Amazon.com: What's the closest parallel from American history to this year's race?
Ann Coulter: 1864. Bush is Lincoln and Kerry is General McClellan--who, I note, was a great military leader.
Amazon.com: What would a Kerry administration mean?
Ann Coulter: Quite possibly the destruction of the Republic.
Here are some of the similarities between the elections of 1864 and 2004, presented as a curiosity, not to imply equivalence:
- country is at war
- new rationale for war added: human rights
- public largely unmoved by new rationale
- war is going poorly through most of election year (1)
- war casualties are increasing
- public largely dissatisfied with cost of war, in money and lives
- public wary of conscription
- talk of postponing election (2)
- incumbent had taken office in a controversial election
- incumbent runs on "don't change horses" theme
- incumbent vice-president is hard-line ideologue
- talk of replacing incumbent vice-president with a moderate (3)
- challenger vows to continue war, while criticizing its execution
- the challenger's party is split between pro-war and anti-war
- challenger was a military hero
- election widely seen as a crucial turning point
- campaign widely seen as especially dirty
- incumbent party ridicules challenger's war record
- incumbent party claims challenger will retreat from war
- incumbent party accuses challenger of treason & disloyalty
- incumbent party enlists former colleague of challenger to publicly denounce him (4)
- challenger party accuses incumbent of sacrificing nation's interests to narrow ideological agenda
NOTES:
(1) a series of military victories just before the 1864 election would cement Lincoln's victory
(2) rejected in both cases on grounds that it would mean "the enemy has won"
(3) Lincoln did in fact replace Hannibal Hamlin
(4) John Logan = Zell Miller
final thoughts after the jump...
I don't agree with those who say the "destruction of the Republic" was at stake in 1864. McClellan was a pro-war Democrat, who did not support emancipation or radical reconstruction. To the Republicans, this was a recipe for doom. But oddly enough, Lincoln was assassinated just months after his second inauguration as was replaced with, God save the Republic, a pro-war Democrat who had not supported emancipation or radical reconstruction, Andrew Johnson.
Had McClellan won, history would not have been altered. The war would have been won just as quickly, and the Republicans who dominated the Congress would have stonewalled McClellan on reconstruction and then impeached him, just as they did Johnson (though probably succeeding). Once the South was brought to unconditional surrender, the balance of political power in Washington would unavoidably dictate emancipation - no matter who held the Presidency.
And one more thing...in 1864 the incumbent won by 10 points.
~END~