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 24th, 2017, 09:25 AM   #41

bugulgad's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: San Diego
Posts: 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpaw View Post
Okay. His actions, policies, and feelings were more friendly to black people than the great majority of his white contemporaries. And black people at the time—and many since—seem to have disagreed with you, but what would they know?

___________________
Except that Lincoln clearly didn't think it could be left at mere emancipation, hence his wanting to enfranchise some literate black men and all black men who had served in the U.S. Army. Why bother saying that, or setting up a Freedmen's Bureau at all, if "mission complete" was achieved with emancipation?

Regarding Lincoln's views on and handling of the question of race, here is an excellent piece by James McPherson from The New York Review of Books about James Oakes'sbook, The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Anti-Slavery Politics: What Did He Really Think About Race? | by James M. McPherson | The New York Review of Books

And what has led you to this conclusion?
1. When many people disagree with me, is precisely when I know I am on to something
2. The Freedmen's Bureau gave 2-4 times more aid to poor whites
3. The fact that it took another hundred years for racism to truly be addressed with legislation
bugulgad is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 24th, 2017, 10:31 AM   #42

Wolfpaw's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
From: Second City
Posts: 1,250

Quote:
Originally Posted by bugulgad View Post
1. When many people disagree with me, is precisely when I know I am on to something
So when you say, "Lincoln was no friend to black people," and are then presented with evidence from former slaves and other black people that flat-out refutes you by saying that they did, in fact, consider Lincoln to be a friend to black people, your reaction is to... ignore this primary source testimony and insist that this just makes you even righter-er?

Okay. Have fun being wrong and delusional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bugulgad View Post
2. The Freedmen's Bureau gave 2-4 times more aid to poor whites
It was supposed to help freedpeople and refugees; making sure former slaves were able to get on their feet was another part of its mission. Between 1865 and 1869 alone it distributed 15 million rations to freedpeople and 5 million to white Southerners. Some states, like Alabama, always had a white majority receiving aid, but that hardly means that the Freedman's Bureau had nothing to do with assisting freedpeople. It was a welfare office, and plenty of Southern whites required welfare after the disastrous war the plantocracy dragged them into.

Mind providing a source for the "2-4 times more aid to poor whites" figure?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bugulgad View Post
3. The fact that it took another hundred years for racism to truly be addressed with legislation
Care to elaborate?

Because, "The black vote question was just a political contest, much like the squatter/cracker votes were to Jackson. I arrived at this conclusion due to the fact that it took another hundred years for racism to truly be addressed with legislation" seems an... unfinished chain of thought.

Last edited by Wolfpaw; December 24th, 2017 at 10:43 AM.
Wolfpaw is offline  
Old December 24th, 2017, 03:07 PM   #43

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

Quote:
Click the image to open in full size. 3. The fact that it took another hundred years for racism to truly be addressed with legislation
This is just fundamentally ignorant of Reconstruction. Virtually the exact piece of legislation that got passed one hundred years later was passed in the 1870s, but not enforced with the end of Reconstruction, and then struck down by courts. Say what you will of the Republicans of the day, radical and otherwise, but many of them really were trying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875

Quote:
Click the image to open in full size. 1. When many people disagree with me, is precisely when I know I am on to something
Man, I wish I could be this edgy with a straight face.
Viperlord is offline  
Old December 25th, 2017, 01:55 PM   #44
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,898

Lincoln probably would have continued to take a reconciliatory position in terms of bringing the country together. He probably would have gone along with the radical majority, but tried to moderate its policies.

Johnson, took a confrontational approach and appeared to side with the rebels. The main problem was not the position he took, but that he became isolated and confrontational. He had to sort of go along with majority and provide some leadership in a difficult time.
betgo is offline  
Old December 27th, 2017, 09:22 AM   #45
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 265

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
Lincoln probably would have continued to take a reconciliatory position in terms of bringing the country together. He probably would have gone along with the radical majority, but tried to moderate its policies.

Johnson, took a confrontational approach and appeared to side with the rebels. The main problem was not the position he took, but that he became isolated and confrontational. He had to sort of go along with majority and provide some leadership in a difficult time.

It's not at all clear that Congress really had a Radical majority - more that Johnson's policies provoked even moderate Republicans into going along with the Radicals to a limited extent. With Lincoln that is unlikely to happen.

He had already suggested granting the vote to Blacks who had served in the Union Army, and would probably have made that an order when reconstructing those rebel states which still lacked Union governments. When Congress meets he probably recommends something akin to the 14th Amendment (though perhaps w/o Section 3, which he would view as an intrusion on his pardoning power) and make clear to the South that ratification of this is a precondition for readmission to the Union. W/o Andrew Johnson egging them on to refuse, they very likely comply.
Mikestone8 is offline  
Old December 27th, 2017, 11:30 AM   #46

David Vagamundo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 3,157

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikestone8 View Post
It's not at all clear that Congress really had a Radical majority - more that Johnson's policies provoked even moderate Republicans into going along with the Radicals to a limited extent. With Lincoln that is unlikely to happen.

He had already suggested granting the vote to Blacks who had served in the Union Army, and would probably have made that an order when reconstructing those rebel states which still lacked Union governments. When Congress meets he probably recommends something akin to the 14th Amendment (though perhaps w/o Section 3, which he would view as an intrusion on his pardoning power) and make clear to the South that ratification of this is a precondition for readmission to the Union. W/o Andrew Johnson egging them on to refuse, they very likely comply.
I think that's pretty close to the mark. Eric Foner says in his Reconstruction--America's Unfinished Revolution that Johnson gave the South some time to breathe, and during that time, the South got the idea that it really did not have to change, that Johnson would back the South in its intransigence in exchange for voting him a second term.

It's sort of like disciplining a child: if you catch the child's misbehavior right away and correct it, the correction is almost always milder than if you let him or her get away with it for a while and then have to crack down hard. The South was expecting some pretty severe sanctions and when they didn't come, got the idea that they could persist in abusing the Blacks and otherwise carrying on as they had before Secession.

Last edited by David Vagamundo; December 27th, 2017 at 11:34 AM.
David Vagamundo is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 01:46 AM   #47
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 265

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpaw View Post
I'm well aware of how the people who launched these attacks, and their sympathizers, viewed these events. It makes them not a jot less insurrectionary.

Do you think Lincoln would have been as unmoved as Johnson by U.S. troops, U.S. government officials, and Republican political rallies being attacked by ex-Confederate paramilitaries? The guy who was willing to send troops into New York to put down rioters is going to just shrug it off when this sort of thing happens in a military zone? When the targets are U.S. soldiers and those loyal to the U.S. government?

Of course this begs the question of whether these events still occur.

The Memphis and New Orleans riots took place in May and July 1866, ie more than a year into Andrew Johnson's presidency, and by which time they were probably confident that the President would let them get away with it. With Lincoln they would have no such assurance, and would probably tread more warily, esp if he has already insisted on the enfranchisement of at least some Blacks, and may be reserving the right to impose full Black suffrage if the 14th Amendment is rejected.

I suspect, also, that he would throw his support behind a more liberal 14A, perhaps with the punitive third section replaced by one granting a general amnesty and return of property seized during the war. Southerners seeking return of abandoned plantations would thus be told. "Be patient. You'll get your land back - as soon as the Amendment is ratified". In this situation they may well be minding their p's and q's.
Mikestone8 is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 06:38 AM   #48
Archivist
 
Joined: Apr 2014
From: Earth
Posts: 185

Would Hannibal Hamlin have made a good President? Why was he not re-elected with Lincoln? Andrew Johnson was from Tennessee and from the South and this was thought of as a unity ticket. But why this necessary?
Zheng LaiEn is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 09:07 AM   #49

David Vagamundo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 3,157

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zheng LaiEn View Post
Would Hannibal Hamlin have made a good President? Why was he not re-elected with Lincoln? Andrew Johnson was from Tennessee and from the South and this was thought of as a unity ticket. But why this necessary?
In short, it was thought necessary to persuade the border states of the Upper South (of which Tennessee was a key one) to vote Republican. Hamlin was from Maine, a Yankee in the original sense of the term.
David Vagamundo is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 10:11 AM   #50
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 265

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zheng LaiEn View Post
Would Hannibal Hamlin have made a good President? Why was he not re-elected with Lincoln? Andrew Johnson was from Tennessee and from the South and this was thought of as a unity ticket. But why this necessary?
No reason why he shouldn't have made a good President, but of course he could never be that unless Lincoln won the election, which in Summer 1864 seemed highly doubtful. He was useless to Lincoln because he was a New Englander, and if the Republicans had to worry about New England then they stood no chance anyway.

This election would be decided largely by the votes of War Democrats, to whom Johnson would have a far greater appeal. His Southern origins would also help in the Border States and among voters of Southern stock in downstate Illinois and Indiana.
Mikestone8 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 10:39 AM
How do Han-Chinese people regard Chengiz Khan? El Cid Asian History 130 October 15th, 2016 01:07 PM
Who do you regard as the most interesting person(s) during the French Revolution? PrinceofOrange European History 42 June 6th, 2016 04:25 PM
Different terminology used to regard different people zeus10 Ancient History 2 September 26th, 2015 02:51 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.