• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

The Fifth HoS List Challenge

The Fifth HoS List Challenge

  • Time Enough

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Mumby

    Votes: 4 36.4%
  • Cevolian

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • Oppo

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .

Venocara

God Save the King.
Pronouns
He/him
Welcome everyone to the Fifth HoS List Challenge!

How it works is simple: every so often there will be a theme, and the challenge is to write an alternate Head of State list (with an accompanying description of no less than 200 words) based on that theme. The theme is intended to be a prompt, and as such the amount of focus you give to the theme can vary as much as you wish. Cabinet lists are also acceptable. All HoS/Cabinet lists must be plausible. Unless stated otherwise, the list can be for any country in any time period.

The theme for this challenge is “Manifest Destiny”.

Fun fact: On this day 175 years ago James K. Polk delivered his first State of the Union address in which he called for the United States to aggressively expand across the continent.

Entries should be posted in this thread and you can submit as many entries as you please but only the first will be considered to be competitive. At the end of the contest a public vote will be held to decide on a winning list. Entries are open with immediate effect, and will close on the 23rd December.

Good luck everyone!
 
The Heartland
The time before being The 51st state
1970-1977:Edward Heath(Conservative)
1970:Harold Wilson(Labour),Jeremy Thorpe(Liberal)

1974:Roy Jenkins/Jeremy Thrope(Lab-Lib Pact)

1977-1977:Soviet Military Rule

1977-1978:
Denis Healey(CPGB)

1978-1980:American Military Rule


The time after becoming The 51st State
1980-1985:
Edward Heath(Democratic)
1980:George Harrison(Natural Law),John Kingsley Read(Britannia)
1985-1991:Peter Shore(Labour-Republican
1984:Edward Heath(Democratic)

1988:Douglas Hurd(Democratic)
1991-1993:David Owen(Republican)
1993-1997:Charles Moore(Democratic)
1992:David Owen(Republican),Ralph Miliband(Labour)
1997-2009:Charles Kennedy(Republican-Labour-Scottish Voice)

1996:Charles Moore(Democratic)
2000:Iain Duncan Smith(Democratic)
2004:Oliver Letwin(Democratic)

2009-2017:Boris Johnson(Democratic)
2008:Ken Livingstone(Republican-Labour)
2012:Ken Livingstone(Republican-Labour)

2017-202?:Angela Reyner(Republican-Labour)

2016:Boris Johnson(Democratic)
2020:Michael Gove(Democratic-Qanon-Scottish Voice-NIP)
 
Last edited:
Shouldn't that be republican for Owen?

The whole UK as a single state is ballsy. Is this some kind of fusion voting, too? Or coalitions?
I corrected it,thanks for pointing it out
Yes it is Fusion voting the mainland Republicans don't really like their British counterparts a lot
 
Premiers of the North Western Confederation:
1885-1910: Louis Riel (Independent)

1890 def: Unopposed
1900 def: Poundmaker (Independent)
1905 def: Poundmaker (First Nation), Ambroise-Dydime Lépine (People's), Tekahionwake (Women's)

1910-1935: Honoré Jackson (Farmer-Labour)
1910 (With Ambroise-Dydime Lépine) def: Charles M. O'Brien (Socialist), Shaaw Tláa (Women's), Poundmaker (First Nation)
1915 (With Ambroise-Dydime Lépine) def: Charles M. O'Brien (Socialist), Shaaw Tláa (Women's)
1920 (With Robert Gardiner) def: Charles M. O'Brien (Socialist), A.E.Smith (Progressive), Shaaw Tláa (Women's)
1925 (With Robert Gardiner) def: Charles M. O'Brien (Socialist), A.E.Smith (Progressive), Baptiste Tootoosis (Union)
1930 (With Francis Pegahmagabow) def: A. A. Heaps (Socialist), John Hewgill Brockelbank (Progressive), Baptiste Tootoosis (Union)

1935-1940: John Hewgill Brockelbank (Progressive)
1935 (With Baptiste Tootoosis) def: Honoré Jackson (Farmer-Labour), A.A.Heaps (Socialist)
1940-1950: Francis Pegahmagabow (Farmer-Labour)
1940 (With Oakland Woods Valleau) def: John Hewgill Brockelbank (Progressive-Union), A.A.Heaps (Socialist), Mary Two-Axe Earley (Women’s)
1945 (With Oakland Woods Valleau) def: Baptiste Tootoosis (Progressive-Union), Malcolm Norris (Socialist), Mary Two-Axe Earley (Women’s)

1950-: Malcolm Norris (Socialist)
1950 (With Mary Two-Axe Earley) def: Francis Pegahmagabow (Farmer-Labour), Baptiste Tootoosis (Progressive-Union)


Socialists Win, Farmer-Labour Monopoly Broken Open!
4th of June 1950
For the second time in the North Western Confederation's existence, a candidate for Premier who doesn't come the Riel-Jackson born Farmer-Labour coalition has been elected. Malcolm Norris, a Socialist, Marxist theorist and member of the Northwestern Confederation of Labour became Premier with Mary Two-Axe Earley, a Socialist Feminist from the Quebec region and former Women’s Party leader as his deputy.

Probably the most outstanding thing of the election was the implosion of the Farmer-Labour monopoly over the Premiership overnight. Already whispers of a splinter coalescing around Charles Manning, the Radical Conservative farmer and Monetary Reformist is being discussed. Much has been blamed on Francis Pegahmagabow seemingly friendly relationships with the Canadian Confederacy and it’s leader Vincent Massey and the Nationalist response that ensued.

Time will see if the Farmer-Labour party will survive this shocking event and if the Socialists can govern based upon Norris’s saying of ‘As Radical as Riel, as compassionate as Jackson’.
 
Last edited:
That's pretty awesome. I didn't know about this historical event. What's the borders of the North Western Confederation?
There’s a great graphic novel about Riel by Chester Brown which I recommend. Anyway the confederation borders go through Saskatwachen and border the Yukon I think. Lots of space, popular with Farmers, Miners and misfits.
 
Empire of Liberty Constrained

Proprietor of the Pacific Fur Company, HQ Fort Astoria

1810-1813: John Jacob Astor

Governor of the Province of Astoria

1813-1818: John Jacob Astor

Governor of the District of Astoria

1818-1831: John Jacob Astor

Kings of the Kingdom of Astoria

1831-1848: John Jacob I (Astor)
1848-1875: William Backhouse (Astor)
1875-1890: John Jacob II (Astor)
1890-1920: Aaron I (Astor-Burr), also King of Louisiana and Protector of Mexico, and nominal 'Emperor of North America'
1920-1973: John Jacob III (Astor-Burr)
1973-1980: Theodosius (Astor-Burr)
1980-2019: John Jacob IV (Astor-Burr)
2019-2020: disputed between John Jacob IV (Astor-Burr, backed by Astor-Burr Family Compact) and Aaron II (Astor-Burr, backed by Astorian Autonomies)
2020-present: John Jacob IV (Astor-Burr)

The brief, bloody War of 1813 is barely remembered in modern Britain, but serves as a founding mythology for much of North America. While the Kingdom of Louisiana had the more dramatic birth, the result of Aaron Burr's successful machinations to carve out a realm from the United States which British connivance, the now cut off American presence in the Pacific would also count the war as a pivotal moment in which they went from a fur-trapper's fort to a nation.

The Astor family finally formalised their proprietorship in the 1830s, as the initial value of the region in beaver pelts became less important than as an opportunity for settlers to make a new life. In particular, the hands-off reign of John Jacob I promised many would-be Astorians that they would have enjoy better chances than under the sclerotic heap of Literal Robber Barons in Louisiana.

While the Burrs grew rich, and began flexing their imperialistic grandeur across the continent, the Astors remained distant from their supposed kingdom. In practical terms, they operated an economic monopoly in the region thanks to the British Revolution of 1830, and were little more than particularly grandiose New York socialites. It was only in the early years of William Backhouse's reign that Astoria truely began to take off and the Astors treated their investment more seriously.

The Kingdom that the Astors inherited was very much the creature of the settlers who had made their home there - namely, it was white supremacist even by the standards of English-speaking North America. Premier Joseph Lane had forged the emergent image in his vision - an outpost of British-American civilisation on the West Coast, no Natives, Blacks or Asians allowed. This state of affairs began to loosen after his death, but the legacy of bitter white supremacism had been left, and every subsequent generation of Astorians suffered the consequences.

John Jacob II wed Queen Theodosia II of Louisiana, and thanks to the Burr's adventurism, the realm that Aaron inherited was the largest in the Americas since the Spanish left. It would expand further, with the purchase of Russian Alaska (in reality, merely a formalisation of the Astor's domination of the Russian-American Company). However, the succession laws of the various realms differed - Aaron I of Louisiana had adopted a gender equalised succession, whereas the Astors kept to a traditional European-style method. On Aaron's death, Louisiana and the Protectorate of Mexico passed to Theodosia III, whereas Astoria reclaimed its independence under John Jacob III.

The 20th Century proved a time of great change. The world was plunged into three global conflagrations, and while Astoria proved little more than a spectator, they were not unchanged. The strict racial laws of Lane were finally undone and thousands flooded to the booming port cities which fed the war effort of the Pacific arena. However, these new Astorians laboured under unfair contracts, dwelled in unfit habitations and receive little but scorn from their newfound neighbours. Lane's legacy lived on, less loudly perhaps, but no less grim. And to the south, the locus of power in the Burr Dynasty finally shifted southwards, as the Mexican province of California became the beating heart of commerce on the continent.

And finally we come to the Succession Crisis of 2019, in reality little more than a chapter in the story of the Astoria Riots of the late 2010s. Astoria has long been defined by a well developed coastal region and a more rural hinterland. The political polarisation between these regions has resulted in bitter recriminations, and finally violence. And while Autonomies establish themselves in Astoria City and beyond, the Royal House was divided. For a moment in 2019, John Jacob IV abdicated his throne under pressure from his son, labour unrest and demands for reform in the House of Delegates. But then the Astor-Burr Family Compact kicked in. An army of Mexican volunteers marched north from Alta California, and have helped reinstall John Jacob IV, brutally putting down the riots in Astoria City and re-erecting the toppled statue of Joseph Lane.

Aaron II regularly turns up on hard-left podcasts from his residence in Winnipeg, in the Common Wealth of Rupertsland, and he goes by Aaron Astor now.
 
Last edited:
Well Mumby's use of the Astors is terrifyingly serendipitous, allow me to present:


The Destined Manifest
The voyage of the Titanic, and the birth of American Empire​

1909-1913: William Howard Taft (Republican)
1908 (with James S. Sherman) def. William J. Bryan (Democratic)
1913-1919: Theodore Roosevelt (Republican)
1912 (with William Howard Taft) def. Woodrow Wilson (Democratic)
1916 (with William Howard Taft) def. George B. McClellan Jr. (Democratic), Hiram Johnson (Progressive)

1919-1921: William Howard Taft (Republican)

Having returned from a stay in Europe aboard the maiden voyage of the indestructible ship, RMS Titanic, Major Archibald Butt returned to a disaster in the Republican Party. Once cordial and supportive relations between his close friends former President Theodore Roosevelt and sitting President William Howard Taft had broken down, and President Roosevelt had announced his intention to run as a third-party 'Progressive' candidate against the Republican Party, virtually ensuring a Democratic victory in November. Butt was the only man who had any hope of restoring unity to the fractured party, but against all the odds he succeeded. Through weeks of torturous negotiations, the Major was able to forge a deal between Roosevelt and Taft in which they would serve as de facto 'co-Presidents': Roosevelt would compromise with Taft over domestic issues, and the latter would speerhead a middle way between Roosevelt's trust-busting national populism and his own pro-business conservatism, whilst Roosevelt would take the helm of US foreign policy, pursuing expansion abroad and ensuring the open market for American goods which had been the hallmark of Taft's stance on the world stage. With the return of Roosevelt to the top of the ticket, the re-energised Republican Party would eek out a fourth Presidential election victory against the Democrats under the leadership of the stiff and anonymous Governor of New Jersey and former academic Woodrow Wilson.

The terms of the compromise between Roosevelt and Taft would very soon become nothing more than an academic curiosity. Just over a year after the new co-Presidency came into being, war broke out in Europe, and divisions immediately resurfaced in the Republican Party over how to respond, including between the two Presidents. Taft, the outspoken internationalist favoured peace, and US mediation between Britain and France and Germany. whereas Roosevelt was a gung-ho militarist and favoured immediate intervention on the side of the Entente. And despite the informal co-Presidency, Roosevelt was technically President... But even the Bull Moose couldn't go to war without congress, so he lay in wait, and when The Lusitania went down even Taft couldn't resist the President's call to war. The Democrats fell in line behind the war effort and a compromise candidate, and only a gaggle of Socialists, Bryanite Populists, and Republican Progressives united behind Hiram Johnson mounted an effort against Roosevelt's headlong rush into the abyss. Over 150,000 young American men died in the struggle to liberate Europe, but in January 1919, the Kaiser abdicated, and a peace was signed at Versailles. But Teddy wouldn't live to see that, dying a week before the Kaiser's abdication.

The two years of Taft's second administration were dominated by the politics of the peace. Whilst Taft was an early proponent of the Congress of Nations proposed by Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes at Versailles, his congressional Republican colleagues rejected it, whilst the Democrats rode a wave of isolationist sentiment back to popularity. With the United States overextended, having annexed Germany's Pacific Empire, and waging a counterinsurgency in New Guinea, Taft was deplored as an imperialist and a warmonger. Dragged down by the blood on Roosevelt's hands, even the creeping popularity of empire-building in the Pacific within the GOP and business community couldn't stop these attacks from bringing the President down.

1921-1921: Champ Clark (Democratic)
1920 (with William J. Bryan) def. William Howard Taft (Republican)
1921-1925: William J. Bryan (Democratic)
1924 (with Francis Burton-Harrison) def. Leonard E. Wood (Republican), William Borah (Progressive)
1925-1929: Francis Burton-Harrison (Democratic)
1929-1933: Newton D. Baker (Democratic)
1928 (with Franklin Roosevelt) def. Gifford Pinchot (Republican), Andrew Mellon (Sound Money Republicans)

After their split in 1912, Champ Clark and WJB had seemed an unlikely duo, but eight years later the changed politics of the postwar era had allowed an unexpected reconciliation. Both bitterly opposed to Rooseveltian imperialism, they had united behind a pro-peace and anti-internationalist baker at the 1920 convention, defeating Wilson's attempt to mount a pro-Congress of Nations comeback. Clark wouldn't get to enjoy the fruits of victory, dying not long after inauguration. Bryan was little more successful - he was yesterday's man, and the populism of the previous century was outflanked by both the new Progressivism and Socialism, whilst his conservative Christian views were mocked as antediluvian by a hostile press. Prohibition proved divisive, and the postwar economic recovery was sluggish after a crisis in agriculture. Yet in 1924, faced with another Republican imperialist, and a tepid Progressive challenge, the American people voted for Bryan again.

But the Great Commoner wasn't long for the world, and died in the summer of '25 amidst negotiations with the Congress of Nations for the United States to withdraw from New Guinea. His Vice President, Francis Burton-Harrison was even more eager to shed the United Stats of its newfound colonial appendages, but negotiations with the Congress collapsed, and support amongst the American people was shifting towards a pro-imperialist position. Meanwhile, orthodox fiscal policies pursued by the Treasury, and the rollback of wartime regulations after the caution of the Bryan years proceeded unabated under the inexperienced new President, and the economy began to shudder to life. Fortunes were won, parties thrown, speakeasies frequented, and day by day the bubble came closer to bursting.

Luckily for Burton-Harrison, that wouldn't be his problem. Bowing out before the '28 convention, he was succeeded by the reformer Newton Baker, and in a two Progressive horse race mainly fought over the issue of imperialism, the Democrats only clung on by the skin of their teeth. Then came the deluge. In 1930, the economic bubble popped. President Baker was quick to respond, and his stimulus efforts deserve credit for preventing the collapse of American capitalism. But to most Americans that didn't matter: as the world descended into economic chaos, the Kaiser was restored in Berlin, the socialists came to power in France and Russian democracy fell in a military coup within a year of one another, and the Congress of Nations collapsed. Baker was blamed for the lot, and his prevarication over the United States' role in stabilising the global system became an easy attack-line for Republicans. He left the White House without credit for his successes, and all the blame for the crash.

1933-1941: John-Jacob Astor IV (Republican)
1932 (with Henry A. Wallace) def. Newton D. Baker (Democratic)
1936 (with Henry A. Wallace) def. William G. McAdoo (Convention Democrats), Al Smith (Manhattan Democrats), Upton Sinclair (Sacramento Democrats)

1941-1945: Henry L. Stimson (Republican)
1940 (with Ed Martin) def. Wendell Willkie (Liberal Democrats), John H. Bankhead (Conservative Democrats)
1945-1949: John-Jacob Astor IV (Republican)
1944 (with Henry L. Stimson) def. Harry S Truman (Democratic), Charles Lindbergh (Stars and Stripes Committees)

Exeunt Baker, enter Astor. Another name from the illustrious manifest of the RMS Titanic, the multimillionaire businessman John-Jacob Astor IV had turned his hand to politics as a supporter of Taft in the fight over American entry into the Congress of Nations. In 1920 he had elbowed his way into the Governor's mansion in Albany, and his defeat two years later only served to set up his run for the Senate in 1926, beating back both the Republican incumbent and popular challenger Robert Wagner. In the Senate, his fierce internationalism was matched only by a mercurial populism on domestic issues, unwilling to commit to anything of substance. But in 1932, Americans were looking for a new way, and Astor was willing to pour his millions into making it seem like he had what it took: in alliance with the party's progressives, yet backed by the business elite, he entered the White House, promising a 'Square Deal for all', and with his eye on forging an American empire.

The recovery was faltering at first, the abandonment of Baker's recovery plan setting the country back for the first year, but the ever-adaptable President changed course under his Vice President's influence, and the long road to recovery began. In Europe, Socialist governments in Britain and France, leant their support to the Republicans in Spain, as the Kaiser fought desperately to both remilitarise his Reich and support monarchism in Iberia. In the East, the reactionary 'Regency' of General Wrangel cosied up to the dictatorships of Central Europe, including the Kaiser, whilst in Asia, China descended into anarchy. At home Astor continued to pursue economic stabilisation, working with big business whilst establishing work programmes to get America back on the job, but this domestic agenda was mainly spearheaded by Vice President Wallace. The President's focus continued to lie in expanding American involvement in the Pacific, sponsoring colonisation and economic development in the Philippines and Guinea: only long after he left office would the terrible atrocities these colonists committed come to light.

In his own time, Astor's new vision for America proved unshakably popular, and with a split in the Democratic Party in 1936 between the racist supporters of McAdoo opposed to heavy deficit spending, and the liberal, internationalist, and progressive coalition loosely around Al Smith and a small Pacifist and Socialist contingent splitting after McAdoo's nomination at the Convention, the President carried almost every state in the Union. His second term was marked by one event above all: the beginning of the war. In 1937 the Kaiser's attempt to annex Austria amidst the collapse of the republican government's authority provoked Italy, which moved in to preserve Austria's independence: when Germany consequently declared war on Italy in the name of 'stabilising intervention' in Austria, her allies Britain and France declared war on Germany, leading Russia to intervene on the German side. Soon the continent was gripped by war, and in the East Japan took advantage of the chaos to pursue a strike against Britain in the Indo-Pacific. It was this element of the conflagration which would draw in the United States, and with the sinking of the USS Panay in 1938 - the 'Second Lusitania' - President Astor would take the grave decision to declare war on Japan. Two days later, Germany, seeking to regain her Pacific colonies, declared war on the United States, and Russia again followed.

The war that followed was brutal and drawn out. The vast Eurasian mass and the 'Oceanic Powers' struggled against one another for nine years of hard warfare. In that time, President Astor left office in favour of his Secretary of State Henry Stimson, only to return under the 'Roosevelt Precedent', having acted as the power behind the throne as Stimson's own Secretary of State. With the Democrats still divided between the liberal internationalist Willkieites and the conservative southerners, even the corruption of the 'great switch' barely registered with the electorate, whilst in 1944 where the party had reunited under a bland nobody, it was unable to inspire the electorate and its conservative flank abandoned it for Lindbergh's doomed far-right anti-war bid.

War ended in 1946, less because of any great victory by the democratic nations of the world than because of the political collapse of their enemies. Once again the economic ruin of the war triggered socialist revolution and civil war in Germany and Russia, and this time it swept the entire Eurasian continent. Germany fell, then Russia, then as China sank into civil war, French troops turned around and established a workers' republic at home and Belgium and the Netherlands soon fell into the clutches of the Federation of European Peoples' Republics. As Japan's war effort fell apart without her allies' help, Britain and the United States scrabbled to hold onto the now non-Communist world. The US annexed Japan's Pacific possessions and Formosa directly, forming a satellite in Japan and a condominium with Britain in Indochina. In the end this financial strain was too much for the American people to endorse, and Astor sensed which way the wind was blowing, and bowed out in 1948 in favour of his dashing young Secretary of State.

1949-0000: Bennet Champ Clark (Democratic)
1948 (with Eleanor Roosevelt) def. Nelson Rockefeller (Republican)

But, in a way, Bennet Clark's election was the ultimate and final triumph of Astorism. Nearly three decades after his father's election as an antiwar candidate, Clark would win the Presidency on similar predicates, but would govern from an entirely different playbook. The realities of the geopolitical situation he had inherited demanded continued American involvement in the world - they demanded, or so the brain trust at Foggy Bottom claimed, an empire. So the son of the great pacifist became the proconsul of a nascent American imperialism. Under Bennet Clark the Philippines would be admitted as a state alongside Alaska and Hawaii, whilst US control over her newfound 'territories' in the Pacific and Asia was tightened, French Guiana and her Caribbean possessions integrated into the United States, and efforts made to close America's net around the precariously balanced Dutch state in exile in Indonesia, with an eye to its integration as either an economic and military satrap or even a territory.

The empire of liberty's great providential westward expansion continued, had that not always been her destiny?


(Yes I did come up with the pun first, shut up)
 
Last edited:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...outhern-western-alliance-in-the-1840s.467843/

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/john-calhouns-proposal-for-two-presidents.319699/

The 1844 election was one between two-thirds of the Great Triumvirate of American politics. Both gentlemen entered the House in 1811, and their 33 years of service since then gave them a number of friends and foes. Ultimately, the nationalism in the air over the Oregon and Texas disputes gave Calhoun a narrow victory. To Calhoun, the annexation of Texas was enough, as slave power had been secured. The young hawks in Congress certainly reminded Calhoun of himself back in 1812, but they failed to realize that a war with Mexico would bring far too many non-whites into American territory. The president's eyes were focused on the formation of a new majority, an alliance between the West and South. In exchange for the development of the plains, the South got the tariff reform that they so desired. Cementing the deal was the short, splendid war between the United States and Great Britain over the Oregon boundary dispute. After the worn-out British conceded 54-40, Calhoun's name was heralded in the West and nationwide, giving him a landslide majority in a rematch against Clay.

With this victory, Calhoun had a mandate to totally restructure the federal government. Calhoun's determination to maintain slavery convinced him that two presidents were needed, one of the North, and one of the South. With his Western allies standing by him, the constitution was restructured, allowing for a permanent veto supporting slavery. Calhoun died in office before seeing his plan implemented, but pretty quickly, difficulties ensued. Northern President McLean refused to acknowledge the Dred Scott ruling and Southern President Mason refused to help the ailing Northern economy after the Panic of 1857. Fulfilling the growing trend in the South, Mason unilaterally dissolved the co-presidency with McLean and began to act as a sovereign government. McLean, urging the survival of the union, sent the military to intervene, beginning the American Civil War. From the beginning, the National Unionist side was severely weakened, with much of the north seeing McLean as aggressors. In the chaos following the evacuation of Washington, McLean died and was quickly replaced by the more radical William Seward. By 1859, the Unionists were pushed out of Pennslyvania, and other than a few guerilla abolitionists, the rest of the country was controlled by the CAS. Mason signed a peace treaty with the rump Republic of New England, not wanting a hostile abolitionist population anyway.

Calhoun's legacy is still alive in the CAS constitution, a document written on the principles of what a raving old man thought should be done to protect slavery.

Presidents of the United States

1845 - 1847: John C. Calhoun / John Farfield (Democratic)
1844 def. Henry Clay / Theodore Frelinghuysen (Whig)
1847 - 1849: John C. Calhoun / Vacant (Democratic)
1849 - 1852: John C. Calhoun / Edward A. Hannegan (Democratic)
1848 def. Henry Clay / Thomas B. King (Whig)
1852 - 1853: Edward A. Hannegan / Vacant (Democratic)

Northern Presidents of the United States

1853 - 1857: Winfield Scott (Whig)
1852 def. Lewis Cass (Democratic)
1857 - 1857: John McLean (Whig)
1856 def. James Buchanan (Democratic)

Southern Presidents of the United States

1853 - 1857: James Guthrie (Democratic)
1852 def. Willie Magnum (Whig)
1857 - 1857: James Murray Mason (Democratic)
1856 def. James C. Jones (Whig)

--

Start of the American Civil War [1857-1859]

1857 - 1857: John McLean (National Unionist) vs. James Murray Mason (State Sovereigntist)
1857 - 1859: William H. Seward (National Unionist) vs. James Murray Mason (State Sovereigntist)

--

Eastern Presidents of the Confederation of American States

1859 - 1861: James Murray Mason (‘Conservative’ Democratic)
1861 - 0000: Robert Toombs (‘Fire-Eater’ Democratic)
1860 def. Robert M.T. Hunter (‘Conservative’ Democratic)

Western Presidents of the Confederation of American States

1859 - 0000: Joseph Lane (‘Conservative’ Democratic)
1860 def. Lewis S. Owings (‘Fire-Eater’ Democratic), Abraham Lincoln (Land & Liberty)

Presidents of the Republic of New England

1860 - 0000: Charles Francis Adams (Liberal)
1859 def. Lawrence Brainerd (Radical)
 
Submissions are now closed; unfortunately, @Qaz_plm's entry must be disqualified due to a lack of description.

Nevertheless, thank you to everyone who competed in this challenge; there have been some truly brilliant lists this contest. The poll is now up.
 
Submissions are now closed; unfortunately, @Qaz_plm's entry must be disqualified due to a lack of description.

It wasn’t at all clear in the opening post that all lists must have descriptions. Frankly, I feel enforcing “rules” in this arbitrary manner is the sort of thing which would make people reluctant to enter in such contests.
 
It wasn’t at all clear in the opening post that all lists must have descriptions. Frankly, I feel enforcing “rules” in this arbitrary manner is the sort of thing which would make people reluctant to enter in such contests.
I agree with your point that the rules for this contest are overenforced and that it drives people away, but the top post does say that there needs to be an accompanying description of no less than 200 words.
 
I really think that these competitions need fewer rules. In fact, I'm not even sure making a Heads of State challenge is wise- why not just make it a List challenge, and let people respond to the prompt how they want?

Also, on a personal note, all these prompts to do with empires don't encourage creativity either. Rise of an Empire. Fall of an Empire. Manifest Destiny- that's all essentially the same theme.
 
@SenatorChickpea if you won't mind I would like to remind you about a couple of things you've previously said about this contest....

This is a great idea, @Venocara
This is your project, @Venocara, and we trust you to run it.

I feel your recent comments are a rather abrupt departure from these ones [1]...

I would like to say that @Qaz_plm's entry is the first and only entry so far to be entered without a description. All of the others have, even if that description has been less than 200 words, and I would like to point out that the requirement for a description is on the second line of every first post. The description is a vital part of an entry (perhaps more than the list itself) because without it it is essentially just an arbitrary list of names.

I'm also not a fan of the sniping from people who have never competed in the challenge and have always been sceptical about whether the challenge was worthwhile. It makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable.

However, I can say that if people would like to enter cabinet lists or lists focusing on the career trajectory of a particular politician as was once popular (or some other form of a political list), those entries would be entirely welcome.

[1] Especially so considering that the last comment was made in relation to me offering to give competitors more choice over the theme...
 
Let’s just have fun with it and not get bogged down with and obsess over the rules, or let’s not bother doing it at all. With the paucity of entries I hardly think that if we’re a bit lax on the rules we’ll be swamped by substandard entries, and I also think we need some more democratic means of proposing and deciding themes. These are obviously only my suggestions, but I think otherwise this competition is going to be become a bit stale and exclusionary.
 
Congratulations to @Cevolian for winning this challenge!

The Sixth Challenge will be posted later today; the theme for this one has already been decided but suggestions for future themes are welcome in this thread.

Also, Merry Christmas everyone!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top