Would Lincoln Have Guaranteed Suffrage to Freed Slaves?

[Anaxagoras]

Had he not been assassinated, would Abraham Lincoln have done whatever would have been necessary to ensure that freed slaves in the South would have had the right to vote?

 

[Young Lochinvar]

So post Civil War the first hurdle to former slaves voting is Dred Scott vs Sandford which forbade former slaves and the descendants of former slaves from ever being citizens. Even though the slaves were free and the Civil War was won Dred Scott was still law - without citizenship you can't vote. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1866 granting citizenship regardless of race which Lincoln would have supported (unlike Johnson) and probably there would have been stronger enforcement of this act under Lincoln. The problem is that there were no federal punishments for not upholding the act and so it was very much up to the states. Under OTL reconstruction the readmitted Southern states had governments very much comprised the white Southern elites so there was little enforcement. The hope is that under a longer Lincoln Presidency there wouldn't have been the same anti-black governments in the South.

So the question of whether or not Lincoln could have ensured the rights of blacks originates in what kind of governments are established. The problem is that you can't keep the former Confederates out of state government forever and just as in the original timeline the Southern Democrats would eventually retake statehouses. Now depending on whether or not the 14th and 15th amendments are passed, which I suspect they would be whether as just laws or as amendments, there would still be the circumstances that surrounded the emergence of Jim Crow laws in the South - that is getting around the 15th amendment prohibition on denying the vote based on race. With greater black involvement in southern legislatures under a Lincoln reconstruction these would be weaker but with high illiteracy amongst the new black voters there would still be disenfranchisement which over time would lead to white dominated legislatures. What's more the 15th amendment in OTL was not ratified until 1870 after Lincoln's second term would have been up. Now it's possible Lincoln could have pursued a 3rd term but I doubt if there would have been a broad enough support for it so you're more likely to get a new president. Thankfully this is unlikely to be Johnson. But assuming it's a republican (maybe Grant or possibly Seward if he's not shot) you'd have Federal opposition to weaker Jim Crow laws.

With freed slaves the 3/5ths rule would no longer put a dampen on Southern Congressional representation, that is there would be more congressmen from Southern states once admitted. But as with the drift to white state legislatures, Congressmen from readmitted states would also be whiter than the population suggests. This would throw up a federal roadblock to opposing Jim Crow laws as it did originally. and eventually you have the same situation you have in the original timeline where Congress finds it difficult to re-enfranchise the blacks and over time the northerners stop caring as much.

So for Lincoln to do better than original timeline he has to strongly push for enfranchisement acts while the Southern states are either not readmitted or haven't yet empowered the whites in their legislatures. It would require significant foresight on the insidiousness of the southerners in their effort to disenfranchise the blacks and I'm not sure that Lincoln alone would have that foresight.

 

[David T]

Lincoln favored suffrage for educated African Americans and those who had served in the Union Army, but as of 1865 he was not willing to impose his views on that issue on the white South. But of course in OTL many moderate Republicans who did not insist on African American suffrage in 1865 were driven to do so within a few years by the massive violations of the freed slaves' rights. This *might* also have been the case with Lincoln. See my post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/s7OCYnY41JM/XImp2BEjBMUJ It's from some years back, and the next-to-last paragraph is a bit more fatalistic than I would be today--but

***

William C. Harris, _With Charity for All: Lincoln and the Restoration of the
Union_ (University Press of Kentucky 1997) is IMO the most interesting attempt
by a historian to examine the question of what Reconstruction policies Lincoln
would have followed had he lived.

He concludes that while Lincoln favored relatively lenient terms for Southern
whites, and was not about to impose black suffrage as a condition for re-entry
into the Union, nevertheless there was a difference between the policies
Lincoln would have followed and those Andrew Johnson followed in OTL (p. 269):

"[Lincoln's] exalted standing with southern Unionists and his experience in
dealing with them to achieve his purposes (for example, the dramatic
acceptance of emancipation by many formerly proslavery Unionists) would have
produced changes in the South different from those that occurred under
Johnson's administration. Lincoln...would have payed closer attention than
Johnson to the postwar plight of the freed blacks and white Unionists. His
influence on the side of bona fide freedom for blacks would have prevented the
kind of racially discriminatory laws, or Black Codes, enacted by several of
the Southern state governments after the war--laws that Johnson implicitly
endorsed...Though Lincoln had demonstrated his willingness to let bygones be
bygones, he would have made clear his opposition to an early return of rebel
leaders to political power, a position he had expressed during the war. Such
a stance would have prevented the rash pardoning that occurred under Johnson
during the summer and fall of 1865, arousing the Republican majority in
Congress against the new President." Harris thinks it is inconceivable that
Lincoln would have shown the lack of leadership under Johnson which led to
such outrages against black and white Unionists as the New Orleans riot of
1866.

I think Harris puts too much emphasis on Lincoln's plans during the war, and
not enough on how stubborn southern resistance to black rights might have
moved Lincoln "left" after the war, as it did many previously "moderate"
Republicans. He does at least mention the possibility on p. 275:
"Unforeseeable contingencies, such as terror campaigns to undermine black
freedom and loyal control, might have compelled him to adjust his Southern
policy to meet new realities." Lincoln by 1865 had no objection to black
suffrage--he indicated that he would have preferred it if the new Louisiana
constitution had given the vote at least to educated blacks and those who had
served in the Union Army--but was not at that stage ready to insist on it. I
think it is quite possible that Southern resistance to black rights would have
eventually driven him to such an insistence.

But whether Lincoln would eventually have become radicalized or whether he
would have maintained a conciliatory policy would probably have made little
difference for Southern blacks during the late nineteenth century and much of
the twentieth. The white South was determined on white supremacy, and no
amount of either conciliation or force would have stopped them from eventually
establishing white supremacy once federal troops were withdrawn from the
South--and Northern public opinion would not have sustained keeping the troops
there indefinitely.

In at least one respect, one can say Lincoln's death benefitted African
Americans. Without Johnson's blundering, which "radicalized" many moderate
Republicans, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments might never have passed.
To be sure, for decades these amendments did not do Southern blacks much good
(though at least the Fifteenth Amendment assured *Northern* blacks the right
to vote) but at least they provided the legal basis for the attack on white
supremacy once racial attitudes started liberalizing in the mid-twentieth
century.

 

[Mikestone8]

Another point. Iirc, much of the initial (apparent) success of Radical Reconstruction was due to the refusal of many Southern Whites to vote (alongside negroes) in the elections of 1867/8. This was in part at least due to Andrew Johnson egging them on to resist the Radical measures, and also to the hope of a Democratic victory in the upcoming Presidential one.

If Lincoln is alive, and prepared to sign a measure imposing Black suffrage on the South, then clearly he will not be encouraging resistance. And such a law can be passed by a simple majority vote, rather than the two-thirds needed to override a veto. So it's likely to go through quite a lot sooner than OTL, while the next election is still far in the future. In that situation, you may get a lot of whites, who abstained OTL, deciding to "hold their noses" and vote in the "colour blind" elections. If they do so, then several States are likely to be readmitted under far more conservative governments, as iirc happened in Virginia even OTL.

Also, if Lincoln rather than Johnson is POTUS when the 14th Amendment goes to the States, it is at least possible that the Southerners will resign themselves to ratifying it, which could lead to their readmission without full Black suffrage, which in turn probably means there would never be a Fifteenth Amendment. So, paradoxically, a more "radical" Presidential Reconstruction could lead to a less radical outcome.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

"But whether Lincoln would eventually have become radicalized or whether he
would have maintained a conciliatory policy would probably have made little
difference for Southern blacks during the late nineteenth century and much of
the twentieth. The white South was determined on white supremacy, and no
amount of either conciliation or force would have stopped them from eventually
establishing white supremacy once federal troops were withdrawn from the
South--and Northern public opinion would not have sustained keeping the troops
there indefinitely."

I'll agree that Lincoln would not have insisted on complete enfranchisement of blacks, and that such a policy would have been met with relentless violence from white Southerners. But what if Lincoln tries something else? I.e. what if he insists that some blacks be enfranchised; not so many that white control is overthrown, but enough to establish a precedent and give blacks a sliver of political influence? Lincoln seems to have wanted to see a gradual change in race relations. The South's extreme reaction was in part due to the threat of black rule; without that threat, Southern reaction would be moderated. And Lincoln, meanwhile, would be actively building up the Republican Party in the South. The token black vote would initially be all Republican, but eventually there would be divisions over new issues and some would go over to the Democrats. Supposedly there were blacks who allied with the Redeemer "Red Shirts" in South Carolina, so the Redeemers did not wholly scorn black participation; and by 1910 or so, Boss Crump in Memphis was using black votes.

 

[Derek Jackson]

In otl ALL Republicans were angered at the treatment of former slaves and loyal whites after the ACW. That is why measures were passed over Johnson's veto. Lincolm was typically one or 2 steps but no more ahead of white northern opinion.

Now think of this as a general question for a Politician, do you want to enfranchise another million voters (who will almost certainly vote for your party)?

 

[Mikestone8]

In otl ALL Now think of this as a general question for a Politician, do you want to enfranchise another million voters (who will almost certainly vote for your party)?

Only so long as a) You can do it without inordinate effort, and b) it doesn't lose you more than a million of your existing voters.

By 1875, iirc, Republicans were getting worried that more "annual autumnal outbreaks in the South" might cost them Northern states like Ohio and Wisconsin, while the chances of gaining any more Southern ones were less than 50--50. Lincoln understood that kind of arithmetic..