Emperor Washington, or How I Learned to Stop Republicanism and Love the Monarchy

While the idea of a monarchial America under the Washingtons is enduring and entertaining, it's very unrealistic. Thus, I've labored to make a TL of this idea, with a more plausible POD than Washington becoming king after the Revolutionary War. It is thus:

A more successful Shays' Rebellion leads to an abortive Constitutional Convention, which ultimately ends in the reinstatement of the Articles of Confederation. Washington, and Hamilton, his new ally, believe that America needs more centralized leadership, and thus, the Federal (Empire?) of America is created, with a Jefferson-led Republic of America seceding soon afterwards.

I'm aware that it's still a bit implausible, so any suggestions to make it less so would be very much appreciated.

I have a lot of notes, if you're interested.
 
I love this topic, and I'm always looking for an excuse to pull out the Hamilton Plan from the Constitutional Convention.

From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)#Hamilton.27s_plan

Hamilton_Plan.png


Unsatisfied with the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan, Alexander Hamilton proposed his own plan. It also was known as the British Plan, because of its resemblance to the British system of strong centralized government.[20] In his plan, Hamilton advocated virtually doing away with state sovereignty and consolidating the states into a single nation.[20] The plan featured a bicameral legislature, the lower house elected by the people for three years. The upper house would be elected by electors chosen by the people and would serve for life.[20] The plan also gave the Governor, an executive elected by electors for a life-term of service, an absolute veto over bills.[20] State governors would be appointed by the national legislature,[20] and the national legislature had veto power over any state legislation.[20]

Hamilton presented his plan to the Convention on June 18, 1787.[20] The plan was perceived as a well-thought-out plan, but it was not considered, because it resembled the British system too closely.[20] It also contemplated the loss of most state authority, which the states were unwilling to allow.

I think if enough of those Confederation Rebellions led to actual bloodshed the more likely a centralized government would be more likely to form...especially if there is some level of democracy in there. I could see Washington still filling the role as "Governor", but I would see he'd retire at the first opportunity he has to get a chosen successor (I'm sure he'd prefer Hamilton) in place.
 
Oh, that's so cool. Actually, Hamilton and Jefferson are, ITTL, remembered as traitors, because Jefferson rebels, and Hamilton, with a secret police-like force, called the Praetorians, attempts so seize power from Washington. However, this empire is built more like the OTL USA, just with a stronger executive branch. Actually, here's how the pre-Hamilton's Rebellion Imperial government works.

The Senate is the part legislative branch, with equal numbers of representatives per state for every state, as is the Consulate, whose per-state representation is determined by population, and whose membership is determined by vote of the Senate. The First Consul, effectively the Prime Minister, is chosen by the Emperor, and his equal is the Lector of the Senate, elected by the Senators, chosen by vote of the people; the first Lector is John Adams, and the first First Consul is Hamilton. The system of checks and balances is thus: Imperial (the Augustus), Representative (Consulate and Senate), and the Judicial-Legislative, comprised of the High Tribunal, and their subsidiary Tribunals, who pass laws proposed by the Senate, or the Consulate. The debate halls of the Judiciary are open to all in government, so while a Senator cannot directly vote for his law, he can speak in favor of it.

Later, after the Rebellion, the office of Premier is added:

Following Hamilton's Rebellion, the Imperial system was reformed, with the Executive Act of 1793. The Interior offices (aedile, quaestor, legate, etc.) were removed from the Representative, and moved to jurisdiction of the newly-founded executive branch. The Executive branch's leader, the Premier, is elected by joint vote of the Senate and Consulate, and serves as an adviser to the Emperor, as do the Lector and the First Consul. The executive branch is expressly designed to keep the Representative in line, thus preventing further insurrection. It presents a further veto to consulate and senatorial power, only governable by the High Tribunal and the Emperor. In addition, the Consulate is voted out every 4 years, and replaced by a member of a party's chosen slate; seats are assigned proportionally. The party receiving the most votes appoints its candidate for First Consul to the office.

The Empire is actually very democratic, but free speech is a bit iffy, and there's more executive power. It's modeled on ancient Rome; ITTL, Washington DC is named New Rome.
 
If you want an American monarch, Washington is the wrong guy for it. He doesn't have the personality, the desire or the dynastic heir(s) for it. More plausible for Addams to be the American King, with son as heir.

*shrug* MY two cents :)
 
If you want an American monarch, Washington is the wrong guy for it. He doesn't have the personality, the desire or the dynastic heir(s) for it. More plausible for Addams to be the American King, with son as heir.

*shrug* MY two cents :)

If I remember correctly, Adams did have a strong aristocratic/monarchic streak to him, refusing to call Washington anything but "Your Highness" during the Washington Administration and writing to Jefferson that a "natural aristocracy" existed among men.
 
If you want an American monarch, Washington is the wrong guy for it. He doesn't have the personality, the desire or the dynastic heir(s) for it. More plausible for Addams to be the American King, with son as heir.

*shrug* MY two cents :)

Well, if you're recreating Rome a childless Emperor is pretty part for the course. A lot of Emperors just adopted their chosen heir. Given the OTL relationship between Hamilton and Washington, notably that Hamilton served as Washington's aide during The War, I would see a Julius and Augustus Caesar esque arrangement. Which would probably be my biggest raised eyebrow over this scenario...I just don't see A. Ham rising up against Washington. Maybe if Washington has gone senile and destructive and even then it would be more of a "retired from public view" thing like during the Regency in Britain.
 
If you want an American monarch, Washington is the wrong guy for it. He doesn't have the personality, the desire or the dynastic heir(s) for it. More plausible for Addams to be the American King, with son as heir.

*shrug* MY two cents :)

He had a nephew named Bushrod.
 
Hmm. I had not considered that. I was choosing Bushrod Washington as the General's heir (as Danderns said), but now that I consider it, I guess Hamilton as the next Dictator (or Autarch?) makes more sense. I guess, without a dynasty, the nation would be less imperial. But see, I had a bunch of cool dynastic politics worked out.

Of course, the natural solution now occurs to me: Why not both? Hamilton can have some other office, which I guess will override the office of Premier. I think I'll take the same name, though. Perhaps Washington will be Premier instead of Emperor, and his heirs, as appointed by Hamilton, will become emperors.

Sorry, I really don't think John Adams would have the legitimacy to rule America from the Eagle Throne; he was obnoxious and disliked, or so I've heard. That's from 1776.

But in all seriousness, I just don't think he had the chops. Washington has the name and military power.

Sorry, this whole post was basically my brain working. Can you see the little cogs?
 
Sorry, I really don't think John Adams would have the legitimacy to rule America from the Eagle Throne; he was obnoxious and disliked, or so I've heard. That's from 1776.

Eh, he was liked enough to get the presidency in OTL (what's "1776", the musical??? A book?). He was more aristocratic, more pro monarchy. And he had a dynastic heir (who also got to be president OTL!). Addams is a ready made candidate for an American monarchy, especially since he would embrace the title. Not Washington.
 
A more successful Shays' Rebellion leads to an abortive Constitutional Convention, which ultimately ends in the reinstatement of the Articles of Confederation. Washington, and Hamilton, his new ally, believe that America needs more centralized leadership, and thus, the Federal (Empire?) of America is created, with a Jefferson-led Republic of America seceding soon afterwards.

You know, this would make a great musical.
 
Eh, he was liked enough to get the presidency in OTL (what's "1776", the musical??? A book?). He was more aristocratic, more pro monarchy. And he had a dynastic heir (who also got to be president OTL!). Addams is a ready made candidate for an American monarchy, especially since he would embrace the title. Not Washington.

1776 is a musical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_(musical)

Anyway, Washington isn't actually a monarch at first. He's Governor, like in the Hamiltonian system, and following his resignation, Hamilton, the Premier, appoints Bushrod Washington as the next governor. Bushrod (god I love that name), as influenced by Hamilton, turns the office into a monarchial one; he marries one of the Bourbons, and has a couple of children, further strengthening the monarchy.

In summary: While Washington had groomed Hamilton to succeed him as quasi-President, Hamilton instead, seeing the Federated American States (what they've established; effectively, a US with a stronger central government) as weak, and so he establishes the monarchy.

Oh, hey: I've come up with a good POD for this, and it's quite mundane: Benjamin Lincoln (of no relation to Abraham) was an American general who crushed Shay's Rebeliion IOTL. He was wounded in the Battle of Saratoga, and ITTL, he dies of his wounds. Thus, a less capable general leads the force dispatched.

Question: How would a centralized American system like that make Jefferson and, say, Patrick Henry feel?
 
Last edited:
If you want an American monarch, Washington is the wrong guy for it. He doesn't have the personality, the desire or the dynastic heir(s) for it. More plausible for Addams to be the American King, with son as heir.

*shrug* MY two cents :)

My thoughts exactly on Washington, although I disagree about Adams. The hard fact is that the founding fathers, not to mention, the populace would never go for a monarchy.
 
My thoughts exactly on Washington, although I disagree about Adams. The hard fact is that the founding fathers, not to mention, the populace would never go for a monarchy.

Monarchy WAS discussed, although I don't know how seriously or by how many. But they certainly wouldn't have stood for a ruling monarch. Of course, whether what they ended up with would have any relationship to what anyone else in the world called a monarch is another matter entirely.

An almost purely ceremonial figure (like a modern constitutional monarch, say), would be a possibility. But I don't really think the US would go for a standard dynastic monarchy. Of course, if it's a functionally elective one (unlike the nominally elective ones of the HRE or Norway or even France originally), then it's hardly going to be a 'monarchy' as the rest of the world understands it.
 
Have the first king be elected by the people and washington bowing out because he doesn't want to be king. Adams wins and is King. It would of been a limited monarchy with the king being able to be impeached.
 
Top