WI: President Lincoln is not assassinated; what effects will it have on Reconstruction

[dsp19]

I accidentally posted a post-1900 scenario on this board, so here's my pre-1900 scenario, and I bet this has been discussed before.

If President Lincoln is not assassinated and completes his second term, how will it affect Reconstruction? We know IRL Andrew Johnson succeeded Lincoln and was an opponent to Reconstruction, to the point where the "Radical Republicans" impeached and almost convicted him. Certainly Lincoln would face friction from Thaddeus Stevens and his faction. How does Lincoln navigate the other factions in Congress (the Copperheads, the non "Radical Republicans," the Congressmen who simply want to keep their heads down?)

Does Lincoln reintegrate the Southern representation in Congress, and if he does, on what terms?

 

[marktaha]

I think he'd have had less trouble than Johnson. Have been books and stories on this subject.

 

[Wendell]

Lincoln is better able to navigate the various factions in Congress and implements a policy successfully like Johnson's in some ways but different in others.

 

[Onedotman]

Unlike Johnson, Lincoln wouldn't be giving former Rebs to have free rein in the South as early as IOTL. So I can see Reconstruction being somewhat more effective and the Freedmen's Bureaus lasting for longer. He would also insist on limited franchisement for freedmen as well (aka those who are literate and/or served in the Union Army), which might lead to some interesting butterflies such as stronger long-term Republican presence in the South.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Lincoln's plan was to reintegrate the South as quickly as possible into the United States as a whole. That was the basis of his 10 Percent Plan where only ten percent of the voting population could swear loyalty to the United States and gain readmission to the Union. Only Confederate politicians and high ranking army officers would have faced any bar on running for office or not getting a full pardon. By 1864 Louisiana, Tennessee and Arkansas had all been functionally - though not fully - readmitted under this plan, and Lincoln was probably going to use it as his model going forward.

Radicals, naturally, hated it. They were (in hindsight*) correct that it was a tad too lenient, and many of the planter aristocracy would be able to weasel their way back into power. They proposed the Wade-Davis Bill in 1864 to oppose the Lincoln plan and present an alternate version of Reconstruction with their Ironclad Oath. Lincoln pocket vetoed it, which incensed them. Lincoln feared harsher terms would torpedo his work to bring more Unionist governments in and end the war quicker. Though the passage of the 13th Amendment cooled tensions and allowed Lincoln to remain ascendant, he was unlikely to deviate from his goal of letting the South up lightly.

That said, he also would not have sabotaged the Freedmen's Bureau, put as many lenient commanders in charge, and probably would have been fairly firm handed in putting down any instances of the anti-black violence in early 1866. However, he still would have ended up dueling the Radicals who thought he was being too lenient, but with Lincoln's hand on the tiller, it's probably not the Congress vs. the President situation we got during Johnson's administration.

*The Radicals were right that the old Confederate power structure would reassert itself, something I don't think Lincoln fully anticipated. His Unionist governments were all too happy to reassert white supremacy, and I believe his policies would change a little bit over time, but not to the full blown level of the Radicals.

 

[marktaha]

Banning anyone from running for office is undemocratic. Congress' treatment of the South was downright vindictive.

 

[Taunay]

Banning anyone from running for office is undemocratic. Congress' treatment of the South was downright vindictive.

Was it really different from how most countries treat secessionist movements? Brazil was also pretty brutal, yet I don't see anyone complaining about Brazil being "vindictive" about the treatment of its rebellious provinces

 

[kholieken]

Banning anyone from running for office is undemocratic. Congress' treatment of the South was downright vindictive.

After devastating secession for sole purpose to preserve Slavery, one of mankind darkest institution ? After brutal war with hundred of thousands die ? After many episode of enslavement, torture, and massacres directed to black union soldier ?

The South is treated way too leniently.

 

[marktaha]

Was it really different from how most countries treat secessionist movements? Brazil was also pretty brutal, yet I don't see anyone complaining about Brazil being "vindictive" about the treatment of its rebellious provinces

I don't know about Brazil. The war was over the South had lost a war and had their economy wrecked- that should have been enough.

 

[Taunay]

I don't know about Brazil. The war was over the South had lost a war and had their economy wrecked- that should have been enough.

Should it have been enough? History doesn't work based off morality, but knowing the South started the war and were the obviously immoral actors, the South had it pretty good after the war IOTL.

 

[Mikestone8]

Banning anyone from running for office is undemocratic.

More to the point, it is irrelevant.

If CS generals and colonels are disqualified, then CS majors and captains will run in their place. If all CS officers are disqualified, then CS NCOs will run. And there will no doubt be many who for one reason or another didn't serve at all, but still supported slavery or at least white supremacy.

Note that VA, NC, TN and GA were all "redeemed" even *before* Congress removed the disabilities imposed by Sec 3 of the 134th Amendment. This provision didn't make much practical difference.

 

[Dude-a-Buck]

Lincoln's plan was to reintegrate the South as quickly as possible into the United States as a whole. That was the basis of his 10 Percent Plan where only ten percent of the voting population could swear loyalty to the United States and gain readmission to the Union. Only Confederate politicians and high ranking army officers would have faced any bar on running for office or not getting a full pardon. By 1864 Louisiana, Tennessee and Arkansas had all been functionally - though not fully - readmitted under this plan, and Lincoln was probably going to use it as his model going forward.

Radicals, naturally, hated it. They were (in hindsight*) correct that it was a tad too lenient, and many of the planter aristocracy would be able to weasel their way back into power. They proposed the Wade-Davis Bill in 1864 to oppose the Lincoln plan and present an alternate version of Reconstruction with their Ironclad Oath. Lincoln pocket vetoed it, which incensed them. Lincoln feared harsher terms would torpedo his work to bring more Unionist governments in and end the war quicker. Though the passage of the 13th Amendment cooled tensions and allowed Lincoln to remain ascendant, he was unlikely to deviate from his goal of letting the South up lightly.

That said, he also would not have sabotaged the Freedmen's Bureau, put as many lenient commanders in charge, and probably would have been fairly firm handed in putting down any instances of the anti-black violence in early 1866. However, he still would have ended up dueling the Radicals who thought he was being too lenient, but with Lincoln's hand on the tiller, it's probably not the Congress vs. the President situation we got during Johnson's administration.

*The Radicals were right that the old Confederate power structure would reassert itself, something I don't think Lincoln fully anticipated. His Unionist governments were all too happy to reassert white supremacy, and I believe his policies would change a little bit over time, but not to the full blown level of the Radicals.

Here's something I've been curious about for a while now, if the Wade-Davis Bill was signed into law then how much longer would it have taken the Confederate states to reintegrate into the Union?

 

[Amadeus]

Lincoln's plan was to reintegrate the South as quickly as possible into the United States as a whole. That was the basis of his 10 Percent Plan where only ten percent of the voting population could swear loyalty to the United States and gain readmission to the Union. Only Confederate politicians and high ranking army officers would have faced any bar on running for office or not getting a full pardon. By 1864 Louisiana, Tennessee and Arkansas had all been functionally - though not fully - readmitted under this plan, and Lincoln was probably going to use it as his model going forward.

Radicals, naturally, hated it. They were (in hindsight*) correct that it was a tad too lenient, and many of the planter aristocracy would be able to weasel their way back into power. They proposed the Wade-Davis Bill in 1864 to oppose the Lincoln plan and present an alternate version of Reconstruction with their Ironclad Oath. Lincoln pocket vetoed it, which incensed them. Lincoln feared harsher terms would torpedo his work to bring more Unionist governments in and end the war quicker. Though the passage of the 13th Amendment cooled tensions and allowed Lincoln to remain ascendant, he was unlikely to deviate from his goal of letting the South up lightly.

That said, he also would not have sabotaged the Freedmen's Bureau, put as many lenient commanders in charge, and probably would have been fairly firm handed in putting down any instances of the anti-black violence in early 1866. However, he still would have ended up dueling the Radicals who thought he was being too lenient, but with Lincoln's hand on the tiller, it's probably not the Congress vs. the President situation we got during Johnson's administration.

*The Radicals were right that the old Confederate power structure would reassert itself, something I don't think Lincoln fully anticipated. His Unionist governments were all too happy to reassert white supremacy, and I believe his policies would change a little bit over time, but not to the full blown level of the Radicals.

There would be conflicts between Lincoln and Radicals, but not outright confrontation.

I think Lincoln would handle Reconstruction relatively well, and retire to Springfield as a national hero. However, by the 1880s Reconstruction would end as Northerners would still get tired of it and turn their attention to economic concerns. But the long term effects of Lincoln surviving would include greater economic opportunities for former slaves, and perhaps an earlier civil rights movement in the 20th Century.

 

[Wendell]

There would be conflicts between Lincoln and Radicals, but not outright confrontation.

I think Lincoln would handle Reconstruction relatively well, and retire to Springfield as a national hero. However, by the 1880s Reconstruction would end as Northerners would still get tired of it and turn their attention to economic concerns. But the long term effects of Lincoln surviving would include greater economic opportunities for former slaves, and perhaps an earlier civil rights movement in the 20th Century.

I largely concur with this. Civil rights will be delayed relative to OTL initially, but the reverses of the Lilly White era at the turn of the century won't happen and the economic standing and clout of the freedmen and their descendants will be somewhat better on average so that things progress more rapidly and consistently on the civil rights front during the first half of the twentieth century.

 

[NedStark]

More to the point, it is irrelevant.

If CS generals and colonels are disqualified, then CS majors and captains will run in their place. If all CS officers are disqualified, then CS NCOs will run. And there will no doubt be many who for one reason or another didn't serve at all, but still supported slavery or at least white supremacy.

Note that VA, NC, TN and GA were all "redeemed" even *before* Congress removed the disabilities imposed by Sec 3 of the 134th Amendment. This provision didn't make much practical difference.

However, what Lincoln would probably have done that OTL leaders did not is to convince former Confederate leaders/generals/majors/captains/officers, including and epscially Robert E. Lee, to preach Unionism for him. If he pulled this off, he would have thrown a monkey wrench to the Loss Cause, which IMO is a long-term net positive.

Lincoln's plan was to reintegrate the South as quickly as possible into the United States as a whole. That was the basis of his 10 Percent Plan where only ten percent of the voting population could swear loyalty to the United States and gain readmission to the Union. Only Confederate politicians and high ranking army officers would have faced any bar on running for office or not getting a full pardon. By 1864 Louisiana, Tennessee and Arkansas had all been functionally - though not fully - readmitted under this plan, and Lincoln was probably going to use it as his model going forward.

Radicals, naturally, hated it. They were (in hindsight*) correct that it was a tad too lenient, and many of the planter aristocracy would be able to weasel their way back into power. They proposed the Wade-Davis Bill in 1864 to oppose the Lincoln plan and present an alternate version of Reconstruction with their Ironclad Oath. Lincoln pocket vetoed it, which incensed them. Lincoln feared harsher terms would torpedo his work to bring more Unionist governments in and end the war quicker. Though the passage of the 13th Amendment cooled tensions and allowed Lincoln to remain ascendant, he was unlikely to deviate from his goal of letting the South up lightly.

That said, he also would not have sabotaged the Freedmen's Bureau, put as many lenient commanders in charge, and probably would have been fairly firm handed in putting down any instances of the anti-black violence in early 1866. However, he still would have ended up dueling the Radicals who thought he was being too lenient, but with Lincoln's hand on the tiller, it's probably not the Congress vs. the President situation we got during Johnson's administration.

*The Radicals were right that the old Confederate power structure would reassert itself, something I don't think Lincoln fully anticipated. His Unionist governments were all too happy to reassert white supremacy, and I believe his policies would change a little bit over time, but not to the full blown level of the Radicals.

 

[Mikestone8]

the reverses of the Lilly White era at the turn of the century won't happen

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.

 

[jmc247]

However, what Lincoln would probably have done that OTL leaders did not is to convince former Confederate leaders/generals/majors/captains/officers, including and epscially Robert E. Lee, to preach Unionism for him. If he pulled this off, he would have thrown a monkey wrench to the Loss Cause, which IMO is a long-term net positive.

To understand what happened there one has to understand who did proposition the old power base of the South during reconstruction. It was men like General Rosecrans who were sent on behalf the Democratic Party.

Southern nationalism became a vehicle not so much for secessionism post war, but as a project to politically and culturally unify the South behind an identity to make very difficult divide and conquer politics. A short reconstruction would have a large and complex effect on that.

 

[Butchpfd]

Banning anyone from running for office is undemocratic. Congress' treatment of the South was downright vindictive.

And rightly so. The leaders and politicians of all levels were traitors and racists. To be allowed to swear allegiance to the United States, former confederate politicians and military officers, should have been required to sign a document formally repudiation, the confederate and state Constitutions which supported slavery.

 

[Butchpfd]

To understand what happened there one has to understand who did proposition the old power base of the South during reconstruction. It was men like General Rosecrans who were sent on behalf the Democratic Party.

Southern nationalism became a vehicle not so much for secessionism post war, but as a project to politically and culturally unify the South behind an identity to make very difficult divide and conquer politics. A short reconstruction would have a large and complex effect on that.

The "Lost Cause should have been stamped out at the very start.

 

[jmc247]

The "Lost Cause should have been stamped out at the very start.

That depends on what you mean by 'Lost Cause'.

If you are talking about romantism of the war and the old South. Good luck with that. The worse the economy was post war and the longer bitter feelings lasted the deeper southerners were going to retreat into what is best described as nostalgia.