Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 19th, 2017, 04:13 PM   #11

bugulgad's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: San Diego
Posts: 61

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vagamundo View Post
Can't agree. While I don't think Lincoln would have been as harsh toward the south as the Radical Republicans, I also don't think he would have as quickly let the southerners back into power in the south without guarantees of good treatment of the freed slaves. But who really knows?
I prefer not to guess what Lincoln may or not have done. Restoration meant that the Civil War was about only 2 issues. Secession and slavery. With the union intact and slavery abolished nothing else need change. I classify Lincoln and Johnson as following this basic premise. They both seemed to want the country to resume almost as if very little changed(and this includes treatment of blacks or any shakeup of the socio-political structure in the south)
bugulgad is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 20th, 2017, 06:45 AM   #12
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 267

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vagamundo View Post
Can't agree. While I don't think Lincoln would have been as harsh toward the south as the Radical Republicans, I also don't think he would have as quickly let the southerners back into power in the south without guarantees of good treatment of the freed slaves. But who really knows?

Main difference - Lincoln wouldn't have egged on the South to reject the 14th Amendment. If this leads to he re-admission of the South, there may well never be a Fifteenth Amt, so ironically a tougher policy in 1865 results in the Freedmen getting less rather than more.
Mikestone8 is offline  
Old December 20th, 2017, 06:53 AM   #13
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 267
Talking


Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vagamundo View Post
Johnson? Hardass? His idea of Reconstruction was to let the former slaveowners continue in power. Presidential Reconstruction [ushistory.org] Congress was the one pushing for a harsher Reconstruction.

To begin with he did talk tougher than Lincoln, declaring that treason must be made odious and traitors must be impoverished. He also (unlike Lincoln) required all property owners worth $20,000 or more to seek individual pardons. However, he soon moved to a more pro-South line once the war was over.

Ironically, George W Julian and some other Radicals privately (very privately indeed) expressed the view that Lincoln's death might be a blessing in disguise, as he was likely to have been too soft on the rebels, who now, under Johnson, would get what was coming to them. Little did the Radicals know. <g>
Mikestone8 is offline  
Old December 20th, 2017, 10:08 PM   #14
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,180

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikestone8 View Post
To begin with he did talk tougher than Lincoln, declaring that treason must be made odious and traitors must be impoverished. He also (unlike Lincoln) required all property owners worth $20,000 or more to seek individual pardons. However, he soon moved to a more pro-South line once the war was over.

Ironically, George W Julian and some other Radicals privately (very privately indeed) expressed the view that Lincoln's death might be a blessing in disguise, as he was likely to have been too soft on the rebels, who now, under Johnson, would get what was coming to them. Little did the Radicals know. <g>
Johnson's position was entirely consistent and typical of the views of southern Unionists. Deep southern owners of extremely profitable large brutal plantations pushed for secession. In general ordinary people in the upper south did not care for them or their approach.

Johnson was tough on what he viewed as traitors. However, like most southerners, he was strongly opposed to black political power, military occupation, and Republican party rule.
betgo is offline  
Old December 21st, 2017, 06:38 AM   #15
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,180

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpaw View Post

I believe it was Underlankers who opined that, in the wake of something like the Memphis or New Orleans Riots of 1866, which saw insurgents in Confederate uniforms gunning down black civilians and soldiers in Union blue, Lincoln would have cracked down like the Tsar in Poland.
That is how many people in the north viewed it. However, in these southern cities the police were used to asking blacks for a pass from their master or papers that they were free. If these were not provided, the black person was general whipped and/or arrested. Now there were armed groups of blacks in blue uniforms.

From the southern point of view, the southern states sent legitimate delegations to Congress, elected based on Lincoln's terms for Reconstruction, with the same criteria for voting as before the war. These delegations were not seated, leading to a 4-1 Republican House of Representatives.

Johnson was a War Democrat, put on the ticket replacing a Radical Republican from Maine. He didn't like secession, but saw the situation from a southern point of view and was unable to compromise with what seemed to him were extremists.
betgo is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2017, 04:43 AM   #16

Viperlord's Avatar
Tilting at Windmills
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,904
Blog Entries: 22

Quote:
With the union intact and slavery abolished nothing else need change. I classify Lincoln and Johnson as following this basic premise
I strongly disagree. The speech that prompted Booth Wilkes' attempt on Lincoln's life was one that endorsed the notion of at least limited black suffrage. Lincoln wouldn't have gone as far as Stevens or Ben Wade might have, for sure, but neither should his position be characterized as actively seeking to restore the pre-war status quo, as Johnson ultimately did. Despite his personal hatred for secessionist leaders, Johnson was a virulently white supremacist Democrat, whereas Lincoln consistently moved towards a position of greater and greater legal equality for blacks.

Last edited by Viperlord; December 22nd, 2017 at 04:46 AM.
Viperlord is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2017, 06:21 AM   #17
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,180

Racist is an anachronistic way of viewing things.

Johnson was not a good President or politician. He just went with his own views and refused to compromise.
betgo is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2017, 06:28 AM   #18

Viperlord's Avatar
Tilting at Windmills
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,904
Blog Entries: 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo
Racist is an anachronistic way of viewing things.
Sure, we're definitely imposing the standards of the present and not considering Johnson's own language by using the term white supremacist...


Quote:
Johnson told Thomas C. Fletcher, the governor of Missouri: "This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men." His views on racial equality was clearly defined in a letter to Benjamin B. French, the commissioner of public buildings: "Everyone would, and must admit, that the white race was superior to the black, and that while we ought to do our best to bring them up to our present level, that, in doing so, we should, at the same time raise our own intellectual status so that the relative position of the two races would be the same."
Andrew Johnson
Viperlord is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2017, 07:16 AM   #19
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,180

Racist is anachronistic, because no one imagined blacks voting a few years earlier.

Johnson had typical views or poor white southerners. He didn't like the planters, but was didn't want racial equality.
betgo is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2017, 09:37 AM   #20

bugulgad's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: San Diego
Posts: 61

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
I strongly disagree. The speech that prompted Booth Wilkes' attempt on Lincoln's life was one that endorsed the notion of at least limited black suffrage. Lincoln wouldn't have gone as far as Stevens or Ben Wade might have, for sure, but neither should his position be characterized as actively seeking to restore the pre-war status quo, as Johnson ultimately did. Despite his personal hatred for secessionist leaders, Johnson was a virulently white supremacist Democrat, whereas Lincoln consistently moved towards a position of greater and greater legal equality for blacks.
A speech? Well a speech from a politician is a far reach from actually occurring. What Lincoln actually did between the end of the war and his death was implement terms of a soft surrender and vetoed Wade-Davis and instead issued the Proclamation of Amnesty.

Doesn't seem progressive to me. And I stated in another post, I care not for opinions on what he might of done had he not died, that is not historical analysis.

Oh and lets not forget that he didn't emancipate the slaves right away either while he still had a small hope of reuniting the union through negotiation.

Last edited by bugulgad; December 22nd, 2017 at 09:41 AM.
bugulgad is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
johnson, lincoln, regard, south



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Was Lincoln trying to save the South? HistoryFreak1912 American History 7 June 28th, 2017 09:39 AM
How do Han-Chinese people regard Chengiz Khan? El Cid Asian History 130 October 15th, 2016 12:07 PM
Who do you regard as the most interesting person(s) during the French Revolution? PrinceofOrange European History 42 June 6th, 2016 03:25 PM
Different terminology used to regard different people zeus10 Ancient History 2 September 26th, 2015 01:51 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.