Lincoln gets three terms

[robertp6165]

"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.

If you look at the way free blacks were treated in the South prior to 1861, you certainly can see that. Free blacks in the South were, in general, not segregated, were allowed to own property...even slaves...and become very wealthy. They had no POLITICAL rights, but then, that was the case everywhere at that time. Segregation was a Northern invention which was adopted in the South after the war, in large part because it was "what the victors did."

 

[Macsporan]

Oh Really?

The picture you present of the innocent South adopting Northern segregationist laws--in effect being corrupted by their evil conquerers--is specious in the extreme.

After 150 years of brutal cowardly slavery they needed neither encouragement or example to keep the blacks "in their place."

As one of us has noted Lincoln wanted a magnanimous peace but expected in return a magnanimous settlement within the South.

Unlike Johnson and Grant he had the wisdom and authority to insist on it, and I believe would have done so.

Although he had come to enlightenment slowly and by devious routes he was genuinely proud of his reputation as "The Great Emancipator" and would have guarded it against all comers.

 

[DMS]

I did miss something.

"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."

Nor is there any evidence they felt the same. What limited evidence we do have on gender patterns is the from this century and transnational. It suggests there are usually sizable differences in political preferences. Of course, we don't know which way any differences would have cut. Which brings us to:


"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."

The Southern white population + 1.8 million is not anything like a majority, of course. But that's not the good part. The good part is that, for this sentence to make any sense, voting for McClellan has to be considered an expression of hating Lincoln with the same intensity as people in the South hated Lincoln. This is a terrific insight we should apply elsewhere. For example, there are people in the Middle East who hate President Bush in large part because they are at war with the country he leads. Clearly we can conclude that everyone who voted for Senator Kerry feels exactly the same way as they do.


"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 . . .

This I would expect from you: the majority of the population is not importantly different than the majority of voters. If it so happens that women and non-whites can't vote and they constitute a majority of the population, meh. Voters are the only ones who really count. Everyone agrees with what they say, anyway. Also, the Confederacy was obviously a democracy. It had voting, after all. And in a democracy, voters are the only ones who really count. So the only people who really count in the Confederacy (or the Union, for that matter) are . . .



"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."

I edited in my comment about you possibly being a disgusting human being only after reading your next post blaming carpetbaggers for Jim Crow. Before that, this was to be a sharp but impersonal exchange. The carpetbagger remark was so ridiculous, however, it deserved more. And I see from your reply it gets even better.


"Segregation was a Northern invention which was adopted in the South after the war, in large part because it was "what the victors did."

Yes, certainly didn't see much segregation in the pre-ACW South, did we? Just the distance from the manor to the shed. Things were obviously better then. That dastardly northern invention of segregation was responsible for so many ills which the beautiful South of 1860 didn't suffer from. Also, segregating the Tutu from the Hutsi was a terrible idea. Segregation bad, very bad. Slavery understandable and transient.


"If you look at the way free blacks were treated in the South prior to 1861, you certainly can see that. Free blacks in the South were, in general, not segregated, were allowed to own property...even slaves...and become very wealthy."

Of course. When considering what would have happened in the absence of carpetbaggers, the proper sample is the 0.1 percent of free blacks, not the 99.9% who were subject to beating, rapes, and murder by their masters. That's how we know what the South would have done if left to its own devices in 1866, look at a tiny, incomparably exceptional minority of the black population. Also, if you want to know what the Nazi Party would have done if left in power by the Allies, the proper sample is to consider those few thousand Jews with enough local influence to be allowed to remain in their homes.


On reading and rereading, what I missed the first time around is that the possibility that you are simply a moron. I lean against that, though, in favor of the disgusting human being supposition. Yes, I'm resorting to name-calling in addition to making points. Just making points feels insufficient in the face of this kind of nonsense.

 

[Beck Reilly]

...Of course. When considering what would have happened in the absence of carpetbaggers, the proper sample is the 0.1 percent of free blacks, not the 99.9% who were subject to beating, rapes, and murder by their masters...

On reading and rereading, what I missed the first time around is that the possibility that you are simply a moron. I lean against that, though, in favor of the disgusting human being supposition. Yes, I'm resorting to name-calling in addition to making points. Just making points feels insufficient in the face of this kind of nonsense.

First of all, you're exaggerating. Slaves were hardly ever murdered, as that would simply be a waste of money, to put it coldly. I don't believe Robert is trying to state that the South was Disneyland before the Civil War, but, rather, that the pre-war free blacks were treated generally better than the post-war free blacks. That's it.

There is certainly no reason to be aggressive. Robert is trying to make his point through the use of logic and historical data. He always treats others courteously, regardless of how nonsensical their posts might be. For you to call him a moron because you disagree with the facts that he has presented and the manner in which he has presented them is simply out of line.

 

[Beck Reilly]

...This I would expect from you: the majority of the population is not importantly different than the majority of voters. If it so happens that women and non-whites can't vote and they constitute a majority of the population, meh. Voters are the only ones who really count. Everyone agrees with what they say, anyway. Also, the Confederacy was obviously a democracy. It had voting, after all. And in a democracy, voters are the only ones who really count. So the only people who really count in the Confederacy (or the Union, for that matter) are...

Since I started this whole controversy unintentionally, I believe I should take this opportunity to end it. I was referring to the majority of the voting population. (i.e. the white population of the South, plus those who voted for McClellan equals well over half of the voting population, those who made the decisions of the time). Those people obviously either: A) disliked Lincoln personally, B) disliked his politics, or C) generally hated everything about him. Since the voters are the ones who ultimately make the decisions of state, I am going to go out on a limb and say, that in the case of whether or not the populace liked Lincoln, well over half of the voting population is sufficient enough evidence that near half the population probably did not.

Now, I know that to make such an accusation scientifically, I would have to physically travel back to the nineteenth century and poll every single man, woman, and child, living either in the north or south, black or white. Since I’m fresh out of ideas as to how I could do such a thing (I’m open to suggestions), I’m going to use the voters as a cross-section of society (since, in a democracy, such a thing must be true if the country is to be well-run), and say that near half the population did not like Abraham Lincoln.

 

[DuQuense]

Getting away from the Black Issue,

Remember Lincoln was a Politician, and from all evidence a very good one. But He was also a Corporative Lawyer, And a Good one. He was also loyal to his corporative sponsers

Also the Republican party in 1860 was a alliance between the northern Abolitionists, and the Western Free Landers .

I believe that these two forces would have been in conflict during Lincoln's second term. Whe would be WI-ing about What if ,Lincoln had been assassinated before the Railroad, or the Homestead , or the ?X??X? Scandals Tarnished His Reputation.

I doubt that he would have run for a third term.

 

[Macsporan]

Let Lincoln be Lincoln

This is to deny Lincoln any insight into human nature of skill as a politician.

He was not a drunken incompetent like Johnson or naive and confused like Grant but a statesman tested in the fires. His reputation and stature would have been similar to Nelson Mandela's.

He would have run an honest regime and there would have been no scandals.

However his health might have let him down in the end.

 

[robertp6165]

The picture you present of the innocent South adopting Northern segregationist laws--in effect being corrupted by their evil conquerers--is specious in the extreme.

After 150 years of brutal cowardly slavery they needed neither encouragement or example to keep the blacks "in their place."

As one of us has noted Lincoln wanted a magnanimous peace but expected in return a magnanimous settlement within the South.

Unlike Johnson and Grant he had the wisdom and authority to insist on it, and I believe would have done so.

Although he had come to enlightenment slowly and by devious routes he was genuinely proud of his reputation as "The Great Emancipator" and would have guarded it against all comers.

I already agreed that with Lincoln in power, the South might be less likely to try passing harsh anti-black laws. See my post in reply to Paul Spring.

However, it is a historical fact that segregation was introduced into the South AFTER the war, and that it existed in the North BEFORE the war.

 

[robertp6165]

He would have run an honest regime and there would have been no scandals.

I'm sorry, I do have to disagree there...Lincoln engaged in some rather shady deals (such as using inside political knowledge to buy up lands in areas where he knew railroad development was likely to be subsidized by the government, thus setting himself up to make a large windfall profit when the railroad bought the land later on) prior to becoming President, and there is no particular reason why he would stop doing this now.

 

[robertp6165]

First of all, you're exaggerating. Slaves were hardly ever murdered, as that would simply be a waste of money, to put it coldly. I don't believe Robert is trying to state that the South was Disneyland before the Civil War, but, rather, that the pre-war free blacks were treated generally better than the post-war free blacks. That's it.

There is certainly no reason to be aggressive. Robert is trying to make his point through the use of logic and historical data. He always treats others courteously, regardless of how nonsensical their posts might be. For you to call him a moron because you disagree with the facts that he has presented and the manner in which he has presented them is simply out of line.

Thank you, Beck. You answered this as well as I could have wished to have done myself.

 

[robertp6165]

Yes, certainly didn't see much segregation in the pre-ACW South, did we? Just the distance from the manor to the shed.

The North had segregation laws prior to the war, and the South didn't. I'm sorry if you don't like the historical facts as they exist, but that does not change the facts.

Things were obviously better then. That dastardly northern invention of segregation was responsible for so many ills which the beautiful South of 1860 didn't suffer from.

I never said things were rosy in the South in 1860. I said simply that segregation was not used there at that time. Things weren't good for blacks anywhere in the country in 1860. Free blacks in the South, however, probably had it better than any other set of blacks in the country at that time. They could eat in the same restaurants, worship in the same churches, purchase in the same stores, and ride on the same railroad cars as whites. The same could not be said for free blacks in the North at that time.

Also, segregating the Tutu from the Hutsi was a terrible idea. Segregation bad, very bad. Slavery understandable and transient.

Tutu? Hutsi? Where, exactly, do they fit into a debate over conditions in the United States in the 1860s??? And I have never defended slavery. Let's not set up straw men, shall we?

Of course. When considering what would have happened in the absence of carpetbaggers, the proper sample is the 0.1 percent of free blacks, not the 99.9% who were subject to beating, rapes, and murder by their masters. That's how we know what the South would have done if left to its own devices in 1866, look at a tiny, incomparably exceptional minority of the black population.

Other than to nitpick and point out that you are underestimating the percentage of free blacks in the South (it was actually about 1 percent of the total black population, not 1/10 of one percent), I would clarify what we are actually discussing...my original statement that Jim Crow was adopted as a reaction to carpetbag government, in large part because blacks were used as a power base by carpetbag Republican politicians in order to dominate the Democratic white majority of the South. You may find that claim nonsensical. But it is a historical fact regardless.

The Martin Luther King Center has this to say of Jim Crow..."From the 1880s into the 1960s, a majority of American states enforced segregation through "Jim Crow" laws (so called after a black character in minstrel shows). From Delaware to California, and from North Dakota to Texas, many states (and cities, too) could impose legal punishments on people for consorting with members of another race. The most common types of laws forbade intermarriage and ordered business owners and public institutions to keep their black and white clientele separated."

This passage is interesting for several reasons...

1) First, it shows that Jim Crow was not a uniquely Southern phenomenon. It existed in a majority of states in the Union at that time.

2) It also gives us the approximate time frame when Jim Crow existed in the South...from the 1880s onward to the Civil Rights revolution in the 1960s...which fits exactly in with my claim that it was adopted by the restored Southern State governments after Reconstruction as a reaction to the carpetbag governments which ruled the South up until that time.

3) It also shows what Jim Crow was...segregation. So your rhetoric about the mis-treatment of slaves really has no relevance to what we are discussing. I don't deny that such things happened to slaves (even the part about murder, although, as Beck Reilly points out, this was an extremely rare occurrence). And for the record, I do think slavery was an unmitigated evil. But we are not discussing the evils of slavery right now, we are discussing post-war Jim Crow laws. They are two different things.

On reading and rereading, what I missed the first time around is that the possibility that you are simply a moron. I lean against that, though, in favor of the disgusting human being supposition. Yes, I'm resorting to name-calling in addition to making points. Just making points feels insufficient in the face of this kind of nonsense.

Well, call me names if that makes you feel better. As I recently said to another poster, calling me names doesn't win your argument for you, it simply makes you look stupid.

 

[Brilliantlight]

I'm sorry, I do have to disagree there...Lincoln engaged in some rather shady deals (such as using inside political knowledge to buy up lands in areas where he knew railroad development was likely to be subsidized by the government, thus setting himself up to make a large windfall profit when the railroad bought the land later on) prior to becoming President, and there is no particular reason why he would stop doing this now.

Which was not illegal in those days. Insider trading was perfectly legal in the 19th century.

 

[robertp6165]

Which was not illegal in those days. Insider trading was perfectly legal in the 19th century.

That may be true, but it still stinks to high heaven. And lets also not forget that Lincoln chose as his first Secretary of War a man who was known at the time as "the most corrupt politician in these United States," Simon Cameron. When Cameron inevitably created a scandal over war profiteering, Lincoln did not expel him from the government...he simply switched him from one post to another (removed him as Sec. of War, made him ambassador to Russia). All in all, not an episode which argues in favor of an "honest and scandal free administration" in his third term.

 

[Brilliantlight]

That may be true, but it still stinks to high heaven. And lets also not forget that Lincoln chose as his first Secretary of War a man who was known at the time as "the most corrupt politician in these United States," Simon Cameron. When Cameron inevitably created a scandal over war profiteering, Lincoln did not expel him from the government...he simply switched him from one post to another (removed him as Sec. of War, made him ambassador to Russia). All in all, not an episode which argues in favor of an "honest and scandal free administration" in his third term.

By 20th century standards it stunk to high heaven by 19th century standards it was normal business practice. Cameron was never charged with any crime IIRC. He was crooked but there aren't that many saints in politics then or now.

 

[Brilliantlight]

The North had segregation laws prior to the war, and the South didn't. I'm sorry if you don't like the historical facts as they exist, but that does not change the facts.

I never said things were rosy in the South in 1860. I said simply that segregation was not used there at that time. Things weren't good for blacks anywhere in the country in 1860. Free blacks in the South, however, probably had it better than any other set of blacks in the country at that time. They could eat in the same restaurants, worship in the same churches, purchase in the same stores, and ride on the same railroad cars as whites. The same could not be said for free blacks in the North at that time.

As you yourself have mentioned only 1% of the black population down south was free which would have made them about .3% of the Southern population. Far too small a group to have segregation. Remember that 100% of the black population was free up north by the time of the Civil War.

 

[Beck Reilly]

Remember that 100% of the black population was free up north by the time of the Civil War.

That depends on your definition of the "North."

If, by the "North," you mean those that voted for Lincoln in 1860, then that's about right, however, if you mean the states composing the United States of America in 1864, that's not true. Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, and Delaware all allowed slavery at some point after shots were fired on Fort Sumter.

Also, I don’t know about you’re numbers.

According to the official census taken in 1860: (In the 11 states [which will be part] of the CSA):

Whites: 5,447,220
Slaves: 3,521,110
Free Blacks: 132,760

Now, that’s more like 3.6% of the southern black population was free (and 1.5% of the total population).

According to the official census taken in 1860: (In the 25* states and territories [which will remain part] of the USA):

Whites: 21,243,561
Slaves: 429,436
Free Blacks: 343,988

Now, that’s more like 44% of the northern black population was free (and 1.6% of the total population).

* Granted, the northern statistics include Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, but Abraham Lincoln did contend that those four remained at all times as a part of the Union.

What is my point in all this? Well, you contend that “… only 1% of the black population down south was free which would have made them about .3% of the Southern population…†which is just plain statistically wrong, as I have just shown. Free blacks were, in fact, 3.6% of the black population down south, which makes them 1.5% of the Southern population. Furthermore, you state that the percentage of free blacks in the South makes them “…far too small a group to have segregation…†something which, when given the fact that Northern free blacks were, indeed, segregated, does not fly. The percentage of the free blacks to total population in the North (1.6%) was quite similar to the percentage of free blacks to total population in the South (1.5%). Facing those numbers, the .1% difference would certainly not be enough to make segregation viable in one region and not another. There’s got to be a different reason.

Entire quote from previous post:

As you yourself have mentioned only 1% of the black population down south was free which would have made them about .3% of the Southern population. Far too small a group to have segregation. Remember that 100% of the black population was free up north by the time of the Civil War.

 

[robertp6165]

What is my point in all this? Well, you contend that “… only 1% of the black population down south was free which would have made them about .3% of the Southern population…†which is just plain statistically wrong, as I have just shown. Free blacks were, in fact, 3.6% of the black population down south, which makes them 1.5% of the Southern population. Furthermore, you state that the percentage of free blacks in the South makes them “…far too small a group to have segregation…†something which, when given the fact that Northern free blacks were, indeed, segregated, does not fly. The percentage of the free blacks to total population in the North (1.6%) was quite similar to the percentage of free blacks to total population in the South (1.5%). Facing those numbers, the .1% difference would certainly not be enough to make segregation viable in one region and not another. There’s got to be a different reason.

Thank you again, Beck. I had only found an estimate of approximately 500,000 free blacks in 1860, with a little more than half living in "The South." Your numbers are much more detailed.

As for the reason, there is an old saying that might explain the difference in approaches. "In the South, they don't care how close you get, as long as you don't get too high. In the North, they don't care how high you get, as long as you don't get too close."

 

[Derek Jackson]

There was a discussion which said that half the population "hated" Lincoln. I suggest that it is possible that a fair proportin of people who voted for McLennan did NOT hate Lincoln.

I rather suspect he was more popular in April 1865 than in November 1864 simply because of the war being over and Won.

I also think that nearly all Northern Whites, and some, perhaps many, Southern ones would have been shocked and outraged at his murder.

 

[Macsporan]

I too think all this talk about how many people hated him at various times is guff.

For some reason no one ever seems to talk about Confederate politicians, rabble-rousers, firebrands and generals in these terms.

The fact is that at the end of the ACW he was almost god-like in his popularity.

Winning wars does that to a man.

He was the only man with the moral authority and wisdom to clean up the mess and set the nation on the right course.


Note to Robertp6165: I myself would be ashamed to be a Confederate Apologist but each to his own.

Tolerance is only valuable when one is willing to extend it to the intolerable.

However if RCA you want to be why don't you change your name to "Marse
Robert"?

Not only is this more elegant but it would shelter your apologetics under the penumbra of the Confederacy's shining light and only asset.

 

[DMS]

For Beck

We can probably all agree that it's a waste of time for me to talk to robert. It may be more productive to talk to you, esp. as you started this and, I believe, made several serious errors.


It was and is a bad thing for you to refer casually to the majority of the population when you meant the majority of voters, especially in a situation where the majority of the population cannot vote and a significant minority is comparatively dire straits. By bad, I mean: wars have been fought explicitly over perceived and real differences in view between the majority of voters and majority of population. And, of course, the ACW could be seen as implicitly fought for the same reason. This was and is an ugly mistake on your part. It's obviously a mistake, if you want me to expand on why I think it's ugly, I'd be happy to.

It would also have been helpful if you had further clarified the extent of the difference between voting against Lincoln -- ie. preferring his electoral opponent -- and "hating" him. You start off with hating, you end up with voting against. It would have been better to make this leap clear earlier in the thread, since a large part of my disagreement with Robert is in his lumping in, ostensibly in your defense, of northern voters with southerners.

Also, your explicit corrections of me are wrong. I did not say slaves were often murdered, I said they were subject to being murdered at the whims of their masters. Nor did Robert try to make points in this particular thread with logic or data, at least up to that point, he simply made the same deeply flawed assertions you did plus the clear and repeated revolting implication that the North made life worse in the South after the ACW (true if you hold certain attitudes toward slavery).

You did later correct a casual error of mine: the 99.9 versus 0.1 percent slave-free split I threw out there to make a point. I take your facts on the actual split, but I don't see them changing the substance of the argument.