AHC: An American "Napoleon"

Winfield Scott maybe? Man, that could be so awesome, even if made into a cracky/fun timeline, that could be so awesome.

*-*

If not that then we just go cliche with George MCClellan.:p:p:p:p
 
The challenge here is to have the early United States taken over by a Napoleon like dictator. Extra points if the dictator is a military genius.

People sometimes call Robert E Lee "The American Napoleon" Because of how he was able to win so many battles against a more industrialised, larger, more populated nation.
 
Winfield Scott maybe? Man, that could be so awesome, even if made into a cracky/fun timeline, that could be so awesome.

*-*

If not that then we just go cliche with George MCClellan.:p:p:p:p

A Civil War in the 1840s maybe, with Scott leading the Union forces? Because its earlier the war is a lot more even industrially, and the Union wins after a long dragged out affair thanks to Scott's leadership? Scott either then goes on to win the Presidency in the first election and takes executive control or is put in place via a coup maybe at the end of the war.
 
People sometimes call Robert E Lee "The American Napoleon" Because of how he was able to win so many battles against a more industrialised, larger, more populated nation.

He didn't have a fraction of Napoleon's success record. The only American General you could really imagine on the same level would be the aforementioned Winfield Scott, who I don't think ever lost a battle, and like Nappy did some impressive stuff on long supply lines.
 
People love to say Hamilton could be the American Napoleon, which is hilarious because he's the guy who said "so the French Revolution's gonna end with a military dictator, I'm telling you all!"
 
He didn't have a fraction of Napoleon's success record. The only American General you could really imagine on the same level would be the aforementioned Winfield Scott, who I don't think ever lost a battle, and like Nappy did some impressive stuff on long supply lines.

I know he didn't have that, but some Historians refer to him that way. I wasn't making an argument.
 
People love to say Hamilton could be the American Napoleon, which is hilarious because he's the guy who said "so the French Revolution's gonna end with a military dictator, I'm telling you all!"

He also wanted to March the army through Virginia, hang the Republicans, and then march on and conquer Mexico, so there’s that
 
He also wanted to March the army through Virginia, hang the Republicans, and then march on and conquer Mexico, so there’s that
I mean, if you listen to Jefferson, sure. His own writings don't show a desire to hang the Republicans.
 
He didn't have a fraction of Napoleon's success record. The only American General you could really imagine on the same level would be the aforementioned Winfield Scott, who I don't think ever lost a battle, and like Nappy did some impressive stuff on long supply lines.
Wouldn’t Andrew Jackson have a better chance considering the man actually became president and was quite authoritarian,plus having a equally brilliant military record?He was also a populist.
 
George Washington, after a series of bizarre events, becomes disillusioned with republicanism (but not democracy) and declares himself Caesar at the constitutional convention.
 
ACW maybe?

A leader that manages to utterly shatter Union armies, with brilliant tactics and superior positioning. Following the end of the war declares himself as dictator of the USA and get's away with reuniting the country by giving state rights over Federal.
 
Benedict Arnold doesn't turn traitor, does a better job with his PR and uses either the Quasi-War or the War of 1812 as the opening to "take control" in the name of ensuring stability/repelling the foreign invader.
 
Wouldn’t Andrew Jackson have a better chance considering the man actually became president and was quite authoritarian,plus having a equally brilliant military record?He was also a populist.

I suppose you could say yes and no. Because on the "no" side of the ledger, he did become President IOTL, and never came particularly close to overturning the Constitutional order. I don't think Scott would have been inclined to do it either had he become President, but you're still dealing with more of an unknown quantity in that regard.
 
Wouldn’t Andrew Jackson have a better chance considering the man actually became president and was quite authoritarian,plus having a equally brilliant military record?He was also a populist.
Give Jackson a bigger nullification crisis, invent a financial crisis as a result, render Congress intransigent (half blaming Jackson and refusing to sit in session, half quietly telling Jackson they will back him no matter what he decides to do) and BOOM.
 
Top