An American Dictatorship After the Civil War

I have always thought the idea of some sort of army coup after a successful Booth Plot, sucessfully killing all 4 targets(Lincoln, Johnson, Seward, and Grant), to be an interesting idea. It wouldn't be too dificult to pull off for an officer of enough clout and support from the army. My question is who would be the most likely candidate for an American Military Dictatorship at this time period? Who, besides Grant could possibly lead such an attempt?
 
McClellan allegedly thought of undertaking a military coup. Perhaps in a scenario where the British intervene, so Lincoln rapidly attempts to free the slaves to turn British public opinion against the war. The rapid emancipation coupled with the disastrous war leads to major unpopularity for Lincoln, so McClellan is driven to coup.
 
I wanted to reply to this but it was buried before I remembered to post. There are a few candidates, but I doubt most who were feared to be Napoleon's in the works would have actually tried to do anything like this. The government feared Sherman would. Of course, his refusal to even run for President makes that seem like a fear which was unfair. But, General Joseph Hooker stated flat out that the United States needed a dictator during the war. To quote him "Nothing would go right until we had a dictator, and the sooner the better."

Perhaps if things go chaotic enough and the 1860's turn into quite the hectic decade, that's a possibility. If only as a temporary measure.
 
I wanted to reply to this but it was buried before I remembered to post. There are a few candidates, but I doubt most who were feared to be Napoleon's in the works would have actually tried to do anything like this. The government feared Sherman would. Of course, his refusal to even run for President makes that seem like a fear which was unfair. But, General Joseph Hooker stated flat out that the United States needed a dictator during the war. To quote him "Nothing would go right until we had a dictator, and the sooner the better."

Perhaps if things go chaotic enough and the 1860's turn into quite the hectic decade, that's a possibility. If only as a temporary measure.

Interesting. Did Hooker have enough support to perform such a coup? Could he do it without a larger powerstruggle? What would an American dictatorship look like?
 
I've always figured that Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War, would be a good choice to really be the behind the scenes figure in any coup and subsequent dictatorship as suggested in Pamela Sargent's novel Climb the Wind.
 
I hate to be a downer, but in case anyone is doing more than just having fun with this, its extremely unlikely. Mid 19th c. America's commitment to its civic institutions was extremely strong.
 
Generally coups are more likely after a military defeat. So if the South had won the war, their may have been an attempt.

I cannot see it succeeding however, for the reason the mrmandias stated above.
 
I hate to be a downer, but in case anyone is doing more than just having fun with this, its extremely unlikely. Mid 19th c. America's commitment to its civic institutions was extremely strong.

yeah, like habeas corpus, and remaining united beneath the constitution :rolleyes:

i think during the civil war, there are more than enough examples of people and political figures willing to take charge of the government, or say fuck off to it. that's kind of what started the civil war, you know, the states not wanting to be sovereign to the federal government beneath lincoln.
 
Last edited:
I can see a sort of temporary period of martial law while the government looks for a conspiracy. But at some point, if the population isn't subject to constant terror attacks, they'll remember that they're supposed to be having elections.

The long-term effect would be the Secret Service becoming much larger and more powerful, a sort of Presidential Praetorian Guard. Future presidents might abuse this in scary ways.
 
I've sometimes thought of the Republic at this time in a sort of Roman romantic sense, with parallel's being drawn between the two. So it would actually seem somewhat dramatically fitting should the United States adopt either a tendency toward appointing a dictator in times of grave crisis as the Romans did, or even setting on course as a democracy (on the face of it) which has autocrats.

If a Dictator comes into being in any form, one must discuss the precedent that sets, and the effect of it.
 
I've always figured that Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War, would be a good choice to really be the behind the scenes figure in any coup and subsequent dictatorship as suggested in Pamela Sargent's novel Climb the Wind.


Main problem is that Sherman detested him, and with Grant dead, Sherman is far and away the most popular soldier in the North.

Sherman won't want to be dictator, and certainly won't want Stanton to be. And Sherman, on April 14, is far away in North Carolina, surrounded by his troops, so there's no way the conspirators can get him.

Anyway, what would the dictatorship be for? The job in hand is rounding up the conspirators, and it already has ample powers to do that.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. The problem is, by 1865, most of the guys who would be willing to do this have either had their military careers derailed--or are in the process of surrendering, and praying to God that the US doesn't hold treason trials.
 
Suppose that Lincoln was assassinated just after a disaster like Chancellorsville. Grant is stuck out west and Vicksburg remained untaken. Is McClellan pissed off enough at being fired to attempt such a thing as a coup? More importantly would he have any military or political support. He was till popular with the Army of the Patomac
 
By the time Vicksburg is an issue McClellan is no longer commanding anything so his ability to lead a coup is effectively nil, and, as Lincoln noted to Hooker, a military dictator first needs military successes and...
 
I can see a successful Booth coup leading to moderate support for "stricter" controls. Over time this will lower but he idea of a coup working makes sense. Lincoln at the time had a semilegal basis for dictatorship when he suspended the courts, so a coup could argue the needs of the nation demand similar freezing on the constitution.
 
Yeah, that's totally the same thing. If you suspend habeas corpus, you are about to impose a military dictatorship. I totally get where you're coming from.

yeah, like habeas corpus, and remaining united beneath the constitution :rolleyes:

i think during the civil war, there are more than enough examples of people and political figures willing to take charge of the government, or say fuck off to it. that's kind of what started the civil war, you know, the states not wanting to be sovereign to the federal government beneath lincoln.
 
I hate to be a downer, but in case anyone is doing more than just having fun with this, its extremely unlikely. Mid 19th c. America's commitment to its civic institutions was extremely strong.

This is true, however I can certainly see how in the extreme circumstances of a civil war it would be more likely, albeit as a TEMPORARY measure.

Even considering the strong committment to democratic institutions at the time in the USA, I consider the 1864 Presidential election something of an anomaly; not anything that occurred during the election, but the fact that an election was held at all.

Has any other nation ever held an electon during a civil war? For instance, even in the ASB chance of a civil war breaking out in 2011 UK (having similar democratic credentials), I can see the suspenion of elections for the duration of the war*, being consider an entirely appropriate action.



*Of course, this would required the suspension of the Constitution in the US, but you get my point.
 
Top