...Mr. Davis has gone they say-not this way, but by Abbeville. Gone where?
"Oh! said Mary Darby vengefully one night, as Burton Harrison had left us after telling all manner of wrongs done to Mr. Davis. "Oh! One thing is so respectable in those awful Yankees. If they did choose a baboon to reign over them, they were sharp Yankees and saw in his ugly hide the stuff to carry them through weal and through woe. Oh!through, and he saved them-if he could not save himself".
"That mad man that killed him! Now he will be Saint Abe for all time, saint and martyr".

"Andy Johnson...made Lord of all by the madman Booth, says "Destruction only to the wealthy classes"

quoted above from "Mary Chesnut's Civil War"..pgs #795 and #825
edited by C. Vann Woodward

The first paragraph I used to underscore what I believe was the widespread sentiment in the North-very perceptively noted by a Southerner- particularly after the fall of Atlanta in September 1864 that led to Lincoln's re-election. He might not have been loved at that point, but there was a slow grudging awareness by the North that they had gotten where they were due to his wisdom, patience, and pragmatism. The electorate resolved to stick with The Ape and reject McClellan and the Copperheads(who they began to perceive as traitors) because they had grown to at least respect him, if not to love him.

I completely agree that his apotheosis into Beloved Old Abe might have never happened but for his assassination and the ascent of Andrew Johnson chomping at the bit to seize his golden opportunity to stick it to the hated Southern planter class.

Yet, I meet Southerners to this day who loathe Lincoln but never have a word to say against Andrew Johnson. I don't understand.

Lincoln's last speech, primarily on the subject of reconstruction.

Lee surrendered the remains of his army to General Grant on April 9, 1865; on the night of April 11, 1865, President Lincoln began his last public address to a huge war-ending celebratory crowd in the following manner:

“Fellow-Citizens:--We meet this evening not in sorrow, but in gladness of heart. The evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond, and the surrender of the principal insurgent army, give hope of a righteous and speedy peace, whose joyous expression cannot be restrained. In the midst of this, however, He from whom all blessings flow must not be forgotten.

A call for a national thanksgiving is being prepared, and will be duly promulgated. Nor must those whose harder part gives us the cause of rejoicing be overlooked. Their labors must not be parceled out with others. I myself was near the front, and had the pleasure of transmitting much of the good news to you. But no part of the honor for plan or execution is mine. To General Grant, his skillful officers, and brave men, all belongs. The gallant navy stood ready, but was not in reach take active part. By these recent successes, the inauguration of the national authority—reconstruction—which has had a large share of thought from the first, is pressed much more closely upon our attention. It is fraught with great difficulty.”

The balance of President Lincoln’s carefully prepared speech that night, and in an unusual manner read to his audience, was devoted entirely to the subject of reconstruction. For President Lincoln, the most significant and potentially contentious issue with the more radical members of the Republican Congress on the subject of reconstruction was “the question whether the seceded States, so called, are in the Union or out of it.” This question was exceedingly important because, according to Professor Michael Burlingame, “[s]ome Radicals insisted that by seceding, the Confederate states had reverted to the status of territories and therefore could be governed by Congress.” (Abraham Lincoln: A Life, Vol. Two, page 802.)

President Lincoln explained his opposition to any consideration of this specific question by the members of Congress:

“[T]hat question is bad as the basis of a controversy, and good for nothing at all—a merely pernicious abstraction. We all agree that the seceded states, so called, are out of their proper practical relation with the Union, and that the sole object of the Government, civil and military, in regard to those States, is to again get them into their proper practical relation. I believe that it is not only possible, but in fact easier, to do this without deciding or even considering whether those States have ever been out of the Union, than with it. Finding themselves safely at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether why had been abroad. Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to restore the proper practical relations between these States and the Union, and each forever after, innocently indulge his own opinion whether, in doing the acts, he brought the States from without into the Union, or only gave them proper assistance, they never having been out of it.”

It is perhaps ironic that the more Radical Republicans would have no one thereafter with whom to argue this question. Soon after his speech, the martyred President was dead and “the question whether the seceded States are in the Union or out of it” could no longer be considered a contentious object for winning public opinion approval, given President Lincoln’s previous pronouncement and argument upon this specific question. If those most Radical Republicans in Congress had had their way, insisting that the Confederate states revert to the status of territories and be governed thereafter by Congress for many years or decades, it is impossible to know now what would have been all of the harmful consequences of such a national governmental decision.

But the seceded states were in effect turned into "territories" by the Military Reconstruction Acts of March 1867 which made them (less Tennessee, which had accepted the proposed 14th Amendment, two of Andrew Johnson's "tools" not voting, according to Gov. Parson Brownlow) 5 military districts to be administered by the US Army with the approval of Congress, for some months or years, depending upon which "territory" one looks at. I agree most of the "purified" territories were reverted to states by July 1868, but one, Georgia, was thrown out again, and four were militarily governed by the Army, albeit under civilians approved by the Army, until spring 1870. How harmful this policy was is still debated by historians today. Further, historians do not really know what Lincoln's Reconstruction program might have been after Appomattox. It is quite possible that he might have compromised with the Radical Republicans more than we think today. But all this is what Lincoln filed under "pernicious abstractions," right?

Bill,

Will you explain to me the purpose of the Hampton Roads Peace Conference - other than it was designed to make Jefferson Davis look bad to his citizenry?

(08-18-2014 09:46 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  Further, historians do not really know what Lincoln's Reconstruction program might have been after Appomattox. It is quite possible that he might have compromised with the Radical Republicans more than we think today.

Dr. Mark Neely makes an interesting observation in The Abraham Lincoln Encyclopedia. He writes, "Yet the mildness of Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction may well have been a lure to get a warring people back. What he would have done in peacetime remains unknown."

And that's why I count Dr. Neely as one of the giants in the field of Lincoln studies. From what I know of him (and that is not extensive), he's not afraid to challenge those who think that Lincoln could do no wrong. I have certainly enjoyed hearing him speak a few times.

(08-18-2014 09:46 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  But the seceded states were in effect turned into "territories" by the Military Reconstruction Acts of March 1867 which made them (less Tennessee, which had accepted the proposed 14th Amendment, two of Andrew Johnson's "tools" not voting, according to Gov. Parson Brownlow) 5 military districts to be administered by the US Army with the approval of Congress, for some months or years, depending upon which "territory" one looks at. I agree most of the "purified" territories were reverted to states by July 1868, but one, Georgia, was thrown out again, and four were militarily governed by the Army, albeit under civilians approved by the Army, until spring 1870. How harmful this policy was is still debated by historians today. Further, historians do not really know what Lincoln's Reconstruction program might have been after Appomattox. It is quite possible that he might have compromised with the Radical Republicans more than we think today. But all this is what Lincoln filed under "pernicious abstractions," right?

Lincoln said in his speech: "We all agree that the seceded states, so called, are out of their proper practical relation with the Union, and that the sole object of the Government, civil and military, in regard to those States, is to again get them into their proper practical relation."

Why don't you read the balance of what he said in the speech that night regarding his views and proposals on reconstruction instead of you yourself filing everything he would have tried to do in re-uniting the states of the Union under the label ""pernicious abstractions," OK?

Lincoln fought the Civil War to maintain the Union. Can you cite any evidence that he intended to prosecute for treason any of the officers of the military or civilian authority? Lincoln wanted the permanent end of slavery and the restoration of the peace and harmony of the United States of America.

I know that speech quite well, thank you.

I also know that Lincoln was for allowing Louisiana back into the Union minus the black vote, if necessary. That is what he meant about not breaking any eggs unnecessarily. Why don't you follow your own advice and read a little about Reconstruction and the political realities that Lincoln faced. Although he has the advantage over Johnson as he was a Republican and much smarter, Lincoln was cruising for a collision with Congress on Reconstruction, too. Remember that no seceded state was going to be allowed back into the Union without Congress' approval. Luther v. Borden is the relevant case here. By seating or not seating any state's elected or appointed Federal representatives Congress determines if a state has a "republican form of government." That is how Reconstruction went in the end.

(08-18-2014 02:16 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  I know that speech quite well, thank you.

I also know that Lincoln was for allowing Louisiana back into the Union minus the black vote, if necessary. That is what he meant about not breaking any eggs unnecessarily. Why don't you follow your own advice and read a little about Reconstruction and the political realities that Lincoln faced. Although he has the advantage over Johnson as he was a Republican and much smarter, Lincoln was cruising for a collision with Congress on Reconstruction, too. Remember that no seceded state was going to be allowed back into the Union without Congress' approval. Luther v. Borden is the relevant case here. By seating or not seating any state's elected or appointed Federal representatives Congress determines if a state has a "republican form of government." That is how Reconstruction went in the end.

Bill,

You never cease to amaze me with your breadth of knowledge. The rest of us are at a serious disadvantage. A select few on this forum know what I mean; for those of you who do not, Wild Bill is also known as, Dr. William L. Richter, PhD. He would never reveal this and I cannot help to do so. Sorry, pard, I know you are very humble, at least in this one regard. Your posts are just great. OK, I owe you a steak dinner.

(08-18-2014 12:59 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Bill,

Will you explain to me the purpose of the Hampton Roads Peace Conference - other than it was designed to make Jefferson Davis look bad to his citizenry?

Laurie,

You might check out the book Our Common Country: Abraham Lincoln and the Hampton Roads Peace Conference of 1865 by James B. Conroy. I recently purchased it but have not read it yet. (It is ebbing ever closer to the top of my pile!)

Here is a talk by Mr. Conroy on C-span's American History TV (lasts just over 1.5 hours).
http://www.c-span.org/video/?317311-1/ha...rence-1865

Here is an interview with Mr. Conroy on Civil War Talk Radio hosted by Gerry Prokopowicz (lasts about 1 hour).
http://www.impedimentsofwar.org/singlesh...?show=1025

Both of these are great and I learned a lot about the Hampton Roads Peace Conference, which I knew very little about.

Incidentally, for those who are unfamiliar, Civil War Talk Radio is a great show. Each week someone with an area of knowledge on the Civil War is interviewed (typically an author). It is a great introduction to a lot of books without having to buy (or in my case whetting my appetite so often that I buy more than I really have time to read!). All the shows are archived on the impediments of war website and can also be downloaded from iTunes. I listen to these almost exclusively now in the car when traveling from place to place. The time flies!

Scott, if possible please give your feedback on "Our Common Country" once you have finished it. I definitely want to get and read it, too, however. Did you know Mr. Conroy is a forum member?
http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...l#pid32548

(08-18-2014 07:18 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Scott, if possible please give your feedback on "Our Common Country" once you have finished it. I definitely want to get and read it, too, however. Did you know Mr. Conroy is a forum member?
http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...l#pid32548

Eva,

I will certainly share my thoughts once I get the book read. It is currently second from the top of my to read pile. I do have a vacation coming up in a couple of weeks so hope to get it read then.

Also, I did not know that Mr. Conroy was a member of this Forum. Somehow I missed that thread altogether. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

Quote:Here is a talk by Mr. Conroy on C-span's American History TV (lasts just over 1.5 hours).
http://www.c-span.org/video/?317311-1/ha...rence-1865

Here is an interview with Mr. Conroy on Civil War Talk Radio hosted by Gerry Prokopowicz (lasts about 1 hour).
http://www.impedimentsofwar.org/singlesh...?show=1025

Both of these are great and I learned a lot about the Hampton Roads Peace Conference, which I knew very little about.

Incidentally, for those who are unfamiliar, Civil War Talk Radio is a great show. Each week someone with an area of knowledge on the Civil War is interviewed (typically an author). It is a great introduction to a lot of books without having to buy (or in my case whetting my appetite so often that I buy more than I really have time to read!). All the shows are archived on the impediments of war website and can also be downloaded from iTunes. I listen to these almost exclusively now in the car when traveling from place to place. The time flies!

Great! Thanks so very much for the link - I've bookmarked it - great to listen to and download for those long trips up to Maryland/DC/Baltimore!

(08-18-2014 06:08 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  Bill,

You never cease to amaze me with your breadth of knowledge. The rest of us are at a serious disadvantage. A select few on this forum know what I mean; for those of you who do not, Wild Bill is also known as, Dr. William L. Richter, PhD. He would never reveal this and I cannot help to do so. Sorry, pard, I know you are very humble, at least in this one regard. Your posts are just great. OK, I owe you a steak dinner.

I wholeheartedly agree, Rick. When I met Bill last year, I stuck my hand out and asked if he was Dr. Richter. That was met with a curt "Don't you call me Doctor. I'm Bill". You're correct that most of us are at a serious disadvantage regarding Bill's knowledge. Now if we could just get the crotchety old mule shoer to really unload......

I totally agree with both Rick and Joe!

"Wild Bill" is my go-to for all things political - he's a wonderful researcher and writer!