A Noble Republic

The idea of America being a noble republic has been discussed before on these boards, and has rightly been dismissed as being ASB. But what about a republic with a more aristocratic leadership?

While reading Europe; the Struggle for Supremacy by Brendan Simms, I came across this passage, relating to the American Constitution;

'Americans rejected the alternative solution to their strategic predicament, which was to create a 'service nobility' on Russo-Prussian lines dedicated to the defence of their independence. To be sure, some patriots experimented with the idea of creating such an American aristocracy based on the veterans of the Revolutionary War. The resulting 'Society of the Cincinatti', was a 'society of friends' committed to preserving 'inviolate those exalted rights and liberties of human nature for which thet had fought and bled', to promoting 'union and national honour between the respective states ... of the American empire [sic!]', and extending acts of beneficience ... towards those officers and their families' in need. Despite considerable interest from prominent founding fathers, especially George Washington himself, however, the Cincinatti never got off the ground, largely because it impaled itself on the crucial question of heredity.'

Looking at a list of the early presidents of the society, it reads like an alternative set of American presidents;

George Washington 1783-1799
Alexander Hamilton 1800-1804
Charles C Pinckney 1805-1825
Thomas Pinckney 1825-1828

Admission to the society was restricted to officers who had fought in the Revolutionary War and their direct male descendants.

So what if there had been a more aristocratic constitution; one with universal male suffrage, but limiting those eligible to be President to only those who had served as officers in the war, and their direct descendants?
 
Last edited:
Yay - no more Thomas Jefferson as president!

Given that the the US had just rebelled against a regieme where birth was more important than talent (Wsahington himself was turned down for a post in the British Army due to his low birth) I can't see the idea getting off the ground.

That said a statute that limited the people who could stand for public office to people who served in the Armed Forces may work.
 
The one thing the you could say the American Revolution was about was a rejection of titled aristocracy. Anti-aristocratic populism would play well for generations of politicians afterwards. Just insinuating that something seemed aristocratic was enough to turn large swathes of American opinion against it.

It's not ASB to have something attempted, but it's ASB to have something accomplished without a civil war as part of the transition.
 
The one thing the you could say the American Revolution was about was a rejection of titled aristocracy. Anti-aristocratic populism would play well for generations of politicians afterwards. Just insinuating that something seemed aristocratic was enough to turn large swathes of American opinion against it.

It's not ASB to have something attempted, but it's ASB to have something accomplished without a civil war as part of the transition.

It's not really aristocracy as presented, though, is it? I could see the idea of service being a requirement for voting, with higher offices required for holding office, if you kept the idea of Great Britain coming back to reclaim its lost colonies again in the forefront of people's minds. Armies being what they are, especially back then, you'll get the higher-ranked officers acting as an unofficial aristocracy, helping their friends and relatives achieve the rank needed to hold higher office while their soldiers, assuming they don't massively screw up, vote for them out of a sense of loyalty. It could never be properly declared, but I think a more militant US could see an unofficial noble republic, assuming the public doesn't catch on before it becomes just a fact of life.
 
It's not really aristocracy as presented, though, is it? I could see the idea of service being a requirement for voting, with higher offices required for holding office, if you kept the idea of Great Britain coming back to reclaim its lost colonies again in the forefront of people's minds. Armies being what they are, especially back then, you'll get the higher-ranked officers acting as an unofficial aristocracy, helping their friends and relatives achieve the rank needed to hold higher office while their soldiers, assuming they don't massively screw up, vote for them out of a sense of loyalty. It could never be properly declared, but I think a more militant US could see an unofficial noble republic, assuming the public doesn't catch on before it becomes just a fact of life.

No, even then people will call it an aristocracy and agitate against it. Anything that even seemed to be about creating official or unofficial distinctions was highly controversial. There's a reason property requirements for suffrage started disappearing in this era.
 
Perhaps what is needed is a change in the atittude of the American elite. I don't think the American people could be dissuaded from their ideas about democracy in the short term, but perhaps the founding fathers may have changed their minds about the best way to organize the military.

After the Seven Years War there was much debate in Europe and America about the best way of organising the state and military. Two systems appear to have been in the ascendancy; Britain's form of parliamentary monarchy, and Prussia's form of absolute monarchy. Absolute monarchy was never going to appeal to Americans, but the service-nobility of Prussia might have. The aristocracy were expected to serve in the military or the administration in exchange for their privileges. If the emphasis is placed on the service rather than the privileges, it might have been attractive to Americans.

To make it more attractive, I propose that some time in the 1770's or 1780's Frederick the Great has another great military victory; one that rivals Hohenfriedberg, Rossbach, and Leuthen. In ATL Frederick seemed less aggressive after the Seven Years War, probably because Prussia came so close to destruction. Perhaps if Frederick had won the Battle of Kunersdorf in 1759, Prussia would have had an easier time of it, and Frederick may have gone on to greater successes, leading to a greater appreciation of the merits of the Prussian system in America.

In the 1780's Washington uses the Society of the Cincinatti as the basis for an American version of a service-nobility. Perhaps this leads to the restriction that Presidents must have served as officers, or perhaps merely to candidates from the new service-nobility having a greater reputation than others and tending to get elected.

Does that seem a stretch?
 
Last edited:
In the 1780's Washington uses the Society of the Cincinatti as the basis for an American version of a service-nobility. Perhaps this leads to the restriction that Presidents must have served as officers, or perhaps merely to candidates from the new service-nobility having a greater reputation than others and tending to get elected.

Does that seem a stretch?

Yes.

Yes it does.

Its still separating a speshul class apart from the people, and despite all evidence of the Revolution to the contrary, the belief in the militia springing to arms over a professional standing army was strong - so the idea of the service nobility as the military backbone of the country won't be that appealing even if you emphasize the responsibility part and people ignoring the speshul part.
 
Yes.

Yes it does.

Its still separating a speshul class apart from the people, and despite all evidence of the Revolution to the contrary, the belief in the militia springing to arms over a professional standing army was strong - so the idea of the service nobility as the military backbone of the country won't be that appealing even if you emphasize the responsibility part and people ignoring the speshul part.

But what if one stretches the requirement to count the militia as part of the military hierarchy a la Mughals?
 
But what if one stretches the requirement to count the militia as part of the military hierarchy a la Mughals?

That kind of dilutes the "Service nobility" bit, since we're talking about every (white?) man being potentially in the militia.

I don't see any reason why the Americans of this era are going to want any form of nobility, whatever Frederick has done in Prussia.
 
That kind of dilutes the "Service nobility" bit, since we're talking about every (white?) man being potentially in the militia.

I don't see any reason why the Americans of this era are going to want any form of nobility, whatever Frederick has done in Prussia.

Perhaps an arbitrary requirement would come into place preventing that.
 
I agree that the preference for a militia over a standing army was strong, but there are reasons for it, and presumably they could be overcome. A nation under threat and surrounded will do what it practically must to survive. To quote Hamilton from the Federalist Papers;

'Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct.'
 
The element of the people, in a government installed by them, is a problem.

If something is viewed by the people as odious, they are much more able to challenge it in a country like the USA than a country like Prussia.

So while we could Frederick kicking butt hard and long, and impressing the founders, they lack the means to impose this even if we win them over to the idea.
 
I think the USA is the democracy loving country it is, largely because of the events of this period. Things were more fluid than one might think.

Sean Wilentz says, in the prologue to The Rise of American Democracy;

'How "democratic" the governments produced by the American Revolution actually were was open to dispute then, and still is. But between 1776 and the ratification of the Federal Constitution in 1788, a shift certainly occured in the ways Americans, at every level of political society, talked and thought about democracy. At the outbreak of the Revolution, the necessity of a mixed government of the different social orders remained a widespread article of faith, except among the most radical patriots. As one of Thomas Paine's critics wrote, "No government was ever purely aristocratical or democratical-owing probably to the unavoidable evils incident to each." Eleven years later, when the Framers met in Philadelphia to design a new federal government, fears of democratic government, or of too much democratic government, were still palpable.

This 'mixed government of the different social orders' is quite close to the idea of a service-nobilty. Odious or not to the common American, given different circumstances leading up to 1787, it seems it may have been written into the constitution. And if it was, common Americans wouldn't have had as much as say in the way they were governed.

Yes, by the time they settled down to write the constitution the framers were gravitating more towards popular sovereignty, and so the people did end up having a great say. But isn't it the wrong way round to say that America was a country of people power, and so could never have put up with any kind of elitism? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that that is what it became, but it may have turned out differently?
 
Last edited:
The Framers were gravitating away from popular sovereignty by the time of the Philadelphia Convention. They saw what (they thought of as) democracy was doing in the states, the Constitution and the strengthening of the Federal government was an attempt to keep the gentile element in society in charge.

Any attempt to incorporate aristocracy into the Constitution means it doesn't pass muster when it goes out for ratification, full stop.
 
Yes, by the time they settled down to write the constitution the framers were gravitating more towards popular sovereignty, and so the people did end up having a great say. But isn't it the wrong way round to say that America was a country of people power, and so could never have put up with any kind of elitism? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that that is what it became, but it may have turned out differently?

Even if an aristocracy-favoring Constitution could be ratified, it would be very unpopular - and there's very little the government can do about that.

Frederick can impose his whims at point of bayonets - the Prussian army is strong enough to do so. The US government lacks such tools available to override popular feeling.

So the Founders can either try to ignore that or try to work with that, but they can't just annihilate it.
 
Frederick can impose his whims at point of bayonets - the Prussian army is strong enough to do so. The US government lacks such tools available to override popular feeling.

The main part of the divergence I'm proposing is that a standing army is formed that is led by a service-aristocracy, so maybe the government wouldn't lack such tools.

I agree, there are problems with this. Could a standing army be formed in the first place if the people were unanimously against it? No, but given an earlier POD allowing for hearts and minds to be changed, perhaps.

Could a standing army led by an aristocracy be formed in the first place, if the people were unanimously against it? Again, no, but that's why I'm searching for a POD that changes feelings towards a potential aristocracy. Perhaps I haven't found the right POD with Frederick at Kunersdorf in 1859, but there might be a better one.

As Alaric 112 said, the higher level of officers in the army forms a kind of aristocracy, even in our ATL, and this was tolerated by the masses. A clever leader could probably move things further in that direction without massive resistance.
 
The main part of the divergence I'm proposing is that a standing army is formed that is led by a service-aristocracy, so maybe the government wouldn't lack such tools.

Yes, I know what you're trying to do. I'm trying to tell you that Philadelphia (shorthand for "the US national government") does not have the ability to do this.

Frederick is not dependent on popular enthusiasm to find soldiers. Frederick is not dependent on negotiating with the regional subunits of Prussia for funds.

Philadelphia suffers, by contrast, from dependence in both fields. It had no ability to maintain the standing army it had in 1783 - so using it as a basis to build on is impossible.

I agree, there are problems with this. Could a standing army be formed in the first place if the people were unanimously against it? No, but given an earlier POD allowing for hearts and minds to be changed, perhaps.

Could a standing army led by an aristocracy be formed in the first place, if the people were unanimously against it? Again, no, but that's why I'm searching for a POD that changes feelings towards a potential aristocracy. Perhaps I haven't found the right POD with Frederick at Kunersdorf in 1859, but there might be a better one.

I don't think there is a POD that can change popular - as in the hoi polloi - feelings. You might impress men like Hamilton and Adams, you might even silence men like Jefferson, but Jack Continental - let alone Jack Militiaman - won't have any support for it. And as stated above, Philadelphia does not have the tools to coerce the recalcitrant because the people who would be serving as the manpower component of such tools themselves are the recalcitrant.

The component of feelings is also relevant. In the US, men feel themselves free men. In Prussia, the idea that one owes service to the government is much more entrenched - and also, the nobility already exists. Frederick is not creating an aristocratic class in a society without nobles.

As Alaric 112 said, the higher level of officers in the army forms a kind of aristocracy, even in our ATL, and this was tolerated by the masses. A clever leader could probably move things further in that direction without massive resistance.

And as Maninthefield pointed out: No, even then people will call it an aristocracy and agitate against it. Anything that even seemed to be about creating official or unofficial distinctions was highly controversial. There's a reason property requirements for suffrage started disappearing in this era.


No matter how clever the leader, there is no popular enthusiasm for this, and no ability for force to substitute for such. The idea flounders there, no matter what you have inspiring the Founders.
 
No matter how clever the leader, there is no popular enthusiasm for this, and no ability for force to substitute for such. The idea flounders there, no matter what you have inspiring the Founders.

Though it's fun to argue the case, I'm inclined to agree with you on most of your points, Elfwine. Can you imagine any POD that keeps a successful revolution, but also keeps the standing army?
 
Though it's fun to argue the case, I'm inclined to agree with you on most of your points, Elfwine. Can you imagine any POD that keeps a successful revolution, but also keeps the standing army?

You need to address the fact Congress cannot afford to maintain it in 1783. (Point d'argent, point de Suisse)

How you address that - you need something where the developments that forced Congress in the Revolution to be at the mercy of essentially voluntary contributions are changed, and how you do that with the men involved beats me. It took finding out how bad that was the hard way for it to be changed IRL, and even then the standing army the US maintained up to WWII except in war time was minimal.
 
Top