. We may get some intelligence from Osama, but frankly, it's do us a world of good to have his head planted on a pike outside of Ground Zero.
I don't think you're being over-dramatic. For months (and even years), noted bloggers like Glenn Reynolds have been saying of opponents of the war on terror that "they're not anti-war. They're just on the other side."
This proves that he and the others are correct.
Gettysburg and Vicksburg were victories in July, 1863.
The victories that "saved" him in 1864 were Atlanta (Sherman) and in the Shenandoah Valley (Sheridan).
That will teach me to think on a Monday morning without coffee - You are right about the locations but the logic is the same...
I agree that the victories of Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, etc. helped Lincoln when he needed that help most, but a close objective review of history indicates that Lincoln, with all the military mismanagement, deaths and prisoners of war, had the loyalty and support of the American people who were suffering immensely with the loss and imprisonment of their sons. Lincoln and the "common" American people had "vision" and that vision was union and the end of slavery! Had McClellan, another failed "military" hero (like traitor John Kerry) won, there would be no USA as we stand today. Lincoln and the "people", flawed as we are all are, saw and understood the end game.
The American people have an identical choice today. Let us see whether they choose the path of vision and stay the course with GW Bush, or vote for John Kerry and the sinking of America and her freedom! At the end of the day, this is the equation.
Undoubtedly those victories helped, but they occurred in mid-1863. The real casualties started when 'Grant came East' and commenced 'The Wilderness Campaign' in the Spring of 1864. The key to saving Lincoln was probably the fall of Atlanta (to Sherman).
(I am now crouched in the fetal position while all the good Freepers from south of the Mason-Dixon line proceed to take whacks at Gen. Sherman.)
A little point of history, one of the planks of the rat platform in 1864 was a negociated end to the war of Northern Aggression. If this were to have happened the south would have been free of the north and the end of slavery would have been delayed for decades. That is the rat party for you.
Actually it was Atlanta that gave Lincoln victory in the fall of 1864. The victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg were of no importance to this election.
"Lincoln and the 'common' American people had 'vision' and that vision was union and the end of slavery".
Nice sounding but lacking some facts. At the time of the signing of the Constitution, several leading Virginia and Georgia politicians were advocating the elimination of the practice of slavery.
In the 1820's, there were more abolitionist groups in Charleston than in New York City.
At the time of the secession, there were many Unionist supporters in the South.
At the time of the secession, the US Congress passed an amendment to the US Constitution that would legalize slavery in all states and territories. Lincoln endorsed the amendment.
At the time of the secession, most in the South had preferred the Union until its guarantees became void due to the election of the Republicans.
Before Lincoln's re-election, several attempts were made by the Confederacy to seek a peaceful end to war. Lincoln rejected them.
If Lincoln had been beaten, and the war brought to an end, slavery would have ended as it did in the rest of the world.......peacefully and under control of the government, not the military.
You may be right, but outlining Lincoln's progression of thought and action from before that war until his death would take volumes, and in fact, is still being documented today by numerous historians. I am fascinated by the Civil War and the growth/development of these United States. Both the Union and the CSA had men of unusual, exceptional talent and capability. I can argue either side with great understanding. My point is the difference between the America of GW Bush and the America of John "traitor" Kerry! The American people have a choice to make and it is not about either GW Bush or John Kerry. It is about the destiny of this country, its continued existance and the lives of their families, loved ones and themselves. This is a "fork in the road" election!
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.