WI: Johnson is Impeached

What if the any one of the senators who voted against removing Andrew Johnson from office instead voted in favor? What impact would this have on Reconstruction and the balance of power between Congress and the Presidency?
 
Last edited:
Small thing, Impeachment is when the House votes to put the President on trial (which they did), Removal is what the Senate does if it reaches a 2/3rds vote in favor of (which they failed to do). Johnson was Impeached by the Republican lead House, but failed to be Removed by the Republican majority Senate for various reasons (some say bribery, others for the independence of the Executive branch).

Honestly, I don't think there would be a long term effect. Johnson was a lameduck since he entered office (and note the trial concluded May 16, 1868), the next election was a few months away with Grant already chosen as the Republican's nominee. Considering you need a House majority and a Senate where 2 out of every 3 members is politically hostile to the President, it won't set much of an example. It would shit even more on Johnson's legacy, which is nice, and would mean that then President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Benjamin Wade, becomes the 18th President instead of Grant, who would be the 19th by March of next year.
 
Honestly, I don't think there would be a long term effect. Johnson was a lameduck since he entered office (and note the trial concluded May 16, 1868), the next election was a few months away with Grant already chosen as the Republican's nominee. Considering you need a House majority and a Senate where 2 out of every 3 members is politically hostile to the President, it won't set much of an example. It would shit even more on Johnson's legacy, which is nice, and would mean that then President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Benjamin Wade, becomes the 18th President instead of Grant, who would be the 19th by March of next year.

Would Benjamin Wade not want to stand as Republican candidate, after spending a year in office?
A primary with Wade and Grant, may see a tight battle instead of Grant being unanimously nominated on the first ballot?

Also the impeachment may result in a larger landslide for the republicans in the 1868 election, with swing states like Oregon, New York and New Jersey, giving Grant 257 against Seymour's 37 and Grant winning by a better percentage then his OTL 52.7%.
 
Would Benjamin Wade not want to stand as Republican candidate, after spending a year in office?
A primary with Wade and Grant, may see a tight battle instead of Grant being unanimously nominated on the first ballot?

Also the impeachment may result in a larger landslide for the republicans in the 1868 election, with swing states like Oregon, New York and New Jersey, giving Grant 257 against Seymour's 37 and Grant winning by a better percentage then his OTL 52.7%.

The Republican Convention was May 20 and 21. Assuming Wade becomes President the same day Johnson was acquitted, that's 5 days. Every Republican decided on Grant by then, so Wade likely wouldn't do well enough against the man who saved the Union.

Remember, "Andrew Johnson is innocent because Ben Wade is guilty of being his successor." Wade was one of the most radical men of his time. A cool man in hindsight, but very alienating in his day.
 
Would Benjamin Wade not want to stand as Republican candidate, after spending a year in office?
A primary with Wade and Grant, may see a tight battle instead of Grant being unanimously nominated on the first ballot?

I don't think they had Primaries in those days. Iirc they came in with the Progressive Era, half a century later.

But even had they existed, as the Republican Convention was already assembled, any Primaries would have been already over so that it would be too late for Wade to enter them.
 
Last edited:
The Republican Convention was May 20 and 21. Assuming Wade becomes President the same day Johnson was acquitted, that's 5 days. Every Republican decided on Grant by then, so Wade likely wouldn't do well enough against the man who saved the Union.

Remember, "Andrew Johnson is innocent because Ben Wade is guilty of being his successor." Wade was one of the most radical men of his time. A cool man in hindsight, but very alienating in his day.

Oh ok, so will Wade, just go back to the senate? or retire as the first person to be President of the United States without being elected by the Electoral College.
 
Oh ok, so will Wade, just go back to the senate? or retire as the first person to be President of the United States without being elected by the Electoral College.

He can't go back to the Senate. The Democrats captured the Ohio Legislature last November, so will elect a Democrat to Wade's seat. Most likely he just retires.
 
Oh ok, so will Wade, just go back to the senate? or retire as the first person to be President of the United States without being elected by the Electoral College.

As Senator, and as President in this timeline, he retired March 4, 1869. He lost renomination and Democrat Allen G Thurman was elected in his place. He'd be a cool trivia note but that's about it. Not quite sure how his brief term, slightly less then 10 months, would impact the resulting elections. Would it fire up the Democrats after this coup, encourage the Radicals after this monumental victory, maybe even both? I don't know.
 
Little would change in the progress of the nineteenth century. You would likely see an early version of a presidential succession amendment to the constitution to replace the VP, etc.
 
Little would change in the progress of the nineteenth century. You would likely see an early version of a presidential succession amendment to the constitution to replace the VP, etc.

Or just the 1886 Act a decade or two early.

It might cross some minds that, had the heir-presumptive been Seward instead of Wade, Johnson might well have been out on his ear.
 
How much difference does it make if Johnson is not only removed from office, but also disqualified from ever holding any office in the U.S. national government for the remainder of his life?
 
If one more senator had been wiling to vote for conviction...well, most likely in that event, some additional senator(s) would vote *against* it.

"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.
 
How much difference does it make if Johnson is not only removed from office, but also disqualified from ever holding any office in the U.S. national government for the remainder of his life?

Aside from removing his short tenure as Senator in 1875, it would be the final insult to Johnson.

If one more senator had been wiling to vote for conviction...well, most likely in that event, some additional senator(s) would vote *against* it.

snip

They said they would do that, but would they have carried through with their promises? Probably, but they never were tested.
 
Top