If Lincoln had not died

[Gene C]

(01-03-2013 08:56 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  That uploaded article is great. Isn't he the author of Myths After Lincoln? I remember really enjoying that book. Now, if I can just find my copy of it...it's here somewhere...

Yes, he wrote Myths After Lincoln

[JMadonna]

(12-31-2012 10:03 AM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  I have always had a nagging doubt in my mind that Lincoln could have achieved the "perfect" Reconstruction that he (and we) envisioned him having. I base this solely on the whims of the Radicals in Congress.

Perfect - no, but he'd have been helluva lot better at achieving it then Johnson who fought them tooth & nail.

When your campaign slogan is "Hang Thaddeus Stevens" you make our present partisan divide look like a Founders Day picnic.

[Jim Garrett]

"Wild Bill" should chime in here. Bill has an excellent book, "Sic Semper Tyrannis". He outlines the case that April 14th is when the Lincoln myth began.

[Bill Richter]

I admit to writing Sic Semper, but I believe that we need to go beyond it as it is really, except for the first chapter, limited by the end of the war.

What was Lincoln's Reconstruction plan? Historians like to speculate that Lincoln was the South's best friend and Booth did the nation a great disservice in killing him. Following the Come Retribution story, Rick Smith and I believe that Booth was a Confederate agent and killed Lincoln as a military action (Lincoln was commander in chief) to save the Confederacy (Lee surrendered only his own army, not the South). Rick Stelnick believes that it was really a plot by certain northern economic interests, the so-called New York Connection. Gutteridge and Neff in Dark Union follow a similar thesis, but see it as more wide-spread, related to the cotton trade.

Lincoln's Reconstruction plan was first put out in some depth by William Hessletine, in a book by that title, and has been expanded on by Harold Hyman, With Malice toward Some. Both of these men se Lincoln as the South's best friend, but Hyman points out that he was not totally a friend of the South as Andrew Johnson allegedly was.

Most interesting on Lincoln after the war is Lerone Bennett, Jr., who relates that Lincoln's first reconstruction plan was to free the slaves in a gradual apprentice program that would have lasted to 1912. He also sees the 100 day delay in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation (Sept 1862 to Jany 1863) as a desperate attempt to get the South to end the war before Lincoln would be forced to free slaves to put the North in a better light overseas. And of course many have pointed out that the EP freed no or few slaves as he had little power in the Confederacy and exemptions were made in any territory held by the Union Army (the Border States, Va, Ark, Tenn, La, and along select areas of the Atlantic Coast. This is why Lincoln, primarily using William H Seward to construct the Congressional coalition, got the 13th Amendment going. Both Lincoln and Johnson made it a key to further Reconstruction in the South.

But Lincoln might not have stopped there as did Johnson. He was willing as he stated many times, not to force anyone to use his wartime 10% policy. Indeed he was already indicating to Congress and the Radical Republicans that he would accept the Wade-Davis plan especially if Congress would accept Louisiana under the 10% plan. He also was willing to accept a Negro vote, of at least the educated and those who served as soldiers. Most of that is in the April 11 speech, his last publicly delivered one, and in the cabinet meeting before he was shot. This was his argument with Stanton at that time, I believe.

What Lincoln had going for him was that he was Republican (not a war Democrat as was Johnson) and the leader of the winning Union war effort. He was before the war an aggressive attacker of "excessive" Southern influence in the US government, usually called the Slave Power Conspiracy (You can look all these terms up in my Historical Dictionary of the Old South, new edition due in March). This a theme that is emphasized in vol 1 of Michael Burlingame's 2 vol Lincoln bio. So Lincoln would have been gentle as long as the defeated Confederacy was responsive, but willing to change his approach at any time events called for it. This is what drove both Republicans, Democrats, and the vanquished South nuts. One could not pin Lincoln down. His policy was to have no policy, I believe that he said something like that once, didn't he?

I refer you all to William and Jane Pease, Politics, Principle and Prejudice (I think--I am pulling all of this off the top of my head), and David Donald, the Politics of Reconstruction. Using these and probably other books I have long since forgotten (my apologies, it has been 35+ years since I taught college and I am admittedly rusty), I used to construct a bar of political factions and then put Lincoln, Seward, Johnson, etc., under that bar with their concepts of what Am. politics should look like after the war. These fluctuations explained what everyone wanted and caused the variances in Reconstruction policy.

All we can say about Lincoln accurately, was that he was a vey good politician and Johnson was not. Lincoln would probably have come to agree with Congressional Reconstruction, but he would never have been impeached, despite he recent, very good novel (but that emphasizes his wartime policies). Remember he was the first Yankee to be elected to 2 terms in office in Am Hist, and the Republicans were not about to do him irreputable harm, no matter their disagreements. I do not think that Lincoln's image or myth would have suffered, no matter what his policy became.

[Jim Garrett]

Wow Bill. Would you say that a part of Lincoln being such a masterful politician was he was so universally underestimated in the beginning? You are 100% correctthat AL was not opposed to changing positions of a matter. As an Illinois parie lawyer, he argued both sides of the slavery issue.....and if I remember successfully.

[Bill Richter]

You would be surprised how being or acting the part of a good ole boy fools a lot of fools. An old time ABC newsman, Howard K Smith, who was from New Orleans, once said that when someone says to you with a Southern drawl, "Aw, I'm just a good ole boy and don't know much about that," reach for your wallet. You'll probably find it gone already.

Lincoln, whether one agrees with him or not (and I do not), was merely outwardly dumb--and inwardly sly as a fox. Seward was the first of his cabinet to realize that and became his most loyal advocate and advisor. Others, like Chase and Cameron, the Radical Republicans in Congress, and to a much lesser degree Stanton, never really caught on.

Well, back to the horse and mule corral for this ole cowboy!

[Rob Wick]

(01-05-2013 11:28 AM)Jim Garrett Wrote:  Wow Bill. Would you say that a part of Lincoln being such a masterful politician was he was so universally underestimated in the beginning? You are 100% correctthat AL was not opposed to changing positions of a matter. As an Illinois parie lawyer, he argued both sides of the slavery issue.....and if I remember successfully.

Jim,

What do you mean "argued both sides of the slavery issue?"

Best
Rob

[Jim Garrett]

(01-05-2013 12:09 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  

(01-05-2013 11:28 AM)Jim Garrett Wrote:  Wow Bill. Would you say that a part of Lincoln being such a masterful politician was he was so universally underestimated in the beginning? You are 100% correctthat AL was not opposed to changing positions of a matter. As an Illinois parie lawyer, he argued both sides of the slavery issue.....and if I remember successfully.

Jim,

What do you mean "argued both sides of the slavery issue?"

Best
Rob

In the PBS "Looking for Lincoln" Skip Gates states that AL had defended the rights of a slaveholder successfully and argues another case against the issue.

[Rob Wick]

You're talking about the Matson Slave Case. In 1847, Lincoln defended Kentucky slaveowner Robert Matson's legal interest in his slaves, which he moved to Illinois for part of the year. To say that Lincoln "argued both sides" of the issue seems to me to say that he held no firm beliefs one way or the other. In my opinion that is incorrect (and if I misinterpreted your point, please forgive me). While certainly there is room for interpretation and discussion, my take on the Matson case was that Lincoln did so as a professional obligation and that this was little more than Lincoln's oft-stated view of the rule of law.

Best
Rob

[Jim Garrett]

No, I think that Lincoln did certainly feel that slavery was an evil, however I find it interesting that he would take a case for a slave owner trying to protect his property. He was a man of the times, and they were very conflicted times. But as a masterful polititian, even back in his prarie years, he could put his own personal beliefs and opinions aside.

[Rob Wick]

I think the same could be said for just about any lawyer of that time or currently. During my years of covering courts for various newspapers, I saw lawyers who could vehemently argue both sides of a question and then tell me personally that they believe in a third option.

Best
Rob

[Jim Garrett]

Yep, lawyers are like the hired gunslingers. Their allegiance is to the person writing the check.

[Gene C]

Sounds like the mission statement of my favorilte law firm "Lyon, Cheathem and Moore".

[Jim Garrett]

Cheathem later formed the firm of Dewey, Cheathem & Howe.

[Liz Rosenthal]

(01-05-2013 11:55 AM)william l. richter Wrote:  Lincoln, whether one agrees with him or not (and I do not), was merely outwardly dumb--and inwardly sly as a fox. Seward was the first of his cabinet to realize that and became his most loyal advocate and advisor. Others, like Chase and Cameron, the Radical Republicans in Congress, and to a much lesser degree Stanton, never really caught on.

Lincoln did not habitually "play dumb." He may have used it as a tactic in dealing with certain people, but volume after volume is rife with examples of his substantive and serious interactions with politicians, journalists and others. A good number of humorless people were offended by Lincoln's frequent story-telling, which could account for a belief in some circles that he was a buffoon. Then there was his lack of grace, if you will. He didn't know how to or didn't care to stand, walk and communicate with others in the accepted "gentlemanly" manner. This also put off a lot of people.

My impression is that Chase was the only member of the Cabinet who never grew to admire and/or respect Lincoln. Chase was too busy plotting to become president. Stanton seems to have done a complete 180 on his opinion of Lincoln. He came into the Administration with a pretty bad opinion of Lincoln's abilities, partly stemming from that 1855 encounter in Cincinnati in which they were both supposed to be representing a defendant in a patent case (except nobody told Lincoln that his services had ceased to be required long before he ever departed for Ohio). Stanton was quick to judge Lincoln on outward appearances. Anyway, he did come around to a great admiration for Lincoln - which shouldn't have taken long given how closely they worked together on a daily basis - and so expressed this feeling to others. It's true that Stanton didn't care for Lincoln's story-telling, but that was just because of his no-nonsense approach to things.