What if Lincoln picked Ben Butler instead of Andrew Johnson for Vice President for whatever reason?
I've seen many discussion topics running along this line, often times coming to the conclusion that the phrase "Vice-President of the United States Benjamin F. Butler" would represent the ultimate life insurance policy for Abraham Lincoln.But more seriously, John Wilkes Booth, like a pig in his slops, doesn't strike me as the sort of man who thinks far enough ahead to consider what would be the consequences for the South due to his actions. Particularly with leaving Edwin Stanton & Thaddeus Stevens, at least for a time, as the most powerful men in Washington.
Butler isn't going to be elected in his own right (Grant has a rose strewn path to the White House), so he and a friendly Radical Republican Congress are free to effect a well ordered Butler Administration that can carryover to President Grant's with a minimum of fuss. The problem will be what happens in 1876. Hayes? Tilden? Or a butterflied result that is either better than OTL or worse?![]()
Though, there is the possibility that George Atzerodt doesn't chicken out like he did OTL and kills the Vice President. This would dump power into the hands of PPT Lafayette S Foster, and a special election would be held in December.
Unlikely, he was scared of Andrew Johnson. How is he going to handle a general like Ben Butler?
I've seen many discussion topics running along this line, often times coming to the conclusion that the phrase "Vice-President of the United States Benjamin F. Butler" would represent the ultimate life insurance policy for Abraham Lincoln.But more seriously, John Wilkes Booth, like a pig in his slops, doesn't strike me as the sort of man who thinks far enough ahead to consider what would be the consequences for the South due to his actions. Particularly with leaving Edwin Stanton & Thaddeus Stevens, at least for a time, as the most powerful men in Washington.
Butler isn't going to be elected in his own right (Grant has a rose strewn path to the White House), so he and a friendly Radical Republican Congress are free to effect a well ordered Butler Administration that can carryover to President Grant's with a minimum of fuss. The problem will be what happens in 1876. Hayes? Tilden? Or a butterflied result that is either better than OTL or worse?![]()
Though, there is the possibility that George Atzerodt doesn't chicken out like he did OTL and kills the Vice President. This would dump power into the hands of PPT Lafayette S Foster, and a special election would be held in December.
Unlikely, he was scared of Andrew Johnson. How is he going to handle a general like Ben Butler?
I suppose I was I'm the mindset that he was reluctant because Johnson was a Southerner while Butler is an extremely hated individual and he might be able to pull it together. Or the Conspiracy switches him with the guy who went after Seward to make sure Butler dies. He may be more imposing, but I can see him also inspiring a greater commitment to the plan.
Since Johnson was hated for being a "traitor to the South" I doubt his being a Southerner made much difference.
Maybe Grant decides to wait until Butler leaves office before running. In any case I think that the South would be (modification inserted by UT) ruled more strictly under Butler than Johnson.
Except for White Southern Unionists. I bet he probably enjoyed some genuine support in West Texas (until the locals were exterminated or driven out), East Tennessee, the Kingdom of Jones, some parts of Louisiana, and much of the Border States.
Which is saying absolutely nothing.Now, if you said ruled more strongly under Butler than Thaddeus Stevens...
![]()
Fair enough, how tough do you think Butler would be on the South?
Benjamin Butler wanted Davis to be tried by the military; he felt personally betrayed by Davis since he voted for Davis in 1860 convinced he was a Unionist but then Davis betrayed the Union and personally put a price on Butler's head. Davis probably will hang.In answer, a more brutal Reconstruction early on (Forrest hangs, along with Seddon, I think, but not Lee or even Davis).
Thousands of silver spoons will go missing throughout the country.
I still see a backlash against Reconstruction. However angry the Northern People might be, it won't take long for racist White Southerners to offer to corrupt Republican (read: Dawn of the Gilded Age Robber Barons) politicians the chance to swing a close election with corrupted electioneering in the Southern States, which will NOT be able to be kept off the ballot forever. I.E., the 1876 election. Even a Supreme Court pushing Reconstruction to the hilt will not countenance permanent disenfranchisement of White Southerners. And 20% of them were Union Loyalists even in the Confederacy.
And sadly, history has shown that Northern Whites will kill White Southerners to restore the Union, and abolish the institution of Slavery that was the bedrock of treason, but enforce (read: Kill for) Black suffrage, or even basic civil rights for Blacks? No. Not a chance, beyond the Quakers and a few other idealists.![]()
Indeed TTL the backlash will come sooner.
There won't have been the Black Codes, or election of a platoon of leading Rebs as Southern Congressmen, to get the North riled up. Indeed, if Butler goes for full Black suffrage the newspapers will be full of sensational stuff about corrupt and despotic "Black and Tan" legislatures, brutally stamping on the fallen foe. In short, pretty much like the way opinion moved OTL, but happening more quickly.
Add to this that once the army shrinks back to peacetime levels (something Butler has no way to prevent) his powers of enforcement will steadily dwindle, and the end result will probably not be all that different from OTL, though reached by a different route.
Part of that backlash is due to the passage of time and people "cooling down" as a result. If Butler moves more quickly than Johnson did people wouldn't have cooled off as much and more of the reforms would have survived longer IMO.