US Politics Without Thomas Jefferson

Wolfpaw

Banned
Let's say that on January 1, 1790, Thomas Jefferson takes a nasty spill down some stairs at his sumptuous Virginia home and dies.

I know that the butterflies are vast, but what would some of the more immediate ones be? Who would GW pic for SecState? Who would become Adams' major rival? Who will spearhead the Democratic-Republican movement?
 
Let's say that on January 1, 1790, Thomas Jefferson takes a nasty spill down some stairs at his sumptuous Virginia home and dies.

I know that the butterflies are vast, but what would some of the more immediate ones be? Who would GW pic for SecState? Who would become Adams' major rival? Who will spearhead the Democratic-Republican movement?

Well, I'm not sure who would replace Jefferson as Secretary of State. Honestly, I think the one who would serve as as Adams' rival would be Hamilton. Hamilton and Adams were not too fond of eachother, and if it wasn't for Washington the two wouldn't have willingly worked together. So I think we would have seen parties based around Adams and Hamilton, instead of Hamilton and Jefferson.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Well, I'm not sure who would replace Jefferson as Secretary of State.
John Marshall might be a good choice.
Honestly, I think the one who would serve as as Adams' rival would be Hamilton. Hamilton and Adams were not too fond of each other, and if it wasn't for Washington the two wouldn't have willingly worked together. So I think we would have seen parties based around Adams and Hamilton, instead of Hamilton and Jefferson.
Were Adams and Hamilton's stances different enough to split the Federalists? IIRC, the main thing Adams and Hamilton differed on was foreign policy, with Adams being a pro-British neutral and Hamilton being an out-and-out Anglophile and expansionist.
 
Last edited:
John Marshall might be a good choice.Were Adams and Hamilton's stances different enough to split the Federalist Party over? IIRC, the main thing Adams and Hamilton differed on was foreign policy, with Adams being a pro-British neutral and Hamilton being an out-and-out Anglophile and expansionist.

Their differences may have been more of personality, but sometimes that is all it takes.
 
James Madison would still probably end up forming the Democratic-Republicans. However there is a possibility he aligns with Adams as Jefferson influenced him a lot. He'll probably be less Jeffersonian and more Federalist (like he was originally) ITTL.
 
With Out Jefferson as Sec-State becoming President Whe may not have -- SecState = Future President-- as a Menes in early Politics.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
With Out Jefferson as Sec-State becoming President Whe may not have -- SecState = Future President-- as a Menes in early Politics.
So we'd likely see an earlier precedent of vice president = future president, I'm guessing.

I'm going to guess that we'll see a United States that's more pro-British than IOTL, which means that Napoleon may not sell Louisiana (though who else would/could buy it?)

I guess a big wonder is who is going to lead the Anti-Federalists? Madison sort of lacked the charisma, IMO, and I'm unsure as to who else would be able to effectively marshall the opposition.
 
There are plenty of other Democratic-Republicans and Antifederalists to take over from Thomas Jefferson. Early leaders might be Patrick Henry, George Clinton, Samuel Adams and eventually James Madison. The two party system is going to develop and turn out very similarly than it did IOTL.

As for Washington's Secretary of State in place of Jefferson, we need to look at other Founding Fathers who served in the diplomatic corps during the war. Benjamin Franklin is already dead. John Jay is a possibility. If a northerner is not acceptible for political balance, then I see a southerner who would later be picked for ambassador, like Thomas Pinckney, James Monroe, or John Rutledge. Or he could pick one of the people he later used to replace Jefferson. Marshall would be a good pick, although I think he's not well known enough in 1792 compared to other candidates.

Depending on who gets picked, there be more initial pro-British policies, but that will be counterbalanced by popular backlash as France is more popular with the average person. Washington wanted harmony, so I suspect he's going to want to balance out views to keep a sense of unity in the country. Besides, Washington was not pro-British; he was pro-American and simply understood that British trade was much more important than French trade, and that British presence in Canada was a more important factor than the non-presence of the French.

I still see Adams as the second president, although he may very well be elected to a second term. Hopefully, he will follow Washington's precedent. The 1804 election becomes decisive. Who will it be? Pickering vs Madison?

To be honest, despite the importance of Jefferson, I'm not sure how much of an impact it will have. The USA had a very deep bench at the time. Napoleon may still very well sell the Louisiana Purchase, but maybe no (or a delayed) Lewis & Clark Expedition? A very different University of Virginia though.
 
To be honest, despite the importance of Jefferson, I'm not sure how much of an impact it will have.
It could be huge. President Adams or Hamilton (who will probably live longer ITTL) might not decide that slavery is a-ok in the Lousiana Purchase area. Jefferson debated whether it was or not but ultimately allowed it.

Also, no Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions means nullification emerges later than OTL.
 
It could be huge. President Adams or Hamilton (who will probably live longer ITTL) might not decide that slavery is a-ok in the Lousiana Purchase area. Jefferson debated whether it was or not but ultimately allowed it.

Also, no Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions means nullification emerges later than OTL.

I think that the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions would be at least likely without Jefferson, even if they would not be a certainty. The "State Sovereignty" argument was quite well established in the US, and in many ways was an evolution of earlier anti-federalist ideology. Taking away the main intellectual proponent of the Resolutions may change the wording and the timing, but the Resolutions would be likely to go through simply because they reflected the consensus of a considerable bloc of US public opinion.

Without Jefferson, the "Virginia Dynasty" of Presidents hailing from the Old Dominion is unlikely to ensue. Even if Adams loses in 1800 (not a given by any means, as the Republicans would have difficulty finding as high profile a figure to run against him), DeWitt Clinton or even Aaron Burr would be as likely to assume office as Madison or some other Southern Republican. This could reduce the grumbling and occasional talk of succession in New England that went on during the first decade or so of the 19th century.
 
I think that the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions would be at least likely without Jefferson, even if they would not be a certainty. The "State Sovereignty" argument was quite well established in the US, and in many ways was an evolution of earlier anti-federalist ideology. Taking away the main intellectual proponent of the Resolutions may change the wording and the timing, but the Resolutions would be likely to go through simply because they reflected the consensus of a considerable bloc of US public opinion.
The idea of nullification probably, but Jefferson was the one who pushed Madison into writing one of them (one wrote each but I forget each). Nullification will probably arise, but later than OTL.
 
Let's say that on January 1, 1790, Thomas Jefferson takes a nasty spill down some stairs at his sumptuous Virginia home and dies.

I know that the butterflies are vast, but what would some of the more immediate ones be? Who would GW pic for SecState? Who would become Adams' major rival? Who will spearhead the Democratic-Republican movement?

Aaron Burr is the third POTUS. SecState would almost definitely be John Jay although I think Henry Laurens may be talked into the position should a southern be more desirable, although as I find myself frequently saying on this site the three most respected men in America in 1789 where in this order: Washington, Adams, Jay; so them in 1,2,3 would make a lot of sense. As for major political rivalries I think your are going to look at Adams-Burr then Hamilton-Burr after Adams proves to be temperamentally unsuited to the Presidency, I don't expect Adams and Hamilton to hate each other (it was not a for gone conclusion but evolved after the first cabinet and was full fledged by 1795-96), although I will admit it is likely given their personalities.

The D-R movement is led by Burr, Madison and Monroe. There is no Virginia Junto and in fact Burr is the 1st President from New York not Martin van Buren. Albeit the reasons for the founding of the D-Rs is slightly different, I still expect Assumption to pass and possibly the bank, I say this because Hamilton was coming around to the Dinner Table Bargain even before the meeting and realized he had to give something up although that means the capital would be in Philadelphia not in a brand new city. Burr will join the D-Rs in response to Hamilton's power in New York. To address Clinton, he was old by 1796 and was chosen as the VP because he could not follow Jefferson into the Presidency so I think he is a prominent D-R but not a serious candidate.

Even in this situation I still expect Federalism to expire as a credible philosophy by about 1816, 1820 at the latest. Although having Hamilton alive and propelling the philosophy forward may do it some good but also may do it some harm (his self-destructive tendencies are well known). Before his OTL death in 1804, he was beginning a tour de force called "On Federalism" it was supposed to IIRC be sort of a seminal document laying out his philosophy concretely and coherently for all no documents remain because as was Hamilton's style it was mostly in his head.
 
Top