On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 14:39 -0800, Philip Hart wrote: > > The counter-revolution was fairly effectively fought until Grant's term > > second term, by which time Lincoln was unlikely to be in office. And if > > he were, I doubt he'd have had much more luck fighting it than Grant > > did. > > Was thinking that under Lincoln's hand the country could have avoided > impeachment and some of the abuses and corruption of the reconstruction; > that blacks would have had a better chance at real suffrage earlier; > that there would have been more healing. And that Lincoln would, even > as a former president, have exerted a steadying influence on those who > followed him in office - he was just 56 (though maybe his long-bone > syndrome didn't augur long life). But maybe that's just the hero-worship > talking. > I respect your hero worship; the more I learn about the Lincoln, the more I admire him. But it seems to me that during the remainder of what would have been Lincoln's last term, Congress did just about everything that could have been done. I may be full of it here; I'm only just starting to study Reconstruction. But it does seem like the real counterrevolution didn't get going until around 1868-9; and that Grant should get more credit for fighting the good fight it then he's usually given. --