The Election of 1864

National Review Online ^ | 1/21/2004 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Tolik]

Would not want to miss VDH myself :)

[metesky]

The Grand Army of The Republic voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln and was responsible for retuning him for a second term against the Democrat appeaser of his day, George McClellan.

[Rummyfan]

VDH bump!

[My2Cents]

Yet the president realizes that his singular leadership in this deadly struggle is such that unease elsewhere with his budget and immigration initiatives must remain for most of us just that — unease. Where the president is great the opposition is pathetic; and where he is on weak ground, they are still weaker — as evidenced by the collective ankle biting of Dean, Clark, and Kerry and the responses of Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle.

Carve this comment in stone, and drop it on anyone's toe who suggests that "true conservatives" should sit this election out.

[My2Cents]

Good point. I've long thought that Wesley Clark was the reincarnation of Gen. George B. McClellan.

[Poohbah]

And, as in 1864, we have Copperheads in the Democrats.

[My2Cents]

Teh comparison between Clark and McClellan is stunning. When one considers Clark's back-and-forth about whether to run for President, he reminded me of the "decisiveness" of McClellan.

[Nix 2]

Comparing President Bush to President Lincoln is a little off if you are a historian. And whoever thinks Lincoln saved the Constitution is far afield. He did more to ruin the rights of individual states which was totally unconstitutional since that evil war was an economic one, and was never about abolition since abolition had already begun. It was about the almighty dollar and forcing an agrarian economy to pay the same amount of debt as the Yankee Industrial economy. It was about the CENTRAL government taking over the Federal Economy and combining all the states' debt to make it a national debt leaving it so unbalanced, that the South protested vehemently and ultimately tried to leave the other states, which they had a perfect right to do.
The North did not attempt to rebuild the devastated South when it was over either. They stole land, goods, money, and treated the South shamefully. For many along year it was a virtual police state.
W hasn't declared war on the states who oppose him, (although I think some of them might have declared war on him,) but he is truly standing for a principle designed to make men free. The Civil war was the most anti-freedom war ever fought on this soil. We have never recovered from it and are still paying the price.
W, on the other hand, has been victorious, and in victory, he has been gracious. We have rebuilt and resored dignity to Afghanistan. We are trying to do the same in Iraq. The South was not in receipt of such graciousness though Lincoln was assassinated before most of the aftermath. I can't help wonder what whispers in his ear ever made him believe that the seperate states had to stay ONE state at any cost...and the cost might never be fully known, but we can sure see the damage done by giving a few old geezers the Sword of Solomon and expecting them to wield it according to the Constitution we know and love.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Good post with a lot of truth in it.

Lincoln's legacy is enormous - precisely because he turned the Constitution on its head. Abe concluded that the ties binding the people and the states to the union must be stronger to avoid dissolution. Thereto he promulgated a new type of quasi-mystical patriotism.

George W. Bush, facing the threat of our time in all its complexity, is seeking to bind all peoples to principles of freedom.

[LexBaird]

A clue for those who don't know who that incumbent was,he's the guy on the nickel.

Wow, you should save that Lincoln nickel. I hear they're pretty rare. ;)

[mac_truck]

The comparison between Clark and McClellan is stunning.

I agree. I was disappointed that Hanson didn't do more to make the historical comparisons between 1864 and 2004. His recent book Ripples of War is an example of how good he is at doing that. Perhaps he's working on a more comprehensive analogy, and this is just an appetizer.

Cheers.

[My2Cents]

I also think it's the first time I've seen VDH write an article and not mention Hoplites. ;-)

[x]

You need to read up a little more about the Southern radical fire-eaters and the Confederate leaders. Preserving slavery was a major concern of theirs. You'd have to distort things to make them out to be the party of liberty in any meaningful way, and war was a risk they were willing to take to get what they wanted.

It's true that in the 1860s we weren't yet in the business of offering massive foreign aid to those who lost wars with us. We hadn't yet become such an incredibly wealthy land. And it may have been easier to give money to foreigners who were forced to fight against us and didn't know any better, than to fellow citizens who went into war willingly.

But time will tell how successful our reconstruction of Iraq or Afghanistan will be. Our impression on those countries probably couldn't make life there any worse, but whether our it will be long-lasting or not remains to be seen.

I doubt this is the election of 1864 again. I just hope it's not a rerun of 1964: a mandate for a costly foreign war and runaway spending.

[Mike Fieschko]

they still don't grasp that by any historical standard the American military's record in Afghanistan and Iraq has been phenomenal, and the Sisyphean task of implanting democracy amid autocracy the moral act of our age.

Regarding the 'Sisyphean task', I'm partial to the liberation of Eastern Europe by Reagan, Thatcher and John Paul II, as being 'the moral act of our age'.