The Crowned Eagle of Liberty

I'm sorry, but I'm just finding it hard to swallow. The American Revolution isn't going to happen, and then have the Americans decide they want to 'elect' a 'hereditary monarchy' :rolleyes: Even if the Constitution Convention votes that way, the people are going to be in open rebellion against such a move. There's a reason the OTL Hamilton plan was rejected outright.
 
I'm sorry, but I'm just finding it hard to swallow. The American Revolution isn't going to happen, and then have the Americans decide they want to 'elect' a 'hereditary monarchy' :rolleyes: Even if the Constitution Convention votes that way, the people are going to be in open rebellion against such a move. There's a reason the OTL Hamilton plan was rejected outright.

Ehh...the American Revolution had less to do with the monarchy and more to do with not having representation in parliament. Granted, over the course of the war it became more anti-monarchy, it is conceivable that right after the revolution that the American people would seek to return to what was familiar and "normal". And it would be easier for them to establish another monarchy as opposed to experimenting with a form of government that wasn't in existence at the time.
 
I'm sorry, but I'm just finding it hard to swallow. The American Revolution isn't going to happen, and then have the Americans decide they want to 'elect' a 'hereditary monarchy' :rolleyes: Even if the Constitution Convention votes that way, the people are going to be in open rebellion against such a move. There's a reason the OTL Hamilton plan was rejected outright.

You never answered my question. Have you read it? If not, have you at least seen the first three posts. Paine is gone, he is arguably the leading propagandist of the day and virulent anti-monarchist, with him gone their won't be as much hate for a crown. Second, Sheys' Rebellion is much different and worse. Here it created a fear of, for lack of a better phrase, "unrestrained democracy". Finally, when the Convention occurred, it was much more dysfunctional. Its no surprise, then, when the Convention finally settled down they wanted a stable presence in the form of a Crown. It limited the mob and provided something to rally around. I don't think its that much of a stretch, especially since its Washington in charge.
 
You never answered my question. Have you read it? If not, have you at least seen the first three posts. Paine is gone, he is arguably the leading propagandist of the day and virulent anti-monarchist, with him gone their won't be as much hate for a crown. Second, Sheys' Rebellion is much different and worse. Here it created a fear of, for lack of a better phrase, "unrestrained democracy". Finally, when the Convention occurred, it was much more dysfunctional. Its no surprise, then, when the Convention finally settled down they wanted a stable presence in the form of a Crown. It limited the mob and provided something to rally around. I don't think its that much of a stretch, especially since its Washington in charge.

Yes, I have read it, and I still think you're stretching it rather too far.

Removing Paine doesn't remove the entire anti-monarchical / enlightenment strain from the rest of the Founders. Paine wasn't the only federalist in the group; what about James Madison and John Jay? Or John Adams and Thomas Jefferson? Speaking of an adams, what about Samuel Adams? Even then, thats only six of the eleven quote-unquote 'major' founders, and only six of the seventy-four delegates at the constitutional convention.

Republicanism wasn't tied up in just one man, and even with a worse Shay's Rebellion that isn't going to led the Conventionalists to (re)turn to monarchy; it'll just lead to strong Federal powers - but that isn't the same thing as a hereditary King. At worse, the nation breaks up and we see three to five separate nations loosely united along HRE-style lines that would rapidly react against outside (read: British) interference.

Finally, there's Washington himself. Washington, the 'Father' of the nation, the man who lead the Continental Army, and then stepped down from power and withdrew from public life - suddenly advocating a monarchy? :eek:

This isn't to say that this isn't a well written TL. Asides from the points I raised above, I actually like it so far; it'll be interesting to see the butterflies of a KoA, depending on how far and which way you take it. Right now though, it just needs some fine tuning. You'll either need to spend some time and posts explaining a bit further how these big changes came about (and the accompanying little changes, butterflies, ripples, and etc) or simply accept many people are going to cry ASB.
 
Sincere apologies Wolfbrother, at firsty i thiyht you were just one of those denounvers, but I see you are a true critic with well thought out arguments.

The idea may be a tretch but i think it is more plausible than mny would think. Washington craved prestoerge, this is one the major reasons he didn't strive for a crown, he idolized Cincinnatus.

This situation is very different from OTL, the CC was under far greater pressure with Shay having asctually been a credle threat. ITTL there was abundant fear that the country would fall aprt by secession and anrachy.

We don't know what actully happened to Washingto that night. He could have actually beein in a meeting with power players telling him to take a crown and they would support him, and playing him up as needimng to save the country.

I do think it would have been harder than depicted. Some like John Adams could be persuaded since his home state had been caught up in rebellion asnd he was pragmatic man. The masses as ver crave order that allows them prosperity and a dgree of freedom. Given the choice betweeen percieved anarchy and a monarchy with the laws and regulatios clearly spelled out . . ., many would still prefer the anarchy.

But that is were Washington comes in. He isa going to be the King here and he has shown himself to not want power, soi he is seen as sacrificing rather than seizing tyranny. And that I think could be just enough to push a makority into wary acceptance of testing this new experiment of geovernment.

Of course I could be wrong, I'm no expert.
 
Top