It might be true that without Washington we lose the war - I certainly can't think of anyone with his leadership-in-a-crisis skill/s except (on a small scale) George Rogers Clark, and if we count him - and at least for rating ability, we must - Benedict Arnold.
And the idea that Washington and only Washington could have done those things is where this goes from "Washington was amazing" to "And the Lord sent down George, His Angel, to lead the United States."
Then don't have the military people take over. There problem solved. Have Jefferson or Franklin become president. They are among the most respected people IN THE WORLD at that time. They should be able to keep it together.Now, the case isn't, only Washington could do it. The thing is, Washington had the right name, the right face, and the right temperament in the right mixture to be the figurehead the nation needed at that time. The other military figures either didn't care to get involved, or they would have abused their power easier then Washington did in OTL.
Jefferson was certainly RESPECTED, but I am not at all sure he was TRUSTED by enough people to give him the kind of power a US President can have. Would he have stepped down after 2 terms? Would he have tried to impose his vision of the US, which differed markedly from the Federalists' vision?Then don't have the military people take over. There problem solved. Have Jefferson or Franklin become president. They are among the most respected people IN THE WORLD at that time. They should be able to keep it together.
Jefferson was certainly RESPECTED, but I am not at all sure he was TRUSTED by enough people to give him the kind of power a US President can have. Would he have stepped down after 2 terms? Would he have tried to impose his vision of the US, which differed markedly from the Federalists' vision?
Maybe, maybe not.
If anyone save Washington could be trusted not to stay President for life, it was probably Jefferson. Franklin, I think - who OTL died during Washington's first term - would probably be a better person to set that precedent.Although an interesting idea. Having him as the first President. Perhaps have him make it a position for life.
If anyone save Washington could be trusted not to stay President for life, it was probably Jefferson. Franklin, I think - who OTL died during Washington's first term - would probably be a better person to set that precedent.
OTL, with Washington ready to do it instead? Definitely not. However, Washington being dead would have the potential to dramatically change things. If you get the right background - for instance, if he seems to be America's last hope before breaking up into chaos - he'd do it.Would Franklin even take the position though, considering his age and health?
But could any of the politicians or military officers mentioned on this thread have diffused the 1783 mutany of the Continental Army before it marched on the Continental Congress and overthrew them by giving a freaking speach that apparently wasn't all that good, then resigning? I'd put the odds somewhere less than 50-50. And if you get a civil-military balance that looks more like Latin America, for example, democratic consolidation gets a lot harder. Particularly given the already-present factionalization.
So you _could_ see a scenario where the Continental Congress--of whom the Continental Army already had a low opinion--actually hammers out a compromise with someone like Green standing in for Washington. But honestly, increasing factional discord followed by a Society of the Cincinnatti-style coup looks more likely to me.
I disagree. A mutiny? Definitely possible. "March on Philadelphia and bully the civilians into doing what we want?"
Washington might have been able to defuse that easily, because he could use the line (paraphrased) that "I have given my eyesight in service of my country." or the like, and had standing like no one else int he Continental Army.
But having a low opinion of Congress, and being willing to shatter the fledging nation to pursue that, are two different things.
We never had to find out how far they'd go OTL because Washington defused it, but that doesn't mean that no Washington means military authority ultimately trumps civilian.
On not being president for life: What, no credit to John Adams?
On Jefferson:
I don't see why two terms based on Washington's example was inevitable (or necessarily beneficial) - and we know what he tried to do OTL as president.
I guess what this all boils down to me, as someone who is a Washington fan:
Could Washington being lost have devastating consequences? Yes. But the US survived its first generation (1783-1808, give or take) without him in power for most of it. I think that's telling.
I agree with Elfwine. After Yorktown, the idea that the United States would collapse into dictatorship or anarchy due to the loss of Washington seems way overblown. Someone like Franklin, if he were to gain power, would try to establish a stable elected head of state position, not let it turn into a lifetime dictatorship upon his death. The fledgeling US has enough statesmen to steer the country toward a representational government and not let it go straight to hell just because Washington isn't around. Although there would no doubt have been significant changes to the office of the president.
Yeah. That would wreck things past all repair, no matter how good the other men were. A US forced to confront that while its still fragile - even if it doesn't fall to it - would be a messy state.No, the real disaster would have been if someone in Washington's position, with his cult-like following and status as savior of the nation, had had a real lust for power. But with him dying at the tail end of the war nobody else would fit that description. Power would fall back to the squabbling Congress, which would still eventually write a constitution and appoint someone as chief executive.
I would like to add a few thoughts to this interesting discussion. The question in my mind is if GW dies at Yorktown who can take his place in the various roles he filled from 1781 until his death in 1799? Was he really the "indispensible man"?
The main contenders for the military role post Yorktown are:
1. Nathaniel Greene. GW's favorite general and the most successful of the Southern Generals. A good man and a dedicated student of warfare. Personally brave but without the stature and charisma of GW. I think he could keep the Continental Army together during the drawn out peace negotiations but not as well as GW did so the reult is a smaller and more quarelsome CA by 1783.
2. Henry Knox. GW's well liked artillery commander. A bit lazy (this got worse as he got older) but repected by his fellow officers. Jealous of rank and precedence so he might not work well with Greene.
The main contenders for GW's political role in the post war world would be:
1. Benjamin Franklin. Clearly the best known American outside of GW but with very serious enemies (William and Henry Lee of Virginia being the major ones but BF had done a good job of alientating Jon Adams also). His enemies considered him lazy, immoral, and much too popular with the French (especailly French women). By the time he returned to America after the Treaty of Paris he was old and tired. As the semi ceremonial President of the governing Council of Pennsylvania he was the official host of the Federal Convention but did not contribute much to the proceedings. Not really a model for a chief executive.
2. Thomas Jefferson. He was in Paris as U.S Minister during the Federal Convention in OTl and when he saw the result of the Convention he did not much like it. Jefferson was not well known as the author of the Declaqration of Independence at this time but he was well rememberd as a failed Governor of Virginia. I don't think he was really considered Presidential timber until he had served as GW's Secretary of State and established his position as an opponent to Hamilton's financial system and his pro-British policy.
3. John Adams. He was in London as U.S. Minister during the Federal Convention in OTL. He was well known as the author of the Massachusetts Constitution , work horse of Congress and successful diplomat. However, he was also well known as vain, petty and humorless. If he had been in Philadelphia he would not have worked well with the other delgates because he thought he knew everyting there was to know about constitution writing and he would certainly have not been a model for the office of chief magistrate like GW was.
4. John Jay. My personal favorite. A former President of the Continental Congress and successful diplomat. In OTL he served as Confederation Secretary of Foreign Affairs but this might be butterflied away by GW's early death. In OTL he incurred the lasting emnity of the South by appearing to be willing to negotiate away navigation rights on the Mississippi in his negotiations with Spain. If this occurs in our GW early death timeline, he won't get very many votes from the South. Jay is intelligent, hard working and honest but also is known for being vain and humorless.
5. James Madison. The organizer of the Convention and the author of the very controversial Virginia plan. If Madison can even get a quorum with out invoking GW's presence, I doubt he can get his plan (or anything like it) through the Convention without GW's behind the scenes assistance.
I have not listed well known Patriots such as Patrick Henry, George Clinton and Sam Adams because they were active anti-Federalists (Sam was eventually brought around at the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention) and did not want and would not have wanted anything like the Constitution.
So my conclusion is that GW was the only American of sufficient national stature, political ability and truly national vision to get anything like the Constitution adopted and ratified. This does not make GW a heaven sent angel of national deliverance. It does make him in my opinion the necessary ingredient for getting anything like the Constitution adopted.
I apologize for going on for so long. I welcome any comments, corrections or criticisms.
Your humble servant,
AH
It's not - to me - whether its the movement or the man, it's that there were multiple qualified, capable men - Washington was merely one of them.
The Founding Fathers made the United States. Note the plural.
In the end, I think it comes down to, would the nation have been able to as easily and as smoothly evolve into what it became during this young time (with the inevitable bumps in the road) without Washington.?