Let's say Powell was assigned to kill Johnson instead of Seward and he succeeds. Assuming that Lincoln follows the precedent of George Washington and doesn't run does Grant still run? With Lincoln backing his campaign if he runs does he do even better in the election? If Lincoln advises him does he pick less corrupt people to run the government ?What would Johnson's legacy be like since he would be a martyred VP instead of being later vilified in the late 20th-early 21st centuries?
Andrew Johnson assassinated instead of Lincoln
- Thread starter Johnrankins
- Start date
Johnson was already somewhat popular in the North for being the only Southern Senator to stay Unionist, being given military Governorship of Tennessee and a War Democrat voter getter as VP. Conversely he was held as a traitor in the a lot of the South, nearly being lynched at one point. Without his disasterous Presidency he'll be remembered as the man who fought for the Union despite everyone in his home state loathing him and dying for it. Somewhat of a folk hero, a man who rose from nothing and cut down after the fighting ended.
Indeed, I think many people would be saying "If he weren't assassinated he would have been a worthy successor to Lincoln. He would have been much better than the president who was elected."
Fearless Leader
Donor
I wonder if Johnson's assassination might serve to radicalize Lincoln? What about a scenario in which both Johnson and Mary Todd Lincoln are assassinated? Grieving his wife and his VP, Lincoln could take a much more radical course in this scenario. Perhaps he decides to go along with a more radical vision of reconstruction?
Quite possible IMO, particularly if his wife is killed as well. I think Lincoln would have moved towards the radicals over time in any case, that was his pattern.
What would be the point of doing so?
Working with the Radicals made sense during the war, as they were the ones most committed to winning it. But with the war over, the main order of business is reconciling the defeated South to reunion, and there the Radicals are an obstacle rather than an asset.
Would that really make sense?
If he stops to think (which he will, however grief-stricken) Lincoln knows that his (and even more his successors') power to dictate to the South is a wasting asset. As wartime enlistments expire, the Army will inexorably shrink back to peacetime levels, which means that the government's powers of coercion wll dwindle to between slim and none. He didn't say "Let them up easy" out of softness or sentiment, but because in his view it was the only practical option. Why would he go over to harder policies if he can see that these are doomed to failure?
Well, not everyone. Almost half of Tennessee was solidly pro-Union.
In any case, this POD is really about Lincoln remaining President and overseeing reconstruction. The legacy reputation of Andrew Johnson being of inconsequential importance except as its use to bind Unionist Southerners closer to the Republican Party.
As such, we'll probably see a more successful Reconstruction within limits. A better supported freedman class that remains politically important combined with Southern Unionists and Northern immigrants, may be able to hold a few states of the South for the Republicans long term. Grant is still likely to become President after Lincoln, but he'll inherit a situation where it'll be much harder for "redemptionists" to overturn the civil rights of freedmen.
The Republican Party won't be as bitterly divided between radicals and moderates since Lincoln is a natural bridge between the two. The country also won't be exhausted about a Washington that doesn't work since there is no impeachment crisis. Popular support in the North will be much higher to keep Reconstruction going and successful.
Eventually, the troops will need to be withdrawn and some of the Southern states will regress as IOTL, but I think there is a real chance for several of the Confederate states to retain civil protections for blacks and competitive elections where Republicans can win.
If any of the Southern states goes for Hayes in 1876, there is no constitutional crisis or commission ruling. A Republican administration may be more willing to continue its support of freedmen. However, after 20 years of Republican rule, then Hancock could very well win the 1880 election for the Democrats. It would be interesting to see if this would actually play out, and what that may mean for freedmen and their families if the first Democrats in office is an out-and-out Civil War hero.
Like all reconstruction scenarios though, many questions as to its true success.
His pattern through the entire war was to stall the radicals long enough to get some popular support and then move towards them. I don't why that would change post war. During the last speech he had given he moved to the point where he was willing to give the vote to certain Blacks. By the end of the year he probably would have moved even more to the radical position and give all Blacks the vote.
What makes you think that?
It took the "radical" Congress two years to come round to that position, and as you yourself note it wasn't Lincoln's habit to get ahead of his party. And if Lincoln has imposed a limited Black suffrage from the start, and been slower and more choosy than Johnson in allowing ex-Rebs back into political life, then the legislators haven't had to put up with two years of provocations from Johnson and the Southern State governments erected under his policy, so there'll be less Congressional support for such a step.
In any case, though, you seem to be missing my real point - that it doesn't really matter all that much what policies Lincoln adopts. As the Army drops back to peacetime size, the means to enforce Reconstruction measures will fade away, irrespective of who is POTUS. Ultimately, the South is going to be ruled by its white population, and the Republicans' only choice will be whether to accept that with good grace or with bad grace. Lincoln, I'm pretty sure, will opt for good grace.