AHC: Make Washington Lose the 1792 Election

[QuoProQuid]

George Washington is one of the few men in US history almost universally beloved, both during his time and in the present day. Due to this, the 1788 and 1792 elections remain the only two in which an individual ran unopposed for the Presidency.

With a PoD no earlier than 1789 come up with a scenario in which Washington tries to run for re-election but fails to win.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Can it involve George Washington eating a baby and using the Declaration of Independence to pleasure himself while repeatedly screaming "Satan!" into the reverberating bowels of the Liberty Bell?

Because otherwise....

Then again, he could simply retire and leave the government in Adams' hands.

 

[Lord Grattan]

On September 15, 1792, George Washington announces that he has issued an executive order prohibiting elected and appointed federal officials from belonging to, supporting, promoting or participating in the activities of any political party, organization, group or society. Then, during the ensuing weeks, Washington makes a series of widely publicized statements which leave many believing that he's contemplating ways to make himself some sort of autocratic king.

 

[Tomac]

George Washington is one of the few men in US history almost universally beloved, both during his time and in the present day. Due to this, the 1788 and 1792 elections remain the only two in which an individual ran unopposed for the Presidency.

With a PoD no earlier than 1789 come up with a scenario in which Washington tries to run for re-election but fails to win.

Have George come off as the real bad guy during the Whiskey Rebellion. Maybe if some of his troops commit percieved atrocities that he doesn't punish them for.

Regards,
John Braungart

 

[Glen]

George Washington is one of the few men in US history almost universally beloved, both during his time and in the present day. Due to this, the 1788 and 1792 elections remain the only two in which an individual ran unopposed for the Presidency.

With a PoD no earlier than 1789 come up with a scenario in which Washington tries to run for re-election but fails to win.

1790 - A loyalist assassin shoots George Washington in the head. Despite the ball lodging in his brain, he surprisingly recovers. At first, the nation rejoices. However, the President was obviously not the same man, or, as one contemporary put it, "Washington was no longer Washington." While his cabinet tries to cover for him, it becomes common knowledge that the president no longer has the judgment he once did, nor the comportment, often acting and speaking inappropriately. His friends and family beg the President to announce he will not accept a second term, but he refuses, insisting he will remain in office until driven out. Both Jefferson and Adams throw their hats in the ring for the next election, both saddened by the tragedy of Washington, but both fearing for the fate of the nation, and neither trusting the other to save it. No one candidate wins the majority, and the election is thrown to the House, where after much wrangling Adams is announced as the second president of the United States....


Yes, it would literally take a bullet to the brain, or something similarly drastic, to lose this man the election.

 

[QuoProQuid]

Yes, it would literally take a bullet to the brain, or something similarly drastic, to lose this man the election.

Heh. The reason I posted this thread was because I could think of a plausible scenario in which every other president fails to get elected, but was struggling to come up with something for Washington. I was wondering how difficult it would be for him to lose an election, assuming he decided to run.


It seems based on these few replies that whatever the reason, it is going to have to be extremely drastic.

 

[Swan Station]

You know... Call me pessimistic, but it seems like there's got to be something. No one's that perfect, or that incorruptible. To say Washington can't lose an election sounds like some sort of patriotic hero worship.

 

[Johnrankins]

You know... Call me pessimistic, but it seems like there's got to be something. No one's that perfect, or that incorruptible. To say Washington can't lose an election sounds like some sort of patriotic hero worship.

No, he wasn't perfect but there was a lot of patriotic hero worship around Washington at the time. It would take a truly awful scandal for that to change enough so he wouldn't be reelected.

 

[Roger II]

Even though it's not what the OP wants, it seems like the easiest way to lose Washington an election is to have him run for a third term. At that point, a combination of fatigue with Washington and Jay's Treaty causing an even bigger mess than it did IOTL(a nasty border incident involving Native Americans from Canada? The british get pushy about vacating the forts? Citizen Genet manages to make British-leaning neutrality even more toxic? An incident on the high seas?) could just do the trick.

 

[Jasen777]

Well, someone with alot of money could try bribing the electors...

 

[Wolfpaw]

No, he wasn't perfect but there was a lot of patriotic hero worship around Washington at the time. It would take a truly awful scandal for that to change enough so he wouldn't be reelected.

This.

Washington probably would have even gone on to win a third term, but that's just going to prolong to inevitable and dramatically fatigue his popularity, especially if he keeps up an unpopular FP. He may even resign if he faces a Congressional revolt.

 

[Derek Jackson]

He experiences embarassingly visibile dementia, a faction thinks it can control him and gets him to still run

 

[Evan]

Washington gets sick and dies several days before the electors cast their ballots. The news travels quickly enough so that most states switch their votes to Adams or Clinton, but several electors in Georgia and Kentucky haven't heard of Washington's death before they cast their votes for him. So, Washington was technically a posthumous losing candidate in the 1792 Presidential election. This would give rise to the late-1800's tradition of the losing party ceremonially casting two or three electoral votes for George Washington as a mark of protest.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Washington gets sick and dies several days before the electors cast their ballots. The news travels quickly enough so that most states switch their votes to Adams or Clinton, but several electors in Georgia and Kentucky haven't heard of Washington's death before they cast their votes for him. So, Washington was technically a posthumous losing candidate in the 1792 Presidential election. This would give rise to the late-1800's tradition of the losing party ceremonially casting two or three electoral votes for George Washington as a mark of protest.

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[QuoProQuid]

Washington gets sick and dies several days before the electors cast their ballots. The news travels quickly enough so that most states switch their votes to Adams or Clinton, but several electors in Georgia and Kentucky haven't heard of Washington's death before they cast their votes for him. So, Washington was technically a posthumous losing candidate in the 1792 Presidential election. This would give rise to the late-1800's tradition of the losing party ceremonially casting two or three electoral votes for George Washington as a mark of protest.

Creative, but not exactly what I was looking for.

I really do like the idea of the losing party ceremoniously casting votes for Washington. If you do not mind, I would really like to use that for a future timeline.

 

[catboy637]

Have the United States decide to take several loans out from France in order to get the nation running, with the French government agreeing that no interest will be held and the loans are indefinite until they can be repaid.

However, if the French Revolution comes along earlier and Napoleon (or a more nationalist, anti-American ruler) comes into power and demands immediate compensation of the loans, with an exorbitant interest rate. The United States refuses to pay, leading to the country being distrusted by the international community. The economy tumbles as France and England both refuse to trade with the fledgling USA, and soon the United States is in miserable debt.

Washington, running for reelection, is considered responsible for the crisis, and voted out of office in favor of a hawk candidate that supports going to war with France to negate the country's debt.

 

[Maniakes]

Have the combination of two PODs:

1. Have Washington veto the Bank Bill in 1790 due to constitutional concerns, triggering a split between Washington and Hamilton that could grow over the next year or two.
2. Accellerate events in the French Revolution, so the War of the First Coalition breaks out a couple years earlier, and the subsequente tensions between America and Britain come to a head correspondingly sooner, so the Jay Treaty ratification debate happens before the 1792 election.

The first POD drives a wedge between Washington and the High Federalists. The second drives a wedge between Washington and the Jeffersonian Republicans. Each also undermines somewhat Washington's aura of being above controvercy, and the two together mean that few people are on Washington's side on both foreign policy issues and domestic economic issues.

Both extremes run candidates against Washington, and the Washington/Adams ticket winds up receiving just under half the electoral votes. Since this is pre-12th-amendment, the VP is not balloted seperately (each elector casts two votes for President, and the overall runner-up is VP), and the House picks between the top five candidates if nobody gets a vote from a majority of electors. In this case, the House would likely be voting between Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Pickney, and Jefferson. The house will probably deadlock for a while, but eventually resolve the deadlock in favor of Adams (a member of the centrist faction in this scenario, but still palatable to the High Federalists) if supporters of both challenger factions remain firm in their opposition to Washington, or if Washington decides he doesn't want to govern a country whose confidence he's no longer fully enjoys.

 

[Evan]

Bump...

I really do like the idea of the losing party ceremoniously casting votes for Washington. If you do not mind, I would really like to use that for a future timeline.

Feel free. I might too, but it can be done twice.

In this case, the House would likely be voting between Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Pickney, and Jefferson. The house will probably deadlock for a while, but eventually resolve the deadlock in favor of Adams (a member of the centrist faction in this scenario, but still palatable to the High Federalists) if supporters of both challenger factions remain firm in their opposition to Washington, or if Washington decides he doesn't want to govern a country whose confidence he's no longer fully enjoys.

In that case, I'm afraid, Washington wouldn't run in the first place. iOTL, he'd drafted the first draft of his Farewell Address in 1792; it took Hamilton and Jefferson's united influence to convince him to stay on. Here, both sides are running candidates against him; I don't think he would. Though I could possibly see some electors voting for him anyway in a vain hope to keep the country united...

 

[Tank Cdr]

I think you might have an almost impossible task unless you do something totally ASB. There are plenty of scenarios where he does not run in 1792, but none where he would lose, unless he went bat-shit crazy or window-licking stupid!

 

[Evan]

Agreed. I've been trying to think of scenarios where he doesn't really run but still gets some electoral votes (fairly plausible).