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.

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2004/10/lincoln-of-our-age.html

Monday, October 18, 2004

The Lincoln Of Our Age

"Who is responsible for this polarized nation?" asks an email, that blasts
"We are more divided now that at any time since the Civil War"

Bush has had higher average approval ratings that either Bill Clinton *or* Ronald Reagan. And the latest Gallup poll has Bush up 8 points against Kerry, the same margin that Bill Clinton was re-elected by in 1996. The Reagan and Clinton eras were plenty partisan, this is nothing special. Heck when has politics *not* been bitter and partisan? 1957? back in 1819? Certainly not in my lifetime! What is different is what is at stake in this election. We have matters of national security, homeland security and a war against terrorism at stake. Bigger issues than in any election in a while. So the sense of urgency is keener, the emotions more raw.

This election is a lot like Lincoln's second presidential election in 1864, when a war (Civil War) wasn't going as well as some hoped; hundreds of thousands of America's son died in a Civil War on Lincoln's watch; war weariness was growing, and Lincoln's many decisions were being nitpicked by Democrats and even some in his own party; pro-war Democrats and also Copperheads who opposed it from the start. Some thought that negotiation could work to bring Confederacy back. Others derided Lincoln's many mistakes in the war, the bad generals, the corruption, and the ceaseless death.

The Democrats though couldnt decide whether to be 'anti-war' or 'pro-war' in 1864. So they split the difference, writing a copperhead platform and putting General McLellan at the top of the ticket. Curiously, McLellan, the waffler of Army of the Potomac, the man who could have won the Civil War in 1862 had he pursued the taking of Richmond properly, ran, like Kerry today, on a special plan and 'I can do better', using his military background as his credentials. (History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce). Like Kerry, he looked and played more Presidential than the homespun backwoods Lincoln, but like Kerry there were doubts about his decisiveness (McLellan's botched campaigns were proof enough). In the summer, it looked like Lincoln would lose, and that was the Confederacy's greatest hope. Lincoln was the most vilified President in our history, if you read the editorials against him your hairs would grow on end.

Indeed it could have been asked in 1864: WAS LINCOLN RESPONSIBLE for the polarized nation? AND OH, how many mistake did lincoln make! So many battles, so many lives lost, and in mid-1864 what was there to show for it.

In a single 30 minute charge in Cold Harbor in June 1864, a useless pointless charge that General Grant later recalled as his only true battlefield regret, 1,300 young union men were slaughtered, to no effect. (More men than have been lost since 9/11 in the whole global war on terror effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq.) But a curious thing happened after that dread defeat. General Grant, unlike all the other Union Generals, did not retreat and lick his wounds. Instead, after this setback, his organized his troops, and marched _ SOUTH. In the midst of a 'quagmire', Grant did the one thing required for ultimate Union victory: Stay on the attack, no matter the cost.

The Confederacy had been teetering on defeat in 1864, but was hanging on to the hopes of Lincoln's defeat - and getting saved by the indecision of the North. But Sherman's Victory in Atlanta was 1864's "September surprise" that split the confederacy in two and made it clear the war would end with victory for the Union. Union hopes were lifted. Lincoln won re-election, the Union and our Nation was saved. Lincoln's stubbornness in pursuing victory, fighting and running through strategies and Generals until he found one that would win victory, not negotiating with the Confederates on the key demand of Union, and not backing down saved the Union. Lincoln was the right man for the time, and we know him now as one of our greatest Presidents.

We might not face a test as big as 1864, a decision to save our country, but we will determine on November 2nd the path we take in the war on terror and against several global threats. It would be better for our nation if we rose to that challenge and not stoop to indecision or retreat.

It is said that Bush made mistakes after 9/11. Really? Since 9/11, although we convered several threats (shoe bombers, Lackawanna al qaeda cell, etc.) no attacks in the US. The NATION made mistakes PRIOR to 9/11, not understanding the threat, not taking it seriously when Al Qaeda declared war on us, not going beyond a 'law enforcement' response to bombings like Khobar towers, the USS Cole, and Kenya embassy bombings. All political parties, and Presidents from Carter through Reagan and Clinton responded, but inadequately, to terrorism. But since September 20th, 2001, Bush has responded forcefully. A Taliban regime in Afghanistan is now replaced by a first appointed and soon-to-be elected Afghan President; WMD threats in Libya have been removed and the AQ Khan network that was trading nuclear arms technology was shut down; and saddam hussein was deposed, a prime sponsor who trained (at Salman Pak), harbored (Abu Nidal, Abu Zarqawi), funded (Algerian GIA, Hamas, palestinian groups) and aided terrorists.

Saying that going to Iraq was taking the eye off the ball of terrorism, ignores the 9/11 report that shows: Saddam Hussein offered safe haven to Osama Bin Laden; Abu Zarqawi sought refuge in Iraq after the fall of the Taliban in 2001; Saddam's regime helped support the Al Qaeda affiliated Ansawr Al Islam. It also ignores what we now know of Saddam's corruption in the oil-for-food program, and how he was using that money to bribe the west, get sanctions removed, and re-establish WMD programs. WMD programs that, thanks to the AQ Khan network (that Bush administration busted up in their multi-lateral proliferation secuirty initiative), might have led to Iraq being a nuclear power quite quickly. Instead, deposing Saddam helped convince Libya to give up similar WMD dreams, and a threat that the CIA wasnt even aware of prior to 2003 was removed!

Now it's true that Saddam Hussein killed 400,000 of his people so in a sense is a larger menace to his own people than terrorists are to us. That is why some Iraqis have said that we found WMDs in Iraq - the WMD was Saddam Hussein himself.

Now we are in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and the War on Terrorism continues. The United States can unite around victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, a victory for democracy and freedom (that Afghanistan's October 9th elections proved could happen, even in such a backwater nation). Iraqi polls show that 80% of Iraqis want elections to be held there in January, on time.

We won't be able to unite in victory around Kerry:

not after kerry gratuitously insulted the Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi, by questioning his credibility for daring to express optimism (and on the facts kerry cited, Allawi was more accurate - there are 200,000 Iraqis in security services today, far more than kerry acknowledges)
not after insulting allies as the 'bribed and coerced' the war as a 'mistake', yet incredibly claims he can get more troops from other countries for this war he thinks costs too much.
not when he speaks of a 'global test' and implies that the U.S. needs to do something more than make the simple determination 'is this required for our national security?'
not when he retreats into a 9/10 mindset of thinking that law enforcement strategies only, to reduce terrorism to 'nuisance' levels, is an acceptable approach, ignoring the fact that rogue regimes and the political and military threats are intertwined, that we *have* to go after rogue regimes, and that Iraq was of course one of them;
not when he shaved his positions on Iraq for political calculation and popularity; saying in may 2003 that he supported the war', then 'I'm the anti-war candidate' when there were difficulties. Such calculation and waffling is not the straight course that we need at this time, and it gives our enemies a signal that he will 'cut and run' if the price of victory becomes too high.
As an Iraqi friend has said about the US election impact in Iraq: Meospotamian blog:
In case President Bush loses the election there would be a massive upsurge of violence, in the belief, rightly or wrongly, by the enemy, that the new leadership is more likely to "cut and run" to use the phrase frequently used by some of my readers. And they would try to inflict as heavy casualties as possible on the American forces to bring about a retreat and withdrawal. It is crucial for them to remove this insurmountable obstacle which stands in their way. They fully realize that with continued American and allies' commitment, they have no hope of achieving anything.
On the other hand if President Bush is reelected, this will prove to them that the American people are not intimidated despite all their brutality, and that their cause is quite futile. Yes there is little doubt that an election victory by President Bush would be a severe blow and a great disappointment for all the terrorists in the World and all the enemies of America. I believe that such an outcome would result in despair and demoralization of the "insurgent elements" here in Iraq, and would lead to the pro-democracy forces gaining the upper hand eventually. Note that we are not saying that President Bush is perfect, nor even that he is better than the Senator, just that the present situation is such that a change of leadership at this crucial point is going to send an entirely wrong message to all the enemies.

Life and death in many countries is on the line. Most of the lives lost in the War on Terrorism since 9/11 were lost in a single day - 9/11 itself; the cost in all US military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan combined is less than were lost in a single training accident for D-day invasion, and less than a fraction of the losses in a single hour on D-day. We could decide to retreat or turn back from our successful efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like the citizens in 1864, we have a press that likes to create war-weariness. We need reminding that yes, Iraq has everything to do with the War on Terror: Abu Zarqawi, Ansar Al-Islam, and Saddam's 1998 offer of safe haven to Osama by Saddam. The democratic governing model in Iraq is desired by 80% of Iraqis, will succeed, and will change the future course of Middle East governance. The Invasion of Iraq is both justified and well worth it, for our long-term security and the future of Iraq and the region.
We ought to stay on the course that will yield victory in this current effort and not turn away. That course has been laid by President Bush, quite ably. The Lincoln of the global war on terror has been vilified globally as Lincoln was nationally, but the Union that is this nation and is western civilization can and will hold together as he leads us on to a greater victory for freedom and democracy against it's current greatest foes, global Jihadist terrorism and WMD-wielding rogue nations.

For these reasons and for many reasons besides, I strongly support President Bush, the Lincoln of our times, for re-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.