The Reputation of Presidents Takes a Hit in Their Second Term

[RJNorton]

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/183739

Due to the assassination this does not apply to Abraham Lincoln as it does to many of the re-elected Presidents. Does anyone want to speculate on whether or not Lincoln's historical reputation would be different had he served a complete second term?

[Rob Wick]

Roger,

A lot of it would depend on how well Lincoln could have handled the Radicals. While he obviously would have been much smarter than Andrew Johnson it's really hard to say how much more successful he would have been. While his handling of men was superior to many people given how much Lincoln favored reconciliation it would have been a tough row to hope with Stevens or Sumner I believe that Lincoln would have made the treatment of the freedmen his top priority, but the period of Reconstruction was a marathon and not a sprint. Much of it would depend on how well Lincoln set the stage for his successors.

That sai, I would question how strongly we would venerate Lincoln's memory today. He certainly would be strongly admired, but four more years of politics would have taken its toll.

Best
Rob

[AussieMick]

Rob,
You write that " four more years of politics would have taken its toll". I suggest we cannot be certain. I'd argue that , based upon what we know of Lincoln and how he progressed in his later years (like me .... LOL) I think he may well have succeeded in dealing with Reconstruction.

As you say, he was supreme in knowing how to deal with people. He could assess the abilities of people and delegate and knew which people he could trust. Sure, he made a few mistakes ... some Generals wernt too flash ... but he learnt from his mistakes and rarely held a grudge ( anyone know when he did hold a grudge?).

I suggest that following re-election he'd had a huge mandate to enforce his ideas about Reconstruction. Southern Governors would no doubt have tried to impede those ideas, but my money would have been on Lincoln to force/coerce/persuade them to come to terms with his ideals. Arguing with a President who had just won a war and an election wouldnt be too clever . Especially if Lincoln played one State off another, giving special favours to some and promising freebies to another ... and maybe making sure the recalcitrant states knew what would happen if they failed to make changes.

[Dave B]

Excellent points.
Very hard to think "what if", with so many variables.
And Rob made some very interesting points too.

[Wild Bill]

I have written a paper on this topic an conclude that Lincoln would have quite well in a second term, although he would have agreed with Radical Republicans on most policies. It supposedly has been accepted bu Lincoln Herald, but I have yer to see it in print

[David Lockmiller]

(08-24-2022 06:27 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  I have written a paper on this topic an conclude that Lincoln would have quite well in a second term, although he would have agreed with Radical Republicans on most policies. It supposedly has been accepted bu Lincoln Herald, but I have yer to see it in print

Can you post some portion here?

I also found this: President Lincoln's Letter to Governor Hahn

I like the first paragraph and the facsimile of the letter President Lincoln wrote to Governor Hahn on third and last page. It shows how important the right to vote in elections is to progress in a democracy.

MR. LINCOLN'S LETTER.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 13, 1864. [Please note the date. This was long before he wrote the "blind memorandum" on August 23, 1864.]

Hon. Michael Hahn:

MY DEAR SIR: I congratulate you on having fixed your name in history as the first free-State Governor of Louisiana. Now you are about to have a convention, which, among other things, will probably define the elective franchise. I barely suggest, for your private consideration, whether some of the colored people may not be let in, as, for instance, the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks. They would probably help, in some trying time to come, to keep the jewel of liberty in the family of freedom. But this is only a suggestion, not to the public, but to you alone.

Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.

[Rob Wick]

(08-23-2022 09:12 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  Rob,
You write that " four more years of politics would have taken its toll". I suggest we cannot be certain. I'd argue that , based upon what we know of Lincoln and how he progressed in his later years (like me .... LOL) I think he may well have succeeded in dealing with Reconstruction.

As you say, he was supreme in knowing how to deal with people. He could assess the abilities of people and delegate and knew which people he could trust. Sure, he made a few mistakes ... some Generals wernt too flash ... but he learnt from his mistakes and rarely held a grudge ( anyone know when he did hold a grudge?).

I suggest that following re-election he'd had a huge mandate to enforce his ideas about Reconstruction. Southern Governors would no doubt have tried to impede those ideas, but my money would have been on Lincoln to force/coerce/persuade them to come to terms with his ideals. Arguing with a President who had just won a war and an election wouldnt be too clever . Especially if Lincoln played one State off another, giving special favours to some and promising freebies to another ... and maybe making sure the recalcitrant states knew what would happen if they failed to make changes.

Mike,

The problem with speculating is that no matter how well one may know Lincoln's mind (and even that is hard to wrap one's head about), there are far too many unknowns to do more than offer a guess, and I would say it would be a weak guess at that. Even if Lincoln faced a similar situation before, that offers only a limited map into how it might resolve itself in the future. We simply don't know what issues or conditions Lincoln would have faced in a second term.

I would also caution against using the term "mandate." Lincoln won the election only after the Union's fortunes brightened when Sherman captured Atlanta. Several months elapsed until the North finally won the war and there was still a great deal of bloodshed that happened in Lincoln's name.

Even though I do believe Lincoln was a master at handling men, those men were still individuals who had no special allegiance to Lincoln. Look at how Lincoln was bothered by the Committee on the Conduct of the War. Don't you think such a committee led by many of the same people who would have to vote on Reconstruction measures would have held Lincoln to the fire?

Bill, please let us know when your article is published. I would love to read it.

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 13, 1864. [Please note the date. This was long before he wrote the "blind memorandum" on August 23, 1864.]

Hon. Michael Hahn:

MY DEAR SIR: I congratulate you on having fixed your name in history as the first free-State Governor of Louisiana. Now you are about to have a convention, which, among other things, will probably define the elective franchise. I barely suggest, for your private consideration, whether some of the colored people may not be let in, as, for instance, the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks. They would probably help, in some trying time to come, to keep the jewel of liberty in the family of freedom. But this is only a suggestion, not to the public, but to you alone.

Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.

[RJNorton]

Back in the 1930s author/journalist Lloyd Lewis gave an address on the topic of Lincoln's second term. It was entitled If Lincoln Had Lived. Lewis speculated Lincoln might have succeeded in Reconstruction by forming an entirely new political party.

It's an interesting speech, and in 2013 Rob kindly sent me the text. I have uploaded it here. Lewis' thoughts on Lincoln possibly forming a new political party begin on p.28.

[David Lockmiller]

RECONSTRUCTION I: A STATE DIVIDED

Constitution of 1864
Louisiana responded to President Abraham Lincoln's plan to readmit southern states into the Union by selecting delegates to write a new constitution. The Constitution of 1864 abolished slavery and disposed of Louisiana's old order of rule by planters and merchants, although it did not give African Americans voting power. It was the first state charter to incorporate Lincoln's conciliatory approach and was the leading test case for postwar policy.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 did not apply to Union-held territory. Thus, slavery continued in the thirteen Louisiana parishes under Union control. After much debate, delegates to the constitutional convention agreed to abolish slavery without compensation for masters but not to give the vote to black men. The new constitution, however, authorized the state legislature to extend voting rights to black men who fought for the Union, owned property, or were literate.

The constitution also enabled the legislature to establish a free public school system for all children aged six to eighteen, with no mention of race. Legislators elected under the Constitution of 1864 established schools for whites but not for blacks.

The persistent efforts of African Americans and their white allies in Louisiana forced the issue of voting rights for blacks into the national arena. In 1864 they sent a delegation to Washington to petition for enfranchisement. Louisiana blacks valued the right to vote above all other rights because they could not hope to protect their property or their lives without political power.

When a petition taken to President Lincoln resulted in no change in the situation, freeborn and newly freed blacks came together at the Convention of Colored Men in January 1865, calling for the organization and unity of all persons of African descent. The convention's 107 delegates voted to petition commanding military authorities to integrate streetcars and rejected the idea of extending voting rights to only a small group of black men.

Louisiana Black Code of 1865
Not only did African Americans fail to gain civil and political rights, they also experienced increased regulation over their private lives. To control the behavior and actions of former slaves in the "free" postwar society, Louisiana and other southern states enacted Black Codes, modeled on restrictions in force under slavery.

The Louisiana Black Code did grant certain rights to freedpersons--to acquire and own property, marry, make contracts, and testify in court--but its primary purpose was to restore the plantation economy by using blacks as poorly paid laborers instead of outright slaves.

The severity of Louisiana's and other states' Black Codes convinced many northerners that only with more radical forms of Reconstruction would southern society change to accommodate ex-slaves as citizens and free workers. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which defined the rights that all citizens were to enjoy equally without regard to race: to protect person and property, make contracts, and bring lawsuits. This federal legislation prevailed over all state laws and revealed the Republican Party's acceptance of what it had once considered Radical policy.

[David Lockmiller]

(08-25-2022 09:07 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  It was the first state charter to incorporate Lincoln's conciliatory approach and was the leading test case for postwar policy.

The [Louisiana state] constitution also enabled the legislature to establish a free public school system for all children aged six to eighteen, with no mention of race. Legislators elected under the Constitution of 1864 established schools for whites but not for blacks.

The persistent efforts of African Americans and their white allies in Louisiana forced the issue of voting rights for blacks into the national arena. In 1864 they sent a delegation to Washington to petition for enfranchisement. Louisiana blacks valued the right to vote above all other rights because they could not hope to protect their property or their lives without political power.

When a petition taken to President Lincoln resulted in no change in the situation, freeborn and newly freed blacks came together at the Convention of Colored Men in January 1865, calling for the organization and unity of all persons of African descent. The convention's 107 delegates voted to petition commanding military authorities to integrate streetcars and rejected the idea of extending voting rights to only a small group of black men.

The Louisiana Black Code did grant certain rights to freedpersons--to acquire and own property, marry, make contracts, and testify in court--but its primary purpose was to restore the plantation economy by using blacks as poorly paid laborers instead of outright slaves.

The severity of Louisiana's and other states' Black Codes convinced many northerners that only with more radical forms of Reconstruction would southern society change to accommodate ex-slaves as citizens and free workers. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which defined the rights that all citizens were to enjoy equally without regard to race: to protect person and property, make contracts, and bring lawsuits. This federal legislation prevailed over all state laws and revealed the Republican Party's acceptance of what it had once considered Radical policy.

There are three branches of government in our democracy - executive, legislative, and judicial.

Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States Supreme Court wrote in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176-177:

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis, on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns, to different departments, their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered, by this court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society.

[AussieMick]

I came across a comparison of Lincoln with Michael Collins, Irish statesman who was shot (bullet to the head) in 1922. 100 years ago this month.

https://www.theirishstory.com/2017/08/19...w17-XZBzIX

"He might have cited the parallel between himself and Abraham Lincoln, the American President during that country’s civil war. Like Collins, Lincoln’s enemies characterised him as a ‘tyrant’ and like Collins, Lincoln did take all the measures he felt necessary to win the Civil War and save the Union. In 1861 for instance, he too suspended habeus corpus, imposed censorship and military courts and shut down the legislatures of ‘disloyal’ states such as Maryland."

The 1996 Liam Neeson film "Michael Collins" is very good , IMO. I was surprised that Collins was only 32 when killed. Reading what he accomplished in such a short life one wonders what he could have achieved if he'd lived to re-build Ireland after "their" Civil War.

The next link tells Collins life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmYj5kaw01Q

the next is an excuse for me to include a fine song (based upon a real event) from Ireland that always brings tears ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Oi7CdBc78

[David Lockmiller]

(08-25-2022 09:07 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  It was the first state charter to incorporate Lincoln's conciliatory approach and was the leading test case for postwar policy.

The [Louisiana state] constitution also enabled the legislature to establish a free public school system for all children aged six to eighteen, with no mention of race. Legislators elected under the Constitution of 1864 established schools for whites but not for blacks.

The persistent efforts of African Americans and their white allies in Louisiana forced the issue of voting rights for blacks into the national arena. In 1864 they sent a delegation to Washington to petition for enfranchisement. Louisiana blacks valued the right to vote above all other rights because they could not hope to protect their property or their lives without political power.

When a petition taken to President Lincoln resulted in no change in the situation, freeborn and newly freed blacks came together at the Convention of Colored Men in January 1865, calling for the organization and unity of all persons of African descent. The convention's 107 delegates voted to petition commanding military authorities to integrate streetcars and rejected the idea of extending voting rights to only a small group of black men.

The Louisiana Black Code did grant certain rights to freedpersons--to acquire and own property, marry, make contracts, and testify in court--but its primary purpose was to restore the plantation economy by using blacks as poorly paid laborers instead of outright slaves.

The severity of Louisiana's and other states' Black Codes convinced many northerners that only with more radical forms of Reconstruction would southern society change to accommodate ex-slaves as citizens and free workers. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which defined the rights that all citizens were to enjoy equally without regard to race: to protect person and property, make contracts, and bring lawsuits. This federal legislation prevailed over all state laws and revealed the Republican Party's acceptance of what it had once considered Radical policy.

I was trying to make the point that the Constitution controls the individuals in all three branches of government. Or, as Chief Justice phrased this concept: "[I]t is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument, as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) at 179-180)

As stated at the beginning of this post, "[Louisiana] was the first state charter to incorporate Lincoln's conciliatory approach and was the leading test case for postwar policy.]

As President, Lincoln could only advocate to the Governor as he did for Louisiana's state constitution to include the elective franchise for at least some of its black citizens.

In the end, the members of Congress decided after Lincoln's death it must legislatively act.

Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which defined the rights that all citizens were to enjoy equally without regard to race: to protect person and property, make contracts, and bring lawsuits. This federal legislation prevailed over all state laws and revealed the Republican Party's acceptance of what it had once considered Radical policy.

For example, Louisiana Black Code did grant certain rights to freedpersons-- including only the right to testify in court. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 also permitted freedpersons to "bring lawsuits" as well.

[RJNorton]

David, in The Abraham Lincoln Encyclopedia, Dr. Mark E. Neely, Jr. writes:

"No myth has a stronger hold on the popular mind than the assertion that John Wilkes Booth's bullet killed the best friend the South ever had. 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."

What do you (or anyone who would like to voice an opinion) think of that statement?

[AussieMick]

I think we can make some assumptions about what Lincoln would have done during Reconstruction based upon what he was doing and saying throughout his life. He was very keen on compensated emancipation. Many other nations used it to enable slave owners to be compensated. Sure, to many of us (me anyhow) find it a bit obscene to be giving $$$ to people that had made their wealth out of human misery ... but these were assets that Govts had previously allowed people to own and now those Govts were saying You must give them up.

If slave owners had been compensated the Govt would have had arguing power to say We've done the right thing- now You must do the right thing and treat freed slaves humanely.

A major problem for the South (as I understand it) was that the War had brought massive poverty ... and this continued for many decades. Compensation for the slaves would, yes, have been a huge impost on the national economy. But, like the Marshall Plan for Europe after WW2, the $$$ could have been used by the South to re-build and the massive poverty could have been addressed ... rather than lasting until, what, the 1960's. And that 'huge impost' could have been wiped out and the potential resources (brains, labour, initiative, etc ) of all peoples (regardless of skin colour) in the South would have been effectively used.