From Lincoln to Obama, the Value of Peace TalksRoundup: Historians' Take
tags: Barack Obama, Abraham Lincoln
(CNN) -- As negotiations with Iran are about to resume in Vienna, some of President Obama's friends, not to mention his enemies, are appalled by the very idea of what they consider a deal with the devil.
One congressman called November's interim agreement a betrayal "worse than Munich" before he had even seen it. Incapable of joining forces on anything else, some Democrats, Republicans and Iranian hardliners refuse to give peace a chance. A century and a half ago, a recalcitrant alliance of the same improbable ilk caused literally fatal consequences.
On February 5, 1865, Abraham Lincoln designed a simple compromise to end the Civil War. It would have saved thousands of lives, abolished slavery and enticed the departed states to disarm and return voluntarily in exchange for fair concessions. It never made it out of the White House. The purists in his Cabinet rejected it, and the moderates would not cross them.
A few days earlier, Lincoln and his secretary of state, William Seward, a liberal former senator and a defeated candidate for president, had welcomed a rebel peace delegation to the presidential steamboat River Queen, the Air Force One of her day....
comments powered by Disqus
- Maine governor offers John Lewis an erroneous history lesson
- How Trump's Inauguration Compares to Inaugurations Past
- The Fake News Pioneer of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus
- Presidential Inauguration History: From Grand to Fatal to Downright Awkward
- Nazi Doctor Mengele Now Himself Object of Medical Study
- Juan Cole says Chelsea Manning’s leaks contributed to the revolution in Tunisia
- Bacevich and Mearsheimer on Obama’s Legacy
- Where Historians Work: An Interactive Database of History PhD Career Outcomes
- GW history department targeted by conservative media after curriculum change was announced
- Kevin Starr, California’s premier historian and USC professor, dies at 76