DBWI: a USA without him?

Daniel Blaine Williams I is the hero of the ARW.
But what if he never was or died early?
Would there be a US without his mediation of the feud between Generals Arnold and Washington?
Would Benjamin Franklin have got his triune model of the Executive (ie 1st to 3rd Execs) into the Constitution without his support?
And even assuming OTL happens similarly what about the tragic death of his grandson DBW II - would there be a Federal Republic of the Colorado? Especially with his publicised views as an Abolitionist. How soon would slavery end?

OOC: that should be enough for you to get on with!
 
Daniel Blaine Williams I is the hero of the ARW.
But what if he never was or died early?
Would there be a US without his mediation of the feud between Generals Arnold and Washington?
Would Benjamin Franklin have got his triune model of the Executive (ie 1st to 3rd Execs) into the Constitution without his support?
And even assuming OTL happens similarly what about the tragic death of his grandson DBW II - would there be a Federal Republic of the Colorado? Especially with his publicised views as an Abolitionist. How soon would slavery end?

OOC: that should be enough for you to get on with!
Without Blaine, arnold defects to the British, but French aids means the Americans win away.
Given the way politicians are, they'd kick slavery down the road until around the 1830s, 40s at the latest.
OOC: Triune model? Please explain more differences in TTL.
 

samcster94

Banned
Without Blaine, arnold defects to the British, but French aids means the Americans win away.
Given the way politicians are, they'd kick slavery down the road until around the 1830s, 40s at the latest.
OOC: Triune model? Please explain more differences in TTL.
OOC: A triune model as in three men would lead instead of a single executive(think ancient Rome pre-Empire with the two consuls).
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Without Blaine, arnold defects to the British, but French aids means the Americans win away.
Given the way politicians are, they'd kick slavery down the road until around the 1830s, 40s at the latest.
OOC: Triune model? Please explain more differences in TTL.

Benedict Arnold, one of the most esteemed of the founding fathers, defecting to the British. Well, I'll give you points for originality! But it's borderline ASB, and you know it. Without Blaine around, the whole thing with Arnold and Washington will have to be resolved in a less diplomatic manner. Given their background, I'm pretty confident Arnold would eventually get overall command. Washington had a lot of supporters, but Benedict Arnold... well, he's Benedict Arnold. Just look at his OTL record during the rest of the war. And in any case, the triune model worked out pretty well, and he had to work along with Washington when they were both Triumviri along with Blaine. Went fine.

I'm with you on slavery, though. Blaine convinced Washington to take a firmer anti-slavery stance in the first place, and Washington brought in Alexander Hamilton and John Laurens - first as executive secretaries working for the Triumvirate, then as members of the second and third Triumvirates. Those men (along with Arnold, who sided with them) were all instrumental in paving the way for slavery's end. Without the Triumvirate model, who knows what the USA would have ended up with! In all likelihood, it would be a government less inclined to act against slavery. The USA got very lucky in OTL!
 
Benedict Arnold, one of the most esteemed of the founding fathers, defecting to the British. Well, I'll give you points for originality! But it's borderline ASB, and you know it. Without Blaine around, the whole thing with Arold and Washington will have to be resolved in a less diplomatic manner. Given their background, I'm pretty confident Arnold would eventually get overall command. Washington had a lot of supporters, but benedict Arnold... well, he's Benedict Arnold. Just look at his OTL record during the rest of the war. And in any case, the triune model worked out pretty well, and he had to work along with Washington when they were both Triumviri. Went fine.
Without Daniel, no one's helping Arnold navigate the Continental Congress. The Congress would be even more fractured and contested, which would make morale and inflation worse. It's possible that, in this environment, they would've passed him over for promotion. This, combined with the rivalry with Washington, makes him bitter and angry, and angry people do stupid things. He might not defect, but it's possible that he'd spy a bit. Send some plans over, perhaps.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Without Daniel, no one's helping Arnold navigate the Continental Congress. The Congress would be even more fractured and contested, which would make morale and inflation worse. It's possible that, in this environment, they would've passed him over for promotion. This, combined with the rivalry with Washington, makes him bitter and angry, and angry people do stupid things. He might not defect, but it's possible that he'd spy a bit. Send some plans over, perhaps.

Nothing is impossible, I guess. But there's no sure way to know he'd be passed over for promotion. At that point, he was the "flashier" war hero, out of the two. And whereas Arnold hadn't ever been anything but a patriot (rising from the militia), Washington started his career serving the British. What I'm trying to say... isn't it just as likeky (or unlikely, as the case may be) that Washington gets passed over for promotion and then defects out of spite? Both possibilities seem equally (un)likely to me.
 
OOC: Ok, but do they get elected at the same time? Are there vice-executives? What if they hate each other? I need more information!
OOC: already answered above as being co-execs though I did wonder if someone would give them specific roles each eg supreme justice etc.
I would assume they would get elected as third triumvir/executive then move up to 2nd then 1st as the first leaves office after 6 years or so.

IC:
Interesting about thoughts on Arnold as would have expected Washington to be more inclined to the British if their feud escalated!
 
Nothing is impossible, I guess. But there's no sure way to know he'd be passed over for promotion. At that point, he was the "flashier" war hero, out of the two. And whereas Arnold hadn't ever been anything but a patriot (rising from the militia), Washington started his career serving the British. What I'm trying to say... isn't it just as likeky (or unlikely, as the case may be) that Washington gets passed over for promotion and then defects out of spite? Both possibilities seem equally (un)likely to me.
I think it's more likely that Arnold would defect if he was passed over. It's equally likely that either could be passed over*, but Arnold would defect out of resentment. As you said, he's flashy. Big, bold, glorious, famous... And then they go over his head for a surveyor! He'd be pissed.
*I still think that Washington would have been chosen for promotion. He had more experience, understood British strategies, helped create the first Congress, and served on it. Arnold got some excellent victories, but he rose from the militia, who time and again had run from battle, deserted, or refused orders. He was also a common businessman, unlike the aristocratic planter of Washington, so class plays into it.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I think it's more likely that Arnold would defect if he was passed over. It's equally likely that either could be passed over*, but Arnold would defect out of resentment. As you said, he's flashy. Big, bold, glorious, famous... And then they go over his head for a surveyor! He'd be pissed.
*I still think that Washington would have been chosen for promotion. He had more experience, understood British strategies, helped create the first Congress, and served on it. Arnold got some excellent victories, but he rose from the militia, who time and again had run from battle, deserted, or refused orders. He was also a common businessman, unlike the aristocratic planter of Washington, so class plays into it.

That last bit gives me a whole other idea: if we go with Washington getting the promotion, might that lead to a more aristocratic / class-oriented USA? In OTL, we saw egalitarian influences from the north dominate early on. Aside from Washington himself, the southern planter class was largely unrepresented on the highest level. If we go with a TL where Washington gets the top spot, does the USA become "Virginia writ large"? With planters fancying themselves aristocrats, that kind of thing?

I mean, we all know the kind of world the rebels were dreaming of during the short-lived Planters' Revolt, when they realised slavery was going to be abolished. They wanted to create a kind of neo-feudal social order! I shudder to imagine a timeline where the whole USA ends up like that.
 
That last bit gives me a whole other idea: if we go with Washington getting the promotion, might that lead to a more aristocratic / class-oriented USA? In OTL, we saw egalitarian influences from the north dominate early on. Aside from Washington himself, the southern planter class was largely unrepresented on the highest level. If we go with a TL where Washington gets the top spot, does the USA become "Virginia writ large"? With planters fancying themselves aristocrats, that kind of thing?

I mean, we all know the kind of world the rebels were dreaming of during the short-lived Planters' Revolt, when they realised slavery was going to be abolished. They wanted to create a kind of neo-feudal social order! I shudder to imagine a timeline where the whole USA ends up like that.
Egalaitarian ideas are strong in the north. What if the north is egalitarian and the south is planter-aristocratic, with the difference being slavery? There's a civil war condition right there. You'd need a run of excellent politicians to keep it together.
 

samcster94

Banned
Egalaitarian ideas are strong in the north. What if the north is egalitarian and the south is planter-aristocratic, with the difference being slavery? There's a civil war condition right there. You'd need a run of excellent politicians to keep it together.
I read a book where that is exactly what happened, the North won but handled improving the lives of ex-slaves poorly and just gave up.
 
I wonder if we would see a weaker executive? With no Triumvirate, which was so crucial to 1st American Republic, it is likely they would use the legislative branch as a counter, or raise the judiciary as its own branch of government as opposed to a part of the executive branch.

Blaine's military reforms and as he coined it "People's Government, People's Army, People's Nation" would the U.S have pursued their military expansion and reforms? The State-Army system worked well for the first republic even though today it gets a bad rap due to its poor performance during the IInd War of Independence, which considering they were up against the British Army fresh from albeit temporary victories in Portugal and Northern Germany during the war of the 3rd Coalition was not so bad. Having 13 (and so on for each additional state) separate militaries during peacetime which would be united during war time was a good compromise during early atmosphere of the Ist Republic. If the military during peacetime was under solely federal control the states would have been too scared to ratify the Articles of Union in 1784, looking at state constitutions during this time period and how, in many ways, their governments were built to protect against so-called 'tyranny' I think the attitudes of the independent states was pretty clear.

I wonder if a single executive system, even if it lead to a weaker executive and stronger legislature and independent judiciary, would have been safer than the Triumvirate. After all, we all know how the 1st Republic met its end. The Planters revolt and the removal of Triun John C. Calhoun during said revolt might have been the right thing to do but it set a bad precedent. One which General Andrew Jackson and his older Brother, Triun Robert Jackson exploited to end the 1st American Republic and the United States of America forming the American National Union in 1832, with R. Jackson and A. Jackson as the two Consuls. The IIIrd War of Independence of 1836-1842 was obviously a very important part of American History. While in Europe Napoleon II's intervention on the American side is often viewed as the turning point of the war in 1840, the British invasion of Ohio and New England was a disaster, Jackson's professional legions performed better than the British in many battles. American generalship outside the two Jackson brothers (of whom Robert had to stay in Columbia City [OOC: Capital of ANU/USA located in OTL D.C] was notoriously poor and cost many American lives. Andrew Jackson's Canada campaign which ended in the liberation of Canada is perhaps one of the most well executed in American history. The younger generation of officers, men like later Consul Winfield Scott and of course Daniel Blaine III grandson of the D.B Sr. would determine the future of American history.

How Winfield Scott and Daniel Blaine III fought together seems a mystery to many today who look at the later Rocky Mountain War, and the short lived Federal Republic of Colorado, sometimes attributed merely to the rancor between the two great men. Of course, they would also fight together in the Texas War but that was if often overlooked so it is not always brought up as often. While Blaine III might have died in battle, eventually Scott was forced to step down a mere two years after the end of the war in 1854, this restoration of the United States and the creation of the Third American Republic is considered perhaps one of the most important events in U.S history. Of course, a system with no executive leadership was doomed to fail from the start. The creation of the Fourth Republic in 1863 just averted a civil war between Federalists and Nationalists. Had Lincoln lived to serve out the third of his four year terms by 1872 the Fourth American Republic might have lasted longer than a decade after Lincoln's death.

Imagining a world without Daniel Blaine Williams is almost as hard as imagining one with Emperor Napoleon, Alexander the Great, or even Custer! (Without Blaine's influence on America who knows if Custer would have risen to power in America and restored the National Union). Without Daniel Blaine Williams North America would be unalterably altered perhaps for the better, perhaps for the worse.
 
I'd like it better if the question was "ICWI?" It's like the old quote, "Behind every great man is a great women, and Isabelle Crane Williams I was the greatest." Without her "Votes for women" push, Abigail Adams couldn't possibly have become the first Vice President and second President of the Quincy City Council.
 
Well, as my name implies, I am a huge fan of Benedict Arnold, but please bare with me.

I think that without Williams, I could see a power struggle emerging between Arnold and Washington. Washington may have been more liked in Congress and the Southeast, but Arnold was the military mastermind of the Revolution, if the struggle went to war, it's Arnold's win.

Now what I've always found interesting is what Arnold would have done as sole ruler of the US? He wasn't that big on democratic processes and was always a gloryhound, so I'm pretty sure he would pull a Napoleon and declare himself emperor. I mean, who can blame him? Son of a drunk in middle of nowhere New England becoming the smartest member of the American Triumvirate and then winning a war against Washington. I don't see how anybody could argue with those credentials.
 

I think you meant to post this in the Jacksonian Wars Thread over on RolePlay!
While the Jacksonian domination of the Triune could have lead to the end of the US rather than the Civil War we're discussing the implications of no Daniel Blaine Williams I.

OOC: Sorry but we've already established the in-universe assumption that the Triune Executive is stable and you've overdone the destruction of it!


Well, as my name implies, I am a huge fan of Benedict Arnold, but please bare with me.

I think that without Williams, I could see a power struggle emerging between Arnold and Washington. Washington may have been more liked in Congress and the Southeast, but Arnold was the military mastermind of the Revolution, if the struggle went to war, it's Arnold's win.

Now what I've always found interesting is what Arnold would have done as sole ruler of the US? He wasn't that big on democratic processes and was always a gloryhound, so I'm pretty sure he would pull a Napoleon and declare himself emperor. I mean, who can blame him? Son of a drunk in middle of nowhere New England becoming the smartest member of the American Triumvirate and then winning a war against Washington. I don't see how anybody could argue with those credentials.

Exactly. Plus a single executive office like the Presidencies of some Latin Republics could concentrate power too much in one person and destabilise the Union.
I can imagine the results of a Benedictine America would almost certainly lead to a real war against Britain rather than the odd proxy war as OTL.[/QUOTE]
 
I think we're overestimating the importance of one person. Without DWBI, we'd probably still have a triune executive, but one of the three original members would be someone different. And it'd probably be someone who was also in the triune IOTL. If we take Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson chaos, then any one of them would fair better dealing with Washington and Arnold than they did with each other.
 
I think we're overestimating the importance of one person. Without DWBI, we'd probably still have a triune executive, but one of the three original members would be someone different. And it'd probably be someone who was also in the triune IOTL. If we take Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson chaos, then any one of them would fair better dealing with Washington and Arnold than they did with each other.
Madison?
OOC:Who is this Daniel Blaine Williams guy?Can't find him using google.
OOC: completely made up so his initials are DBWI ;). We've established he's the hero of the ARW, caused Arnold and Washington to work together, and was First Executive of the Triune Executive Office of the United States of America (or whatever makes a better acronym than Potus!)
 
Top