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?
A weaker US. US more involved in Europe's affairs. USA more like Socalist Europe.
I believe this is postulating a successful Revolution.<snip>
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?![]()
A weaker US. US more involved in Europe's affairs. USA more like Socalist Europe.
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.