Issues at a 1910s Constitutional Convention?

I'm looking for a little help with the latest bit of my timeline (see link in my sig if you aren't reading it already) but also thought this might be an interesting general question to pose anyway as I've changed very little about the US in this period in deep social/economic terms:

The Constitution provides for a Constitutional Convention to be called is 2/3rds of state legislatures (or of Congress) vote in favour of one.

Leaving aside how this might occur for the time being (in my timeline its the product of a loose coalition between Bryan-type populists, progressives, and socialists), what issues do people think would be discussed?

My (inexpert) list so far includes:

*Reform of the Senate
*Prohibition
*Female Suffrage
*Minimum wage/working conditions?
*Jim Crow?
*Tariff Reform?
*Government ownership of national industries?

I'm not, crucially, saying these would be passed as amendments. I'm more looking for the ideas delegates would bring to the Convention in the first place.

I'm not an expert, and it is a little research for my timeline, but I thought it could be an interesting "What If" topic more generally. Whilst I appreciate it is unlikely, I'm not convinced its ASB, and, as I say, its more of a "but what if it did happen" question.

Sorry in advance if this is in the wrong section.
 
The first three are certainly possible, as they were in fact enacted and ratified later.

I doubt if any of the others had much chance of ratification by three-fourths of the States.
 
Last edited:
The first three are certainly possible, as they were in face enacted and ratified later.

I doubt is any of the others had much chance of ratification by three- fourths of the States.

Thanks Mike

That would be my feeling, but I wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing something off that might have been popular at the time but fizzled out later.

Prohibition, for example, had a very particular "moment" in time.

I just want to get a flavour of what ideas (sensible or nutty) would have been kicked around at the time.
 
Thanks Mike

That would be my feeling, but I wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing something off that might have been popular at the time but fizzled out later.

Prohibition, for example, had a very particular "moment" in time.

I just want to get a flavour of what ideas (sensible or nutty) would have been kicked around at the time.

If it's 1912 or later, they might also adopt and Amendment limiting the POTUS to a single six-year term. That got though the senate in 1913, but Woodrow Wilson stopped it coming to a vote in the House.

Also, around that time Speaker Champ Clark was arguing for something similar to the 20th Amendment, but iirc he wanted to start the Presidential term in December, not January. That also might stand a chance.
 
Convention-al thinking

IMVHO, it would be very difficult to get the votes for a Constitutional Convention. The amendment process works, and is structured and specific. You can't put an amendment for women's suffrage on the table, and get prohibition back. A convention, on the other hand, can bring up all sorts of things--things that will then get voted on for ratification. The precious one ended up totally scrapping the existing system of government (Articles of Confederation) and replacing it.

So, you need something to happen that makes people willing to risk that level of change.
 
My (inexpert) list so far includes:

*Reform of the Senate

Direct election of Senators? Very probable.

*Prohibition
Harder. In 1910 the Prohibitionist didn't have the momentum it gained during WW I.
*Female Suffrage
Very likely.
*Minimum wage/working conditions?
Unlikely... Possibly an amendment explicitly extending Federal authority in this area.
*Jim Crow?
Not going to be touched at all. The South is fanatically defensive of it, and no else much cares. In fact, many northern communities had forms of Jim Crow.
*Tariff Reform?
Up or down or what? I don't think there was a really strong free-trade movement in the U.S. then, but Idunno.
*Government ownership of national industries?
"National industries"? Railroads, telegraph/telephone, utiiities? There are a number of publicly-owned utilities from this period.

The one-six-year-term Presidency was proposed at this time; it would come up. Recall, referendum, and initiative were widely discussed and adopted at the state level; they could be brought up nationally

Free silver?
 
Personally, I'd limit presidency to non-consecutive, two-year terms, elected by Congress or State legislatures, not by the general population.
US Presidency is outrageously powerful institution. Six years of tremendous power, with not even hope of getting elected for second keeping one in line, would be ripe for abuse. Indirect election by another body would also take away a lot of glamour and popularity, and thus power, from the presidency.
 
Indirect election :(

Personally, I'd limit presidency to non-consecutive, two-year terms, elected by Congress or State legislatures, not by the general population.
US Presidency is outrageously powerful institution. Six years of tremendous power, with not even hope of getting elected for second keeping one in line, would be ripe for abuse. Indirect election by another body would also take away a lot of glamour and popularity, and thus power, from the presidency.

We HAVE indirect election of the president, and have had it since George Washington. All that's done is focussed the attention to states rather than individual voters, resulting in the election of presidents who lost the popular vote. Right now, some votes matter, some don't. A Democrat in Texas might as well not vote, for example, whereas, for example, in Florida, each vote is critical because a handful of votes can swing the entire state one way or the other.
 
We HAVE indirect election of the president, and have had it since George Washington. All that's done is focussed the attention to states rather than individual voters, resulting in the election of presidents who lost the popular vote. Right now, some votes matter, some don't. A Democrat in Texas might as well not vote, for example, whereas, for example, in Florida, each vote is critical because a handful of votes can swing the entire state one way or the other.
I specifically said "by state legislatures or congress", instead of "elected indirectly". You are not refuting me, because I said "A", you said "we already have B! :("
And indirect election had nothing to do with disenfranchising population, other than the fact US system happens to have both those qualities.... and its worst combination of direct and indirect traits! You could conceivably have it other ways around:
- a system with electoral college, where each states appoint electors pledged to particular candidates proportionally to number of votes for candidates
- a system with no electoral congress, where all votes from a state still go to a single candidate.
Since each US state sends to US congress number of congressmen whose party affiliation is roughly proportional to affiliation of electorate in their states, the system where congress elects HoS would be more proportional. At least more than "all or nothing" of electoral congress.

I'll repeat. Current US electoral system has disadvantages of both direct and indirect elections. My proposal, election of president by Congress (with short, two year terms), has advantages of both systems.
 
IMVHO, it would be very difficult to get the votes for a Constitutional Convention. The amendment process works, and is structured and specific. You can't put an amendment for women's suffrage on the table, and get prohibition back. A convention, on the other hand, can bring up all sorts of things--things that will then get voted on for ratification. The precious one ended up totally scrapping the existing system of government (Articles of Confederation) and replacing it.

So, you need something to happen that makes people willing to risk that level of change.

I do appreciate that its inclusion in the timeline is very unlikely, and I've never promised it will actually have a positive result, but seeing as its a constitutional what if that few people have explored on the site, I thought it might be worth a shot.

But yes, I agree, unlikely in the extreme!

"National industries"? Railroads, telegraph/telephone, utiiities? There are a number of publicly-owned utilities from this period.

The one-six-year-term Presidency was proposed at this time; it would come up. Recall, referendum, and initiative were widely discussed and adopted at the state level; they could be brought up nationally

Free silver?

Thanks for all this Anarch - useful to know about the likelihood of them being proposed. I think the socialists would be vague about which industries and there would be arguments and divisions.

A six year presidency is interesting, as would recall and referendum. Can you explain what you mean by initiative? I've not heard of that before!

And ITTL, two terms of Bryan has meant free silver for everyone already!

Personally, I'd limit presidency to non-consecutive, two-year terms, elected by Congress or State legislatures, not by the general population.
US Presidency is outrageously powerful institution. Six years of tremendous power, with not even hope of getting elected for second keeping one in line, would be ripe for abuse. Indirect election by another body would also take away a lot of glamour and popularity, and thus power, from the presidency.

But was that proposed at the time? I'm not saying its a bad idea, but I'm on the hunt for reforms people wanted at the time.

Is this TL the Spectre of Europe or a new TL entirely?

Spectre of Europe. The latest chapter talks about the road to Convention post-1912 election.
 
With that kind of coalition making it possible, don't be afraid to bring in any changes the international left is talking about elsewhere in your TL. Internationalism had not yet been stamped out of left-wing American politics at this time. Though perhaps with your POD it has.

A lot of the really "out-there" ideas had their roots in this era of Progressivism. They might discuss (but wouldn't pass) a maximum wage, wide-scale voter reform of all kinds (basically any you can name that doesn't require *too* much math), and most of the bedrock ideas behind the New Deal. On the darker side, you might see someone bring up eugenics as a necessity to maintain civilization. And with Bryant involved, you can't rule out at least discussion of more religious language making its way into the Constitution, or an official dig at atheism- disqualification for office, perhaps.

Going to go read your TL now!
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
Not going to be touched at all. The South is fanatically defensive of it, and no else much cares. In fact, many northern communities had forms of Jim Crow.

Which could lead to an attempt to enshrine it rather than abolish it, especially as this is done with significant Democratic power behind it; and the Democratic Party of the 1910s had some truly virulent strains of racism running through it, either against blacks or Asians, depending on if you were looking at the Southern or Western wings of the party.

Up or down or what? I don't think there was a really strong free-trade movement in the U.S. then, but Idunno.

IOTL, the tariff was one of the major issues of the turn of the century: the Democrats ran strongly on abolishing tariffs to lower prices on goods for the common man, and Bryan himself was a strong free-trader.
 
Could secession be brought up, or were the Southern states satisfied with winning the peace?

How do you mean "winning the peace"?

The North had had pretty much its own way over tariffs etc ever since the Civil War. No Southerner was appointed to the SCOTUS until 1888, and no one of Southern birth elected President until 1912 - and he had long since moved to NJ.

The only point on which the South "won" was their right to treat their Blacks as they saw fit, and if they hadn't seceded they could have had that even in 1861.
 
Last edited:
Can you explain what you mean by initiative? I've not heard of that before!

The "initiative" was a process established by Progressives in several states, mostly in the West and Midwest. It allowed for legislative or constitutional action by citizen initiative.

A group proposes a law or amendment, and gathers signatures in support. If sufficient signatures are submitted, the proposed measure wouldsubmitted to the voters in a referendum; if the referendum vote "aye", the measure is enacted. When submitted to the voters, it is labeled "Proposition [n]". There have been several famous propositions in California.
 
Thank you all for your help, the first section of the Convention [outlining factions] is now up on the Timeline - link in sig below.

Thanks again everyone - really helpful stuff.
 
Top