05.31b George W. Bush and Abraham Lincoln in 2000 and 1864. The parallels between the political situations of Abraham Lincoln in Summer 1864 and George W. Bush in Summer 2004 are remarkable.

Abraham Lincoln was considered by the Eastern elite and the press to be a Western bumpkin limited both in intellect and knowledge. He also was thought to lack gravitas and maturity.

George Bush is considered by the Eastern elite and the press to be a Western bumpkin limited both in intellect and knowledge. He also is thought to lack gravitas and maturity.

Lincoln had won his first term with a minority of the popular vote, after a bitter election and an aftermath marked by constitutional tension.

Bush won his first term with a minority of the popular vote, after a bitter election and an aftermath marked by constitutional tension.

Lincoln, a relative novice in politics, assembled an "all-star" Cabinet with people such as Seward, Stanton, and Chase, Washington hacks considered intelligent, if evil, by national opinion. Many people believed he was entirely controlled by these Cabinet officers.

Bush, a relative novice in politics, assembled an "all-star" Cabinet with people such as Powell, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, Washington hacks considered intelligent, if evil, by national opinion. Many people believed he was entirely controlled by these Cabinet officers.

Lincoln had expanded the law enforcement powers of the Federal Government, and the threat to civil liberties was a major grievance of the Democratic Party.

Bush had expanded the law enforcement powers of the Federal Government with the Patriot Act, and the threat to civil liberties was a major grievance of the Democratic Party.

Lincoln thought that an activist Supreme Court was a major source of the nation's problems. He was unwilling to enforce the Dred Scott decision except as narrowly as possible.

Bush thinks that an activist Supreme Court was a major source of the nation's problems. He is unwilling to enforce the Roe v. Wade decision except as narrowly as possible.

Lincoln had been remarkably successful in dealing with a war that looked very bleak in his first year in office. By 1864, the Mississippi Valley had been conquered, as had Tennessee from Memphis to Nashville to Chattanooga.

Bush has been remarkably successful in dealing with a war that looked very bleak in his first year in office. By 2004, Afghanistan and Iraq had been defeated.

The war bogged down, however, in the election year of 1864. Sherman's army was slogging through sparsely populated counties in Georgia towards Atlanta, fighting for each inch of ground against a wily opponent who constantly retreated but never gave him a distinct victory in battle. Grant's army was fighting large, inconclusive battles in Virginia and settled down to a stalemate outside Richmond after incurring casualties on a scale far beyond that of the first part of the war.

The war bogged down, however, in the election year of 2004. Casualties were higher than in 2003, with no apparent results. There were no clear victories, and it seemed as if the war was going nowhere.

Lincoln's Democratic opponent, McClellan, was a war hero who, however, had probably done the war effort more harm than good by his defeatism.

Bush's Democratic opponent, Kerry, was a war hero who, however, had probably done the war effort more harm than good by his defeatism.

The Democratic Party wanted to give up and surrender the North's gains to the South because the war was too costly in money and lives. It was prepared to abandon the North's friends in the South-- in particular, the blacks who the Republicans wanted to liberate and who fought in the Northern armies. It would have welcomed multilateral negotiations involving the French and British, who hoped to see an independent South and a return to normal economic relations, as well as a weaker United States.

The Democratic Party wanted to give up and surrender Iraq because the war was too costly in money and lives. It was prepared to abandon America's friends in the Middle East-- in particular, the Kurds, the pro-democracy forces in Iraq, and perhaps the Israelis. It would welcome multilateral negotiations involving the French and Russians, who would like to see a Baathist Iraq and a return to normal economic relations, as well as a weaker United States.

McClellan, however, was a War Democrat, much more warlike than his party. Indeed, it was not clear what he would do differently from Lincoln. Mainly, it seemed he claimed he was smarter and more sympathetic to human suffering, and would carry out the same general policy but better than Lincoln could.

Kerry, however, was more warlike than his party. Indeed, it was not clear what he would do differently from Bush. Mainly, it seemed he claimed he was smarter and more sympathetic to human suffering, and would carry out the same general policy but better than Bush could.

It was widely thought that Lincoln had no chance of winning the election.

Some people think that Bush has no chance of winning the election.

Lincoln was accused of being a butcher, careless of soldiers' lives. Yet he had massive support among the troops, and the Republicans tried to facilitate military voting while the Democrats tried to block it.

Bush is accused of being a butcher, careless of soldiers' lives. Yet he has massive support among the troops, and the Republicans try to facilitate military voting, something Democrats tried to block in the last election.

What happened was that Atlanta was captured, in August 1864, I think, and Sheridan won a couple of resounding victories in Virginia, showing that Lee's army could not only be fought to a draw (which Grant had done in Spring 1864) but beaten. Lincoln won with about 55% of the popular vote and almost the entire electoral vote.

There are also interesting differences (besides the obvious ones that the War on Terror is trivial compared to the Civil War, and such sidepoints as that Bush's rhetorical ability is merely ordinary, that Bush is not looked down on as a joker or a physical freak, and that Bush comes from a wealthy and famous family.)

Both Lincoln and Bush made it clear that they thought God was on their side, while being modest. But Lincoln was not criticized for it.

Lincoln was unpopular within his own party's leadership, many of whom wanted to deny him a second term. Bush is popular within his party's leadership, with no visible opposition despite occasional criticism.

Lincoln's party included the Left of his day, and much of the intelligentsia and the press. They were torn, because they despised Lincoln, but they wanted a Republican to win. Bush's party does not include the Left, or much of the intelligentsia or press. Thus, those groups have no doubt that they want him to lose.

As I was thinking about this, I realized that the South was foolish to put its hopes in the 1864 election. It would have made almost no difference if McClellan had been elected. Before he took office, Sherman would have Marched to the Sea and Thomas would have destroyed the Confederate army at Nashville, and the surrender at Appomattox would have occurred before the Adminstration had gotten itself organized. And after that, McClellan would have been in much the same position as Andrew Johnson was after Lincoln's assassination: a war Democrat of limited political abilities trying to be nicer to the South and less nice to the blacks than Congress wanted.

[This page is http://www.rasmusen.org/w/04.05.31b.htm]

To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://www.rasmusen.org/w/0.htm.


TrackBack test