Hartford Convention(Not what you think)

Kowita · Jan 2, 2016

I’ve gone through the discussion broad & every thread I’ve seen on the Hartford Convention talks about New England Secession. Although an independent New England Republic is interesting, most historians doubt secession was seriously considered. Instead, I would like to take a look at the proposed amendments they came up with & to see if any of them could have passed. They were the prohibiting any trade embargo lasting over 60 days; requiring a two-thirds Congressional majority for declaration of offensive war, admission of a new state, or interdiction of foreign commerce; removing the three-fifths representation advantage of the South; limiting future Presidents to one term; & requiring each President to be from a different state than his predecessor. Also, let’s say that the U.S. loses the Battle of New Orleans so that everyone doesn’t just yell traitor and ignore them.

TFSmith121 · Jan 2, 2016

Interesting ideas, but the 3/5ths is pretty much the foundation for

Kowita said:
I’ve gone through the discussion broad & every thread I’ve seen on the Hartford Convention talks about New England Secession. Although an independent New England Republic is interesting, most historians doubt secession was seriously considered. Instead, I would like to take a look at the proposed amendments they came up with & to see if any of them could have passed. They were the prohibiting any trade embargo lasting over 60 days; requiring a two-thirds Congressional majority for declaration of offensive war, admission of a new state, or interdiction of foreign commerce; removing the three-fifths representation advantage of the South; limiting future Presidents to one term; & requiring each President to be from a different state than his predecessor. Also, let’s say that the U.S. loses the Battle of New Orleans so that everyone doesn’t just yell traitor and ignore them.

Interesting ideas, but the 3/5ths is pretty much the foundation for the south in the early Nineteenth; most of these limit executive power in favor of Congress, and given the state of the party system at the time (there's a reason the Federalists were collapsing), seems unlikely either side of the spectrum would accept the idea of a presidency without executive powers.

The other things, of course, are that a) Ghent had already been signed, so whether the US wins or not at New Orleans, it's moot - and b) there's also the tactical reality that given the forces available to the Americans, and the chosen battlefield, the British really can't win - it's rare that one orders an infantry assault across a billiard table, cut up by drainage ditches, flanked by the Mississippi River on one side and impassable swamps on the other, against a well-defended line ... but Pakenham did.

Did not work out well for him, or Gibbs, or the majority of his command.

Best,

Kowita · Jan 2, 2016

I figured the South would never go for the removal of the 3/5ths thing, but I felt I should include the whole list of proposed amendments. The ones I’m most interested in seeing passed are the one term & presidents from different states ones. As for New Orleans, my goal was not to change the outcome of the war, but how it was viewed by the American public & turn them against the Democratic-Republicans.

TFSmith121 · Jan 2, 2016

One term is interesting; there was only Washington's precedent

Kowita said:
I figured the South would never go for the removal of the 3/5ths thing, but I felt I should include the whole list of proposed amendments. The ones I’m most interested in seeing passed are the one term & presidents from different states ones. As for New Orleans, my goal was not to change the outcome of the war, but how it was viewed by the American public & turn them against the Democratic-Republicans.

One term is interesting; there was only Washington's precedent, of course, and I think you'd need someone like FDR winning multiple terms to really get a limitation through.

The different state one is presumably a shot at Virginia; not certain that there's a natural anti-Virginia caucus, especially because - presumably - the other big states like New York and Pennsylvania would see it as a possible limit on their interests.

Best,

avernite · Jan 2, 2016

TFSmith121 said:
One term is interesting; there was only Washington's precedent, of course, and I think you'd need someone like FDR winning multiple terms to really get a limitation through.

The different state one is presumably a shot at Virginia; not certain that there's a natural anti-Virginia caucus, especially because - presumably - the other big states like New York and Pennsylvania would see it as a possible limit on their interests.

Best,

OTOH, could New York or Pennsylvania really hope for multiple presidents in a row?

By that point only Virginia and Massachussetts had even had ANY presidents - and only Virginia multiple times. Perfectly possible to prefer messing with Virginia and Mass. to trying to grasp possble future power.

Corjomc · Jan 2, 2016

If its only one term do you change the length of the term then? Make it a 6 or 8 year term to compensate the inability to run again?

Looks like Monroe is the first to be hit with the "No Prez from the same state bac to back" amendment. That is of course if Madison is not grandfathered in and does not count then the first President effected (barring butterflies, etc) would be Garfield following Hayes both from Ohio.

Kowita · Jan 2, 2016

Corjomc said:
If its only one term do you change the length of the term then? Make it a 6 or 8 year term to compensate the inability to run again?

I think it'll stay at 4 years.

Corjomc said:
Looks like Monroe is the first to be hit with the "No Prez from the same state bac to back" amendment. That is of course if Madison is not grandfathered in and does not count then the first President effected (barring butterflies, etc) would be Garfield following Hayes both from Ohio.

If the Democratic-Republicans can't pick Monroe in 1816, then they'll pick William Crawford of Georgia(unless he is disqualified because he was born in Virginia, in which case it'll be either Simon Snyder of Pennsylvania or Daniel D. Tompkins of New York). Also, if the war of 1812 is not viewed as a success, do Rufus King & the Federalist have a real shot at the White House?

Corjomc · Jan 2, 2016

Kowita said:
then they'll pick William Crawford of Georgia(unless he is disqualified because he was born in Virginia, in which case it'll be either Simon Snyder of Pennsylvania or Daniel D. Tompkins of New York)

It does get sort of sticky with people who move around. What sort of requirement do you think they should have for home state?

Maybe a minimum of a decade of living in a particular state when declaring for president.

Kowita · Jan 3, 2016

Corjomc said:
It does get sort of sticky with people who move around. What sort of requirement do you think they should have for home state?

Maybe a minimum of a decade of living in a particular state when declaring for president.

Don't know, but I do know that in OTL, the 12th Amendment makes it so electors can't vote for presidential & vice presidential candidates from the same state. In 2000, Dick Cheney moved his official residency from Texas back to Wyoming(which he represented in the House back in the 80's) so he could be George W. Bush's running mate.

TFSmith121 · Jan 3, 2016

Hope springs eternal

avernite said:
OTOH, could New York or Pennsylvania really hope for multiple presidents in a row? By that point only Virginia and Massachussetts had even had ANY presidents - and only Virginia multiple times. Perfectly possible to prefer messing with Virginia and Mass. to trying to grasp possble future power.

Hope springs eternal...

NY and Pennsylvania both had the population base and - increasingly in the industrial age - were the economic and financial powerhouses of the US.

Rare for power (even potential power) to be given up willingly.

Best,

Kowita · Feb 7, 2016

Bumpity Bump

TFSmith121 · Feb 7, 2016

Two thirds votes in Congress for "offensive war" is

Kowita said:
Bumpity Bump

A two thirds vote in Congress for "offensive war" is interesting, but the devil is in the details; who gets to define defensive as opposed to offensive?

Same for new states - presumably it leads to the one free for one slave trade offs, or no new states.

Best,

Kowita · Feb 8, 2016

TFSmith121 said:
A two thirds vote in Congress for "offensive war" is interesting, but the devil is in the details; who gets to define defensive as opposed to offensive?

Same for new states - presumably it leads to the one free for one slave trade offs, or no new states.

Best,

If it took two thirds of Congress to admit new states, It could delay the civil war by maintaining the balance in the senate.

The Gunslinger · Feb 8, 2016

Kowita said:
I think it'll stay at 4 years.

If the Democratic-Republicans can't pick Monroe in 1816, then they'll pick William Crawford of Georgia(unless he is disqualified because he was born in Virginia, in which case it'll be either Simon Snyder of Pennsylvania or Daniel D. Tompkins of New York). Also, if the war of 1812 is not viewed as a success, do Rufus King & the Federalist have a real shot at the White House?

If the British can avoid the sack of York, or some other military loss right around then there's a chance that King becomes governor of New York. I doubt the federalists will win in 1816 regardless, but I think instead of the 'Era of Good Feeling' you get the 'Era of Mutual Antagonism' between the north and south.

I'd expect a far more acrimonious relationship than OTL because of the 3/5 compromise and consecutive president thing (which wasn't really aimed at the south, but more at Virginia).

TFSmith121 · Feb 8, 2016

If they agreed to get along to go along; the alternative is

Kowita said:
If it took two thirds of Congress to admit new states, It could delay the civil war by maintaining the balance in the senate.

If they agreed to get along to go along; the alternative is the Westerners (largely northern-born) get tired of the southrons making them wait and there's a north and west alliance against the southerners even earlier than historically...

Best,

Kowita · Feb 11, 2016

TFSmith121 said:
If they agreed to get along to go along; the alternative is the Westerners (largely northern-born) get tired of the southrons making them wait and there's a north and west alliance against the southerners even earlier than historically...

Best,

Another thing to think about is the butterflies from razing the bar on declarations of war might slow American expansion.

TFSmith121 · Feb 11, 2016

Maybe, but Mexico was the only declared war

Kowita said:
Another thing to think about is the butterflies from razing the bar on declarations of war might slow American expansion.

Maybe, but Mexico was the only declared war where there was a substantial territorial gain, and the stakes are such that its hard to see that one not going forward. The Cession was essentially the culmination of US policy that had begun in the Old Northwest and Old Southwest six decades earlier.

Best,

sloreck · Feb 11, 2016

The 3/5ths rule going away was simply not going to happen. This was one of the key points the south had demanded to sign on to the constitution. While the free/slave state balance in the late 18th and through the first third of the 19th centuries meant that southern/slave states could block almost anything in the senate, even by 1812 it was clear that the population growth (and therefore representation in the house) was favoring the north/free states. Even with the 3/5 rule, by the 1850s the balance in the house was heavily north/free, although northern democrats had enough seats to side with southern democrats on many issues.

Especially as the 19th century moved on it became obvious that most of the territories or potential states between the Mississippi and the Pacific coast were simply not going to be slave states. Even if a state was admitted with a slave constitution, the economic and demographic realities it would not be long before slavery would end up being eliminated (for example even if Kansas had been admitted with a slave constitution, the demography was such that it would have been amended very shortly).

While some of the other potential amendments such as a one term presidency or 2/3 vote for "offensive" war might have had a chance at getting through the congressional process to be presented to the states, I doubt the 3/5 rule revocation would have even made it out of committee to a floor vote in either chamber.

Kowita · Feb 13, 2016

sloreck said:
The 3/5ths rule going away was simply not going to happen. This was one of the key points the south had demanded to sign on to the constitution. While the free/slave state balance in the late 18th and through the first third of the 19th centuries meant that southern/slave states could block almost anything in the senate, even by 1812 it was clear that the population growth (and therefore representation in the house) was favoring the north/free states. Even with the 3/5 rule, by the 1850s the balance in the house was heavily north/free, although northern democrats had enough seats to side with southern democrats on many issues.

Especially as the 19th century moved on it became obvious that most of the territories or potential states between the Mississippi and the Pacific coast were simply not going to be slave states. Even if a state was admitted with a slave constitution, the economic and demographic realities it would not be long before slavery would end up being eliminated (for example even if Kansas had been admitted with a slave constitution, the demography was such that it would have been amended very shortly).

While some of the other potential amendments such as a one term presidency or 2/3 vote for "offensive" war might have had a chance at getting through the congressional process to be presented to the states, I doubt the 3/5 rule revocation would have even made it out of committee to a floor vote in either chamber.

I think we can all agree about 3/5 thing.

The Gunslinger · Feb 13, 2016

sloreck said:
The 3/5ths rule going away was simply not going to happen. This was one of the key points the south had demanded to sign on to the constitution. While the free/slave state balance in the late 18th and through the first third of the 19th centuries meant that southern/slave states could block almost anything in the senate, even by 1812 it was clear that the population growth (and therefore representation in the house) was favoring the north/free states. Even with the 3/5 rule, by the 1850s the balance in the house was heavily north/free, although northern democrats had enough seats to side with southern democrats on many issues.

Especially as the 19th century moved on it became obvious that most of the territories or potential states between the Mississippi and the Pacific coast were simply not going to be slave states. Even if a state was admitted with a slave constitution, the economic and demographic realities it would not be long before slavery would end up being eliminated (for example even if Kansas had been admitted with a slave constitution, the demography was such that it would have been amended very shortly).

While some of the other potential amendments such as a one term presidency or 2/3 vote for "offensive" war might have had a chance at getting through the congressional process to be presented to the states, I doubt the 3/5 rule revocation would have even made it out of committee to a floor vote in either chamber.

But this is in a world where 1812 happens exactly as OTL. Imagine how the 3/5 compromise works where the North is way more hemmed in because Britain took a big bite from the Northwest. Or where the timing of the war changes and the federalists are completely embarrassed with the Treaty of Ghent coming at the exact time of their arrival in Washington.

If the War lasts a few weeks longer and Ghent goes against the United States the Federalists are going to feel vindicated, while the rest of the country calls them out for not supporting the war effort and insinuates treason. I think the resolutions are going to cause a much, much bigger rift between the north and south than we witnessed OTL in such a scenario.