WI: Andrew Johnson Impeached?
- Thread starter MapleTekh
- Start date
Reconstruction already was planned and implemented. By the time of the impeachment all the important measures had already passed into law, and half a dozen Southern states would be readmitted under those laws only a few weeks later.
There would have been a nine-month interim Presidency with Ben Wade keeping the seat warm for General Grant. Thereafter, everything goes the same as OTL.
He was impeached. They were one vote away from removing him from office.
I don't think a lot would have gone different, at least immediately, as the impeachment took place in early 1868, with the election less than a year away. IOTL, the Republicans managed to elect Grant and enact their agenda; ITTL, things just would have happened one year early. Of course, the backlash and other effects of removing a president from office could change things significantly. The President Pro Tempore, Benjamin Wade, would have taken over as president. He was far more radical than Grant, and also supported causes like trade unionism and women's rights. The big question is whether Wade would run for another term, or whether he would have stepped aside in 1868 for Grant or another more electable Republican.
I don't think a lot would have gone different, at least immediately, as the impeachment took place in early 1868, with the election less than a year away. IOTL, the Republicans managed to elect Grant and enact their agenda; ITTL, things just would have happened one year early. Of course, the backlash and other effects of removing a president from office could change things significantly. The President Pro Tempore, Benjamin Wade, would have taken over as president. He was far more radical than Grant, and also supported causes like trade unionism and women's rights. The big question is whether Wade would run for another term, or whether he would have stepped aside in 1868 for Grant or another more electable Republican.
Andrew Johnson was impeached. People forget the distinction between impeachment and conviction/ removal.
Removal of Johnson would have pretty strong butterflies since the dispute was over policy. Also IOTL the Republicans proved pretty willing to cheat (1864 though it probably was not needed, and of course 1876) to keep the Democrats from controlling the executive branch. With the removal, you would have had both a less presidential system, because the precedent would have been set for removing a President over policy differences, and also more of a one party system.
Removal of Johnson would have pretty strong butterflies since the dispute was over policy. Also IOTL the Republicans proved pretty willing to cheat (1864 though it probably was not needed, and of course 1876) to keep the Democrats from controlling the executive branch. With the removal, you would have had both a less presidential system, because the precedent would have been set for removing a President over policy differences, and also more of a one party system.
The question would not have arisen.
Grant received the Republican nomination on the same day that the Senate took its first vote on removing Johnson. So it would have been already too late for Wade to get a look in. Even had the vote come a few days sooner, the Republicans were firmly set on Grant as their chosen candidate, and neither Wade nor anyone else would have been seriously considered.
One: He WAS impeached.
Two: Ninja'd like One - Reconstruction was already planned.
Three: Congress would be more confrontational in the future with presidents, having successfully removed one.
Two: Ninja'd like One - Reconstruction was already planned.
Three: Congress would be more confrontational in the future with presidents, having successfully removed one.
One thing to remember about "one-vote" victories: they are sometimes not as close as they seem, because sometimes people are reluctant to cast a vote that goes against their party's (or constituents') desires, but will do so *if their vote is needed.*
A good example is the vote on whether to convict and remove Andrew Johnson. Much is made of Edmund Ross' voting to acquit--but if he hadn't, some other Republicans (who voted for conviction in OTL) ptobably would have:
"The closeness of the balloting may in itself be deceiving. Considerable evidence exists that other senators stood ready to vote for acquittal if their votes had been needed. As early as May 18 the Chicago *Tribune* asserted that the President's friends laid claim to four more votes in case of necessity, and the substance of the story was confirmed shortly after the trial by Samuel Randall, the Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania. On August 3, Johnson himself wrote to Benjamin Truman that [Edwin D.] Morgan [of New York] had been one of the Republicans in question. In 1913, Senator Henderson also asserted that Morgan had been the reputed swing voter. Because of the intense pressure, he voted to convict, but would not have done so had his vote made any difference. Some years earlier the Missouri senator told William A. Dunning that [Waitman T.] Willey [of West Viriginia] had also been ready to switch, a point he later reiterated to Trumbull's biographer, Horace White. He also mentioned Sprague as one of the senators willing to change, and John Bigelow learned that [James W.] Nye [of Nevada] had been another. In short, Johnson's victory was assured long before the vote was taken. A sufficient number of moderate Republicans stood ready to acquit him, come what might." Hans L.Trefousse, *Impeachment of a President: Andrew Johnson, the Blacks, and Reconstruction* (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press 1975), p. 169.
A good example is the vote on whether to convict and remove Andrew Johnson. Much is made of Edmund Ross' voting to acquit--but if he hadn't, some other Republicans (who voted for conviction in OTL) ptobably would have:
"The closeness of the balloting may in itself be deceiving. Considerable evidence exists that other senators stood ready to vote for acquittal if their votes had been needed. As early as May 18 the Chicago *Tribune* asserted that the President's friends laid claim to four more votes in case of necessity, and the substance of the story was confirmed shortly after the trial by Samuel Randall, the Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania. On August 3, Johnson himself wrote to Benjamin Truman that [Edwin D.] Morgan [of New York] had been one of the Republicans in question. In 1913, Senator Henderson also asserted that Morgan had been the reputed swing voter. Because of the intense pressure, he voted to convict, but would not have done so had his vote made any difference. Some years earlier the Missouri senator told William A. Dunning that [Waitman T.] Willey [of West Viriginia] had also been ready to switch, a point he later reiterated to Trumbull's biographer, Horace White. He also mentioned Sprague as one of the senators willing to change, and John Bigelow learned that [James W.] Nye [of Nevada] had been another. In short, Johnson's victory was assured long before the vote was taken. A sufficient number of moderate Republicans stood ready to acquit him, come what might." Hans L.Trefousse, *Impeachment of a President: Andrew Johnson, the Blacks, and Reconstruction* (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press 1975), p. 169.
