WI : Different Democrat VP from Johnson

[TheDoofusUser]

We all know how awful Andrew Johnson was the moment he became President from how he handled Reconstruction, but we also know how the North would not be all that receptive to a Radical Republican Presidency in 1865-1869 if they somehow escape Booth's assassination. What other southern Democrat do you think would've done a better job with Reconstruction that Lincoln could choose?

BONUS - In 1861, Kentucky declared Neutrality and Missouri almost seceded until Nathaniel Lyons defeated the state guard and the secessionist governor in battle and seized their arms. If Kentucky and Missouri successfully seceded from the Union in 1861, how much longer would the ACW be and do you think the capture of Nashville would be important enough to win the Republican re-election in 1864 instead of Atlanta?

 

[Comte de Geneve]

Let's see. How many governors of the 11 seceded states renounced the Confederacy and remained Unionists? IIRC that number is 0. How many members of the House from the 11 seceded states renounced the Confederacy and remained Unionists? IIRC that number is 0. How many Senators from the 11 seceded states renounced the Confederacy and remained Unionists? IIRC that number is 1, Andy Johnson. Mr. Johnson is the unicorn in the room. If Mr. Lincoln wanted a prominent Southern Unionist Democrat on his ticket his pool was one. There were anti-secession border staters he could choose but by 1864 they weren't Democrats if they ever were. To create a 'Union' Party in the shape Mr. Lincoln wanted AJ was his only choice. He had other options to be more inclusive but not in the same sense.
As for the BONUS, if KY and MO though major butterflies (Grant invades KY before Polk? Lyon is killed off the bat at St Louis and the secessionists take the armory?) I think that is game over for the Union. Abe said it best, he wanted God on his side but he had to have KY.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

What about George Thomas? Say he's more successful at Chickamauga, the push for Atlanta is moved ahead by a few months, but he's stll not one of the main generals getting things done. Then, let's say he's injured; not badly enough he can't campaign, maybe just loses a foot or something but no worse. HOwever, he's laid up for a couple months and the North is still doing well; Atlanta gets captured in June, not September. And Thomas is credited toa large part.

So, the Civil war is probably going to end around the same time - whereas Johnston's arm surrendered OTL in late April, here it might meet up with Lee in the first part of 1865, Sherman joins Grant to bottle up everyone and there's a final, big battle in February or early March.

Lincoln's still going to want his National Union Party, he's not going to be *totally* sure of Union victory. Would General Thomas be a good candidate for him as VP? I don't know what party he was, so maybe that wouldn't be as good, but I don't think I've ever heard him mentioned as a possible VP, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

Johnson himself was almost lynched, from what I recall, sometime in 1862 I think. I wonder who is the choice is Johnson is gone.

 

[TheDoofusUser]

What about George Thomas? Say he's more successful at Chickamauga, the push for Atlanta is moved ahead by a few months, but he's stll not one of the main generals getting things done. Then, let's say he's injured; not badly enough he can't campaign, maybe just loses a foot or something but no worse. HOwever, he's laid up for a couple months and the North is still doing well; Atlanta gets captured in June, not September. And Thomas is credited toa large part.

So, the Civil war is probably going to end around the same time - whereas Johnston's arm surrendered OTL in late April, here it might meet up with Lee in the first part of 1865, Sherman joins Grant to bottle up everyone and there's a final, big battle in February or early March.

Lincoln's still going to want his National Union Party, he's not going to be *totally* sure of Union victory. Would General Thomas be a good candidate for him as VP? I don't know what party he was, so maybe that wouldn't be as good, but I don't think I've ever heard him mentioned as a possible VP, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

Johnson himself was almost lynched, from what I recall, sometime in 1862 I think. I wonder who is the choice is Johnson is gone.

Thomas as a Virginian was a Democrat but he'd probably make a good choice for VP, though I don't know his views on reconstruction and the like, since he mostly stayed out of politics. Wonder how a President George Thomas would be.

 

[jack_donaghy_is_the_shado]

What about James Guthrie, John Bell, John Crittenden, or William Sharkey?

Are there any noteworthy and likely unionists candidates with easily butterflies deaths? I was thinking Sam Houston, but he was pretty old.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

How many members of the House from the 11 seceded states renounced the Confederacy and remained Unionists? IIRC that number is 0.

John Carlile, William Brown, and Kellian Whaley, all from Virginia. From western Virginia, to be sure, but still from Virginia. All were elected in 1860, before Virginia declared secession.

 

[TheRockofChickamauga]

What about George Thomas? Say he's more successful at Chickamauga, the push for Atlanta is moved ahead by a few months, but he's stll not one of the main generals getting things done. Then, let's say he's injured; not badly enough he can't campaign, maybe just loses a foot or something but no worse. HOwever, he's laid up for a couple months and the North is still doing well; Atlanta gets captured in June, not September. And Thomas is credited toa large part.

I love this idea, but Thomas firmly denied any interest in seeking elected office after the war, and he would certainly not seek if the war is still ongoing (This is the man who never took a day of leave from the front for the entire conflict). If the Republicans ignored his declining and ran with it anyone, I'm curious to see how his sense of honor and duty would respond to winning the vice-presidency. On one hand, he has a war to fight. On the other, the nation just gave him another calling.

Thomas as a Virginian was a Democrat but he'd probably make a good choice for VP, though I don't know his views on reconstruction and the like, since he mostly stayed out of politics. Wonder how a President George Thomas would be.

Throughout his early years in the Antebellum era, Thomas associated with the Whigs. In the lead up to the Civil War era, it is not clear precisely which candidates he supported, but it seems most likely that he supported the Constitutional Union Party ticket of John Bell and Edward Everett along with the majority of his fellow Virginians. By the time war started, Thomas supported Lincoln as the leader of the nation, if not for his politics. Come 1864, however, Thomas had gotten onboard with most if not all of Lincoln's political agenda, supporting civil rights for African-Americans among other things. During Reconstruction, he was noted as being one of the firm advocates of congressional "radical" reconstruction policies, leading him to be (rightly) labeled as a "radical Republican" by opponents. I don't think Thomas would ever seek the presidency, but if he did take the office the nation surely wouldn't have to worry about being weak-kneed in enforcing the progress of the era.

Back to the OP:
As for southern candidates to replace Johnson, John E. Bouligny, John S. Carlile, and the Tennessee trio of Thomas A.R. Nelson, Horace Maynard, and Emerson Etheridge are the first to come to mind, all being representatives in the immediate lead up to the war. Joseph Segar, William H. Smith, John C. Underwood, Ben Flanders, Isaac Murphy, and William Brownlow come to mind as well. Of these men, I think Underwood would probably be the best replacement for Lincoln if he gets assassinated per OTL as he was firmly devoted to the reforms of the era, but one of the Tennessee trio would likely better make the point Lincoln was trying to make with the selection, which was a sense of unity by bringing aboard a moderate.

 

[TheDoofusUser]

I love this idea, but Thomas firmly denied any interest in seeking elected office after the war, and he would certainly not seek if the war is still ongoing (This is the man who never took a day of leave from the front for the entire conflict). If the Republicans ignored his declining and ran with it anyone, I'm curious to see how his sense of honor and duty would respond to winning the vice-presidency. On one hand, he has a war to fight. On the other, the nation just gave him another calling.

Throughout his early years in the Antebellum era, Thomas associated with the Whigs. In the lead up to the Civil War era, it is not clear precisely which candidates he supported, but it seems most likely that he supported the Constitutional Union Party ticket of John Bell and Edward Everett along with the majority of his fellow Virginians. By the time war started, Thomas supported Lincoln as the leader of the nation, if not for his politics. Come 1864, however, Thomas had gotten onboard with most if not all of Lincoln's political agenda, supporting civil rights for African-Americans among other things. During Reconstruction, he was noted as being one of the firm advocates of congressional "radical" reconstruction policies, leading him to be (rightly) labeled as a "radical Republican" by opponents. I don't think Thomas would ever seek the presidency, but if he did take the office the nation surely wouldn't have to worry about being weak-kneed in enforcing the progress of the era.

Back to the OP:
As for southern candidates to replace Johnson, John E. Bouligny, John S. Carlile, and the Tennessee trio of Thomas A.R. Nelson, Horace Maynard, and Emerson Etheridge are the first to come to mind, all being representatives in the immediate lead up to the war. Joseph Segar, William H. Smith, John C. Underwood, Ben Flanders, Isaac Murphy, and William Brownlow come to mind as well. Of these men, I think Underwood would probably be the best replacement for Lincoln if he gets assassinated per OTL as he was firmly devoted to the reforms of the era, but one of the Tennessee trio would likely better make the point Lincoln was trying to make with the selection, which was a sense of unity by bringing aboard a moderate.

This really makes me want to write a Thomas/Underwood/Maynard Vice Presidency to Presidency ITTL, though we need to find a way to stop the corruption in Grant's corruption, like maybe Wilson is his VP from the start? Still, A President from 1865-1869 who is more in tune with radical reconstruction ideas while being a Democrat or something akin to them would likely keep Grant's chances alive for 1868 as a Republican and somehow ensuring his cabinet isn't the corrupt mess it was OTL would help matters, even if the 1873 Panic was bound to happen along with Credit Mobilier. If all these happened, what do you think Reconstruction, and 1876, would look like?

 

[DanMcCollum]

If you really want an interesting time: Joseph Holt. Holt and Lincoln were friendly in OTL, Holt came from the boarder states and was a loyal Unionist - and his efforts helped strengthen Unionist in Kentucky. He supported emancipation, despite having many of the same biases of one would expect from a white southeron of that era, and was deeply loyal to Lincoln himself. Following the assassination, some of Holt's ... views point to a rather fascinating Reconstruction (i.e. the changes are really good that several members of the Confederate government are going to swing).

Plus, on top of it all, Holt's name really ws mentioned as possible VP in '64 and I seem to recall that (for what is was worth - and in these conventions, not neccessarily a lot) he was Lincoln's first choice. Though I could be wrong on that latter point.

 

[TheRockofChickamauga]

This really makes me want to write a Thomas/Underwood/Maynard Vice Presidency to Presidency ITTL, though we need to find a way to stop the corruption in Grant's corruption, like maybe Wilson is his VP from the start? Still, A President from 1865-1869 who is more in tune with radical reconstruction ideas while being a Democrat or something akin to them would likely keep Grant's chances alive for 1868 as a Republican and somehow ensuring his cabinet isn't the corrupt mess it was OTL would help matters, even if the 1873 Panic was bound to happen along with Credit Mobilier. If all these happened, what do you think Reconstruction, and 1876, would look like?

The biggest cause for the failure of Reconstruction to make a lasting impact is not the Johnson presidency or corrupt politicians (even if both were significant factors), but rather the significant economic downturn surrounding the Panic of 1873. Those two first factors laid the groundwork, but the country being hit hard nationwide as a result of the panic worked to seriously reduce interest in continuing to fund programs in far-away states almost a decade after the reason they started concluded. It is almost certain that an indefinite Reconstruction would be impossible, with it maybe holding out until 1880 being the best case scenario if the panic was somehow avoided. If that were to occur, that would give the nation about 4-5 more years to solidify the gains made during the era, although I'm skeptical if even these would be lasting. Maybe a different president then Johnson who supported the measures could give it the time it needed to survive by having roughly four presidential terms to incubate, but I'd say it would be a far from certain bet once the troops were pulled out.

If you really want an interesting time: Joseph Holt. Holt and Lincoln were friendly in OTL, Holt came from the boarder states and was a loyal Unionist - and his efforts helped strengthen Unionist in Kentucky. He supported emancipation, despite having many of the same biases of one would expect from a white southeron of that era, and was deeply loyal to Lincoln himself. Following the assassination, some of Holt's ... views point to a rather fascinating Reconstruction (i.e. the changes are really good that several members of the Confederate government are going to swing).

Plus, on top of it all, Holt's name really ws mentioned as possible VP in '64 and I seem to recall that (for what is was worth - and in these conventions, not neccessarily a lot) he was Lincoln's first choice. Though I could be wrong on that latter point.

I like Holt as a choice as well, but while he provides regional balance, it seems that he was a Republican throughout his political career, meaning he wouldn't provide the partisan balance Johnson did as a War Democrat.

 

[DanMcCollum]

I like Holt as a choice as well, but while he provides regional balance, it seems that he was a Republican throughout his political career, meaning he wouldn't provide the partisan balance Johnson did as a War Democrat.

I read a biography of him some years ago, and I'm pretty sure he became a Republican after the war, but started as a Democrat. He served in the Buchanan administration, and I cant imagine that he would have been nominated as first Postmaster and then Secretary of War by Buchanan if he wasn't a Democrat at that time.

 

[TheRockofChickamauga]

I read a biography of him some years ago, and I'm pretty sure he became a Republican after the war, but started as a Democrat. He served in the Buchanan administration, and I cant imagine that he would have been nominated as first Postmaster and then Secretary of War by Buchanan if he wasn't a Democrat at that time.

You are right that Holt had a very fuzzy political affiliation in the lead up to the war. The reason Buchanan nominated him to the cabinet, despite his dubious at best loyalty to the Democratic Party, was to get his nomination through a Republican controlled Senate (similar to John A. Dix and Edwin Stanton). It is possible he might have considered himself a Republican by this point, but there is no way to know for certain, as it wasn't something that people would exactly trumpet in the newspapers.