AHC: Senators elected directly earlier

samcster94

Banned
Senators until 1913 were chosen by State Legislatures. What if the 17th Amendment was passed before 1861 and what would it take for this to happen?? Bonus points if there is a change bigger than OTL.
 
Senators until 1913 were chosen by State Legislatures. What if the 17th Amendment was passed before 1861 and what would it take for this to happen?? Bonus points if there is a change bigger than OTL.


One change from OTL I immediately thought
of: Lincoln WINS his race with Stephen Douglas in 1858(IOTL on Election Day that
year the Republicans polled more votes than
the Democrats but- & doesn't this sound
familiar?- the Democrats had gerrymandered
Illinois legislative districts so Douglas had a
majority in the legislature). Perhaps Thaddeus Stevens gets elected to the Senate
too(IOTL he couldn't swing it because he just
couldn't kiss the you-know-what of enough
legislators). Maybe Davy Crockett, instead
of dying @ the Alamo, could have wrangled
a Senate seat(I see his rather crude style
connecting with voters in the Tennessee of
the 1830's). But I have to say samcster94,
that I just can't see direct election of sen-
ators before 1861 happening. Why? Be-
cause the South would have blocked it. Many
Southernors would have seen it as a way for
the North to get an advantage(I know, I
know- that doesn't make much sense. But
increasingly in the decades leading up to the
ACW IOTL one finds fear & hate pushing
logic out the door). Other, conservative
Southernors(read: slave owners)would have
opposed this as giving too much power to
poorer, maybe radical, elements in their
states. Oh, something else: Americans in
the 19th century IOTL just preferred to
NOT amend the Constitution(after the 12th
Amendment in 1804 revising Presidental
election voting it was 61 years before you
had the 13th Amendment, which of course
banned slavery. Then after the 15th Amend-
ment giving blacks the vote was ratified in
1870, no other Amendments passed for
another 43 years. By contrast, in our time
it's been only 25 years since an amendment
was last passed).
 
One change from OTL I immediately thought
of: Lincoln WINS his race with Stephen Douglas in 1858(IOTL on Election Day that
year the Republicans polled more votes than
the Democrats but- & doesn't this sound
familiar?- the Democrats had gerrymandered
Illinois legislative districts so Douglas had a
majority in the legislature). Perhaps Thaddeus Stevens gets elected to the Senate
too(IOTL he couldn't swing it because he just
couldn't kiss the you-know-what of enough
legislators). Maybe Davy Crockett, instead
of dying @ the Alamo, could have wrangled
a Senate seat(I see his rather crude style
connecting with voters in the Tennessee of
the 1830's). But I have to say samcster94,
that I just can't see direct election of sen-
ators before 1861 happening. Why? Be-
cause the South would have blocked it. Many
Southernors would have seen it as a way for
the North to get an advantage(I know, I
know- that doesn't make much sense. But
increasingly in the decades leading up to the
ACW IOTL one finds fear & hate pushing
logic out the door). Other, conservative
Southernors(read: slave owners)would have
opposed this as giving too much power to
poorer, maybe radical, elements in their
states. Oh, something else: Americans in
the 19th century IOTL just preferred to
NOT amend the Constitution(after the 12th
Amendment in 1804 revising Presidental
election voting it was 61 years before you
had the 13th Amendment, which of course
banned slavery. Then after the 15th Amend-
ment giving blacks the vote was ratified in
1870, no other Amendments passed for
another 43 years. By contrast, in our time
it's been only 25 years since an amendment
was last passed).

- Your formatting is a bit off.

- It wouldn't happen before 1861 not because of the intransigency of the south, but because its totally out of character for the political discourse of the time. Direct elections were a product of the progressive era. In 1861, the idea of a mixed form of representative government, with one House representing the People and the other, the States, was far stronger, as were the States themselves (as any discussion of the Civil War itself always dwells upon). This suggestion is asking for the state governments to give up a lot of power, for nothing in return. They did so, historically, because it was considered largely, at the time, to be a better system of elections.

- I wouldn't say 19th Century Americans didn't want to amend the Constitutions. I'd say that the system was still working pretty much as intended, prior to the Civil War, and, aside from the massive elephant in the room, there wasn't much need, other than the tweaking that was done. They then drastically changed society with the 13th-15th amendments all in relatively one go, and probably had to take a breather after that. Where as the 20th century started, almost as long after the last big batch of amendments as they had been after their predecessors, with a batch of progressive era amendments (tax, direct elections, prohibition, and women's suffrage), one of which was, of course, repealed. After that, most of the amendments have been details, like switching inauguration dates around, term limits, etc. Nothing that upturns the political system like the Civil War Amendements and Progressive Era Amendments. Whats actually surprising, in this light, is that, since the 70s or so, we haven't seen similarly re-organizing amendments. Though, without getting too contemporary, it would not be unreasonable to see something along those lines by 2030, just to put an arbitrary date on things.
 
Top