Did Booth want Johnson to be president?

[JMadonna]

Just spitballing here.

There is no physical evidence to show that Andrew Johnson was ever a target for assassination. All we have is testimony from Atzerodt that Booth ordered him to do so around 7:30 that night and that he refused to do so.

Surely, Booth knew enough about Atzerodt's character to know that he'd refuse. So was this just a hoax being perpetrated to give Johnson cover and that he was designated to be the prime beneficiary of the assassination?

The South could have had no greater friend than Johnson in the White House at this time.

Possible? Probable? or somewhere in between?

[RJNorton]

If Andrew Johnson had also been assassinated, as I believe Booth had planned, Senate President Pro Tempore Lafayette S. Foster of Connecticut would have become Acting President pending an election of a new President (the process of electing a new President could only be set in motion by the Secretary of State; thus Booth felt Seward's assassination would throw the Union government into "electoral chaos"). A Presidential Succession law passed on March 1, 1792, was still in effect in 1865. It provided that the President Pro Tempore of the Senate was third in line to the Presidency and the Speaker of the House was fourth. This law didn't make any succession provisions beyond the Speaker.

On the day of the assassination Booth had a noontime conversation with John F. Coyle, part-owner and editor of the Washington Daily National Intelligencer. In the conversation Booth quizzed Coyle on the line of secession:

Booth: “Suppose Lincoln was killed, what would be the result?"
Coyle: “Johnson would succeed.”
Booth: “But if he was killed?”
Coyle: “Then Seward.”
Booth: “But suppose he was killed, then what?”
Coyle: “Then anarchy or whatever the Constitution provides.”

Coyle went on to say, “What nonsense, they don’t make Brutuses nowadays.”
Booth replied, “No, they do not.”

The above conversation was published in the Washington Post and is also included in the article entitled "Why Seward?" by Michael Maione and James O. Hall in the Spring 1998 edition of the Lincoln Herald.

Jerry, if this conversation be true, then I think there is a good argument that Booth's goal was to create chaos in the Union government, and Johnson's death was a part of that.

[JMadonna]

(09-09-2021 04:00 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Jerry, if this conversation be true, then I think there is a good argument that Booth's goal was to create chaos in the Union government, and Johnson's death was a part of that.

Agreed. What I'm saying is that when it became obvious to Booth that his Plan A became unfeasible, due to Atzerodt's refusal, his Plan B was to let Johnson live rather than send Powell after him. Why?

With Johnson alive the death of Seward meant nothing if mass confusion was his goal. I'm speculating that removing Lincoln and putting the Southerner, a man Booth knew into power, was the outcome he consciously chose.

[RJNorton]

I understand what you are saying, Jerry, and it does indeed make sense for Booth to want a Southerner in the White House.

Let me ask a question, as my aging brain cannot recall if I really read the following: could I have read somewhere that when Atzerodt refused the job (of killing Johnson) Booth then asked Herold to do it?

[JMadonna]

(09-09-2021 08:34 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Let me ask a question, as my aging brain cannot recall if I really read the following: could I have read somewhere that when Atzerodt refused the job (of killing Johnson) Booth then asked Herold to do it?

Yes, your aging brain is still functioning well. Atzerodt said that when he refused, Booth gave the task to Herold.

But, the government didn't believe him. Indeed, there is no evidence to back up his claim. The only ones who could have confirmed that assertion would have been Powell or Herold and unless my aging brain has forgotten something, I believe the historical record is silent on this subject.