WI: George Washington accepts being king
- Thread starter Thucydides
- Start date
ok well, Washington had no children of his own (he was impudent, his childlessness was part of why he was picked to be the first POTUS) so the Crown would pass to a number of people, there's his step-grandson (and adopted son) George Washington Parke Custis meaning that ether his daughter Mary Anna Randolph Custis or her husband Robert E. Lee will be monarch during the 1860.
it could pass to his nephew Bushrod Washington
it could pass to his nephew Bushrod Washington
General Mung Beans
Banned
Maybe this kingdom will have a Roman or HRE system where a new king is elected by a sort of an electoral college.
Slavery could have been ended sooner. Without a bickering congress having great control over the executive as it did, and the far simpler, streamlined government a monarchy is, a King could have just done whatever thing he wanted with the stroke of a quill. Though the only way I could see him really doing so without civil war would be reimbursing the slave holders for manumissions.
You could also see some our our TL's Presidents as Prime Ministers in such a universe.
Overall, I also think the USA becoming the UKA would retard republican efforts greatly. An American Monarchical system could be more Liberal, but it would still be a monarchy. I also don't know as if there would be elections for the monarch since Washington instating himself as king would seem to burn the bridge of the concept of a sovereign chosen by the people (which would actually be only the white, land owning male people if it were like the OTL on the original Presidential elections), and would seem to replace it with the idea that for the highest executive, the people will not know best.
You could also see some our our TL's Presidents as Prime Ministers in such a universe.
Overall, I also think the USA becoming the UKA would retard republican efforts greatly. An American Monarchical system could be more Liberal, but it would still be a monarchy. I also don't know as if there would be elections for the monarch since Washington instating himself as king would seem to burn the bridge of the concept of a sovereign chosen by the people (which would actually be only the white, land owning male people if it were like the OTL on the original Presidential elections), and would seem to replace it with the idea that for the highest executive, the people will not know best.
Last edited:
then you have a way to get rid of a monarch, and if they're elected they'll all be Buchanans weak and work able to both north and south
If its heretical, the monarch would not always be the same and if there was any slave state that could produce people open to the idea that slavery should be abolished, it would be Virginia. Also, it would probably not always be the same house. At some point, a monarch is not going to have a son or daughter, and a nephew or cousin will have to be the heir.
And if the monarchy was an elected position, one of the Northern or liberal minded Southern monarchs could probably abolish slavery before the 1860's. Even in an elected system the monarch would still be a very powerful position to get things like that done. Although it would probably be less likely than with a more stable heretical system, with conservatives southerners retarding the efforts of a abolitionist monarch for emancipation (then again, a king or queen willing to abolish the institution would be in power for their lifetime).
Ignoring slavery for the moment, the "benefit" of a Monarchy would be a far more streamlined organization which would make things easier. Treaties would be easier, declaring war would be easier, and whatever else the executive wanted would go through easier with the system of just a Monarch, a parliament, and maybe a judicial branch. So perhaps America could also have expanded faster than it did in the OTL into territories it didn't even annex in the OTL.
Last edited:
Interesting. I think that sooner or later perhaps in the 1860s some abolitionist would kill off the line of succession and a northerner would become king. We would probably have been a lot more aggressive and more militaristic
you're best hope is when George dies, the Monarchy (which is heretical) is viewed by the congress as vacant, and under it's powers to fill a vacant monarchy, elect the Prime minster, John Adams, the house of Adams rules to this day. the Adams are good New Englanders and abolitionist from the start
I don't know as if an abolitionist would have killed off the line of succession (if you mean as an assassin. In the other case of an abolitionist King killing off the line, all they would need to do would be to "get it on" and the line would continue).
Whether we would be aggressive or militaristic I don't know about either. I think we wouldn't have been knuckle dragging savages, but we would have gentlemanly extended into territories and would likely have set up some colonies to "civilize the savages", and in my opinion we might have been kinder to the Indians as well, attempting to make them "civilized" and "christianized" instead of trying to kill them all as a rule. Though it would have still been conflicted. What I'm saying is it might have been lighter. And, at least in my mind, more chivalrous. Say, the relationship between Britain and India. Or, if still conflicted more than I may romantically paint the possibility, Britain and the Zulu.
I think "expansionist" would be more apt than aggressive.
I like Jefferson better. Just out of my own prejudices, but putting it out there. Jefferson himself was an abolitionist so it would still work.
Jefferson was a hypocrite when it came to slavery, and sonless, also, he some thing of a revolutionary,
Jefferson owned slaves because of personal debt:
And Jefferson was really only revolutionary in the sense that he believed the colonists had a right to govern themselves. If America were already free and a parliament existed for the people, I think he would have been fine with a Monarch. And he did have daughters. What is so out of line for a female monarch? The colonists were, after all, Englishmen's descendants and England had had Elizabeth and so forth.
Xen
Banned
How about a precedent being started of Elected Kings, for instance once Washington is elected King in 1788, he is crowned King George I and rules until his death in 1799, Congress then selects a Royal Stewart until a new King is elected, for grins and giggles we will say Alexander Hamilton is elected in late 1799 and is crowned three months later as King Alexander I and rules until his death in 1855, again Congress selects a Royal Stewart until, lets say Sam Houston is elected King, and is crowned King Samuel I and when he dies in 1863, the whole damn process starts over again.
I still think it wouldn't happen. The declaration of Washington as monarch would likely stifle the idea of a republican executive to the point where electing a monarch would not seem to fit. And most of the Americans, and I would venture most of the "founding fathers" would have been comfortable with a monarchy as long as it was an American monarchy, and that's why it was proposed to Washington that he be made king in the first place.
Anyway, here's an alternate history thing you guys can look over on this stuff:
http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Washington_Dynasty
Anyway, here's an alternate history thing you guys can look over on this stuff:
http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Washington_Dynasty
If you mean the give and pull between Southern and Northern presidents, it was generally either steps to curtail slavery or very often either compromise (the Missouri Compromise, for example), or just ignoring the issue. Overall, the heated struggle was really in the congress where it many times degenerated into open brawling between Northern and Southern representatives on the Senate floor and it was the Congress that usually decided what happened concerning slavery and how many steps forward or backward the nation took. The Judicial branch was also rather powerful in deciding the issue.
But a king, being more powerful than a president, and having a parliament instead of a two body Congress (Senate and House of Representatives), would seem to me to indicate that there would be more of a give and pull in the executive body in an electoral monarchy between pro-slavery and pro-abolitionist leaders because a monarch would have such great power, either type of leader would remain for life, and either, if I'm not wrong, would be elected by this divisive parliament. And if not give and pull (that argument seemed to hold up better than it does when I look back on it), I just think it would be a bad system because depending on the parliamentary way of electing members the US chooses, the South -even with smaller population than the North in a parliament where every state is given two electors- could manage to get in its own staunchly pro-slavery monarch who would reign for life. I just think hereditary is easier and would be more likely.
On another subject, what about the Prime Minister in such a world?
Last edited: