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.
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.