Posted on 09/13/2025 1:03:13 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at historyisnowmagazine.com ...
Still practiced though.
how is it universal?...
Agreed. I think Lincoln was a great President, but he wasn’t going to be able to integrate the South. Not in 4 years, or 40 years. He was hated in the South.
Sam ‘Bam’ Cunningham integrated the South one hundred years later.
Well said and completely accurate. It's a fact that a lot of people refuse to believe or even focus on the fact, that through history, plenty of Republican Presidents have faced opposition from their own party in Congress. It's been a common complaint by many on this site since I joined 26 years ago.
Well, more or less :-)
Lloyd Paul Stryker, a famous lawyer, judge and biographer of Andrew Johnson asserted that Johnson took the “slings and arrows” over Reconstruction that would have been aimed at Lincoln, had he lived.
It would have probably turned out far better for the nation. Lincoln would have likely moderated the excesses during "reconstruction." The rights of the Southerners would likely have been better respected and the thefts and abuses less than they turned out to be.
The real tragedy of the Lincoln assassination is that it happened five years too late.
The changes Lincoln wanted was to excise them from society completely. Lincoln was obsessed with ideas for getting them out of the country, and he even experimented with a plan to move them to Central America, which turned into a disaster requiring him to send ships to rescue them and bring them back.
Lincoln was a white separatist. He absolutely did not want blacks and whites together in society.
Between 20 and 80 years. There were abolitionist groups in the South, and many Southerners wanted *OUT* of the slavery business, but many were in situations where there was no easy way to just stop it.
But as time went on, with the social condemnation from the rest of the world growing stronger, and the economic value of slaves growing lesser, they would have slowly started getting rid of it themselves, probably starting with the border states.
At some point, machinery would have been cheaper than slaves, and I predict that at that point, they would suddenly see the moral clarity they need to stop having slaves.
As much as I hate to believe it, the same is true of people on our side.
I can't tell you how many arguments i've had with people over the years who just want to believe something, and will not look at or consider any information that does not fit with what they wish to believe.
I think stubborn resistance to facts is a trait for all humans, not just left wingers.
Considering how long they were subject to discrimination even after emancipation in some areas, I wonder what life would have been like there.post slavery.
That's because they are.
They lived in the same geographical locations as modern Democrats, their ideology and that of Modern Democrats matches quite closely, and their demographic backgrounds are very similar. (elite wealthy, urban, progressive)
People refuse to believe the parties switched ideologies over the years, but there is plenty of evidence to show what they actually did was just switch names.
The 1860 Republicans were Northern, Liberal, elites living in Urban environments, they supported High Taxes, massive spending, protectionism, and "social change."
They were social activists. The Progressive Era features an endless train of Republican Women (women couldn't vote, but their families were all Republican) activists trying to re-engineer society. Among them were Margaret Sanger, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony.
John Brown was a traitor and a terrorist.
kinda like what we experienced about the kung flu shots and the government forcing people to take them or lose their jobs for noncompliance...
It never stopped being legal in Africa and various Muslim countries.
I would guess, around that time, South would outlaw slavery as well!
That is not an unreasonable guess. (1888) I think it would have lasted longer than that, but by that time I think we would have seen some border states giving it up. When the Number of states giving it up exceeded 75% of the total, they could vote to abolish it through constitutional amendment, though they would have to buy all the slaves to free them, due to the 5th amendment.
A College education… it makes some people stupider .
Now they are pro Trump and fairly solid MAGA members.
If they had been freed by gradual emancipation, they would have likely been better cared for and gradually integrated into society. I have read that many were regarded as family, and treated as if they were.
As it happened the way it did, they stood as a token of the subjugation by the Northern forces. I surmise a lot of Southerners saw them as a hateful reminder of what happened, and I think this may have driven a lot of the hatred against them.
I've heard from Southerners that they have a saying: (about blacks)
"We like em, but don't love em. In the North, they love em, but don't like em."
I've always heard this as a reference to Northerners using them as political tools, but they don't actually want to associate with them.
I've read that racial prejudice is worse in the North than it is in the South. There used to be a blogger named "Fred Reed" that wrote about this sort of thing all the time.
I think gradual emancipation would have turned out far better long term than what did happen.
That is a good example. This Charlie Kirk thing, where all these liberals thinks he is a horrible, racist, sexist person who believe in stoning gays, (Stephen King) is another good example.
People believe what they want to believe, and then look for evidence to support what they want to believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.