WI: Abraham Lincoln Lives Through Second Term

Would something like "Forty Acres and a Mule" have even a slightly better chance of passing if Lincoln lived? If not, the one positive role Lincoln might play is if he is alive long enough to become sort of an "Elder Statesman" who denounces black enfranchisement and KKK attacks in the South.
 
OTL Lincoln was incredibly hated, and I've seen some arguments that a lot of the -R vote in the 1864 election - especially among soldiers - was driven not by a comparison of Lincoln v McClellan but by the general understanding that a President McClellan could be assassinated and put his deeply unpopular DNC-mandated VP in the White House!

Lincoln got a little over 55% of the popular vote in 1864. In the whole 19th Century, only 2 US Presidents did better - Jackson in his first term and Grant in his second term, and Lincoln was less than a percentage point behind either.

Your seeing "some arguments" is meaningless. What are your sources that Lincoln was "incredibly hated" by the general public as opposed to just his political enemies? What are your sources that anyone, let alone the soldier vote in general, was worried that McClellan would be assassinated to put his VP in the White House.

(Even with McClellan's campaign a self-contradiction, as he repudiated the central 'Peace' plank of his own party's platform, the election was really quite close.)

No, the election of 1864 was not close. In 1864, Lincoln got a higher percent of the popular vote than Quincy Adams, Van Buren, both Harrisons, Polk, Taylor, Pierce, Hayes, Garfield, Cleveland, and McKinley; while Jackson and Grant barely edged Lincoln out.

I know, but the "landslide" argument electorally is not based on strong margins in those states but on rather slim ones.

Election results do not back your opinion. Lincoln had less than a 5% margin in only 3 states. Even if he had lost all three of them, Lincoln still would have won the election.

No, I'm not sure you understand what I mean. I mean he was viewed at the time as having done it improperly - that is, by packing the convention with supporters who were not representative of the state parties. (At the time the state parties chose who their delegates would support - his use of spoils was seen as an undemocratic end run around this process, which played into the meme he was a bit of a tyrant.)

Feel free to provide any credible source that says Lincoln's election was generally "viewed at the time as having done it improperly" or that Lincoln packed in 1864 Republican Convention "with supporters who were not representative of the state parties".
 

Greenville

Banned
Would something like "Forty Acres and a Mule" have even a slightly better chance of passing if Lincoln lived? If not, the one positive role Lincoln might play is if he is alive long enough to become sort of an "Elder Statesman" who denounces black enfranchisement and KKK attacks in the South.

I can see Lincoln trying to give some confiscated Confederate land to slaves and creating a program to help African Americans migrate west and settle land there.
 
Couple things. Lincoln would probably do many of the things Johnson did and would start in the "let the Confederates up easy" camp. His requirements for readmission were pretty lenient and point to that. I think forty acres and a mule is out, but something in the west is doable.

The one thing he could do is use his contacts with people like Breckenridge, be introduced to people like Longstreet (before he's Lost Caused) and even Lee who might be willing to work to make reconstruction work in win-win manner that helped the South recover but also side lined the lost causers and allowed civil rights for blacks.
 
I know it isn't pleasant to think about, but could we see Lincoln living end up having a darker worse history unfold. The North, while all for ending slavery, were not exactly "not racist" themselves. They in general, and specifically Irish and other immigrants, didn't want competition in the industrial economy from freed slaves. Could one see Lincoln endorse a "Grand Liberia" scheme and we see the Southern states do mass deportations on a semi-(state)government run scheme?
 
Your seeing "some arguments" is meaningless. What are your sources that Lincoln was "incredibly hated" by the general public as opposed to just his political enemies? What are your sources that anyone, let alone the soldier vote in general, was worried that McClellan would be assassinated to put his VP in the White House.

Since Lincoln won 78% of the military vote https://emergingcivilwar.com/2014/1...-soldier-voting-in-the-election-of-1864-pt-3/ even if a shockingly unlikely 20% voted for him because they thought Little Mac would be assassinated, he still would have won 62% of the vote.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
It is often missed that free soil meant "no blacks at all" for many.

Lincoln himself might be able to manage a moderate view - one idea I've seen is to put a five year deadline on slavery and let the price crash, then subsidize emancipation at the lower price...
 
I know it isn't pleasant to think about, but could we see Lincoln living end up having a darker worse history unfold. The North, while all for ending slavery, were not exactly "not racist" themselves. They in general, and specifically Irish and other immigrants, didn't want competition in the industrial economy from freed slaves. Could one see Lincoln endorse a "Grand Liberia" scheme and we see the Southern states do mass deportations on a semi-(state)government run scheme?

Considering the amount of prestige Lincoln had in the black community, I think he might be able to convince them that such a move might actually be in their best interest. At the very least, the "Great Emancipator" putting it into official policy would give the Back to Africa movement more moral and historical credibility than it enjoyed IOTL. Considering the treatment the blacks who stayed behind could still very well suffer, we might just be saying he was the enlightened one who realized that whites and blacks can only co-exist peacefully when they're seperated from one another.

Of course, that depends on just how well Liberia does with a greater and more organized influx of settlers.
 
Considering the amount of prestige Lincoln had in the black community, I think he might be able to convince them that such a move might actually be in their best interest. At the very least, the "Great Emancipator" putting it into official policy would give the Back to Africa movement more moral and historical credibility than it enjoyed IOTL. Considering the treatment the blacks who stayed behind could still very well suffer, we might just be saying he was the enlightened one who realized that whites and blacks can only co-exist peacefully when they're seperated from one another.

Of course, that depends on just how well Liberia does with a greater and more organized influx of settlers.
I wonder if Haiti would open their arms to having an influx of former American slaves, and if that could help Haiti. And be used as a way to take "back" the Dominican Republic.
 
I know it isn't pleasant to think about, but could we see Lincoln living end up having a darker worse history unfold. The North, while all for ending slavery, were not exactly "not racist" themselves. They in general, and specifically Irish and other immigrants, didn't want competition in the industrial economy from freed slaves. Could one see Lincoln endorse a "Grand Liberia" scheme and we see the Southern states do mass deportations on a semi-(state)government run scheme?
Lincoln did endorse colonization schemes early on, but I can't see him doing it after the Civil War--it seems like it would give the impression of letting the Confederacy win, more so than just letting them go about their business, because this would be done not just with the consent of the North but with its cooperation.
 
According to General Butler, in 1865 Lincoln raised with him the possibility of digging a Panama Canal and employing coloured troops on this project, who could be offered the opportunity to settle there. Butler seems to have been a bit confused, as he responded by pointing out the impossibility of exporting the entire coloured population - though even by Butler's own account, Lincoln was not proposing this. Interesting thought.
 
Lincoln did endorse colonization schemes early on, but I can't see him doing it after the Civil War--it seems like it would give the impression of letting the Confederacy win, more so than just letting them go about their business, because this would be done not just with the consent of the North but with its cooperation.

I don't quite see it that way: It'd probably come across a little more like Moses leading the slaves out of Egypt (One of the favorite slave preacher stories in Antebellum America, actually). Even though the Southern rebels were "punished" and forced to let the Blacks go, that doesn't nessicerily mean "Egypt" was the right place for them. The second the bayonets are lifted/the plagues stop, their old attitudes are bound to resurface. Far better, than, that the two go their seperate ways.
 
It is often missed that free soil meant "no blacks at all" for many.

Lincoln himself might be able to manage a moderate view - one idea I've seen is to put a five year deadline on slavery and let the price crash, then subsidize emancipation at the lower price...

Possibly, he wasn't William Lloyd Garrison.
 
I don't quite see it that way: It'd probably come across a little more like Moses leading the slaves out of Egypt (One of the favorite slave preacher stories in Antebellum America, actually). Even though the Southern rebels were "punished" and forced to let the Blacks go, that doesn't nessicerily mean "Egypt" was the right place for them. The second the bayonets are lifted/the plagues stop, their old attitudes are bound to resurface. Far better, than, that the two go their seperate ways.

The problem was, which Lincoln certainly knew, that there was no way in hell the US government could round up all the slaves and send them somewhere overseas. Look at what's involved. First you have to round them up, then you have to put them in local camps, then you have to rail them to big camps near the ports, then you have to put them on ships with enough supplies that they can survive a year or so until the next crop comes in which means food, seed, and farm tools at the least and then ship them to wherever you are going to ship them. It would cost an absolute fortune that congress would never agree to pay. Also it would tie up most of the US rail system and ship capacity. It is just not doable.
 
He may have died anyway. He had disproportionately long arms and legs, unusually long middle fingers, and a sunken chest - all typical of Marfan's syndrome sufferers. He also complained of frequent fatigue, severe headaches, and cold hands and feet, all of which implies he was already dying of heart disease.
 
He may have died anyway. He had disproportionately long arms and legs, unusually long middle fingers, and a sunken chest - all typical of Marfan's syndrome sufferers. He also complained of frequent fatigue, severe headaches, and cold hands and feet, all of which implies he was already dying of heart disease.


Though it could still matter.

If he lives even into, say, late 1866, whatever Reconstruction plan he adopts will be well under way, and it will probably be too late for either Andrew Johnson or Congress to do more than tinker with it.
 
He won't be remembered as the great man we know because the fights he'll have to do in the postwar era and the mistakes he will do (as he is wont to do) will diminish his fame, a lot of the blame which goes today on his successors who let to the current absurd race obsession in the US (and to the troubles associated) will fall on him. Yet his presence will also be a big factor in discussions after the end of his term, so he may help steer the US toward a better path.

"Absurd race obsession". Hmmmm.
 

Hecatee

Donor
"Absurd race obsession". Hmmmm.
Yes, you Americans seem to have an obsession about race : so many of your policies and debates are grounded on "race" instead of social status, look at all the "I'm x℅ from this race/tribe/... So I got right to..." etc. That's absurd from where I stand and can only make things worse because you make "race" the definition of your identity and base of your differences and thus hates.
 
Yes, you Americans seem to have an obsession about race : so many of your policies and debates are grounded on "race" instead of social status, look at all the "I'm x℅ from this race/tribe/... So I got right to..." etc. That's absurd from where I stand and can only make things worse because you make "race" the definition of your identity and base of your differences and thus hates.

No, it's more "One race was explicitly targeted for political and economic exclusion by the federal government, state governments and private businesses for several centuries up to just a few decades ago, and as a result the economic and social disadvantages they face are qualitatively different and need explicit discussion to find solutions."

I find it a bit odd in a historical conversation that is explicitly talking about how people were kept as property on account of their race to say that it's a 'race obsession' to discuss the legacy of that.
 
Top