Even if Seward was near-death, his murder would still be viewed highly negatively and the killing of not just the President, but two of others of high official would create a much larger shock. Maybe not on the populace as a whole initially, but for the politicians, yes. Hence perhaps the Radical Republicans would push harder and probably purge of any dissent or such in the South.

As for Alaska, it would nto go to Canada. Great Game was still going on so not much love between the British and the Russians. I think it would likely become the "Taiwan" to the USSR's "China", with either the Romanovs being sent there along with monarchists and followers there or if not, probably a new Russia for the Whites to head to after the Russian Civil War.

A second though more unlikely scenario is for it to become a new place for the defeated Chinese nationalists to go if the British convince the USSR to sell the land around this time or does so as part of arrangements near the end of WW2.
 
How does Russian history go with Alaska still Russian???
Possibilities in order of most to least boring:

Boring answer: The British buy it
Less boring answer: The Great Game turns into an all-out war in which the British take Alaska
Slightly more boring answer: Canada buys it after becoming its own nation
Cliche AH answer: It becomes a rump Tsarist state during the timeline version of the Russian Revolution
Weird answer: The French buy it after losing Alsace-Lorraine, instead of going on their Saharan adventures of OTL
Fun answer: The Japanese conquer it during the Russo-Japanese war
Really weird answer: Alaska becomes a refuge for Confederates during a much harsher reconstruction. The remaining slaves that they manage to sneak out/kidnap on their way out are used in gold mines. Eventually the confederates' descendants are enough of a majority to ferment a revolution which is eventually crushed by American intervention.
 
According to the Succession Act of 1792 it would have been the Sec. of State's obligation to call for a special election; to call for the States to elect new electors. If Seward dies as well then there is no problem, we can assume the Assistant Sec. of State would have met the obligation, but if Seward lingered in an incapacitated state for an extended period of time I wonder if it would have delayed him taking the necessary action (early enough) for the States to meet the 34 day requirement?

Does anyone know if Seward, while he was incapacitated, officially surrender his authority to an assistant Sec. of State?


The Assistant Sec of State was Seward's son Frederick, who was killed defending his father against Payne's attack.

There would be nothing to stop President Foster from appointing a new one, or even a new Sec of State. But he wouldn't necessarily need to. While the Act requires the Sec of State to inform the Governors and newspapers, it does not forbid anyone else from doing so, and in the circumstances Foster would likely do this himself. This is particularly likely if he prefers not to recall Congress until everyone has had a chance to calm down, as any new appointment would have to be confirmed by the Senate. In theory, I suppose Foster's action could be challenged in the courts, but the SCOTUS would surely dismiss any such nitpicking objection.
 
The Assistant Sec of State was Seward's son Frederick, who was killed defending his father against Payne's attack.

There would be nothing to stop President Foster from appointing a new one, or even a new Sec of State. But he wouldn't necessarily need to. While the Act requires the Sec of State to inform the Governors and newspapers, it does not forbid anyone else from doing so, and in the circumstances Foster would likely do this himself. This is particularly likely if he prefers not to recall Congress until everyone has had a chance to calm down, as any new appointment would have to be confirmed by the Senate. In theory, I suppose Foster's action could be challenged in the courts, but the SCOTUS would surely dismiss any such nitpicking objection.
Frederick wasn't killed; he was just heavily injured trying to protect his dad.
 
The Assistant Sec of State was Seward's son Frederick, who was killed defending his father against Payne's attack.

There would be nothing to stop President Foster from appointing a new one, or even a new Sec of State. But he wouldn't necessarily need to. While the Act requires the Sec of State to inform the Governors and newspapers, it does not forbid anyone else from doing so, and in the circumstances Foster would likely do this himself. This is particularly likely if he prefers not to recall Congress until everyone has had a chance to calm down, as any new appointment would have to be confirmed by the Senate. In theory, I suppose Foster's action could be challenged in the courts, but the SCOTUS would surely dismiss any such nitpicking objection.

Thanks for the info regarding the assistant Sec. of State. (Guess they didn't have the Bobby Kennedy rule yet.)

That's good solid logic, and would have likely played out as such, and as you put it the courts would probably have backed any reasonable action on Foster's part, but technically speaking (Constitutionally speaking) if anyone other than the Sec. of State had called for the election of the electors the subsequent election would have had a shadow of doubt cast over it, especially if Foster called for the election and then ran himself.
 
Harry Turtledove did a short story on Lincoln getting killed and the Radical Republicans stomping on Confederacy.While he didn't put much into butterfly effects,he did write in the stripping of voting rights for descendants of confederate troops,hanging of leadership,and martial law in the South in 1942.
 
Thanks for the info regarding the assistant Sec. of State. (Guess they didn't have the Bobby Kennedy rule yet.)

That's good solid logic, and would have likely played out as such, and as you put it the courts would probably have backed any reasonable action on Foster's part, but technically speaking (Constitutionally speaking) if anyone other than the Sec. of State had called for the election of the electors the subsequent election would have had a shadow of doubt cast over it, especially if Foster called for the election and then ran himself.


I don't see Foster running. He wouldn't stand a chance against Grant either for the Republican nomination or (if he ran as a Democrat) in November. Possibly he might get Grant to promise him a supreme court or other appointment as the price of making no waves.

I see it being a bit like Tyler calling himself President rather than "Acting President". That was constitutionally questionable, but the precedent he set was followed for over 140 years before anyone got round to putting it into the CONUS. It could establish a useful maxim that, under his duty to "ensure that the laws be faithfully executed" a POTUS was entitled to step in wherever the officer authorised by law was unable to act.

I would, however, expect a law extending the line of succession, or providing for the automatic recall of Congress (or at least the Senate) in the event of a double vacancy.
 
With Seward out of the way, we probably see Charles Francis Adams as Secretary of State. He's the natural choice (ancestry, personal ability, having served as US Minister to Britain during the war) and Seward's dislike of him was one of tye biggest stumbling blocks to his career in OTL.
 
I don't see Foster running. He wouldn't stand a chance against Grant either for the Republican nomination or (if he ran as a Democrat) in November. Possibly he might get Grant to promise him a supreme court or other appointment as the price of making no waves.

I see it being a bit like Tyler calling himself President rather than "Acting President". That was constitutionally questionable, but the precedent he set was followed for over 140 years before anyone got round to putting it into the CONUS. It could establish a useful maxim that, under his duty to "ensure that the laws be faithfully executed" a POTUS was entitled to step in wherever the officer authorised by law was unable to act.

I would, however, expect a law extending the line of succession, or providing for the automatic recall of Congress (or at least the Senate) in the event of a double vacancy.

Here's a thought we haven't touched on, what about McClellan stepping up again as a Democrat in '65? He had just pulled down 1.8 million votes (to Lincoln's 2.2 million) and while prima facie suggests that Grant was unbeatable, Little Mac may have been able to steal away more Army of Potomac votes from Grant than he was able to steal from Lincoln. Grant (and Sherman) had left many dead soldiers in the field over the previous six months and I suspect (for the soldiers) voting for a general over your president is a different thing than voting for one general over another. Besides Mac would have already had his campaign in order and was by then a practiced politician (as compared to Grant); we have to be honest with ourselves, Grant never really won a 'real' presidential race, both the '68 and '72 runs were against Democratic straw men. Maybe if pushed, Grant (who wouldn't have had a structured campaign going in) might have been exposed at debate.

But truth be told, if such a race did occur, and I could place a bet on it, my money would have been on Grant anyway. But IMHO a Grant-McClellan race in '65 was not a walk-over for Grant.
 
No debates were happening at all,, as candidates for President didn't speak for themselves at thi time.

And I somehow think that McClellan would prove to be too anti-Lincoln at this time, so i doubt he would get very far.

Definitely agree on the second point, McClellan's anti-Lincoln image (with Lincoln now a martyr) would have been a tough hill to climb. As with all men, Lincoln was more popular after his death than during his life.

Re the first point: I wasn't necessarily saying a face to face debate would occur, (I realize that was uncommon for the day) but candidates were at the time thoroughly vetted through the press and the Democratic newspapers would have had a field day with the non-articulate, unprepared Grant. Grant would have had little to no time to prepare his message and with several other Republicans believing they should be the Party's savior, Grant may have stumbled into the election without solid Party support.

But I repeat, yea in the end, it's probably still Grant.
 
To throw a curve ball , how about Horace Greeley as candidate or more likely a VP

https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/horace-greeley.html Based on a very basic skimming of his Wikipedia page and this I would say he would likely be somewhat kinder to the defeated confederacy but much harder on them post-Lincoln assassination.

From what I have seen he was at first open to allowing the south to go without much fuss. How he would act as president of Vice President is unknown.
 
Last edited:
Why not have Grant join the theatre party, get killed by Booth along with Lincoln, and then kill Seward, thus creating the worst of all worlds.
 
In 1865, the President pro tempore of the Senate was next in line for the presidency, in this case, Lafayette S. Foster. There would have been a special election called that year to elect a new president however. Foster will only be in office a few months, but I doubt he would make any waves. It seems the Radical Republicans could gain control of the party, and Reconstruction will take on a much more draconian character. We could see figures like Jefferson Davis hanged, ex-Confederates barred from ever holding public office, and large-scale land reapportionment to freedmen at the expense of plantation owners.
Expanding a bit on this, perhaps we could see some kind of proto-McCarthyism (Wadeism? Sumnerism?), as the military government in the South goes on a witch hunt against anyone and (anyone related to someone) suspected of holding or having held rebel sympathies.
 
Top