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.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"People want to talk about what *THEY* want to talk about, and not what *YOU* want to talk about."

Notice it. Remember it. Take a picture and erect a memorial.

I have for months perhaps even years stayed out of your Civil War discussions, haven't I? How many times have I been pinged to this thread about What if Abe didn't get shot?

How many times did you personally ping me? This is not a complaint, BTW. Many times I do read what is being said.

"No, it couldn't have happened."

Yet it did happen on its own naturally. That's what makes it so fun. The singular reason of prevention was the very unnatural or artificial kingly veto.

You like to notice things, we all notice things. I notice that never once do you and your crew say the kingly veto never happened. So you can dodge the fact but you cannot outright deny it.

"The Northern states could not survive the British by themselves, and the Southern states were not going to give up slavery easily."

There's an echo in here. I said all of this, I think. Didn't re-read my conjecture. Doesn't seem you read it in the first instant which is perfectly fine.

[DiogenesLamp]

You like to notice things, we all notice things. I notice that never once do you and your crew say the kingly veto never happened.

Because it's part of your fantasy that only but for the King they would have abolished slavery!

Which is nonsense.

They kept slavery long after the King was gone.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"Because it's part of your fantasy that only but for the King they would have abolished slavery!"

Pennsylvania abolished slavery a mere 4 years after Independence. It's almost as if something was holding them back.

Vermont abolished slavery a mere 1 year after Independence. It's almost as if something was holding them back.

Massachusetts abolished slavery a mere 7 years after Independence. It's almost as if something was holding them back.

New Hampshire abolished slavery a mere 7 years after Independence. It's almost as if something was holding them back.

Connecticut abolished slavery a mere 8 years after Independence. It's almost as if something was holding them back.

Rhode Island abolished slavery a mere 8 years after Independence. It's almost as if something was holding them back.

Hey wait a second is there an echo in here? Oh, but these are not facts though, I just fantasized them and made them all up that is what it was.

[DiogenesLamp]

Pennsylvania abolished slavery a mere 4 years after Independence.

Why 4 years?

And saying they "abolished it" is deliberate misdirection.

They initiated "a gradual abolition of slavery". So gradual in fact, that it took them about 60 years to actually do it.

You keep mistaking good intentions for actual deeds.

Washington kept his slaves in Pennsylvania for a decade after they "abolished" it.

Stop saying states "abolished slavery" when they still had slavery. This is like saying Jefferson or Washington "freed" their slaves, because they wrote that slaves should be freed.

Not the same thing, and to portray one thing equal to the other is dishonest.

[BroJoeK]

x: " Liberia was still an option for those who wished to go there.
But the article doesn't support the idea that Lincoln was wishing, hoping, and planning to the end to get rid of African-Americans."

Right.
Voluntary emigrations continued well into the late 19th century.
Indeed, it continues even today, with estimates of the African-American expat community living abroad at north of 100,000.
Yes, it's a small percentage of the total, just as small as it was back in the early to mid 1800s.

So, then and now, some African-Americans do voluntarily move abroad, but the percentages have always been relatively small.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I guess I haven't yet made myself clear on the "I don't give a d@mn what "experts" claim" point yet."

And yet you happily quote whatever "experts" you imagine as supporting your own Lost Causer fantasies.

So, you don't really hate "experts", you only hate the ones who disagree with whatever fact-free b*ll sh*t is rattling around inside your own head.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"And saying they "abolished it" is deliberate misdirection."

Saying Britain abolished slavery in 1833 is a deliberate misdirection.

"They initiated "a gradual abolition of slavery". So gradual in fact, that it took them about 60 years to actually do it."

This can go two ways.

Britain initiated "a gradual abolition of slavery". Britain's gradual abolition in 1833 was so gradual in fact, it took them 5 or so years to actually do it.(The actual legislation's written text)

Britain initiated "a gradual abolition of slavery". Britain's gradual abolition in 1833 was so gradual in fact, it took it took them 70 years to complete it - the last act of abolition in the Empire was Nigeria, which I believe was in 1917.

Stop attacking America DiogenesLamp. Stop attacking America about the very valid gradual abolitionism when that is the proper way. That is the best way. That is the way they all did it.

"You keep mistaking good intentions for actual deeds."

You are incredible. Actual legislative finality is just merely "intentions". The only person living in a fantasy world here is you.

"Stop saying states "abolished slavery" when they still had slavery. This is like saying Jefferson or Washington "freed" their slaves, because they wrote that slaves should be freed."

Stop saying the empire "abolished slavery" (1833) when they still had slavery. (India, Nigeria, etc etc) Since The Empire didn't finish abolishing slavery until the 20th century, The United States abolished slavery before Britain did. Some 35 years prior. All hail the United States for being first.

If you're going to force me to say that gradualism is invalid, you just wiped Britain's 1833 act off of the books. Whoops.

"Not the same thing, and to portray one thing equal to the other is dishonest."

You beclown yourself by making inconsistent arguments. You also beclown yourself because you don't know anything at all about history besides the singular topic Civil War. Outside of that one topic, it's a black hole of unknown for you.

One trick ponies ought to stay at the derby.

[Ditto]

The Southerners got a raw deal. They were screwed in taxes, and when they wanted independence, they were invaded and killed to reestablish corrupt Washington DC's control over them, and the relationship between the Federal government and the states was never the same. And then they lied and said the war was about slavery when it was really about money.

Total myths. They did not pay more taxes. They actually paid less. The war was all about slavery. No, the Union didn't go to war to end slavery but the South went to war to keep slavery. I know you are not capable of understanding that but that is the fact.

[Brass Lamp]

how is it universal?...

Because nobody is exempt from the Fed's claim of ownership of private labor.

[Brass Lamp]

So, anti-slavery voters were neither new, nor a minority, nor based on fears of slave-workers taking away their jobs.

You're attempting to deceive. Most voters were "anti-slavery" as much as Hitler was "anti-jews-living-in-ghettos". The anti-slavery Venn diagram overlaps more than just emancipation, it also touches on segregation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. The emancipation faction represented by humanitarians like the Stowe family really WERE in the minority. Every state carved out of the "Free Soil" enacted measures to both keep Blacks out and keep Natives down, and they WERE driven by a fear of labor competition.

[DiogenesLamp]

And yet you happily quote whatever "experts" you imagine as supporting your own Lost Causer fantasies.

Bro, you know better. Put aside your partisanship for a moment and try to recall that I cite writings written at the time to support my position.

You don't ever hear me say "Well, so and so "expert" thinks this, so this must be true!"

I say "Benjamin Butler" thinks this because he wrote this.

I say Ward Hill Lamon thinks this because he wrote this.

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

Stop attacking America DiogenesLamp. Stop attacking America about the very valid gradual abolitionism when that is the proper way.

Stop accusing me of "attacking America" when I am just disagreeing with you. *YOU* are not "America." You are just a wishful thinking Pollyanna.

And you don't get to call it "abolished" until it is actually gone! Just like you don't get to claim to be "sober", when you are still drinking!

You are incredible. Actual legislative finality is just merely "intentions".

Yes it is. That is all it is until it is fully accomplished.

Stop saying the empire "abolished slavery" (1833) when they still had slavery. (India, Nigeria, etc etc) Since The Empire didn't finish abolishing slavery until the 20th century, The United States abolished slavery before Britain did. Some 35 years prior. All hail the United States for being first.

Sounds reasonable to me.

If you're going to force me to say that gradualism is invalid, you just wiped Britain's 1833 act off of the books. Whoops.

Let's try it on rape.

"Hey everybody! We passed a law to stop Rape!" Now there are no more rapes! "

Nah, that doesn't work.

[DiogenesLamp]

Total myths. They did not pay more taxes. They actually paid less.

Post your Map again. Here, let me help you.

[Ditto]

How the hell do you see that as the South paying more taxes? They collected more tariffs in Boston alone than in all of the South combined. Show us one quote from the time that said the South was paying more taxes than the North.

You are delusional.

[DiogenesLamp]

They collected more tariffs in Boston alone than in all of the South combined.

Yes they did.

You still don't understand what that map represents.

You won't like it when you either figure it out, or when someone tells you.

I would prefer that you figure it out yourself, because you will be lot more willing to believe something *YOU* figured out than something *I* or someone else told you.

Show us one quote from the time that said the South was paying more taxes than the North.

Didn't I show you that Lincoln quote "fifty or sixty million"?

[heavy metal]

lawyers and doctors are the only professionals that legally get away with calling what they do “practice”...

who is exempt from what?...

[Ditto]

You still don't understand what that map represents.

I understand it perfectly. That is where the tariffs were collected. How I the hell do you come up with the idea that even though the tariff was paid so far north of the Mason Dixon, that the south was paying the bulk of the tariffs?

Like I said, your Lost Cause Mythology has made you totally delusional.

[DiogenesLamp]

I understand it perfectly. That is where the tariffs were collected. How I the hell do you come up with the idea that even though the tariff was paid so far north of the Mason Dixon, that the south was paying the bulk of the tariffs?

How indeed? I must be *INSANE* to think the South was paying 72% of all the taxes. Why clearly the map shows the *NORTH* was paying almost all of them!

And yet I persist in saying the South was paying 72% of the taxes. You must chalk it up to me being crazy or something.

Yet that 72% is a curiously specific number. I wonder where that number comes from?

[Ditto]

Knock if off jag off. Where in the hell did you get that phoney 72% number. I’m tired of playing silly games with you.

[DiogenesLamp]

Where in the hell did you get that phoney 72% number.

Look up the numbers yourself.

And ask yourself this. In 1860, how did Americans get European money?