Adams in '89

Hey. My name's Brian and I signed up yesterday. I'm twenty-five and live in Brooklyn, NY, and have long been a history and AH buff.

Let's go.


I'm putzing around a scenario wherein General Washington dies after
the electoral college meets in 1789 but before the inauguration,
giving the office of the Presidency from the get-go to John Adams, the
runner-up and vice president-elect. What strikes me about this
possibility is the central unifying role that Washington played as
president; he was ultimately one of the few things the disparate
states had in common, a rallying figure who was lauded even after he
took unpopular moves (the Jay treaty in particular). He's also the man
responsible for the initial appointments to the Supreme Court, and his
Cabinet appointments set the stage for the next several decades of
political history as the Jefferson-Hamilton feud spilled over into
electoral politics. His service as a sort of sage-statesman provided
much of the glue that held the Union together and imbued the
Presidency with a sort of mystical authority which Jackson would later
use to his considerable advantage.

I am frankly not sure Adams is capable of doing that.

Lacking much political acumen, he was certainly a capable thinker and
diplomat, and did manage to deftly navigate between France and Britain
during that whole crisis, he nonetheless proved himself unable to
execute well the office entrusted to him, and was beset on all sides
by various factions, unwilling to align with any and thus the enemy of
all. He struggled to avoid being subject to Hamilton's party, while
his vice president served as a prominent critic of his administration.
Adams had a chaotic presidency.

The question is whether what was true in 1797 would be true in 1789.
Many of Adams' problems were caused by his unwillingness to gain
control of his cabinet, which he retained from Washington to provide
some sort of continuity of government and help establish his
legitimacy. Without Washington, though, he'd be unlikely to have that
same cabinet with the likely exception of Jefferson as his secretary
of state. Jefferson's staunch support for the French Revolutionary
government is likely to cause great friction and possibly a fissure in
the cabinet, but this isn't necessarily true; if it doesn't, Adams
might be much more capable of controlling events.

At the same time, though, Adams (while not a monarchist) was always a
bit of a personal tyrant, and unlikely to make any more friends in
Congress than he did serving as President of the Senate IRL. And, what
is more, in his first term at least he won't have a vice president at
all, and thus will lack an administration advocate in the upper house.
He will be judged by his own personality and actions alone, and will
lack the favorable comparisons Adams gave Washington with his
overbearing and somewhat odious demeanor. Adams still has his enemies
as President, and Congress will have no great affection for this
portly Massachusetts man; he may give a stirring funeral oration for
the General, but he isn't Washington, and never will be. Adams will
not be the father of anybody's country.

Now, with the Presidency so immediately discharged with such
questionable skill, what does this do to the office itself?
Historically we've benefited from Washington's mythic proportions
imbuing the office with an authority it would likely lack otherwise;
does an Adams-built presidency remain merely the slave of Congress?
And if that's the case, does America's want of a unifying figure
hinder the survival of the Union?

Much of the to-do of the Nullification crisis was abated by the sacred
reverence for which the Union -- and Washington -- was held, and even
the Nullifiers understood themselves as standing in the traditions of
the country's foundation even as they ultimately proved unable to
stand against that country. Washington provided glue. Adams may only
provide a solvent.
 
Welcome to the Board!!!!

This is an interesting POD for sure. However IIRC your history is a bit off, if the EC had not met yet than neither man is Pres or VP so if we follow the vote totals from that election its a Adams-Jay team. (Jay was the 1st chief justice so there is a butterfly). As for a cabinet, I still Jefferson at State, Hamilton at Treasury and Randolph as AG, War is anyone's guess although I think Knox still gets it (although War could go to any Southerner as a carrot).

As for how does this affect the Union? I think it disintegrates, You said it best Washington was the glue that held it together. He is essential to the whole show.
 
Thanks for the response. I tried to open with a scenario that isn't "War Ends Differently."

Washington dies *after* the electoral college votes, so he's already president-elect, and Adams vice president-elect.
 
Ok I guess I didn't follow the POD correctly. Keep in mind that there are several big "cliche" PODs Washington dies, the South Wins the Civil War, and the Nazis win WW2 are several of them. So don't take it personally that you don't get a lot of responses. I am one of the Early Republic geeks on the site so feel free to hit me up with questions via personal messages and I love these things so I will always comment :p.

back to the OP (original post), I think your analysis of Adams' character is correct. He simply doesn't have the political acumen to deal with the myraid of issues that present itself. I think while the union doesn't disintegrate immediately, several precedents are probably not established (particularly those relating to executive power). I think we would end up with a largely ceremonial position with most of the power being wielded by the speaker of the house. I think that we wouldn't have had a Bank of the US or many of the improvements advocated by Hamilton during his term as Secretary.
 
Haha, good to know there are other Early Republic geeks here. It's been a pretty big interest of mine for a bit now, and Adams is the standout figure in my mind the "thinker" of the Revolution.

Adams was, though, a vain and unlikeable man, and while a competent diplomat, certainly would have lacked the ability to serve as the personification of the country the way Washington was able. While I think your analysis of the possibility that the Presidency would devolve into a more ceremonial position -- a head of state rather than a head of government -- I'm not sure a country dominated by the Congress to the extent it would be during these tumultuous early years would be able to adequately address the sectional issues.

Frankly, the Union was extremely tenuous until after the Civil War, and I see no way for it to survive the difficult and cantankerous Adams. But let's assume it does.

How do the political issues of the day take shape? The first party system was centered on the Washington cabinet's inner politicking -- do we get Hamilton versus Jefferson? Would we see Democratic Republicans and Federalists? I mean, considering how many of Adams' difficulties were caused by his inability to control his cabinet, a cabinet he *inherited* from Washington. But instead, his cabinet is staffed by his own men. I can't see him picking Hamilton, although Jefferson at State is virtually assured.

So where does the political divide fall? Let's remember that 1789 is the year of Jefferson's dear French Revolution, and Adams would likely take a stronger line in opposing it than Washington did, causing -- eight years early -- the same rift between himself and Jefferson that historically emerged. And will Adams take a firm hand in governing the country, or will he still see himself as the slave of Congress? Adams was always a diplomat first.
 
Ok, the first problem to deal with is state finance and the second is diplomatic relations. Every single person in Congress both Continental and the new US congress could agree that the best two people were A. Hamilton and Robert Morris (Morris an associate of Adams' from the Revolution, who served on the Marine Committee with him), it says something that Morris recommended Hamilton to Washington in OTL. The rift between Hamilton and Adams didn't occur until the 1792 when Hamilton pushed Federalist support for Thomas? or Charles? Pinckney (not C.C. however) instead of Adams, before that Adams seems to have had respect if not any particular affection for him. So it is plausible to assume that the rift never develops. Adams while being less financially literate than Hamilton could certainly grasp what Assumption was about, in OTL Adams cast the deciding vote in favor of Assumption in the Senate. I think Assumption remains intact although diluted as to NOT include the Whiskey excise, but I think we still get the Tarriffs and the Bank but just barely.

As for Adams and Jefferson, that is difficult to say; I always found Jefferson to be duplicitious, conspicuously self-serving and class centered for someone who claimed to be so honest. I think he would back Adams out of personal friendship but if Adams came down on the Bank the way I think he would than I think we see a rift although not a severe one, that may grow over or may not depending upon Adams reaction to the French Rev. Remember he passed up a popular war with France in favor of his rightly belief that a war would have strangled us in the cradle. I think Adams would wisely stay out of it. He more than anyone could see the decadence of Louis XVI's France. I suggest reading Edmund Morris's John Adams, in it Abigail gives a rather vivid view of France pre-rev that really puts it in perspective, IIRC it was either him or her who wrote a letter stating that a bloody revolution was coming for France. So I think he sits by and watches; if Citizen Genet comes (he knew his Father in France pre-rev) I think he will recognize him and deal with him although will refuse requests for aid. So we may end up in a Quasi-war type of situation anyway. Basically, I think he stays out and probably serves two very tumultuous terms, and then passes it on to Jefferson. Or he serves one tumultous term and then passes it to Jefferson. By 1789 Adams had spent almost 30 years in public service and was ready to retire so I think he may leave after one term especially if things aren't going to well.
 
Top