Incident at an Antique Store

[Rick Smith]

(08-11-2014 02:40 PM)L Verge Wrote:  And I shall continue to learn about and understand Mr. Lincoln while honoring the memory of Southern patriots who fought for their beliefs -- and after defeat went back to desolation and waste and struggled through the hard times (and harsh Radical measures) to restore their lands and property. Their actions show character and dedication also. And they and their descendants went on to join forces with their conquerors to fight enemies of the UNITED States of America for another 150 years.

Well said, Laurie.

[David Lockmiller]

(08-11-2014 02:40 PM)L Verge Wrote:  And I shall continue to learn about and understand Mr. Lincoln while honoring the memory of Southern patriots who fought for their beliefs -- and after defeat went back to desolation and waste and struggled through the hard times (and harsh Radical measures) to restore their lands and property. Their actions show character and dedication also. And they and their descendants went on to join forces with their conquerors to fight enemies of the UNITED States of America for another 150 years.

Before his last public speech on the night of April 11, 1865, President Lincoln spoke to Noah Brooks: “It is true that I don’t usually read a speech, but I am going to say something tonight that may be important. I am going to talk about reconstruction.”

At the close of the speech, a member of the audience, John Wilkes Booth, a man who did not have the courage of his convictions that would enable him to fight alongside the South’s men-in-arms, turned to a friend and declared: “That means ***** citizenship. . . . That is the last speech he will ever make.”

Prior to this speech, in order to encourage die-hards to surrender, Lincoln offered a practical inducement: “the remission of confiscations being within the executive power, if the war be now further persisted in, by those opposing the government, the making of confiscated property at the least to bear the additional cost, will be insisted on; but that confiscations (except in cases of third party intervening interests) will be remitted to the people of any State which shall now promptly, and in good faith, withdraw its troops and other support, from further resistance to the government. What is now said as to remission of confiscations has no reference to supposed property in slaves.”

It was because of President Abraham Lincoln that there was no call for the prosecution of high-ranking military or government personnel of the South. There was no massacre of defeated soldiers (as you see now occurring in the Mideast and Africa); soldiers of the South were treated with the respect that they had earned on the battlefield.

It is true that Andrew Johnson had been selected as President Lincoln’s vice-presidential candidate for his second term in order to increase Lincoln’s chances with the electorate for his being re-elected to a second term and finish the work that he had so nobly progressed. At the time of Johnson’s selection, President Lincoln’s prospects for re-election were not very good.

Shortly after the dedication of the cemetery at Gettysburg, the President told this story at a Cabinet meeting. “Thad Stevens was asked by someone, the morning of the day appointed for that ceremony, where the President and Mr. Seward were going. ‘To Gettysburg,’ was the reply. ‘But where are Stanton and Chase?’ continued the questioner. ‘At home, at work,’ was the surly answer. ‘Let the dead bury the dead.’”

Following his high-margin election as President for a second term, President Lincoln came to regret his selection of Andrew Johnson as his Vice-Presidential candidate. Just three days before the murder of President Lincoln, Vice-President Johnson called upon him at the White House and remained about two hours. When the President joined his family, and in conversation regarding the delayed ride with his family, he remarked, with much apparent concern: “That miserable man! I cannot anticipate the troubles he will cause me during my second term of office.”

In short, it was the assassin’s bullet, and not President Abraham Lincoln, that determined the government’s Reconstruction policy for the South.

I meant no disrespect in my previous post to the people and soldiers of the South. President Lincoln found fault with both the people of the North and the people of the South for the Civil War. His efforts, beginning with his first Presidential Inaugural Address were to prevent Civil War.

One may recall the famous tribute story of President Lincoln following the death of General Stonewall Jackson. When the Chronicle, of Washington, had the courage to speak well of "Stonewall" Jackson, accidentally shot, as a brave soldier, however mistaken as an American, Lincoln wrote to the editor:"I honor you for your generosity to one who, though contending against us in a guilty case, was nevertheless a gallant man. Let us forget his sins over a fresh-made grave."

[Gene C]

(08-12-2014 12:45 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Following his high-margin election as President for a second term, President Lincoln came to regret his selection of Andrew Johnson as his Vice-Presidential candidate. Just three days before the murder of President Lincoln, Vice-President Johnson called upon him at the White House and remained about two hours. When the President joined his family, and in conversation regarding the delayed ride with his family, he remarked, with much apparent concern: “That miserable man! I cannot anticipate the troubles he will cause me during my second term of office.”

Thanks, I haven't read that before. Where does that quote come from?

[L Verge]

I am posing this in a non-confrontational manner (I hope) because I have asked this question numerous times to Lincoln students and experts alike and never get a clear answer: Do you (anyone) feel that Reconstruction would have been totally different under Lincoln's leadership? Did he have the political strength and savvy to hold the Radicals at bay once the war was over?

Lincoln's legend-makers appear to be certain that his death sealed the fate of Southerners when it came to overcoming the economic as well as social upheavals that the war had brought. I'm not so sure - and I say that mainly because of human nature.

I know that I'm throwing out one of those "what if" situations. But, hey, someone wrote a whole book on the subject of what if the South had won the war...

[David Lockmiller]

(08-12-2014 12:56 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 12:45 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Following his high-margin election as President for a second term, President Lincoln came to regret his selection of Andrew Johnson as his Vice-Presidential candidate. Just three days before the murder of President Lincoln, Vice-President Johnson called upon him at the White House and remained about two hours. When the President joined his family, and in conversation regarding the delayed ride with his family, he remarked, with much apparent concern: “That miserable man! I cannot anticipate the troubles he will cause me during my second term of office.”

Thanks, I haven't read that before. Where does that quote come from?

The quote is from the book "Lincoln Talks, a Biography in Anecdote" by Emanuel Hertz, page 220-21. [No publication date for the Cincinnati Gazette referenced article is provided.]

In attempting to locate more information on this particular source, I came across the obituary for Andrew Johnson published by the NYTimes. It has a very relevant quote from President Johnson on the subject matter of reconstruction policy only a few days following President Lincoln’s assassination.

August 1, 1875
OBITUARY
Andrew Johnson Dead
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

In a speech of welcome to a delegation of citizens of Illinois who called on him on the 18th of April President Johnson said:

"The times we live in are not without instruction. The American people must be taught--if they do not already feel--that treason is a crime and must be punished; that the Government will not always bear with its enemies; that it is strong not only to protect but to punish."

[David Lockmiller]

(08-12-2014 02:38 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I am posing this in a non-confrontational manner (I hope) because I have asked this question numerous times to Lincoln students and experts alike and never get a clear answer: Do you (anyone) feel that Reconstruction would have been totally different under Lincoln's leadership? Did he have the political strength and savvy to hold the Radicals at bay once the war was over?

Lincoln's legend-makers appear to be certain that his death sealed the fate of Southerners when it came to overcoming the economic as well as social upheavals that the war had brought. I'm not so sure - and I say that mainly because of human nature.

I know that I'm throwing out one of those "what if" situations. But, hey, someone wrote a whole book on the subject of what if the South had won the war...

Before his last public speech on the night of April 11, 1865, President Lincoln spoke to Noah Brooks: “It is true that I don’t usually read a speech, but I am going to say something tonight that may be important. I am going to talk about reconstruction.”

I believe to answer your first question that you have one of three choices:

1. Read the entire speech by President Lincoln on the night of April 11, 1865.
2. Read Professor Burlingame’s analysis of this speech. [“Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” Professor Michael Burlingame, Vol. Two, pages 802-03.]
3. Read both “1” and “2.” [Best choice.]


As to your second question, I have no doubt that, under Lincoln’s leadership, the policy of Reconstruction of the South would have been quite different and in line with his speech of April 11, 1865. By way of informative illustration, I present the following two stories from the book by the Marquis Adolphe de Chambrun, “Impressions of Lincoln and the Civil War.”

Saturday, February 25, 1865, White House.

The reception was almost over. Many guests had already left. In we went. Upon entering the first parlor, I at once perceived a tall man standing near the door, surrounded by an atmosphere of great respect. No mistake was possible; it was Mr. Lincoln himself! His face denotes an immense force of resistance and extreme melancholy. It is plain that this man has suffered deeply. His eyes are superb, large and with a very profound expression when he fixes them on you. It cannot be said that he is awkward; his simplicity is too great for that. He has no pretense to having worldly ways and is unused to society, but there is nothing shocking in this, quite the contrary. The elevation of his mind is too evident; his heroic sentiments are so apparent that one thinks of nothing else. Nobody could be less of a parvenu. As President of a mighty nation, he remains just the same as he must have appeared while felling trees in Illinois. But I must add that he dominates everyone present and maintains his exalted position without the slightest effort.

I waited fifteen minutes before Mr. Kennedy could bring me up to him and then managed to say that my whole heart was engaged on the side of his political ideals; that I participated enthusiastically in his present success and that of his armies, feeling, as I did, that Union victory was the victory of all mankind. This seemed to please him, for he took my hand in both of his as he said how glad he was to find his POLICIES (emphasis added) so well understood. (Ibid., pages 21-22) [letter to the wife of the Marquis, dated February 27, 1865.]

Sunday, April 9, 1865, on board the River Queen, returning from City Point (Richmond, VA)

I questioned him several times in regard to the relations then existing between France and the United States, relations imperiled by our Mexican expedition. His answer was unfailing: “We have had enough war. I know what the American people want and, thank God, I count for something in the country. Rest assured that during my second term there will be no more fighting.” (Ibid., pages 85-86)

I should add that, if needed, President Lincoln could count upon the invaluable support for his policy of Reconstruction by the leading generals of the War for the Union cause throughout the nation, most especially the support of Lieutenant General U. S. Grant and General William Tecumseh Sherman. A number of former Union generals became President of the United States following the Civil War as an indication of their own political support following the Civil War. All of these generals had the earned respect for their former adversaries of the South, officers and soldiers. Only President Lincoln could have marshalled this political support which would have been favorable to his Reconstruction policy. And, as a politician, President Lincoln’s skills were formidable and proven.

[LincolnToddFan]

[I am posing this in a non-confrontational manner (I hope) because I have asked this question numerous times to Lincoln students and experts alike and never get a clear answer: Do you (anyone) feel that Reconstruction would have been totally different under Lincoln's leadership? Did he have the political strength and savvy to hold the Radicals at bay once the war was over?

Lincoln's legend-makers appear to be certain that his death sealed the fate of Southerners when it came to overcoming the economic as well as social upheavals that the war had brought. I'm not so sure - and I say that mainly because of human nature]//quote

Hi Laurie,

I am the furthest from an expert or legendmaker as you will ever find on this board. But if Lincoln was able to outmaneuver the Radicals and hold them at bay during the war over the issue of immediate emancipation for the slaves, why do you doubt he would have been as successful dealing with them after the war? By the time of Appomattox, AL's stock had risen dramatically among the electorate and the press. He had been vindicated by victory. The Copperheads were held in wide contempt. He was more respected and revered than ever...and more influential.

In almost any other nation on earth, the leaders of the Confederacy would have faced military tribunals and summary executions after Appomattox. AL had already gone on record as saying he would have no part of it.

I don't agree with much of what Lerone Bennett writes about Abraham Lincoln in his controversial "Forced Into Glory" but one thing he wrote does resonate...Abraham Lincoln's Reconstruction was going to be a Reconstruction "of the White man, by the White man, and for White man." In other words, it would have been a Reconstruction policy that the South could have lived with.

In a policy that had put him on a direct collision course with Radical Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, AL was in favor of putting the governments of the former Confederate states back into the hands of the hands of the same people who ran them before the rebellion as long as they took an oath of loyalty to the Federal government. They were going to be having a huge say in how much actual freedom the freedmen were to have in the post war South.(Lincoln's Last Months// William C. Harris)

And we all know what that meant.

I do believe the freedmen would not have been as massively betrayed under Lincoln as they were under the subsequent Johnson and Hayes Administrations....but in the long run they were the group that was going to suffer the biggest letdown, even under the relatively benign Reconstruction policies of AL.

I agree 100% with David Lockmiller...the South has John Wilkes Booth to thank for the (admittedly harsh) Reconstruction that was imposed upon them.

[David Lockmiller]

(08-12-2014 07:07 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  Abraham Lincoln's Reconstruction was going to be a Reconstruction "of the White man, by the White man, and for White man."

I agree 100% with David Lockmiller...the South has John Wilkes Booth to thank for the (admittedly harsh) Reconstruction that was imposed upon them.

I disagree with the first statement regarding the purpose of Lincoln's Reconstruction policy to create a "White Man Only" government in each of the states in the South. In his Reconstruction Policy speech that night, Lincoln called for the granting of the elective franchise to educated blacks and former black soldiers, where possible, and this would be the beginning of the long process to create state governments in all of the South of the People, by the People, and for the People.I quote at length from Professor Burlingame's analysis of President Lincoln's April 11, 1865 Reconstruction speech:

To strengthen this rhetorical apeal for Republican unity, Lincoln offered the Radicals an important substantive concession. Hitherto he had expressed support for black suffrage only in private. Now, fatefully, he made that support public: "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those wo serve our cause as soldiers." To be sure, he acknowledged, the Louisiana Legislature had not availed itself of the opportunity afforded it by the new state constitution to enfranchise blacks, but "the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is 'Will it be wiser to take it as it is, and help to improve it; or to reject, and disperse it?' 'Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining, or by discarding her new State Government?'" Putting it another way, he asked: "Concede that the new governmentof Louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg is to the fowl, shall we sooner have the fowl by hatchng the egg than by smashing it?"

Months later Frederick Douglass acknowledged that though Lincoln's call for black suffrage "seemed to mean but little" at the time, it actually "meant a great deal. It was just like Abraham Lincoln. He never shocked prejudices unnecessarily. Having learned statemanship while splitting rails, he always used the thin edge of the wedge first--and the fact that he used it at all meant that he would if need be, use the thick as well as the thin."

In 1864, Lincoln had privately urged Governor Hahn to enfranchise at least some blacks in Louisiana. In 1865, he publicly endorsed the same policy. To be sure, Louisiana was a special case, for a number of educated blacks lived in New Orleans. Possibly Lincoln did not mean to extend suffrage to uneducated blacks in other states, but that seems unlikely, for if he wanted to enfranchise only educated blacks, he would not have suggested that black soldiers, regardless of educational background, be granted voting rights.

[LincolnToddFan]

What about Benjamin Butler's insistence that AL was still pushing the colonization proposal...right up to within the last 48 hours of his life? (This is documented in the William Harris book "Last Months", but it's near midnight here and I will have to dig it up tomorrow.)

And even if it's true, as some have asserted, that he had largely abandoned his back-to-Africa goal for the freedmen, how were the Confederate leaders-the former masters of these same freed slaves-going to be induced to give ANY of them the right to vote in the post war South? Even the ones AL called "the very intelligent?" These were the same Confederate leaders who-literally almost up to the bitter end-had refused to even allow slaves to enlist as soldiers to fight for their cause even though it conceivably might have turned the tide in their direction.

You say that you disagree that AL intended to set up White man only governments in the post Civil War South...but are you seriously suggesting that any freed slaves were going to be permitted by their former masters to hold public office?

Bennett's argument-which I don't necessarily agree with 100% but does warrant examination imo-is that there was often a disconnect between AL's public rhetoric and private behavior on the issue of race.

Frederick Douglas was indeed an admirer of AL, but his feelings for him almost up to the end of his life were conflicted. He famously stated that AL was a "White man's president" and that Blacks were "at best his step-children".

I have made no secret of my admiration for AL, but the fact is that his views on the race issue could be complicated. They were evolving. Professor Burlingame tends to see and write AL as faultless and heroic in both his private and public lives. I see him as an heroic figure as well, but very far from faultless.

[RJNorton]

Back in the 1930's Lloyd Lewis made a speech entitled "If Lincoln Had Lived." He expressed many thoughts including the idea that Lincoln would have formed a new political party as a method of dealing with Reconstruction. Long ago Rob Wick sent me this speech, and it can be read here.

[Gene C]

Interesting article. I quickly scanned it, and can't say I agree with Mr. Lewis's conclusions.
He fails to mention that through much of Lincoln's term in office, he was very unpopular, and had not Sherman captured Atlanta, might have lost the re-election.

The date of his speech is also significant, between WW 1, and WW 2. (middle of the depression) His last two sentences, about the conflict (north and south) of economic, social and political balances between an agricultural and industrial society are interesting. "But restraint was possible. France used it." If I recall, France took it particularly hard in both wars and served as the battleground for much of it.

[LincolnToddFan]

(08-13-2014 04:08 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Back in the 1930's Lloyd Lewis made a speech entitled "If Lincoln Had Lived." He expressed many thoughts including the idea that Lincoln would have formed a new political party as a method of dealing with Reconstruction. Long ago Rob Wick sent me this speech, and it can be read here.

Hi Roger,

Lloyd Lewis wrote a wonderful book called "Myths After Lincoln". He's a terrific writer, very pro AL, if a bit conservative. I have to get ready for class but will definitely read this article when I get home this afternoon...much thanks-

---

[LincolnMan]

I agree on the Lloyd Lewis book- have referred to it many times. From what I've read, Mr. Lewis gave much support to Carl Sandburg during the writing of his Lincoln work.

[Wild Bill]

Another Lloyd Lewis contribution. While working on the biography of US Grant as northern general, he noticed that when Civil War battles were short in duration, usually a day or so, the Rebs tended to win. When they lasted for days, the Yanks tended to win. Why? He traced it to what the soldiers ate. The Yanks ate wheat products while the Rebs ate a lot of corn meal. Wheat had certain enzymes that tended to allow for endurance in combat. Corn lacked that benefit.

His article on Lincoln and the possible creation of a different political party structure is very interesting. When I taught Reconstruction 45 years go, I used to go through the various factions in the two parties and show how Reconstruction policy changed depending on who was in charge and what this person wanted to see happen in the political world. I looked at Lincoln, Seward, A. Johnson, and the Radical Republicans and drew up diagrams that showed the left-right movements of each in the then political spectrum. Each change in policy was designed to add to to subtract from what we consider "normal" political divisions of the time. One example of this kind of thing after Lewis' article is in David Donald's Politics of Reconstruction, which I was privileged to hear him deliver at the Fleming Lectures at LSU when I was a student in the 1960s. But Lloyd Lewis is a great read in CW and Recon. He thinks outside the box.

[L Verge]

Thanks for posting, Bill, and your thought about it depending on who was pulling the strings at any given time was what I was hoping you would say. I also question (without having a lot of information) whether Lincoln really was as popular with the people in 1865. Wasn't his re-election helped tremendously by allowing soldiers to vote in states where they happened to be -- such as Massachusetts guys walking into Maryland voting houses and casting a vote for Mr. Lincoln - or intimidating the citizens into deciding not to vote...