DBWI: George Washington is not looking for a third term?

As you all know, although George Washington was reluctant to seek a third presidential term, he eventually accepted and ruled for four more years for a total of about 12 years (1789-1801) and that changed the country.

What if he refused a third term? Vice President John Adams and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson may have run, but they were among the favorites.

How different would the events after 1796 be if he hadn't applied?
 
Perhaps the coup of 1801 wouldn't have happened with his step-grandson George Washington Custis becoming Emperor of the Fourth Rome for 56 years.
 
Well, a lot depends on who exactly replaces him. After all, Adams and Jefferson had wildly different politics. One thing we can say for sure however, given the critical moment that Washington started his third term on, would be that there'd be a critical moment of administrative weakness just as disagreements with the 1st French Republic were coming to a head over the piracy of American commerce. I can't imagine any other candidate who'd have carried the same level of respect or been able to present the prospect of an unshakable administrative front among the French that was so vital in getting Talleyrand to blink and concede to American freedom of the seas unconditionally. That really helped keep the budget balanced and helped spur the sprouting of New England's infant industries as the Jacobian Wars lead to Europe's inability to fully supply their own colonies.
 
Well, for one he probably wouldn't have passed away so soon after leaving office. I mean the office of the presidency was (and now even more so) so bloody stressful and wears out people so fast.
 
As you all know, although George Washington was reluctant to seek a third presidential term, he eventually accepted and ruled for four more years for a total of about 12 years (1789-1801) and that changed the country.

What if he refused a third term? Vice President John Adams and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson may have run, but they were among the favorites.

How different would the events after 1796 be if he hadn't applied?

Good question! For one, Adams and Jefferson were about the only ones who would have been in any real contention in 1796-Hamilton wouldn't run until 1800 so it's probably just going to be those two; And considering that he was the VP, many historians argue that he, if anyone, would have been the favorite, as he was in 1808 in the real world. (Which leads me to wonder how an earlier James Madison Presidency might have dealt with the War of 1812; IOTL, Adams was widely regarded as having essentially bungled the peace, despite successfully fending off the British-he ended up giving away much of the northern half of the Illinois Territory as an effort to just get some of the more unfriendly Great Lakes Native Americans off our backs.)

Well, a lot depends on who exactly replaces him. After all, Adams and Jefferson had wildly different politics. One thing we can say for sure however, given the critical moment that Washington started his third term on, would be that there'd be a critical moment of administrative weakness just as disagreements with the 1st French Republic were coming to a head over the piracy of American commerce. I can't imagine any other candidate who'd have carried the same level of respect or been able to present the prospect of an unshakable administrative front among the French that was so vital in getting Talleyrand to blink and concede to American freedom of the seas unconditionally. That really helped keep the budget balanced and helped spur the sprouting of New England's infant industries as the Jacobian Wars lead to Europe's inability to fully supply their own colonies.

Interesting point here. I do think Jefferson had some clout with the French-after all, he was able to convince Napoleon to sell Louisiana back in 1803, so it probably wouldn't have been too much more difficult. (On the other hand, though, Paris certainly wasn't all that happy when John Adams won in 1808.....)
 
OOC: while not impossible, you need to give a personality transplant to Washington, who didn't really want the second term, plus there is the issue that the consensus that formed around him becoming the first President developed precisely because everyone knew he wouldn't try to make himself a dictator.
 
Well, for one he probably wouldn't have passed away so soon after leaving office. I mean the office of the presidency was (and now even more so) so bloody stressful and wears out people so fast.

The man lived to the ripe old age of 72, which for someone in that time wasn't exactly an unimpressive lifespan. Indeed, there's a not insubstantial faction of historians who assert that having four more years away from humid Mount Vernon and in the care of New York's quality physicians, as well as removing the potential anxiety in retirement by having the additional time to create a solid foundation of policies and prosperity for both the nation and his Federalist allies may have actually extended his life a few years. Not to discount the stresses of the office: heaven knows the hours you have to put in! But Washington was a unique case.

Good question! For one, Adams and Jefferson were about the only ones who would have been in any real contention in 1796-Hamilton wouldn't run until 1800 so it's probably just going to be those two; And considering that he was the VP, many historians argue that he, if anyone, would have been the favorite, as he was in 1808 in the real world. (Which leads me to wonder how an earlier James Madison Presidency might have dealt with the War of 1812; IOTL, Adams was widely regarded as having essentially bungled the peace, despite successfully fending off the British-he ended up giving away much of the northern half of the Illinois Territory as an effort to just get some of the more unfriendly Great Lakes Native Americans off our backs.)



Interesting point here. I do think Jefferson had some clout with the French-after all, he was able to convince Napoleon to sell Louisiana back in 1803, so it probably wouldn't have been too much more difficult. (On the other hand, though, Paris certainly wasn't all that happy when John Adams won in 1808.....)

Hamilton was really always more of a bureaucrat than a politician: he didn't earn the nickname "Father of The District of Columbia" for nothing, so I'll have to agree there. Even his 1800 run was really more of a self-preservation gambit and symbolic gesture for New England over fears of what policies Jefferson might implement if he got Washington's level of control over the government and it's personnel. Still, thanks for bringing him up: that's another factor we can say for certain is affected irregardless of who gets elected in 96'. 4 less years of his biggest supporter in office (especially considering the degree of Congressional administrative deference a proposal would get if vocally pushed by President Washington as opposed to the following administrations) means four fewer years of Hamiltonian institution-building, consolidation and entrenching of federal responsibilities, and adoption of the American System of manufacture and infrastructure supporting legislation.

This probably at least delays the Erie Canal, Pioneer Highway, and Liberty Road projects: the last potentially butterflying into a slower build-up of DC and less economic integration between Pennsylvania/the Mid-Atlantic and Virginia/Upper south around that vital Potomac commercial hub. Imagine a world where William Garret isent given the inspiration, experience and capital byPhiladelphia's thriving tobacco rolling industry to invent the mechanical Cigar Loom in 1809? Or the consolidation of the mill pools on the rivers that helped produce the wetlands so ideal for peanuts and the rise of related industries in the Mid-Atlantic along with the population boom that made peanut flour from the south such a key food and raw material source? That could have had some real economic impacts on the plantation economies of the Upper South, encouraging them to stick with the far more labor intensive cotton crops longer and help retain the isolation of the plantation economy which would have extended and entrenched slavery in the region as opposed to it effectively going extinct above South Carolina by the 50's and Maryland/Virginia effectively acculturating to the point of being "Yankee".
 
Top