| Aug 20 @ 9:27 PM |
A history thread: A different vice-president?
|
|
RareQuestor
Posts: 2,652
|
Since history is his secret weakness, I thought I would start a history thread in order to ensure that MotownManiax spends more time in the forums. (Take note, ladies: if you have any designs on this eligible young bachelor from Michigan, all you have to do is show up at his door with an armful of history books and he will be utterly unable to resist you!  )
As anyone familiar with American history knows, Abraham Lincoln's choice of Andrew Johnson as Vice-President ultimately proved to be disastrous. Johnson's racism and inability to compromise were a significant reason why Reconstruction failed and Southern bigots were able to maintain white supremacy for another century.
At that time, however, Lincoln desperately needed to strengthen his political base. The possibility that he would be defeated by McClellan in the 1864 election was very real and Lincoln believed that Johnson would appeal to voters in the border states. (Ironically, Sherman's military victories did more to ensure Lincoln's reelection than any of the political moves that Lincoln devised.)
Let us suppose that his advisers were able to convince Lincoln that Johnson was a bad choice. Who else was he likely to have chosen as a candidate?
As I ponder this question, I realized that it is easier to determine who Lincoln would not have selected. Lincoln never would have chosen any of his generals--not even Grant or Sherman. He needed all of his generals in the field to win the war and most of his previous generals had performed so poorly that they would have been a liability rather than an asset. I also believe that Lincoln would not have chosen either Edwin Stanton, William Seward or Salmon P. Chase. Lincoln respected his Secretary of War's talents as an administrator, but knew that he was no politician and probably would have antagonized most of Congress sooner or later. Seward was much more useful to Lincoln as his Secretary of State than he would have been as a Vice-President. Chase had been maneuvering to become President for decades and had actually sought the Republican nomination in 1864 before Lincoln adroitly nipped it in the bud. Lincoln certainly would not have wanted him in an office just one step away from the Presidency!
Who do you think Lincoln might have or should have chosen? 
|
|
  |
|
| Aug 21 @ 4:18 AM |
A history thread: A different vice-president? |
|
MotownManiax
Posts: 9,737
|
RQ, never mind Veep. I think YOU would make a splendid prez. I'd be more than happy to be your campaign mgr, Good Buddy. 
|
| |
|
| Aug 21 @ 4:24 AM |
A history thread: A different vice-president?
|
|
bardnsage
Posts: 1,171
|
Johnson's racism and inability to compromise were a significant reason why Reconstruction failed and Southern bigots were able to maintain white supremacy for another century.
Wow,,, he was in office for a long time.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 21 @ 7:05 AM |
A history thread: A different vice-president? |
|
MotownManiax
Posts: 9,737
|
Johnson took over at a critical time, at the start of Reconstruction, when wise, magnanimous vision and policies could have avoided alienating the newly conquered South and put Reconstruction on a much healthier path.
It was a moment in history of the unforgiving minute, when a strong but fair president would have made all the difference. Johnson failed miserably. He lacked Lincoln's extraordinary political skills, nuance, and the ability to build strong coalitions to further his wishes. Because of Johnson's failure, many historians say he insured Southern resistance for many years afterward.
Not sure who Lincoln could have picked instead of Johnson, RQ? I'll have to research.
 Mo
|
| |
|
| Aug 21 @ 11:42 AM |
A history thread: A different vice-president?
|
|
RareQuestor
Posts: 2,652
|
Here is an article from American Heritage which examines why Andrew Johnson was not equal to the challenge of Reconstruction.
Why They Impeached Andrew Johnson
And here is a blog which examines some of the alternatives that Lincoln had:
So Who Should Lincoln Have Chosen in 1864?
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 21 @ 1:03 PM |
A history thread: A different vice-president? |
|
eastham
Posts: 7,907
|
Hannibal Hamlin was Lincoln's first vice president, serving from 1861-1865. He was the first Republican vice-president. He had previously served as Governor of Maine, a member of the House and the Senate and was US ambassador to Spain. He was a noted abolitionist and was chosen by Lincoln, who he did not meet until after the election, because Maine was the first state to establish a Republican Party and because he provided regional balance to the ticket.
The Republicans changed their name temporarily to the National Union Party and compelled Lincoln to replace Hamlin with Johnson. Hamlin's biggest misstep was that he had been a strong supporter for Joseph Hooker to be the commander of the Army of the Potomac and Hooker was a disaster. Also, Johnson was the only Southern Senator who refused to leave the Senate after Tennessee joined the Confederacy. Johnson also served, and quite ably, as the governor of occupied Tennessee. Many of Hamlin's old colleagues were instrumental in Johnson's impeachment, so one wonders how much Johnson's travails were his own failure.
|
| |
|
| Aug 21 @ 5:31 PM |
A history thread: A different vice-president?
|
|
bardnsage
Posts: 1,171
|
He lacked Lincoln's extraordinary political skills, nuance, and the ability to build strong coalitions to further his wishes.
I can't think of many presidents we have ever had who had the polictial savy of Lincoln. He was extrodinary.
He was able to pursue his goal,, single mindly,,, and bent all other issues in the pursuit of that goal.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 21 @ 6:29 PM |
A history thread: A different vice-president? |
|
MotownManiax
Posts: 9,737
|
Excellent info, RQ and East. 
Exactly Bard. Any choice for VP is of course handicapped by the realization that replacing a giant like Lincoln was darn near impossible. We were lucky he was president in the first place and got us through the most difficult time in our history. Without Lincoln there is a very real possibility we would not have survived as the nation we now take for granted.
|
| |
|
| Aug 21 @ 7:17 PM |
A history thread: A different vice-president?
|
|
Jankia
Posts: 11,900
|
Let us suppose that his advisers were able to convince Lincoln that Johnson was a bad choice. Who else was he likely to have chosen as a candidate?
You might not think so but I believe the man he postioned as
the Secretary of the Treasury was also as likely to be placed as his running mate as well if not for the influence that Mary Todd had on his appointments.
In wanting to appeal to border states he should have chosen Edward Bates from Missouri instead of Johnson.
Thats easy to say 150 years later. 
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 22 @ 9:32 AM |
A history thread: A different vice-president? |
|
eastham
Posts: 7,907
|
Bates would certainly have been an interesting choice, but he was over 70 at the time of Lincoln's re-election.
|
| |
|
| Aug 22 @ 9:33 AM |
A history thread: A different vice-president?
|
|
burnslikethesun
Posts: 13,027
|
What I find interested is Lincolns talent to find opposing minds to balance out his own belief. A trait I respect.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 22 @ 9:42 AM |
A history thread: A different vice-president? |
|
eastham
Posts: 7,907
|
Perhaps we are looking at this the wrong way. Although Lincoln certainly had faced attempts on his life before, there is no reason to think that Lincoln truly believed he would die. So if you come at it from that perspective, then Johnson was a short-term solution. If Lincoln had thought about a 3rd term, he would probably have chosen a third vice-president.
|
| |
|
| Aug 22 @ 10:34 AM |
A history thread: A different vice-president?
|
|
RareQuestor
Posts: 2,652
|
You might not think so but I believe the man he postioned as
the Secretary of the Treasury was also as likely to be placed as his running mate as well if not for the influence that Mary Todd had on his appointments.
Even as Secretary of the Treasury, Chase plotted to succeed Lincoln. (He had been one Lincoln's rivals in the 1860 election.) This occasionally forced Lincoln to waste time thwarting Chase and soothing ruffled feathers that would have been better spent winning the war. In fact, Chase almost cost him the services of William Seward whom Lincoln greatly respected and counted as one of his closest friends. Lincoln finally solved the problem by appointing Chase to the Supreme Court. (It was a clever move since Chase would still be able to advance Lincoln's agenda--he had supported emancipation long before Lincoln had--and yet effectively eliminated him as a political rival.) It just seems unlikely to me that Lincoln would want Chase in an office where he could potentially cause even more trouble. In fairness to Chase, of course, he was a superb Treasurer and one of the primary reasons why the North won the war. He also served the nation well as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 22 @ 10:59 AM |
A history thread: A different vice-president? |
|
RareQuestor
Posts: 2,652
|
Perhaps we are looking at this the wrong way. Although Lincoln certainly had faced attempts on his life before, there is no reason to think that Lincoln truly believed he would die. So if you come at it from that perspective, then Johnson was a short-term solution. If Lincoln had thought about a 3rd term, he would probably have chosen a third vice-president.
This is certainly true, but it illustrates a dilemma that every leader and statesman must grapple with: Should decisions be made on a political or moral basis?
Although Lincoln is now remembered primarily for his moral decisions--the Emancipation Proclamation is the most famous example--quite a few of his decisions were political. Some of those decisions were wise, others were misguided and not a few were just plain dumb. Yet he was a very effective President. (I consider him second only to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.) In contrast, Jimmy Carter made more decisions on a moral basis than any President since Truman and yet he was a poor president and few of those decisions had any real effect.
This is not just a historical issue. It is very relevant even now. The outrage over Scotland's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is just one example. Few would dispute that it is an immoral decision. Is it a bad political decision as well? It could improve Britain's access to Libya's oil reserves which would mean economic growth and more jobs for British men and women. Is that a worthy goal? Which is more important: the outrage of a few families or the welfare of the nation? The paradox, of course, is that when you make decisions strictly on a political basis, you end up with Stalin or Hitler. When you make decisions strictly on a moral basis, you end up with the Pope. Maintaining a balance between the two extremes is the challenge of every true statesman.
|
| |
|
| Aug 22 @ 11:43 AM |
A history thread: A different vice-president?
|
|
MotownManiax
Posts: 9,737
|
One of the greatest tragedies of the Civil War was so many ambitious, talented people died actually "fighting" in the war. There was a huge pool of up-and-coming politicians that joined, served, and died without ever reaching their full potential. Who knows how Reconstruction would have benefited from their influence?
What's clear in his writings and correspondences is Lincoln thought very highly of many people, and thought they'd make splendid appointments to a variety of public service jobs. But many died in the war, a sorrow he deeply felt and I'm sure contributed to his always present melancholy.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 22 @ 12:06 PM |
A history thread: A different vice-president? |
|
MotownManiax
Posts: 9,737
|
Excellent analysis, btw, RQ. You never cease to amaze and impress.
Doing some research just now I ran across FDR's magnificent D-Day speech, one of the greatest in American history. Read and listen here. Just another example of FDR's unique ability to connect to the people and spells out exactly what we were fighting for. It's not a stretch to substitute its meaning for our goals in Afghanistan.
|
| |
|
| Aug 22 @ 12:08 PM |
A history thread: A different vice-president?
|
|
eastham
Posts: 7,907
|
Johnson shared Lincoln's belief that an expeditious and conciliatory Reconstruction would serve the Union as a whole. Hamlin, Lincoln's first vice president, was certainly morally correct in opposition to slavery, but did Hamlin or other's on his behalf, do the country or Johnson any good by their firm belief that that South needed to be thoroughly punished? Certainly, they did not do Johnson any good.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 22 @ 1:05 PM |
A history thread: A different vice-president? |
|
bardnsage
Posts: 1,171
|
Just for the record,,, this a refreshing thread.
|
| |
|
| Aug 22 @ 1:16 PM |
A history thread: A different vice-president?
|
|
MotownManiax
Posts: 9,737
|
Thank RQ for that, Bard.
Nice analysis, East.
The best possibility for a successful Reconstruction (and I certainly won't pretend to know exactly "how" that should have been achieved...lol) was through firm, but magnanimous and altruistic federal direction.
Lincoln had partially formulated a plan of action before his assassination, but was astute enough to know nothing should be set in concrete. Post-war dynamics were way too difficult to prejudge, so any policy path would need adjustment along the way. That meant he realized mistakes were bound to happen. Lincoln made plenty during the war. His genius was respecting that fact and recognizing when to modify reaction and render wiser decisions when needed (and demanded).
Johnson (or anyone else for that matter) was supremely tested in the ability to make those kinds of adjustments after the war. There is no question he failed in that. He was obstinate, scornful of coalition-building, prideful, and singularly bull-headed in sticking with a decision no matter what, even when it was shown to be unwise and counterproductive. He was slow to react to a fast, ever-changing reality but quick to make sensitive, far-reaching decisions.
Moreover, the more I think about it, I'm not sure if "anybody" would have been up to the task other than Lincoln himself?
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 22 @ 1:21 PM |
A history thread: A different vice-president? |
|
eastham
Posts: 7,907
|
You make a good point, Motown, would anyone have been up to the task? If Hamlin had remained Lincoln's Vice President in his second term and succeeded him after the assassination, would he have been able to put the fragile Union back together. Morally, he was in the right place, but he was certainly no less rigid than Johnson.
|
| |
|
|