First Monarch Of An American Empire?

Who Would Rule?

  • George Washington

    Votes: 31 60.8%
  • Thomas Jefferson

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Benjamin Franklin

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • John Adams

    Votes: 2 3.9%
  • John Jay

    Votes: 2 3.9%
  • James Madison

    Votes: 2 3.9%
  • Alexander Hamilton

    Votes: 10 19.6%
  • Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette

    Votes: 9 17.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 10 19.6%

  • Total voters
    51
Ever since I saw the Royal Wedding, this thought has been in my mind. I remember reading some previous threads on the topic of an American Monarchy and the whole recent circumstances has brought this interest back to me. Everyone has their own views on how an American Monarchy could form, but I want to be more specific...

Which of the Founding Fathers would have been a first King for an American Empire? What would their reign be like? Depending on who was King, would America be a Absolute Monarchy? A constitional monarchy? I made a poll with the Fathers I think could have been real choices. I'll also put other if voters have other choices in mind.

I really want to know what people think of this.
 
Sod the Founding Fathers, put the Stuarts in. Then they could hopelessly fuck it up and the world could breath a sigh of relief.
 
Well, it depends quite a bit on how such a monarchy comes into being and when. Washington is the best bet. He probably could have gotten a large portion of the country to follow him if he wanted the job (although the story about the Continental Congress offering him a crown is just an urban legend). The problem would be finding a POD to make him want the job. Alexander Hamilton could have tried to seize power in a Napoleon-esque manner if the Articles of Confederation had lasted longer and the Congress been more incompetent. Jefferson is definitely a no-go. Franklin was too old. Adams is interesting. His political opponents tried to paint him as a monarchist, but he really wasn't. He was a bit more authoritarian than Jefferson, but hardly in favor of monarchy. He's basically just a far less popular version of Washington. You'd need a scenario in which he (a) became a monarchist and (b) was popular enought to acheive his aims. Not very likely IMHO. Jay and Madison don't have enough stature. Importing a monarch from Europe would also be a definite possibility depending on when and how America becomes a monarchy. Still, I think that Washington is most likely. All you need to do is make him want the crown and he can take it (albeit with stiff resistence from Jefferson and the Republicans).
 
When Washington declined OTL, the monarchy conspirators' choice #2 was Gates, and choice #3 was Nate Greene. Obviously they want someone who commanded troops in the Revolution. (Indeed, the Continental Congress was not involved - I'd never even heard that idea. It was a number of his own subordinates, Hamilton included.)

If Washington accepts, we'll have a Constitution very like the one we got OTL, with a hereditary King instead of a semielected President. Perhaps future Amendments will limit the Crown's power, but not at the time of the revolution. Gates and Greene I have more vague impresssions of, but there's someone on the forum who would seem to know General Greene in some detail...
 
When Washington declined OTL, the monarchy conspirators' choice #2 was Gates, and choice #3 was Nate Greene. Obviously they want someone who commanded troops in the Revolution. (Indeed, the Continental Congress was not involved - I'd never even heard that idea. It was a number of his own subordinates, Hamilton included.)

If Washington accepts, we'll have a Constitution very like the one we got OTL, with a hereditary King instead of a semielected President. Perhaps future Amendments will limit the Crown's power, but not at the time of the revolution. Gates and Greene I have more vague impresssions of, but there's someone on the forum who would seem to know General Greene in some detail...

I think the urban legend about Congress just came from people trying to make Washington into a larger than life hero. So instead of a small group of conspirators wanting to make him king, people go around saying that everybody in the entire country wanted to make him king, including most of Congress. Yet Washington, always the champion of the republic, still turned them down. You'd be surprised how many people still believe that.

Anyway, I don't think that the coup could have been successful with anyone besides Washington leading it. Washington was the only one who was popular enough to pull it off. Gates or Greene probably could have gotten the military to follow them, but they couldn't have held it together long term against the weight of public opinion.

I agree with you on the Constitution of such a monarchy. Probably similar to the OTL Constitution only with a Constitutional Monarch instead of a President. Also, the legislature is probably unicameral without all of the political wrangling that was necessary at the OTL Constitutional Convention. I'm not sure what that legislature would look like though. My guess is that it is initially more like the Senate with equal representation for the states with constitutional ammendments later that gradually introduce proportional representation like in the House. Although it the new king really pushes for it, we could probably get that type of proportional system right off the bat. It just depends on what the king's political positions are.

EDIT:

Who were these monarchy conspirators, and why would anyone have listened to them?

The military.
 
Last edited:

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
Washington was certainly in the easiest position to do it, but I think Hamilton is the most likely to want to, and has the ideology which would form the cornerstone of an American Empire identity which would have to be qualitatively different from the 'freedom from'-preoccupied ideology/identity of the OTL American Republic.
 
The Newburgh conspiracy involved a demand for pay and for more money, not to install a king...

Yes, but once you get the military rebelling against Congress, it's not that hard to imagine a complete take-over. And from there, installing the leader of such a rebellion as king seems the next logical step.
 
As much as I am a French patriot, I don't think the Marquis de La Fayette would have any real plausible chance at getting himself crowned Emperor of America... I think the Americans would rather want a "native" than a foreigner to take the throne. Plus, I'm not sure Louis XVI would be okay with that. Lastly, there is the fact La Fayette had no royal blood in his veins.

Of all the candidates proposed, I choosed George Washington since he appears to me as the main leader of the American Revolution. At least, he gives me that impression.

Another plausible choice could have been one of George III's younger sons to be given the American throne in a "not-complete-cut-off" scenario between Britain and her colonies. A cousin could also do to reduce the chances of a Personnal Union.
 
Another plausible choice could have been one of George III's younger sons to be given the American throne in a "not-complete-cut-off" scenario between Britain and her colonies. A cousin could also do to reduce the chances of a Personnal Union.

Didn't somebody do a timeline like that once? IIRC it was an Albany Plan-like scenario which included the Kingdom of New Albion being placed under a cadet branch of the House of Hannover. I don't remember what it was called though.
 
I'd guess that Hamilton would be King because he was, well, the only person on the list who actually wanted a monarch, or at least a very strong executive. Washington would obviously be the first choice but he'd probably have none of it; Jefferson wouldn't obviously being, well, that he's Jefferson, and Franklin was too old. La Fayette was French and given that the Constitution was meant to stop foreigners from making themselves kings or princes I think that, popular as he may have been, he'd have been out of the running.

Hamilton, meanwhile, had the support of the New England business elite because of his responsible monetary policies (tariffs and honouring states' wartime debts) and I'm sure that if he played a more prominent role in the Revolution (I mean high-profile, his inputs were crucial to the success of the Revolution IOTL) then he could have had significant support from the people. I'm not sure whether he'd last long though-America was and is more than just the North East coast elite.
 
Top