Lincoln, Johnson and Seward killed

[Max Sinister]

This is inspired by Civil War Myths and Legends (http://www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/HIS269/myths2.html#Assassination):

"Three coordinated attacks were supposed to take place: Booth would kill Lincoln at Ford's Theater; Lewis Powell (a Confederate from Alabama who rode with John Mosby's guerillas) would kill Secretary of State Seward at his home; and George Atzerodt (a Confederate sympathizer who frequently ferried Rebel spies across the Potomac) was supposed to kill Vice President Johnson. Atzerodt lost his nerve and spent the evening getting drunk at a tavern; Powell severely wounded Seward but he recovered; and only Booth succeeded."

WI all three of them had succeeded? At first: Who'd become president now?

I certainly expect the reconstruction begun earlier, and of cause no tried impeachment of Johnson.

[Straha]

I think Benjamin Wade. In which case the planter lords of the former CSA are fucked. Bigtime.

[BrianP]

According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, the Senate President pro tempore was next in line after the Vice-President, followed by the Speaker of the House. However, Congress was not in session at the time so I don't know who would have become President. Big-time Constitutional crisis.

[1940LaSalle]

Are you sure of that line of succession? I was under the impression that until the 25th Amendment, the line of succession called for the Secretary of State (Seward) to be third in line, followed--I believe--by the Secretary of War (Edwin Stanton). Recall when Reagan was shot, Alexander Haig made his famous "I'm in charge here" remarks to the press, citing at least the first two links (VP and SecState) in the succession chain as it used to be.

[The Mists Of Time]

Secretary of War Edwin Stanton becomes President. President Stanton and the Radical Republicans in congress make the South pay for The Civil War big time, perhaps even blameing the South for Lincoln's death. Reconstruction is much more harsh against the South than in OTL.

Some in the North may see this as an opportunity to confiscate property in the South especially from Southern plantation owners, then get rich by selling that land.

Ill feelings by Southerners toward the North would be more bitter if reconstruction is harsher than in OTL. This means more anger and possibly more backlash by Southern whites toward the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's than in OTL.

[Derek Jackson]

The 1792 succession law, in effect in 1865, provided for the President Pro Tem to become President but also for a new election the following November.

[Ghost 88]

Secretary of War Edwin Stanton becomes President. President Stanton and the Radical Republicans in congress make the South pay for The Civil War big time, perhaps even blameing the South for Lincoln's death. Reconstruction is much more harsh against the South than in OTL.

Some in the North may see this as an opportunity to confiscate property in the South especially from Southern plantation owners, then get rich by selling that land.

Ill feelings by Southerners toward the North would be more bitter if reconstruction is harsher than in OTL. This means more anger and possibly more backlash by Southern whites toward the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's than in OTL.
Reconstruction couldn't have been much harsher than it was with out getting the insurection that Lee refused to be a part of.Reconstruction as it was did confiscate property ,Carpetbaggers did get rich this way.The Souths mineral wealth went to benefit Northern bussinessmen.
The Radical Republicans already wanted it to be harsher
only A.Johnson stood in the way,why do you think they impeached him.

[The Mists Of Time]

I just think with Stanton's attitude, had he been President there would have been less of a reconciliation kind of attitude toward the South than there was under Andrew Johnson, and that more hard line attitude would have made reconstruction more difficult and in some way more harsh.

[Wendell]

I just think with Stanton's attitude, had he been President there would have been less of a reconciliation kind of attitude toward the South than there was under Andrew Johnson, and that more hard line attitude would have made reconstruction more difficult and in some way more harsh.
But this makes interesting the next election.

[Max Sinister]

Well, as I said, without Johnson the reconstruction begins sooner. @the Southerners: That's got an advantage too - it will be over earlier, too.

[wkwillis]

Reconstruction couldn't have been much harsher than it was with out getting the insurection that Lee refused to be a part of.Reconstruction as it was did confiscate property ,Carpetbaggers did get rich this way.The Souths mineral wealth went to benefit Northern bussinessmen.
The Radical Republicans already wanted it to be harsher
only A.Johnson stood in the way,why do you think they impeached him.
I wasn't aware that the south had any significant mines prior to 1864. The phosphate of Florida, the iron of Alabama, the salt of Louisiana, were all undeveloped at the time. Before the northerners could confiscate the profits of the mines, they would have had to loan the southerners the money to build them, first.

[Evil Opus]

If we assume Stanton takes control, we probably see a prolonged guerilla war in the South until the 1890's. Also, martial law keeps the country under almost dictorial control from 1865 to 1866.

[Ghost 88]

I wasn't aware that the south had any significant mines prior to 1864. The phosphate of Florida, the iron of Alabama, the salt of Louisiana, were all undeveloped at the time. Before the northerners could confiscate the profits of the mines, they would have had to loan the southerners the money to build them, first.
The point I was trying to make is the land the mines were on was confiscated from southern owners and all the profit went to enrich northerners.Look at Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia two of the richest coal areas were until the 1970s the working man was dirt poor,some of the poorest in the nation. The South was looted by Northern robber barons.

[wkwillis]

The point I was trying to make is the land the mines were on was confiscated from southern owners and all the profit went to enrich northerners.Look at Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia two of the richest coal areas were until the 1970s the working man was dirt poor,some of the poorest in the nation. The South was looted by Northern robber barons.
In 1860 the mines were still being worked by pickax directly into the exposed seams. No pumps, no adits, etc. Furthermore, there wasn't a whole lot of production in the south because you need railroads to haul the coal to a user someplace. The south ran on firewood, and so did the hills of Appalachia.
There were no southern coalmines with northern mortgages on them since there were no southern coalmines that anybody would consider collateral.
All the mines of the southern states were developed postwar and could not have been stolen from southerners by carpetbaggers.
The land the coal mines were on could have been stolen, but why bother when it was so easy to just buy it before you built the railroad spur in the first place? Coal was a commodity back then. Essentially the entire interior side of the Appalachians is laced with seams.
Basically it didn't happen. Cite me a source of any kind. Census reports, whatever.
Plantations were on flat land, good deep soil, well watered. Not mining land.