A Failed American Experiment

I thought of this ideas after reading through another thread, I'm sure most of us have heard that George Washington was offered the American crown and there was even an idea to give it to Prince Henry of Prussia. to form an American monarchy instead of a republic. But what if the Constitution failed like Articles of Confederation, what if there was some large rebellion for some reason or something, anything to convince founding fathers that their new government was too unstable. What could we see as the new government and who would lead it? Could we see a return to the idea of a monarchy?
 
Most of the founding fathers were pretty violently opposed to the very idea of monarchy so the Articles would have to fail pretty spectacularly for that to happen and if the US did get so bad that happened they'd likely just petition the English to take them back rather than form their own monarchy.
 
What about a failed United States evolving on a path similar to Argentina? Perhaps with a figure like Juan Manuel de Rosas as its leader (I've always liked the idea of Andrew Jackson being that sort of dictator). Power would be based in the figure of the governor of New York or Pennsylvania, most likely. The other contendors would be Virginia and Massachusetts, and possibly North Carolina. Everything else would be in the shadow of those states.

Or perhaps instead, just simply a military dictatorship, Latin America-style. They'll use the example of Ancient Rome as a justification for their seizure of power.

Speaking of Latin America, if the revolutions there aren't butterflied and still occur, they certainly won't be looking to the United States as an inspiration, but rather something to avoid.
 
The United States is essentially an elective monarchy with parliamentary control over the finances surely? Executive, judiciary and legislature being separate pillars of the Constitution is heavily based on how the British monarchy was supposed to work.
 
The United States is essentially an elective monarchy with parliamentary control over the finances surely? Executive, judiciary and legislature being separate pillars of the Constitution is heavily based on how the British monarchy was supposed to work.

A ruler being elected for life, basically? Would there be elections in this system at all? At the most mild, that just sounds like the US without Washington establishing the taboo against running for more than two terms.
 
Sorry! Obviously not clear enough in expressing myself. I meant that, in OTL and similar TLs, the U.S. President is essentially an elected monarch for a four year term (plus as many more as term limits, if they exist, allow). Mandate from the people rather than a Mandate of Heaven but based on C18th ideas of how an ideal monarchy would work. There could be many variants on that, e.g. single seven year term or, as you say, elected for life.
If the Constitution failed, we might see a much weaker Executive consisting of committees of Congress or each state providing a "President" for the American States on a rotating principle on a one or two year basis (to act as a final court of appeal, casting vote and co-ordinator of military and diplomatic activities).
 
Sorry! Obviously not clear enough in expressing myself. I meant that, in OTL and similar TLs, the U.S. President is essentially an elected monarch for a four year term (plus as many more as term limits, if they exist, allow). Mandate from the people rather than a Mandate of Heaven but based on C18th ideas of how an ideal monarchy would work. There could be many variants on that, e.g. single seven year term or, as you say, elected for life.
If the Constitution failed, we might see a much weaker Executive consisting of committees of Congress or each state providing a "President" for the American States on a rotating principle on a one or two year basis (to act as a final court of appeal, casting vote and co-ordinator of military and diplomatic activities).
The point of a Monarchy is that they rule for life. Even in elective monarchies like Cambodia and the Vatican, they rule for life.
 
"Monarch" just means "Single ruler" -one man/woman. All the rest is dictated by custom/tradition. And even those you quote can abdicate. Remember that the U.S. President has a lot more power in practice than the German Kaiser had.
 
Sorry! Obviously not clear enough in expressing myself. I meant that, in OTL and similar TLs, the U.S. President is essentially an elected monarch for a four year term (plus as many more as term limits, if they exist, allow). Mandate from the people rather than a Mandate of Heaven but based on C18th ideas of how an ideal monarchy would work. There could be many variants on that, e.g. single seven year term or, as you say, elected for life.
If the Constitution failed, we might see a much weaker Executive consisting of committees of Congress or each state providing a "President" for the American States on a rotating principle on a one or two year basis (to act as a final court of appeal, casting vote and co-ordinator of military and diplomatic activities).

So in other words, the United States elects a dictator for four years, and he can do as he pleases and pass whatever laws he wants, but after four years, he's out and has to answer to the people. An interesting thought experiment and a cool idea for a book.
 
Your confusing the word monarch with dictator.

George III wasn't a dictator, his powers were limited by law.
And the US constitutional set-up is very clearly inspired by the British one, it's why the US president has so many hats: Head of State, Head of Government, Commander-in-Chief, Foreign Minister, etc.
 
Top