George Washington Killed at Yorktown

Midgard · Jun 24, 2005

What about the episode in, I believe, 1783, when the unpaid officers in charge of their units were about to march against the Congress, and were stopped supposedly only by Washington's personal charisma? With no Washington there, I don't believe there was another leader at the time the military would have listened to as they did to him... had they marched against the Congress, would there even be a United States?

Wendell · Jun 24, 2005

midgardmetal said:
What about the episode in, I believe, 1783, when the unpaid officers in charge of their units were about to march against the Congress, and were stopped supposedly only by Washington's personal charisma? With no Washington there, I don't believe there was another leader at the time the military would have listened to as they did to him... had they marched against the Congress, would there even be a United States?

I think so. It just would be a militarist regime. I made a map for it once.

Nosb · Jun 25, 2005

I played with a TL before where Arnold took Quebec, didn't become a traitor, and Washington died of disease during the War. US government is a lot different with a much more weaker, lifetime Chief Executive, called Life Consular . Of course, with the addition of Free Canada sectionalism differences led to an early Civil War, which leads to Confederate victory. The Confederacy then proceeds to conquer Norte Mexico (as in OTL, plus more of what we would consider modern-day Northern Mexico) and Cuba.

The CAS (Confederation of American States) becomes an economic dependent and eventually political client of the UK well the FAS (Federation of American States) becomes an industrialized, bigger (despite the loss of the OTL American Southeast and Southwest), and more powerful, but at the same time poorer. By @1950 German was started and won three world wars; first much like OTL, except German one, the second re-armed Russia, France, and Britain manage to force the collapse of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian-Serbia Empires but a German-American nuke destroys Tsaritsyn and Liverpool disappear, and the third, this one started in America, sees America annex the CAS with Britain and a Rump Russia being finally crushed by the Germans.

wkwillis · Jun 25, 2005

midgardmetal said:
What about the episode in, I believe, 1783, when the unpaid officers in charge of their units were about to march against the Congress, and were stopped supposedly only by Washington's personal charisma? With no Washington there, I don't believe there was another leader at the time the military would have listened to as they did to him... had they marched against the Congress, would there even be a United States?

Just for clarification, the army was the only more or less democratic institution in the US at the time. It was also the only integrated one and was one fifth black. The rank and file and most of the lower officers were poor whites without property.
If the Newburgh army had declared itself the government we would all have been better off. All the things we had to fight three wars for would have been accomplished de facto if they had not listened to Washington.
God knows they were more legitimate than the colonial assemblies.

1. Universal manhood sufferage, where every male over 18 got to vote.
2. No more slavery.
3. Homesteading, where you got to keep land just by clearing it.
4. Trial by jury of your peers, instead of by your boss's peers.
5. Direct election of Senators, if we had a Senate at all.
6. Maybe Canada. If the poorer class of Canadians (most of Canada) had something to fight for, they might have fought for it.

Faeelin · Jun 25, 2005

wkwillis said:
Just for clarification, the army was the only more or less democratic institution in the US at the time. It was also the only integrated one and was one fifth black. The rank and file and most of the lower officers were poor whites without property.

Where'd you hear that about blacks?

In any case, I can't believe you're saying that a military dictatorship would have been a good thing.

Wendell · Jun 25, 2005

wkwillis said:
Just for clarification, the army was the only more or less democratic institution in the US at the time. It was also the only integrated one and was one fifth black. The rank and file and most of the lower officers were poor whites without property.
If the Newburgh army had declared itself the government we would all have been better off. All the things we had to fight three wars for would have been accomplished de facto if they had not listened to Washington.
God knows they were more legitimate than the colonial assemblies.

1. Universal manhood sufferage, where every male over 18 got to vote.
2. No more slavery.
3. Homesteading, where you got to keep land just by clearing it.
4. Trial by jury of your peers, instead of by your boss's peers.
5. Direct election of Senators, if we had a Senate at all.
6. Maybe Canada. If the poorer class of Canadians (most of Canada) had something to fight for, they might have fought for it.

That would be interesting. I would imagine that some of the Indians may have made out well also? I wasn't that familiar with some of those proposals. Surely, this union would have a more complex government than that.

Derek Jackson · Jun 25, 2005

There was a LOT of problems in England between Parliament and the army after our Civil War. I wonder if that might happen in America without Washington

Wendell · Jun 25, 2005

Derek Jackson said:
There was a LOT of problems in England between Parliament and the army after our Civil War. I wonder if that might happen in America without Washington

It's possible. Another leader might emerge.

Jason Sleeman · Jun 25, 2005

A Truer Democracy

The Newburgh affair in 1783 if sucessful (as it might well have been without Washington's timely intervention) might have indeed made America a truer Democracy. perhaps for the better perhaps not. depending on which path the people chose to take

Melvin Loh · Jun 25, 2005

Fellas, I believe that the Continental Army in 1783 was indeed racially integrated with some 20% black enlisted men, but by about 1790 had by federal law and on the insistence of pro-slavery politicians become exclusively white, despite some black state militia units in NY and Louisiana, and only of course became fully racially integrated again during the Korean War. The USN then took over the premier role as the most integrated and accepting branch of the armed forces into the late 19th C.

Nicole · Jun 25, 2005

wkwillis said:
Just for clarification, the army was the only more or less democratic institution in the US at the time. It was also the only integrated one and was one fifth black. The rank and file and most of the lower officers were poor whites without property.
If the Newburgh army had declared itself the government we would all have been better off. All the things we had to fight three wars for would have been accomplished de facto if they had not listened to Washington.
God knows they were more legitimate than the colonial assemblies.

I hate to say it, because this is a better plot than OTL, but do you really think that the American Aristocracy (which was still rather strong, especially in the South), would really put up with such things as 'No more Slavery' or 'Universal Manhood Sufferage'? There is, after all, a reason it took the Civil War to end Slavery, for example.

Matthew Craw · Jun 25, 2005

The major problem with all this is that the American army of 1783 was far too small to impose a junta on any polity as decentralised as the USA, with a scattered, politically conscious and armed population. The most it could have done was coerce the Congress into accepting its demands in a deal that the outraged States would most certainly refuse to recognise.

At worst (from the American perspective) this could shatter the union entirely, with some states seeking British protection against a rampaging Continental Army vainly trying to force them into paying up while others form regional associations for the same purpose, whilst all faith in the central government is destroyed. At the very least it will shift American attitudes even more against centralised government and standing armies, which may well be altogether banned.

Gedca · Jun 25, 2005

ljofa said:
Surely it would be a King - remember Washington refused to be anointed as King.

An American monarch would have been a disaster. One moron monarch and the colonies go their separate ways as 13 different nations.

There won't neccesarily be another king. Besides the man who lead the army to victory, who else are they gonna ask?

Wendell · Jun 25, 2005

Matthew Craw said:
The major problem with all this is that the American army of 1783 was far too small to impose a junta on any polity as decentralised as the USA, with a scattered, politically conscious and armed population. The most it could have done was coerce the Congress into accepting its demands in a deal that the outraged States would most certainly refuse to recognise.

At worst (from the American perspective) this could shatter the union entirely, with some states seeking British protection against a rampaging Continental Army vainly trying to force them into paying up while others form regional associations for the same purpose, whilst all faith in the central government is destroyed. At the very least it will shift American attitudes even more against centralised government and standing armies, which may well be altogether banned.

If the slaves rise up and join the army...

Nicole · Jun 25, 2005

Wendell said:
If the slaves rise up and join the army...

Then maybe (the slaves are still a minority) you have support in the south. Doesn't mean the merchant upper class of the North, where there were far less slaves, will be really affected.

Wendell · Jun 25, 2005

Imajin said:
Then maybe (the slaves are still a minority) you have support in the south. Doesn't mean the merchant upper class of the North, where there were far less slaves, will be really affected.

Besides, you could let every state have an army as well....And, allow the southern states to keep their western claims south of the Ohio River...

wkwillis · Jun 26, 2005

The US army was smaller than the opposition aristocracy, but the opposition aristocracy was mostly discredited loyalists back then. The small farmers far outnumbered the aristocracy, and the army was the only organised military force. After revolutions there is often a civil war.
The indians would still have been exterminated by disease as in OTL. All the "indians" now are half breeds at best, as established by DNA analysis. That's what happened to my ancestors when we conquered the residents of what is now Hungary so long ago. DNA analysis says that Hungarians are only ten percent real magyars and the rest European.

Wendell · Jun 26, 2005

wkwillis said:
The US army was smaller than the opposition aristocracy, but the opposition aristocracy was mostly discredited loyalists back then. The small farmers far outnumbered the aristocracy, and the army was the only organised military force. After revolutions there is often a civil war.
The indians would still have been exterminated by disease as in OTL. All the "indians" now are half breeds at best, as established by DNA analysis. That's what happened to my ancestors when we conquered the residents of what is now Hungary so long ago. DNA analysis says that Hungarians are only ten percent real magyars and the rest European.

I meant the Iroquois, Cherokee of that time period, who fought the war on the British side.

wkwillis · Jun 27, 2005

Wendell said:
I meant the Iroquois, Cherokee of that time period, who fought the war on the British side.

A democratic America would still have stolen the Indian lands.

Cloudy Vortex · Jun 27, 2005

What wkwillis said of the aristocracy is half true. Division in the South between rebels and loyalists was split down the middle, with loyalists significantly outnumbering rebels. These loyalists hadn't a Canada to run to, unlike their Northern analogues. They were simply stuck with a country they never wanted. But the overall majority, in all regions, didn't really care at all, so long as the Rebellion adversely affect them. The people favored which ever side was occupying them. Everyone's true loyalty, if they had any beyond their own persons, was to their own colony.

Remember, a colony isn't an extension of a country. It is a new country. It starts under the control of the same state as the mother country (BTW, "country", "nation", and "state" are very different things in my reckoning). They are usually established to create willing and predictable trading partners and eventual military allies. Often, the colony would be absorbed into the mother country, especially when there was a land connection. In these cases, that may have been the purpose of the colony (to be absorbed), and it might never even be seen as a colony or seperate country. US, Canadian, and Mexican "territories" are examples. They are not part of the country, even if the intent is to eventually bring them into the federation. Of coarse, current US, Canadian, and Mexican territories appear to be in limbo right now, but current events tend to be. In thassalocracies, the colony is created with the intent of eventually becoming sovereign. In the ancient Mediterranean, Phoenician and Greek colonies were independent practically as soon as the ships left the dock. Despite being seperate as states and as countries, colonies and motherlands were of the same nation, so they were usually very friendly. Which, again, is the whole point: creating new polities disposed to being trading partners and military allies can be easier and more predictable than turning a different polity into a tp and ma by diplomacy and/or force. Of coarse, sometimes the border between colonialism and imperialism blurrs, as it did with the Carthaginians, Romans, 16th cent. Spanish, and 19th cent. British and French.

Where was I going with all this? The Colonies were going to achieve independence anyway, they were eventually getting too populous and would've been more efficient tps and mas to Britain as independents. The when, how, and how much didn't have to turn out as it did. Why hasn't anyone suggested thirteen republics? They were created as thirteen different countries and willing (sort of) merged into federation to maintain economic solvency. The retired general was a the linchpin in convincing the thirteen country-states, especially the southern ones, that more was to be had together.