Post war Lincoln

[archieclement]

Its oft been said Lincolns death was bad for the south............curious how so?

At the time of Lincoln's death a few things already seemed to have happened or were developing.....

The radical wing thought Lincoln had drug his feet on slavery, and took too long to come out in favor of ending it
The radical wing wasn't happy that no suffrage or guarantee of rights had happened, and Lincoln was only considering limited suffrage.
The radical wing also wasn't happy with Lincolns "let em up easy" policy of forgiveness towards reconstruction........
He had already killed their Wade-Davis bill

Now its impossible to know exactly how Lincoln would have reacted to events that hadn't unfolded yet. But assuming Lincoln wasn't assassinated, wouldn't the same administration versus a Radical Congress battle that occurred under Johnson, have also occurred under Lincoln? For any argument that the south would have been better off if Lincoln had lived......wouldn't that entail Lincoln being somehow more successful then Johnson at holding the Radicals off from driving reconstruction? How or what would a "better off" for the south reconstruction under Lincoln have looked like or proceeded?

 

[archieclement]

Its always seemed curious to me that this claim is made..........without ever elaborating on how he either differed from the radicals or would have been successful in combating them........... yet if didn't differ or couldn't combat them...... and things proceeded the same as historically under the radicals......how would the south been any "better off"?

The biggest way he differed that it would hard to argue he didn't, was his forgiving and far more conciliatory approach, which Johnson indeed continued the pursuit of, only to meet grief for it.......

 

[Louisiana Jayhawker]

The old claim that the South would have been better off had Lincoln not been shot had always appeared to me to be a phony concoction. Much depends on which South one is talking about. If one means the white and black southern Unionist parts thereof then maybe so. I suppose most mean the Old Confederacy part thereof then here we have a fallacy. It was not Lincoln who turned out to be the Old Confederacy's best friend but Andrew Johnson as the historical record reflects. In this sense, the murder of Lincoln placed the Old Confederacy in a favorable advantage which they were aggressive to exploit. It is also a fallacy to the claim that Andrew Johnson faithfully was carrying out Lincoln's plan of Reconstruction. Andrew Johnson only attempt to carry out a small version of the Lincoln plan while the essential parts thereof was thrown away. Lincoln and Andrew Johnson were far apart on the issue of Negro rights. How ridiculous to even think Lincoln would have tolerated the former Confederates taking over their old states, imposing the Black Codes, engaged in domestic terrorism upon southern Unionists and, showing disdain and hatred for the 13TH​ amendment. Andrew Johnson promoted these actions by the former Confederates by showing encouragement or no to little interest.

 

[archieclement]

I tend to disagree, there were real differences between Lincoln and the radicals. First and foremost as he showed with slavery he wasn't an ideologue but a compromiser and far more pragmatic. Personally I think he would have vetoed the 14th on same grounds Johnson did, that 11 states weren't present.

Lincoln realized to regain the Union he needed the south back and involved, and the majority of that south was white......he needed them back and involved in the decision making, as in our political system any successful policy would need their consent, as history showed they would be the ones carrying out or not carrying out any laws and policy.

Just as Lincoln was willing to save the Union with or without slavery........he would have used the same philosophy of with or without civil rights equality to speedily accomplish reunion.

 

[archieclement]

Though I suppose one could argue if Lincoln had been able to successfully defend his ten percent plan against the radicals.....the 1866 Senate vote would not have been 33-11-5, as the majority of the 22 returning senators would have joined the 11, making a veto unecessary.

 

[huskerblitz]

Its oft been said Lincolns death was bad for the south............curious how so?

At the time of Lincoln's death a few things already seemed to have happened or were developing.....

The radical wing thought Lincoln had drug his feet on slavery, and took too long to come out in favor of ending it
The radical wing wasn't happy that no suffrage or guarantee of rights had happened, and Lincoln was only considering limited suffrage.
The radical wing also wasn't happy with Lincolns "let em up easy" policy of forgiveness towards reconstruction........
He had already killed their Wade-Davis bill

Now its impossible to know exactly how Lincoln would have reacted to events that hadn't unfolded yet. But assuming Lincoln wasn't assassinated, wouldn't the same administration versus a Radical Congress battle that occurred under Johnson, have also occurred under Lincoln? For any argument that the south would have been better off if Lincoln had lived......wouldn't that entail Lincoln being somehow more successful then Johnson at holding the Radicals off from driving reconstruction? How or what would a "better off" for the south reconstruction under Lincoln have looked like or proceeded?

Johnson wasn't liked very well and a post-war Lincoln would have been hugely popular with citizens and former soldiers. That political capital would have paid a lot of dividends in getting Congress to accept his ideas. I don't think his popularity should be discounted. That, and Lincoln was, I tend to think, a much more master politician than Johnson would ever be.

 

[uaskme]

Don't think the Social Experiment in the South would of happened with Lincoln. Lincoln would of tried to use the Whig element, conservative Whites to form a other than Democratic Party. Johnson was on the Ticket in 64 not a Hamlin, or Radical. Lincoln would of excluded whoever voted, like the Radicals, so as to control the South Politically. South would of been subjugated with Lincoln. That wouldn't have changed.

 

[archieclement]

Don't think the Social Experiment in the South would of happened with Lincoln. Lincoln would of tried to use the Whig element, conservative Whites to form a other than Democratic Party. Johnson was on the Ticket in 64 not a Hamlin, or Radical. Lincoln would of excluded whoever voted, like the Radicals, so as to control the South Politically. South would of been subjugated with Lincoln. That wouldn't have changed.

I agree, reconstruction was Lincolns priority from everything he had said and laid out, he wanted a speedy one to get the south involved again, which in itself would foster unity.......he may have pursued civil rights, but I dont think he would have tied it directly to reconstruction to hinder his first priority.

Just not sure how hard the radicals would have fought him, they disagreed with him alot, but as pointed out he would have been a popular president in public opinion.

 

[BuckeyeWarrior]

Lincoln had been against slavery for most of his life.
Which is very different from Andrew Johnson, who actually owned slaves. Lincoln's views on race had changed considerably since entering the Presidency due to his interactions with black leaders. Andrew Johnson was and remained a racist his whole life.

I think Lincoln would have responded much differently to the black codes that were passed in the southern states in 1866 after the former confederates were voted back into power in those states. He would have been strongly against them. The passage of these black codes is what lead to the "radical" republicans retaking congress in fall of 1866. I think he would have sided more with the policy of the"radical" republicans and this would have increased as resistance to full political and social equality for African Americans increased in the south.

I actually think his assassination was good for the **** of the south. What made it good was his selection of Andrew Johnson as VP. It was horrible for black southerners.

If Lincoln had lived perhaps voting rights would have never been reinstated to the former confederates and Jim Crow and segregation would have never happened. At the very least a President who was for some political and social equality for blacks would have worked much better with "radical" republicans than someone who was strongly against the political and social equality of blacks.

 

[uaskme]

Lincoln had been against slavery for most of his life.
Which is very different from Andrew Johnson, who actually owned slaves. Lincoln's views on race had changed considerably since entering the Presidency due to his interactions with black leaders. Andrew Johnson was and remained a racist his whole life.

I think Lincoln would have responded much differently to the black codes that were passed in the southern states in 1866 after the former confederates were voted back into power in those states. He would have been strongly against them. The passage of these black codes is what lead to the "radical" republicans retaking congress in fall of 1866. I think he would have sided more with the policy of the"radical" republicans and this would have increased as resistance to full political and social equality for African Americans increased in the south.

I actually think his assassination was good for the **** of the south. What made it good was his selection of Andrew Johnson as VP. It was horrible for black southerners.

If Lincoln had lived perhaps voting rights would have never been reinstated to the former confederates and Jim Crow and segregation would have never happened. At the very least a President who was for some political and social equality for blacks would have worked much better with "radical" republicans than someone who was strongly against the political and social equality of blacks.

Radicals gave Blacks the Vote because they knew they could Control them and that they would Vote Republican. Simple as that. There were about 4 Times as many **** in the North than in the South.

Northern White Racist wanted to get Rid if their Fee Blacks. They gave Southern Blacks a few rights hoping they wouldn't move North it search of such. They also anticipated Northern Free Blacks would Go Home, Caribbean didn't work, next option was the South.

Yankees invented Jim Crow. Mythical Northern Narrative is just that!

 

[BuckeyeWarrior]

Radicals gave Blacks the Vote because they knew they could Control them and that they would Vote Republican. Simple as that. There were about 4 Times as many **** in the North than in the South.

Northern White Racist wanted to get Rid if their Fee Blacks. They gave Southern Blacks a few rights hoping they wouldn't move North it search of such. They also anticipated Northern Free Blacks would Go Home, Caribbean didn't work, next option was the South.

Yankees invented Jim Crow. Mythical Northern Narrative is just that!

Some did. Others believed in the equality of all men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens being two examples, there were more.

There were 4 times more racist in the north than the south, there were also 100 times more people in the north that believed in equality between the races than there were in the south.

Yankees didn't invent Jim Crow, America did.

Many of the black code laws passed by the former confederates were nothing more than the old slaved codes with just the word slave replaced. They were attempting to put freed blacks back into a de facto slavery. No northern state did this.

Finally, the right thing done for the wrong reasons is still the right thing.

 

[archieclement]

Lincoln had been against slavery for most of his life.
Which is very different from Andrew Johnson, who actually owned slaves. Lincoln's views on race had changed considerably since entering the Presidency due to his interactions with black leaders. Andrew Johnson was and remained a racist his whole life.

I think Lincoln would have responded much differently to the black codes that were passed in the southern states in 1866 after the former confederates were voted back into power in those states. He would have been strongly against them. The passage of these black codes is what lead to the "radical" republicans retaking congress in fall of 1866. I think he would have sided more with the policy of the"radical" republicans and this would have increased as resistance to full political and social equality for African Americans increased in the south.

I actually think his assassination was good for the **** of the south. What made it good was his selection of Andrew Johnson as VP. It was horrible for black southerners.

If Lincoln had lived perhaps voting rights would have never been reinstated to the former confederates and Jim Crow and segregation would have never happened. At the very least a President who was for some political and social equality for blacks would have worked much better with "radical" republicans than someone who was strongly against the political and social equality of blacks.

Again despite his opposition to slavery, he was willing to preserve it when it suited his other priorities, see little reason civil right wouldn't have also been the same, everything from 1863 to his death indicated speedy and generous reconstruction was his priority, not civil rights.

Also notable most his political career, his state of Illinois had pretty draconian black codes, how often was he speaking out against them?.....Instead he was stating they were an inferior race who never could be equals politically or socially.......

 

[BuckeyeWarrior]

Again despite his opposition to slavery, he was willing to preserve it when it suited his other priorities, see little reason civil right wouldn't have also been the same, everything from 1863 to his death indicated speedy and generous reconstruction was his priority, not civil rights.

Also notable most his political career, his state of Illinois had pretty draconian black codes, how often was he speaking out against them?.....Instead he was stating they were an inferior race who never could be equals politically or socially.......

 

[uaskme]

I agree, reconstruction was Lincolns priority from everything he had said and laid out, he wanted a speedy one to get the south involved again, which in itself would foster unity.......he may have pursued civil rights, but I dont think he would have tied it directly to reconstruction to hinder his first priority.

Just not sure how hard the radicals would have fought him, they disagreed with him alot, but as pointed out he would have been a popular president in public opinion.

Republicans eventually unraveled the Civil Rights Bill. They approved voting in the South. Second Term of Grant, they boot the vote in the North. Republicans wanted a Dominate Political Party, so they used the Negro, then eventually abandoned him. The South, Negro and all would be replace by Western Expansion.

No one knows what Lincoln's Policy would of been. He had several plans prior to Reconstruction. They were rejected by his Party or just died. However, the Republican Movement, Civil War and Reconstruction was about subduing the South. Don't think that would of changed. He always courted the Conservative Union Element. What would he of done to make that work? Or if that didn't work, what he would of done, no one knows. He like all Yankees believed in the Root Hog or Die Concept. I don't think Black Rights has anything to do with it. Yankees wanted Cotton. If Negroes accepted Free Labor, fine. If not and they starved to death. They didn't care. Exceptions to every rule. Yankees came South and attempted to get Ruch growing Cotton. Their attitudes toward blacks were more harsh than Southerners. It is all our there, if you want to find it.

 

[archieclement]

Its not as if it was ancient history, it was Sept 1858, less then 7 years before he died, he elaborated very clearly his view on race.....

His feeling out conceding partial suffrage for those who had fought and died for the Union in a speech.......is hardly refuting his previous views as to equality of the races.......or should more accurately say his views of inequality

 

[BuckeyeWarrior]

I honestly don't know if he ever spoke out on the Illinois black codes. Certainly for most of his life he didn't believe in the social and political equality of African Americans. However, his last speech, the one that got him assassinated, certainly shows he had change in that regard.

"It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. Still the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, 'Will it be wiser to take it as it is, and help to improve it; or to reject, and disperse it?' 'Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining, or by discarding her new State government?'"

Here is the President of the United States supporting limited black suffrage. That is a huge step. I think only two states allowed blacks to vote at the time.

 

[uaskme]

Some did. Others believed in the equality of all men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens being two examples, there were more.

There were 4 times more racist in the north than the south, there were also 100 times more people in the north that believed in equality between the races than there were in the south.

Yankees didn't invent Jim Crow, America did.

Many of the black code laws passed by the former confederates were nothing more than the old slaved codes with just the word slave replaced. They were attempting to put freed blacks back into a de facto slavery. No northern state did this.

Finally, the right thing done for the wrong reasons is still the right thing.

Sumner and Stevens, thats 2. Neither wanted a population of Blacks in the North. Sumner said it was untenable for X Slaves to go North. Stevens wanted to give Southern Lands to the Negro. Why, to keep them in the South. Study the racial attitudes of these people, no different than anybody else.

 

[archieclement]

I honestly don't know if he ever spoke out on the Illinois black codes. Certainly for most of his life he didn't believe in the social and political equality of African Americans. However, his last speech, the one that got him assassinated, certainly shows he had change in that regard.

"It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. Still the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, 'Will it be wiser to take it as it is, and help to improve it; or to reject, and disperse it?' 'Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining, or by discarding her new State government?'"

Here is the President of the United States supporting limited black suffrage. That is a huge step. I think only two states allowed blacks to vote at the time.

Yes, he is feeling out a possible course politically in a speech, politicians do it all the time......

That its very limited, and only tied to a popular cause such as having fought for the Union, hardly indicates it was some new major agenda for him or that his views in general that blacks were inferior socially and politically had changed at all. It would have been simply an easy way to try to placate the radicals as well, by throwing them a bone. A very limited bone.

 

[archieclement]

"It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. Still the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, 'Will it be wiser to take it as it is, and help to improve it; or to reject, and disperse it?' 'Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining, or by discarding her new State government?'"

Note the Unsatisfactory to some........the radicals
He clearly states he is not in favor of giving it to the colored man.......but only on a limited (trial) basis to soldiers and educated freemen.

Then the rest is what I suggested earlier.....to him the suffrage question is the minor point anyway, his priority is how soon can Louisiana be brought back into the Union.....Speedy restoration of the south is the focus and goal, not civil rights, and not suffrage

 

[Louisiana Jayhawker]

It would have been very interest to have see how Lincoln (had he not been shot) would have dealt with the former Confederates domestic terrorism violence as it exploded across the South. As these terrorists murdered and physically assaulted white and black southern Unionists in the post war years. Lincoln and his gracious ten percent plan built for a type of Southerners that only existed in the Lincoln Mind (or in numbers tragically too small) would have evaporated in that violence. Lincoln's personal Presidential Reconstruction in the War years would be untenable by the said violence in those few states involved like Louisiana. I think we would still have a Congressional Reconstruction in control of the Radical Republicans with Lincoln accepting his role of leadership therein. We have those who blind themselves not to see Lincoln as an ongoing act of evolving in brilliant political tactics and understanding of human justice. The Lincoln of 1864 would be different from the Lincoln of 1866 (if he had not been shot) but that movement was also always progressively forward not reactionary backwards. There exist a strong historical record of Lincoln working with the Radical Republicans which is why I recommended Hans Trefousse book: THE RADICAL REPUBLICANS, where this is documented. It is wrong to ignore that History which disagrees with one's self.