Washington's Third Term?

What would have happened if George Washington had run for a third term? No doubt he would have won. Would he have still died two years later causing John Adams to take to office as president? Would presidents be legally allowed to run for a third term nowadays? What butterflies would ensue? What would happen?
 
Well, Washington's not running for a third term set a precedent that Presidents after him followed. If he had run for a third term and then stopped after that, the tradition would have been to stop after 3. If he had died during his third term, there would have been pretty much no limit.
 
Washington probably would not have died in 1799. He died because he was inspecting his farm at Mount Vernon on a rainy day and cought pneumonia. so, had he been president he probably would have been at the capitol
 

Eurofed

Banned
What would have happened if George Washington had run for a third term? No doubt he would have won. Would he have still died two years later causing John Adams to take to office as president? Would presidents be legally allowed to run for a third term nowadays? What butterflies would ensue? What would happen?

Since his OTL death in 1799 derived from exposure to the elements followed by pneumonia, it is sure that a third term would have butterflied it away. Most likely, Washington would finish his third term.

One of the most likely butterflies (one I used in my Ameriwank TL) is that he would have very likely stopped the Alien and Sediction Acts, which pretty much crippled the Federalist Party for good. He stood for neutrality, but he also stood for defending America effectively, so he he would have still fought the Quasi-War with France (maybe with a formal declaration of war to France). Adams would have almost surely won the 1800 election, quite possibly the 1804 one, too, and Federalist victories in 1808 and 1812 with Pinckney or Hamilton are a definite possiblity. Thus, George's third term could easily butterfly away the disastrous Jefferson Presidency. If this happens, and the Federalist Party remains in power, they can use the Quasi-War and the First Barbary Wars as justifications to build a strong US Army and Navy. Certainly they would do so as a response to growing British harassment of American trade, instead of Jefferson's moronic self-harming embargo.

With a strong US military in the War of 1812, substantial territorial gains in Canada become plausible. Maybe Lower Canada/Quebec itself or maybe not. But Upper Canada/Ontario is definitely in the cards. If America gains Upper Canada (and quite possibly Lower Canada, too) in 1815, it is all but sure that in the long term, Rupert's Land, Northwest territory, and Pacific Northwest are fated to become American, too, conquered or bought by the USA during the 19th century, as a combination of factors (poor strategic communication with Britain and rump atlantic Canada, if it exists at all, scarce British and abundant American settlers, and declining fur trade) makes them look more and more not worth the economic and military effort and risk of another major war with the USA to keep them British for London.

Another big butterfly is that keeping the Federalists longer in power would allow Hamilton's economic program (infrastructural improvements, subsidies to banking and manufacturing) be implemented for another decade (a longer Federalist dominance surely butterflies away the deul for Burr and keeps Hamilton alive, too) makes America's economic development be even quicker and stronger than OTL. It is kinda more difficult to say how their longer dominance would have affected the budding sectional antagonism between North and South.

There is a definite possiblity that the first US party system would endure up to modern times, as the Federalist Party keeps the place that historically was filled by the Whig and Republican Parties in turn. Surely, incumbent fatigue would eventually bring the Democratics in power, no matter how successful the Federalists may have been, but if they win the War of 1812, they gain a substantial extra lease on power and their economic policies were sound, so the Jeffersonian democratics never gain power, the moderate new breed led by Madison and Monroe may or may not ever do, quite likely the change in power happens with the Jacksonian revolution and the advent of mass parties in 1820-1828.

Washington's third term would have surely established an unchallenged precedent. For the rest of American history we may look to many successful two-term Presidents that are not crippled by ill-health or scandals seeking a third term and most of them getting it, too. However, the likely gain of most or all of Canada in 1815, the longer Federalist dominance, and the different party system creates far bigger butterflies in the list of presidents than a three-terms standard may ever do. One thing is certain, however, if the 22nd Amendment even happens ITTL, it shall mandate a three-terms limit.
 
Last edited:
It is hard to say if the Federalists would be as dominating in the early 1800's if Washington served a third term. Adams would have a term and then it might be a switch to the Democratic Republicans.

There would still be a power strugle between Adams and Hamilton on who leads the party.

Who is to say that internal fighting might not break the party up, leading to a united Democratic-Republicans take over.
 

Eurofed

Banned
It is hard to say if the Federalists would be as dominating in the early 1800's if Washington served a third term. Adams would have a term and then it might be a switch to the Democratic Republicans.

There would still be a power strugle between Adams and Hamilton on who leads the party.

Who is to say that internal fighting might not break the party up, leading to a united Democratic-Republicans take over.

True, this is wholly possible, but it was the Alien and Sediction Acts which broke the back of the Federalist Party in 1800, and I can't see good old George signing them.
 
Eurofed,

I find your anlaysis well though out and very encouraging to those few Federalists (like me) who have survived. However, I think you may have under estimated the ability of the High Federalist faction (the Essex Junto) to bring down the party. Even if Washington had been able to avoid the disaster of the Alien and Sedition Acts in his third term, I believe that Pickering and his friends would have pushed Adams (the natural successor) into some other stupid, anti-democratic act which would have given the Jeffersonian Republicans a new lease on life.
Being a Federalist is like being a Chicago Cubs fan: you know that life is unfair. Despite their service to the Republic, the Federalist never learned how to play the political game as it was emerging and sooner or later it will catch up to them. My guess is sometime in Adams' first (and last) term.
Thank you, however, for a dream of Federalism triumphant.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Eurofed,

I find your anlaysis well though out and very encouraging to those few Federalists (like me) who have survived.

Thanks, I am very fond of the Federalists myself, they seemed to have almost all of the good ideas for the early USA.

However, I think you may have under estimated the ability of the High Federalist faction (the Essex Junto) to bring down the party. Even if Washington had been able to avoid the disaster of the Alien and Sedition Acts in his third term, I believe that Pickering and his friends would have pushed Adams (the natural successor) into some other stupid, anti-democratic act which would have given the Jeffersonian Republicans a new lease on life.

Well, this may or may not happen. But it is also quite possible that avoidance of the A&SA disaster, four extra years of getting education at the rules of the democratic system under Washington's guidance, could have given them enough self-control to avoid other really bad blunderings like the A&SA during Adams' first term, which would have entrenched them into power until Jackson came around, and avoided the unmitigated disaster of the Jeffersonians in charge. While Jefferson was an outstanding polymath, he should have never got any closer to power than being one of the Framers. His Presidency is hugerly overvalued IMO because of his one good choice, Lousiana Purchase. Actually he was as bad as GWB, his moronic foreign and security policy choices caused America to face ther War of 1812 utterly unprepared, spoiling the other good chance to prevent the bad historical mistake that was Canada :p (nations suck, the less the better :cool:), and its extremist states' rights ideas planted the seeds that blossomed in Southern secession.

Thank you, however, for a dream of Federalism triumphant.

Check my Ameriwank TL, then. A Federalist America running from Quebec to Lima in 1816.
 

Eurofed

Banned
You seem to be forgetting that a good number of secessionist movements were in New England.

And quickly died and were buried soon after the War of 1812 was over, being fed by incompetent D-R leadership before and during the war more than anything else.

The ideological background for the Southern secession came in an unbroken progression from Jeffersonian ideas about extreme states' rights first spawned in the 1790s-1800s and later elaborated and developed by Calhoun and his ilk in the 1830s-1850s as a platform excuse to defend waning slaveholding political supremacy.
 
One of the most likely butterflies (one I used in my Ameriwank TL) is that he would have very likely stopped the Alien and Sediction Acts...

I have thought about this before but I haven't seen anything definitive about Washington and these acts, even though he was alive when they were enacted. Does anyone know his actual position on the Acts?
 
Bump in Hope of an Answer to the Above Question

Sorry for the selfishness of this bump, but I was hoping to gather some extra insights onto Washington's actual views on the Alien & Sedition Acts and the Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions.
 
However, the secessionist movements in New England weren't based on 'State's Rights' at all. They were a reaction to that idea itself.
Not exactly; as Eurofed said the New England secessionist movements were mainly a result of the war of 1812, and consequently died out once the war was over.

At this point, if I were a neocon I'd make some crack about how the anti-war movement has been stabbing the US in the back for 200 years. Fortunately, I'm not a neocon.
 
The ideological background for the Southern secession came in an unbroken progression from Jeffersonian ideas about extreme states' rights first spawned in the 1790s-1800s and later elaborated and developed by Calhoun and his ilk in the 1830s-1850s as a platform excuse to defend waning slaveholding political supremacy.
Are you honestly blaming Jefferson for the Civil War? :confused:

Also, I think you are entirely overestimating the ability of the Federalists to survive as a coherent political party. Even removing the Alien and Sedition Acts does not get rid of the immense political machine the Democratic-Republican Party had created. They had societies everywhere and aggressively campaigned to promote their party. Meanwhile the Federalists had... basically nothing. Even by 1796 the Federalists were on the way out: their only support was in New England and Jefferson came close to winning. Even if the Federalists manage to survive the Alien and Sedition Acts, they will still continue to decline. Aaron Burr will win New York for the D-R Party in 1800, Jefferson will win, and the Federalists will still find themselves an increasingly spent force.
 
Top