WI: Andrew Johnson died early in office

Thomas1195

Banned
There are plenty of threads mention ATLs if Johnson was removed.

But what if he suddenly died early just within 1865 like William Henry Harrison, maybe crashing his head somewhere, and was succeeded by Benjamin Wade?

How would this affect Reconstruction?
 
There are plenty of threads mention ATLs if Johnson was removed.

But what if he suddenly died early just within 1865 like William Henry Harrison, maybe crashing his head somewhere, and was succeeded by Benjamin Wade?

How would this affect Reconstruction?


Wade didn't become President Pro Tempore until 1867. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate If Johnson were to die "early" in his term, Lafayette S. Foster would become President. See my post at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...r-handle-reconstruction.356236/#post-10855271 which mentions the question "of whether Foster would serve out Lincoln's entire second term, or whether a special election would be held, as the Succession Act of 1792 seemed to require."
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Wade didn't become President Pro Tempore until 1867. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate If Johnson were to die "early" in his term, Lafayette S. Foster would become President. See my post at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...r-handle-reconstruction.356236/#post-10855271 which mentions the question "of whether Foster would serve out Lincoln's entire second term, or whether a special election would be held, as the Succession Act of 1792 seemed to require."
If we move the POD to April 1867, then would anything change?
 
There are plenty of threads mention ATLs if Johnson was removed.

But what if he suddenly died early just within 1865 like William Henry Harrison, maybe crashing his head somewhere, and was succeeded by Benjamin Wade?

How would this affect Reconstruction?

It would have been Lafayette Foster. Wade didn't become President of the Senate till 1867.

Interestingly, in Summer 1865 Foster went west as part of a Committee headed by Senator James Doolittle, to enquire into the treatment of the Indians. However, he had to hastily return to Washington when he got a report that Johnson was seriously ill with pneumonia. So it's possible he might have succeeded then.

From what I can gather, he seems to have been fairly conservative, and after leaving the Senate eventually became a Democrat. But as a Senator he probably had a better grasp of Congressional opinion than Johnson, and might have avoided the head-on collision with them.

One thing. As the line of succession did not extend beyond the Pres of the Senate and Speaker of the House, Foster would almost certainly recall Congress to allow a legal successor to be chosen. So we may get the Fourteenth Amendment, or something like it, about a year earlier than OTL. At that time the South was still "in shock" from losing the war, so it may well be ratified, and the South readmitted w/o the political hot potato of black suffrage being taken up.
 
If we move the POD to April 1867, then would anything change?

Depends exactly when in 1867.

If it's before October, the Presidential election will be brought forward a year, so that Grant is elected in 1867 instead of 1868. Otherwise probably not much is changed. The First Reconstruction Act was already in preparation by then, so it just goes ahead w/o being obstructed by Johnson. Some Confederates who received pardons from Johnson might have to wait a bit longer for them, but iirc he'd already pardoned many even before 1867, so the change isn't likely to be anything drastic.
 
"of whether Foster would serve out Lincoln's entire second term, or whether a special election would be held, as the Succession Act of 1792 seemed to require."

I don't think there is need for any special election for president. Johnson's replacement simply serves out the term. Foster unlike Wade wasn't a fireband (apparently he wanted a hugly strong presidency and equal rights for women, two big no-nos back then)
 
I don't think there is need for any special election for president. Johnson's replacement simply serves out the term. Foster unlike Wade wasn't a fireband (apparently he wanted a hugly strong presidency and equal rights for women, two big no-nos back then)

Well, there is such a need if Section 10 of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 (then still in effect) is followed:

Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That in case of removal, death, resignation or inability both of the President and Vice President of the United States, the President of the Senate pro tempore, and in case there shall be no President of the Senate, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives, for the time being shall act as President of the United States until the disability be removed or a President shall be elected.

Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That whenever the offices of President and Vice President shall both become vacant, the Secretary of State shall forthwith cause a notification thereof to be made to the executive of every state, and shall also cause the same to be published in at least one of the newspapers printed in each state, specifying that electors of the President of the United States shall be appointed or chosen in the several states within thirty-four days preceding the first Wednesday in December then next ensuing: Provided, There shall be the space of two months between the date of such notification and the said first Wednesday in December, but if there shall not be the space of two months between the date of such notification and the first Wednesday in December; and if the term for which the President and Vice President last in office were elected shall not expire on the third day of March next ensuing, then the Secretary of State shall specify in the notification that the electors shall be appointed or chosen within thirty-four days preceding the first Wednesday in December in the year next ensuing, within which time the electors shall accordingly be appointed or chosen, and the electors shall meet and give their votes on the said first Wednesday in December, and the proceedings and duties of the said electors and others shall be pursuant to the directions prescribed in this act. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Unit...e/Volume_1/2nd_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_8

The language of Section 10 certainly looks mandatory: "the Secretary *shall*," "electors ...*shall* be appointed or chosen...within thirty-four days preceding the first Wednesday in December then next ensuing.." etc. Not "may" but "shall."
 

Thomas1195

Banned
whether a special election would be held
What would be the Republican ticket for this election? Grant would be a default option if he decides to run, but 1865-1867 may be too early for him. In this case, there are options such as Hamlin, Butler, Wade, Stanton, Fremont or Seward if 1867 (Seward was recovering from injuries in 1865), but likely among the Radical Republicans.
 
What would be the Republican ticket for this election? Grant would be a default option if he decides to run, but 1865-1867 may be too early for him. In this case, there are options such as Hamlin, Butler, Wade, Stanton, Fremont or Seward if 1867 (Seward was recovering from injuries in 1865), but likely among the Radical Republicans.


The pressure on Grant to run would surely be overwhelming. No one is going to be interested in those other odd bodies when they can have the nation's number one hero. Also, going for Grant ensures a quick result - probably on the first ballot - while the Democrats are sorting themselves out.

Nor do I see why they'd want a Radical. Several Northern states had voted against Black Suffrage in 1867, so there's no mileage in taking that up. Indeed, they didn't risk imposing it even on the South until the 1866 midterms were out of the way, and didn't vote on the 15th Amendment until Grant was safely elected. More likely they'd want Seward if he's up to it, or someone else who is safely middle of the road.
 
Top