WI: Andrew Johnson never becomes president of the United States?

[Eivind]

There are various scenarios here.

1) Lincoln chooses Hannibal Hamlin or another Republican as vice president. In this scenario there are two sub-scenarios: Either Lincoln gets killed or he does not.

2) A somewhat later POD: Andrew Johnson is chosen as vice president, but he never becomes president, since Lincoln is not killed (possibly the assassination attempt is discovered before it takes place).

How would these different scenarios affect developments in the South? How would a continued Lincoln presidency be different from the Johnson presidency? What would a Hamlin presidency look like? Which other Republicans could have been chosen? What about a Radical Republican? If so, who? Is it possible to see a situation where the property of the slave owners are redistributed to the former slaves? I assume in the latter case that this only happens in the areas that rebelled and joined the Confederates.

 

[Mikestone8]

Any other POTUS would be slower in issuing pardons, and readier to slap down any Southern government which passed stringent Black Codes. Possibly the extension of the franchise to at least those Blacks who have served in the Union Army is insisted on from the get-go. So the immediate postwar period is noticeably different.

Longer term not so much. The Army still shrinks back to peacetime levels and becomes too small to enforce any stern meausres in the South. It's still Grant in 1868 and by 1877 things are probably not vastly different from OTL.

 

[Eivind]

What if an alternate president supported redistribution of the property of the slave owners to their former slaves as a kind of compensation for having been hold as slaves? Wouldn´t this have sufficiently strengthened the power of the Afro-Americans so as to make apartheid policies and disenfranchisement difficult to introduce. What if they were sufficiently armed to resist such a development? From what I understand Thaddeus Stevens were among those supported such a policy. What if he was chosen as vice president and then Lincoln was killed, like in OTL? What was Ulysses Grant's view on such policies? Did he try to introduce them when he was president? I would assume that the earlier they were introduced, the less in a position the white population in the South would be to resist them.

 

[Derek Jackson]

What if an alternate president supported redistribution of the property of the slave owners to their former slaves as a kind of compensation for having been hold as slaves? Wouldn´t this have sufficiently strengthened the power of the Afro-Americans so as to make apartheid policies and disenfranchisement difficult to introduce. What if they were sufficiently armed to resist such a development? From what I understand Thaddeus Stevens were among those supported such a policy. What if he was chosen as vice president and then Lincoln was killed, like in OTL? What was Ulysses Grant's view on such policies? Did he try to introduce them when he was president? I would assume that the earlier they were introduced, the less in a position the white population in the South would be to resist them.

Yes and it could most easily have happened in the immediate aftermath of the end of the War and Lincoln's murder.

I think a President Hamlyn could have made the pardon/ amnesty conditional on the planter class giving up its land and money and for others conditional on accepting the rights of former slaves.

I think that it would have been smart to put stronger guarantees on voting and other rights into the Consitution especially in respect of former rebel land.

 

[Mikestone8]

I think a President Hamlyn could have made the pardon/ amnesty conditional on the planter class giving up its land and money and for others conditional on accepting the rights of former slaves.

Could I trouble you for a source? Did Hamlin eve endorse such a measure?

Please not that in 1872 Senator Hamlin (as he now was) voted with the majority to lift almost all the disabilities imposed on ex-Rebs by Section 3 of the 14th amendment. If he was ever punitive he didn't remain so for long.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Could I trouble you for a source? Did Hamlin eve endorse such a measure?

Please not that in 1872 Senator Hamlin (as he now was) voted with the majority to lift almost all the disabilities imposed on ex-Rebs by Section 3 of the 14th amendment. If he was ever punitive he didn't remain so for long.

In the aftermath of the war and the murder of Lincoln he might have

 

[Mikestone8]

In the aftermath of the war and the murder of Lincoln he might have

Well, it's next to impossible to prove a negative but imho this is a *very* low probability. Even most "Radicals" didn't go that far, so that supporters of confiscation were a minority *of* a minority.

Also Southern landowners would probably not accept conditional pardons of this type, but "sit it out" in the hope that President Grant would be more generous. His lenient terms at Appomattox would give them good reason to expect this. Since Hamlin was firmly opposed to capital punishment (iirc he helped in getting his native Maine to abolish it) no one save perhaps the actual murderers of Lincoln is in any danger of execution, so they can wait for his term to end. And given the strong will for reconciliation, later amnesty measures are *very* unlikely to include such a condition.

It is well worth using the search function to look up previous threads on this subject. David T in particular has contributed plenty of material demonstrating how unlikely wholesale confiscation was. If I were you I'd just forget it.

 

[Eivind]

From what I understand, Thaddeus Stevens were among those who supported redistribution of the property of slave owners. Could he have been chosen as vice president, and later have become president if Lincoln was killed?

 

[King Nazar]

From what I understand, Thaddeus Stevens were among those who supported redistribution of the property of slave owners. Could he have been chosen as vice president, and later have become president if Lincoln was killed?

Only if Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to double down on abolitionism in their platform. I think this is unlikely since from Lincoln and the GOP's perspective, Lincoln's reelection was not a sure thing at the time of the convention (they didnt really have a way to poll Abe's popularity or anything) and they wanted to make sure not to lose support among War Democrats.

I think it's possible to keep Hamlin on the ticket but you'd need to make the military situation more favourable to the Union (earlier fall of Atlanta perhaps?).

Swapping Hamlin for Stevens would require Lincoln and the Republicans to be far more radical in their views for the post war situation.

 

[Mikestone8]

From what I understand, Thaddeus Stevens were among those who supported redistribution of the property of slave owners. Could he have been chosen as vice president, and later have become president if Lincoln was killed?

No. Lincoln wanted a War Democrat (and preferably a Southerner or at least a Border State man) as his running-mate, since theirs was the swing vote in 1864. A Radical Republican was of no value, since anyone willing to support such a person would have no choice but to vote for Lincoln anyway. Radicals could not vote for McClellan, and to run a third candidate would be to guarantee Mac's victory. Nor would Hamlin be of much use, since he was a New Englander, and if the Republicans had to worry about New England, then they were doomed anyway.

As Lincoln himself observed, his big danger was that, rather than saying the war was a failure, the Democrats might instead say that he was a failure, and that their man could manage the war better. Had they done so they might have attracted the votes of many pro-war Democrats. That was his most vulnerable flank, and he chose Andrew Johnson as a way to guard it. With 20/20 hindsight, it is likely that he would still have been re-elected even with Hamlin, but he had no way of knowing that at the time.

Nor, BTW, is there any reason to suppose that Lincoln *wanted* a Radical as his successor. He was looking toward a lenient peace - "Let 'em up easy" and all that - and a Radical POTUS would be an obstacle to reconciliation, not a force for it..

 

[Eivind]

Wasn´t Lincoln guaranteed to win the election anyway, since the South had left the union and could therefore not vote? How should the Democrats argue that Lincoln was a failure?

 

[Mikestone8]

["QUOTE="Eivind, post: 19032876, member: 80192"]Wasn´t Lincoln guaranteed to win the election anyway, since the South had left the union and could therefore not vote? How should the Democrats argue that Lincoln was a failure?[/QUOTE]

Better get a ouija board and talk to Old Abe yourself. He didn't think the election was in the bag.

As late as August 1864 he wrote that "This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect[1], as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he can not possibly save it afterwards."

No offence, but how much have you read about it? I can highly recommend McPherson's Ordeal By Fire.


[1] ie McClellan

 

[Eivind]

It might well be that he wasn´t sure that he would win, but looking at the result of the election, it seems highly doubtful that another vice presidential candidate would have lead to a cictory for McClellan. Why did Lincoln think he would not win? There would have to be a significant change of votes in the remaining union for Lincoln not to be reelected.

 

[Mikestone8]

It might well be that he wasn´t sure that he would win, but looking at the result of the election, it seems highly doubtful that another vice presidential candidate would have lead to a cictory for McClellan. Why did Lincoln think he would not win? There would have to be a significant change of votes in the remaining union for Lincoln not to be reelected.

Because for several months the war had seemed to be getting nowhere fast.

After earlier successes the western theatre seemed to have bogged down - it took most of a year for the Union Army to work its way from Chattanooga to Atlanta, and in Aug 64 it still hadn't got there. In VA, Lee had fought Grant to a bloody stalemate at Cold Harbor while further west the Red River Expedition had achieved nothing and almost led to the loss of a whole flotilla of gunboats to the Rebs. Lincoln had good reason to worry. And BTW he wasn't just "not sure he could win" he was *expecting* not to. In hindsight he may have worried too much, but there were no Gallup polls in those days, so all such calculations were pure guesswork.

In any case, even had he been more optimistic why should Lincoln have the slightest interest in putting a Radical on the ticket? If the end of the war seemed imminent then the big concern would be how to reconcile a defeated South to reunion. A Radical would have nothing to contribute to that and would probably be a handicap.

 

[Eivind]

In any case, even had he been more optimistic why should Lincoln have the slightest interest in putting a Radical on the ticket? If the end of the war seemed imminent then the big concern would be how to reconcile a defeated South to reunion. A Radical would have nothing to contribute to that and would probably be a handicap.

Maybe because such policies were more ethical?

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Lincoln wanted a War Democrat VP, as has been said in this thread.

William Rosecrans was considered for VP in 1864 and was in communication with the administration. However, his telegramm that he sent indicating his interest in the position was intercepted by War Secretary Edwin Stanton (who did not like Rosecrans much) and thus it went to Johnson.

Rosecrans as President instead of Johnson would be interesting. He'd also likely not get any nomination in 1868, considering he was a catholic.

 

[Mikestone8]

Maybe because such policies were more ethical?

Depends what your "ethical" priorities are. Lincoln's was always the rebuilding of the Union.

In his eyes, anything which obstructed that was *not* ethical, no matter how well-intentioned it might be. And confiscation or other drastic measures *would* have obstructed it.

Within this parameter, he'd do what he could for the Freedmen, but that came a long way second.

 

[Eivind]

Depends what your "ethical" priorities are. Lincoln's was always the rebuilding of the Union.

In his eyes, anything which obstructed that was *not* ethical, no matter how well-intentioned it might be. And confiscation or other drastic measures *would* have obstructed it.

Within this parameter, he'd do what he could for the Freedmen, but that came a long way second.

Strengthening the power of the Afro-Americans would reduce the power of the former slave owners and would therefore make any future rebellion in the south much more difficult.

 

[Mikestone8]

Strengthening the power of the Afro-Americans would reduce the power of the former slave owners and would therefore make any future rebellion in the south much more difficult.

But if the ex-slaveowners accepted reunion and settled down as reasonably loyal US citizens, there would be no need to reduce their power.

Also, given that honslaveholders were every bit as racist as their slaveowning compatriots (maybe more so in some cases) favouring the Blacks was the quickest way to unite slaveholders and nonslaveholders in opposition to the government - which was precisely the way not to get a loyal South.

And once the US returned to a peace footing, and the huge army which had won the war dissolved and went back to peaceful pursuits, the modest peacetime establishment would be hopelessly inadequate to police the South effectively, so in the end it would have to be allowed to run itself - even if it did so badly. When Lincoln said "Let 'em up easy." he wasn't just being magnanimous. He was recognising that this was the only practicable course. After his death, his party took a little while to accept this, but by 1877 they too had got the message. If Lincoln saw all this from the Next World, he might have been a bit sad, but would not have been in the least surprised.

 

[Wendell]

Lincoln wanted a War Democrat VP, as has been said in this thread.

William Rosecrans was considered for VP in 1864 and was in communication with the administration. However, his telegramm that he sent indicating his interest in the position was intercepted by War Secretary Edwin Stanton (who did not like Rosecrans much) and thus it went to Johnson.

Rosecrans as President instead of Johnson would be interesting. He'd also likely not get any nomination in 1868, considering he was a catholic.

That's interesting.