Andrew Johnson convicted
- Thread starter tom
- Start date
Immediate result - Ben Wade sits in the Whit House for nine months, keeping the chairs warm for General Grant. Possibly does a term as VP.
Lomg term result - little or nothing. All the Reconstruction Acts had been passed the year before and were in process of being carried out, so there's nothing in particular for Wade to do. He just becomes a minor historical footnote. .
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I think potentially very far-reaching effects, because it then becomes a point of pride for Congress to make Reconstruction work.
Not sure I follow. Why should it be any more of "a point of pride" just because an unpopular POTUS has left office nine months early?
They already had shown that, both by impeaching Johnson and by passing the Reconstruction Acts over his veto. And they did what they could in the way of enforcement by passing the Ku Klux Acts later.
Anyway, once it is clear that ex-Rebs have accepted the verdict of Appomattox and won't be rebelling again any time soon, Reconstruction has no real purpose. It will quickly cease to be a vote-winner in the North and so Congress will lose interest.
I think it does get more impetus for reconstruction, if anything the executive branch is controlled by an executive who is actually for the measures for an additional nine months. The effects on the federal system would be far reaching, as it would demonstrate the superiority of Congress over the presidency (as it was the presidency was weaker than usual in American history in the decades after the impeachment) and there would be a test of what happens if there is a vacancy in the Presidency if there is no Vice President around. Remember that people weren't sure what should happen when Harrison died in 1841, and there are still serious constitutional scholars who argue that Congress can't designate a legislative branch officer to act as President in the event of a vacancy, since Wade was a legislative branch official he actually acting as President would put an end to those arguments.
Only when the President's opponents have a two-thirds majority in the Senate - something which only happens once in a blue moon. It would mean little or nothing once the country had settled back into a normal two-party system..
Johnson is impeached on May 16 or on May 26.
According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 President Pro Tempore Benjamin Wade is sworn as Acting President and have to call a special election no fewer than two months later.
So the 1868 election so anticipated in the middle of July.
Republicans had nominated Grant at their National Convention in Chicago on May 21. Probably Wade is able to use his new influence to win the VP nomination.
Democrats are forced to anticipate their National Convention in New York at least to early June: rushing to find a candidate, they can not wait until Seymour is persuaded to run and quickly nominate George Pendleton from Ohio, their frontrunner and 1864 VP candidate, and Francis Preston Blair Jr from Missouri as their ticket.
With few time and an arranged ticket Democrats lose clearly against Grant, losing also New York, New Jersey and Oregon, 257-37.
Grant is sworn as 18th President on March 4, 1869.
Without Colfax as VP Grant Administration would seem less corrupt and probably do better in 1872: he defeats Liberal Republican-National Democratic candidate Charles Francis Adams, after the former Minister to Britain has defeated editor Horace Greeley for nomination, mainly due strong support of Greeley for Johnson's impeachment, that was opposed by majority of Liberal Republicans (and of course Democrats). Grant probably swing Maryland und maybe Tennessee (if Adams is perceived as more Northern than Greeley), winning 306-46.
With less attention to corruption in 1876 Senator James Blaine from Maine can confirm his status of frontrunner and wins Republican Nomination. Then he faces New York Governor Samuel Tilden for Democrats and possibly wins narrowly, but not so narrowly as Hayes, probably avoiding the Compromise of 1877.
According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 President Pro Tempore Benjamin Wade is sworn as Acting President and have to call a special election no fewer than two months later.
So the 1868 election so anticipated in the middle of July.
Republicans had nominated Grant at their National Convention in Chicago on May 21. Probably Wade is able to use his new influence to win the VP nomination.
Democrats are forced to anticipate their National Convention in New York at least to early June: rushing to find a candidate, they can not wait until Seymour is persuaded to run and quickly nominate George Pendleton from Ohio, their frontrunner and 1864 VP candidate, and Francis Preston Blair Jr from Missouri as their ticket.
With few time and an arranged ticket Democrats lose clearly against Grant, losing also New York, New Jersey and Oregon, 257-37.
Grant is sworn as 18th President on March 4, 1869.
Without Colfax as VP Grant Administration would seem less corrupt and probably do better in 1872: he defeats Liberal Republican-National Democratic candidate Charles Francis Adams, after the former Minister to Britain has defeated editor Horace Greeley for nomination, mainly due strong support of Greeley for Johnson's impeachment, that was opposed by majority of Liberal Republicans (and of course Democrats). Grant probably swing Maryland und maybe Tennessee (if Adams is perceived as more Northern than Greeley), winning 306-46.
With less attention to corruption in 1876 Senator James Blaine from Maine can confirm his status of frontrunner and wins Republican Nomination. Then he faces New York Governor Samuel Tilden for Democrats and possibly wins narrowly, but not so narrowly as Hayes, probably avoiding the Compromise of 1877.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
And with the gowns and hoods, and the nightriding terror activity, almost seems designed to be unpopular, doesn’t it?
In a different re-roll, more energy might go into putting down the klan.
For how long?
Northern voters are certain to get bored with it before long, especially as it becomes clear that there is no danger of another rebellion, hence no particular purpose in carrying on with Reconstruction.
And there's certainly not the slightest reason to exnpect Andrew Johnson's removal to make much difference. The whole impeachment business was essentially a temper tantrum rather than serious politics. Note that only a few weeks after Johnson's acquittal, half a dozen "reconstructed" southern states were readmitted, bringing with the another dozen Senators, nearly all Republican. So if Congress had been desperate to get rid of AJ, they could simply have drafted new articles of impeachment and removed him with ease. They didn't bother, thus tacitly acknowledging that it made no real difference whether he was removed or not, so long as they were able to override his vetoes w/o too much troubles.
Last edited:
The 1868 amnesty (the only one issued after the impeachment) would almost certainly have been signed nine months later by Grant.
The will to punish anyone (bar the odd extreme case like the Commandant of Andersonville) simply did not exist Even the political disabilities imposed by S3 of the 14th Amendment were largely rescinded by 1872, despite Congress still being heavily Republican, and even while still in force had not prevented VA, NC, TN and GA from being "redeemed", nor all the Border States passing into Democratic hands.
One possible change. After having saddled themselves with Wade for nine months, Congress may reflect on how much more dignified Seward would have been, and bring in something like the 1886 Act two decades earlier. With that possible exception, Wade's Presidency would just be a minor historical footnote .
Last edited:
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
But human impatience may also work in our favor.
For example, if the klan is put down successfully, maybe as short a period as ten months, then when southern "leaders" later try to reboot it, say a couple of years later, the reaction of other white southerners who may even tend to agree with and sympathize with the pro-klan viewpoint may be — no, we tried that shit before.
Last edited:
The Klan was "put down" temporarily which was why Grant swept most of the South in the 1872 election. This, however, was probably as much from choice as anything, since Congress was then debating whether to lift the political disabilities imposed by the 14th Amendment (they did) and to extend the life of the Freedman's Bureau (they didn't) and Southerners wanted to avoid provoking Congress while those matters were under discussion. Best to let the gentlemen think they had won, until this business was settled, and wait for a spell before resuming business as usual.
Anyway, though, I don't really see where Johnson's impeachment comes into any of this, as by 1870/71 it was already ancient history. By then, ex-President Wade would have been merely an historical footnote or (what amounts to the same thing) a Vice-President with no more influence than VPs usually had.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
This is late in the game, as is the Feb. 24, 1868 vote of the House to impeach Johnson.
I do agree that the southern power structure, as well as those who suck up to them, are going to be damned determined and damned crafty in planning ways to hold onto that power.
However, there may be a few chinks in the armor,
for example, . . .
Last edited:
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
. . . Alright, the Edmund Pettus Bridge of Civil Rights fame a century later, and the guy it was named after during the Reconstruction era.
I’ve read that he lied to Congress when asked directly if they was a paramilitary group in the south with such-and-such characteristics. I’ve even heard this referred to as lying like a gentleman. Now, the people on his side may have had a sense of humor about it, the people he lied to, not so much.
(will try to pull reference)
Pettus did lie, but the quote came from Bedford Forrest!
https://books.google.com/books?id=W...had gone, Forrest winked and replied”&f=false
In fact, scholar on nonviolent action Gene Sharp has written that people often take lying more seriously that killing. It’s like it’s an emotional processing flaw in the part of us human beings (my conclusion). But as Gene has pointed out, dictators not necessarily lose power by killing political opponents, but often do erode their power and sometimes lose it by lying in various cheap ways.
the Edmund Pettus POD: His lying to Congress plays out a different way.
I’ve read that he lied to Congress when asked directly if they was a paramilitary group in the south with such-and-such characteristics. I’ve even heard this referred to as lying like a gentleman. Now, the people on his side may have had a sense of humor about it, the people he lied to, not so much.
(will try to pull reference)
Pettus did lie, but the quote came from Bedford Forrest!
https://books.google.com/books?id=W...had gone, Forrest winked and replied”&f=false
In fact, scholar on nonviolent action Gene Sharp has written that people often take lying more seriously that killing. It’s like it’s an emotional processing flaw in the part of us human beings (my conclusion). But as Gene has pointed out, dictators not necessarily lose power by killing political opponents, but often do erode their power and sometimes lose it by lying in various cheap ways.
the Edmund Pettus POD: His lying to Congress plays out a different way.
Last edited:
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
From the perspective of modest-income whites, undercut yet again!
Meaning, the opponents of a just Reconstruction aren’t always making the most winning moves.