WI: Electoral monarchy for the USA

Skallagrim

Banned
It's quite well known here on AH.com that suggestions to turn the fledgling USA into a monarchy were raised by some. Obviously, these suggestions remained fringe proposals and were never too seriously considered (at least not by a sufficiently substantial number of powerful people). Yet there have been discussions and timelines that figure out ways to make it happen.

I have not seen a discussion or timeline about the possibility of introducing an electoral monarchy in the USA. Such a concept was hardly unheard of: the Holy Roman Empire had its elected emperor, and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had been famous for its electoral monarchy. In fact, that latter example was regularly seen as a 'crowned republic'. (Needless to say, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had its failings, but those were associated with the liberum veto than with the electoral nature of its crown.)

Perhaps relevantly, electoral monarchy would be reminiscent in certain ways of ancient Rome. The Roman Emperors were not elected, of course, but it wasn't a typically hereditary office. Many Founding Fathers adored ancient Rome. One might imagine them not going with the title of 'king', but calling the elected monarch 'Princeps' instead, for instance.

If hereditary monarchy can be imagined for the USA, electoral monarchy may well be a viable alternative. One could opt for the briefly-considered-in-OTL Henry of Prussia without worrying about his lack of heirs. Or one could install George Washington as monarch without fearing a dynasty arising from the precedent. (Alexander Hamilton would no doubt support that latter option-- fondly imagining, one assumes, the possibility that he himself might one day be chosen as Washington's heir to the throne.) Electoral monarchy also leaves a lot of options open: does the monarch choose an heir, or does Congress elect a new monarch upon the former monarch's passing? Or does the monarch adopt an heir, but conditional on congressional approval?

It's certainly food for thought, which is why it surprised me that I'd never seen it discussed. (Admittedly, that might be due to myself; perhaps I just missed the relevant threads.) Anyway, could this have come about, or am I totally wrong to even consider the notion? I don't think it was ever discussed in OTL, but supposing someone had raised it as a more sensible alternative to 'just import a European dynasty'... could it have gained traction?
 
If George Washington had not created the precedent of only serving two terms, this could have practically come to pass. There might not be a literal crown but the President, allowed to run for life, could have become more and more of a monarchical/dictatorial figure.

In my opinion his decision not to run again in 1796 was a huge development for US democracy.
 

Deleted member 97083

Perhaps relevantly, electoral monarchy would be reminiscent in certain ways of ancient Rome. The Roman Emperors were not elected, of course, but it wasn't a typically hereditary office. Many Founding Fathers adored ancient Rome. One might imagine them not going with the title of 'king', but calling the elected monarch 'Princeps' instead, for instance.
"American Caesar" would be a pretty cool title. Although it would probably require the early US becoming a banana republic for a few years and democracy being severely threatened to become acceptable.

In a somewhat more normal American monarchy scenario: If Henry of Prussia is brought over and appointed as the first holder of the title, a title that becomes electoral on his death but he's the one appointed first. Then the title could be Herzog, or German for Duke.

(Founding Fathers could reason, well a duke is less powerful than king, which is good for balance of powers. And since few people in the new US were familiar with the title Herzog, they can define its powers pretty much anew to fit within the Union's constitutional basis. It's also a title from the Protestant world.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It has been discussed before. Most agree that it would include more limits on the role vis a vis the presidency than otl set.
Similar to the French semi-presidential system with the Speaker becoming a Prime Minister.
 

Schnozzberry

Gone Fishin'
Donor
During the Constitutional Convention, the idea of a lifelong Presidency was discussed, and pretty quickly abandoned. The delegates at the Convention in general thought the idea of an elected monarchy or a similar style office was pretty much the worst part of both an elected office, and a monarchy as it provided the position of a leader/dictator for life without the stability from a monarchical line. Also, another major problem in an elective monarchy would have been a very large chance of a highly corrupt elective system coming into being, not dissimilar to what happened in the Holy Roman Empire. However, America would likely have allowed Congress to reject heirs, and suspend/eject a monarch from their position. This would create a semi-electoral system, where one dynasty rules, but certain heirs could be rejected by Congress.
 
It has been said (somewhere) that the US OTL does elect a king with more powers than William III of England, every four years. And there have been dynasties as well.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
It has been said (somewhere) that the US OTL does elect a king with more powers than William III of England, every four years. And there have been dynasties as well.

Not even untrue, in a sense. In the same way, people pay taxes now that would be grounds for bloody revolution back then (even discounting the fact that the issue then wasn't the taxation itself but the lack of corresponding representation). Yet the two eras cannot be compared ceteris paribus, of course. Nevertheless, the presidential system of the OTL United States has a rather strong executive. At least de facto: in theory, the Dutch executive, with which I'm familiar, has powers the US executive can only dream of - such as the power to unilaterally void any judicial ruling. Evidently, as demonstrated by the current US president's more drastic proposals being blocked by the courts, the US executive has no such power. Yet the difference is that the Dutch executive will hardly ever use such powers, whereas the US executive is quite willing to fully use the powers that it does have. So, yes, the US executive is in many ways very powerful, and can do things that king George could not.

It would be very interesting if the institution of an electoral monarch could, as @The Professor wrote, lead to a more parliamentary system where the executive is ultimately less powerful. I suppose it depends on the way this all comes about. If it's a kind of 'Henry of Prussia as American monarch' thing, then that outcme seems likely. If Washington goes for more than just two terms, and his successor keeps that up, and the executive keeps drawing power to itself until at one point every president is just elected for life in every practical way... then I can easily see that system being put into the constitution formally. Presidents for life, and with a lot of power. (That's more the extreme version of what @funnyhat proposed.)
 
During the Constitutional Convention, the idea of a lifelong Presidency was discussed, and pretty quickly abandoned. The delegates at the Convention in general thought the idea of an elected monarchy or a similar style office was pretty much the worst part of both an elected office, and a monarchy as it provided the position of a leader/dictator for life without the stability from a monarchical line. Also, another major problem in an elective monarchy would have been a very large chance of a highly corrupt elective system coming into being, not dissimilar to what happened in the Holy Roman Empire. However, America would likely have allowed Congress to reject heirs, and suspend/eject a monarch from their position. This would create a semi-electoral system, where one dynasty rules, but certain heirs could be rejected by Congress.

As I recall, the proposal was that Presidents should be elected for as long as they maintained "good behaviour", i.e., until they died or were impeached. The possibility of impeachment could help reign in the President for Life and stop him becoming too power-hungry, especially if Congress develops a tradition of being relatively impeachment-happy.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
As I recall, the proposal was that Presidents should be elected for as long as they maintained "good behaviour", i.e., until they died or were impeached. The possibility of impeachment could help reign in the President for Life and stop him becoming too power-hungry, especially if Congress develops a tradition of being relatively impeachment-happy.

A system where a president-for-life / elected monarch gets to appoint his own (non-hereditary) heir/successor, but where Congress has to approve that heir/successor and can impeach/dethrone the monarch, would be very interesting to see. There could still by 'dynasties' of sorts (the monarch appoints his son as heir, and Congress approves it), which also happened in other electoral monarchies from time to time, but it wouldn't be the standard.

There would be various ways in which it could go wrong, but also interesting ways in which it could go right.
 
I doubt the constitutional convention would choose such a system, especially because Washington himself didn't want it. But what if some years later the US experience a great crisis (obviously, the Civil War and Reconstruction Era is a choice here) and an ambitious general seizes power? This could be the begining of the slow transformation of the US into a banana republic, in which lifetime presidents, coups and corruption are quite common.
 
This is interesting food for thought, and actually I've thought that even on its own terms, the 1787 convention could have come up with better or at least different solutions to the chief of state problem, which could also be labelled the "Washington problem".

This was the situation. People were worried, probably too much, about an attempt by an European power to take over. They wanted someone in place who could command the armed forces and negotiate as an equal with the European heads of state, which at the time were all monarchs (in many ways, the eighteenth century was both peak monarchy and peak aristocracy). Plus, the success of people accepting the new system of government depended heavily on Washington's prestige and Washington having a role, and the only suitable role for him was as head of state. This isn't that unusual, the success of the French 5th Republic depended heavily on de Gaulle and that fact shaped its institutions.

Washington himself did not want to be King, was hesitant even about the second term, let alone being president for life, and also had no children. These are all important considerations when looking at alternatives.

If you want a King, and you want the King to be Protestant, you are pretty much stuck with Germans and the ethnically German British royal family. The relatives of George III were not that impressive, even assuming George III gave his permission. So you can rule out that option. Note that when Latin American countries became independent, there was a lot of support for instituting monarchies in most of them, and these efforts all failed except in the very unusual circumstances of Brazil.

So given all this, what were the realistic alternatives?

Though this is off topic, one thing that the Framers could have done was to have created the office of the Presidency, but only for George Washington. They liked classical precedents, and there was one in the institution in the Roman Office of the Dictator. So you elect Washington President, for "good behavior"or however long he wants it (he can always resign), and then you don't necessarily have to elect another President when he leaves office. The President is someone you pretty much elect when there is a crisis. When there isn't a President, the House of Representatives nominates, and the Senate confirms, heads of the executive department. There are procedures to trigger the assembling of the Electoral College.

Thinking outside the box, there is no reason not to just take the OTL office of the President and call the President "the King". You can even have a single fixed term -eg you can be King for six years or whatever, though the title is probably inconsistent with running for re-election. There is no reason not to allow the "King" to abdicate when he gets tired of the job, which would suit Washington. You then just elect a new King, or not as per the paragraph above.

The office of the Vice President changes in this scenario but does not necessarily go away When the King dies or abdicates, an election has to be held, so if you want someone to exercise the office in the mean time, a Vice King or Viceroy who can serve during the interregnum is probably a good idea.

The reason this could fly is that really in 1787 there were very few other republics, and the ones that did exist, the United Provinces of the Netherlands and Venice, had very King like offices that were hard to distinguish from the elected Kings of Poland.

One thing though is that at the time Poland was rightfully regarded as a failed state -as of 1787 it would only have a few more years of existence- and neither Venice nor the Netherlands were in much better shape, though Switzerland always does OK. The Polish system of government is something the Framers wanted to avoid, which is also why we have the "natural born citizen" qualification for the presidency.
 
This is interesting food for thought, and actually I've thought that even on its own terms, the 1787 convention could have come up with better or at least different solutions to the chief of state problem, which could also be labelled the "Washington problem".

This was the situation. People were worried, probably too much, about an attempt by an European power to take over. They wanted someone in place who could command the armed forces and negotiate as an equal with the European heads of state, which at the time were all monarchs (in many ways, the eighteenth century was both peak monarchy and peak aristocracy). Plus, the success of people accepting the new system of government depended heavily on Washington's prestige and Washington having a role, and the only suitable role for him was as head of state. This isn't that unusual, the success of the French 5th Republic depended heavily on de Gaulle and that fact shaped its institutions.

Washington himself did not want to be King, was hesitant even about the second term, let alone being president for life, and also had no children. These are all important considerations when looking at alternatives.

If you want a King, and you want the King to be Protestant, you are pretty much stuck with Germans and the ethnically German British royal family. The relatives of George III were not that impressive, even assuming George III gave his permission. So you can rule out that option. Note that when Latin American countries became independent, there was a lot of support for instituting monarchies in most of them, and these efforts all failed except in the very unusual circumstances of Brazil.

So given all this, what were the realistic alternatives?

Though this is off topic, one thing that the Framers could have done was to have created the office of the Presidency, but only for George Washington. They liked classical precedents, and there was one in the institution in the Roman Office of the Dictator. So you elect Washington President, for "good behavior"or however long he wants it (he can always resign), and then you don't necessarily have to elect another President when he leaves office. The President is someone you pretty much elect when there is a crisis. When there isn't a President, the House of Representatives nominates, and the Senate confirms, heads of the executive department. There are procedures to trigger the assembling of the Electoral College.

Thinking outside the box, there is no reason not to just take the OTL office of the President and call the President "the King". You can even have a single fixed term -eg you can be King for six years or whatever, though the title is probably inconsistent with running for re-election. There is no reason not to allow the "King" to abdicate when he gets tired of the job, which would suit Washington. You then just elect a new King, or not as per the paragraph above.

The office of the Vice President changes in this scenario but does not necessarily go away When the King dies or abdicates, an election has to be held, so if you want someone to exercise the office in the mean time, a Vice King or Viceroy who can serve during the interregnum is probably a good idea.

The reason this could fly is that really in 1787 there were very few other republics, and the ones that did exist, the United Provinces of the Netherlands and Venice, had very King like offices that were hard to distinguish from the elected Kings of Poland.

One thing though is that at the time Poland was rightfully regarded as a failed state -as of 1787 it would only have a few more years of existence- and neither Venice nor the Netherlands were in much better shape, though Switzerland always does OK. The Polish system of government is something the Framers wanted to avoid, which is also why we have the "natural born citizen" qualification for the presidency.
Maybe a consulate with a Consul as head of state .
 
I propose something like the Ancient Roman Kingdom where a council elects the new monarch?

If so:

George Washington, Caesar 1789-1799

Major candidates for next Caesar of the United States:

John Adams, Master of The Horse

Alexander Hamilton, adopted heir of Washington, Secretary of Treasury

Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State

Thomas Pickney, Governor of South Carolina

Aaron Burr, Senator of New York
 
Though this is off topic, one thing that the Framers could have done was to have created the office of the Presidency, but only for George Washington. They liked classical precedents, and there was one in the institution in the Roman Office of the Dictator. So you elect Washington President, for "good behavior"or however long he wants it (he can always resign), and then you don't necessarily have to elect another President when he leaves office. The President is someone you pretty much elect when there is a crisis. When there isn't a President, the House of Representatives nominates, and the Senate confirms, heads of the executive department. There are procedures to trigger the assembling of the Electoral College.
Couple this with the executives usually being a triune of consuls, and some way to trigger the President to step down, and an interesting system is born.
 
Has anyone actual sources about the discussions in Philadelphia and the discussion about the monarchic option?

Because until now, this thread is mere speculation about what the Founding Fathers could have considered if they were drunk and read Gibbon while drafting the Constitution.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Has anyone actual sources about the discussions in Philadelphia and the discussion about the monarchic option?

Because until now, this thread is mere speculation about what the Founding Fathers could have considered if they were drunk and read Gibbon while drafting the Constitution.

I can't find anything online right now. Most relevant texts are about the proposal(s), and some of them very quite dramatically in how they portray those. (Some, for instance, present the Prussian scheme as fact, while others dismiss it as at most an unofficial suggestion by some unimportant figures.) The actual discussion during the Convention pertained not to the Prussian scheme at all, nor to any other lesser-known fringe proposal, but to Alexander Hamilton's proposal. His own account of his rather long speech and the (not enthousiastic) response to it can be found in volume 9 of The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, published by Columbia University Press. Worth getting for many more reasons, I assure you! But sadly not available online, to the best of my knowledge.

The thing is, Hamilton was evidently quite serious about it. Some have portrayed his proposal as a very radical stunt he didn't actually mean; as a 'counterweight' to other, 'one-year-term' proposals he despised, in an attempt to reach a middle ground. But from everything he writes about it, you'll see that he truly desired a monarchy. Even in later commentaries to the constitution, he made constant poorly-veiled allusions to how much better and 'more stable' his own proposal had been. Far from an opportunistic trick, it was no doubt what he really wanted.

Hamilton's proposal is often presented as being for an elective monarchy, but if I recall it correctly, he mostly argued for a monarch that could be impeached (he used the phrase 'good behaviour', which has cropped up repeatedly in this thread, as the criterium) by Congress. He was far more vague on the exact mechanism for succession. This may have been deliberate: he didn't want to seem too opportunistic, but it comes across rather strongly as if he wanted to be Washington's heir. The problem is that Hamilton, in typical Hamilton fashion, talked loudly and at length about all his own pet obsessions-- mainly about the dangers of mob rule and uncertainty, and how a strong executive without term limits could bring stability and certainty. He didn't explictly present a solid practical plan for an elective monarchy.

What Hamilton failed to do was gain support beforehand, so his rather unexpected diabetre caught many by surprise. Rather than overwhelm them with his brilliance, as he seems to have expected, it came across as way too radical when compared to what was being discussed. Now, Hamilton was not a stranger to some scheming. So if we take as our POD that Hamilton talks his plans through with some like-minded fellow delegates first, and convinces them of its merits, history can suddenly take a whole other turn. Supposing trhey point out the weaknesses of his proposal, and get him to present a more dedetailed system. Or better yet: have someone else raise the suggstion, then have Hamilton puck it up and try to sway the whole convention with a more detailed plan. If more people support it and it's better worked out that Hamilton's OTL plan, it may gain considerably more interest and/or support.

Best would of course be if Hamilton can (get someone to) convince Washington of the great importance of stability, and that a life-long 'monarchial' executive would secure that stability. If Washington, even unofficially, makes it known that he'd accept such a role, you can bet that it'll suddenly become a very realistic option.
 
Last edited:
The Hamilton stuff is interesting, but without more details I am not sure what to make of it.

What Hamilton seems to be proposing is a President for Life who could be removed by Congress fairly easily (or resign) short of that. The critical part is the circumstances under which removal "for good behavior"is possible, and to a lesser extent the process of election.

For example, in modern day South Africa, the President -who is not elected for life but for renewable terms like elsewhere- is both elected by Parliament and is removable by Parliament, by a simple majority vote for any reason. One President has been removed in this manner, and it involved no suspicion of criminality or other type of misconduct. As political scientists have pointed out, this makes the President of South Africa more of a Prime Minister who happens to moonlight as the head of state. The point is that if you make it easy to remove the President, the ultimate effect is not very monarchical!

One big blind spot of the framers of the 1787 Constitution its hat they seem to have thought that the federal government could and would operate without political parties. That has to be kept in mind whenever you see super-majority requirements written into the Constitution. That, and the fact that both Houses of Congress had much fewer members than we are used to in the 20th century (the House settled at 435 members in 1910 and the Senate at 96, to increase later to 100). The 1790 Senate, after Rhode Island finally joined the union, had 26 members, for example, with a reasonable expectation of a half a dozen more being added shortly. With a 32 member Senate, only 21 Senators gets you a two thirds majority. So under the provisions of the Constitution, impeachment and removal of the President required only House majority and 21 Senators, certainly nothing close to the 67 at present, and the situation where the President's party would block impeachment for partisan reasons, something that happened IOTL at both presidential impeachment trials, was just not anticipated.

One additional point about Hamilton is that New York had withdrawn its delegation from the constitutional convention. Hamilton stayed on, so New York could be said to "participate", but really had no standing. In other words, he probably shouldn't have been there at all and his views likely to be disregarded for reasons other than being radical. His importance is exaggerated because of his writings to convince the New York convention to (narrowly) ratify the Constitution anyway.

Where this is going is that while not ASB, I get the impression that some sort of monarchy really was not on the table at Philadelphia, and I'll also grant that my idea of creating something like the presidency, but just for Washington, not as a permanent fixture, though consistent with the objectives of the framers, was not even brought up.
 
To make this work, I think you need to tweak the pre-Revolutionary history a little. I think you need more colonial aristocrats, who are on side with the rebellion. And/or you need more involvement from either the French Canadians or some kinds of native confederacies, who believe themselves to have some kind of special relationship with the monarchy and who are thought will cause problems if they don't get a king.
 
Top