WI: George Washington Does Become King of America

Making Washington a king is less ASB than what really happened OTL- trying to turn him into a god. The Apotheosis of Washington at the Capitol building literally shows Washington becoming a god; and as crazy Da Vinci Code-like thinking it sounds like, it really does in fact show that.
 
Sure, but monarchies tend to be a bit more ... I guess "glittery" is the right word, about it. ;)
However, the really critical difference is fixed term.

The imperial presidency is pretty glittery. Monarchy can have a fixed term, if america wanted to call itself a elected constitutional monarchy no one would dispute it, just like no one truly disputes calling itself a Republic. With a strong executive not answerable to a parliament you basically inbetween.



Second- Adams would never have allowed any such treaties with France or the UK that would have forced us to be a monarchy. Again, we have his letters in his words that he was worried about this, in particular with France demanding it. Jefferson was in France later with Adams, and at this period they were close friends; with young JQA and Mrs Adams having quite a close connection with Jefferson and his daughter; though they disagreed on some topics, Jefferson and Adams would have been united on this point. Franklin... probably would have supported an elected monarchy, but really neither cared to listen to him, he was old, lazy, and ineffectual at this point in life.


America needed French support, they would of agreed to almost any proposal if France wanted it bad enough, lesser of two evils. Without French support our revered founding fathers would of hung as traitors, which they were, they would of been failed traitors -- which they knew.
 
The imperial presidency is pretty glittery. Monarchy can have a fixed term, if america wanted to call itself a elected constitutional monarchy no one would dispute it, just like no one truly disputes calling itself a Republic. With a strong executive not answerable to a parliament you basically inbetween.

Well, the Founders may have decided to call the office of President "King" while keeping everything else exactly the same. Still, I don't think that the OP is asking that, and at the time, the idea would have seeme a bit strange.
While it is true that some fixed term monarchies technically existed, I cannot think of any of them that would be present to the Founders as an example, or even relevant to their notion of kingship (which is of course culturally determined, which I should perhaps have specified in my earlier posts).
They certainly had a clear example of elective monarchy (Poland) which was clearly pretty far from a resounding success at the time. To be fair, they also had examples of Republics who had heads of state for life (Venice, also not quite the success story at that point). But I still believe that to their minds, the office of King was quite closely connected to a lifelong task (barring abdication).
 
Following the Romans, the US could have adopted Diocletian's model with elected Emperors reigning a limited time. This might be in line with then contemporary classicism.
 
Actually, I have been working on a sort of scenario like this. It's in my sig, The Greatest Man in the World. I've been VERY sidetracked, but PM me, and I'll discuss.
 
What about France saying: "We support you. But we want you to elect a King we can negotiate with - we don't communicate with you "Continental Congress".

The idea of a republic is not alien; Holland, after all, is not a kingdom at this time. Why would they say this?


One- Despite a host of people on AH.com who state otherwise, the facts are that Hamilton DID want an elective monarchy, he stated so in his own words, there are sources, use Google.

He did it once, no? At the Constitutional Convention? And even there, he never publicly advocated for a hereditary monarchy.

A president for life with strong executive powers is still not the same thing as Washington becoming king, IMO.
 
Sure, but monarchies tend to be a bit more ... I guess "glittery" is the right word, about it. ;)
However, the really critical difference is fixed term.

There were also plenty of people who hated these traditions; it's one reason Jefferson won.
 
Well, monarchy or not, the new nation would still have a legislature and judicial branch.

"Hey, we just fought a war against somebody we perceive as a tyrant. Let's give power to someone who has even MORE capabilities than the tyrant."

The American revolt began as a strain of thought over the King not using his powers, many of the founders explicitly wanted the King to act against Parliament in their favour. That's a key reason why the President (aka the "King") is so strong in the American political system, and the legislature so much weaker than a parliamentary one.
 
The American revolt began as a strain of thought over the King not using his powers, many of the founders explicitly wanted the King to act against Parliament in their favour. That's a key reason why the President (aka the "King") is so strong in the American political system, and the legislature so much weaker than a parliamentary one.

The King only became a symbol of tyranny when he refused to even read the olive branch petition, before that it was only parliament and his majesty's government that had the colonist angry. By the time the Petition was received america was already halve in rebellion so the King refused to even listen, but even if he had he couldn't of done much, except maybe keep the personal loyalty of the colonist.
 
The imperial presidency is pretty glittery. Monarchy can have a fixed term, if america wanted to call itself a elected constitutional monarchy no one would dispute it, just like no one truly disputes calling itself a Republic. With a strong executive not answerable to a parliament you basically inbetween.



Second- Adams would never have allowed any such treaties with France or the UK that would have forced us to be a monarchy. Again, we have his letters in his words that he was worried about this, in particular with France demanding it. Jefferson was in France later with Adams, and at this period they were close friends; with young JQA and Mrs Adams having quite a close connection with Jefferson and his daughter; though they disagreed on some topics, Jefferson and Adams would have been united on this point. Franklin... probably would have supported an elected monarchy, but really neither cared to listen to him, he was old, lazy, and ineffectual at this point in life.


America needed French support, they would of agreed to almost any proposal if France wanted it bad enough, lesser of two evils. Without French support our revered founding fathers would of hung as traitors, which they were, they would of been failed traitors -- which they knew.

False- Adams and Jefferson were both in France and they both were willing to walk away from French support over such a demand. There is empirical evidence from their letters showing that. Instead you use your own beliefs about the founding fathers, you need to use their own primary sources instead. History is about primary sources, not secondary.
 
The idea of a republic is not alien; Holland, after all, is not a kingdom at this time. Why would they say this?




He did it once, no? At the Constitutional Convention? And even there, he never publicly advocated for a hereditary monarchy.

A president for life with strong executive powers is still not the same thing as Washington becoming king, IMO.

Well, Holland was (and is) only a province, it is not and has not ever been an independent nation, so you're correct. The nation is and always has been the Netherlands. Yes, they were a "republic" though actually more correctly an oligarchy ruled by the wealthiest of the people from the most economically important provinces. They also had an "elected" monarchy, that turned into a hereditary one (similar to how the Habsburgs did in the HRE).
 
False- Adams and Jefferson were both in France and they both were willing to walk away from French support over such a demand. There is empirical evidence from their letters showing that. Instead you use your own beliefs about the founding fathers, you need to use their own primary sources instead. History is about primary sources, not secondary.


Not to say I do not believe you, but you didn't show your primary sources... Second this is kind of moot because we, the usa, wouldn't exist if they had walked away, I like to assume they weren't that stupid. They knew they were up against the greatest empire in the world, and their chances were slim. This I have read about in primary sources, when various people signed the declaration of independence they thought they were signing their own death warrants.
 
A French thinker Benjamin Constant proposed a different model of separation of powers with the constitutionalization of the Monarch's powers as a clear 4th power: executive, legislative, judiciary and the "moderating power of the king".
His ideas would be perfect to conciliate American constitutionalism and monarchy. However, his Principes de Politique are from 1806.
 
Not to say I do not believe you, but you didn't show your primary sources... Second this is kind of moot because we, the usa, wouldn't exist if they had walked away, I like to assume they weren't that stupid. They knew they were up against the greatest empire in the world, and their chances were slim. This I have read about in primary sources, when various people signed the declaration of independence they thought they were signing their own death warrants.

John Adams by David McCullough is great in that it has excerpts directly from the primary sources and is extremely well sourced with citations. Not to mention that McCullough is a real historian and not just writer.
 
Well, Holland was (and is) only a province, it is not and has not ever been an independent nation, so you're correct. The nation is and always has been the Netherlands. Yes, they were a "republic" though actually more correctly an oligarchy ruled by the wealthiest of the people from the most economically important provinces. They also had an "elected" monarchy, that turned into a hereditary one (similar to how the Habsburgs did in the HRE).

"Holland" is also a colloquial name for the Netherlands. I'm surprised you didn't know that already.:confused:
 
Last edited:
Top