William Seward's Replacement?

If William Seward was assassinated in 1865, who would Andrew Johnson pick as his replacement? How would the replacement fare with the events of the Johnson administration?

Alternatively, assume Lincoln lives and Seward dies. Who does Lincoln pick and what happens with them?
 
My guess would be Charles Sumner. He was then the chair of the senate foreign relations committee, and the most obvious candidate to succeed Seward. The lofty office would suit Sumner's ego, and it would suit Johnson (or Lincoln) to have Sumner out of the senate and serving in a more apolitical role.
 
My guess would be Charles Sumner. He was then the chair of the senate foreign relations committee, and the most obvious candidate to succeed Seward. The lofty office would suit Sumner's ego, and it would suit Johnson (or Lincoln) to have Sumner out of the senate and serving in a more apolitical role.

Sumner is way too Radical for Johnson. (I know that the Radicals for a brief period in 1865 thought that Johnson was their man, but that was not true even at the time). Maybe John Sherman? They got along well, they had campaigned together for Lincoln in Indiana in 1864, and as late as February 1866 Sherman defended Johnson's policies in the Senate. http://books.google.com/books?id=nXgsAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA155
 
It would definitely be a moderate Republican like Seward was. John Sherman would be interesting, considering his later presidential ambitions. Johnson's unpopularity would ruin that for him.

I don't think Johnson would pick a Radical. Lincoln could probably stand one, but both men would go for someone more moderate.
 
Sherman in 1865 is a bit junior for such an exalted position, and not associated with foreign affairs. Sumner's radicalism in domestic matters wouldn't have much bearing on his performance as secretary of state. And, as I mentioned, it would suit Johnson (or Lincoln) to remove a powerful radical from the senate.
 
Sherman in 1865 is a bit junior for such an exalted position, and not associated with foreign affairs. Sumner's radicalism in domestic matters wouldn't have much bearing on his performance as secretary of state. And, as I mentioned, it would suit Johnson (or Lincoln) to remove a powerful radical from the senate.

True, but Johnson couldn't stand radicals at all. He dismissed Edwin Stanton after all, which led to his impeachment. Sherman was politically inexperienced, but I feel Seward's replacement would be cut of the same cloth.
 
Another possibility is Charles Francis Adams, the minister to the Court of St. James who had been instrumental in maintaining British neutrality during the war. He was a Republican, but not especially radical as far as I can tell, given that he later supported Tilden. He had pipped Sumner for the job of ambassador to Britain, so it would be poetic if he beat out Sumner for secretary of state.
 
Bringing this back, how would the replacement (Adams, Dix, whoever) react to events like the Alaskan Purchase? Would any of them turn down the offer? Seward was a fervent expansionist and the decision was very controversial.

Would they be like Seward and support Johnson during his impeachment? Seward organized a lot of efforts to convince Senators to acquit Johnson. With the vote as close as it is (one vote from conviction), it's possible they aren't as successful and Johnson is removed from office.
 
Is there a possibility that Johnson might think outside the box, and reach for someone like Ulysses Grant? Not that he's particularly well-qualified to be Secretary of State, of course, but it would have been very well-received. There's no way in hell the Republicans in the senate wouldn't vote to confirm him.
 
Is there a possibility that Johnson might think outside the box, and reach for someone like Ulysses Grant? Not that he's particularly well-qualified to be Secretary of State, of course, but it would have been very well-received. There's no way in hell the Republicans in the senate wouldn't vote to confirm him.

Grant would likely get it, especially in 1865. There is the issue of him having no prior political experience though.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Grant becoming secretary of state to Johnson does a couple of things:

1) it gives him the "statesman" mien that he did not have otherwise at the time of the presidential campaign;

2) it moves (presumably) WT Sherman into place as general-in-chief almost immediately postwar; although Sherman was willing to be easy on the rebels (as witness his terms for JE Johnston) he was also a fervent practitioner of the hard hand when necessary....the early years of reconstruction may look somewhat different.

Best,
 

U.S David

Banned
Either U.S Grant or W.T Sherman. Both good popular generals who won the war.

Its funny, after Johnson's surrender, Sherman gave him good terms. Congress was so mad that they were afraid Sherman would march his army to Washington and become dictator. That would be an amazing timeline.
 
1) it gives him the "statesman" mien that he did not have otherwise at the time of the presidential campaign;

The purchase of Alaska will now be known to history as ''Grant's Folly''.

2) it moves (presumably) WT Sherman into place as general-in-chief almost immediately postwar; although Sherman was willing to be easy on the rebels (as witness his terms for JE Johnston) he was also a fervent practitioner of the hard hand when necessary....the early years of reconstruction may look somewhat different.

Best,

Yes, I imagine Sherman would succeed Grant as general-in-chief of the army in this scenario.
 
Top