What if Abraham Lincoln had not been Assassinated?

History is Now Magazine ^ | Terra Bailey

[CondoleezzaProtege]

To ponder such a scenario is to delve into the realm of historical conjecture. However, by examining the political landscape of the time and Lincoln's own aspirations, it is possible to glean insight into what might have transpired had his life not been cut short by events.

Firstly, it's essential to consider Lincoln's vision for post-Civil War America. He was deeply committed to the principles of reconciliation and reconstruction, aiming to heal the nation's wounds and forge a path towards unity. In the aftermath of the Civil War, Lincoln sought to reintegrate the Southern states into the Union with leniency and compassion, prioritizing national healing over punitive measures.

Had Lincoln survived, it's plausible that his approach to reconstruction would have been markedly different from that of his successor, Andrew Johnson. Lincoln's conciliatory stance toward the South may have led to a smoother and more inclusive reconstruction process, potentially mitigating some of the deep-seated animosities that lingered in the aftermath of the war and potentially still do today.

Moreover, Lincoln's leadership style and political acumen would likely have played a pivotal role in shaping the post-Civil War era. His ability to navigate complex political terrain and build consensus across ideological divides could have paved the way for a more stable and harmonious transition from war to peace.

One of the most intriguing questions surrounding a hypothetical continuation of Lincoln's presidency is its impact on the trajectory of race relations in America. As a staunch advocate for the abolition of slavery, Lincoln recognized the need for fundamental changes in the status of African Americans in society. While his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 marked a significant step forward, Lincoln understood that true equality would require sustained effort and political will.

[DiogenesLamp]

Around a 1% - 2% trade deficit? You mean like almost none?

So within 1 or 2 percent, Imports *DO* equal exports.

[Ditto]

Ok… almost none… whatever the hell that means.. Just admit it. You don’t know squat about trade. You are making it up as you go.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenseLamp: "I never say "Believe this, because Thomas J. DiLorenzo says so.
I never say "Believe this" because Phillip W. Magness says so.
I say believe it because Ward Hill Lamon "says so."
This is the difference between "experts" and "witnesses", and I hope you can remember this distinction in the future."

Your witnesses are false witnesses.
For example, Benjamin "Beast" Butler was a Democrat before the war and became a Democrat again after the war.
Butler's Civil War stories, notably his 1892 Autobiography, are full of self-aggrandizing falsehoods, including:

1. 1861 "Contraband of War" -- Butler claimed to have invented the term "Contraband of War" in May 1861.
   He didn't, "contraband" is a common term in wartime, and while Butler was the first to seize Confederate properties, he was not the first use the term "Contraband of War".

2. 1862 Beast of New Orleans -- Butler claimed his rule was enlightened, but the record of his General Order No. 28 clearly shows the opposite.

3. 1864 Fired by Grant -- Butler was fired by Gen. Grant for disobeying orders, leading to the failure of the first Fort Fisher Campaign (Cape Fear & Wilmington, NC).
   Butler's memoirs excused his own behavior, blamed others.

4. 1865 Lincoln meeting -- Butler claimed that on the morning of April 11, 1865 he recommended deporting Union colored troops to Panama, and claimed that Lincoln was supportive.
   But, while the meeting did happen, there are no confirming records on what was discussed.
   More important, that very evening, April 11, 1865, Lincoln gave his last public address, from the White House -- the one heard by John Wilkes Booth -- in which Lincoln proposed citizenship rights for freed African-Americans.
   Booth was so enraged he remarked, "That is the last speech he will ever make."
   And so it was.

And we could do the same with another of your favorite "eye-witnesses", John Baldwin, a Confederate government official who predictably gave the Confederate government's version of his meeting with Lincoln on April 4, 1861.

The real fact is that you believe what you want to believe, quotes or no-quotes, to support whatever anti-America Marxist indoctrination has fried your brain in b*ll sh*t.

[BroJoeK]

Harriet Beecher Stowe, 1852:

DiogenesLamp makes several unsupported claims:

1. "No, he's pointing out that the abolitionists were the only group that wasn't comparable to Hitler's anti-semitists."

2. "The vast majority of the North was virulently anti-black and anti-cheap wages."

3. "As the war against the South progressed, the people who just hated blacks and cheap labor in general, slowly started pretending to express concern for slaves, because the Overton window was shifting in that directions.
   It was becoming fashionable to pretend to care about the blacks."

4. "But make no mistake.
   They didn't really care about slaves, they just wanted to be seen as "good" people.
   They were "virtue signaling"."

5. "The reality was they still hated blacks after war and did not want them in their communities.
   Pretty much expressing the exact same attitude Northern liberals still express today."

6. "Blacks are a useful political tool to gain power, but beyond that, they don't want them around."

But historical reality is quite different:

1. In the 1840s, hundreds of thousands supported former Pres. Van Buren's Free-Soil anti-slavery party.
   In 1846, in Congress, 95% of Northerners voted for the Wilmot Proviso abolishing slavery in western territories.
   So abolitionists were not a small minority of Northerners, even in the 1840s.

2. By the 1850, millions of anti-slavery voters helped form the first major anti-slavery party, Republicans, in 1854.
   These were hugely responding not to imaginary economic fears or "virulent" racism, but rather to the emotional & moral appeals of people like author Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose anti-slavery books sold multiple millions of copies, second only to the Bible.

3. By 1860, hundreds of thousands of freed African-Americans lived in Northern & Western states, about half of those in big cities like Philadelphia, New York & Boston.
   The other half were scattered among small towns & rural communities all across the North & West.

4. From 1820 to 1860, populations of freed-Blacks grew in all Northern states and exploded in some, despite whatever laws were passed to restrict them.
   At the time there were no laws restricting freedmen to certain cities or parts of cities.

So, all you've done is project your own Marxist anti-American indoctrinations back onto people of the pre-1861 era, with no evidence to support such narratives.

[DiogenesLamp]

And this is why I think arguing with you wastes both our time.

[DiogenesLamp]

But, while the meeting did happen,

And there you go.

[DiogenesLamp]

In the 1840s, hundreds of thousands supported former Pres. Van Buren's Free-Soil anti-slavery party.

Why would they not? They wanted blacks kept *OUT* of the territories, and most were slaves. They wanted the territories kept solely for whites.

In 1846, in Congress, 95% of Northerners voted for the Wilmot Proviso abolishing slavery in western territories.

Nobody wanted blacks in the territories. They didn't want them in the country at all, but they couldn't do anything about existing states, but at least they could keep them out of the territories.

All these efforts were anti-cheap labor, and anti-black.

None of these people gave a sh*t about black people at that time, and their opposition to slavery was entirely out of self interest.

By 1860, hundreds of thousands of freed African-Americans lived in Northern & Western states, about half of those in big cities like Philadelphia, New York & Boston.

Liberal Urban environments. Liberal then, still liberal today.

...exploded in some, despite whatever laws were passed to restrict them.

You just admitted the white governments were passing laws to restrict them. For some reason, they don't teach that much when teaching the history of this era.

[Ditto]

And this is why I think arguing with you wastes both our time.

There’s that, and the fact that you have nothing but Lost Cause myths to support your lame arguments.

[DiogenesLamp]

There’s that, and the fact that you have nothing but Lost Cause myths to support your lame arguments.

That you keep dismissing them without considering them shows you have no interest in truth, just narrative.

The North were the bad guys. They were robbing the South, and had been doing so since the 1820s, and the South finally got sick of it, and wanted out, then the North invaded, killed, and took more of their land and property, all the while claiming they were doing it for the benefit of black people that they hated and wanted kept away from their communities.

Just liars, and thieves.

And you of course don't want to look at the proof that they were doing this, dismissing anything that doesn't show you what you like as a "lost cause myth."

Nah, the myth is what we have all been taught. The Myth is what you already believe.

[Ditto]

The North were the bad guys. They were robbing the South, and had been doing so since the 1820s

You know you are nuts don’t you?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "So okay. We've once again got BroJoeK to admit the Southern states produced * 50% * of the revenue for the Federal government.
In the past, i've seen him admit it was as high as 60%."

Sadly, as always, our Lost Cause propagandist only understands as much as he wants to understand and ignores everything else.
This allows DiogenesLamp to freely mix apples & oranges in his reimagining of actual history.
If he were interested in actual history, he'd remember all the facts, not just the ones that serve his narrative.
Those include populations, GDPs and export numbers:

1. 12.1 million = total Southern population in 1860, including Union Border Slave-States and 4 million slaves = 39% of total US population.
   These 39% of the US population produced 31% of US GDP, for a per capita income of $101.

2. 8.2 million = total Southern free population (97% whites) in 1860, including Union Border Slave-States = 30% of total US free population.
   Excluding slaves, these 30% of the US population produced 31% of US GDP, making their per capita income $148.

3. 5.6 million = Confederate states (Lower & Upper South) free population = 20% of total US free population.
   Excluding slaves, these 20% of the US free population produced 24% of US GDP, making their per capita income $171.

4. 21.8 million = total Union states free population, including Union Border Slave-States = 80% of US free population.
   These 80% of US free population produced 76% of US GDP, making their per capita income $134.

5. $~200 million = Confederate states' exports in 1860 = 50% of total 1860 US exports of $400 million, including specie.
   Confederate state exports were 95% cotton, with some rice, sugar and tobacco added.

6. $~200 million = Union states exports in 1860, including Union Border Slave-States, Western states and specie.
   Union 1860 exports included a long list of dozens of categories of manufactured, agricultural, forest & ocean products, none of which dominated the way "King Cotton" did in Confederate states.

7. 1861 -- the test of Southern (and Lost Cause) propaganda came, when Confederate state exports were 100% excluded from US export numbers, what was the result?
   • 100% reduction in Confederate state exports
   • 82% reduction in cotton exports
   • 40% reduction in total Southern exports
   • 15% reduction in non-cotton Southern exports meaning: 85% of Southern non-cotton exports (i.e, tobacco & hemp) came from Union Border states and regions, not from Confederate states.
   • 25% reduction in US 1861 tariff revenues.

These numbers tell us that while Confederate and Lost Cause propagandists claimed they "paid for" 75% of Federal government's income, when push came to shove, it turned out Confederate state exports only really "paid for" 25% of tariff revenues, and since in 1860 tariffs were 95% of total Federal revenues, it means that the Confederate white population -- 20% of the total free population -- exports "paid for" roughly 20% of total US Federal revenues.

IOW, Southern propaganda was all a lie from the beginning, and to the degree that propagandists then, and Lost Causers today, believed their own lies, they have to be pitied for being delusional.

But their lies can never be taken seriously.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sadly, as always, our Lost Cause propagandist only understands as much as he wants to understand and ignores everything else.

The rest is usually misdirection, as in efforts to show me that the South producing 72% of the total European money to buy European goods, is really the North doing it.

Yeah, i'm a little hard of understanding when it comes to that lesson.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Why would they not?
They wanted blacks kept *OUT* of the territories, and most were slaves.
They wanted the territories kept solely for whites."

They wanted slaves and slaveholders kept out of western territories.

Freed-blacks were welcomed if they could prove they were not going to cause problems.
Proof of that is US census reports on the explosion of freed-black populations in every western state & territory between 1820 and 1860, even in, especially in, states with laws intended to prevent them from becoming sanctuaries for fugitive slaves.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The rest is usually misdirection, as in efforts to show me that the South producing 72% of the total European money to buy European goods, is really the North doing it.
Yeah, i'm a little hard of understanding when it comes to that lesson."

The only way you can get to 72% of all exports is by including every Union Border State & region as part of "The South" and by excluding Union state exports of gold & silver.

The real number is 50% for Confederate states' cotton exports, with some tobacco, rice & sugar thrown in -- those total to ~$200 million of 1860's $400 million in total exports.

When Confederate exports were deleted in 1861, they caused a 25% reduction in Federal tariff revenues.
So, all claims that "The South" "paid for" 72%, or any such number, of Federal revenues are proved to be pure nonsense.
History showed Confederates had paid around 20% of total Federal revenues, or roughly the same as the Confederacy's percentage of the US free population.

[DiogenesLamp]

They wanted slaves and slaveholders kept out of western territories.

The reason they wanted slave holders kept out of the western territories is because they would bring blacks with them.

Freed-blacks were welcomed if they could prove they were not going to cause problems.

I doubt "welcomed" was the right word. "Tolerated" is probably more accurate, and by you pointing out "if they could prove they were not going to cause problems" is making my point for me.

[Vermont Lt]

They were not allowed.

It’s settled.

Why do people feel compelled re-live this crap from 160 years ago?

[DiogenesLamp]

The only way you can get to 72% of all exports is by including every Union Border State & region as part of "The South" and by excluding Union state exports of gold & silver.

Now here you make a fair point for a change. I am unsure of how Kettel defines "the South", but it is reasonable to think that the way you defined it is what he had in mind. However, I doubt the Border states contributed as greatly to the export trade as did the deep South states.

And yes, when we are talking "trade", we are ignoring gold and silver, because that isn't "trade", that is "specie".

The real number is 50% for Confederate states' cotton exports, with some tobacco, rice & sugar thrown in -- those total to ~$200 million of 1860's $400 million in total exports.

Even if this were accurate, (which I don't agree it is.) it still means 1/4th the population paying 50% of the taxes, while the other 3/4ths only pays 50% of the taxes, it still represents a taxation imbalance of 3 to 1.

The per capita rate of taxation for the South was 3 times that of the North, using *YOUR* numbers.

[Vermont Lt]

It is if you are a slave.

People should not own people. Period.

While it might have been legal, it was not right. It’s never been right. I cannot believe there are people who wanted to keep that alive.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why do people feel compelled re-live this crap from 160 years ago?

I can't explain why others do it, but for myself, it is quite easy.

After decades of watching horribly liberal states (Massachusetts, California, etc) control the direction of the nation, and after we got our second Liberal Lawyer President from Illinois, I felt that I wanted myself and my state to get out of this horrible Union with those awful people.

I hated "Gays" in the Military. I hated "Gay marriage." I hated abortion. I hated high taxes. I hated everything that was regarded as normal views in Massachusetts, Washington, California, New York, etc.

I did not want to be in a Union with those people. I wanted to be in a Union with normal, decent upstanding people who didn't seem crazy to me.

So the question became, do states have a right to leave the Union?

So I started looking at it. Of course the obvious examples is the Civil War, so I started looking at the arguments both pro and con for whether a state has a right to secede from the Union.

The evidence is heavily on the "yes they do" side, and the only thing on the "no they don't" side is force, not reason.

So I decided I needed to get into these discussions from the position of defending secession as a right, and that is where I am today.

And *THAT* is why I argue about events that happened 160 years ago.

[DiogenesLamp]

People should not own people. Period.

While it might have been legal, it was not right.

Agree. What is right and what is legal is often at odds with each other.

I cannot believe there are people who wanted to keep that alive.

We have people wanting to enjoy the benefits of slavery today. Know anyone with an I-Phone? Many goods manufactured in China are the product of slave labor.

All of our socialist minded people want slave labor. They want doctors to work for free, and farmers to feed them for free. They want to support this vast network of dependent people who remain at leisure while other people feed, clothe and shelter them.

Lots of people want slave labor, they just don't want to be seen as approving of slave labor.

I think it is a rare human that doesn't want others toiling for him at little to no cost to himself.