Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Grand Old Partisan; nolu chan
What he neglects to mention is that Lincoln had asked him to prepare the proposal and remarked on it favorably, saying that the Cabinet would discuss it more fully the next time they met, which of course they never did.

From nolu chan's earlier post (#936) of Lincoln's last cabinet meeting:

At the close of the session Mr. Stanton made some remarks on the general condition of affairs and the new phase and duties upon which we were about to enter.

Page 526

He alluded to the great solicitude which the President felt on this subject, his frequent recurrence to the necessity of establishing civil governments and preserving order in the rebel States. Like the rest of the Cabinet, doubtless, he had given this subject much consideration, and with a view of having something practical on which to base action, he had drawn up a rough plan or ordinance which he had handed to the President.

The President said he proposed to bring forward that subject, althought he had not had time as yet to give much attention to the details of the paper which the Secretary of War had given him only the day before; but that it was substantially, in its general scope, the plan which we had sometimes talked over in Cabinet meetings. We should probably make some modifications, prescribe further details; there were some suggestions which he should wish to make, and he desired all to bring their minds to the question, for no greater or more important one could come before us, or any future Cabinet. He thought it providential that this great rebellion was crushed just as Congress had adjourned, and there were none of the disturbing elements of that body to hinder and embarrass us. [Stanton's Radical Republican allies with whom Lincoln had differences on reconstruction before, I imagine] If we were wise and discreet, we should reanimate the States and get their governments in successful operation, with order prevailing the the Union reestablished, before Congress came together in December. This he thought important. [This Johnson accomplished, making the Radicals fume] We could do better; accomplish more without than with them. There were men in Congress who, if their motives were good, were nevertheless impracticable, and who possessed feelings of hate and vindictiveness in which he did not sympathize and could not participate [the Radicals again]. He hoped there would be no persecution, no bloody work, after the war was over. None need expect he would take any part in hanging or killing those men, even the worst of them. Frighten them out of the country, open the gates, let down the bars, scare them off, said he, throwing up his hands as if scaring sheep. Enough lives have been sacrificed. We must extinguish our resentments if we expect harmony and union. There was too much of a desire on the part of some of our very good friends to be masters, to interfere with and dictate to those States, to treat the people not as fellow citizens; there was too little respect for their rights. He did not sympathize in these feelings.

Stanton's plan, whatever it was, doesn't appear to have been agreed to by the cabinet or Lincoln. And I don't read Gideon Welles account as Lincoln agreeing to a harsh reconstruction plan, like Stanton and his allies eventually came up with -- just the opposite. Lincoln was not for the vindictiveness and hate the Radicals demonstrated.

Do you take the Radical's side in the debate over reconstruction?

957 posted on 12/02/2003 9:37:58 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 956 | View Replies ]


To: rustbucket
I side with those Republicans who were Radically against slavery.

The notion that President Lincoln and the Radicals were enemies is a fiction concocted by Democrat historians. Charles Sumner was one of his closetst friends, and during his last few months he replaced three moderately anti-slavery Republicans with Radically anti-slavery Republicans. And, he named one of the chief Radicals, Salmon Chase, Chief Justice.

There was nothing harsh about the Radicals' attitude toward the defeated rebels. Few, if any, wanted them personally punished. On the contrary, it was Andrew Johnson who had been clamoring for the hanging of "Jefferson Davis and his pirate crew" -- THAT is why the rebels so lamented Lincoln's death, because a man who had been vowing to hang them had become President. Who was it that kept Jefferson Davis in chains for two years? That's right, your Democrat pal Andrew Johnson.

959 posted on 12/02/2003 10:04:23 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 957 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson