The reason ASBs are involved here is that they travel back in time to
inform either Congress, SCOTUS or both of the information contained in
this thread:

https://twitter.com/JQAProject/status/1425536795752558600

You now have plenty of people, already likely sore about Tyler's actions
to serve out an entire term, who additionally now know WHAT the
annexation of Texas will inevitably lead to, and that John Tyler himself
will repeatedly commit treason (both regarding being in Richmond for the
secession congress, AND supporting the Nullifiers' side during *that*
crisis). They also see that exactly *one* "accidental President" was
ever much of a much (all right--ARGUABLY two, adding LBJ to TR. You can
also TRY to make an argument for Truman, but I'd expect if he's worth
that much he could still have been independently elected--assuming, of
course, that said ASBs even forced the circumstances behind his OTL
accession to still happen in a world with no succession from VP).

This, even if it requires additional ASB mind-control, gets Congress to
order Tyler forcibly removed, and the Army actually does so rather than
continuing to treat him as Commander-in-Chief.

Where do we go from here? A new full-on general election is called; does
this permanently shift them to late-summer-to-early-autumn of "years
that are a multple of four beyond 1841", or does the president
thus-elected serve only until April of 1845 anyway?

In terms of international relations, war with Mexico is likely
avoided--for NOW--but Texas is more likely to go crawling to the UK next
than to willingly reintegrate with Mexico, assuming for a second that it
can't simply survive as an independent nation (which admittedly its
treasury largely states is true). Almost certainly, there aren't enough
OTHER people obsessed with Texas annexation to still try to pull it.

But the likely key words are *for now*, because US-Americans are
eventually still going to settle the "Pikes Peak Region", find the gold
along the Front Range, and then get up towards the Mexican border. Or
the Mexicans could possibly find at least the silver lodes under the
border just south and west of OTL-Leadville, and try to invade the *US*
instead.

Either way, the US--Mexico border is an absolute mess at least as far as
northeasternmost Mexico--the Arkansas headwaters can actually be
*jumped* over, and there are quite literally places on one side of the
north-south border where the only reasonable way to go north or
south--to areas IN THE RIGHT COUNTRY--would be to cross the
international border repeatedly. And even the DRAINAGE BASINS aren't
necessarily a good divider--there are places in OTL-Colorado where there
are as many good routes away over the Continental Divide as into the
next valley that's on the same side of the Divide (Hoosier Pass, for
example, would be a better route out of Summit County, in a world where
either both were at freeway standard or neither was, than Vail Pass).

I see very few ways THAT gets resolved peacefully, since the only ways
that involve the best land access all being within one country involve
one or the other losing a HUGE chunk of its pre-negotiation territory;
if California is still feeling restless, do the United States, even in
this timeline, still try to annex it? And what of Texas, especially if
it still hasn't be re-subdued in the meantime?

Are we still looking at the same boundaries we're familiar with after
that war (and thus the same old Missouri Compromise failure), just with
a delay to whenever you finally get a few Georgians to pan the South
Platte? If not, what ARE the boundaries?

And if so, what happens in the War Between the States, especially if the
Union's wartime president still gets assassinated in a world where
Andrew Johnson _won't_ get to put his mark on Reconstruction?

You're also, of course, welcome to posit a timeline where Harrison's
real successor STILL insists on a Texas annexation. I'd be moderately
curious if anything happens differently there until the "right" people
from our history stopped being conceived.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On 9/7/2021 5:22 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> The reason ASBs are involved here is that they travel back in time to
> inform either Congress, SCOTUS or both of the information contained in
> this thread:
>
> https://twitter.com/JQAProject/status/1425536795752558600
>
> You now have plenty of people, already likely sore about Tyler's actions
> to serve out an entire term, who additionally now know WHAT the
> annexation of Texas will inevitably lead to, and that John Tyler himself
> will repeatedly commit treason (both regarding being in Richmond for the
> secession congress, AND supporting the Nullifiers' side during *that*
> crisis). They also see that exactly *one* "accidental President" was
> ever much of a much (all right--ARGUABLY two, adding LBJ to TR. You can
> also TRY to make an argument for Truman, but I'd expect if he's worth
> that much he could still have been independently elected--assuming, of
> course, that said ASBs even forced the circumstances behind his OTL
> accession to still happen in a world with no succession from VP).
>
> This, even if it requires additional ASB mind-control, gets Congress to
> order Tyler forcibly removed, and the Army actually does so rather than
> continuing to treat him as Commander-in-Chief.
>
> Where do we go from here? A new full-on general election is called; does
> this permanently shift them to late-summer-to-early-autumn of "years
> that are a multple of four beyond 1841", or does the president
> thus-elected serve only until April of 1845 anyway?
>
> In terms of international relations, war with Mexico is likely
> avoided--for NOW--but Texas is more likely to go crawling to the UK next
> than to willingly reintegrate with Mexico, assuming for a second that it
> can't simply survive as an independent nation (which admittedly its
> treasury largely states is true). Almost certainly, there aren't enough
> OTHER people obsessed with Texas annexation to still try to pull it.
>
> But the likely key words are *for now*, because US-Americans are
> eventually still going to settle the "Pikes Peak Region", find the gold
> along the Front Range, and then get up towards the Mexican border. Or
> the Mexicans could possibly find at least the silver lodes under the
> border just south and west of OTL-Leadville, and try to invade the *US*
> instead.
>
> Either way, the US--Mexico border is an absolute mess at least as far as
> northeasternmost Mexico--the Arkansas headwaters can actually be
> *jumped* over, and there are quite literally places on one side of the
> north-south border where the only reasonable way to go north or
> south--to areas IN THE RIGHT COUNTRY--would be to cross the
> international border repeatedly. And even the DRAINAGE BASINS aren't
> necessarily a good divider--there are places in OTL-Colorado where there
> are as many good routes away over the Continental Divide as into the
> next valley that's on the same side of the Divide (Hoosier Pass, for
> example, would be a better route out of Summit County, in a world where
> either both were at freeway standard or neither was, than Vail Pass).
>
> I see very few ways THAT gets resolved peacefully, since the only ways
> that involve the best land access all being within one country involve
> one or the other losing a HUGE chunk of its pre-negotiation territory;
> if California is still feeling restless, do the United States, even in
> this timeline, still try to annex it? And what of Texas, especially if
> it still hasn't be re-subdued in the meantime?
>
> Are we still looking at the same boundaries we're familiar with after
> that war (and thus the same old Missouri Compromise failure), just with
> a delay to whenever you finally get a few Georgians to pan the South
> Platte? If not, what ARE the boundaries?
>
> And if so, what happens in the War Between the States, especially if the
> Union's wartime president still gets assassinated in a world where
> Andrew Johnson _won't_ get to put his mark on Reconstruction?
>
> You're also, of course, welcome to posit a timeline where Harrison's
> real successor STILL insists on a Texas annexation. I'd be moderately
> curious if anything happens differently there until the "right" people
> from our history stopped being conceived.
>
>
>
>

As a sidenote, a Republic of Texas that actually gets strong enough to
defend its Rio Grande claim only muddles things FURTHER.

There was a forest fire last year that started in what would have been
Mexican territory, burned all the way across "Texas" and into the
section that was always going to be Colorado. That's how close to each
other the lines continuing north from the Arkansas and Rio Grande
sources are.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On 9/7/2021 6:27 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> On 9/7/2021 5:22 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
>> The reason ASBs are involved here is that they travel back in time to
>> inform either Congress, SCOTUS or both of the information contained in
>> this thread:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/JQAProject/status/1425536795752558600
>>
>> You now have plenty of people, already likely sore about Tyler's
>> actions to serve out an entire term, who additionally now know WHAT
>> the annexation of Texas will inevitably lead to, and that John Tyler
>> himself will repeatedly commit treason (both regarding being in
>> Richmond for the secession congress, AND supporting the Nullifiers'
>> side during *that* crisis). They also see that exactly *one*
>> "accidental President" was ever much of a much (all right--ARGUABLY
>> two, adding LBJ to TR. You can also TRY to make an argument for
>> Truman, but I'd expect if he's worth that much he could still have
>> been independently elected--assuming, of course, that said ASBs even
>> forced the circumstances behind his OTL accession to still happen in a
>> world with no succession from VP).
>>
>> This, even if it requires additional ASB mind-control, gets Congress
>> to order Tyler forcibly removed, and the Army actually does so rather
>> than continuing to treat him as Commander-in-Chief.
>>
>> Where do we go from here? A new full-on general election is called;
>> does this permanently shift them to late-summer-to-early-autumn of
>> "years that are a multple of four beyond 1841", or does the president
>> thus-elected serve only until April of 1845 anyway?
>>
>> In terms of international relations, war with Mexico is likely
>> avoided--for NOW--but Texas is more likely to go crawling to the UK
>> next than to willingly reintegrate with Mexico, assuming for a second
>> that it can't simply survive as an independent nation (which
>> admittedly its treasury largely states is true). Almost certainly,
>> there aren't enough OTHER people obsessed with Texas annexation to
>> still try to pull it.
>>
>> But the likely key words are *for now*, because US-Americans are
>> eventually still going to settle the "Pikes Peak Region", find the
>> gold along the Front Range, and then get up towards the Mexican
>> border. Or the Mexicans could possibly find at least the silver lodes
>> under the border just south and west of OTL-Leadville, and try to
>> invade the *US* instead.
>>
>> Either way, the US--Mexico border is an absolute mess at least as far
>> as northeasternmost Mexico--the Arkansas headwaters can actually be
>> *jumped* over, and there are quite literally places on one side of the
>> north-south border where the only reasonable way to go north or
>> south--to areas IN THE RIGHT COUNTRY--would be to cross the
>> international border repeatedly. And even the DRAINAGE BASINS aren't
>> necessarily a good divider--there are places in OTL-Colorado where
>> there are as many good routes away over the Continental Divide as into
>> the next valley that's on the same side of the Divide (Hoosier Pass,
>> for example, would be a better route out of Summit County, in a world
>> where either both were at freeway standard or neither was, than Vail
>> Pass).
>>
>> I see very few ways THAT gets resolved peacefully, since the only ways
>> that involve the best land access all being within one country involve
>> one or the other losing a HUGE chunk of its pre-negotiation territory;
>> if California is still feeling restless, do the United States, even in
>> this timeline, still try to annex it? And what of Texas, especially if
>> it still hasn't be re-subdued in the meantime?
>>
>> Are we still looking at the same boundaries we're familiar with after
>> that war (and thus the same old Missouri Compromise failure), just
>> with a delay to whenever you finally get a few Georgians to pan the
>> South Platte? If not, what ARE the boundaries?
>>
>> And if so, what happens in the War Between the States, especially if
>> the Union's wartime president still gets assassinated in a world where
>> Andrew Johnson _won't_ get to put his mark on Reconstruction?
>>
>> You're also, of course, welcome to posit a timeline where Harrison's
>> real successor STILL insists on a Texas annexation. I'd be moderately
>> curious if anything happens differently there until the "right" people
>> from our history stopped being conceived.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> As a sidenote, a Republic of Texas that actually gets strong enough to
> defend its Rio Grande claim only muddles things FURTHER.
>
> There was a forest fire last year that started in what would have been
> Mexican territory, burned all the way across "Texas" and into the
> section that was always going to be Colorado. That's how close to each
> other the lines continuing north from the Arkansas and Rio Grande
> sources are.
>

Always going to be the US. Eeep. I must need to sleep.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 12:22:52 PM UTC+1, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> The reason ASBs are involved here is that they travel back in time to
> inform either Congress, SCOTUS or both of the information contained in
> this thread:
>
> https://twitter.com/JQAProject/status/1425536795752558600
>
> You now have plenty of people, already likely sore about Tyler's actions
> to serve out an entire term, who additionally now know WHAT the
> annexation of Texas will inevitably lead to, and that John Tyler himself
> will repeatedly commit treason (both regarding being in Richmond for the
> secession congress, AND supporting the Nullifiers' side during *that*
> crisis). They also see that exactly *one* "accidental President" was
> ever much of a much (all right--ARGUABLY two, adding LBJ to TR. You can
> also TRY to make an argument for Truman, but I'd expect if he's worth
> that much he could still have been independently elected--assuming, of
> course, that said ASBs even forced the circumstances behind his OTL
> accession to still happen in a world with no succession from VP).
>
There have been three cases of a Vice-President who stepped up to become President during a term to which some other person was elected, and went on to be elected themselves

1. TR became President in 1901 and was elected in 1904.
2. Truman became President in 1945 and was elected in 1948.
3. LBJ became President in 1963 and was elected in 1964.

If we take e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States#2021_C-SPAN_Presidential_Historians_Survey all three of them are in the top quartile, while four of the lowest five entered office by election.

On 9/7/21 6:22 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> You now have plenty of people, already likely sore about Tyler's actions
> to serve out an entire term, who additionally now know WHAT the
> annexation of Texas will inevitably lead to...

> and that John Tyler himself
> will repeatedly commit treason (both regarding being in Richmond for the
> secession congress...

He was hardly alone in that.

In the 27th Congress:

CHAPMAN, Reuben (D-AL): was a representative of the Confederacy to
France 1862-1865.

ALFORD, Julius Caesar (W-GA): member of the secession convention in 1861.

CRAWFORD, George Walker (D-GA):presided over the State secession
convention in 1861.

KING, Thomas Butler (W-GA): was a commissioner of the Confederacy in
Europe 1861-1863.

NISBET, Eugenius Aristides (W-GA): member of the secession convention of
Georgia in January 1861 and was the author of the ordinance of secession.

CONRAD, Charles Magill (W-LA): delegate from Louisiana to the
Provisional Confederate Congress at Montgomery, Ala., in 1861; delegate
to the First and Second Confederate Congresses 1862-1864.

MOORE, John (W-LA): delegate to the State secession convention in 1861.

MOUTON, Alexander ()D-LA): president of the State secession convention
in 1861.

GWIN, William McKendree (D-MS): was twice arrested for disloyalty during
the Civil War.

THOMPSON, Jacob (D-MS): erved as inspector general in the Confederate
Army during the Civil War; confidential agent of the Confederacy to
Canada in 1864 and 1865.

ARRINGTON, Archibald Hunter (D-NC): was a supporter of the Confederacy
and a member of the secession convention in 1861; member of the First
Confederate Congress in 1861.

GRAHAM, William Alexander (W-NC): member, State senate 1854-1866,
including service in the state Confederate Congress.

RHETT, Robert Barnwell (D-SC): delegate to the South Carolina secession
convention in 1860; delegate to the Confederate Provisional Congress in
1861; chairman of the committee which reported the constitution of the
Confederate States.

GENTRY, MEREDITH POINDEXTER (W-TN): member of the First and Second
Confederate Congresses 1862-1863.

NICHOLSON, ALFRED OSBORN POPE (D-TN): expelled from the Senate on July
11, 1861, for support of the rebellion.

GOGGIN, William Leftwich (W-TN): captain of Home Guards, Confederate
Army, during the Civil War.

HUBARD, Edmund Wilcox (D-VA): colonel of a militia regiment in 1864;
appraiser of the Confederate Government to regulate the value of the
Confederate dollar.

HUNTER, Robert Mercer Taliaferro (D-VA): delegate from Virginia to the
Confederate Provincial Congress at Richmond; Confederate Secretary of
State 1861-1862; served in the Confederate Senate from Virginia in the
First and Second Congresses 1862-1865 and was President pro tempore on
various occasions.

> AND supporting the Nullifiers' side during *that*
> crisis)

That was a decade earlier and so was already known when the Whigs
nomiaed him for Vice President.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
GENTRY, MEREDITH POINDEXTER,