So what powers do you envisage the Presidency having? If there's nobody of Washington's stature to fill it, the Convention won't give it anything like as much power as OTL.
WI: Washington dies during the siege of Yorktown?
- Thread starter Joe Hooker
- Start date
So what powers do you envisage the Presidency having? If there's nobody of Washington's stature to fill it, the Convention won't give it anything like as much power as OTL.
Maybe something similar to Adams Olive branch proposal to Jefferson happens ITTL and Jefferson accepts. The vice president is given essentially equal powers to the president. Now that would be interesting.
Of course this begs the question of Adams being POTUS. Would he be?
OTL he got the job mainly because he was Washington's VP, and so the natural "Administration" candidate. And he was VP because he was a New Englander and the top job had gone to a Virginian. Given that VA ratified the Constitution only 89-79, wouldn't there have to be an understanding that a Virginian (Jefferson? Madison?) would be the first POTUS, to secure VA's approval?
I agree with the first two posters. There's unlikely to be a POTUS, at least one like we know, if Washington isn't around. I wouldn't be surprised of the US limped along for a number of more years on a revised AoC, and then goodness knows what's going to happen. Options range from the US breaking up into multiple smaller units to a later constitution. But it wouldn't likely look much like the current one. IMO.
Washington established much of the presidence for what the President does. Let's say they still have something close to the Constitution set up. And they elect a President. Whoever this president is will influence how Presidents act for years to come. And if you have someone careless in power, it'll be bad news.
Deleted member 43582
Have Franklin become president (or PM or whatever the new constitution is gonna be like). 
For no particular reason other than making the white house the biggest whore house this site of the Atlantic.
For no particular reason other than making the white house the biggest whore house this site of the Atlantic.
My take:
1. A much messier end to the War. Perhaps no Newburgh Conspiracy coup but more mutunies of individual units (there were several in OTL) and more dribbling away of the Continental Army without GW around trying to hold things together.
2. Knox and/or Greene assume control of the Continental Army but without GW's stature and reputation both nationally and internationally.
3. Franklin, Adams and Jay still manage to bring the war to a satisfactory close but the Treaty of Paris may not be as favorable to the U.S. because of the feebelness of the Continental Army which reduces U.S. control over its claimed territory.
4. No Annapolis ceremony in which GW returns his commision to Congress. The ceremonial birth of civilian control over the military in the U.S.
5. Several unsuccessful attempts to amend or rewrite the AoC. Annapolis, Philadelphia, etc., etc. Without GW's name and prestige to attract influential delegates, encourage compromise and then obtain ratification the Federalist goal of a truly national government dies still born.
6. The Confederation Government eventually dies, splits up or is just ignored by the states due to disputes over Western land claims, navigation on Western rivers, Indian problems, foreign relations issues and and tax and tariff issues, or a combination of these things.
7. It is difficult in our ironic age when fame and celebrity are such fleeting and immaterial things to recognize that in an earlier age character really did count and that GW due to a rare combination of virtues (and his carefully cultivated perception by the public of those virtues) was indeed the indispensible man of his time and place. Adams, Jay, Hamilton, Knox, Jefferson, Madison and a host of others accomplished what they did after 1781 because of what GW did and who he was (or was perceived to be).
Your humble servant
AH
1. A much messier end to the War. Perhaps no Newburgh Conspiracy coup but more mutunies of individual units (there were several in OTL) and more dribbling away of the Continental Army without GW around trying to hold things together.
2. Knox and/or Greene assume control of the Continental Army but without GW's stature and reputation both nationally and internationally.
3. Franklin, Adams and Jay still manage to bring the war to a satisfactory close but the Treaty of Paris may not be as favorable to the U.S. because of the feebelness of the Continental Army which reduces U.S. control over its claimed territory.
4. No Annapolis ceremony in which GW returns his commision to Congress. The ceremonial birth of civilian control over the military in the U.S.
5. Several unsuccessful attempts to amend or rewrite the AoC. Annapolis, Philadelphia, etc., etc. Without GW's name and prestige to attract influential delegates, encourage compromise and then obtain ratification the Federalist goal of a truly national government dies still born.
6. The Confederation Government eventually dies, splits up or is just ignored by the states due to disputes over Western land claims, navigation on Western rivers, Indian problems, foreign relations issues and and tax and tariff issues, or a combination of these things.
7. It is difficult in our ironic age when fame and celebrity are such fleeting and immaterial things to recognize that in an earlier age character really did count and that GW due to a rare combination of virtues (and his carefully cultivated perception by the public of those virtues) was indeed the indispensible man of his time and place. Adams, Jay, Hamilton, Knox, Jefferson, Madison and a host of others accomplished what they did after 1781 because of what GW did and who he was (or was perceived to be).
Your humble servant
AH
Interesting. I did hear that they even considered giving the crown of the United States to the Prussian King. Perhaps they would have gone a monarchy route since GW isn't around to tell them not to.
Mr. Hooker,
My view on the monarchy thing is that GW was the only real candidate that would have been even remotely acceptable to Americans of the Revolutionary Generation and even he would have been a very, very controversial choice. Luckily, he did not want the job.
Any other choice would have united the pure, pure republicans of the Patrick Henry, Sam Adams variety with the just anti monarchy republicans such as Jefferson and Madisons and even the semi aristocratic republicans like John Jay and John Adams.
I think the Prussian Prince idea, even if it was a real proposal would never have gotten off the ground. Just too many people who disliked royalty in 18th century America.
Without GW, I think a divided America with each state (or regional grouping of states) trying to be the dominant force in a U.N. like Confederation Congress is much more likely that a united America with a foreign prince.
Your humble servant
AH
My view on the monarchy thing is that GW was the only real candidate that would have been even remotely acceptable to Americans of the Revolutionary Generation and even he would have been a very, very controversial choice. Luckily, he did not want the job.
Any other choice would have united the pure, pure republicans of the Patrick Henry, Sam Adams variety with the just anti monarchy republicans such as Jefferson and Madisons and even the semi aristocratic republicans like John Jay and John Adams.
I think the Prussian Prince idea, even if it was a real proposal would never have gotten off the ground. Just too many people who disliked royalty in 18th century America.
Without GW, I think a divided America with each state (or regional grouping of states) trying to be the dominant force in a U.N. like Confederation Congress is much more likely that a united America with a foreign prince.
Your humble servant
AH
Deleted member 43582
Uhm, no. The colonies where VERY strongly influenced by liberal ideas (they rebelled because their right where being infringed and they basically quoted Locke in the DoI). Therefore I find it hard to believe to have them make someone like Frederik II become their king. He already proved himself to be staunchly absolutist (okay: ENLIGHTEND absolutist) and was quite cozy with the landowning nobles in Prussia. The land owning non-nobles that drafted the DoI and the constitution might fear for their property. Again for classic liberals in those times property rights whre a HUGE deal.
Frederik also wouldn't like to be demoted to a figure head. He also won't risk angering the other noble houses. Prussia is still the weakest of the five powers and already has bad blood with austria. The most likely event is Austria, Britain and Russia ganging up on Prussia-Amerika. Frederik MIGHT get some help from France, but their finances are such a mess at this point that they also won't be any help. End result: Slesia goes back to Austria, Hannover gains a little territory, Prussia is devided into Brandenburg and Prussia proper. Loss of the kingly title for Frederic. The division of poland is probably gonna happen without Prussia. A bit of price to pay for colonies you don't want in the first place?
For more likely is a monachist US offering the crown to a French noble or elivating one of their own to kingship.
EDIT: And Alexander Hamilton also pointed out why the very IDEA of a monarchist US is very unlikely.
Possibly. So, it would be a UN in the late 18th, early 19th Centuries. Not too far fetched. Would it then have devolved into continual border wars though between the States?
I think if you manage to have a "UN", you still have a working unity of the American states - for a given definition of unity.
I suspect this favors states like Virginia, though.
But this is assuming that Washington was some kind of towering figure that single-handedly made up for all the pettiness around him, which seems rather unbelievable to me.
Was he a potent example of what held this country together? Sure. Did he work hard for that goal? Sure. But to say that without him, everything dissolves into bickering and quarrels is giving everyone else too little credit.
It was Franklin, after all, who pointed out that "We must,
indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
I suspect this favors states like Virginia, though.
But this is assuming that Washington was some kind of towering figure that single-handedly made up for all the pettiness around him, which seems rather unbelievable to me.
Was he a potent example of what held this country together? Sure. Did he work hard for that goal? Sure. But to say that without him, everything dissolves into bickering and quarrels is giving everyone else too little credit.
It was Franklin, after all, who pointed out that "We must,
indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Oh, to be sure, there were a bunch of smart men during that time (makes you wonder why they didn't leave us some smart and less selfish people for our own time, lol). But, once that generation had passed, could they have kept it together? Would it have devolved into civil war sooner?
Through the grace of the Almighty God*, we managed OTL to survive Washington dying 27 years before Jefferson and Adams (to name the two whose historical dates of death I know off the top of my head).
I think the US could handle not having national mythology all but canonize George Washington as some figure equivalent to King Arthur, and I say this as someone with a high regard for his qualities of leadership and dedication.
* "There is a special providence for drunkards, fools, and the United States of America."- attributed to Bismarck.
First off, love the quote.
And yes, America could live without Washington.
What I am saying is that he was a great stabilizing force. He was the military hero devoted to the nation. Franklin was the great thinker. Jefferson was the great writer. But, without all of them together, you have a weaker combination. Without Franklin, his logic and witty wisdom could not have helped bring about order when the Constitution was born. Without Jefferson, there wouldn't have been his unique style. And all those other great founding fathers. If one of them is out of the mix, the whole suffers from their loss.
See, this is what I am objecting to. Was Washington a good man (at least in his time) and a good example? Yes.
But the idea that Washington was some kind of figure who held together men who were looking for an excuse to bicker does everyone else an injustice.
The men who came together to work on the Constitution wanted to find a workable solution, not just to flame each other. That would be true even with Washington in his grave.
Whether it would be exactly the same as OTL is unlikely, but that's more making different decisions than a US resting on weak foundations. It still has most of the founders alive, well, and determined.
And I suspect "the legacy of George Washington" is going to have a certain influence - people are going to treat him as an example of the unity/nonpartisanship/etc. he was an example of in life.
So I guess what I'm saying is, if you never had OTL Washington (from '75 on), that's one thing - but by 1781, Washington has done his work of setting an example, and anything beyond that is just furthering it.
Sig'd for truth.
The reason Washington was a stabilizing force was that he was the only figure whom everyone - absolutely everyone - respected. What's more, what he did in the Revolution was undeniable and memorable: other people wrote documents in Philadelphia/York/Annapolis or negotiated treaties in secret; Washington led the army. (And let's not forget all the Continental veterans who'd seen him in person.)
Plus, his republican character was undeniable: twice, Congress appointed him dictator; twice, he let the powers expire unused.
This (underlined) is true. And a lesser man than Washington in that position would suck.
I think he did use his dictatorial powers to some limited extent, but I can't remember for sure. Certainly nothing even remotely abusive.
But the post-1781 United States doesn't need a dictator, it just needs good leadership. And I think the other Founders are up to it.
Now, I suspect there will be a lot more arguing and desperate compromises without an example of that sort of thing in the flesh, but it's not as if the other
But the idea that he, and he alone, held things together . . .
Washington was a lot of impressive things, but by 1781, he has held the Continental Army together through stuff that would break a less well lead army. He has served as a model of Republican virtue and principle.
Someone else, at this point, is not the same as a lesser man, or the years after 1796 would see things crumble.
After thinking about it, I want to suggest a different direction for the divergence.
The Original Post suggests Washington dies early in the siege due to a freak accident. But what if he died later, and with a more heroic death? Suppose the siege goes as it does, but rather than seek terms of capitulation, Cornwallis instead tries to lead a desperate sally to break the Siege Lines, and manages to catch Washington's unit. Eventually the sally fails, but in the process Washington is cornered and killed. That could actually help Unite the American People, at least culturally but probably politically as well.
After all, in our Time Line Washington was many things; a War Hero, the "Greatest President Evar", the savior of the country, father of America, etc. In this Time Line, he is almost all of those things, but also Dies a Martyr, and if you think he was deified in our Time Line, imagine what's going to happen in this Time Line.*
You may actually get people to start joining the Continental Army en masse, to pay tribute to the Great Hero Washington's legacy, to see his dream carried through. Americans everywhere pay tribute to his Legacy, he who gave everything, even his life, to save Liberty.
And this isn't even getting into what could happen if he has, or is attributed, some profound, easily quoted Last Words, probably about passing the Torch of Liberty, long may it burn, united, in the dark or something similarly cheesy.
*Bonus Points if TTL Mormonism or equivalent literally deifies him Heavenly Kingdom style.
The Original Post suggests Washington dies early in the siege due to a freak accident. But what if he died later, and with a more heroic death? Suppose the siege goes as it does, but rather than seek terms of capitulation, Cornwallis instead tries to lead a desperate sally to break the Siege Lines, and manages to catch Washington's unit. Eventually the sally fails, but in the process Washington is cornered and killed. That could actually help Unite the American People, at least culturally but probably politically as well.
After all, in our Time Line Washington was many things; a War Hero, the "Greatest President Evar", the savior of the country, father of America, etc. In this Time Line, he is almost all of those things, but also Dies a Martyr, and if you think he was deified in our Time Line, imagine what's going to happen in this Time Line.*
You may actually get people to start joining the Continental Army en masse, to pay tribute to the Great Hero Washington's legacy, to see his dream carried through. Americans everywhere pay tribute to his Legacy, he who gave everything, even his life, to save Liberty.
And this isn't even getting into what could happen if he has, or is attributed, some profound, easily quoted Last Words, probably about passing the Torch of Liberty, long may it burn, united, in the dark or something similarly cheesy.
*Bonus Points if TTL Mormonism or equivalent literally deifies him Heavenly Kingdom style.