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.

[Ditto]

They got European money through exports. But your fevered imagination says cotton was the only source on European money. You are wrong.

Source: https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economics-of-the-civil-war/,

Second, the South although an “agricultural” region could not feed themselves. They had to ‘import’ food from the North. European money from cotton sales heading north. The could not build a locomotive or rails or any number of manufactured goods because so much of their economy was devoted to cotton production. More of that European money headed north. And they could not finance their own economy. They relied on the New York banks for that. More European money headed north.

Meanwhile, the North was exporting to Europe as well… wheate, corn, whiskey, timber, you name it. And their own economies were growing at a spectacular rate in the North creating wealth all along.

But all of this is meaningless when it comes to federal revenues of which the tariff accounted for over 90%. The tariff was on imports, not exports. It didn't make a damn bit of difference how much cotton the south sold in Europe. The federal government got zero tax from that. When you look at that map showing where tariffs were collected you have to ask why those Europeans were so stupid to ship all of the stuff to Northern ports if the customers were in the south. Well, the Europeans weren't stupid. They shipped to where their customers were.

Twist and turn however you want, but it is total BS that the 9 million southern whites, most of whom were dirt poor, paid 72% of the taxes while the 30+ million people of the North paid only 28%. That is total Lost Cause BS.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"A lot of people want to see the good in people, while I generally look for the bad."

No you do not look for the bad. You plainly do not look for the bad. There is no evidence of this. You selectively look for the bad only in those who you deem to be your enemies, such as the Founders, and you omit the rest.

If you generally looked for the bad in people, you would see the bad in the king in the literal text of his veto. You would see the bad in the king in the literal text of the Virginians following the money - which you claim to be a core foundational belief of yours. You don't follow the money. That's only a ploy for you. It's a gimmick. You don't actually believe that nonsense.

That is why I said "claim", because you only follow American money. You only find bad in American people. If it isn't American money you aren't following it.

I also said "claim", because you are very negative about gradual slavery abolitionism...... No, actually you are only negative about American gradual slavery abolitionism. You are so much so negative about American gradual slavery abolitionism you flatly said equating it is "dishonest". However anybody else who gradually abolished slavery? VALID! See that's good gradual slavery abolitionism. Gradual slavery abolitionism makes DiogenesLamp happy if its not American gradual slavery abolitionism, you see.

This is a very consistent track record. If it's the Empire you see no evil hear no evil speak no evil. Fingers in the ears LA LA LA LA LALALALALALA

"He can't seem to grasp that yes, the founders (4)founded a nation of slave holding states.
Yes, (1)they thought better of it later, but the fact is, (2)at the time they did it, (3)there was no other choice."

That is not a fact. All of this is delusional. Every bit of it. Its so delusional that I numbered your delusions to keep track of them all. First(1), the Founding Fathers thought better of dealing with(ending) the problem slavery sooner, not later. That word "later" is in fact a lie by omission. Second(2), at the time the U.S. was founded many attempts had already occurred to put a stop to slavery through the trade and the king used a veto to put a stop to it. Abolitionism precedes the U.S. Abolitionism was not invented in the 1830s by William Lloyd Garrison. These attempts to act like abolitionism wasn't happening prior to the Declaration is a lie by omission. It's venom and spew aimed right at the Founding Fathers and their provable demonstrable actions.

Three(3) is by far the most delusional to the point its on tripping on acid with a needle in the arm. There was other choices, the choices the Founders were specifically trying to take to pursue measures against slavery and the crown used the veto pen to artificially prevent any abolitionism whatsoever. To say "there was no other choice" is entirely reliant upon the luxury of the crown's veto. This is clownville, right here. The king used his veto against abolitionism, this is not a question.

Fourth(4) is comically delusional because as I have repeatedly said, any time you and the Civil War crew say that the U.S. was founded as 13 slave colonies you are indicting the British Empire and its ill use of the veto and you don't even realize what you're doing. This is the one I keep begging you to state again and again and luckily for me, you keep saying it. Thank you for strengthening my position. Had the Founders been left to their devices without any blockades at a minimum one but very likely two or three states would've been free soil prior to July 2nd/4th 1776. The U.S. founded as 13 slave states was the Empire's design, that wasn't the Founders' design.

"And all who want to divert any discussion of the Civil War to slavery and nothing but slavery, are also trying to judge the 19th century by 20th century views."

One of many reasons I swore off of all Civil War discussions long, long ago. Don't ask. I'm not telling.

[ProgressingAmerica]

I did not see this post in my list prior. I am stunned.

"And you don't get to call it "abolished" until it is actually gone!"

and

"The United States abolished slavery before Britain did. Some 35 years prior. All hail the United States for being first.

Sounds reasonable to me."

This level of consistency was not expected. So then the error generally is mine, not yours. Things like this could have been stated plainly a lot sooner. So that its said here: I do think Britain abolished slavery in 1833. They deserve credit, the did it right.

I'll await any and all replies and come back tomorrow.

[DiogenesLamp]

They got European money through exports.

Very good. Now where did the exports come from? Can you break it down by region?

Can you tell me what percentage of export value was created by each region?

[DiogenesLamp]

No you do not look for the bad. You plainly do not look for the bad. There is no evidence of this. You selectively look for the bad only in those who you deem to be your enemies, such as the Founders, and you omit the rest.

You are an unserious person.

[DiogenesLamp]

So that its said here: I do think Britain abolished slavery in 1833.

To be pedantic about it, Britain initiated the abolishment of slavery in 1833. They didn't complete it until 1907.

Portions of the US initiated the abolishment of slavery in 1780, but the entire nation did not completely abolish slavery until 1866.

[Ditto]

Nock it off you ass. You obviously have no idea how international trade works. The cotton growers were not sitting on piles of British Pounds.

Southern-grown cotton was sold to manufacturers by cotton factors (the local merchants who represented distant buyers), who were based in the major port cities of the South and handled most business transactions for planters. The planters sent their cotton to the factors, and the factors found the best place and time to sell it, earning a commission, usually 2.5%, on the sale of the planter’s cotton.

. Source: https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/cotton.html

The planters got paid in US Dollars, not British Pounds. The British pounds went to a bank where they were used by importers, and frankly, virtually none of the banks were in the South.

I’m sick and tired of you trying to play Mr superior intellect when you are dumber than a damn box of rocks.

[DiogenesLamp]

So you haven't yet found the trade value of exports or where they were produced?

You aren't going to understand what was happening until you do.

Of course I don't believe you really want to know what was happening. You want all evidence to reinforce what you already believe, and are quite resistant to looking at any which doesn't.

[Ditto]

You are totally full of crap. You have no answers for anything. Just more of your posturing.

[DiogenesLamp]

And you are wasting time bitching about me instead of looking up the information.

Do you want to bitch, or do you want to understand the truth?

[Ditto]

You are nuts.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are nuts.

You are afraid.

[Ditto]

You are afraid.

Afraid of what? If you have this devastating information, share it with us. Go ahead, destroy me and my arguments. Instead you talk in riddles and then insults. All of which means you have zero beyond your Lost Cause fantasy.

Like I said, you are nuts.

[DiogenesLamp]

Afraid of what? If you have this devastating information, share it with us.

No, *YOU* find it. You won't accept anything that comes from me. I've argued with people for years, and when they don't want to believe something, they will make every excuse not to believe it.

I've told you how to find the proof you need, and you clearly don't want to find it.

Find out which regions produced what percentage of export value, and you will have the answer as to how the South was paying 72% of the operating costs of the United States government even though they are 1/4th the population.

And this doesn't even include the other 600 million per year they were pumping into the North's economy.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The Southerners got a raw deal.
They were screwed in taxes, and when they wanted independence, they were invaded and killed..."

Ditto: "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."

On taxes:
"The South" overall, including Border States, earned about 31% of the country's total GDP, so, logically, they might pay about 31% of Federal taxes.
But 31% wasn't good enough for slave-power propagandists, they wanted to claim virtually all Federal taxes were "paid for" by Southerners.
They did this:

1. By claiming ~75% of all US exports were "Southern Products", meaning 75% of the money then used to pay for US imports were "Southern Products", and since Federal taxes (tariffs) were paid on imports, therefore, 75% of Federal revenues were "paid for" by exports of "Southern Products".

2. But the actual number is about 50% if we look at just Confederate cotton states, cotton generated about 50% of US exports in 1860.
   However, only a small percentage of resulting imports went to Southern customers, at least 85% of US imports went to Northern & Western customers.
   So, where did Northerners earn money to pay for foreign imports?
   By "exporting" huge volumes of manufactured products to the South, including:
   • Woolen goods
   • Shoes
   • Cotton clothing
   • Railroad iron
   • Hats
   • Paper
   • Soap & candles
   • farm tools, etc.
   So, bottom line: what Southern exports paid for was "imports" of manufactured products from the North.

3. The test came in 1861, when Confederate state exports were 100% removed from US export-import numbers.
   These caused:
   • 70% reduction in Southern exports
   • 30% reduction in total US exports
   • 25% reduction in US tariff revenues in 1861

1861's 25% reduction in US tariff revenues recovered in 1862, and by 1864, US tariff revenues were double those of 1860.

So, any suggestion that Southern exports "paid for" Northern imports is just Slave Power propaganda.

On freeing the slaves:

Lost Causers claim that the Union did not "fight to free the slaves", but the answer to that is simple: from Day One, many Northern leaders well understood that the only way to permanently defeat the Confederacy was to destroy the slavery on which it was based.

So yes, Virginia, the North did "fight to free the slaves" for moral reasons, and also because abolition was necessary to preserve the Union.

[Ditto]

You a just a BSer. Take your lost cause mythology and shove it.

[ProgressingAmerica]

This is me being peak serious. If you do not want your evidence disregard highlighted, don’t disregard evidence.

It’s kind of simple that way.

[DiogenesLamp]

But the actual number is about 50% if we look at just Confederate cotton states, cotton generated about 50% of US exports in 1860.

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%.

So Ditto, since this is coming from the guy who absolutely does not want to admit the South (1/4th of the citizenry) was producing more taxes than the other 3/4ths of the Nation, you can accept what BroJoeK says on this particular point to be mostly true.

And BroJoeK is only referring to cotton. He left out the tobacco, sugar, indigo, and various other products the South produced which made up the other 22% of export value for 1860.

So export value for 1860 stands thus.

72% produced by the South. 28% produced by the North.

The North, with it's *FOUR TIMES GREATER POPULATION* was contributing only 28% to the payment of Federal taxes.

Per capita, the South was taxed at 9 times the rate of the North.

[BroJoeK]

Brass Lamp: "You're attempting to deceive.
Most voters were "anti-slavery" as much as Hitler was "anti-jews-living-in-ghettos". "

Seriously??
Why are you babbling stupid nonsense?
Are you comparing abolitionists to Hitler's anti-Semitism???
How insane is that?

Brass Lamp: "The anti-slavery Venn diagram overlaps more than just emancipation, it also touches on segregation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. "

Really?? Genocide??

What b*ll sh*t did you fry your brain in?
Who taught you this garbage?

Brass Lamp: "The emancipation faction represented by humanitarians like the Stowe family really WERE in the minority."

No, you have no idea what you're saying, you're just babbling nonsense.
Here's the reality:

1. Harriet Beecher Stowe's books sold multiple millions, not just thousands or hundreds of thousands.
   People bought her books because they agreed with her principled, moral stance on slavery.

2. Stowe in the 1850s was a cultural phenomenon, equivalent to (take your pick) a Billie Graham or Charlie Kirk.

3. She was largely responsible for creating the moral anti-slavery environment necessary to form the first major anti-slavery political party -- Republicans, in 1854.

4. When Pres. Lincoln first met Stowe in November 1862, he is said to greeted her with, “So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war".

Brass Lamp: "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."

No again.
In no state prior to 1860, were laws intended to "keep Blacks out".
Rather, such laws were intended to prevent fugitive slaves from escaping and settling, thus forcing citizens and law enforcement to comply with Federal fugitive slave laws.

And the proof of this is, the growth rates of freed-black populations in such states between 1820-1860 were among the country's highest, including:

1. 2,505% Michigan
2. 1,569% Illinois
3. 829% Indiana
4. 676% Ohio

Even Oregon, which had the most exclusionary laws of all, still recorded 128 freed-blacks in its first census, in 1860.

As for your alleged "fear of labor competition", no again -- it was the opposite, the need for labor on the wild frontier drove settlers to welcome freed-blacks regardless of what laws their capital cities' lawmakers may have passed.

Finally, I suspect you didn't really intend to mean what your words here sound like, so my suggestion is that next time, take a little more effort to un-garble your words before you post them and embarrass yourself, FRiend.

[DiogenesLamp]

This is me being peak serious. If you do not want your evidence disregard highlighted, don’t disregard evidence.

I don't know what "evidence" you highlighted, because when you started off your message just saying derogatory things about me, I stopped reading it.

And somehow I don't think you and I have the same idea as to what constitutes "evidence."

You seem to have your thumb on the scale of what you want to consider to be "evidence."