President Washington's Third Term

Guest post by Theo Taylor.

By 1798, George Washington boasted undoubtedly the most impressive resume of any man in the United States, a country so new the ink had barely dried on its new constitution. He had led the Continental armies to victory against a fierce and determined enemy--the British Royal Army, aided in the manifestation of the American Republic and served two terms as its first Commander in Chief. So important was he, that the second President, John Adams, demanded Washington's return in Summer, 1798 to the United States Army to plan for a potential conflict with France.

Less than twelve months later he was implored by his contemporaries to seek a third term as President of the United States. Most Americans are aware that he denied such a request, putting in place a time honored tradition not broken until Franklin Delano Roosevelt's monumental third term in 1940. What if, however, George Washington, the Cincinnatus of the West, as his colleagues referred to him, decided not to shirk the responsibility of his fledgling Republic, what then would the modern political conflict look like?

An argument against implausibility is a contemptible one. Washington would have won any third term election, against any challenger. The evolution of the position of the President of the United States would have likely become more monarchic. Without a term limit set in place--whether by law or tradition--it exists only as an inevitability that a future president would simply continue as president until death or he lost an election. Considering George Washington's life, he may very well have died during his third term and no precedent on it may ever be established.

A minor inconvenience in this alternate world would be a handful of one term presidents would never come about, those presidents such as George H.W. Bush who would have been replaced by a three term Ronald Reagan. Presidencies such as FDR's, which ended only by death, would be more commonplace. The speculation thus, is what more good--or evil--could a President do, knowing he is not bound by term limits? An answer best left to speculation.

* * *

Theo Taylor is a science fiction writer and essayist. His works have appeared in Asimov's, Every Day Fiction, Aphelion Stories and Thought Catalog. When not penning science fiction stories, he's almost always researching some obscure historical fact or in the gym. Check out his book Rogue Cosmos.

Weekly Update #225! George Washington's 300, New England Secedes and More.

Editor's Note

I get a lot of comments after I review something where people question my overall opinion of an alternate history, especially when I give a bad review. Let me state that I am 100% okay with people disagreeing with me on my reviews. When it comes right down to it, all art is subjective and my opinion is just one of many. If you like something that I don't then there is nothing I can do or say to change that.

So why review at all? I am a firm believer that if you like or hate something, then you should be able to at least say why. This is important because it may give someone else the push to either check something out they weren't interested in or convince someone to avoid something they would otherwise go see. Marketing plays a big role in getting eyes on a product. Thus something that is mediocre or even bad may reach a bigger audience then something that is good. This is unfair to new and struggling creators who do produce high-quality work, but go unnoticed because they do not have a professional marketing department behind them to promote their work.

Additionally, while the overall quality of something is subjective, there are objective reasons for not liking something. In terms of books, bad writing is objective. If it wasn't, our teachers wouldn't take points off on our papers for spelling and bad grammar. In terms of alternate history, bad research is objective. If you base your alternate history on misconceptions, propaganda or outright lies, your readers will notice it and point it out to others. Sure, a good story can sometimes trump an implausible setting, but not all the time.

The above are just a few reasons why reviews matter. I could go into other reasons, but this is just an Editor's Note and I rather get to the meat of the post.

And now the news...

Zack Snyder wants to make a 300-esque George Washington film

Here is an idea I initially wanted to hate, but after some serious thought I have warmed up to. Last week, Bloomberg profiled director Zack Snyder and /Film brought history nerds' attention to the following blurb:

One of these days, he’d like to make one about George Washington in the style of 300. He has a picture in his office of the Revolutionary War hero crossing the icy Delaware on his way to decimate the British in the Battle of Trenton. “We were talking about it,” Snyder says. “The first thing we asked was, well, how are we going to make it look? I pointed at this painting. It looks like 300. It’s not that hard.”

Now I can see why people may at first think this is a bad idea. In my opinion 300 is an incredibly inaccurate film, but it is still watchable. Part of the reason, as History Buffs pointed out in their review of the film, is because it is an adaptation of a heavily-stylized comic book written by the over-the-top mind of Frank Miller. Thus you can suspend disbelief pretty easily.

Now I like Zack Snyder. Dawn of the Dead, 300 and Watchmen...these are all entertaining, if sometimes flawed, films. That being said, it feels like Zack is adapting a single painting and throwing a lot of cliches from his other movies into a film about my country's most respected founding father. Audiences may not react well to such a portrayal of America's first president.

Of course, I'm the guy who liked the adaptation of Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. So perhaps a smart parody of over-top action films that is just self-aware enough without having to wink at the camera might just work. So this may not be a bad idea after all, as long as the producers deal with all of the Robot Chicken jokes that will come from it:




Picture of the Week

Breaking up the United States of America is a popular pastime for alternate historians, but occasionally its taken semi-seriously in the real world:

To be fair the last time states tried to secede, it didn't end well for anyone. So take the above with a grain of salt.

I may also be doing a Trope Talk on New England in the future, so stay tuned.

You should also check out...

• The Scythe DLC that is coming to Tapletop Simulator (via Gamasutra).
• SF Signal's preview of Warlock Holmes by G.S. Denning, which will be out in May.
• Part 1 of PPCorn's 15 things you didn't know about The Man in the High Castle.
• Blaine L. Pardoe's review of Harry Turtledove's Bombs Away (via Notes From the Bunker).

* * *

Matt Mitrovich is the founder and editor of Alternate History Weekly Update, a blogger on Amazing Stories and a Sidewise Awards for Alternate History judge. When not writing he works as an attorney, enjoys life with his beautiful wife Alana and prepares for the day when travel between parallel universes becomes a reality. You can follow him on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Learn how you can support his alternate history projects on Patreon.

Kings of the United States of America

Americans take pride in their republican government, thus if you want to learn about a "King of the United States of America", you will have to look toward alternate history.  Online examples include American King by AH.com's Napoleon53.

Some Americans, however, consider monarchy to be a superior form of government.  The following list contains, in my opinion, the most realistic candidates for "King of the United States" or a region of the country.  Some I have fabricated, but most of candidates presented below received offers, which if accepted, could have changed the course of American politics forever.

House of Stuart, Kings of Virginia

The House of Stuart (previously spelled Stewart), founded by Robert II of Scotland, first became monarchs of the Kingdom of Scotland during the late 14th century, and subsequently held the position of the Kings of Great Britain and Ireland. They eventually lost their position as monarchs of Great Britain and Franz, Duke of Bavaria is the current Jacobite claimant.

During the English Civil War, most Virginian colonists remained loyal to the king (Charles I), but in 1652, Oliver Cromwell sent a force to remove and replace the government with one loyal to the Commonwealth of England. The local legislature, however, exercised the most controlling authority.  Meanwhile, many royalists fled to Virginia after their defeat in the English Civil War.

One wonders what would have happened if the Stuarts had also fled to Virginia following their defeat in the English Civil War and later in the Glorious Revolution.  Would we have seen them take the title of King of Virginia?  Could they, using Virginia as a base, expand their control over the other British colonies along the coast?  What would have happened if the English colonies gained independence from Britain a century early?  Orson Scott Card envisioned such a situation in The Tales of Alvin Maker.

George Washington (1782)

George Washington's has quite an impressive resume: commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, presided over the drafting of the Constitution and first President of the United States.  While Washington was a firm believer in the virtues of republicanism, not everyone agreed with him.

On May 22, 1782, disgruntled army officers, upset over inadequate payment, sent the Newburgh letter to George Washington, while he camped at Newburgh, New York with the rest of the Continental Army.  It offered Washington the chance to become the King of the United States, establishing a constitutional monarchy (a similar proposal would be made later to Napoleon by Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès).  Nevertheless, Washington never accepted the offer to become King of the United States.

The Newburgh letter symbolizes a turning point in American history.  Perhaps if things had been worse or more incompetent men ran the Continental Congress, Washington may have lost faith in republicanism and took up the offer to establish a constitutional monarchy in the United States.  The creators of Assassin's Creed III envisioned such a scenario in their recent DLC: The Tyranny of King Washington. If Washington had been a successful monarch, this man could have been King of the United States.

Horatio Gates (1783)

The threat to American democracy did not end with the Newburgh letter. The Newburgh conspiracy, a period of unrest in 1783 among officers of the Continental Army due to not receiving any pay for many years, still threatened the young republic. With Washington uninterested in using the army to overthrow the civil government, a group of officers decided to replace Washington as Commander-in-Chief with Major General Horatio Gates.

Horatio Lloyd Gates, a retired British soldier who served as an American general during the Revolutionary War, took credit for the American victory at the Battle of Saratoga (Benedict Arnold, who led the attack, left the field after being shot in the leg) and took the blame for the defeat at the Battle of Camden.  Nevertheless, Gates might have been able to rally enough support to overthrow Washington at a meeting of the officers on March 15, 1783, until Washington himself arrived at the meeting.  After an impassioned speech, Washington reaffirmed the officer's loyalty to himself and to Congress. 

George Washington's intervention prevented any serious attempts at a coup, but what if he failed?  If Gates had successfully assumed command of the Continental Army he could have taken control of the country.  Members of Congress who sympathized with the officer's original demands and desired a stronger central government (these men included Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris, and Alexander Hamilton) would have probably thrown their support behind the "Hero of Saratoga".  The original proposal of establishing Washington as King of the United States might have been offered to Gates instead.

Prince Henry of Prussia (1786)

Frederick Henry Louis (a.k.a. Prince Henry of Prussia) served as a general and statesman who was suggested as a candidate for King of the United States.

In 1786 either President of the Continental Congress Nathaniel Gorham or Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, the Prussian general who served in the Continental Army, suggested to Alexander Hamilton the possibility of Prince Henry becoming President or King of the United States. Before Henry could respond, however, the conspirators had a change of heart and revoked their offer.

Perhaps if things had been more unstable in 1786 or else the Constitution (which would be created only a year later) never came into being, the offer might have been held open long enough for Henry to accept.  One can debate whether Americans would accept him as king, but it does create interesting speculations on how America's relations with Germany would have been different with a Prussian king in power...

Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany (1787)

Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany, member of the British Royal Family and second son of King George III, could have been king of America.

As an inexperienced young military officer, he presided over the unsuccessful campaign against the forces of France in the Low Countries, during the war which followed the French Revolution. Later, as commander-in-chief of the British army, he reorganized the army's forces, putting in place administrative reforms. He also founded the United Kingdom's renowned military college, Sandhurst, which promoted the professional, merit-based training of future commissioned officers.

In the summer of 1787, an American newspaper claimed to have uncovered a government plot to invite Prince Frederick to become King of the United States.  Although this plot could have just been journalistic scare-mongering, you could bet Alexander Hamilton would've likely had a hand in it if it existed. He has appeared in most of the scenarios above and he easily could have been a king-maker in an alternate history.

If the Constitution failed to be ratified, pro-British supporters of a strong central government might have reached out to the young prince to bring stability to a nation on the verge of falling apart. Although I doubt most Americans would have supported a son of George III as king.

Emperor Norton I (1859)

Joshua Abraham Norton didn't just want to be king, he wanted to be emperor. Born in England, but spent most of his early life in South Africa. He emigrated to San Francisco in 1849 after receiving a bequest of $40,000 from his father's estate. Norton initially made a living as a businessman, but he lost his fortune investing in Peruvian rice.  After losing a lawsuit in which he tried to void his rice contract, Norton left San Francisco. He returned a few years later claiming to be the Emperor of the United States in 1859 (and later the Protector of Mexico).  Despite being obviously insane, San Franciscans treated him kindly and honored a currency issued in his name in the establishments he frequented.  He has since become a folk hero and has been immortalized in fiction by Mark Twain and Robert Louis Stevenson who each based characters on him.

Okay, I will level with you, this scenario probably has the least chance at being plausible.  Nevertheless, in a different timeline Norton might have had the opportunity to become king of some country. What if Norton never lost his fortune? What if America fractured into a dozen petty and bickering states? What could a wealthy, potentially mad, man do in this situation?

* * *

Matt Mitrovich is the founder and editor of Alternate History Weekly Update and a volunteer editor for Alt Hist magazine. His fiction can be found at Echelon Press, Jake's Monthly and The Were-Traveler. When not writing he works as an attorney, enjoys life with his beautiful wife Alana and prepares for the inevitable zombie apocalypse. You can follow him on Facebook or Twitter.