In January of 1863, President Lincoln said that he feared “the fire in the rear” created by the peace Democrats more than the enemy troops on the battlefield. Following recent actions and words by members of that same party in our time, President Bush must certainly be able to relate. Most pointedly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced last week that “the war in Iraq is lost,” and stated from the Senate floor this week that Congress will pass a bill that calls for the withdrawal of troops to begin in October and be completed by the following April. In Lincoln’s day, the Republicans labeled Democrats with these defeatist sentiments Copperheads because of their poisonous words and actions directed against the war effort.
The Copperheads started out as a small faction of the Democratic Party in the North who opposed the war against the South from its outset. Civil War historian Jennifer Weber in her book Copperheads: The Rise and Fall of Lincoln’s Opponents in the North (Oxford University Press, 2006) describes them writing, “Peace Democrats never recognized the magnitude of the emergency confronting the nation. They criticized Lincoln harshly and relentlessly…Rather than offering realistic alternative solutions for the problems the war posed, Copperheads were obstructionists doing little more than laying into Lincoln and his policies.” Their belief was that the Republican Party had provoked the South into war, and if they would just let them be, all could be well again. They decried the actions taken by Lincoln to quell the rebellion as unconstitutional including his raising an Army in the first place, suspending the writ of habeas corpus (which denied those imprisoned by the military as enemy combatants or sympathizers the ability to have their case heard in civilian court) and Lincoln’s instituting the first ever national draft. Lincoln’s response to them was as Commander-in-Chief in time of war he needed broad powers, and the Constitution specifically authorized suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during times of “rebellion or invasion.” Lincoln’s responses did not satisfy the Copperheads and the vitriolic attacks against him and his administration continued.
The Peace Democrats grew in power as the war went on, particularly when things were not going well on the battlefield, which was the story by in large for the first two years of the war. For sure the North had some victories, especially in the West under General Ulysses Grant, but they were far overshadowed by the stunning defeats, where thousands of soldiers lost their lives, sometimes in a single day. In the face of these losses, the Democrats picked up thirty-two seats in the House in the 1862 off year elections, as well as some important governorships and control of state houses, which when taken with the other election results (including some gains in the West for the Republicans) constituted a moderate rebuke of Lincoln’s policies.
By the summer of 1864 however, Lincoln found himself in a snake pit with calls from even members of his own party to not seek another term as President. Many including Lincoln thought he could not win and that the Republicans would loose control of the Congress, particularly with him at the head of their ticket. The Democrats would to ride the wave of anti-war sentiment into power. There had been high hopes for a Union victory earlier in the Spring when Lincoln appointed General Ulysses Grant to head the war effort because of his reputation as a winner. The Presiden sent him large numbers of reinforcements for all out push against the Confederate Army. Grant implemented a new strategy which called for a coordinated effort throughout the different theaters of war to keep constant pressure on the Confederates, but so far it was bearing little fruit. The lift in spirits in the North, quickly waned as spring turned into summer. Lincoln told Grant not to worry about the politics, but to hold on to the Confederates with a “bulldog grip.” Grant’s wrote that he intended to “fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.” None-the-less, the Union Army became bogged down by Lee’s forces unable to deliver a decisive blow, and the news on other fronts was no better. The Northern Presss labeled Grant “the Butcher," because of the ten’s of thousands of Union casualties suffered during the campaign, while General Sherman, his second in command, spent much of the summer trying to take Atlanta to no avail, and also was experiencing large numbers of dead and injured. Since Grant had taken over the war effort, the Union had suffered over 100,000 casualties. The Copperheads were vindicated: more troops would not end the war only cause more death and carnage.
The South’s leaders saw the political firestorm burning to Lincoln’s rear and did everything they could to fuel it. They had struck into Pennsylvania the previous year to fuel the fire, but had been repulsed at Gettysburg. With the war effort struggling again, the Southern leaders saw another chance to achieve their goals simply by holding on and continuing to inflict casualties on the Union forces. Lincoln would thereby loose in November, the Democrats would take over: the war would be won.
The Democratic Convention of 1864 opened at the end of August and affirmed the Southern leaders’ views. They adopted a peace platform which provided in part “That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretense of a military necessity of war-power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view of an ultimate convention of the States, or other peaceable means, to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States.”
The Democrats by the wording of the platform somehow harbored the illusion (more accurately delusion), that the South could be placated through some diplomatic or political solution to rejoin the Union. All the underlying reasons for the war would somehow fade away and all could live in peace and harmony. Slavery would go on unfettered, the cause of state’s rights vindicated. President Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders did not care what the Democrats called it to try to sooth their consciences about surrender, they knew if a truce were called and the Union forces withdrew, there would no longer be the political will to restart the war. The South would become an independent confederacy, while the North would suffer all the consequences of total defeat.
Just after the Democratic Convention drew to a close, rumblings from the deep South could be heard, which threatened to dash the hopes of the Copperheads for victory in November and the Confederates for victory in the war. General Sherman’s forces took Atlanta. Overnight, Lincoln went from being the leader head of a lost cause, to the triumphant Commander-in-Chief. That coupled with other Union victories that followed, assured his re-election.
It may very well be the spring of 1864 all over again. General David Petraeus may be Bush’s Grant, and the Democrats may once more find themselves on the wrong side of history. The messages coming from the peace wing of that party, which now dominates it, are almost identical to those of their predecessors. Just as the Copperheads said that the “American people” believed that the four years of the “experiment of war” made under the “pretence of military necessity” was a failure, the Democratic leaders of our day are saying the same thing. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last month that, “Four years ago…our nation launched an ill conceived war of choice in Iraq.” She added in a statement a few weeks ago that “The American people have lost faith in the president’s conduct of this war. The American people see the reality of this war, the president does not.” Senator Hillary Clinton stated “this was [President Bush’s] decision to go to war, he went in with an ill-conceived plan, an incompetently executed strategy, and we should expect him to extricate our country from this war before he leaves office” and if he doesn’t “I will.”
Senator Reid, in addition to saying “the war is lost” added “the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence yesterday.” Apparently he possesses greater military expertise than the recently appointed General Petraeus who is implementing the new strategy (which is not even half way rolled out yet in terms of troop strength and civilian governmental advisors who are being brought over). Reid’s use of the words “violence yesterday” indicates he does not or chooses not to understand how the counter insurgency plan is to work. Petraeus has stated it will take several months to determine if it is succeeding. Success will not be a complete, overnight end of violence, but hopefully a steady decrease (viewed over months not days) which will allow the Iraqi government to continue to become stronger and more established.
In justifying the Democrats’ call to pull out before the plan is implemented, Reid stated the well known adage this week that “Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.” In other words repeated efforts to win that war did not succeed so this one will not either. The President understands the vital national interests at stake in this war and region, and the need (and moral obligation) to stand by the duly elected government we helped birth. He also sees the consequences to the United States and the world of a precipitous withdrawal with Iran and Al Qaeda seeking to foment chaos and gain control of Iraq. As with the Copperheads, today Democrats offer nothing but defeatist words and calls for an end to the fighting. Bush has rightly informed them that “withdrawal is not a strategy.” Further, the Democrats words and actions are undoubtedly having the same effect of encouraging the enemy to keep commiting acts of death and destruction, as they see the effect it has on President Bush's ability to conduct the war because of pressure from the homefront.
Lincoln withstood the onslaught of the Copperheads and of course went down in history as a hero, the highest rated President. One of the main reasons is because he did not cave to the demands of those who would have peace at any price. The Copperheads' defeatism stood in stark contrast to Lincoln’s heroic stand. They, and thereby the Democratic Party, were so thoroughly repudiated by their actions during the Civil War, that it would take a generation for the nation to entrust that Party with the highest office in the land again and the death of those who had lived through the war to do so with any consistency. From 1860 to 1932, only two Democrats served as President (one of those because the Republicans split their ticket in 1912.)
The Democrats have once again set a “fire in the rear” and have bet the bank that the United States will lose in Iraq. If they are wrong (and let’s hope for the sake of the country they are), the Democratic contenders for ’08 may indeed be about to see history repeat itself.
