DB WI Andrew Johnson had not been murdered on the same night as Lincoln.

Lots of people wonder what might have happened had Lincoln not been killed. Some forget he had a Vice President.

As we know Andrew Johnson never got to hear of Lincoln’s killing because he also got a bullet in the head.

Daniel Clark, the President Pro Tem of the Senate was hard to find. When he was located he agreed to stay President only until a successor was elected. As we know he was heavily influenced by his War Secretary.


Some people assume that the anger at Lincoln’s murder, along with reports of the killing of black Union POWs and the atrocity of Andersonville would have guaranteed a harsh reaction from the victorious North.

Others suspect that Andrew Johnson might have reacted in different ways.

Some were very surprised that President Thaddeus Stevens did not insist on mass hangings. He satisfied himself and Northern anger by large scale land confiscation and exile for the worst of the rebel leaders.

There has been speculation that without land redistribution it would have been possible for the former rebels to have overthrown Southern Governments dependent on black votes and to have imposed something which was barely distinguishable from slavery on the freemen. Is this believable?


Of course every American now recognizes the theory of equality. Some say that our Southern States reflect a true miracle. It is true that there was the ‘second exile’. Perhaps a million white Southerners left their home states rather than live in equality with Negroes... But far more stayed and were joined by Northern idealists.

If you go to any town in Alabama today it is hard to find a street or any school which is all white or all black.

Yet we still have racial problems in the North. The chances are if you see a black face in Boston, Detroit or Los Angeles the chances are that it belongs to a student of a school Marm. Many think that with the history of having been denied literacy under slavery the teachers exported from the South are very dedicated and effective.

Yet it is still hard for these teachers, whether they marry white or black men, to purchase high quality homes in our Northern Cities.

Folk in New Jersey were happy to help elect a black President, but many would have been appalled if she had wanted to live next door.

Then too there is the issue of the advancement of women. During the 1860s and 70s when ‘everybody went to school’ in the South, including some white adults who did not have public schools available many of the teachers were idealists from New England, (and some from Old England.)

There are some who suspect that the absence of the word male from Wade’s bill on the Franchise was not an accident. As things turned out Stevens died when the first State elections in the South happened and Wade had moved from VP to President. He was very happy to see freedwomen vote.

It was a natural consequence that white women who had not taken part in the treasonous rebellion should also vote.

Would the 1875 15th amendment guaranteeing the right to vote for all citizens have included women had events in the South been different?

The presence of many former rebels amongst the Gold Prospectors in the Dakotas may also have had an effect. Had things been otherwise would the late 19th Century treaties with the Indians have been so generous, and would they, unlike earlier ones, have been honored?

Then too we have America’s international influence. Would the 1919 Peace Treaty have included commitments by Britain and France to promote independence?

Would the King of the Belgians have been forced to disgorge his booty in the Congo after the scandal?

Some people feel that it was America’s particular feelings about racism which caused it to take a lead in pressurising Germany. It has even been speculated that without the economic pressure from outside the Nazis might have been able to launch a Second World War


Any thoughts?
 
Lots of people wonder what might have happened had Lincoln not been killed. Some forget he had a Vice President.

As we know Andrew Johnson never got to hear of Lincoln’s killing because he also got a bullet in the head.

Daniel Clark, the President Pro Tem of the Senate was hard to find. When he was located he agreed to stay President only until a successor was elected. As we know he was heavily influenced by his War Secretary.


Sorry, but Daniel Clark wasn't President Pro-tem in April 1865. He left that position with the expiry of the 38th Congress.

The new President would have been Lafayette S Foster, of Connecticut. He was chosen on March 7 in a special session of the Senate. He would have been Acting POTUS until March 4 1866, when he would have handed over to a new President (and Vice President) elected in November 1865.

The latter would presumably have been General Grant. OTL, he was nominated unanimously in 1868, and there's no reason to think that an 1865 Convention would have acted any differently. His first term would have ended in March 1870, by which time Stevens would have been dead about two years (and Stanton about one year). In any case, I don't recall Stevens being mentioned as a Presidential possibility, though Ben Butler and Salmon P Chase occasionally were.
 
Sorry, but Daniel Clark wasn't President Pro-tem in April 1865. He left that position with the expiry of the 38th Congress.

The new President would have been Lafayette S Foster, of Connecticut. He was chosen on March 7 in a special session of the Senate. He would have been Acting POTUS until March 4 1866, when he would have handed over to a new President (and Vice President) elected in November 1865.

The latter would presumably have been General Grant. OTL, he was nominated unanimously in 1868, and there's no reason to think that an 1865 Convention would have acted any differently. His first term would have ended in March 1870, by which time Stevens would have been dead about two years (and Stanton about one year). In any case, I don't recall Stevens being mentioned as a Presidential possibility, though Ben Butler and Salmon P Chase occasionally were.

Am I missing something here? Prior to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947*, the Line of Succession had always been: President, Vice-President, then Cabinet Officers in the order in which the offices had been created. That means Secretary of State William H. Seward, followed by Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton. Though due to his previous injuries (carriage accident), Seward might not choose to serve. That leaves Stanton. He'd take the job for certain. Though I can't honestly see Seward turning it down, either.

*-That Act changed the line to President, Vice-President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Senate President Pro-Tempore of the Senate, and then the Cabinet Officers.
 
Last edited:
Am I missing something here? Prior to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the Line of Succession had always been: President, Vice-President, then Cabinet Officers in the order in which the offices had been created. That means Secretary of State William H. Seward, followed by Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton. Though due to his previous injuries, Seward might not choose to serve. That leaves Stanton. He'd take the job for certain. Though I can't honestly see Seward turning it down, either.

No there was a sucsessioin act in the early 1790s providing for the President Pro Tem to take office followed by an early election.

I am assuming that Congress and the Republican Party would be in a very angry mood in the imediate aftermath of ther murders of a President, Vice President and maybe others (as had been Booth's plan). That is why I imagine Stevens, plus he was a guy who deeply opposed racism and supported education.
 
No there was a sucsessioin act in the early 1790s providing for the President Pro Tem to take office followed by an early election.

The Act is online at

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=363


I am assuming that Congress and the Republican Party would be in a very angry mood in the imediate aftermath of ther murders of a President, Vice President and maybe others (as had been Booth's plan). That is why I imagine Stevens, plus he was a guy who deeply opposed racism and supported education.

Keep in mind that Congress will not be in Session until December 1865, unless Foster chooses to summon it earlier [1]. So there would be plenty of time for tempers to cool. In any case, the national mood in the immediate aftermath of Lincoln's death was so ferocious that the death of an unpopular Vice-President[2] can't really make it much worse than it was anyway.

In any case, why would the Republican Party choose an obscure Congressman, no doubt familiar to his colleagues but as yet little known to the voters outside Pennsylvania (it was the battles with Andrew Johnson that made him a household name) when they have available a whole platoon of war heroes like Grant, in addition to the incumbent President Foster, who will be enjoying a honeymoon after coming to office in such circumstances?


[1] In order to secure the succession, Foster may call a special session of the House, to enable them to choose a new Speaker. But unless he summons the Senate as well (which he has no immediate need to do) no new legislation can be passed.

[2] Johnson had made an unfortunate impression by turning up for his inauguration under the influence of alcohol. Quite a few people would have privately viewed his death as a blessing in disguise.
 
Top