Special elections if Booth was (completely) successful

If Lincoln, Johnson, Seward and Grant were killed in Booth's plot, what's next?

  • Lafayette S Foster is made president in full

    Votes: 16 64.0%
  • A special election chooses someone else as full president

    Votes: 9 36.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Most Lincoln historians are aware that Booth didn't just want Lincoln dead. Andrew Johnson avoided an assassin because his would-be killer couldn't bring himself to do it, and William Seward was fortunate to "only" suffer a stabbing. He also hoped to kill Grant, but he was denied that chance as Mrs Grant and Mrs Lincoln didn't like each other. So let's suppose Grant showed up, but in a strike of terrible luck for the Lincoln administration Booth kills Lincoln and Grant, Atzerodt kills Johnson and Powell kills Seward. In the chaos Lafayette S Foster becomes the acting president. A special election in 1865 is made. In this scenario, who might become president in full? Would Foster be made president in full as an attempt of preserving continuity, or other reasons? Or would someone else be chosen to replace him, and who? And in the next election, Foster or no, with Grant as a casualty who'd be the Republican's pick?
 
The president pro temp of the Sneate would assume the presidency. The idea of the order of presidential succesion has already been established at this point.
 
The Presidential Sucsession act 1792
Under the provisions o that Act, the election should have taken place in November 1865.

However, I have sometimes wondered if Congress (if Foster has recalled it, which he is almost certain to do, if only to get a Speaker of the House elected to stand next in line should anything happen to *him*) might postpone it for a year, so that Presidential Elections continue to coincide with Congressional ones.

This situation has interesting consequences. W/o the long recess, Congress has a bigger say in Reconstruction right from the get-go. So Foster will have to take their views into account far more than Johnson did. Expect him to sign the Civil Rights and Freedmens Bureau bills, and probably insist on at least a limited Black Suffrage - at a time wen the South is stll far too shaken to object. Foster could just turn to them and say "If you don't do it my way, those horrible Radicals will go ape and maybe confiscate your land."
 
Last edited:
Salmond Chase would absolutely run and he could have a shot. After a such bloodbath I expect Radicals to have free hand so maybe Frémont or Sumner have a chance too.
 
Fremont had already lost in 1856 and did not do much to redeem himself as a general when it came to fighting, even though he had done much to try to liberate slaves before being removed. It's not like he was winning battle after battle.

I think it is early enough that Foster is given several months 2 see how he does. Congress would be recalled, I agree, because then they would be able to run reconstruction right in their minds. And if a nominating convention doesn't come till mid August that gives 4 months to see how Foster does. They might decide to keep him in office for another four years.

The Democrats will know they don't have a chance, but whoever they nominate might get a few electoral votes. However the main thrust is going to be who the Republicans choose, and whether a small split comes. There might be one but I think it would be much more amicable than say 1912. And if everyone agrees that Foster is doing a good job there may not be a split. If there is, I suspect Foster might get some electrical votes even if he doesn't really want them because he is busy in the Senate. Several states may choose to still put him on the ballot as well as or instead of the really radical candidate, especially the states on the border like Kentucky and Missouri and Maryland.

Foster could also have a chance because the radicals could be more split than they want to be. The right be some still want Fremont. Maybe Sumner is a popular choice among some whereas others prefer Stanton even if he wasn't as popular as some.

However, the succession Act of 1792 was a law passed by Congress and not a constitutional amendment like the 25th would become. So, they could change the law. That might also factor in to the decision. Do they decide to change the law? And there again, Foster's performance in this crisis might convince them to do so.

Part of the question is also whether Foster would want to be president for an extended period. If Congress winds up being more powerful in the short-term oh, you might decide that it's better to stay in the Senate. However, I suspect that the Ppestige of being president would be too good to pass up. So, I think that he would remain if it were offered to him.
 
Last edited:
I do think that a tragedy as severe of this would lead to some level of a political reckoning for the concept of a strong presidency, and I think the sort of surge of support toward federal oversight/intervention (exemplified in the 14th amendment, that great godsend for Federal jurisdiction) would come alongside a support toward a strong congressional component.
 
I do think that a tragedy as severe of this would lead to some level of a political reckoning for the concept of a strong presidency, and I think the sort of surge of support toward federal oversight/intervention (exemplified in the 14th amendment, that great godsend for Federal jurisdiction) would come alongside a support toward a strong congressional component.

Well, a check of the Senate Journal shows that Foster voted for the 14A, so if he calls Congress immediately it may well be adopted a year earlier. The South, being still in the shock of defeat at this point, probably ratify w/o too much argument.

Of course, if the 14A goes through w/o obstruction, there may well not be a 15A. The Republicans may rest content with reducing Southern representation in the HoR - and so in the Electoral College. That could produce quite a few butterflies.
 
Top