A Rutherford B Hayes presidency on the heels of Lincoln’s assassination and not a decade later would have put a politican newcomer in office with something to prove. Instead of ending Reconstruction, he would have implemented it, and probably with more civil rights enforcement given his actual record as president. He had a longstanding political connection with Chief Justice Chase. Instead of cracking down on striking railroad workers, the golden spike would have been driven on his watch.

I think he would have been a dark horse, as he was in actual fact, but an intriguing alternative to Johnson. Basically, though, whoever succeeded Lincoln got a raw deal.

Most indications are that Lincoln remained out of the discussion until the delegates were finished with their selection. That’s why looking back at my comment, I amended my position. Best way to put it, I think Lincoln was pleased not to have a running mate so strong as to eclipse him on the national stage in the post-war era.

I suggested that Lincoln may have played a limited or even no role in the choice of VP. It is still a legitimate question, however, to ask whether another choice within the political parameters governing such a choice would have made much of a difference.

O.K., but what political constituency needed for reelection in 1864 would Grant have satisfied?

Grant’s lack of any political past (what existed was Democratic anyway) would have been an asset.

Would he have been better than Johnson? He could hardly have done worse. Johnson was basically a racist Democrat; his chief hatred was towards the slaveowning aristocracy. Once they were removed, he returned to his true colours a run-of-the-mill bigoted Southern politician.

Call it “human nature” then. Nobody can say for sure Lincoln was completely aloof from any third term. Nobody can say for sure that Lincoln was all for it either. But the prospect was certainly on the table if he had lived.

Recall that the only man who ever successfully ran for a third term, FDR, was down playing such a run right up to May 1940. In the end, FDR saw much unfinished business AND an emerging crisis he felt the call to answer. Do you think Lincoln might have felt the need to find closure with the war (complete reconstruction) and at the same time further the economic growth which had been a plank in his party’s platform?

Some of the writings that have influenced me to see Lincoln in that light, I’d have to say are David Donald’s biography of Lincoln; and Pederson and William’s comparison of FDR and Lincoln. But of course neither works speculate beyond Lincoln’s death, as clearly I’m doing here. Yet to answer your base question, one has to cast an eye to “what if Lincoln had lived” since the question of the VP on the ticket fit into Lincoln’s plans for such.

With regard to that, we cannot say what Lincoln would have felt in 1867 or 1868 regarding a third term. But we do know Lincoln had a keen eye to political strategy. One flaw to the speculation tact you’ve asked us on is, however, that Lincoln didn’t get to pick his VP. Rather the party convention did. Some have claimed Lincoln exerted influence on the proceedings, but those close to Lincoln discounted it. Instead, at best, Lincoln simply had the option to acquiesce to the VP nomination or voice disapproval.

All I’m saying is the presence of Andrew Johnson on the ticket left doors open for Lincoln. And we would be naive to think Lincoln didn’t consider those doors to be considered. Much in the same way FDR kept his options open right up to his party’s convention in 1940.

Perhaps, due to the steps backward the nation took after Reconstruction, I see Johnson as being milquetoast on the issue AND radicalism in Congress as being the problem, not exlusively Johnson’s job performance; but, as is most often the case, the fellow addressed as “Mr. President” is held most responsible for failures during his tenure and failures provoked by his initial stand thereafter.

No, the first part of your comment.