Lincon isn't assassinated

What would happen if Lincoln was not assassinated by John Wilkes Booth in 1865? How would this affect US history?

I would think that Lincoln would eventually make a mistake, thus tarnishing his reputation as saviour of the Union.
 
For one thing Lincoln wouldn't be as revered as he is today. His head wouldn't be on Mount Rushmore and there cirtainly wouldn't be a giant statue of him sitting like an ancient greek god in its own temple. He would be remembered as the president who saved the Union but did a good deal of illegal things in the process. He would be liked by some and hated by some and overall he would be thought of as a mediocre president.
 
Saving the Union, leading the USA through their greatest war, okay, I think Lincoln would still considered one of the greatest president.
Still his head on Mount Rushmore and still a minority of libertarians and confed-revisionists who hates him and make every CW discussion here a agiprop session.
 
What would happen if Lincoln was not assassinated by John Wilkes Booth in 1865? How would this affect US history?

I would think that Lincoln would eventually make a mistake, thus tarnishing his reputation as saviour of the Union.

No. I think he would have continued to do well. His remaining there would have avoided an impeachment proceeding, and would have continued Reconstruction longer and with greater force
 
For one thing Lincoln wouldn't be as revered as he is today. His head wouldn't be on Mount Rushmore and there cirtainly wouldn't be a giant statue of him sitting like an ancient greek god in its own temple. He would be remembered as the president who saved the Union but did a good deal of illegal things in the process. He would be liked by some and hated by some and overall he would be thought of as a mediocre president.

True. Its possible that he may have held in check the excesses of the Republican Party in the newly conquered South, but the fact that the Republicans did hold onto power there for so long by disenfranchising so many others wouldn't have bothered him much either.

I wouldn't put it past him that he may seek a third term. The man wanted to be another DeWitt Clinton and thought of himself as the heir to Henry Clay. The would be a great deal more honest research into his administration. He would have honestly freed the slaves and ended slavery - rather than the fact Andrew Johnson did that. Of course it also possible that he would have followed thru with his earlier attempts of shipping the newly freed blacks to some Central American country.

There is always the question if Reconstruction would have gone better with Lincoln living. Probably not much better is my first inclination. Much effort would have been done about getting the Southern economy back on its feet as soon as possible, but the move to any greater sort of Civil Rights is questionable.
 
Lincoln would certainly have been more politically adept than Johnson and the more sensible southern leadership, starting with Robert E Lee, knew that they had an ally in Lincoln(once they accepted that they were staying in the Union).

Had he lived Reconstruction would have been less blatant and less offensive to the south while those reforms and changes which did take place to benefiit the African-Americans would more likely have actually taken root, avoiding much of Jim Crow. There were moderate southerners who had suggested using the educated and more economically successful African-American citizens, 15-20% of the total, as their allies in raising up the majority peacefully.

At worst there would have been a stronger voice for compromise, as opposed to segregation.
 
True. Its possible that he may have held in check the excesses of the Republican Party in the newly conquered South, but the fact that the Republicans did hold onto power there for so long by disenfranchising so many others wouldn't have bothered him much either.

I wouldn't put it past him that he may seek a third term. The man wanted to be another DeWitt Clinton and thought of himself as the heir to Henry Clay. The would be a great deal more honest research into his administration. He would have honestly freed the slaves and ended slavery - rather than the fact Andrew Johnson did that. Of course it also possible that he would have followed thru with his earlier attempts of shipping the newly freed blacks to some Central American country.

There is always the question if Reconstruction would have gone better with Lincoln living. Probably not much better is my first inclination. Much effort would have been done about getting the Southern economy back on its feet as soon as possible, but the move to any greater sort of Civil Rights is questionable.


Okay, he may not be martyr, but I can't see why'd there'd be "more honest research" since I see him, like everybody else, as having the same status as today.
 
Perhaps if Lincoln leads a successful Reconstruction, we'll see less sympathy for the Southern cause, and less controversy over his presidency. After all, Lincoln's political adeptness may have made the same reforms go smoother, and set a different tone than the one that characterized OTL Reconstruction.
 
Okay, he may not be martyr, but I can't see why'd there'd be "more honest research" since I see him, like everybody else, as having the same status as today.

One would worst things is martyrdom since it solidifies a particular version and vision of the individual practically forever. Think about flies in amber or Lenin in his glass coffin. We know that Stalin fostered a cult of personality not just for himself but a particularly version of sainthood for Lenin. Pretty only sense the end of Communism has the myth of Lenin been dispelled, tho the Communist Party still clings to rememberances of their former power by using him as a totem.

The same can be said of Lincoln, mostly since nobody really cares or remembers Garfield or McKinley these days. Kennedy periodically gets the second look that his presidency justifiably deserves and more of his clay feet are exposed. One can even look at the differing interpretations of Andrew Johnson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson (at the bottom)

There one can see that one's interpretation of a legacy changes has society changes. Even the most recent opinion - is only that, the most recent - not anything that can be expected to stand the test of time.
 
I wish people would stop telling the lie that the South was harshly treated in the reconstruction. Despite half a million people actively taking part in war against the United States, numbers of whom had previously sworn oaths to those same United States not 1 person was hanged for treason.

What the racist element in the South hated was that there was an attempt to give Civil and Political rights to those who had been denied all rights under slavery.

It is true that for one or two elections some Confederates were disfranchised but in most cases their rights were reinstated by the assemblies which included former slaves.


The gratitude of the racist element in the white South for this was shown by the way that they denied rights to former slaves and their desencendents by economic means, dubious legal means and the most succesful terrorist campaign in the history of North America.


I do not know what Lincoln would have done. By 1865 he had accepted that colonization was not a realistic option and that some former slaves should be given the vote. That was roughly a mainstream Republican position.

After the response of the South in 1865 to the generosity of his original proposals (which in OTL happendd under Johnson) most Republcians concluded that this was an error and that they had an interest in ensuring voting rights for former slaves. Though he was not a radical he was on the whole a little ahead of the Northern Mainstream so I can hope he would have realized that radical reconstruction was needed.

In that event the Executive branch would have been fully and competently engaged in radical recostruction.

I have to confess it is also possible that Lincoln would have just left the Southern establishment alone- which would have been even worse than OTL because the 14th and 15th Amendments would not have happened.
 
I don't know what the substantial differences from a Radical Reconstruction and a Lincoln reconstruction would be. Realistically, the Radicals were not all that radical. I think the major difference would be in perception, and perhaps success.
 
Top