ChrisC;632939. said:
But the "framing" here is not that complicated: do you support the withdrawal of the Union troops from the South (which was the original point you made about popular opinion being contrary to Lincoln continuing the War) or the withdrawal of the American troops in Iraq, that's a simple question where I believe the "evidence" would suggest that for Lincoln he had a majority of the nation behind him to continue the War whereas for Bush he does not appear to have a majority of the population to continue the War.
Very nicely explained, but I disagree with you about the evidence.
I doubt there is conclusive evidence either way, but to me the election 1862 suggested the Peace Democrats i.e. Copperheads were near a majority in 1862 and 1863. Especially when you couple that with Lincoln being such an unpopular President until after his death.
Have you read
Team of Rivals, by Doris Goodwin? It is all about Lincoln as political genius. I have to confess I started reading but stopped after 100 odd pages into the 800 page book, it is supposed to be the best description of the politics of the civil war. One of these days I'll finish it, if you've read it I'd be interested in your opinion..
The Peace Democrats platform of 1864 was strongly in favor of immediate negotiations with the South. "
The Democrats, were energized by what they saw as the morass of a stagnant Union war effort: death, debt, and destruction with no end in sight" None other than the editor of the NY Times Horace Greeley wrote an open letter to Lincoln urge peace negotiations with the South.
Given the parallels am I really stretching that much in my comparison?
Lincoln was ruthless about shutting down the the worst of the Copperhead newspaper and even in some case tossing the editors and leaders in prison.. (And people think the Patriot Act is bad...)
In 1864,
McClellan got 45% of the vote despite a lousy record as a general, a string of recent Union victories, and running against a political genius and gifted orator by the name of Abe Lincoln.
So you can read this as Northerner's were strongly supportive of staying the course. Or you can interpret the results as do, which is if Grant, and Sherman didn't come along and starting winning, Lincoln was toast in 1864, cause the average American didn't believe that abstract causes like the Union, and abolishing slavery were worth the butcher bill.
I'm not suggesting that public opinion should always dictate foreign policy; however, I do believe that in matters of War, if public opinion is not followed, then there should be strong, compelling reasons to continue a War, especially a War waged initially as a so-called "preemptive war." Whether you support the troops or approve of current military tactics or strategy has, in my mind, nothing to do with the basic question of whether we should continue this War. So, if you frame the issues as support for the troops or the surge, I do think this is irrelevant to the polling issue of whether the War should be continued, an issue the President should periodically question in light of public opinion on that score.
I agree with you. I think we'd agree that with the benefit hindsight preserving the Union and abolishing the hideous evil of slavery was worth 620,000 dead out of 32 million Americans. Clearly Lincoln saw a compelling case to continue the war and his perseverance is now deified. However, as far as public opinion goes at a best case Northern's were fairly evenly divided about the wisdom of continuing the war and if you included Southerns the country vehemently opposed Lincoln. Now the reasons for continuing the war in Iraq don't raise to that of the Civil War, but thankfully neither do the costs. Frankly, I don't think the average Americans are particualarly good at balancing long range gain vs short term pain. American Presidents are typically wiser.
