+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Other (/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Lincoln and Hamlin? (/thread-2917.html)
RE: Lincoln and Hamlin? - HerbS - 03-20-2016 02:54 PM
Hamin did have some positive qualities in him,but Lincoln never used them or ignored them.It is known that Hamlin opposed Seward and ideas!
RE: Lincoln and Hamlin? - Gene C - 03-20-2016 02:59 PM
On the light side, Lincoln may have spared Hamlin from becoming one of the most disliked and despised Presidents in history.
Lincoln had his shortcomings, but he also had his virtues. He was a tough act to follow, and whoever replaced him was going to face many challenges. In my opinion Johnson fell way short, he did not have the personality or character to be able to deal effectively with the situations he faced.
RE: Lincoln and Hamlin? - HerbS - 03-20-2016 05:24 PM
Gene-I agree with your opinion 100%!
RE: Lincoln and Hamlin? - L Verge - 03-20-2016 08:35 PM
(03-20-2016 02:00 PM)Wild Bill Wrote: Hamlin was always pushing for more black emancipation and the use of black troops. Lincoln fired Cameron for this (plus his corruption) and recalled the orders of Fremont in Missouri and Hunter in SC for using blacks as soldiers "prematurely." Hamlin may have fallen to the same axe in the end.
as Murray Rothbard once said, "Lincoln was a master politician, which means that he was a consummate conniver, manipulator, and liar." One not read that as a criticism but as a virue in politics
I don't know who Murray Rothbard is/was, but I agree with him -- and I guess quoted him without knowing it. I get bogged down every time I try to understand Lincoln's (and others') politics, but the little I know about Lincoln makes me admire him and not trust him in the same breath.
RE: Lincoln and Hamlin? - ELCore - 03-20-2016 09:41 PM
(03-20-2016 01:06 PM)L Verge Wrote: Despite Burlingame's assessment, would Lincoln really want four more years of working with (or ignoring) him?
This calls to mind Lincoln's quip about not changing horses mid-stream.
RE: Lincoln and Hamlin? - RJNorton - 03-21-2016 04:19 AM
(03-20-2016 09:41 PM)ELCore Wrote: This calls to mind Lincoln's quip about not changing horses mid-stream.
Good point, Lane. But I wonder how much difference it really made to Lincoln as neither Hamlin nor Johnson even attended Cabinet meetings. I am wondering if Lincoln even cared who the Vice-President was.
William O. Stoddard, Lincoln's assistant secretary, wrote: "It seems that a sort of etiquette has been established, in accordance with which it is not considered good taste for the second officer of the Republic to meddle much with public business, and which, at all events, keeps him away from the Executive Mansion."
And neither Hamlin nor Johnson had a good relationship with Mary Lincoln; so I think they generally did not feel welcome at the White House.
RE: Lincoln and Hamlin? - Eva Elisabeth - 03-21-2016 08:21 AM
Would Hamlin have been the better 17th President?
RE: Lincoln and Hamlin? - L Verge - 03-21-2016 09:47 AM
The late-author of American Gothic (about the Booths), Gene Smith, also wrote a bio of Andrew Johnson. I have never read it, but Gene once told me that Andy Johnson was not as bad a politician or person as people have made him out to be.
RE: Lincoln and Hamlin? - Wild Bill - 03-21-2016 10:10 AM
Andrew Johnson fell victim to revisionist historians and the second Reconstruction or modern Civil Rights movement of the era after the 1950s. Hence one can read anything published before WW II and he is a hero standing valiantly against the vindictive Radical Republicans who screwed up Lincoln's notion of a just peace. I believe the movie was Van Heflin "Tennessee Johnson." Laurie's college text by Claude Bowers typified this.
After WW II especially beginning with Eric Mckittrick's "Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction" he becomes an inept politician who stands idiotically against justice for black Americans and punishment of the traitors who promoted Secession and the CW
Laurie, Murray Rothbard was of the so-called Austrian School of economics and a leading proponent of Libertarianism.
One thing for sure, Hamlin would not have stopped Radical Reconstruction as proposed by Congress at any time.
RE: Lincoln and Hamlin? - Gene C - 03-21-2016 03:47 PM
From what little I've read, there was serious concern that Johnson was a bit to forgiving and allowing former confederate leaders back into positions of responsibility in their local and state governments right after they had fought against their country. Johnson was tying the hands of the military that were trying to insure freed blacks were not persecuted and protecting what few new rights they had, and who were trying to punish confederate leaders at the same time.
Just like there were atrocities committee during the Civil War by both sides, same can be said for reconstruction.
We need to remember Lincoln was very unpopular up to six months before the end of the Civil War. Reconstruction probably wouldn't have added to his popularity much.
Whoever was going to be President was going to have a rough time of it.
Plus this was before the days of Stuckey's, Krispy Kreme doughnuts, Dixie Cups, Chick Fillet, the Dukes of Hazard, Claxton Fruit Cake, Coca Cola, Disney World, and Spring Break. It was a different world.
These institutions of the south might not exist without reconstruction. So maybe it wasn't a total loss after all.
RE: Lincoln and Hamlin? - L Verge - 03-21-2016 06:19 PM
(03-21-2016 03:47 PM)Gene C Wrote: From what little I've read, there was serious concern that Johnson was a bit to forgiving and allowing former confederate leaders back into positions of responsibility in their local and state governments right after they had fought against their country. Johnson was tying the hands of the military that were trying to insure freed blacks were not persecuted and protecting what few new rights they had, and who were trying to punish confederate leaders at the same time.
Just like there were atrocities committee during the Civil War by both sides, same can be said for reconstruction.
We need to remember Lincoln was very unpopular up to six months before the end of the Civil War. Reconstruction probably wouldn't have added to his popularity much.
Whoever was going to be President was going to have a rough time of it.
Plus this was before the days of Stuckey's, Krispy Kreme doughnuts, Dixie Cups, Chick Fillet, the Dukes of Hazard, Claxton Fruit Cake, Coca Cola, Disney World, and Spring Break. It was a different world.
These institutions of the south might not exist without reconstruction. So maybe it wasn't a total loss after all.
You forgot Moon Pies! But great points!
Do you think that some of the Union politicians were wise enough to realize that they needed the Confederate leaders, who were very intelligent men, on their side in order to ensure better reconstruction of the defeated South?
Not only had the war destroyed the infrastructure and economics of the area, it had badly decimated the generation of educated men that would be needed to guide their own people through the turmoil and change. Instead, much of the process fell into the hands of the vengeful military, carpetbaggers, and the uneducated classes.
RE: Lincoln and Hamlin? - HerbS - 03-24-2016 05:49 PM
Andrew Johnson was a snake! So says my mentor[Albert Castel]in his biography of Andrew Johnson!
RE: Lincoln and Hamlin? - Eva Elisabeth - 03-26-2016 03:41 AM
(03-21-2016 06:19 PM)L Verge Wrote: You forgot Moon Pies! But great points!Your points are two I think that were Lincoln's politics and beliefs - the way he put together his first cabinet speaks for the first, and the Morrill Land-Grant Acts speaks for his interest in the second of your points, Laurie. I think both would have been part of his reconstruction politics.
Do you think that some of the Union politicians were wise enough to realize that they needed the Confederate leaders, who were very intelligent men, on their side in order to ensure better reconstruction of the defeated South?
Not only had the war destroyed the infrastructure and economics of the area, it had badly decimated the generation of educated men that would be needed to guide their own people through the turmoil and change. Instead, much of the process fell into the hands of the vengeful military, carpetbaggers, and the uneducated classes.
And I second Gene's being valid points...
RE: Lincoln and Hamlin? - Wild Bill - 03-26-2016 05:48 AM
Laurie, historian David Donald showed way back in the 1940s that the scalawags, i.e., Southerners who supported Reconstruction, were very often the educated classes of the South, and his notion has been supported over the years by many others. Even Carpetbaggers have been shown as idealists as much as scum. Reconstruction is very complicated and the old stereotypes have to be taken with a grain of salt. There is a lot more spin than history of the era.
RE: Lincoln and Hamlin? - ELCore - 03-27-2016 09:48 PM
To follow up on my reply of a week ago... in their respective biographies, Ronald C. White (p. 634) and David Herbert Donald (p. 505) say Lincoln eschewed any role in choosing the VP nominee in 1864. Donald does mention on the next page that Andrew McClure of Pennsylvania claimed much later that Lincoln had spoken before the convention with him and others urging them to support Johnson. But the Fehrenbachers (pp. 316f) give McClure's two claimed quotations of Lincoln on the subject a D (more than average doubt about authenticity) and an E (probably not authentic), and argue at length against the idea that Lincoln's neutrality was a pretense.