Although I very much admire President Lincoln and most of his ideals, I believe that Lincoln’s stance on the treatment of the South is far too lenient. First off, Lincoln never believed that the South had legally seceded from the union; thus, his plan for Reconstruction is based upon forgiveness rather than solely economic gain and the hopes of true reconciliation. Lincoln being elected as president was the last straw for secession for the southern states, and it can be proven that the sole reason he wishes to reunite the North and the South back into the Union is to gain support of the South. Additionally, Lincoln’s 10 percent plan, which would readmit 10% of voters from the election of 1860 in the union as well as guarantee the protection of private property to southerners, gained popularity among his …show more content…
Not only that, but the Southern states, now part of the Confederacy, still mistreat slaves and count them as property. I believe in civil rights for all, and complete abolition, yet the South is uncompromising and does not want to give up their slaves. This not only goes against my ideas, but also Mr President’s ideas as well. Enfranchisement and abolition should be a top priority in our efforts at reconstruction, not exclusively unification. So why Mr. President, why should the south not be punished at all? Another example of Mr. Lincoln’s unnecessary leniency is when he pocket vetoed the Wade-Davis bill. This bill made it harder for readmission into the union, and required that 50% of white males in the state’s population take a loyalty oath. This proposal could have been extremely successful in ensuring that the South would know their place and would understand the full effect that they had on our nation when they seceded, yet we would never know. I am extremely disappointed that Lincoln chose to veto it simply because it was too harsh. The President of the United States holds the highest source of power, yet instead of being benevolent, he is