If Abraham Lincoln Lived, Might He Be Viewed As Mediocre President?

In the decades since Abraham Lincoln's death, he has in many ways been sanctified. Each year, hundreds of thousands of tourists climb the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC to reverantly read the inspiring words of the president who "freed the slaves," won the Civil War while preserving the Union and took a reconciling if not forgiving attitude toward the defeated South. 

Had he lived, he might be remembered, not as historians' consistent choice as one of the five greatest American presidents, but as the ineffectual and unpopular leader who couldn't satisfy anyone. It's quite easy to imagine his impeachment by the same Congress that tried to oust his successor, Andrew Johnson. 

Like other historical figures who were popular during war, most notably Winston Churchill, Lincoln may have lost popularity once he had to tackle the harsh problems of the post-war era. He may very well been rejected at the polls in the election of 1868.

In a 1931 collection of essays by historians — perhaps the first anthology of counter-factual history, "If It Had Happened Otherwise," Milton Waldman wrote a provocative essay as if Lincoln had lived. He speculated that both the Union and the Confederacy would have turned against the 16th president.

The immortal words of Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, to "bind up the nation's wounds" in the spirit of "malice towards none and charity for all," would have eventually rung hollow, Waldman speculates. That speech committed nobody to anything. Once Lincoln waded into the details of policy prescriptions in his second term, he was sure to offend.

After the war, half a million Yankee soldiers returned home expecting jobs. Many were sorely disappointed. The North's industrial system was disorganized and the financial status of the government was widely believed to be shaky. The South's economic system was devastated, and its cities were over-crowded with disabled and diseased veterans in desperate need of assistance or employment. Former slaves languished without work, angry about the past and afraid of a future that could put them in positions of responsibility for which they were ill-prepared. 

The Republican president was expected to solve this crisis. He alone stood in the way of his party's short-sighted desire to expropriate Southern lands and to build up a permanent Republican supremacy by giving political power to bewildered former slaves and stripping whites of the right to vote.

Waldman envisioned Lincoln in 1866 facing stalemate in Congress. If he vetoed legislation advanced by leaders of his own party to punish the South, he would have eroded his own political power base. Congress would have been adamant, and sought to over-ride his veto. If he failed to veto it, he would have betrayed his wiser judgments. He probably would have done as he had done during the war: urged executive branch staff to ignore, not enforce, congressional legislation. That would have infuriated his opponents in Congress, and set the wheels moving for impeachment.

Add to that the almost inevitable fight Lincoln would have faced with his Secretary of War, William Stanton. Lincoln almost assuredly would have demanded Stanton's resignation because of his disloyalty. But Stanton had a large following within the Republican Party, particularly among Radical Republicans such as Thaddeus Stevens and Ben Wade. They may very well have led the impeachment fight against Lincoln.

Without doubt, Lincoln would have been attacked by members of his own party for being "soft" on the South, and for failing to prosecute Southern leaders like Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. In the South, he probably would have faced the opposite criticism: that he was too harsh, or that he wasn't doing enough to help the region economically. 

A politician can survive partisan attacks if he has patronage or other things to offer potential supporters. But in the desperate political environment following the war, almost everyone wanted special favors. Lincoln would have had a hard time either rebuffing or obliging them.

By 1868, realizing that he couldn't please anything close to a majority, the embattled Lincoln would have had to decide whether to retire or campaign for an unprecedented third term. In all probability, he would have been totally exhausted by his first two terms and chosen to retire. 

In Waldman's counter-factual, Lincoln faces impeachment as a discredited president who is castigated as an over-spender. By dying in office, he avoided humiliation. 

In any event, there is little doubt that Lincoln, had he lived, would not have left office with the kind of reverence and respect he achieved as a martyr.

If John Wilkes Booth's gun had backfired and Lincoln survived eight years without assassination, there probably would not be a Lincoln Memorial today.

So, what are the contemporary lessons to be learned from all this speculation?

First, towering historical figures like Lincoln become almost life-like when you realize the limitations placed on them by historical circumstance. It goes to show that the times create heroes probably more than heroes shape the times.

Second, some leaders serve their nation better as martyrs than in holding office beyond their time of effectiveness. In death, Lincoln served to unify the nation in ways he could not have done if he had lived. 

Drill Deeper:

• Andrew Johnson
• William Stanton
• Radical Republicans
• Thaddeus Stevens
• Ben Wade
• Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address