April 15, 1865: Lincoln's Death and its...

[SEVERUSMAX]

.....consequences. I just recalled that it happened on this date, the shooting the night before at Ford's Theater on Good Friday.

Brought to mind what the consequences have been for this country. Would Lincoln really have been able to avoid the troubles that Johnson faced during Reconstruction, or was that just a pipe dream for romantics? Was the Radical Reconstruction and its racist backlash inevitable?

 

[rgraham666]

Nothing is inevitable. Except death and taxes.

But I believe that if Lincoln had lived the damage done by the carpetbaggers would have been less.

And it wouldn't have helped. The resentment of The South over losing the war was too deep to be ameliorated by any human agency.

 

[R. Richard]

Let me ask people reading this thread a question.

Why did there have to be a civil war? If the North wanted the slaves freed, why didn't the North just buy the slaves and free them? The slaves were slaves and, as such, for sale at a market price. Would it not have been cheaper in economic terms to just buy and free the slaves, rather than fight a war? It certainly would have been cheaper in terms of human life.

 

[oggbashan]

Let me ask people reading this thread a question.

Why did there have to be a civil war? If the North wanted the slaves freed, why didn't the North just buy the slaves and free them? The slaves were slaves and, as such, for sale at a market price. Would it not have been cheaper in economic terms to just buy and free the slaves, rather than fight a war? It certainly would have been cheaper in terms of human life.

When the British Government abolished slavery, it paid compensation to the slave owners.

What it didn't do, was pay compensation to the slaves.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

When the British Government abolished slavery, it paid compensation to the slave owners.

What it didn't do, was pay compensation to the slaves.

Og

Og:
There never was the South style plantation slavery in Britain that there was in the United States, Britain simply does not have the climate for it. Thus I would assume that the slave problem in Britain was orders of magnitude smaller than in the US. I also assume that Britain freed the slaves in England and perhaps Scotland, ignoring Ireland for the moment.

I assume that England did not free the slaves in all their colonies and possessions. Is my assumption correct? TIA.

 

[oggbashan]

Og:
There never was the South style plantation slavery in Britain that there was in the United States, Britain simply does not have the climate for it. Thus I would assume that the slave problem in Britain was orders of magnitude smaller than in the US. I also assume that Britain freed the slaves in England and perhaps Scotland, ignoring Ireland for the moment.

I assume that England did not free the slaves in all their colonies and possessions. Is my assumption correct? TIA.

There were NO slaves in the UK. I can't say that there were never any slaves in the UK but they were few and became free when one of our judges made a decision that any slave automatically became free on landing in the UK.

Our slaves were numerous in the West Indies, mainly on the sugar plantations, where they were essential to the economy. Our shipowners became very profitable on the triple voyage - trade goods to Africa, slaves to the West Indies, and sugar to the UK.

The UK government's decision freed ALL slaves in ALL British possessions and set the Royal Navy the task of defeating slavery wherever it happened. British ships would arrest a slave ship of any nation and free the slaves. Britain had decided that slavery was anathema and campaigned to stop the slave trade everywhere (including in the US).

Og

 

[Sherry Hawk]

Let me ask people reading this thread a question.

Why did there have to be a civil war? If the North wanted the slaves freed, why didn't the North just buy the slaves and free them? The slaves were slaves and, as such, for sale at a market price. Would it not have been cheaper in economic terms to just buy and free the slaves, rather than fight a war? It certainly would have been cheaper in terms of human life.

Because it wasn't about slaves. It was about state's rights. The two are related, sure, but there was much more at stake than slavery.

Read your history.

 

[oggbashan]

Because it wasn't about slaves. It was about state's rights. The two are related, sure, but there was much more at stake than slavery.

Read your history.

The British were divided on the issue of which side to support in the Civil War. They approved of Lincoln's stance on slavery, but their main trade was with the South for cotton and tobacco. The Alabama incident was caused, not by British Government policy, but by arms manufacturers willing to supply anyone who would pay.

In a rare example of humanitarian principles, mill workers in the UK decided not to work on cotton from the slave-owning states. That meant that the mill workers and their families went hungry. There have been very few such actions by one group of poor people aimed to help another.

Og

 

[Sherry Hawk]

The British were divided on the issue of which side to support in the Civil War. They approved of Lincoln's stance on slavery, but their main trade was with the South for cotton and tobacco. The Alabama incident was caused, not by British Government policy, but by arms manufacturers willing to supply anyone who would pay.

In a rare example of humanitarian principles, mill workers in the UK decided not to work on cotton from the slave-owning states. That meant that the mill workers and their families went hungry. There have been very few such actions by one group of poor people aimed to help another.

Og

Yes. The cotton piled up in warehouses in New Orleans, where it promptly began to rot (the horrid humidity, etc.).

So many believe that the civil war was about slavery, when it wasn't. Slavery was just an incidental issue, to be honest, and Lincoln wasn't really the great emancipator people think he was. He wanted the country to hold together. Freeing the slaves was just a nod, an afterthought, if you will.

Odd fact: parts of New Orleans are built on cotton - literally.

 

[Stella_Omega]

There is a possibility that Lincoln was infected with syphilis. Mary Todd Lincoln certainly was, and died in an asylum, poor woman. Who's to say when the madness of the Pox would have taken over his mind?

 

[Sherry Hawk]

There is a possibility that Lincoln was infected with syphilis. Mary Todd Lincoln certainly was, and died in an asylum, poor woman. Who's to say when the madness of the Pox would have taken over his mind?

Or if it already had.

He wasn't the kind, gentle president that most think he was.

 

[3113]

He wanted the country to hold together. Freeing the slaves was just a nod, an afterthought, if you will.

To be fair, it *started* as a nod, but after the Emancipation Proclimation (a clever tactic--"if you're fighting us and you lose, your slaves go free. If you're not, they don't."), he began to feel differently. By the time the war ended, he had pretty much changed his mind.

At the beginning, if the South had come back into the Union, Lincoln would have probably let slavery stand, or tried to phase it out gradually (he was not a popular enough president at the start to have mandated it by fiat); and at the middle, he was trying to work out a compromise by talking with slaves about going back to Africa (Fredrick Douglas had a stern discussion with him on that idea and how it was not going ot happen). By the end, having met with slaves in Southern cities taken by the North, Lincoln had really changed his mind about slavery and the rights of black folk in America. He as a total convert.

 

[Sherry Hawk]

To be fair, it *started* as a nod, but after the Emancipation Proclimation (a clever tactic--"if you're fighting us and you lose, your slaves go free. If you're not, they don't."), he began to feel differently. By the time the war ended, he had pretty much changed his mind.

At the beginning, if the South had come back into the Union, Lincoln would have probably let slavery stand, or tried to phase it out gradually (he was not a popular enough president at the start to have mandated it by fiat); and at the middle, he was trying to work out a compromise by talking with slaves about going back to Africa (Fredrick Douglas had a stern discussion with him on that idea and how it was not going ot happen). By the end, having met with slaves in Southern cities taken by the North, Lincoln had really changed his mind about slavery and the rights of black folk in America. He as a total convert.

True enough, but to state that the civil war was about slavery is about as far from reality as you can get, and it's a mistake that way too many people make.

eta: the end result was the same, whether it was "about" slavery or not....or at least the result is the same as far as slavery is concerned. But it's an oversimplication that too many believe, and it just isn't true to say that it was "about slavery."

 

[3113]

Let me ask people reading this thread a question.

Why did there have to be a civil war? If the North wanted the slaves freed, why didn't the North just buy the slaves and free them? The slaves were slaves and, as such, for sale at a market price. Would it not have been cheaper in economic terms to just buy and free the slaves, rather than fight a war? It certainly would have been cheaper in terms of human life.

R.R., you need to bone up on your history, big time. Not to mention your economics.

1) To do as you asked, buy all the slaves, the South would have to be willing to sell all the slaves, AND stop the slave trade. Otherwise, it would do no good. You sell the slaves, and then import more. The North would just have to keep buying them up.

2) Why sell the slaves when they're the ones picking the cotton? They are the machinery that picks it, and that give you income for generations to come, thanks to the fact that they reproduce. So you pay for the first pair, but then get ten kids free to keep picking the cotton (pretty much on the cheap--you don't have to buy them, just feed them). Who is going to pick the cotton if you sell them all? Where's all that cheap labor going to come from?

3) The reason for the war wasn't *just* slavery. It was economics. The south wanted it's own country with freedom to have its economy the way it wanted, not tied to the industrial north. The war was about the South saying, "We're our own country! We're no longer part of the United States. Recongnize and accept this, or else." And remember, it was the South that shot first.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

There is a possibility that Lincoln was infected with syphilis. Mary Todd Lincoln certainly was, and died in an asylum, poor woman. Who's to say when the madness of the Pox would have taken over his mind?

Stella, I will deferr to the case of one Alberto Gonzoles, currently incarcerated in the Oregon State Penn.

Alberto had a bi-sexual brother who lived with a woman named Sean Hopp. Ms Hopp contracted AIDS. It is thought she may have gotten it from Alberto's brother, but maybe not. Anyway, Alberto's brother contracted Aids and died.

Next Sean Hopp took up with Alberto. A year later, Alberto was diagnosed with AIDS. Sean Hopp died of AIDS. Alberto was accused of murdering Sean Hopp. Hopps best friend then took up with Alberto and "contracted AIDS from him." Eventually, Alberto was tried and convicted of murder.

Who gave what to who with respect to Mary Todd Lincoln I doubt will ever be known. She gave it to Abe. Abe gave it to her... Who knows.

Is the article you cited true? I don't know. I've heard various stories over the years. Most have turned out to be either grossly inaccurate or out right balderdash.

I just did a google search. "The Syphillis" may not even refer to the desease we call syphillis today. Yaws and several related deseases were referred too by that name in the 18th and 19th century.

As a side note, Syphillis comes from a greek root meaning "Pig Lover"

 

[rgraham666]

3) The reason for the war wasn't *just* slavery. It was economics. The south wanted it's own country with freedom to have its economy the way it wanted, not tied to the industrial north. The war was about the South saying, "We're our own country! We're no longer part of the United States. Recongnize and accept this, or else." And remember, it was the South that shot first.

I love writing alternate histories. I'll have to write one someday around the idea that the Confederacy kept its independence.

First thing that comes to mind is that the Greater Asian Co-Propserity Sphere and The Third Reich are still in existence.

 

[Sherry Hawk]

I love writing alternate histories. I'll have to write one someday around the idea that the Confederacy kept its independence.

First thing that comes to mind is that the Greater Asian Co-Propserity Sphere and The Third Reich are still in existence.

It's highly likely that even if the South had won the war, the two halves would have eventually come back together anyway.

The South was agriculturally based. It was the bread basket of the nation, pretty much, at the time.

The North was industrially based.

The two needed each other.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Or if it already had.

He wasn't the kind, gentle president that most think he was.

Any man that has the testosterone level required to fight his way into the presidency is NOT going to be a "kind and gentle" person.
No more will any woman who makes it, and our press will gleefully jump on any evidence that proves that she isn't "nice"... But that's a different topic....

 

[Sherry Hawk]

Any man that has the testosterone level required to fight his way into the presidency is NOT going to be a "kind and gentle" person.
No more will any woman who makes it, and our press will gleefully jump on any evidence that proves that she isn't "nice"... But that's a different topic....

Indeed, but it's interesting, isn't it, the image that most have of him?

 

[rgraham666]

It's highly likely that even if the South had won the war, the two halves would have eventually come back together anyway.

The South was agriculturally based. It was the bread basket of the nation, pretty much, at the time.

The North was industrially based.

The two needed each other.

They may have needed each other, but they didn't want each other. So compromising would probably been out of the question.

Wouldn't be the first time in history that two nations would have eaten their own guts rather than do something smart. Human beings are like that.

 

[R. Richard]

R.R., you need to bone up on your history, big time. Not to mention your economics.

1) To do as you asked, buy all the slaves, the South would have to be willing to sell all the slaves, AND stop the slave trade. Otherwise, it would do no good. You sell the slaves, and then import more. The North would just have to keep buying them up.

Actually, I know a great deal about the economics of the situation. It was suggested that the North buy up all the Negro slaves in the South. It was then discovered that the cost would bankrupt the North. [A prime grade field hand, at the time of the Civil War was worth about a year's wages for a skilled worker.] If the cost of buying up the Negro slaves would bankrupt the North, then freeing the slaves would certainly bankrupt the South.

2) Why sell the slaves when they're the ones picking the cotton? They are the machinery that picks it, and that give you income for generations to come, thanks to the fact that they reproduce. So you pay for the first pair, but then get ten kids free to keep picking the cotton (pretty much on the cheap--you don't have to buy them, just feed them). Who is going to pick the cotton if you sell them all? Where's all that cheap labor going to come from?

As has been pointed out in this thread, the plantation based economy of the South was DEPENDENT upon the slaves. It was not just a matter of free labor, it was also a matter of people who could and would work in the heat and humidity of a Southern summer. By the way, many, if not most of the 'freed' slaves stayed and worked on the plantations and mainly without wages. The reason was that there were very few jobs in the economically ruined South and working for rom and board was the best deal that most of the freed slaves could get. The bleeding hearts who 'freed' the slaves never considered what would happen to them after they were freed. Aklso, by the way, the freed slaves were not really capable of dealing the cotton they were raising. First of all, most of the slave could not read or write. Second, most of the cotton buyers would not deal with the 'inferior blacks.'

3) The reason for the war wasn't *just* slavery. It was economics. The south wanted it's own country with freedom to have its economy the way it wanted, not tied to the industrial north. The war was about the South saying, "We're our own country! We're no longer part of the United States. Recongnize and accept this, or else." And remember, it was the South that shot first.

As I pointed out above, the reason for the Civil War was basically economics and political power. The agricultural South felt that they were getting screwed over by the industrial North. Then, the North wanted to free the slaves, destroy the economy and bankrupt the South. Finally, the South was all too aware if the problem that the freed slaves would pose.

As to the South shooting first, yes. However it was just a matter of time before someone fired the first shot.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Indeed, but it's interesting, isn't it, the image that most have of him?

He's been treated that way in every Elementary School textbook. It's a nice story for the kiddies, and every country needs its icons...

 

[rgraham666]

History's a lot like my description of the movie Sin City.

The good guys are murderers, hookers and madmen. The bad guys are worse.

 

[3113]

Actually, I know a great deal about the economics of the situation...As I pointed out above, the reason for the Civil War was basically economics and political power.

So why the fuck did you even ask the question? I don't know about anyone else, but pop quizzes piss me off, especially when I'm being forced unknowingly into the role of "student"--if you want to play teacher and offer interesting information, please do so, but don't sit back and ask questions with the smug intent of proving us all stupid.

 

[Alexandra1979]

Hey, it is true that slavery wasn't abolished in Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, or Kentucky until the 13th Amendment. Those states never left the Union, after all, despite Lee's attempt to wrest away the Old Line State in 1862 (which left to Antietam/Sharpsburg and the Emancipation Proclamation soon afterward). DC was slave territory, too, if I recall correctly. And it wasn't until December of that year, which indicates that it still had some opposition in the remaining slave states.