The Whiskey Rebellion and the American Monarch

What if...

George Washington had been killed during the Whiskey Rebellion on October 14, 1794, while leading the Army and militia against the rebels in western Pennsylvania?

Accompanying Washington was Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, a Revolutionary War veteran, and an ardent Federalist who had once delivered a four hour speech on the benefits of a lifelong government position. Following Washington's death, the American troops were thrown into disarray. And who was there to pick up the pieces? None other than Alexander Hamilton.

Hamilton, who takes command of the American forces (somewhat illegally), captures many suspected rebels. After a quick trial, twenty rebels are executed in December. The Whiskey Rebellion has been crushed, leaving Hamilton and John Adams, who is now President, fully in control of the United States.

Both Adams and Hamilton, the nation's two prominent statesmen, are pro-monarchists and, soon, Hamilton introduces the idea of restructuring the Constitution to include an elective monarchy (it later becomes hereditary). Although the idea was thought of as riduculous just seven years earlier, lacking the opposition of George Washington (the nation's great military hero), Hamilton (the nation's second greatest military hero, at this point) pushes for the position, justifying that a completely republican form of government cannot be stable for long periods of time. He uses the lack of government control over the Whiskey Rebellion as a prime example. Hamilton states that the nation needs an elective monarchy (a lifelong position) to tie the nation together and keep it cohesive over time.

Come late fall of 1795 many have switched to Hamilton's camp and, in November of 1795, delegates meet in Philadelphia to rewrite the Constitution. Despite the stong opposition of many (if not most) Southerners, the proposition narrowly passes and the United States (renamed the Republic of American States [RAS] although the term "republic" is no longer quite true) now has an elective monarchy.

John Adams become John I, King of the RAS, while Alexander Hamilton becomes the Chancellor of the RAS. Despite the fact that there is now a monarchy, there is not a nobility like in Europe. The Chancellor, unlike the Chancellor of European nations, is still a directly elected position. While the King is Head of State, the Chancellor is the Head of Government and, thus, in some ways, has more power. While the King is not an absolute monarch, he does hold major sway over the actions of the RAS government and the hearts and minds of the American people.

If anyone has a better POD for there being a reigning monarch in OTL's United States, I'd be interested to see it. I'd prefer for Adams to be that monarch and not George Washington. That's too easy.


What happens now?




Flag of the Republic of American States in 1800:

The new flag retains the old colors but has a new design. The red cross of St. George shows the historical connection with England. The white background represents the clean start of the new nation. The blue field represents its former identity as the United States, now just a part of the past of the RAS. The red tiara shape represents the new monarchy. The single star in the middle of the red tiara represents the King's reign over the single entity of the RAS. (I don't want to hear about this flag's OTL history).

No one has any opinions?

i just don't see it happening. To much oppositoin among regular politicians and the populace against the monarchy. People like Jefferson and Pain would rally against the monarchist. And should the monarchy come about then their would be gigantic rebellions up and down the former USA. It would take decades for a people to be swayed by monarchist esspecialy because they just fought a revolution against a monarchy.

LDoc said:

i just don't see it happening. To much oppositoin among regular politicians and the populace against the monarchy. People like Jefferson and Pain would rally against the monarchist. And should the monarchy come about then their would be gigantic rebellions up and down the former USA. It would take decades for a people to be swayed by monarchist esspecialy because they just fought a revolution against a monarchy.

Click to expand...

First, Paine's left the US by now. In 1795, Paine was freshly released from jail in France, and is currently parading around, promoting revolution. By this point, Paine was not especially well-liked by the American public. In 1802, he returned to the US to find that the people had a low opinion of him. He wouldn't have had much sway in the US at this time.

Second, at this point, Jefferson had retired from public life for the moment, at least. His career and reputation, because of the Genêt incident, was at an all-time low, his support for the revolution in France was not view well by the average citizen. He would have been considered a radical at this point. Also, his quarrels with Hamilton and Washington would not be viewed well by the American populace as Washington was now a "martyr" and Hamilton a national hero.

Third, the citizenry would have been tired of rebellions between Daniel Shays and the western Pennsylvanians. They'd want a strong national figure to arise from Washington's ashes. One who'd bind the nation together and keep control of its populace. I think there'd be major controversy but not armed rebellion, especially with Hamilton (who is by now, high of himself) ready to squash anyone in his way. It's either this "monarchy" or a dictatorship by Hamilton. Personally, I think Hamilton was a pretty good guy (as good as politicians get, anyways) and would have prefered an organized, legal government to a military dictatorship.

Fourth, this is a totally different monarchy than the one they fought against. The one they fought against was, at the time, a relatively absolute, hereditary monarch, compared to the relatively restrained, elected monarch of the new RAS. Also, the Americans didn't fight against the monarchy, per se. Several prominent Americans (incl. Adams and Hamilton) were open to the idea of a monarchy in the US (mostly out of the prestige it would give the nation in Europe) immediately following the Revolution. Anyways, the Rev. War was mostly about gaining representation rather than ridding itself of a political system. In fact, up until the last moment, most Americans viewed King George as their friend. Following two major "rebellions" and one minor one in the space of 20 yrs, Americans will be looking for a new, steady form of government to replace the democratic government, which, at the time, seems to be failing. What better than the established form of government under which they once lived? A monarchy. In this case, like I said, an elective monarchy so that it still represents the people, especially considering the Chancellor (Head of Government/Prime Minister) is directly elected every six years.

But these rebellions weren't even about abolishing the government. ALl of them were centered around taxes, when the taxes ended so did the rebellions. That isn't the kind of environment that spews forth a completly different kind of government then what they had. If people really wanted to switch to a Monarchy then they would have pressed for it at the annopalis convention. And to have a national monarchy you need your people to have a strong sense of national pride which, in the US, was tiny compared to the sense of State pride that people had. That state pride wouldn't just dissapear because George Washington was killed, in fact it might make it stronger. And Hamilton even threatening a military dictatorship is laughable considering that state militias outnumbered the US Army by thousands of people and equipment. If Hamilton did threaten to lead a military dictatorship his army would turn against him as most troops who foughta gainst the Whisky rebellion were state Militia and not federal troops.

Yes, the rebellions were not about changing the government. But repeated rebellions, however small, would be (and were) seen as a sign of weakness in the American government. In OTL, the Whiskey Rebellion was the show of power than out gov't needed to get onto its feet. Although, in this ATL, the rebellion was also crushed, the very fact that GW was killed is seen as a loss for the national gov't. A loss such as this in the early stages of a gov't's development is almost always disastrous. I think that the main idea of changing the gov't to increase national pride and, thus, bind the nation together through a strong figure, cutting down these rebellions of nonsense is a sound theory.

About Hamilton: I think you're underestimating his national popularity both in OTL and, especially, in this ATL following his destruction of the Whiskey Rebellion. At this point in time (in both TL's), Hamilton was at the height of his power. He had saved the national treasury and had just, possibly have saved the nation itself. He was, and would be in this ATL, especially with the loss of Washington, the most popular and powerful statesman in the nation. The idea of a Hamiltonian dictatorship is not exactly as outrageous as you seem to believe. He inspired, let's call it extreme, emotions in both his allies and enemies. At this point in time, he'd have by far more allies than enemies.

During times of crisis, nations invariably look to a strong figure for guidance.

Yes although people might like Hamilton they would like their state alot better. The US as historicly been and very state oriented country and I don't see the death of Washington suddenly changing the mood to support and strong central government. And considering the that size of the Whiskey reblelion and the other rebellions were small and poised no real threat i don't see people going along with it. ANd as i said earlier Hamilton doesn't have the military muscle to force a monarchy on the US. I would even doubt that Hamilton would try and change the government. I see him running for president and winning, but not for trying to change the government.

LDoc said:

I see him running for president and winning, but not for trying to change the government.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess that's the heart of the argument. I can see him doing either. You can see him doing only one. I doubt either of us is going to change the other's mind.

Hamilton is so much better than "banks and factories are evil, let me keep my slaves" jefferson.

Why would Hamilton want to change the government when he could easily become president? and if he did change the government why wouldn't he try to be king?

Bugger!

I was just going to ask if I could borrow that flag for the Commonwealth of New England.

Please give evidence that Hamilton wanted a kingdom in America.

Hamilton gets so much crap because he favored industrialization and didn't want to give the vote to everyone. Somehow, he gets painted as a royalist in republican's clothing, rather than as a deep believer in checks and balances and abolitionism.

Faeelin said:

Please give evidence that Hamilton wanted a kingdom in America.

Hamilton gets so much crap because he favored industrialization and didn't want to give the vote to everyone. Somehow, he gets painted as a royalist in republican's clothing, rather than as a deep believer in checks and balances and abolitionism.

Click to expand...

Actually, I'm not giving Hamilton crap, as you put it. In fact, Hamilton is my favorite figure from this era.

To be fair, no, Hamilton never did directly come out and say that he wanted a kingdom in America. Instead, during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton lectured for three to four HOURS on the benefits of a strongly centralized federal government, including a President for life. He was unable to effect the outcome of the Convention, however, mainly because his two anti-Federalist colleagues outvoted him on every issue.

Landshark said:

Bugger!

I was just going to ask if I could borrow that flag for the Commonwealth of New England.

Click to expand...

LoL, you can if you really want. I don't mind. It's not like I own it or anything.

LDoc said:

Why would Hamilton want to change the government when he could easily become president? and if he did change the government why wouldn't he try to be king?

Click to expand...

Which has more power? A President serving for eight years or a King serving for thirty?

What's a Different POD?

So, clearly, a lot of people don't like my idea for a POD. Does anyone else have a POD which would leave the US an independent nation with an American monarch?

maybe not a king but if the deppression was worse i could see a dictator comming about.

wheres the option for Albert Gallatin?

Not enough # of options available. I could only do 10.

then replace james madison with Albert Gallatin by editing it.