Election Day, November 8, 1864 — In the midst of war, the United States of America held an election, counted the votes, and, without incident, announced the duly elected president of the United States. We were an amazing country. We not only shared power with the masses; we transferred power without violence. Without the myth of birthright, where in the world and when in history did that ever happen?
Here is what happened. Abraham Lincoln was the National Union Party (NUP) candidate. He did not, as is claimed, run as a Republican. That is an important point; it was a conscious political decision to form a third party. The other candidate, General George McClellan, was a pro-war Democrat. The NUP was specifically created to hold onto Republican voters and attract pro-war Democrats.
Poor McClellan. The Democrats nominated him and then formalized a platform that sought not war but peace with the Confederacy. The platform contradicted and left their own candidate with little to say. McCellan was enisled by his party; Lincoln was supported and promoted by his. Lincoln won handily. Lincoln is acclaimed down through the ages, and McClellan is forgotten.
With the political party name change, and all the protestations to the contrary, Lincoln, the “pro-war candidate,” presided over peace and reconciliation with the Confederacy. Lincoln was the first president to win a second term since Andrew Jackson in 1832. Good for Honest Abe.
This is a column about politics. I went to the John Heilemann lecture last week and he said, “The function of political parties is to win elections.” That’s it? Win? At any cost? Despite any contradiction, confusion, or taradiddle? Preach peace and nominate a pro-war candidate? Preach war, win, and preside over the peace?
Is it OK because you can’t govern if you don’t get elected, so… so what… all is fair? We are meant to learn from our history. What do we learn? Now and always, it has been OK for politicians to lie and political parties to do whatever is necessary to win? OK, where is the line? Is it all fair up to an act of violence? Is it all fair up to an act of treason?
Before we go any further, let’s define treason. Treason is any act meant to undermine the structure of our government or to violently attack it or to support any group foreign or domestic intent upon the overthrow of our government.
So, let’s parse the current political landscape. What are they saying? What are they doing? It appears that Donald Trump does not like how we have done things traditionally. To the extent that he proposes to work within our system and change some policies, it is politics as usual.
One woman explained to me that she must vote for Trump because of his stand on abortion. She must vote for life. Whose life? The fetus or the mother? She was stuck for a minute and then said, “the more innocent life.” OK, that policy, her position, and right to express it, are all legal under the Constitution. It was assumed by our Founders that majority rule would solve the iniquitous.
On the other hand, to the extent that he makes a concerted effort to change the system of our government as codified in the U.S. Constitution, that is treason. What is suggested in Georgia, and other Southern states, is a change in the laws governing the right to vote, the obligation attendant upon counting the votes, and reporting the results. Those changes are criminal and, by definition, treasonous. We should do something about it, but what?
Well, the attorneys general of those states have written letters to the boards of elections informing them of the laws and advising them that if they proceed to break the laws, they will be prosecuted. Actually, in a sane and reasonable world, that should do the trick. Bureaucrats did not sign on for prison terms, and few are as pugnacious as Trump.
We must also vote. Somehow the Democrats seem to think if the Harris-Walz ticket wins by a wide enough margin, then Trump will accept the result. We will see. Will he accept the result or resort to violence as he did in 2020?
Let’s be ready. Assuming and preparing for violence that does not come is far less worrisome than not preparing for violence that does come. Ask the United States Capitol Police.
