Many commentators have drawn allusions and metaphors between the prosecution of the Civil War and the current anacronym filled GWOT.  To the “average” man or woman on the street whos knowledge of that previous conflict may possibly extend to Ken Burn’s PBS documentary, if not those two weeks in American History back in high school, the methods, words, and actions of the 1860’s may be surprisingly similar to what we see today in our own world.  To that end I have assembled some relevant excerpts and references from the acclaimed book, “Battle Cry of Freedom” by James M. McPherson (ISBN 0-345-35942-9)

First, The Positives

“In the North the two-party system disciplined and channeled political activity.  The Republican party became the means for mobilizing war resoruces, raising taxes, creating a new financial system, initiating emancipation, and enacting conscription.  Democrats opposed most of these measure; the existance of this well-defined opposition caused Republicans to close ranks when the chips were down.  Because measures were supported or opposed by parties, voters could identify those responsible for them and register their approval or disapproval at the polls by voting a party ticket.” (p. 690)

This part seems to be working about the same as it did in the Civil War.  Each voting cycle has become a referendum on either policy or conduct of the war in our modern times.  On the local level there are the same personal attacks on candidates of both parties regarding party loyalty, individual ethics, manfucatured scandal, and the candidates position on the war depending on the status of the conflict (Peace candidates benefit from the war being percieved as going badly, War candidates from the war going well. p. 692)

Even some of the anti-war language the candidates use is virtually unchanged in over a century, for example:

“Other opponents…brand the war a failure and demand peace through negotiations even if this risked the country’s war aims.” (p. 692)

The Current Regime

“Regime change begins at home” says the bumpersticker…this is the same sentiment expressed by the Copperheads in their war years.   Compare the usage of the words “regime” and “despot” as applied to the Bush administration by the current Democratic leadership and the following from the Civil War years (all bold are my emphasis):

“By 1863 some Peace Democrats proudly accepted the label [“Copperhead”] and began wearing badges bearing likenesses of the Goddess of Liberty from the copper penny to symbollize their opposition to Republican ‘tyranny.’ “ (p. 494 footnote 8)

“Governor Horatio Seymour of New York promised ‘to make every sacrifice…for the preservation fo the Union,’ …and pledged to ‘maintain and defend the sovereignty’ of New York against unconstitutional violations by the [Lincoln administration.]” (p. 592)

Vallandigham denounced this ‘wicked, cruel and unnecessary war’ waged ‘for the purpose of crushing out liberty and erecting a despotism’” (p. 596)

“Vallandigham professed himself a better unionist than the Republicans whose fanaticism had provoked his ruinous war.  These same Republicans, he continued, were now fighting not for the Union but for abolition.  And what had they accomplished?  ‘Let the dead at Fredericksburg and Vicksburg answer.’  The South could never be conquered; the only trophies of this war were ‘defeat, debt, taxation, sepulchres … the suspension of habeas corpus, the violation … of freedom of the press and of speech … which have made this country one of the worst despotism on earth for the past twenty months.’” (p. 592)

“A prime issue in both elections was the draft, enacted by Congress on March 3, 1863.  Democrats added conscription to emancipation and military arrests in their catalogue of Republican sins.”(p. 600)

“In a confidential interview with a Confederate agent, Vallandigham said that if the South ‘can only hold out this year…the peace party of the North would sweep the Lincoln dynasty out of existance.’” (p. 598)

“’Abe Lincoln….is brutal in all his habits…he is obscene…he is an animal.’  Lincoln was ‘Abe the Widowmaker’ who had sent half a million white men to their graves in this insane war…a Pennsylvania newspaper urged citizens to ‘go a step further, brethren, and suspend Old Abe – by the neck if necessary to stop the accursed slaughter of our citizens.’” (p. 790)

Except for the last, which would get someoen a visit from the Secret Service today, these could all be lifted directly from Democratic speaches and sound bytes today.

One of the current Democrats greatest dirty secret is that they play race as much as their Civil War predecessors do.  They utilize the race card domestically by assuming the mantle of the party annointed to protect the minorities of the nation, and then with equal vigor paint a racist picture of those lazy Iraqis who can not seem to fight for themselves, i.e. the “those backward people over there are incapable of democracy.”  That is the two headed snake of the modern Democratic talking points…pig headed multiculturalism at home, the subtle racism of the old “White Mans Burden” projected abroad.  The Democrat concept that the Iraqis and Afghanis are not “worthy” or are otherwise “incapable” of democracy…that is their modern rejection of Emancipation.

You could just as easily take this:

“An Ohio editor branded Lincoln a ‘half-witted usurper’ and his Emancipation Proclamation ‘monsterous, impudent, and heinous…for it declares those ‘equal’ whom God created unequal.’“ (p. 594)

and see this today:

“NY Times columnist calls Bush a ‘half-witted usurper’ and the spread of democracy to support the GWOT as ‘monsterous, impudent, and heinous…for it declares those ‘equal’ whom are unequal to the rigours of democracy.’“

The War

Vallandigham denounced this ‘wicked, cruel and unnecessary war’ waged ‘for the purpose of crushing out liberty and erecting a despotism’” (p. 596)

“…cried a former governe of Illinois in December 1862, ‘no more bloodshed to gratify a religious fanaticism.’” (p. 594)

“…warned Vallandigham in January 1863.  ‘If you of the East, who have found this war agaisnt the South, and for the negro, gratifying to your hate or profitable to your purse, will continue it…[be prepared for] external divorce between the West and East.” (p. 593)

Democratic Convention plank of 1864 – “After four years of failure to restore the Union by experiment of war…[we] demand that immeidate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities…” (p. 772)

“This became the platform of the Peace Democrats for the next two years.  Durign the early months of 1863 this faction commanded the support of a large minority of the party – perhaps even a majority.  A mass meeting of New York Democrats resolved that the war ‘against the South is illegal, being unconstitutional, and should not be sustained.’” (p. 592)

This period commentator  sums up both the Civil War and the modern Democratic platform eloquently: “Upon the whole it is [a platform] of both peace and war, that is peace with the rebels but war against their own government.” (p. 776)

Supporting the Troops not the War

“Altough the sourthern peace societies did not achieve the visibility or influence that an established political party gave northern copperheads, they drained vitality from the Confederate war effort in certain regions and formed the nucleus for a significant peace movement if the war should take a turn for the worse.” (p. 613, my emphasis and italics)

So as it was then it is now…the Democratic party has given itself over to the Neo-Copperheads.  And if the southern peace societies were draining the Confederate war effort, what was the Democratic party’s vetted Copperheads doing to the North, or more importantly effect are the descedent Copperheads of today having on our troops?   Oddly enough their solution to supporting the troops is the same…bring them home now, irregardless of consequences:

“What was the solution? ‘Stop fighting.  Make an armistice … Withdraw your army from the seceded States.’  Start negotiations for a reunion.”

“Vallandigham had no use for the ‘fanaticism and hypocrisy’ of the objection that an armistice would preserve slavery.  ‘I see more of barbarism and sin, a thousand times, in the continuance of this war…and the enslavement of the white race by debt and taxes and arbitrary power’ than in Negro slavery.” (p. 592)

You switch out the racial ending with the current Democrat racially oriented views regarding the spread of democracy in the Middle East and you could have a speech from Harry Reid.

“Did such rhetoric fall within the rights of free speech and a free press?  A case can be made that it stimulated desertion from the army and resistance to the war effort.  Democratic newspapers that circulated among soldiers contained many editorials proclaming the illegality of [the war.]” (p. 595)

“Newspapers printed many alleged letters written by family members at home to soldiers in the army.  ‘I am sorry you are engaged in this … unholy, unconstitutional and hellish war,’ a father supposedly wrote to his son” (p. 595)

“Another letter advised an Illinois soldier ‘to come home, if you have to desert, you will be protected – the people here are so enragted that you need not be alarmed…’ Such propaganda had its intended effect.  So many members of two southern Illinois regiments deserted  ‘rather than help free the slaves’ that General Grant had to disband the regiments.  Soldiers from several other regiments allowed themselves to be captured so they could be paroled and sent home.” (p. 595)

Also it would seem some things do not change when the Copperheads or Neo-Copperheads take control of the legislatures:

“Equally serious were the actions of the newly elected Democratic legislatures of Indiana and Illinois.  The lower houses of both states passed resolutions calling for an armistice and a peace conference.  Both lower houses also demanded retraction of the ‘wicked, inhuman, and unholy’ Emancipation Proclamation as the price for continued support of the war.  [Then] the two legislatures began work on bills to take control of the state troops away from the Republican governors.” (p. 595-6)

Hillary, Edwarsd, Obama, et al. should take note of Democratic Presidential hopeful and former General George B. McClellan, “If I am elected, I will recommend an immediate armistice…” (p. 771)  Which was a fine election winning sentiment when his country was on the ropes and the war was not going well, “’…an armistice isbound to come during the year ’63,  The rebs can’t be conquered by the present machinery.’  Into this crisis of confidence strode the copperheads with their program for peace without victory.”(p.590)…but immediately came back to bite McClellan with the final reversal of fortunes when Atlanta fell.   Of course now a days we have the upcoming Tet Summer that will create the perception through the media that the war is hopeless…unless some grand “Atlanta” moment can be found in the Iraqi insurgency, modern warfare conditions would seem to favor the side which can most cynically manipulate the American public.

Peace, Perception by the Enemy:

“Before leaving the South, [Vallandigham] spoke with several Confederate congressmen and army officers.  He made clear to them his commitment to reunion through an armistice and negotiations.  Southerners replied that they would accept peace only on the basis on independence.  If [he] thought the Union could be restored by compromise, they declared, he was ‘badly deluded.’  In a confidential interview with a Confederate agent, [he] said that if the South ‘can only hold out this year…the peace party of the North would sweep the Lincoln dynasty out of existance.’” (p. 598)

This is no doubt what happens when Pelosi’s go to Syria…even if the Syrians were to directly tell her that there is no compromise, which they would not, she still would not choose to believe them, just as her predecessor Vallandigham in his exile to the south.

“One of Lee’s purposes in ordering restraint toward (white) civilians was to cultivate the copperheads.  He placed great faith in ‘the rising peace party of the North’ as a ‘means of dividing and weakening our enemies.’  Lee wrote to Davis on June 10, that the copperheads professed to favor reunion as the object of peace negotiations while the South regarded independence as the goal.   But it would do no harm, Lee advised Davis, to play along with this reunion sentiment to weaken northern support for the war, which ‘after all is what we are intereested in bringing about.’” (p. 650)

“War-weary rebel soldiers hoped fervently for McClellan and peace.  ‘The enemy are exceedingly anxious to hold out until after the Presidential election…and that desertions [in the southern army] would be more frequent but they believe peace will be negotiated after the fall elections.’” (p. 803)

Just as the soldiers and generals of the Confederacy observed and took efforts to exploit the Peace Party, just as General Giap and the North Vietnamese did the same…just as it is today.  If you profess to be a party that will stop fighting, the enemy will support you.

Conspiracy Theories as Rhetoric:

Cynically manipulating the public brings us to Conspiracy Theories.  Conspiracy theories are nothing new either.  In 1864 a newspaper owned by Democratic Presidential hopeful Goerge B. McClellan published an anonymous story supposedly of Republican origin.  This Miscegenation Program hoax report was widely circulated by the Democratic press as a real, but only the copperheads swallowed it whole without question.   However it did not really matter if anyone actually believed that initial hoax report, the Democrats continued to hammer away with the themes and terms of the hoax as if it was real in order to turn public opinion against the Republicans. (p. 789)