James Swanson in the Wall Street Journal

[L Verge]

(04-24-2015 09:48 AM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  Jim, you are not the only one who feels that way. The choice to dump Hannibal Hamlin and replace him with someone like Johnson was an example of crafty political pragmatism on the part of Lincoln. It was Lincoln being what he was-in addition to his "better angels" qualities...a hard nosed politico. It reminds me of JFK's decision to pick another Southerner named Johnson as his running mate in 1960.

I agree about the questionable choice of Johnson. I don't want to be the one to have to do the research on why this choice was agreed to OR whether or not Johnson was as miserable as some authors have suggested. However, I have had at least one author, Gene Smith, tell me that the hatchet-job that historians have done was not entirely justified.

My question has always been whether or not Reconstruction would have really gone so smoothly as we anticipate under Lincoln. Would the Radical Republicans (and others) have cooperated once the war was over? Weren't they the ones hell-bent for leather to punish the South? Has Johnson become a scape-goat? I just can't believe that Lincoln would have allowed Johnson on the ticket if he was such a loser - politics aside.