DBWI: Abraham Lincoln assassinated in 1865

These steps, along with the other ones I mentioned earlier, would have- as GeographyDude put it-
started the ball rolling when Lincoln in this ATL would have left office in 1869.


Trouble is, starting the ball rolling only works when said ball is on a downhill slope. In this case the Republicans would be rolling it uphill, and on a pretty steep incline at that. As soon as northerners get bored with pursuing the matter, and accept that the Union can be perfectly well restored without doing so, afaics the ball will soon come to a stop and begin rolling back again.

I am perfectly aware that Lincoln might have done things quite a bit differently from Johnson, during his own term of office. What I don't see is what he or anyone else is likely to have done during 1865-9 which makes any drastic difference a decade or two down the line. OTL, after all, Reconstruction appeared to be succeeding well enough as of 1869, even in spite of Johnson's opposition, and only after Johnson was long gone did it become clear that it was losing. It was the long haul that was the problem.
 
Trouble is, starting the ball rolling only works when said ball is on a downhill slope. In this case the Republicans would be rolling it uphill, and on a pretty steep incline at that. As soon as northerners get bored with pursuing the matter, and accept that the Union can be perfectly well restored without doing so, afaics the ball will soon come to a stop and begin rolling back again.

I am perfectly aware that Lincoln might have done things quite a bit differently from Johnson, during his own term of office. What I don't see is what he or anyone else is likely to have done during 1865-9 which makes any drastic difference a decade or two down the line. OTL, after all, Reconstruction appeared to be succeeding well enough as of 1869, even in spite of Johnson's opposition, and only after Johnson was long gone did it become clear that it was losing. It was the long haul that was the problem.
Agreed. The fact of the matter is, the White South was going to resist (violently and otherwise) voting rights for blacks for as long as it took for the North to lose the will to enforce it. Enforcement essentially required a large army of occupation in the South for decades, and the North was simply unwilling to do that. IOTL Grant fought Congress for an 80,000 strong peacetime army, and lost. Even this likely would likely not be enough. Lincoln might do a little better, but there is only so much he can do.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I think the fact that Lincoln was shot and recovered from his injury pushed Congress into wholeheartedly following Lincoln’s push for a peace time military and peace time forts throughout the South.

I don’t know if Johnson would have the same kind of support if Lincoln had died. At any rate, it’s a good thing that Booth slipped and hit Lincoln in the shoulder rather than his intended target on Lincoln’s skull.
 
. . . the White South was going to resist (violently and otherwise) voting rights for blacks for as long as it took for the North to lose the will to enforce it. . .
Yes, that would be one possible timeline, but not the way Lincoln did not!

When Louisiana voted for their new members of the House and Senate in June 1866, troops were on maneuver in neighboring Mississippi. And Lincoln made sure the old school leaders in Louisiana knew this without rubbing their faces into it.

And one thing I don't think he gets enough credit for is staggering the states as they came back into the Union, again without making a particularly big deal about it. All in all, well done Abe! :)
 
]

Honestly I think the fact that Lincoln was shot and recovered from his injury pushed Congress into wholeheartedly following Lincoln’s push for a peace time military and peace time forts throughout the South.

But only, of course, for as long as it took for northern taxpayers to get fed up with paying for a totally unnecessary army (given that the US was in danger from no one) on top of having to pay the cost of the war, which of course resulted in the Republicans losing control of the HoR. The Army was still pretty big in 1869, but its subsequent decline to prewar levels was inevitable.

I don’t know if Johnson would have the same kind of support if Lincoln had died. At any rate, it’s a good thing that Booth slipped and hit Lincoln in the shoulder rather than his intended target on Lincoln’s skull.

Given his desire for traitors to be impoverished Johnson would have gotten on well with the Radicals, but would probably soon have alienated most moderate opinion.
Under him there might have been an attempt at a harsher reconstruction but it would almost certainly have failed.




When Louisiana voted for their new members of the House and Senate in June 1866, troops were on maneuver in neighboring Mississippi. And Lincoln made sure the old school leaders in Louisiana knew this without rubbing their faces into it.

The elections went quietly, but nonetheless returned a Conservative delegation as LA still hadn't enfranchised Blacks. In some ways, indeed the peaceful election may have made matters worse, as a bit more blood in the streets might have persuaded Congress to insist on all Freedmen getting the vote, rather than only those who had served in the Union Army.

It is interesting to speculate on events had Congress taken up Senator Sumner's proposal (which Lincoln backed) for abolition of the Electoral College. Since it would be the end of the century before Republicans got a majority of the white vote, they would then have had no choice but to give Freedmen the vote and determinedly sustain their right to do so. But most Republicans preferred to retain the advantage which the present system gave them, and could not be swayed by any amount of Presidential eloquence. So it made better sense to reduce Southern representation in Congress (and so in the EC) and concentrate on appealing to key Northern States.
 
. . . The elections went quietly, but nonetheless returned a Conservative delegation as LA still hadn't enfranchised Blacks. . . .
I know Lincoln was criticized by Radical Republicans for his 10% Plan in which once ten percent of a former Confederate state swore allegiance to the Union, the state could again elect members of Congress. But what the radicals overlooked was that only the persons who swore allegiance could vote! So, it was slow going for African-Americans, much slower than I would have liked. But it was also slow going for European-Americans. As I understand with Louisiana, by 1870 almost all the former slaves were on the voting rolls. And somewhat slower in a couple of the other states.

The shameful thing looking back was that many women did not receive full voting rights until 1890 for crying out loud! And even that required the push led by Western states.

Yes, the first two Louisiana delegations can be termed conservative in the sense they wanted the government to run small and streamlined. But they still supported open regulation of railroads, grain elevators, and shipping. Plus, there was a technological fix in that newly expanded telegraph provided farmers with timely information on prices.

I hate to keep harping on economics. But when there's not a growing economy, people really can fall prey to various scapegoating and resentments.
 
Last edited:
As I understand with Louisiana, by 1870 almost all the former slaves were on the voting rolls. And somewhat slower in a couple of the other states.

But only of course, if they could pass a literacy test (to he satisfaction of a conservative white adjudicator) and prove that they were up to date with their poll tax. And of course the legislative districts were carefully gerrymandered to ensure a Conservative/Democratic majority however many freedmen voted.
 
But only of course, if they could pass a literacy test . . .
The Radical Republicans criticized this on the grounds that people who can't read can certainly vote their own interests and that there are plenty of smart people who can't read. The newly freed slaves actually took two tracks: (1) yes, people who can't read can certainly vote their interests, and (2) heck, we were planning to establish schools anyway!
 
Last edited:
I read one short piece of AH in which a system of segregation lasted all the way till the 1960s (!) (!) (!) and even then the government used a war on drugs and disproportionally high penalties to increase a system of mass incarceration largely directed at African American persons, along with some poor whites. At the same time, the economy was stalling on new jobs, and schools had never been equalized between rich and poor. The upshot was that even many upper middle-class families were stretched thin in order to pay mortgages for homes in "good" school districts, and these families tended to vote rightward and only focus on taxes. Plus, there were demagogues and a politics of envy.

All in all, it was a wild ride of alternate history! :p
 
Last edited:
The Radical Republicans criticized this on the grounds that people who can't read can certainly vote their own interests and that there are plenty of smart people who can't read. The newly freed slaves actually took two tracks: (1) yes, people who can't read can certainly vote their interests, and (2) heck, we were planning to establish schools anyway!

Does it matter whether the Radicals criticise it or not?

They couldn't get any provision for Black suffrage included in the 14th Amendment, and had the Southerners swallowed their pride and ratified this, the South might well have been readmitted without having to give the vote even to literate Blacks, never mind illiterate.

It took a lot of provocation from Andrew Johnson and the Southern state governments set up under him (much of which probably wouldn't have happened under Lincoln) to goad Congress into finally enacting Black suffrage in 1867. Had Johnson not been such a hamfisted fool, it would have been of little importance what the Radicals thought.
 
Agreed. The fact of the matter is, the White South was going to resist (violently and otherwise) voting rights for blacks for as long as it took for the North to lose the will to enforce it. Enforcement essentially required a large army of occupation in the South for decades, and the North was simply unwilling to do that.
OOC: I've seen some historians arguing that Johnson gave the South hope that they'd win in the end; with Lincoln in office from the beginning, the cause might seem hopeless and there might be much less resistance.

People would have reacted emotionally instead of rationally. In OTL, the wrath was directed at Booth personally, and he was hanged. Had he succeeded, there would have been a concerted effort to punish the South as much as possible.
IC: Probably. First off, does he survive the assassination? There was enough evidence of his Confederate sympathies to make people suspicious iOTL till he flatly denied it with evidence. If he doesn't get captured alive, yes, everyone will quickly assume he was doing it on orders from Davis. If he does, well, it depends on how hot people's feelings are.
 
OOC: I've seen some historians arguing that Johnson gave the South hope that they'd win in the end; with Lincoln in office from the beginning, the cause might seem hopeless and there might be much less resistance.

Which, paradoxically, might have resulted in Blacks getting fewer rights rather than more.

Without Andrew Johnson egging them on, the Southern States may well ratify the 14th Amendment, and not enact the Black Codes, so that they never provoke Congress into insisting on Black Suffrage, save possibly for those who served in the Union Army.

A further irony is that the South might also be worse off. If the Freedmen remain unenfranchised, Congress may insist on applying Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, so that only voters are counted for purposes of Congressional representation. OTL, of course, the South got the best of both worlds, effectively keeping Blacks away from the polls w/o having their Congressional delegations reduced. TTL they may not be so lucky.
 
Which, paradoxically, might have resulted in Blacks getting fewer rights rather than more.

Without Andrew Johnson egging them on, the Southern States may well ratify the 14th Amendment, and not enact the Black Codes, so that they never provoke Congress into insisting on Black Suffrage, save possibly for those who served in the Union Army.
(Continued OOC) Well, if the South peacefully ratifies the Fourteenth Amendment, black people will probably enjoy more rights than they did de facto iOTL, even if they have fewer written in the Constitution.

The really bad thing would be if the South appears to peacefully go along with the Reconstruction Acts, so Congress never passes the Fourteenth Amendment in the first place - and then twenty years or so down the line, the Supreme Court overturns the Reconstruction Acts, leaving nothing written in the Constitution except a mere abolition of slavery.
 
(Continued OOC) Well, if the South peacefully ratifies the Fourteenth Amendment, black people will probably enjoy more rights than they did de facto iOTL, even if they have fewer written in the Constitution.

I wouldn't bank on that. They would be ratifying it "holding their noses" in the same spirit that Germany "ratified" the Treaty of Versailles. My guess is they still probably won't be obeying it any more than they are forced to.


The really bad thing would be if the South appears to peacefully go along with the Reconstruction Acts, so Congress never passes the Fourteenth Amendment in the first place - and then years or so down the line, the Supreme Court overturns the Reconstruction Acts, leaving nothing written in the Constitution except a mere abolition of slavery.

The Reconstruction Acts were passed a year after the 14th Amendment. Indeed a principal reason for them was that the South couldn't be made to ratify the Amendment any other way.

However, I agree that had the South "played ball" during Presidential Reconstruction, and refrained from passing Black Codes or electing prominent ex-Rebs, then things could indeed have gone as you suggest. I think, though, that at the very least there would be an amendment repudiating the Confederate debt. Even the most moderate republicans would surely insist on that. And a provision reversing Dred Scott might well be added.
 
But only, of course, for as long as it took for northern taxpayers to get fed up with paying for a totally unnecessary army (given that the US was in danger from no one) on top of having to pay the cost of the war, . . .
I think you've hit upon a key hinge point. The anti-equality politicians in the South would simply out wait the North. And combine this with a TL in which we don't get control of grain elevators and railroads and southern farmers face semi-feudal conditions, with maybe European-American farmers getting thrown the sop of racism by demagogic politicians.

I can see that working for maybe two generations. I mean, I'm sorry. I want it to work. I like the juicy dystopian timeline in which we have segregation all the way to the 1960s.

Not that I'm a mean-spirited person, just that it's a really cool timeline. Dystopia is often cooler than is the reverse, it's a human vice, so sue me. :p
 
Last edited:
I think you've hit upon a key hinge point. The anti-equality politicians in the South would simply out wait the North. And combine this with a TL in which we don't get control of grain elevators and railroads and southern farmers face semi-feudal conditions, with maybe European-American farmers getting thrown the sop of racism by demagogic politicians.

I can see that working for maybe two generations. I mean, I'm sorry. I want it to work. I like the juicy dystopian timeline in which we have segregation all the way to the 1960s.

Not that I'm a mean-spirited person, just that it's a really cool timeline. Dystopia is often cooler than is the reverse, it's a human vice, so sue me. :p


No need to despair. After all, in 1864 44% of Northern voters supported a candidate who was willing to let the South keep slavery (never mind inequality) as the price of restoring the Union.

In 1866 Congress dared not include Negro suffrage (except for Union war vets) in the 14th Amendment. And as late as 1868 their election platform said that franchise laws in the loyal states was a purely state matter. Even the abortive attempt to pass a 15th Amendment enforcing such suffrage was carefully put off until the lame duck session after Grant was safely elected.

Had it passed, I could easily envisage a disastrous situation in which all southern whites voted Democratic to prevent "negro rule", perhaps rendering the South a one-party region for generations, and aborting the speedy return to a healthy two-party system. I have even heard it suggested that literacy and other tests might have been used to disfranchise many poorer whites as well as Blacks. No doubt this is an exaggeration, but the one-party situation by itself would be quite bad enough.
 
. . . After all, in 1864 44% of Northern voters supported a candidate who was willing to let the South keep slavery (never mind inequality) as the price of restoring the Union. . .
Yes, I've always found these kind of statistics disappointing. Many people seem to support equal rights only to the extent that it doesn't inconvenience them too much.

Fortunately, once the war had been fought and won, people were committed to seeing that the benefit of the war was realized, included voting rights for 'freedman' as they were called at the time. With voting rights for women recognized in many states in the 1870s and '80s, including Georgia and North Carolina if I remember correctly. And of course, the 16th Amendment recognizing full equality for women's voting rights in all elections in the United States of America was ratified in 1890. (Sept. 1890 if I remember correctly.)
 
Last edited:
. . . perhaps rendering the South a one-party region for generations, . . .
I think you raise a very important point.

And I confess that I used to tend to under-estimate the harm of one party rule, frankly, because of the positive example of Russia. From their revolution in 1908 till 1927, they did indeed have one-party rule. But then in 1927, they allowed and in a sense even invited and encouraged other parties to run for their parliament, of course expecting themselves to remain in control, which they did for only two more terms. So, yes, these days I view the whole situation as having a ton of good luck and acknowledge that it could have been very different. Plus, centralized government may do pretty well at catch-up industrialization, which afterall is pretty straightforward.

So, yes, I agree that one-party rule is a trappy situation, and I'm glad we in the South avoided it! :)
 
Top