It's an election year, and America stands at a crossroads. At stake is the future of the country itself, and its place in the world. The Republican President, seeking re-election, is conducting a war that divides the country -- a war he never wanted and tried to avoid at first, though all the blame is laid at his doorstep. The Democratic party, split between pro- and anti-war elements but united in its hatred of the incumbent, even accuses him of stealing his first election. The Democratic challenger, a military man, is running on both his war record and his opposition to the war, trying to bring both halves of the party together. The people see the election as a referendum on the war itself, as well as on the commander-in-chief. The media excoriates the President on a daily basis, abusing their power to deliberately drive his public support down. Democrats accuse him of prolonging the war through his stubborn adherence to his policies and methods. Pundits, commentators and armchair generals denigrate his conduct of the war, while comparing his intelligence and facial features to an ape's... and not favorably. While trying to convince the nation he deserves re-election, the President struggles to preserve and re-unite it. The measures he has taken in order to do so have inflamed the opposition to new heights of vitriol, causing them to accuse him of attacking liberty itself. Despite all of this, President Lincoln prevails...

Yes, President Lincoln. Or did I mean the upcoming election? The election of 1864 was every bit as crucial to the future of America and the rest of the world as the one we face in 2004, and is eerily similar in so many respects. One main difference is that John Kerry's military experience was over thirty-five years ago, while George McClellan's war experience was only months old (plus, McClellan was a General who had commanded and organised entire armies, not a Lieutenant - the simile would be even more apt if Wesley Clark were running). Also, instead of liberating millions of enslaved Americans, President Bush has liberated fifty million Muslims from totalitarian dictatorships bent on terrorism against Americans. Yet the similarities outweigh the differences by an order of magnitude. 1864, a new documentary about to be released by X-Back Pictures (named for the anti-static coating on film), will expose and probe these similarities. Note for Michael Moore fans: this is a real documentary, not a two-hour MoveOn.org hate-Bush commercial. It'll be interesting to see how the critics receive it. I'm willing to bet it doesn't receive a standing ovation from the French, nor will it win the Palme d'Or at Cannes.

Like President Bush, Lincoln was accused by bitter Democrats of stealing his first election. The "Oxford Fraud" in Kansas helped split the Democrat vote between two Democratic nominees, allowing Lincoln to be elected with 180 electoral votes but only 40% of the popular vote. The newspapers of 1864 attacked the President viciously, the way the mainstream media does today. In one instance, the Chicago Times argued that the Lincoln administration "has been offered peace and Union, and has rejected the offer. It demands the wealth and lives of our people to prosecute a crusade against an institution whose rights are guaranteed by the law investing them with temporary power, and which they have sworn to defend and support." Lincoln was accused of disregarding civil liberties, and with more reason -- he suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of the war. It must be noted that Section 9, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."  Since the Constitution did not specify who had the power to do so, he assumed that power for himself -- and it was the assumption of that power, not the suspension of habeas corpus itself, which was found unconstitutional. However, the accusation was not brought against him until the war was over. (Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney declared the suspension unconstitutional, but Lincoln, Congress and the military ignored him. There was a war on, after all.) Today's Democrats see no problem in attacking the President in the middle of a war, for suspending habeas corpus only for suspected enemies, and with the consent of Congress and the Supreme Court. Remember that the PATRIOT Act passed 357-66 in the House and with only one "nay" vote in the Senate.

In 1864, the American people saw through the media-driven anti-Republican bias, and re-elected Lincoln with 212 electoral votes to 21, and 55% of the popular vote. Once again, the American people will have to choose between finishing the job that we've begun, or cutting our losses, running away from the problems, and forfeiting both international prestige and international power. We saw how running away affected us in every way possible for decades after Vietnam. We're still feeling the effects of our self-inflicted loss. What will the future hold for us if we elect to pull back, pull out of Iraq and commit to asking permission of the United Nations before defending ourselves from our enemies in the future? Even France, the "moral" compass the Left steers itself by, unilaterally invaded Cote d'Ivoire in 2002 to force the increasingly isolationist government to share power with a pro-France rebel faction. France is helping the unpopular government to crush other, anti-France factions, which have popular support and are calling for transparent elections. The only threat to France from the Ivory Coast was economic (and prestigious) in nature, yet neither the UN nor even the most arrogantly self-important Liberals in America have raised so much as a murmur against the blatantly imperialist aims of the French. Their ire, it seems, is reserved for the United States. What will become of us, should we subsume our national interests to the will of partisans who condemn the US for upholding its cease-fire agreement while allowing France to freely invade other countries just to maintain its influence? 

If George McClellan had been elected President in 1864, the "two Americas" John Edwards speaks of would be very real today, though not in the way he imagines. One important difference: America's economic and military might would not have been so easily united and turned against Germany in the First World War. Today's world would look remarkably different if the United States had chosen the path to immediate, easy peace in 1864. How will tomorrow's world look if we do so in 2004?