WI: Washington is President for Life?

What if George Washington had decided to remain president for so long as the people would re-elect him, which given his popularity, would be the rest of his natural life?

This is not a Washington-as-dictator scenario, just one where he never resigns and keeps getting legitimately re-elected until he dies, like, for example, Sir John A. Macdonald, first Prime Minister of Canada, who remained PM for the rest of his life (with the exception of the 5 years of the Mackenzie government, which fell between Macdonald's second and third terms).
 
What if George Washington had decided to remain president for so long as the people would re-elect him, which given his popularity, would be the rest of his natural life?

This is not a Washington-as-dictator scenario, just one where he never resigns and keeps getting legitimately re-elected until he dies, like, for example, Sir John A. Macdonald, first Prime Minister of Canada, who remained PM for the rest of his life (with the exception of the 5 years of the Mackenzie government, which fell between Macdonald's second and third terms).

He'd only serve a third term assuming he dies the same time. So maybe the precedent is 3 and not two terms?
 
if a politician a stays in power too long he will get oppenets no matter he is a war hero look at all the war hero turned politician in past 50 years and you will see they got a lot of enemies
 
If he'd run again his death would certainly be as IOTL or sooner, because the election was in 1796, he died in 1799, and the presidency makes you age rather fast.

He was bled to death, though. An extended presidency could have him survive into the early 1800s if it butterflies the bleeding.
 
He was bled to death, though. An extended presidency could have him survive into the early 1800s if it butterflies the bleeding.

Ah yes, I forgot about that. I doubt he survives too much longer anyway, though. He was a pretty old president by our standards.
 
if a politician a stays in power too long he will get oppenets no matter he is a war hero look at all the war hero turned politician in past 50 years and you will see they got a lot of enemies

Yes. The longer a politician stays in office, the more people come along who want the job themselves.
 
I am pretty sure that washington could not have the porblems that happen in the Adams or if he lives that long Jefferson administration like does he pass the alien and sedition acts does he buy lousiana
 
I am pretty sure that washington could not have the porblems that happen in the Adams or if he lives that long Jefferson administration like does he pass the alien and sedition acts does he buy lousiana

Alien and Sedition Acts? No.
Lousiana? Maybe.
 
if a politician a stays in power too long he will get oppenets no matter he is a war hero look at all the war hero turned politician in past 50 years and you will see they got a lot of enemies

Washington wasn't just a war hero, he was the object of a cult of personality. Given that he only lived about 3 years after resigning OTL, it's extremely easy to imagine him being president until his death.

Washington resigning created a very unique situation OTL. America is extremely unusual in that its highest office has a defined term limit, and that the limit is actually respected and not loophole-abused into meaninglessness.

As a minor point, Cincinnati wouldn't be called that ITTL, since it was named in honour of Washington who, like Cincinnatus, resigned voluntarily from his position of nigh-absolute power.
 
interestingly did not know he had a cult of persoinaltiy but most of early years america problems happened in later adminstrations and how would washington react to these problems sure he has a cult of perosinily but if he got america in into a recession would Americans still vote for
 
interestingly did not know he had a cult of persoinaltiy but most of early years america problems happened in later adminstrations and how would washington react to these problems sure he has a cult of perosinily but if he got america in into a recession would Americans still vote for
Remember that by the end of his term iOTL, the Republican papers were violently criticizing Washington's administration for things like the Jay Treaty, suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion, etc.

Let's not forget, as well, that Washington came close to dying a couple times in his OTL term...
 
Washington died in 1799 because of a very specific series of incidents. He was out working on his various farms on a wet and cold day, caught a cold and then was basically killed by his doctors who weakened him by blood letting, blistering and other "accepted" cures.
If he had still been President he might not have been out on such a miserable day, not have caught a cold and might have had better medical attention for any cold he did catch.
Although GW had been very sick at various times during his Presidency he had always pulled through, due in part to a very strong constitution (no pun intended). He might haver done the same during any health crisis while still President in 1799.
The major problem with GW serving more than 2 terms is that by 1795 he throughly hated the job. He was disturbed and angered by increasing political opposition from the Jeffersonian Republicans and dismayed by what he considered personal betrayals by both Jefferson and Madison.
He really wanted to retire to his farms in Virginia and he felt he had done his duty to his country and his countrymen.
Getting him to run in 1796 would take a POD of a major reversal by Jefferson and Madison on their policy of opposition to the administration or a major foreign crisis even bigger than the war in Europe (like a Spanish or French invasion of U.S. territory).
If such a POD were to occurr and GW did serve for one or two more terms I think his decisions and actions would, as they did in OTL, serve as a major precedent for the future.
As to specific policy measures in a third or fourth GW term, I believe that he would have been very cool to anything like the Alien and Sedition Acts and if GW were still serving as Presidnt there might be less call by arch Federalists for such acts. GW was always interested in western lands and I think he would have been very interested in acquiring any part of Louisiana the French or the Spanish were willing to part with. GW would have been much more interested in maintaining and expanding the navy and army than Jefferson and much more cautious about getting into a war tih England than Madison. I think he would have rejected out of hand any suggestion by Jefferson or Madison for an embargo.
An interesting subsidiary question is whether John Adams would have gotten tired being perpetual VP and would have retired to Massachusetts or perhaps accepted an appointment to the Supreme Court. Who would then have been his replacement as VP and a possible successor to GW either by resaon of GW's eventual death or by election? I think a Northern Federalist is most likely if the Federalist can remain united and my choice would be (not suprisingly) John Jay.

Your obedint servant
AH
 
Hamilton had left the Treasury by the end of January 1795. Although he was still an influential informal advisor to GW (he had a major hand in writing GW's Farewell Address in OTL 1796) he needed to practice law in New York in order to provide for his family. To the amazement of observers such as Jefferson and Talleyrand, AH had not enriched himself while in office.
It is possible that GW could have coaxed AH back into the cabinet or into the Army in the event of a crisis which convinced GW to continue serving as President. Secretary of State or senior general in an expanded Army would have suited AH just fine if he was financially secure enough to leave his law practice.
AH was one of the few Federalists in OTL not totally opposed to the Louisiana Purchase so a Secretary of State Hamilton might have assisted GW in obtaining as much of Louisiana as possible.

Your obedient servant
AH
 
How about no early treaties w the Barbary Pirates in 1796, but a war GW became determined to see to the end.

The Barbary threat led directly to the creation of the United States Navy in March 1794. While the United States managed to secure peace treaties, these obliged it to pay tribute for protection from attack. Payments in ransom and tribute to the Barbary states amounted to 20% of United States government annual expenditures in 1800.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Act_of_1794
In the same year, 1785, two American merchant ships had been captured by Algiers and then Minister to France Thomas Jefferson began to urge the need for an American naval force to protect their passage through the Mediterranean. Jefferson's recommendations were initially met with indifference. However, Congress in 1786, and the Senate in 1791, discussed various proposals for a naval force, including estimates of costs for building frigates, but none were acted upon.[5] Only in 1793 when Algiers had captured eleven additional merchant ships was a proposal finally taken seriously.[3][6]
...
In March 1796, as construction of the frigates slowly progressed, a peace accord was announced between the United States and Algiers. In accordance with clause nine of the Naval Act of 1794, a clause that specifically directed that construction of the frigates be discontinued if peace was established, construction on all six ships was halted. After some debate and prompting by President Washington, Congress passed an act on 20 April 1796 allowing the construction and funding to continue only on the three ships nearest to completion: United States,[7] Constellation[8] and Constitution.[9][10][11]

By late 1798 however, France began to seize American merchant vessels and the attempt at a diplomatic resolution had resulted in the XYZ Affair, prompting Congress to approve funds for completion of the remaining three frigates: President,[12]Congress[13] and Chesapeake.[14]
 
Top