WI: The Entire Pierce Family Dies in Train Crash, January 1853?

[Mikestone8]

Apparently, after King's death, this delightful human being:

And it might not be just for one year.

An election in 1853 would mean that subsequent Presidential elections would all be held in odd-numbered years, and Congressional ones in even-numbered. If for whatever reason Congress did not fancy that, they might amend the 1792 Act to postpone the election until 1854, or even cancel it altogether.

Interesting point. Would President Atchison still go for anything as controversial as the Nebraska Act if he's hoping for an elected term in '54 or '56?

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Would there be a Congress?
I had a look at the track record of the presidential election years, OTL:
1809 - special session 4-7 III
1813 - NO special session, 1st meeting 24 V
1817 - special session 4-6 III
1821 - NO special session, 1st meeting 3 XII
1825 - special session 4-9 III
1829 - special session of Senate alone (sic!) 4-17 III, House first met 7 XII
1833 - NO special session, 1st meeting 2 XII
1837 - special session 4-10 III
1841 - special session 4-15 III
1845 - NO special session, 1st meeting 1 XII
1849 - special session 5-23 III
OTL 1853 - special session 4 III-11 IV

Who called special sessions, and when?

Since OTL there was a special session in 1853, makes sense that it would still be in TTL 1853.

 

[Mikestone8]

Who called special sessions, and when?

Only President Pierce could have done so - perhaps to get his Cabinet appointments confirmed, and/or to provide for the succession if/when the VP died.

Since OTL there was a special session in 1853, makes sense that it would still be in TTL 1853.

King would almost certainly call it, for the latter reason.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Only President Pierce could have done so

There was no President Pierce. He was a nobody - just President-Elect.
The president was Fillmore.

When did Fillmore OTL call the special session of Congress, and why?

- perhaps to get his Cabinet appointments confirmed, and/or to provide for the succession if/when the VP died.

King would almost certainly call it, for the latter reason.

King was a nobody until 4th of March, 1853, and not present in Washington or any other part of United States, nor any other part of USA, nor legally sworn to any office, at that date.

 

[Mikestone8]

There was no President Pierce. He was a nobody - just President-Elect.
The president was Fillmore.

When did Fillmore OTL call the special session of Congress, and why?

A few days before leaving office. He gave his reasons in the message below.


The attention of the President having been called to the proceedings of Congress at the close of its session on the 4th of March, 1851, from which it appears that the constitutional term of that body was held not to have expired until 12 o'clock at noon of that day, and a notice having been issued, agreeably to former usage, to convene the Senate at 11 o'clock a. m. on the 4th of March next, it is apparent that such call is in conflict with the decision aforesaid.

Now, therefore, as well for the purpose of removing all doubt as to the legality of such call as of establishing a precedent of what is deemed a proper mode of convening the Senate, I, Millard Fillmore, President of the United States, have considered it to be my duty to issue this my proclamation, revoking said call, and hereby declaring that an extraordinary occasion requires the Senate of the United States to convene for the transaction of business at the Capitol, in the city of Washington, on Friday, the 4th day of March next, at 12 o'clock at noon of that day, of which all who shall, at that time, be entitled to act as members of that body are hereby required to take notice.

Given under my hand and seal of the United States, at Washington, this 25th day of February, A. D. 1853, and of the independence of the United States the seventy-seventh.

MILLARD FILLMORE.

King was a nobody until 4th of March, 1853, and not present in Washington or any other part of United States, nor any other part of USA,
nor legally sworn to any office, at that date.

As others have noted, he might not have gone to Cuba TTL.

However, Congress has had two months in which to take action. Under the 12th Amendment it had power to provide for cases when neither a POTUS-elect nor a VP-elect had qualified, but I've no idea whether it ever had. If not, so (had Fillmore not recalled it) I can see two obvious possibilities.

1) An Act of Congress providing for the new Congress to convene as soon as the old one expired, to allow for new presiding officers to be chosen.

2) Action by the Senate alone, amending its own rules so that whichever Senator was President pro-tem on March 4 should continue in that post until further action by the Senate. IOW the current one, Benjamin Fitzpatrick of Alabama, would remain PPT until the new Congress met and the Senate chose a new one. So if Congress hadn't been recalled, it would be President Fitzpatrick.

There may of course be other possible measures that I haven't thought of. If David T is reading this he might have thoughts.


[1] Or rather affirmed in. He had religious scruples about taking oaths, and afaik is the only POTUS-elect to have exercised his right to affirm

 

[chornedsnorkack]

He didn't. Congress was in its normal Lame Duck session, as of course it had to be to count the Electoral votes. Pierce presumably called the Senate back as soon as he was sworn in[1] on March 4

He could not. If there had been no special session planned and no session intended until December, as had been the case in 1845, then the new elected Representatives would have been at their various homes. So if Pierce called them, they would have needed weeks to travel to Washington (and weeks before that to get Pierce´s invitation).
No. Somebody in the lame duck administration had to make the decision to invite their newly elected successors to meet in Washington on 4th of March, rather than stay home pending the invitation to meet in December. Who did make that decision in 1853, and when?

 

[Stolengood]

Also, King was not a nobody; he was put on the ticket specifically as a sop to the Buchanan wing of the Democratic Party, considering Buchanan and King were often rumored as being more than "friends". He'd also been in the Senate for decades -- the difficulty here is, can he really leave Alabama to get to Washington to preside over this special session without dying mid-transit?

 

[chornedsnorkack]

A few days before leaving office. He gave his reasons in the message below.


The attention of the President having been called to the proceedings of Congress at the close of its session on the 4th of March, 1851, from which it appears that the constitutional term of that body was held not to have expired until 12 o'clock at noon of that day, and a notice having been issued, agreeably to former usage, to convene the Senate at 11 o'clock a. m. on the 4th of March next, it is apparent that such call is in conflict with the decision aforesaid.

In other words, the invitation for Congress to meet at 11 am on 4th of March had been issued sometime before 25th of February, and what Fillmore did on 25th of February was to postpone the meeting to 12 am.
When had the original invitation for 11 am been issued?

Also: since King did not OTL decide that he could not return to Washington before sometime in February, the lame duck Congress cannot take action until they get his request.

OTL, the lame duck Congress did, on 3rd of March, pass legislation to permit King to be sworn in abroad. Then it needed 21 days, till 24th of March, to get King actually sworn in by US consul in Matanzas.

When did the lame duck congress OTL get the news that King would not show up on 4th of March?

 

[Mikestone8]

He could not. If there had been no special session planned and no session intended until December, as had been the case in 1845, then the new elected Representatives would have been at their various homes. So if Pierce called them, they would have needed weeks to travel to Washington (and weeks before that to get Pierce´s invitation).
No. Somebody in the lame duck administration had to make the decision to invite their newly elected successors to meet in Washington on 4th of March, rather than stay home pending the invitation to meet in December. Who did make that decision in 1853, and when?

True - I goofed. It was Fillmore, as I discovered a few minutes after prematurely pressing send. I hastily amended my message.

I would point out, though, that the Senate had been sitting and doing business the previous day, so the bulk of its members were almost certainly still in Washington.

 

[Mikestone8]

In other words, the invitation for Congress to meet at 11 am on 4th of March had been issued sometime before 25th of February, and what Fillmore did on 25th of February was to postpone the meeting to 12 am.
When had the original invitation for 11 am been issued?

Dunno offhand, but if I find it in the Senate Journal I'll let you know.

Also: since King did not OTL decide that he could not return to Washington before sometime in February, the lame duck Congress cannot take action until they get his request.

I don't see why not. They already know he is in bad health, since he resigned as Pres pro-tem for that reason on (iirc) Feb 20. And they know he will take office on March 4 with no constitutional successor. They would be perfectly entitled to provide for that situation.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

I would point out, though, that the Senate had been sitting and doing business the previous day, so the bulk of its members were almost certainly still in Washington.

Yes, and the 2/3 of remaining Senate, plus the reelected members, might claim quorum without waiting for the arrival of the newly elected members. As it was, the new members had been invited as well.

But does the office of President pro tempore of Senate exist on the afternoon of 4th of March? Atchison had been from a continuing class (3). Was he still President pro tempore of the new Senate meeting on 4th, or was he just an ordinary member until the new Senate actually elected its own president pro tempore (in the event Atchison was reelected)?

They already know he is in bad health, since he resigned as Pres pro-tem for that reason on (iirc) Feb 20.

December 20. But Wikipedia gives the grounds as King having been elected for Vice President.

In January and early February, King and Congress expected King to be back by 4th of March. So when did Congress OTL learn that King would not be back by 4th and that legislative provision was needed?

 

[Mikestone8]

But does the office of President pro tempore of Senate exist on the afternoon of 4th of March? Atchison had been from a continuing class (3). Was he still President pro tempore of the new Senate meeting on 4th, or was he just an ordinary member until the new Senate actually elected its own president pro tempore (in the event Atchison was reelected)?

Until 1890, a Pres Pro=tem was chosen only for a particular Session (and sometimes different men in the same Session). So the PPt on the morning of March 4 was Fitzpatrick. Atchison was chosen by the new Senate in the special session. Until that was done the position was vacant.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Until 1890, a Pres Pro=tem was chosen only for a particular Session (and sometimes different men in the same Session). So the PPt on the morning of March 4 was Fitzpatrick.

When had Fitzpatrick been chosen?

 

[Mikestone8]

December 20. But Wikipedia gives the grounds as King having been elected for Vice President.

In January and early February, King and Congress expected King to be back by 4th of March. So when did Congress OTL learn that King would not be back by 4th and that legislative provision was needed?

You're right about the date, but King's message to the Senate gives health problems as the reason for his resignation, and curiously makes no mention of his becoming VP. Perhaps in the back of his mind he already knew that he would never serve.

Extract from the Senate Journal


The honorable William R. King, President of the Senate pro tempore, being absent, the following communication, addressed by him to the Senate, was read by the Secretary:

Washington City, December 20, 1852.

Senators: The feeble state of my health renders me unable to discharge the duties of President pro tempore. Accept, I beg you, my resignation of the honorable position in which you had, with so much unanimity, placed me.
In taking leave of you, senators, permit me to express my grateful acknowledgments for your uniform personal kindness and the generous support you have never failed to give me in my efforts to preserve order and enforce the parliamentary law. May a Merciful Providence preserve to each of you the greatest of all earthly blessings--health.

With the highest respect and esteem, I am your obedient servant,

WILLIAM R. KING.

 

[Stolengood]

...which means that Mr. David Rice Atchison became President pro tempore shortly after?

 

[chornedsnorkack]

How long did Senate OTL need to elect Atchison president pro tempore after 20th of December and 4th of March? Who were the other candidates, what were the votes and how many ballots were needed?

 

[Mikestone8]

How long did Senate OTL need to elect Atchison president pro tempore after 20th of December and 4th of March? Who were the other candidates, what were the votes and how many ballots were needed?

Can't say exactly, but the Senate Journal says that in both cases the motion to appoint Atchison was "agreed to unanimously" and without any debate, so it probably only took minutes.

Whether this would still be the case had they known they were almost certainly choosing a POTUS, I cannot say.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Whether this would still be the case had they known they were almost certainly choosing a POTUS, I cannot say.

And in late February-4th of March, they may not have known they were choosing president for a year, but they would have known that they were certainly choosing president for a month or two. If they made OTL legislation on 3rd of March to have King sworn in abroad, which took till 24th of March, then they knew that even in best case (King recovers) they were talking about King setting out to return late March, and showing up in Washington in late April or so. Somebody still had to act as President.

 

[QuoProQuid]

As has already been mentioned, the Electoral College has already convened and cast their votes for Pierce. What has not been mentioned is that on the same day of this accident, Congress will be convening in a joint session to count and verify the results. If the President-elect's death spreads to Washington before or during the count, under 3 U.S.C. § 15 any sitting member of Congress may issue an objection to a state's vote because the "results [have not been] regularly given." In this situation, one could argue that legally any votes received for Pierce are in violation of law, because you cannot, after all, elect a dead man.

While it would require exceptional knowledge of procedure to be acted upon, the opposition have an opportunity to sow chaos within the outgoing Congress. So long as the motion to object is seconded by a member of the opposite house, the joint session is suspended and both houses are forced into a special session to debate and vote upon the matter. With representation in both houses and Charles Sumner among their rank, the Free Soil Party is just the group to exploit parliamentary procedure in such a way. Doing so forces moderates in both parties to make the explicit decision to support the radically pro-slavery Atchison as President-Elect, which many will find anathema. The Free Soilers can also threaten to "run out the clock" in which they filibuster until the new Congress is supposed to be sworn in and trigger a Constitutional Crisis.

Everyone in Washington knows that King is not long for this world and so a vote to verify the results becomes a vote for Atchison. In an absolute worst case scenario, where the Free Soilers manage to lead an anti-Atchison coalition to invalidate election results, you could very well trigger the Civil War seven years early. Unfortunately, the Whig Party is on the verge of collapse, there is no strong leadership anywhere in the country, the fight is no longer explicitly about slavery, and neither side is really prepared.

 

[Stolengood]

Quid, what do you think is the most likely scenario, then?