Is a coup ever plausible in US history?

I could see the increasing centralization and corruption of a Federalist government leading to political unrest, which would obviously be dealt with through increasing coercion by the Federalist government machine. That frustration could boil over. If a popular general (Andrew Jackson) had emerged, and the country had gone through a major upheaval (say a crushing defeat in a war to take Louisiana), that general might bring his army to Washington and launch a military coup, supported by much of the people. Think Caesar's popular coup, or Napoleon.
Which would lead to a popular dictatorship, a military leader initially ruling with popular support from everyone except for the old elites (who go into exile in Canada after the 2nd revolution, serving the role of the émigrés). But the luster would fade eventually - think of the various twists and turns of Napoléon III's reign, maybe enough people would become disillusioned with the Jackson figure's regime, leading to a Federalist Restoration. And thus we have political cycles of coups and counter-coups instead of elections... :p
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Which would lead to a popular dictatorship, a military leader initially ruling with popular support from everyone except for the old elites (who go into exile in Canada after the 2nd revolution, serving the role of the émigrés). But the luster would fade eventually - think of the various twists and turns of Napoléon III's reign, maybe enough people would become disillusioned with the Jackson figure's regime, leading to a Federalist Restoration. And thus we have political cycles of coups and counter-coups instead of elections... :p
I think the DR's would be more likely to strike out for Louisiana, no?

A Federalist-dominated US having to compete with a neighboring French- or Spanish-backed Confederacy of Columbia would be rather interesting.
 
Which would lead to a popular dictatorship, a military leader initially ruling with popular support from everyone except for the old elites (who go into exile in Canada after the 2nd revolution, serving the role of the émigrés). But the luster would fade eventually - think of the various twists and turns of Napoléon III's reign, maybe enough people would become disillusioned with the Jackson figure's regime, leading to a Federalist Restoration. And thus we have political cycles of coups and counter-coups instead of elections... :p

We might actually have a restoration of some type of real democracy, albeit one similar to Turkey, where the army has alot of influence. In all likelihood, the Jackson figure would have kept the Constitution in place and simply ignored it.
 
There are two different types of coups here.

One is the military takes back power from a , insert term here IE deranged or crazy, president or head of government. This would be with the support of the people and states to remove this person from the head of government and institute lawful constitutional government back to the US. This would likely succeed.

The other one is to overthrow lawful constitutional government in the US and would not likely succeed because of the people and states being against this.

Where the ones that are discussed previously fall would depend on what outlook you took to where they were coming from.
 
No matter when, it's going to be spun as taking back power from an insane President. And it might be exactly that - since Thande is not wrong in saying that the modern US military has pretty much all of the benefits of running the country without many of the responsibilities. However, there's a recent potential victim I suspect you should look at closer: Reagan.

I don't think words can really convey the feelings among the top military brass during the early 80s. Vietnam had taken what was probably the finest military establishment in the world and shattered it. It had exposed the army to contempt and ridicule from civilians. Army officers believed this was something civilian politicians had done to them. And they were resolved to never let it happen again. Despite being pro-military and prior service himself, all Reagan has to do is seriously threaten to embroil us in another low-intensity conflict, or have one of his short, sharp interventions go unaccountably pear-shaped, and he could be removed.

I don't think this is likely DURING Vietnam. So long as the war is still going on, the officers tend to believe it can be won. They aren't going to turn on their civilian oversight while they have an active operation to attend to.

Would the military set up one of their own as an interim ruler? I sort of doubt it, unless Haig is somehow tangled up in it. GHWB will be installed, as everyone agrees is proper. Of course, he'll have a precedent to sweat over, and the appearance of complicity.
 
No matter when, it's going to be spun as taking back power from an insane President. And it might be exactly that - since Thande is not wrong in saying that the modern US military has pretty much all of the benefits of running the country without many of the responsibilities. However, there's a recent potential victim I suspect you should look at closer: Reagan.

I don't think words can really convey the feelings among the top military brass during the early 80s. Vietnam had taken what was probably the finest military establishment in the world and shattered it. It had exposed the army to contempt and ridicule from civilians. Army officers believed this was something civilian politicians had done to them. And they were resolved to never let it happen again. Despite being pro-military and prior service himself, all Reagan has to do is seriously threaten to embroil us in another low-intensity conflict, or have one of his short, sharp interventions go unaccountably pear-shaped, and he could be removed.

I don't think this is likely DURING Vietnam. So long as the war is still going on, the officers tend to believe it can be won. They aren't going to turn on their civilian oversight while they have an active operation to attend to.

Would the military set up one of their own as an interim ruler? I sort of doubt it, unless Haig is somehow tangled up in it. GHWB will be installed, as everyone agrees is proper. Of course, he'll have a precedent to sweat over, and the appearance of complicity.

As one who remembers several of the Reagan administration's military/strategic successes and failures, I would rate this scenario's Potential for happening as between nil and none, and its plausibilityas being between zero and zip.
 
Defeat in Korea?

If the Government chickens out and orders an evacuation of Korea when the Chinese first attack and the right claims that Communist agents have infiltrated the government, the situation could get serious enought (with red scare spreading and the USSR making alarming noises) for a coup to be possible. One should expect a return to civilian power, but of a far far right wing variety quickly, and the cold war would be very different...
 
If the Government chickens out and orders an evacuation of Korea when the Chinese first attack and the right claims that Communist agents have infiltrated the government, the situation could get serious enought (with red scare spreading and the USSR making alarming noises) for a coup to be possible. One should expect a return to civilian power, but of a far far right wing variety quickly, and the cold war would be very different...

Given the political and military leadership in the US at the time, your scenario is most definitely extremely improbable; it's plausability is between nil and none.
 
alternate history is not just slightly different history, is it?

Given the political and military leadership in the US at the time, your scenario is most definitely extremely improbable; it's plausability is between nil and none.

Given the institutional culture of the US Armed Forces, only extremely improbable circunstances would cause a "real" coup in the XX century.
And you only need improbable political leadership to push probable millitary leaders to improbable action.
The fall of the USSR should have told us all that "S**t happens"
 
Top