The scholarly journal Civil War History had a Historians Forum on Reconstruction in the September 2015 issue. I want to point to one of the questions posed to the panel of historians as well as give short versions of their answers. Here is the question:
One of the persistent questions that students ask about Reconstruction involves a counter-factual: If Abraham Lincoln had not been assassinated, how would the history of this period have unfolded?
Jane Turner Censer, professor of history at George Mason University, said:
“I always tell my students, the first step into the counterfactual can be fascinating, but the subsequent steps are likely to descend into fantasy, as contingencies and the interplay of events are lost.”
Charles Calhoun from East Carolina University responded:
“And that’s a significant problem. The contrast between Lincoln and Johnson reminds us of contingency’s monumental impact because the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments grew out of a particular set of circumstances that were to a considerable degree related to Johnson’s behavior.”
Eric Foner of Columbia University said:
“That to me is the crucial point. Certainly, Johnson lacked all of Lincoln’s qualities of greatness, and it is impossible to imagine Lincoln getting himself into Johnson’s fix—alienated from the Republican Party and northern public opinion and coming within one vote of being removed from office. At the same time, however, it is important to remember W. R. Brock’s point in An American Crisis. The impasse with Johnson was the creative element in the situation, pushing moderate Republicans toward the radical position and creating something utterly unanticipated at the outset—universal male suffrage.”
Jane Turner Censer provides more detail on a possible Lincoln Reconstruction:
“[T]hinking about a Reconstruction led by Lincoln gives us a chance to address the methodological question of how one man’s influence compares to structural factors. In this instance, some historical evidence can be brought to bear. One set of variables revolves around Lincoln’s beliefs and practices in this alternative Reconstruction. He was far more humane, less racist, and more politically adept than Andrew Johnson; because of both inclination and ideology, he would not have gotten so out of step with the Republican Party. One cannot imagine Lincoln vetoing the Freedmen’s Bureau Act and the Civil Rights Bill.”
Eric Foner sees a moderately progressive Lincoln:
“…given that Lincoln’s view on slavery, race, et cetera, had evolved considerably during the war, one should not, as many historians do, assume that his views on Reconstruction as of April 1865 were permanently fixed. I imagine that Lincoln and Congress in 1865–66 would have worked out a policy looking something like what actually was enacted then—civil rights, the Fourteenth Amendment, et cetera.”
Professor Calhoun ends with irony:
“It is a tremendous irony of history that Johnson’s resistance to participation in Reconstruction by Congress pushed the desperate legislature to enact the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment and black suffrage probably sooner than would have been the case had Lincoln lived.”
What do you think?
Follow Reconstruction Blog on Social Media:
It is useless speculation. I do believe that the assiassination of Lincoln was the greatest tragedy in the history of the nation. Given his ability to grow and adapt as a leader, I am conmfidnet that the outcome of reconstruction would have been better. How much better? In what ways? All useless speculation.
this was not helpful at all.
Not even the tiniest bit? Take solace in the fact that you paid nothing for it and it could not have taken more than a few moments of your time.
At least a ‘Click’ in the right direction, small audience; like that. If? – The South would be ‘occupied’ and remain so until a proper ‘Employee – Employer’ was recognized as hopefully beneficial to both ‘races.’
Personally, I find this sort of historical speculation highly informative. It serves many purposes-
-It’s a superb way for historians to come together and learn/grow from each other in how they engage in the process of critical reflection.
You don’t grow from endlessly doing the same things over and over again. You grow only when you’re challenged, when you encounter something that the same old skillset doesn’t in part or in whole adequately deal with in a historical setting or question.
So, a topic of this is excellent in making sense of how others make sense of the past.
-It teaches you that history was not inevitable, to avoid the logical fallacy of inevitability.
You realise that things were not necessarily set in stone to occur; had President Lincoln or any of the other three guests asked for a soldier to be present inside or outside the Box in Ford’s Theatre that night when JWB first entered, chatted to them all for a moment, and then left, (only to return), then this entire topic we’re on here would have been factual history.
-Discussing a topic in this manner can bring up into the chat evidence that’s relevant that might otherwise not be mentioned.
I mean, when you discuss something like this about Lincoln, I envision Martin Delany working with Wade Hampton in South Carolina in the post-war.
Whatever eventuated there between them and Black and White Americans, imagine how much more could have been achieved for overall social amelioration and reconciliation, (“re-moulding society” as Lincoln had put it before his death). How much more could have been achieved with Lincoln in power and Delany holding an important position in post-war SC, when they already had an effective working and personal relationship?
https://www.loc.gov/item/mal2325600/
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/library/mr-lincolns-contemporaries/martin-delany/
On the other hand, this realm also necessitates us to consider ‘the other side of the coin’ with regards ‘had Lincoln lived?’
One thing that has to be mentioned is that the 1871 Treaty of Washington may never have happened…as there was a possibility that Lincoln would have gone to war with the British Empire!
At the minimum, he would likely have pressed a forceful relationship with Britain and thereby, the Empire.
See what he reckoned in, ‘Campaigning With Grant’, by Horace Porter, pages 406-09.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924030927002/page/406/mode/2up
-Lastly, these sort of exercises are useful if we remember that they are 100% speculative and opinion-based, ‘after the fact’. And there is a difference between posing a credible, hypothetical scenario such as, ‘What if JWB had been thwarted by a soldier being present?’, and something utterly ludicrous such as, ‘What if Abraham Lincoln had communicated with time-travelling aliens to acquire…’
I actually communicated with this very topic of ‘What if Lincoln had lived and been President to 1869?’ with Adam Smith of Oxford University.
I’m the first to say that I know little about Reconstruction and the great bulk of what I do know regards Robert E. Lee. That’s nowhere near a concrete, well-grounded overall understanding of that history.
Dang bro
Admin-
Don’t let the naysayers get you down.
Keep on keeping on!
Personally, I find this sort of historical speculation highly informative. It serves many purposes- -It’s a superb way for historians to come together and learn/grow from each other in how they engage in the process of critical reflection. You don’t grow from endlessly doing the same things over and over again. You grow only when you’re challenged, when you encounter something that the same old skillset doesn’t in part or in whole adequately deal with in a historical setting or question. So, a topic of this is excellent in making sense of how others make sense of the past. -It teaches you that history was not inevitable, to avoid the logical fallacy of inevitability. You realise that things were not necessarily set in stone to occur; had President Lincoln or any of the other three guests asked for a soldier to be present inside or outside the Box in Ford’s Theatre that night when JWB first entered, chatted to them all for a moment, and then left, (only to return), then this entire topic we’re on here would have been factual history. -Discussing a topic in this manner can bring up into the chat evidence that’s relevant that might otherwise not be mentioned. I mean, when you discuss something like this about Lincoln, I envision Martin Delany working with Wade Hampton in South Carolina in the post-war. Whatever eventuated there between them and Black and White Americans, imagine how much more could have been achieved for overall social amelioration and reconciliation, (“re-moulding society” as Lincoln had put it before his death). How much more could have been achieved with Lincoln in power and Delany holding an important position in post-war SC, when they already had an effective working and personal relationship? https://www.loc.gov/item/mal2325600/ http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/library/mr-lincolns-contemporaries/martin-delany/ On the other hand, this realm also necessitates us to consider ‘the other side of the coin’ with regards ‘had Lincoln lived?’ One thing that has to be mentioned is that the 1871 Treaty of Washington may never have happened…as there was a possibility that Lincoln would have gone to war with the British Empire! At the minimum, he would likely have pressed a forceful relationship with Britain and thereby, the Empire. See what he reckoned in, ‘Campaigning With Grant’, by Horace Porter, pages 406-09. https://archive.org/details/cu31924030927002/page/406/mode/2up -Lastly, these sort of exercises are useful if we remember that they are 100% speculative and opinion-based, ‘after the fact’. And there is a difference between posing a credible, hypothetical scenario such as, ‘What if JWB had been thwarted by a soldier being present?’, and something utterly ludicrous such as, ‘What if Abraham Lincoln had communicated with time-travelling aliens to acquire…’ I actually communicated with this very topic of ‘What if Lincoln had lived and been President to 1869?’ with Adam Smith of Oxford University. I’m the first to say that I know little about Reconstruction and the great bulk of what I do know regards Robert E. Lee. That’s nowhere near a concrete, well-grounded overall understanding of that history.