AHC/WI: Lincoln for Two Terms followed by Grant for Two Terms

The thing about Sherman is he had state of Ohio as a favorite son, all the political connections through the Ewings and John Sherman, would be the obvious candidate for the veterans, and knew the issues inside and out; he had also demonstrably impressive leadership, management, and administrative skills, and could argue a position as well as anyone - read his letters to Calhoun, Rawson and company; the man could write and argue, and he was a trained attorney who could tell people to go to hell quite eloquently.

This is also the man known to his troops as Uncle Billy, and whose veterans reenlisted in '64 at rates higher than any other army; almost 50 percent, in fact. He knew how to lead.

He'd be a combination of Grant and Harry Truman, actually.;)

Best,

Wonder he he'd handle reconstruction. Not knocking Grant for when the KKK rose he clamped down and snuffed them out but some things could've been done better.
 
Except that question was asked after Grant's two terms; here he's the ranking general officer in terms of field experience and the president and general-in-chief have both just been assasinated by a rebel agent.

Sherman will be Stanton's partner, and the obvious candidate in '68 after Johnson departs. It will not be anyone who was in the Cabinet or Congress or anywhere else but a blue uniform with stars.

Sherman was also the general whose veterans' re-enlisted at 50 percent in '64 for the duration; trust me, he could connect with people. They didn't call him Uncle Billy for nothing.

As far as his exeuctive ability goes, he ran the entire Western Department and an army group in the field in battle in '64-65; he knew how to lead, and how to manage.

Don't forget, his father was a justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, his foster father (and eventual father-in-law) was a US senator and cabinet officer, he was brother in law to all three General Ewings, and his brother was a congressman, senator, and cabinet officer for five decades. He also had experience in the law and banking pre-war, and had run LSU for two years before the war; his career from 1861 onward is pretty well-known, of course.;)

He could have been an excellent president, actually. Might have asked for time off for good behavior, however.

Best,

He explicitly declined to run in '68 and I have very few doubts he'd do it again. He has no incentive to want the position for himself (especially since he vehemently expressed distaste for politics) and would have no reason to want to throw himself into the ring when there are military matters he would feel he needs to attend to like Reconstruction and the Native American conflicts.

No matter what the public might feel about him he made it pretty clear how he felt about politics. He didn't want even the least political position and made no angles to get one. He'd be an excellent judge or administrator but not a politician.

Just using Grant as an example, Grant's record seems to show he would be an amazing president capable of working through the political lines and using his force of personality to swing congress around to what he would want to do while making informed positions and being an excellent judge of character. Instead his administration was marred by scandal, corruption, Congressional deadlock (not as bad as Johnston, but still) his own former supporters deserting him, and ultimately a further botched Reconstruction since he couldn't work with the Radicals.

Sherman isn't exactly in a position to do better. Honestly he'd be a better VP candidate since it keeps him out of the spot light, he doesn't have to work with the press, and he can work behind the scenes to support whoever is in power after Johnston. In power he'd probably make a mockery of himself in the papers, be far to willing to use military force, and become just as deadlocked with the Radicals over certain issues as Grant or Johnston did. He's a far better soldier than a politician after all.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
He never suffered fools gladly, and he also had a real

Wonder he he'd handle reconstruction. Not knocking Grant for when the KKK rose he clamped down and snuffed them out but some things could've been done better.

He never suffered fools gladly, and he also had a real sympathy for those rolled over by events, which is belied by his reputation. Which, like Patton's, is something of a caricature.

I'd expect he would have been as focused as Grant was, and probably less likely to forgive.

Not quite Kearny in TKI's version of events, but probably closer than Grant - expecially if the point of depature was, as I suggested above, the assasinations of Lincoln and Grant by Booth.

He'd make more than Georgia howl, and the freedmen were the obvious allies for the US in the south during Reconstruction.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Grant's alive in '68, historically

He explicitly declined to run in '68 and I have very few doubts he'd do it again.l.

Grant's alive in '68, historically; obviously, what I have suggested here is a vastly different situation.

If Lincoln and Grant are murdered in '65 by a rebel conspiracy, Sherman is the general-in-chief, essentially; it will not be Halleck, obviously.

Stanton was the power in Washington by the end of the war, after Lincoln; yet Stanton is not a popular figure - Sherman is.

Johnson fumbles his way to the end of the term; who's the obvious candidate for the Republicans?

It's not going to be any of the civilians at that point, and Sherman is both the senior general officer and the man who, presumably, defeated the last remnants of the rebellion.

He may not have cared for politics, but he knew them, intimately; he also, obviously, cared deeply for his country, would sacrifice anything for it, and was as ambitious as any man.

Sherman-Sheridan, '68. Uncle Billy and Little Phil against who, McClellan? Tilden?

The Fighting Prophet, indeed.

Best,
 
Grant's alive in '68, historically; obviously, what I have suggested here is a vastly different situation.

If Lincoln and Grant are murdered in '65 by a rebel conspiracy, Sherman is the general-in-chief, essentially; it will not be Halleck, obviously.

Stanton was the power in Washington by the end of the war, after Lincoln; yet Stanton is not a popular figure - Sherman is.

Johnson fumbles his way to the end of the term; who's the obvious candidate for the Republicans?

It's not going to be any of the civilians at that point, and Sherman is both the senior general officer and the man who, presumably, defeated the last remnants of the rebellion.

Maybe, maybe not. Sherman could still be an excellent VP candidate (he still wasn't politically ambitious, even Grant's assassination wouldn't galvanize that) to someone like Chase (who was nominated in '68 but declined). He would still most likely prefer to be the officer handling Reconstruction if Lincoln and Grant have been assassinated, and he would probably realize he didn't know enough about politics to simply be thrust into the position. If Chase stumbles then he might accept the candidacy in '72 since he'd probably retain popularity and have more experience.

Remember, he still has to deal with the Radicals (not easy for anyone) who are a cantankerous lot at best. He might be more sympathetic to their platform, but can he manage foreign issues, the economy, and reign in his pretty extreme views of what should happen to the Natives?

It's not just Reconstruction he has to overcome.

He may not have cared for politics, but he knew them, intimately; he also, obviously, cared deeply for his country, would sacrifice anything for it, and was as ambitious as any man.

Sherman-Sheridan, '68. Uncle Billy and Little Phil against who, McClellan? Tilden?

The Fighting Prophet, indeed.

Probably a Seymour/Hancock ticket (McClellan might run if Grant's out of the picture but I doubt he'd get the nomination) which would probably be pretty effective at the ballot box. Maybe not enough to win, but they'd run a contest that's for sure. Seymour wasn't exactly unpopular or politically incompetent.

I doubt Sheridan would get the VP nomination, two men who are political amateurs but popular generals is a disaster waiting to happen. Besides, Sherman would probably prefer he succeed him as General of the Armies.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Sorry, '68 will be a "blue" election just like '50 was

EnglishCanuck - Maybe, maybe not. Sherman could still be an excellent VP candidate (he still wasn't politically ambitious, even Grant's assassination wouldn't galvanize that) to someone like Chase (who was nominated in '68 but declined). He would still most likely prefer to be the officer handling Reconstruction if Lincoln and Grant have been assassinated, and he would probably realize he didn't know enough about politics to simply be thrust into the position. If Chase stumbles then he might accept the candidacy in '72 since he'd probably retain popularity and have more experience. Remember, he still has to deal with the Radicals (not easy for anyone) who are a cantankerous lot at best. He might be more sympathetic to their platform, but can he manage foreign issues, the economy, and reign in his pretty extreme views of what should happen to the Natives? It's not just Reconstruction he has to overcome.

TFSmith121 - Sorry, 1868 will be a "blue" election just like 1950 was; the last non-CW veteran elected before Teddy Roosevelt was Lincoln, if you give Arthur (the only Democrat in the same period) the benefit of the doubt for his NY State commission and service. Chase will be happy at the Supreme Court.

Probably a Seymour/Hancock ticket (McClellan might run if Grant's out of the picture but I doubt he'd get the nomination) which would probably be pretty effective at the ballot box. Maybe not enough to win, but they'd run a contest that's for sure. Seymour wasn't exactly unpopular or politically incompetent.

I doubt Sheridan would get the VP nomination, two men who are political amateurs but popular generals is a disaster waiting to happen. Besides, Sherman would probably prefer he succeed him as General of the Armies.

I don't see Hancock as VP, either. 1868 is a blue election, if it is anything, and especially after a Civil War that ends with the murders of the president and general-in-chief. That's a bloody shirt whose tails will wave until the Twentieth Century. Cripes, in that scenario, the scouring will make the highland clearances look peaceful.


Best,
 
The thing about Sherman is he had state of Ohio as a favorite son, all the political connections through the Ewings and John Sherman, would be the obvious candidate for the veterans, and knew the issues inside and out; he had also demonstrably impressive leadership, management, and administrative skills, and could argue a position as well as anyone - read his letters to Calhoun, Rawson and company; the man could write and argue, and he was a trained attorney who could tell people to go to hell quite eloquently.

This is also the man known to his troops as Uncle Billy, and whose veterans reenlisted in '64 at rates higher than any other army; almost 50 percent, in fact. He knew how to lead.

He'd be a combination of Grant and Harry Truman, actually.;)

Best,

I guess thats fair. I like the Truman analogy, tbh, kinda reminds me of the West Wing episode where they are talking about him not wanting to be President. And Grant did not want to be President until 66/67 when it was him vs Johnson and he had all the support with Johnson having none.

That said, find me a quote by Sherman that is pro-political and states "I want to be President."
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Find me one by him that says

I guess thats fair. Oh wait, find me a quote by him that states "I want to be President."

Find me one by him that says "Lincoln and Grant (you know, the man who commissioned him as a general officer and the one who "stood by me when I was crazy like I stood by him when he was drunk") both murdered by a rebel conspiracy, but that's okay, let Hayes have it..."

Best,
 
- Sorry, 1868 will be a "blue" election just like 1950 was; the last non-CW veteran elected before Teddy Roosevelt was Lincoln, if you give Arthur (the only Democrat in the same period) the benefit of the doubt for his NY State commission and service. Chase will be happy at the Supreme Court.

I'm skeptical. Sherman isn't Grant, and even with Grant's death he doesn't have the incentive to run. He may have political friends, but that doesn't make him good for the job, nor would he be likely to have a sudden 'epiphany' and decide that he is. If he declines then he might throw in a nomination behind another popular general (he's going to want Grant's position more than Johnston's after seeing the Radicals savage him) for the presidency.

I don't see Hancock as VP, either. 1868 is a blue election, if it is anything, and especially after a Civil War that ends with the murders of the president and general-in-chief.

If depends if he agrees with the Radicals or not. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. It's a coin toss, but it would be there. He didn't decline a nomination with Lincoln's death, I'm not sure he would do the same with Grant's death but we shall see.

That's a bloody shirt whose tails will wave until the Twentieth Century. Cripes, in that scenario, the scouring will make the highland clearances look peaceful.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Lincoln's death didn't lead to a harsher Reconstruction, and it will depend if Johnston wants Federal troops to be the basis of Reconstruction as well.

They'll certainly be harsher on the traitors (similar to A Glorious Union since public outrage will demand it) but will the Radicals think that anyone will be going far enough for them at this point? That's a hell of a minefield to navigate.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
As Lincoln once said:

EnglishCanuck - I'm skeptical. Sherman isn't Grant, and even with Grant's death he doesn't have the incentive to run. He may have political friends, but that doesn't make him good for the job, nor would he be likely to have a sudden 'epiphany' and decide that he is. If he declines then he might throw in a nomination behind another popular general (he's going to want Grant's position more than Johnston's after seeing the Radicals savage him) for the presidency.

If depends if he agrees with the Radicals or not. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. It's a coin toss, but it would be there. He didn't decline a nomination with Lincoln's death, I'm not sure he would do the same with Grant's death but we shall see.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Lincoln's death didn't lead to a harsher Reconstruction, and it will depend if Johnston wants Federal troops to be the basis of Reconstruction as well.

They'll certainly be harsher on the traitors (similar to A Glorious Union since public outrage will demand it) but will the Radicals think that anyone will be going far enough for them at this point? That's a hell of a minefield to navigate.

TFSmith121 - As Lincoln once said to Ben Wade, IIRC, when the senator wanted Lincoln to replace McClellan with, "well, anybody!" ... something like:

"Well, it is fine for you to say anybody, senator, but I must have somebody!"

Lincoln's dead, Grant's dead, the rebels have struck, the president is Johnson in all his "glory" and Stanton is secretary of war...oh, and by the way, the acting general-in-chief's father-in-law and brother are both Washington veterans, and everyone knows the next president will be a) an actual Republican, and b) a successful general officer. Gee, I wonder who's going to get the nod, and if he is going to not realize it as well...

Sherman was a brilliantly capable individual, as various and sundry opponents had learned to their embarassment over four and half years of war to the knife. He would know both what was at stake, and the opportunity that presented itself.

I realize there's a perception of Lincoln, Seward, Stanton, and their peers as quaint Nineteenth Century figures, but these were ruthlessly successful men who were elected to and/or functioned in the most politically-charged era in the first true republic of its size in the Western world; thinking they would miss any of this is really pretty questionable, honestly.

They won their war, and their peace, for a reason; it was not a game of chance. They knew exactly what they were doing, and how to do it.

Best,
 
- As Lincoln once said to Ben Wade, IIRC, when the senator wanted Lincoln to replace McClellan with, "well, anybody!" ... something like:

"Well, it is fine for you to say anybody, senator, but I must have somebody!"

Lincoln's dead, Grant's dead, the rebels have struck, the president is Johnson in all his "glory" and Stanton is secretary of war...oh, and by the way, the acting general-in-chief's father-in-law and brother are both Washington veterans, and everyone knows the next president will be a) an actual Republican, and b) a successful general officer. Gee, I wonder who's going to get the nod, and if he is going to not realize it as well...

Sherman was a brilliantly capable individual, as various and sundry opponents had learned to their embarassment over four and half years of war to the knife. He would know both what was at stake, and the opportunity that presented itself.

I realize there's a perception of Lincoln, Seward, Stanton, and their peers as quaint Nineteenth Century figures, but these were ruthlessly successful men who were elected to and/or functioned in the most politically-charged era in the first true republic of its size in the Western world; thinking they would miss any of this is really pretty questionable, honestly.

They won their war, and their peace, for a reason; it was not a game of chance. They knew exactly what they were doing, and how to do it.

Best,

Never heard the perception that Lincoln and Stanton were quaint (Seward yes, but that one is understandable).

However, I stress to point out that everything you could say about Grant you could also say about Sherman, Grant's presidency was far from what I would call successful and era defining, and ran pretty close to disaster on a number of occasions, and Grant was a man who wanted to be president.

We can also get a pretty good idea of many of Sherman's views on subjects and political ideals, and to be frank some of them are pretty appalling, even to people back in those days. Some were brilliant I grant, but probably not the ones he'd be successful in implementing without problems.
 
Sooooo back to the topic of "what happens with Reconstruction if Lincoln lives and Grant follows for two terms" cause, as interesting as the Sherman discussion is, it's not what the thread's about.

He probably anticipates the Radicals by introducing something a bit like the 14th Amendment, but with a different third section, essentially granting a total amnesty and restoration of political rights to all Rebs. This means they have to sign up (well, on paper anyway) to civil rights for Blacks as the price of regaining their own, so they hold their noses and ratify it, rather than rejecting it as OTL.

How would he respond to any states that attempt a rollback of civil rights like happened under Johnson with stuff like the Black Codes? I don't see the man who fought and won the Civil War just letting that slide like Johnson did.

They don't have to give freedmen the vote, but if they don't they'll not be allowed to count them for purposes of Congressional representation, so you might get a curious situation where the Democratic Party starts pushing for negro suffrage, in order to improve their chances at the national level. If the South refuses, that probably removes enough Southern Electoral votes to allow Hayes (or whoever) to win even without those disputed states.

I think it is quite possible Lincoln would push for that for two reasons:

1) Giving the freedmen the vote gives his party a huge voting bloc across the South

and

2) In his last public speech before Boothe shot him OTL Lincoln declared his support for giving Blacks the vote.

The Civil Rights provisions of the 14A remain on the books, but unless Northerners take a lot more interest in the subject than they did OTL, probably not a lot gets done about enforcing them until the mid-20C.

If it's still Lincoln in charge then I think he's going to work to protect the rights of the freedmen especially if he leads the charge on getting them the vote. There's no point in building a voting bloc to break up the Democratic South if you're going to let them twist in the wind and morally speaking I think Lincoln would do everything he could anyway.

Wonder he he'd handle reconstruction. Not knocking Grant for when the KKK rose he clamped down and snuffed them out but some things could've been done better.

He also had to deal with the problem called Andrew Johnson's spectacular screwup of a Presidency. Johnson's overly soft approach gave Southern planters and their allies the breathing space to organize and push back. With Lincoln in charge followed by Grant there isn't going to be that same opportunity. I doubt Lincoln would turn a blind eye to stuff like the Black Codes and we know Grant turned the army loose on the KKK. If you have consistent, steady policy going from one President to the next, with Sherman in charge of the Army during Grant's term :D, that's going to create a very different environment.

As two questions regarding the Grant Administration:

1) Would it be possible for Grant to avoid some of his worse appointments with Lincoln alive and most likely providing some advice and support? That's one of the big blemishes on Grant's career OTL and I think it is possible, TTL, for him to avoid that if Lincoln is smart enough to catch it before he does.

2) Could something like Sherman's "40 acres and a mule" policy be implemented? I doubt it would be rationalized in the terms we would think of but maybe Grant or even Lincoln gets the idea of breaking up the big plantations or the lands of anyone actively resisting Reconstruction and redistributing them to freedmen and landless whites from Roman practices in crushing rebellions.
 
2) Could something like Sherman's "40 acres and a mule" policy be implemented? I doubt it would be rationalized in the terms we would think of but maybe Grant or even Lincoln gets the idea of breaking up the big plantations or the lands of anyone actively resisting Reconstruction and redistributing them to freedmen and landless whites from Roman practices in crushing rebellions.

This much is a pretty solid "no", considering the lack of support more aggressive land reform had even among radicals.
 
This much is a pretty solid "no", considering the lack of support more aggressive land reform had even among radicals.


And how long could they hold on to the land anyway, once the army had shrunk back to peacetime size, as It was certain to do whoever was POTUS?

With an army of less than 30,000, most of it needed out west, the government will be no better able to enforce freedmen's right to land than their right to vote.

That's why I see Lincoln opting for limiting of representation to those permitted to vote. That is something which can be enforced directly from Washington, without the need for intervention inside the Southern states - intervention which will be less and less practical as the army shrinks back to normal dimensions.
 
Last edited:
Top