Your challenge is to have impeachment/removal from office common enough so that a President has to tread extremely carefully if they become unpopular. The more removals, the better.
If impeachment is easy, the American government isn't going to last long.
Yeah, but he was subverting the will of Congress on Reconstruction. He was dragging his feet every step of the way.Andrew Johnson's impeachment was entirely politically motivated and he literally survived by ONE VOTE, so I think that's a good POD. . .
Yeah, but he was subverting the will of Congress on Reconstruction. He was dragging his feet every step of the way.
If it had been straightup majority vote in the Senate . . . Johnson is impeached and Reconstruction has a chance of working.
The entire history of my country may have gone better.
If impeachment is easy, the American government isn't going to last long.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2006/12...ion-view-impeachment-as-lsquo-political-rsquo
"The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with particular propriety be denominated POLITICAL, [emphasis in the original] as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
Sadly, I think that's largely true, but let's try more.Maybe, but I don't think as much as you would hope. What hurt reconstruction more than anything is Southerners were far more interested in keeping Blacks down than Northerners were in enforcing civil rights for Blacks. In the long run the South is going to win via determination.
Sadly, I think that's largely true, but let's try more.
Don't merely keep the troops in for a skimpy 12 years. Keep them in for a generation plus, more like 30 years.
Try and partially win over white Southerners by running effective government. Really try and follow the with charity toward all and malice toward none. Try and have more economic opportunity for both newly freed slaves and longtime southern citizens.
In particular, don't trade away Reconstruction merely for the sake of winning a presidential election.
Okay, in retrospect, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, maybe the mistake was giving the rebellious states representation in Congress so soon after the war they started. How about that?Sooner or later, the Democrats will win, as they already had in the House in 1874. Even with all blacks voting Republican in the South, the Democrats could still win if the Republicans make a major screw up. (There were 203 D, and 89 R in the House after 1874).
Okay, in retrospect, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, maybe the mistake was giving the rebellious states representation in Congress so soon after the war they started. How about that?
I actually think the opposite is needed. A weaker president would have less reason to be impeached because Congress could easily overrule him, but a stronger president, whose main check on power is the threat of impeachment and removal, would be more likely to be faced with Congressional opposition.The Constitution gives the President even less de jure powers than OTL, while they are still Chief Executive and maintain some power. Congressional supremacy remains throughout the nation's history, and Presidents who step on too many toes in Capitol Hill get the boot.
Okay, point well taken.Nah. It was the Panic of 1873 that led to those losses for the Republicans. And not just in the South. But in the North! PA alone gave 12 seats net change to the Democrats! New York 8 net, Ohio 7, Illinois and Indiana 5, etc.
Even Massachusetts swung to the Democrats for 4 seats!