WI: Franlin Pierce died before his Inaugauration

Pierce served as President from March 4, 1853, to March 4, 1857. He began his presidency in a state of grief and nervous exhaustion. Two months before, on January 6, 1853, the President-elect's family had boarded a train in Boston and shortly thereafter were trapped in their derailed car when it rolled down an embankment near Andover, Massachusetts. Pierce and his wife survived, merely shaken up, but saw their 11-year-old son Benjamin crushed to death. Jane Pierce viewed the train accident as a divine punishment for her husband's pursuit and acceptance of high office.

Ok, We all know how shitty of a decade the 1850's were in America, Let' say things do make a turn for the worst and it's President-Elect Franklin Pierce instead of his son Bennie that it's crushed by the Derailed train car.Although with their being no formal rules of succession to this degree in 1853, Vice President Elect William Rufus "Aunt Nancy" King(lol) of Alabama takes the oath of office and is sworn in as the nation's 14th President on March 4th 1853.

Now, King was termainally ill with Turbucleousis and let's say he dies on April 18th 1853, making him the Second shortest term in history. However, with the Vice Presidency vacant, and based on the "rules" of Succession at the time the President Pro-Temp Senate, The Border Ruffian himself...David Rice Atchison of Missouri. How might an Atchison Presidency differ from Pierce's? Could Atchison push for Kansas to be admitted as a Slave state? Would that be enough to keep the South at bay for a few years? Could He win Renomination and be reelected in 1856? Might the Republicans or Know-Knothings be able to win in 1856 with souch a stuanch Pro-Slavery Southernor in the White House? What could be some other possible effects if Frank "Baby Face" Piece had died that Cold Winter day? Please discuss;)
 
Ok, We all know how shitty of a decade the 1850's were in America, Let' say things do make a turn for the worst and it's President-Elect Franklin Pierce instead of his son Bennie that it's crushed by the Derailed train car.Although with their being no formal rules of succession to this degree in 1853, Vice President Elect William Rufus "Aunt Nancy" King(lol) of Alabama takes the oath of office and is sworn in as the nation's 14th President on March 4th 1853.

Now, King was termainally ill with Turbucleousis and let's say he dies on April 18th 1853, making him the Second shortest term in history. However, with the Vice Presidency vacant, and based on the "rules" of Succession at the time the President Pro-Temp Senate, The Border Ruffian himself...David Rice Atchison of Missouri. How might an Atchison Presidency differ from Pierce's? Could Atchison push for Kansas to be admitted as a Slave state? Would that be enough to keep the South at bay for a few years? Could He win Renomination and be reelected in 1856? Might the Republicans or Know-Knothings be able to win in 1856 with souch a stuanch Pro-Slavery Southernor in the White House? What could be some other possible effects if Frank "Baby Face" Piece had died that Cold Winter day? Please discuss;)

I think Jackson called King "Miss Nancy" or "Miss Fancy Pants" still :D Jackson being Jackson.

I think with Atchison in office it is just like have a copperhead Democrat (meaning Pro-slavery Northerner i.e. Pierce) in office. I would expect things to go the same way and King's erstwhile Roommate gets the Dem nod in 1856 because he wasn't in the country. If for some reason Atchison does get the nod in 56 than I think Republicans do much better in 56 under Fremont (IIRC Fremont was a bit of Celebrity)., possibly take the W.H. and the ACW starts in 56. I think if you are trying to avoid the ACW you need start earlier if you are trying to the get the North to lose than this is a good way to do.
 
The mere thought of President Atchison for more than one day is quite horrifying. Kansas will probably be admitted as a slave state, and I can see some strong backlash in the north and on the plains to these actions. I don't see a way in hell that Atchison is re-elected (the admission of Kansas as a slave state is probably going to further strengthen the young GOP and allow it to get cross-over votes from Northern Democrats), or even renominated, for that matter.

My guess is that when 1856 rolls around, the Democrats ditch Atchison at the Convention if he proves to be as controversial as I'm envisioning him to be. Stephen Douglas or James Buchanan is probably nominated in his stead.

The GOP will probably nominate John C. Fremont and has a good chance at winning if they can drum up enough support from Northern Democrats and American Party voters, especially if James Buchanan, the most non-offensive candidate to both the Northern and Southern factions of the Democrats, is nominated.

However, if Kansas does end up being admitted as a slave state, you have to factor in it's effect on the election of 1856. I figure that the Lecompton Constitution's framers, who actually passed laws making it illegal to criticize slavery in Kansas aren't going to even feature Fremont on the ballot. That could lead to some interesting electoral consequences, as well as accusations of voter fraud being thrown around from the anti-slavery majority of Kansans.
 
Atchison would have succeeded to the presidency, but under the terms of the Succession Act of 1792 would have been strictly "Acting President" until a new Presidential election could be held.

Sen. Chris Dodd said:
The 1792 Act provided that in the case of a double vacancy, the order of succession would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate and then the Speaker of the House. But the term of either of these legislative "officers" was to be temporary only, since the Act provided for a special election to fill a presidential vacancy, unless the vacancy occurred in the last full year of the term.

Source: here.

Oh, and this would possibly have been the 2nd time Atchison would have been Acting President: because Zachary Taylor refused to take to the oath of office for a day in 1849, some scholars argue that Atchison was Acting President for a day. See his tombstone.
 
Although Atchison is president, you also have to consider the makeup of Congress since they are the one proposing and making laws. It would likely severely divide both the Democrats and Whigs and I doubt a lot of legislation would get through. Given this, Atchison will probably only get laws through by executive order and if a more moderate president is elected in 18534 they will probably be redacted.
 
A very interesting "double vacancy" story!

Who might challenge Acting-President Atchison for the 1853 Democratic presidential nomination? Stephen Douglass, James Buchanan, Lewis Cass or William Marcy perhaps.

I doubt that the Whig Party could mount much of a challenge to the Democratic nominee. Who would they nominate (if they can)? Millard Fillmore and Edward Everett are the only name I come up with. What about the Free Soil Party, who might they nominate? John Hale again, George Julian or perhaps Salmon Chase? Might this POD bring about a Whig-Free Soil union ticket in 1853? Whom ever the nominees are, it's going to be a very hot and contentious campaign.
 
Atchison will probably only get laws through by executive order and if a more moderate president is elected in 18534 they will probably be redacted.
?Did they have Excecutive Orders, in place of laws.?
I thought that bit of unconstitutionality only came about in FDR's new deal 4th republic.
 
?Did they have Excecutive Orders, in place of laws.?
I thought that bit of unconstitutionality only came about in FDR's new deal 4th republic.
Wiki says that executive orders were mostly unannounced and undocumented prior to the early 1900s, but if Atchison tried to use it to create laws regarding slavery, then Congress and abolitionist newspapers would raise a stink about it.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I recall reading a deilghtful short story on a David Rice Atchison presidency that occurs under similar circumstances, though in 1849 rather than 1853. It was entitled How the South Preserved the Union and, as the title suggests, is about how an Atchison presidency so frightens the Northern abolitionists that they attempt to seceed, are helped along the way by an opportunistic Daniel Webster and a John Brown who boasts Jim Jones-esque qualities.

Short story even shorter, the North seceeds and proceeds (after early successes) to be trounced by the Union due to John Brown's incompetent military leadership. Oh, also the position of National Security Advisor is created waaay ahead of schedule :D
 
I think after Pierce and King both kick the bucket, a Presidential election in 1853 would most likely be handed to Stephen Douglas. Kansas wouldn't be the debacle it was to smear Douglas in 1856, and in addition, there is no strong liberal party to support an anti-slavery platform by this time. The Whigs are in sharp sharp decline after Scott's loss in '52, the Free-Soil Party was never all that strong, the American Party only manages to scrape together a few anti-immigrant votes that are always force northerners to divide their sympathies, and the Republican Party hasn't been formed yet.

So New England and New York would have extremely divided results. New York might break a 30% vote for the Democrats. Pennsylvania might show a similar results. Between Ohio and Indiana, you might see similar results in that respect. The south would obviously be strongly Democratic, even more so than in 1856. Douglas wins in a landslide.

Does the 1792 Act mean that the next election is in 1857? That alone would have interesting butterflies.
 
RE: President Atchison

There would have been a Presidential election in December 1853 to fill a term from March 4, 1854 - March 4, 1858 under the terms of the Succession Act of 1792 s.10 & s. 12.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=363

Would David Rice Atchison have won a full term in an era when Democratic Presidential nominees were chosen because they were the least offensive to the party's assorted factions?

Could the Whigs have made a temporary come-back (or a last gasp) under Fillmore or Scott, thus delaying the birth of the Republican Party?

The next Presidential election would have occurred in November 1857. This would have happened in the same year as the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision (which OTL came after the 1856 election).

What effect would Dred Scott have had in an election year?

Would James Buchanan have been Ambassador to Britain if there was no President Pierce to appoint him in 1853? Would he still be a College President in Pennsylvania or --? OTL the Democrats chose him in 1856 because he was out of the country during the Kansas crisis. But now?

Would the circumstances of 1857 work more to Fremont's advantage?

Would the Democrats split over Dred Scott in 1857 as they did over sectional issues in 1860?

How would an alternate Civil War proceed with a President Fremont instead of a President Lincoln? (Fremont was no Lincoln).
 
Top