Vice President Arthur dies in 1883 - what next?

Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the concerns I remember reading wound up leading to the passing of the Presidential Succession Act of 1886 - placing the Cabinet in line rather than the President Pro Tempore and House Speaker - was this. If the President and VP both died was that if President Cleveland had died at the same time as V.P. hencricks, there would have techincally been no President pro temp or House Speaker since the new Ongress wouldn't have convened and elected one.

Was this actually an issue? let's say that V.P. Arthur dies in about may of 1883. when did the new Congress which was sworn ina ctually choose a President/Speaker? Woud President Pro Tempore Bayard - a seemingly good candidate for President - be able to succeed anyway, or would there not be people to fill those offices? Would the cabinet raise a fuss - I recall reading that State Secretary Blaine, while Garfield lay dying for 3 months, considered pushing for something to declare the President incapacitated so that Arthur could take over.

Of course, it wasn't as bit of a thing in thsoe days when the Presidency was relatively weak and the country not involved in anything big, but it would be interesting.
 
One of the concerns I remember reading wound up leading to the passing of the Presidential Succession Act of 1886 - placing the Cabinet in line rather than the President Pro Tempore and House Speaker - was this. If the President and VP both died was that if President Cleveland had died at the same time as V.P. hencricks, there would have techincally been no President pro temp or House Speaker since the new Ongress wouldn't have convened and elected one.

Was this actually an issue? let's say that V.P. Arthur dies in about may of 1883. when did the new Congress which was sworn ina ctually choose a President/Speaker? Woud President Pro Tempore Bayard - a seemingly good candidate for President - be able to succeed anyway, or would there not be people to fill those offices? Would the cabinet raise a fuss - I recall reading that State Secretary Blaine, while Garfield lay dying for 3 months, considered pushing for something to declare the President incapacitated so that Arthur could take over.

Of course, it wasn't as bit of a thing in thsoe days when the Presidency was relatively weak and the country not involved in anything big, but it would be interesting.

I presume that you mean President Arthur as you give a POD of May 1883, correct? If so, then the President pro tempore of the Senate would be George F. Edmunds (R-Vermont), as he took office on March 4, 1883. He would have become Acting President of the US, serving until a new president was elected in Nov. '83 and and inaugurated on March 4, 1884.

Now, had V.P. Arthur died in May 1881 followed by Garfield as per OTL, then Bayard(D-Deleware) , who would have become President pro tempore following Arthur's death, would have become Acting President after Garfield's, serving until a new president was elected in Nov. '82 and and inaugurated on March 4, 1883.
 
The succession law then in place would have made the Presidnet Pro tme of the senate acting president but there would have been an election in the fall of 1883.

Would that have had different candidates and or outcome to 1884 in otl?
 
I presume that you mean President Arthur as you give a POD of May 1883, correct? If so, then the President pro tempore of the Senate would be George F. Edmunds (R-Vermont), as he took office on March 4, 1883. He would have become Acting President of the US, serving until a new president was elected in Nov. '83 and and inaugurated on March 4, 1884.

Now, had V.P. Arthur died in May 1881 followed by Garfield as per OTL, then Bayard(D-Deleware) , who would have become President pro tempore following Arthur's death, would have become Acting President after Garfield's, serving until a new president was elected in Nov. '82 and and inaugurated on March 4, 1883.

Okay, thanks; yeah, i was getting the two confused in my mind; I meant President Arthur for 1883 but was also thinking of 1881.

But the point is, they at least met long enough to appoint someone. That's what I wasn't sure of, if Bayard was still considered President Pro Temp witht he new Congress, if Edmunds was chosen right away, or what. Thanks.
 
On a similar note, how many presidents and president-elects would have to die and be succeeded for the US to pass earlier 20th and 25th amendments? How big of a rash of presidential assassinations, accidents and illness would there have to be? 3-5 successions?
 
Good question; part of that might have to do with it being wartime versus peacetime. If Truman is assassinated and Barkley dies a few months later, witht he start of the Cold War and Korea I can see an earlier 25th Amendment being ratified before Sam Rayburn leaves office.
 

libbrit

Banned
So this is the current line of succession


1 Vice President of the United States Joe Biden (D)
2 Speaker of the House John Boehner (R)
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Daniel Inouye (D)
4 Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
5 Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (I)[3]
6 Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (D)
7 Attorney General Eric Holder (D)
8 Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar (D)
9 Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack (D)
-- Acting Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank (D)[4]
10 Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis (D)
11 Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius (D)
12 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan (D)
13 Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood (R)
14 Secretary of Energy Steven Chu (D)
15 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (D)
16 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki*
17 Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano (D)

What happens if everyone one of them dies?
 
^Any one of those seats can be Reappointed by an Acting President or Reelected by the House or the Senate.

I'm talking lets change accelerate it all to pre-Civil war. Lets take for Example the William Henry Harrison. Harrison dies almost immediately and Tyler Becomes president. In 1844 some fluke shrapnel kills Tyler during the cannon explosion on the USS Princeton. Tyler didn't elect a VP so in 1844 Pro Tempore of the Senate, Willie P Mangum becomes President. There was a lot of controversy at the time on whether Tyler was actually President or just Acting President. An amendment or act could have cleared up the issue!

Or in January 1853 President-Elect Franklin Pierce and the first family is killed in a train accident. He Didn't elect a VP so Pro Tempore David Atchison becomes President. in august of 1855 Atchison leads pro-Slavery Border Ruffians into Kansas and is killed in the fighting. There was no Speaker of the House so unless Atchison Elects a VP, Pro Tempore Jesse D Bright becomes President. That is two Pro Tempori getting the presidency in a row. Given the mortality rate of presidents in this universe, I wouldn't think the rest of congress would think that's fair!
 

JRScott

Banned
So this is the current line of succession


1 Vice President of the United States Joe Biden (D)
2 Speaker of the House John Boehner (R)
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Daniel Inouye (D)
4 Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
5 Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (I)[3]
6 Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (D)
7 Attorney General Eric Holder (D)
8 Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar (D)
9 Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack (D)
-- Acting Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank (D)[4]
10 Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis (D)
11 Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius (D)
12 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan (D)
13 Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood (R)
14 Secretary of Energy Steven Chu (D)
15 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (D)
16 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki*
17 Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano (D)

What happens if everyone one of them dies?

There is a document that details what will happen in the event the President, Cabinet or a majority of other government officials die. It is known as the Continuance of Government Protocol, it is classified beyond top secret. Basically your looking at Martial Law short term, with elections in one year. Assuming a quorum of the Senate and House remain in such an event then they can elect a new President (House) and new Vice President (Senate) without waiting for a new special election to fill the current term, nevertheless martial law is likely to be declared in such an event for at least 6 months during the transition.
 
^Any one of those seats can be Reappointed by an Acting President or Reelected by the House or the Senate.

I'm talking lets change accelerate it all to pre-Civil war. Lets take for Example the William Henry Harrison. Harrison dies almost immediately and Tyler Becomes president. In 1844 some fluke shrapnel kills Tyler during the cannon explosion on the USS Princeton. Tyler didn't elect a VP so in 1844 Pro Tempore of the Senate, Willie P Mangum becomes President. There was a lot of controversy at the time on whether Tyler was actually President or just Acting President. An amendment or act could have cleared up the issue!

Or in January 1853 President-Elect Franklin Pierce and the first family is killed in a train accident. He Didn't elect a VP so Pro Tempore David Atchison becomes President. in august of 1855 Atchison leads pro-Slavery Border Ruffians into Kansas and is killed in the fighting. There was no Speaker of the House so unless Atchison Elects a VP, Pro Tempore Jesse D Bright becomes President. That is two Pro Tempori getting the presidency in a row. Given the mortality rate of presidents in this universe, I wouldn't think the rest of congress would think that's fair!

Actually, Pierce's VP was William King, who died in OTL on April 18, 1853. If he still dies as per OTL then Atchison becomes Acting President and there would be a presidential election that November to elect a new president for a 4 year term. Also, if elected POTUS in Nov. '53, President Atchison would not be leading border Ruffians into Kansas personally (nor overtly organizing/supporting such groups either) in TTL.
 
Pierce would have been killed in January 6 1853 after King's resignation as Pro tempore on December 20, 1852 and before King's appointment to VP on March 3, 1853. David Atchison led 5,000 Border Ruffians in Kansas apparently. But they elect a new president in November? That's weird. I would have thought they would have let the new guy ride.

No, King was elected Vice President of the United States on the Democratic ticket with Franklin Pierce in November 1852. He was Vice President-elect on 1/6/1853 and, in TTL would have become, in spite of being terminally ill with tuberculosis, the President-elect upon Pierce's death and subsequently President of the United States on March 4, 1853, unless he were to resign the office or die beforehand. At any rate, Atchison would become Acting President upon the death/resignation of President(-elect) King and there would be a presidential election that November to elect a new president for a 4 year term. Additionally, as cool as it may sound to have a sitting President leading thousands of border Ruffians into Kansas in support of the expansion of slavery, it just wouldn't happen ; sorry. Now his time as Acting President, especially if he runs in the fall presidential election may significantly accelerate the nation's free-fall toward the Civil War.
 
It would have been fascinating if Edmunds had succeeded Arthur in 1883 or 1884, since you would have one Vermonter succeeding another! Also, you forgot about David Davis, who was next in line in between Bayard and Edmunds.
 
No, King was elected Vice President of the United States on the Democratic ticket with Franklin Pierce in November 1852. He was Vice President-elect on 1/6/1853 and, in TTL would have become, in spite of being terminally ill with tuberculosis, the President-elect upon Pierce's death and subsequently President of the United States on March 4, 1853, unless he were to resign the office or die beforehand. At any rate, Atchison would become Acting President upon the death/resignation of President(-elect) King and there would be a presidential election that November to elect a new president for a 4 year term. Additionally, as cool as it may sound to have a sitting President leading thousands of border Ruffians into Kansas in support of the expansion of slavery, it just wouldn't happen ; sorry. Now his time as Acting President, especially if he runs in the fall presidential election may significantly accelerate the nation's free-fall toward the Civil War.


Would Atchison still want to stir up trouble over Kansas?

OTL, he feared a challenge in 1854 by Thomas Hart Benton for his Senate seat, and raised the Kansas issue in order to rally proslavery Missourians behind him (didn't work. He lost anyway, though not to Benton). TTL, he is probably looking for an elected term as POTUS, for which he needs Northern support as well as Southern. So he has far less to gain by stirring up the slavery issue. Far better to try and cool it, in which case he can (if nominated) hope for the easy win that Pierce got the year before.
 
It would have been fascinating if Edmunds had succeeded Arthur in 1883 or 1884, since you would have one Vermonter succeeding another! Also, you forgot about David Davis, who was next in line in between Bayard and Edmunds.

Don't necro two-year-old threads.

Would Atchison still want to stir up trouble over Kansas?

Don't respond to necros. You've been around long enough to know that.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top