I should just put everything in BOLD
Sep 12, 2007 by
DaveC
1864 Democratic Convention and Platform
Presidential Candidate, George McClellan.—On Aug. 29, 1864, the Democratic National Convention assembled in Chicago, Ill., and 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.
George McClellan
1864 Democratic Presidential Nominee, General George B. McClellan
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.
Resolved, that the shameful disregard by the administration of its duty in respect to our fellow-citizens who are now and have long been prisoners of war in a suffering condition, deserves the severest reprobation on the score alike of public policy and common humanity.
Resolved, that the sympathy of the Democratic party is heartily and earnestly extended to the soldiers of our army and the seamen of our navy, who are and have been in the field under the flag of their country; and, in the event of its attaining power, they will receive all the care, protection, and regard that the brave soldiers and sailors of the republic have so nobly earned.
Update below the fold:
Update:
McClellan was enormously popular, especially with his troops. I think what he had tried to do in his military campaigns was to avoid a shooting battle by moving around, appearing to retreat, and then outflanking the Confederate army. Then he could attack with overwhelming strength. I'd speculate that he got this idea from the decisive Battle of Yorktown in the Revolution.
But his strategy never played out.
---------------------------
The Union General who did the most to win the war, with the least amount of bloodshed, is oddly remembered as the most hated and brutal figure in the war.
Wlliam Tecumseh Sherman
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/sherman/william-tecumseh-sherman.htm
Look at his advice, early on in the war:
1861,he succeeded General Anderson in the command of the Department of Kentucky. The Secretary of War asked him how many men he should require. He answered, " Sixty thousand to drive the enemy from Kentucky, and 200,000 to finish the war in this section." This estimate seemed so wild that he was reputed to be insane, and was relieved of his command;
---------------------------
For the hell of it, I'll throw in a Random Observation from Dave Schuler
http://theglitteringeye.com/?p=3170
Don’t belittle your opponents. When you’ve characterized those who oppose you as stupid, weak, cowardly, and so on, and you prevail, what have you gained? You’ve prevailed over an opponent that was stupid, weak, and cowardly. And if you lose you’ve inexplicably been defeated by someone who’s stupid, weak, cowardly, an so on. Does that reflect well on you?
If, on the other hand, you characterize those who oppose you as resourceful, strong, and resolute, if you prevail, your victory is that much more significant. And if you lose, you’ve understandably been defeated by a resourceful, strong, and resolute opponent.
Useful in politics as it is in war.
Comments
Sep 12, 2007, 14:09:50 Turbulence wrote:
DaveC, its an interesting excerpt; would you mind explaining how you think it is relevant to the modern day? I have a hunch that you're trying to draw historical parallels, but since you didn't add any of your own commentary, it is hard to say for sure.
On a side note, I just started reading "How the North Won: A military history of the Civil War" and McClellan comes across as a fascinating character.
Sep 12, 2007, 18:35:03 Jesurgislac wrote:
I for one think it's hilarious that DaveC's best attempt to prove the Democrats are a Bad Party involves going back to 1864. It's kind of like (well, it's <I>exactly</I> like) Republicans claiming their party isn't racist by pointing to Abraham Lincoln.
Sep 12, 2007, 18:36:04 Jesurgislac wrote:
I've got a whole stack of nasty comments that were made about the Whigs, if that'd be helpful, Dave. They knew how to do political abuse in those days...
Sep 12, 2007, 23:04:28 john miller wrote:
Or we could bring up the Republican talking points about WWII and Korea.
Of course the mistake that is made by both sides when historical "parallels" are brought up is that, although some things can be used as a comparison, each situation has its own unique characteristics.
That is part of the problem with the "Powell doctrine" as well as the endless calling for the need for an exit strategy prior to entering into a conflict.
We do not live in a static world.
Sep 13, 2007, 00:30:58 Jesurgislac wrote:
John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich, a Terrible Tory: "You will die, sir, either on the gallows or from the pox."
John Wilkes, MP for Middlesex, a Withering Whig: "That depends, sir, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Sep 13, 2007, 01:09:14 Phil wrote:
that Schuler quote is a real gem, considering how much time you've spent since 2003 calling other ObWi commenters treasonous backstabbers. You're a real piece of work. And by "work" I mean "crap."
Sep 13, 2007, 01:11:38 matttbastard wrote:
"<i>For the hell of it, I'll throw in a <b>Random Observation</b> from Dave Schuler</i>"
You really have no sense of irony, Mr. C.
Go Cheney yourself.
Srsly.
Sep 13, 2007, 01:21:50 matttbastard wrote:
The above is, of course, assuming I've interpreted your intentions re" the Schuler quote properly. If it was self-directed, well, I really DO hope you take those words to heart.
Otherwise, please, leave the history AND ettiquette lessons to those who know what the hell they are talking about. I still like you, and have hope that one day you'll allow good sense to prevail over what is obviously naked fear of the other/what is beyond your control. I'm just getting really fucking sick and tired of your stubborn 26%er cognitive dissonence and increasingly self-righteous denunciations and dismissiveness towards those who, frankly, possess more knowledge and expertise in their right pinky's fingernail than you will ever hope to achieve.
And no, I don't include myself in the preceding categories. I'm just some info-junkie schlep who knows how to read and realizes reality isn't a liberal conspiracy.
Sep 13, 2007, 01:40:49 DaveC wrote:
Hey, if there is One Thing that I STAND FOR it is inconsistency:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=...
Sep 13, 2007, 01:46:25 nous wrote:
DaveC -- nicely done. It's an interesting reading of politics in 1864, but I think you miss some of the wider parallels on this.
This took place before the end of major combat operations against the forces of the Confederate States of America, the military arm of the government of the CSA.
After the military defeat of the CSA the USA disbanded the CSA military and sent in their own troops to keep the peace. They tried to coerce the South into adopting a form of government at odds with its history and culture. They empowered segments of the population, the Freedmen, who had been frozen out of the political process under the previous regime. What followed was a very difficult time for the region.
Members of the disbanded CSA military took it into their own hands to oppose the unwanted presence and influence of the occupiers. They founded insurgent groups tasked with assasinating Freedmen who dared take part in the new government and spreading terror amongst the Freedmen. The conditions in the South were worse than they had been before the Civil War. This continued for 10 years before the Republicans agreed to withdraw the last of the federal troops from the South, ushering in what has been famously called "the nadir of American race relations." All political gains that the Freedmen had achived were then systematically repealed.
Extrajudicial killings continue for many years after this and it took about 100 years before the South could at last be brought in line with the North.
Parallels abound, don't they.
Sep 13, 2007, 02:01:08 DaveC wrote:
I think that race relations in America reached the low point fully two generations after 1870:
Chicago, IL 1919
http://www.uic.edu/orgs/kbc...
Rosewood, FLA 1923
http://www.encyclopedia.com...
That doesn't invalidate the project in the 1860's.
Sep 13, 2007, 02:16:30 nous wrote:
True, but neither does it establish that *military reconstruction* did anything to bring about a positive change.
In either case this is no longer about a goal that can be achieved by outside military force, nor is this necessarily a change which can be wrought from the outside through the persistent presence of occupying troops. The KKK was founded and flourished in *response* to occupation and forced social change.
In other words, it is not a question of ends, but of means.
Sep 13, 2007, 02:44:38 Turbulence wrote:
DaveC,
Would you mind explicitly stating the historical argument your allude to with your quote? There are all kinds of things I can assume, but I shouldn't have to assume because you are perfectly capable of stating what you believe.
So please man up and make an argument rather than playing these coy games where you never actually make a real statement thus ensuring that no one can ever criticize you.
Sep 13, 2007, 02:57:18 DaveC wrote:
OK, what I'm doing is making a "the ends justify the means" argument against various complaints:
- Activities of the govt are against civil liberties.
- The war is unpopular.
- The war is illegal.
- It is costing a lot of money, and the country is going broke.
I'm comparing this to the Civil War, and nous is pointing out that even "the ends" are in doubt. And I'm saying that the ends will eventually be achieved.
Sep 13, 2007, 02:58:16 DaveC wrote:
Back to lawn care, now that I've been explicit, I had better duck out.
Sep 13, 2007, 03:15:41 Jesurgislac wrote:
Dave, you remember that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007...">op-ed written by a couple of the people you believe should be ignored</a> - you know, soldiers in Iraq rather than the 101st fighting keyboards in the US who give you such good news?
You'll find it easier to ignore two of them from now on: <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/sto...">they're dead</a>. Killed in the war you claim is worth fighting, though I notice you're claiming that from a safe distance and rigidly ignoring anyone who has any actual experience of fighting it - preferring to quote from a war over a century ago, and then go mow the lawn.
What a hero you are, Dave.
Sep 13, 2007, 08:55:22 nous wrote:
DaveC - While the ends may ultimately be achieved, there is no guarantee that the initial, military means *caused* that end any more than to say that several decades of abolitionist rhetoric caused that ultimate end...assuming that we are speaking of emancipation in the larger sense as the ultimate end of the war.
In the larger sense of things there were political ends and military ends involved in the war, and the only sure result we can point to is that the North destroyed the South's ability to conduct a war as a sovereign nation and thus to assert its own political independence.
All the other ends of the project of the 1860s, whatever that might be, are contingent upon actions which, by their very nature, could not be enforced solely through military action.
Sep 13, 2007, 11:29:27 DaveC wrote:
Jes, it is pretty common for people around where I live to have friends or relatives in Iraq. My next door neighbors have had 4 tours in Iraq in their household. Son, daughter-in-law and nephew. (The nephew would go back, but not for two rotations in a row; if he had been guaranteed a deployment in Germany, he would have re-upped and gone back to Iraq later.) A woman that I used to work with had her cousin killed in Iraq. I missed the memorial service because I was out of town, but I talked to her about it. She was a retired Marine, herself. She had the newspaper article about it by her desk, with the notation "This Is Why War Is Bad." I'm not ignoring that at all.
Sep 13, 2007, 15:12:32 Turbulence wrote:
DaveC,
Thank you for taking the time to explain your position.
I think your reasoning is flawed in that we know what the outcome of the Civil War was while we do not know what the future holds for Iraq. Even if I were to accept that "the ends justify the means" (and like most people, I cannot accept this in general), there's no reason to believe that the ends are good: the best that we can hope for in Iraq is a much worse place than we found in 2003. I don't see why we should sacrifice blood and treasure to make the world a worse place than we found it.
I think you're wrong on the history of McClellan. His problem seems to have been that he was just incredibly cautious and dramatically overestimated the enemies abilities. Johnston, a confederate general who knew McClellan well from their prewar days summed him perfectly when he said: "no one by McClellan could have hesitated to attack". McClellan was a very skilled officer in many ways but had incredibly bad judgment when it came to some very important field duties.
Regarding your advice about belittling opponents: its just wrong. I have an obligation to tell the truth. Sometimes that necessitates belittling people. That obligation stems from my ethical principles as well as from my religious beliefs. I don't expect a republican to understand the notion of ethical beliefs and I don't expect most republicans to understand the concept of religious beliefs that involve anything besides barely hidden worship of one's own genitals, but there you go.
Also, this should be obvious to you, but just because someone is really stupid and worth belittling, it does not follow that they are powerless. Example 1 would be the President: he's an idiot and very powerful. In the real world, knowledge and power seldom go together as we might wish. I'm surprised that I need to explain this to you.
Sep 13, 2007, 15:14:43 Turbulence wrote:
That quote should be "no one BUT McClellan could have hesitated to attack".
Sep 13, 2007, 18:56:58 Jesurgislac wrote:
DaveC: <I>Jes, it is pretty common for people around where I live to have friends or relatives in Iraq.</I>
And you don't much like any of them and you're happy to have them die?
Okay. Some people are just bad neighbors.
Sep 13, 2007, 18:59:46 Jesurgislac wrote:
Okay, Dave, that last - even for here - was over the top. But nothing you've ever said about the war in Iraq has ever indicated that you give the tiniest damn even about the US soldiers being killed there, let alone the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis being killed there, nor the millions of Iraqis who have had to flee the country. All we ever get from you about the war is second-hand regurgitated slogans about an area of the world you have indicated, over and over, that you know virtually nothing about.
Sep 13, 2007, 21:10:45 Jesurgislac wrote:
DaveC claims: <I>I'm not ignoring that at all.</I>
<a href="http://www.correntewire.com...">Oh yes, you are.</a>
Sep 13, 2007, 21:48:25 Jesurgislac wrote:
You may say, I suppose, that you don't feel you should have to repeat every time that you care about the troops or that you care about the Iraqis.
But yes, you do. You are supporting a policy which you know has killed/will kill US soldiers in thousands and Iraqis in hundreds of thousands - millions, possibly, by the time this is all over.
You think this is a <I>good</I> policy. So yes, you do have to justify how many lives your aspirational sentiments are worth. How many people live in your hometown? Half a million? More? Less? When you contemplate your heartwarming beliefs about the Middle East, consider whether you think it would be worthwhile slaughtering 500 000 people from your home town - adults and children, women and men - to accomplish those aspirations. Would you be prepared to do that? Bomb them, shoot them, watch them die of cholera?
Or are you - as I think - one of those 101st Fighting Keyboarders who thinks vaguely of grand sacrifices and happily ignores the blood, guts, and shit that someone else will have to deal with?
Sep 13, 2007, 22:59:30 john miller wrote:
Yes, Jes, that one comment was over the top.
But more importantly, what DaveC is bringing up is an essential aspect of the whole debate.
DaveC, apparently , believes that the end does justify the means.
That statement is usually brought out when the "means" tends to have a negative connotation, be it due to illegality, immorality, etc. If the "means" is seen as benign, then there is no argument.
And this may be the defining difference between many on the right and many on the left. I intentionally did not generalize to all on the right or the left because on the left there are many (though still a minority) that believe certain acts can be justified becAuse the "ends" are for the greater good. Just as there are those on the right that say (specially in regards to the torture issue and some of the shredding of the constitution) that certain means go beyond the limits of appropriate coonsideration, no matter what the "ends" may be.
On a personal level, I grew up in the period of general conservatisim in this country, the 1950's. We had a Republican President and my Congressman was Joe McCarthy. Yet, one of the things hammered into my head (despite McCarthy) is that one of the differences between this country and the despicable, immoral Soviet Union is that we rejected the concept of "the end justifies the means" whereas those dirty stinking commies embraced it.
It is too bad that we no longer have a country united around that principle that was held back then, despite the overall conservative nature of the country at that time.
Sep 13, 2007, 23:52:06 libjpn wrote:
I've been out, trying to sort out stuff for my folks, but Jes, terming DaveC as a 101st keyboarders is wrong. I invited DaveC to post here, so it's not like he's been on a soapbox to put his views out. There are ample points to dispute, so it would help sticking to those.
Sep 14, 2007, 00:08:34 DaveC wrote:
I sort of disagree, lj.
I think that the by-laws of HOCB are that there are no restrictions on Cussin' and Fussin', Idle Speculation, Personal Diatribes, etc.
I don't actually have a copy of the by-laws. Perhaps I can get one from JackMormon.
http://jackmormon.blogspot....
But she appears to be busy fraternizing with Iranians, or maybe something more serious than that.
Sep 14, 2007, 00:16:26 DaveC wrote:
On a more serious note, we can only determine whether wars or revolutions are going to be worth it in retrospect.
For instance, the French Revolution, and Napolean's various campaigns, and World War I seem incomprehensible, even though the French Revolution's stated ends appear to be noble, as well as some of the stated sentiment about WWI.
On the other hand, the outcome of WWII appears to be quite worth it, although some of the means now seem unjust.
Sep 14, 2007, 00:52:53 Jesurgislac wrote:
<I>Jes, terming DaveC as a 101st keyboarders is wrong.</I>
"Refers to weblog authors who are 'very enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it'."
That's Dave.
<I>I think that the by-laws of HOCB are that there are no restrictions on Cussin' and Fussin', Idle Speculation, Personal Diatribes, etc.</I>
Well, at least we agree on that.
<I>On a more serious note, we can only determine whether wars or revolutions are going to be worth it in retrospect.</I>
Depends on your definition of "worth it". For example, a major source of European support for the state of Israel post WWII was the publicity given to horrors of the Nazi death camps and the Nazi targetting of Jews. You may feel that the state of Israel was "worth it": perhaps you do. But I think most people would not say that the mass slaughter was "worth it" - even those that explicitly feel the state of Israel is a good thing. (I say the "publicity" did it, because sixty thousand gay men and lesbians were also killed by the Nazis, but the survivors were treated as criminals by the Allies, and the fact of the Nazi persecution did not result in any better treatment for GLBT people in Germany or any other country.)
Your "worth it" is not a price you are yourself paying. You are not in Iraq: you are arguing that the death and disablement and destruction is "worth it" for <I>other people</I> to suffer.
Sep 14, 2007, 04:38:23 marbel wrote:
<i>and the fact of the Nazi persecution did not result in any better treatment for GLBT people in Germany or any other country.</i>
Well... we do have a homomonument since 1987 and lots of folk (including the police and the military) commemorate there on May 4th (our WW2 remembrance day).
I do agree that the victims on Iraqi side are often forgotten when people discuss the invasion.
Sep 14, 2007, 04:38:57 marbel wrote:
Oh, forgot the link because I can't just use html here.
http://www.homomonument.nl/...
Sep 14, 2007, 05:46:17 matttbastard wrote:
"I don't actually have a copy of the by-laws. Perhaps I can get one from JackMormon."
The only specific 'rule' re: discourse I can recall is 'don't be tedious' ie, no flogging maggot-infested pony carcasses.
FWIW, I for one don't want TiO to turn into ObWi-lite, hamstrung by oppressive civility. Sometimes you gotta let it all hang out. I doubt DaveC is crying because I told him to go fuck himself. Hell, if we were within walking distance I'd still be likely invite him out for a beer (or a mineral water in my case - sober for 5 weeks this Saturday. w00t.)
I'd also likely to tell him to go fuck himself in person (probably while arguing '70s Ohio/NY/Detroit avant-rock minutia.)
Sep 14, 2007, 05:50:17 matttbastard wrote:
"still be likely [to] invite"
Sep 14, 2007, 06:28:04 DaveC wrote:
"I doubt DaveC is crying because I told him to go fuck himself."
No, the thing that I do get tired of is discussions about whether or not I'm a troll. It is well established that I am half-troll and half-human.
Now, on TiO, I am of course Trolling, or Crtying Out For Attention, because, well, we need the traffic. On ObWi, I consider myself Mr. Tweaker; something for the fire to burn against, but unwilling to spend the time to answer all the subsequent comments and questions.
Sep 14, 2007, 06:37:33 DaveC wrote:
I may have linked this before, but behold the greatest rock video ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Sep 14, 2007, 07:03:55 libjpn wrote:
While there is no definitive definition of the term "101st keyboarders", (perhaps we can get Gary to define it, as a favor to Jes), the fact that DaveC was cajoled into posting here would seem to go against most definitions (or does anyone who supports the US invasion of Iraq and posts anywhere on the internet qualifies?) and so, it seems like the typical Jes overreach, which has become pretty tedious to me.
Sep 14, 2007, 07:22:44 DaveC wrote:
"perhaps we can get Gary to define it"
Oh Lord No!
I was digging up some RD Laing stuff, fiddling around with ideas for a post.
Here's a good quip:
"Machines are already becoming better at communicating with each other than human beings are with human beings. The situation is ironical. More and more concern about communication, less and less to communicate."
RDLaing was the Neitzche of the 60's. Quite a lot of good material, but never panned out quite right, or was misunderstood in a catastrophic way.
Sep 14, 2007, 07:25:48 DaveC wrote:
To "Pan Out" is a easy to translate idiom, if you think about gold prospectors. Is this only an American phrase?
Sep 14, 2007, 08:18:34 Jesurgislac wrote:
<I>"perhaps we can get Gary to define it"
Oh Lord No!</I>
Okay, that's two things we agree on...
Sep 14, 2007, 08:35:18 matttbastard wrote:
"No, the thing that I do get tired of is discussions about whether or not I'm a troll. It is well established that I am half-troll and half-human."
No wonder I like you. Us half breeds (or half caste, if you will) gotta stick together, even though I don't have any bridge dwellers on either side of my mixed ancestry.
Fair enough; even though I've been harumphing as of late, I think it's been well established that you're posting in good faith (which makes me all the more disheartened). :-P
And dammit, you KNOW that I can't stay all grawr after that Ween vid (BEST. EVER.) (Doesn't mean I'm never going to tell you to go fuck yourself again. But when I do, rest assured IS out of friendship.)
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Sep 14, 2007, 08:55:43 DaveC wrote:
Very upbeat song!
At least Cthulhu or Godzilla didn't win.
Sep 14, 2007, 10:35:42 dmbeaster wrote:
DaveC
Care to explain the parallel between McClellan's comments and today?
Us modern day Lincoln lovers (I am one) tend to forget how sharply divided opinion was in the North as to the Civil War, and that the arguments on both sides had a lot of legitimacy. First, the war was enormously bloody and expensive by standards of the time and way in excess of any expectations by anyone. Second, it was not about slavery or racism in the minds of the people of the time, including Lincoln. That gloss has been added after the fact. It was about making southern States stay in the Union and exerting Federal power over State power -- a reasonable cause but not one that really stirs emotions, particularly as the war toll mounted. Indeed, it is clear that modern conservatives such as yourself are far more sympathetic to the views of McClellan on that issue than Lincoln.
It is fun to mock McClellan today for being the dweeb that he was, but his views were echoed by many patriotic Americans who did not see the sense in such bloodshed to keep a bunch of backward slave holding states in the Union (a good point, too). There was serious Republican concern in early 1864 (including by Lincoln) that Lincoln would lose the election.
Now, let's compare that controversy to the present about a needless foreign war of aggression waged for what purpose? And based on lies past and present. So debate concerning a needless foreign adventure is somehow parallel to a debate about the Civil War?
And kudos to those above who asked if DaveC wants to read the quotes of Republicans railing about Roosevelt's excesses in entangling the US in WWII in the months prior to Pearl Harbor. Those words sound pretty much just like McClellan's, which proves what?
The bottom line issue is the underlying justification for the war -- not the sophistry of rhetoric that is often parallel in different times, but which similarity proves little. There is not even a remote parallel between the legitimacy of the pro/con arguments for the Civil War as opposed to the complete illegitimacy of the Iraq War.
Sep 14, 2007, 12:26:53 libjpn wrote:
I thought it was that Patraeus, like McClellen, seems to harbor presidential ambitions...
http://talkingpointsmemo.co...
Sep 14, 2007, 12:44:16 DaveC wrote:
Patraeus, he a good talker, I believe that is important, nowadays.
He may lack "the vision thing". No, on second thought he has it. Thanx, Evan Bayh!
Log in here
Add Comment
