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

[QuoProQuid]

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

In all likelihood, the news reaches Washington after the vote has taken place and this whole debate becomes moot. Traditionally, Congress meets in its joint session around 1:00. I cannot speak about how quickly news traveled in 1852 but I doubt it would have reached anyone significant in time.

If Pierce's death is announced prior to the meeting however, matters are going to get really really nasty. There might be a push to have the joint session rescheduled until Pierce's death can be officially confirmed. When it is, everyone is going to be pouring over procedure to determine what should and should not happen. It is at this time that you will have Whigs and Free Soilers wondering if they should contest the results, because technically Pierce has been made ineligible for the Presidency and his votes should be thrown out.

The Free Soil Party defined itself on limiting slavery at any cost and, for them, Atchison is about as close to an existential threat as is possible. Contesting the election results is a dangerous game that everyone will lose if they are forced to play. Whigs in northern states will be forced to either ignore an election's results or align themselves with slavery and reject their own candidate. Democrats will be forced to either make the ultimate political sacrifice or play into the opposition's collective fears by supporting a man who has advocated extreme violence against abolitionists and will become reviled in the North in a few short years. There's no room for compromise or ambiguity. The way I see the debate being framed is, "Do you support Atchison and his policies or not?"

The only group that gains anything from this is the Free Soil Party, which gets to make a grand political statement and show moderates the consequences of collaboration with pro-slavery politicians. They will get to see where officials stand and in the next election have the opportunity of challenging dissatisfied districts with less compromising alternatives.

 

[Stolengood]

...but, otherwise, you're saying the most likely scenario is that the news arrives too late, and it doesn't get contested, then? What happens then?

 

[QuoProQuid]

...but, otherwise, you're saying the most likely scenario is that the news arrives too late, and it doesn't get contested, then? What happens then?

In which case Pierce is announced as President and King as Vice President. On Inauguration Day, the President will be unable to swear the oath of office, due to him being dead, which will automatically result in King succeeding to the office. If King tries to make the trip to Washington in spite of his bad health, his time of death will likely be accelerated. He might be unable to fulfill even the most basic tasks, which leaves the Executive without a head for a few months. That's problematic in and of itself and might necessitate King's removal or resignation from office if it appears as though he will "linger."

When King dies or is removed, the Presidency and Vice Presidency will become vacant and the pro tempore succeeds as Acting President. Hopefully, King is able to appoint some Cabinet figures before his death so that the Secretary of State can announce a special election upon his demise. If not, Atchison will be able to appoint the man with the power to replace him. As such, he might... delay on making such an appointment and serve out his time in office without a Secretary of State. Can't act on Section 10 if there is no one to fulfill the provision.

 

[Stolengood]

Well, I'm not sure if King would want to do anything preventative against Atchison, considering this:

Atchison was very popular with his fellow Senate Democrats. When the Democrats took control of the Senate in December 1845, they chose Atchison as President pro tempore, placing him third in succession for the Presidency, and also giving him the duty of presiding over the Senate when the Vice President was absent. He was then only 38 years old and had served in the Senate just two years. In 1849 Atchison stepped down as President pro tempore in favor of William R. King. King in turn yielded the office back to Atchison in December 1852, since King had been elected Vice President of the United States. Atchison continued as President pro tempore until December 1854.

However, since I assume the situation with slavery had heated up since that initial point, whomever King appoints as Secretary of State (it may well be Buchanan) might want to set the new election up just to try and avoid having Atchison bring the Democrats down with him in flames and controversy...

 

[Derek Jackson]

If the Vice President elect's poor health was known at the time of the counting of votes I presume that the US Senate would make sure it has a plausable successor as President Pro Tem.

I guess the lame duck Congress MIGHT have wanted to pass a new succession act.

 

[Mikestone8]

When King dies or is removed, the Presidency and Vice Presidency will become vacant and the pro tempore succeeds as Acting President. Hopefully, King is able to appoint some Cabinet figures before his death so that the Secretary of State can announce a special election upon his demise. If not, Atchison will be able to appoint the man with the power to replace him. As such, he might... delay on making such an appointment and serve out his time in office without a Secretary of State. Can't act on Article 10 if there is no one to fulfill the provision.

Actually it doesn't matter whether King (or Atchison) appoints Cabinet officers or not, as they weren't placed in line of Succession to the Presidency until 1886.

 

[Stolengood]

Actually it doesn't matter whether King (or Atchison) appoints Cabinet officers or not, as they weren't placed in line of Succession to the Presidency until 1886.

It's not the line of succession we're talking about, here; it's the ability to call a special election. Without a Sec-State, NOBODY has that ability save the President -- and if he doesn't want it, the country doesn't get it.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

It's not the line of succession we're talking about, here; it's the ability to call a special election. Without a Sec-State, NOBODY has that ability save the President -- and if he doesn't want it, the country doesn't get it.

Exactly, this is why in the Lincoln conspiracy, Seward was attacked.

If nobody calls for a new election, you might see the North considering succession, but i doubt they would - they would simply let the Democrats hang themselves on Atchison for 4 years. They'd know there might not be the strength to succeed in a rebellion.

Expect a real radical to come tot he fore by 1856, though, after 4 years of Atchison at the helm. Or fewer, if he's smart - he might jsut see which way the political wind is blowing and realize by later in 1853 or 1854 that if he doesn't call one soon, his party will have no chance.

 

[Mikestone8]

If Atchison does not appoint a Secretary of State or the Secretary of State refuses to call a special election, a massive taint will be left on Atchison's presidency. Opponents will see the Administration as unlawfully exploiting the Constitution for personal gain.

And he probably wouldn't need to anyway

The Democrats had massive majorities in both houses of Congress, so could easily have pushed through an act abolishing the election and leaving Atchison in power either until the term ended or (see below) he ceased to be President pro-tem

If it appears that the unelected President of the United States does not just support slavery, but is actively engaging in sedition and calling for states to ignore the democratic process, then there will be hell. The political process will become radicalized very early. There might even be Articles of Impeachment drawn up against Atchison after the mid-term election.

Not possible as the Senate is two-to-one Democratic. However, he might lose power another way.

OTL, he was not re-elected to the Senate in 1854,If that happens TTL, he ceases to be Pres Pro-tem, hence no longer acts as POTUS. There is of course a possibility that the prestige of being Acting-POTUS may enable him to secure re-election, but it's by no means sure .

 

[Stolengood]

OTL, he was not re-elected to the Senate in 1854,If that happens TTL, he ceases to be Pres Pro-tem, hence no longer acts as POTUS. There is of course a possibility that the prestige of being Acting-POTUS may enable him to secure re-election, but it's by no means sure .

But, if he is Acting President of the United States, wouldn't he no longer be President pro tempore of the Senate?

 

[jpj1421]

It actually seems as though I have made a mistake. According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, Congress will meet in its joint session on the second Wednesday in February not January as previously stated. The January deadline resulted from later legislation. Thus, news of Pierce's demise will spread to Washington long before the votes are certified.

So, the timeline roughly goes:

6 January 1853: President-elect Pierce dies in a train crash in Andover, New Hampshire.

7 January 1853: News of the President-elect's death arrives in Washington. President Millard Fillmore likely declares a national day of mourning amidst fears and speculation about Vice President-elect William King's capacity to serve as Executive.

10 January 1853: The 32nd Congress reconvenes after a short three day recess.

17 January 1853: King's original departure date from Washington. Plans have been in motion for him to leave for Cuba since early December and a large portion of his personal belongings might have already been transported. If he remains in Washington, the pressure and weather are likely to exacerbate his condition.

9 February 1853: Congress meets in a special joint session to count and verify the electoral votes unless it has passed legislation rescheduling the date.

3 March 1853: Final day of business for the 32nd Congress.

4 March 1853: Inauguration Day. The newly elected Senate includes 36 Democrats, 2 Free Soilers, and 22 Whigs. The House is composed of 158 Democrats, 1 Independent Democrat, 3 Free Soilers, 71 Whigs, and 1 Independent.



I have a similar issue. If Atchison becomes Acting President, the Constitution does not provide a clear answer as to whether he serves both positions simultaneously or if he is "elevated" to the position of President until such a time when a special election can be held.

I would think it would go much as it did on the West Wing, where the Acting President would have to resign his previous position because a person cannot serve in two branches of government. I don't know where that idea originate from though.

Since Mr. Atchinson would have only been PPT for a couple weeks after the President-Elects death that the Senate takes the opportunity at that joint session to quietly replace him with someone more acceptable. If I was the Democratic Senate, and didn't want to rock the boat I'd make Lewis Cass PPT, who seemed to have the job for a day in 1854, and then Acting President. He was the Democratic nominee just four year previously...he seems like a pretty good steward until a proper election can be held.

 

[Mikestone8]

But, if he is Acting President of the United States, wouldn't he no longer be President pro tempore of the Senate?

No.

The 1792 Act contains no requirement that the Pres Pro Tem (or Speaker of the House) must resign in order to act as POTUS. The 1947 Act (currently in force) does contain such a provision, but not the 1792. Atchison would be exercising Presidential powers and duties because he was President of the Senate, and if he ceased to be, these would pass to the new Pres Pro-tem, or if there were none, then to the Speaker of the House. There was and is no such office as "Acting President".

 

[Mikestone8]

I would think it would go much as it did on the West Wing, where the Acting President would have to resign his previous position because a person cannot serve in two branches of government. I don't know where that idea originate from though.

It comes from Section a, Para 1 of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.

 

[Pesterfield]

Could Atchison try to use the Tyler precedent and declare that he's now President with a full term?

 

[jpj1421]

It comes from Section a, Para 1 of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.

Ah, gotcha. I guess he would still be a Senator than, voting on legislation that he may or not sign or veto later. That's an odd situation.

Could Atchison try to use the Tyler precedent and declare that he's now President with a full term?

Unlike the ambiguity in the passage from President to Vice President, the 1792 Succession Act clearly states that in the event of a Presidential or Vice Presidential vacancy the next one up "shall act as President" until "a President shall be elected". Section 10 then calls for a special election that December, so he would act as President until March 4, 1854.

 

[jpj1421]

Unless, again, there is no Secretary of State to call a special election or the massive Democratic majorities in both houses amend the act so that Atchison can serve out a complete term.

Hmmm, I think it would be pretty obvious as to what Atchison is up to if he never nominates Secretary of State. Wikipedia points to William Hunter as the guy who Acted as Secretary of State during power transfers throughout the 1850s and 60s. If true, I imagine he would "act" in that capacity, and Atchison would file an injunction that would inevitably end up before the Supreme Court.

 

[Imperator Maximilianius]

Hmmm, I think it would be pretty obvious as to what Atchison is up to if he never nominates Secretary of State. Wikipedia points to William Hunter as the guy who Acted as Secretary of State during power transfers throughout the 1850s and 60s. If true, I imagine he would "act" in that capacity, and Atchison would file an injunction that would inevitably end up before the Supreme Court.

How do you think that would end?

 

[jpj1421]

How do you think that would end?

I'm not really sure...this is the same court that made the Dredd Scott decision minus one judge due to McKinley not being replaced by Fillmore. I'd like to think Taney would push for the special election seeing as not doing so would clearly cause sectional strife, but...he's a pretty lousy jurist.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Hmmm, I think it would be pretty obvious as to what Atchison is up to if he never nominates Secretary of State. Wikipedia points to William Hunter as the guy who Acted as Secretary of State during power transfers throughout the 1850s and 60s. If true, I imagine he would "act" in that capacity, and Atchison would file an injunction that would inevitably end up before the Supreme Court.

You'd think it would be easier to just appoint a flunky as Secretary of State who would not call for an election; then, if the guy starts to feel the heat, send him on a special trip to Europe and Asia "to cement America's rise as a power and increase our prestige overseas." Had any Secretary of State actually traveled overseas while in office before? Atcheson could promise he would be the first.

 

[jpj1421]

You'd think it would be easier to just appoint a flunky as Secretary of State who would not call for an election; then, if the guy starts to feel the heat, send him on a special trip to Europe and Asia "to cement America's rise as a power and increase our prestige overseas." Had any Secretary of State actually traveled overseas while in office before? Atcheson could promise he would be the first.

Also possible, but I see the Whigs calling for impeachment over that flunky violating the law. They would probably fail, but I can see them using this as a rallying cry to revive the party and win the midterm. I think whatever happens here, you see a resurgent Whig Party saved from its deathbed.

/Edit

Though there will be that few day overlap where the Whig Acting Secretary of State could file the paperwork before the Senate could confirm the flunky. If that goes down then Hunter becomes a Whig folk hero.