Alternative history: Andrew Johnson convicted in impeachment

Could Radical Republicans have convicted Andrew Johnson in the Senate, versus his actual acquittal at the denouement of his impeachment?

I say yes, and prevent a counterfactual history. Unlike most of my writings on this field, this particular counterfactual history requires multiple elements to be changed, not just one. But, the elements are all of a piece, and they'd all be by the same group — the Radical Republicans in Congress.

So, in outline form, here's what needed to be different.

First, a more comprehensive planning strategy should have been started earlier, even before it looked like impeachment had a shot.

Second, when that shot appeared possible, getting Senate Republicans to hold a new vote and elect somebody besides Ben Wade as president pro tem.

Third, grab the bull by the horns. In light of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Johnson's non-actions, rather than try him over the Tenure of Office Act, more bluntly try him over his failure to uphold his oath of office.

Fourth, if this weren't enough to have changed the minds of any of the "sinful seven" (actually 10 Republican senators in all) who early on decided to acquit, given the actual play-out, lean harder on Sen. Edmund Ross, who reportedly told Gov. Crawford that he would resign if the governor wanted him to vote to convict. (How true the veracity of that tale is, I'm not sure.)

Fesseden or Grimes surely could have been swayed. And non-Radicals who stayed stubborn would have been put on notice about possible state legislature opposition when their terms ended.

Spoons/Beast Ben Butler argued that patronage had been spread for Johnson's acquittal. Some of the Sinful Seven claimed that Butler's presentation of the charges as House manager was one-sided.

I disagree. It was somewhat inept. But, it was otherwise prosecutorial. That's what House impeachment managers are supposed to be. They're not judges in an impeachment; the Supreme Court serves as that. They're prosecutors.

So, it seems clear that Trumbull, among others, was hell-bent on acquittal.

Had Johnson been convicted, we have two alt-history paths. One is where Wade accepts he's unpopular and the Senate holds a new election for a president pro tem after he steps aside. A moderate but not conservative consensus candidate, like Wade's fellow Ohioan John Sherman or , is elected to replace him.

The other is that Wade is stubborn and despite this handicap, Johnson is still convicted.

A Sherman presidency would have been relatively smooth. All of Johnson's Cabinet likely would have remained.

For Wade, on the other hand, most of the Cabinet outside of Stanton might have quit. Seward might have stayed on for Alaska negotiations, depending on the exact date of Johnson's conviction, then left after that.