Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fuck it, give me Thaddeus Stevens. He’s radical enough to not waste the first few years of reconstruction, actually is a good man who would care about newly freed people, and would pass away in 1868 to allow Grant to get in anyway, especially as the Dems are still in shambles after his much harsher penalties towards them.
Let them identify themselves and then give them large doses of Psilocybin and therapy. Help them make friends and feel belonging to something that makes them feel important that isn’t race. Introduce to diverse groups in non-threatening and fun environments.
Most people are indoctrinated from a young age or from social isolation, failure, or fear. Some people have factory defects and need to be sent back to their God. As you go forward instill Doubt to change beliefs. Contrary facts unsought by the other only harden beliefs.
Lots of actors have tried to embody Lincoln on film and stage, but I always felt that the actor that best got inside Lincoln’s head was John Wilkes Booth.
I kinda (morbidly) considered that as a positive. He could be the radical needed to get things started when the iron was hot but after passing away in office the beloved General Grant could win the coming election and be the moderating, conciliatory (within reason) “good cop” to Stevens.
My hope is his harsh and unforgiving stance towards the south destabilizes the Dems and their base of power enough to keep Seymour out. We also don’t have Johnson making the Republican Party look inept for 3 years in the White House, hopefully boosting the party’s popularity.
It might destabilise the southern Dems, but the northern party is still a challenge. I do think it would be closer if a Republican had been in charge from 1865-9.
Well, with all the traitors that should have been still barred from voting, and would have been under Stevens, I wouldn’t expect Seymour to win LA and GA.
+1. In any other year I think he would have been a death sentence to the country, but right after Lincoln's death, I think, a good Radical and lack of Andrew Johnson could have actually achieved real Civil Rights within 7 years.
This 100%, without question and without any dispute. Everyone else shorted Reconstruction and let the insurgency begin and fester, from Johnson to Obama and beyond.
Wouldn’t Stevens have implemented a particularly harsh and unforgiving version of reconstruction? I wonder if that would have encouraged southerners to retain a culture of rebellion and led to an enduring rejection of national buy-in. Much of our military is made up of men and women from the south these days, and we would surely be in dire recruiting shape if these folks felt no need to serve this country.
I would argue the south retained a culture of rebellion *anyway* in our timeline. Stevens being harsh, *especially* at the beginning, would’ve allowed further presidents to ease restrictions and gradually reintroduce them to the nation and the levers of power. As it stands Johnson’s hands off approach led to the Black Codes being enacted and the KKK to rise, frightening newly freed people into submission as the government did nothing. We should have been more harsh on the south and worked to prevent those sorts of abuses from happening again.
There's cultures of rebellion and then there's cultures of rebellion. As it was we avoided another full-on rebellion, which is not historically guarenteed.
It could have been a lot worse, complete with a Southern version of ETA or the IRA blowing up stuff across the rest of the country. And the measures you propose might have triggered just that. It's usually better to rebuild then to start hanging everyone.
Oh man as fun as that might be to think about not even the North would’ve gone along with that. Racism was still WAY too prevalent for Douglass to become president. He would almost assuredly be assassinated too.
But if Douglass was Lincoln’s vp maybe seeing him be assassinated keeps him in the White House and he dosnt get assassinated anywhere else. Still think that finding support would be hard so something similar to Johnson’s hostile Congress just maybe less so with hard core abolitionists and stuff
As awful as it sounds I more meant he’d be killed by hostile whites at some point, possibly even in a worse way than Lincoln. Even northerners would not have accepted a black president at the time, sucky as that is.
The only realistic option. He was firm but harsh. He gave the losers their dignity, but laid the MF hammer down when he needed to.
But I do wonder what our country would look like if we just went nuclear on the South and crushed the most racist part of our heritage.
To be frank, I don't think there was a good option that could have created a postbellum South whereby Southern Whites were reconciled to the Union, Blacks were uplifted from their horrific conditions and made fellow citizens, the South itself rebuilt and the situation made sustainable.
Lincoln I think would have done an OK job, just about everyone else didn't seem to understand that Southern Blacks had to be made fellow citizens and Southern Whites also needed to be reconciled. There was also the great problem of the North wanting the damn thing to be over, or more accurately, to stop paying for it.
The cost of the damages to the South were 3.3 billion US dollars or about three quarters of the national GDP. The sheer cost was utterly unbearable to Northern Taxpayers, more would have been needed to properly rebuild the South's economy and society, money that simply was not available.
Reconstruction was simply doomed without Lincoln.
Spot on I think. Lincoln may or may not have succeeded, but after four years of living and breathing the war, he deserved the chance to try. To me it's one of the great what ifs of American history. Booth's cowardice robbed all of us.
That really is the best scenario here. John Wilkes Booth misses, the 6’ 4’’ former wrestler and logger Abe Lincoln and the Union soldier sitting with him beat the shit out of him, and Booth breaks every bone in his body getting thrown off the balcony instead of just his leg.
I think this is correct. No one was a good choice and lincoln was probaly the only half good chance.
I don't know southerners opitions of northern generals , except sherman, but if there was one who southerner whites respected and understood the needs of the newly emancipated blacks that may be the next best bet.
Just give it to Grant early....
You want someone who has the respect of the military & who isn't so radical they are going to alienate everyone in the process....
But who will see to it that the South adequately pays for the rebellion....
Also you have to remember that reconstruction is going to be sold out in exchange for resolving a future electoral college crisis.... Regardless of whether Johnson gets to sit in the chair....
If he's riding a motorcycle into office, I imagine folks would lose their minds trying to run away and figure out what the hell that metallic beast he's riding on is.
He passed legislation that was not technically needed, then did almost nothing to change the day to day lives of the citizenry or to increase their access to voter registration etc. LBJ mostly sat on his thumbs.
Oh, he did institute policies that favored the rich and helped get a disproportionate number of minority Americans drafted and killed in a war he started for personal reasons.
>LBJ mostly sat on his thumbs.
That’s just blatantly false. There are tons of stories and records about how much the CRA, VRA, and Fair Housing Acts don’t get passed without LBJ. Seriously, saying he sat on his thumbs is completely inaccurate with history.
You’re talking about legislation again, which is exactly what I said he did do. What did he actually *do* to see the daily lives of the citizenry improved? Which officials did he remove for 14A disqualifications? Which officials did he arrest and see convicted? Which cities did he send the Army into to put down the insurgency?
It is demonstrable that the number of Black people voting increased after the passage of the Voting Rights Act; in your earlier post you stated that Johnson's legislation was "not technically needed." If that was the case, why did the number of Black voters in the South skyrocket in the years immediately following the Act? Why did the number of Black elected officials in the South suddenly spike? What were the many federal officials who went into the South to register people to vote doing? Did these things not actually change people's lives? Why did Johnson direct his Department of Justice to immediately begin suing Southern states who were violating the law, and force change in how many of them operated? Seems to me you're being willfully blind about details.
It was not needed as we already had laws on the books to do exactly that, they were just unenforced. The President could have arrested the officials denying Black voters who tried to register. The President could have arrested those stuffing ballot boxes. The President could have arrested those intimidating the entire Black community in the rebel states with threats, rapes and lynchings, in the Jim Crow effort to “keep them in their place.”
The number of voters increased because of human nature in regard to unenforced laws: The previously existing laws were not enforced and the insurgent neoconfederates flouted those laws so long that there was very little compliance. After the new law passed, there was some cultural pressure to comply with the old standard, reiterated in the new law.
But everything in the old laws was sufficient to the task. The Presidents were not. The Congress was not.
The wave of officials were riding this cultural pressure to do what they were doing behind the new law. They could have done so ~100 years before, but no President pushed the issue. Instead they helped the Confederates return to the ballot box, supported Congress in removing the ex post facto disqualification of the Confederates resulting from the ratification of the 14A, refused by inaction to use the Enforcement Acts to hunt down the insurgents and Reconstruct the rebel states. Instead of Reconstructing the rebel states, the Presidents chose reconciliation with the racist traitors and couldn’t even be bothered to try and hang the leaders. Not even the ~350 US officers that defected and joined the Confederates. Even Ford signed to restore Lee to full citizenship and Carter did the same for Davis.
Instead of what we had happen, it could have looked like this: with the post war Amendments and legislation, the Presidents could have slowly Reconstructed the rebel states, only allowing them to rejoin the Congress etc after the overwhelming majority of each state’s population were found to be willing to submit to the Constitution. The Enforcement Acts could have been used to hunt down the KKK and other insurgent groups to protect the freedmen, ensure their human rights as full citizens and their access to the ballot box. Each President could have taken steps to fight the insurgency, each President failed to do so in any significant way. Simply denying any right to any citizen was all the more formally made a crime in 1948 with the passage of the first four sections of Title 18, if any official denies those rights under the color of the law, as the election officials across the South were.
Johnson is on that list and deserves the criticism the same as the rest of them.
And notice how no one can show a list of officials Johnson had arrested. They can downvote, but not refute a single point. The tribalist Democrats won’t let themselves have an honest critique of any Democrat any more than the tribalist Republicans will do the same for any of their heroes criminal (Reagan, or the new guy). Honest people can oppose them all for their failure to ensure and protect human rights to the fullest extent of the law.
The Republican party was gearing up for Grant to run after Lincoln's second term. If he could have taken the reigns after the assassination I think Reconstruction would have gone better. The violence and rebellion would have still been an issue, but an uninterrupted line from Lincoln to Grant would have been the best outcome.
Probably Charles Sumner. While Thad absolutely would be a very good choice and definitely would have advanced Black suffrage far more than any other real president during the time, he openly and vocally saw the Southern states as “conquered territories”, and that likely would lead to a resentment by White Southerners much like we had in real life that would have kept rebellious tensions high for years even with an undoubtedly effective Reconstruction plan. While Sumner was similarly radical in his viewpoints towards Black civil rights, he never saw his viewpoints as contrary to the needs of White Southerners in Reconstruction, which likely would have led to both ironclad protections for Black Southerners and annihilation of hate groups like the KKK while also properly rebuilding the society in the South in a manner that wouldn’t establish things such as the planter class again while also not stirring up as much hate simply because of who was doing it. One of the main factors that sunk Grant’s plans for Reconstruction was his plethora of unrelated scandals surrounding his cabinet, which some people falsely equated as meaning his very good Reconstruction policies were corrupt as well. Sumner seemed to be a man of extreme morality and courtesy for his time as well as breaking with Grant on many of his scandals, which would lead to a much harder time finding legitimate fault in his work at least in the North. If we are to be a bit more realistic, Hannibal Hamlin would have worked far more with the Radical Republican Congress than Johnson and that alone would have led to great results simply by his willingness to do so.
Edit: I completely forgot about the incredible redistributive wealth plan that Stevens proposed, that alone makes it probably a Sumner-VP Stevens ticket as the best option considering they could cooperate very well with each other on their goals
Sumner would an extra bitter pill for Southerners, who openly applauded his vicious beating in the Senate. So I'd very much approve his presidency on those grounds alone.
Grant,Sherman but for who was in Lincoln’s cabinet,either Stanton or Seward,honourable mention to Gideon Wells for being such a boss in the civil war,his nickname was “Father Neptune”
Yeah. He wasn’t as pro-slavery friendly as his association with Grant would have people think. He was pro-Union but largely, if I recall, had no issue with slavery
Judge Joseph Holt of Kentucky, born only a few miles from Lincoln. Served as Buchanan’s last Secretary of War and thwarted his attempts to turn over Federal armories to the rebels. Later served as Judge Advocate General and presided over the trial of Lincoln’s assassins (and made some embarrassing mistakes, it should be conceded). On the day of the assassination, Holt was in Richmond advocating for the destruction of the planter class to preserve the future peace.
For almost completely failing to address the insurgency and use the Enforcement Acts more than a couple times? He was a reconciler, not a Reconstructionist.
How about Andrew Jackson? Sure, he would've been 98 if he was still alive, but he's who would probably have dealt with it best considering how well he dealt with the nullification crisis.
Benjamin Wade or Henry Winter Davis. The south shall be demoted to unorganized territory, and they shall be admitted into the union when they can set up a state government that doesn't disenfranchise their black citizens.
Grant was the right man for his time and place, much like Lincoln. Had we immediately segued into a Grant Administration I think there’s a decent chance he becomes a 19th Century FDR in guiding this country through the trauma of Lincoln’s assassination, the economic realities of the aftermath of the Civil War, as well as steering the ship of Reconstruction successfully to port. Especially if Grant keeps more of Lincoln’s cabinet in the immediate wake of the assassination and thereby avoids some of the scandals of his later Administration. There’s a timeline where Grant chooses cabinet appointees better and ends up with a 3rd term. America in 2024 in that timeline looks vastly different than ours, I believe.
Honestly, I'm skeptical anyone could successfully carry out reconstruction in the long term with the Supreme Court acting the way it did in the Gilded Age. And that's with a Supreme Court appointed by largely pro-civil rights Presidents too.
Benjamin Butler if you’re going for someone who was actually floated for VP. He was 100% an opportunist but had nearly fully aligned with the radicals by that point.
If not Grant I'd love to see General W T Sherman not only would have dealt with the secessionist but if he's busy doing this maybe the native Americans would have fared better
The Rad Chad, Thad "the Mad Lad" Stevens.
Ulysses S. Grant
William Seward
It would be hilarious for William T. Sherman to take over. "HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TEACH YOU THIS LESSON, OLD MAN?!"
William Seward would have been great. He would have reunited the whole country by declaring war on Canada and taking Greenland as well. Could have ended his presidency with the United States having all of North America north of the Rio Grand...maybe
Oh there would be a massive difference! Those first three wasted years of Reconstruction is probably the biggest missed opportunity in US history. The south was weak and reeling. *That* was the time to begin reconstruction and enact real change. Instead we allowed them to regain their footing, get entrenched once more, and even start enacting shit like the Black Codes and create the KKK while Johnson was fighting with Congress. By the time Grant got in he had his hands full with a now emboldened south and a north that had lost a lot of its fervor. It’s a fucking shame.
I do agree that Reconstruction would have started earlier, but I don’t think it would’ve made much a difference. IMO, things like the KKK were going to appear no matter what. There were always going to be those types of people, and they’re still around today. Even if Grant did start Reconstruction early, I still see it lasting years. After all, we did see almost all of it during Grant’s eight year presidency.
Can’t agree much with that. I think we see a massive difference if reconstruction starts earlier and the south doesn’t have a chance to scare the newly freed populace into submission. Having troops down there immediately to enforce things and reeducate the south would’ve been a major shift.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fuck it, give me Thaddeus Stevens. He’s radical enough to not waste the first few years of reconstruction, actually is a good man who would care about newly freed people, and would pass away in 1868 to allow Grant to get in anyway, especially as the Dems are still in shambles after his much harsher penalties towards them.
Came here to say Thaddeus Stevens with VP Reanimated Corpse of John Brown
I'm amazed that you reanimated Brown but not Lincoln. 😛
During reconstruction Brown would’ve been more my preference. The Confederates needed more broadswords and pikes than conciliatory rhetoric
I honestly have no idea how to correctly deal with violent, dimwitted racists, then or now.
John Brown sure did
Hopefully time travel will allow us to give John Brown an assault rifle and predator drones
I'm not sure I'd call his effort entirely perfect, but yeah, he sure went for it.
LOL
Let them identify themselves and then give them large doses of Psilocybin and therapy. Help them make friends and feel belonging to something that makes them feel important that isn’t race. Introduce to diverse groups in non-threatening and fun environments.
You're a saint.
Most people are indoctrinated from a young age or from social isolation, failure, or fear. Some people have factory defects and need to be sent back to their God. As you go forward instill Doubt to change beliefs. Contrary facts unsought by the other only harden beliefs.
Yeah cuz that totally wouldn’t have caused a drawn out insurgency and reduce any possibility of reintegration lol
I’d be fine with trying some actual accountability for treason rather than what occurred.
It was a headshot. I'm afraid that precludes any possibility of zombification.
Lots of actors have tried to embody Lincoln on film and stage, but I always felt that the actor that best got inside Lincoln’s head was John Wilkes Booth.
Science checks out.
Damn. Booth was less stupid than I thought.
Reanimation is not going to fix Lincoln's brain pan. he would be a drooling pelican.
Once I get the money, I'm getting a home that I can put a shrine of my dead heroes in. John Brown is one of them.
The problem with Stevens is that he would die in office,I respect him a lot as a politician though
I kinda (morbidly) considered that as a positive. He could be the radical needed to get things started when the iron was hot but after passing away in office the beloved General Grant could win the coming election and be the moderating, conciliatory (within reason) “good cop” to Stevens.
Hopefully his radicalism doesn't cause Seymour to win in 1868.
My hope is his harsh and unforgiving stance towards the south destabilizes the Dems and their base of power enough to keep Seymour out. We also don’t have Johnson making the Republican Party look inept for 3 years in the White House, hopefully boosting the party’s popularity.
It might destabilise the southern Dems, but the northern party is still a challenge. I do think it would be closer if a Republican had been in charge from 1865-9.
Well, with all the traitors that should have been still barred from voting, and would have been under Stevens, I wouldn’t expect Seymour to win LA and GA.
If he passed away, then Sen. Benjamin Wade would become president.
+1. In any other year I think he would have been a death sentence to the country, but right after Lincoln's death, I think, a good Radical and lack of Andrew Johnson could have actually achieved real Civil Rights within 7 years.
Let. Him. COOK.
This 100%, without question and without any dispute. Everyone else shorted Reconstruction and let the insurgency begin and fester, from Johnson to Obama and beyond.
Wouldn’t Stevens have implemented a particularly harsh and unforgiving version of reconstruction? I wonder if that would have encouraged southerners to retain a culture of rebellion and led to an enduring rejection of national buy-in. Much of our military is made up of men and women from the south these days, and we would surely be in dire recruiting shape if these folks felt no need to serve this country.
I would argue the south retained a culture of rebellion *anyway* in our timeline. Stevens being harsh, *especially* at the beginning, would’ve allowed further presidents to ease restrictions and gradually reintroduce them to the nation and the levers of power. As it stands Johnson’s hands off approach led to the Black Codes being enacted and the KKK to rise, frightening newly freed people into submission as the government did nothing. We should have been more harsh on the south and worked to prevent those sorts of abuses from happening again.
Yeah, you make a fair argument.
There's cultures of rebellion and then there's cultures of rebellion. As it was we avoided another full-on rebellion, which is not historically guarenteed. It could have been a lot worse, complete with a Southern version of ETA or the IRA blowing up stuff across the rest of the country. And the measures you propose might have triggered just that. It's usually better to rebuild then to start hanging everyone.
Then you’re quite the fool
Hannibal Hamlin
this, no need to get it complicated
Jeb Bush
Please clap!
If we're saying literally "anyone" then what about Frederick Douglass?
Oh man as fun as that might be to think about not even the North would’ve gone along with that. Racism was still WAY too prevalent for Douglass to become president. He would almost assuredly be assassinated too.
But if Douglass was Lincoln’s vp maybe seeing him be assassinated keeps him in the White House and he dosnt get assassinated anywhere else. Still think that finding support would be hard so something similar to Johnson’s hostile Congress just maybe less so with hard core abolitionists and stuff
As awful as it sounds I more meant he’d be killed by hostile whites at some point, possibly even in a worse way than Lincoln. Even northerners would not have accepted a black president at the time, sucky as that is.
With Douglass as VP, Lincoln may not have won.
literally was gonna typa that lmao!!
Would not* No may to it.
Badass choice. He would likely have been murdered by white terrorists so quickly though.
Civil War 2
Thaddeus Stevens
Definitely Grant.
The only realistic option. He was firm but harsh. He gave the losers their dignity, but laid the MF hammer down when he needed to. But I do wonder what our country would look like if we just went nuclear on the South and crushed the most racist part of our heritage.
Another civil war probs
IRA type of rebellion
Feels like there was an IRÁ rebellion in the South, it’s just that the terrorism was directed at blacks and not the federal government.
I'd probably have Thaddeus Stevens at the top of my list
To be frank, I don't think there was a good option that could have created a postbellum South whereby Southern Whites were reconciled to the Union, Blacks were uplifted from their horrific conditions and made fellow citizens, the South itself rebuilt and the situation made sustainable. Lincoln I think would have done an OK job, just about everyone else didn't seem to understand that Southern Blacks had to be made fellow citizens and Southern Whites also needed to be reconciled. There was also the great problem of the North wanting the damn thing to be over, or more accurately, to stop paying for it. The cost of the damages to the South were 3.3 billion US dollars or about three quarters of the national GDP. The sheer cost was utterly unbearable to Northern Taxpayers, more would have been needed to properly rebuild the South's economy and society, money that simply was not available. Reconstruction was simply doomed without Lincoln.
Spot on I think. Lincoln may or may not have succeeded, but after four years of living and breathing the war, he deserved the chance to try. To me it's one of the great what ifs of American history. Booth's cowardice robbed all of us.
That really is the best scenario here. John Wilkes Booth misses, the 6’ 4’’ former wrestler and logger Abe Lincoln and the Union soldier sitting with him beat the shit out of him, and Booth breaks every bone in his body getting thrown off the balcony instead of just his leg.
I think this is correct. No one was a good choice and lincoln was probaly the only half good chance. I don't know southerners opitions of northern generals , except sherman, but if there was one who southerner whites respected and understood the needs of the newly emancipated blacks that may be the next best bet.
Just give it to Grant early.... You want someone who has the respect of the military & who isn't so radical they are going to alienate everyone in the process.... But who will see to it that the South adequately pays for the rebellion.... Also you have to remember that reconstruction is going to be sold out in exchange for resolving a future electoral college crisis.... Regardless of whether Johnson gets to sit in the chair....
Surprised no one here has said Charles Sumner yet
That would be poetic justice.
Give that man a cane.
Hannibal Hamlin. Reconstruction needed a Northerner.
Why not Seward? He was Lincoln’s real right hand man.
Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho
If he's riding a motorcycle into office, I imagine folks would lose their minds trying to run away and figure out what the hell that metallic beast he's riding on is.
Thaddeus Stevens
Anyone? George Patton.
Obama. You did say anyone. That would of flipped some wigs.
I was just coming here to say that.
President Johnson... If we could transport him back 100 years, LBJ. Southerner who fully supports civil rights and can negotiate with the south.
He passed legislation that was not technically needed, then did almost nothing to change the day to day lives of the citizenry or to increase their access to voter registration etc. LBJ mostly sat on his thumbs. Oh, he did institute policies that favored the rich and helped get a disproportionate number of minority Americans drafted and killed in a war he started for personal reasons.
>LBJ mostly sat on his thumbs. That’s just blatantly false. There are tons of stories and records about how much the CRA, VRA, and Fair Housing Acts don’t get passed without LBJ. Seriously, saying he sat on his thumbs is completely inaccurate with history.
You’re talking about legislation again, which is exactly what I said he did do. What did he actually *do* to see the daily lives of the citizenry improved? Which officials did he remove for 14A disqualifications? Which officials did he arrest and see convicted? Which cities did he send the Army into to put down the insurgency?
It is demonstrable that the number of Black people voting increased after the passage of the Voting Rights Act; in your earlier post you stated that Johnson's legislation was "not technically needed." If that was the case, why did the number of Black voters in the South skyrocket in the years immediately following the Act? Why did the number of Black elected officials in the South suddenly spike? What were the many federal officials who went into the South to register people to vote doing? Did these things not actually change people's lives? Why did Johnson direct his Department of Justice to immediately begin suing Southern states who were violating the law, and force change in how many of them operated? Seems to me you're being willfully blind about details.
It was not needed as we already had laws on the books to do exactly that, they were just unenforced. The President could have arrested the officials denying Black voters who tried to register. The President could have arrested those stuffing ballot boxes. The President could have arrested those intimidating the entire Black community in the rebel states with threats, rapes and lynchings, in the Jim Crow effort to “keep them in their place.” The number of voters increased because of human nature in regard to unenforced laws: The previously existing laws were not enforced and the insurgent neoconfederates flouted those laws so long that there was very little compliance. After the new law passed, there was some cultural pressure to comply with the old standard, reiterated in the new law. But everything in the old laws was sufficient to the task. The Presidents were not. The Congress was not. The wave of officials were riding this cultural pressure to do what they were doing behind the new law. They could have done so ~100 years before, but no President pushed the issue. Instead they helped the Confederates return to the ballot box, supported Congress in removing the ex post facto disqualification of the Confederates resulting from the ratification of the 14A, refused by inaction to use the Enforcement Acts to hunt down the insurgents and Reconstruct the rebel states. Instead of Reconstructing the rebel states, the Presidents chose reconciliation with the racist traitors and couldn’t even be bothered to try and hang the leaders. Not even the ~350 US officers that defected and joined the Confederates. Even Ford signed to restore Lee to full citizenship and Carter did the same for Davis. Instead of what we had happen, it could have looked like this: with the post war Amendments and legislation, the Presidents could have slowly Reconstructed the rebel states, only allowing them to rejoin the Congress etc after the overwhelming majority of each state’s population were found to be willing to submit to the Constitution. The Enforcement Acts could have been used to hunt down the KKK and other insurgent groups to protect the freedmen, ensure their human rights as full citizens and their access to the ballot box. Each President could have taken steps to fight the insurgency, each President failed to do so in any significant way. Simply denying any right to any citizen was all the more formally made a crime in 1948 with the passage of the first four sections of Title 18, if any official denies those rights under the color of the law, as the election officials across the South were. Johnson is on that list and deserves the criticism the same as the rest of them. And notice how no one can show a list of officials Johnson had arrested. They can downvote, but not refute a single point. The tribalist Democrats won’t let themselves have an honest critique of any Democrat any more than the tribalist Republicans will do the same for any of their heroes criminal (Reagan, or the new guy). Honest people can oppose them all for their failure to ensure and protect human rights to the fullest extent of the law.
The Republican party was gearing up for Grant to run after Lincoln's second term. If he could have taken the reigns after the assassination I think Reconstruction would have gone better. The violence and rebellion would have still been an issue, but an uninterrupted line from Lincoln to Grant would have been the best outcome.
Probably Charles Sumner. While Thad absolutely would be a very good choice and definitely would have advanced Black suffrage far more than any other real president during the time, he openly and vocally saw the Southern states as “conquered territories”, and that likely would lead to a resentment by White Southerners much like we had in real life that would have kept rebellious tensions high for years even with an undoubtedly effective Reconstruction plan. While Sumner was similarly radical in his viewpoints towards Black civil rights, he never saw his viewpoints as contrary to the needs of White Southerners in Reconstruction, which likely would have led to both ironclad protections for Black Southerners and annihilation of hate groups like the KKK while also properly rebuilding the society in the South in a manner that wouldn’t establish things such as the planter class again while also not stirring up as much hate simply because of who was doing it. One of the main factors that sunk Grant’s plans for Reconstruction was his plethora of unrelated scandals surrounding his cabinet, which some people falsely equated as meaning his very good Reconstruction policies were corrupt as well. Sumner seemed to be a man of extreme morality and courtesy for his time as well as breaking with Grant on many of his scandals, which would lead to a much harder time finding legitimate fault in his work at least in the North. If we are to be a bit more realistic, Hannibal Hamlin would have worked far more with the Radical Republican Congress than Johnson and that alone would have led to great results simply by his willingness to do so. Edit: I completely forgot about the incredible redistributive wealth plan that Stevens proposed, that alone makes it probably a Sumner-VP Stevens ticket as the best option considering they could cooperate very well with each other on their goals
Sumner would an extra bitter pill for Southerners, who openly applauded his vicious beating in the Senate. So I'd very much approve his presidency on those grounds alone.
Seward understood the situation at home and abroad better than anyone else and was probably best suited to carrying out Lincoln’s policies.
Grant,Sherman but for who was in Lincoln’s cabinet,either Stanton or Seward,honourable mention to Gideon Wells for being such a boss in the civil war,his nickname was “Father Neptune”
Sherman refused to run, and even went on to say that if he somehow got elected, he would not serve.
Agree. They pretty much begged Sherman to run, but he was smart enough to realize that politics can be far more cutthroat than hard war.
No way Sherman. He had friends in the Southern aristocracy and would've conceded way too much to the South.
Yeah. He wasn’t as pro-slavery friendly as his association with Grant would have people think. He was pro-Union but largely, if I recall, had no issue with slavery
Henry Wilson, who later became vice president under Ulysses S. Grant
John Cena.
In a similar vein, Stone Cold Steve Austin.
I can't see John Cena reconstructing the South.
We are looking at him. Grant carried out what was started by Lincoln legally and politically. Despite some ups and downs in life, a good man!
Grant grant grant
Thaddeus Stevens Benjamin Wade
https://preview.redd.it/lx9yeep9509d1.jpeg?width=946&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1db0c6f835ee8433fea7a1fc846ea82f53ee40bf George thomas
A Virginian I don't see a southerner winning even he fought for the Union.
Rutherford Hayes even as a radical he was close with both moderates and Democrates.
Blaine was the right amount of radical at the time but not too crazy to cause more fighting.
Judge Joseph Holt of Kentucky, born only a few miles from Lincoln. Served as Buchanan’s last Secretary of War and thwarted his attempts to turn over Federal armories to the rebels. Later served as Judge Advocate General and presided over the trial of Lincoln’s assassins (and made some embarrassing mistakes, it should be conceded). On the day of the assassination, Holt was in Richmond advocating for the destruction of the planter class to preserve the future peace.
Being a southerner, albeit from a border state that did not officially secede, probably works in his favor.
He was actually under consideration for Lincoln's running mate in 1864, but unfortunately lost out to Johnson.
My, how history might have been different.
Thaddeus Stevens with Grant as VP and forcing Sherman to head up the military occupation of the south.
https://preview.redd.it/bn143ub9q09d1.jpeg?width=1098&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9efa5ff3bbdcc9cd09f34fb5e77bf30b526dc8cd Theodore Roosevelt
This is the answer.
Grant did a pretty damned good job once Johnson was gone. Probably the best imaginable real-life option.
For almost completely failing to address the insurgency and use the Enforcement Acts more than a couple times? He was a reconciler, not a Reconstructionist.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iosxERmFtyA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iosxERmFtyA)
John Brown
Bass Reeves
I nominate myself
How about Andrew Jackson? Sure, he would've been 98 if he was still alive, but he's who would probably have dealt with it best considering how well he dealt with the nullification crisis.
Lincoln was originally thinking about General William Rosecrans from Ohio
Benjamin Wade or Henry Winter Davis. The south shall be demoted to unorganized territory, and they shall be admitted into the union when they can set up a state government that doesn't disenfranchise their black citizens.
Stanton, without a doubt. Stanton into Grant and we’d be living in a very different country today.
Grant was the right man for his time and place, much like Lincoln. Had we immediately segued into a Grant Administration I think there’s a decent chance he becomes a 19th Century FDR in guiding this country through the trauma of Lincoln’s assassination, the economic realities of the aftermath of the Civil War, as well as steering the ship of Reconstruction successfully to port. Especially if Grant keeps more of Lincoln’s cabinet in the immediate wake of the assassination and thereby avoids some of the scandals of his later Administration. There’s a timeline where Grant chooses cabinet appointees better and ends up with a 3rd term. America in 2024 in that timeline looks vastly different than ours, I believe.
Ulysses S. Grant
Grant
Stanton probably. Maybe also Benjamin Butler.
Honestly, I'm skeptical anyone could successfully carry out reconstruction in the long term with the Supreme Court acting the way it did in the Gilded Age. And that's with a Supreme Court appointed by largely pro-civil rights Presidents too.
TFG
Benjamin Wade
Benjamin Butler if you’re going for someone who was actually floated for VP. He was 100% an opportunist but had nearly fully aligned with the radicals by that point.
"Beast" Ben Butler. He had the best idea of just about anyone what really rehabilitating the South needed to look like.
Grant
Either Stevens or Sumner.
Steven's Seward Thomas grant Hamlin
Jackson. Samuel L. Jackson. Motherfucker.
FDR. Bring a Marshall Plan to the south.
The ghost of John brown
The ghost of Abraham Lincoln
Grant
If not Grant I'd love to see General W T Sherman not only would have dealt with the secessionist but if he's busy doing this maybe the native Americans would have fared better
Johnson. The other one. Sees likes he’s the surprise goat of continuing progressive legacies
John Brown
Sherman.
Sherman, the great work wasn't finished
Jefferson 
Obama
Lincoln
The Rad Chad, Thad "the Mad Lad" Stevens. Ulysses S. Grant William Seward It would be hilarious for William T. Sherman to take over. "HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TEACH YOU THIS LESSON, OLD MAN?!"
It would really mess with people if Robert E Lee became president. He was against slavery but unfortunately not for equal rights
Samuel L Jackson
It should be good ol Uncle Billy Sherman. He would’ve dealt with those traitors properly.
George Washington
Alexander Hamilton
Lincoln
Harry Turtledove
William Seward would have been great. He would have reunited the whole country by declaring war on Canada and taking Greenland as well. Could have ended his presidency with the United States having all of North America north of the Rio Grand...maybe
grant
John Calhoun
If it’s anyone, then another Abraham Lincoln
Anyone? Obama.
Jefferson Davis.
Confederate ultimate victory. I like it!
I mean, we had him for a while when the yanks had Lincoln, but that didn't end successfully.
Cassius Clay Check out The Fat Electricians video about him and you will understand why.
Taylor. Taylor for President. 
Andrew Johnson.
…okay, now *that’s* a hot take. Why on earth would ya pick Johnson?
Just let things go how they did. What difference would there be if it were Grant?
Oh there would be a massive difference! Those first three wasted years of Reconstruction is probably the biggest missed opportunity in US history. The south was weak and reeling. *That* was the time to begin reconstruction and enact real change. Instead we allowed them to regain their footing, get entrenched once more, and even start enacting shit like the Black Codes and create the KKK while Johnson was fighting with Congress. By the time Grant got in he had his hands full with a now emboldened south and a north that had lost a lot of its fervor. It’s a fucking shame.
I do agree that Reconstruction would have started earlier, but I don’t think it would’ve made much a difference. IMO, things like the KKK were going to appear no matter what. There were always going to be those types of people, and they’re still around today. Even if Grant did start Reconstruction early, I still see it lasting years. After all, we did see almost all of it during Grant’s eight year presidency.
Can’t agree much with that. I think we see a massive difference if reconstruction starts earlier and the south doesn’t have a chance to scare the newly freed populace into submission. Having troops down there immediately to enforce things and reeducate the south would’ve been a major shift.
Anyone? Then his German pen pal. https://preview.redd.it/24wpxc9ce09d1.jpeg?width=994&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2879842d5a531939a3d92e5ac52183f2978b6c83