WI: George Atzerodt Succeeds in Killing Andrew Johnson

Stolengood

Banned
Are there even any votes in the south? how many of the southern states would have been readmitted back to the union by the election?
I think it's only black voters in the South who could properly vote, at that point, so... Democrats are doomed, either way.
 
I think it's only black voters in the South who could properly vote, at that point, so... Democrats are doomed, either way.

Huh! I don't see Foster doing that. And as of April 1865 no Blacks had been enfranchised anywhere in the South, though the Louisiana Constitution empowered the Legislature to do so if it thought fit.

At a guess, he orders the military commanders in the South to enrol all adult males who can read and write a section of the US Constitution. I understand that was a popular test at the time. He might also order that Union soldiers over 21 (present or former) be excused the test. Iirc, even Andrew Johnson recommended something along these lines to the Southern Provisional Governors, though he was too "states rights" in outlook to make it an order. That creates a significant Black vote, though not big enough for control of the State governments. He may well also be slower than Johnson in handing out pardons to prominent Rebs, who will thus play less of a role in any elections.

Also, if Foster has called Congress into Session [1] the Civil Rights and Freedmens Bureau Bills are probably passed a year earlier. If so, Foster is most unlikely to veto them as Johnson did. They had the support of almost all Republicans, not just Radicals, and a veto would make him "a President without a party" much as it did AJ. So he will have power to prevent any "Black Codes" or other provocative moves. In short, Congress and the White House will be in reasonable accord, and you won't get the cat fight which opened the way for the more drastic Reconstruction measures of 1867.


[1] He might do so to allow the House to elect a Speaker, so as to provide a "backup" successor in case anything should happen to him. Alternatively, though, he might be content to do what Chester Arthur was to do in 1881, ie sign (but not issue) an order for the recall of the Senate, with the date left blank, so that if necessary there would be a legal way for it to reconvene and choose a new President pro-tem.
 
I think it's only black voters in the South who could properly vote, at that point, so... Democrats are doomed, either way.


They're doomed all right. The interesting question is who can they find to accept their nomination. From a "loyalty" standpoint it should probably be Hancock or Chase, but I'm not sure either would want it in such circumstances.

For good or ill (probably ill) they may well be stuck with Seymour. As a faithful party man, he might feel duty bound to accept, as he would in 1868, though then too he knew he would lose to Grant.
 
Huh! I don't see Foster doing that. And as of April 1865 no Blacks had been enfranchised anywhere in the South, though the Louisiana Constitution empowered the Legislature to do so if it thought fit.

At a guess, he orders the military commanders in the South to enrol all adult males who can read and write a section of the US Constitution. I understand that was a popular test at the time. He might also order that Union soldiers over 21 (present or former) be excused the test. Iirc, even Andrew Johnson recommended something along these lines to the Southern Provisional Governors, though he was too "states rights" in outlook to make it an order. That creates a significant Black vote, though not big enough for control of the State governments. He may well also be slower than Johnson in handing out pardons to prominent Rebs, who will thus play less of a role in any elections.

Also, if Foster has called Congress into Session [1] the Civil Rights and Freedmens Bureau Bills are probably passed a year earlier. If so, Foster is most unlikely to veto them as Johnson did. They had the support of almost all Republicans, not just Radicals, and a veto would make him "a President without a party" much as it did AJ. So he will have power to prevent any "Black Codes" or other provocative moves. In short, Congress and the White House will be in reasonable accord, and you won't get the cat fight which opened the way for the more drastic Reconstruction measures of 1867.


[1] He might do so to allow the House to elect a Speaker, so as to provide a "backup" successor in case anything should happen to him. Alternatively, though, he might be content to do what Chester Arthur was to do in 1881, ie sign (but not issue) an order for the recall of the Senate, with the date left blank, so that if necessary there would be a legal way for it to reconvene and choose a new President pro-tem.

You may be correct Mikestone, however, the fact that Foster is not "really the President - only an acting stand in" in the eyes of many and the probability that the call for bloody vengeance against rebel Southerners is going to be greater in TTL, passage of civil rights legislation may take a back seat until mid-1866. I wonder how quickly the 13th Amendment will take to become law here?
 
You may be correct Mikestone, however, the fact that Foster is not "really the President - only an acting stand in" in the eyes of many and the probability that the call for bloody vengeance against rebel Southerners is going to be greater in TTL, passage of civil rights legislation may take a back seat until mid-1866. I wonder how quickly the 13th Amendment will take to become law here?


I don't see any particular reason why the "call for bloody vengeance" - supposing there is one - would in itself hold up Civil Rights legislation. If anything it would give the advocates of these laws an additional weapon. However, if such a cry does arise, Foster (probably supported by Grant) may choose to leave Congress in recess until the killers are safely hanged and tempers have had a chance to cool, in which case the bills may not be voted on until after he has left the White House.

In any case, though, I'm not sure that the cry for vengeance would be noticeably greater than OTL. People were already so horrified by the murder of Lincoln and the near-murder of Seward, that the killing of a little known and not hugely admired VP (whose only claim to fame so far had been turning up drunk to his inauguration) would probably not increase it all that much. As the saying goes, you can't wet a river.

As demobilisation of the army proceeds, continued military rule is going to become impractical anyway, so we can assume that some form of Presidential Reconstruction still goes ahead. If ratification of the 13A is a condition of a State government being recognised (a virtual certainty), then I'd guess that it's still complete by the end of 1865.

One small question is what becomes of Foster after stepping down from the Acting Presidency. OTL, I note from Wiki that he finished up on the Connecticut Supreme Court. TTL, might he be "pensioned off" with a seat on the US one?
 

Eurofed

Banned
In any case, though, I'm not sure that the cry for vengeance would be noticeably greater than OTL. People were already so horrified by the murder of Lincoln and the near-murder of Seward, that the killing of a little known and not hugely admired VP (whose only claim to fame so far had been turning up drunk to his inauguration) would probably not increase it all that much. As the saying goes, you can't wet a river.

AJ was certainly not a popular or influential figure, but the simultaneous assassination of the POTUS and VPOTUS (and near-assassination of the Secretary of State) by Southern sympathizers makes for a more serious and threatening treasonous attempt to break continuity of government, than what happened IOTL. This alone justifies a greater reaction.
 
Top