In the scenario where George Washington became King of America, who would succeed him?

Deleted member 97083

The problem with that is the issue with giving the crown to a Frenchman. Do the American people really want a Frenchman on their throne? I think that wouldn't fly too well, no matter what he did in the Revolution or what Washington thought of him. They just removed a foreign monarch from power, they wouldn't want to turn around and put an even more foreign one back on their throne. My best bet for the next monarch would be either Hamilton or maybe Knox. If Washington lives longer, Jackson could become a possibility. I'm trying to explore a similar situation in my timeline, and it seems to me that Hamilton definitely intended for his monarchical government to end up with him on the throne, securing his line as rulers of America.
Maybe if Lafayette converted to a non-Anglican Protestant denomination people would see him as acceptable.
 
All cool, but keep in mind: Washington died in 1799 in OTL. He left office in 1797. Let's say he abdicates in 1798 in this TL. If Hamilton has been a close supporter (and since he was no doubt a key figure in making the monarchy happen), he may very well be the successor. This presupposes he avoids scandal, of course. The thing is, Hamilton will not fight a War of 1812. He wanted to ally with Britain and escalate the Quasi-war to open war against France. This would involve seizing Louisiana by force, instead of buying it.

If Hamilton tries to get his son to succeed him, and this works out, his enemies will be very angry. You may indeed see an attempt at revolution or secession. But Britain is going to back the Hamilton monarchy, and revolutionary France is no longer around. Since Hamilton was very much against slavery (as was his son in OTL, I believe), this whole conflict may lead to the forced abolition of slavery by the early 1820s. Which would be cool. But expect a long Reconstruction analogue for the Southern states...

I wouldn't expect a reconstruction at all, unless the Brits help the North end slavery. Unless the military academies are all in the North now (they won't be because the South wouldn't stand for it), the South will have a better officer corps in an early ACW, but the North will lack the industry and manpower to compensate.

Maybe if Lafayette converted to a non-Anglican Protestant denomination people would see him as acceptable.

This is absolutely essential. Toleration of Quebecois Catholics was (ironically enough) considered one of the "Intolerable Acts."
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I wouldn't expect a reconstruction at all, unless the Brits help the North end slavery. Unless the military academies are all in the North now (they won't be because the South wouldn't stand for it), the South will have a better officer corps in an early ACW, but the North will lack the industry and manpower to compensate.

I'm not entirely sure about that. To be clear, I was indeed imagining a scenario where Britain would be backing Hamilton. Yet we're talkin about 1920, and in a TL where Hamilton has been in charge for the past two decades. I have argued elsewhere that the whole 'American monarchy' thing is most likely to happen in a scenario where the need for a strong and stable executive is seen as pressing. I am assuming, therefore, that the monarch will have quite a lot of power, and that the federal government in general will be quite powerful. Washington himself tended to listen to Hamilton on several key issues in OTL, which I also expect to be the case here. And then when Hamilton takes over, he'll be pushing his OTL plocity plans, which involve fostering (northern) industry.

After two decades of that, I'm fairly sure the situation will no longer align with OTL. Of course, we must ask: will the southern states be able to block any of his policies via Congress? That depends on the way the 'mood' of the country evolves. If the whole monarchy starts off with a desire for a strong executive, and is succesful, then the whole 'state sovereignty' position may be far less popular than in OTL. This is a world without a Virginia dynasty, after all. Also, if I were Hamilton - and assuming I have enough executive power to pull this off in this ATL - I would carve the Northwest Territory into as many states as possible, and (financially) encourage their settlement by people from the Northeast. That would be a nice trick for king Hamilton to get a considerable Northern majority in Congress early on, thus royally (pun intended) screwing over Southern interests.
 

Deleted member 97083

Also, if I were Hamilton - and assuming I have enough executive power to pull this off in this ATL - I would carve the Northwest Territory into as many states as possible, and (financially) encourage their settlement by people from the Northeast. That would be a nice trick for king Hamilton to get a considerable Northern majority in Congress early on, thus royally (pun intended) screwing over Southern interests.
Since Thomas Jefferson was obsessed with creating as many states as possible in the Northwest, while admiring the agrarian lifestyle, then this would actually be perfect. Significant parts of both the Hamiltonian Federalists and the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans would support this.

This is absolutely essential. Toleration of Quebecois Catholics was (ironically enough) considered one of the "Intolerable Acts."
Well the whole Quebec Act was considered "Intolerable". One of its provisions was extending Quebec into the Ohio Valley, where many of the colonies had claims. That was also a factor in its "intolerability".
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Since Thomas Jefferson was obsessed with creating as many states as possible in the Northwest, while admiring the agrarian lifestyle, then this would actually be perfect. Significant parts of both the Hamiltonian Federalists and the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans would support this.

Yes, that would work! Jefferson would be all for it, convinced that it would mostly be Virginian settlers moving in. And then later, Hamilton has his Federalist allies in the Northeast introduce subsidies for settlers on the state level, knowing that it gives him an advantage-- the Southern state governments were far more wary of introducing such subsidies. Best part: Jefferson himself was in favour of barring slavery from the Northwest, so you can get a lot of free states there.

If this can be pulled off, it'll be a major blow to the slave-holders' political power.
 

Deleted member 97083

Yes, that would work! Jefferson would be all for it, convinced that it would mostly be Virginian settlers moving in. And then later, Hamilton has his Federalist allies in the Northeast introduce subsidies for settlers on the state level, knowing that it gives him an advantage-- the Southern state governments were far more wary of introducing such subsidies. Best part: Jefferson himself was in favour of barring slavery from the Northwest, so you can get a lot of free states there.

If this can be pulled off, it'll be a major blow to the slave-holders' political power.
Step 1 achieved.

Now how can we get Napoleon Bonaparte as Emperor of Louisiana, so that his title can be acquired by the King of the United States, turning the US into an Empire?
 
Lafayette almost escaped to the US in 1792-93 with American help. Had he made it to America it is likely he would have stayed as wasn't a fan of Nappy either. That would give him enough to become a figure in American politics. Add in a strategic marriage between his son, George Washington, and one of Hamilton's daughters; there you have a the birth of a very powerful American dynasty.

Benjamin
 
Yes, that would work! Jefferson would be all for it, convinced that it would mostly be Virginian settlers moving in. And then later, Hamilton has his Federalist allies in the Northeast introduce subsidies for settlers on the state level, knowing that it gives him an advantage-- the Southern state governments were far more wary of introducing such subsidies. Best part: Jefferson himself was in favour of barring slavery from the Northwest, so you can get a lot of free states there.

If this can be pulled off, it'll be a major blow to the slave-holders' political power.

For extra antislavery, have John Laurens survive the Revolution.
 
For extra antislavery, have John Laurens survive the Revolution.

I thought of that too, but it would complicate the original POD.

Of course that Timeline's version of the musical "Hamilton" would be very, very interesting.

Benjamin
 
Well the whole Quebec Act was considered "Intolerable". One of its provisions was extending Quebec into the Ohio Valley, where many of the colonies had claims. That was also a factor in its "intolerability".

Even so, the idea of a Catholic monarch would be very, very unpopular.
 
(y) and (y) again on the counter-slavery work

All cool, but keep in mind: Washington died in 1799 in OTL. He left office in 1797.

Yeah, I assumed he'd live a bit longer than OTL and hadn't been riding out during the rain.

The thing is, Hamilton will not fight a War of 1812. He wanted to ally with Britain and escalate the Quasi-war to open war against France. This would involve seizing Louisiana by force, instead of buying it.

If Hamilton tries to get his son to succeed him, and this works out, his enemies will be very angry. You may indeed see an attempt at revolution or secession. But Britain is going to back the Hamilton monarchy, and revolutionary France is no longer around. Since Hamilton was very much against slavery (as was his son in OTL, I believe), this whole conflict may lead to the forced abolition of slavery by the early 1820s.

Ahhh ha. In which case, assuming the Bourbon Restoration (or version thereof) happens, that's Britain, France, and America in sort-of relations as constitutional monarchies, one nominally elected (I'm betting you'd get a House of Hamilton the way things are going here*). That's going to have a big impact in later revolutions abroad.


* Assuming this Hamilton Jr has children for the sake of succession or passes it to a grandchild (though I don't think there's a good candidate there?) As it is nominally elected, he may not bother without his dad alive to push the issue
 
George II, of course.
(George Washington Parke Custis)
That's always been my pet theory too, so you end up with this:

George Washington
George I 1732-1789-1799 (10 years)

George Washington Parke Custis
(Adopted son of George I)

George II 1781-1799-1857 (58 years)

Robert Edward Lee II
(Adopted son of George II and inheritor via marriage)

Robert I 1807-1857-1870 (13 years)

George Washington Custis Lee
(Eldest son of Robert I)

George III 1832-1870-1913 (43 years)

Robert Edward Lee III
(Nephew and adopted son of George III)

Robert II 1866-1913-1922 (9 years)

George Robert Washington Lee
(Eldest son of Robert II)

George IV 1889-1922-1955 (33 years)

Robert Edward Washington Lee
(Eldest son of George IV)

Robert III 1920-1955-2001 (46 years)

Robert George Washington Lee
(Eldest son of Robert III)

Robert IV 1944-2001-> (16 years)

*names and dates after Robert II are guesswork based on the actual family tree
 
Top