The Whiskey Rebellion and the American Monarch

[Beck Reilly]

How do I edit the poll?

 

[Straha]

I have no idea

 

[Faeelin]

Actually, I'm not giving Hamilton crap, as you put it. In fact, Hamilton is my favorite figure from this era.

To be fair, no, Hamilton never did directly come out and say that he wanted a kingdom in America. Instead, during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton lectured for three to four HOURS on the benefits of a strongly centralized federal government, including a President for life. He was unable to effect the outcome of the Convention, however, mainly because his two anti-Federalist colleagues outvoted him on every issue.

Of course, a strongly centralized federal government turned out to be for the best, eh? (President for life I'm not so sure about).

 

[Faeelin]

Why would Hamilton want to change the government when he could easily become president? and if he did change the government why wouldn't he try to be king?

Why didn't Washington become king?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Which has more power? A President serving for eight years or a King serving for thirty?

I would definitely say that a president for eight years has more power as he is head of the executive for that period of time, whereas a king will have a Prime Minister who is head of the government

I would imagine that if the USA had gone monarchial then there would have been some kind of elevation of, eg the Speaker, to be President of the Council or something

Grey Wolf

 

[cbrunish]

Why didn't Washington become king?

Basically because he did not want to. Adams seemed to try to make Washington king but Washington would have non of that. Also it was because of Washington that the title of the president is "Mr. President". Adams wanted to call him "Your Highness".

 

[mrmandias]

Didn't Hamilton and Adams hate each other? Also, Adams, for all his virtues, would just be laughable to think of as a monarch.

Its going to be hard to pull this off in the early Federalist time period without the monarch being Washington.

 

[GreatScottMarty]

So, clearly, a lot of people don't like my idea for a POD. Does anyone else have a POD which would leave the US an independent nation with an American monarch?

John Laurens doesn't die outside Charleston in 1782 and lives and becomes a staunch Hamilton Ally in the years to come (they were good friends and served on Washington's staff together). This gives Hamilton a powerful and well respected ally in the South just in time for the Convention in 1788. In this situation Hamilton 3-4 hour speech would sway some folks with some helpful politicking by Laurens to get the nod as the plan. One of the major problems was that Hamilton called his Chief Executive an "Elected Monarch" I think if you can butterfly the semantics to say something like Proconsul considering the Founders love of Rome. This POD gives you Washington as king. because he is the only person anyone would trust.

I see people on this thread saying the South and the states won't go a long with it. The South was way more loyalist during the revolution with a basic civil war going on in Georgia and South Carolina. The issue the South had was the debts they owed to the English banks the only reason they (plantation owners) went along with the ARW was because this gave them an out with there debt. I think the Whiskey Rebellion POD is good and John Adams as king is a very good compromise.
As for the states as long as Hamiltons system allows them representation. For instance, in this ATL constitution the Upper House still Acknowledges the States (states can keep their militias) and the Lower the People and the King is given the ability to run Foreign policy, a veto, head of the Armed Forces, and appoint a "Speaker of the People" (something like Speaker of the house and Senate Pro Tem) to manage local affairs with the consent of the Congress than you are ok. but an Absolute system is out. The election factor is key, probably not a direct election to begin with but an election by the American Congress would do it with a scandal and direct election by the people to come in the 20th century. The King has to be checked like everything else, Joseph Ellis said and I paraphrase, the greatness of our government is that our system provides a structure for the ongoing debates about national issues while over governments force this into the street but not giving everyone a voice. (read the last chapter of American Creation to get what I am talking about, I am at work and unable to quote directly).

sorry if that is garbbled

 

[GreatScottMarty]

Didn't Hamilton and Adams hate each other? Also, Adams, for all his virtues, would just be laughable to think of as a monarch.

Its going to be hard to pull this off in the early Federalist time period without the monarch being Washington.

I am not going to thread steal but yes they hated each others guts but they could stomach each others presence until the election of 1796 when Hamilton tried to get a Pinckney into office (which one I can't remember). basically saying that Jefferson is preferable Adams. A King John Adams is actually probably one of the better options considering his virtues but his vanity is a serious concern, Abigail really helped him there.