What effect did the assassination of President Lincoln have on the process of re

Question: What effect did the assassination of President Lincoln have on the process of reconstruction!?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Lincoln had a strong influence on the congress of the time!. With his assination, it left a president (Johnson) who was more at the mercy of schemes put forth by the politicians!. Had Lincoln not died, it is believed that he would have been able to curtail some of the more aggresive canabalistic moves made by those same politicians as well as some the more disreputable people who instigated false railroads and confederacy monuments!. THe general consensus is that being a souterner Johnson was unable to hold any sway as he watched the south collapse on itself!. The destruction was complete and the south like a phoenix rose from the ashes eventually!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

You could write a book on this subject, far too many things to discuss!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

if is was not for slaves !.!. USA would still be 13 Colonies!.!.!. ha ha!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

SUM: It made things much more difficult, but NOT for the reasons many think!.

I believe Reconstruction might have had a better chance of succeeding due to Lincoln's and political skills AND his values !.!.!. but it would not have been easy!. In form, I think it would --contrary to popular misconceptions-- have looked a bit more like the later "Radical" plan, NOT like what Johnson carried out!. In particular, Lincoln would have done much more than Johnson ever cared to in securing the rights of newly freed blacks!.

One thing that might really have helped is that, with Lincoln at the helm, the defeated South would not have been as quick to start re-asserting itself (as it soon realize it could with Johnson), so the whole "military districts" approach might not ever have been necessary (while under Johnson things got to the point where that was necessary to try to reclaim ground he had given up)!.

________________

Jenn, unfortunately, reflects the popular view, probably without realizing that it's source is a MYTHOLOGY invented by Neo-Confederates who painted Reconstruction as a corrupt and cruel result of the vengeful "Radical Republicans", and themselves as rescuers who "redeemed" the South to its rightful rule (basically, by the same white Democratic elite that had run things before the war)!. This view also tends to go very soft on Andrew Johnson, as supposedly wanted to carry out Lincoln's vision of a 'soft' Reconstruction and reconciliation, but thwarted by those nasty Republicans!.

The record says something QUITE different!.

First, Johnson's approach to Reconstruction was only superficially like Lincoln's; in substance, it was very different!. The biggest differences were that Lincoln was "flexible", in that he would ADAPT his original plans to the needs of the situation and an able politician who worked hard WITH Congress, while preserving his Presidential prerogatives!.
(Example of flexibility: as firmer measures became necessary in the waging of war, he did not shrink from them!.)

Johnson, on the other hand was thin-skinned and inflexible!. When Congress disagreed with him he made NO attempt at Compromise, and even went out on the campaign trail to battle against them in 1866, suggesting that some of the leaders deserved to be hanged!! (Note this was BEFORE any of Congress's own Reconstruction plan was passed!.) Indeed, it was this shameful behavior that produced a strong backlash, causing voters to send more Republicans to Congress and more moderate Republicans to join in the program of the "Radicals"!.

As far as flexibility, Lincoln had put forth some very preliminary plans (esp the "10% plan" for Louisiana), but made it VERY clear that it was provisional, and open to change as circumstances required !.!.!. and that he even expected different states might require different measures!.

Aside from differences in temperament (and arguably character), there were key differences in CONVICTIONS!. In particular:'

a) Lincoln was an "Old Whig" (Henry Clay had been his hero), and thus more open to an active federal government!. Johnson had grown up as a Jacksonian Democrat who while believing in Presidential authority saw more restrictions on what the federal government COULD do (according to the Constitution)!. He made it very clear, for example, in his response to the Freedmen's Bureau and in VETOING Congress's Civil Rights Act, that he didn't think the federal government had any business protecting the rights of blacks!. And he had no particular interest in additional amendments to protect those rights either!.

b) This final point direct us to ANOTHER key difference in beliefs!. Lincoln, whose whole national career was built on his convictions about "all men are created equal" applying to blacks and slavery being a moral evil (at the center of his political arguments from 1854 on), had shown increasing respect for blacks and concern for their rights!. Indeed, a co-conspirator of Booth's reported that it was Lincoln's speech a few days before his death -- in which he suggested that at least some blacks (the educated and those who had fought for the nation) should have the right to vote -- that determined Booth to go through with his plot!.

On this point, Johnson, while requiring Southern states to accept the 13th amendment, then being ratified (and to repudiate their acts of secession and war debt), encouraged a "minimalist" interpretation of the amendment - not slaves, but not much more!.

In response, the Southern states, just months before contrite and compliant, took what Johnson would give, and began to pass harsh "black codes", that seriously circumscribed the liberties of the freedmen (to travel, seek employment, etc) !.!.!. sometimes looking not much different from slavery!. They then sent back to Congress LEADERS of the Confederacy!. (NOTE the irony -- with the ending of slavery, ALL the blacks in the South [not just 3/5] would be counted in determining their representation in Congress and electoral votes, while the "black codes" meant the freedmen had little real freedom, and could NOT vote!. In other words, the South would be given MORE power in Congress than BEFORE they rebelled!.!.!.!. but without really changing anything!)

In this context, in December 1865 Johnson announced that Reconstruction was complete!

It is absolutely inconceivable that Lincoln would have tolerated this rather than insisting on strong measures to provide for the freedmen and for the protection of their freedoms!. He would likely have favored much of what those nasty "Radicals" insisted on in the 14th & 15th amendments, which were intended to COUNTER the black codes and give blacks some power to 'fight back' themselves, by guaranteeing them the vote!. (Lincoln, for all his willingness to flex or even to be humiliated or take blame he didn't deserve [which gained him much respect from his Cabinet], kept his eye on the goal -- and THAT he would NOT compromise on!.)

Now there is much we cannot guess about how well all this would have worked!. But please note that the program of Reconstruction itself was NOT cruel --even the very brief "military" occupation was very limited -- and most of the "carpetbaggers" from the North (who had mostly come to help rebuild, build schools for blacks, etc!. and NOT to make themselves rich at others' expense) and "scalawags" (loyal Unionists!) from the South, along with black leaders, did much GOOD for the South, as best they could!. Studies have shown that only a handful were guilty of the excesses Southern "Redeemers" accused them of!. And the NASTINESS of this period was largely because of the Southern fight AGAINST black rights -- willing to use any means (intimidation, lynching, ballot-stuffing!.!.!.) to regain political control!.

In short, the "failure" of Reconstruction (which did have SOME successes, not least in for the first time providing some education for blacks) though partly due to individual failures, instances of incompetence and failure of some of the groups to work well together (racism, esp among the "scalawags" did not help), was due MORE to the opposition the whole program faced -- from the old Southern elite, from conservative court decisions (e!.g!., striking down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 -- with forward looking provisions finally brought back 90 years later!) and from a North weary of footing the bill (amidst an economic depression, beginning in 1873) to fight this battle (and again affected by racism, not sure how much they were willing to pay or risk for the rights of blacks)!.Www@QuestionHome@Com