Comparison Between The 1864 and 2004 Elections--What do Bush and Lincoln have in Common

The wartime election 1864 has remarkable similarities to today's presidential election. Lincoln was accused by Democrats of being too quick to go to war, of not negotiating with the rebels and of prolonging the war because of his personal obstinancy. Even more interesting is the reaction of the European powers to Lincoln and the North.."tyrant" and "cynical" Lincoln was called by the European press which all profoundly favored the rebellion despite the issue of slavery. Similarly today despite terrorism there is a widespread anti-American sentiment and exactly for the same reason. They believed if America was weaker they would be stronger...sound family Chirac? In 1864 they were perfectly willing to look past the issue of slavery if it was in their interest just as today they are willing to look past terrorism if they can get an advantage on American. If you think the rhetoric against Bush is bad read newspapers of the day to see what they said about Lincoln. Lincoln's Democratic opponent was not just a war hero but the former commander of the Union armies. The Democrats hoped a military background of their candidate would compare well against Lincoln's lack of military exprience. And Mcclellan's message was the same. Lincoln blundered into the war and incompetently ran it. And if you think Iraq is a mess consider the staggering cost of three years of civil war on the eve of the election. Yet Lincoln prevailed as Bush will. Again for the same reasons..the Democrats and the European opponents were driven by opportunism..and no one could deny that Lincoln was fight on principal. And of course Lincoln was wise and right to preserve the Union. When it came time to fight to liberate Europe from Nazi oppressing few thought how lucky the world was that a strong United States of America exsisted to make the difference between unspeakable tyranny and freedom.

One day the world will be purged of terrorism and wise and strong leaders will be praised for their strength in adversity.

In 1864 they were perfectly willing to look past the issue of slavery if it was in their interest

In 1861 Lincoln was perfectly willing to look past the issue of slavery if it was in his interest and even proposed a constitutional amendment permanently protecting it. You are also incorrect about the European press' monolithic support for the south. There was actually a pronounced division in the European press. Most of the mainstream supported the south, but several prominent European writers embraced the Lincoln-yankee cause. The leader of this second group was a German pamphleteer living in London named Karl Marx and he wrote about a hundred major newspaper editorials, petitions, and announcements espousing Lincoln's cause in between 1860 and 1865.

I believe that Europe backed the South because they wanted to slow the US economy, the engine of which was in the North with the banks.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Europeans who backed the south did so primarily because the south was in favor of free trade while the north was protectionist. Put another way, the north was heavily penalizing european goods with extravagent taxes to support a tax-and-spend government mentality. Seeing their trade cut off in the north, the European commercial interests started rooting for the south, which was willing to engage in free trade with them.

Why so many Bush/Lincoln comparison's lately?

It's symptomatic a conscious attempt by the Claremont wing of the GOP to reshape the party in a new direction. From 1964 to 2000 the Republican Party was fundamentally a Goldwater mechanism. Its anchor was in the south and the great plains and its politics were built upon liberty-minded conservatism (or small L fiscal libertarianism combined with moral conservatism).

From 2000 on the Claremont types of this world have been trying to change the GOP from the "Party of Goldwater" into th "Party of Lincoln." They do so because they've caught the big government bug - they've tasted the power of the state now that we're in control and they like that power so they try to find a way to justify it remaining in their hands. Since that vision is incompatable with the anti-government Goldwater philosophy Goldwater gets shunned. They cast out in search of a replacement - an ideological hero who is compatable with big government - and in doing so they find themselves at the alter of Saint Abe.

As an added bonus - even though we know that the real Saint Abe was an unmitigated flaming bigot, the mythical Saint Abe is not. The mythical Saint Abe is a paragon of "tolerance" and and all the other liberal PC buzz words that are popular these days - a true diversitopian. The same GOP forces who wish to shun Goldwater have also caught that same PC bug from the leftist big government types via the "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas" method. So they promote an agenda of affirmative action-lite, ramadama-ding-dong "religion of peace" catering, kwanzaa-embracing, "civil unions" as an alternative to homo marriage-touting, PC garbage because they think they can get some sort of mythical nonexistant voting advantage from it.

There's a fork in the path of the Republican Party of today. One is the limited government Goldwater route. The other is the big government Lincoln route and we're starting to veer that way, which is inescapably the wrong direction.

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.