November 13, 2006
War never solved anything...
Betsy Newmark posted these resolutions, from the 1864 Democrat Party platform...
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 pretense of a military necessity of 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 of 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.
Sure sounds familiar. Blogger and history teacher is a great combo--I always read Betsy Newmark's blg. Then, as now, Dems were for "peace," which really meant surrender. They had General McClellan back then, to propose re-deploying the Army of the Potomac to Okinawa...
And there's this:
Resolved, That the shameful disregard of the Administration to its duty in respect to our fellow citizens who now are and long have been prisoners of war and in a suffering condition, deserves the severest reprobation on the score alike of public policy and common humanity.
Then as now, lies about prisoners. The prisoners held by the North were treated much better than those held by the South, whose captivity was simply barbarous. (Read about Andersonville if you doubt it.) The subject is complicated, but one of the main reasons that prisoner exchanges stopped was that the South refused to treat black soldiers as POW's. They'd hang them or enslave them. Much like today, when any American soldier who falls into the hands of jihadis can expect torture and death (with no protests from the fake peaceniks).
So little has changed. To Democrats and fake pacifists, America (and back then, The Union) is always at fault. They pretend to be for peace, but it's a sham.
Posted by John Weidner at November 13, 2006 11:06 AMI would take issue with your last sentence, John.
The sad thing is that they're not pretending. They naively misbelieve that nothing is worse than war and that peace is simply the absence of combat.
Posted by: doug at November 13, 2006 11:37 AMWell, that's true, they do probably believe it. Assuming you use their definitions of "war" and "peace."
But those definitions are deranged. The world has changed, and they are using concepts that don't match reality at all.
10,000 people a week are being killed in Darfur. That's called "peace." If we sent in our military and stopped this slaughter, that would be "war."
Frankly, I don't think they believe in peace even by their own definitions. Pacifists and peaceniks have been hollowed-out by leftism (plus a big dose of Eloi squeamishness) and they now only oppose war when it's done by America or her allies.
They can watch with complacency as a million die in Rawanda, but any American military action (when a Republican is in the White House) no matter how careful we are to minimize casualties, and it's time for the candle-light vigils and the giant puppets.
A further point regarding the prisoners - ceasing the exchange of prisoners was an intentionally decided tactic - when you have more than double the forces under arms as your enemy, and four times the population to draw soldiers from, exchanging prisoners 1:1 is stupid: every exchanged prisoner lengthens the war, and every POW left unexchanged helps to shorten the war. Grant knew it, Lincoln knew it, and the Democrats knew it - but it sure sounded good to claim to be on the soldier's side.
You know, I tried to argue that with a moonbat in another comment thread -- that we can't just release prisoners in Guanatanamo while the war is still ongoing because, well, the war is still ongoing and there's the possibility that a prisoner of war who is turned over to his "native country" (the discussion was of former Australian David Hicks who converted to Islam and joined Al Qaeda) for a "fair trial" could be given a light sentence or even released and then who could stop him from rejoining his terrorist buddies?
But the moonbat was having none of it. The only important thing was to get Hicks out of the cruel claws of the American Hegemon and back all safe and cuddled at home. I think the moonbat thinking at this point is that the ex-POW would be so greatful that his "countrymen" came to his rescue that he would "see the light" and disavow his former fanatical Muslim terrorist ways and join a Save the Whales campaign or something, but it's so hard for me to think like an idiot so I can't be sure.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 14, 2006 02:56 AMHm. "Grateful." It's early yet.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 14, 2006 02:57 AMThey have a certain advantage in argument, since they can simultaneously say Bush is losing the War on Terror, and that there is no war (hence no need for a policy on prisoners of war).
Posted by: John Weidner at November 14, 2006 06:32 AMIn WWII, it was considered the deepest of insults for a POW to be released, precisely because it was saying that he was of zero or negative value in the war. There was a British retired admiral who was captured in North Africa and released by the Italians due to his age. He spent the rest of the war flying as an observer on bomber missions, hoping to be shot down and die in action. He felt that was the only way to repair the damage.
