The first American Liberal Activist Group?

[Labrocca]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copperheads_(politics)

Found this on Wikipedia while researching Abe Lincoln and the Civil War.

The Copperheads were a faction of Democrats in the North (see also Union (American Civil War)) who opposed the American Civil War, wanting an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates. The name Copperheads was given to them by their opponents the Republicans, because of the copper liberty-head coins they wore as badges. They were also called "Peace Democrats" and "Butternuts" (for the color of the Confederate uniforms). The most famous Copperhead was Ohio's Clement L. Vallandigham, who was a vehement opponent of President Abraham Lincoln's policies.

Read more on the wiki page.

Some similarities with todays liberals.

1. Would rather appease oppressors than go to war.
2. Made fun of the President at every turn.
3. Resisted Draft Laws
4. Opposed the Republican Party (yes Old Abe was a Republican)
5. Used the media to spread disinformation and propaganda
6. Considered the President a "dunce".

This is a great quote on the wiki page.

Through the 1864 election, Wisconsin newspaper editor Marcus M. Pomeroy called Lincoln "fungus from the corrupt womb of bigotry and fanaticism" and a "worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero... The man who votes for Lincoln now is a traitor and murderer... And if he is elected to misgovern for another four years, we trust some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good."

Sound familiar? And just consider how Lincoln is now judged by history.

[Alonzo]

They weren't liberals, lincoln was more of a liberal than them. Copperheads opposed rights for blacks, opposed the changes being made in society and favored states rights.

Historian Kenneth Stampp has captured the Copperhead spirit in his depiction of Congressman Daniel W. Voorhees of Indiana:

“ There was an earthy quality in Voorhees, "the tall sycamore of the Wabash." On the stump his hot temper, passionate partisanship, and stirring eloquence made an irresistible appeal to the western Democracy. His bitter cries against protective tariffs and national banks, his intense race prejudice, his suspicion of the eastern Yankee, his devotion to personal liberty, his defense of the Constitution and State's rights faithfully reflected the views of his constituents. Like other Jacksonian agrarians, he resented the political and economic revolution then in progress. Voorhees idealized a way of life which he thought was being destroyed by the current rulers of his country. His bold protests against these dangerous trends made him the idol of the Democracy of the Wabash Valley. [Stampp, p. 211]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copperheads

They were anti-war, but also anti-progress and anti-black.

[Deadshot]

Dude you aren't trying to compare a President that was FORCED into a war; FREED a race of people; all the while his wife was going looney tunes and dealing with the other problems of being POTUS with George W. Bush are you?

You realize that Bush CHOSE his battle ground in Iraq; was WRONG on the reasons for war; and that this country has not really sacrificed anything like they did in the Civil War?

The comparrison of them both gettting blasted is accurate, but it stops there. Lincoln was are Greatest POTUS, Bush will, in all likelyhood, be remembered as our worst.

One other caveat here, Lincoln won an election during the middle of the Civil War after 100,000's had died on both sides AND promising to reunite the country and free the slaves.. Bush won an election after promising that we'd find Osama and WMD's. Lincoln did what he said he'd do...I'm still waiting for Mr. Bush to keep his word:fight:

[Truth_and_Power]

Is it time for us to cite the KKK as a conservative activist group? I mean, since we're all being reasonable and stuff.

[ViolaLee]

Meanwhile I can go change wikipedia to say whatever I want, at any time, as any of you can. So it's not exactly the most credible source for any information.

The FBI and CIA have changed entries to gloss over history, doctoring an item about Iran. ESA has changed entries to gloss over facts. Facts about Keith Olbermann were changed by people using FOX news computers. The Vatican edited an entry about Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams.

link (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070821/OPINION04/708210328/1041/OPINION)

link (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C08%5C21%5Cstory_21-8-2007_pg7_41)

link (http://computerworld.com/blogs/node/6052)

[Labrocca]

Was my post just ignored? Repeating over and over that Bush is the worst president doesn't make it true. As you can read in my quote above the Copperheads felt the same about Lincoln as liberals feel about Bush.

T&P...yes you might consider the KKK an early conservative activist group...and....??

Consider the blacks the Iraq people...obviously liberals screaming for us to leave simply don't give a crap about them. This is how the Copperheads felt about blacks...they weren't FOR slavery neccessarily they just didn't believe losing American lives in a war over them was worth it. Sound familiar yet? Believe what you want but ANY person calling for an exit from Iraq doesn't care that hundreds of thousands of Iraq people will probably die.

Saddam was an oppressor similar to slave masters...we freed a people. BUSH freed them. If the strategy works and over time the middle east stabilizes and real democracy begins to take hold then history will look at Bush as one of the best Presidents ever. Is that just too hard to swallow for some of you?

Whatever Viola...do your own search then for |"copperheads civil war" and see what you come up with. If you can't find an inaccuracy in my statement or on the page then please stop attacking the source.

[ViolaLee]

I should have just made a new thread about how inaccurate wiki is. It's been in the news a lot lately. Sorry for hijacking your thread.

[Deadshot]

Was my post just ignored? Repeating over and over that Bush is the worst president doesn't make it true. As you can read in my quote above the Copperheads felt the same about Lincoln as liberals feel about Bush.

But it's not just Liberals, Labrocca. It's over 60% of the Country. Do you really feel that in the last few years the whole of the USA has flipped from Conservative to Liberal? Or is it more likely that 30% of the country is Liberal, 35% is Conservative, with 35% of the country inbetween. So while the Reps are loyal the MAJORITY of the country are against the POTUS>

The Copperheads were one small group that probably didn't account for more then 10% of the Union. They had no political power and couldn't really effect Lincoln. Now, in 2007, we have a POTUS that lost Congress on his watch and has one of the lowest ratings since Nixon.

Hardly comparable.

T&P...yes you might consider the KKK an early conservative activist group...and....??

Consider the blacks the Iraq people...obviously liberals screaming for us to leave simply don't give a crap about them. This is how the Copperheads felt about blacks...they weren't FOR slavery neccessarily they just didn't believe losing American lives in a war over them was worth it. Sound familiar yet? Believe what you want but ANY person calling for an exit from Iraq doesn't care that hundreds of thousands of Iraq people will probably die.

You seem determined to compare apples and oranges here. It's doesn't sound familiar because, as I'm sure you know, there were not black politicians with power in the 1800's. The Iraqis control their fate in Iraq. Their own government, with their own people, isn't able to stop the violence. In the 1860's most blacks were uneducated and were freed from slavery, but whites still held the reigns of power for years to come - remember the voting problems, Jim Crow laws, Lynchings, etc. You do realize that there's still a race problem that can be directly traced back to slavery, right?

In Iraq many people there are educated and they were not our slaves. The reason there is problems there are religious in nature, with one religion just now coming into power after YEARS of being stepped on.

Saddam was an oppressor similar to slave masters...we freed a people. BUSH freed them. If the strategy works and over time the middle east stabilizes and real democracy begins to take hold then history will look at Bush as one of the best Presidents ever. Is that just too hard to swallow for some of you?

I think it may be just as hard for you to swallow that the democratic process in Lebennon and Palestine elected the terrorists!

Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. The Civil War was between two Armies and the leaders of the losing side accepted the loss and were eager to re-unite as opposed to tearing the country apart. Iraq is the opposite of that. A few men can cause MASS destruction. So maybe only 10% of the population is wanting the violence, but the government, which is democratic - to a point (remember the Sunnis all left the government cabinet, can you imagine all the republicans leaving?) They also must deal with a hostile religious environment. Iraq simply does not coorelate to the 1860's Civil War.

BTW, Saddam was ONE master over the whole people - a dictator. In the South there were thousands of masters over tens of thousands of slaves. Again, not the same.

Whatever Viola...do your own search then for |"copperheads civil war" and see what you come up with. If you can't find an inaccuracy in my statement or on the page then please stop attacking the source.


Well even you've slammed Wiki as a source, Labrocca. So isn't that simply tit for tat?

[Labrocca]

Well even you've slammed Wiki as a source, Labrocca. So isn't that simply tit for tat?

When did I slam Wikipedia? I love to use them as a source mostly because they are a great base for other sources. Check the bottom of most historical wiki pages and you will see a variety of sources they use to create the page.


You seem determined to compare apples and oranges here. It's doesn't sound familiar because, as I'm sure you know, there were not black politicians with power in the 1800's. The Iraqis control their fate in Iraq. Their own government, with their own people, isn't able to stop the violence. In the 1860's most blacks were uneducated and were freed from slavery, but whites still held the reigns of power for years to come - remember the voting problems, Jim Crow laws, Lynchings, etc. You do realize that there's still a race problem that can be directly traced back to slavery, right?

In Iraq it's about religion instead of race...Apple to Oranges.. both fruit. :)

The Iraq government DOES NOT have control..that's why we are there still.


btw..you might want to check your facts before stating them as such..Bush is not the WORST POTUS in history...he has the same approval rating as Carter and if you go back further you will find other Presidents had WORSE ratings. Almost all polls ask who is the worst POTUS since WWII or sooner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/

Bush certainly gets a LOT of bad press but naming his "worst president ever" isn't an accurate statement especially given he is still in office. You have to allow history to take it's course. I am sure the left is dying to have Bush named as worst ever though for their own political gain.

[Deadshot]

Well even you've slammed Wiki as a source, Labrocca. So isn't that simply tit for tat?

When did I slam Wikipedia? I love to use them as a source mostly because they are a great base for other sources. Check the bottom of most historical wiki pages and you will see a variety of sources they use to create the page.

Misread your rep to Viola, sorry.

Hey I use it a lot to, again nothing I'd use in a presentation or paper, but this is just a blog.


You seem determined to compare apples and oranges here. It's doesn't sound familiar because, as I'm sure you know, there were not black politicians with power in the 1800's. The Iraqis control their fate in Iraq. Their own government, with their own people, isn't able to stop the violence. In the 1860's most blacks were uneducated and were freed from slavery, but whites still held the reigns of power for years to come - remember the voting problems, Jim Crow laws, Lynchings, etc. You do realize that there's still a race problem that can be directly traced back to slavery, right?

In Iraq it's about religion instead of race...Apple to Oranges.. both fruit. :)

The Iraq government DOES NOT have control..that's why we are there still.

But you attempted to link slavery with the situation in Iraq, which is like linking apples to hand grenades. The Iraq government does not wish to achieve peace, i.e. both sides of the conflict will not work together, how do we force that? So far we've been unsuccessful.


btw..you might want to check your facts before stating them as such..Bush is not the WORST POTUS in history...he has the same approval rating as Carter and if you go back further you will find other Presidents had WORSE ratings. Almost all polls ask who is the worst POTUS since WWII or sooner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/

Bush certainly gets a LOT of bad press but naming his "worst president ever" isn't an accurate statement especially given he is still in office. You have to allow history to take it's course. I am sure the left is dying to have Bush named as worst ever though for their own political gain.


I agree that saying he's the worst POTUS ever was going too far. I should have said, and believe that he was one of the worst in the last 100 years. IMHO I think it's Hoover, Bush, LBJ, Nixon, Carter in my bottom five.

But here's the caveat's for 3-5. LBJ helped with the Civil Rights movement and helped heal racial problems. Nixon gave us China as an ally and helped us to focus on the USSR and ended Vietnam. Carter showed that Middle East Peace was possible.

I don't see a lot of postives from Hoover, though before his POTUS he was a dynamo during WWI and inherited an bad situation. Bush is one of the worst because he didn't offer anything before his POTUS and, IMHO, nothing much during his Presidency.

But either way, Bush is no Lincoln, who's in our top five IMHO.

[Labrocca]

My comparison is based on the copperheads attitude toward Lincoln. History has yet to judge Bush. However reading the historical information about Copperheads I am reminded of the extreme left and their attitude toward Bush. No...they are not the same President but the criticism they both faced during a difficult war is very similar.

[Buck Laser]

My comparison is based on the copperheads attitude toward Lincoln. History has yet to judge Bush. However reading the historical information about Copperheads I am reminded of the extreme left and their attitude toward Bush. No...they are not the same President but the criticism they both faced during a difficult war is very similar.

The only point of similarity between the copperheads and today's liberals is that they disliked a president. The copperheads' views were more a matter of sympathy with the South or with state's rights, which was a VERY big issue in the whole Civil War.

The radical anti-slavery advocates from the north aren't exactly mirrored in today's politics either. They were against slavery, but they were anxious to punish the South, and when they did, their punishment was severe.

I think it's true that a great many people disliked Lincoln, not only from the Confederacy, but from the north as well. What it comes down to as far as I can see is that Lincoln was president during the WORST times this country ever went through. And the times were not of his making.

Bush, on the other hand, must accept responsibility for the actions of the country in the days following 9/11. NOBODY else bears anywhere near the blame for that. Of course, if one believes he did exactly the right thing in making war on Iraq, then I suppose they'd come to a different conclusion.

I've done a lot of reading about the Civil War, and will continue to do so. It's just too far a reach to compare the copperheads to today's liberals.

[Deadshot]

My comparison is based on the copperheads attitude toward Lincoln. History has yet to judge Bush. However reading the historical information about Copperheads I am reminded of the extreme left and their attitude toward Bush. No...they are not the same President but the criticism they both faced during a difficult war is very similar.


But as I pointed out earlier, the Copperheads were a small faction of the North, probably less then 10%. So there attacks could not be ignored, but they certainly were not at the top of the POTUS's agenda.

Whereas the majority of the country feel Bush is doing a bad job.
...................................Approve........ .................Disapprove....................... ..Unsure
ALL adults...........................29............... ....................65............................ ........6
Republicans........................64 ..................................29.............. ......................7
Democrats.........................8 ...................................90............. .......................2
Independents.................... 25 ...................................65............. .......................10


These are Bush's latest numbers from a CBS poll. http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm

Again, the Copperheads were not ever a majority of the North, but instead, a fraction of it. But even Lincoln acknowledged to his Generals that he needed a victory before the elections to win, he knew he had to please the people. Mr. Bush is not like that. When the polls were on his side, from about 200-2004, he and his White House quoted them consistently. Yet now the majority of the COUNTRY not just Democrats, believe he's doing a bad job and should change.

Do you see the difference, L? Almost a third of Republcians, almost all Democrats and almost two-thirds of Independents - A full two-thirds of the country - believe he's doing a bad job. Not a hand full of Copperheads, but 2/3's of the all the people in the USA! Jeez-Louise even FAUX news has Mr. Bush at 32 approval - 61 disapprove!http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Your comparrisons fall flat when faced with the realities of history and the situation of today. Maybe you should focus on comparing Mr. Bush to Hoover or Nixon, try and keep him out of the Presidential cellar, so to speak, before you compare him to the Greatest POTUS.

[David Hume]

My comparison is based on the copperheads attitude toward Lincoln. History has yet to judge Bush. However reading the historical information about Copperheads I am reminded of the extreme left and their attitude toward Bush. No...they are not the same President but the criticism they both faced during a difficult war is very similar.


Non-partisan professional historians (myself included) have already judged Bush on his first 6.5 years in office. I had the opportunity to hear him speak in KC today at the VFW confab, and the things he said solidified my opinion of him as worst (which, in my mind, was previously held by Buchanan).

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history

And, as this blog states, historians are a cautious bunch. Being peer-reviewed makes us make certain of our facts. http://bignickadams.blogspot.com/2006/04/rolling-stone-worst-president-in.html