Reconstruction under Lincoln


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

major bill

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
14,688
#22
The KKK formed in December of 1865, the 14th Amendment passed in April of 1866. How fast the KKK may have grown is open to discussion and the 14th Amendment may have caused it to grow faster.

Are we assuming that Lincoln would have resisted allowing black to be citizens? Even is blacks were denied citizenship in 1866, at some point blacks would have been granted citizenship, perhaps while Lincoln was president, perhaps after. So if blacks had not become citizens until say 1880, then the KKK would have became popular until 1880?
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,511
Location
mo
#23
The KKK formed in December of 1865, the 14th Amendment passed in April of 1866. How fast the KKK may have grown is open to discussion and the 14th Amendment may have caused it to grow faster.

Are we assuming that Lincoln would have resisted allowing black to be citizens? Even is blacks were denied citizenship in 1866, at some point blacks would have been granted citizenship, perhaps while Lincoln was president, perhaps after. So if blacks had not become citizens until say 1880, then the KKK would have became popular until 1880?
Well we know during the CW when california passed anti coolie laws, he didn't respond by disbanding the California legislature for an appointed one and put California under military occupation...…..so dont think he would have reacted to the new southern governments any different over black codes.

Not saying he wouldn't have encouraged black suffrage, but it would have been more gradual by necessity....which more gradual is relative, as by passing the 14th and 15th it took almost 100 years for the laws to be enforceable
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,114
Location
los angeles ca
#24
Definition of radical
a: very different from the usual or traditional: extreme
b: favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c: associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs the radical right
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical

Definition of Republican
(Entry 1 of 3)
1: one that favors or supports a republican form of government
2 capitalized
a: a member of a political party advocating republicanism
b: a member of the Democratic-Republican party or of the Republican party of the U.S.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republican

My definition of Radical Republican: A political extremist during the 1860s and 1870s.
Excellent job of evading the obvious. By Radical Republican do you mean Republicans who supported equal rights for African Americans vs the Democratic party that did not until many decades later?
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,114
Location
los angeles ca
#25
Well we know during the CW when california passed anti coolie laws, he didn't respond by disbanding the California legislature for an appointed one and put California under military occupation...…..so dont think he would have reacted to the new southern governments any different over black codes.

Not saying he wouldn't have encouraged black suffrage, but it would have been more gradual by necessity....which more gradual is relative, as by passing the 14th and 15th it took almost 100 years for the laws to be enforceable
California did not try to secede from the Union the Confederate did.
Leftyhunter
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,511
Location
mo
#26
Excellent job of evading the obvious. By Radical Republican do you mean Republicans who supported equal rights for African Americans vs the Democratic party that did not until many decades later?
Leftyhunter
I would think it would be used to differentiate from moderate and conservative Republican's who didn't share their views more so then a different party...…..
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,511
Location
mo
#30
There would be if one somehow thought it was worth military occupation for civil rights.....if one is willing to downplay the civil rights of the Chinese you are correct

So only Republicans who supported equal rights for African Americans are radical?
As I only hear it used during this period to differentiate a wing within the Republican party.....would assume so
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,114
Location
los angeles ca
#31
There would be if one somehow thought it was worth military occupation for civil rights.....if one is willing to downplay the civil rights of the Chinese you are correct


As I only hear it used during this period to differentiate a wing within the Republican party.....would assume so
Did Chinese have full and equal rights to white people in the South post ACW. Did Southerners clamor for equal rights for all in California ? Why do we use the pejorative term Radical for Republicans who supported equal rights?
Leftyhunter
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,511
Location
mo
#32
Did Chinese have full and equal rights to white people in the South post ACW. Did Southerners clamor for equal rights for all in California ? Why do we use the pejorative term Radical for Republicans who supported equal rights?
Leftyhunter
Civil rights is civil rights, if one thinks its a priority it should be equally a priority for any race one would think......And would assume that we use the pejorative term radical for republicans, because when it comes into usage the actual legal standard of the day was no equal rights.….so it would have been a radical position against what was the norm at the time.

If your fine with the anti coolie laws just say do, but California passing them during the war had nothing to do with the postwar south.....The lack of reaction to the anti-civil rights laws of California by the Federal government would be a precedent that it isn't going to elicit some major response of disbanding elected governments and occupation however from that president.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,114
Location
los angeles ca
#33
Civil rights is civil rights, if one thinks its a priority it should be equally a priority for any race one would think......And would assume that we use the pejorative term radical for republicans, because when it comes into usage the actual legal standard of the day was no equal rights.….so it would have been a radical position against what was the norm at the time.
My point is if the Southern whites were up in arms about the rights of the Chinese and Indian's as are some of our pro Confederate posters they did not show it. The term Radical is in the context of American politics a pejorative term. Perhaps non racist Republicans would be a more accurate term then " radical Republican".
Leftyhunter
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,511
Location
mo
#34
My point is if the Southern whites were up in arms about the rights of the Chinese and Indian's as are some of our pro Confederate posters they did not show it. The term Radical is in the context of American politics a pejorative term. Perhaps non racist Republicans would be a more accurate term then " radical Republican".
Leftyhunter
no going against what was the legal normal standard of the day would meet pretty much every defination of radical that was provided, its quite accurate. Also the radical wing didn't express much concern over the anti coolie law, or treatment of Indians, so non racist would be quite false

You keep seeming to imply its Ok to be racist against some people as long as you aren't others...…….that still quite racist however...….
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,114
Location
los angeles ca
#35
no going against what was the legal normal standard of the day would meet pretty much every defination of radical that was provided, its quite accurate. Also the radical wing didn't express much concern over the anti coolie law, or treatment of Indians, so non racist would be quite false

You keep seeming to imply its Ok to be racist against some people as long as you aren't others...…….that still quite racist however...….
That is a false accusation. I just pointed out that no Southern politician or news media from the Reconstruction era has been cited that opposed any racist policy against Indians or the Chinese.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,114
Location
los angeles ca
#36
no going against what was the legal normal standard of the day would meet pretty much every defination of radical that was provided, its quite accurate. Also the radical wing didn't express much concern over the anti coolie law, or treatment of Indians, so non racist would be quite false

You keep seeming to imply its Ok to be racist against some people as long as you aren't others...…….that still quite racist however...….
Also you are making a false statement regarding legal norms. Even in the antebellum era some states such has New York had no legal restrictions on black suffrage not did they have miscegenation laws.
Leftyhunter
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,511
Location
mo
#37
Gee you seem to go "but they did it too" which is frankly irrelevant unless your using it as some excuse....and then you call a political group non racist.....when they obviously did share many of the racial prejudices of the day....so no they weren't non racist...….

Also you are making a false statement regarding legal norms
And no I'm not, the OP is about Lincoln and national policy, and the use of radical in a national, not a regional party.....you comparing apples to oranges to try to reach a false point...….
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,114
Location
los angeles ca
#38
Gee you seem to go "but they did it too" which is frankly irrelevant unless your using it as some excuse....and then you call a political group non racist.....when they obviously did share many of the racial prejudices of the day....so no they weren't non racist...….



And no I'm not, the OP is about Lincoln and national policy, and the use of radical in a national, not a regional party.....you comparing apples to oranges to try to reach a false point...….
US policy towards Indians and Chinese is the " they did it to argument" because it has nothing to do with Lincoln's Reconstruction policy. Since it was brought up it is correct to note that while contemporary supporters of the Confederacy may be outraged over then federal policy to the Indian and Chinese people in America the Southern whites of the Reconstruction era were not.
Equality for all was not radical because as mentioned not all states had de jure Apartheid against African Americans.
Leftyhunter
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,511
Location
mo
#39
US policy towards Indians and Chinese is the " they did it to argument" because it has nothing to do with Lincoln's Reconstruction policy. Since it was brought up it is correct to note that while contemporary supporters of the Confederacy may be outraged over then federal policy to the Indian and Chinese people in America the Southern whites of the Reconstruction era were not.
Equality for all was not radical because as mentioned not all states had de jure Apartheid against African Americans.
Leftyhunter
Again its not a "they did it too argument" at all, but simply a fact that anti civil rights legislation had been passed by a US state under Lincolns watch prior, and it drew no reaction.....theres no reason to speculate he would react differently to another state doing the same, we do actually have a precedent that he didn't step into a state enacting anti-rights law.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top