A Less Presidential America

The real point is that the Senate was not only supposed to represent the states but also served as a parallel to the old Colonial Legislative councils, which functioned more like a Cabinet in the modern Westminster sense. Now, I find Lee's objection to the Senate fulfilling such a role rather odd: he seems to prefer to cede the ability to confirm judges and treaties to an even smaller and even more indirectly elected body than the Senate. Letting the Senate serve as an exclusively legislative chamber, which essentially means it's there to hobble the House. The one benefit of Lee's system is that it allows the new Council to serve as a more effective Cabinet in the Westminster sense, but I think it's kind of counter-productively cumbersome anyway.

I think that there is definitely the possibility that a kind of additional council between the legislative and the executive branch is a possibility. Maybe the leadership of the House and Senate, along with the Cabinet, could form a "Council of State".

I quite agree. Perhaps if Hamilton is in Congress it might happen. He might be if say Jefferson ends up winning in 1796 rather than 1800. This might keep the Federalists viable much longer as well.

Oh. I rather like this. Alexander Hamilton, Senator from New York, or Representative from New York City. Or maybe he stays outside of elected politics, and tries to build a political machine in New York, criticizing Jefferson's administration in the newspapers. Either way, he'll spend '96 to '00 working to build a coalition of support for a Federalist candidate. If Thomas Jefferson is the President in 1796, then Adams would probably be the Vice-President. There were indications that Adams may have resigned rather than spend another 4 years as VP. I don't think he could have stayed out of politics though, and maybe we could see a reapproachment with Hamilton, with Adams running in 1800? Or Adams trying to gain a Senate or House seat in Massachusetts?

If Adams does bow out of national politics and return to Quincy, then I think that you could see him become involved in Massachusetts state politics. Both he and Hamilton would opposed to the seccessionist Federalists of New England, and perhaps based on this shared national vision, and the fact that they are in opposition, they can build some kind of political relationship.

Adams runs for the presidency in 1800, wins with Hamilton's support, and then appoints Hamilton to be his Secretary of State, a position which appears now to be the place where the next President will come from? This has now gotten totally off-topic sorry.

It's certainly very interesting. In what way was the COS supposed to be responsible? In terms of accountable in the sense of Cabinet Officials or in terms of representing the will of the majority Party? In the former, it seems like a very Bismarkian role, essentially giving legislative legitimacy to a Presidential hachetman. Kind of scary, really. Maybe I'm missing something.

No I don't think you are. The point of the elevation of the COS seemed to be to keep the President above the rough and tumble party politics, so that he could pursue more "national" things like defense and international relations. I think that it was attempt to insulate the Presidency from partisan politics that Eisenhower felt hurt American foreign policy.

Well, if he continues in the Cabinet it might be that the Treasury Secretary evolves. The problem with the evolution is that none of the Cabinet department are pre-emenient enough to qualify. Historically, this was the position of Sec State, but the Sec State doesn't have any bearing on domestic policy and so can't really touch all spheres of the government. The Treasury Sec'ty could, but historically American Tres. Secs since Hamilton have been little more than functionaries.

I was thinking that you could have an evolution of the position to be some kind of "Home Secretary". I don't think that this is beyond the range of possibility, since the federal government was so small. The position of Secretary of the Treasury could be turned into the "Home Secretary" in charge of all things domestic that the federal government deals with. I don't think that you would even need a name change, just the steady accumulation of power to the office by Hamilton over 16 years (1788-1804), then once Jefferson comes in, he appoints Madison to be the Secretary of the Treasury and be his political director essentially.

Another take off is that in an ATL 12th Ammendment, the office of Vice-President is no longer elected by the electoral college, but appointed (probably in a manner not unsimilar to OTL's 25th Ammendment, as an uber-cabinet official). Because he's accountable to the President (if he can be fired like a Cabinet officer), he can be entrusted with more authority. In such a situation however, he probably only becomes 'Acting President' in the event of the Presidency becomes vacant.

If you have the Vice-President be able to retain his ability to speak in the Senate I think that you might be able to do that. Adams had the right to speak taken away from him, and the Vice Presidents after that never got the right back. If you have a speaking Vice President, they could become a powerful political advocate for whatever their policies are, and with the tie breaking vote you could see the establishment of the office as a power unto itself.
 
I think that there is definitely the possibility that a kind of additional council between the legislative and the executive branch is a possibility. Maybe the leadership of the House and Senate, along with the Cabinet, could form a "Council of State".

That or the Cabinet naturally includes the House and Senate leadership if the Congress starts out with something like the committee system sooner. In the 1787 Constitution, the Cabinet is never defined; indeed the term itself is not used anywhere.


Oh. I rather like this. Alexander Hamilton, Senator from New York, or Representative from New York City. Or maybe he stays outside of elected politics, and tries to build a political machine in New York, criticizing Jefferson's administration in the newspapers. Either way, he'll spend '96 to '00 working to build a coalition of support for a Federalist candidate. If Thomas Jefferson is the President in 1796, then Adams would probably be the Vice-President. There were indications that Adams may have resigned rather than spend another 4 years as VP. I don't think he could have stayed out of politics though, and maybe we could see a reapproachment with Hamilton, with Adams running in 1800? Or Adams trying to gain a Senate or House seat in Massachusetts?

Either would work. I think some combination of the two might be necessary, particularly to counter Aaron Burr's influence in New York (without which the Federalists probably continue to dominate there). Adams resigning the Vice-Presidency seems likely, given the disputes with Jefferson. Perhaps this results in an earlier 12th Amendment or perhaps the later abolishment of the office.

Also, it seems to me that a scenario in which Jefferson wins in 1796 is much more interesting (and predictable) than tinkering with Washington's terms.

If Adams does bow out of national politics and return to Quincy, then I think that you could see him become involved in Massachusetts state politics. Both he and Hamilton would opposed to the seccessionist Federalists of New England, and perhaps based on this shared national vision, and the fact that they are in opposition, they can build some kind of political relationship.

Adams runs for the presidency in 1800, wins with Hamilton's support, and then appoints Hamilton to be his Secretary of State, a position which appears now to be the place where the next President will come from? This has now gotten totally off-topic sorry.

Adams might run, but by 1800, maybe he's happy with retirement. The key is the outcome of Jefferson's Presidency: Adams OTL sacrificed his re-election to keep the US from declaring war on Revolutionary France. Jefferson is probably likely to try his utmost to stop it as well. It's hard to say what kind of President Jefferson would make in 1796. OTL, while he espoused a belief that the President should take a back seat to Congress, he in fact didn't, ordering the navy to fight Barbary pirates without authorization. He was the first President to politic in the House and Senate for support. And of course he engineered the Louisiana Purchase. If Hamilton is in Congress to provide strong leadership to take initiative away from Jefferson, that may prove decisive. To some extent, keeping Jefferson in power through 1800 may not be a bad thing, especially if the US in the midst of a war. Hamilton may find he can wield more influence as a Senator.

In this context, I could see an amendment to simply abolish the VP and have the Senate elect a Senate President (who according to the 1792 Act of Succession would become Acting President). Indeed, if Adams is out of national politics, perhaps Hamilton becomes the proposed candidate in 1800 and wins the requisite second place to become VP. Except Hamilton doesn't want to be VP, because it will effectively kill his power. Hence the change.

It might be better if Hamilton pulls a Clay and simply ensconces himself in the Speaker's office. Because of the small number of Senators it will be harder to wield power as President of that body. Hamilton may even recognize the boon of being able to claim a popular mandate that no other Federal official can and hence press for the passage of the Proposed First Amendment, the one to ensure a very large House of Representatives. This will do a lot to increase the influence of parties and of the Speaker on House proceedings. Maybe the solution is that Adams goes to the Senate (drafted by his fellow Massachusettans after not too long) while Hamilton to the House.

Madison probably at first follows Jefferson into the Executive Branch, but only to find that as Sec State or Sec Treas he has far less influence than Hamilton does as Speaker.
 
That or the Cabinet naturally includes the House and Senate leadership if the Congress starts out with something like the committee system sooner. In the 1787 Constitution, the Cabinet is never defined; indeed the term itself is not used anywhere.

I never actually thought about that. I think one thing that probably kept this from happening was the fear of legislative overreach into the executive branch. Perhaps you could have a different Speaker of the House or Vice-President, who could then influence how the cabinet is set up. I'm thinking a Vice-President Jefferson, whose political ambitions would probably lead him down a very different path that John Adams.

Either would work. I think some combination of the two might be necessary, particularly to counter Aaron Burr's influence in New York (without which the Federalists probably continue to dominate there). Adams resigning the Vice-Presidency seems likely, given the disputes with Jefferson. Perhaps this results in an earlier 12th Amendment or perhaps the later abolishment of the office.

Well, even if Jefferson is elected to the Presidency, the Federalists will probably still control Congress. Perhaps we see an earlier "Midnight Appoitments" to maintain Federalist influence. If you still have Federalist control of Congress, then its possible that the Federalists elect one of their own Vice President, possibly by electing a Federalist Senator "President of the Senate". This would probably cause a constitutional crisis, but with the Hamilton influenced court-packing, I'm going to guess that the Senate is upheld. John Marshall becomes the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

I don't know if Adams would resign as VP however. Despite his bellyaching about not wanting the position, I think that he may rather stay in government rather than remain outside it. Also, Jefferson, Janus-faced political operator that he was, may reach out to Adams in an attempt to divide the Federalist Party.

Also, it seems to me that a scenario in which Jefferson wins in 1796 is much more interesting (and predictable) than tinkering with Washington's terms.

Adams might run, but by 1800, maybe he's happy with retirement. The key is the outcome of Jefferson's Presidency: Adams OTL sacrificed his re-election to keep the US from declaring war on Revolutionary France. Jefferson is probably likely to try his utmost to stop it as well. It's hard to say what kind of President Jefferson would make in 1796. OTL, while he espoused a belief that the President should take a back seat to Congress, he in fact didn't, ordering the navy to fight Barbary pirates without authorization. He was the first President to politic in the House and Senate for support. And of course he engineered the Louisiana Purchase. If Hamilton is in Congress to provide strong leadership to take initiative away from Jefferson, that may prove decisive. To some extent, keeping Jefferson in power through 1800 may not be a bad thing, especially if the US in the midst of a war. Hamilton may find he can wield more influence as a Senator.

I don't think that there would be a war with France if Jefferson was President, however I do think that the embarrassment of the XYZ Affair (which would happen regardless of who was President) may torpedo Jefferson's chances in 1800. The Federalist Congress could cast itself as the defender of America, while the President is basically an agent of the French.

To go back to the thought of Adams staying on with Jefferson, there would probably be a series of disagreements, culminating in a falling out over how to handle the XYZ Affair. Adams would publicly break with Jefferson, and join with Hamilton's High Federalists, calling for more funding for the military to face the French threat. When the election of 1800 comes around Adams is positioned as the united Federalist candidate, the moderate front of what has become a Hamilton dominated faction.

In this context, I could see an amendment to simply abolish the VP and have the Senate elect a Senate President (who according to the 1792 Act of Succession would become Acting President). Indeed, if Adams is out of national politics, perhaps Hamilton becomes the proposed candidate in 1800 and wins the requisite second place to become VP. Except Hamilton doesn't want to be VP, because it will effectively kill his power. Hence the change.

I don't think that Hamilton would ever attempt a national run. He was too divisive and I think he preferred the role of king-maker to actually being king.

It might be better if Hamilton pulls a Clay and simply ensconces himself in the Speaker's office. Because of the small number of Senators it will be harder to wield power as President of that body. Hamilton may even recognize the boon of being able to claim a popular mandate that no other Federal official can and hence press for the passage of the Proposed First Amendment, the one to ensure a very large House of Representatives. This will do a lot to increase the influence of parties and of the Speaker on House proceedings. Maybe the solution is that Adams goes to the Senate (drafted by his fellow Massachusettans after not too long) while Hamilton to the House.

Speaker Alexander Hamilton turning the post into the most powerful in the federal government is so absolutely ironic that I might have to do a timeline. THE Closet Monarchist, as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, making it the central position in the government.

If you want to see what government looks like dominated by the Speaker of the House, look at Massachusetts right now. The Speaker of the House dominates state government, because he wields incredible power since he has control of a veto-proof majority. His control of the state's purse strings to reward or punish as he chooses allows this tight control (along with the fact that Democrats also have a veto-proof majority in the Senate). This would require, however, that the United States basically turn into a one-party country.

I don't really think that Adams would really be all that effective of a Senator. The man was quite disagreeable, and though a great patriot, not much of one for the partisan bickering and oneupsmanship that is so much a part of American politics. I'm actually starting to rethink him as the 1800 Presidential candidate for the Federalists. I think that if you give Hamilton 4 years of time to craft his policy and attack Jefferson, you would probably have a single candidate who would get the Federalist vote. I think that Charles Cotesworth Pinckney as the Presidential candidate, with Rufus King as the Vice President would be the ticket.

Madison probably at first follows Jefferson into the Executive Branch, but only to find that as Sec State or Sec Treas he has far less influence than Hamilton does as Speaker.

He would also find that its a lot easier to criticize from outside than it is to craft effective policy on the inside.
 
I never actually thought about that. I think one thing that probably kept this from happening was the fear of legislative overreach into the executive branch. Perhaps you could have a different Speaker of the House or Vice-President, who could then influence how the cabinet is set up. I'm thinking a Vice-President Jefferson, whose political ambitions would probably lead him down a very different path that John Adams.

Probably you'd need a different VP. You'd need a drastically different vein of thought to have a politicized Speaker of the House in 1788: in the First Congress, the position was viewed more like the Speaker of the House of Commons (a non-partisan enforcer of rules).



Well, even if Jefferson is elected to the Presidency, the Federalists will probably still control Congress. Perhaps we see an earlier "Midnight Appoitments" to maintain Federalist influence. If you still have Federalist control of Congress, then its possible that the Federalists elect one of their own Vice President, possibly by electing a Federalist Senator "President of the Senate". This would probably cause a constitutional crisis, but with the Hamilton influenced court-packing, I'm going to guess that the Senate is upheld. John Marshall becomes the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

He's even younger in 1796, though. And I doubt Washington thinks it necessary. A large part of the reason for court-packing in 1800 was that Adams and the Federalists were convinced that the Democractic-Republicans would shred the Constitution. In 1796 this fear hasn't developed.

I don't know if Adams would resign as VP however. Despite his bellyaching about not wanting the position, I think that he may rather stay in government rather than remain outside it. Also, Jefferson, Janus-faced political operator that he was, may reach out to Adams in an attempt to divide the Federalist Party.

Probably right. Although the interesting thing is that the Federalists may gain more initiative in the party-building process, since the dynamic between Jefferson and Madison might be simulated by Adams and Hamilton.

I don't think that there would be a war with France if Jefferson was President, however I do think that the embarrassment of the XYZ Affair (which would happen regardless of who was President) may torpedo Jefferson's chances in 1800. The Federalist Congress could cast itself as the defender of America, while the President is basically an agent of the French.

Quite right.

To go back to the thought of Adams staying on with Jefferson, there would probably be a series of disagreements, culminating in a falling out over how to handle the XYZ Affair. Adams would publicly break with Jefferson, and join with Hamilton's High Federalists, calling for more funding for the military to face the French threat. When the election of 1800 comes around Adams is positioned as the united Federalist candidate, the moderate front of what has become a Hamilton dominated faction.

Sounds very credible. As an additional note, I'd think the Federalists need to find a way to hold on to Southern support. Charles Pickney is probably key here. If they do that, then they stave off becoming a regional party. Also, if they manage to convince the Western states to support them; this may be easier, if the Federalists happen on to an American System ideology of internal improvements, an easy extension of Hamilton's financial policies. (And indeed part of his proposals as Sec Treas).

I don't think that Hamilton would ever attempt a national run. He was too divisive and I think he preferred the role of king-maker to actually being king. Speaker Alexander Hamilton turning the post into the most powerful in the federal government is so absolutely ironic that I might have to do a timeline. THE Closet Monarchist, as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, making it the central position in the government.

That's what makes it so great. Feel free to take the idea and run with it. I'm still toying with the beginnings of a Victorious Athens TL.

If you want to see what government looks like dominated by the Speaker of the House, look at Massachusetts right now. The Speaker of the House dominates state government, because he wields incredible power since he has control of a veto-proof majority. His control of the state's purse strings to reward or punish as he chooses allows this tight control (along with the fact that Democrats also have a veto-proof majority in the Senate). This would require, however, that the United States basically turn into a one-party country.

In Texas, the Speaker of the House has immense amount of clout, even with a narrow majoirty because he controls the legislative agenda (as does the Lt. Gov.), a power amplified by Texas' extremely short and infrequent legsilative sessions. A Speaker of the US House can do the same. Granted, it's hard to do so if your party is out of power. That being said, the US was pretty much a 1 party state during the 'Era of Good Feelings'.

I don't really think that Adams would really be all that effective of a Senator. The man was quite disagreeable, and though a great patriot, not much of one for the partisan bickering and oneupsmanship that is so much a part of American politics. I'm actually starting to rethink him as the 1800 Presidential candidate for the Federalists. I think that if you give Hamilton 4 years of time to craft his policy and attack Jefferson, you would probably have a single candidate who would get the Federalist vote. I think that Charles Cotesworth Pinckney as the Presidential candidate, with Rufus King as the Vice President would be the ticket.

Well, Adams certainly grew this way, though in 1775-6 at the 2nd Contiental Congress he showed he knew the ins and outs of the kind of horse trading required of a senator. Problem is he got very crusty with age.

In any case, woot-woot for a VP Rufus King.
 
Probably you'd need a different VP. You'd need a drastically different vein of thought to have a politicized Speaker of the House in 1788: in the First Congress, the position was viewed more like the Speaker of the House of Commons (a non-partisan enforcer of rules).

I don't know if you would need that different vein of thought. I think actually that the way that you really avoid a strong presidency is that you don't have George Washington as the 1st President. I think that if Washington died you'd probably have John Adams as the 1st President, but without Washington being the first, I think that you'd end up with a very different evolution politically in the early Republic.

He's even younger in 1796, though. And I doubt Washington thinks it necessary. A large part of the reason for court-packing in 1800 was that Adams and the Federalists were convinced that the Democractic-Republicans would shred the Constitution. In 1796 this fear hasn't developed.

I don't know. I get the feeling that Washington wasn't ever really the one setting the agenda of his presidency, and that even things that appeared to be Washington's initiatives were engineered by Hamilton. And Hamilton had absolutely no trust of Jefferson, so he might push some stuff through.

Probably right. Although the interesting thing is that the Federalists may gain more initiative in the party-building process, since the dynamic between Jefferson and Madison might be simulated by Adams and Hamilton.

I think that Adams and Hamilton could only gain that dynamic if they are in the opposition together. Which could mean that they could gain it while they are in the opposition from '96 to '00. So an Adams-Pinckney ticket for '00?

Sounds very credible. As an additional note, I'd think the Federalists need to find a way to hold on to Southern support. Charles Pickney is probably key here. If they do that, then they stave off becoming a regional party. Also, if they manage to convince the Western states to support them; this may be easier, if the Federalists happen on to an American System ideology of internal improvements, an easy extension of Hamilton's financial policies. (And indeed part of his proposals as Sec Treas).

I think that the Federalists playing the patriotism card will get them support in the South. Hamilton's push for war with the French in order to get Spanish territory would appeal to Southern leaders who wanted access to New Orleans. I think that 1800-04 Adams would probably see the advantages of intervening against the Spanish while Europe is in flames, plus Hamilton will be pushing a pro-British foreign policy. Adams will probably trust Hamilton much more than he did OTL, and hopefully Abigail will too,

That's what makes it so great. Feel free to take the idea and run with it. I'm still toying with the beginnings of a Victorious Athens TL.

Which is?


In Texas, the Speaker of the House has immense amount of clout, even with a narrow majoirty because he controls the legislative agenda (as does the Lt. Gov.), a power amplified by Texas' extremely short and infrequent legsilative sessions. A Speaker of the US House can do the same. Granted, it's hard to do so if your party is out of power. That being said, the US was pretty much a 1 party state during the 'Era of Good Feelings'.

The "Era of Good Feelings" lasted what, 6 years? Then the JQ Adams and Jackson started going at. And that gave rise to the Whigs and Democrats and the Whigs were the direct descendants of the Federalists, the Democrats of Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. So I would think that it would be simple to butterfly away the EGF.

Well, Adams certainly grew this way, though in 1775-6 at the 2nd Contiental Congress he showed he knew the ins and outs of the kind of horse trading required of a senator. Problem is he got very crusty with age.

In any case, woot-woot for a VP Rufus King.

I see Rufus King as a cabinet member in the Adams-Pinckney Administration. Maybe Secretary of State? Or you could have John Marshall at secretary of state. I don't know how you want to play this. How well did Rufus King play with Alexander Hamilton?
 
Top