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.

[scrabblehack]

I checked and Kearney Neb is slightly west of Lebanon KS. Greenland might match the latitude but not the longitude.

Adding Alaska and Hawaii shifted the center from Lebanon KS to Castle Rock SD.

[Fiji Hill]

Elihu Root Sr. was Secretary of War under McKinley at the time of the Spanish-American War and later Secretary of State under Teddy Roosevelt, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

[wardaddy]

👊

[mass55th]

👊🏻

[dfwgator]

Well people would have enjoyed the play more.

[mass55th]

Yep. Also briefly served as US Attorney for the Southern District of NY for a couple of years in his early career, then served as US Senator from NY for a term after his Cabinet appointments ended.

[DiogenesLamp]

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?

Of course they believed it was true for themselves. They were not thinking about the slaves when they wrote any of that. It was only later that people came to see these ideas as applying to the slaves too.

But let us not fabricate the notion that this idea of equality between blacks and whites was how the majority saw things at the time.

I don’t buy that. I take them at their words.

Don't take them at their word, take them at their deeds.

Jefferson wrote it. Did he give up any slaves? No, he didn't. Is this consistent with what he wrote? It is if it is understood to be referring to the citizens, which is exactly how they all saw it when it was written and signed.

People came to think that it ought to apply to the slaves, and so people started making changes so that it would apply to the slaves. A bunch of states started the process of gradual emancipation, but in 1776, those words as they were meant to be understood, absolutely did not apply to slaves.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

It feels as though you are trying to sanitize his views on the matter. Lincoln spoke them plainly.

"Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated."

[DiogenesLamp]

Given that slavery was hard-baked into the Confederate constitution

It was hard baked into the US Constitution as well, just not so obviously so. Look up Article IV, Section 2.

Confederate constitution enshrined slavery and made no provisions for its eventual elimination, instead only placed obstacles to its abolition.

And a strong effort was made by Lincoln and the Republicans to enrshrine it more strongly in our constitution through the passage of the Corwin Amendment.

It has become convenient to hammer the Southern states because of slavery, but the Northern states were no better morally. They recognized legal slavery, and made an effort to make slavery even more strongly protected by the US Constitution.

The only thing the Southern states had to do to keep slavery permanently is to stay in the Union.

[x]

By some standards — 19th century American standards among them — what he was saying was already sanitized. I suggest you look back on what others were saying and writing about race in the 1860s and after.

Lincoln wasn’t calling for race war or forced expulsion. He just wasn’t a 21st century multiculturalist. He made reference to the emotions that others felt, but he wasn’t speaking out of emotion himself.

He was open to counterarguments — this pitch was made to an African-American delegation that disagreed with him and he learned from their objections to it. Other Americans weren’t open to free and dispassionate discussion when it came to race.

[x]

I’m pretty sure that wasn’t Lincoln. Nebraska wasn’t a state then and it wasn’t too far from what could be hostile Indian territory. There was talk later of moving the capital there.

https://history.nebraska.gov/new-washington-in-nebraska/

https://www.nebraskalife.com/blog/post/town-story-kearney?srsltid=AfmBOoo-Gui356uuPHZllj1l4bHaq2voWmHJZj-hgFbjxlsJc5GKMF9u

http://digital.outdoornebraska.gov/nebraskaland-magazine/why-kearney-will-become-a-second-minneapolis

Whether such talk was serious or not hard times in the 1890s put an end to it.

There was talk after the Civil War about making St. Louis the capital. I recall hearing that Woodrow Wilson wanted a summer capital in Colorado Springs, but the internet doesn’t confirm this. It may just have been that he liked spending summers there. Lincoln did set up a “federal city” in Port Angeles, Washington, for military, naval, lighthouse and trade purposes, leading some to think of it as a potential second capital later, but that wasn’t going to happen.

[x]

According to Union General Benjamin Butler, He and Lincoln discussed on the very day of Lincoln's assassination, a plan to use them to dig the Panama Canal.

Few historians believe Butler's account. The real Lincoln had no respect for Butler's talents and accomplishments and wouldn't have flattered Butler and entrusted him with a serious project. I believe it was also proved that Butler did not meet with Lincoln on that date. A former freeper has been promoting the theory that Lincoln and Butler could have met on another day and had that discussion. Sure, and they could just as well never have had such a discussion at all.

[DiogenesLamp]

By some standards — 19th century American standards among them — what he was saying was already sanitized. I suggest you look back on what others were saying and writing about race in the 1860s and after.

Well familiar with it, and yes, what Lincoln said was sanitized by himself.

It was the reading of statements from that era which made me realize the primary driving factors for hatred of slavery was not because it was bad for black people. It's because they didn't want slaves competing against wage earners, and because they didn't want any black people living in their communities.

The actual abolitionists, who opposed slavery on the grounds that it was morally wrong, were a minority. Eventually their position gained strength, but it was by far the least reason why most people opposed slavery.

Other Americans weren’t open to free and dispassionate discussion when it came to race.

No they weren't. The vast majority wanted them out of America.

[DiogenesLamp]

Few historians believe Butler's account.

I put little stock into the theory that facts are decided by majority or "experts."

It has long been my belief that most historians are biased in favor of Lincoln, and will just dismiss anything that is seen as maligning him.

It's no secret that Lincoln wanted blacks to leave, and he even initiated an experiment to move some of them to Central America. This experiment ended in disaster and he had to bring them back.

So whether Butler met with him or not, migrating blacks out of the US was on Lincoln's mind, and there are many sources that show this.

Getting back to those biased historians, they likewise dismiss the statements of Ward Hill Lamon regarding Lincoln writing out an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Taney, but there are 3 more allusions to this from other sources.

They don't want to believe it, so they stamp their credentials on it being false.

[x]

Alright then ... few sane, responsible, intelligent people believe Butler’s account.

If you’re going to renounce all reason, evidence, and critical intelligence because you don’t like experts, then so be it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Alright then ... few sane, responsible, intelligent people believe Butler’s account.

Which sounds like a shortcut way of saying "people who agree with me."

Butler's account is really immaterial, that Lincoln was trying to export them is well established, and I think even your "experts" agree.

If you’re going to renounce all reason, evidence, and critical intelligence because you don’t like experts, then so be it.

Do you heed the experts on "Global Warming" or Covid19 "vaccine"?

I don't know what experience you've had, but in my lifetime I have seen far too many "experts" get things exactly wrong.

In fact, my favorite tag line, and one which I would use here if I could, is this:

"What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass."

Lord Melbourne

[x]

Butler's account is really immaterial, that Lincoln was trying to export them is well established, and I think even your "experts" agree.

"Export them"? Who? When? Where? To what end? Why? How? How many?

What we're talking about is Lincoln's decades-long evolving engagement with slavery and race.

Idiots go for cheap generalizations and don't bother to ask the important questions.

[DiogenesLamp]

https://www.history.com/articles/abraham-lincoln-black-resettlement-haiti

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "It was the reading of statements from that era which made me realize the primary driving factors for hatred of slavery was not because it was bad for black people.
It's because they didn't want slaves competing against wage earners, and because they didn't want any black people living in their communities.
The actual abolitionists, who opposed slavery on the grounds that it was morally wrong, were a minority.
Eventually their position gained strength, but it was by far the least reason why most people opposed slavery."

All that kind of talk is complete nonsense, just Lost Causer revisionism untethered to any facts of history.

The real facts are that:

1. Abolitionism began with our Founders, who nearly all believed slavery was morally wrong and should be eventually abolished.

2. The majority of our Founders voted to abolish slavery (however gradually) in:
   • 1777 -- Vermont
   • 1780 -- Pennsylvania
   • 1783 -- Massachusetts
   • 1783 -- New Hampshire
   • 1784 -- Connecticut
   • 1784 -- Rhode Island
   • 1787 -- Ohio
   • 1787 -- Michigan
   • 1787 -- Indiana
   • 1787 -- Illinois
   • 1787 -- Wisconsin
   • 1799 -- New York
   • 1804 -- New Jersey
   • 1808 -- International slave imports

   These were majorities, not small minorities.

3. In 1832, 44% of Virginia legislators voted for abolition.
   The bill was defeated, but especially in Virginia, 44% is not a small minority of abolitionists.

4. In 1846, the Wilmot Proviso would have banned slavery in all western territories.
   Northerners voted 95% in favor, Southerners voted 100% against.
   So, even in 1846, Northern anti-slavery sentiments were far from a small minority.

5. In 1848, former Democrat VP and then Pres. Martin Van Buren ran again as a Free Soiler and won 300,000 votes away from Northern Whigs and Democrats.
   Historians estimate that another 300,000 voters were sympathetic to Free Soil, but still loyal to their larger parties.

6. By 1852, slavery had faded slightly as a driving political issue, but that changed with the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, triggering 1854's founding of the first explicitly anti-slavery major party -- the Republican Party.

7. In 1856, anti-slavery Republicans drew 1.3 million voters away from Free Soilers, Conscience Whigs and anti-slavery Democrats.
   So, what had been around 600,000 anti-slavery voters in 1848 grew to 1.3 million in 1856, representing majorities in 11 Northern states.

8. By 1860, the anti-slavery vote grew to 1.9 million, representing majorities in 17 states, enough to win the Electoral College.

Bottom line: to speak of the Northern anti-slavery vote as a small minority is pure nonsense.
And it wasn't because Northerners were afraid of blacks somehow taking away their jobs, that's ridiculous.
Rather, it was because, as SCOTUS Justice Henry Baldwin ruled in 1833:

"Slavery is abhorrent to all our ideas of natural right and justice, but it is recognized by the Constitution, and is not to be overthrown by the courts"

Majority voters were willing to overthrow slavery in their own states and northwestern territories as early as the 1780's.
By 1846, 95% of Northern Congressmen voted to abolish slavery in all western territories.
By 1856, national anti-slavery voters were the majority in 11 Northern states, and in 1860 in 17 states, enough to win the Electoral College.

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

[Ditto]

Great post, but I think you are casting pearls before swine. DiogenesLamp Has his Lost Cause mythology to serve and all the historical facts in the world will not phase him.