Would an American Monarchy = no ACW?

Would an American Monarchy = no ACW?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 11.8%
  • No

    Votes: 13 38.2%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 17 50.0%

  • Total voters
    34
american_monarchists.jpg


Simple question really...
Would an America that established itself as a Constitutional Monarchy from the begining have been able to avert the Civil War?

• Is so, how?

• If not, why?

Please get into the all the "What if's" if you'd like

My Thoughts:

Almost certainly with the reason being that while Congress was impotent at dealing with the rising economic backwardness of slavery, a Monarch might have been able to at least establish a single narrative on inadequacies of the system (mostly on an economic basis as a means to not sound too radical).

Plus, secession could be labeled as act of sedition against the Crown, possibly giving pause to South Carolinans, Texans, Virginia's, etc voting for it.

but that's just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
From my cursory knowledge of history, I don't see why it would prevent it. The ACW was fought over slavery, not the form of government. You'd need PODs that prevent the rise of slavery in Southern culture and economics just the same as you would without a monarchy.
 
It'd be nice if you actually said how this government would be formed. Would it be a parliamentary government or something more like OTL? What powers does the king have? Is there a Supreme Court? Etc.
 
It'd be nice if you actually said how this government would be formed. Would it be a parliamentary government or something more like OTL? What powers does the king have? Is there a Supreme Court? Etc.

True.
Everything regarding the 3 branches are held constant (OTL) except the president is a hereditary position Washington onward.
 
True.
Everything regarding the 3 branches are held constant (OTL) except the president is a hereditary position Washington onward.

One other thing to consider is wether each state is a monarchy in and of itself (ruled by a hereditary prince), or if they have some form of Governor General appointed by the King.

I think it makes more sense in the context of state independence for each one to have its own dedicated ruler. If the state leader is appointed by the monarch it looses much of the independence that made the OTL states so nebulous.
 
Who is Washington's heir? If the royal family are planters, don't expect them to propose any a anti-slavery measures.

Well since he was childless, one can assume it would go either to an adopted heir (possibly a close founding father) or close relative

Lawrence Washington
Bushrod Washington...

to name a few


And don't beven so sure about the planter assumption.

Jefferson was part of that class but people forget he was anti-slavery for most of his time in office. Ending the Atlantic slave trade and what not...
 
Jefferson didn't even manumit his own slaves (besides his own children).

not saying he was a saint, just saying history isnt black and white on this issue on Founding Fathers and Slavery.

In fact, Washington did free his after his death.
whats to say he doesn't possibly expand that to all slaves once he dies as an ATL King?
 
not saying he was a saint, just saying history isnt black and white on this issue on Founding Fathers and Slavery.

In fact, Washington did free his after his death.
whats to say he doesn't possibly expand that to all slaves once he dies as an ATL King?
If he did that, there would definitely be a civil war.
 

jahenders

Banned
Simple question really...
Would an America that established itself as a Constitutional Monarchy from the begining have been able to avert the Civil War?

• Is so, how?

• If not, why?

Please get into the all the "What if's" if you'd like

My Thoughts:

Almost certainly with the reason being that while Congress was impotent at dealing with the rising economic backwardness of slavery, a Monarch might have been able to at least establish a single narrative on inadequacies of the system (mostly on an economic basis as a means to not sound too radical).

Plus, secession could be labeled as act of sedition against the Crown, possibly giving pause to South Carolinans, Texans, Virginia's, etc voting for it.

but that's just my 2 cents.

It might prevent a civil war -- but we'd simply have ARW #2. Either the states that were in the CSA (or others, depending on the monarchs policies) would likely rebel and declare their independence that way. In so doing, they'd find it even easier to cite the tradition of the founding fathers in doing so.
 
I'll number my comments because this is a complex, multi-part question.

1. Pretty much anything and everything can butterfly away the American Civil War. Just about everywhere else, the only exception I can think of being Haiti, slavery was abolished peacefully. And the nineteenth century for some reason was a particularly bad time for secession or regional independence movements. They were tried elsewhere, but you don't here much about them, since the Confederates actually got much further than the norm.

2. The closest analogous example is Brazil, which was a monarchy that had both slavery and secession movements, and an active abolitionist movement.

3. The personality of the monarch or monarchs makes a difference.

4. One reason why people were so happy to craft a fairly powerful presidency and to make Washington the first President was precisely because he had no natural children and couldn't found a dynasty.

5. How the monarchy happens probably matters. Getting a monarchy in the first place is difficult.

a) If the idea is to make Washington the first King, the framers probably adopt an elective monarchy as in Poland. This looks alot like the IOTL presidency except the term in office is for life.

b) They could try importing a dynasty from Europe, which was discussed, but the problem is finding an under-employed Protestant (and he would have to be Protestant) Prince who is culturally compatible and can produce heirs. I suspect this would have gone over as well as the early attempts to impose monarchs on Mexico and Greece.

c) A third option is a Hanoverian collateral dynasty, either as part of a negotiated peace deal with the UK after a better military performance for the UK in the ACW, or the British set this up themselves (actually an independent friendly American state with a relative of the British king ad the king would have made sense for them, but this was never considered). The inability of the sons of George III to produce legitimate heirs becomes a problem here.

d) A fourth option is what wound up being done with Canada, but this is more than somewhat anachronistic, and now who is the Governor-General.

e) The fifth option is the Young Pretender, Charles Stuart. He isn't demoralized by "the 45" or it doesn't happen, kicks his alcohol habit, offers his services as a general to Congress, is accepted, and winds up having a good war record. The record is good enough to overlook his Catholicism and he lives longer than IOTL. However, his heir is still a Cardinal.

f) Napoleon escapes and flees to the US in 1814 instead of going to Elba. He somehow gets command of some American forces and a good interpreter and does well with him. He settles down, lives longer than IOTL, is naturalized, and gets elected President in 1824 with the "natural born citizen" thing being ignored. He then gets installed as monarch just before finally dying. His heirs are whichever descendants of one of his brothers who have also established themselves in the US. Also, the Bonapartes are Catholic.

As you can see re comment # 5, all of these options are really fanciful and lead to lots of butterflies. I suspect that an elective monarchy is most likely, in which case not much changes, just presidential, I mean royal, elections become really really important. The Adamses might try to establish themselves as a sort of royal family. With all the others, except for maybe the really fanciful d) and f), I think the dynasty winds up collapsing by mid nineteenth century. The monarchy thing really should be its own thread.
 
Top