WI: New US Constitution following the Civil War

What if the Republicans, arguing that the main failure of the 1787 Constitution was the fact it didn't prevent the civil war, decided to call a Second Constitutional Convention after the US Civil War to create a new constitution? What would said constitution look like? Would it feature any major changes to the political system of the US and if so, what major changes would it contain? Would Reconstruction be more successful with a new constitution or not?
 
I doubt the Republicans would call for one and even if they did it wouldn't work.
These people idolized the framers and were very legalistic.
On the unlikely chance they did try to do this, it wouldn't be pretty.
The constitution would have to passed without the consent of the southern states.
That leaves two options,either the states are stripped of their sovereign status and become federal territories or another civil war will happen in the future.
 
Last edited:

dcharleos

Donor
I doubt the Republicans would call for one and even if they did it wouldn't work.
These people idolized the framers and were very legalistic.
A more likely scenario is amending the current constitution.
On the unlikely chance they did try to do this, it wouldn't be pretty.
The constitution would have to passed without the consent of the southern states.
That leaves two options,either the states are stripped of their sovereign status and become federal territories or another civil war will happen in the future.


It's almost like you've never heard of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
 
Last edited:

dcharleos

Donor
But those amendments were passed without the Southern states, and without the need for stripping the states of their sovereign status or another civil war happening. Moreover, the Southern states could ratify it--the Federal government could just engineer the election of pro-union legislatures in the Southern states and have them pass it.
 
That happens in my TL, though the Civil Wars happens in the 1830s. As well as abolition, the Presidency is handicapped and Congress takes control of all domestic concerns. I'm eager to hear feedback on anything people think is unrealistic about it.

But by the OTL Civil War it's too late to rewrite the Constitution, and the tradition has taken on a power of its own. No way Republicans mess with that.
 
The Republicans would not have called for a convention in order to redress its weakness in preventing a civil war. There are two reasons a constitutional amendment banning secession was never passed after 1861.
1. The Supreme Court eventually ruled it unconstitutional in Texas v. White, and again in Williams v. Bruffy
2. Passing such an amendment would acknowledge that the south had the legal right to secede beforehand. It's the same reason LGBTQ+ activists preferred to use the courts instead of the ballot box. If the court rules something, than it kind of retroactively legalizes the institution so the activists can say "we had the right along," rather than saying "we were given the right."

If what you are looking for in this second constitutional convention is something like a change in the system of government, say from a Presidential system to a Parliamentary System, you can achieve this with just a couple amendments.
 
Instead of after the Civil War what if the Radical Republicans did it during the Civil War and once the war was over forced the Southern states to agree to it in order to rejoin the Union?
 
Instead of after the Civil War what if the Radical Republicans did it during the Civil War and once the war was over forced the Southern states to agree to it in order to rejoin the Union?

Has Congress the power to call a Constitutional convention if two-thirds of the States have not applied for one?

Even if they could and did, is there any reason why it should do anything more than submit a couple of Amendments, probably similar to the 14th and 15th of OTL?

Rewriting the whole constitution would be a huge job, and there wouldn't be the slightest reason for doing it.
 
I know this thread is a bit old but still I have something important to add and well, its 3 months old petes sake so whatever. My question is as such:

Would it make a difference if the civil war had been a loss for the union, probably due to French/British intervention, rather than a victory? Would that have provided enough impetus for a willingness to maybe change the constitution and make a fresh start? Arguably constitutional changes in other countries like France have come about for less reasons so meh.
 
A sufficiently humiliating defeat could possibly lead to a new constitution IMHO. Especially if the blame for the defeat is placed at the President's door you could see a push for a more Parliamentary system with a stronger cabinet.
 
Top