| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Why Lincoln beat McClellan |
| 2007-11-19 |
| In 1864 Americans were fed up with the Civil War, in which there were days on which more soldiers were killed than have died in four years of the Iraq war. "Mr. Lincoln is already beaten," wrote Horace Greeley, perhaps the leading journalist. But on September 1 the news reached Washington that Atlanta had fallen to the Union army, and on election day it appeared as if the North was on the way to victory. Lincoln was decisively reelected. And, according to historian Allan Nevins, "The damage done to the Democratic Party by the platform could not be undone. Its Â… stigmatization of the heroic war effort as worthless gave the Northern millions an image of the Democratic Party they could never forgetÂ….and would cost the party votes for a generation." FOR WELL over a year now most prominent Democrats have insisted that the Iraq war had been lost and that the US should get its troops home as quickly as possible. It was true that the US was losing the war in 2006. Two responses were possible. The Democrats response was, in effect, "the war is hopeless, we should give up." The administration response was, "we have to do something different so that we can win." Most voters prefer the second response - especially when it is successful. In November 2008 it is likely to be clear that if the US had followed the Democrats' advice the US would have suffered an unnecessary defeat. Those voters who believe that the US is facing dangerous threats from jihadis may well feel that it is not safe to bring to power the party that would have brought defeat in Iraq. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #5 Nope. Coginitive Dissonance will take care of that troubling thought. I am confident that the trunk nominee will be pounding this point home brutally. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-11-19 20:07 |
| #4 LINCOLN [paraph] > "When will our Generals learn that the entire country is our soil". IMO, like many other Union Generals early in the Civil War, despite his loyalty to the North "Mac" was NOT anti-Secessionist as per the wording of the US Constitution. Prior to the advent of Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan [North's later Triumvirate/"Destroyer Generals"] Mac was the only top Union Cdr to defeat or stop Confederate forces in battle, including Robert E. Lee. IMO, Mac's prob was NOT personal or professional incompetence, as many in the Army of the Potomac + South feared or respected his abilities, but a personal, totalitarian unwillingness to fight other Amers = Confederates despite his own belief in Union + Lincoln's/Political Washington's formal policies in favor of war + restoring the Union, + despite two de facto Southern invasions of the North. However naive or discretionary Mac was, I believe Mac should be respected by Amers for his deep personal unwillingness to fight = kill his own people. DOUGLAS MACARTHUR > NO ONE HATES WAR MORE THAN THE SOLDIER. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-11-19 18:55 |
| #3 Yes, but the mainstream media continue steadily losing customers, ie people who believe their memes. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-11-19 18:47 |
| #2 By 2008, the MSM will have either induced a substantial portion of the elctorate to "move on" (ie forget everything the Democrats said) or they'll have figured out a way to give the Dems all the credit for the victory. |
| Posted by: charger 2007-11-19 15:29 |
| #1 In November 2008 it is likely to be clear that if the US had followed the Democrats' advice the US would have suffered an unnecessary defeat. Nope. Coginitive Dissonance will take care of that troubling thought. |
| Posted by: gromky 2007-11-19 15:16 |