+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Other (/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Attack ads: Lincoln vs McClellan (/thread-1449.html)
Attack ads: Lincoln vs McClellan - brtmchl - 01-23-2014 05:07 PM
I found this site today. This may heve been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in past threads.
IT asks the question, could Lincoln have been re-elected today, in todays age of Super Pacs and negative ad campaigns?
These are certainly negative, but I believe that negative ad campaigns have been around throughout history.. And certainly those of Jefferson and Adams were by far the worst I have heard of. Jefferson called John Adams, a hermaphrodite who is secretly trying to marry the American Presidency to the British Crown? Adams called Thomas Jefferson, an atheist and anarchist who supports incest?
I do not recall any negative ads by President Lincoln toward McClellan in fact Pennsylvania Republican leader Alexander K. McClure recalled: "I saw Lincoln many times during the campaign of 1864, when McClellan was his competitor for the Presidency. I never heard him speak of McClellan in any other than terms of the highest personal respect and kindness. He never doubted McClellan's loyalty to the government or to the cause that called him to high military command. But he did believe, until after the capture of Atlanta by Sherman and Sheridan's victories in the Valley, which settled the political campaign in favor of Lincoln, that McClellan was quite likely to be elected over him, and that if elected, with all his patriotism and loyalty to the Union, he would be powerless to prevent the dissolution of the Republic."
Is this accurate? Was Lincoln above going negative?
http://www.flackcheck.org/lincoln-vs-mcclellan/mcclellan-campaign-anti-lincoln-super-pac/
http://www.flackcheck.org/lincoln-vs-mcclellan/attacks-on-biography/
What was the actual election like?
RE: Attack ads: Lincoln vs McClellan - Eva Elisabeth - 01-24-2014 05:56 AM
Mike, (yet) I have only skimmed your links, and hope this will help - as for Lincoln going negative, he feared that if McClellan was elected the Democrats' party platform would force the new administration to seek an armistice, and that this would most likely assure Confederate independence. On August 23, 1864, Lincoln drafted and signed the following memorandum:
"This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he can not possibly save it afterwards."
He sealed it, and in the next cabinet meeting he asked each member to sign on the back of the document. Later he explained the purpose. John Hay's Diary of November 11, 1864, tells the following about the cabinet meeting of that date at which the memorandum was opened:
"At the meeting of the Cabinet today, the President took out a paper from his desk and said, 'Gentlemen, do you remember last summer when I asked you all to sign your names to the back of a paper of which I did not show you the inside? This is it. Now, Mr Hay, see if you can get this open without tearing it?' He had pasted it up in so singular style that it required some cutting to get it open. He then read as follows: [memorandum]
The President said, 'You will remember that this was written at a time (6 days before the Chicago nominating Convention) when as yet we had no adversary, and seemed to have no friends. I then solemnly resolved on the course of action indicated above. I resolved, in case of the election of General McClellan, being certain that he would be the candidate, that I would see him and talk matters over with him. I would say, 'General, the election has demonstrated that you are stronger, have more influence with the American people than I. Now let us together, you with your influence and I with all the executive power of the Government, try to save the country. You raise as many troops as you possibly can for this final trial, and I will devote all my energies to assisting and finishing the war.''
Seward said, 'And the General would answer you 'Yes, Yes;' and the next day when you saw him again and pressed these views upon him, he would say, 'Yes, Yes;' & so on forever, and would have done nothing at all.'
'At least,' added Lincoln, 'I should have done my duty and have stood clear before my own conscience.' . . . .''.
(As for nowadays elections - there were sure a lot of pros and cons and circumstances to consider and discuss. Generally I think Lincoln was exactly right at the right place at the right time. But instantly I could at least think of one advantage Lincoln had compared to 1860/64: Lincoln could have held speeches and spoken for himself instead of watching more or less passively how his party members do all the canvassing alone.)
RE: Attack ads: Lincoln vs McClellan - brtmchl - 01-24-2014 04:37 PM
Thanks Eva, that is very interesting ( the sealed letter) and I love Sewards response. Because of you and many others on this forum, I am going to give Hay much more attention. I know little about him other than what I have read here and I am suprised that I haven't read more , he seems very interesting.