Lincoln survives poll

Someone mentioned how un-civil we can get when we discuss non military matters...

To test this theory, I would like to poll you guys on this:

If Lincoln served out the rest of his term and let the south off easily, do you think the country would be better off today or worse?



Lets try to be nice though. Really, it comes down to whether or not you support radical reconstruction.

I'm the first voter!

KJM said:

I'm the first voter!

Click to expand...

Well, dont' I feel sheepish? I forgot to vote on my own poll...

Actually the South did get off easily. History has moved on since BIRTH OF A NATION.

Agreed Prunesquallor

In many ways LIncoln would have been harder on the South. While much is made of his pre-war opinions on the extension of full rights to the former slaves he was a fair and pragmatic individual who was willing to change his mind if circumstances dictated. Lincoln would certainly have put more emphasis on the ongoing colonization of Liberia but he would have seen early that the numbers were too great. What Lincoln would not have done would be to withhold Federal intervention and Federal troops to support newly emerging black power bases in many areas of the South which were being crushed by violent resistance from Southern whites, particularly members of the lower classes. Andrew Johnson, from those origins himself, was as opposed to full black participation in the political process as he was to the Southern aristocracy. The effect of enabling this emergence would cause profound changes in US history. Most of the black races's problems with America in the present day do not originate in Slavery but rather in the 100 years of second class citizenship that followed.

Additionally, Lincoln would have helped the country to quicker get back on its feet and forget the war. I'm reading a book right now that starts by pointing out that Lincoln was the major advocate of the 1st transcontinental RR and had in fact made his reputation as a lawyer for the RR interests. He would almost certainly have pushed these things even harder had he lived and used Southern involvement in Western expansion, perhaps thru more quickly building a southern route, to reintergrate the South into the Union. I think the traditions of "waving the bloody shirt" in the North and the "lost cause" in the South would never have started.

First ten are unanimously yes...freakish for this board!

I guess, its hard for most of us to think ill of Lincoln.

Oh, I am a 50-50 no idea kind of guy.

http://search.eb.com/elections/macro/5003/78/3.html

Of course the question could be were Johnson and Grant POSSIBLY any worse than Lincoln could ever have been ?

Seems somewhat unlikely, but what do I know

Grey Wolf

Prunesquallor said:

Actually the South did get off easily. History has moved on since BIRTH OF A NATION.

Click to expand...

VERY EASILY most countries would have shot generals from Lee on down, Jefferson Davis and all his cabinet members and probably every governor as well.

It seems we all think very highly of President Lincoln doesnt it? I guess we should, one hundred and thirty years after his presidency, our nation, and many other nations of the world turn to him for inspiration, and find wisdom in his words.

I'm actually a little critical of Lincoln, don't get me wrong he was a great man and I agree he did the right thing by not shooting Southern leaders but we was too soft on them. Despite their faults, I don't see Southerners as traitors in the normal sense of the word; many of them were governed by moral principles however false they might be. We have to understand that at that time people were generally more loyal to their states then to the federal government, North and South alike. Had Lincoln lived we would have continued on the initial path he was on, that is letting the South come right back into the Union with the only repercussion in the losing of slavery and holding of public officials for their leaders. After Lincoln died, the North had to kick Southern representatives out to both punish the South and reconstruct it on their terms. Lincoln would have let them back in and there is a good chance the 14th and 15th amendments would have not been written or if they were, be less clear on the issue of civil rights. Granted in the long run it would have not mattered for blacks but come the 50's and 60's, we would of had less of a legal basis for change.

Raymann said:

I'm actually a little critical of Lincoln, don't get me wrong he was a great man and I agree he did the right thing by not shooting Southern leaders but we was too soft on them.

Click to expand...

Actually we agree there, I was just pointing out what happened after many if not most unsucessful rebelions.

Prunesquallor said:

Actually the South did get off easily. History has moved on since BIRTH OF A NATION.

Click to expand...

That all depends on your view point, now, doesn't it? The South was the most economically depressed region in the United States up until Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. Before the Civil War, much of the South was as prosperous as the North. What followed, however, was seventy years of economic depression from which the South still has not recovered fully.

Admittedly, he let the leaders off lighty and did not set up the structure to prevent injustice against former slaves, but: A) that was the only option available to him, if he truly wanted to reunify the nation and not make the Southernors resent their Northern neighbors, and B) he was only alive for six days following the end of the Civil War.

Had he survived, the entire nation would have been better off, including the South, which would have avoided the economic depression between 1870 and 1940, AND the civil strife of the 1940s through the 1970s.

Walter_Kaufmann said:

That all depends on your view point, now, doesn't it? The South was the most economically depressed region in the United States up until Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. Before the Civil War, much of the South was as prosperous as the North. What followed, however, was seventy years of economic depression from which the South still has not recovered fully.

Click to expand...

I have a recollection from somewhere that the South would have lagged behind the North economically even without a Civil War, as its economic base was agricultural and it was slow to adapt to the Industrial Revolution - the major source of northern prosperity. Certainly the wholesale destruction brought about by years of war, followed by looting, pillaging, and whatnot didn't contribute to the growth of the South.

Leo Caesius said:

I have a recollection from somewhere that the South would have lagged behind the North economically even without a Civil War, as its economic base was agricultural and it was slow to adapt to the Industrial Revolution - the major source of northern prosperity. Certainly the wholesale destruction brought about by years of war, followed by looting, pillaging, and whatnot didn't contribute to the growth of the South.

Click to expand...

Exactly, go to war against a stronger power and expect to suffer for it.