A Presidency Derailed

In the Democratic convention of 1852 a dark horse candidate named Franklin Pierce was nominated. He went on to easily win the presidency. Most people don't know anything about President Pierce, but historians rank him as the absolute worst American president of all time. Many think that his actions in office lead to the American Civil War. The two most notable incidents of his term were the Ostend Manifesto (where it was discovered that he wanted to force Cuba into the Union - as a slave state. This angered the North), and the Kansas-Nabraska Act (where the Missouri Compromise was repealed and "bloody Kansas" came into being. This angered everybody).

But . . .
Two months before he was inaugurated he and his family were in a train accident and his eleven old son was killed. So the POD is that when the train derails the son lives and it is Franklin Pierce who dies instead.



Some characters:
William R. King: The Vice-President elect. He is traveling to Cuba in the hope that the environment there will offer some relief to his advanced tuberculosis. In OTL he only served as VP for 45 days before dying.

James Buchanan: Is a political heavy weight who was president after Pierce in OTL (and is listed as the second worst American president of all time). He is also the very close friend and housemate of William King. And he is one of the principle people responsible for the Ostend Manifesto (see above).

Stephen Douglas: Another big name for the Democrats. Senator for Illinois. He ran against Lincoln in OTL. He is also the guy responsible for the Kansas debacle.

Lewis Cass. Yet another top Democrat, he received more votes than Pierce did in the 1852 Democratic convention but did not win the nomination. He is a war hero several times over, he wants to obliterate the Indians, but he is also known as a Great Moderator. Although he was accused of pandering to Southern Democrats on the issue of slavery he resigned as Secretary of State in OTL because he thought Buchanan wasn't doing enough to prevent succession (in a hard-liner way: reinforce Ft Sumter, stuff like that).

---

So it's January 6th, 1853. A train has derailed and the president elect has been killed. He will be mourned by his son, his widow, and by his nation. What happens next? Who will be the 14th President? Who will be the 15th? Will the Ostend and Kansas problems still happen? Will the American Civil War still happen?
 
You Just Killed My FAVOURITE President, What, he was Born Less than 10 Miles from Where I Sit Right Now ...

As for Events to Come ...

According The Presidential Succession Rules in Effect at The Time Vice President-Elect William R. King Would then Become President, However Even Assuming he Makes it to Washington for The Inauguration he's Unlikely to Live for Much Longer than in OTL; Now Ordinarily The President Pro Tempore of The Senate would be in Line to Take Office but King himself had Only Resigned from The Same Position Just Two and a Half Weeks Before!

Think David R. Atchison will Still Want The Job?
 
Well, firstly there's something of a constitutional crisis. Only the 20th Amendment clarified that the Vice-President elect assumes the Presidency in the event the President-elect dies before assuming his office. In 1853, the matter is much murkier: when John Tyler assumed the Presidency, many thought him only the Acting President. Tyler's precedent was followed nonethless after the death of Zachary Tayler and thus the ascencsion of Millard Fillmore, the other pinacle of mid-19th century presidential statesmanship. Hence, it's not at all clear that William King ascends to the Presidency, though he probably does, since at the very least he's sworn in as VP, but since there's no President, he assumes that office per the Constitution and the 1792 Act of Succession. And then he dies almost immediately (assuming of course he makes it to March 4, being assumingly weakned by the stress of Pierce's death).

There is now a dual vacancy and thus according the 1792 Act, the Pres. Pro Tempore of the Senate would be Acting President and a new Presidential election would be called for November, 1853, to elect a President who would serve beginning March 4, 1854. Now things get kind of funny: the President Pro Tempore of the Senate was David Rice Atchison in 1852 (just barely as it had been vacated by King when he was elected VP!). Things are funny because Atchison claimed to have been "President for a day" when Zachary Taylor delayed being sworn in for a day in 1849, because that year March 4 was a Sunday. Atchison's claim is probably a myth to begin with and in any case it's constitutionally specisous. Nonetheless, in TTL, he'd get to be Acting President for a year!

The effect of all this uproar--a special Presidential election and a replay of the compicated maneuvering of a nominating convention--will be profound. It may lead to calls for Constitutional Amendments, along the lines of our 22nd Amendment (shortening the Lame Duck period and defining succession in cases of electoral question) and/or our 25th Amendment (providing for succession upon presidential disability and the appointment of a new VP). It will at the very least delay the timing of the Ostend Manifesto and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which may alter them significantly. It may also have great impact on party politics, since the election of 1852 was the last gasp of the Whig Party and the beginnings of what would become the Republican Party. The decay of the 2nd Party System in the 1850s may thus be greatly effected and so too the path to and/or causes of TTL Civil War. Given Democratic conventions of the time there's not telling who their nominee will be, though that person will likely take the White House, given the decay of the Whigs.
 
This is a Question for the Supremes,
If King doesn't make it back in time, I can see the Supremes deciding that Millard Fillmore remains President till King is sworn in.
 
This is a Question for the Supremes,
If King doesn't make it back in time, I can see the Supremes deciding that Millard Fillmore remains President till King is sworn in.

There's absolutely no basis for retaining the former President. It falls to the Pres. Pro Tem or the Speaker of the House. Also, the Supreme Court is far less likely to get involved in 1853 than they were in 2000.
 
The 1792 Act says that if there is a double vacancy and no President Pro Tem of the Senate the Speaker of the House becomes President. I think that this is a guy called Lin Boyd, a Democrat.

(My source on this and other issues around succsession is a really interesting book called the 25th Amendment by John D Feerick)

The 1792 Act also calls for a special election, it would have been November 1853.

(By the way I think that Andrew Johnson and Buchanon rank lower than Pierce in the worst President stakes and there is currently rather severe competition for that title.)
 
This is a Question for the Supremes,
If King doesn't make it back in time, I can see the Supremes deciding that Millard Fillmore remains President till King is sworn in.

in OTL King was 20 days late in taking the oath of office and he actually did it while he was in Cuba!
According to Wikipedia (which is always right), "The privilege of taking the oath on foreign soil was extended by a special act of Congress for his long and distinguished service in government."
Anyway, the Supreme Court need not get involved.

But, but, but . . .
President David R. Atchison !!! What hath I wrought?

When I stated that Douglas was responsible for the Bleeding Kansas debacle I was wrong - Atchison was the real culprit. He was very pro-slavery and when it looked like Kansas might go free he took action. Again from Wikipedia:
An angry Atchison called on pro-slavery Missourians to uphold slavery by force and “to kill every God-damned abolitionist in the district” if necessary. He recruited an immense mob of heavily armed Missourians, the infamous Border Ruffians. On the election day, 30 March 1855, Atchison led 5,000 Border Ruffians into Kansas. They seized control of all polling places at gunpoint, cast tens of thousands of fraudulent votes for pro-slavery candidates, and “elected” a pro-slavery legislature.

This does not sound like a guy who will just sit in the Oval Office for a year waiting to be replaced in the next election. This guy is willing to bend or break the rules to get what he wants. He is ruthless, sometimes violent, extremely well connected, and widely popular. The opposing Whig party is just about "dead, dead, dead". The new Republican party is weak. Is it time for a coup?

How about this:
King gets sworn in as President and promptly dies.
Atchison gets sworn in as president and forces an amendment that keeps him president for the full four year term and not just one year.

Is this plausible?
If it is, then what does the active, pro-slavery, pro-expansionist President Atchison do during his term and how does every body else react?
 
Amendments are not easy things to pass. However, it might be possible to pass what would be in this alternate timeline the Thirteenth Amendment, worded in such a way so to address the line of succession, and reinforce the election schedule. Nonetheless, Atchison would have to follow the succession law in place at the time until the potential amendment passed and was ratified by the states.
 
Ok, calmer minds prevail. No coup. No new amendment.
Atchison is "acting" president until the special election. When is the special election -1 year?

Atchison still has about one year to cause mischief. Also, if he is "acting" president does he still have his other powers?

How about this: Buchanan and most top political people are distracted by the convention and election so the Ostend Manifesto is never written or never comes to light.

Atchison takes advantage of his year of power by trying to force a Kansas-Nebraska act a year sooner than OTL.
(do-able?)



The 1792 Act seems to call for a special Presidental election for a full 4 year term. Who would win an election 1853?

So are US elections a year later than in OTL from this point forward? If so, this alone has major effects. What if a Ft. Sumter event in 1861 happens in the last year of Buchanan's term instead of the first year of Lincoln's? But I'm getting ahead of things here.


Because of the landslide victory in '52 the Democrats are sure that whoever gets nominated will easily become president. Who gets the spot? Buchanan? Cass?
 
Ok, calmer minds prevail. No coup. No new amendment.
Atchison is "acting" president until the special election. When is the special election -1 year?

Atchison still has about one year to cause mischief. Also, if he is "acting" president does he still have his other powers?

How about this: Buchanan and most top political people are distracted by the convention and election so the Ostend Manifesto is never written or never comes to light.

Atchison takes advantage of his year of power by trying to force a Kansas-Nebraska act a year sooner than OTL.
(do-able?)
Powers, Like Superman ...

Something Like Ostend will Probably STILL be Written, whether or Not it Actually Comes to Light is The Pertinent Question ...

The Southern Democrats Just got a Whole Lot Stronger, So an Earlier Kansas-Nebraska Act is a Distinct Possibility!

:eek:

So are US elections a year later than in OTL from this point forward? If so, this alone has major effects. What if a Ft. Sumter event in 1861 happens in the last year of Buchanan's term instead of the first year of Lincoln's? But I'm getting ahead of things here.


Because of the landslide victory in '52 the Democrats are sure that whoever gets nominated will easily become president. Who gets the spot? Buchanan? Cass?
BUTTERFLIES, Ft. Sumter Only Happened in 1861 Because The Election was in 1860 ...

Heck Buchanan may Now Never Even be President ...

As for The Next One, Cass would get My Vote he was The Heavy-Hitter at The Time!

:p
 
A President Cass timeline could be cool and easily arranged in 1848 or '52 but if the Kansas problems have started then I think that changes things. Cass would not get the nomination for two reasons: he is anti-slavery (which losses him support in the south), his rhetoric on Popular sovereignty would remind people too much of Atchison's recent ploy in Kansas (loosing him support from the North or from free-soil thinkers).

I suspect we get Buchanan or another doughface and end up with mostly a repeat of the lead up to the ACW. War happens either 3 years early or 1 year late, depending on later elections.
 
Would the idea of "popular soveriegnty" (a tactic which the Slave interest hoped to allow to spread their instituion further North than would have otherwise have been tolerated) have been a issue, or perhaps THE issue of an 1853 election?

Could that view have been defeated?

If it was would that have meant no "bleeding Kasas" and possibly no Republican party as such.
 
Atchison is "acting" president until the special election. When is the special election -1 year?

Atchison still has about one year to cause mischief. Also, if he is "acting" president does he still have his other powers?

I think that by this time the Idea that the President is the President had taken root.
There would have been no "Acting" attached to his Title.
An angry Atchison called on pro-slavery Missourians to uphold slavery by force and “to kill every God-damned abolitionist in the district” if necessary. He recruited an immense mob of heavily armed Missourians, the infamous Border Ruffians. On the election day, 30 March 1855, Atchison led 5,000 Border Ruffians into Kansas. They seized control of all polling places at gunpoint, cast tens of thousands of fraudulent votes for pro-slavery candidates, and “elected” a pro-slavery legislature.
Could anyone imagine some thing like this happening today.
 
Would the idea of "popular soveriegnty" (a tactic which the Slave interest hoped to allow to spread their instituion further North than would have otherwise have been tolerated) have been a issue, or perhaps THE issue of an 1853 election?

Could that view have been defeated?

If it was would that have meant no "bleeding Kasas" and possibly no Republican party as such.
If Anything, The Politics of The Time Would Ensure that it Passed ...

Which Means a BLOODIER Kansas and a Stronger Republican Party ...

Can you Say, President Edwin M. Stanton?

:p
 
Top