What if President Grant was assassinated early on in his second term by the KKK?

If Grant is assassinated Wilson is sworn as President but he is going to die in November 1875. If so, as Presidential Act of Succession of 1792 the President Pro Tempore of the Senate Thomas W. Ferry (R-Michigan) becomes the Acting President until a snap election is called not later then two months after the double vacancy occurred (in this case in late January at least). The new President would be sworn in office on 4th March for a four-years term. I think James Blaine could get it.
 

Dagoth Ur

Banned
If Grant is assassinated Wilson is sworn as President but he is going to die in November 1875. If so, as Presidential Act of Succession of 1792 the President Pro Tempore of the Senate Thomas W. Ferry (R-Michigan) becomes the Acting President until a snap election is called not later then two months after the double vacancy occurred (in this case in late January at least). The new President would be sworn in office on 4th March for a four-years term. I think James Blaine could get it.
It's not a given Wilson will die.
 
It's not a given Wilson will die.
He had suffered an heart attack in May 1873 that left him half paralysed and unable to speak in public. For the rest of his term he was unable to perform even the mostly ceremonial duties of a 19th Century Vice President, until he suffered other two strokes and died. He is going to die and maybe even earlier then IOTL.
 
Motivated by hatred of Grant, members of the KKK plot to kill the president who they see as representing Northern oppression. The plot involves hundreds of KKK members who secretly gather in Washington DC and prepare stashes of weapons. In August of 1873 they launch an armed uprising and attack the White House before anyone is able to oppose them. After capturing the White House, president Grant and most of his cabinet are killed. The vice president is able to survive since he was not there. Eventually, the army is able to defeat the KKK members and restore order.

I mean, you only need half a dozen angry former Klansmen to kill the President. There's no Secret Service or properly set up corps of bodyguards for Presidents in this period. Six men with revolvers can get the job done. Though with two president's dead in less than a decade I think they might form a company of the army who are now charged with always guarding the president.

How does the country react in the aftermath of this event? With Grant dying before all of the scandals come to light, does he end up far more venerated in the future? And how will this galvanize support for Reconstruction, affecting the public's attitude toward the South?

So, unfortunately, not much will fundamentally change here. The government will probably put bounties on known Klan leaders heads, Nathan Bedford Forest might not ride off into the sunset quite so cleanly, and anything stinking of "night riders" by former Confederates probably gets treated far more harshly. The corrupt political machines and Redeemer politics however, don't really get touched.

Grant is more venerated than OTL, much like Lincoln, and he probably gets a mounted statue commemorating his victories and his presidency. But, none of this will galvanize support for Reconstruction. The amendments have been passed, slavery is over, and so far as the vast majority of the population was concerned, the causes of the war had been fixed. People will hate the Klan, but not the South.

Agreed. But from my perspective, military occupation resulting in better race relations is better than none.

You can't really ensure better race relations with a military occupation. Bayonets and rifles don't magically change centuries of racial prejudice, and this might only work in states like Mississippi and South Carolina where African American majorities existed and so would force white minorities out, and potentially set up have states for African Americans. In places where black people are the minority, then the second those soldiers leave life gets infinitely worse because those soldiers have been there guarding them and protecting their rights, which was fodder for Redeemer politicians and Lost Cause losers. It would take an economic and media campaign that was beyond the scope of most 19th century thinkers to do what you're proposing.
 
Grant is more venerated than OTL, much like Lincoln, and he probably gets a mounted statue commemorating his victories and his presidency.

He does have a statue commentating his military victories sculpted by the same guy that did one of the major Lee statues. The media currently obscures the existence of the Grant statue for modern political reasons I won’t get into.

41311408-0-B89-4-C75-85-F8-71-EC131-AFD56.jpg


Frankly his admin was considered corrupt and frankly fairly incompetent in the North at the time that isn’t revisionist history. It’s revisionist history that view was contained to a bunch of angry southerners which is something I have noticed even mainstream conservative historians stating as a fact these days.

Obviously his death would obscure the corruption and make it a tiny foot note on his Presidency rather then a big one. Beyond that I don’t think a great deal changes.
 
Last edited:
If Grant is assassinated Wilson is sworn as President but he is going to die in November 1875. If so, as Presidential Act of Succession of 1792 the President Pro Tempore of the Senate Thomas W. Ferry (R-Michigan) becomes the Acting President until a snap election is called not later then two months after the double vacancy occurred (in this case in late January at least). The new President would be sworn in office on 4th March for a four-years term. I think James Blaine could get it.

The election is called only if there at least two months remaining before the Electors meet in December, So if the meeting is closer at hand than that (as it will be if the double vacancy arises in November) the election is postponed for a year - which in this case means it will take place at the regular time of Nov 1876.
 
Much the same as after Lincoln's assassination. They'll look for a big conspiracy but find it only consisted of half a dozen wingnuts. The assassins will be hanged as Lincoln's were. After that, not a lot changed, though the Democratic victory in the 1874 midterms may not be s big as OTL.
the thing is though, in OP's scenario, not only is it a conspiracy, it's a spectacle. Hundreds of klansmen storming DC and taking the white house before the army puts it down. is is it realistic? no, but it does change the calculus. now granted, if it is a few wingnuts when grant is out somewhere like @EnglishCanuck points out is more plausible, then you might be right. but that's not really what OP asked. they crafted the closest thing they could to a 19th century version of the Reagan attempt
 
I think you guys are overestimating Northern reaction.

Outside of the KKK being completely dismantled, Reconstruction won't be worse for the South or better for African Americans.

Reconstruction ended for economic issues, not morality. Military occupation of the South is long term just too expensive.

This time period is also the high point of crony capitalism and corruption. It's the corporations that are in control, not Radical Republican politicians.

Not to mention your average immigrant and northern citizen might have not liked slavery, but they care more about taxes than improving rights for black people.

Short term there will be a outcry and crackdown on the KKK. Outside of that however, at the end of the day reform costs money, and the people and lobbyists of the time aren't going to support the tax raise nessecary to continue/make reconstruction happen.
 
Short term there will be a outcry and crackdown on the KKK.

Who would count as "KKK"?

Keep in mind that the Klan had been officially "disbanded" as far back as 1869, though of course white supremacists continued the fight under various other names.

Nor, of course, can the government go after white supremacists as such, given that most people, even in the North, are white supremacist in varying degree.

Seems to me that this TL requires Southern whites to behave inn an utterly different way from OTL. Afaik, they *never* took on the Federal government directly, just shooting down "uppity" Blacks whenever the government's back was turned. Any thoughts on what would cause that to change?
 
Who would count as "KKK"?

Keep in mind that the Klan had been officially "disbanded" as far back as 1869, though of course white supremacists continued the fight under various other names.

Nor, of course, can the government go after white supremacists as such, given that most people, even in the North, are white supremacist in varying degree.

Seems to me that this TL requires Southern whites to behave inn an utterly different way from OTL. Afaik, they *never* took on the Federal government directly, just shooting down "uppity" Blacks whenever the government's back was turned. Any thoughts on what would cause that to change?
Grant denounces the KKK and signals his support for the 15th Amendment and allowing Black people the right to vote. He doesn't do anything but generates an outrage in the South (Where most black people were)
 
You can't really ensure better race relations with a military occupation. Bayonets and rifles don't magically change centuries of racial prejudice, and this might only work in states like Mississippi and South Carolina where African American majorities existed and so would force white minorities out, and potentially set up have states for African Americans. In places where black people are the minority, then the second those soldiers leave life gets infinitely worse because those soldiers have been there guarding them and protecting their rights, which was fodder for Redeemer politicians and Lost Cause losers. It would take an economic and media campaign that was beyond the scope of most 19th century thinkers to do what you're proposing.
But the only alternatives are military occupation or no military occupation. Also even if the North had not occupied the South, Southern Whites would find another excuse to be racist. This analysis that Reconstruction was responsible for worsening race relations ignores that White Southerners were inextricably linked with racism. This was true in the 1870s and even if racism has subsided, it is still pretty noticeable by how many Southerners defend the Confederacy. Bob Jones University prohibited blacks and whites from dating until 2000.
 
Last edited:
But the only alternatives are military occupation or no military occupation. Also even if the North had not occupied the South, Southern Whites would find another excuse to be racist. This analysis that Reconstruction was responsible for worsening race relations ignores that White Southerners were inextricably linked with racism. This was true in the 1870s and even if racism has subsided, it is still pretty noticeable by how many Southerners defend the Confederacy. Bob Jones University prohibited blacks and whites from dating until 2000.
I'm not saying that the North wasn't racist. But it gets annoying when people keep saying the North was just as racist as the South in the 19th century. The fact that Freed Blacks (Even if a small population) were allowed to live in many states PLUS the fact that many schools in the North were integrated before the South (Even after the Great Migration) shows how this isn't true
 
Grant denounces the KKK and signals his support for the 15th Amendment and allowing Black people the right to vote. He doesn't do anything but generates an outrage in the South (Where most black people were)

Pretty much what he did OTL.


But the only alternatives are military occupation or no military occupation.

And since the first is impossible once the Army has shrunk back to peacetime levels, in practice that leaves only the second.
 
But the only alternatives are military occupation or no military occupation. Also even if the North had not occupied the South, Southern Whites would find another excuse to be racist. This analysis that Reconstruction was responsible for worsening race relations ignores that White Southerners were inextricably linked with racism. This was true in the 1870s and even if racism has subsided, it is still pretty noticeable by how many Southerners defend the Confederacy. Bob Jones University prohibited blacks and whites from dating until 2000.

Well I never said Reconstruction made race relations worse, but there's no case to be made that it could improve them either. There's problems with racism that go well beyond the power of the political to fix.
 
Can you name *any* place (except where there was a total physical separation eg Haiti or the Exodus) where any people went straight from chattel slavery to equality with their former masters? afaik it just doesn't seem to happen.

It was at least for political rights fairly quick in a few New England states. Though there are reasons beyond kindness in their hearts. I lived in Vermont a year and remember seeing at times maybe one non-white in rather large towns. The political impact from giving the handful of former slaves political rights were non-existent in such areas.
 
Last edited:
Nathan Bedford Forest might not ride off into the sunset quite so cleanly

By 1873, he'd switched sides. In OTL 1874 he wrote to the governor of Tennessee offering his assistance in exterminating the marauders. The Charlotte Observer called him a traitor and said he was worse than Longstreet.

Doesn't matter whether his change of heart was a matter of conscience or practicality or ego - the result would have been the same, and he would have aided the North in the aftermath.
 
Top