What if John Wilkes Booth's conspiracy was more successful?

Circle of Willis

Well-known member
Since there seems to be a bit of an ACW kick right now, an interesting WI has occurred to me: per the title, what if John Wilkes Booth and his co-conspirators had seen to the deaths of all their targets? Historically besides Lincoln, they were also gunning for Vice President Andrew Johnson (targeted by George Atzerodt) and Secretary of State William Seward (targeted by Lewis Powell). However while Booth himself succeeded in assassinating the president, his compatriots failed; Atzerodt got drunk and bailed instead of trying to kill Johnson, while Powell nearly took out Seward (already injured from a carriage accident) and his second son Frederick but was foiled by the guards & Seward's neck brace.

So, what if Atzerodt and Powell had successfully assassinated the VP and SoS? Who succeeds Lincoln with such a POD, and how would they handle - among other issues - the Confederate forces still active post-Appomattox (such as Edmund Kirby Smith's army west of the Mississippi), Reconstruction, the French intervention in Mexico and post-war American expansion (historically, Alaska and also an attempt at Santo Domingo)?
 

Circle of Willis

Well-known member
Interesting - how much more violent and ruthless do you foresee the North being? For example, would land confiscations (followed by redistribution to Southern Unionists, Northern 'carpetbaggers', the freedmen or more likely all three) be on the table, or even Charles Sumner's state suicide theory (basically the idea that by seceding, the South had essentially killed themselves as American states, and the federal gov't now had the right to draw the borders of new states to replace them however they wanted) being realized?

On the flipside, I'd imagine that with Johnston's and Kirby Smith's armies still active at the time of the assassinations and unlikely to bend the knee to a more vengeful Union, the South already has the tools to make the Reconstruction period bloodier from their end as well.

On a side note, going by the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 it seems that in case the President & VP are both taken out, the president pro tempore of the Senate gets the presidency. In April 1865 that would be a guy named Lafayette Foster, who seems to be a fairly unremarkable individual with variable partisan leanings; however by the same act, he wouldn't be president any longer past December 1865, since a special election has to be held to replace the deceased Lincoln & Johnson. That's where a Radical Republican can get in on a wave of national outrage over the three assassinations, and there's certainly quite a few choices there - John Fremont (the 1856 GOP nominee and briefly a Radical Republican challenger to Lincoln himself in 1864), Benjamin Wade, Charles Sumner, and Thaddeus Stevens all come to mind. (I'd assume Grant will have his hands full with suppressing remaining Confederate resistance, as will the other politically-minded generals like Benjamin Butler, preventing them from running that year)
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Lafayette Foster had an unremarkable career but was remembered at the time as an impressive debater and orator and jurist of his time. He was a moderate (conservative) Republican but apparently fairly supportive of the military despite having never served himself.

The South better pray they get all three because if Johnson and Lincoln are off'd (and Grant too perhaps) then having Seward (and Stanton) in the cabinet and thus somewhat in charge either figuratively or literally would really be racking the South over the coals. This might get worse if Grant was assassinated as well (he was supposed to be with Lincoln at the time) because then you'd get someone like Sherman or Sheridan in charge of the US Army and they will likely not be feeling merciful.

A Foster Presidency would be a strong Republican one and he'd likely work with Stanton (as opposed to attempt to remove him like Andrew Johnson tried to do and almost get impeached for) and other Radical Republicans in ensuring that the attempts at Reconstruction won't be as half assed as it was under Andrew Johnson and thus keep up the pressure longer and earlier, when it really mattered.

Stanton wanted a strong military occupation of the South and had the backing of the Republicans in Congress who felt Andrew Johnson's Amnesty plan was way too generous (in that the Southerners only had to recognize the Thirteenth Amendment regarding slavery) and the Republican platform was endorsed when they won big in the elections of 1866 against the Democrats.
 

Buba

A total creep
Lafayette Foster, who seems to be a fairly unremarkable individual with variable partisan leanings; however by the same act, he wouldn't be president any longer past December 1865, since a special election has to be held to replace the deceased Lincoln & Johnson.
Wiki says that winners (POTUS+VP) of such an election serve "full four year terms".
Does this mean that the POTUS election cycle is changed?
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Well a Special Election means that Grant would be elevated to the Presidency sooner rather then later (unless he too is assassinated) so I'm not sure if there'd be much dramatic change initially in regards to treatment of the South between Foster and Grant. The rest of the Lincoln cabinet would likely still be in place and we'd have a Cabinet which has Stanton and Grant working together which would be interesting to say the least I suppose.

What would be crazy is if Grant wasn't a potential nominee because if not, there's loads of high profile Republicans who did want to be President. Secretary Seward obviously, but he's dead in this scenario. But also Major General Francis Blair Jr (brother of Postmaster General Montgomery Blair), former Ohio Governor, Secretary of State and current Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, and Attorney General Edward Bates! The next Republican Convention would be... radical. :cool:
 

Circle of Willis

Well-known member
Lafayette Foster had an unremarkable career but was remembered at the time as an impressive debater and orator and jurist of his time. He was a moderate (conservative) Republican but apparently fairly supportive of the military despite having never served himself.

The South better pray they get all three because if Johnson and Lincoln are off'd (and Grant too perhaps) then having Seward (and Stanton) in the cabinet and thus somewhat in charge either figuratively or literally would really be racking the South over the coals. This might get worse if Grant was assassinated as well (he was supposed to be with Lincoln at the time) because then you'd get someone like Sherman or Sheridan in charge of the US Army and they will likely not be feeling merciful.

A Foster Presidency would be a strong Republican one and he'd likely work with Stanton (as opposed to attempt to remove him like Andrew Johnson tried to do and almost get impeached for) and other Radical Republicans in ensuring that the attempts at Reconstruction won't be as half assed as it was under Andrew Johnson and thus keep up the pressure longer and earlier, when it really mattered.

Stanton wanted a strong military occupation of the South and had the backing of the Republicans in Congress who felt Andrew Johnson's Amnesty plan was way too generous (in that the Southerners only had to recognize the Thirteenth Amendment regarding slavery) and the Republican platform was endorsed when they won big in the elections of 1866 against the Democrats.
Interesting point re: Grant dying. In such a situation it seems to me like Sherman would be his likeliest successor, since he did enjoy a similarly senior stature among the Union generals and historically succeeded Grant as Commanding General of the US Army IRL when the latter became president. IIRC he shared the racial attitudes common to his time and could certainly demonstrate the ruthlessness he was famous for toward the freedmen - abandoning hundreds of them to drown or be re-enslaved by Joseph Wheeler's cavalry at Ebenezer Creek comes to mind - but he was also the source of the '40 acres and a mule' special order. I don't doubt he'd be as hard on any remaining pockets of resistance in the South as he had to be to snuff them out for good, but would he be able to forge a peace that can last in the long term and, well, actually Reconstruct the South during Reconstruction?

I mentioned it in an earlier post, but with a harsher Reconstruction and consequently even more violent and widespread Southern resistance (comparable to the paramilitaries of the mid-1870s pushed a decade back and multiplied several times over, perhaps, if not involving entire Confederate armies still operating as guerrillas) I'm not sure a surviving Grant would want to run in the special election immediately following the Booth conspiracy. He might still be needed to lead efforts to keep order in the South with Sherman, Sheridan and the rest of the gang as his subordinates. I could see him running after the next president (or a Foster who serves out full terms of his own) is done and the situation has stabilized somewhat, though.

Agree that Foster wouldn't antagonize Stanton and the Radicals, despite their differences, and certainly wouldn't go full Johnson in screwing everything up. Do you think he'd try to run for a full term himself? Though admittedly, if he does I don't see his chances vs. the hard-line Radicals being too great in the post-Booth climate unless he's done a really outstanding job as acting president. In addition to the names already bandied around this thread, I could also see House Speaker Schuyler Colfax throwing his hat into the ring - he was Grant's VP historically, was another Radical Republican, and seems to have been popular with the rest of the party.
Wiki says that winners (POTUS+VP) of such an election serve "full four year terms".
Does this mean that the POTUS election cycle is changed?
Yeah, I guess an 1865 election would mess up the elections falling on even years (X0, X2, X4, X6, X8...). Instead we'd have elections falling a year ahead of where I've grown used to them being - 1873, 1881, 1897 and so on. Would also mean no more perfectly turn-of-the-century elections, with 1901 and 2001 elections instead of 1900 and 2000 ones.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Interesting point re: Grant dying. In such a situation it seems to me like Sherman would be his likeliest successor, since he did enjoy a similarly senior stature among the Union generals and historically succeeded Grant as Commanding General of the US Army IRL when the latter became president. IIRC he shared the racial attitudes common to his time and could certainly demonstrate the ruthlessness he was famous for toward the freedmen - abandoning hundreds of them to drown or be re-enslaved by Joseph Wheeler's cavalry at Ebenezer Creek comes to mind - but he was also the source of the '40 acres and a mule' special order. I don't doubt he'd be as hard on any remaining pockets of resistance in the South as he had to be to snuff them out for good, but would he be able to forge a peace that can last in the long term and, well, actually Reconstruct the South during Reconstruction?

I mentioned it in an earlier post, but with a harsher Reconstruction and consequently even more violent and widespread Southern resistance (comparable to the paramilitaries of the mid-1870s pushed a decade back and multiplied several times over, perhaps, if not involving entire Confederate armies still operating as guerrillas) I'm not sure a surviving Grant would want to run in the special election immediately following the Booth conspiracy. He might still be needed to lead efforts to keep order in the South with Sherman, Sheridan and the rest of the gang as his subordinates. I could see him running after the next president (or a Foster who serves out full terms of his own) is done and the situation has stabilized somewhat, though.

Agree that Foster wouldn't antagonize Stanton and the Radicals, despite their differences, and certainly wouldn't go full Johnson in screwing everything up. Do you think he'd try to run for a full term himself? Though admittedly, if he does I don't see his chances vs. the hard-line Radicals being too great in the post-Booth climate unless he's done a really outstanding job as acting president. In addition to the names already bandied around this thread, I could also see House Speaker Schuyler Colfax throwing his hat into the ring - he was Grant's VP historically, was another Radical Republican, and seems to have been popular with the rest of the party.

Well I don't know about how 'brutal' a Reconstruction would be, as much as it wouldn't be as permissive and easily subverted as it was in our timeline. For all of the haranguing about war crimes during the war committed in say, Sherman's March to the Sea, I'm fairly confident that the number of civilians killed during that entire March by Federal troops was probably in the double digits at worst. There was a lot of looting and burning, but I don't recall hearing much raping or murdering or the like.

When the War actually being over, I imagine the Reconstruction backed by the Federal military would be more strict, and any brutality would be in regards to actual insurrectionists. Force would be met with overwhelming force as opposed to just crushing everyone under their heel until they learn to be good Unionists. So Reconstruction might be longer, but I do feel it would be more successful. A lot of previously known hardliners did eventually accept the way of things or at least moderated themselves, The likely actual war criminal General Nathan Bedford Forrest himself is actually one known example.

In regards to elections, I don't think Foster is someone who really desired to be a President or anything. No one really seemed to talk about him having Presidential ambitions or anything beyond being a notable legislator. And yeah, he wouldn't really have the support in his own Party or at large I feel when compared with the other powerful well known individuals that could be in play. So whether its a special election in 1865 or later, I imagine Foster won't last past the next election cycle because he'd likely decline to run at all.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top