Crimson Banners Fly: The Rise of the American Left

[moopli]

There are some questions left open by the twelfth amendment which have never been tested (either ITTL or OTL).

Can a state which has cast a ballot in a particular round of a contingent election, that is, made a selection of a candidate rather than be divided or tied, subsequently change its vote in subsequent rounds? I think by necessity this must be allowed, since to do otherwise could lead to a hypothetical split election where none of the candidates can reach a majority and the process will become stuck. However, I can see a scenario where political division (and some bad-faith Congressmen) could lead to a rule being adopted which does ban the changing of a state's decided vote (likely after votes have mostly coalesced behind two candidates) - so as to prevent a constant back-and-forth, perhaps after several frustrating rounds of flip-flops. Then, the possibility of a total deadlock could lead to a situation where each side is playing political chicken, and then Hearst's partisans conspire to throw the contingent election into deadlock unless they win some key concessions. You could easily see a situation then, where even if an agreement is reached, a single unhappy Congressman, or a miscommunication, might flip one state and lead to a deadlock. Then much acrimonious debate must ensue, Congress would need to decide how to revise the rules of procedure that they've come up with for the situation, and once again any Hearst allies (if enough are still willing to continue their sabotage) can wreak havoc. There might even be a supreme court challenge.

And some of my own speculation, but could Hearst be plotting something with Senate allies, to prevent the election of a vice president long enough to run out the clock? Personally I don't think he has much of a shot there, since there are only two candidates, and senators must make a choice, so once there's an outright majority then it's settled. But if it were possible to run out the clock on both the presidential and vice-presidential contingent elections, I don't know who would end up in the line of succession - I think it would be at the authority of Congress, and any legislation they've made on the matter?

Technically, if I understand correctly, the 12th amendment doesn't specify that the contingent elections will end on the 4th of March, only that the vice president will serve as the acting president in case a president is not yet elected.

Come to think of it, if Roosevelt can't get the House to choose him, but the Senate chooses Johnson, it would be Roosevelt's best move to delay the presidential contingent election until March 4th so Johnson becomes acting president, and let the incoming, more Progressive-friendly House select the president. Indeed, even threatening to delay until the 4th of March, if Johnson has been selected as vice-president-elect, might be enough to make enough Representatives cave to give Roosevelt the presidency "fair and square", rather than being obstinate in the face of certain, eventual defeat.

Also on a side note I'm quite pleased that my election prediction was actually quite accurate :3

Edit:

that would make the current administration Secretary of State as Acting President.

Oh my mistake, is that how it works? I wasn't sure if the incoming Congress would still be required to continue with the contingent election, rather than falling back to succession rules. Is this something that could be contested, as an ambiguous case that's never been decided or tested before?

 

[Teutonic_Thrash]

A constitutional amendment can't be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

Derp, I misread constitutional amendment.

 

[galileo-034]

Oh my mistake, is that how it works? I wasn't sure if the incoming Congress would still be required to continue with the contingent election, rather than falling back to succession rules. Is this something that could be contested, as an ambiguous case that's never been decided or tested before?

The first succession act, in 1792, only specified the president pro tempore of the senate then the House speaker in line for succession.
In 1886, after Vice President Hendricks died, the law was changed to remove them from the succession line and replace them with the cabinet officials, in order of their creation, so the Secretary of State came first, then Treasury, and so on.
It would only be in 1947 that another succession act would reinstate congressional office holders in the line, but with House Speaker and Senate president pro tempore switching place in the way we know today. It would be only in 1965/1967 that the ratification of the 25th amendment would strengthen the succession by adding the possibility of filling the vacancy of the vice president office.

As for the election of the vice president in this TL, I don't think Johnson has much chance because the Democrats have 43 Senators in the outgoing congress, just one vote short of the half which is enough if the sitting vice president, a democrat still, and two shy of majority if the vice president doesn't cast his tie breaking vote. Since this is going to play out between McClellan and Johnson, I doubt the Democrats will vote for Johnson, and I doubt either that the Republicans will side with Progressives at this point. It's more likely that Republicans will cast their vote to McClellan. A possible corrupt bargain would be Democrats supporting Butler in the House in exchange for Republicans supporting McClellan, the only way the stalemate could be realistically overcome at this point I think.

 

[moopli]

That's a good point, if Roosevelt tries a delaying strategy (and if he argues that the presidential contingent election must continue even after inauguration day, if not complete by then), then that could easily be enough to convince the Republicans and Democrats to settle on a corrupt bargain - and of course, they could always make that agreement before any such chicanery happens. I'm not sure what causes more chaos, a drawn-out and fractious contingent election, with disagreements over interpretation of the 12th amendment, which eventually ends in a corrupt bargain; or a relatively quick corrupt bargain.

 

[LuckyLuciano]

The twelfth amendment states that, "And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President." So in reality, the democrats need not make a corrupt bargain because if they can just stall and run out the clock, with McClellan's election in the Senate all but assured, McClellan will be sworn in and I'm not sure but the language seems to suggest congress will return to normal despite no president being elected, as the VP isn't designated acting president but rather "act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President", so think Cheney vs LBJ. This was a common fear in 1860, with some newspapers printing that the election was in reality one between Lincoln and Lane. If that's the case, what motive do Democrats have to negotiate with Republicans? Also, it begs the question if McClellan as a New York Democrat might have a hidden connection or deal with Hearst, ala Hearst's message to his supporters.

 

[galileo-034]

That may spark another controversy over what exactly "act as president" entails, referring to the succession of Harrison by Tyler in 1841 which wasn't aloof from such wording controversy around the idea of an acting presidency and which would be only resolved by the 25th amendment I believe. A big difference here is that we actually a wronged party, Roosevelt, that could bring the case before the Supreme Court. Best case for Roosevelt, McClellan is judged only to be an acting president.

 

[PyroTheFox]

And some of my own speculation, but could Hearst be plotting something with Senate allies, to prevent the election of a vice president long enough to run out the clock? Personally I don't think he has much of a shot there, since there are only two candidates, and senators must make a choice, so once there's an outright majority then it's settled. But if it were possible to run out the clock on both the presidential and vice-presidential contingent elections, I don't know who would end up in the line of succession - I think it would be at the authority of Congress, and any legislation they've made on the matter?

Technically, senators also have the option to abstain
The remainder of your points will be addressed in the next part, I believe.

As for the election of the vice president in this TL, I don't think Johnson has much chance because the Democrats have 43 Senators in the outgoing congress, just one vote short of the half which is enough if the sitting vice president, a democrat still, and two shy of majority if the vice president doesn't cast his tie breaking vote. Since this is going to play out between McClellan and Johnson, I doubt the Democrats will vote for Johnson, and I doubt either that the Republicans will side with Progressives at this point. It's more likely that Republicans will cast their vote to McClellan. A possible corrupt bargain would be Democrats supporting Butler in the House in exchange for Republicans supporting McClellan, the only way the stalemate could be realistically overcome at this point I think.

As I understand it, a majority vote would necessitate 49 votes as there are 96 senatorial incumbents in the 62nd Congress.
Also, Vice President Clark resigned just after President Hearst announced his re-election campaign, so there is no tie-breaker vote atm.
So, the Democrats would need a minimum of six Republican senators to confirm McClellan.

 

[galileo-034]

Worst case, the Secretary of State becomes acting president unless enough Republicans vote for McClellan.
But I don't see Hearst having enough followers in the Senate to make up for Republicans votes in McClellan favor, so a tie in the Senate remains quite unlikely. Unless the Republicans abstain, but that becomes messy at that point to guess if there is enough votes to avoid a tie.

 

[SandroPertini98]

An other case: an Old Parties Corrupt Bargain steals the election, giving the White House to Butler or Marshal or better ever a Butler/McClellan ticket. Teddy screams to fraud and run again in 1916: with Republicans and Democrats divided and their reputation destroyed by OPCB, Roosevelt captured the Presidency, only to enter in WWI, losing thousands of New Rough Riders in trench warfare, becoming increasingly unpopular and finally dying in office. With a not charismatic successor leading Progressives and traditional parties ruined by OPCB, Socialists, that slowly grew seat after seat building on other parties’ betrayal and opposition to war, win large and clear.

 

[PyroTheFox]

Contingent Election Underway in the U.S. Congress, 1913 - Source: LoC​

In response to the failure of the first tally, the House devolved into an unsettling uproar. Democratic House leaders confronted the Hearst men for their reprehensible tactics at the close of the kick-off ballot, most notably epitomized with the choice of Minority Whip Edwin Webb to engage in a shouting match with Congressman Conway on the floor of the legislature. Pounding his fist onto a desk and interrupting regular procedure, Webb yelped, "You blind fools! Do you have no shame?" Similar verbal sparring and shouting over the speaker's gavel encircled the divided delegations as respectable behavior faded to dust. When regained of his authority some thirty minutes later, Butler quieted the uproarious halls and led the congressmen to its second vote. Once more, ten states were tied.

An evaporation of decorum in the 62nd Congress was, play-for-play, precisely what Hearst desired. The president's actions effectively muddled the shape of the contingent election and decimated hopes of an orderly process. Democrats were extremely unhappy with the latest developments and acknowledged their chance at victory sharply diminished. The likelihood of Republican or Progressive victory appeared equally unreachable. Regardless of one's candidate preference, none were satisfied. Hearst had searched for this exact outcome, and now the figurative train was planted firmly on those tracks.

Speaker Butler placed a controversial lid on the boiling legislature as successive House ballots showed little movement and the presidential campaigns scrambled to alter the course. Urged behind the scenes to calm fears of an endless congressional session, Butler formally restricted the balloting to two per day. In the mix of Hearst-driven delays and an escalating Democratic schism, the reputation of the House of Representatives as a responsible authority dwindled by a discernable degree. Governor Marshall and Speaker Butler attempted to calm national fears with incessant pledges to "respect and honor" the selection mechanism, but there is little historical evidence that this type of messaging proved effectual.

A synchronous Senate too found itself stuck in a tar-laced electoral trap. No one party in the upper chamber held a clear majority, and the burden was placed on the Republican senators to choose either Democratic vice-presidential candidate George McClellan or Progressive Hiram Johnson. The GOP detested both rather severely and had difficulty stomaching the promotion of either to higher office. The Democratic Party was trekking along an unmitigated path to disaster and a complete sacrifice of federal power. Apparently, if left to its own devices, the multi-sect political organization could drown itself. Republicans were not about to assist their political nemesis by tossing a self-defeating lifesaver. Therefore, repeating the essence of what had materialized in the House, the Senate failed to select its White House occupant on the first ballot. All 34 Republicans abstained as guided by the Republican National Committee and the Butler Campaign. The 43 Democratic votes went to McClellan and the 19 Progressives chose Johnson. The winner required a majority vote of 49 senators, so it was the duty of the Republican Party to side with one option or another. On the first ballot they outright declined to choose, and that strategy was replicated on the second, third, and fourth as well.

Deputies of the Hearst Campaign were later revealed to have offered a compromise to their Democratic counterparts in Congress at the height of electoral uncertainty. In several documents that came to light some decades afterward, Hearst's team pledged to support Marshall for president and McClellan for vice president if, and only if, President Hearst could be allowed the position of State Secretary. We do not know, for certain, what the Democratic response entailed, but historians have wagered that both candidates heartily turned down the opportunity. McClellan was no friend of Hearst's, and the former had gone through an extensive effort to expunge all relations with Tammany Hall since being elected in 1904. Marshall, of course, was not inclined to bargain. Be that as it may, as the days marched on near the end of February, the Marshall Campaign should have probably accepted the offer.

Time was running out. A Constitutional crisis was on the horizon in the event that neither chamber of Congress selected a new leading official. The next in line, by succession law, was the Secretary of State. Yet, recognizing Hearst's term expired on March 4th, his entire administration too would dissolve. Present statute did not outline a concise path for this dangerous eventuality. Senate Republicans understood the risk of a permanent stalemate and a drawn-out court battle over succession law, and came to terms with the options laid before them. As commanded to do so by Conference Chairmen Shelby Cullom of the GOP and Robert La Follette of the Columbians, a bipartisan group of six Republican and Progressive senators met in late February to reach a compromise. Roosevelt and Butler were informed of this as well, and each remained on call as needed. In the end, the "Six Kingmakers" succeeded in forging a sufficient agreement. It mainly concerned the makeup of the next president's Cabinet (namely, a minimum of two appointees from the opposing party), but it did finally settle a long-standing dispute.

On February 28th, the Senate selected Governor Hiram Johnson for vice president on the 27th ballot with full-fledged support from all but three Republican incumbents. With the House deadlocked, the vice presidential choice would very likely serve as acting president as well. The Progressive governor, immediately thereafter, professed his understanding that the language of the 12th Amendment did not overrule the prospect of continued balloting in the House. In other words, an "acting president" was a temporary president, and it did not supersede the ongoing congressional sparring.

The House remained unmoving, though, locked in a state of chaos masterminded by the exiting president. Heightened tension and animosity shifted to quiet uneasiness with no end in sight for the presidential election. The puppeteer president accomplished just as he desired, to an extent, and the contingent process showed itself to be innately flawed. Albeit knowing full well who the eventual pick would be, Hearst was ecstatic to learn that the 62nd Congress would expire without choosing a new president. That responsibility now automatically changed hands to the new, 63rd Congress. In due time, Progressive Californian Congressman Wesley L. Jones would step into the role of House speaker and Thomas Butler would be completely stripped of his status within the party ranks. All things considered; the final line of Hearst's Memo now made perfect sense. "The people will have their say."

Washington, March 4. - William R. Hearst has said farewell to public life to-day and became a plain citizen of the republic. The twenty-ninth President handed the reins to acting President Hiram Warren Johnson, duly elected Vice President per his election in the United States Senate. Johnson has claimed his role shall be temporary. The inauguration took place in a private Washington office with a standard inaugural ceremony planned for next week. "I will do all that is required," he said. [...] The New Congress was inaugurated this morning to celebratory acclaim by the public at large. Congressman Jones of California tell us that the first order of business will be a resumed balloting. With a decisive advantage by the Progressive Party, it is expected that Theodore Roosevelt shall win on the first round. [...] Democratic losses in Illinois, New York, and many other states will all but assure enough votes for the Columbian nominee.​

Charles A. Green, "A New President At Last" The Washington Post, March 5th, 1913​

​

​

 

[Taimur500]

More chaos.

Here's to the future massacre of rough riders in belgium.

 

[galileo-034]

While Hearst administration may have been mirred in scandal, I suspect that a few decades later, his legacy would improve dramatically, especially if he himself has the pens.
I may see it through OTL today lenses, but he sacrificed his administration on a suicidal campaign finance reform and instigated chaos in the congress to admittedly avoid the election being stolen by the outgoing congress from the people's hands. That would be enough today to make him a hero in history books if one forgets everything else.

Here's the Don Quixote de la Casa Blanca.

 

[galileo-034]

More chaos.

Here's to the future massacre of rough riders in belgium.

I don't see why. The US have no commitment to any European alliance. The drive for involvement will only appear with German submarine warfare and their meddling in Mexico. So, I don't think Roosevelt will be faster than Wilson to get the US involved. He may though be less subtle and big mouth than Wilson was. And if he judges, like FDR did in 1940, that the prospect of involvement in the Great War requires it, he may also head for a third term. That would put him in position to influence Versailles treaty. And I imagine that Roosevelt would be quite more realistic and pragmatic than Wilson was in drawing post war order.

 

[ChadMachine999]

he may also head for a third term.

Except he died in 1919.

 

[Anglocalvinist67]

Thank God Teddy is back in!

 

[galileo-034]

Except he died in 1919.

The conditions that led to his death have been quite butterflied away I think. For instance, that is no trip to South American jungles and no fever to hasten his demise. That could easily add a few extra years to his count.

 

[LuckyLuciano]

I would have loved to see the courts strike down Johnson's interpretation and say the text of the Twelfth Amendment explicitly names him full President at the end of the 62nd congress, with no further balloting. Then see the progressives ripped apart by the pacifist Johnson and warhawk Roosevelt by 1916.

Good update though very unexpected!

 

[galileo-034]

Only see I didn't know through in this is that Senate rules required a majority of all senators for the vice presidential vote, and not only that of those voting. Is that it ?

 

[Unknown]

A contested election and potential US involvement in the Great War (aka World War I IOTL) earlier? Yeah, that's going to radicalize the populace considerably ITTL (just look at the Reds! timeline to see what can happen)...

 

[PyroTheFox]

More chaos.

Here's to the future massacre of rough riders in belgium.

The ride never ends!

The conditions that led to his death have been quite butterflied away I think. For instance, that is no trip to South American jungles and no fever to hasten his demise. That could easily add a few extra years to his count.

Indeed!

I would have loved to see the courts strike down Johnson's interpretation and say the text of the Twelfth Amendment explicitly names him full President at the end of the 62nd congress, with no further balloting. Then see the progressives ripped apart by the pacifist Johnson and warhawk Roosevelt by 1916.

Good update though very unexpected!

Thanks! I considered stretching out the end of the contingent election, but it was getting a bit too messy so I simplified it a touch. Oh well, Occam's Razor and all that.