why did lincoln's assassination hurt the south rather than help it?

Answer 1

The common "wisdom" on this question has generally been that, since Lincoln favored "softer" more conciliatory terms of Reconstruction than did the "Radical Republicans" in Congress, his death ultimately led to very "harsh" handling of the South by this group, eager to "punish" them for the rebellion. Meanwhile, we are told, Andrew Johnson TRIED to enact Lincoln's approach, but lacked the political skill to pull it off. Hence the Radicals were able to enact THEIR program.

Another common piece of this storyline is the notion that the assassination of Lincoln itself caused the anger that led the North in general to ACCEPT such an approach.

As you may have surmised from the way I worded it, I think much of this is hokum -- it's mostly based on a revisionist Confederate view of Reconstruction repeated for generations in the South and acquiesced in by the North, but contrary to the evidence.

Now it IS true that there was initial outrage at Lincoln's death and calls for retaliation -- these did not, however, last long enough to explain Northern support for the Congressional Reconstruction program.

As for "what Lincoln would have done" --
In fact, though Lincoln DID push for reconciliation, he ALSO showed concern for the protection of the rights of the newly freed slaves -- a concern Johnson did not share. The "Radical" reaction, such as it was, came because Johnson did virtually nothing to pressure the South to guarantee the protection of the rights of the freedmen. It is unthinkable that Lincoln would have done the same.

Now we don't really know what exactly Lincoln would have done. Though there is good reason to believe he would have acted with considerably more political skill than Johnson AND with greater humility (willing to compromise, to take what he could get), we can't lay out what approach he might have taken that would, in the end, have had greater success... given the great difficulty of the problems.

As far as what DID happen -- the "Radical" program has, following the Confederate revisionist view, been characterized as long, harsh and thoroughly corrupt. EACH of these is much mistaken -- for most states it ended in a few years, the troops were few and targeted (and took little active role), there was no confiscation of land (as some had advocated... to be given to the freedmen), and though SOME in the Reconstruction governments were corrupt, many were hard-working and honest....

The ONE way in which I believe Lincoln's having lived could have HELPED the South is not so much in the actual "terms" of Reconstruction -- these were not particularly harsh anyway. Rather, it is possible that if Lincoln had led the effort from the START, at a time when the South was more "compliant" --EXPECTING as the losing side to have to go along with Northern plans-- some of the key changes could have been brought in earlier with less of a backlash (though it still would have been very difficult).

But as it was, Johnson's 'letting them off easy', not demanding careful guarding of the freedmen's rights AND allowing the quick return to political power of the very men who had led the rebellion, encouraged Southern leaders to push to regain their "rights" and power.

Had Lincoln presided over the matter. . . perhaps this would not have happened, and the whole program might have had greater success. One would hope then that, just as the North had observed black soldiers performing valiantly and begun to re-evaluate THEIR prejudices, so the observation of blacks mostly acting very responsibly, working hard, etc. with their new freedom, would have helped to undermine the Southern prejudices and FEARS that encouraged them to fight AGAINST Reconstruction and the rights of blacks (later leading to Jim Crow...)

This is not what many in the South WANTED, but it is what would have been better for them than the racist society that ended up prevailing as Reconstruction fell apart.

Answer 2

Lincoln wanted the Union back together quickly. So he supported a very mild reconstruction.

Johnson did not have to power to stand up to the Radical Republicans like Lincoln did so he caved and a harsh reconstruction was adopted which the south is still trying to recover from.

Answer 3

Lincoln's assassination hurt the south. He was in favor reconciliation between the states and between people. The Radical Republicans who replaced them were vindictive toward the south.

Answer 4

John Wilkes Booth, a well-known actor and a Confederate spy from Maryland, had formulated a plan to kidnap Lincoln in exchange for the release of Confederate prisoners. After attending an April 11 speech in which Lincoln promoted voting rights for blacks, an incensed Booth changed his plans and determined to assassinate the president.[50] Learning that the President and First Lady, together with the Grants, would be attending Ford's Theatre, he laid his plans, assigning his co-conspirators to assassinate Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William H. Seward.

Without his main bodyguard Ward Hill Lamon, to whom he related his famous dream regarding his own assassination, Lincoln left to attend the play Our American Cousin on April 14, 1865. As a lone bodyguard wandered, and Lincoln sat in his state box (Box 7) in the balcony, Booth crept up behind the President and waited for the funniest line of the play, hoping the laughter would muffle the noise of the gunshot. When the laughter began, Booth jumped into the box and aimed a single-shot, round-slug .44 caliber Henry Deringer at his head, firing at point-blank range. Major Henry Rathbone momentarily grappled with Booth but was cut by Booth's knife. Booth then leapt to the stage and shouted "Sic semper tyrannis!" (Latin: "Thus always to tyrants") and escaped, despite a broken leg suffered in the leap.[51] A twelve-day manhunt ensued, in which Booth was chased by Federal agents (under the direction of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton). He was eventually cornered in a Virginia barn house and shot, dying of his wounds soon after.