DBWI: Lincoln assassinated in 1865

President Lincoln was almost assassinated on April 14, 1865 at the Ford's Theatre, but the assassin was stopped by John Frederick Parker, who was killed instantly. The Ford's Theatre would be renamed as the John Frederick Parker's Theatre in his honor, given that he sacrificed his life to save the president. President Lincoln would seek re-election in 1868 and won the election with only 53.3% of the popular vote despite his popularity. Lincoln did think of running again in 1872, but sick of the infighting between linerals, moderates and radicals in the GOP, he ultimately decided to retire, even though the GOP would not lose a presidential election until 1884.

After Teddy Roosevelt's failed attempt to seek a fourth term, the 20th Amendment would be passed to limit the presidency to not more than three four-year terms to honor the socalled "Lincoln tradition". Would it even exist without the "Lincoln tradition"? Or maybe, Teddy Roosevelt would not have been a war hero, and would not have been elected President in TTL?

Lincoln was also the first president to open up a presidential library, just seven months before his death in 1890. Would we have presidential libraries anyway?

Today, Lincoln is considered one of the greatest presidents in our history given not only his contributions to national unity, emancipation and the first civil rights legislation; but his excellent political skills. However, had the plot succeeded, Andrew Johnson would have become President. He was a Southerner, would he simply follow Lincoln's reconciliation approach when dealing with the South given his background? As well, would he try to push for the Civil Rights Act of 1870 that was already widely criticized for being too weak at the time by radicals; or would Johnson simply roll back on civil rights?

OOC: POD: In TTL, poor John Frederick Parker decided to slip away to the tavern later. He was not really protecting the president. He was about to leave when John Wilkes Booth came, and Booth had to shoot him to death first. He would ironically be seen as a symbol of loyalty in TTL.
 
Last edited:
Well, by all accounts Andrew Johnson was a screwup, which is why he was dropped in favor of Grant in 68. If he had been President during the post Civil War period....I don't know. He seemed to despise the aristocrats that mistreated him when he was poor, so he might really brought the hammer down. I could see the whole peace fall apart.

As for Teddy Roosevelt, he was the perfect embodiment of the progressive Republicans, and with a war record like that, I don't see how the shrinking conservative faction could have stopped him. I suppose the War of 1895 was not a sure thing, nor was the Battle of Toronto....but there were plenty of possible wars at the time period for Roosevelt to throw himself into.
 
Well, by all accounts Andrew Johnson was a screwup, which is why he was dropped in favor of Grant in 68. If he had been President during the post Civil War period....I don't know. He seemed to despise the aristocrats that mistreated him when he was poor, so he might really brought the hammer down. I could see the whole peace fall apart.

As for Teddy Roosevelt, he was the perfect embodiment of the progressive Republicans, and with a war record like that, I don't see how the shrinking conservative faction could have stopped him. I suppose the War of 1895 was not a sure thing, nor was the Battle of Toronto....but there were plenty of possible wars at the time period for Roosevelt to throw himself into.

(Off-topic) While being a war hero in the War of 1895 which would eventually led to the dissolution of Canada, General Teddy Roosevelt only barely defeated Mark Hanna in the 1900 Republican convention. Had Robert Todd Lincoln, who decided not to run for President, not spoken for Roosevelt in the convention, Roosevelt would not have won the slim majority to be nominated in the first round, and a convention fight may well have stopped him. Perhaps Lincoln himself or Charles Fairbanks would have become the compromise. Yep, conservatives were shrinking by that point, but who knows what would happen if the voting continued into further rounds?

Roosevelt's attempt for a fourth term was also ruined by conservatives. The third party ticket of James S. Sherman under the banner of the Conservative Party got 15.5% of the popular vote, effectively giving the election to Oscar Underwood, the first Southerner to become president since the Civil War. While Underwood would ultimately be proven a moderate and one of the most progressive Democrats in our history; he won only 39.6% of the vote and the electoral college, while Roosevelt won 39.7%. Underwood would defeat La Follette and Debs by a 48-42-9 margin in 1916.

The conservative merger of the Democrats and the Conservatives was devastating to the Republicans, given the strong performance of Socialists. It was not after the final admission of many of the former Canadian provinces (where the most notably exception being Quebec which became independent) into the US as states that the balance would shift back to the GOP's favor.

However, it should be pointed out that, in the absence of Teddy Roosevelt, the conservative elements of the GOP may well have survived, and we would not have the Democrats as conservatives as Republicans as progressives.

Anyway and on the other hand, the Socialist-Republican split of the progressive vote would seemingly never stop. Former NYC Mayor and New York Governor Boris Johnson, a Democrat was elected President last year with only 39.1% of the popular vote, defeating Socialist Mayor Jack Layton of Toronto (30.7%) and Republican Mark Warner of Virginia (27.6%). While the electoral college has been abolished in 1984, we need a run-off system more than ever!!

OOC: :D
 
However, had the plot succeeded, Andrew Johnson would have become President. He was a Southerner, would he simply follow Lincoln's reconciliation approach when dealing with the South given his background?

That is far from certain. Johnson was rabidly Unionist, demanding that "Treason must be made odious - - and traitors must be impoverished". Given such attitudes, he could all to easily have aligned with the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party, carrying out wholesale property confiscations and even executing Confederate leaders. His accession might well have been a catastrophe for the South.
 
That is far from certain. Johnson was rabidly Unionist, demanding that "Treason must be made odious - - and traitors must be impoverished". Given such attitudes, he could all to easily have aligned with the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party, carrying out wholesale property confiscations and even executing Confederate leaders. His accession might well have been a catastrophe for the South.

The South or just the Southern Aristocracy? Poor Whites would probably do much better. With the plantations being broken up and the land sold there is a good chance lower middle class and middle class Whites would buy that land opening up some opportunities for Poor Whites.
 
The South or just the Southern Aristocracy? Poor Whites would probably do much better. With the plantations being broken up and the land sold there is a good chance lower middle class and middle class Whites would buy that land opening up some opportunities for Poor Whites.

What do they buy it with?

Aside from a few blockade-runners and the like (real life Rhett Butlers), who had any money in the aftermath of the fall of the Confederacy?
 
What do they buy it with?

Aside from a few blockade-runners and the like (real life Rhett Butlers), who had any money in the aftermath of the fall of the Confederacy?

The liquidation of these plantations would not happen overnight and the South recovered after the war. The price of land was down and it would go down even further if the plantations were broken up so it would have been easier for people to buy land. The rebuilding of much of the South began rather quickly after the war and there was a demand for carpenters, masons, bricklayers etc. soon after the war and these were all middle class jobs even then.
 
I need a bit of help with a paper I'm writing for my college course, prior to Lincoln, Washington's two-term policy was viewed as the norm. What precisely changed to have Lincoln's three terms codified into Constitutional law?
 
Race relations do worse, much worse, the west becomes unreconizable and the south rebuilds faster.

Abe walked a tight rope between being merciful to the ex rebels and trying to preserve the freedom of newly freed slaves. His policy to square this circle was the resetlement policy. Or 40 acres and a mule as it was called.

The former slaves were given free land in the empty parts of the american west far away from the american south. This is why Montanta and Idaho still have a majority black population to this day.

The removal of the black population of the south caused massive labor shortages and made the process of rebuilding the american south take longer. How ever the freedman project was an unqualified success. Today the states settled by former slaves have three times the wealth of the states their former masters. Well after you remove Texas... Still have no idea why the rest of dixy cant seem to get their act together like Texas has.
 
Race relations do worse, much worse, the west becomes unreconizable and the south rebuilds faster.

Abe walked a tight rope between being merciful to the ex rebels and trying to preserve the freedom of newly freed slaves. His policy to square this circle was the resetlement policy. Or 40 acres and a mule as it was called.

The former slaves were given free land in the empty parts of the american west far away from the american south. This is why Montanta and Idaho still have a majority black population to this day.

The removal of the black population of the south caused massive labor shortages and made the process of rebuilding the american south take longer. How ever the freedman project was an unqualified success. Today the states settled by former slaves have three times the wealth of the states their former masters. Well after you remove Texas... Still have no idea why the rest of dixy cant seem to get their act together like Texas has.


But wouldn't that defeat the main purpose of founding the Republican Party?

It was set up in the aftermath of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, because Northern opinion was outraged at the prospect of western land going to slaveowners instead of to free white people. They also didn't want negro neighbours, either slave or free. Any idea of giving western lands to Blacks will be about as popular as leaving it to the Indians.

The only area they could possibly have got was the Indian Territory since that would only dispossess another coloured race, and maybe some parts of New Mexico where the only "white" population was Mexican.
 
OCC Montana and Idaho are pretty small and out of the way OCC


Dont get me wrong a lot of black people were sent to the Indian territories but Idaho and Montana ended up being the place where most people were sent mostly by happenstance. There wasn't that large of a white population and in the direct aftermath of the civil war the radical republicans wanted... no demanded some thing to punish the former rebels, and protect the newly freed slaves.

Most Areas that were pontentially slated to be resettlement zones were taken off the list due to complaints. Montana and Idaho ended up being the biggest area where freedman went/were sent due to their relative weakness politically.
 
the direct aftermath of the civil war the radical republicans wanted... no demanded some thing to punish the former rebels, and protect the newly freed slaves.


Were the Radicals ever in a position to demand anything?

Their fellow Republicans went along with them on Black Suffrage as the only way to break the impasse between Andrew Johnson and Congress - and certainly the only way to break it this side of the 1868 election. But no one had any motive to support turning over big chunks of the Territories to Blacks - not even the Radicals themselves.
 
Top