AHC: Prevent the reduction of presidential power in the late 1800s

Challenge: Prevent the reduction of presidential power in the late 1800s.

The premise of your challenge is questionable. The notion of the "enfeeblement" of the late nineteenth century presidency (which supposedly was only broken by the dynamism of Theodore Roosevelt) has been challenged by recent historians (this is part of a general tendency to question whether there was really a sharp division between the "Gilded Age" and the "Progressive Era"). See "Reimagining the 'Lost Men' of the Gilded Age: Perspectives on the Late Nineteenth Century Presidents" by Charles W. Calhoun: "Despite these contextual and systemic handicaps, the presidents of the Gilded Age presided over a gradual but undeniable accretion of authority and influence in their office from the depths to which it had plunged in the Johnson years. Presidents became more influential in their relations with Congress, and in a variety of ways, including travel and press manipulation, they increasingly attracted public attention and influenced public attitudes. By 1888 even James Bryce saw 'reasons for believing that [the presidency] may reach a higher point than it has occupied at any time since the Civil War. The tendency everywhere in America to concentrate power and responsibility in one man is unmistakable.' Because the president was 'in some respects better fitted both to represent and to influence public opinion than Congress,' Bryce forecast 'still undeveloped possibilities of greatness in store for the Presidents of the future.' Theodore Roosevelt did not will the modem presidency into being simply by the assertion of his own indomitable personality. Instead, he recognized the potential foreshadowed by the efforts of his late-nineteenth century predecessors. Building on their accomplishments and advances, he moved the presidency to the center of national political and governmental life where it has remained ever since." http://web.archive.org/web/20041128...cooperative.org/journals/jga/1.3/calhoun.html
 
Calhoun has a point, but we can still strengthen this. WWII was seen as a turning point for the presidency, because afterwards the office did not decline in influence or power, as had been the case in serious term. There's no reason the Civil War can't be seen as a similar turning point if, say, Benjamin Butler was Vice President, instead of Andrew Johnson. I imagine Butler will very much keep the powers Lincoln accrued, and more successfully than Johnson.
 
Top