United States becomes a monarchy in 1780s?

OldReliable1862

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Location
Georgia
Yes, I'm aware this is not directly related to the War of Secession, but I've posted it here because of how an American monarchy affects the sectional tensions and slavery. Besides, we have threads here asking about the Haitian Revolt (1804) and slavery itself not existing (beginnings of civilization).

The Prussian scheme is a pretty popular what-if, but I'm wondering what series of events could lead to the United States accepting a monarch. Frederick II supported the Patriots, but with the start of War of the Bavarian Succession, Fritz needed to be careful with Britain, not recognizing the United States and refusing their ships from Prussian ports. Would the war never happening have perhaps allowed Frederick to give them a bit more support?

Let's say Maximilian Joseph doesn't catch smallpox, delaying any crisis over Bavaria for a few years. Frederick decides to send a small force of Prussian regulars to America under the command of his brother Henry. Frederick was quite annoyed with his brother's attempts to get a crown for himself among other things, so I think he would be fine sending his brother off.

Henry famously never lost a battle during the Seven Years War, would he do as well in America? Assuming he does, he could easily become a figure like Lafayette, Steuben, or Pulaski. Henry might decide to move to America like Steuben did.

As Shays' Rebellion was going on in September 1786, Washington had a bout of fever and rheumatism. If Washington dies, those calling for a stronger central government and constitution could turn to Prince Henry.

How does America being a constitutional monarchy change the progression of the issues that ultimately lead to the war?
 
As a sidenote, it seems possible for both Gneisenau and Blücher to enter the American service. In 1779, Gneisenau was serving in one of the German regiments in America. Perhaps he could choose to serve with Henry's force in America, and decide to stay there after the war.

In Blücher's case, he had done several things to get on Fritz's bad side, and ended it with a rude letter of resignation. Almost as soon as Frederick died, Blücher re-entered the army. Here, he might decide to join Henry's force to get back in action, and stay in America.
 
Honestly I do not think Americans would ever accept the idea of monarchy. To them particularly American Patriots any attempt at establishing a monarchy would be seen as violating the ideals of the American Revolution.
Yeah, I guessed that was going to be the rub; it seems nearly impossible to keep the Revolution anti-monarchist enough they'll still declare independence, but not so pro-monarchist they'll consider themselves fighting the king's poor ministers. Then again, I believe Washington said in a letter at some point in the 1780s that he was concerned at the amount of people speaking positively about monarchism.
 
Yes, I'm aware this is not directly related to the War of Secession, but I've posted it here because of how an American monarchy affects the sectional tensions and slavery. Besides, we have threads here asking about the Haitian Revolt (1804) and slavery itself not existing (beginnings of civilization).

The Prussian scheme is a pretty popular what-if, but I'm wondering what series of events could lead to the United States accepting a monarch. Frederick II supported the Patriots, but with the start of War of the Bavarian Succession, Fritz needed to be careful with Britain, not recognizing the United States and refusing their ships from Prussian ports. Would the war never happening have perhaps allowed Frederick to give them a bit more support?

Let's say Maximilian Joseph doesn't catch smallpox, delaying any crisis over Bavaria for a few years. Frederick decides to send a small force of Prussian regulars to America under the command of his brother Henry. Frederick was quite annoyed with his brother's attempts to get a crown for himself among other things, so I think he would be fine sending his brother off.

Henry famously never lost a battle during the Seven Years War, would he do as well in America? Assuming he does, he could easily become a figure like Lafayette, Steuben, or Pulaski. Henry might decide to move to America like Steuben did.

As Shays' Rebellion was going on in September 1786, Washington had a bout of fever and rheumatism. If Washington dies, those calling for a stronger central government and constitution could turn to Prince Henry.

How does America being a constitutional monarchy change the progression of the issues that ultimately lead to the war?
IMHO there is not Civil War. The existence of a strong central government will rob the slaveowner of much if not most of their power and they will be unable to mount a rebellion. There is no federal government and thus no States Rights.
 
Guys

While unlikely I think that a monarchy isn't impossible. It continued to be the standard form of government across the western world and even places like the Netherlands which dabbled with republicanism regained a monarchy. It probably needs someone other than Washington becoming the primary military leader as he does seem to have been strongly republican. Believe some people tried to get him to accept a crown or is that a common myth? If say he died in an early battle or was eclipsed in another way you could end up with another dominant leader more willing to accept a crown. Possibly more likely than a foreign prince being imported.

Such a monarchy is unlikely to be as dominant as across much of Europe at the time. Probably going to be a lot of restraints, like in Britain at the time but probably even more so. As such there could be a lot of tension between a central government/monarchy and republicans/states righters. In which case you could well see a civil war on the issue long before 1860 so probably not really that relevant unless you have a strong monarchy when the question of slavery comes up and then its possible the king could go either way on the issue. - Note that while the monarchy may start off as weak it could gain some additional power if its seen as a bulwark again foreign or internal threat, although given the value changes over the period in Europe its likely to get weaker rather than stronger.

Steve
 
Guys

While unlikely I think that a monarchy isn't impossible. It continued to be the standard form of government across the western world and even places like the Netherlands which dabbled with republicanism regained a monarchy. It probably needs someone other than Washington becoming the primary military leader as he does seem to have been strongly republican. Believe some people tried to get him to accept a crown or is that a common myth? If say he died in an early battle or was eclipsed in another way you could end up with another dominant leader more willing to accept a crown. Possibly more likely than a foreign prince being imported.

Such a monarchy is unlikely to be as dominant as across much of Europe at the time. Probably going to be a lot of restraints, like in Britain at the time but probably even more so. As such there could be a lot of tension between a central government/monarchy and republicans/states righters. In which case you could well see a civil war on the issue long before 1860 so probably not really that relevant unless you have a strong monarchy when the question of slavery comes up and then its possible the king could go either way on the issue. - Note that while the monarchy may start off as weak it could gain some additional power if its seen as a bulwark again foreign or internal threat, although given the value changes over the period in Europe its likely to get weaker rather than stronger.

Steve
Lots of good points. Like all what ifs the devil is in the details.
 
Guys

While unlikely I think that a monarchy isn't impossible. It continued to be the standard form of government across the western world and even places like the Netherlands which dabbled with republicanism regained a monarchy. It probably needs someone other than Washington becoming the primary military leader as he does seem to have been strongly republican. Believe some people tried to get him to accept a crown or is that a common myth? If say he died in an early battle or was eclipsed in another way you could end up with another dominant leader more willing to accept a crown. Possibly more likely than a foreign prince being imported.

Such a monarchy is unlikely to be as dominant as across much of Europe at the time. Probably going to be a lot of restraints, like in Britain at the time but probably even more so. As such there could be a lot of tension between a central government/monarchy and republicans/states righters. In which case you could well see a civil war on the issue long before 1860 so probably not really that relevant unless you have a strong monarchy when the question of slavery comes up and then its possible the king could go either way on the issue. - Note that while the monarchy may start off as weak it could gain some additional power if its seen as a bulwark again foreign or internal threat, although given the value changes over the period in Europe its likely to get weaker rather than stronger.

Steve
All very good points, though I will add this: in the series of events in my OP, Henry wouldn't really be imported per se; he's member of the Prussian royal family, but he's also a beloved war hero who's been living in America for eight years.

It could be really interesting to see what an American army patterned after Prussia's would like (not to mention having Blücher and Gneisenau).
 
Last edited:
All very good points, though I will add this: in the series of events in my OP, Henry wouldn't really be imported per se; he's member of the Prussian royal family, but he's also a beloved war hero who's been living in America for eight years.

It could be really interesting to see what an American army patterned after Prussia's would like (not to mention having Blücher and Gneisenau).

Good point about Henry in those circumstances.

That could cause some clashes with the more states rights groups and opposition to centralised control because Prussia was about the most centralised state prior to the revolution in France.

Of course the other big butterfly in this was if Blucher and Gneisenau weren't in Europe for their OTL roles. Actually Gneisenau as a young man saw service in the conflict but as a mercenary on the British side so unless there's an assumption he defects early for some reason I suspect he would not be too popular in the US.
 
Good point about Henry in those circumstances.

That could cause some clashes with the more states rights groups and opposition to centralised control because Prussia was about the most centralised state prior to the revolution in France.

Of course the other big butterfly in this was if Blucher and Gneisenau weren't in Europe for their OTL roles. Actually Gneisenau as a young man saw service in the conflict but as a mercenary on the British side so unless there's an assumption he defects early for some reason I suspect he would not be too popular in the US.
What happens to Gneisenau depends on when Frederick decides to join the conflict. Gneisenau joined the mercenary regiment in 1779, so if Fritz sends it before then, he might join the Prussians to begin with.
 
I doubt the Americans would accept a foreign-born ruler even in bad times I think they would stick to republicanism over monarchism.

Especially if a certain poster (wausaubob) tries to come in and spread more tripe.
 
Last edited:
What happens to Gneisenau depends on when Frederick decides to join the conflict. Gneisenau joined the mercenary regiment in 1779, so if Fritz sends it before then, he might join the Prussians to begin with.

Well I had misread the dates as according to his Wiki entry he joined an Austrian regiment in 1779, then a regiment of the Margrave of Bayreuth-Ansbach in 1782 which then saw service for Britain until 1786. It said he gained valuable experience there but sounds like he was too late for much real action in the revolutionary war? It was after that he applied for service in the Prussian army.

As such for Gneisenau unless his career is changed early on he probably wouldn't see service for the rebels at all.
 
Well some of us happen to be affiliated with Alternate History Discussion and regularly discuss questions or create timelines similar to this.

Saphroneth, OldReliable1862, 67th Tigers, CanadianCanuck, and even myself etc have had accounts though some of us were banned for various reasons but others are still active.
 
Well some of us happen to be affiliated with Alternate History Discussion and regularly discuss questions or create timelines similar to this.

Saphroneth, OldReliable1862, 67th Tigers, CanadianCanuck, and even myself etc have had accounts though some of us were banned for various reasons but others are still active.

Are you referring to the main AH site? I left that a few years back after a disagreement with one of the moderators but am on a couple of smaller ones. Mainly a passive reader and commentator as too lazy to post a TL myself. Anyway probably getting a bit off topic.
 
IMHO getting the kinks out of real observable history is difficult enough, doing what if/alternative history is beyond my ability. One problem, where there is only opinion, sometimes tempers flare in the absence of evidence as an arbitrator.
 
If we assume Frederick sends the Prussian expeditionary force in mid-late 1779, these extra veteran troops could change the outcome of the sieges at Savannah and Charleston, and keep Camden from being a defeat. These victories in the South should give Henry a great deal of notoriety, and support when the Constitutional Convention occurs.
 
IMHO getting the kinks out of real observable history is difficult enough, doing what if/alternative history is beyond my ability. One problem, where there is only opinion, sometimes tempers flare in the absence of evidence as an arbitrator.

Very true. That's too often the problem with real history, let alone the AH version. :frown:
 
Back
Top