Guest Post: Mayflower Compact Removes the King

This post first appeared on Today in Alternate History.



November 21, 1620-

Background

In 1620, the governing document of Plymouth Colony was signed by forty-one Pilgrim Fathers aboard the Mayflower, an English sailing ship owned and captained by English merchants, most notably Captain Christopher Jones. The passengers had financing from the London Virginia Company and other merchant investors. They had a patent to settle near the Hudson River, within the northern boundary of the Virginia Colony, but circumstance and weather had made them renegades. Differing from their contemporary Puritans (who sought to reform and purify the Church of England), the Pilgrims chose to separate themselves from the Church of England, which forced them to pray in private. They believed that its resistance to reform and Roman Catholic past left it beyond redemption. They anchored in Provincetown Harbor at the northern tip of Cape Cod. Fortuitously, this location was north of its intended destination - being outside the territory granted by the patent, this created a legal grey area - which is why the people aboard the Mayflower needed a formal document to establish self-government and avoid lawlessness.

The passengers, who were primarily Puritans, other Protestant Separatists, adventurers, and tradesmen, created the Mayflower Compact as a brief but essential agreement. Although the Compact included a pledge of loyalty to the King ("We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia"), its signers were dissatisfied with the Church of England's state, the limited progress of the English Reformation, and King James I's unwillingness to implement further reforms.

In our timeline, the Mayflower Compact faded from direct use - superseded by more formal colonial charters and largely forgotten until the 18th century, when it was rediscovered and mythologized. Instead of fading into symbolic value, the Compact could have been amended or expanded into a broader set of laws and institutions - like a proto-constitution. In our alternate history timeline, it is an expression of protest that evolved from a brief covenant into a living charter of governance that adapted with the colony's growth.

Re-routed History

One of those Separatists, an unknown republican radical, convinced the others to remove a pledge of loyalty to the King, compelling them with fervent words: "Sign! If the next moment, the gibbet's rope is around your neck! Sign! If the next moment this hall rings with the echo of the falling axe! Sign! By all your hopes in life or death- as husbands, as fathers, as men - sign your names to the parchment or be accursed forever!"

This agreement marked a radical break with English political norms - essentially turning the document from a mutual civil covenant into a declaration of proto-independence. Once ashore, the leaders of Plymouth formed a proto-constitution that formalized election procedures, a Bill of Rights, and rules for succession and amendment. In one sense, the revision hardly mattered because the English Crown had no intention of formally recognizing the document as a valid charter. This denial backfired, as the settlers steadfastly refused to accept a royal charter as the enduring foundational law of the colony.

Inevitably, the settlers' protest would be suppressed by the Crown. However, instead of being viewed as naïve for removing the pledge of loyalty to the King, these brave men had created an enduring foundation of liberty. Their protest would lead to the formation of a "League of Compact Colonies," rooted in covenanted self-rule, which turned the Compact into a regional constitution.

Author's Note:

According to a popular story, on July 4, 1776, the delegates at the Continental Congress were finally convinced to sign the Declaration of Independence by a rousing speech made by an "unknown patriot," who exhorted the delegates. This story is widely considered a work of historical fiction. It appeared in George Lippard's Washington and His Generals; Or, Legends of the Revolution. According to Anna Berkes referencing American National Biography, Lippard "wrote many semi-fanciful 'legends' of American history, mythologizing the founding fathers and retelling key moments of the American Revolution so vividly that several of the legends ... became part of American folklore." The story was further popularized by Manly P. Hall, a writer and mystic, who used it in a lecture published in The Secret Destiny of America. Ronald Reagan also later used the story in his commencement speech at Eureka College on June 7, 1957. Both Hall and Reagan claimed that the story is related in Thomas Jefferson's records, but no such story has ever been found in Jefferson's writings.

Provine's Addendum:

While the Pilgrims considering themselves legally part of the Virginia colony, the settlers at Jamestown were unimpressed until seeing their written agreements of rights pertaining to work agreements, land ownership, and representation, especially the Polish craftsmen who had initially been denied the right to vote in elections for the House of Burgesses but won full rights with the first strike in American history. Representatives from Massachusetts arrived to participate in the House, a practice followed soon with settlers further north in New Hampshire and then Maryland, many of them Catholics who enjoyed the religious freedoms. More colonies came into the Virginia system, creating a united front with enough political might to elect its own President, wealthy Virginia planter Nathaniel Bacon, in 1676, an office that would cooperate with (and ultimately supersede) the Crown-appointed governor. A century on, a few radicals calling for independence from Britain were a laughable lot, since issues of taxation and encroachment on native lands could be handled readily at home and with liaisons in London.

Guest Post: Germans Counter Vistula-Oder Offensive

This article first appeared on Today in Alternate History with input from Allen W. McDonnell, Mike McIlvain, and Jeff Provine.

In our timeline, after the battles along the Scheldt, a lull at the front allowed Germany to assemble thirty well-prepared divisions. In evaluating how to best utilize this force, Hitler devised an ill-fated plan: he intended to launch these troops against the Western Front in a bid for a quick victory. The aim of Operation Watch on the Rhine was to gain momentum for negotiating a peace agreement with the Western Allies, after which Germany could fully concentrate on its efforts against the USSR.

Whereas in this alternate history scenario, we imagine that Hitler dies of a fatal stroke in late 1944, and his successors abandon Operation Watch on the Rhine to launch a different counter-offensive in the East, Operation Watch on the Vistula.


Jan 20, 1945 -

The Red Army launched a large offensive along the Vistula River in central Poland after favorable weather conditions were forecasted. This strategic thrust for the River Oder in Germany, located just 40 miles from Berlin, was made possible by the stunning success of Operation Bagration that created a significant Soviet bridgehead over the Vistula in the area of Baranów with the front continuing south to Jasło.

The main Axis defense was German Army Group A, which had recently been reinforced with thirty well-prepared divisions from the West. Previously, there were three outnumbered armies within this group: the 9th Army, deployed around Warsaw; the 4th Panzer Army, situated opposite the Baranów salient in the Vistula Bend; and the 17th Army to their south. In command was Colonel-General Josef Harpe, recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords. A brave man, his instructions were terrifyingly clear: destroy the Baranów salient and protect the Reich's capital. It was the tallest order since 1914 when Hindenburg and Ludendorff had been sent to East Prussia to confront the Russian steamroller.

The political objective of Operation Watch on the Vistula was far more complex and arguably even less realistic. After the Führer's death in late 1944, the leadership group, comprising his former inner circle, was led by Göring, Himmler and Bormann. These successors were constantly vying for control, but they shared the common belief that German interests lay in surrendering to the Western Allies. Their new strategy required a defensive posture on the Eastern front. As envisaged by this plan, Germany and ideally free buffer states in Hungary, Bohemia, and Western Poland would have to fall to occupation by the Western Allies while German Army Group A held back Soviet forces in Poland. This would allow time to explore various end-game contingencies: pursue negotiations via the neutral Swedes, trade safe passage in exchange for the exclusive transfer of advanced rocket technology, fight alongside the Western Allies against the Soviets or worse case a flight to South America with or without the assistance of Director of the OSS in Switzerland, Allen Dulles.

Stalin clearly understood these strategic goals, as his thrust for the River Oder aimed to acquire advanced rocket technology, control all of Poland, and seize as much German territory as possible to create a satellite buffer zone in Eastern Europe. Unfortunately for him, the additional firepower from the thirty-division reinforcements enabled Harpe to inflict a significant setback on the Red Army, resulting in considerable losses in manpower and resources. By the end of February, as the thaw set in and tanks became bogged down in Poland, the situation returned to where it had started. On the Western front, there was also good news, as the Germans executed a courageous fighting retreat - a faster 'pullout' withdrawal being logistically impossible. The Wehrmacht put up just enough resistance to slow the Allied advance without significantly depleting the manpower or supplies needed on the Eastern Front.

Meanwhile, German refugees were evacuated in a reversal of the lebensraum concept that had driven Barbarossa. The heads of government for the Big Three (Stalin, FDR & Churchill) met in Yalta to try to synchronise their plans for moving forward in this radically changed landscape. Delegates from neutral Sweden would attend, carrying peace proposals from Berlin. Because the Empire of Japan had launched their own bid for conditional surrender, Operation Ichi-Go, there was the prospect of creating a roadmap for peace with the Axis. In outline, this would grant some form of limited clemency to the defeated leadership in exchange for the immediate end of hostilities.

The Big Three were certainly willing to walkback the unconditional surrender condition they had stipulated at the Casablance Conference, particularly since Stalin had not even been in attendance. He was less willing to reduce his ambitions for a Soviet sphere of influence up to the Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia), Belarus, Ukraine and Eastern Poland. The dying FDR surely believed he could work with the Soviets within his vision for the United Nations, but Churchill strongly disagreed. His intention was to "impose the will of the United States and the UK upon the Soviets" and indeed had asked his general staff to prepare war plans for "Operation Unthinkable." If the Western Allies could capture and occupy Germany, Bohemia, Hungary, and Western Poland, this would put them in a strong position; if Germany surrendered at the Vistula in central Poland, then this would essentially be a fait accompli.

An unexpected variable was the sudden demise of FDR, a tragic event that brought to power Harry Truman. He was far less trusting of Stalin, emboldened with the knowledge that the atomic bomb project was fast approaching conclusion. At Potsdam, he threatened Stalin with the stark warning that the United States had a "new weapon of unusual destructive force" without specifying that it was an atomic bomb. In a sense, the German capitulation only 'opened the wound,' bringing forward the disputes about the shape of post-war Europe, requiring the United Nations to make an unequal agreement before settling with the Axis...

Author's Note:

In reality, the Western Allies stopped around the Elbe River, allowing the USSR to take Berlin and much of Eastern Europe. The Vistula-Oder offensive obliterated Army Group A, advancing over 300 miles in just over two weeks - a remarkable pace. The offensive was brought forward from 20 to 12 January because meteorological reports warned of a thaw later in the month, and the tanks needed hard ground for the offensive. It was not done to assist American and British forces during the Battle of the Bulge, as Stalin chose to claim at Yalta. Meanwhile, the attack in the West did not succeed, despite being a significant blow to the Allies and the bloodiest battle of World War II for the United States. The assault was halted more quickly than anticipated and ultimately repelled. The Germans failed to achieve any meaningful breakthrough. Even if the attack had been successful, there was no possibility that the US and UK would sign a separate peace. By that time, they were committed to ending the war only with the unconditional surrender of Germany, as agreed upon at the Casablanca Conference in 1943. Therefore, the entire purpose of the attack was rendered irrelevant.

Provine's Addendum:

Following the conclusion of hostilities with Germany, the Allies turned their attention to the Far East. That fall, Japan surrendered following the Americans' atomic bomb as well as USSR declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria. American General George C. Marshall arrived as a special envoy to China; initially, he had hoped to broker peace between the Kuomitang and Communists, but anti-Soviet sentiment and Chiang Kai-Shek's vow to eliminate communism in China prompted a faster course of action with establishing formal borders along the occupation zones, creating North China and South China much like East and West Poland. An "Iron Curtain" fell across Europe and Asia, but the Western powers were far more concerned with recovery and de-colonizing in a way that continued to benefit the home countries. There seemed to be no need of a race into space with American rocket superiority decades more advanced nor wars to halt any theory of nations falling like dominoes since no one seemed able to tip beyond the curtain. The "Cold War" was just that--borders frozen until the fall of communism some fifty years later.

Guest Post - FDR Writes Inclusive "Green Light" Letter

This post first appeared on Today in Alternate History with input from John P. Braungart and Jeff Provine.

Jan 15, 1942-

Baseball faced a significant challenge as millions of American men were drafted into military service. There was uncertainty about whether professional sports, especially baseball, should be suspended during wartime. This issue was not new; fifteen years earlier, the U.S. government had issued a "Work or Fight" order requiring men of draft age to either serve in the military or work in a war-essential job. Baseball was not considered essential, which meant that players faced pressure to leave the sport. Prominent players like Christy Mathewson, Ty Cobb, and George Sisler enlisted or were drafted into the military during WWI. As a result, the quality of play declined somewhat because teams had to fill their rosters with older players or those not eligible for service. Ultimately, the 1918 MLB season ended early, with the regular season concluding in early September and the World Series played shortly afterward.

To prevent a repetition of past issues, Commissioner of Baseball Kenesaw Mountain Landis sought guidance from President Franklin Roosevelt. In response, Roosevelt wrote the famous "Green Light" letter to Landis, encouraging the continuation of baseball to help maintain national morale during challenging times. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt also made a significant contribution by quoting her illustrious predecessor, Abigail Adams: "Remember the Ladies." This statement, in particular, paved the way for greater inclusivity in sports and led to the creation of the All-American Professional Baseball League (AAPBL). For the first time, women were given the opportunity to compete alongside men in professional baseball. As "Baseball for All" gained momentum, Dorothy "Dottie" Wiltse made her debut with the Brooklyn Dodgers, pitching five shutouts in her first season.

Female players were initially ridiculed by the press and fans but gradually earn respect for their skills--especially in pitching, fielding, and base running. Instead of excluding women after the war, the momentum from the Civil Rights Movement and early feminist activism supported continued co-ed participation. By 1955, nearly 20 percent of the rosters in the AAPBL comprised women, many of whom excelled in positions that required finesse, speed, and tactical intelligence - such as pitchers, second basemen, and outfielders. The visibility of successful women in baseball paved the way for the introduction of Title IX in 1965. Nine years later, Maria Clemente, a Cuban-American outfielder, became the first woman to win a Triple Crown.

State ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would soon follow, ensuring equal rights for all citizens, regardless of their gender, under the law. Meanwhile, the sports world sees baseball as a model for co-ed play; by the 2000s, other sports experiment with integration, especially in golf, tennis doubles, and e-sports. Gender roles in American society shifted with the feminist movement receiving broader bipartisan support post-1960s. "Baseball for All" has become not just a slogan but a core part of American identity.

Author's Note:

In reality, many fans and United States citizens did not support Franklin Roosevelt's decision at the time and wrote "Red Light" letters to the White House. Nevertheless, the Chicago Sun called the "Green Light" letter, "the most notable contribution to baseball in our time." Meanwhile, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was passed by Congress in 1972, but it has not been ratified by the required three-quarters of the states and is not part of the Constitution.

Provine's Addendum:

FDR's call to bring women into sports seemed like a simple echo of the Rosie the Riveter role as women filled much-needed jobs in factories and construction. There were others who argued women should have a league of their own, but necessity quieted them, and by the end of the war, the women refused to leave the league just as they did their newfound economic freedom. Baseball quickly integrated along racial lines, too, with Jackie Robinson in 1947. Basketball and other sports, eager to get attention from a more national scale, followed suit with female and black players. Professional football lagged behind as a "rougher" sport where numerous linesmen feared they couldn't hit a woman, but it, too, soon integrated with impressive female kickers first in high school and college teams soon going pro. From time to time, far-right conservatives call for a return to segregated sports, but they are frequently blips laughed off in the face of obvious athletes from every background and gender, even transgender as a moot point. A few informal "womens-only" and "mens-only" leagues do exist, but these are largely for local amateur play.

Guest Post: Washington's Warning of Enemies, Foreign and Domestic before his Death

This post first appeared on Today in Alternate History with input from Eric Lipps and Allen W. McDonnell.

April 30, 1789 - 

At Federal Hall in New York City, General George Washington took the oath of office as the first President of the United States. During this moment of joyous national celebration, his coach was escorted by militia and a marching band, followed by statesmen and foreign dignitaries in an inaugural parade, with a crowd of 10,000 in attendance.

Behind the pageantry, the contradictions were rife, starting with the location:  New York City had remained a stronghold for British Loyalists right until the end of the American Revolution. Nevertheless, the idea of a self-governing republic emerged after the Continental Army's successful struggle for independence from Great Britain. At this pivotal moment of hard-fought triumph, Washington issued a stark warning about the fragile nature of liberty, emphasizing that true freedom entails protection from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint on the individual. He stressed that democracy requires constant vigilance to sustain and defend it, raising concerns about potential internal divisions or rebellions, which were significant worries for many of the Founding Fathers of the new republic.

However, there was a contradiction inherent in the Constitution: freedom was denied to African Americans, First Nations, and even to white libertarians who accused Washington of tyranny. Notably, this group of naysayers included the leading anti-Federalist Albert Gallatin, America's Swiss Founding Father, who was an outspoken opponent of slavery, fiscal irresponsibility, and a vigorous advocate for free trade and individual liberty. As if in prophecy, just two years later, Washington himself would be killed while personally leading troops to suppress Western farmers during the Whiskey Rebellion. The residual reverence for Washington in a sense placed him on the wrong side of the Federalists' regional balance argument. The general himself had struggled with his leadership role as a republican executive short of a king; although he had been offered the monarchy, he chose to decline. He was driven by his strong commitment to the ideals of the American Revolution and a democratic republic, but ultimately he was unable to use his personal authority to impose this vision upon the country. This tragic outcome echoed Benjamin Franklin's prescient warning at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia that the new country would be "a republic, if you can keep it."

Some of the republic's problems were pre-existing conditions that the British and other Europeans had brought to the Americas. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton adopted anti-slavery positions while other Founding Fathers owned slaves (including, allegedly Hamilton himself). Yet, all of them accepted the need to end the importation of slaves into the United States. The most charitable explanation for this confusion was a balance of ideals and self-interest. States rights challenged the Federalist cause, but the question survived the collapse of the Federalist Party, though in a transformed and less direct form. Radical thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, who penned the famous words "all men are created equal," actively promoted libertarian philosophies while many of their personal and professional actions were a shocking failure of role-modelling. Conversely, in United States v. Schooner Amistad as a successful rebellion on the slave ship La Amistad led to questions of emancipation, former president and descendant of American revolutionaries, John Quincy Adams passionately and eloquently defended the Africans' right to freedom on both legal and moral grounds, referring to treaties prohibiting the slave trade and to the Declaration of Independence.

The accusation of tyranny would be repeatedly levelled at Washington's successors--most of whom were either military figures like himself or constitutional lawyers equipped to control the levers of federal power. This list included authoritative men such as John Adams, a Federalist who tried to balance states rights but used his executive power to enact the Alien and Sedition Acts that severely curtailed Freedom of Speech and the Press. Another, Abraham Lincoln who, despite promising "Government of the people, by the people, for the people," suspended habeas corpus (the right to a trial) during the struggle for states rights in the Civil War.

During the twentieth century, America became increasingly difficult to govern according to even the constitutional principles envisaged by the Founding Fathers. Most recently, the first African American president, Barack Obama, heralded as a product of Civil Rights progression, invited these same accusations after criticizing the Bush administration for losing its focus on national security. He promised that his own team would "refocus attention on al Qaeda," making the controversial decision to merge the roles of Secretary of Homeland Security with the Director of National Intelligence. This strategic move was designed to avoid turf wars, leading to the creation of a new, consolidated United States Investigation Services (USIS), which rolled all the policing agencies such as FBI, NSA, ATF, ICE, US Marshals, etc, into one entity. Obama's stated intention was to ensure investigators worked together at the city/state/national level instead of competing for personnel and resources. The precedent for this amalgamation could be traced back to the Manhattan Project, a consolidation of previously uncoordinated efforts by the US Navy and at least one group of Army scientists to develop the atomic bomb.

Author's Note:

The fictional killing of Washington is the point of divergence in L. Neil Smith's fictional Gallatin Universe, where a libertarian society forms the North American Confederacy. Meanwhile, the fundamental question of whether the Founding Fathers of the United States truly believed in liberty is complex and multifaceted. While they are often celebrated as champions of liberty, their views on freedom, equality, and individual rights were shaped by their time, personal experiences, and interests.

Provine's Addendum:

Finding a balance between personal freedom and national security proved the never-ending question in US politics. Some attempts at a more refined society, such as the Temperance Movement that argued for national prohibition of alcohol before falling flat on its face, demonstrated their issues but were ultimately humiliated in court. Other debates, such as defining personhood before birth, raised further questions about citizenship. In the end, power usually fell to the federal government itself, such as Unites States v. Reidel and Miller v. California restricting the abilities of individuals to distribute obscene materials. As legal definitions continued under scrutiny, often changing case to case, vagueness led to power by USIS to determine in the moment. Citizens could easily find themselves lost in the complex federal prison system, sometimes even overseas, without ever really knowing what it was they were accused of doing.

Guest Post: British Army evacuated from Yorktown

This post first appeared on Today in Alternate History with input from Jeff Provine, Philip Ebbrell, Robbie A. Taylor and Dirk Puehl.

Oct 19, 1781 -

An outright victory at the Capes would have enabled Lord Howe to deliver much-needed supplies and reinforcements to Cornwallis, breaking the siege of Yorktown. Instead, his diminished naval force only had the resources necessary for the evacuation of the 7,000-man British army trapped in Virginia.

As it turned out, that near-miraculous escape would be just enough for a British strategic victory. Liberty was denied by the timely actions of the Tories, who squeaked out an eventual victory in North America. The outcome had rested on a knife-edge; the reasons were many and varied, but the main one was money. The naval reforms of Lord Dover had allowed for a sufficient number of ships-of-the-line in European waters as well as on the North American station. This had enabled Lord Howe to knock the French out of the war, and indeed the Battle of Chesapeake was to be their last meaningful involvement in the conflict. If Cornwallis was humiliated by this outcome, then he could at least cling to the greater damage to the patriot cause: the talismanic General George Washington had been killed by misadventure after preparing to fire off the first cannonball at the besieged British rearguard.

At least fate, if not competence, was with the Tories, but otherwise their poor decision to build a defensible deep-water port was a strategic mis-step, badly mistaken both politically and militarily. It created a stand-off at a delicate moment when playing the long game would have been the smarter option. The Whigs, who were sympathetic to the Colonialists, had taken control of the British Parliament and passed a motion of "No Offensive Action in North America," now actively looking for an out. The Bourbon treasury, meanwhile, was exhausted, and the French involvement since Saratoga would only continue to be funded after a signature victory at Yorktown. Instead, confidence collapsed, and the French withdrew from the war to stop violent revolution from coming to their own backyard.

Victory had been cruelly snatched from the Patriots, and at least in the short term their military initiative was finished. The Tories' dastardly scheme of a peaceful settlement was diplomacy, to negotiate trade deals individually with each of their thirteen former colonies. Since they had taken out vast loans in Europe, the would-be "Americans" also had a major financial problem to solve. This end-game would avoid the cost of keeping 10,000 British troops stationed in North America, also preventing the rise of an independent, unified nation. For the British, it was a costly win-win, but this anti-climactic ending would only ensure the end of the Revolutionary War, but not the end of the Revolution.

Author's Note:

In reality, the surrender at Yorktown was a decisive victory for the Patriots that prompted the British government to negotiate an end to the conflict.

Provine's Addendum:

The insurrection in North America may have ended, but historians point to it as and indication of humanism demanding rights for the individual in the face of empire. Successful governments, such as the British and French, reacted appropriately with Parliament adding seats for qualifying colonies to end the "no taxation without representation issue" and France began extensive reforms to roll back the authoritarianism of the Louis XIV era. Spain and Portugal struggled with a few uprisings, but ultimately the idea of independence had been ended with the experiment in the British American colonies. Across the nineteenth century, more reforms worldwide would gradually end slavery, give political rights to women, and set up marginal self-rule for territories such as the German states, Ireland, and local colonial authorities.

With sprawling empires affirmed, the European nations quickly gobbed up Asia and Africa and then turned on each other for more territory. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to Britain, France, and Russia eagerly setting up protectorates. Late-comers such as Italy tried to carve out their own pieces, but they themselves would soon be absorbed in the German-speaking-led coalition centered in Austria. Diplomacy and sheer weight kept the empires from attempting to annihilate their European bases, instead trading colonies here and there along with long-lasting naval campaigns. Increasingly complicated treaties and leagues prompted the rulers to establish an ongoing international summit in neutral Switzerland, independent since a botched French invasion. By the late twentieth century, it became clear that, for empires to grow further, the next steps would need to be upon planets beyond Earth.

Guest Post: Justice John Quincy Adams

This post first appeared in two parts "Passing of Hon. John Quincy Adams" and "Dred Scot v. Sandford ruling saves the Union" on Today in Alternate History.

Feb 23, 1848 - Passing of Hon. John Quincy Adams

On this sad day, Justice John Quincy Adams passed away in the nation's capital where a quarter of a century earlier he had served the will of the people by stepping away from the presidency.

Driven by unfulfilled and misunderstood ambition tinged with nepotism he had always hoped to emulate his illustrious father by serving as Chief Magistrate to the United States. However, he narrowly lost out to a force of nature in the hard-fought 10th quadrennial presidential election of 1824. In hindsight his defeat--and the graceful manner in which he accepted it--was a vindication of the great republican principles that the young nation had fought so hard to secure.

But at the time, it was notable precedent but for a completely different reason. Since the passage of the Twelfth Amendment, this was the only election to have been decided by the House of Representatives in accordance with its provision to turn over the choice of the president to the House when no candidate secures a majority of the electoral vote. In declaring that "America shall have no dynasties," the House pronounced Andrew Jackson the winner over John Quincy Adams, who bowed to the decision gracefully and entered the judiciary as a Jackson appointee. A true American hero, by giving way to popular sentiment he had richly deserved to be titled "the Honorable" John Quincy Adams.

In retrospect, there was unending irony in that his father's stalwart defense of the monarchical principle had inadvertently created the misperception that he had wanted to found such a dynasty. Instead, his son's defeat led to a well known American tradition: children of prominent politicians rarely ever enter public life.

Beyond John Quincy Adams's bid for the executive branch, he made an impressive legal legacy, including the groundwork for the day the US Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott was free - but only because he spent time in a Free state not a Free territory.

This landmark decision marginalized the Fire-eaters by drawing the rising anger from States Rights advocates who were reassured that the US Congress had no power to restrict slavery in the territories;  the States could do anything they wanted as regards to the institute of slavery. The ever-present fear that the North had been trying to impose its own lifestyle on the South sharply diminished, as did the terrifying prospect of a civil war over the matter.

This opportunity, this brief pause for peace, had been created by the late Justice John Quincy Adams. It was his hard work in the earlier case of Strader v. Graham that had steered the course for the anti-slavery direction. If he had not gracefully ceded the hard-fought 10th quadrennial presidential election, then he would never had served on the US Supreme Court at all. His appointment was a sporting gesture by the winning candidate Andrew Jackson, but as time would tell it was highly significant actually having a dramatic effect upon the events of the second half of the nineteenth century. Not only had John Quincy Adams vindicated the great republican principles that the young nation had fought so hard to secure, he may even have saved the Union from dissolution.

Provine's Addendum:

The informal "No Dynasties" rule among Americans would be tested through the centuries, including the 1888 Republican National Convention where William Henry Harrison's grandson, Benjamin, made a stirring speech that was nonetheless unable to win him enough votes to come out of the shadows as a dark horse candidate. Instead, John Sherman would win the candidacy and later election (though he later wrote that some people may have voted for him mistakenly thinking he was General William Tecumseh Sherman from the Spanish War that resulted from American intervention in war in Cuba in the 1870s). The Roosevelts, distant cousins, would toe the line of the policy with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but FDR would break another tradition with his third election anyhow.

The biggest test would come in the year 2000 with the aggressive campaign of George W. Bush, son of George Herbert Walker Bush. While the Republican National Convention overwhelmingly voted to put the younger Bush up for candidacy, the nation as a whole determined they wished to keep families out of the White House. Florida, ironically governed by Bush's brother Jeb at the time, proved the matter when it was called early on Election Day for the Democrats. Gore's term would be marred with the 9/11 terrorist strike and economic fallout with his policies encouraging new, greener initiatives rather than propping up established investments with loosened banking rules.

Guest Post: Biden Quits on Top

This post first appeared on Today in Alternate History.

Feb 7, 2023 -

Honoring his campaign promise to serve as a transitional president, Joe Biden announced that he would not run for re-election the following year during his State of the Union address.

Having recently celebrated his eightieth birthday, Biden was in fine form during one of his brighter appearances. The timing was perfect, his penultimate State of the Union address provided a golden opportunity to define his legacy by highlighting a series of proud achievements for the American people. He was the first president to serve with a female vice president, and he signed significant legislation, including the American Rescue Plan Act. Additionally, aspects of the failed Build Back Better Act were incorporated into the Inflation Reduction Act. But, for many, his greatest accomplishment for the republic was his contribution to democracy by unselfishly opening the door to a competitive primary season that allowed several prominent figures to step forward and vie for the nomination.

Following the tragic death of his beloved son Beau in 2016, Biden found it difficult to follow Obama and stepped aside for Hillary Clinton's campaign that ultimately led to a Republicans win. Biden received a second chance to beat Trump, and there was a broad consensus that he was a winner. His departure from politics on a high note after half a century of public service included two unsuccessful presidential races (1988 and 2008) and actually began on another terrible note of tragedy, the death of his first wife and daughter. But if he was an "oldie but a goodie," there were unmistakable early warning signs of trouble ahead--not just the failure of the Build Back Better Act, but also because the 2023 State of the Union was the first address to a Republican-controlled House of Representatives since 2018. As events were to transpire, the challenges for the Biden administration began to surface well before the primary season started.

In retrospect, Biden might have better served partisan interests by making the more cynical but less democratic choice to resign. Had he done so, he would have become the only president to do so other than Richard Nixon because of the Watergate scandal. This tough decision would have given Kamala Harris sufficient time in office to build her own record of accomplishments and properly establish her leadership credentials. Some may argue that she had not achieved enough during her time at the White House to deserve that opportunity. While this is a matter of semantics, a resignation would have positioned Biden as a handover president rather than a transitional president. At the time, his decision to remain was well-received as a departure from the party's recent history of favoring elite candidates.

Author's Note:

In reality, he initially ran for reelection and, after the Democratic primaries, became the party's presumptive nominee in the 2024 presidential election. After his performance in the first presidential debate, renewed scrutiny from across the political spectrum about his cognitive ability led him to withdraw his candidacy.

Provine's Addendum:

While some political kingmakers had dreamed of Harris being set up for an easy victory in 2024, the Democratic primaries turned into a frenzied free-for-all. The prevailing voices proved to be in opposition of longtime Washington politicians, ready to move on from the Obama-era tradition and fearing another rallying cry of "drain the swamp" from Republicans. When the dust settled at the Democratic National Convention, the ticket proved to be Shapiro/Kelly with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Arizona Senator Mike Kelly facing off against Trump/Vance in November. The national election became a drawn-out fight, but public opinion shifted toward the Democrats following Shapiro's out-pacing of Trump in the debates and the Dem campaign's push to make Trump's age an issue. With Shapiro managing to pull Pennsylvania voters to his side and Kelly doing the same with Arizona, a narrow victory in Michigan won the election for Democrats. The results, of course, were immediately appealed for review.