20
Mar

The New Copperheads

   Posted by: Aurelius   in National, War

No, not the batteries, but anti war Democrat party members,and their fellow travellers…

The DANE pointed out this great piece by Mackubin Thomas Owens in the NRO Online:

The book, Copperheads: The Rise an Fall of Lincoln’s Opponents in the North, by journalist-turned-academic-historian Jennifer Weber, shines the spotlight on the “Peace Democrats,” who did everything they could to obstruct the Union war effort during the Rebellion.

Weber demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the actions of the Copperheads materially damaged the ability of the Lincoln administration to prosecute the war. Weber persuasively refutes the view of earlier historians such as the late Frank Klement, who argued that what Lincoln called the Copperhead “fire in the rear” was mostly “a fairy tale,” a “figment of Republican imagination,” made up of “lies, conjecture and political malignancy.” The fact is that Peace Democrats actively interfered with recruiting and encouraged desertion. Indeed, they generated so much opposition to conscription that the Army was forced to divert resources from the battlefield to the hotbeds of Copperhead activity in order to maintain order. Many Copperheads actively supported the Confederate cause, materially as well as rhetorically.

It is certain that the Union soldiers tired of hearing from the Copperheads that the Rebels could not be defeated. They surely tired of being described by the Copperheads as instruments of a tyrannical administration trampling the legitimate rights of the Southern states. The soldiers seemed to understand fairly quickly that the Copperheads preferred Lincoln’s failure to the country’s success. They also recognized that the Copperheads offered no viable alternative to Lincoln’s policy except to stop the war. Does any of this sound familiar?

Gateway Pundit also has a great piece on the similaities of the Copperhead movement:

On Aug. 29, 1864, the Democratic National Convention assembled in Chicago, Ill., The Democratic Party Platform presented a plan of “Compromise with the South”, which became known as “The Chicago Platform”. They nominated General McClellan for the Presidency on the following declaration of principles:

Resolved… that in the future, as in the past, we will adhere with unswerving fidelity to the Union under the Constitution, as the only solid foundation of our strength, security, and happiness as a people, and as a framework of government equally conducive to the welfare and prosperity of all the States, both Northern and Southern.

Resolved… 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 pretence of military necessity, or 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 to 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.

Resolved… that the direct interference of the military authorities of the United States in the recent elections held in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware, was a shameful violation of the Constitution, and a repetition of such acts in the approaching election will be held as revolutionary, and resisted with all the means and power under our control.

Resolved… that the aim and object of the Democratic party are to preserve the federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired ; and they hereby declare that they consider the administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution; the subversion of the civil by the military laws in States not in insurrection; the arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial, and sentence of American citizens in States where civil law exists in full force; the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press; the denial of the right of asylum; the open and avowed disregard of State rights; the employment of unusual test oaths, and the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear arms in their defense, as calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union and the perpetuation of a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.

The democratic party was not fit to run this country in 1864. And, the democratic party is not fit to run this country in 2006, either.

It’s time to call the a spade a spade (if I can say that without having to publically apologize, and go to rehab), and call the anti-war on terror Democrat Party members and the looney left what they are: Copperheads.

Wikipedia: The Copperheads were a faction of Democrats in the North who opposed the American Civil War, wanting an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates. The name Copperheads was given to them by their opponents the Republicans, probably derived from the venomous snake (the American copperhead) that strikes without warning — Copperheads reinterpreted this insult as a term of honor, and wore copper liberty-head coins as badges. They were also called “Peace Democrats” and “Butternuts“. The most famous Copperhead was Ohio’s Clement L. Vallandigham, who was a vehement opponent of Lincoln’s policies.

Powered by Gregarious (21)
This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 20th, 2007 at 11:51 am and is filed under National, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 comments so far

 1 

Beautiful blog. -Hindu

March 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
C. Darryl Mattison
 2 

“They also recognized that the Copperheads offered no viable alternative to Lincoln’s policy except to stop the war.”
Why wasn’t stopping the war a viable alternative? Would that not have saved lives?

“Does any of this sound familiar?”
Sure does, we all know who went to war with no viable alternative plan except to stay the course, and no apparent skill at doing even that.

April 1st, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Aurelius
 3 

Stopping the War would have saved lives in the immediate sense - Soldiers and Civilian collateral casualties - but in the longer sense, an entire race of people would have continued to live in a state of real, no BS, slavery. How many of them would have died due to cruelty, neglect, or retribution?

And the war was not just about slavery - the causes were many, and complex. Slavery was simply the most obvious and visceral.

In the terms of the current conflict, simply pulling out and leaving might save the lives of American soldiers today, but at the cost of how many Iraqi civilians when the true internecine, reglious/ethnic conflict breaks out? And, having freed those people from an oppressive tyrant, are we content to allow them to be pushed back under, for some illusiory temporary safety?

I must agree with you that this administration has proven completely inept to date at the conduct of this war, but the repercussions of our simply “declaring victory”, taking our ball, and going home, will be far more catastrophic than when the Copperheads last won the political war, consigning millions of Southeast Asians to death and subjugation.

April 2nd, 2007 at 8:05 am

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment
Close
E-mail It