DBWI: Andrew Johnson survives his 1868 impeachment

CaliGuy

Banned
In our TL*, U.S. President Andrew Johnson was impeached and removed from office in 1868 and replaced with Benjamin Franklin Wade.

However, what if President Johnson had survived his 1868 impeachment and was acquitted? Indeed, President Johnson only got removed from office by one vote in our TL*--thus, all we need is one U.S. Senator to change his mind in regards to this.

Anyway, how would U.S. history look in the years and decades afterwards in this TL?
 

Deleted member 97083

Kind of an unrelated question, but would Ulysses Grant have a chance at the presidency after Wade, like Sherman?
 

Deleted member 97083

Yes, Yes, he would.
If Johnson wasn't impeached... Perhaps Wade wouldn't become president at all, and instead Sherman or (looking at ASBs here without his endorsement by Wade) Grant would directly succeed Johnson.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
If Johnson wasn't impeached... Perhaps Wade wouldn't become president at all, and instead Sherman or (looking at ASBs here without his endorsement by Wade) Grant would directly succeed Johnson.
By Sherman, are you thinking of John or William Techumseh?
 

Deleted member 97083

By Sherman, are you thinking of John or William Techumseh?
President William Tecumseh Sherman, obviously.

I mean, I suppose he could continue to avoid politics after 1865. But George Washington said he'd avoid politics up to 1789. After the ACW and Andrew Johnson's weak presidency, the nation needed a strong leader. Particularly with the need to lead both Reconstruction, and the intervention against Maximilian.

I wonder if a Grant presidency, slightly more gradual and targeted than Sherman's, would have meant that the Southern Districts would have a better opinion of the Federal Government?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
President William Tecumseh Sherman, obviously.

I mean, I suppose he could continue to avoid politics after 1865. But George Washington said he'd avoid politics up to 1789. After the ACW and Andrew Johnson's weak presidency, the nation needed a strong leader. Particularly with the need to lead both Reconstruction, and the intervention against Maximilian.

Agreed that Sherman would likely run in 1868 in this TL.

I wonder if a Grant presidency, slightly more gradual and targeted than Sherman's, would have meant that the Southern Districts would have a better opinion of the Federal Government?

It depends on what exactly he does. For instance, does he implement Black suffrage? Does he try desegregating the schools? Does he push to ensure that interracial marriages are recognized in the Southern U.S.?
 

Deleted member 97083

It depends on what exactly he does. For instance, does he implement Black suffrage? Does he try desegregating the schools? Does he push to ensure that interracial marriages are recognized in the Southern U.S.?
OOC: Well...
 

CaliGuy

Banned
OOC: Yeah I know. You implied that Sherman would have desegregated schools or allowed interracial marriage in the 1870s.
Yes, he would have--specifically with the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

Also, for the record, there is actually a strong case that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment considered laws against interracial sex and interracial marriage to be unconstitutional:

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/deliver...2080119012101117024092118089107112006&EXT=pdf
 
Kind of an unrelated question, but would Ulysses Grant have a chance at the presidency after Wade, like Sherman?

More than a chance. He actually received the Republican nomination on the day the Senate voted. so Johnson's survival would have been irrelevant.

Not that it would matter anyway. The party had long since settled on Grant as its nominee, and wouldn't dream of passing over the North's number one hero in favour of a nondescript interim POTUS. The only possible rival would have been Sherman, who had no interest in politics.
 
[T]here is actually a strong case that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment considered laws against interracial sex and interracial marriage to be unconstitutional:
OOC: I'd like to point out it actually was legal from right after the Civil War up until the 1890s in some of the southern states due to new state constitutions adopted after the war (this is actually mentioned in page 216 of the dissertation you linked). However, after "Redemption" it was made illegal again and remained so until the 1960s (some states like MS and AL didn't formally get rid of the laws until the 1980s and 2000).

Regards, Laq'.
 
Last edited:
Agreed that Sherman would likely run in 1868 in this TL.

Why? Is Grant supposed to have died with Lincoln? Most unlikely as the sentry wouldn't have risked leaving his post had Grant been there - if indeed Grant didn't bring a sentry of his own choice.


It depends on what exactly he does. For instance, does he implement Black suffrage? Does he try desegregating the schools? Does he push to ensure that interracial marriages are recognized in the Southern U.S.?

If his abortive treaty with JE Johnston is anything to go by, Sherman's main priority will be to wind up the war and its legacy and get the Union running smoothly asap. So he most likely accepts the defeat of Radical Reconstruction with a shrug. As long as the Redeemers are prepared to be loyal to the Union, their racial policies hardly matter.
 
President William Tecumseh Sherman, obviously.

I mean, I suppose he could continue to avoid politics after 1865. But George Washington said he'd avoid politics up to 1789. After the ACW and Andrew Johnson's weak presidency, the nation needed a strong leader. Particularly with the need to lead both Reconstruction, and the intervention against Maximilian.

I wonder if a Grant presidency, slightly more gradual and targeted than Sherman's, would have meant that the Southern Districts would have a better opinion of the Federal Government?

What would have happened in a longer Wade
presidency is a question that has long intrigued historians. However, it is generally
agreed that there was no way, even as
President, he could have prevented Grant
from winning the Republican nomination
in 1868. Wade was not only disliked personally by many(he was considered too abrasive) but his politics were just too radical(for example, he actually favored an
eight-hour day). Grant by contrast did not
rub anyone personally the wrong way, &
because he had previously not taken any
stands on the issues of the day, he was
considered politically "safe". In other words,
I think it can be said with some confidence
that regardless of whether or not AJ was
impeached, Grant being elected President
in 1868 was inevitable.
 
Last edited:
Top