WI Washington made himself dictator

For precedent see Lord Protector Cromwell.

I wonder if a post Washington as Protector USA would seek to turn the clock back to a collection of independent colonies / states...... I'm not convinced Britain would intervene (being quite busy with Napoleon at the time) but even if they did it's more likely to end up with pro-British and pro French factions in the states

No, I see the autocracy being the opposite: a more powerful central government in the form of the autocrat as a response to the US disintegrating under an Articles of Confederation-type government.

I'm still at a loss to how he manages to become dictator without every state saying, "Nah." For that matter, how Washington manages to hide his bid for political power throughout the war.

It would have to come after the war. The entire country is essentially in limbo until the war is over, because there's no trade, little money available, and the government's credit is worthless.
 
I'm still at a loss to how he manages to become dictator without every state saying, "Nah." For that matter, how Washington manages to hide his bid for political power throughout the war.

If the Congress completely fails to get anything agreed in 1787 and given events such as the conflict between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, Shay's rebellion and continuing disasters in the Indian War Washington "takes charge" forming the Legions much earlier
 
It would have to come after the war. The entire country is essentially in limbo until the war is over, because there's no trade, little money available, and the government's credit is worthless.

But a military dictator isn't going to solve any of those, and will horrify the entire country. Look at how people were afraid of giving Washington power over the army in OTL!
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
Lawyers aren't nobles. I should know that because I want to be one :D

BUT NAPOLEON IS. What do you not understand about that? You have google, right? So we shouldn't even be having this conversation.

Also, Carlo Buonaparte was never truly a lawyer. He left school before earning his degree to live off the estates of his father.
 
As much as i'd like that idea of the elective monarchy proposed by Hamilton passing (for a TL, that is, not sure if that'd be a good thing IRL), didn't Washington say that he "did not fought George the third to become George the first" to the king thing?
 
BUT NAPOLEON IS. What do you not understand about that? You have google, right? So we shouldn't even be having this conversation.

Also, Carlo Buonaparte was never truly a lawyer. He left school before earning his degree to live off the estates of his father.

Well Wikipedia didn't say he was a noble, just that he was a lawyer's son. Fine, you win, he's a noble. I don't want to derail this thread on Washington over a discussion on Napoleon.
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
Well Wikipedia didn't say he was a noble, just that he was a lawyer's son. Fine, you win, he's a noble. I don't want to derail this thread on Washington over a discussion on Napoleon.

This is the beginning of the second full paragraph (not counting the introductory sentence) of the Wikipedia article on Napoleon: "Napoleon was born at Ajaccio in Corsica in a family of noble Italian ancestry which had settled Corsica in the 16th century."
 
This is the beginning of the second full paragraph (not counting the introductory sentence) of the Wikipedia article on Napoleon: "Napoleon was born at Ajaccio in Corsica in a family of noble Italian ancestry which had settled Corsica in the 16th century."

True, but the French aristocrats by and large didn't recognize Corsicans as "real" noblemen. I recall reading that Napoleon got quite a shock when he went to Brienne and realized his classmates considered him middle class, and thus fit for ridicule. I'll have to see if I can find the book.
 
This is the beginning of the second full paragraph (not counting the introductory sentence) of the Wikipedia article on Napoleon: "Napoleon was born at Ajaccio in Corsica in a family of noble Italian ancestry which had settled Corsica in the 16th century."

Just having noble ancestry does not make a person a noble. But back to discussion...

But a military dictator isn't going to solve any of those, and will horrify the entire country. Look at how people were afraid of giving Washington power over the army in OTL!

No, I meant that the war should be over before alt-Washington is given any of these powers and the country is in limbo in the meantime, because the nation cannot fix any of its problems while the war is still going on. During the war everyone is going to be concentrated on the war. Autocracy would come after the initial disarray after the end of the war.
 
Just having noble ancestry does not make a person a noble. But back to discussion...



No, I meant that the war should be over before alt-Washington is given any of these powers and the country is in limbo in the meantime, because the nation cannot fix any of its problems while the war is still going on. During the war everyone is going to be concentrated on the war. Autocracy would come after the initial disarray after the end of the war.
I believe Carlo Buonaparte was a noble of Corsica however. Though whether he lost this status once France invaded, is something of which I am not sure.
 
Even if our George Washington was replaced by an evil robot (GW*) who wanted to be dictator of the US, how does GW* accomplish this?
During the ARW, the Continental Army was completely dependent upon the states for its supplies. After the ARW it melted away to a few under strength regiments.
If GW* decides to join the Newburgh conspirators what happens next? A few regiments march on Philadelphia or wherever Congress was meeting at the time, hold Congress hostage and even proclaim GW* "Protector of the U.S." The states ignore the proclamation and call out their militia to prevent the Continental Army from enforcing its proclamation outside of whatever town it is camped in. GW* has no money to hire new troops and has destroyed his credibility as the one man in America who could be trusted with power.
The result of GW*'s actions probably dooms any attempt to improve the Articles of Confederation and the result is a weak and powerless confederation or the balkanization of America, not a national dictatorship. However, petty local dictators could arise in the states (I'm looking at you, Aaron Burr).
 
Might it be more plausible for Washington to grant himself sweeping presidential powers over the course of his four terms (or how many terms it takes for him to die ITTL), making the office an effectual dictatorship?
 
Again, even if an evil GW wanted to increase his powers to a dictatorial level while President how could he accomplish this? The U.S. military establishment during GW's term in office amounted to a few regiments in the Army and a few naval ships under construction.
Congress was an independent body with significant anti-Federalist numbers and the power of the purse. Simply "granting himself increased powers" would have little or no effect in the states which were never under GW's control.
Finally, there were too many independent major political figures who would never suppport a GW grab for power, from state power brokers such as Patrick Henry and George Clinton to members of Congress such as James Madison and James Monroe to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay.
What tools would an evil GW use to try to deal with this opposition? The Army was mostly on the frontier fighting Indians, there was no Secret Service or national police force and the major potential fighting force were the state militias which were under the control of people who would oppose any attempt to create a dictatorship.
Finally, unless you assume some national catastrophe or calamity, there would simply be no popular support for a power grab by a sitting President GW. Even OTL GW saw his popularity decline and opposition to his government increase in his second term because many people thought he was becoming too "royal" and not republican enough. This attitude was encouraged and organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and in 1800 it swept the Federalist Party out of national office for good.
 
Might it be more plausible for Washington to grant himself sweeping presidential powers over the course of his four terms (or how many terms it takes for him to die ITTL), making the office an effectual dictatorship?

Nah. The guy was facing vociferous criticism in his second term OTL as it was.
 
Top