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 ...
I guess I’ve known very different Black people. I’m sorry for your limited experience.
I think the problem people are a minority. I think it is a larger minority than the minority of whites causing trouble, but it is still a minority.
I believe most blacks are decent people who just want to get along in life, and they do not want to be associated with the thugs that rob and assault people.
I've known some wonderful black people and black families in my life, and they just want for themselves the same thing everyone wants. They want a decent life.
It wasn't, but people have been mis-taught the actual history on the matter. Thomas Jefferson, by including those lines in a document asserting a right to *INDEPENDENCE*, probably did more to advance the cause of abolition than anyone else in history.
The problem is, those words are irrelevant to the purpose for which the document was written. The sole purpose of the document was to justify the American colonies obtaining *INDEPENDENCE* from Britain.
And the fact that they all still had slavery after the Declaration was written and signed by all the state's representatives, shows that the "all men are created equal" was not meant to include slaves, and was in fact a flowery line, the removal of which would not have altered the purpose of the document at all.
We were founded on a right to govern our selves. To obtain independence from a government we no longer saw as serving our interests. We were *NOT* founded on a concept of equality that no one at the time respected. That is a later day invention of the intent of the Declaration.
That war was so horrible, I devoutly hope nothing like it is ever repeated. But almost every day, someone - even here - seems to be calling for it to solve today’s problems.
A modern civil war would look nothing like the 1861 civil war.
Modern liberals live in big cities which are death traps. Modern cities are indefensible against the cut off of water, electricity, gas, and supplies.
It will never get to a point of war. A week of disruption of water, electricity, and food, the liberals will be screaming for mercy.
They are not a hardy bunch.
The consensus in the 1950s was that Lincoln and Johnson were the good guys and the “Radical Republicans” were the bad guys. That’s been turned upside-down since then. Thaddeus Stephens and Charles Sumner, once despised, are now considered heroes. “Radical Republicans,” like the abolitionists, did get a raw deal in the version of history that predominated from about 1910 to 1970, so it’s good if they are getting more credit now.
Lincoln would have had his hands full dealing with the radicals, but it’s possible that he could have managed things. Andrew Johnson, like John Tyler, the first VP to become president, was essentially in the wrong party. Both were basically Democrats who ended up on the other party’s ticket because of disagreements with their fellow Democrats. When they became president, they quickly became hated by members of both parties.
Lincoln would have been more able to deal with Republicans who took a harder line on Reconstruction. I wonder though, if the “reconstructed” America would have lasted, whoever was president from 1865 to 1869. Nineteenth century trends came to favor abolitionism, but didn’t favor racial equality and an egalitarian multiracial society.
Some funded people who murdered innocent southern women and children
And got away with it
Some very prominent
So all the stuff about inalienable rights was just flowery stuff, too? Those are pretty clear statements, but you think they wrote things they didn’t believe, or only believed were true for Whites?
I don’t buy that. I take them at their words. I’ve always understood that many of the Founders despised slavery and hoped the people would eventually abolish it peacefully.
I think if someone wants to summarize Lincoln's views of slavery, it might be best to try not do it as a one-liner if talking about a timeframe across years. It's analogous to Trump and abortion. Today it's pretty solid that Trump is happy with the Dobbs decision and leaving abortion to the states and I think he'll keep that attitude.
But imagine FReepers a century and a half from now arguing, all with correct information (except in trying to summarize Trump), that Trump was "pro-choice in every respect", and he's "pro-life with the caveats", and "I hate the concept of abortion", and "there has to be some sort of punishment", and "the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb." All before settling on the position Trump has today.
So I'll cut Lincoln some slack for going back and forth on different ideas on ending slavery, including the view he had when they tried multiple times to assassinate him in Maryland (the Baltimore Incident) before the Civil War (before Lincoln was even inaugurated). At that point Lincoln was telling the Marylanders that there was no need to join the Confederates because Lincoln would be happy just getting the federal govt out of the way and let the slave states have slaves while letting the free states be free. (Very much like Trump and Dobbs, yet the Dims tried to kill Trump multiple times.) Especially respect Lincoln's pressure of trying to end slavery, which had been a thing since Genesis, while also trying to prevent a civil war. (At least until the pro-slavery folks tried multiple times to kill him.)
Interesting article. I did not know that there were other attempts on his life!
One quibble - his life was not cut short by “events” but by John Wilkes Booth!
One thing I didn't put in my earlier post is that the pro-Confederate National Volunteers group were the ones who tried to kill Lincoln in the Baltimore Plot (before Lincoln was even inaugurated). I wouldn't be surprised if that impacted Lincoln's decision to follow his predecessor's (Dim Buchannan) in keeping U.S. troops at Ft Moultrie/Sumter and trying to send them supplies.
“He just would not believe [Lincoln was a Republican].”
Oh my goodness, that is moronic. He was the first R nominee for president. I can get not knowing that, or being astonished by that, but to not believe it? So stupid. Maybe the internet really is making people stupider.
Given that slavery was hard-baked into the Confederate constitution, it's hard to see the end to slavery for a long time had the states been allowed to secede. The Confederate constitution enshrined slavery and made no provisions for its eventual elimination, instead only placed obstacles to its abolition.
The consensus belief when Lincoln was a young man was that the country wouldn't be able to get rid of slavery without resettling the freed slaves in Africa or elsewhere outside the US. Lincoln went along with that belief, as did other Americans who had moral qualms about slavery. By 1865, he realized that African-Americans didn't want to be resettled. He also believed that those who were educated or who had fought in the war had earned the right to be citizens and vote. Resettlement efforts during the war had largely failed. It was also generally realized by 1865 that the South (and the country) wasn't going to get back on its feet without some Black participation in the labor force. Lincoln might favor continued attempts at voluntary resettlement of freedmen as a way of lessening the "racial problem," but he didn't favor involuntary deportations. Anyway, given what racial attitudes were in the 19th century, it isn't surprising that Americans who didn't like slavery were also in favor of resettlement efforts.
JFK wanted to get us out of Viet Nam after he got reelected. True?
My understanding was that he wanted some kind of a change. The bigger question is whether it would have lasted, or whether he'd put the troops he'd take out back in under another label. I don't think anybody can say for certain that Kennedy wanted to bring our involvement in Vietnam to a definitive and final end. Diem had just been overthrown. Kennedy approved (though maybe not of Diem's murder). Kennedy thought that might solve some problems and some US troops could be pulled out. Would he put them back in when it turned out that the coup had solved nothing? I think so.
Lincoln was ready to move Washington DC to Kearney, Neb. had he lived. Records show it was all surveyed and set up to have it moved to have the Center of the US located in the geographical center of the Nation.
It never stopped being legal in Africa and various Muslim countries.
_______
It is not legal anywhere!
It is practiced in lots of places, one could argue that even in the USA.
I think, that Brazil have not outlawed slavery, just because they feel like. There was a lot of international pressure and the industrial revolution took a lot of profit out of slavery.
So South would be under similar pressures. But yes, I think they would buy the slaves out.
I would surmise, that if the South just stayed in the Union, and negotiated, Lincoln would likely paid some reimbursement for the slaveowners.
There were definitely many people advocating for that solution in that time.
I dug out the following letter from my Civil War files. Thought you'd be interested:
The following letter was widely published in several of the newspapers of New York State in late 1864. It was discovered in the 10/15/1864 issue of the Poughkeepsie Telegraph:
A Soldiers Letter
We have been favored by an old resident of Mabbettsville, in this county with the following interesting letter written to him by a nephew in the army, dated Morris Island, S.C.
September 24, 1864
Dear Uncle:--Your good advice I will try and follow. I tell you, George B. McClellan is the only man, that can carry the old ship of State safely through; already we are drifting near the rock that will submerge the noble ship, and we need a man at the helm that will take her out into the broad ocean and guide her toward and into the port of Peace. I say there is too much negro about this matter; only look at the thousands of valuable lives that have been sacrificed for the black man, but my opinion is the South are not fighting for slavery now, but for their honor; but the present administration are continually harping on the negro. They say we are determined to break the bonds of every slave--or disunion God forbid I should ever have those feelings. No, no. The Union must and shall be preserved. Let the negro go. The white man must rule and reign. The noble and tried patriot to-day stands before the American people for the high position of President of these United States. His enemies will ask you what he has ever done to entitle him to occupy the presidential chair? He has done much. Why did he not do more? Simply because he was never supported by the Administration as he should have been; troops were withheld from him, when he called loudly for them. The great secret was, he was too popular with the people and soldier. The Republicans were afraid of him. But thank God he is as much beloved to-day as ever. The soldiers love him, and when their votes are counted you will find we will roll-up such a majority for General George B. McClellan that will astonish the country. He is our choice, and if you could have witnessed as I did the scene that transpired when he was relieved from command, it would have made your heart (though it were adament) melt to see the tears trickle down the cheek of the war worn veteran and the raw recruit when the news reached them, but I trust the day of deliverance is at hand. Dear Uncle, though you may have never engaged in politics before in your life, I implore you to put your shoulder to the wheel, and every chance you have don't neglect the opportunity of urging the claim of Little Mac upon your friends. Please tell them to stand by him. I hope Old Duchess [county] will roll up a large majority for him. I must close as it is near 10 o'clock at night. Please write me a few lines. Your nephew, Edwin A. Hoag.
Interestingly, Stryker was the defense attorney for Soviet spy Alger Hiss in his first trial for perjury in 1949.
Thanks for the book title. I'll check into it. I'd heard of Alger Hiss, but never read up on his government career and his spy charges.
I see Stryker started out as an Assistant D.A. in NY City. I've always wondered how someone who had spent their early law years as a prosecutor, could end up defending alleged criminals. I guess that comes from my having worked in uniform in NY State's prison system for 25 years.
Wikipedia says: "Stryker's father was president of Hamilton College and his sister, Alida Livingston Stryker (1881–1951), married Elihu Root Jr., son of the Hamilton alumnus and trustee Elihu Root."
Small world. Hamilton College isn't far from me. Used their library database many times, looking for sources, collections, etc., when I was doing Civil War research. Root's home is on college grounds. It's a beautiful house. It was nicknamed Grant's house because Elihu's daughter Edith married U.S. Grant III, grandson of General U.S. Grant. He was also an Army officer. There is also a U.S. Army Reserve Center named after Elihu Root in Utica, NY.
Not true.
Ottoman empire abolished slavery in 1830, then, in 1856 after Treaty of Paris, they “Really” abolished slavery, and in 1860, 1870, they kept abolishing it, etc.
So were all the other examples.
Brazil was the last country, where slavery was 100% legal.
In countries you listed, slavery was officially delegalized before that date. But the orders against slavery were not followed by enforcement. So slavery was going on, despite being supposedly illegal.
All these countries were not ruled by law, so who cared about sultan’s ferman. Surely not sultan himself, who kept slaves long after it was illegal!
South was country of law, so if they outlaw it, it would be!
“Absolutely. Andrew Johnson was pro-slavery and obstructed the Reconstruction efforts of the Republican-controlled Congress.”
No. It was a class thing. Johnson was a self-made man who hated slavery and the slavers, and by extension hated the blacks. He was from East Tennessee, which was a Unionist stronghold.
So he planned to acquire Greenland? (What else would shift the center from Lebanon, Kansas to Kearney, Neb.?)
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.