DBWI: Washington as ‘president’ instead of king

So recently I looked up some old plans for the American nation and one of them was a sort of representative republic with an elected president who served a limited term how would this affect the future? What if king Washington I had been the first President of the United States of America and not first king of the kingdom and eventually empire of America? What would happen to the territories of north Montana and south Texas*? Could America be the global power it is today?




*north Montana is south Canada and south Texas is northern Mexico
 
So recently I looked up some old plans for the American nation and one of them was a sort of representative republic with an elected president who served a limited term how would this affect the future? What if king Washington I had been the first President of the United States of America and not first king of the kingdom and eventually empire of America? What would happen to the territories of north Montana and south Texas? Could America be the global power it is today?

America would probably still attempt to expand westwards, though given the added bureaucratic deadlock from having the entire government consisting of elected officials it would probably be slower and there might not even be a war with Mexico given the various, initially unrelated, circumstances leading up to the Corpus Christi Incident ITTL. I think America would still become a decent power due to its geographic location and abundance of natural resources, but not quite on the same level as OTL, maybe a regional power at best- there are just too many issues with a state like that for it to become a world-dominating hegemon. Realistically, the government would constantly be at its own throat with such a situation, so you'd likely see enforcing the status quo as a compromise most of the time instead of actual progress one way or the other.
 
America would probably still attempt to expand westwards, though given the added bureaucratic deadlock from having the entire government consisting of elected officials it would probably be slower and there might not even be a war with Mexico given the various, initially unrelated, circumstances leading up to the Corpus Christi Incident ITTL. I think America would still become a decent power due to its geographic location and abundance of natural resources, but not quite on the same level as OTL, maybe a regional power at best- there are just too many issues with a state like that for it to become a world-dominating hegemon. Realistically, the government would constantly be at its own throat with such a situation, so you'd likely see enforcing the status quo as a compromise most of the time instead of actual progress one way or the other.
I always wondered if America hadn’t expanded north maybe they would have supported the entente in the weltkrieg could it have changed the course of the war?
 
The American monarchs does not rule for life, but their term is still a decade and 2 (a tradition set by HM George Washington himself and codified at the First Imperial Convention), without interrupting elections unlike many republics, which allows far more consistent policy with longer goal and views. Without that, I think Republican America would see far more political and legislative deadlocks, and perhaps even worse political fragmentation and polarization.
 
So recently I looked up some old plans for the American nation and one of them was a sort of representative republic with an elected president who served a limited term how would this affect the future? What if king Washington I had been the first President of the United States of America and not first king of the kingdom and eventually empire of America? What would happen to the territories of north Montana and south Texas*? Could America be the global power it is today?




*north Montana is south Canada and south Texas is northern Mexico
It could very easily fall apart. The thing that drove the Americans to unite together would be their shared hatred of the British. The thing that kept them there was their common king. The north and southern states are extremely different from one another. One was based entirely upon an agricultural society with a reliance on slavery, the other was a mercantile, soon to be industrial society. The needs of each other would be too different to stay together. The Federation if American States, or FAS, would fall apart quickly. Without a common leader holding them together, the states would go separate ways.
 
So recently I looked up some old plans for the American nation and one of them was a sort of representative republic with an elected president who served a limited term how would this affect the future? What if king Washington I had been the first President of the United States of America and not first king of the kingdom and eventually empire of America? What would happen to the territories of north Montana and south Texas*? Could America be the global power it is today?
I think you would need a POD where parliament gets more power, rather then being abolished. Republicanism didn't have much popularity until the German Diet became a proper congress when the German Emperor died without an heir in 1804. I don't see Republicanism weakening the US much. While internal fighting might be more commonplace, the ability to participate in government would probably draw lots of immigrants, leading to greater industrial power iotl, and less need to conquer south Texas and North Minnesota for their manpower.
 
I always wondered if America hadn’t expanded north maybe they would have supported the entente in the weltkrieg could it have changed the course of the war?

Actually, now that I think about it, I believe there was a series called "Pax Americana" aired a couple years ago about a similar subject, but it lost popularity quickly due to its lack of plausibility. (Then again, the script writer was Harold Dove, so of course we ought to expect that.) The stabilization of the government with a new constitution being put together was an interesting way of solving the problems with the earlier systems, and some of the earlier parts, like the American Civil War arc, were pretty innovative, but the parallelism after that was kinda stupid and the American attempts at imperialism later on and the pointless, contrived war against Spain were what kind of broke the series for me. I stopped watching after that, but I looked up a plot summary of the other seasons later, and the same thing as you're suggesting here happened, with the Americans aligning with the Entente during a blatant reskin of the Weltkrieg. It was about as unoriginal as you'd expect- France working themselves up into a fervor over Germany taking one tiny province, Germany trying to invade France by going through a neutral nation (does Dove expect us to believe that the Germans are suicidal or just too stupid to realize that'd bring in Britain?), and Russia falls to a leftist revolution for... what reason other than "totally not contrived plot twist," exactly? The "World War II" arc (God, the unoriginal names for the wars make me cringe) was basically just Dove repeatedly shouting "HAHAHAHAHAHA LOOK GUYS THE RIGHT WING IS EVIL AND WANTS TO KILL EVERYONE" and was clearly implausible even if you don't have a decent grasp of geopolitics- I really don't know how his scripts made it past the editors. The only thing I thought was interesting there was how Italy was handled during the period between the world wars, but its performance in WWII was lackluster and disappointing. As goes without saying, the series was cancelled at the end of the WWII arc due to poor ratings.

Setting aside ranting about fiction, no American expansion north would have definitely improved Anglo-American relations, but assuming that the Weltkrieg still happens (which it could just as easily not) America would probably stay neutral due to conflicting interests on both sides. If they did join a side, they'd have to have a valid reason that they'd given considerable thought- perhaps a diplomatic incident leading to the assassination of an American ambassador as in OTL could do it, though the timing of the Americans joining the war would be the most important thing to consider.
 
Actually, now that I think about it, I believe there was a series called "Pax Americana" aired a couple years ago about a similar subject, but it lost popularity quickly due to its lack of plausibility. (Then again, the script writer was Harold Dove, so of course we ought to expect that.) The stabilization of the government with a new constitution being put together was an interesting way of solving the problems with the earlier systems, and some of the earlier parts, like the American Civil War arc, were pretty innovative, but the parallelism after that was kinda stupid and the American attempts at imperialism later on and the pointless, contrived war against Spain were what kind of broke the series for me. I stopped watching after that, but I looked up a plot summary of the other seasons later, and the same thing as you're suggesting here happened, with the Americans aligning with the Entente during a blatant reskin of the Weltkrieg. It was about as unoriginal as you'd expect- France working themselves up into a fervor over Germany taking one tiny province, Germany trying to invade France by going through a neutral nation (does Dove expect us to believe that the Germans are suicidal or just too stupid to realize that'd bring in Britain?), and Russia falls to a leftist revolution for... what reason other than "totally not contrived plot twist," exactly? The "World War II" arc (God, the unoriginal names for the wars make me cringe) was basically just Dove repeatedly shouting "HAHAHAHAHAHA LOOK GUYS THE RIGHT WING IS EVIL AND WANTS TO KILL EVERYONE" and was clearly implausible even if you don't have a decent grasp of geopolitics- I really don't know how his scripts made it past the editors. The only thing I thought was interesting there was how Italy was handled during the period between the world wars, but its performance in WWII was lackluster and disappointing. As goes without saying, the series was cancelled at the end of the WWII arc due to poor ratings.

Setting aside ranting about fiction, no American expansion north would have definitely improved Anglo-American relations, but assuming that the Weltkrieg still happens (which it could just as easily not) America would probably stay neutral due to conflicting interests on both sides. If they did join a side, they'd have to have a valid reason that they'd given considerable thought- perhaps a diplomatic incident leading to the assassination of an American ambassador as in OTL could do it, though the timing of the Americans joining the war would be the most important thing to consider.
Despite all the unrealistic happenings I read some of the unused scripts and honestly I’m glad they cancelled as the Cold War arc was completely ridiculous I mean seriously I know you need to keep up drama but did they seriously believe anyone would ever buy that many close calls?
 
Despite all the unrealistic happenings I read some of the unused scripts and honestly I’m glad they cancelled as the Cold War arc was completely ridiculous I mean seriously I know you need to keep up drama but did they seriously believe anyone would ever buy that many close calls?
It's almost like they're afraid of getting their favorite toys smashed...

------------

But back to topic, the success of the American Empire lies in the educated elites being in charge and not beholden to the average person. I mean, we have to remember that at the time the bulk of the America's population were rural inhabitants with limited education (not mocking them or anything, because I'm pretty sure book skills like philosophy ain't gonna save one from attacks by wild animals or Indians). Those guys, for all their simple virtues, should not be a major part of the decision process at the time. Of course much later on when greater participation in government did occurred it was the end product of decades of urbanization & education producing a population that is more aware and greater sense of what "America" is.

Having the average person having a say at the beginning though is certainly a formula for disaster.
 
The Americans would be much more stagnant with a republic. A great president could not do as much good as a great king because of how short the ruling time is. However, an incompetent president would be unable to screw over the country as badly as an incompetent king would.

All in all, the Americans would not get stuff done.
 
Last edited:
Top