President Hannibal?

In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln chose Senator Hannibal Hamlin from Maine as his running mate. Four years later, with the Union winning the war, but not yet victorious, Lincoln chose to replace Hamlin with Andrew Johnson, one of the few southern leaders who had not supported secession. Suppose Lincoln had instead chosen to keep Hamlin, who had a decent record on opposing slavery, and likely would have taken an active role in ensuring the rights of freedmen after the war.

Now, perhaps Lincoln's assassination might not have happened, but either way, history has now changed. Johnson, who chose to rally the support of white southerners and viciously opposed granting equal rights to freedmen, is now removed from the political picture, with either Lincoln or Hamlin in charge during the immediate postwar years. Even without Lincoln's assassination, there is still the chance that he could die in office of natural causes, granting Hamlin the Presidency, or that Hamlin could choose to run for President on his own in 1868.

How would Hamlin deal with the disastrous aftermath of the Civil War, with the simultaneous needs of granting some protection to African Americans from their former slaveowners, providing aid to veterans, creating some semblance of stable government in the south, and reinforcing the idea of the United States as one, rather than two, countries? Would he make important steps toward racial equality and healing the wounds of slavery, or would he fail to change the politics of the south and allow Jim Crow to become the norm, as historical presidents sadly did?

What will be Hamlin's legacy, both in the United States and abroad, as the country emerges as a world power and, consciously or not, influences the events of Europe and Asia? What might America and the world look like today, 150 years after Lincoln's decision?
 
It might be good news for Mary Surratt and Henry Wirz, as Hamlin was a strong opponent of the death penalty.

On Reconstruction, he might have insisted on enfranchisement of at least some Blacks, though it should be noted that even the Radical Congress didn't go for full colour-blind suffrage until 1867, so it may not be that much sooner. And once the army (the only effective means of enforcement) has gone back to peacetime levels, it's unlikely that he'll be able to do very much to prevent the Redeemers winning.
 
It might be good news for Mary Surratt and Henry Wirz, as Hamlin was a strong opponent of the death penalty.

I knew I would end up liking him! :eek:

On Reconstruction, he might have insisted on enfranchisement of at least some Blacks, though it should be noted that even the Radical Congress didn't go for full colour-blind suffrage until 1867, so it may not be that much sooner. And once the army (the only effective means of enforcement) has gone back to peacetime levels, it's unlikely that he'll be able to do very much to prevent the Redeemers winning.

True, the US isn't going to become a utopia any time soon, regardless of who's in charge. But surely Hamlin, by working with the Radical Republicans instead of vetoing them at every turn, could give some momentum to the idea of creating a new south that is not so obsessed with "revenge" for the civil war. At the very least, he could crack down hard on the Klan and have some sort of Federal inspection board to make sure that voting rights and anti-slavery laws were upheld. At each step, if the south passed its requirements, the Federal government could gradually withdraw soldiers, while threatening to re-escalate the occupation if the lost-causers started to act up again. Maybe as a side effect, women could get the vote earlier (say 1900 instead of 1920) and by 1930, the south has been fully integrated into the rest of the nation and the two regions are culturally very similar. By 1950, race relations in this world are better than they are in our world today.
 
First off he would be the First President from the state of Maine and the 2nd Republican President.

The Assassination of Lincoln is most likely still to happen, as Booth would still assigned George Atzerodt to kill Vice President Hamlin who would be staying at the Woodley Mansion (instead of =staying at the Kirkwood House) making it harder.

So on April 15th, 1865, he is inaugerated as the 17th President.

In United States presidential election, 1868, he wins only slightly against the Democrats party represented by Andrew Johnson and the 1972, strongly against Horace Greeley.

This is a length of 12 years of President (4 carrying on Lincoln's term and 8 years his own terms) the longest Presidency in history, he was asked by the Republicans to stand again as he respects the Washington, two term limit, this becomes the norm and goes into the US Constitution as the Sixteenth Amendment (OLT Twenty-second) setting a term limit of two full terms for election to the office of President of the United States. Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1877. It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1981.

The Democrats only win in 1876, when Samuel J. Tilden beats Former Vice President, Ulysses S. Grant, was found drunk during his campaign trail.

Union Veterans who are unable to work are placed into "nursing homes" where former females slaves are trained to care for their helpers.

I would hope that after the war, Hamlin would fear that if they weren't strict the south or other stats could succeed from the Union. So the south would be penalized (like the Germans after WWI) by having the states made smaller (like West Virginia and Virginia), having their elector college votes, representatives and Senator reduced and losing the right to make racist laws (such as Jim Crow) meaning that the Union was stronger then the state, one state against the other 56 (or more) was a bad idea.
The Republicans were becoming the new whig party while the democrats were going back into the Anti-Federalist party.

In 2008, when Barack Obama, became President he dedicated his Presidency to Lincoln and Hamlin, although Hamlin has jokingly be nicknamed the first Black President.
Like his future president, he will send the standing and able Union army onto any town that wishes to cause harm to their African-American, who are given citizenship, the right to own property and the right to vote.

Hamlin will be seen as a revolutionary liberal by his fellow leaders who wish to end slavery and see equal rights, but in places like South Africa he will be seen as an evil that wishes to destroy civilization.

Europe is not affected at home as much by this but Europe feels it when the colonies they control in Asia and Africa start wanting rights like the African-Americans.

I cant definititly say how the future of the USA will unfold but I can see it happening slightly like this -
I sadly think this will lead to American in the future having the same racial level as Britain, where the Civil Rights Movement did not seem to happen, this brings a higher tension between, the ethnic races, where it is sometimes on the surface like the KKK but it is more common for it to been hidden deep down, where attacks happen more often, and some secret-racist-organisation set up.
 
I was looking at this title for fifteen seconds being like "Oh... Is this like House of Cards meets Hannibal? That sounds reasonably awesome."
 

Interesting ideas. I don't think we'll see Obama becoming president with a POD that early but your analysis sounds reasonable nonetheless. I wonder how this change in internal politics will affect America's foreign policy. Will it be more isolationist? More imperialist? Neither?
 
Interesting ideas. I don't think we'll see Obama becoming president with a POD that early but your analysis sounds reasonable nonetheless. I wonder how this change in internal politics will affect America's foreign policy. Will it be more isolationist? More imperialist? Neither?

I don't think it would be isolationist, it being a nation of immigrants already, and not separated from the rest of the world in any way like isolationists tend to be. But, it also doesn't really meet the requirements for Imperialist, if everyone has freedoms and equality, colonies would expect the same. Maybe we get a US that colonizes Africa on a "freedom mission" to bring democracy and freedom to the kingdoms and tribes of Africa. How different the colonies would actually be from European one, I don't know, or if they would become states (unlikely early on, but plausible later, Hawaii-esque) or if they would get independence earlier or later than OTL African colonies did.
 
Interesting ideas. I don't think we'll see Obama becoming president with a POD that early but your analysis sounds reasonable nonetheless. I wonder how this change in internal politics will affect America's foreign policy. Will it be more isolationist? More imperialist? Neither?

There's zero chance of Barack Obama existing in this timeline. Maybe there's someone of the clan Obama with the first name Barack (which comes from Swahili), somewhere in the world, but he wouldn't be our Barack Obama. Not even similar DNA.
 
True, the US isn't going to become a utopia any time soon, regardless of who's in charge. But surely Hamlin, by working with the Radical Republicans instead of vetoing them at every turn, could give some momentum to the idea of creating a new south that is not so obsessed with "revenge" for the civil war. At the very least, he could crack down hard on the Klan and have some sort of Federal inspection board to make sure that voting rights and anti-slavery laws were upheld. At each step, if the south passed its requirements, the Federal government could gradually withdraw soldiers, while threatening to re-escalate the occupation if the lost-causers started to act up again. Maybe as a side effect, women could get the vote earlier (say 1900 instead of 1920) and by 1930, the south has been fully integrated into the rest of the nation and the two regions are culturally very similar. By 1950, race relations in this world are better than they are in our world today.


The Federal Government has no choice about withdrawing soldiers. As wartime enlistments expire, the Army is steadily shrinking back toward prewar levels. Iirc, by 1876 it was down to 27,000 men of whom only about 3,000 were available for use in the South. This process will continue regardless of who is POTUS, so pretty soon Washington will be all but powerless to regulate the South's internal affairs, even supposing it is still interested.

In the end, except for those who simply flee, and try their luck in the north or west, the Freedmen will get only what the local whites are willing to let them have - and that won't be very much.
 
In the end, except for those who simply flee, and try their luck in the north or west, the Freedmen will get only what the local whites are willing to let them have - and that won't be very much.

Your best bet would be to try to drive a wedge at deep and hard as you can between different segments of the local white population. If they present a united front against the Freedmen it'll be very hard to resist what happened IOTL.
 
Your best bet would be to try to drive a wedge at deep and hard as you can between different segments of the local white population. If they present a united front against the Freedmen it'll be very hard to resist what happened IOTL.

Maybe so, but is there any reason to suppose that Hamlin (or anyone else) would have had any better luck at doing this than Grant had?
 
In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln chose Senator Hannibal Hamlin from Maine as his running mate.

No, he didn't. In that era, the convention chose the VP candidate, and did not just rubber-stamp the Presidential nominee's choice. Lincoln was not at the convention, and neither he nor his managers pushed for Hamlin.

Four years later, with the Union winning the war, but not yet victorious, Lincoln chose to replace Hamlin with Andrew Johnson, one of the few southern leaders who had not supported secession.
No, he didn't. See above. According to historian Bruce Catton, the convention acted "without visible guidance from the White House" when it dropped Hamlin for Johnson. Hamlin himself had no real interest in re-election; he spent most of his term at home in Maine.

As to how Hamlin would have handled Reconstruction...

Once there was a poor widow who had two sons. One ran off to sea, and the other became Vice President. And neither was ever heard of again.
 

Thank you so much for correcting me on all accounts. Obviously the lack of information on Hamlin makes it very difficult to speculate, but really I was just aiming for anyone who is not Andrew Johnson, and Hamlin happened to be the available person to fill the void.
 
Thank you so much for correcting me on all accounts. Obviously the lack of information on Hamlin makes it very difficult to speculate, but really I was just aiming for anyone who is not Andrew Johnson, and Hamlin happened to be the available person to fill the void.

That's what everyone seems to do on this particular subject.

Trouble is, they overlook the extent to which, however unwittingly, Johnson was the cause of Radical Reconstruction as we know it. It took two years of provocation from him before the "Radical" Congress was finally ready to impose Black suffrage.

Take Johnson away. and whoever is POTUS very likely imposes a more limited enfranchisement, eg literate Blacks and US Army veterans. That more than likely satisfies enough Republicans to get the Rebel States readmitted without universal suffrage - so that the Freedmen end up with less rather than more.
 
Take Johnson away. and whoever is POTUS very likely imposes a more limited enfranchisement, eg literate Blacks and US Army veterans. That more than likely satisfies enough Republicans to get the Rebel States readmitted without universal suffrage - so that the Freedmen end up with less rather than more.
That's a quite valid point. However, that was still more than they ended up with under the "Redeemer" governments OTL. If that settlement can actually hold through 1900, it's likely to yield permanently better race relations. And if literate Blacks are officially given the vote, improved education can directly yield expanded franchise - possibly without such vicious pushback as iOTL, given that there're already some Blacks voting.
 
I don't think he'd be as willing to give out pardons to former Confederates as Johnson was.

He'd have been a bit slower to do it, but that's probably all

Keep in mind that in May 1872 Hamlin voted (along with a near-unanimous Senate) to lift the disabilities imposed on ex-Rebs by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Over the long haul (if seven years qualifies as "long") the desire for reconciliation was simply overwhelming, and no change of POTUS will do much to alter it..
 
Top