DBWI: Re-election is permitted in the United States

Sad, but true, and Cambodia has been a mess ever since their independence in the '70s. Honestly there's a good case to be made, that creating the tribunate was arguably one of the biggest mistakes Napoleon did after coming to power in 1850 and setting up the French Empire.



Not quite so sure about that; it would depend on the situation. IOTL, rightist Presidents were actually somewhat dominant during much of the first half of the last century; the main problem here was that the reformist lefty Presidents, such as Burton(1905-09), Roosevelt(1917-21), and Nathan(1925-29), simply did not have enough time to implement all of their agendas, and that cost the left dearly; so much so, that there was real support for repealing the 11th Amendment during the 1930s(a measure which only failed by 5 states-as one could guess without much difficulty, most of them, save New Hampshire, were in the South), as part of a massive backlash.

Of course, to be fair, we have had the somewhat of the opposite happen since about 1980, IOTL, but just thought I'd point out that it has gone in other directions before, that's all.

OOC: OTL's 11th Amendment later became the 13th Amendment, ITTL, circa 1815. (and OTL's 13th Amendment is the 14th ITTL, not signed until 1874.)
OOC: you know the tribunate was just something Napoleon the first did to keep up the appearance that France was still a republic?
 
OOC: you know the tribunate was just something Napoleon the first did to keep up the appearance that France was still a republic?

OOC: I'm not disputing that, but when I was writing this, I actually was operating on the idea that Napoleon's Empire hadn't survived past 1820 or so, much like OTL, only reverting back to a republic in this world, instead of seeing the Bourbons being restored. I assume now, you had initially wanted Napoleon's Empire to hold together? It's fine either way, just trying to understand where you're coming from here, that's all.

Calhoun comes to mind, if only because he served for over 20 years.

IC: Oh, goodness no. Not even close, I dare say. Not only was he virulently pro-slavery, but his lack of competence, and staunch unwillingness to work with any more moderate elements on many issues, caused enormous problems while he was in office-he only got to stay in office for 22 years because virtually all the Southern & some Northern Democrats were willing to get in line to deny the Whigs and the Federalists their own chances for that seat, and if that meant keeping John C. Calhoun as speaker, then that's how they were going to do it.(Took until 1854 to get in James Buchanan, and even he wasn't the best Speaker.....though miles and miles ahead of Calhoun, at least.)

OOC: Differing from OTL, Buchanan would later join the Republicans upon their founding in 1856 ITTL; left the Democrats in 1840, first becoming a Federalist*, before joining the Whigs in 1848.(And yes, the same party from OTL, though they lasted 4 more decades than in OTL, prior to them, and some of the Whigs, i.e. the aforementioned Congressman Buchanan, merging with the Republicans.)

(And yeah, Calhoun was a pretty fucked up guy, even IOTL.)
 
OOC: I'm not disputing that, but when I was writing this, I actually was operating on the idea that Napoleon's Empire hadn't survived past 1820 or so, much like OTL, only reverting back to a republic in this world, instead of seeing the Bourbons being restored. I assume now, you had initially wanted Napoleon's Empire to hold together? It's fine either way, just trying to understand where you're coming from here, that's all.
OOC: You said "Second Empire," so that implies that Napoleon the first's empire didn't hold together. I couldn't say it did if I wanted. I guess that's what a DBWI is all about.
IC: Oh, goodness no. Not even close, I dare say. Not only was he virulently pro-slavery, but his lack of competence, and staunch unwillingness to work with any more moderate elements on many issues, caused enormous problems while he was in office-he only got to stay in office for 22 years because virtually all the Southern & some Northern Democrats were willing to get in line to deny the Whigs and the Federalists their own chances for that seat, and if that meant keeping John C. Calhoun as speaker, then that's how they were going to do it.(Took until 1854 to get in James Buchanan, and even he wasn't the best Speaker.....though miles and miles ahead of Calhoun, at least.)

OOC: Differing from OTL, Buchanan would later join the Republicans upon their founding in 1856 ITTL; left the Democrats in 1840, first becoming a Federalist*, before joining the Whigs in 1848.(And yes, the same party from OTL, though they lasted 4 more decades than in OTL, prior to them, and some of the Whigs, i.e. the aforementioned Congressman Buchanan, merging with the Republicans.)
My brain doesn't seem to be in working order today. Who was the guy who ordered a slave militia to march on Frankfort to get Kentucky to ratify the 14th?
 
OOC: You said "Second Empire," so that implies that Napoleon the first's empire didn't hold together. I couldn't say it did if I wanted. I guess that's what a DBWI is all about.

OOC: No worries, we're good.

Who was the guy who ordered a slave militia to march on Frankfort to get Kentucky to ratify the 14th?

IC: William Seward, it was. And I should add that this was only required because some Confederate holdouts had managed to take the city over while the Union was finishing off Georgia, and the people who were initially defending the city had been sent off to the Alabama front(Union Gen. McClellan, the man responsible for that foul-up, was, as I recall, demoted the very day the city was liberated; had the Confeds been able to hold out for one or two more days, they would have started massacring the mostly pro-Union legislature!).
 
OOC: No worries, we're good.



IC: William Seward, it was. And I should add that this was only required because some Confederate holdouts had managed to take the city over while the Union was finishing off Georgia, and the people who were initially defending the city had been sent off to the Alabama front(Union Gen. McClellan, the man responsible for that foul-up, was, as I recall, demoted the very day the city was liberated; had the Confeds been able to hold out for one or two more days, they would have started massacring the mostly pro-Union legislature!).
I doubt the Civil War would have lasted only 10 years with a re-electable and therefore more powerful president. Hard to convince what was left of the Confederate Congress to pass the Augusta Resolution when they knew the North'd always ride roughshod over them.
 
For starters, the real power in the United States of America might be the President and not the Speaker of the House.

Oh, I doubt it. The US saw congressional supremacy from the very beginning, and strong Speakers like Clay are an inevitability.
 
Anyways, who do you think was the greatest Vice President or Speaker America ever had?

Lafayette Foster is the traditional answer, since he handled the Civil War and abolition, but I've always admired James Garfield. His civil service reform gave us the professional bureaucracy that keeps things running smoothly to this day, no matter what games the VP and Speaker are playing in the foreground.
 
The Veep is also a powerful force in American politics. In fact, the main dynamic in US politics is the power struggle between the Speaker of the House and the Vice President as their informal powers often clash.
That's been a relatively recent phenomena, though, driven by the 23rd and 24th Amendments establishing the Independent Districting Commission and abolishing the old "Electoral College", which in turn ended Democratic gerrymandering in the House even as it gave them an advantage in the Presidential race (all those urban machines...) -- and that's why Byrd left the House to run for Vice-President just in time for the GOP-Reform Coalition to take the House, and why Nancy Pelosi's now on her 4th term. (Before the 70's most Veeps were also single-termers.)

Time will tell whether that becomes a new normal or an aberration -- the Vice-President's powers are pretty ill-defined by the Constitution, and Paul Ryan promised legislation stripping the VP of most of them if he got the Speakership -- but with him having to coalition with the Silicon List who the hell knows?
 
That's been a relatively recent phenomena, though, driven by the 23rd and 24th Amendments establishing the Independent Districting Commission and abolishing the old "Electoral College", which in turn ended Democratic gerrymandering in the House even as it gave them an advantage in the Presidential race (all those urban machines...) -- and that's why Byrd left the House to run for Vice-President just in time for the GOP-Reform Coalition to take the House, and why Nancy Pelosi's now on her 4th term. (Before the 70's most Veeps were also single-termers.)

Time will tell whether that becomes a new normal or an aberration -- the Vice-President's powers are pretty ill-defined by the Constitution, and Paul Ryan promised legislation stripping the VP of most of them if he got the Speakership -- but with him having to coalition with the Silicon List who the hell knows?
The Rearrangement era in the 70s is fascinating to read about. The New Whigs merging into the Democrats, Social Labor reinventing itself as Reform, the GOP springing out suddenly from being a little rural Missouri party to national importance...incredibly hard to believe this all happened from 1977 to 1979.
 
OOC: What is this US like geopolitically? Is it still the superpower it is IOTL?

OCC: It'll be nice if the US actually had different borders from OTL since this is, after all, a late 1700s POD. About two and half centuries of historical divergences should get different results. Perhaps an independent Republics of California and Texas but with Canada annexed into the US during a global war or somewhere during the Napoleonic Wars similar to the borders of the Dominion of Southern American timeline. A more northern-minded US without the southwest region should look interesting
 
OCC: It'll be nice if the US actually had different borders from OTL since this is, after all, a late 1700s POD. About two and half centuries of historical divergences should get different results. Perhaps an independent Republics of California and Texas but with Canada annexed into the US during a global war or somewhere during the Napoleonic Wars similar to the borders of the Dominion of Southern American timeline. A more northern-minded US without the southwest region should look interesting
OOC: What about "how powerful is this America compared to OTL"?
 
OOC: What about "how powerful is this America compared to OTL"?

OOC : That depends on a number of varieties such as resources, military projection, economic power, and soft power such as cultural assertion. The US could be a military power in this timeline but is third place in the economic ranking with TTL China and India taking the lead. Or perhaps America's film industry may not be strong enough compared to foreign cultures, leading to a weaker soft power projection. America could also annex the entirety of North America yet remains mostly isolated with insular-looking military power projections. Or America could be smaller than OTL geographically but has more technological innovations and display more military might from superior technological edge
 
OOC : That depends on a number of varieties such as resources, military projection, economic power, and soft power such as cultural assertion. The US could be a military power in this timeline but is third place in the economic ranking with TTL China and India taking the lead. Or perhaps America's film industry may not be strong enough compared to foreign cultures, leading to a weaker soft power projection. America could also annex the entirety of North America yet remains mostly isolated with insular-looking military power projections. Or America could be smaller than OTL geographically but has more technological innovations and display more military might from superior technological edge
OOC: Maybe the US looks like 90s Russia, poor and weak compared to before but still the largest country in the world?
 
The Rearrangement era in the 70s is fascinating to read about. The New Whigs merging into the Democrats, Social Labor reinventing itself as Reform, the GOP springing out suddenly from being a little rural Missouri party to national importance...incredibly hard to believe this all happened from 1977 to 1979.

Also interesting to read how the GOP went from riding high in the 1870s and '80s during Reconstruction to it's decline, and then downfall during the end of the Malaise era, up to the point it was reduced to little more than Missouri outside St. Louis and Independence.
 
Also interesting to read how the GOP went from riding high in the 1870s and '80s during Reconstruction to it's decline, and then downfall during the end of the Malaise era, up to the point it was reduced to little more than Missouri outside St. Louis and Independence.

I know! Some would argue that the story of the National Republican Party is the story of America in miniature
 
Top