Hamlin vs. Johnson

[L Verge]

Interesting answer on Quora Digest regarding whether or not things would have been different during Reconstruction if Hamlin had been kept on Lincoln's ticket in 1864:

Hannibal Hamlin wasn’t replaced because of anything bad he did. In fact, he was a respected elder statesman who later served two terms as a Senator from his home state of Maine, and who lived until 1891, outliving many of the other key figures of the Civil War.

The reason Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson in 1864 was because at the time of the Republican convention that year, it wasn’t certain that Lincoln would win re-election. Johnson was a “War Democrat” from a border state that had actually seceded (Tennessee), and it was thought that adding him to the ticket would draw off support from McClellan, who was relying on the support of “Copperheads” like Clement Vallandigham for his support. McClellan’s official position was to restore the Union peacefully, but he likely knew that wouldn’t be possible, given the supporters he had.

In any case, Hamlin was more in line with the Radical Republican faction, the group that desired the abolition of slavery even before the war. Hamlin strongly encouraged Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862.

As it turned out, Lincoln didn’t need Johnson. After the fall of Atlanta in September of 1864, he was going to win even if he’d somehow had Vallandigham as a running-mate. (Not that there was a chance in Hell of that.) But he’d chosen Johnson, and so he was stuck with him. It likely never would have been a problem, if not for the man I consider the worst American who ever lived, for the consequences of his actions: John Cate's answer to Who is (or was) the worst American ever?

The first thing I have to wonder is if John Wilkes Booth would have even killed Lincoln, if he knew this would make Hamlin, a man known to be in league with the Radicals, the new President, rather than Johnson, who was a Southerner and a pre-war Democrat. Booth is not known to have commented on this, but he surely knew. His stated motivation was to keep the war going, but regardless if it did or not, he probably figured the South was better off with Johnson as President of the U.S. But we’ll say that Booth shot Lincoln anyway, and Hannibal Hamlin becomes the 17th President.

In this scenario, none of the battles between the Congress and the Executive Branch ever happen. Hamlin probably wouldn’t have done everything that Thaddeus Stevens and Co. tried to get him to, but there wouldn’t have been the outright warfare that there was with Johnson. Reconstruction would have been more effective and former Confederates would not have had their civil rights restored as quickly as they did in our own time line. Hamlin might have looked more sympathetically at plans to help the freedmen adjust to their new lives. The Southern Homestead Act of 1866, an attempt by Congress to provide freedmen with their promised “40 acres and a mule,” probably would have been properly implemented (it was stonewalled by Southern authorities in our own time).

I think it is inevitable that in due time, the former Confederates would have regained political control. But they would have done so in an environment far less favorable to their agenda. The Reconstruction period would have lasted longer, laws protecting the rights of freedmen better enforced, and it’s doubtful Jim Crow would have been as draconian.

This is the best-case scenario. There are much darker ones that could have arisen. Even in Johnson’s presidency, Southern resentment of Reconstruction led to the Ku Klux Klan. A stronger Reconstruction policy might have led to even more violence or even an outright rebellion. The idea of hundreds of thousands of former Confederate soldiers under the command of Nathan Bedford Forrest, waging a guerrilla war in both North and South—I don’t even want to speculate on. Hamlin, I think, would have been able to thread the needle and avoid this outcome. The question would have been if Stevens would have let him, or would he have eventually tried the same power grab he attempted against Johnson?

As John C. Breckinridge said when he heard of Lincoln’s assassination, “the South has lost its best friend.” The best outcome would have been that Booth not murder Lincoln, no matter who the VP was. Lincoln had the auctoritas to ensure that Reconstruction was done in a prudent, but effective, manner, regardless of objections from either side. He was the only man who did. When Booth fired his pistol, he made things worse for everyone, and we’re still paying the price today.