He would have done diplomatic posturing against the French like Johnson and Seward IOTL and that would have been enough - the French wouldn't and couldn't retaliate since it was clear that their position in Mexico was deteriotating by 1865, plus French power projection ability in the Americas was very limited.Sure that is sll fair, but we have him on record saying no more war in his administration in reference to a question about Mexico (quote is jn Team of Rivals),. Would he change his mind? Maybe if Seward and Stanton persuaded him,but absent some stupid French decision I find it hard to think he would.
Without the temporary respite in Dixie, expanded suffrage will come to be seen as an opportunity to cultivate or reinforce electoral support.Why not, exactly?
The whte South will keep the Freedmen "in their place as much as they can get away with, and as the North loses interest in the matter, that will be just about totally short of open legalisation of chattel slavery.
Without the temporary respite in Dixie, expanded suffrage will come to be seen as an opportunity to cultivate or reinforce electoral support.
Assuming industrialization comes along, southern agriculturalists might enfranchise Blacks as a means of a counterweight to industrial interests?Seen by whom exactly?
One possibility - if you get the 14th Amendment but not the 15th, the Republicans may actually enforce Section 2, which would prevent the South counting its disfranchised Blacks for purposes of Congressional representation. So it might suit Southern pols to enfranchise at least some of their Blacks on paper.even if not necessarily in practice.