Washington died, America became a monarchy

As many know, George Washington (a distant relative of mine) was offered the position as king of America, but refused. What if he died in the war, and the job was offered to someone else, who accepted?:eek:
 
America will go through the process of confederation much like Canada. I feel that canada will become it's own country much later and maybe even be merged with America.

It may or may not butterfly away the gold rush. I would say that the western part of the contanent is fair game for the spanish, Portugese, Japanese, or even the Chinese.

There will be less of a female crunch due to the ample supply from england. Canada will be under developed due to the lack of threat from the south, and therefore lack of forts. The colonies to england will be just like quebec is to canada.
 
As many know, George Washington (a distant relative of mine) was offered the position as king of America, but refused. What if he died in the war, and the job was offered to someone else, who accepted?:eek:

Who do you have in mind and under what circumstances is the crown offered? I'm not so sure that it would be offered to anyone, as no one had equal stature to Washington.
 
wait a minute, a shoulda posted this in the last thread. sorry.:eek:

true, no one did have Washington's stature. but, in a pinch, I'm sure Jefferson, Adams, or Franklin would do. Franklin and Adams, i can see refusing, as Washington did, in favor of a democracy, but maybe Jefferson might go for it. i dunno, the revolution isn't my specialty. of course, there were other very high-ranking generals who might have been offered a place in the government, risen through politics (not hard at the time), and been offered the position, which is plausible. or what if Washington accepted the offer (which would make Robert E. Lee the heir, and me the 5th cousin to the current heir of america, whoever he would be.) but that's kinda ASB.
 
Most of the other Founding Fathers would be problematic as a potential monarch due to being somewhat politically divisive figures; Adams and Jefferson were certainly none too fond of each other, while Franklin was very old and lacked a legitimate male heir (a problem Jefferson also has). While I'd imagine a hypothetical US monarchy would use succession rules very similar to Britain's and thus allow a Queen regnant, not having a male heir would certainly be seen as a significant negative to their viability as monarchs.

Also, depending on when Washington dies (I'd assume its after the Battle of Yorktown) the Newburgh Conspiracy could be an issue; if Washington's not alive to calm down the unpaid US army that could conceivably lead to the military marching on Washington. From there it's not hard to imagine the army's commander Henry Knox deciding that perhaps a crown would fit well on his head...
 
seems you thought it through more than I did!

seems logical, knox being king. maybe i'll do a timeline of it. as i said, the revolutionaty war era isn't my speciality, so i guess i'll be asking you other members for quite a bit of advice!:D
 
Having recently read a biography of Henry Knox, I believe he is an unlikely choice to start an American monarchy. The son of a failed merchant, Knox became a succesful book seller in Boston and a self taught soldier. He was a close friend of Wahington and Hamilton and a stong supporter of a true "national" government. Although he was the primary organizer of the Scoiety of Cincinnati (which was accused, unfairly, of "aristocratic tendencies") he never showed any interest in establishing a heriditary monarchy in the U.S.
However, in the situation created by this thread, I can see Knox and Washington's surviving "band of brothers" such as Hamilton, Greene and Wayne attempting to impose some sort of military dictatorship in light of the clear and abject failure of the Congress to deal with both the political and financial crises the country was facing. Without Washinton's leadership and political judgment the senior officers of the Continental Army could have been rash enough to see themselves as the last hope for an American nation worthy of the sacrifices of the Revoultion. Since such a grab for power would have been resisted by many political factions, and some entire states, this would have been a recipe for a long and bloody civil war, following on the heels of the civil war between the Loyalists and the the supporters of independence. This would have been a true disaster and it shows once again that Washington was, indeed, the "indespensible man".
 
Having recently read a biography of Henry Knox, I believe he is an unlikely choice to start an American monarchy. The son of a failed merchant, Knox became a succesful book seller in Boston and a self taught soldier. He was a close friend of Wahington and Hamilton and a stong supporter of a true "national" government. Although he was the primary organizer of the Scoiety of Cincinnati (which was accused, unfairly, of "aristocratic tendencies") he never showed any interest in establishing a heriditary monarchy in the U.S.
However, in the situation created by this thread, I can see Knox and Washington's surviving "band of brothers" such as Hamilton, Greene and Wayne attempting to impose some sort of military dictatorship in light of the clear and abject failure of the Congress to deal with both the political and financial crises the country was facing. Without Washinton's leadership and political judgment the senior officers of the Continental Army could have been rash enough to see themselves as the last hope for an American nation worthy of the sacrifices of the Revoultion. Since such a grab for power would have been resisted by many political factions, and some entire states, this would have been a recipe for a long and bloody civil war, following on the heels of the civil war between the Loyalists and the the supporters of independence.

In 1647, many political factions objected to New Model Army mutiny. They tried to assemble a counterforce, like army units separate from New Model Army, or London militia. They all failed. All the time to 1659, the only forces that would resist the Army were royalist rebels, who always failed.

From the New Model Army mutiny in Spring 1647, which did go forward, to the Second Protectorate Parliament offering Cromwell to be King in earnest by Humble Petition and Advice was 10 years.

During those ten years, the army tried a lot of things. Considered Leveller Agreement of People, quite seriously, in 1647 and 1649. Tried to work with Long Parliament, 1647-1648. Tried Rump Parliament. After dissolving the Rump, tried Barebones Parliament. Then Instrument of Government, and First Protectorate Parliament. And Regime of Major-Generals.

Cromwell was not the only Grandee. There were others - his superior Fairfax, also Pride, Ireton, Lambert, Fleetwood, Monck...

Note how Fairfax was sidelined and packed off to retirement after the mutiny.

Suppose that the Newburgh Mutiny goes on, and Washington either has died by the time, or fails to convince his generals to drop the idea and is bypassed like Fairfax. USA then has military dictatorship.

I assume that the military dictatorship would be as eager as New Model Army to work out some sort of compromise and approval of the people. And try to make for some sort of stable government.

Could some parts of army AND country press for a hereditary monarchy?

Who of Continental grandees would be the best candidate?
 
Wasn't it common practice in Europe (from 17th to 20th century) to offer monarchy of newly independent nations (or nations after a revolution) to a member of some other country's royalty

e.g. Glorious revolution in Britain (William of Orange), Norway (20th century - got a prince from Denmark), and I'm sure the same thing happened in lots of Balkan states too. You could even argue Hapsburgs in Mexico fits the patterns. Why should the new USA be different?
 
I believe the example of the New Model Army and Cromwell is very relevant to the ACW because it was precisely the desire of Washington and his band of brothers (a term Washington himself used) to avoid what had happened in the English Civil War. However, with Washington removed by a death after Yorktown the combination of Congress' arrogance and incompetence would have been a very tempting target for a Continental Army without the benefit of Washington's judgment and character.
The reaction to such a coup would likely have been armed resistance by the militias of several states and the political opposition of super Whigs such as Sam Adams of Massachusetts, the Lees of Virginia and Reed of Pennsylvania. Since the Continental Army by the time of the Newburgh Consipiracy was reduced to only a few thousand poorly armed and poorly clothed troops, the result of a coup attempt and a counter coup by the Whigs is not clear. However, I believe the most likely result is a divided and bitter group of jealous states and not a united monarchy (or even a protectorate).
 
Although it may not have been unusual for a foreign prince to be invited to assume the throne of a new nation in Europe, I do not believe that this model could have, or would have, been followed in the case of the U.S. The leaders of the American Revolution were dedicated republicans and we sometimes foreget how anti monarchy and anti any central authority radicals such as Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, Josepth Reed, the Lees and Jefferson were.
I believe that the only reasonn the U.S, was able to avoid splintering into 13 or 3 or 4 separate, bickering mini states was that almost everyone, including some of the radicals, was able to agree that if George Washington was for the Constitution , they would give it a try, and if Washington was President, they could trust that at least for a while it would not be a monarchy.
With Washington removed from the picture, I do not believe the movement would be to a foreign prince, but to jealously guarded state sovreignty and increasingly "pure" republicanism as practiced in Rhode Island, Pennslyvania and Virginia with annual elections, weak executives and strong legislatures.
 
I think the offer of the crown to G.W. is more or less apocryphal, and would never be tolerated by the likes of Franklin, Adams, or any of the other New England or Northern firebrands. The southerners might be a little more open to it but your smack dap in the middle of another conflict.

If Washington were to die after Yorktown, then who would have had the most influence to sway the officers and men from storming congress over back pay? Who would have been held in such god-like esteem by so many as he was? No one. Washington was a self contained enigma and anyone that would have attempted office of anysort afterwards would have had a fight on their hands. (Washington/anonymous election to the post of president) Politics was not a clean and simple affair then either.

Possibly without Washington, the U.S. is divided and it looks a little more like the modern day banana republics in some places or possibly like the Greek city states.
 
Very funny, Feelxfunk. However, more likely would be Robert E. Lee telling the Ambassador of the invading French Empire: "I am sorry that I can not accept your kind offer of alliance because I understand that our enemies, the boy loving Bostonians have already rejected a similar offer and it would be dishonorable for us to submit when the effete New Englanders have not. You may have paid the money loving New Yorkers for their neutrality and awed the cowardly Pennsylvanians into submission, but this is Virginiiiaa!!!!"
 
Top