Tango01 | 25 May 2015 10:21 p.m. PST |
"As America remembers the events at Ford's Theater 150 years ago tonight, many are wondering how things might have been different had John Wilkes Booth missed his shot, or if President Lincoln had just stayed home instead of following his wife Mary's wishes for a night of entertainment. Would Lincoln have been a successful second-term president? Would the reconstruction of the South been handled better with a strong and powerful leader such as Lincoln in charge? Would western cities like Denver or Phoenix have become home to free slaves and perhaps a new, more powerful black middle class? Or would Lincoln have become like Winston Churchill, a war hero who was later tossed out by voters when Great Britain's economy turned sour? DCI In the short term, historians say Lincoln would have better managed the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, a time when Confederate leaders were pardoned and remained in power, while slaves were free in name only. The botched Reconstruction of the South led to a century of bad feelings, racial tension and a region that lagged behind the rest of the United States in both economy and education…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
doc mcb | 26 May 2015 5:21 a.m. PST |
Lincoln would have been in a much stronger position than Andrew Johnson, who was a southern Democrat and had NO effective political power apart from the constitutional powers of his office. But Lincoln would have faced a revolt by Radical Republicans in the Congress. Lincoln's milder Reconstruction policies prevailed while the war was in progress, but are not likely to have done so afterwards. Whether the outcome would have been better or worse or just different is an interesting but unanswerable question. |
Landorl | 26 May 2015 5:51 a.m. PST |
I sure wish that we could have seen that. So many 'what ifs' that we will never know. I do believe that he had the potential to be the first 3 term president. |
Dynaman8789 | 26 May 2015 9:26 a.m. PST |
Lincoln would not be as revered today if he had lived. All the things he had to do to prosecute the war would have come back to bite him in peacetime. |
doc mcb | 26 May 2015 10:15 a.m. PST |
Dynaman, yes, I agree on both counts. |
Tango01 | 26 May 2015 10:30 a.m. PST |
Agree. Case with similitaries as Churchill. Amicalement Armand |
Zargon | 26 May 2015 10:52 a.m. PST |
Agree Dynaman and co, wartime leaders who fair well almost inevitably get to mismanaged the peace. Landorl that's close to 'president for life' thinking, safe leadership is best like a 'short' coffee 'no chance to abuse the office.' Again these men were the men of their times interesting what ifs,but just that, what ifs. |
charared | 26 May 2015 6:15 p.m. PST |
What "doc mcb" wrote! (Plenty of "vengeance" and vindictiveness towards the South. Tons of "opportunities" for speculators to make $$$ off of southern misery. North "officially' just a "tad" more interested in the future of "Freedmen" than former "owners".) Lincoln would most likely have become little more than a prisoner in the President's Mansion, compromising (unlike Jonson) but ultimately overwhelmed by the juggernaut of the "radical Republicans" Doesn't really matter… "Now he belongs to the A(ges?)(ngels?)" |
darthfozzywig | 26 May 2015 6:25 p.m. PST |
Interesting comparison with Churchill, Tango. I hadn't thought of that before. |
Tango01 | 26 May 2015 11:26 p.m. PST |
Thanks my friend. Sometimes come to my mind some good thoughts! (smile) But only sometimes… (smile) Amicalement Armand |
Dynaman8789 | 27 May 2015 5:06 a.m. PST |
The only one, I remember, who pulled off going from wartime leader to president (or PM, etc.) is Washington and even he waited till the articles of confederation made such a mess of things that anyone looked better at that point. |
doc mcb | 27 May 2015 8:27 a.m. PST |
Except the Articles were actually a decent government, and GW collaborated with Henry Knox to spread the rumors that made them look ineffective. I admire GW immensely and am glad we replaced AofC with the Constiutution. But GW was NOT an aloof non-participant in politics. See, e.g., the Mount Vernon Conference. |
Dynaman8789 | 27 May 2015 9:47 a.m. PST |
Your the only person I've EVER heard say the Articles were an effective government… |
Supercilius Maximus | 26 Jun 2015 9:37 a.m. PST |
Nobody's name would be mud? |