America splits over question of Gov .Kingdom of Virginia

Hamilton was in support of an ELECTIVE MONARCHY, that is FACT. He made a speech in favor of it standing before the Constitutional Convention, it can't get any more "on the record" than that! No one in this thread said it had to be a hereditary or absolute monarchy.

A president for life is not the same thing, and this assumes that Hamiton wasn't playing people to get them to go along with a more sensible position.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
A president for life is not the same thing, and this assumes that Hamiton wasn't playing people to get them to go along with a more sensible position.

Well, if they are the legislature, the executive, and the head of state all in one, I'm at a loss to point out the difference - if they were just the executive, then it can still be described as akin to a constitutional monarchy - the only difference being that he is called Mr.President, rather than your Majesty.

Also, you're assuming that he was - it is perfectly intellectually accurate to keep someone in context, and use that as an indication of belief - I won't argue either way but if either side can bring forth proof of their stance - where Hamilton says, in public, without what can be taken as an OBVIOUS joke, that he was for or against a monarchy, it is perfectly reasonable to take them at their word regarding their political beliefs.

The equivalent of what you just suggested is me saying I'm for waffles, that I love them, stating this on a podium, but secretly hating them. You haven't provided proof I hate waffles, your just saying "but he might not really actually like waffles!"
 
A president for life is not the same thing, and this assumes that Hamiton wasn't playing people to get them to go along with a more sensible position.

Given the length of the speech he gave, it was quite lengthy and very pro-monarchy, plus he even called upon the Constitutional Convention to vote for his proposal, which they did vote after more debate and voted down Hamilton's proposal. Plus the evidence that throughout the Federalist Papers which were supposed to get the people to agree with the new Constitution as written, he continued to subtly hint that a stronger executive for life would have been even better. So I would say all that evidence would suggest he was pro-executive for life with wide-ranging strong executive powers, which is and was back then called an elected monarchy.
 
Would Washington have really have managed to get that position with all the leaders of the country who came from the state IOTL? And the Lees, The House of Burgesses, etc. I don't see him being able to take the New England manned Continental Army to take control against them. Him being sterile would also cause issues down the line.
 
While it is true that VA had a lot of leaders come out of it during the ARW .None were quite George Washington ,the man who won the revolution too the average American .Whatever someone else did it paled in comparison to that in the eyes of the people .Plus in OTL they made our current government with a Washington presidency in mind as being the first .
Does not seem so far fetched for the state to say that they want their greatest hero to lead them .As for the sterility ?Maybe the Lord Protector can choose his successor and the parliament votes whether or not he will be next in the position .
 
Wow I thought for sure that someone would shoot my last post down .:confused:

I like your idea, and I can see Virginia doing that. Who would Washington have picked though? With Hamilton I assume staying in his "home" state of NY (he was actually born in the Caribbean) and Lafayette obviously being in France... maybe he does pick Jefferson?
 
Or maybe he picks another man who he meets during his Protector ship .When did George Washington die OTL ?And would who else could he choose if he went with someone other than Jefferson .
 
Washington died in 1799. He was relatively young, as Washingtons tended to die young and it is believed to be epiglottitis complicated by blood-letting and just the basic medical knowledge of the time. I doubt being a king, or president-for-life, would make a difference to his death by more than a couple years either way (he could very well die earlier if he insisted in leading troops against a war with Pennsylvania along Braddock's Road because he knew the terrain to and around modern Pittsburgh and up to Erie, PA is one instance).

One interesting possibility though I don't know how great it would be, but it would be fun is this- In OTL Henry Lee III makes one of the greatest eulogy about Washington "First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen". Let's say Washington had made some hints that Lee was a front runner. And then Lee still makes this great passionate eulogy. Lee is probably certain to be elected president for life. If he is... he has quite the talented son... Robert E. Lee. Now in OTL Henry Lee III died when Robert was very young (less than 10), had money issues, left the family and I doubt Robert grew up with any memory of his father. In this ATL Henry would be king, would have no money issues, and I assume would be a better husband and father simply for appearances sake. Robert E. Lee may not be the man we know from OTL Civil War, but he may make a good third "president for life" and begin the transition from an elected monarchy to a hereditary position. A possibility maybe someone would want to play with and see how history unfolds.
 
I could see a Virginian monarchy being formed, and Washington as its first head would be possible, because he had no children and they might just give it to him, just as some sort of reward for his service. I could see tyhe First Families creating some sort of Aristocratic council, and dominating the nation, possibily electing Kings from those families or alowing one of the families to take over hereditarily. Without outside inmtervention, the OTL area of Virginia could do well, but depending on its level of centralized, aristocratic control, the areas of Kentucky and West Virginia may eventually prove to be somewhat of a problem, their residents being less English and without the same level of large landowners in control.
 
Maybe in the future the kingdom plunges into a civil war as a result of regional differences.Which then escalates into a full continental war with every nation from New York to Mexico taking part .Maybe it even causes a war in Europe .
Also maybe instead of Napoleon selling French North America he manages to subdue the rebellion in Haiti and then gets exiled to Haiti and from their takes Louisiana from France who kept it all along .England let`s them because then it serves as a buffer between Mexico and the former colonies .They think it will stop war ,or they think within ten years Napoleon will lose it because he does not have resources enough to hold it from a major nation .Only other nations don,t want to fight the best General who ever lived and leave his North American empire alone .
 
Top