Part I provided a snap shot of the Gilded Age, including some of the good and the bad. It is true that the weak central governments of that time (late 1860s to last 1890s) did not interfere much, if any, with the explosion of economic activity and wealth that occurred in the Northern and Western states.

To various extents, “getting the government out of the way” may very well have been beneficial to some of those economic developments. Furthermore, any actions the federal government did take were likely to be those that facilitated the further success of its most successful and politically powerful businesses.

It is also clear, however, that many of the unfortunate consequences of the Gilded Age occurred for exactly the same reason — there was no strong central government around to interfere with the course of any events — no matter how unfair or draconian those events might have been. Only a much stronger central federal government could have looked after the welfare of the entire unit and could have provided substantial financial assistance and support to its needy components.                                                                                                                                              It is interesting to speculate as to what might have happened during the postbellum era if President Lincoln had lived to serve the remaining four years of his second term and then, perhaps, even one or two more terms (allowed in those days). The strong central government he favored (his model was Henry Clay, not Andrew Jackson) might have prevented some of the worst outcomes of the Gilded Age. In particular, he bore no malice to the vanquished and would have done everything in his power to rebuild the economies and lives of his “Southern brothers,” as he sincerely called the defeated Confederates.

Well before the end of the war, Lincoln had already begun a Reconstruction program that was put into place in the states that came under the control of Union forces. This program was generous to those states and sought to readmit them into the Union as quickly as possible. It also acknowledged that the financial and cultural challenges facing the South were profound and would require several decades of patient and continuous support.    

Lincoln’s Reconstruction policy was opposed, however, by the so-called “Radical” Republicans of that time who gained control of Congress very quickly after Lincoln’s death. The Radicals favored a Reconstruction plan that was far more harsh and punitive than that of Lincoln with a goal of changing the South entirely before allowing it to be readmitted back into the Union. Ironically, their disdain of the South was further increased by the assassination of President Lincoln in 1865.

While President Johnson then tried to continue Lincoln’s more generous Reconstruction policies, he was not an effective politician and was no match for the Radical Republicans — who had him impeached in 1868 and then replaced in the next election by Ulysses S. Grant. President Grant favored the Radical Reconstruction plan and carried it out during his two terms (1869-1877).

Not surprisingly, the Radical Reconstruction policies were strongly resisted in the South and created as many additional problems as they solved. So with the election of Rutherford B. Hays in 1877, all Reconstruction efforts where abandoned and the South was left to deal internally with its multitude of financial and cultural problems. Thus, the stage was set for the South’s subsequent multi-decade period of stagnation.

If Lincoln had lived, on the other hand, it is likely that the credibility he had already earned throughout both the North and South, along with his extraordinary leadership skills, might have enabled the South to rebuild far more quickly. In addition, we might not then have had to wait until the civil-rights era of the 1960s to begin bringing a semblance of equality to the black population of the South.

It is therefore both tragic and ironic that the man who was best poised and most inclined to help the South recover was assassinated by a “Southern sympathizer” just days after the Civil War ended.  

In addition, if he had lived, President Lincoln would undoubtedly have been of great assistance in addressing the multitude of other challenges facing the USA in the decades following the Civil War.

Consider, for example, the following set of historic initiatives put forward during his first term: the Homestead Act in 1862 making land in the West available at very low cost, the Morrill Land-Grant College Act establishing agricultural colleges in each state, the formation of the Department of Agriculture in 1862, the Pacific Railways Act of 1862 leading to the construction of the USA’s first transcontinental railroad, the Revenue Act of 1861 creating our first national income tax, the National Banking Act establishing a national currency, the creation of the National Academy of Sciences in 1863 for advising the government on issues related to science, and the Yosemite Grant which provided unprecedented federal protection of a large natural area now known as Yosemite National Park. He was, indeed, an exceedingly progressive president.

In view of Lincoln’s landmark contributions to the United States described above and the fact that he is also considered to be the “father” of the Republican Party today, it is telling to note that the far right of today hardly ever refers to the example of leadership set by Lincoln. The reason for this seems clear. Because of Lincoln’s belief in the necessity of a strong federal government, he would undoubtedly have been labeled a RINO (Republican in name only) if he were living today by the latter-day “Tea Party” patriots of America.                                                                                                                           

OK, so now let’s consider a few practical questions before us today. If the far right of the Republican Party gets its way and we reduce the role of our federal government to a level of “insignificance,” do you really think that would be good or not so good for life in America?

Do we not have a multitude of very serious problems before us today that require the orchestration of a strong central government? Might it not be better to continue to encourage BOTH forces — including those in support of an individual’s freedom of action and innovation as well as those in support of our collective national interests — in order to face those problems?  

Is it a wise or a stupid idea to suggest that we reduce either one of these two forces to a point of “insignificance” so that there will no longer be any need for compromise?

After thinking a bit more about the actual history of our country, the answers to these questions are clear, are they not? If an optimal outcome can be achieved only by making the role of our federal government “as inconsequential as possible,” why did the Gilded Age not become a Golden Age?  

Let’s hope that we do not slip back to that state of nirvana presently envisioned by the far right and, instead, let’s hope that Republicans once again try much harder in the future to find leaders who dare to walk in the more pro-active and responsible path laid out by the father of their party, Abe Lincoln.

The next progressive Republican, Theodore Roosevelt, said a half century later, “the limitation of governmental power and governmental action means the enslavement of the people by the great corporations.” With wealth and power again concentrated at the top, that’s a sentiment that is totally absent in the Republican candidates of 2012.

Let’s hope we do much better in 2016.

Grimsrud is a resident of Kalispell.