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 22nd, 2017, 11:49 AM   #21

Wolfpaw's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
From: Second City
Posts: 1,283

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
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.
And there are precious few indications that Lincoln would have been okay with Southerners assaulting *any* soldiers in Union blue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
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.
And Lincoln would have been as powerless to stop that as Johnson. A joint Congressional committee had found that only the Congress, and not the Executive, had the authority to restore states to the Union and seat their delegations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
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.
Whereas Lincoln's entire record illustrates that he found people willing to attack Federal troops and property to be much more dangerous, extremist, and intolerable than the abolitionists or radicals. Lincoln didn't get on very well with the Radicals in his own party; he would have gotten on even less well with uniformed Confederate veterans gunning down Unionists in the streets of Memphis and New Orleans.

Last edited by Wolfpaw; December 22nd, 2017 at 12:01 PM.
Wolfpaw is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 22nd, 2017, 12:01 PM   #22

Wolfpaw's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
From: Second City
Posts: 1,283

Quote:
Originally Posted by bugulgad View Post
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.
It was his second inaugural address, which is a rather more important speech than stumping at the Cooper Union or orating in rural Pennsylvania. Lincoln vetoed Wade-Davis because he wasn't ready "to be committed to any single plan of restoration." Meanwhile, Congress wasn't willing to implement his 10% Plan. They were at an impasse, and Lincoln was astronomically better at managing those than was Johnson.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bugulgad View Post
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.
Sure, but that had all changed years before Johnson had even become Vice President. Lincoln had decided on a course of emancipation by the summer of 1862. I don't see how, "Lincoln wasn't a perfect friend to black people" somehow translates into, "Lincoln would have been unmoved by a terrorist insurgency against the United States government led by Confederate veterans."

Last edited by Wolfpaw; December 22nd, 2017 at 12:06 PM.
Wolfpaw is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2017, 04:53 PM   #23
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,013

It is helpful to understand the southern and Democratic point of view. Before the Civil War, blacks voting was viewed like women voting or gay marriage. Free blacks couldn't vote in many northern states. Most blacks could not read or write, partly because it was illegal to teach slaves that. Votes for blacks was seen as a way for the Republican party to control the south.

I don't think that point of view was correct, but when you use emotional language like "racist" and firing on men in blue uniforms, you are taking a partisan approach and not looking at the context of the times.
betgo is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2017, 10:15 PM   #24

Wolfpaw's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
From: Second City
Posts: 1,283

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
It is helpful to understand the southern and Democratic point of view. Before the Civil War, blacks voting was viewed like women voting or gay marriage. Free blacks couldn't vote in many northern states. Most blacks could not read or write, partly because it was illegal to teach slaves that. Votes for blacks was seen as a way for the Republican party to control the south.

I don't think that point of view was correct, but when you use emotional language like "racist" and firing on men in blue uniforms, you are taking a partisan approach and not looking at the context of the times.
You're quite right, the idea of black men having the franchise was a radical idea at the time; hence it being important that Lincoln would give voice such an unpopular policy during his second inaugural address. Enfranchising blacks isn't just some throwaway line, especially if you go out of your way to articulate how it's just some and not necessarily all black men who should be given the vote. As to the term "racist," you're barking up the wrong tree, as I haven't used it.

Hard to see how U.S. soldiers (whose uniforms were indeed blue) and U.S. government officials and installations being attacked by guerrillas is a "partisan" issue, apart from so many of those white supremacist paramilitaries of Confederate veterans functioning as the armed wing of the Democratic Party down in Dixie. What part of Lincoln's career suggests that he'd have been fine with people shooting up U.S. soldiers and U.S. government installations, whatever their political leanings?

Last edited by Wolfpaw; December 22nd, 2017 at 10:29 PM.
Wolfpaw is offline  
Old December 23rd, 2017, 02:52 AM   #25
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpaw View Post

Hard to see how U.S. soldiers (whose uniforms were indeed blue) and U.S. government officials and installations being attacked by guerrillas is a "partisan" issue, apart from so many of those white supremacist paramilitaries of Confederate veterans functioning as the armed wing of the Democratic Party down in Dixie.
What incidents are you referring to?
betgo is offline  
Old December 23rd, 2017, 05:33 AM   #26

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,686
Blog Entries: 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo
Racist is anachronistic
I am going to assume this is referring to my use of "white supremacist." And by definition, it is not when I am referring to a man who defined himself EXPLICITLY as such, especially in the context of opposition to even marginal advancement for black Americans. It's not a name I am calling Johnson, it's what he himself quite explicitly stated himself to be.
Viperlord is offline  
Old December 23rd, 2017, 08:15 AM   #27
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
I am going to assume this is referring to my use of "white supremacist." And by definition, it is not when I am referring to a man who defined himself EXPLICITLY as such, especially in the context of opposition to even marginal advancement for black Americans. It's not a name I am calling Johnson, it's what he himself quite explicitly stated himself to be.
The Democratic slogan in the 1868 Presidential election was "White man's country, white men rule".
betgo is offline  
Old December 23rd, 2017, 09:07 AM   #28

bugulgad's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: San Diego
Posts: 59

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpaw View Post
It was his second inaugural address, which is a rather more important speech than stumping at the Cooper Union or orating in rural Pennsylvania. Lincoln vetoed Wade-Davis because he wasn't ready "to be committed to any single plan of restoration." Meanwhile, Congress wasn't willing to implement his 10% Plan. They were at an impasse, and Lincoln was astronomically better at managing those than was Johnson.

Sure, but that had all changed years before Johnson had even become Vice President. Lincoln had decided on a course of emancipation by the summer of 1862. I don't see how, "Lincoln wasn't a perfect friend to black people" somehow translates into, "Lincoln would have been unmoved by a terrorist insurgency against the United States government led by Confederate veterans."
I am saying he was not a friend to black people at all. He was not a hardened racist like Johnson but most of America at that time still thought in racist terms, so much so that "racist" was not even a term. The ONLY introspection at the time revolved around the inhumanity of slavery. So once that was abolished it was "mission complete".

The black vote question was just a political contest, much like the squatter/cracker votes were to Jackson
bugulgad is offline  
Old December 23rd, 2017, 11:14 AM   #29

Wolfpaw's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
From: Second City
Posts: 1,283

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
What incidents are you referring to?
The Memphis and New Orleans Riots of 1866 would be the most prominent early examples of this. Attacks on the Freedmen's Bureau and its agents would also be like to stick in Lincoln's craw.

Given that Lincoln sent the Army into Lower Manhattan to put down the Draft Riots with steel and shot, it seems rash to think he would have kept the kid gloves on when confronted with (renewed) insurrection in already-militarized zones.
Wolfpaw is offline  
Old December 23rd, 2017, 12:02 PM   #30
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpaw View Post
The Memphis and New Orleans Riots of 1866 would be the most prominent early examples of this. Attacks on the Freedmen's Bureau and its agents would also be like to stick in Lincoln's craw.

Given that Lincoln sent the Army into Lower Manhattan to put down the Draft Riots with steel and shot, it seems rash to think he would have kept the kid gloves on when confronted with (renewed) insurrection in already-militarized zones.
Everyone didn't see it the way you do, as insurrection. It isn't certain Lincoln would have. Southerners viewed the state governments elected by white men who took loyalty oaths as legitimate.

It is true that voters in the north reacted negatively to these events, and elected mostly radical Republicans. However, the lopsided majority that almost led the Johnson's removal resulted from the southern delegations not being seated.
betgo 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.