I Have Never Been A Quitter: The Impeachment of Richard Nixon
- Thread starter dartingfog
- Start date
He did ask one of his aids how long it would take for Marines to deploy around the white house if he gave the order but who knows how serious he was being.
It was a side of Nixon that really came out as he started slipping during the impeachment. Prior to that, whatever such feelings he may have had, they lay deeply buried--he had numerous Jewish associates, after all. But in many ways, as far as Nixon traveled from Yorba Linda, he never really left. The provincial farmboy listening to his father's rants about "shifty Jews" was always under there, somewhere, and when he got sufficiently battered, out the farmboy came.
Of course, if Nixon were thinking reasonably, he'd realize that this was a bad way to go about it--if his reputation was poor IOTL, it will be absolutely trash ITTL and deservedly so. And even if he does win, he'll be left the lamest of lame ducks, with a Congress dominated by the opposing party where he is actively loathed by much of his own.
But then, he's pretty much in "Pray with me, Christkiller!" territory about now...
...That is not exactly something you joke about. I suspect he did toy with the idea, off and on, and would continue to in a scenario like this, with the toying getting increasingly frightening as it went on.
Nixon had begun drinking and had become despondent, depressed, and practically unreachable by the point he decided to resign in our timeline. To continue fighting and with the health deterioration seen here, Nixon would be close to a mental break, closer than he was OTL.
I'm sorry to hear that. I had reservations about it myself - think I'll edit it out.
Thanks. I didn't mean to offend anyone, I just wanted to show Nixon's deteriorating mental state. I'll leave it in.
I think people tend to assume that "Nixon plotting this stuff" now = "Nixon attempting coup" if he is removed from office. But it probably won't--I suspect if he does get removed, he'll probably suffer a total collapse and meekly go along with things, because at that point, he's done. This is a sort of twisted version of the bargaining stage of grief, likely to be followed by depression. As for why Brown doesn't give a 'yea or nay', well, for a starter he's Brown, and he's not sure whether Nixon's going to be removed or not.
Telling off a man you think is finished and then having him stick around as your boss is... a bad idea.
SsgtC
Banned
It doesn't offend. I just think it really strains credibility. But given your explanation for why it's there, it does make more sense
Well put. This is what I was going for. Part of the problem is that I ended the previous post before I could post more (I think the next post will clarify what's going on). Nixon's usual level of paranoia, combined with the stress of impeachment, combined with his heavy drinking, combined with his health issues is making him increasingly out of touch with reality. He probably thinks he's being persecuted unjustly and might be toying with the idea of pulling off a coup, but I don't actually think the military would go along with it. I'll admit that I could have written it better using more of Nixon's real quotes.
As far as Brown telling off Nixon, as you say, it's a bad idea. And bad form. However, I'm sure the general would think that Nixon's lost it (as would any other rational person). He would be having a few words the DoD about his call from Nixon as well, behind the scenes.
Last edited:
=============================================================================-
March 12, 1975
Ford, Cabinet mull declaring President unfit
The President’s erratic behavior of late has concerned many in Washington, who fear that he may do something reckless in a last-ditch attempt to stay in power. Alarmed by his recent order to send the 82nd Airborne to Washington, there is some talk in Washington that Nixon ought to be removed from office using the 25th Amendment.
According to the 25th Amendment [1], if the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet declare that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. While the President can appeal by declaring that no inability exists, the Vice President and cabinet can overrule him by submitting another declaration to Congress stating he is incapacitated within 4 days of the Presidential declaration. Congress then decides the issue. If they determine (by two-thirds vote of both Houses) that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President continues to be Acting President. If Congress fails to reach a two-thirds majority or make no decision within 21 days, the President resumes the powers and duties of his office.
However, Ford and other members of Nixon’s cabinet expressed hesitation for such a move, preferring that the Senate have responsibility of removing Nixon from office. The cabinet is reluctant to use the 25th Amendment because they do not want to set a bad precedent for removing a President. “It looks very dubious” says one expert. If the President is evicted from office by the cabinet, “it would alarm the American people and our allies… we do not want people to think the country is falling apart.” [2]
Similarly, some in the Senate have also expressed apprehension at removing Nixon via conviction, believing that Ford and the rest of the cabinet should declare Nixon unfit for office if they have doubts about his mental state. They are urging Mr. Ford and the cabinet not to wait for the Senate to act if they have urgent concerns about the President. A vote is expected to come on Saturday, March 15.
There is another, more practical, reason why the cabinet would be unlikely to declare the President unfit for office. Because Nixon would undoubtedly appeal any declaration by the Vice President and Cabinet stating he is unfit, the decision would ultimately be left up to Congress. The bar for declaring the President unfit for office using the 25th Amendment is even higher than for conviction in the Senate, since it requires that both Houses must have a 2/3 majority.
Others are not concerned because they think that Nixon was not serious in his threats. He is, after all, known for his ‘madman theory’ [3]. By making himself appear irrational and volatile, Nixon could be trying to manipulate Congress into backing down from its threats of impeachment. And while his calling up of the 82nd Airborne to defend the White House has been the last straw for many, as Commander-in-Chief, Nixon is entitled to do so. Defense Secretary James Schlesinger says there is no reason for concern and said that the President will comply with Congress’ decision, whether it is favorable or not. [4]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv .
[2] Something similar was said by Edwin Meese and David Gergen after the assassination attempt on Reagan: The President Has Been Shot: Confusion, Disability, and the 25th Amendment, pp. 184. Now some of you might rightfully point out that earlier in this TL Nixon invoked the 25th Amendment for his illness. But there he only temporarily relinquished power, by his own volition. Here, Nixon is being forced out permanently against his will.
[3] “I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that, "for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry—and he has his hand on the nuclear button" and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace.”
[4] From http://www.historycommons.org/timel...on=nixon_and_watergate_tmln_nixon_resignation :
“The Washington Post prints a small, almost-buried story entitled ‘Pentagon Kept Watch on Military.’ The relatively innocuous headline conceals a potentially explosive charge—that during the final days of the Nixon administration, Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and the Joint Chiefs of Staff had ‘kept a close watch to make certain that no orders were given to military units outside the normal chain of command.’ The article, careful in its word choices, says the extraordinary alert was ‘based on hypothetical situations that could arise during a period when President Nixon’s hold on the presidency was not clear.… Specifically, there was concern that an order could go to a military unit outside the chain of command for some sort of action against Congress during the time between a House impeachment and a Senate trial on the impeachment charge.’ Pentagon sources say no one has any evidence that any such action was being contemplated, but steps were taken to ensure that no military commander would take an order from the White House or anywhere else that did not come through military channels. The implication is clear: Pentagon officials worried that Nixon might use certain elements of the military to stage some sort of coup. Schlesinger gives the story ‘legs’ by issuing the following non-denial: ‘I did assure myself that there would be no question about the proper constitutional and legislated chain of command, and there never was any question.’”
=============================================================================-
March 12, 1975
Secretary of State Sisco travels to Turkey for Cyprus summit [1]
Secretary of State Joseph Sisco finished his week-long tour of the Middle East in Ankara, Turkey, where he met with Turkish leaders. Flying from Israel, he told reporters that he believed progress had been made toward finding a solution to the Cyprus crisis. Talks between Greek and Turkish Cypriots were expected to begin soon in Nicosia and in some European country, such as Austria, followed by direct talks.
The Cyprus talks have been suspended for more than a month. The suspension followed the termination of United States military aid to Turkey, and the Turkish Cypriotes' declaration of a federal state in Cyprus. The aim of the declaration was to separate Cyprus into two zones, one ethnic Greek and the other ethnic Turkish, with allegiance to a central government.
Details on the discussions are still fragmentary, despite statements to the press in Ankara last night and today by Mr. Sisco and Turkish officials. But it seemed clear that his main effort was to work out with Greece and Turkey an understanding on what kind of political, economic and humanitarian problems in Cyprus would be discussed in new talks.
American officials did not deny speculation that a major factor in the apparent readiness of the two sides to talk was Greece's willingness now to discuss a political division in Cyprus. This has been long favored by Turks but resisted by Greece and Greek Cypriotes.
Mr. Sisco apparently told the Turkish leaders that he would strive to persuade Congress to repeal the aid suspension. American officials said that Mr. Kissinger's behind‐the‐scenes talks were linked to, but not conditioned on, United Nations Security Council discussions on setting up a new forum for Cyprus talks under the United Nations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] Kissinger made a similar trip on the same date: http://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/12/archives/cyprus-progress-seen-by-kissinger-he-ends-talks-in-turkey.html
================================================================================-
March 13, 1975
Ban Me Thuot falls to North Vietnam [1]
Ban Me Thuot, a key hold in the Central Highlands of South Vietnam, has fallen to North Vietnamese forces. This victory for the North is a devastating blow to the South, which has lost a battle of strategic importance. Soldiers in South Vietnam continue to fight on, trying to hold off the assault from the North.
This defeat comes as an appropriations bill was rejected by Senate Democratic Caucus [2]. Despite repeated pleas for South Vietnamese aid from the President, the request was defeated by a margin of 38 to 5.
President Nixon issued a quick response, vowing to defend the South, at all costs. He plans to use Operation Duck Hook [4], a long-shelved plan to bomb the dikes of North Vietnam. Nixon said that he hopes that the threat of annihilation will cause North Vietnam to back down on its assault on the South. [5]
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] As OTL: http://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/13/archives/saigon-force-retreats-from-key-district-capital.html?mcubz=0
[2] As OTL: “America Coming to Terms: The Vietnam Legacy”, pp. 163
[3] Quoting Nixon: ''I would say the major mistake I made as President was one - this will surprise you - was not doing early in 1969 what I did on May 3 of 1972 and on Dec. 15 of 1972, and that was to bomb and mine North Vietnam,'' http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/11/us/nixon-s-big-regret-bombing-delay.html
[4] Before you say this is impossible, keep in mind it was Kissinger who kept Nixon from doing some really crazy stuff. Consider this exchange between Nixon and Kissinger from 1972 (Globalizing Justice: The Ethics of Poverty and Power, p. 187-188):
Nixon: I still think we ought to take the North Vietnamese dikes out now. Will that drown people?
Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.
Nixon: No, no, no, I'd rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?
Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.
Nixon: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you? I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.
Nixon: The only place where you and I disagree is with regard to the bombing. You're so goddamned concerned about civilians and I don't give a damn. I don't care.
Kissinger: I'm concerned about the civilians because I don't want the world to be mobilized against you as a butcher.
[5] I am aware this violates the War Powers Act. But at this point, Nixon can say pretty much whatever he wants knowing that he is about to be found guilty. They can’t impeach him twice, of course. There’s no hope left for him. And a hopeless man is a dangerous man.
=================================================================================-
March 14, 1975
“Silent Majority” March on Washington
A crowd of pro-Nixon demonstrators, more than ten thousand strong [1], has encircled the White House on the eve of the impeachment verdict. A few showed up in hard hats, representing Nixon’s support among labor, carrying the various tools of their trades. They were organized by Labor Secretary Peter Brennan, who remarked during his resignation speech that “History is being made here today, because we are supporting President Nixon” [2]. Others were military veterans, from World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. These vets said that they came to support their Commander-in-Chief.
Standing beneath American flags and signs saying "God Bless President Nixon”, the crowd heard speeches decrying the impeachment proceedings against Mr. Nixon as no solution to the "Watergate morality." Neil Salonen, president of the National Prayer and Fast Committee (founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon), said that "We should take note that both Hitler and Lenin took power on the heels of leaders made impotent by constraints upon their office and lack of cohesive support.” [3]
Yet others were die-hard Nixon supporters. Some of these bitter-enders believe that Mr. Nixon has been a victim of a vast conspiracy against him, perpetrated by the media, the CIA, the Soviet Union, Jews, Democrats, Republicans, and a long list of others. They defended the President’s actions. "Watergate was b***s***, plain and simple!" shouted an Italian-American man from Brooklyn. "They framed Nixon and they killed him politically. I don't care what he did. It's disgraceful what they did to the country - the press and Congress and the protestors…I loved Nixon for loving the country!" [4][5]
They join about 30,000 demonstrators calling for Nixon’s conviction in the Senate. Many of them are former anti-war protestors, for whom this is nothing new. The once-idealistic young people have become weary and cynical and have little trust that the Senate will find Nixon guilty.
Despite tensions, the day has been mostly peaceful. Occasionally, a few scuffles have occasionally broken out between pro- and anti-Nixon groups. They are kept in check by 12,000 federal troops, 5,100 local police, and 1,500 National Guardsmen, who have had to endure heckling from bystanders and anti-Nixon demonstrators alike. They all await the immediate judgment of the Senate, which should come down by tomorrow.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] Not entirely without precedent. A similar rally was held in Phoenix, Arizona in May 1974: Nixon's Shadow: The History of an Image, pp. 205
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/04/nyregion/peter-brennan-78-union-head-and-nixon-s-labor-chief.html. It would not surprise me if most of the “Hard Hats” (particularly the more zealous among them) still supported Nixon in 1975. Brennan also resigned on this date in OTL, though he had indicated his intention to resign on February 6.
[3] http://www.jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%2520Materials/Watergate/Watergate%2520Items%252016648%2520to%252016835/Watergate%252016715.pdf
[4] Real quote from a pro-Nixon rally: http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2016/11/history-richard-nixons-deplorables.html#!/2016/11/history-richard-nixons-deplorables.html
[5] Nixon's Shadow: The History of an Image, pp. 205-206
=================================================================================-
March 12, 1975
Ford, Cabinet mull declaring President unfit
The President’s erratic behavior of late has concerned many in Washington, who fear that he may do something reckless in a last-ditch attempt to stay in power. Alarmed by his recent order to send the 82nd Airborne to Washington, there is some talk in Washington that Nixon ought to be removed from office using the 25th Amendment.
According to the 25th Amendment [1], if the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet declare that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. While the President can appeal by declaring that no inability exists, the Vice President and cabinet can overrule him by submitting another declaration to Congress stating he is incapacitated within 4 days of the Presidential declaration. Congress then decides the issue. If they determine (by two-thirds vote of both Houses) that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President continues to be Acting President. If Congress fails to reach a two-thirds majority or make no decision within 21 days, the President resumes the powers and duties of his office.
However, Ford and other members of Nixon’s cabinet expressed hesitation for such a move, preferring that the Senate have responsibility of removing Nixon from office. The cabinet is reluctant to use the 25th Amendment because they do not want to set a bad precedent for removing a President. “It looks very dubious” says one expert. If the President is evicted from office by the cabinet, “it would alarm the American people and our allies… we do not want people to think the country is falling apart.” [2]
Similarly, some in the Senate have also expressed apprehension at removing Nixon via conviction, believing that Ford and the rest of the cabinet should declare Nixon unfit for office if they have doubts about his mental state. They are urging Mr. Ford and the cabinet not to wait for the Senate to act if they have urgent concerns about the President. A vote is expected to come on Saturday, March 15.
There is another, more practical, reason why the cabinet would be unlikely to declare the President unfit for office. Because Nixon would undoubtedly appeal any declaration by the Vice President and Cabinet stating he is unfit, the decision would ultimately be left up to Congress. The bar for declaring the President unfit for office using the 25th Amendment is even higher than for conviction in the Senate, since it requires that both Houses must have a 2/3 majority.
Others are not concerned because they think that Nixon was not serious in his threats. He is, after all, known for his ‘madman theory’ [3]. By making himself appear irrational and volatile, Nixon could be trying to manipulate Congress into backing down from its threats of impeachment. And while his calling up of the 82nd Airborne to defend the White House has been the last straw for many, as Commander-in-Chief, Nixon is entitled to do so. Defense Secretary James Schlesinger says there is no reason for concern and said that the President will comply with Congress’ decision, whether it is favorable or not. [4]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv .
[2] Something similar was said by Edwin Meese and David Gergen after the assassination attempt on Reagan: The President Has Been Shot: Confusion, Disability, and the 25th Amendment, pp. 184. Now some of you might rightfully point out that earlier in this TL Nixon invoked the 25th Amendment for his illness. But there he only temporarily relinquished power, by his own volition. Here, Nixon is being forced out permanently against his will.
[3] “I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that, "for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry—and he has his hand on the nuclear button" and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace.”
[4] From http://www.historycommons.org/timel...on=nixon_and_watergate_tmln_nixon_resignation :
“The Washington Post prints a small, almost-buried story entitled ‘Pentagon Kept Watch on Military.’ The relatively innocuous headline conceals a potentially explosive charge—that during the final days of the Nixon administration, Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and the Joint Chiefs of Staff had ‘kept a close watch to make certain that no orders were given to military units outside the normal chain of command.’ The article, careful in its word choices, says the extraordinary alert was ‘based on hypothetical situations that could arise during a period when President Nixon’s hold on the presidency was not clear.… Specifically, there was concern that an order could go to a military unit outside the chain of command for some sort of action against Congress during the time between a House impeachment and a Senate trial on the impeachment charge.’ Pentagon sources say no one has any evidence that any such action was being contemplated, but steps were taken to ensure that no military commander would take an order from the White House or anywhere else that did not come through military channels. The implication is clear: Pentagon officials worried that Nixon might use certain elements of the military to stage some sort of coup. Schlesinger gives the story ‘legs’ by issuing the following non-denial: ‘I did assure myself that there would be no question about the proper constitutional and legislated chain of command, and there never was any question.’”
=============================================================================-
March 12, 1975
Secretary of State Sisco travels to Turkey for Cyprus summit [1]
Secretary of State Joseph Sisco finished his week-long tour of the Middle East in Ankara, Turkey, where he met with Turkish leaders. Flying from Israel, he told reporters that he believed progress had been made toward finding a solution to the Cyprus crisis. Talks between Greek and Turkish Cypriots were expected to begin soon in Nicosia and in some European country, such as Austria, followed by direct talks.
The Cyprus talks have been suspended for more than a month. The suspension followed the termination of United States military aid to Turkey, and the Turkish Cypriotes' declaration of a federal state in Cyprus. The aim of the declaration was to separate Cyprus into two zones, one ethnic Greek and the other ethnic Turkish, with allegiance to a central government.
Details on the discussions are still fragmentary, despite statements to the press in Ankara last night and today by Mr. Sisco and Turkish officials. But it seemed clear that his main effort was to work out with Greece and Turkey an understanding on what kind of political, economic and humanitarian problems in Cyprus would be discussed in new talks.
American officials did not deny speculation that a major factor in the apparent readiness of the two sides to talk was Greece's willingness now to discuss a political division in Cyprus. This has been long favored by Turks but resisted by Greece and Greek Cypriotes.
Mr. Sisco apparently told the Turkish leaders that he would strive to persuade Congress to repeal the aid suspension. American officials said that Mr. Kissinger's behind‐the‐scenes talks were linked to, but not conditioned on, United Nations Security Council discussions on setting up a new forum for Cyprus talks under the United Nations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] Kissinger made a similar trip on the same date: http://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/12/archives/cyprus-progress-seen-by-kissinger-he-ends-talks-in-turkey.html
================================================================================-
March 13, 1975
Ban Me Thuot falls to North Vietnam [1]
Ban Me Thuot, a key hold in the Central Highlands of South Vietnam, has fallen to North Vietnamese forces. This victory for the North is a devastating blow to the South, which has lost a battle of strategic importance. Soldiers in South Vietnam continue to fight on, trying to hold off the assault from the North.
This defeat comes as an appropriations bill was rejected by Senate Democratic Caucus [2]. Despite repeated pleas for South Vietnamese aid from the President, the request was defeated by a margin of 38 to 5.
President Nixon issued a quick response, vowing to defend the South, at all costs. He plans to use Operation Duck Hook [4], a long-shelved plan to bomb the dikes of North Vietnam. Nixon said that he hopes that the threat of annihilation will cause North Vietnam to back down on its assault on the South. [5]
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] As OTL: http://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/13/archives/saigon-force-retreats-from-key-district-capital.html?mcubz=0
[2] As OTL: “America Coming to Terms: The Vietnam Legacy”, pp. 163
[3] Quoting Nixon: ''I would say the major mistake I made as President was one - this will surprise you - was not doing early in 1969 what I did on May 3 of 1972 and on Dec. 15 of 1972, and that was to bomb and mine North Vietnam,'' http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/11/us/nixon-s-big-regret-bombing-delay.html
[4] Before you say this is impossible, keep in mind it was Kissinger who kept Nixon from doing some really crazy stuff. Consider this exchange between Nixon and Kissinger from 1972 (Globalizing Justice: The Ethics of Poverty and Power, p. 187-188):
Nixon: I still think we ought to take the North Vietnamese dikes out now. Will that drown people?
Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.
Nixon: No, no, no, I'd rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?
Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.
Nixon: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you? I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.
Nixon: The only place where you and I disagree is with regard to the bombing. You're so goddamned concerned about civilians and I don't give a damn. I don't care.
Kissinger: I'm concerned about the civilians because I don't want the world to be mobilized against you as a butcher.
[5] I am aware this violates the War Powers Act. But at this point, Nixon can say pretty much whatever he wants knowing that he is about to be found guilty. They can’t impeach him twice, of course. There’s no hope left for him. And a hopeless man is a dangerous man.
=================================================================================-
March 14, 1975
“Silent Majority” March on Washington
A crowd of pro-Nixon demonstrators, more than ten thousand strong [1], has encircled the White House on the eve of the impeachment verdict. A few showed up in hard hats, representing Nixon’s support among labor, carrying the various tools of their trades. They were organized by Labor Secretary Peter Brennan, who remarked during his resignation speech that “History is being made here today, because we are supporting President Nixon” [2]. Others were military veterans, from World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. These vets said that they came to support their Commander-in-Chief.
Standing beneath American flags and signs saying "God Bless President Nixon”, the crowd heard speeches decrying the impeachment proceedings against Mr. Nixon as no solution to the "Watergate morality." Neil Salonen, president of the National Prayer and Fast Committee (founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon), said that "We should take note that both Hitler and Lenin took power on the heels of leaders made impotent by constraints upon their office and lack of cohesive support.” [3]
Yet others were die-hard Nixon supporters. Some of these bitter-enders believe that Mr. Nixon has been a victim of a vast conspiracy against him, perpetrated by the media, the CIA, the Soviet Union, Jews, Democrats, Republicans, and a long list of others. They defended the President’s actions. "Watergate was b***s***, plain and simple!" shouted an Italian-American man from Brooklyn. "They framed Nixon and they killed him politically. I don't care what he did. It's disgraceful what they did to the country - the press and Congress and the protestors…I loved Nixon for loving the country!" [4][5]
They join about 30,000 demonstrators calling for Nixon’s conviction in the Senate. Many of them are former anti-war protestors, for whom this is nothing new. The once-idealistic young people have become weary and cynical and have little trust that the Senate will find Nixon guilty.
Despite tensions, the day has been mostly peaceful. Occasionally, a few scuffles have occasionally broken out between pro- and anti-Nixon groups. They are kept in check by 12,000 federal troops, 5,100 local police, and 1,500 National Guardsmen, who have had to endure heckling from bystanders and anti-Nixon demonstrators alike. They all await the immediate judgment of the Senate, which should come down by tomorrow.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] Not entirely without precedent. A similar rally was held in Phoenix, Arizona in May 1974: Nixon's Shadow: The History of an Image, pp. 205
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/04/nyregion/peter-brennan-78-union-head-and-nixon-s-labor-chief.html. It would not surprise me if most of the “Hard Hats” (particularly the more zealous among them) still supported Nixon in 1975. Brennan also resigned on this date in OTL, though he had indicated his intention to resign on February 6.
[3] http://www.jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%2520Materials/Watergate/Watergate%2520Items%252016648%2520to%252016835/Watergate%252016715.pdf
[4] Real quote from a pro-Nixon rally: http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2016/11/history-richard-nixons-deplorables.html#!/2016/11/history-richard-nixons-deplorables.html
[5] Nixon's Shadow: The History of an Image, pp. 205-206
=================================================================================-
===================================================================================
March 14, 1975
Schlesinger, Clement resign [1][2]
In a stunning scene reminiscent of the so-called Saturday Night Massacre, both the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense have resigned, just one day before the expected impeachment vote. Nixon’s press secretary Ronald Ziegler said that Secretary James Schlesinger and Deputy Secretary Bill Clement have resigned from office rather than complying with the President’s orders. After the President declared a state of national emergency, [3] Schlesinger tendered his resignation for refusing to authorize any effort by the military to protect the President from being forced from office. After Schlesigner’s resignation, Clement became Acting Secretary of Defense. Clement also refused to pass on the orders to the 82nd Airborne Division, and resigned just minutes after Schlesinger. The White House has not yet announced who in fact is the acting Secretary of Defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] Loosely based on: https://www.upi.com/Archives/1973/10/21/Saturday-Night-Massacre-President-Nixon-fires-Cox-Richardson-resigns/6142295711870/ Nixon’s demand to surround the White House is also based on something that happened in OTL. From the article: “Mr. Nixon also ordered the FBI to surround the office building five blocks from the White House where Cox and his prosecuting team once worked.”
[2] Why fire Schlesinger? From Nixon’s Shadow, p. 122: “Henry Kissinger…and General Al Haig…traded notes about Nixon’s talk of calling out the army’s 82nd Airborne Division to “protect” him. Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, concerned that Nixon might bypass the chain of command and contact military units directly, instructed military personnel to follow White House orders only if secretary personally approved them. That Nixon did not actually call up the troops gave skeptics little comfort afterward. William Shannon…compared the scenario to the movie Seven Days in May. ‘The United States was lucky in August,’ he said – ‘lucky’ because had the situation been slightly different, Nixon might well have tried a coup. ‘Next time,’ he wrote, ‘…the Secretary of Defense might be feeble and compliant.”
[3] Admittedly, I’m not the first to think of this. From an alternate history scenario in which Nixon does not resign in America in Revolt During the 1960s and 1970s, pp. 219-223: “Another possibility is that Nixon would have refused to give up the office, invoking his powers as commander in chief and declaring a state of national emergency. However, as he would have called on Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger to pass orders to the army to protect the White House from any effort to force him from office, Schlesinger would have resigned, as would is successor in office, Deputy Secretary Bill Clement [sic].”
==============================================================================
March 14, 1975
Nixon issues pardons for himself, Watergate conspirators
Believing his impeachment imminent, President Nixon issued several pardons today. Among them were five particularly controversial pardons, which have provoked shock and outrage from many. Nixon pardoned four of his former aides recently convicted and sentenced to prison in the Watergate trial. Nixon first issued pardons for his former aides, John N. Mitchell, H. R. Haldeman, John D. Ehrlichman, and Robert C. Mardian. The President said that he pardoned them because he was “moved” by their loyalty to the President and their country. Nixon defended his pardons by saying, “I was concerned about them, I was concerned about their families. I felt that they in their hearts felt they were not guilty.” [1][2]
Then, in a move of ultimate audacity, Nixon pardoned himself “for any crimes that might have been committed without intention or malice”. [3] Nixon defended his so-called self-pardon, saying “If the president approves something because of national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president’s decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Lincoln said, and I think I can remember the quote almost exactly: ‘Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the constitution and the nation.’” [4]
------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] A quote from the Frost-Nixon interviews of OTL: https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/07/greatinterviews1
[2] In OTL, Ehrlichman and Haldeman sought and were denied pardons by Nixon, although Nixon later regretted his decision not to grant them: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/11/us/nixon-s-big-regret-bombing-delay.html
[3] Before you say this was inspired by current events, this was actually considered by Nixon in OTL: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4471
Note that it won’t save Nixon from impeachment (as per Article 2, Section 2 of the Consitution: "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment"). It will also compel him to testify as he cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment.
[4] From the Frost/Nixon interview. This is not what Lincoln intended. For explanation see: “The Writings of Abraham Lincoln”, pp. 463.
===============================================================================
March 15, 1975
NIXON IMPEACHED; FORD BECOMES PRESIDENT
In a surprise move, the Senate voted this morning to impeach President Nixon. The vote was expected to be held Monday, but due to urgent concerns over the President’s mental state, the vote was held early. Both articles of impeachment were passed by the Senate. On the first article, Obstruction of Justice, the vote was 89 to 11 in favor of conviction [1]. This article received bipartisan support with 23 Republicans and all of the Democrats voting for the article. On the second article, Abuse of Power, the vote was 72 to 28 in favor of conviction [1]. Twenty-eight Republicans voted against the article and all of the Democrats voting in favor.
Voting against both articles of impeachment were Roman Hruska (R-NE), Carl Curtis (R-NE), Strom Thurmond (R-SC), Bill Brock (R-TN), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Hugh Scott (R-PA), Clifford Hansen (R-WY), Ted Stevens (R-AK), Bill Roth (R-DE), John Glenn Beall, Jr. (R-MD), and Robert Stafford (R-VT). [2]
This is in contrast to the members of the liberal bloc, who almost unanimously voted to impeach the President. Edward Brooke(R-MA), Lowell Weicker (R-CT), Jacob Javits (R-NY), Clifford Case (R-NJ), Richard Schweicker(R-PA), Charles Mathias (R-MD), Charles Percy (R-IL), and Mark Hatfield (R-OR) all voted for impeachment [3].
As was the case in the House, a "Conservative Coalition" of Republicans and Southern Democrats failed to form. Although a majority of Republicans opposed the second article of impeachment, all of the Southern Democrats voted for both articles of impeachment. In the past, Senators like Sam Ervin and Herman Talmadge have been President Nixon’s allies. Instead, they joined the Northern Democrats to vote for conviction. [3]
As soon as the vote was read, Vice President Gerald Ford was sworn in as the 38th President at his office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] As predicted by: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27547720?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
[2] I am not 100% sure who would vote for impeachment (the above article does not say), but Roman Hruska, Strom Thurmond, and Carl Curtis are staunch supporters of the President and are guaranteed no votes. Bob Packwood would likely vote no for reasons stated before. The other seven no votes are difficult to determine, but these are my best guesses given their silence on impeachment in OTL.
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/1974/07/27/archives/the-arithmetic-of-impeachment.html?_r=0
===========================================================================
March 15, 1975
Violence erupts in Washington after Impeachment
News of Nixon’s impeachment was not taken well by some in the crowds outside the White House. When the news of impeachment broke, more than 50,000 protestors, both pro- and anti-Nixon, were gathered on the National Mall. Soon after the announcement, protestors surged past police and began to attack each other, throwing rocks and bricks. The National Guardsmen and Washington police have fired tear gas into the crowds to try to disperse them, but have been unable to maintain order. Protesters have spilled out into the city, engaging in acts of vandalism and violence.
White House Domestic Affairs Advisor Jim Rhodes [1] called for strong measures against the protesters, believing left-wing groups to be responsible for the violence. Mr. Rhodes, who assumed the position after the resignation of Kenneth Reese Cole just 2 weeks ago [2], called for a hard line against demonstrators.
“I want to assure you that we're going to employ every force of law that we have under our authority…Last night I think that we have seen all forms of violence -- the worst. And when they start taking over communities, this is when we're going to use every part of the law enforcement agencies to drive them out. We are going to eradicate the problem -- we're not going to treat the symptoms. They're worse than the "Brown Shirt" and the communist element and also the "night riders" in the Vigilantes. They're the worst type of people that we harbor in America. And I want to say that they're not going to take over Washington.” [3]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] Former Ohio Governor Jim Rhodes, who oversaw a little dustup in the city of Kent in his home state in 1970. One of the knock-on effects from the 1974 election is that Rhodes lost the governor race in Ohio. But I’m sure he could find a nice job in the Nixon administration.
[2] As OTL. But in OTL it was James Cannon who took over from Cole.
[3] http://www.library.kent.edu/ksu-may-4-rhodes-speech-may-3-1970
March 14, 1975
Schlesinger, Clement resign [1][2]
In a stunning scene reminiscent of the so-called Saturday Night Massacre, both the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense have resigned, just one day before the expected impeachment vote. Nixon’s press secretary Ronald Ziegler said that Secretary James Schlesinger and Deputy Secretary Bill Clement have resigned from office rather than complying with the President’s orders. After the President declared a state of national emergency, [3] Schlesinger tendered his resignation for refusing to authorize any effort by the military to protect the President from being forced from office. After Schlesigner’s resignation, Clement became Acting Secretary of Defense. Clement also refused to pass on the orders to the 82nd Airborne Division, and resigned just minutes after Schlesinger. The White House has not yet announced who in fact is the acting Secretary of Defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] Loosely based on: https://www.upi.com/Archives/1973/10/21/Saturday-Night-Massacre-President-Nixon-fires-Cox-Richardson-resigns/6142295711870/ Nixon’s demand to surround the White House is also based on something that happened in OTL. From the article: “Mr. Nixon also ordered the FBI to surround the office building five blocks from the White House where Cox and his prosecuting team once worked.”
[2] Why fire Schlesinger? From Nixon’s Shadow, p. 122: “Henry Kissinger…and General Al Haig…traded notes about Nixon’s talk of calling out the army’s 82nd Airborne Division to “protect” him. Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, concerned that Nixon might bypass the chain of command and contact military units directly, instructed military personnel to follow White House orders only if secretary personally approved them. That Nixon did not actually call up the troops gave skeptics little comfort afterward. William Shannon…compared the scenario to the movie Seven Days in May. ‘The United States was lucky in August,’ he said – ‘lucky’ because had the situation been slightly different, Nixon might well have tried a coup. ‘Next time,’ he wrote, ‘…the Secretary of Defense might be feeble and compliant.”
[3] Admittedly, I’m not the first to think of this. From an alternate history scenario in which Nixon does not resign in America in Revolt During the 1960s and 1970s, pp. 219-223: “Another possibility is that Nixon would have refused to give up the office, invoking his powers as commander in chief and declaring a state of national emergency. However, as he would have called on Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger to pass orders to the army to protect the White House from any effort to force him from office, Schlesinger would have resigned, as would is successor in office, Deputy Secretary Bill Clement [sic].”
==============================================================================
March 14, 1975
Nixon issues pardons for himself, Watergate conspirators
Believing his impeachment imminent, President Nixon issued several pardons today. Among them were five particularly controversial pardons, which have provoked shock and outrage from many. Nixon pardoned four of his former aides recently convicted and sentenced to prison in the Watergate trial. Nixon first issued pardons for his former aides, John N. Mitchell, H. R. Haldeman, John D. Ehrlichman, and Robert C. Mardian. The President said that he pardoned them because he was “moved” by their loyalty to the President and their country. Nixon defended his pardons by saying, “I was concerned about them, I was concerned about their families. I felt that they in their hearts felt they were not guilty.” [1][2]
Then, in a move of ultimate audacity, Nixon pardoned himself “for any crimes that might have been committed without intention or malice”. [3] Nixon defended his so-called self-pardon, saying “If the president approves something because of national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president’s decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Lincoln said, and I think I can remember the quote almost exactly: ‘Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the constitution and the nation.’” [4]
------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] A quote from the Frost-Nixon interviews of OTL: https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/07/greatinterviews1
[2] In OTL, Ehrlichman and Haldeman sought and were denied pardons by Nixon, although Nixon later regretted his decision not to grant them: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/11/us/nixon-s-big-regret-bombing-delay.html
[3] Before you say this was inspired by current events, this was actually considered by Nixon in OTL: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4471
Note that it won’t save Nixon from impeachment (as per Article 2, Section 2 of the Consitution: "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment"). It will also compel him to testify as he cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment.
[4] From the Frost/Nixon interview. This is not what Lincoln intended. For explanation see: “The Writings of Abraham Lincoln”, pp. 463.
===============================================================================
March 15, 1975
NIXON IMPEACHED; FORD BECOMES PRESIDENT
In a surprise move, the Senate voted this morning to impeach President Nixon. The vote was expected to be held Monday, but due to urgent concerns over the President’s mental state, the vote was held early. Both articles of impeachment were passed by the Senate. On the first article, Obstruction of Justice, the vote was 89 to 11 in favor of conviction [1]. This article received bipartisan support with 23 Republicans and all of the Democrats voting for the article. On the second article, Abuse of Power, the vote was 72 to 28 in favor of conviction [1]. Twenty-eight Republicans voted against the article and all of the Democrats voting in favor.
Voting against both articles of impeachment were Roman Hruska (R-NE), Carl Curtis (R-NE), Strom Thurmond (R-SC), Bill Brock (R-TN), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Hugh Scott (R-PA), Clifford Hansen (R-WY), Ted Stevens (R-AK), Bill Roth (R-DE), John Glenn Beall, Jr. (R-MD), and Robert Stafford (R-VT). [2]
This is in contrast to the members of the liberal bloc, who almost unanimously voted to impeach the President. Edward Brooke(R-MA), Lowell Weicker (R-CT), Jacob Javits (R-NY), Clifford Case (R-NJ), Richard Schweicker(R-PA), Charles Mathias (R-MD), Charles Percy (R-IL), and Mark Hatfield (R-OR) all voted for impeachment [3].
As was the case in the House, a "Conservative Coalition" of Republicans and Southern Democrats failed to form. Although a majority of Republicans opposed the second article of impeachment, all of the Southern Democrats voted for both articles of impeachment. In the past, Senators like Sam Ervin and Herman Talmadge have been President Nixon’s allies. Instead, they joined the Northern Democrats to vote for conviction. [3]
As soon as the vote was read, Vice President Gerald Ford was sworn in as the 38th President at his office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] As predicted by: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27547720?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
[2] I am not 100% sure who would vote for impeachment (the above article does not say), but Roman Hruska, Strom Thurmond, and Carl Curtis are staunch supporters of the President and are guaranteed no votes. Bob Packwood would likely vote no for reasons stated before. The other seven no votes are difficult to determine, but these are my best guesses given their silence on impeachment in OTL.
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/1974/07/27/archives/the-arithmetic-of-impeachment.html?_r=0
===========================================================================
March 15, 1975
Violence erupts in Washington after Impeachment
News of Nixon’s impeachment was not taken well by some in the crowds outside the White House. When the news of impeachment broke, more than 50,000 protestors, both pro- and anti-Nixon, were gathered on the National Mall. Soon after the announcement, protestors surged past police and began to attack each other, throwing rocks and bricks. The National Guardsmen and Washington police have fired tear gas into the crowds to try to disperse them, but have been unable to maintain order. Protesters have spilled out into the city, engaging in acts of vandalism and violence.
White House Domestic Affairs Advisor Jim Rhodes [1] called for strong measures against the protesters, believing left-wing groups to be responsible for the violence. Mr. Rhodes, who assumed the position after the resignation of Kenneth Reese Cole just 2 weeks ago [2], called for a hard line against demonstrators.
“I want to assure you that we're going to employ every force of law that we have under our authority…Last night I think that we have seen all forms of violence -- the worst. And when they start taking over communities, this is when we're going to use every part of the law enforcement agencies to drive them out. We are going to eradicate the problem -- we're not going to treat the symptoms. They're worse than the "Brown Shirt" and the communist element and also the "night riders" in the Vigilantes. They're the worst type of people that we harbor in America. And I want to say that they're not going to take over Washington.” [3]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] Former Ohio Governor Jim Rhodes, who oversaw a little dustup in the city of Kent in his home state in 1970. One of the knock-on effects from the 1974 election is that Rhodes lost the governor race in Ohio. But I’m sure he could find a nice job in the Nixon administration.
[2] As OTL. But in OTL it was James Cannon who took over from Cole.
[3] http://www.library.kent.edu/ksu-may-4-rhodes-speech-may-3-1970
Now Ford has two years to make people like him. He could start by essentially suing to see if this self-pardoning idea holds water legally...
Oh, God he's just going to let it stand, isn't he?
I wouldn't count on it. For all that people like to talk about corrupt deals, in the end a good part of the Nixon pardon was just Ford's peacemaker instincts at play.