No President Washington

So I've been piddling with this little project of silliness for a while, the objective largely being a multipolar early 20th century, including a rather... well, not weakened, but retarded USA. The goal was a heavy divergence from the "liberties and freedom" of OTL to a bit of a more Holy Roman Empire-ish feel between state electors and Congress.

But let's go ahead and ignore all that, as I had this random thought and I'm not sure how often the idea has been approached on the forum.

Anywho, what if George Washington was killed in Shay's Rebellion? A very unlucky, and ironic, shot that cost the would-be President his life - before he is elected President the following year.

What sort of fallout can we expect with negotiations vis a vis the British, the Constitutional Congress, and powers of a future Executive Office?
 
George Washington was in Virgina during Shay's rebellion, which happened in Massachusetts.

You're thinking about the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, where Washington did lead an army. However, it was in his second term already, and Hamilton's financial plan already was passed.

Killing him in 1794 would discredit the Jeffersonians, and bring Adams as President two years earlier than OTL.
 
George Washington was in Virgina during Shay's rebellion, which happened in Massachusetts.

You're thinking about the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, where Washington did lead an army. However, it was in his second term already, and Hamilton's financial plan already was passed.

Killing him in 1794 would discredit the Jeffersonians, and bring Adams as President two years earlier than OTL.

Ah, indeed I am. Not terribly astute on American History. Thanks for clarifying.

Now, onto the spirit of the thread. What if Washington dies (however) before being elected?
 
There would be no presidency as we know it. That office was designed for him alone, since everyone expected that he would serve as the first president, and thus were confident of giving it extensive powers.

Second, there might not even be a constitution ratified, since one of the selling points of the Constitution is that he would serve as first President.

Really, George Washington is that important. His mere presence shaped the creation of the office of the Presidency. Without him, we might have a plural executive, or even no executive at all.

And the Constitution might not be ratified, and the AoC would linger on.
 
There would be no presidency as we know it. That office was designed for him alone, since everyone expected that he would serve as the first president, and thus were confident of giving it extensive powers.

Second, there might not even be a constitution ratified, since one of the selling points of the Constitution is that he would serve as first President.

Really, George Washington is that important. His mere presence shaped the creation of the office of the Presidency. Without him, we might have a plural executive, or even no executive at all.

And the Constitution might not be ratified, and the AoC would linger on.

Exactly what I'd hoped to hear.
 
John Adams becomes the first President of the United States with John Jay as vice president in a near majority rule during the election of 1789, with support from Jefferson who wishes to see the Constitution ratified as quick as possible. However during this term John Adams' popularity falls as he tries to suggest changing the title of the "President" to something more regal.

Policies like this would fuel the election of 1792, which due to their personal differences, a fierce political battle, is witnessed between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (similar to OTL 1796 election.)

With Thomas Jefferson becoming the second President with Aaron Burr, leading to many to believe that the head of government should only rule for a one term, of four years, stopping that person from being to powerful.
 
Top