- I had suggested, far too late, that the new capital be named Columbia and be located in the District of Washington. That could work in the redux thread.
- I like the idea of increased German immigration to Texas leading to Texas developing a distinctive nationality separate from the Americans.
- I do like the political complication the office of First Secretary adds to American politics. It's almost like there are two Presidents.
- I loved the idea of the independent city-state of Manhattan. I hope it continues over into the new thread.
- Some of the alternate choices for Canada's name are pretty interesting. I like Albionora and Translatlantia. "Albionora" feels a bit more creative than simply calling the country "New Albion" or "Anglia" while still acknowledging the country's English ancestry. I'm personally liking the idea of the new nation narrowly voting to name themselves something out-there like "Transatlantia" because history can be weird like that.
Washington Burns: A Story of Alternate America
- Thread starter Eckener
- Start date
Thanks for the input Abe!
1. Colombia isn't a bad name for the capital, but I think at this point I'm pretty attached to Franklin.
2. I think the increased German immigration to Texas would help create a more unique Texan identity, but I also agree with some of the others that have commented that it wouldn't dominate said identity in the way that I did in the original version.
3. People seem to like this, and I'm glad because I'm partial to it. May just need to tweak the execution of how it came about.
4. I enjoyed this as well and plan to keep it I think. I wonder if any other cities should get the same treatment? ITTL we just have Manhattan and Franklin as independent city-states.
5. I'm honestly torn on this. I liked Borealia but it never quite felt "right." But as you point out, history turns in weird ways like that, and Borealia, Transatlantia, Albionora, and the others were all suggested OTL.
- Fair enough. It's ultimately your choice for what they'll name their new capital.
- Simply having the Germans be an ingredient in the melting pot rather than dominating it would be enough.
- Keen on finding out how you'll change it in the redux,
- Who knows? They just have to pop up in the narrative naturally, though.
- History can be directed through the strangest of paths. I like the sound of "the Kingdom of Albionora", but "Transatlantia" could be suggested if the French kick up enough of a stink about it. There were other proposals. Like naming it "Cabotia" after John Cabot. "Vesperia" was also a rather interesting proposal for a name.
Longtime fan and lurker so thought I’d share my few thought...
- The concept of the First Secretary is a neat idea even if the name sounds off for an American governmental office (Chief Secretary maybe?)
- Retiring Borealia in favour of Canada makes sense seeing as how the name has always kind of existed in that region and the other alternatives sound very awkward and artificial. If Canada absolutely must be prevented, maybe try naming it’s counterpart taking province or regional names instead (ie Dominion of Ontario, Dominion of the Maritimes, etc)
- The Dixie disporia was interesting and a neat twist on the idea of free blacks settling the west. That said, how many ended up leaving their homes and the later rebellion against the government did feel very forced. Have no problem with them being a political force out west and constant headache for federal/state government of wherever they settle
- Was not the biggest fan of Independent Manhattan but the big cities lobbying to become their own states is interesting flavour. Other big cities trying to get their own place at the table could include the likes of Detroit, Chicago, New Orleans with varying levels of success.
- The Germanisation of Texas is neat but should probably be toned down a little so that they’re a political force within the country rather then a dominant factor. Maybe limit it to a few alternatively named places and blended German-Hispanic/Anglo names.
- Personally, always felt like how the Union of European Republics was a little clunky. It felt like it jumped straight to full blown nation too quickly when it instead felt like it should have been an alliance of nations first
Thanks for the feedback! Glad you've enjoyed the TL!
1. So it seems like everyone (at least everyone who's voiced feedback, at any rate) like the First Secretary position, so that seems a likely keeper. To be honest, I borrowed the name/ idea from Reds! TL series and I hadn't considered a different name. And it's not an unreasonable idea, to be honest. Considering that "secretary of state" is our foreign affairs secretary, and the "attorney general" is the justice secretary, having the Speaker-as-cabinet member having some other quirky title is totally plausible. That said, not sure how I feel about "Cheif Secretary." I'll have to ponder this one. And open to other name suggestions from you or anyone else.
2. I hadn't considered that concept, of borrowing one of the OTL provincial names. Definitely, something to consider.
3. Agreed that the size of the diaspora was probably too big/forced, but I think it should stick around.
4. It could be interesting, once Manhattan is granted "independence," to see other cities lobbying for the same thing. And the list you gave is a good place to start for sure.
5. That seems to be the general consensus on the Germanization of Texas. Doable but needs to be toned down. I do still like the idea of the city of Neu Frankfurt, and so that will probably be kept, but I'll probably drop the others.
6. That is an interesting point that you make about the UER. I'll have to consider that when I do my re-read through the TL and see what I think about that.
So I've started looking back through the earliest part of the TL, and I think the first major crux of this redux is going to be the core of what sets up the political system that everyone seems to like.
ITTL, this is referred to as the Grand Compromise of 1817, and comes about rather clunkily. You can also jump to the end of this post to get to the TL;DR
In summary:
- The VP-elect (a Democratic-Republican) dies before he is sworn in.
- It is proposed, in the interim between his death and inauguration day in March that the candidate from the Federalist Party, Rufus King, be made VP as part of a "unity" plan.
- Newly inaugurated President William Crawford (DR) approves of this Unity plan and puts pressure on Congress to approve King as the VP.
---------and herein lies the first problem:
Until 1965 OTL, VP vacancies just stayed vacant until the next election. Now, it's conceivable that maybe Congress decides to go along with it, but I doubt it. FURTHERMORE, in the re-read, I really feel like I did too much handwavium to give the Federalists more bargaining power than they really had. Speaking of, let's get back to the whole Grand Compromise...........
- Federalists are obstructing D-R plans. Furthermore, some wester D-R members are unhappy with the administration, particularly a proposed "Treaty of Wisconsin" which gives the British more territory.
- VP King (along with many Federalists), are openly in support of "the principals of the Heartford Resolution," further obstructing action in Congress.
- President Crawford brings everyone to the table and hammers out the said Grand Compromise: DC is abandoned in favor of moving the capital west; the presidency will become a single 6-year term and the succeeding president cannot be from the same state as his predecessor; declarations of war and approval of new states require 2/3rd majority support in Congress. In exchange, the DRs get.....not going along with the Heartford Resolution's call for ending the 3/5's compromise in the constitution and also the approval of the Wisconsin Treaty.
OK. So clearly I did way too much handwavium to get what I wanted at the time, which was essentially 1)a surviving Federalist Party and 2) basically approving of the Heartford Resolution. Now, three years later, I feel the setup as written is too implausible. At the same time, to full-on abandon it basically derails the rest of the TL, which grows out of the new political settlement after 1817.
In particular, the development of the First Secretary position hinges on King being VP as I currently have it written. Crawford has some serious health issues starting in1819, and to prevent King from becoming Acting President, Speaker of the House Henry Clay is asked to step in and "help," and the position grows from there.
TL;DR:
The whole "Grand Compromise of 1817" doesn't work as written. BUT, the political developments from it set up the political landscape that everyone, myself included, really enjoy about the TL, so this whole section will need to be rewritten in a way that still allows the following:
- DC formally abandoned in favor of moving out West (as opposed to some existing city).
- The presidency becoming a single 6-year term.
- The Speaker of the House being invited to work on the President's cabinet, evolving into the "first secretary."
I have a few ideas on some possible fixes that I'm going to work on typing out. But I would love to hear some feedback on possible ways to fix this.
ITTL, this is referred to as the Grand Compromise of 1817, and comes about rather clunkily. You can also jump to the end of this post to get to the TL;DR
In summary:
- The VP-elect (a Democratic-Republican) dies before he is sworn in.
- It is proposed, in the interim between his death and inauguration day in March that the candidate from the Federalist Party, Rufus King, be made VP as part of a "unity" plan.
- Newly inaugurated President William Crawford (DR) approves of this Unity plan and puts pressure on Congress to approve King as the VP.
---------and herein lies the first problem:
Until 1965 OTL, VP vacancies just stayed vacant until the next election. Now, it's conceivable that maybe Congress decides to go along with it, but I doubt it. FURTHERMORE, in the re-read, I really feel like I did too much handwavium to give the Federalists more bargaining power than they really had. Speaking of, let's get back to the whole Grand Compromise...........
- Federalists are obstructing D-R plans. Furthermore, some wester D-R members are unhappy with the administration, particularly a proposed "Treaty of Wisconsin" which gives the British more territory.
- VP King (along with many Federalists), are openly in support of "the principals of the Heartford Resolution," further obstructing action in Congress.
- President Crawford brings everyone to the table and hammers out the said Grand Compromise: DC is abandoned in favor of moving the capital west; the presidency will become a single 6-year term and the succeeding president cannot be from the same state as his predecessor; declarations of war and approval of new states require 2/3rd majority support in Congress. In exchange, the DRs get.....not going along with the Heartford Resolution's call for ending the 3/5's compromise in the constitution and also the approval of the Wisconsin Treaty.
OK. So clearly I did way too much handwavium to get what I wanted at the time, which was essentially 1)a surviving Federalist Party and 2) basically approving of the Heartford Resolution. Now, three years later, I feel the setup as written is too implausible. At the same time, to full-on abandon it basically derails the rest of the TL, which grows out of the new political settlement after 1817.
In particular, the development of the First Secretary position hinges on King being VP as I currently have it written. Crawford has some serious health issues starting in1819, and to prevent King from becoming Acting President, Speaker of the House Henry Clay is asked to step in and "help," and the position grows from there.
TL;DR:
The whole "Grand Compromise of 1817" doesn't work as written. BUT, the political developments from it set up the political landscape that everyone, myself included, really enjoy about the TL, so this whole section will need to be rewritten in a way that still allows the following:
- DC formally abandoned in favor of moving out West (as opposed to some existing city).
- The presidency becoming a single 6-year term.
- The Speaker of the House being invited to work on the President's cabinet, evolving into the "first secretary."
I have a few ideas on some possible fixes that I'm going to work on typing out. But I would love to hear some feedback on possible ways to fix this.
In regards to the whole independent Manhattan thing, where's in this version it stayed a federal territory, maybe in the redux it becomes a state
So ITTL, the District of Manhattan was set up in 1879, with a freely elected legislature, but with a presidentially appointed governor. In 1893, the Manhattan-Franklin Act was signed, giving regular representation to the two federal districts in the House of Representatives, and a single senator each. Then, in 1944, the District adopts a communalist-style constitution that is fully independent, with no federally appointed officials. I never directly get into it, but it was meant to be implied that, after the 1893 act, the two districts essentially are states, they just aren't called states (legally, they are referred to as "Districts" - not "Federal Districts," and both colloquially and academically they are often called "city-states").
Perhaps this is something that should be cleaned up in a Redux
I have some thoughts on how to proceed, but I would rather go through the whole timeline and make a bulleted list of notes. Just so I don't make any silly mistakes.
Here are some thoughts on possible fixes to the "Great Compromise of 1817":
- Vice President-elect Daniel Tompkins (DR-New York) still dies in December of 1816.
- After the inauguration, President William Crawford requests that Congress allow him to appoint a new VP (from his own party).
- While the DRs have control of Congress, many DRs from the West do not support their Eastern colleagues and so work with the Federalists at times to try and bargain for what they want.
- President Crawford agrees to meet with Congressional leadership to discuss a compromise which will result in: an amendment to allow the president to appoint a new VP when there is a vacancy; an amendment changing the presidential to a single 6-year term; and moving the capital to the West.
- The amendment process takes time, and sometime in 1818 President Crawford suffers a stroke, and he asks Speaker of the House Henry Clay to help him maintain order, but also prevent the actual enactment of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792. (We will chalk this up to a grudge between Crawford and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate). I’m open to alternate suggestions for the title of the position.
Thoughts?
- Vice President-elect Daniel Tompkins (DR-New York) still dies in December of 1816.
- After the inauguration, President William Crawford requests that Congress allow him to appoint a new VP (from his own party).
- While the DRs have control of Congress, many DRs from the West do not support their Eastern colleagues and so work with the Federalists at times to try and bargain for what they want.
- President Crawford agrees to meet with Congressional leadership to discuss a compromise which will result in: an amendment to allow the president to appoint a new VP when there is a vacancy; an amendment changing the presidential to a single 6-year term; and moving the capital to the West.
- The amendment process takes time, and sometime in 1818 President Crawford suffers a stroke, and he asks Speaker of the House Henry Clay to help him maintain order, but also prevent the actual enactment of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792. (We will chalk this up to a grudge between Crawford and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate). I’m open to alternate suggestions for the title of the position.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
Suggestions:
- Executive Liaison (or simply Exec/ELOTUS)
- Chief Administrant (or Chief Ad/Chief Admin)
- Secretary to Congress (or SecCon)
- Something involving regulator or actuator?
I have to say this and Executive Liaison sound the most "inherently American" to me.
This is growing on me. My first thought was that, when Clay is first asked to do this, it would be a longer title that will eventually get shortened. Something like "General Administrative Secretary of the President," shortening to "General Secretary." When this becomes formalized maybe it gets switched to "Secretary-General"?
A suggestion based on current events: perhaps power should be transferred from president to president quicker? Like one week instead of a few months?
Well we aren't supposed to be discussing "current OTL politics" outside Chat at all, so we are handicapped on this topic here--unless you can reframe in terms of the ATL history of power transfers!
If a liberal checks-and-balances multipolar power constitution is working well at all, a stately delay of some months should not enable a "lame duck" president finishing a term to do anything really outrageous. The basic check, beyond the details of multiple channels of power a constitution might stipulate, is rule of law. Presidents are supposed to be sworn to uphold constitutional order, and can be judged for lapses in this, depending on the constitutional details of course. It might prove practically impossible to sanction the President themselves, but still possible to hold their executive officers they appoint and supervise accountable--in the USA (not just recently, but going back to the 1780s, let me be clear!) a President may of course pardon a subordinate who is tried and found guilty by regular process of law, as has happened frequently--both the trial and verdict disgracing the official and less often, the pardoning. It is also possible OTL to use the track of impeachment by the House and trial and conviction in the Senate to bypass even pardon; OTL a person convicted in the Senate has all Executive (or judicial branch; Federal justices have been impeached and convicted in the Senate OTL) privilege stripped and is open to regular judicial processes, and forever banned from Federal service in any capacity.
Lame duck actions that the opposition has reason to find outrageous or poison pills certainly have happened OTL and not just recently either. The main thing restricting them is political expedience. Which is a weighty thing for any outgoing executive to consider carefully; sweeping and highhanded actions (such as abusing power to entangle the nation in a war let us say) will quite likely bring retribution, and the other guy or gal is just about to assume executive power in this scenario, which combined with their recent electoral victory is likely to be reinforced by general outrage to enable retribution to sting hard politically. OTL, a former President retains immunities for their own actions while in office if not impeached and convicted in the Senate...but once the new President takes power any properly legal remedy, such as holding appointed agents of the former President strictly accountable, won't be buffered by any promises of immunity via pardon!
At least not in the short run of another Presidential term--unless the new President finds it politically expedient to pardon them anyway. Pardons can be conditional and can perhaps (not sure about this, but a given ATL set of rules can specify it) preempt a later less conditional one. The person offered a pardon can be given the option of accepting or rejecting--OTL accepting a pardon is construed, at least customarily, as an admission of guilt. So it might be expedient for the new President to offer a pardon on condition of accepting restrictions such as ineligibility for Federal office, and the convicted official can either accept and be removed from the pool of future appointees to power again, or refuse and wait it out, hoping for their party to return to power and a future President of their faction then pardons them unconditionally--if by that time their crime is forgotten or deemed within their party's norms enough to face down any controversy that might be a consequence.
That's fair. I forgot about that rule, and I apologize for breaking it.
I suppose the context in-universe could be that the War Between the States occurs later, at the end of Hawthorne's presidency, after a longer buildup? Maybe the Confederation finally splits off because of his actions while a lame duck and he decides instead to seize power because the president-elect is from one of the seceding states?
I suppose the context in-universe could be that the War Between the States occurs later, at the end of Hawthorne's presidency, after a longer buildup? Maybe the Confederation finally splits off because of his actions while a lame duck and he decides instead to seize power because the president-elect is from one of the seceding states?
@Eckener (and anyone else), I've started compiling thoughts and suggestions on the timeline on this Google Doc. I didn't want to keep the thoughts to myself as I read through, so I figured this would be the easiest way. I'm probably going to go a bit slow, but hey, this is all a bit of fun and a labor of love. There's no deadlines. I'm just happy that people wanna hear what I have to say.
Sorry about the delayed reply. Been a busy few days.
With regards to the question about transition to a new administration: America’s relatively slow transition period makes sense considering how long news took to travel when the country was founded. It took time to collect election results and everything else. And as per OTL, I did have Inauguration Day moved up to January ITTL from its earlier date in March. Maybe there could be a push to move it up further, but I think it would have to be a relatively recent occurrence in the “modern” era when one could make the argument that there is no longer a need for such a delay.
Chimera, I look forward to seeing what you come up with in your google doc. I’ll be following with interest.
With regards to the question about transition to a new administration: America’s relatively slow transition period makes sense considering how long news took to travel when the country was founded. It took time to collect election results and everything else. And as per OTL, I did have Inauguration Day moved up to January ITTL from its earlier date in March. Maybe there could be a push to move it up further, but I think it would have to be a relatively recent occurrence in the “modern” era when one could make the argument that there is no longer a need for such a delay.
Chimera, I look forward to seeing what you come up with in your google doc. I’ll be following with interest.