I’ve never been comfortable with the “Washington turned down the throne” narrative. I just don’t see the Founders going for anything resembling what we think of as a monarchy. Maybe a lifetime presidency with the possibility of removal. I’ve just never dug into it. Has anyone here studied it?Report
Hamilton proposed a President elected for life. One can easily imagine how that could have worked out. I think the Saxon kings were appointed by the Witan, but the king used his powers, including of appointment, to gain favor for his heir. If Washington was President-for-Life one can imagine a situation in which a faction backs Washington’s heir based upon name recognition and inherited reputation, and a few such appointments later, the Presidency is a de facto inherited monarchy with certain unique checks.
The other scenario would be in Washington’s third national act as leader of the New Army. The first act was as Commander in Chief who very publicly resigned his commission before the Continental Congress. The second act was as President of the U.S., from which he departed after two terms. But when the international fallout from the French Revolution reached the U.S., Washington accepted titular command of the New Army, which Hamilton was to organize. The exact purpose of this army is unknown beyond repelling a theoretical French invasion, though Henry Adams believed it was being raised for internal purposes as well. Had France sought to destabilize the U.S. internally during the Quasi-War or sought to raise a rebellion against Adams, a scenario could enfold where the New Army was triggered into action to fight enemies both foreign and domestic. (Notably, the political party being created by Jefferson-Madison at this time was no less a violation of norms of republican virtue than monarchy) Washington clearly saw this as a crisis, if called to save his country a third time would he ever return home? He died in December of 1799, so this scenario seems like it runs out of time and opportunity pretty quickly. But it could cause reformation of the Constitutional system in worst case scenarios.Report
George Washington was compared to Cincinnatus on many occasions so it’s doubtful Washington would have accepted (though one suspects others from the era, like Adams or Jefferson or maybe even Hamilton might have; Burr definitely would have but he wasn’t going to have got the offer before one of them; Franklin would surely have laughed at the offer and thanked the Monarchial Selection Committee* on behalf of his son); the video goes to some pains early on to point out that it’s just speculative genealogy.
Inherited prominence, either with or without meaningful amounts of political power, doesn’t strike me as a great idea. That which makes admirable people admirable is almost never heritable and frequently effed up by the formative experiences of access to wealth, fame, and power their descendants get to enjoy.
* On reflection, we ought to concoct an acronym for “WITAN” that would substitute for Monarchial Selection Committee.Report
Working-group for Inherited Title and Authority Nominations.Report
I have some affection for the Venetian system. A king for life – but that life gets shortened if you try to establish a dynasty. Also, your only responsibilities are treaties and keeping the navy strong. I don’t know what our Founders thought of Venice.Report
All I know of Madison’s thoughts was that he generally believed the contemporary republican governments did not confront the same scale of tasks that the Framers did, with so large and diverse a population and geography, unlike Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Venice.
But we’ve got this from Thomas Jefferson, in Notes on the State of Virginia, which may be summed up as “Insufficient checks and balances”:
All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the [House of Burgesses]. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice. As little will it avail us that they are chosen by ourselves. An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. For this reason that convention, which passed the ordinance of government, laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive and judiciary department should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time. But no barrier was provided between these several powers. The judiciary and executive members were left dependant on the legislative, for their subsistence in office, and some of them for their continuance in it. If therefore the legislature assumes executive and judiciary powers, no opposition is likely to be made; nor, if made, can it be effectual; because in that case they may put their proceedings into the form of an act of assembly, which will render them obligatory on the other branches. They have accordingly, in many instances, decided rights which should have been left to judiciary controversy: and the direction of the executive, during the whole time of their session, is becoming habitual and familiar. And this is done with no ill intention. The views of the present members are perfectly upright. When they are led out of their regular province, it is by art in others, and inadvertence in themselves. And this will probably be the case for some time to come. But it will not be a very long time. Mankind soon learn to make interested uses of every right and power which they possess, or may assume. The public money and public liberty, intended to have been deposited with three branches of magistracy, but found inadvertently to be in the hands of one only, will soon be discovered to be sources of wealth and dominion to those who hold them; distinguished too by this tempting circumstance, that they are the instrument, as well as the object of acquisition. With money we will get men, said Caesar, and with men we will get money. Nor should our assembly be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes, and conclude that these unlimited powers will never be abused, because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price. Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic, and will be alike influenced by the same causes. The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold on us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.
The electoral college is based on the Holy Roman Empire’s, arguing that an American monarch would have been elected for life, with a strong bias for dynastic succession.Report
I’ve never been comfortable with the “Washington turned down the throne” narrative. I just don’t see the Founders going for anything resembling what we think of as a monarchy. Maybe a lifetime presidency with the possibility of removal. I’ve just never dug into it. Has anyone here studied it?Report
Hamilton proposed a President elected for life. One can easily imagine how that could have worked out. I think the Saxon kings were appointed by the Witan, but the king used his powers, including of appointment, to gain favor for his heir. If Washington was President-for-Life one can imagine a situation in which a faction backs Washington’s heir based upon name recognition and inherited reputation, and a few such appointments later, the Presidency is a de facto inherited monarchy with certain unique checks.
The other scenario would be in Washington’s third national act as leader of the New Army. The first act was as Commander in Chief who very publicly resigned his commission before the Continental Congress. The second act was as President of the U.S., from which he departed after two terms. But when the international fallout from the French Revolution reached the U.S., Washington accepted titular command of the New Army, which Hamilton was to organize. The exact purpose of this army is unknown beyond repelling a theoretical French invasion, though Henry Adams believed it was being raised for internal purposes as well. Had France sought to destabilize the U.S. internally during the Quasi-War or sought to raise a rebellion against Adams, a scenario could enfold where the New Army was triggered into action to fight enemies both foreign and domestic. (Notably, the political party being created by Jefferson-Madison at this time was no less a violation of norms of republican virtue than monarchy) Washington clearly saw this as a crisis, if called to save his country a third time would he ever return home? He died in December of 1799, so this scenario seems like it runs out of time and opportunity pretty quickly. But it could cause reformation of the Constitutional system in worst case scenarios.Report
George Washington was compared to Cincinnatus on many occasions so it’s doubtful Washington would have accepted (though one suspects others from the era, like Adams or Jefferson or maybe even Hamilton might have; Burr definitely would have but he wasn’t going to have got the offer before one of them; Franklin would surely have laughed at the offer and thanked the Monarchial Selection Committee* on behalf of his son); the video goes to some pains early on to point out that it’s just speculative genealogy.
Inherited prominence, either with or without meaningful amounts of political power, doesn’t strike me as a great idea. That which makes admirable people admirable is almost never heritable and frequently effed up by the formative experiences of access to wealth, fame, and power their descendants get to enjoy.
* On reflection, we ought to concoct an acronym for “WITAN” that would substitute for Monarchial Selection Committee.Report
Working-group for Inherited Title and Authority Nominations.Report
I have some affection for the Venetian system. A king for life – but that life gets shortened if you try to establish a dynasty. Also, your only responsibilities are treaties and keeping the navy strong. I don’t know what our Founders thought of Venice.Report
All I know of Madison’s thoughts was that he generally believed the contemporary republican governments did not confront the same scale of tasks that the Framers did, with so large and diverse a population and geography, unlike Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Venice.
But we’ve got this from Thomas Jefferson, in Notes on the State of Virginia, which may be summed up as “Insufficient checks and balances”:
Report
Wow, thanks.Report
The electoral college is based on the Holy Roman Empire’s, arguing that an American monarch would have been elected for life, with a strong bias for dynastic succession.Report