AHC: 6 year no reelection presidency

samcster94

Banned
Both Mexico and the defunct Confederacy used this concept. What could be done, at any point after Lincoln's death, to lead the U.S. down this road(or a lengthy(5-8 year) single term Presidency in general)??? Bonus points if it is a solution to an FDR type scenario.
 
In Feb 1913 it came within a whisker of happening.

Such an Amendment passed the Senate 47-23, with only one Democrat voting nay and the Republicans almost equally divided. These figures virtually guaranteed passage in the heavily Democratic House, followed by easy ratification, but Pres-Elect Wilson didn't like it, and got the relevant Committee Chairman to prevent it coming to a vote. It is highly unlikely that either Champ Clark or WJ Bryan (the likeliest alternatives to Wilson) would have done this, so if either of them gets the Democratic nomination, the Amendment probably passes.

This has come up here quite a few times, so a hunt through the Search function may prove profitable.
 
Since the Amendment was only supposed to take effect in 1920, here is a likely list of Presidents had the law been passed and ratified:
28. Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)
29. Warren G. Harding (1921-1923)
30. Calvin Coolidge (1923-1927)
31. Herbert Hoover (1927-1933)
32. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1939)
33. Harry Hopkins (1939-1945)

Obviously, not very different from OTL at first. However FDR won't be President during WWII or the end of the Great Depression, so his historical reputation will be much lower. In fact, it would probably be his successor who is rated as one of the top three or five Presidents. That said once WWII breaks out, it's very possible that the amendment will be repealed with a replacement law making exceptions for wartime.
 
Last edited:
That said once WWII breaks out, it's very possible that the amendment will be repealed with a replacement law making exceptions for wartime.
But wouldn’t that encourage presidents to try to start small wars to keep their Presidency indefinitely, or at least longer?
 
I had a two-part post in soc.history.what-if some years ago on why the 1913 attempt failed (basically because of the letter in opposition by President-Elect Wilson) which I have reproduced at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-year-presidential-term.395351/#post-12902607

Incidentally, The Nation commented when the text of Wilson's letter to Palmer was made public at the beginning of 1916:

"From any point of view, it is a noteworthy document. Nowhere in it did the President even allude to the Baltimore platform, favoring a single term, urging a Constitutional amendment to make the President ineligible for reelection, and pledging "the
candidate of this Convention to this principle." The candidate of that Convention never made any public reference to this particular plank; and his letter to Mr. Palmer, written in February of 1913, showed that he regarded it as of no binding force. He wrote,
in fact, as if it had never existed. It cannot be said, therefore, that he has changed his mind in order to suit his present political ambitions. From the first he treated the one-term plank as a bit of Bryanesque buncombe." https://archive.org/stream/nation102jannewy/nation102jannewy_djvu.txt
 
But wouldn’t that encourage presidents to try to start small wars to keep their Presidency indefinitely, or at least longer?

Basically, yes. A lot of us on this forum rightfully dislike Wilson because of his own abuse of power (not to mention racism and arrogant stubbornness), but he was right to shoot down the 6 year term. Six years is way too long for one person to be President without having to face reelection, while also not long enough for a President to properly manage all the issues he/she might face.
 
First there'd be a row over what counts as war.
If it has to be declared by Congress - would the Vietnam War count?

The last declared US war was WWII. So no war after that would count. However, in the case of Vietnam LBJ could have asked for a declaration of war after Rolling Thunder, and he probably would have gotten it.
 
Since the Amendment was only supposed to take effect in 1920, here is a likely list of Presidents had the law been passed and ratified:
28. Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)
29. Warren G. Harding (1921-1923)
30. Calvin Coolidge (1923-1927)
31. Herbert Hoover (1927-1933)
32. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1939)
33. Harry Hopkins (1939-1945)

Obviously, not very different from OTL at first. However FDR won't be President during WWII or the end of the Great Depression, so his historical reputation will be much lower. In fact, it would probably be his successor who is rated as one of the top three or five Presidents. That said once WWII breaks out, it's very possible that the amendment will be repealed with a replacement law making exceptions for wartime.
A Republican would beat Harry Hopkins if 1938 was an open presidential election.
 
A Republican would beat Harry Hopkins if 1938 was an open presidential election.

Which one? Dewey is too young (36, same age as Bryan in 1896), Taft isn't even a Senator yet, Wilkie would have almost no support without WW2 to put wind in his sails, maybe Senator Vandenberg would have a shot although his conservatism would hurt him nationally.
 
Which one? Dewey is too young (36, same age as Bryan in 1896), Taft isn't even a Senator yet, Wilkie would have almost no support without WW2 to put wind in his sails, maybe Senator Vandenberg would have a shot although his conservatism would hurt him nationally.
Vandenberg or Landon. Frank Lowden?

If the New Deal is seen as failing due to the Depression of 1937, a conservative just might win.
 
I tried researching this and failed. How did the proposed 1913 amendment handle situations where the President left office before the six years were up? The 22nd Amendment does not count the period where the former Vice President complete's the departing President's term if the uncompleted portion is less than two years. Would that be the same with this amendment?

Internationally, the trend has been imitate the USA and switch to renewable, shorter terms. I actually think a non-renewable six year term makes alot of sense and countries that have switched to something closer to the American model have seen no improvement in their governance.

The problems that have occurred with the second term I think are mainly due to the fact that Preisdent's get enacted with agendas, that usually get enacted or sometimes rejected in their first two years of office. Once its enacted, there is nothing to do but to mark time for the remaining six years. I think this argues in favor of non-renwable six year terms instead of what we have now, normally eight years unless the President really has little support. Exceptions are chief executives that come in with weak mandates for various reasons, though these tend to be one term presidents, and Franklin Roosevelt, who had a unique combination in 1940 of an international crisis and no obvious successor, even in the non-presidential party.
 
Nitpicking, but since the POD turns out to be the 1913 amendment, this one should be in the post 1900 folder.

I agree with the other commentators that there is not much change until 1939, but the 1939 or 1938 election is wide open and now you get butterflies.

One thing the 22nd Amendment did was to greatly increase the stature of the Vice President, since parties didn't have even the theoretical option of just running the incumbent President for a third term, and at the end of a two term presidential administration, the Vice President was the logical candidate to continue the administration's policies. Hence the nomination of incumbent Vice Presidents in 1960, 1968, 1988, and 2000. Before the 22nd Amendment, the only time that had happened was 1936 and it was rare that the Vice President was even considered for nomination.
 

samcster94

Banned
I tried researching this and failed. How did the proposed 1913 amendment handle situations where the President left office before the six years were up? The 22nd Amendment does not count the period where the former Vice President complete's the departing President's term if the uncompleted portion is less than two years. Would that be the same with this amendment?

Internationally, the trend has been imitate the USA and switch to renewable, shorter terms. I actually think a non-renewable six year term makes alot of sense and countries that have switched to something closer to the American model have seen no improvement in their governance.

The problems that have occurred with the second term I think are mainly due to the fact that Preisdent's get enacted with agendas, that usually get enacted or sometimes rejected in their first two years of office. Once its enacted, there is nothing to do but to mark time for the remaining six years. I think this argues in favor of non-renwable six year terms instead of what we have now, normally eight years unless the President really has little support. Exceptions are chief executives that come in with weak mandates for various reasons, though these tend to be one term presidents, and Franklin Roosevelt, who had a unique combination in 1940 of an international crisis and no obvious successor, even in the non-presidential party.
FDR was an anomaly for many reasons,even without having a third term or seeing the Japanese bomb PH.
 
Since the Amendment was only supposed to take effect in 1920.


Afaik, the version passed by the Senate contained no such proviso. Does anyone know differently?

I do str a newspaper article predicting that the House might introduce such a clause, so that Speaker Clark could keep open the possibility of another Presidential run in 1916. But even if that were so OTL, it clearly wouldn't arise if Clark himself were the TTL POTUS-elect.
 

Marc

Donor
Just some notes for the conversation:

Using modern times (1952 to 2016) as the base reference, the average number of years in office for American Presidents: 5.82
Excluding the Kennedy-Johnson anomaly (death in office) and the average is 6.22

Of the eight modern President's who ran for re-election, only two were defeated.

It's widely accepted by political historians that the general tempo of Presidencies is along the lines of:
Productive, often definitive, first two years until mid-term elections which typically result in significant congressional losses.
A retrenching third year leading to focusing on reelection in the 4th year.
If successful in being reelected, moderately productive 1st year, the last 3 tend to be oriented towards foreign affairs (with mixed results), since domestic agendas are either passed, or DOA.

By the way, even including the entire 20th century, early deaths et al, the long FDR period, doesn't changes the averages.
 
Last edited:
Let me put together a rough outline of party control of the presidency here:

1920: R
1926: R
1932: D
1938: R
1944: ?
1950: ?
1956: ?
1962: D
1968: R
1974: D
1980: R
1986: D
1992: ?
1998: ?
2004: ?
2010: R
2016: D
 
Top