George Washington Killed by Anthrax

I'm sorry if this has been done, I looked (not very hard) and didn't fined anything quite like my question.

any ways I was watching History and they were doing the Presidents, when talking George Washington they said three weeks into his Presidency Washington become very very ill with what historians today think was anthrax, so what if the first President of the new United States died just three weeks into his first term?

Adams becomes President. Lacking the awe-inspiring gravitas of Washington, He serves one term and is defeated for reelection He is suceeded by Aaron Burr, and things go rapidly downhill from there.

Claudius said:

Adams becomes President. Lacking the awe-inspiring gravitas of Washington, He serves one term and is defeated for reelection He is suceeded by Aaron Burr, and things go rapidly downhill from there.

Click to expand...

would he though? we today take for granted that when a President dies the VP becomes President, but that wasn't set in stone till John Tyler in 1841. The doesn't say that the Vice President becomes the President on the death of the President it says "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President."

so 1789 not 1841 does the Tyler president get set by Adams or not?

Adams does. Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution states" In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The debate in Tyler's day was whether the Office or the Powers of the Office devolved on the VP. In either case, the VP had the resposibilities of the President to discharge as Chief Magistrate and Commander in Chief.

What Congress defined in the Succession Law of 1792 was that the Pesident Pro Tem of the Senate would be next in line after the VP. The Federalists did not want Jefferson (the Secretary of State at the time) to be next in line.

Claudius said:

Adams does. Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution states" In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The debate in Tyler's day was whether the Office or the Powers of the Office devolved on the VP. In either case, the VP had the resposibilities of the President to discharge as Chief Magistrate and Commander in Chief.

What Congress defined in the Succession Law of 1792 was that the Pesident Pro Tem of the Senate would be next in line after the VP. The Federalists did not want Jefferson (the Secretary of State at the time) to be next in line.

Click to expand...

I'm not getting your point I know what the Constitution says, and what it doesn't, it doesn't say the VP because president, only that on the death/Inability of the President the VP takes his powers, not his office, many in 1841 said that Tyler was not President but Acting President or not even that, that he was still just Vice President, three things came together to make the Tyler president, first the Harrison Cabinet feared what an "Acting" President would do to the country, two Henry Clay thought that he could control Tyler, and three Tyler strongly refused to be anything but President. but 1789 isn't 1841 and George Washington isn't William Henry Harrison and John Adams isn't John Tyler.

also what was the point of the Succession Law of 1792 being brought up? in 1789 it's 4 years in the future

black angel said:

I know what the Constitution says, and what it doesn't, it doesn't say the VP because president, only that on the death/Inability of the President the VP takes his powers, not his office...

Click to expand...

Black Angel,

Don't worry, you're correct. Tyler merely set a precedent in 1841 that wasn't codified into actual law until the 25th Amendment in 1967. Many scholars in 1841 thought it was Tyler's duty to call a special presidential election and simply act as a place holder until it occurred.

Claudius is making an all too common mistake in historical discussions by assuming what is believed or done now is the same as what was believed or done then.

Also what was the point of the Succession Law of 1792 being brought up? in 1789 it's 4 years in the future.

Click to expand...

More confusion on Claudius' part perhaps?


Bill

Bill Cameron said:

Black Angel,

Don't worry, you're correct. Tyler merely set a precedent in 1841 that wasn't codified into actual law until the 25th Amendment in 1967. Many scholars in 1841 thought it was Tyler's duty to call a special presidential election and simply act as a place holder until it occurred.

Claudius is making an all too common mistake in historical discussions by assuming what is believed or done now is the same as what was believed or done then.



More confusion on Claudius' part perhaps?


Bill

Click to expand...

though, one should note, there is one big difference between 1789 and 1841, the writers/signers of the Constitution are still alive and well in 1789 and are 15-20 years dead in 1841.

also, in May 1789 there's no Supreme Court, nor is the Famous first Cabinet yet formed,

Not to belabor the poiint any more, but here's James Madison's notes on the issue , from the Constutional Convention.

"
(e) In case of the removal of the president from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the vice-president, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the president and vice-president, declaring what officer shall then act as president, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or the period for chusing another president arrive.
[2:626; Madison, 15 Sept.]

Since Madison was one of the primary authors, I'll take his understanding

Claudius said:

Since Madison was one of the primary authors, I'll take his understanding

Click to expand...

Claudius,

I'll take his understanding too. I'll also look at the actual verbs he used and not what verbs I think he used.

Let's examine that quote again:

(e) In case of the removal of the president from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the vice-president, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the president and vice-president, declaring what officer shall then act as president, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or the period for chusing another president arrive.
[2:626; Madison, 15 Sept.]

Note the use of the verb to act instead of the verb to be. When Harrison died, most in government believed that Tyler would become the acting president and not the actual president.

While Wiki isn't usually the best of sources, it's page on the topic essentially covers what I've read several times elsewhere. Scroll down to the "Acting President and President" section. It will be an eye opener.

The same page also discusses the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 which, as Black Angel points out, was passed after the May 1789 POD of this thread.


Bill

?How many of the writers of the Constitution were now in Congress? ?Would Congress really call in the founding Fathers and ask them?

DuQuense said:

?How many of the writers of the Constitution were now in Congress? ?Would Congress really call in the founding Fathers and ask them?

Click to expand...

DuQuense,

I'd think the Founding Fathers would be consulted, most definitely. (I don't know how many were in the House or Senate at the time though.)

The OP's POD involves just more than who will succeed Washington however. As I brought up in another similar thread, the office of the presidency and other parts of the Constitution were written specifically with Washington in mind. In some cases even ratification of the document hinged on the fact that Washington was going to be the first occupant of the presidency.

Black Angel also points out that in May of 1789 much of the executive branch simply didn't yet exist along with other portions of the Federal government. Washington hadn't yet set up the First Cabinet. Both houses of Congress had met but were still sorting themselves out. The Supreme Court hadn't even been appointed, although that body's constitutional role would not truly gel until 1803. And all this was happening in New York City too, not tucked away from immediate public scrutiny on the banks of the Potomoc.

At the time, Washington simply was the government to many people. Having him die so soon and before this new government could take shape would lead to many negative consequences.


Bill

Not to mention all the precedents Washington will no longer be alive to set. There's a fair chance there won't ever be a traditional two term limit on the Presidency, and without Washington's farewell address the US almost certainly will not have as strong of an isolationist inclination as OTL.

That's not even getting into how no Washington changes the Federalist/Democratic-Republican dynamic.

on the note of the first Congress,

the Senate has 22 seats, 14 Pro-Administration, 7 Anti-Administration, 1 Vacant

House of Representatives has 59 seats, 34 Pro-Administration, 25 Anti-Administration

I apologize for being slightly off topic, but reading the Wikipedia article "Acting President" and its list of all the times before 1967 that the President was debilitated and either nobody did anything about it or were just plain confused really was "an eye opener"

Cylon_Number_14 said:

I apologize for being slightly off topic, but reading the Wikipedia article "Acting President" and its list of all the times before 1967 that the President was debilitated and either nobody did anything about it or were just plain confused really was "an eye opener"

Click to expand...

Cylon Number 14,

I'll apologize for pointing out that the post and it's "eye opener" comment were directed to Claudius and not you. You can tell this because the post begins with Claudius,...

Claudius had stated #2 that Adams would succeed Washington in 1789 without question. When Black Angel brought up the example of Tyler, Claudius brought up in post #4 Article 2 Section 1 and, for some reason, the 1792 Succession Act.

In post #6 I agreed with Black Angel that Tyler had only set a precedent in '41 and that the question wasn't solved legally until 1967. Claudius brought up Madison's Convention Notes in post #8 and I in post #9 pointed out the verb confusion and directed him to read the account of Tyler's succession suggesting it would be an eye opener to him.

Apparently that's when you wandered in and somehow thought I was talking to you.

When Harrison died, Tyler was not sworn immediately and serious discussions took place about whether he should succeed to the title of "President" at all. Here's a link for you this time. It's Wiki sadly, but again it's not a bad Wiki entry. Pay special attention to the section titled "His Accidency" and the role of Henry Clay.

You should also find it interesting that Tyler eventually found himself without a political party as a result of his decision to assume the title of president making him one of only three presidents without political affiliation. Unlike our other modern "accidental" presidents and despite a generally favorable performance in office, Tyler found himself unable to run for a second term as no one would take him seriously.

Tyler set a precedent and set it at great political cost to himself. This precedent only went so far too. Although succeeding to the office and title of president, Tyler was seen more as a placeholder and not as a president in his own right.

Johnson found himself in similar circumstances after Lincoln's assassination and he, like Tyler, did not run for re-election. Arthur had a chance to expand on the Tyler precedent after succeeding to the presidency on Garfield's assassination as his administration was received favorably, but Arthur's poor health precluded any re-election attempt. It wouldn't be until Teddy Roosevelt that a vice-president succeeding to the office and title of presidency was seen as more than just a placeholder and as a national politician in his own right.


Bill

Bill Cameron said:

Johnson found himself in similar circumstances after Lincoln's assassination and he, like Tyler, did not run for re-election. Arthur had a chance to expand on the Tyler precedent after succeeding to the presidency on Garfield's assassination as his administration was received favorably, but Arthur's poor health precluded any re-election attempt. It wouldn't be until Teddy Roosevelt that a vice-president succeeding to the office and title of presidency was seen as more than just a placeholder and as a national politician in his own right.

Click to expand...

Billy you left Millard Fillmore off your list of Vice-cum-Presidents, also oddly of the VPs after that became President almost all were re-elected (Calvin Coolidge, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson) only poor Gerald Ford didn't


any way my thoughts are that Adams will be forced into a special election, given Adams power to piss people off, he'll be left as VP with President's power, the Presidency will have a very British start under the very short Adams "Presidency" John Jay making a come back as "Secretary of Foreign Affairs" Hamilton may never rise, much of his rise had to do his closeness to Washington, Knox may still be at War,

or i could be wrong, was the idea of a formal Cabinet around in 1789, or would Adams have a informal grouping with no over site or something

1789 April
Washington Dies three weeks into his term
Congress meets in Committee of the Whole, with Madison, Monroe and other Founding Fathers testifying.

Congress passes a bill calling for a new election in Novembre.
Adams is sworn in as Acting President.

1789 Novembre
Jefferson wins the Election with Adams coming in second as the new VP. Adams resigns before being sworn in as VP, allowing Hamilton?? Burr?? to be sworn in as VP.

I don't think Jefferson wins in 1789. The First Party System didn't really firm up until the ratification fight over the Jay Treaty. The Anti-Federalist faction did exist during Washington's first term, and IOTL it did contest the Vice Presidency in 1792, but Adams beat George Clinton handily with 77 electoral votes to 50 (Jefferson got 4 and Burr got 1).

The most likely scenario I see is Adams winning handily. The second-most likely scenario is a challenge from Hamilton or Jay throwing the election into the House, where Adams will likely emerge as a compromise candidate unless he's well and truely pissed everyone off in his few months as Acting President. Adams being Adams, he's quite capable of doing so, but I'm curious as to how.

I'm interested in the scenario where Adams wins as a compromise candidate after a challenge from both sides. That's got interesting implications both for the two-party system (starting a tradition of electing centrists who don't fit in with either party?) and the development of the role of the Federal Government (with Hamilton and his faction splitting from Adams and losing their positions in the Cabinet, there's likely no Bank of the United States, no program of tariffs and excises, no assumption of state debt, etc -- Adams may pick up a few elements of the Hamilton Economic Program on his own, but he's unlikely to pick up the whole package or even most of it).

Maniakes said:

The most likely scenario I see is Adams winning handily. The second-most likely scenario is a challenge from Hamilton or Jay throwing the election into the House, where Adams will likely emerge as a compromise candidate unless he's well and truely pissed everyone off in his few months as Acting President. Adams being Adams, he's quite capable of doing so, but I'm curious as to how.

Click to expand...

he forces people to call him "His Majesty the President" or "His High Mightiness" that'd do it, and those ideas are in his head around the time

DuQuense said:

1789 April
Washington Dies three weeks into his term
Congress meets in Committee of the Whole, with Madison, Monroe and other Founding Fathers testifying.

Congress passes a bill calling for a new election in Novembre.
Adams is sworn in as Acting President.

1789 Novembre
Jefferson wins the Election with Adams coming in second as the new VP. Adams resigns before being sworn in as VP, allowing Hamilton?? Burr?? to be sworn in as VP.

Click to expand...

As there was no constitutional protocol for filling the office if vacant, no one would be sworn in as VP on March 3, 1790 if Adams did resign prior to being sworn in, and the vice presidency would be left vacant for the duration of Jefferson's 1st term.