King Washington

As I am sure we all know, after the Revolution, George Washington's officers in the Continental Army offered him their support for him to become a King/Dictator. Though in real life Washington would never take this offer, but for Alternate History sake, lets say he did. Which colonies would support this? Which would be dead set against it? Would there be a two way divide amongst the colonies, or would there be multiple division? And just for fun, lets say that Benedict Arnold did not betray the US and became fairly popular, especially in the northern states.

I have been futsing with this Idea for a while and I am sure there are other threads about this same thing, but what would your scenario be givin these conditions?
 
The Congress and most prominent polticans would oppose it. Adams would try and work out a compromise to forestall civil war and likely end up supporting whichever side offered the best chance at peace.

A nontraitor Arnold would support Washington's bid. The American Monarchy would be able to form a new system of suicession, especiallly since Washington had no legitimate sons. Arnold would support washington in exchange for being named heir apparentbto George I of America.

With the two bigggest heros of the War it could well succeed. Noty to mention the Monarchists would get the French Forces on their side and likely enjoy more favored stasts among te British who would be eager to see the Colonies in Chaos. The new Regime wouyld be even less capable for at least a few years and as a result the Anglo Tecumseh Alliance might end up in a stronher position.
 
The Continental Congress would still be around, I'd guess - the American public wouldn't like having fought for self-rule just to hand it all over to an absolute dictator, even if said dictator is George Washington. You'd still have separation of powers, then, between the Congress and the King.

Actually, since Washington didn't have any legitimate sons, maybe instead of King (a hereditary position) they'd offer him the position of Lord President or something (i.e. basically the same, and for life, but not hereditary - like in the UPSA in Look to the West).
 
It's difficult to imagine a scenario in which General Washington and the Continental Army could impose a monarchy, let alone a dictatorial monarchy, upon any of the 13 colonies. Such an attempt might instead provoke a counter-revolution in some of the colonies. Having said that, I can imagine a scenario where those Founding Fathers with monarchist leanings push for there to be a citizen King who would serve as "Defender of the Constitution, Protector of the Rights of Man, and embodiment (though they might have used a different word in the 18th Century) of the nation's unity, liberty and life".
 
An autocracy would have been established, not a monarchy, like Peter Romanov did in Russia.

An autocracy is a form of government in which the political power is held by a single self-appointed ruler. Autocracy is not synonymous with totalitarianism, as this concept was precisely forged to distinguish modern regimes that appeared in 1923 from traditional dictatorships. It also isn't synonymous with military dictatorship, as these often take the form of "collective presidencies" such as the South-American juntas. However, an autocracy may be totalitarian or be a military dictatorship. The autocrat needs some kind of power structure to rule. Very few rulers were in the position to rule with only their personal charisma and skills however great they may be without the help of others. Most historical autocrats depended on their nobles, the military, the priesthood or others, who could turn against the ruler and depose or murder him (or her). The true nature of a historical autocracy and the difference between an autocracy and an oligarchy can be difficult to smudge and forget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy
 
This is a lot more plausible if you have a parliamentary (or in this case congressonal) monarchy rather than an absolute monarchy. The latter being established would simply not make sense.
 

Susano

Banned
An autocracy would have been established, not a monarchy, like Peter Romanov did in Russia.

An autocracy is a form of government in which the political power is held by a single self-appointed ruler. Autocracy is not synonymous with totalitarianism, as this concept was precisely forged to distinguish modern regimes that appeared in 1923 from traditional dictatorships. It also isn't synonymous with military dictatorship, as these often take the form of "collective presidencies" such as the South-American juntas. However, an autocracy may be totalitarian or be a military dictatorship. The autocrat needs some kind of power structure to rule. Very few rulers were in the position to rule with only their personal charisma and skills however great they may be without the help of others. Most historical autocrats depended on their nobles, the military, the priesthood or others, who could turn against the ruler and depose or murder him (or her). The true nature of a historical autocracy and the difference between an autocracy and an oligarchy can be difficult to smudge and forget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy

And this is what you get when one gets all his knowledge from Wiki:rolleyes:
 
I'd love to see how many times the description for 'democratic republic' mentions mediaeval Poland :D
Didn't they elect their kings? If I remember correctly, any noble could run for the post of king, and the council of electors (or something) that consisted of all the other nobles would elect one of them. I can't remember if it was to a certain number of years or for life, though. If the U.S. did have a monarchy, then this would be the form it would take, most likely; although, the ATL Americans would use the same voting system to elect a king as OTL Americans use to elect a president.
 
Didn't they elect their kings? If I remember correctly, any noble could run for the post of king, and the council of electors (or something) that consisted of all the other nobles would elect one of them. I can't remember if it was to a certain number of years or for life, though. If the U.S. did have a monarchy, then this would be the form it would take, most likely; although, the ATL Americans would use the same voting system to elect a king as OTL Americans use to elect a president.
You might as well call the HRE democratic then... I mean, their monarchy was technically elective, though the franchise was not as open as Poland's :rolleyes:
 

Susano

Banned
Btw, for educations value: My comment was that autocracy is not exclusive with monarchy. Indeed, autocracy first described a form of monarchy. The heightening of absolute moanrchy in a way: In an absolute monarchy, the monarch has eliminated the estates as a factor (Frane, Spain, most larger German states eventually). In an autocratic monarchy, he never had to contest with estates in the first place (Russia), and much more than in an absolute Monarchy HE alone is the sole law.

Now that concept CAN of course also be applied to Republcian forms, like military juntas, but Im not even sure it would fit - certainly most military juntas have to contest with several power factors besides themselves, too. I guess Stalin, in good Russian tradition, can be considered an autocrat, too, as he eliminated party and army as power factors, so true totalitarianism (Fascist Italy fo reample doesnt count, even though it coined the term totalitarism: Church and King remained as power factors, which is the reaosn it was neither totalitarian nor autocrat) is a form of autocracy induced with ideology (or in cases like STalin, pseudo-ideology).

So, Autocrcy is no state form in its own right, but like totalitarism something to describe state forms with. And any American monarchy would be quite, quite un-autocratic, but rather quite, quite constitutional.
 
I'm actually curious about this: Didn't Washington have a son who was killed in the American Revolutionary War?
 

Philip

Donor
Are you thinking of John Custis? He was Martha Washington's son from her first marriage. He died around the end of the war, some kind of fever IIRC. George's heir was his nephew, Bushrod(?) Washington. I think he ended up on the Supreme Court.
 
Are you thinking of John Custis? He was Martha Washington's son from her first marriage. He died around the end of the war, some kind of fever IIRC. George's heir was his nephew, Bushrod(?) Washington. I think he ended up on the Supreme Court.

Bushrod? That was his name? Bushrod I of the House of Washington...lol.
 
I've been wondering lately if Jefferson was to die far earlier than drift towards Monarchy would happen. The more virulent anti-monarchy writings during the War of Independence was by Jefferson and following Washington's Administrations he blamed Adams and Hamilton for being pro-British in their outlook and pro-monarchical. Without Jefferson, who dies during the War serving as ambassador, could there be a drift towards a centralized state earlier.
 

Philip

Donor
Who would succeed to King Washington if he dies?

It depends on what succession laws that would have been established.

He had no surviving (step)children at the time of his death. His siblings were also all dead. If they follow the British rules (I am working from memory here, someone from the UK may need to correct me.) the crown would fall to oldest son of George's oldest brother. That means George S Washington would be king -- kind of interesting since his wife was a Madison. However, George clearly favored Bushrod, the son of one of George's younger brothers.
 
Top