Andrew Johnson convicted, much better Reconstruction, move to quasi-parliamentary ?

Human beings newly freed from slavery do largely receive 40 acres and a mule, and pretty much on a national basis.

Instead of rushing to forgive, we take more of an attitude of wait and see. In particular, we wait to see if African-Americans are prevented from voting in statewide advisory legislatures---Northern military generals are still running the show, make no mistake about that---and in sending nonvoting representatives to Congress. And when voting rights are restored, it's done in medium steps and on a probationary basis. A paramilitary force called the Klan? What the hell kind of dystopian fiction is this?

So, a much better Reconstruction all the way around. That's the big one. Compared to this, the details of the U.S. political system hardly matter. But politics are fun, so let's ask.

With one or several Constitutional amendments how does the United States move to a quasi-parliamentary system of democracy? And I say quasi- because the real challenge would be to have still have a president who is by and large directly elected.

Your ideas please.

======

Andrew Johnson was impeached by the House and tried by the Senate. But his conviction came one vote short of the needed two-thirds majority.
 
Pass three constitutional amendments.

1.Divide the powers of the Presidency between the Vice President, who now becomes the Head of Government and the President who becomes the Head of State. You could designate the difference by formally changing the VP's official title, say to something like President of Congress.

2. Restructure the electoral system to allow for more than two parties at any given time. The leader of the party that achieves a majority the House becomes President of Congress. The Head of State is still a sepperate election.

3.Institute the tradition of the confidence vote and give it teeth.
 
Realistically speaking could you do that much better than OTL? As far as the people at the time were concerned Reconstruction was a smashing success. The Union was reunited with Southerners loyally paying their taxes and serving in the US armed forces while chattel slavery was pretty much dead. Most Northerners thought Blacks as inferior and not deserving of the same rights as White people.

40 acres and a mule is right out, handing over land to Blacks en masse would not be popular at all. The best I could see is giving land to Union veterans regardless of race with the best land going to White Union veterans.

Enforcing voting rights and stopping the Klan is less difficult as the Klan wasn't popular up North at the time. Grant didn't catch too much flak for crushing it.
 
It's quite a challenge. I'll freely acknowledge that. It's a run-the-table type of challenge.

But if the radical Republicans in Congress are determined to move forward, and what we learned during the actual civil rights movement in the 1960s, that if you change people's outward behavior, there is a back-and-forth where you change attitudes or at least the outward expression and that makes a difference.

Maybe if the Republicans and/or Northern generals had hit upon the idea of siding economically with Southern whites of modest means, say in disputes regarding railroads or (?) grain elevators or the oligopolies of day which treat farmers unfairly in immediate and visceral ways.

We might even imagine a future in which, although both regions of the U.S. are ahead of where they are now, the South is ahead of the North economically as well as in terms of equal rights! :)
 
Human beings newly freed from slavery do largely receive 40 acres and a mule, and pretty much on a national basis.

Instead of rushing to forgive, we take more of an attitude of wait and see. In particular, we wait to see if African-Americans are prevented from voting in statewide advisory legislatures---Northern military generals are still running the show, make no mistake about that---and in sending nonvoting representatives to Congress. And when voting rights are restored, it's done in medium steps and on a probationary basis. A paramilitary force called the Klan? What the hell kind of dystopian fiction is this?

So, a much better Reconstruction all the way around. That's the big one. Compared to this, the details of the U.S. political system hardly matter. But politics are fun, so let's ask.

With one or several Constitutional amendments how does the United States move to a quasi-parliamentary system of democracy? And I say quasi- because the real challenge would be to have still have a president who is by and large directly elected.

Your ideas please.


What has any of the above got to do with Andrew Johnson's removal?

All that does is give us a nine-month interim Presidency under Ben Wade - too short a time for anything much to happen, especially as all the principal Reconstruction measures have already been passed and in process of being carried out.

About all Wade can do is keep the seat warm for Grant, who takes over in March 1869, and things go on much the same as OTL.
 
Pass three constitutional amendments.

A POTUS has no veto on Constitutional Amendments.

Had the political will existed, this could have been done equally well even without removing AJ - especially after the already top-heavy Republican majorities in both houses had been supplemented by the arrival of new members from the Reconstructed South.
 
All that does is give us a nine-month interim Presidency under Ben Wade - too short a time for anything much to happen, especially as all the principal Reconstruction measures have already been passed and in process of being carried out.
Thank you. This is a very perceptive point. I guess I'm thinking of a more energetic Reconstruction throughout.
 
It's quite a challenge. I'll freely acknowledge that. It's a run-the-table type of challenge.

But if the radical Republicans in Congress are determined to move forward, and what we learned during the actual civil rights movement in the 1960s, that if you change people's outward behavior, there is a back-and-forth where you change attitudes or at least the outward expression and that makes a difference.

Maybe if the Republicans and/or Northern generals had hit upon the idea of siding economically with Southern whites of modest means, say in disputes regarding railroads or (?) grain elevators or the oligopolies of day which treat farmers unfairly in immediate and visceral ways.

We might even imagine a future in which, although both regions of the U.S. are ahead of where they are now, the South is ahead of the North economically as well as in terms of equal rights! :)


The 1870s were not the 1950s and 60s. There wasn't the disastrous example of Nazi Germany to show what could happen when you became too racist nor was there a Cold War in which you had to compete for 3rd World influence.

If they side with Poor Whites the Poor Whites might benefit to some degree but it won't do squat for Blacks. Those were seen as completely different issues as Poor Whites were still White. Poor Whites saw Blacks as their main competitors for low paying jobs and the last thing they wanted is them to be raised up so they would have to compete harder. There is also the fact that Blacks were people even Poor Whites could look down on. As far as they were concerned sure they were looked down upon but at least they weren't Black and could look down on someone themselves.

Not really possible, the South was too far behind both economically and in racial relations. It was going to take a century or more for them to catch up in any halfway realistic scenario.
 
Thank you. This is a very perceptive point. I guess I'm thinking of a more energetic Reconstruction throughout.

Indeed - and that's a very tough one. I once made myself quite unpopular on shwi by harping on just how tough.

Basically the North had two postwar objectives - a big one of getting the Union up and running again, and a much lesser one of trying to secure halfway decent treatment for the former slaves. And for Reconstruction to get significantly further than OTL, you need them to give the secondary objective a clear priority over the main one - which requires a far greater change of attitude than the removal of one man - even a POTUS - is likely to bring about.
 
1.Divide the powers of the Presidency between the Vice President, who now becomes the Head of Government and the President who becomes the Head of State. You could designate the difference by formally changing the VP's official title, say to something like President of Congress.
Like the United Kingdom, or the Governor General in Canada. I'll tell you, to me it sounds rather boring to be a figurehead, although I suppose this is not the only way to look at it.

For example, there's a national tragedy or a good thing happens. In a respectful, understated way, using words to express people's feelings, there's a lot of value in this.

Or, on the policy side, traveling to different states and touring what's working in that state on the job creation front. And as part of low-key, skillful sales, emphasizing that it's working because of certain specific features within the state. As an American, I guess I'm just not used to the Head of State being distinct from the Head of Government.
 
hard but achievable. To me, it's like the North had a winning position in a poker tournament, and then suddenly became uber conservative.

For example, Louisiana. The threshold was for some low number of citizens, something like (?)20%, to take an oath of loyalty to the Union and then Louisiana would receive full re-admission with full voting rights in Congress. And this was under Lincoln, of course relatively early on under Reconstruction. The North could have asked for a lot more and received a lot more.
 
hard but achievable. To me, it's like the North had a winning position in a poker tournament, and then suddenly became uber conservative.

For example, Louisiana. The threshold was for some low number of citizens, something like (?)20%, to take an oath of loyalty to the Union and then Louisiana would receive full re-admission with full voting rights in Congress. And this was under Lincoln, of course relatively early on under Reconstruction. The North could have asked for a lot more and received a lot more.

From the view of most Northerners of the time Reconstruction was extremely successful and in a way it was. For all the talk of "The South will rise again" there hasn't been a serious secession movement since, Southerners loyally served in the US Armed Forces ever since then and the percentage of Southerners who obey US law is little or no different than Northerners.

To the people of the time that is what counted. They weren't particularly concerned about Black civil rights and thought Blacks were inferior themselves. Decades later "Birth of a Nation" and "Gone with the Wind" were popular in the North as well as the South although the former was considerably more popular in the South. The KKK had large branches in Ohio and Indiana in the 1920s.
 
What would be the motivation for dropping the presidential system? I don't see the connection between that and the Civil War. Yes, the victory of Lincoln in 1860 prompted the calls for secession, but victory of a Northern-dominated party in a parliamentary system likely would have done the same. The issue of slavery was the problem, not necessarily the political system.
 
I can't see much of a rationale for dropping the presidential system. You'd have to swing for a much earlier POD and actually alter the fundamentals of the Constitution, or go the other way and wind up with a series of almost disastrously bad presidents post-Civil War. If anything, dropping the presidential system seems like it would require an even worse post-Civil War experience - an even worse Reconstruction, maybe.

A more vigorous Reconstruction is possible, of course: Avert or dial down the impact of the Panic of 1873.
 
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~kmporter/reconstructiontimeline.html

December 1863

President Abraham Lincoln announces his reconstruction plan. It offers general amnesty to all white Southerners who take an oath of future loyalty and accept wartime measures abolishing slavery. Whenever 10% of the number of 1860 voters take the loyalty oath in any state, those loyal citizens can then establish a state government. In early 1864 the governments of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee are reconstructed under Lincoln's "Ten Percent Plan." Radical Republicans are shocked at the policy's leniency, so Congress refuses to recognize the governments or seat their elected federal representatives
Alright, so maybe Lincoln's trying to peel away some Southern states. But he's giving away far too much, just don't get it.
 
Best chance of proper reconstruction was the spring and summer of 1865
I think that's among the more important aspects, get rolling early.

And as far as the motivation for dropping the presidential system? The idea that it was a very close call. And the further idea that the current system leads to crappy vice-presidents and there doesn't seem to be any way around that.
 
I think that's among the more important aspects, get rolling early.

Get what rolling though?

Congress did not embrace Freedman suffrage from choice. It was forced on them by Andrew Johnson's complaisance toward Southern Black Codes, reluctance to disavow the Confederate debt, and hearing damage suits against Union soldiers for wartime activities. Take away Johnson in favour of a POTUS who takes a tougher line about these matters, and they'll probably be satisfied with giving the vote to literate Blacks and ones who had served in the Union Army - enough to irritate the South but not enough to threaten white control. So you end up with the Blacks getting less rather than more.
 
Top