The New Copperheads

George and Scott are both "McClellans", I believe.

Great piece of writing.
I was wondering where the connection was coming from, and there it was near the end, but by a difference of the letter "d".

Let us hope that history writers give credit where credit is due, for all the hard decisions that have been made (mostly right) since 911.

Adolf Hitler operated in the same way: rousing speeches, never Q&A press conferences. (Not suggesting that there is any other likeness.)

Good essay, but the general was George McClellan...not "McClelland".
A quick edit will fix that.

I really appreciated this article. What an amazing piece of history repeating itself. It seems to me that Lincoln's efforts to heal a divided nation by "reaching across the aisle" and appointing some Democrats to positions in his administration caused quite a few problems. Lincoln's VP was a Dem and after taking over as Pres, proceeded to make decisions according to his own political sympathies.

I remember learning of the copperheads in public school. I remember finding out about Robert Byrd's membership in the KKK from Republicans,I find out about courage from the church.

I believe you mean to refer to general George McLellan, NOT McLelland. Such a simple typographic error calls into question your entire premise (which I agree with, by the way).

There is no "d" in George McClellan's name

I consider George McCelllon a hero. He would not go along with Lincoln's war of northern aggression. He would not become a war crimminsl. The copperheads were the ones who had their head screwed on straignt.

This piece is doomed from the outset, if you think that Lincoln was on the side of "right."

It was made worse by raising up Sherman.

Was Harry Jaffa your history teacher?

One more thing--You betray a poor understanding of history.

Lincoln was despised in his era--and for a very good reason: He presided over a war in which Americans were killing each other!

There is no point in worrying about how "history" will judge anyone, since whatever some figure does is determined by his time frame, and not the future.

Or is it your contention that the people living at the time are too ignorant to judge?

McClellan is fixed. Thanks for the heads up.

ed.

History is just a bunch of dead people. Right.

History provides a blueprint of human behavior. Those who ignore it and/or don't understand it and dismiss it are truly doomed to repeat it. This is true in a much bigger context than Scott McClellan. I truly don't understand how anyone can look at the past and not be able to extrapolate probable human behavior.

Actually, democracy was alive and in better health in the South than in the North. I found it interesting that Sherman, who was a war criminal, was held up as a icon of right.
Perhaps a systematic study of history would have helped this writer.

Mr. Walker, the issue of slavery as a stupendous evil in our national bosom is, I should hope, beyond dispute. However, as a lineal descendent, with honored dead of the rebellion against the very form of federal oppression we now suffer from, my opinion is that there is far, far more to the history of the War of Northern Aggression. What settled the war was not a moral imperative succeeding, but force of arms. Neither side escapes the searing glare of facts, and neither side has the moral high ground. Both sides had excellent reasons for their positions, and both were willing to spend the treasure of blood to win. The North had more industrial capacity and more newly arrived conscript immigrants. The South had banshees for fighters, and it was a close call. But industrial might overcame passion for protecting homes and lives. I'd hazard a guess that using Scott McClellan in metaphor with our national tragedy is inappropriate to a great swath of Southern states.

interesting but be more careful with the typos:
"That the war come not be", "lesser men,like McClelland", "placed himself about his leader", paragraphing,

Interesting comments. What is not mentioned here is that the news media of the time was behaving exactly as it is now. In both the North and the South, the respective newspapers were vicisously attacking their own leadership. In the South the newspapers all condemned their President Davis and his Generals and in the North the newspapers pilloried President Lincoln and his Generals.

In fact, in both cases, the Presidents and Generals both made some very bad decisions due to fear of negative press and public reaction. The war was probably prolonged by more than a year, and many more thousands of people killed as a direct result of the perfidy of our news media. Same as today.

That is not just history repeating itself, that is the unchanging portrait of our media.

It would seem they have never gotten it through their heads that freedom of press does not mean it is necessary to only demean and condemn one's own government. It's really a shame. I think the idea of freedom of the presss was that the news media was at liberty to tell the unvarnished truth, good, bad and indifferent.

I sort of understand, if the news media sees its mission as exposing evil, and it only has access to its own government, that is the only government it will attack.

Many journalists during the Iraq war did make an honest attempt to interview and get information on Al Quaeda, but they were all murdered and beheaded, so they simply reverted to only condemning our government, and not the people who beheaded and murdered their comrades. Makes perfect sense, but is not very admirable.

Best regards,

Mr. Shaw and the grammar martinets (although, I share their pique at grammar boo-boos showing up on a class editorial page like AT) miss the point: in whatever time in history, the greatness or ignominy of a leader is not and cannot be judged untl decades--even centuries--later. McClellan was wrong and Lincoln was right. And if the MSM had the power during Lincoln's administration as they do today, slavery would still be in existence--or there would not be a "United States" of America.

I think the "d" was just a type o. His proof reader needs to do a more thorough job. the article is wonderful!

Awful piece of rewriting history to grind contemporary political axes:
1. McClellan was not some vain popinjay. He literally built the Union Army from nothing, was revered by his troops, and Lincoln respected him greatly.
2. The moral issues of the Civil War, though quite clear to us, now, were by no means so clear to our forefathers, then. The great moral debate of the war revolved around the true goal of the war: preservation of the union, or abolition of slavery. Lincoln's greatness emerged only after events -- and his own personal evolution-- made it clear to him that one could not be achieved without the other. Now, in retrospect, it is so easy for us to pronounce sanctimonious judgement on the many millions of good and brave Americans -- many of whom died on the battlefields to save the Union, not free the slaves -- who were unable to make this connection. But their sacrifice was real and ought not to be impugned by present-day moralists.
3. As things stand now, the implied analogy between Lincoln and Bush suggested by the "Copperhead" insult is UNJUSTIFIED. President Bush, alas, seems locked into the pre-Emancipation Proclamation model of Lincoln. He seems paralyzed with fear by the prospect of open conflict with the Saudis and the Oil Cartel, the true perpetrators of 9/11, and much more eager to direct America's ire to a diversionary target, Iran (curiously enough, also the Wahhabi Saudi's main regional enemy). This pusillanimity deprives him of the right to any comparison to Lincoln. I say this with regret, for I have the utmost respect for what he has accomplished so far in Afghanistan and Iraq. But facts are facts.

How to get a lucrative book deal? Why a book with the premise that George W. Bush is a poopy head.
How to win the Pulitzer? Why a news story with the headline, "George W. Bush is a poopy head."
How to win the Nobel Peace Prize? Tell the whole world while you are in Europe or the Middle East that George W. Bush is a poopy head.

"(Or) is it your contention that the people living at the time are too ignorant to judge?"
Actually, people living in their "time frame" are too close to controversial issues and too likely to respond to incomplete or inaccurate information from the loudest voices to make a reasoned judgment. At the time of the Civil War, Lincoln, Grant and Sherman were despised, especially in the South. With the perspective of history and the aid of investigative reporting into the problems they faced, most impartial historians view them as heroes who preserved the union of the states, and McClellan as a self-serving politician.

Unfortunately, it has become fashionable today for those who don't agree with a war, or with any war, to brand effective leaders as "war criminals."

"McClellan is fixed."

Mostly. Missed a few, Rick.

History is written by the victors. The original McClellan, like Judas, ended up on the losing side. Both Scott McClellan and George W. Bush will have their places in history defined by how this battle we are engaged in turns out. One will be judged wise and far-seeing. The other will be judged a failure at all he did.
We all think we know which side will be judged how, but the answer may not be revealed for decades.

Why make such a fuss about the one time now dead general or the present Scott... If his book is venum.. so be it ! I remember the book by the wife of one of America's wellknown lawyers who perished in the hyjacked plane to the Pentagon on 9/11. Scott's book is nothing compared to her's.... Donah////

During the civil war Lincoln issued martial law. Under it he shut down democratic(opposition) newspapers,he imprisoned more northerners ,without trial or charges,than the then population of Atlanta,Ga.Federal troops interfeared in elections,Lincoln imprisoned the grandson of Francis Scott Keys in the very fortress that inspired our national anthem. Lincoln's emanciption proclamation was viewed as unconstitutional and an attempt by the 'radical republicans'(LIBERALS) to move the aims of the war from union to ending slavery.Lincoln instituted the 1st US draft.Riots followed all over the north.Fathers hid their sons from draft enforcers. Clement Vallandigham,an Ohio copperhead ,was arrested for GIVING A SPEECH. More riots all over the north.Ex presidents spoke at huge rallies on Vallandigham's right to speak. Add to all this a general fatigue caused by a seemingly never ending war whose losses touched nearly every northern family and it's difficult to see how Lincoln's democratic opposition can be portrayed as irresponsuble, as the author does. After McClellan left the army & became the democratic nominee for president in 1864,Lincoln himself,surveying the political scene & seeing massive public opposition to his policies ,said,"I cannot be elected". The reasons he was relected are Sherman took Atlanta, Mobile Bay was captured & Sheridan cleared out the confederates in western Virginia. The union cause became popular again. How popular anti-slavery was in the north is problamatic. Judging McClellan & the copperheads as disapprovingly as does the author seems to disregard the issues & standards of the time(including the constitution of the time) & judge things narrowly using contemporary standards. Not fair,I think. As for president Bush's McClellan, my main concern is ,is his message TRUE?

"you betray a poor understanding of history"

although you shouldnt worry about it, history will judge the wisdom or foolishness of an action regardless of the view of those 'in the moment'. In that sense people living at the time are too ignorant in that they cannot, with any certainty, accurately see the long term effects of the actions being currently undertaken.

During the civil war those opposing Lincoln were unable or unwilling to understand that preventing the rupture of the United States, in the long run, is better for everyone. He did what had to be done regardless of what was popular. Of course those in opposition today do not comment on what our country (or countries) would be like if Lincoln had allowed the south to secede.

Lets take some other examples: was Galaleo judged accurately during his time? History says no. Post civil war actions by southern Democrats (segregation, etc)were very popular at the time they were enacted but history has also judged differently. Finally, when Hitler entered Alsace Lorraine and later Checkslovokia, he was appeased in an effort to insure 'peace in our time' to great fanfare. history again agonizingly judged those actions differently.

Ignorance is bliss to some, its very easy to fantasize about what didnt or isnt happening or what should happen. its like making up a story in your mind without any real consequence. However, often facing the reality or the world around us and doing the hard things, the right things, will result in achievments of greater substance and lasting accomplishment for everyone.

George B. McClellan was a much loved general by the Union Army. It was he that gave the Army of the Potomac an international flare and polish. Following the Democrat Party Convention - McClellan stayed at his home in NJ - he was promoted as the "Great Compromiser" with the famous graphic of him pulling Lincoln and Davis together to form a peace. Copperheads were not dormant opponents of Lincoln they followed the armies around joined up with journalists and sutlers serving the troops. They provided women, whiskey, and entertainment (street theater) with the constant tagline mocking Lincoln and the war. In the end, Lincoln won by a landslide and McClellan relegated to obscurity quietly vacated the US moving to England. The Election the American People chose to preserve the Union but also to free the slaves and as Grant later confirmed before Otto Von Bismarck the victory was about Freedom.

I am not sure that the moral issues of the Civil War are clear even today. Do you honestly think that slavery was the main issue? It was an issue, to be sure, but there were saints and sinners in the US and CS on this.

The media then, as now, are arm chair generals. It is always easier to criticize than to lead.

Here's a thought - possibly food for another piece.

Back during the conduct of the Civil War, most were against it - much like today with Operation Iraqi Freedom.

At the time, most could not see the destiny of our nation beyond the war itself, although Lincoln certainly did.

It is clear from history that while the Civil War was a brutal waste of individual lives, it also made us a "more perfect union", it removed the evil of slavery, and it helped us as a nation fulfill our destiny as "one nation".

Now the vast majority oppose OIF as a waste of lives and of treasure and Bush, like Lincoln, is extremely unpopular.

Sometimes, as Lincoln demonstrates, unpopularity is the price for principled leadership.

Thirty or forty or maybe fifty years from now, will OIF be a strategic victory that rearchitected the Middle East, or will it be considered a dismal failure?

I dare say that we don't know enough yet to make the call on OIF. We have to wait for the future to play out to truly know. Neither do we know how the Bush administration will be remembered until history renders its perspective.

To those who wait for the "judgment of history," this is the danger:

How much easier for those 100 years later to blow off the needless carnage of the Civil War, to ascribe some great moral victory to it.

I still say--look to the times of the man. That FDR was widely supported tells us much about his era, and how he could pull the wool over the eyes of so many. Of course, there were those who saw through him then, as well. John T. Flynn was his biggest critic, and was also his contemporary.

The cult of Lincoln did not start until the 1920s--as those who would have remembered were dying off. Exactly how does this passage of time give us any better perspective?

Beware those who think the passage of time adds anything to the story.

Look at all the Democrats bristling at the truth of things. You are copperheads to this day. If that fact causes you discomfort, here is not the place to complain. Find a closet somewhere and give your confession to the Lord.
To call McClellan (the general) an incompetent is a kindness extended by liberal historians, who can't face the facts that he was an insubordinate who deliberately and consistently undermined the his own president, his soldiers, and his country, extending the war at least a year. McClellan single handedly created the myth of the invulnerable Bobby Lee, a myth which was not born out in fights subsequent to McClellan's ouster, after which even medioquer generals fought Lee to a standstill, or outright rout.

After the war McClellan went on to become governor of NJ, setting the historical precedent of all the ensuing failed Imperial Governors of my home state. Real Copperheads (the viper) are a pretty snake that smells awful bad. Hmmmm.

Scott Who??

Let's see what other sources say.

"However, although McClellan was meticulous in his planning and preparations, these attributes may have hampered his ability to challenge aggressive opponents in a fast-moving battlefield environment."

(Just like a Damnocrat, long on plans and short on execution....)

"Although the majority of modern historians assess McClellan poorly as a battlefield general, a small but vocal faction of historians maintain that McClellan was indeed a highly capable commander, but his reputation suffered unfairly at the hands of pro-Lincoln partisans who needed a scapegoat for the Union's setbacks."

(Yeah, just like a Damnocrat, it's someone else's fault)

"It has been suggested that his reluctance to enter battle was caused in part by an intense desire to avoid spilling the blood of his men. Ironically, this led to failing to take the initiative against the enemy and therefore passing up good opportunities for decisive victories, which could have ended the war early, and thereby could have spared thousands of soldiers who died in those subsequent battles."

(Yeah, modern Nanny-State Liberalism defined; pick on the working stiff at home and appease all those Bad Men out there in the World, like ahm-mad-in-a-jar).

All the quotes above are from Wikipedia article on Mac. Preponderance of the evidence says he sucked as a combat general but was a great quartermaster. I'd say the article was spot on.

Oh yeah, and Sherman was a great American; only a liberal posing as a secesh sympie would call him a war criminal.

Apetoid and others who get it...

Lincoln's all-out war against his own people can ONLY be justified if we view it by the popular standards of today--and that is EXACTLY why we shouldn't!!

The people alive then did not see the "wisdom" of an all-powerful central government, anymore than did the Framers.

Another example--

America's entry into World War I, judged by today's standards, was absurd and pointless, but so what? It happened, and the fact that it did happen sheds much light on the way things were then--and that is history.

What many of the Copperheads believed was that the Bill of Rights guaranteed the right of succession to the states and that Lincoln governing through "Executive Orders" made a mockery of the constitution. The internment of the Indiana and Maryland State legislatures and the interment of various other individual legislators from other states to keep "Union" states from succession might make the Lincoln administration suspect. His putting 100-armed men in the Supreme Court building did not help Republican legitimacy.
The Union prison camp near Chicago violated five hundred years of extremely minimal rules of war and was the prototype for the modern death camp that Communist, fascists and liberals have used in the twentieth century.
I hope that the current levels of derangement does not approach the break down in sanity that occurred in Lincoln's era! The Democrats' complete paranoia about what a Republican President might do, in the pursuit of a worthy goal, is understandable in the context of what Lincoln did.

Dr Rob,

Would you say then that the outcome of the civil war (and Lincoln's part in it) was not a moral victory for this nation?

How needless was the carnage of the civil war when you consider the unprecedented freedom it eventually brought millions of American's? How needless was the carnage when you consider that it savesd the United States? I think to call the fighting during the civil war "needless carnage" shows an amazing lack of intellectual honesty on your part.

Jim C

The Civil War was about the end of slavery, a movement started in England by William Wilberforce. Yes, it was also about Federalism over State's Rights, but for Lincoln it was a moral issue. This was no "needless war". It was essential to excise this cancer out of the body politic.