WI: Lincoln Delayed 1864 Election

Probably outside his character (at worst, ASB), but what if Lincoln had not permitted the election of 1864, holding the presidential election off until the war was concluded?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
One of the issues in the conflict was if a democracy

One of the issues in the conflict was if a democracy could survive during an armed conflict; not going forward with the 1862 or 1864 elections would have answered that question rather clearly, which sort of suggests why Lincoln et al did not...

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, but service as commander-in-chief during wartime is not license for the president to declare a dictatorship, either.

Best,
 

Gaius Julius Magnus

Gone Fishin'
Those tyrant accusations gain some credibility, though maybe he'll promise to have some kind of special election held after the war ends.
 
Yeah no. If being at war was a legitimate reason to hold off an election Bush would still be President. MAYBE if parts of the Union were under Confederate occupation this would be OK, but even then unlikely. Though I suppose an act of Congress could maybe be used to hold off on elections, if it was declared constitutional by the Supreme court.
 
Yeah no. If being at war was a legitimate reason to hold off an election Bush would still be President. MAYBE if parts of the Union were under Confederate occupation this would be OK, but even then unlikely. Though I suppose an act of Congress could maybe be used to hold off on elections, if it was declared constitutional by the Supreme court.

Congress could change the date of an election, but not the commencement date of the new term So Feb 1865 would be the practical limit.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Those tyrant accusations gain some credibility, though maybe he'll promise to have some kind of special election held after the war ends.

I could imagine this happening, and the Union most likely still winning. This would lead to a negative precedent that might be applied in later circumstances (Panic of 1893, WWI, Great Depression), or that all actors might think could apply in such circumstances. It would be fascinating to explore.

For America's constitutional continuity, it is probably a good thing that the Civil War was along sectional rather than nationwide lines. Those states and electors most likely to overturn the current administration made themselves unavailable, strengthening the majority held by the incumbent government.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Some of the states would resist. Horatio Seymour in New York and Joel Parker in New Jersey would ignore what Lincoln said and hold the election anyway. What's Lincoln going to do to stop them? Send in the troops? We would see New York City explode in riots worse than during 1863.

Kentucky would be an especially bad case. It was under a Democratic governor, Thomas Bramlette, who supported the Union war effort only minimally. But was also under military rule by General Stephen Burbridge, known as "The Butcher of Kentucky". Burbridge tried to use the army to interfere in the 1864 election IOTL (Lincoln lost Kentucky anyway), so it would be interesting to see what would happen in this scenario. Bramlette would try to go ahead with the election anyway and Burbridge would probably arrest him. The state would probably explode.

You'd also have problems in big Democratic strongholds in states then controlled by Republicans, like Chicago in Illinois. Local authorities would try to hold elections and the Republicans would either be bullied into going along or would refuse. In either case, the Democrats would end up by saying that the existing Republican state governments were illegitimate. There is the potential for political violence on a large scale.
 
MAYBE if parts of the Union were under Confederate occupation this would be OK, but even then unlikely.

Pretty much; even if parts of the Union are occupied, the easier solution is to either discount the occupied areas or have the vote for that area determined by refugees living within your lines. That's what the Confederates did in their midterms, IIRC.
 
Pretty much; even if parts of the Union are occupied, the easier solution is to either discount the occupied areas or have the vote for that area determined by refugees living within your lines. That's what the Confederates did in their midterms, IIRC.

Or have the state legislatures (which presumably would have retreated before the advancing Confederates) choose the Electors, if a popular election wasn't feasible.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
There's also the reality it breaks precedent, given the

There's also the reality it breaks precedent, given the elections in 1812-15.

This is really ASB.

Best,
 
No one had to call it. The Constitution laid down that it should meet at leat once each year "on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day".

Indeed.
If Washington turns out to be occupied by Confederate forces some December, or under siege and impractical to travel to, who decides the place where the Congress is to meet?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The speaker, president pro tem, and staff

Indeed.
If Washington turns out to be occupied by Confederate forces some December, or under siege and impractical to travel to, who decides the place where the Congress is to meet?

The speaker, president pro tem, and staff.

Best
 
These officials exist at the meeting of a lame duck congress (Decembers 1862 and 1864) but not of a new congress (1861 and 1863).

If the POTUS is at liberty, surely he can call it to a place of his choice - though he'd probably choose somewhere with historical connections, like NYC or Philadelphia.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
None of which has anything much to do with

These officials exist at the meeting of a lame duck congress (Decembers 1862 and 1864) but not of a new congress (1861 and 1863).

None of which has anything much to do with the OP's question about suspending the 1864 presidential election in November, which is ASBville to the extreme.

Best,
 
Top