Lincoln gets three terms

[Macsporan]

By all accounts Abraham Lincoln was one of the finest souls ever to grace the dirty art of politics with his presence.

Had he not been shot in the back of the head by a coward and lived long enough to be president until 1872 could he have:

Reintergrated the resentful, defeated south more completely and gracefully than in our TL?

Raised negroes to full active citizenship and checked the efforts of southern racists to keep them as perpetually segregagted second class crypto-slaves?

Checked the excesses of the Guilded Age?


Any thoughts?

 

[Brilliantlight]

By all accounts Abraham Lincoln was one of the finest souls ever to grace the dirty art of politics with his presence.

Had he not been shot in the back of the head by a coward and lived long enough to be president until 1872 could he have:

Reintergrated the resentful, defeated south more completely and gracefully than in our TL?

Raised negroes to full active citizenship and checked the efforts of southern racists to keep them as perpetually segregagted second class crypto-slaves?

Checked the excesses of the Guilded Age?


Any thoughts?

Yes, no and no. Lincoln was a great president but the South was too wedded to the ideas of slavery and black inferiority for them to allow blacks to have full active citizenship. I don't know if Lincoln would have even tried to check the excesses of the Guilded Age as he probably would have felt that was necessary for economic progress which it well may have been.

 

[Macsporan]

Oh Really?

What if Lincoln had maintained an armed black militia in the South and backed it up with Federal Marshalls?

I was not aware that Lincoln was a friend of corruption in government nor that he was willing to pander to over-mighty subjects with delusions of industrial feudalism.

Surely such a man as he, the victorious leader tried in the fires of war, would have not tamely handed the country he had saved and loved to southern rednecks and heartless capitalist beasts?

 

[Beck Reilly]

What if Lincoln had maintained an armed black militia in the South and backed it up with Federal Marshalls?

This would be completely infeasible. This would not just spark decades of insurgent warfare in the South, but it would find no support among northern whites, either. This plan, well, it just makes no sense.

Surely such a man as he, the victorious leader tried in the fires of war, would have not tamely handed the country he had saved and loved to southern rednecks and heartless capitalist beasts?

Very poetic.

 

[Macsporan]

Actually this was exactly what the Federal government did for some years after the war to maintain the Carpetbagger regimes in power.

When they left they took the guns with them, diarming the black militia and leaving them to the mercy of the KKK.

It beats me why with so many people willing to speculate at such enormous length as to what a wonderful world it would have been if the CSA had won, why no one seems to be interested in what might have happened if the most adored and capable president the US ever had, had a proper crack at the problems of peace.

Surely this is much more interesting and pleasant to comtemplate than several decades of continuing flogging,child-selling and assorted, unspeakable abuse?

 

[Beck Reilly]

...It beats me why with so many people willing to speculate at such enormous length as to what a wonderful world it would have been if the CSA had won, why no one seems to be interested in what might have happened if the most adored and capable president the US ever had, had a proper crack at the problems of peace...

First of all, no one that I know of has ever suggested that the world would be "wonderful" had the Confederacy beaten the North. While some TL's portray the CSA as decent, it has never been portrayed as wonderful. Second, a world where the CSA is simply more interesting (not better) than a world with a different peace, especially a better peace. Conflict just generally makes for better writing material than harmony does.

Third, Most adored and capable? I think that's all a matter of perspective. As for "adored," near half the country (whether justifiably or not) hated him and his ideas enough to launch a civil war over the very fact that he was elected. As for "capable," for instance, he did not support Winfield Scott's plan to end the war, instead choosing to stand idly by while the war hero was abused by the press, only to eventually adopt that very plan three years later. He could possibly have prevented years of civil war by supporting Scott and could possibly have prevented the secession of the northern tier of states with better political maneuvering. Again, his popularity and ability changes depending on which angle you take.

 

[DMS]

Nit-picking but

an important nit-pick to me.


" . . near half the country (whether justifiably or not) hated him . . ."

Half the country measured how? By number of states? Certainly not by population, even just the white population.

 

[Wombat]

Despite the propaganda, Lincoln put om pants one leg at a time, same as everyone else. Don't get me wrong, I think Lincoln was one of the great presidents of all time. but that was becase of his fault, not despite them! Lincoln would have put a lot of resources toward black resettlement in Liberia.
He was also famous for saying that he would keep slavery if that would retain the Union - he was a unionist first and foremost. If he had stood for a third term I believe black americans would have been WORSE off - he probably have done everything he could have to re-intergrate the south to maintain "a more perfect union".

 

[Brilliantlight]

He was also famous for saying that he would keep slavery if that would retain the Union

That was a few weeks before the Emancipation Proclomation after he decided he would free the slaves. He wanted two things 1) Some sort of victory so as not to look like he was doing so out of desperation 2) To make it clear that he not the abolishnists was to determine when that would happen.

 

[Wombat]

That was a few weeks before the Emancipation Proclomation after he decided he would free the slaves. He wanted two things 1) Some sort of victory so as not to look like he was doing so out of desperation 2) To make it clear that he not the abolishnists was to determine when that would happen.

Won't argue at all, but he wasn't the great liberator so many people say he was - he was a man of his times who reacted to the events he faced - he didn't guide those events!

 

[Macsporan]

Moonlight and Magnolia

Once again I am astonished that people who view the Confederacy and its leaders through a sentimental haze, can find almost nothing to say about the only authentic genius of the Civil War era, at least on the Northern side.

If agree with Bill Cameron: SLAVERY WAS EVIL, the Confederacy was an abomnation and I am glad it fell.

Take away R E Lee and what is left of its reputation?

Post Civil War governments faced a number of problems

The vengeful northern radicals who wished to punish the South for its treason.

The role and status of the newly freed black slaves.

The rise of ruthless corporate "robber barons" in the north.

The pervasive and systematic corruption political system.

Ulysses S Grant, to whom fell these problems after the interregnum of Johnson, though a first rate general was a fifth rate politician.

He basically let his unscrupulous colleges enrich themselves at the trough, the rednecks take over the South and the robber barons run amuck.

After half-hearted efforts he abandoned the blacks to their fate.

How would Lincoln have handled all these problems?

 

[Derek Jackson]

I believe that Lincoln was a step or two ahead of Northern Public opinion during his Presidency. I think that this made him exactly the best likely President for that most troubled time.

A lot of people manage to confuse “Harshness to the South†with justice for former slaves.

Lincoln was willing to allow Southern State Governments to be re-established on exceptionally favorable terms. He plainly believed that if he did this his generosity would call forth an equally generous response from the White Southern.

In OTL Lincoln was murdered in April 1865.

It is true that Andrew Johnson was carrying out Lincoln’s plans when he allowed the attempt at re-establishing the Southern governments.

What then happened was that the Southern voters chose people most closely linked to treason (As defined by the US Constitution “Making War on the United Statesâ€.) Furthermore although they realized that they had no chance of openly reintroducing slavery they did all they could to limit the rights of the millions who had been property until a few months earlier.

White Unionists also seem to have suffered

In OTL Johnson accepted the behaviour of the re-established Southern governments.

Congress and Northern opinion were outraged- rightly so in my opinion. That caused the deep rift which eventually led to the failed impeachment of Johnson. (Who was I believe the most damaging President in OTL.)

Lincoln was a mainstream Republican. At the time of his murder he probably would not have gone for manhood suffrage in the South.

However I believe it is likely that he would have taken the same view of other mainstream Republicans after the outrageous behaviour of the White South towards that most exceptionally generous victor.

The most optimistic – and I believe possible- outcome of Lincoln surviving is that Radical Reconstruction in the sense of enforcing Voting and other Civil Rights would happen a bit earlier. It would have been done more competently. Probably the military people would have been chosen by Lincoln based on their believing in what they were doing.

It MIGHT be that without Johnson’s encouragement that old South would feel less bold. It might be that different and Justices, more sympathetic to former slaves, would be appointed. It could happen that the 15th Amendment would actually have been enforced.


I have to confess that it is also possible that Lincoln would have allowed things to go onto “Business as Usual†in the South and would have been able to prevent Congress from doing anything else.

I know that I am inclined to take a favourable view of Lincoln and am in part influenced by the “martyr†issue.


By the way I have also heard it claimed that Lincoln had major health problems. Would he have survived a second term?

On the other hand if Lincoln were in tolerable health and had been re-elected in 1868 would there not have been pressure on him to run again – more or less until he dropped?

 

[robertp6165]

an important nit-pick to me.


" . . near half the country (whether justifiably or not) hated him . . ."

Half the country measured how? By number of states? Certainly not by population, even just the white population.

Yes, you can figure by population. You can figure that just about all white Southerners hated him. And Northern Democrats pretty well hated him too. Add those together, and you have "near half the country."

 

[robertp6165]

By all accounts Abraham Lincoln was one of the finest souls ever to grace the dirty art of politics with his presence.

Had he not been shot in the back of the head by a coward and lived long enough to be president until 1872 could he have:

Reintergrated the resentful, defeated south more completely and gracefully than in our TL?

Raised negroes to full active citizenship and checked the efforts of southern racists to keep them as perpetually segregagted second class crypto-slaves?

Checked the excesses of the Guilded Age?


Any thoughts?

Could he have reintegrated the "resentful, defeated south" more completely and gracefully than in our TL? Very possibly. The policies he talked about implementing were very similar to those of Andrew Johnson, and Lincoln, unlike Johnson (who was a Southern Democrat and therefore didn't hold a lot of clout with the Radical Republicans) would have probably been able to hold the Radicals in check.

Could he have "Raised negroes to full active citizenship and checked the efforts of southern racists to keep them as perpetually segregagted second class crypto-slaves?" Only if he is able to prevent the members of his own party from imposing carpetbag government on the Southern States, and using the blacks as a power base with which to dominate the majority population. This is what caused the bitter reaction which lead to the evils of Jim Crow in OTL. I think Lincoln was CAPABLE of doing that, but whether the will was there, I don't know. Lincoln was a somewhat corrupt politician, and may very well have not seen any harm in his Republican colleagues going South to line their own pockets.

Could he have "checked the excesses of the Guilded Age?" He might have, if the interest in doing so was there. His more likely reaction, based on his past history, would have been to encourage those excesses. Lincoln was very much a "Big Business" politician. The Robber Barons would have loved him.

 

[Paul Spring]

Lincoln was a very complex man, certainly far from the one-dimensional saint or demon that he has been portrayed as by his admirers and detractors.

Lincoln's views on slavery and racial relations changed significantly over time. He always disliked slavery in general, but for most of his life he held views that would definitely be considered racist today. He believed that free blacks and whites would have great difficulty living alongside each other, and that perhaps the best possible solution would be to have freed slaves move to Liberia or some other colony in Africa (or possibly Central or South America), leaving the US as a "white man's country". He was elected on a platform pledged to opposing the expansion of slavery into new territory, not ending slavery itself. In the first half of the Civil War, his #1 priority was clearly preserving the Union, even if that was a Union that included slavery. From 1862 onward, however, there was a fairly strong shift. He gradually dropped the idea of "colonization" (ie, sending most of the ex-slaves to Africa or somewhere else) and accepted that most blacks would remain in the US. He encouraged the recruitment of blacks into the Union army, both free blacks and recently freed slaves - and did this over the objections of some of the Union military "brass". Accounts of the bravery of "colored" soldiers probably eroded any remaining racism further. Lincoln pushed for the 13th amendment which would end slavery everywhere in the US, and by early 1865 he appears to have been supportive of further amendments that would guarantee blacks equal protection under the law and the right to vote - which would eventually become the 14th and 15th amendments.

By 1865, it's very unlikely that Lincoln would be ready to accept the southern states with their newly-enacted "black codes" and their determination to keep blacks in a state as close to slavery as possible.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Yes, you can figure by population. You can figure that just about all white Southerners hated him. And Northern Democrats pretty well hated him too. Add those together, and you have "near half the country."

When Lincoln was assasinated in 1865 most Southerners were opposed to it as they figured Lincoln would have been easier on them then Johnson. How much easier the North could have been on the South beats me. I would have the tendency to be MUCH tougher on the South then Johnson was without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

 

[robertp6165]

Lincoln was a very complex man, certainly far from the one-dimensional saint or demon that he has been portrayed as by his admirers and detractors.

Lincoln's views on slavery and racial relations changed significantly over time. He always disliked slavery in general, but for most of his life he held views that would definitely be considered racist today. He believed that free blacks and whites would have great difficulty living alongside each other, and that perhaps the best possible solution would be to have freed slaves move to Liberia or some other colony in Africa (or possibly Central or South America), leaving the US as a "white man's country". He was elected on a platform pledged to opposing the expansion of slavery into new territory, not ending slavery itself. In the first half of the Civil War, his #1 priority was clearly preserving the Union, even if that was a Union that included slavery. From 1862 onward, however, there was a fairly strong shift. He gradually dropped the idea of "colonization" (ie, sending most of the ex-slaves to Africa or somewhere else) and accepted that most blacks would remain in the US. He encouraged the recruitment of blacks into the Union army, both free blacks and recently freed slaves - and did this over the objections of some of the Union military "brass". Accounts of the bravery of "colored" soldiers probably eroded any remaining racism further. Lincoln pushed for the 13th amendment which would end slavery everywhere in the US, and by early 1865 he appears to have been supportive of further amendments that would guarantee blacks equal protection under the law and the right to vote - which would eventually become the 14th and 15th amendments.

By 1865, it's very unlikely that Lincoln would be ready to accept the southern states with their newly-enacted "black codes" and their determination to keep blacks in a state as close to slavery as possible.

I can agree with all that (although I would point out that the "black codes" were based on those existing in certain Northern States at the time). It is possible, too, that with Lincoln at the helm (instead of Southern Democrat Johnson), the newly formed Southern State governments might be less likely to pass such things in the first place.

 

[DMS]

IIRC,

you like to claim historical facts behind your views, which often don't seem to appear in your posts.

"Yes, you can figure by population. You can figure that just about all white Southerners hated him. And Northern Democrats pretty well hated him too. Add those together, and you have "near half the country."

Are there hidden facts behind this? Off the top of my head, I think what would have to be done is to identify the number of Northern Democrats. Of course, you can't use voters because the majority of people couldn't vote. High-quality data on party affiliation in 1860? Then you'd need to get information on their feelings about Lincoln. That should be simple enough, right? Then contrast them against the feelings of Southerners.

An uninformed person might think the two sets of feelings are utterly incomparable. After all, Lincoln won election, then reelection against a well-known opponent. Manifestations of dissent were mild considering a horribly costly and, for some time, unsuccessful war, which would have challenged the popularity of the most beloved President. That is my, admittedly indirect, evidence that half the population did not in fact hate Lincoln. No doubt you have powerful evidence showing millions of Northerners secretly hating Lincoln the way Southerners did but hiding it completely.

Alternately, I have some evidence that you are a pathetic excuse for a human being, but it's open to differences of interpretation.

 

[DMS]

Yes, of course!

"Only if he is able to prevent the members of his own party from imposing carpetbag government on the Southern States, and using the blacks as a power base with which to dominate the majority population. This is what caused the bitter reaction which lead to the evils of Jim Crow in OTL."


It was carpetbaggers which lead to the Jim Crow system! Without northern aggression, blacks would have been treated much better in the south. You can see that from the way they were treated prior to 1861.

 

[robertp6165]

you like to claim historical facts behind your views, which often don't seem to appear in your posts.

Well, I do a damn sight more documenting than most of the "neo-abolitionists" do around here. Very few posts by those people contain anything but their own opinions. And when you ask them to back up what they say with sources, they never do. Given that fact, why should I have to give supporting evidence for everything I say?

"Yes, you can figure by population. You can figure that just about all white Southerners hated him. And Northern Democrats pretty well hated him too. Add those together, and you have "near half the country."

Are there hidden facts behind this? Off the top of my head, I think what would have to be done is to identify the number of Northern Democrats. Of course, you can't use voters because the majority of people couldn't vote. So I'm not sure what can be done there. Then you'd need to get information on their feelings about Lincoln. That should be simple enough, right? Then contrast them against the feelings of Southerners.

A uninformed person might think the two sets of feelings are utterly incomparable. After all, Lincoln won election, then reelection against a well-known opponent. Manifestations of dissent were mild in the face of a horribly costly and, for some time, unsuccessful war, which would have challenged the popularity of the most beloved President. That is my, admittedly indirect, evidence that half the population did not in fact hate Lincoln. No doubt you have powerful evidence showing millions of Northerners secretly hating Lincoln but hiding it completely.

Yes, you can use voters, because in a democratic political system, voters (or those eligible to vote, anyway) are the only ones who really count, and the voters will tend to represent what the non-voters want in most cases anyway. The only significant non-voting population in the north anyway was the female half of the population, and there is certainly no evidence that they felt any differently about Lincoln than the male voting population. And, looking at the vote, Lincoln did not win the 1864 election in a landslide in the popular vote. He got 2,218,388 votes to 1,812,807 votes for McClellan. Add those 1,812,807 people to the voters of the South, and you have probably a majority. You certainly have "nearly half," which is what Beck Reilly (whose post you first attacked) claimed in the first place.

Alternately, I have some evidence that you are a pathetic excuse for a human being, but it's open to differences of interpretation.

I don't think I will dignify that with a response, except to say, as I have said to other posters who can't seem to defend their position without resorting to name calling...GET A LIFE.