Discussion:
What If?
(too old to reply)
b***@aol.com
2007-03-15 10:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What if Lincoln had not been assassinated?

Would he have suffered the same fate as President Andrew Johnson did?

Would history remember him the same as they have, or who he be
condemned for his handling of the Civil War, and his unwillingness to
punish the South?

Lincoln's final speech reveals how divided he and the Congress were on
Reconstruction. He knew that it would be difficult, given all the
hatred in the Country. Congress might have attacked his efforts just
as they did Johnson's.

Perhaps it was his death that made him famous?
Whistler
2007-03-16 01:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
What if Lincoln had not been assassinated?
It probably would not be the only assassination attempt,
because there were still alot of pro slavery animousity
after the Civil War ended and reconstruction began.
Post by b***@aol.com
Would he have suffered the same fate as President
Andrew Johnson did?
A good possibility, remember, they called for Lincoln's
head during the height of the war.
Post by b***@aol.com
Would history remember him the same as they have,
or who he be condemned for his handling of the Civil
War, and his unwillingness to punish the South?
Four more years of Lincoln and the entire Civil War
may be have been seen in a different light.
Post by b***@aol.com
Lincoln's final speech reveals how divided he and the
Congress were on Reconstruction. He knew that it
would be difficult, given all the hatred in the Country.
Congress might have attacked his efforts just as they
did Johnson's.
Would the Emancipation have been repealed?
Would Black Sufferage have been shot down?
Post by b***@aol.com
Perhaps it was his death that made him famous?
It didn't hurt the historical legacies of, Julius Caesar,
JFK, or Malcolm X...
b***@aol.com
2007-03-16 13:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
b***@aol.com
2007-03-16 20:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whistler
It didn't hurt the historical legacies of, Julius Caesar,
JFK, or Malcolm X...
I know that JFK's assassination is why he is so fondly remembered
today. Truth be told, much of what he actually completed was a
failure, and everything else that he started, was completed by LBJ.
Many think of JFK as a great president, but his actions nearly
started WWIII. He was a grand speaker and had a grand writer. Who
can ever forget the glass half full, half empty message, or the pledge
to get a man on the moon. The more you learn about his health and
other faults, the more it seems that he never should have been
President. We all know how Roosevelt covered up his disabilities, but
that was nothing compared to what Jack Kennedy did.

I know a little about Malcolm X, enough to know that he should be more
fondly remembered than he is by most. He should be right up there
with MLK> He was a very quiet, yet forceful man, but pretty much
unseen by white Americans.

I honestly know very little about Julius Ceasar that wasn't really
from Shakespear.
Whistler
2007-03-17 01:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
I honestly know very little about Julius Ceasar that
wasn't really from Shakespear.
I mention those four all in the same sentence because
they were all victims of a conspiracy, except JFK who
was the victim of a lone nut...
Old Movie Fan
2007-03-17 02:54:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I agree completely. Oswald acted alone.

There was a really good documentary about this last last year that
clearly dispelled any conspiracy theories.

Rich
Geoff Blankenmeyer
2007-03-18 03:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
What if Lincoln had not been assassinated?
Would he have suffered the same fate as President Andrew Johnson did?
Keep in mind the Raredica Republicans were around during the prosecution
of the war and groused that Lincoln did not wage it in a fashion
suitable to them. Lincoln was a bit more nimble than Johnson, and was
at the height of his popularity after the war. Johnson was an irascible
man which did not help his cause. So the short anbswer is no.
Post by b***@aol.com
Would history remember him the same as they have, or who he be
condemned for his handling of the Civil War, and his unwillingness to
punish the South?
History praises him, except in the South for just the reasons you cite.
Post by b***@aol.com
Lincoln's final speech reveals how divided he and the Congress were on
Reconstruction. He knew that it would be difficult, given all the
hatred in the Country. Congress might have attacked his efforts just
as they did Johnson's.
True, but Lincoln was a bigger figure thgan Johnson and a far better
politician.
Post by b***@aol.com
Perhaps it was his death that made him famous?
It added martyrdom to his mystique, no doubt.

Geoff
b***@aol.com
2007-03-18 14:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mar 17, 11:03?pm, Geoff Blankenmeyer <***@wi.rr.com> wrote:

Keep in mind the Radical Republicans were around during the
prosecution
of the war and groused that Lincoln did not wage it in a fashion
suitable to them. Lincoln was a bit more nimble than Johnson, and was
at the height of his popularity after the war. Johnson was an
irascible
man which did not help his cause. So the short answer is no.
Post by b***@aol.com
Perhaps so, but his popularity was so low the year before that Lincoln probably would have not been reelected if the Union had not had victories just prior to the election. His final speech revealed the many conflicts that divided him from the Republican ranks. His opinion on voting rights and statehood for the States that had already formed new government was an outrage to many. There he was appealing to them to admit Louisiana in the speech that was expected to be a celebration of the end of the war.
In my opinion, had he been able, after the war ended, Lincoln would
have offered even easier terms than Johnson did to bring the South
back into the Union. It seems certain to me that Lincoln's
reconstruction would not have been more harsh. Johnson, more than
anyone else had a keen understanding of Lincoln's policy of
reconstruction since he originally aided in the reconstruction of
Tennessee. Had he not been killed, it's possible that Congress would
not have abandoned Washington until the December session as they did,
giving President Johnson free reign to make terms with the newly
formed Southern government. Lincoln's death empowered the Radical
Republicans to unleash vengeance against the South and his death added
to the battle cry against allowing the South to simply return to the
Union. The Radicals would have attacked him, using every accusation
that they could to punish the South, and use the freed slaves to
strengthen the Republican stronghold on the nation.>>
Post by b***@aol.com
Would history remember him the same as they have, or who he be
condemned for his handling of the Civil War, and his unwillingness to
punish the South?
History praises him, except in the South for just the reasons you
cite.
Post by b***@aol.com
Lincoln's final speech reveals how divided he and the Congress were on
Reconstruction. He knew that it would be difficult, given all the
hatred in the Country. Congress might have attacked his efforts just
as they did Johnson's.
True, but Lincoln was a bigger figure than Johnson and a far better
politician.

<<History praises him, that's true. But would history praise him had
he lived? Congress would have condemned Lincoln's actions just as
history still tries to do that even today with Andrew Johnson. In my
opinion, Johnson was powerless to resist the mood of Congress.
Lincoln may have done better initially, but with the war over, they
had nothing to fear in blaming him for the horrible number of deaths.
Had he not been killed, a lot of history might have been written
differently.>>
Post by b***@aol.com
Perhaps it was his death that made him famous?
It added martyrdom to his mystique, no doubt.
Geoff
Thanks for your comments Geoff. I have to agree with your general
opinion: "Johnson was an irascible
man." I also find it a surprise that he actually reentered Congress
and later died while in office. Those two apparent facts have never
made sense to me. The time leading up to and until the end of
Johnson's term was a very difficult period. To be a Democrat in the
highest office of the land with Republican enemies everywhere, I
wonder if this might have something to do with his preceived
character. After all, his back was against the wall. This was the
same man who made it clear in the Presidential campaign what his
position on slavery was, and this was also the president who insisted
that the returning states accept the 13th Amendment in order to be
admitted. He's the same man by the way who went to Frederick Douglas
and asked for his help with the Freedman Office. Douglas, a loyal
Republican, considered by refused to work with Johnson.

Perhaps the time in history has dictated how he (Johnson) is
remembered. I remember this time as when democracy was abandoned in
order to punish the South. For the entire time that Grant was
President, it was Congress that controlled the nation's policy.

With Lincoln's death, the Radicals ruled.

Rich Wagner
Geoff Blankenmeyer
2007-03-20 23:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Keep in mind the Radical Republicans were around during the
prosecution
of the war and groused that Lincoln did not wage it in a fashion
suitable to them. Lincoln was a bit more nimble than Johnson, and was
at the height of his popularity after the war. Johnson was an
irascible
man which did not help his cause. So the short answer is no.
Post by b***@aol.com
Perhaps so, but his popularity was so low the year before that Lincoln probably would have not been reelected if the Union had not had victories just prior to the election. His final speech revealed the many conflicts that divided him from the Republican ranks. His opinion on voting rights and statehood for the States that had already formed new government was an outrage to many. There he was appealing to them to admit Louisiana in the speech that was expected to be a celebration of the end of the war.
In my opinion, had he been able, after the war ended, Lincoln would
have offered even easier terms than Johnson did to bring the South
back into the Union. It seems certain to me that Lincoln's
reconstruction would not have been more harsh. Johnson, more than
anyone else had a keen understanding of Lincoln's policy of
reconstruction since he originally aided in the reconstruction of
Tennessee. Had he not been killed, it's possible that Congress would
not have abandoned Washington until the December session as they did,
giving President Johnson free reign to make terms with the newly
formed Southern government. Lincoln's death empowered the Radical
Republicans to unleash vengeance against the South and his death added
to the battle cry against allowing the South to simply return to the
Union. The Radicals would have attacked him, using every accusation
that they could to punish the South, and use the freed slaves to
strengthen the Republican stronghold on the nation.>>
Post by b***@aol.com
Would history remember him the same as they have, or who he be
condemned for his handling of the Civil War, and his unwillingness to
punish the South?
History praises him, except in the South for just the reasons you cite.
Post by b***@aol.com
Lincoln's final speech reveals how divided he and the Congress were on
Reconstruction. He knew that it would be difficult, given all the
hatred in the Country. Congress might have attacked his efforts just
as they did Johnson's.
True, but Lincoln was a bigger figure than Johnson and a far better
politician.
<<History praises him, that's true. But would history praise him had
he lived?
Hard to say as you can never be certain Lincoln's Reconstruction would
have turned out differently as alot of its more onerous outcomes ocurred
after his second term would have expired, had he survived.

Congress would have condemned Lincoln's actions just as
Post by b***@aol.com
history still tries to do that even today with Andrew Johnson.
Had Lincoln's star remained in its ascendancy during his second term,
Congress would have had a hard time putting its own stamp on events.
Congress can be an unwielding beast and the Executive is more nimble and
Lincoln had his friends there as wrell, Johnson did not. His
impeachment wasn't a true partisan one. Also keep in mind Lincoln had
the ability to follow policy that was not universally popular and make
it work. Such as quashing emancipation efforts ordered by two
subordinates on two separate occasiomns prior to when he deemed it to be
expedient and not an Abolitionist opposed him.
In my
Post by b***@aol.com
opinion, Johnson was powerless to resist the mood of Congress.
Lincoln may have done better initially, but with the war over, they
had nothing to fear in blaming him for the horrible number of deaths.
Actually threy had their own constituencies to fear.
]
Post by b***@aol.com
Had he not been killed, a lot of history might have been written
differently.>>
Post by b***@aol.com
Perhaps it was his death that made him famous?
It added martyrdom to his mystique, no doubt.
Geoff
Thanks for your comments Geoff. I have to agree with your general
opinion: "Johnson was an irascible
man." I also find it a surprise that he actually reentered Congress
and later died while in office. Those two apparent facts have never
made sense to me. The time leading up to and until the end of
Johnson's term was a very difficult period. To be a Democrat in the
highest office of the land with Republican enemies everywhere, I
wonder if this might have something to do with his preceived
character. After all, his back was against the wall. This was the
same man who made it clear in the Presidential campaign what his
position on slavery was, and this was also the president who insisted
that the returning states accept the 13th Amendment in order to be
admitted. He's the same man by the way who went to Frederick Douglas
and asked for his help with the Freedman Office. Douglas, a loyal
Republican, considered by refused to work with Johnson.
Perhaps the time in history has dictated how he (Johnson) is
remembered. I remember this time as when democracy was abandoned in
order to punish the South. For the entire time that Grant was
President, it was Congress that controlled the nation's policy.
With Lincoln's death, the Radicals ruled.
Yup, remove the constraint and the loonies run free.
Post by b***@aol.com
Rich Wagner
Loading...