what if Washington did not run in 1792?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
and retired instead ?

who would be the presidential election winner and what would be the effects?
 
This should be on Before 1900 Forum.

Probably someone would break one term presidency thing earlier than in OTL FDR broke two terms thing.
 
I assume its Adams v. Jefferson. And the latter might actually have a better chance than in 1796 in OTL--the Republicans did well in congressional elections that year, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses and while George Clinton lost the vice-presidential race to Adams, he did remarkably well under the circumstances:

"In view of all Clinton's disadvantages--his Antifederalist record, the
dubiousness of his 1792 gubernatorial victory, the lateness of the
Republicans in endorsing him (Kaminski, p. 236, remarks on the logistical
difficulties of Clinton's candidacy: 'Presidential electors were elected
in mid-to-late fall and were required to cast their ballots on December 5.
To inform all of these electors that Clinton was the designated Republican
candidate was nearly impossible.'), the nonexistence of any but the
loosest party organization on a national scale--the surprising thing is
that

"'With their low-keyed, behind-the-scenes activity, the Republicans came
close to upsetting Adams. Although Washington was again the unanimous
choice of 132 electors--two electors from Maryland and one from Vermont
did not vote--Adams had only seventy-seven votes. Clinton, with all the
votes of Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Georgia, and a single
vote from Pennsylvania, had a total of fifty. Kentucky cast four votes
for Jefferson, and South Carolina produced one vote for Burr. *Had
Pennsylvania swung to Clinton, he would have defeated Adams.*" McCormick,
p. 49. (Emphasis added.) ..."
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/WWdwLlM4lyY/Tjd0fjfn5bEJ

Of course, the vice-presidential candidates also matter, since under the Constitution as it then existed, the man who was intended to be vice-president might become president instead. One surprising possibility, if the Federalists win, is the US getting its first Catholic vice-president--or even president--long before one would think it likely:

"Sounds implausible, but "In reply to a proposition from McHenry to support
Charles Carroll as a Candidate in the event of the President's [Washington's]
retirement, Hamilton observed, 'Your project with regard to the Presidency in
a certain event will, I believe, not have an opportunity of being executed.--
Happily for the public tranquillity, the present incumbent, after a serious
struggle, inclines, if I mistake not, to submit to another election.--If it
turns out otherwise, I say unequivocally, I will co-operate in running the
gentleman you mention as one of the two who are to fill the two great
offices--which of the two may turn up, *first* or *second*, must be an affair
of some casualty as the Constitution stands. My real respect and esteem for
the character brought into view will ensure him my best wishes in every
event.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=3SQ-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA59

"If Washington did decide to retire after one term, could we get John
Adams/Charles Carroll vs. Thomas Jefferson/George Clinton--with the
Federalist ticket winning, and with a handful of southern Federalist electors
voting for the Catholic but southern (and slaveholding) Carroll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carroll_of_Carrollton but not for the
northerner Adams, so that Carroll comes out a vote or two ahead?..."
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/Q2atPpnHziE/FCONpGPb60cJ

(Alternately, of course, anti-Catholicism could lead to a few Federalist electors not voting for Carroll, so we could get Adams-Jefferson for years earlier than in OTL. But it's more likely that the Federalists will name a southerner other than Carroll to be Adams' running mate--maybe a Pinckney...)
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
This discussion gives us a few different alternate scenarios.

1st is Washington retires and we get president Jefferson, with any of Adams, Clinton or Carroll as veep.

What are the effects of a President Jefferson 8 years early?

Another is president Adams, 4 years early.

Yet another is John Carroll. not only is the Catholic aspect interesting, but so is the southern Federalist angle all on its own. I wonder how that might influence the chances of war with France, if tensions rise.
 
Last edited:
The comments on the state of American politics in 1792 are fascinating, and raise another alternative history scenario of George Clinton being elected Vice President that year instead of Adams. And of course you have the really screwed up pre-12th Amendment presidential election system coming into play an election earlier.

But a bigger long term effect would be the replacement of the two term presidential tradition with a one term presidential tradition. And I think this one lasts until the Civil War, which may well get butterflied away. Or the Theodore Roosevelt administration, which also gets butterflied away. And no, Andrew Jackson doesn't break it, either he doesn't want to, or the Whig attacks on "King Andrew" have more bite and they actually manage to defeat his bid for re-election, which of course would solidify the one term tradition.
 
I can't see a one term tradition taking root. 4 years is too short for people to say 'ok, that's long enough'. 8 yrs is a respectable length for it being long enough to accomplish goals, not long enough to out stay your welcome. At the same time, after 8 yrs, the system has usually had enough of any given leader, with opposition mounting. It's a goldilocks situation: can be ditched after 4 years, can last as long as 8, and then someone else takes over. and the politics behind the throne is just about right. With an early precedent of 4 yr max, you're looking at a south american scenario, Venezuela particularly (I think) of 4 years in, hand pick a toady, come back for 4 more. No one is going to accept 4 years max and that's it. Although if they do, it likely leads to a weakening of the presidency, as party leaders are going to stay in non presidency roles in order to lengthen the time of their relevancy. May lead to a 'don't pick me to be President' mindset, which leads to weaklings being president, and others being the real leaders of the country.

Mostly, I think people ignore Washington's one term precedent and do what they want, because one term isn't enough. it could lead to a dictatorship, whether it's FDR style, or south american style.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I can't see a one term tradition taking root. 4 years is too short for people to say 'ok, that's long enough'. 8 yrs is a respectable length for it being long enough to accomplish goals, not long enough to out stay your welcome. At the same time, after 8 yrs, the system has usually had enough of any given leader, with opposition mounting. It's a goldilocks situation: can be ditched after 4 years, can last as long as 8, and then someone else takes over. and the politics behind the throne is just about right. With an early precedent of 4 yr max, you're looking at a south american scenario, Venezuela particularly (I think) of 4 years in, hand pick a toady, come back for 4 more. No one is going to accept 4 years max and that's it. Although if they do, it likely leads to a weakening of the presidency, as party leaders are going to stay in non presidency roles in order to lengthen the time of their relevancy. May lead to a 'don't pick me to be President' mindset, which leads to weaklings being president, and others being the real leaders of the country.

Mostly, I think people ignore Washington's one term precedent and do what they want, because one term isn't enough. it could lead to a dictatorship, whether it's FDR style, or south american style.

You may be right about the outcome, but that's hindsight talking. There was a lot of distrust of long terms in those days. There were serious voices advocating a one year term. The presidency was designed with Washington in mind. Had it been clear he wasn't going to run, there would have been considerably more support for actually fixed term limits of some sort pertaining to the presidency. Limiting it to a single four-year term is not at all unlikely in such a scenario. The fact that whoever becomes president will not have Washington's universal popularity will also play a role there: both Federalists and Democratic-Republicans will want to make sure that if their guy doesn't make it, at least the other guy can't be in charge for too long.
 
They could have gone with a single six year term if Washington had backed the proposal, which he well might of. He didn't really want to be there for eight years. And single six year terms have worked well in other countries eg Mexico. Countries have been switching to American style renewable four and five year terms, but the only basis to this seems to be a drive to imitate the hyperpower USA.
 
What if in OTL after Washington did his eight years the Founding Fathers change the Presidency into a one term only but its 8 years instead of 4?
 
Skallagram,
the mere fact that a limit wasn't written in shows that there was no consensus on the subject. thus, it was left to Washington to set a precedent. IMO, the model he chose was right. 4 years isn't enough to outstay your welcome. 8 years, for the most part, is usually long enough to outstay it. Washington had the popularity to go for 12, or 16, but he also saw that this was a bad precedent. 4 years is early enough to change course if the president isn't up to snuff. Good flexibility all around. The system worked for a long time, until FDR decided to buck time honored tradition, and then it was very quickly cemented into place.

One major problem with a one term policy is the lame duck presidency starts on day one. a multi term policy delays it til the second term.

certainly, writing a different term policy into the constitution could make different term limits work. however, sans a written policy, I think it would have been more likely that Washington setting a one term tradition wouldn't have taken hold as much as his two term tradition did.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Interesting points/debate about effects on long-term tradition.

What about some of the more immediate affects of having a Jefferson Administration run from 1793-1797, or an Adams term for the same period?
 
Top