It's objectively true republicans are historically the anti-war party and republicans today have more anti-war members of congress than democrats lmao
Not sure why you would bring up the civil war. Not really a war where there was a clear division by party lines. The same could be said for the Spanish-American war. Wilson still got us involved in World War I. There were more republicans in opposition. WW2 is dems. Korean War, dems. Vietnam...Dems. First Iraq war, yes. Second was clearly bipartisan. Libya. Syria. Current conflict with Russia. Iran. Truman basically started the Cold War. Wilson also intervened in Haiti and Nicaragua. LBJ with the 6 day conflict. Clinton bombed Afghanis, Yugoslavia, intervened in Haiti, and etc. Kennedy...cuba. The list goes on. The biggest anti-war voices have come from the right
Taft
Buchanan
Paul
Republicans have been elected more than dems when war was an issue.
Eisenhower, Korea
Nixon, Vietnam
Trump, everything
Bush, everything clinton did
The 1864 Democratic platform was a peace platform even if McClellan was not as determinedly anti-war. There were of course a lot of War Democrats- and many of them joined with the Republicans to support the Lincoln/Johnson Union ticket. The war against Spain led to a number of temporary and more enduring territorial acquisitions. In the debate over these new possessions, the Republicans took the "imperialist" or pro-expansion position and the Democrats were opposed. Theodore Roosevelt was clamoring for US entry into the First World War in 1915 while Wilson was re-elected the following year on the slogan "He kept us out of war!" and the votes of anti-war Germans and Irish. The Democratic Party's later abandonment of opposition to entering the war would cost it heavily in 1920 with the loss of these voters.
The Second World War was a defensive war so there wasn't any political agency there unless we consider not rolling over to the Germans and Japanese to be aggressive. Similarly, to argue that the Cold War was initiated by the United States would require arguing that containment was somehow an aggressive act. Korea and Vietnam were initiated by Democrats but in the case of the latter we know who became associated with continuation of the war and who became associated with the peace movement. Even now I sometimes hear Republicans talk about the left flank of the Democrats disrespected the troops during Vietnam etc. Second Iraq War likewise, with even more initial opposition from Democrats.
Robert Taft, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul may all be anti-war, but they are not particularly prominent to the public nor have they actually prevented any military conflict from starting. Every administration since F.D. Roosevelt has had to be involved throughout the globe so there will be a lot of military interventions in the modern era. The Republican Party remains broadly more in favor of "peace through strength" and similar hawkish sentiments but it has definitely taken an anti-internationalist turn in recent years and is clearly the more anti-NATO party now. But is overall role, historically and at present, has never been that of "the anti-war party."
