WI:John Adams As The First US President?

In my other thread, we came to the conclusion (or at least I did) that John Adams was the most liekly person to be elected the First American President, if it was not George Washington.

So, How would things have gone differently if John Adams and not George Washington was the First US President?
 
In my other thread, we came to the conclusion (or at least I did) that John Adams was the most liekly person to be elected the First American President, if it was not George Washington.

So, How would things have gone differently if John Adams and not George Washington was the First US President?

I never thought we reached a consensus :) but for the sake of good questions let me take a stab before anyone else.

Is Washington completely out of this scenario? if not he is VP then most definitely this will be a more successful term for Adams. If it is Jefferson, I don't know what will happen. They were good friends through most of their lives but Jefferson always struck me as sneaky dude (read Ellis' book on Jefferson and you will see what I mean). Adams might do better as the 1st pres then as the 2nd, because nobody could really follow Washington and be deemed a success by the bodypolitic. Overall I think because of his personality issues, you will see more fracturing earlier and probably a very closely run election of 1792. OTOH you might see greater Federalist unity and no backstabbing like in OTL 1800, as a result the party is viable to the 1810s.

As for Legislation, Assumption will come up and will have to pass. Plain and Simple the govt. was going to fall apart if it didn't happen. So for you Libertarians out there hoping Assumption gets butterflied is out of the question. I have to imagine that most of Hamilton's agenda will go as planned. Overall Adams as 1st Pres. may not be that bad but I doubt all would rosey and the political sectionalism would only arise faster because Adams would have to weigh in on everything while Washington was content to sit and listen.
 
One of the results would be a quicker passage of the 12th amendment. The two party system would begin right away. Adams might get two terms, but it is quite likely that he would be defeated if he ran again. Thus no two term limit precedent is set. A northern capital might occur under Adams though to get assumption passed it might still be located on the Potomac. War with Britain might occur sooner because the Jay Treaty probably doesn't get passed if it even gets negotiated with Jefferson possibly President by 1792.
 
I never thought we reached a consensus :) but for the sake of good questions let me take a stab before anyone else.

Is Washington completely out of this scenario? if not he is VP then most definitely this will be a more successful term for Adams. If it is Jefferson, I don't know what will happen. They were good friends through most of their lives but Jefferson always struck me as sneaky dude (read Ellis' book on Jefferson and you will see what I mean). Adams might do better as the 1st pres then as the 2nd, because nobody could really follow Washington and be deemed a success by the bodypolitic. Overall I think because of his personality issues, you will see more fracturing earlier and probably a very closely run election of 1792. OTOH you might see greater Federalist unity and no backstabbing like in OTL 1800, as a result the party is viable to the 1810s.

As for Legislation, Assumption will come up and will have to pass. Plain and Simple the govt. was going to fall apart if it didn't happen. So for you Libertarians out there hoping Assumption gets butterflied is out of the question. I have to imagine that most of Hamilton's agenda will go as planned. Overall Adams as 1st Pres. may not be that bad but I doubt all would rosey and the political sectionalism would only arise faster because Adams would have to weigh in on everything while Washington was content to sit and listen.

By assumption do you mean debt assumption?

Why would the government fall apart without it?
 
By assumption do you mean debt assumption?

Why would the government fall apart without it?


I meant debt assumption, sorry should have capatilized it.

Under the Articles of Confederation and before that during the ARW the states and the Congress took on massive loans at varying interest rates from various lenders. In order for the new United States to be able to get the capital to pay for tarriff collection, war rebuilding, and to be considered a worthwhile entity by the nations of Europe the new US govt had to show they were doing something about their debts, and to be able to secure future loans for future undertakings.

So the govt will not fall apart from internatl pressure right away but external pressure will come to bear and any chance of the govt being able to establish itself without foreign interference becomes increasingly less likely. As the British begin to feel their oats again after a few years and the states are feeling the pinch from their massive govt. debts then we start to have problems. The Dutch controlled most of the credit work going in and out of Antwerpn at this point, they were also tertiary allies to the US during the ARW, while they would enjoy sticking it to the English, they don't want to lose financial supremacy in Europe. Same with Spain and France, there finances were wrecked and this directly lead to their issues with there own people (France) and colonies (Spain).

Back to the US, If you remember your ARW history most of the states outside of New England and Pennsylvania and some circles in Virginia were very reluctant to revolt. If the Southern states feel like they are getting a bad shake from this new Union they will most definitly threaten succession and without the ability to secure more capital the US is lost and England can proceed to intervene. Assumption is crucial for two reasons: one it wedded the states together financially and two, it showed the Europeans we were serious about our debts and we are able to control them. Assumption is in my opinion one of the top reason the US rose to 1st world status and is as successful as it is today.
 
I meant debt assumption, sorry should have capatilized it.

Under the Articles of Confederation and before that during the ARW the states and the Congress took on massive loans at varying interest rates from various lenders. In order for the new United States to be able to get the capital to pay for tarriff collection, war rebuilding, and to be considered a worthwhile entity by the nations of Europe the new US govt had to show they were doing something about their debts, and to be able to secure future loans for future undertakings.

So the govt will not fall apart from internatl pressure right away but external pressure will come to bear and any chance of the govt being able to establish itself without foreign interference becomes increasingly less likely. As the British begin to feel their oats again after a few years and the states are feeling the pinch from their massive govt. debts then we start to have problems. The Dutch controlled most of the credit work going in and out of Antwerpn at this point, they were also tertiary allies to the US during the ARW, while they would enjoy sticking it to the English, they don't want to lose financial supremacy in Europe. Same with Spain and France, there finances were wrecked and this directly lead to their issues with there own people (France) and colonies (Spain).

Back to the US, If you remember your ARW history most of the states outside of New England and Pennsylvania and some circles in Virginia were very reluctant to revolt. If the Southern states feel like they are getting a bad shake from this new Union they will most definitly threaten succession and without the ability to secure more capital the US is lost and England can proceed to intervene. Assumption is crucial for two reasons: one it wedded the states together financially and two, it showed the Europeans we were serious about our debts and we are able to control them. Assumption is in my opinion one of the top reason the US rose to 1st world status and is as successful as it is today.

Well, I'm just a little confused as to why the union would fall apart if, say, 1780's attempts to get the states to assume the Federal debt had gone through. The states were doing rather well in handling their own war debts, several of them having already discharged them by the time of the Constitution.

In fact, as far as I understand, the only reason that didn't happen IOTL was because Hamilton and the other High Federalists were so convinced they needed to use the debt as a weapon, and so cut off all attempts to solve the debt crisis in any way that didn't involve giving the national government some kind of taxing authority.

And don't you think tying the states together with a chain of debt sounds mildly...authoritarian?
 
Well, I'm just a little confused as to why the union would fall apart if, say, 1780's attempts to get the states to assume the Federal debt had gone through. The states were doing rather well in handling their own war debts, several of them having already discharged them by the time of the Constitution.

Some where and some wheren't Virginia wasn't paying at all will N.C. had paid off its rather miniscule debt. Massachusetts was another state suffering from massive debt. The Mass. debt directly provoked IIRC Shay's Rebellion, if not Shay's then another incedent that required the calling out of the militia, most of whom fell into the debtor category. The point of assuming the debt was to avoid this unrest.

In fact, as far as I understand, the only reason that didn't happen IOTL was because Hamilton and the other High Federalists were so convinced they needed to use the debt as a weapon, and so cut off all attempts to solve the debt crisis in any way that didn't involve giving the national government some kind of taxing authority.?

This comes down to vision of what the American Republic should be, do you wish to create an empire? or a 3rd world confederation? Washington, Adams, and Hamilton all favored a vision of the Imperial Republic hence there backing of the Assumption, while Jefferson and leter Madison favored a weaker govt. prefering states to the heavy lifting and the USA to be the international face of things. Giving the govt. the authority to tax will most assuredly create a state that could rival and eventually overtake Britain (OTL is evidence) if you wish to languish and be manipulated that see South America. What I mean by mentioning S.A. (South America) is that for years they were manipulated by foreign govts. and businesses (USA included) for the sake of profit by a willing local cleptocracy. In a situation where some areas are paying and some aren't you are breeding a situation for exploitation.

And don't you think tying the states together with a chain of debt sounds mildly...authoritarian?

Yes, it is. This is why Jefferson said negotiating Assumption for DC in the South was the biggest mistake of his career, and became another reason among the litany of reasons why there was animosity among the men. Hamilton duped Jefferson
 
Mr. Marty,

"Duped"? I think that is a tad harsh. I think both AH and TJ knew exactly what they were doing and both thought that they had got the better of the bargain. TJ later realized that this was not the case and repented of his actions. Thus, in my opinion, showing that he had no understanding of finance and that he was a poor loser.
As to whether Assumption would be adopted under a first President Adams, I think the answer is probably, but not definitely. As pointed out by you, Assumption was a key element in Hamilton's financial plan and was also necessary to bind the states in a real federal union and not a confederation of convenience and I think even John Adams would have realized that and backed it. However, without GW's prestige behind it (and GW's known preference for a Potomac capital) I am not sure that the AH/TJ/JM grand bargain would have occured.
As to the rest of Hamilton's financial plan, I am not sure that in OTL Adams understood the purpose and importance of the Bank of the U.S. and therefore it might fail in TTL. Also at some point, AH lectures JA one too many times about his plans and their importance and the two have their inevitable(?) falling out. The nascent Federalist Party is split and the Jeffersonians have less opposition. TJ becomes President four or eight years earlier resulting in a much less "federal" union and a more pro-French U.S. To a devout Federalist such as myself, both things too terrible to contemplate at length.

AH
 
yea it was meant to say felt duped. I lay on the pro-federalist side of the debate myself. Edit: Since the OP doesn't stipulate the condition of Washington, I was hoping Adams and Washington flipped places and Washington could use his influence to convince the skeptics and corral Hamilton.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Mowque and Mr. Atom,

While not taking anything away from the best (only?) musical comedy made about the ARW, I should point out that the only place that John Adams was described in writing as "obnoxious and disliked" is in the diaries of John Adams. Which is not to say that paranoids don't have real enemies.

AH
 
Another interesting possibility with Adams as the first president is the possible change in the role of the Vice President. The position of President of the Senate might gain more importance if another person is the first Vice President, especially if that person was Washington. The increased role in the Senate might have some interesting implications for the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches as well.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Okay, let's say John Adams is POTUS and George Washington isn't VP (because really why would he be?).

Who is the most likely VP in this scenario? I would assume it would be a southerner, but I don't think it would be Jefferson. Perhaps John Rutledge of South Carolina?
 
Okay, let's say John Adams is POTUS and George Washington isn't VP (because really why would he be?).

Who is the most likely VP in this scenario? I would assume it would be a southerner, but I don't think it would be Jefferson. Perhaps John Rutledge of South Carolina?


I think you end up with Charles Pinckney or Edward Randolph. Jefferson isn't possible as he is still in France (IIRC). John Rutledge would be kind of a darkhorse. He dies in I believe 1791 so we have a constitutional crisis in the first couple of years with him interesting pick.

If this helps stir up debate, if we remove Washington from the 1789 EC voted #2 and #3 are Adams and Jay of NY what if the EC votes stay the same and #1 and #2 become Jay and Adams? What does the south do?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Edmund Randolph sounds like a good pick; I think Pickney would be a bit too divisive due to his arch pro-slavery views and attempts at pro-slavery policy implementation. IIRC, he tried to pass Fugitive Slave Act right out of the gate that got slapped down due to, along with Northern discomfort, infringing upon states' rights.

Anyways, without Washington in the running, I think the electors will vote differently. All the Southerners will probably vote for a candidate who is able to balance out Adams to prevent a Northern "monopoly" over the Executive branch, which is what one would basically see with an Adams-Jay presidency that would most likely include the potent Alexander Hamilton in its cabinet.
 
Edmund Randolph sounds like a good pick; I think Pickney would be a bit too divisive due to his arch pro-slavery views and attempts at pro-slavery policy implementation. IIRC, he tried to pass Fugitive Slave Act right out of the gate that got slapped down due to, along with Northern discomfort, infringing upon states' rights.



Anyways, without Washington in the running, I think the electors will vote differently. All the Southerners will probably vote for a candidate who is able to balance out Adams to prevent a Northern "monopoly" over the Executive branch, which is what one would basically see with an Adams-Jay presidency that would most likely include the potent Alexander Hamilton in its cabinet.

There are at least 3 Pinckneys involved at the Con. Convention: Charles C. Pinkney, Thomas Pinkney and Charles Pinkney, any of them are a possibility. It seemed like the Pinkney's hatched in pods :D during the ARW.

I think Hamilton is involved anyway, regardless of Washington, there was a national consensus on who could manage the Federal finances 1. Robert Morris (in OTL he recommended Hamilton) 2. Hamilton. I think the 1st Pres. will try to gather the greatest collection of minds possible. The evolution of the VP will be interesting because Adams was frequently told to shut up, but if the position is handled diplomatically then the VP could an almost PM type of position.

Re: Adams-Jay, you are probably right, but one thing to consider it is harder to find two men (besides Washington and Franklin) more respected across the board than them. I think the ticket will be balanced sectionally just thought it should be pointed out.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
How about this?

President: John Adams
Vice President: Charles C. Pinckney
Secretary of State: John Jay
Secretary of the Treasury: John Hamilton
Attorney General: Edmund Randolph
Secretary of War: Henry Knox

The only question is who becomes the first Chief Justice if Jay's SecState? An earlier John Marshall dominancy, perhaps?
 
How about this?

President: John Adams
Vice President: Charles C. Pinckney
Secretary of State: John Jay
Secretary of the Treasury: John Hamilton
Attorney General: Edmund Randolph
Secretary of War: Henry Knox

The only question is who becomes the first Chief Justice if Jay's SecState? An earlier John Marshall dominancy, perhaps?

How about John Rutledge? According to Wiki he actually did one of the first cases affirming Judicial Review. He dies around the time Jay leaves the Court and still clears the way for Marshall. Otherwise I like it. this would be a cabinet very interested in Detente, and the Hawkish Hamilton would be the one left in the cold, not Adams this time. Although Adams and Hamilton have acquired the undying hatred for each other in 1789 so maybe they see eye to eye on more things.
 
Top