Sources used in this document:

The author indicates that both Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were able to denounce one another as the impediment to a cease-fire by a number of decidedly clever manipulations. During the initial peace talks between the two, Lincoln was roundly chastised (by members of his political party, the Republicans, as well as by Republicans and by Union supporters in general) for stipulating that the only way an armistice could be achieved between the two sides was if the Confederacy surrendered and the Union was preserved. Lincoln would also incur further criticism when the wording of the terms of the truce he offered were manipulated to make it seem as though the President cared more about liberating -- and preserving the liberty of -- former slaves.

Yet the political ramifications of these notions which were widely propagated by the media and projected to have a significant impact on the polls come election time were largely abolished by the sudden northern success against the Confederacy. The capturing of Atlanta spurred this success during the fall of 1864, and virtually guaranteed Lincoln's reelection and vilified both the Democrats and the Confederacy as opposing the only inevitable peace solution -- through the latter's defeat.

I believe that the author made a number of prudent points when interpreting the events that were so crucial to the chronology of the peace attempts and eventual end of the Civil War. I find it highly interesting that Lincoln was vilified by the same people -- such as newspaper editor Horace Greely -- for adopting his steady stance of liberating former slaves and only accepting the Confederacy's surrender as the means of ensuring peace and restoring the union who were willing to praise and reelect him once the Union victory was all but assured. To that end, this article really shows the extent of the influence that moral, and military progress has on the opinions of people who are