AH Challenge: President Joshua L Chamberlain

[DMA]

Originally Posted by Wendell

I understand you terminology, but I don't like it because most parliamentary states have a weak head of state called a President.

I wouldn't say most. There's plenty of European countries which are Constitutional Monarchies as are Australia, Canada, NZ etc. We have no president at all, yet the PM is probably more powerful than the US President in relation to governmental matters.

[DMA]

Originally Posted by Wendell

Parliamentarism is discussed, but I didn't think semipresidentialism was.

Well both were (albeit your semipresidentialism was done so as part of the Parliamentary debate) & rejected as it was feared mob rule would take place. Hence the deliberate seperation of powers as well as the Electoral College etc.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by DMA

I wouldn't say most. There's plenty of European countries which are Constitutional Monarchies as are Australia, Canada, NZ etc. We have no president at all, yet the PM is probably more powerful than the US President in relation to governmental matters.

True, but look at Portugal, the nations of Central Europe, Germany, Baltic States, and parts of the Balkans. That's not to mention several African nations as well as India and Singapore.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by DMA

Well both were (albeit your semipresidentialism was done so as part of the Parliamentary debate) & rejected as it was feared mob rule would take place. Hence the deliberate seperation of powers as well as the Electoral College etc.

True, but most of those structures could be left in place.

[DMA]

Originally Posted by Wendell

True, but look at Portugal, the nations of Central Europe, Germany, Baltic States, and parts of the Balkans. That's not to mention several African nations as well as India and Singapore.

Oh sure, but none of these countries governments have zero influence upon the governmental structure of the USA. The Westminister system, though, is the direct ancestor of the Washington system.

[DMA]

Originally Posted by Wendell

True, but most of those structures could be left in place.

Well if they're left in place you can't really have a semipresidential system. A semipresidential system would require the Executive to sit in the Legislature & be a part of Congress. Well that's in clear contradiction with the current system at its most fundamental level.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by DMA

Well if they're left in place you can't really have a semipresidential system. A semipresidential system would require the Executive to sit in the Legislature & be a part of Congress. Well that's in clear contradiction with the current system at its most fundamental level.

Not the executive, the junior executive. Promote the Speaker

[DMA]

Originally Posted by Wendell

Not the executive, the junior executive. Promote the Speaker

And what purpose would that serve? As it is now, the President can ignore the VP whenever he wants to, regardless of his role in the Senate.

[Jason Sleeman]

O.K lemme try and get to everyone's questions here.

DMA- Yes the Gordon in my timeline was former confederate General John B Gordon, As a Democrat he ran with Winfield Hancock.

Longstreet as in OTL became a Republican and this is why I arranged the tickets in this manner.

Wendell: Why T.R as McKinley's sole veep? The more conservative elements of the Republican party wanted to place T.R in a place where he might be forgotten and would have little real power. Hence he was relegated to the vice presidency.


Also.... I gave T.R an extra two years dying in june 1921

There are a great deal of changes, I agree, but the list of presidents is not, I believe outside the realm of possibilities. Consider that neither of the two Roosevelts were too concerned about upholding the two term precident.

Jason Sleeman

P.S If I missed a question on this post i will try to get you on the next one.

Kudos to all for the cool ideas on this topic.

[DMA]

Originally Posted by Jason Sleeman

O.K lemme try and get to everyone's questions here.

DMA- Yes the Gordon in my timeline was former confederate General John B Gordon, As a Democrat he ran with Winfield Hancock.

Longstreet as in OTL became a Republican and this is why I arranged the tickets in this manner.

Well the reason I thought Gordon would be VP to Chamberlain is because of their moment at Appomattox. They were also the same rank as well (they were both major-generals in the end weren't they?). Having Longstreet, though, as Chamberlain's VP just doesn't have that deep mutual respect, between the two men, & there's also the fact that Longstreet had a superior rank to Chamberlain.

[reformer]

In the single most unlikely literature alternate history I have ever read, it was a short story in the original alternate generals book, Chamberlain becomes president. . . of the confederacy. It was rediculous. And he was president in 1913, when he would have been what, 80?

[Wendell]

I know hy in OTL TR became VP, but I read your suggested TL wrong. Why do you have TR living longer?

[Jason Sleeman]

"Why do you have TR living longer?" I only extended his life by about two years so he would complete his fourth term. No reason really, other than I find T.R interesting

[Jason Sleeman]

Been awhile, decided to tweak my President's Timeline

1868-1878 Grant/Chamberlain (R)

{1870-1871} Grant sends James Longstreet as a special ambasador to assist a British delegation in calming tensions following the Ems Telegram incident between France and Prussia.

{1871} Treaty of Versailles-France and Prussia sign non aggression pact. Plans for creation of a Prussian Germany are drawn up. The Kingdom of Prussian Germany includes the OTL German Empire minus Alsace-Lorraine and Bavaria which declines to join and becomes a Wittelsbach Kingdom.

{1872} An Indian Protectorate is formed in out of part of OTL South Dakota
called "Lakota Preserve" for Sitting Bull's Sioux. Vice President Chamberlain meets with Sitting Bull personally during this time, forming a unique friendship.


{1872} Election

Grant/Chamberlain vs Hancock/Gordon Grant/Chamberlain re-elected


more to come....

anyone want to try to continue 1872-1876

Jason Sleeman

[Wendell]

Yourb 1868-1878 should be modified

[DTF955Baseballfan]

I was tempted to start a new thread, but since most of what I have to ask comes from this thread, and also it's hard to pick one title, I decided to ask here.

In "If Baseball Integrated Early," I have, for a long time, lacked a guy who was really sure to support gradual integration of the ex-slaves. I focused almost solely on baseball, except for a couple 1-3 pages itnerludes on the rest of the country, because that's what it's about - baseball integrated from the start. I had the following:
1. Chancellorsville ends a Union win, with Hooker incapacitated longer and Couch going on the offensive;
2. The Civil War ending by early Fall of 1863, with much less animosity on both sides, yet all slaves still going free;
3. Lincoln serves 2 full terms (but is pretty sick by the end of his 2nd), and being diplomatic enough be able to handle things gently and yet also crack down on some things, such as lynching;
4. A lack of the worst Jim Crow laws as the South *very* slowly accepted some integration; no Plessey v. Ferguson, etc., but yet only slow integration (think blacks in the South treated like OTl blacks in the North early on);
5. Violence against blacks being almost eliminated by 1900, then thigns getting gradually better till a different President integrates the military after World War One,, integration speeding up in the 1920s, and complete by then end of World War Two, as the races fought side by side and then wound up living side by side afterward.

Now, to do this, I sort of glossed over Presidents, except for an alternate Oscar Underwood replacing Wilson. With him having grown up in a world with a little more tolerance of the races, the man who was willing to take a stand agains tthe KKK in OTL is more willing to take a stand for the rights of blacks, and ends up integrating the military a la OTL's Truman, and then speaking for the need to integrate further after his Presidency. (This doesn't sound ASB to me, considering the vast changes between this TL and OTl; I chose him because he seemed rather moderate compared to many in his party in OTL, and even then, he's this TL's Harry Truman, not Lyndon Johnson.)

My question is, does this TL need specific mention of a President who is in favor of integration, like Chamberlain, early? I didn't want to make it *too* utopian by having integration complete by 1900 or anything. So, as it stands, I have Grant elected to one term, as the Hero of Vicksburg but not the man who fought for 2 years to bring down the CSA, then Hayes for a term, then Tilden.

Does Chamberlain need to replace Grant to make it plausible? Or hayes, and serve 2 terms?(Which I think may be more likely.) Or, does the very slow pace of integration seem to indicate that a Chamberlain Presidency would speed things up too much?

I suppose an alternative exists in something someone said, about his being Garfield's Vice President. I don't mention *who* that is, only that Garfield's assassination leads to Civil Service reform. I imagine it's possible to presume that in this TL, it's Chamberlain, not Arthur, and that he then wins re-election in 1884. Cleveland can win in 1888, and serve 2 terms, eliminating Benjamin Harrison. Since Chamberlain's main injury was at Petersburtg, a battle that doesn't happen in this TL, that may be the best answer of all.

I changed pennant races in a couple different places, so it wouldn't be hard to just replace hayes and Tilden with Chamberlain in the text in a few places.

[Plumber]

That's some necromancy!

[Emperor Norton I]

There seems to be a thing for necromancy lately.

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Wow - this thread is older than I thought - one problem with just searching using the searching engine (I wonder if ti's a record? ) Still it seems logical rather than start another thread about someone that would not have been mentioned as President otehrwise very often. (I guess I could have linked to it - but then people would have gone to the thread and then maybe revived it, anyway)

Anyhow, seeing from comments that he might have also been likely to be kinder to the natives, perhaps it is best to mention him? Butterflies also eliminate the wars against natives, but perhaps it's also necessary to have a President who is willing to have a more peaceful policy regarding natives?

OTOH, few would know who Chamberlain is; without even Gettysburg, let alone petersburg where he was injured, he might get into politics, but his youth and need to build himself up means that he'd be *less* likely to be President in 1872, let alone 1868. He'd be more like Garfield himself.

So, having him replace Arthur and Cleveland's first term (with Cleveland serving 2 non-consecutive) might be best. it would allow him to step in and make sure things do advance on a few fronts, while providing one mroe reason why the South doesn't pass any Jim Crow laws. And, while there aren't the major Indian Wars of OTL, things could still be rather tense at times, yet Chamberlain in the 1880s would smooth things out for good, allowing 1-2 Indian states or something, though again, sicne that's not the focus, things can easily be glossed over without having to go into a lot of detail.

I think that's what I'll do, since there weren't other comments. Mods, you can delete the 2010 stuff on here if you want. Sorry to have pulled one up fromthis long ago.

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by DTF955Baseballfan

OTOH, few would know who Chamberlain is; without even Gettysburg, let alone petersburg where he was injured, he might get into politics, but his youth and need to build himself up means that he'd be *less* likely to be President in 1872, let alone 1868. He'd be more like Garfield himself.

So, having him replace Arthur and Cleveland's first term (with Cleveland serving 2 non-consecutive) might be best. it would allow him to step in and make sure things do advance on a few fronts, while providing one mroe reason why the South doesn't pass any Jim Crow laws.

How many Jim Crow laws had there been as of 1889? I thought they didn't really get under way until the 1890s. Up till then wasn't it mainly a case of keeping enough fredmen away from the polls to ensure against the Republicans actually winning any statewide races - as distinct from the odd Congressional seat and a token presence in the Legislature?

Also (and more cynically) if Chamberlain is really as upright and honourable as this, has he any realistic chance of getting on a national ticket?