He can have living heirs from a collateral branch of his family.
The USA opts for constitutional monarchy instead of a republic.
- Thread starter Agent23
- Start date
He can have living heirs from a collateral branch of his family.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
The heir presumptive can be married off to a French, German or Spanish aristocrat to gain dynastic legitimacy and some extra land.
The first and third group here would have to convert to Protestantism in the event that this will ever happen.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Yeah, that was never much of a problem where royal marriages were concerned IIRC.
I don't see ANY foreign aristocracy being accepted into the royal blood for at least a generation...MAYBE a French one.
But the US has no domestic aristocracy--or will that change in this TL?
Not really true.
There was a bit of a proto-aristocracy existed in Virginia, of which Washington was a part. It is likely that this would be where they'd draw in others to form a royal line, as there was already a lot of interconnections.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Going by the medieval "caste system" of Europe that brought about the Aristocracy, aristocrats are those that fight, so the heroes of the US War of Independence should probably earn title, battlefield success was what made most European aristocrats in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and part of the Enlightenment.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
The big proponent of an American monarchy, Hamilton, actually wanted the veteran officers of the War of Independence to be the American aristocracy. (He explicitly wanted to exclude non-officers from this, to be clear.) What became the Society of the Cincinnati was first proposed by him and some others as the Order of the Cincinniti. Hamilton's idea was that this was to become a hereditary aristocracy. Only the eldest son of a member could succeed him, and the members of the Order would elect federal Senators (for life!) from amongst their midst. The Senate would be an American version of the House of Lords. Its aristocratic members would elect a King of the United States, for life -- also from their own ranks.
Hamilton had several other plans tending in this direction. notably, he very much didn't want to involve most of the old Virginia families. The man had an enormous need for validation, having come up from nothing, which is one reason he was so at odds with Jefferson (who came from money). Hamilton wanted to create a new American aristocracy, using standards hat would make him one of its foremost members, while side-lining people like Jefferson. (As a whole, Hamilton being such an anti-egalitarian elitist with very 'tory' sympathies actually seems to stem from this: the chip on his shoulder (over his low birth) manifested as a desire to be "more elitist than the elite".)
(There can be little doubt that when he came up with this stuff, Hamilton fondly imagined himself as the second King, after George Washington, who was certainly to be the first.)
What we can say, though, is that Hamilton's dream-USA would be a monarchy totally unlike the aforementioned notion of a Virginian aristocracy. The Virginian planter families were inclined towards state sovereignty, and a system designed by them would more probably be "the United Kingdoms of America", with Washington just being King of Virginia, and maybe a rotating "High Kingship" that each state's sovereign holds for a fixed period (probably a single year).
Hamilton, conversely, desired something more akin to absolute monarchism.
He wanted the states reduced to mere provinces, and a central government essentially free to do whatever it wanted. (The clauses empowering the cental government would be far broader, and the Bill of rights -- which Hamilton didn't want -- would not exist at all.) He also wanted explicit primacy of the executive over the legislative (which would in effect make Congress a glorified advisory body to an all-powerful executive). He wanted a stong standing army, and he wanted to use it to actually start conquering stuff-- beginning with a war to take Louisiana and Florida by force. He also favoured restricting religious feedom to relatively mainstream Christian denominations, and officially making the USA a Protestant nation. (Presumably, this would include a ban on Catholic immigration.)
The Southern states would be politically less significant: there would also be no 3/5th compromise. In fact, had Hamilton gotten his way, only citizens with voting rights would be counted when allotting seats in the House of Representatives. (And Hamilton favoured limiting the franchise: only men, only Protestants, possibly with property requirements applied, and maybe even with military service as a prerequisite -- although I don't know if he ever personally advocated for that last one.)
Hamilton wanted to have the federal government unilaterally abolish slavery, too. Presumably with the amped-up federal military subsquently crushing the South when it revolts and/or attempts to secede. His vision for America was that it would develop industry as soon and as extensively as possible. This, he imagined, would be facilitated by high tariffs and considerable subsidies for industrial ventures and infrastructural projects. (In his fond imaginings, he ignored that such high tariffs would result in potential trade partners also raising their tariffs as a response, thus damaging the USA's export potential.)
The USA would be unrecognisable. More akin to Sparta and 19th century Prussia than anything else.
Hamilton had several other plans tending in this direction. notably, he very much didn't want to involve most of the old Virginia families. The man had an enormous need for validation, having come up from nothing, which is one reason he was so at odds with Jefferson (who came from money). Hamilton wanted to create a new American aristocracy, using standards hat would make him one of its foremost members, while side-lining people like Jefferson. (As a whole, Hamilton being such an anti-egalitarian elitist with very 'tory' sympathies actually seems to stem from this: the chip on his shoulder (over his low birth) manifested as a desire to be "more elitist than the elite".)
(There can be little doubt that when he came up with this stuff, Hamilton fondly imagined himself as the second King, after George Washington, who was certainly to be the first.)
What we can say, though, is that Hamilton's dream-USA would be a monarchy totally unlike the aforementioned notion of a Virginian aristocracy. The Virginian planter families were inclined towards state sovereignty, and a system designed by them would more probably be "the United Kingdoms of America", with Washington just being King of Virginia, and maybe a rotating "High Kingship" that each state's sovereign holds for a fixed period (probably a single year).
Hamilton, conversely, desired something more akin to absolute monarchism.
He wanted the states reduced to mere provinces, and a central government essentially free to do whatever it wanted. (The clauses empowering the cental government would be far broader, and the Bill of rights -- which Hamilton didn't want -- would not exist at all.) He also wanted explicit primacy of the executive over the legislative (which would in effect make Congress a glorified advisory body to an all-powerful executive). He wanted a stong standing army, and he wanted to use it to actually start conquering stuff-- beginning with a war to take Louisiana and Florida by force. He also favoured restricting religious feedom to relatively mainstream Christian denominations, and officially making the USA a Protestant nation. (Presumably, this would include a ban on Catholic immigration.)
The Southern states would be politically less significant: there would also be no 3/5th compromise. In fact, had Hamilton gotten his way, only citizens with voting rights would be counted when allotting seats in the House of Representatives. (And Hamilton favoured limiting the franchise: only men, only Protestants, possibly with property requirements applied, and maybe even with military service as a prerequisite -- although I don't know if he ever personally advocated for that last one.)
Hamilton wanted to have the federal government unilaterally abolish slavery, too. Presumably with the amped-up federal military subsquently crushing the South when it revolts and/or attempts to secede. His vision for America was that it would develop industry as soon and as extensively as possible. This, he imagined, would be facilitated by high tariffs and considerable subsidies for industrial ventures and infrastructural projects. (In his fond imaginings, he ignored that such high tariffs would result in potential trade partners also raising their tariffs as a response, thus damaging the USA's export potential.)
The USA would be unrecognisable. More akin to Sparta and 19th century Prussia than anything else.
Last edited:
This is why every day I thank God for Mason, Henry and the other Anti-Federalist (and yes, I'm leaving Jefferson purposefully off, he's given way to much credit for things and Mason especially is given to little). Had Hamilton had his way the US would have descended into tyranny within a few generations. It was the staunch Anti-Federalism of Virginia and New York that basically ensured limits on the Federal government and ensured people their rights.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
It's very interesting how anti-federalism is often regarded as a purely Southern/Virginian doctrine, while New York is sort of forgotten -- even though it produced George Clinton, Robert Yates, John Lansing Jr., Melancton Smith and John Lamb (among others).
I certainly wouldn't leave out Jefferson, I admire him immensely, but it's incorrect to sort of praise him for all of it, whereas there were so many others involved. That happens too often. George Mason and Patrick Henry were other prominent Virginian anti-federalists, as were Richard Henry Lee and Henry Tazewell. (What really annoys me is how people often count James Madison, whereas he actually started out as a staunch Federalist who helped to get Hamilton a lot of what he wanted.)
Presumably because of how the North-East ended up a federalist hot-bed later, people also tend to overlook that Massachusetts initially had its own cadre of ardent anti-federalists: Samuel Adams, James Warren, Mercy Otis Warren, John Hancock, Joshua Atherton and Amos Singletary being the most prominent names.
Besides those three main circles, I can think only of more 'scattered out' luminaries, such as Samuel Bryan and Albert Gallatin in Pennsylvania, Luther Martin in New Jersey, and Aedanus Burke in South Carolina.
I'm probably forgetting a few names here. But the above list is really a who's who of the people who saved the USA from a lot of really terrible ideas. I was discussing this with @Earl yesterday, and concluded that for Hamilton's monarchical and centralist ambitions to be realised, we'd need some really drastic POD that makes anti-federalism widely hated -- and makes most people believe that a strong, stable, deeply tory-ish central government is needed. No republican experiments, but old-fashioned and familiar modes of governance! But then... what if this is tried, and fails? That would actually see the aforementioned anti-federalist republican faction defeating the centralist monarchist faction, and subsequently have the opportunity to craft a confederal USA along anti-federalist principles.
For that to ever happen, I think you'd first need to replace George Washington with an ATL counterpart who is very capable, but who lacks Washington's virtue. Imagine a hybrid of Benedict Arnold and Horatio Gates. Hamilton becomes his protégé. Their specific style of management emboldens a group of proto-federalists, and this ultimately spirals into a more bitterly divided early USA. We end up with earlier, larger and more numerous equivalents to Shays' Rebellion.
The alt-proto-federalists respond by mustering the troops and slaughtering the rebels to a man. They call for stronger government, but their actions have led to much apprehension. So they decide to by-pass any compromise... and go for a military coup. Upon which they aim to implement the Hamiltonian plan without any compromises.
Civil war ensues, with Nathanael Greene[1] leading the anti-federalist forces. Moderates turn against the would-be regime, and once the coup is defeated, centralism and monarchism are forever politically discredited in the USA. The Articles of Confederation don't get replaced, only improved, and most state constitutions are re-written according to anti-federalist principles.
I'd call that an improvement over OTL. The outcome would be no less different from OTL than Hamilton's ideal USA would be. But in a much more pleasant way, if you ask me.
But this counterfactual is veering way off-topic, so I'll cut myself off here.
----------------------------
[1] Best general in the War of Independence, for my money. Started at the bottom, too. Militia volunteer. Lowest possible rank. Rose up to be a general. Amazing organisational abilities.
Last edited:
I think there's two core reasons for that. The first is that of the remembered anti-federalists, most are Virginians. This is in part due to Jefferson, but also Mason, since it was his Virginia Declaration if Rights that ended up serving as a direct model fornthe US Bill of Rights.
Secondly, the US Civil War is often linked to Anti-Federalist thinking via the "State's Rights" ideas. Meanwhile by the 1860s New York and the other major Anti-Federalist strongholds were all staunchly unionist and abolitionist. Whereas Virginia still saw itself as above the Federal government. Thus Virginia, as a Confederate State, gets remebered while the others are forgotten. Is this fair to Anti-Federalism? No, but opponents of the core ideas of Anti-Federlist understanding of the US have been using the Civil War to discredit it ever since.