Hello!
After recently listening to an episode of the podcast "A Fork in Time," where they discussed Dr. Beau Breslin's book A Consitution for the Living, I became fascinated by the idea of "generational constitutions" as proposed by Jefferson.
I went ahead and read Dr. Breslin's book, and generally enjoyed it. The book provides an interesting insight into how the author thinks America would have altered its constitution at several key moments in our history while also giving a wealth of actual historical data about how Americans altered their state constitutions in these time periods to consider how this might have looked at the national stage.
That said, the book is very constrained, in that the author essentially keeps history unaltered in the broad strokes - despite some noticeable changes being made at various points. I totally understand why, as he was trying to make an academic approach and also have an audience for people uninterested in truly fictional speculation. That said, the entire time I read it I was itching to explore the possible butterflies that could come from such a system where the USA regularly meets to alter its constitution. The one thing that I did not like about the book was the author's decision to have the intervals between constitutions fluctuate based on lifespan. So, in 1787, the average lifespan of a person was 38, so the next convention was set in 1825. In that year, the average lifespan was the same, so the following convention was set in 1863. In that year, average lifespans had increased to about 40, so the following convention was set for 1903, at which point the average had increased to 50, so the next convention was set for 1953. In THAT year, lifespan averages had increased to 69, so the following convention was set in 2022. I really felt that this was unlikely - that a regular pace of conventions would be set, something between every 25 to 40 years, and kept consistent by subsequent conventions. The issue is that, with such large gaps in the 20th and 21st centuries, you lose living memory of the event - something that the author has people hand-wringing about in the book!
I am interested in exploring this concept, with the following parameters:
PoD is 1782 - Jefferson's wife does not die in childbirth, and an indirect result is that Jefferson does not take the position of Minister to France in 1785, and can therefore attend the Constitutional Convention in 1787. While there, he is able to win over enough delegates to his idea of "sunsetting" a Constitution. His initial proposal of every 19 years (his math to calculate when one generation takes over from the next) is rejected, however, and an interval of 35 years is adopted (with language that specifies that the countdown starts once the constitution is ratified - 1788).
Conventions would thus be set for the following years (I use the 35 year span, plus 1 year for ratification)
- 2nd Convention: 1823
- 3rd Convention: 1859
- 4th Convention: 1895
- 5th Convention: 1931
- 6th Convention: 1967
- 7th Convention: 2003
In the book, Dr. Breslin posits that the following things would occur at the second convention, and I think that these would likely still happen, even if it happens two years earlier:
- The overall structure of the 1787 constitution is retained, including all amendments
- The Bill of Rights becomes the new Article 1 (and henceforth known as the Declaration of Rights)
- The wording of the electoral college is changed so that state legislatures are no longer in charge of electing electors. Instead, they are to be elected directly by citizens (so, in other words, an earlier connection to electors and their state-level popular vote).
- Universal male suffrage is adopted nationwide, following the overall state-level trend.
- Federal judges are all given a 7-year probationary period, at the end of which they could be removed from office, or if they are retained, they stay for life, also following a trend in several state constitutions that had been redrafted in the years following 1787.
Up to this point, I am comfortable with the idea that history largely follows its original course between 1787 and 1823. Afterward, however, I think we see bigger divergences occurring. For example, I think it is likely, given the changes made, that Andrew Jackson wins the 1824 election (and is reelected in 1828). John Quincy Adams never becomes president - and maybe Henry Clay follows Jackson in 1832? This earlier presidency of Jackson would likely look similar (though I *think* the Bank of the US survives, as its charter wasn't due to expire until well after Jackson would be out of the White House).
Now, things get REALLY interesting in 1859. Frankly, I think a constitutional convention at a time when the country is in the throws of debating slavery becomes very messy, fast. The main scenarios that occurred to me were:
- 1) abolitionists are able to push through a constitutional ban on slavery in federal territories and bar new states from joining that are pro-slavery. This is still too much, and the southern states refuse to ratify the new constitution. This, possibly coupled with the election of a Lincoln-like figure in 1860, triggers secession and Civil War. I think the war would follow OTL in broad outline, and after the war the 1859 constitution is amended along the lines of OTL, abolishing slavery and giving enfranchisement without regard to race.
- 2) the convention fails, either creating a draft that it does not adopt or the delegates are unable to even come up with a draft. A "continuation" of the 1823 constitution is passed for 10 years, kicking all the issues down the road. In 1869, either the civil war still happened in the interim, and the new constitution will abolish slavery and do all the other stuff the OTL Civil War amendments did, possibly going further to protect civil rights, OR the 1869 convention plays out like my scenario 1, and triggers a civil war.
- 3) Northern moderates side with Southerners to protect slavery at the federal level, which results in New England's rejection of the new document, and we see Northern secession, and from there things could go several different and messy ways.
I haven't done much planning past that yet, as the subsequent conventions would really differ depending on how the Civil War plays out, with wildly different circumstances.
I would love to hear others' thoughts on this concept and how things might play out after 1823 and even more so after 1859. I am looking at fleshing this idea out into a full-fledged timeline and I would love to see what others think.
ALSO - I tried to find out if someone else had already done this topic, but I couldn't find anything substantial in the search feature. If I missed some other thread that does explore this topic in detail, please let me know!
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Side note - a question that may leap to mind quickly is, "What happens if a new draft isn't unanimously accepted? Would states that refuse to ratify get kicked out?"
Dr. Breslin addresses this in the book. First, he points out that the original 1787 convention only required 9 out of 13 states (roughly 70%) to ratify instead of unanimous consent to avoid holdout states having unfair bargaining—a trick that ultimately worked, and we ended up with unanimous consent eventually. Dr. Breslin then points out that our amendment process will force all states to accept a new amendment that is ratified, even if a particular state didn't ratify said amendment. So in theory, the same principle could be applied to new constitutions - though I will admit that is something where theory and practice may not line up (In Dr. Breslin's book, the 1953 and 2022 conventions opt for unanimous ratification instead of 70%).
After recently listening to an episode of the podcast "A Fork in Time," where they discussed Dr. Beau Breslin's book A Consitution for the Living, I became fascinated by the idea of "generational constitutions" as proposed by Jefferson.
I went ahead and read Dr. Breslin's book, and generally enjoyed it. The book provides an interesting insight into how the author thinks America would have altered its constitution at several key moments in our history while also giving a wealth of actual historical data about how Americans altered their state constitutions in these time periods to consider how this might have looked at the national stage.
That said, the book is very constrained, in that the author essentially keeps history unaltered in the broad strokes - despite some noticeable changes being made at various points. I totally understand why, as he was trying to make an academic approach and also have an audience for people uninterested in truly fictional speculation. That said, the entire time I read it I was itching to explore the possible butterflies that could come from such a system where the USA regularly meets to alter its constitution. The one thing that I did not like about the book was the author's decision to have the intervals between constitutions fluctuate based on lifespan. So, in 1787, the average lifespan of a person was 38, so the next convention was set in 1825. In that year, the average lifespan was the same, so the following convention was set in 1863. In that year, average lifespans had increased to about 40, so the following convention was set for 1903, at which point the average had increased to 50, so the next convention was set for 1953. In THAT year, lifespan averages had increased to 69, so the following convention was set in 2022. I really felt that this was unlikely - that a regular pace of conventions would be set, something between every 25 to 40 years, and kept consistent by subsequent conventions. The issue is that, with such large gaps in the 20th and 21st centuries, you lose living memory of the event - something that the author has people hand-wringing about in the book!
I am interested in exploring this concept, with the following parameters:
PoD is 1782 - Jefferson's wife does not die in childbirth, and an indirect result is that Jefferson does not take the position of Minister to France in 1785, and can therefore attend the Constitutional Convention in 1787. While there, he is able to win over enough delegates to his idea of "sunsetting" a Constitution. His initial proposal of every 19 years (his math to calculate when one generation takes over from the next) is rejected, however, and an interval of 35 years is adopted (with language that specifies that the countdown starts once the constitution is ratified - 1788).
Conventions would thus be set for the following years (I use the 35 year span, plus 1 year for ratification)
- 2nd Convention: 1823
- 3rd Convention: 1859
- 4th Convention: 1895
- 5th Convention: 1931
- 6th Convention: 1967
- 7th Convention: 2003
In the book, Dr. Breslin posits that the following things would occur at the second convention, and I think that these would likely still happen, even if it happens two years earlier:
- The overall structure of the 1787 constitution is retained, including all amendments
- The Bill of Rights becomes the new Article 1 (and henceforth known as the Declaration of Rights)
- The wording of the electoral college is changed so that state legislatures are no longer in charge of electing electors. Instead, they are to be elected directly by citizens (so, in other words, an earlier connection to electors and their state-level popular vote).
- Universal male suffrage is adopted nationwide, following the overall state-level trend.
- Federal judges are all given a 7-year probationary period, at the end of which they could be removed from office, or if they are retained, they stay for life, also following a trend in several state constitutions that had been redrafted in the years following 1787.
Up to this point, I am comfortable with the idea that history largely follows its original course between 1787 and 1823. Afterward, however, I think we see bigger divergences occurring. For example, I think it is likely, given the changes made, that Andrew Jackson wins the 1824 election (and is reelected in 1828). John Quincy Adams never becomes president - and maybe Henry Clay follows Jackson in 1832? This earlier presidency of Jackson would likely look similar (though I *think* the Bank of the US survives, as its charter wasn't due to expire until well after Jackson would be out of the White House).
Now, things get REALLY interesting in 1859. Frankly, I think a constitutional convention at a time when the country is in the throws of debating slavery becomes very messy, fast. The main scenarios that occurred to me were:
- 1) abolitionists are able to push through a constitutional ban on slavery in federal territories and bar new states from joining that are pro-slavery. This is still too much, and the southern states refuse to ratify the new constitution. This, possibly coupled with the election of a Lincoln-like figure in 1860, triggers secession and Civil War. I think the war would follow OTL in broad outline, and after the war the 1859 constitution is amended along the lines of OTL, abolishing slavery and giving enfranchisement without regard to race.
- 2) the convention fails, either creating a draft that it does not adopt or the delegates are unable to even come up with a draft. A "continuation" of the 1823 constitution is passed for 10 years, kicking all the issues down the road. In 1869, either the civil war still happened in the interim, and the new constitution will abolish slavery and do all the other stuff the OTL Civil War amendments did, possibly going further to protect civil rights, OR the 1869 convention plays out like my scenario 1, and triggers a civil war.
- 3) Northern moderates side with Southerners to protect slavery at the federal level, which results in New England's rejection of the new document, and we see Northern secession, and from there things could go several different and messy ways.
I haven't done much planning past that yet, as the subsequent conventions would really differ depending on how the Civil War plays out, with wildly different circumstances.
I would love to hear others' thoughts on this concept and how things might play out after 1823 and even more so after 1859. I am looking at fleshing this idea out into a full-fledged timeline and I would love to see what others think.
ALSO - I tried to find out if someone else had already done this topic, but I couldn't find anything substantial in the search feature. If I missed some other thread that does explore this topic in detail, please let me know!
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Side note - a question that may leap to mind quickly is, "What happens if a new draft isn't unanimously accepted? Would states that refuse to ratify get kicked out?"
Dr. Breslin addresses this in the book. First, he points out that the original 1787 convention only required 9 out of 13 states (roughly 70%) to ratify instead of unanimous consent to avoid holdout states having unfair bargaining—a trick that ultimately worked, and we ended up with unanimous consent eventually. Dr. Breslin then points out that our amendment process will force all states to accept a new amendment that is ratified, even if a particular state didn't ratify said amendment. So in theory, the same principle could be applied to new constitutions - though I will admit that is something where theory and practice may not line up (In Dr. Breslin's book, the 1953 and 2022 conventions opt for unanimous ratification instead of 70%).
