AH Challenge: Parliamentary United States

HueyLong

Banned
Your challenge: Make the United States a parliamentary democracy (without a monarchical head of state) with a POD after the ratification of the Constitution.

Further restrictions:
-No foreign take-over of the United States
-Not a result of secession (secession movements may happen, but must be crushed)
 

HueyLong

Banned
That's right, no monarch. At least in part because I hate random monarchical United States TLs and also, because after that POD, you can't stick Americans with a monarch without a very successful secession against the kingdom.
 
Well, you probably could since I believe that is was thru Jefferson's articles during the war that really turned the citizenry off to the idea of Monarchy.

If secession movements must be crushed that alludes to the Army marching about the North and in particular New England more often than against the South.
 
Your challenge: Make the United States a parliamentary democracy (without a monarchical head of state) with a POD after the ratification of the Constitution.

Further restrictions:
-No foreign take-over of the United States
-Not a result of secession (secession movements may happen, but must be crushed)

You'd have to get the smaller states to aprove of a modified form of the Virginia Plan...

I'm not quite sure if they would do that, though... hence the New Jersey Plan...

Realistically, if you manage to weaken the power of the senate, give the position of the OTL Speaker of the House the title of "Prime Minister" and get a non-partisan Speaker (a la Westminister system), you could do it...
 
I can think of a number of PODs but the basic scenarios is this: the Constitution take a much different path than OTL. The most probably spur for such a dynamic is this: rather than the Federalist / Democratic - Republican divide growing up over the election for the Presidency, that rivalry begins in Congress.

Without positing different elections, I think we can start with POD that the 1st House votes to allow Cabinet members floor privileges. I'm thinking that maybe Hamilton writes or says something that he didn't OTL and Madison wants to call him out on it in public. The Senate, however, votes as it did OTL to remove the VP's privileges to do the same and to allow the President to fire Cabinet officers unilaterally.

The next major moment, IMO, is the negotiations for the treaty of New York (with the Creek Indians), the first time the meaning of the advice and consent clause was tested. OTL Washington was furious that the Senate wasted most of its time on formalities (they had spent two days before he arrived on whether to clap before he entered). TTL however the example of Cabinet officers in the House sets some precedent. The debate is still quite long and Washington finds it boring, but it is on practical matters. Perhaps the Senate offers some points that turn out to be useful. Washington mentions it in a Cabinet meeting; Jefferson urges him to repeat the practice.

Now things get a bit harder because we'll need an actual change in the events of OTL, rather than a simple alterations of the events. Springing to mind is that the negotiations for the treaty between France and the US under Adams go slightly differently than OTL, due to the differing precedent of the Advice and Consent Clause. He thus wins the election in 1800, by the thinnest of margins. Now there's a lot to play around with here, particularly who is VP and just how Adams manages the win.

Let's assume, though, that TJ remains VP after a power struggle with Aaron Burr. The Democratic-Republicans, however, win a majority in the House (thank you Virginia). Madison also is still a member of that body, rather than Secretary of State. He thus begins to organize the House to take more of the reigns of government. This sets the groundwork for Henry Clay a decade later to make the Committee System even stronger. Jefferson also begins to work with the Senate: they eventually will overturn the decision regarding the Cabinet and demand approval over the dissmissal of officers. Hence, they begin to take power away from the President and to themselves.

Furthermore, the split between TJ and Aaron Burr is a bit different than OTL (and Hamiton may not have been killed). If TJ is President in 1804, than he may have opponents in Congress. Madison may also chose the stay on in Congress rather than become Secretary of State. Also, the Federalists might just manage to get the Presidency in 1804 if the Lousinana Purchase buoys their chances. I doubt it, though.

At some point, the VPcy will demand a change of some sort, but TTL's 12th Amendment is probably delayed until the 1810s or so. There are a number of different ways for this to go. One is that the Vice-President becomes a mute spare, per OTL by giving each elector two votes (since it's the same elector though, you have the emergence of "tickets"). Another is that the Vice-Presidential race is completely separate. The VPcy might even be abolished and the President of the Senate is elected by the Senate and serves as Acting President until a special election can be held in the event of Presidential vacancy. I'm thinking there also might be changes to the Cabinet in some way, but can't be sure what. Let's say that the VPcy is abolished as a separate office; at the very least, he's no longer the President of the Senate (a tie is now presumed to be a negative vote, because it lacks a majority).

We've now changed things enough that the future developments are hard to predict, but we need two more things that are likely to come over time: first, a strong Speaker of the House. Henry Clay fit this bill OTL, he may well TTL. This strong Speaker is probably the most powerful indvidual in the government. The President's power is weakened due to the Senate's ability to influence the Cabinet; the Presidency itself is weaker without a VP to step in and with the necessity for special elections. The President of the Senate is not as powerful because there are fewer Senators than there are Representatives.

A Speaker with long tenure also may discover a useful lever of power: the House of Representative's sole power to originate appropriations. If logic similar to that applied to the necessary and proper clause is applied to this provision, one might argue the House must originate almost any law. A powerful Speaker also might realize that a larger house would increase his authority (members have less power becuase there's less chance of a swing). Lastly, the tradition of the Congressional caucus of the Democratic - Republicans picking a nominee never falls into disuse (probably because the circumstances for the election of 1824 are far different). Perhaps our slightly more succesfull Federalists adopt the same tactic before they whither (and they may not die the same death they did OTL, since the War of 1812 is likely to be butterflied or greatly changed).

The second dynamic is some kind of reform movement similar to both OTL Populists and Progressives. Couple this movement with an increasing power of the Speaker and the constitution may be further altered: direct election of Senators may not be the only change. Perhaps the offices of Speaker and President of the Senate are merged, or the Speaker is given the ability to break a tie in the Senate. The President's tenure is lengthened, but House terms might be changed too. Certainly, it's a good time to ensure that the number of Reps is at least 600 if not 900. The idea of "responsible government" may find much greater traction.

The biggest fault of this system is that Congress does not sit very often in the 19th century. When Congress adjourns, all the Speaker's power dissolves, and the President is left in charge. However, the differing Cabinet limits the exclusivity of his influence. Most likely, appointees are more the choice of the Senate than the President. The President's role is mostly to guard the constitution with his veto and pardon powers; this may in turn butterfly the importance of the Supreme Court. Also, a differing committee system may create something like a Westminster Cabinet within the House, replacing the Rules Committee (the Speaker's primary source of power). Perhaps the chairs of all the committees -- or the important ones -- sit on it. With this committee, the Speaker may be empowered by the rules of the House to take certain actions or advise the Executive Cabinet.

Before I get into nitty gritty (i.e. in an era of TV, the Speaker becomes the one to make adresses, not the President), we need to touch on sectionalism. Simply put, the Speaker's gradual acretion of power is likely to be thwarted by the South's vested interest in ensuring that the Presidency remains the source of power. I think this is why the acretion is likely to be very gradual. The timespan between 1820 and 1860, when sectionalism is apt to be most accute, is likely marked by a growing division of powers within the Government, with the full emergence of the Speaker (and hence of a Parliamentary system) delayed. Indeed, TTL's 12th Amendment which gives greater power to the President of the Senate as a separate office, probably appeases the South a good deal.

Ultimate catastrophe for the development of such a system is if something like the deadlock in 1858-9 occurs, when the House was unable to select a Speaker for almost a year; again a bigger house decrease this likelihood, though. Certainly, if a Civil War happens, it's likely to be over a much different casus belli than a Northern anti-slavery President. If such a war -- or indeed any long lasting war -- does occur, then the use of Congressional power probably grows through something like a Jt. Commitee on the Conduct of the War. Eventually, Congress may create a General Staff, whose chief the Senate gets to appoint / approve, significantly curtailing the powers of the President as "Commander-in-Chief."

There may also be reason, however, to suppose that this system's emergence might significantly alter the forces of sectionalism. It all really depends on when the bigger house is introduced. If it's before the 1820s, then it will give Southern States smaller Congressional districts than they had OTL. Smaller districts may stunt the dominance of the Planter class: either the Planters gerrymander the districts to ensure the election of even more likeminded individuals or the districts mean that some of the poor whites (i.e. West Virginia) get some representatives who have a greater tie to them than to the Planters. It's hard to say, particularly given the poor white Southern's strong attachment to slavery later in the century, whither such tensions might lead. If some kind of greater internal division grows within the South, then the whole dynamic will change. Something like the Floyd Plan of the 1830s may emerge with greater support.
 
Last edited:
Top