What would Reconstruction look like had Lincoln lived?

[Jabe Thomas]

Would Lincoln have began building a base of Republicans in the South who were willing to play ball, from former Cotton Whigs and Unionists?

What rights would he seek to give to African Americans and what limits would they be?

Would this be enough to have Republicans win in the South at the Federal, state, and local levels?

I think if Lincoln had gotten poor whites on boards, it could a formidable coalition in the South.

What do you think?

 

[Mikestone8]

He would have tried to build on former Whigs, both Unionists and reluctant secessionists who had resisted it but "gone with their states" after its passage.

He'd want all Blacks to have the same civil rights as whites, ie the right to marry legally, own property, sue and be sued etc. He seems to have been treading warily about giving them the vote, suggesting in his last public speech that it be given to Coloured Union veterans and to "the very intelligent" however that be defined. However, if the Southerners were as mulish as OTL with their "Black Codes" etc I could imagine him going further. How much further is anybody's guess. If he goes for universal suffrage it will provoke the same backlash as OTL, most likely with the same result.

If he goes for something like the 14th Amendment[1] , but not the Fifteenth, Southern representation in the HoR and Electoral College is sharply reduced. So the GOP may win the1876 election w/o dispute. Cleveland may lose in 1884, but if the Republicans hold power too long they will wear out their welcome sooner or later and there'll be a backlash against them. No one hangs on to power forever.

He might also have looked for a way to enable those Blacks who had been given land in the Sea Islands and elsewhere to keep it, even if they had to start paying rent to the heirs, as and when the Rebel owners died off.

He would try to form a viable Unionist in the South, but I doubt if he would succeed. One big problem is that the GOP were the party of high tariffs, which of course meant higher prices for imported goods, something which obviously hits the poor most. Poor Blacks would likely overlook this out of gratitude for emancipation, but poor *Whites* obviously wouldn't. Also, the former Whigs to whom he would look as the core of his Union Party would in many cases be planters, ie better off Whites rather than poor ones.

All in all, by the 1880s things probably aren't that much different from OTL, though hopefully there'll have been less bloodshed getting there.

Threads like this are where I'll really miss David T. He was great on US history ones.

[1] Probably without Section 3, which he would resist as a blatant encroachment on his pardoning power. Also, w/o Andrew Johnson the Republicans may not see it as necessary.

 

[lynxpt]

He would have tried to build on former Whigs, both Unionists and reluctant secessionists who had resisted it but "gone with their states" after its passage.

He'd want all Blacks to have the same civil rights as whites, ie the right to marry legally, own property, sue and be sued etc. He seems to have been treading warily about giving them the vote, suggesting in his last public speech that it be given to Coloured Union veterans and to "the very intelligent" however that be defined. However, if the Southerners were as mulish as OTL with their "Black Codes" etc I could imagine him going further. How much further is anybody's guess. If he goes for universal suffrage it will provoke the same backlash as OTL, most likely with the same result.

If he goes for something like the 14th Amendment[1] , but not the Fifteenth, Southern representation in the HoR and Electoral College is sharply reduced. So the GOP may win the1876 election w/o dispute. Cleveland may lose in 1884, but if the Republicans hold power too long they will wear out their welcome sooner or later and there'll be a backlash against them. No one hangs on to power forever.

He might also have looked for a way to enable those Blacks who had been given land in the Sea Islands and elsewhere to keep it, even if they had to start paying rent to the heirs, as and when the Rebel owners died off.

He would try to form a viable Unionist in the South, but I doubt if he would succeed. One big problem is that the GOP were the party of high tariffs, which of course meant higher prices for imported goods, something which obviously hits the poor most. Poor Blacks would likely overlook this out of gratitude for emancipation, but poor *Whites* obviously wouldn't. Also, the former Whigs to whom he would look as the core of his Union Party would in many cases be planters, ie better off Whites rather than poor ones.

All in all, by the 1880s things probably aren't that much different from OTL, though hopefully there'll have been less bloodshed getting there.

Threads like this are where I'll really miss David T. He was great on US history ones.

[1] Probably without Section 3, which he would resist as a blatant encroachment on his pardoning power. Also, w/o Andrew Johnson the Republicans may not see it as necessary.

The late David Tenner said in 2017 at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...suffrage-to-freed-slaves.417659/post-14888833 that he had become less fatalistic about the idea that Reconstruction was ultimately going to fail.

 

[wcv215]

The late David Tenner said in 2017 at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...suffrage-to-freed-slaves.417659/post-14888833 that he had become less fatalistic about the idea that Reconstruction was ultimately going to fail.

One important point he makes is about how OTL southern actions drove more radical action. And this is 100% applicable to Lincoln. Lincoln was chosen in 1860 because he was a moderate on the issue of slavery. But step by step he was pushed down the path of radicalism by the South. Lincoln in 1861 would not have issued the EP. Lincoln in 1862 had to be convinced to hold off for a more opportune moment.

 

[Mikestone8]

One important point he makes is about how OTL southern actions drove more radical action. And this is 100% applicable to Lincoln. Lincoln was chosen in 1860 because he was a moderate on the issue of slavery. But step by step he was pushed down the path of radicalism by the South. Lincoln in 1861 would not have issued the EP. Lincoln in 1862 had to be convinced to hold off for a more opportune moment.

Agreed. I can certainly see him supporting something like the 14th Amendment (albeit with reservations abt Section 3). The interesting question is whether he can lean on the South enough to get it ratified when first submitted.- in which case the South is probably readmitted w/o immediate Black suffrage, but with a reduction in their Congressional representation - perhaps drastic enough to persuade them to enfranchise at least some Blacks in order to mitigate its effect. Crucially he isn't likely to tolerate the setting up of State militias composed of ex-Rebel soldiers, and might also hang fire on restoring abandoned lands to their owners until certain political requirements have been met.

Just how *permanent* any of these changes are is, of course quite another matter.

 

[Amadeus]

The late David Tenner said in 2017 at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...suffrage-to-freed-slaves.417659/post-14888833 that he had become less fatalistic about the idea that Reconstruction was ultimately going to fail.

First off, I am shocked to hear that David T passed away. (I have not posted regularly on this site for a long time). He was by far one of the most historically knowledgeable people I have ever interacted with, and I ended up learning a lot from his posts.

Secondly, I agree with his conclusion that Lincoln's survival would have been better for African-Americans in the short term - but in the long term federal troops were eventually going to leave and white majorities in former Confederate states would still have discriminated against former slaves.

Thirdly, my personal opinion is that Lincoln probably starts out from a more moderate position (favoring limited suffrage for former slaves) but violence in the South would likely push him to a more radical position as we saw during the Civil War - when Lincoln went from supporting colonization to supporting the 13th Amendment and civil rights for African-Americans. Lincoln would not have terminated the 40 acres and a mule program, vetoed the renewal of the Freedmen's Bureau, allowed former Confederate leaders to return to power in the South so soon after the end of the war, or pardoned Jefferson Davis. He also would not have gone on Johnson's ridiculous "swing around the circle" tour or picked a fight with Congress over the Tenure of Office Act. In fact that bill would not have passed had Johnson not become President.

As a result of this, former slaves are economically better off under Lincoln and the influence of former Confederates in the South is reduced. Lincoln signs into law the civil rights legislation that was passed over Johnson's veto, and he leaves office a popular President. I wonder if Seward, rather than Grant, would be the Republican nominee for President in 1868. Seward died in 1872, so if elected in 1868 he would die prior to the 1872 election unless butterflies extend his life. Regardless, I imagine that federal troops are withdrawn from the South by the 1880s and this would allow Southern states to implement racial discrimination without federal interference.