New Reality Seeds

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by Drifter

How about this one - George Washington had an unhappy childhood or something, so when the Revolution happens and there are calls for him to become a king, he accepts. King George I is inaugurated, crowned by a sour looking Franklin.

More plausible than some might expect. It took an improvised last-minute speech to get him out of it in OTL.

[dcarson]

Since Washington didn't have any children who is the second king. Closest heir, chosen by the House and Senate, short civil war? Tjat's where things start to really diverge.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by dcarson

Since Washington didn't have any children who is the second king. Closest heir, chosen by the House and Senate, short civil war? Tjat's where things start to really diverge.

He had nephews, Bushrod Washington, George Steptoe Washington, and Lawrence Augustine Washington. He also had cousins, but the nephews would take precedence.

Given the early American fondness for Rome, there's also his stepson, John Parke Custis, who died in 1781, before the Point of Divergence, but also had several children, including one son, George Washington Parke Custis. All of GWP's children were born after the PoD.

The line of succession would likely be carefully established, via a constitution that could have been remarkably similar to ours, apart from Article Two, and other articles & sections related to the Executive Branch. The Constitution could also have been very different, but if they couldn't see a way to not have a king, they would absolutely make sure the line of succession was clear, to avoid having a 'War of the American Succession' in a decade or two (Washington was fairly old, and they would not expect him to live much longer than that).

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

He had nephews, Bushrod Washington, George Steptoe Washington, and Lawrence Augustine Washington. He also had cousins, but the nephews would take precedence.

Given the early American fondness for Rome, there's also his stepson, John Parke Custis, who died in 1781, before the Point of Divergence, but also had several children, including one son, George Washington Parke Custis. All of GWP's children were born after the PoD.

The line of succession would likely be carefully established, via a constitution that could have been remarkably similar to ours, apart from Article Two, and other articles & sections related to the Executive Branch. The Constitution could also have been very different, but if they couldn't see a way to not have a king, they would absolutely make sure the line of succession was clear, to avoid having a 'War of the American Succession' in a decade or two (Washington was fairly old, and they would not expect him to live much longer than that).

While Bushrod has the better name, Custis has the better claim, being an adopted son of GW and all. Its a logical match with the Roman tradition.

Aside from the Executive Branch articles and sections, I don't know if the Constitution would be substantially different. As long as it allows for a clear lines of succession then I don't think the government would be all that different. But I doubt the 17th Amendment would ever pass, and in fact if two thirds of the government are already appointed rather than elected the House might end up appointed as well.

Maybe the Civil War in this timeline is not only about slavery/economics but about House appointments. I'm guessing both the North and South would have reasons to make the House an appointment - Northern corporations and Southern plantations would love to have openly sponsored House Members. It would take the War to enact such an Amendment.

In such a world, where the US does not stand as an example of anti-monarchy governments, the kingdoms of Europe last much longer. Political and technological advancement is stifled by the aristocracies who don't want too much rocking of the boat, as it were.

Not to say Europe is changeless. Napoleon still has his rise and fall, as the US is uninvolved, or the changes here don't effect the US impact on Europe for the first few decades. The Napoleonic Code helped end feudal civic laws, and his conquests helped united the German states.

Perhaps the Napoleonic reforms helps further growth in post-French Conquest areas, so that by the 20th century France and Germany are the economic powerhouses, while Russia and Britain are stifled by their aristocracies. Both are subject to the massive fraud, inefficiencies and errors that plagued Russia leading up to the Communist revolutions.

[scc]

I think you two are forgetting something, if GW is crowned King of America then something would have been done about the succession before he died, possibly even him fathering children

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by scc

I think you two are forgetting something, if GW is crowned King of America then something would have been done about the succession before he died, possibly even him fathering children

Custis was GW's adopted son, a very Roman method of cementing an heir to the throne in place.

I was just reading a history of the Trail of Tears - with GW, then GW Custis as King, Washington's plan of acculturation of the Native American's goes forward, not derailed by Jackson. The South isn't ethnically cleansed.

I"m not sure what that means for the slavery/plantation system, or the South's economy in general. I want to say without the landgrabs the huge plantations are kept smaller, with less clout. GW wanted natives acculturated, tribal lands treated as sovereign nations. With acculturation and Native American's living in at least proximity to Whites you get a more integrated society - maybe. Or you get another social class based on race and the Native's end up more like Laidlaw's His Power'd Wig, His Crown of Thorns.

In any event I can't see the South powerful enough economically to be a serious threat to the North. The Civil War might start under King Robert I (Robert E Lee - or would that be Prince?) about 20 years early, forcing through the abolish of slavery. Its bloody and longer but there is zero doubt as to the outcome.

Unless the French or English aid the Southern Cause. France seems unlikely, and the English Whigs are in power, opposing a strong monarchy, so they might be inclined to oppose a strong king in the US.

[DocRailgun]

The King of America could have been an elected monarch, as many of the central and eastern European crowns were (the Holy Roman Empire, Bohemia (which part of the HRE), Serbia, Poland-Lithuania). Of course the people doing the electing weren't 'the people', but then the aristocratic leaders of the early US didn't exactly trust the common man to make good decisions either.

Originally Posted by dcarson

Since Washington didn't have any children who is the second king. Closest heir, chosen by the House and Senate, short civil war? Tjat's where things start to really diverge.

[Astromancer]

In many ways the European nobility saw the Confederacy as something closer to their ideas of government. Many popular voices in Europe wanted their governments to get involved in the ACW in order to both stop America Democracy (then as now treated as a thing of horror) and give birth to an American aristocracy. The three main reasons no one tried were, A) the King of Prussia found the Confederacy nauseating, litterally, B) the Czar of Russia saw freeing the Slaves as being just like freeing the Serfs, which he had just done, and C) key players in the British government feared revolution in England if Britain entered the ACW.

Try this idea. Suppose the Brits decided there wasn't any threat of a revolt and it was now or never to stop America. This would probably see several joint Anglo-French attacks on the USA. Prussia and Russia would be furious, and Prussia could attack. Russia and Britain were on the verge of war anyway, this would push them over. Austria would have been neutral, but friendly to the CSA.

This attack would have galvanised the North and probalbly led to attacks on Canada, and a longer ACW.

Imagine French armies marching north from Mexico to attack the American West. Picture Jurez and Custer allied to bring the French down. Envision the Monitor sinking proud ships of the line, Britain's finest ships.

The end of the war would be messy. Lincoln would demand an end to slavery and the CSA saw slavery as the whole basis of it's existence.

If the USA survives the war, and it would be likely to, Britain would have to rue the day they made Prussia and America fast friends.

In Europe, the Russo-Prussian attack on France would collapse the French government and create an early WWI with different allies.

All in all, a lively mess.

Reactions?

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

In many ways the European nobility saw the Confederacy as something closer to their ideas of government. Many popular voices in Europe wanted their governments to get involved in the ACW in order to both stop America Democracy (then as now treated as a thing of horror) and give birth to an American aristocracy. The three main reasons no one tried were, A) the King of Prussia found the Confederacy nauseating, litterally, B) the Czar of Russia saw freeing the Slaves as being just like freeing the Serfs, which he had just done, and C) key players in the British government feared revolution in England if Britain entered the ACW.

Try this idea. Suppose the Brits decided there wasn't any threat of a revolt and it was now or never to stop America. This would probably see several joint Anglo-French attacks on the USA. Prussia and Russia would be furious, and Prussia could attack. Russia and Britain were on the verge of war anyway, this would push them over. Austria would have been neutral, but friendly to the CSA.

This attack would have galvanised the North and probalbly led to attacks on Canada, and a longer ACW.

Imagine French armies marching north from Mexico to attack the American West. Picture Jurez and Custer allied to bring the French down. Envision the Monitor sinking proud ships of the line, Britain's finest ships.

The end of the war would be messy. Lincoln would demand an end to slavery and the CSA saw slavery as the whole basis of it's existence.

If the USA survives the war, and it would be likely to, Britain would have to rue the day they made Prussia and America fast friends.

In Europe, the Russo-Prussian attack on France would collapse the French government and create an early WWI with different allies.

All in all, a lively mess.

Reactions?

French adventures in Mexico are stifled as French troops were moved north into the US. Republic of Mexico forces are able to deal with the reduced number of French troops faster and drive them out sooner, with the help of Prussian forces brokered by President Juarez's new alliance with the North and Secretary of State Seward.

With no alliance possible with the US, Napoleon III does not withdraw his troops from America, instead Emperor Maximilian is hosted by Texas, in exchange for aid against the North. After the Civil War, Texas is an independent nation again, allied to the French. Focused more on Mexico than the US, Texas eventually helps reestablish Emperor Max in northern Mexico, from Tamaulipas to Chihuahua. When the French government collapses so does its support of the Mexican Empire, which Texas takes over. It looses Chihuahua but is able to keep the coastal states.

Texas remains an independent nation, although it has few allies and faces the wrath of the Republic of Mexico and the US. Slavery is still legal, so most European powers disdain it - but it might use promises of abolition as a lever to get support. Thanks to the French influence in the ruling aristocracy, Texas barbeque is excelled into an art form. So that might be a good reason for IW groups to come here :)

[Astromancer]

Drifter. How would Texas have delt with the tendency of a nation founded on seccession to break apart?

Georgia on failed to seccede from the Confederacy because Sherman marched through it. How would Texas, nearly the size of France, stay in one piece?