Posted on 04/23/2015 8:10:28 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
Would the Civil Rights movement have taken place if Abraham Lincoln survived the assassins bullet by John Wilkes Booth? Allen Guelzo, a civil war era professor at Gettysburg College, posed this question in a recent lecture at Hillsdales Kirby Center.
Lincolns successor, Andrew Johnson, failed to bring the Union together after the end of the Civil War and barely survived impeachment from his own Republican Party. Guelzo wondered, Could Lincoln have found some practical system to reconcile the South and North when the war ended. Lincoln had already tried at least one Reconstruction proposal in 1863, which was bitterly criticized by Congress for executive overreach.
Lincolns proposal was to reconstruct the Union while integrating universal suffrage (i.e. voting rights) for freed slaves. Congress proposed a different framework for the unified country, which Lincoln vetoed. As Guelzo noted, Lincoln saw Reconstruction as a process of subduing the South and returning its states to the Union and the control of the federal government. He had already begun the Reconstruction process in Southern territories seized by the Union army, such as in Tennessee and pockets in Louisiana. There, Union loyalists began temporary military government with state conventions, but the loyalist governments did not follow Lincolns instructions to push for universal suffrage. This, in Lincolns view, would be as though the Union had never been disrupted. Again, Congress balked at this move and went on to reject universal suffrage as well.
But, we may never know what Lincolns post-war plans were for the Union. In an 1865 address, Lincoln had some new announcement regarding the South, but had nothing more specific to offer at that time to avoid blowback like in his previous proposals. As one of Lincolns judges (who he later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court) David Davis said, [Lincoln] was the most reticent, secretive man I ever saw. Guelzo felt that Lincoln aimed to give freed slaves, many of whom served in Union armies, a reward of full civil liberties, voting rights, especially. Also, it could have had large implications in politics, as it would have changed the existing three-fifths rule, where slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. With universal suffrage, that requirement would be eliminated and could have led to a long term Republican hegemony in the South.
100 years from now, the armchair question will be, “Would the United States not have fallen apart if the country hadn’t allowed socialists to import 100 million illegal socialist voters...”
True. He was not in favor of “Reconstruction” and would have healed the divide quicker. Johnson was a tool for the northern governors and Congressmen who wanted blood and secure the north’s industrial leverage for 100 years. Sort of like the other Johnson insuring democrap voters for 100 years.
I believe Lincoln sent a signal in his instructions to Grant to “...let ‘em up easy”, with regard to Lee’s surrender.
Though we’ll never know what that really meant.
I do believe however, that Lincoln would have come back to a fuller sense of the Constitution after having trashed so much of it during the War.
But again, that’s merely my belief.
Once slavery was abolished, the three-fifths rule became moot. It would still be effective, but would apply to a nonexistent group of people. You could just as easily say that space aliens only count as three-fifths of a person.
Such a tool that they attempted to impeach him for being too easy on the south.
If Lincoln had lived:
Liberia’s population, today, would be 40 million larger.
America’s population, today, would be 40 million smaller.
Now, about the crime rate...
Lincoln won the Civil War; that's legacy enough for a president. His second term would have been noteworthy by fights with the Radical Republicans but I think Lincoln could still have gotten a lot accomplished.
Yes, the state of South Carolina was majority black while Alabama and Mississippi were around 50% black. In addition, many congressional districts through the cotton belt were majority black then just as they are now.
“Help me get out of this coffin!”
or
“Does anybody have any aspirin, I’ve got a killer headache.”
If Lincoln had survived the shot to his head, he’d still have more brains than the POS in the White House today.
“How did the play end?”
PFL
He would have become riviled and hated by the radicals who wanted to punish the south—He would not be the “great man” we see him as these days.
No doubt martyrdom elevated his stature.
Well played.
“No doubt martyrdom elevated his stature.”
Mediocre Presidents seeking a legacy should consider that option.
The point was to punish and keep the South less progressed than the North. That was the original intent of the 3/5ths person and the war. Most of the big investors in big southern plantations and slavery were Northern business.
Had Lincoln lived the recovery may have been better, sooner. It is often reported that Lincoln intended to ship the slaves back to their homeland, if that had been true it would definitely prevented a lot of discord, crime and poverty, even today. As it now is America may never pay off our pay-back.
I think the damage was done when the slaves were brought over from Africa to the Americas to begin with. That cannot be blamed on the U.S. IMHO. Slavery was started under colonial rule and was ended by the U.S. Some would argue that slavery should have ended right at the beginning of our nation’s finding. But we had to get through two wars with the greatest military power on earth, not to mention periodic conflicts with the Indians first.
The net effect of the 3/5ths rule was to give the South a disproportionate level of representation in the House. How did that punish the South?
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.