No Vice-President

I wonder what changes the development of The US would see if The US Constitution had a relatively small change in its formation and implications that could follow.

The US did not have an Office of Vice-President.

Perhaps, the Office of Vice-President is seen as contrary to the idea of separation of powers, given that the Vice-President would be elected as an executive figure who ran for Presidency is also legislative officer by virtue of his or her constitutional authority to preside over the Senate . Maybe it's considered superfluous. Whatever the reason, there is no Vice-President.


Before I address, potential Presidential elections or treaty ratifications, I would like to examine governmental structure without a Vice-president.

Presidential Succession:

I would argue that a logical choice of successor that the framers would have put in place would be "President of Senate". Given the framers views on the Senate and how it was supposed to represent the interests of each state and viewed as the elite, and given that President pro temporae, while mostly a ceremonial title was at times in The US history the first-in-line after the Vice-President and is still in the line of succession after the Speaker of the House. For example, where Andrew Johnson removed from office the rules at the time would have made The President pro temporae Benjamin Wade President. I feel the order choosen in the unamended consitution would be President of Senate then Speaker of The House.

Election of President of the Senate: The President of the Senate is elected by The senators by in a similar fashion to that of Speaker of the House by majority vote of its members.

The Title of Presiding Officer: I chose to use "President of The Senate" in reference, as I feel it makes historical sense. Though I could see an argument that it would choose something such as, "Speaker of The Senate" such a distinction may not have an effect. Though it might be an interesting distinction to note A president at the time, was a humble position. Being a Speaker of a given body had a connection with parliamentary authority through the already historical use of the Title in The House of Commons and House of Lords which the framers modeled a lot from.

Office of President pro temporae: Where there a designated President/Speaker of The Senate . It would be similar to that of Speaker pro temporae in the US House of Representatives where a member is temporarily appointed to preside over the body to get them accustomed to the rules.Though there could be a reason the Office may still be a Constitutional designated role, and that would be in Presidential Impeachment Trials in the Senate explained in more detail below.

Suffrage of The President of The Senate: Since all states receive 2 senators, motions could end up being deadlocked even with the President's vote. Would the framers entitle the President of The Senate with a privilege as the Vice-President to break a tie-casting vote? I argue that the answer would most likely be no. Where the POS given such privilege, in effect it would be granting more representation to a single state and that President as well. However, suppose there are a total of thirty senators, and a Senator abstained from voting on a contentious issue, the vote stood fourteen for and fourteen against. The motion doesn't pass as it doesn't gain a majority. Traditionally, the Speaker of the House doesn't vote or debate, and one could see a similar tradition arising in the Senate potentially,but if the Senate had elected one of their own to the President of Senate, given that they are an elected member they retain suffrage and if though it stands as 'a tie' because of the abstention , if the President choose to do so they could break the tie as it stood in favor of the measure because the senator is not being given extra representation as The President , but exercising its suffrage already granted as a Senator representing a given state.

Presiding Officer for Trials of Presidential Impeachment: In cases where the President is impeached by the House of Representatives, I could see three occurrences. Either the President of the Senate presides, a President pro temporae presides, the Chief Justice of The Supreme Court presides.

Argument for President of The Senate:

In our history, The Office of Vice-president was chosen at the framing as the runner-up in a Presidential race and first-in-line to succeed. It was seen that the Vice-President presiding over the President could be conflict of interest. Not because the Vice-President and President were political allies, but because they could in fact be rivals. Remember due to Hamilton convincing South Carolina not voting for Adams and the New York delegates being 'faithless electors' and casting their second vote for Jefferson became Vice-president to Adams who where of opposing parties. Yes, a rare occurrence, but the framers saw this as a possible frequent occurrence.

Given that there is no Office of Vice-president in this scenario and the President of The US and President of Senate may not be seen as potential rivals as much, as the President of Senate would have been first elected by state legislature to gain his or her seat, if an elected Senator, in the Senate then would need to gain support of the Senators to gain the Office of President of The Senate. Though there may exist political animosity the President of Senate didn't seek the position against The President of The United States. Thereby, one could make the argument that President of Senate represents the confidence of the States to manage the Senate. It could also be argued that a trial to remove The President was already sanctioned by the House of Representatives therefore the potential for a Senate 'coup' is checked by The House of Representatives. Another consideration is a separation of powers issue. The Speaker of The House presides over Impeachments in their body despite being in line to Presidency, if not first,is that not a conflict of interest? The Justice of Supreme Court should be above politics and giving the Justice a role in such proceedings could be seen as forcing them to participate in politics. Keeping with the POS, is republican in nature as it preserves the independence of the Senate and legislature.

Argument for a President pro Temporae: If the POS is chosen as successor while there is a President Trial, even though it may be seen as not being a direct rival to The President does still stand to benefit from a conviction of the President. If the argument about Senate independence is accepted, but the fear of an ambitious President of Senate exists one could foresee a provision where the President of Senate temporarily is required to appoint someone or the Senate has formal vote for the President pro temporae and they preside over Senate, since they are not the direct successor, it could be seen as a way of avoiding the conflict of interest of the President of Senate while preserving the independence of the Senate. I could see this option being favored by moderate anti-federalists who disliked the Supreme Court.

Argument for Chief Justice: Chief Justice of Supreme Court. The argument for this would be similar to why the Chief Justice presides as we know the consitution the conflict of interest of the successor leading the trial to remove the obstacle to Presidency and it may be argued that the Senators are too accountable to the people to preside without bias. I could see this option being favored by Federalists.

Political Power of President: It's hard to say exactly how the position would grow or not. Though I feel the President of the Senate would be regarded much in the same way the Speaker of The House is as we know it. A successful administration would need to gain the support of The President of Senate to accomplish what they want.

Edit:

Presidential succession : After some discussion I feel a more likely succession line is going through the Cabinet before Congressional Officers.As they would have been seen as closer to the elected government and it would have made a more smooth continuity of government.
 
Last edited:
A couple significant or interesting outcomes I thought of.

Not as pro-British:
The first historical impact of this difference may be that the Jay Treaty wasn't ratified. As John Adams used his authority to cast a tie breaking vote in favor of ratification. Extrapolating the economic impact of this is beyond my reach, but I feel that America may develop as a trade-netural country,as I feel a pro-French Treaty would be equally unlikely to pass the Senate.

Some Presidental Succsesors:
Where Lincoln still assassinated reconstruction may have happened under a radical Republican such as Charles Sumner. Consequently, reconstruction is more radical.

President Lyndon B Johnson still succeedes John F Kennedy after JFK is assassinated.

PS: If you read all this thanks. :)
 
Last edited:

Marc

Donor
If some reason Madison decided not to create the office of Vice-President, then the simplest and, I suspect, the most likely solution would be to make the Speaker of The House (who is the 3rd in line), second.
A not implausible notion would be for the Speaker to be an acting President until a special election was held; assuming say that more than half the term still remained. But regardless, it would follow the fundamentals of Madison's thinking.
That of course would create major historical divergences from the beginning. For example, Thomas Jefferson could easily become the second President instead of the third. John Adams could become obscure, and so on.
 
If some reason Madison decided not to create the office of Vice-President, then the simplest and, I suspect, the most likely solution would be to make the Speaker of The House (who is the 3rd in line), second.
A not implausible notion would be for the Speaker to be an acting President until a special election was held; assuming say that more than half the term still remained. But regardless, it would follow the fundamentals of Madison's thinking.
That of course would create major historical divergences from the beginning. For example, Thomas Jefferson could easily become the second President instead of the third. John Adams could become obscure, and so on.
Not really. The President of Senate would be second in line and the Speaker third. In OTL originally the president pro-tempore of the Senate was before the Speaker of the House in the presidential line of succession and that was changed mostly because more often than not the president pro-tempore was an old man... with a President of Senate who is not the Vice-President (and so has real power like the Speaker of the House) I think who the Senate will retain its preeminence over the House of Representatives
 
If some reason Madison decided not to create the office of Vice-President, then the simplest and, I suspect, the most likely solution would be to make the Speaker of The House (who is the 3rd in line), second.
A not implausible notion would be for the Speaker to be an acting President until a special election was held; assuming say that more than half the term still remained. But regardless, it would follow the fundamentals of Madison's thinking.
That of course would create major historical divergences from the beginning. For example, Thomas Jefferson could easily become the second President instead of the third. John Adams could become obscure, and so on.

I love how you mentioned acting President. It was something that occurred to me while I was working. It's plausible to assume that were there no Office of Vice-President an equivalent of 'Tyler Precedent' would likely draw even more ire of the populous as Tyler was elected to the designated executive successor. It may have lended more credibility for him using the title President which was contentious in our time. Where a Congressional successor using the title President may not have the same mandate of being elected by the people.

The Speaker of House does make sense as a possible choosen as first-in-line as well. Would be closer to the people as leader of the more repersentive body. Though I do agree with Isbella's argument with Senate being before the House of Representatives in succession.

Another consideration on succession I had was Secretary of State as first successor to acting President. The idea being that Secretary of State was at various times first in line after VP. It has a practical sense about it that presumably the President would have nominated people he agreed with, and this person was confirmed by the Senate to serve the administrator role. Thus, there would be less of a chance a radical depture from the elected executive's views on government.

Thank you for your insight.
 
Last edited:
You have to remember that the original method of selecting the vice-president was very different from the method used now:

"It has been thought extraordinary that the Constitution, as originally adopted, did not provide for a separate vote for the office of Vice President, and prescribed no qualifications for that officer. The explanation is simple. The Vice President was voted for as President and his qualifications were those of the President. That is the clue, seldom explained in our textbooks, to the whole system. As the Constitution then stood, each elector wrote the names of two persons on a ballot. The first was perhaps that of a local luminary, a favorite son of the district or state he represented; the second was that of a person not an inhabitant of the same state as himself -- presumably, therefore, a "continental character." Both of these names were of persons whom the elector and, we may be sure, his constituents considered qualified for the office of President. Either of them might be President, and the elector could not know which. No vote at all was cast for Vice President, but it was provided that "in every case, after the choice of the President the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President."

"The guiding principle of the system is plain. The man in whom the people reposed the highest trust was to be the President, and he in whom they placed their second confidence was to be the Vice President. Its convenience is also evident. This method selected two persons, both qualified to fill the Presidency. It solved the difficult problem posed by Benjamin Franklin when it was first decided that the Executive should be a single person: "The single head may be sick. Who is to conduct the public affairs in that case? When he dies, who are to conduct until a new election?" And it removed the need for a new election when the President died or resigned. Everything seemed settled by a mode of election designed, not to secure a competent President of the Senate, but (in Boudinot's phrase) "to obtain the second-best character in the Union to fill the place of the first, in case it should be vacated by any unforeseen accident."

"On paper the plan seemed perfect. In practice, however, it was soon discovered that great inconvenience might arise from this mode of election, and that it might not carry into effect the will of the people as expressed through electors. The trouble was that the electors did not in fact cast two undistinguishing votes for President, but discriminated in their minds between the persons whom they wanted for President and Vice President, casting one vote for each. This introduced a totally new principle into the electoral system, the effect of which was to divide the contest. Instead of one election with two prizes, there tended to be two elections with separate prizes. The difference is substantial. The runner-up for the world heavyweight championship is a very different order of fighter from the world flyweight champion; the man who comes in second in an Olympic contest is not to be compared with the winner of the same event in a Class B track and field meet.

"The attempt to choose the Vice President separately from the President destroyed the electoral system. For it made possible, in a particular circumstance, the election of a President and Vice President of opposite political parties. The case occurred in 1796 and was immediately seen to be an evil, at least by the majority party. It might have occurred again in 1804, and to prevent the repetition was the avowed purpose of the Twelfth Amendment, "the pivot on which the whole turned." The Constitution, it was said, could never have intended that a minor faction should, by any means, acquire the power of electing a Vice President, the possible successor to executive power; its purpose was that the election of the President and Vice President should be determined by a fair expression of the public will by a majority.

"There was another difficulty too. Even if A was intended by a large majority of the people for President and B for Vice President, yet the votes might be so disposed, or chance might operate so contrary to intention, that the votes for B would exceed by a vote those for A. John Quincy Adams stated the case hypothetically in 1808. It had come within an ace of occurring in the Jefferson-Burr election of 1800..."

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/pres/wilmer.htm

So we got the Twelfth Amendment which established the system of electing the president and vice-president on a single ticket. Some Federalists warned that this would lead to undistinguished vice-presidents, people who were chosen just to help the presidential candidate carry a particular state or region. The next few decades amply justified this warning.

See Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s ""Is the Vice Presidency Necessary?":

"The abolition of the "valuable mode of election" canceled the purpose of the Founding Fathers in having a Vice President at all. Separate voting ended any prospect that the Vice President would be the second man in the country. The office could no longer be counted on to attract men of the highest quality. It would become, as was immediately noted, a bargaining counter in the presidential contest—"a bait to catch state gudgeons," in Gouverneur Morris' contemptuous phrase. Samuel White, a senator from Delaware, summed up with admirable prescience the consequences of the Twelfth Amendment: "Character, talents; virtue, and merits will not be sought after in the candidate. The question will not be asked, is he Capable? Is he honest? But can he by his name, by his connections, by his wealth, by his local situation, by his influence, or his intrigues, best promote the election of a President?" Roger Griswold of Connecticut said that the vice presidency would thereafter be "useless, worse than useless." A number of political leaders, Republicans and Federalists—John Randolph of Roanoke, former Speaker of the House, now Senator; Jonathan Dayton; Mathew Griswold; Samuel W. Dana—drew the logical conclusion. The vice presidency was an organic part of a particular mode of election, and that mode of election had now been constitutionally abolished; therefore let us abolish the vice presidency too. Unfortunately for the republic this effort failed.

"But the dismal predictions were correct. The Twelfth Amendment sent the vice presidency into prompt decline. The first two Vice Presidents had moved on directly to the presidency. After the amendment was enacted, the vice presidency became a resting place for mediocrities. Who can remember Burr's successors-George Clinton, Elbridge Gerry, Daniel D. Tompkins? For a generation the office of Secretary of State became the stepping-stone to the presidency; thereafter Presidents were elected from anywhere except the vice presidency..."
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1974/05/is-the-vice-presidency-necessary/305732/
 
I love how you mentioned acting President. It was something that occurred to me while I was working. It's plausible to assume that were there no Office of Vice-President an equivalent of 'Tyler Precedent' would likely draw even more ire of the populous as Tyler was elected to the designated executive successor. It may have lended more credibility for him using the title President which was contentious in our time. Where a Congressional successor using the title President may not have the same mandate of being elected by the people.

I think the Speaker of House makes sense as a possible choosen as first-in-line as well. Would be closer to the people as leader of the more repersentive body.

Another consideration on succession I had was Secretary of State as first successor to acting President. The idea being that Secretary of State was at various times first in line after VP. It has a practical sense about it that presumably the President would have nominated people he agreed with, and this person was confirmed by the Senate to serve the administrator role. Thus, there would be less of a chance a radical depture from the elected executive's views on government.

Thank you for your insight.
Secretary of State as first in line followed by president of senate and Speaker can work well without a vice-President... Maybe a later emendament would put secretary of defense between secretary of state and president of Senate
 
Not really. The President of Senate would be second in line and the Speaker third. In OTL originally the president pro-tempore of the Senate was before the Speaker of the House in the presidential line of succession and that was changed mostly because more often than not the president pro-tempore was an old man... with a President of Senate who is not the Vice-President (and so has real power like the Speaker of the House) I think who the Senate will retain its preeminence over the House of Representatives

The usual age of President pro-tempore is a good point. It's a point I neglected to mention. ( Thanks for supplying the correct spelling too. :) )
 
In terms of a President of the US Senate elected by US Senators it is possible for such a person to exercise an ordinary vote and then a casting vote. This has happened in the UK with a Mayor presiding over the Council
 
You could have such a President of the Senate become Acting President until an election can be arranged (at the earliest possible).
This is basically what we have in France right now. Alain Poher became president by interim twice: after De Gaulle's resignation in 1969, and after Pompidou's death in 1974.

The main issue would be that this would disjoin Presidential terms with Congressional terms, unless the Framers would be fine with an interim President for two years at most. Many countries manage to have disjointed national elections at different times, but the US seems very keen on multiple-election ballots on a single polling day every two years. :)

Also if you make the President of the Senate only able to vote on tie breaking matters, you would run into the issue of him/her not voting on any non-tie issues, thus reducing the power of a single state by half in the Senate. This is an issue that voters have in the constituency of the Speaker in the UK. They elect somebody who's only going to represent them in very few votes. I don't think this would fly well with the Framers.
 
Last edited:

Marc

Donor
Not really. The President of Senate would be second in line and the Speaker third. In OTL originally the president pro-tempore of the Senate was before the Speaker of the House in the presidential line of succession and that was changed mostly because more often than not the president pro-tempore was an old man... with a President of Senate who is not the Vice-President (and so has real power like the Speaker of the House) I think who the Senate will retain its preeminence over the House of Representatives

Quite right, I had forgotten about the details of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792. However, that was part of a history development that in this case would very likely not happen. With no office of the Vice-Presidency to begin with, I suggest that Madison would have considered the House Speaker a more suitable successor.
We always have to keep in mind, that events, like these, can have strong links to other events, i.e. change one thing and a whole lot else shifts, right away...
 
First, it is true that the current version of the Presidential Succession Act, dating from the 1940s, puts the Speaker of the House third in line in the succession. I think this was due to a suggestion of President Truman that the Speaker of the House had more democratic legitimacy than the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Democratic legitimacy was not a concern in 1787. The 1787-90 arrangement gave the Vice President the additional title of President of the Senate, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate as the third in line. Its pretty obvious that if the 1787 convention had not adopted the office of the Vice President, there would have been no President Pro Tempore, and the Senate would have elected the President of the Senate who would be designated as successor to the Senate in the event of death, resignation, or removal from office.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives does not have to be an elected Congressman under House rules and the Senate could have adopted similar rules ITTL so that the President of the Senate would not necessarily have to be a Senator.

Another point is that until a President first died in office in 1841, people were unsure what would happen in the event the presidential succession provisions were used. It seems to have been assumed that the Vice President would only be acting president until a new presidential election was organized. Legislative drafting in this period was terrible, and neither the Constitution nor the presidential succession legislation was clear on this. Tyler insisted that he was President and was entitled to the presidential salary and was able to get people to accept this, and the precedent was codified over 120 years later by the 25th Amendment.

A fourth point was that before 1861, in practice the office of the Vice President wound up being used for sectional balance. If the President was from a free state, the Vice President would always be from a slave state, and vice versa. After the 12th Amendment, tickets of the two major parties with only a couple of exceptions reflected this. ITTL, the Senate would very likely chose the President of the Senate to maintain sectional balance.

Fifth, if the 1787 convention forgoes an office of the Vice President, butterflies happen immediately. The first buttefly is with the political career of John Adams. Adams is not Vice President, but his stature is high enough that we would hold some other office, more likely in the federal government than as Governor of Massachusetts. The options are a position in Washington's cabinet, as Senator from Massachusetts, and Supreme Court justice. Checking Wikipedia, Washington's Secretary of War, Henry Knox, was from Massachusetts, and Washington would prefer Knox in that position to Adams. The natural post for Adams was Attorney General, but I think Washington would prefer the man he appointed OTL, Edmund Randolph of Virginia. However, the Senators elected from Massachusetts in 1788 are unknown today, the first Bay state Senator of note is actually John Quincy Adams, elected in 1803, so Adams would probably be elected Senator from Massachusetts and possibly President of the Senate ITTL, though another option is for him to be on the Supreme Court, The OTL Washington appointment of Supreme Court justice from Massachusetts, William Cushing, differed little from Adams in judicial philosophy, though butterflies would have started to accumulate since Adams likely would have left the Court later than 1810, when Cushing left and was replaced by Joseph Story.

Adams is now not necessarily Washington's successor as President. With no Vice Presidency, the 1787 Electoral College system doesn't malfunction like it almost did in 1796 ad 1800 and there is no 12th Amendment. If William Henry Harrison is still elected President in 1841 and still becomes fatally sick when sworn in, his successor would not be Tyler but more likely Henry Clay, so we have yet another alternative timeline with a Clay administration (it would be a slave state Whig Senator and Clay would be the obvious choice). After that, butterflies keep continuing. We also probably don't get the Burr treason trial.

If the POD is that the 12th Amendment abolishes the Vice Presidency, the first two decades of federal politics are not affected, and the first butterflies start happening in 1741.

Fillmore is the only nineteenth century President who achieved that office by succeeding as the Vice President who might have been elected President on his own, and that is a stretch. The five twentieth century Presidents in that situation could have conceivably been elected on their own, with Theodore Roosevelt the least likely. Also, after the 22nd and 25th Amendments the Vice Presidency boosted the stature of whoever held it, so the Nixon and GHW Bush administrations are less likely, though by this point butterflies would really alter things. Humphrey, GHW Bush, and Gore all ran for their party's presidential nomination before becoming Vice President and finished no worse than fourth, and Mondale considered running in 1976 and was viewed at the time as being a reasonably strong candidate, so its hard to gauge the effects of the POD here.
 
Casting Vote
In terms of a President of the US Senate elected by US Senators it is possible for such a person to exercise an ordinary vote and then a casting vote. This has happened in the UK with a Mayor presiding over the Council

I could see that being possible for President of Senate having a casting vote. Perhaps, argued by Federalists that this would be a good to help government run more smoothly. Though I could even see it being a deal-breaker to States adopting the Constitution, if the Federalists insisted.There's a massive issue why I feel it wouldn't: slavery. Even if you disregard the federalism concept that states would feel one state/ one person would be over repersented in the Senate if The President of Senate had a casting vote ,it would upset the balance of slave/ free states. Suppose there where eleven free states eleven slave states. There would be twenty-two senators for preventing/abolition slavery twenty-two for spreading/preserving slavery. It would be hard enough for a divided Senate find someone they can all find acceptable to preside, if the President of The Senate had a casting vote it would upset both Northern interests and Southern interests. I would argue if The President of Senate was given a casting vote at convention, I could see a President of Senate's casting vote being the cause of much constrversy even bringing the States to civil war.
 
You could have such a President of the Senate become Acting President until an election can be arranged (at the earliest possible).
This is basically what we have in France right now. Alain Poher became president by interim twice: after De Gaulle's resignation in 1969, and after Pompidou's death in 1974.

The main issue would be that this would disjoin Presidential terms with Congressional terms, unless the Framers would be fine with an interim President for two years at most. Many countries manage to have disjointed national elections at different times, but the US seems very keen on multiple-election ballots on a single polling day every two years. :)

Also if you make the President of the Senate only able to vote on tie breaking matters, you would run into the issue of him/her not voting on any non-tie issues, thus reducing the power of a single state by half in the Senate. This is an issue that voters have in the constituency of the Speaker in the UK. They elect somebody who's only going to represent them in very few votes. I don't think this would fly well with the Framers.

Where the US adopting this in modern times I think that's a sensible solution. Though this being adopted where the spread of information was much slower, I feel the framers would not be Keen on organizing special elections in the even of death.

Perhaps, I didn't address this clearly, but I agree with you on that point about the President of Senate's vote. I feel a Senator would be entitled ,at least by law, to their vote as a Senator regardless of vote. I could see an unwritten tradition where he/she wouldn't vote on measures analogous to the Speaker arising. I do agree people would find this very contentious. Though because at the time Senators where elected through state legislatures. Were a non-voting President tradition similar to the Speaker of the Commons, I don't think the political elite would be to bothered about it honestly. Were there a direct democracy for election of Senators in the 20th century amendment as in our time, a non-voting President of Senate would be more of an issue. It's seems wrong in principle to force someone to vote, even if they are a powerful political figure.
 
Quite right, I had forgotten about the details of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792. However, that was part of a history development that in this case would very likely not happen. With no office of the Vice-Presidency to begin with, I suggest that Madison would have considered the House Speaker a more suitable successor.
We always have to keep in mind, that events, like these, can have strong links to other events, i.e. change one thing and a whole lot else shifts, right away...

House Speaker does seem like it could come out as a successor to the Presidency. Though I'm starting to think Cabinet successors first would be the most practical solution. I feel despite whether or not Speaker is a more repersentive officer or if they would have seen The President of the Senate as more prestigious, I feel where there no Vice-President,no designated executive 'back up'. I feel the Federalists would have wanted someone closer to The President.
Succession would make sense to go through the cabinet first perhaps in this order: State, War, Treasury, Attorney General then the Congressional officers.
 
House Speaker does seem like it could come out as a successor to the Presidency. Though I'm starting to think Cabinet successors first would be the most practical solution. I feel despite whether or not Speaker is a more repersentive officer or if they would have seen The President of the Senate as more prestigious, I feel where there no Vice-President,no designated executive 'back up'. I feel the Federalists would have wanted someone closer to The President.
Succession would make sense to go through the cabinet first perhaps in this order: State, War, Treasury, Attorney General then the Congressional officers.
I think will be more logical put Secretary of State first, then President of Senate, Speaker of the House and after them the remaining members of Cabinet in order of precedence, at least at the beginning, then later an emendament will put the Secretary of Defense between the Secretary of State and the President of Senate so we will have a line of succession like this:
  1. President of the United States
  2. Secretary of State
  3. Secretary of Defense
  4. President of the Senate
  5. Speaker of the House of Representatives
  6. Secretary of Treasury
  7. Attorney General
  8. Secretary of the Interior
  9. Secretary of Agriculture
  10. Secretary of Commerce
  11. Secretary of Labor
  12. Secretary of Health and Human Services
  13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
  14. Secretary of Transportation
  15. Secretary of Energy
  16. Secretary of Education
  17. Secretary of Veteran Affairs
EDIT: without the creation of a modern style Department of Defense the emendament putting defense in the third place would not exist so we would look at this kind of order of succession:

  1. President of the United States
  2. Secretary of State
  3. President of the Senate
  4. Speaker of the House of Representatives
  5. Secretary of Treasury
  6. Attorney General
  7. Secretary of War
  8. Secretary of Navy
  9. Secretary of the Interior
  10. Secretary of Agriculture
  11. Secretary of Commerce
  12. Secretary of Labor
  13. Secretary of Health and Human Services
  14. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
  15. Secretary of Transportation
  16. Secretary of Energy
  17. Secretary of Education
  18. Secretary of Veteran Affairs
If a modern style Department of Homeland Security was ever created at Cabinet level I think such department would be put higher in the list of succession (likely at the 8th place of the first list, just below Attorney General)
 
Last edited:

Marc

Donor
Well, the House of Representatives, not the Senate was considered the premier body of Congress for some decades. The "direct" election thing along with the crucial power of the purse, made it the closest in the eyes of the active part of the population* to the informal role model of the British House of Commons. And consider that Senators were appointed by state legislatures until 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment, the Senate occassioned very mixed feelings...

*We naturally tend to overlook that not only was voting heavily restricted for most of American history, but of those eligible, outcomes were determined most often by ah, influential, minorities, especially in the days before the secret ballot.
 
Last edited:
First, it is true that the current version of the Presidential Succession Act, dating from the 1940s, puts the Speaker of the House third in line in the succession. I think this was due to a suggestion of President Truman that the Speaker of the House had more democratic legitimacy than the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Democratic legitimacy was not a concern in 1787. The 1787-90 arrangement gave the Vice President the additional title of President of the Senate, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate as the third in line. Its pretty obvious that if the 1787 convention had not adopted the office of the Vice President, there would have been no President Pro Tempore, and the Senate would have elected the President of the Senate who would be designated as successor to the Senate in the event of death, resignation, or removal from office.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives does not have to be an elected Congressman under House rules and the Senate could have adopted similar rules ITTL so that the President of the Senate would not necessarily have to be a Senator.

Another point is that until a President first died in office in 1841, people were unsure what would happen in the event the presidential succession provisions were used. It seems to have been assumed that the Vice President would only be acting president until a new presidential election was organized. Legislative drafting in this period was terrible, and neither the Constitution nor the presidential succession legislation was clear on this. Tyler insisted that he was President and was entitled to the presidential salary and was able to get people to accept this, and the precedent was codified over 120 years later by the 25th Amendment.

A fourth point was that before 1861, in practice the office of the Vice President wound up being used for sectional balance. If the President was from a free state, the Vice President would always be from a slave state, and vice versa. After the 12th Amendment, tickets of the two major parties with only a couple of exceptions reflected this. ITTL, the Senate would very likely chose the President of the Senate to maintain sectional balance.

Fifth, if the 1787 convention forgoes an office of the Vice President, butterflies happen immediately. The first buttefly is with the political career of John Adams. Adams is not Vice President, but his stature is high enough that we would hold some other office, more likely in the federal government than as Governor of Massachusetts. The options are a position in Washington's cabinet, as Senator from Massachusetts, and Supreme Court justice. Checking Wikipedia, Washington's Secretary of War, Henry Knox, was from Massachusetts, and Washington would prefer Knox in that position to Adams. The natural post for Adams was Attorney General, but I think Washington would prefer the man he appointed OTL, Edmund Randolph of Virginia. However, the Senators elected from Massachusetts in 1788 are unknown today, the first Bay state Senator of note is actually John Quincy Adams, elected in 1803, so Adams would probably be elected Senator from Massachusetts and possibly President of the Senate ITTL, though another option is for him to be on the Supreme Court, The OTL Washington appointment of Supreme Court justice from Massachusetts, William Cushing, differed little from Adams in judicial philosophy, though butterflies would have started to accumulate since Adams likely would have left the Court later than 1810, when Cushing left and was replaced by Joseph Story.

Adams is now not necessarily Washington's successor as President. With no Vice Presidency, the 1787 Electoral College system doesn't malfunction like it almost did in 1796 ad 1800 and there is no 12th Amendment. If William Henry Harrison is still elected President in 1841 and still becomes fatally sick when sworn in, his successor would not be Tyler but more likely Henry Clay, so we have yet another alternative timeline with a Clay administration (it would be a slave state Whig Senator and Clay would be the obvious choice). After that, butterflies keep continuing. We also probably don't get the Burr treason trial.

If the POD is that the 12th Amendment abolishes the Vice Presidency, the first two decades of federal politics are not affected, and the first butterflies start happening in 1741.

Fillmore is the only nineteenth century President who achieved that office by succeeding as the Vice President who might have been elected President on his own, and that is a stretch. The five twentieth century Presidents in that situation could have conceivably been elected on their own, with Theodore Roosevelt the least likely. Also, after the 22nd and 25th Amendments the Vice Presidency boosted the stature of whoever held it, so the Nixon and GHW Bush administrations are less likely, though by this point butterflies would really alter things. Humphrey, GHW Bush, and Gore all ran for their party's presidential nomination before becoming Vice President and finished no worse than fourth, and Mondale considered running in 1976 and was viewed at the time as being a reasonably strong candidate, so its hard to gauge the effects of the POD here.

I'm sorry to have missed this post. It's very interesting especially in regard to the ramifications of historical outcomes.

John Adams not being elected President makes a good deal of sense. I feel the elections of Washington is still unanimous makes sense and he still doesn't seek a third term.

With The Election of 1796 The Federalists would probably have a stronger race if Alexander Hamilton ran against Jefferson. Though assuming his wife still miscarried, I feel it's still likely Hamilton would retire from federal politics to be with his wife as he did in our history. Charles Pinckney as Hamilton disliked Adams and without securing Hamilton's blessing I don't believe he would gain support to beat Pinckney. I feel a slightly earlier Jeffersonian Presidency is the likely outcome as well.

One potential outcome of Jefferson's earlier Presidenec is the Midnight Judges doesn't happen. No John Marshall as Chief Justice of Supreme Court. Adams as a Washington appointment makes sense to me. While I think Hamilton discussed the idea of Judicial supremacy, Marshall's cemented the practice. Perhaps, a Chief/Justice Adams renders a similar decision though it's hard to see where/ when such a decision would be made. I'm not familiar with the makeup of Supreme Court before Marshall. I feel the Supreme Court would have more a democratic-republican /strict construction charchter.
 
I think will be more logical put Secretary of State first, then President of Senate, Speaker of the House and after them the remaining members of Cabinet in order of precedence, at least at the beginning, then later an emendament will put the Secretary of Defense between the Secretary of State and the President of Senate so we will have a line of succession like this:
  1. President of the United States
  2. Secretary of State
  3. Secretary of Defense (War)
You forget the Secretary of the Navy, which was coequal with the Secretary of War.

In any case, IMHO those departments would be at the bottom of the list.

Attorney General and Treasury would come first, representing core elements of the Executive Branch.

  • President of the Senate
  • Speaker of the House of Representatives
  • Secretary of Treasury
  • Attorney General
  • Secretary of the Interior
  • Secretary of Agriculture
  • Secretary of Commerce
  • Secretary of Labor
  • Secretary of Health and Human Services
  • Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
  • Secretary of Transportation
  • Secretary of Energy
  • Secretary of Education
  • Secretary of Veteran Affairs
 
Last edited:
Top