The Crowned Eagle of Liberty

What follows is my hope to be a successful, long term Alternate History. Comment, criticisms, and flaming are welcome.


Prologue

It had been a long day and Thomas had just finished his work, a pamphlet he hoped would change the world. He pushed the door into the nearby pub and sat down for a drink. The fire warmed his skin that had become frozen in the cold December weather in Philadelphia, while the ale warmed his blood. It was good evening and soon his homeland would be free from that damned English tyrant.

Unfortunately, not all the people in the bar were intelligent enough to see the wisdom of independence. They came in not long after Thomas did and sat at the other side of the bar, but as the hours went on, and the ale began to affect their faculties, they became louder and louder until, two hours after they arrived, they held up their mugs and toasted George III. That was it, for a moment the entire bar was silent, and then all hell was unleashed.

At first the brawl was targeted the three men who made the toast, but before long the melee had gotten out of control and became a free-for-all. Thomas was one of the first people to move toward the foolish loyalist traitors; unfortunately the man he chose to take a swing at was armed. He was stabbed in the stomach and fell to the ground. He tried to hold his wound, but before long his hands were covered in warm, red blood. The brawl meant that no one saw him fall and by the time it was broken up, Thomas was dead and his belongings, including his pamphlet, were trampled beyond recognition. Thomas Paine’s funeral was held on January 1st, 1776 and attended by a number of prominent Philadelphia patriots and leaders of the revolution.




From the Library of Congress, dated October 21, 1777

Dear General Benedict Arnold,

It is with heartfelt thanks and gratitude that we hope this letter finds you well. Your victory at Saratoga [1] has saved the union and given hope to the men and women of the United States. Rest assured that your actions have not gone unnoted and the people firmly appreciate your service.

It is therefore right, that we restore to you what was denied to you earlier. We are proud, if belated, to restore your seniority over your compatriots. Further, because of your service we have seen fit to award you this letter, which should be considered an official letter of Thanks from Congress and the People of the United States of America. Finally, have no doubt that from now on the eyes of the nation will be upon you and no one will ever again doubt your commitment to our noble cause.


With Sincere Respect and Gratitude,
The Congress of the United States


Letter addressed to General Benedict Arnold in thanks for leading American forces at the Battle of Saratoga



(Excerpted from Founding Liberty: America from 1776 to 1787 by Dr. Reginald Harper and General Sir Colin Fitzhugh, GCO, DSO, Columbia University Press, KoA)

…Shays’ Rebellion, more than any other singular event heralded the death knell for the Articles of Confederation, and what was then known as the United States of America. [2]

The difficulties that caused the Rebellion were many, but it basically evolved from the failures of Federal and State governments to address the problems of debt relief in the post revolution United States. As poor farmers could not pay their debts, they were thrown into debtor’s prison and their lands taken from them. Daniel Shays was one such man in Massachusetts, where he joined other disgruntled and mistreated men in peacefully protesting the Massachusetts state government.

At first, the group of dissenters had protested peacefully, much like the early revolutionaries had done. However, this situation began to change on September 10, 1786, Revolutionary War Veteran Luke Day and a group of other War veterans faced off against a militia guarding the Springfield Court House where cases were being heard. The militia, however, was composed of numerous other veterans and they quickly changed sides. It had appeared that “Day’s Militia” had won the day.

However, when word reached Boston, Governor James Bowdoin was horrified and dispatched a militia of loyal men to arrest Day and his men. Further, he convened the State Legislature, which passed Riot Act that suspended Habeas Corpus. Samuel Adams, the author of the bill, claimed that the “foreign powers had instigated the commoners to treason.” When the Boston Militia arrived in Springfield, things did not go well. A brief firefight ensued between Day’s Militia and the Boston forces, resulting in seven people dead and twelve wounded. The violence only stopped when Luke Day surrendered his forces, saying he did not want more blood on his hands.

This did not end the violence, however. As word spread that Day had surrendered and that he, and his men, were being marched back to Boston for trial, Shays began raising an army. He led nearly two hundred men on an ambush of the Boston Militia to free Day and his men. They quickly overwhelmed the Bostonians, under General Benjamin Lincoln, and forced Lincoln to release the prisoners.

From then on Shays became a legend. Hundred of farmers and former soldiers flocked to their camps in western Massachusetts. Winter came early that year and, as winter set in, neither side made a move as they waited for the spring thaw. Shays and Day used that time to train their men and plan. The Governor used that time to appeal to Philadelphia for aid.

The response from Philadelphia was one of confusion and panic. All the delegates their agreed that the situation was one that must be stopped immediately, however they disagreed on the appropriate course of action. Some wanted to raise an army; some wanted to call up the militias. However, no state would agree to send their militia without repayment, and Massachusetts refused to fit the bill. As a result, the winter was squandered by the Federal Government.

At the end of January, 1787, the Boston Militia was ordered to Springfield to bolster the 900 man Springfield Militia. Shays and Day were planning on raiding the Springfield Armory at some point in the spring to seize the weapons there. However, they knew that if Lincoln and his 3000 men arrived, they would never succeed in their goal. Therefore, they accelerated their plans.

On January 26, 1787, 1500 rebels, led by Shays and Day marched on the Armory. The Springfield Militia, led by General William Shepherd attempted to fire a warning shot, resulting Shaysites died. When the rebels continued to advance, however, Shepherd’s men began to panic and flee. Many of them were in a similar economic situation to Shays men, and not really as well motivated or equipped. As a result, Shepherd’s men quickly began to flee, surrender, or even switch sides. The battle, which would come to be known as the Battle of Springfield Armory, lasted less than an hour, but when it was finished the rebels were in possession of enough rifles, muskets, ammunition, and powder to supply them for a long time.

The next day, January 27, 1787, Lincoln and the Boston Militia arrived in Springfield and demanded Shays’ and Day’s surrender. Now, however, the rebels refused and the Battle of Springfield was held. The battle actually occurred just outside of the town in the fields to the east of the city. The rebels totaled just under 2000, while Lincoln’s men nearly 3000. However, the rebels had armed themselves with the armory weapons, they were fresh, and their morale was high. Lincoln’s men made the first move, four hundred advancing confidently across the field, believing that the rebels would break and run. Day and Shays’ men held fast, however, and held their fire until the militia was barely fifty yards away. When Day and Shays did give the order, seventy-five men went down dead or wounded, another thirty broke ranks and ran immediately. Lincoln now ordered all but two hundred men forward. The rebels, now in hand to hand combat with the remaining four hundred men of the initial attack began to falter and retreat. Lincoln ordered his men to charge and wipe out the rebellion. Day and Shays, however, managed to rally their man at the back of the field and began pushing Lincoln back. Finally, three hours after the battle had begun; Lincoln’s men broke and retreated. Lincoln, himself, led the retreat, riding all the way back to Boston.

Now, the Governor and people of Boston were in near panic. The Federal Government, meanwhile, had finally reached a compromise in which state militias would be called forth from the nearby states and Massachusetts would cover half the costs. The rebels had now reached mythic status in Massachusetts and were beginning to be joined by farmers and other men from all of New England. By February 20, 1787, the rebel numbers were approximately 2500 in number.

After the Battle of Springfield Shays and Day were divided on what to do next, Day recommended negotiating while Shays wanted to march on Boston. What exactly happened next is not known, however, what is known is that Luke Day was shot and killed leaving the camp on March 1, and on March 4 Shays led the army on a march to Boston.

By this time, however, troops from New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Virginia had all arrived and were dug in around Boston. Further, cannons had been placed in support of these militia troops. On March 6, 1787 Shays army arrived outside of Boston. They were greeted with a call to surrender, telling them they would be given amnesty if they surrendered immediately. Shays army arrived with 3500 men, it is estimated that of them five hundred dropped their arms and ran following the call to surrender.

The ensuing battle was more of a slaughter than a real battle. Shays men advanced into the teeth of well defended lines where they were outnumbered and outgunned. The battle last two hours, and when it was finished two/thirds of Shays’ men, including Shays himself, were dead. The rest had surrendered or fled. Only one hundred of the

In the aftermath of the Battle, the landed ruling class of the United States was compelled to reassess the Articles of Confederation. While there had been calls for reform before, it was never given serious consideration. Now, the entire leadership of the country was ready for reform. Something that would protect private property rights from infringement by local majorities. It was believed that the democratic ideal of the nation had “gotten out of hand” and needed to be “controlled,” as Alexander Hamilton stated.

However, at the same time private property rights were what stemmed the Rebellion in the first place, as a result a careful compromise would need to be struck. James Madison summed up the entire situation in one careful phrase, “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.”

What would come from this are of course the chaotic Philadelphia Convention and the penning of the Constitution, ending the dysfunction of the United States of America and replacing it with the Kingdom of America.


[1] – Gates falls from his horse while preparing for the battle and Arnold takes command. He is never injured, never goes to Philadelphia, and never meets the Shippen bitch. Instead he is made Washington’s second in command and leads a much more successful attack at the Battle of Monmouth. However, the war goes similar to OTL, ending in 1781 with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
[2] – Shays’s Rebellion goes much worse TTL
 
A less influential Paine, always good. Though I would sooner see him discredited than dead. Your TL though.

Geberal Arnold as a hero and well placed to influence the post war world. Though I daresay the presence of Arnold would effect the post war Continental Army. Did it not take a great effort on Washington's part to keep the army from Marching on Philiadelphia.

Shay's Rebellion sounds fun. Will this help or hinder centeralization? Help is the most obvious, or it could be a view that states need to be better prepared to deal with internal problems.

King Benedict I in the making? Well unlike General Wahington he does have direct heirs. Or will this be an elected monarchy with the senators electing a king? Modeled after the HRE perhaps.
 
Very interesting. I'm not sure the likelihood of Americans welcoming a king, but with no Paine... plausible. An elected King of America sounds rather badass.
 
Comments/Critiques/Flames are appreciated.


(Excerpted from Building Liberty: America from 1787 to 1805 by Dr. Reginald Harper and General Sir Colin Fitzhugh, GCO, DSO, Columbia University Press, KoA)

…The Philadelphia Convention was scheduled to begin on May 1, 1787 [1], however, due to travel difficulties a quorum of state delegates did not arrive until May 8, 1787, and would continue, with no delays, until September 20, 1787 [2]. The first measure on the table was to unanimously elect George Washington, hero of the Revolution, to be the Conventions President. The second proposal, also unanimously decided, was to make everything that was said in the convention secret until the convention was finished. While some have since scoffed at the secrecy of the convention, it was believed that only though secrecy, free from the pressures of outside groups could this group of men succeed at their task. Given what occurred inside the room, it was fortuitous that it remained confidential, lest some the men would have wound up in prison.

Two major problems that overarched the Convention, the form of the government, and the status of an army for the government, a third major difficulty could be slavery, but a compromise was reached fairly quickly when the issue was presented. Shays’ Rebellion, along with all the other difficulties encountered during the Articles of Confederation, and convinced the delegates to abandon them in face of a stronger Federal Government. Further, that government would need powers to handle the problems between the states, and foreign governments, which continued to treat the Americans as a group of raucous youth, evidenced by letters from John Adams in Britain and Thomas Jefferson in France. Shays’ Rebellion also pointed out, clearly, the flaws in the militia system of defense. The Boston and Springfield Militia were unable to contain or stop Shays forces, especially after they captured the Springfield Armory. However, the ideas brought forth to deal with these two main issues were varied and often times mutually exclusive. One plan, entitled the New Hampshire Plan[3], largely amended the Articles of Confederation, but gave Congress new powers. The Plan was supported by the smaller states that feared getting overwhelmed by the larger states. The large state response, entitled the South Carolina Plan[4], created a powerful legislature with two houses selected proportionally. As the hot summer went on the supporters and opponents of each plan, along with the other plans presented, grew more impatient with one another.

The issue of the military was another, even more contentious issue. Some members, such as Benedict Arnold from Connecticut, argued for the establishment of a large permanent, professional army and the abolition of the militias. Other members, such as James McHenry refused to support such a measure, saying the Militias won the Revolution. Instead, he called for Federal money to help support and fund the Militias, providing them with uniform training and equipment.

By July 1, the Convention was at a near impasse. The delegates were at each other throats. Some, such as George Mason of Virginia were threatening to leave and calling for an end of the Union. The issues came to a head on July 3, a day before July 4 when the delegates agreed to not meet in celebration of the Declaration of Independence, when a small fight actually broke out amongst the members.

According to James Madison’s notes, Robert Morris and Elbridge Gerry came to blows. He never states who started it, only that it occurred “at the height of the heat and pressure of the Convention.” The fight was quickly broken up, but following it Mason and his faction called for an adjournment for the day. That evening, Hamilton, Arnold, and Madison learned that on July 5, Mason was going to motion to end the Convention and any attempt to save the Union. They immediately went to Washington and pleaded with him.

Up to this point, Washington had been content to allow the delegates to debate freely. Now, though, he saw just how close to failure the convention was. He told the men there that he would intervene on the 5th, though he would not tell them what he planned to do. History may never know what happened in Washington’s bedroom that evening; legend says that he prayed all night for guidance on how to save his country.

The morning of July 5, the delegates filed into the room, either showing visible signs of anger, despair, or both. Only Hamilton, Arnold, and Madison had any sign of hope on their face. Washington was the last to enter the room, maintain a face of stone as he approached his seat and sat down. Madison’s notes tell us word for word what happened next.

“President Washington first recognized Delegate Mason; however, as he stood and began to tell of sacrifice, Washington begged his pardon and asked to make a remark. Mason, for a moment, was shocked and looked as if he would not allow President Washington to speak, but then came to his senses and allowed Washington control of the floor.”

“Washington stood and was silent for a moment before beginning. ‘Honorable gentlemen, I know something of sacrifice. I spent eight long years fighting for the country we call home. After that war concluded, I surrendered my sword to Congress and hoped to live quietly at my home as my only reward. Now, however, circumstances as they are, have led me and all of you august gentlemen here. Our union, is on the brink of collapse. Our people, are on the brink of collapse. The events of this past year have shown the flaws of our present government, and how tyranny and chaos can be found in all forms of government. Dare I even say it is more likely to occur in a democracy? For the people of this country that we have fought so hard for we must have order, we must have a monarch. I call on this delegation to form a government with one head, free from the fleeting passions of the mob. One head to serve the people, not to rule them. One head, not to rule, but govern under the authority of a constitution. One head to save this country.’ With that Washington sat down and motion to Delegate Mason, he stood, but no sound came from his mouth.”

What happened next was a complete turnaround of the convention. George Washington, arguably the most popular person in the country at the time. The man who freed the country, then, rather than reach out and become King, retired to his plantation, had called the Delegates to sacrifice for love of country one more time. He called on them to create a government under a monarch, but not a monarch of Europe, a new monarch to unify the country at the same time as he enforced the law. In that singular moment he took his mythos to a new height, one that laid down power, only to reluctantly pick it up when he was needed.

New committees were formed, from large states and small states, from the centralist and de-centralist factions, and work began again. There were still opponents, but they were marginalized and did not offer much resistance. Hamilton, Arnold, and Madison, seized control over the convention, but even they did not domineer as they could have, they were aware that if they tried, Washington would strike them down just as he did Mason.

In early August, the Committee of Detail was convened to write a draft based on the agreements that had been reached during the general debate. After another month of debate and discussion, the Committee of Style and Arrangement, chaired by Arnold, and including Hamilton, Madison, Gouverneur Morris and Rufus King met to refine the document. What was presented was a compromise of all the people there. That is not to say all the delegates were pleased with the finished document, in fact, three refused to sign sighting a lack of a declaration of individual rights [5]. Benjamin Franklin probably expressed the opinion of the delegates best when, at the close of the Convention he remarked, "There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. ... I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. ... It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies..."

What was presented to the states was a careful balance between the powers of the legislature, executive, and an independent judiciary, in what would become known as the separation of powers. The official form of government would be a monarchy; but, all the branches of government would derive their rights to rule and powers from the Constitution. Finally, it was a government of limited powers.

The executive would, of course, take the form of a hereditary monarch and be vested with the powers of both the head of state and head of government. The monarch would be charged with executing the laws of Congress, serving as commander-in-chief of the military, would have royal assent to laws, as well as appointment of government officials and Royal Judges.

The Congress would be constituted as a bicameral legislature, the Senate and House of Representatives. Members of both houses would be called Members of Congress, while members of the Senate were also given the title Senator. The Senate would be composed of two Senators from each state, appointed by the state’s legislature to serve an eight year term, with half the Senate being re-appointed every four years. The House of Representatives would have its seats apportioned to each state based on population, and popularly elected by a local district for a term of two years. Additionally, while the Constitution did not provide for a Prime Minister [6], it did specifically create the possession of the Speaker of the House. The Speaker of the House is elected by the members of the House of Representatives and has a number of powers including setting the agenda for debate, presiding over the debate, appointing MCs to committees, chairing or co-chairing any Regency committee that may be needed, have privileges in the Cabinet, and other administrative functions.

Bills must pass both houses of Congress to become law, and could override a Royal Veto with a two-thirds majority of both houses. The House has the exclusive power to initiate review bills and approval over patents of nobility; however the senate has exclusive power over approval of treaties and royal appointments. Finally, through a three-fourths majority vote of both houses, the monarch can be declared unfit to rule and a Regency can be declared for as long as is needed.

The Judicial power is placed into the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of America (SCOTKA for short) and inferior courts created by Congress. The Supreme Court is given authority to hear a number of cases, most importantly cases concerning the Constitution [7] and disputes between the states, as well as a court of final hearing for all matters it chooses hear.

As for the problems with the military, Slavery, and Declaration of Rights, they were dealt with in different ways. The concerns over the military were left out of the final draft, though it was uniformly agreed that the 1st Congress would take up the matter. Slavery, it was agreed would dealt with in a different manner, the importation of slaves would be ended after fifteen years [8] and slaves would be counted as 3/5s of a person for determining taxes and representation. Finally, it was agreed that the Declaration of Rights would be the first amendments to the Constitution made if it was adopted.

Finally, despite some calls for an election, and concerns about succession, it was agreed that George Washington would be crowned the first king of America if the Constitution was adopted.

With that the Convention was closed and the delegates went back to their states to present their work. Benjamin Franklin, as he left, was asked by a woman if they had given America a Republic of a Monarchy, he answered that they gave America both.

From September 27, 1787 to June 21, 1788 nine of the thirteen states approved the Constitution, therefore ratifying the Constitution. In the subsequent months, the other four states would approve the Constitution, followed by Vermont. The ratification process was not an easy one. It took a concerted effort, lead by Hamilton to ratify the document. In what would become known as the Royalist Papers, Hamilton, John Jay, Madison, and others argued for the benefits of the Constitution and assuaged the fears of those that thought a tyranny was being created. Washington being named King also lent support to its passing, as did the promise of a Declaration of Rights.

The 1st Congress was sat on March 4, 1789, where James Madison was elected as the 1st Speaker of the House. On April 30, George Washington was crowned by Chief Justice John Jay as King George I, By the Consent of the Congress and People of America, King of America, Protector of the Constitution and the Rights of Man. In his Coronation Speech Washington promised to serve the people and live up to the trust the country had put in him.

[1] – earlier than OTL
[2] – later than OTL
[3] – OTL New Jersey Plan
[4] – OTL Virginia Plan
[5] – Despite the events of Shays’ Rebellion there was still a concern for individual liberties and rights.
[6] – While some called for it, the majority believed that if they violated this separation of powers issue it would tilt the balance of power in favor of the Congress
[7] – This would soon be used to give the Supreme Court the power of Judicial Review of laws brought before them
[8] – OTL it was 20 years and gave Congress the power to consider it.

Up next....The first Government, Washington names an heir, and more fun...
 
A less influential Paine, always good. Though I would sooner see him discredited than dead. Your TL though.

Geberal Arnold as a hero and well placed to influence the post war world. Though I daresay the presence of Arnold would effect the post war Continental Army. Did it not take a great effort on Washington's part to keep the army from Marching on Philiadelphia.

Shay's Rebellion sounds fun. Will this help or hinder centeralization? Help is the most obvious, or it could be a view that states need to be better prepared to deal with internal problems.

King Benedict I in the making? Well unlike General Wahington he does have direct heirs. Or will this be an elected monarchy with the senators electing a king? Modeled after the HRE perhaps.

You be the judge of the helping or hindering. As for the internal problems, definitely, and the issue of the militias (as you can see above and resolved in the next segment) is a major thorn.

Close, but you will see. Nope it is hereditary.

Very interesting. I'm not sure the likelihood of Americans welcoming a king, but with no Paine... plausible. An elected King of America sounds rather badass.

That was my thought, which is why that rabble rouser had to go ;). See above to your second question.

Maybe this is a Spartan America, where what arises is an army with a state, instead of the reverse.

Perhaps, its still early
 

Raymann

Banned
Why would they create a hereditary monarchy and put a man on the throne who had no son? No reason not to allow the House to elect one.
 
Actually I can see why Washington is a good candidate for lack of heirs. Those opposed may use the succession to bring forward the idea of an elected monarchy by revising the constitution. They likely hope that this will allow the monarchy to be weakened post Washington, hopefully with the country more stable.

For others they might be planning to make a play for the Throne themselves. The constitution probaly has a succession clause that will be brought up in the next part. After all Washington is not a young man and with no sons there will be a dispute on what is to be done.

Likely the decision will be that upon his death an election will be held to select a new king and establish a new Dynasty. Or perhaps the election will occur while he is still alive to designate an heir apparent?

The Prince of Manhattan perhaps?

Speaking of titles I see nobles will exist in this kingdom? Just life peers or will you be featuring hereditary baronets?
 
Mr. Angel,

I applaud your attention to detail and your excellent writing style. You are obviously a student of the history of this period. I believe that you have correctly made a more bloody Shays Rebellion the main POD for your timeline. In TTL, Shays Rebellion and the anti-creditor events in Rhode Island were deeply disturbing to men of property all over America and helped drive the move to a stronger Union. Your Shays Rebellion would certainly strengthen that movement.
Having thus praised your interesting work, I must take issue with your fundamental premise. Even with a bloody Shays Rebellion showing the need for a stronger central government and the absence of a radical Tom Paine agitating for pure Republicanism, I cannot see the Philadelphia Convention seriously considering a heriditary monarchy, Washington supporting it or the state conventions adopting it. I can certainly see the events you so ably portray leading to a stronger Federal government; perhaps with Madison's original idea of a Federal veto over State statutes, a longer serving (possibly for life during good behavior as proposed by Hamilton?) President and a permanent national military establishment. But a monarchy. . . no.
Mason, Henry, Jefferson, Clinton, Sam Adams and many other anti-Federalists would literally die in the last ditch before they would allow the establishment of a heriditary monarchy. They almost succeeded in defeating TTL's Constitution because it "squinted towards monarchy" . Think how much easier their job in the closely contested conventions of Massachusetts, New York and Virginia would have been with a real monarchy to attack. And, despite the dramatic scene you have so well writtien, I do not see Washington changing his fundamental, and oft expressed, views that a monarchy was not acceptable for either him or the country. I can see Washington making the case for the ideas of Madison and Hamilton which would result in a much stronger central government.
I will read with interest your further posts on your Kingdom of America, but for me it will be fascinating, but implausilbe speculation.

Your humble servant,
AH
 
This is interesting, but I'm not sure I'd say it's plausible.

Thanks. I agree, it might be a little implausible, but I think I have made a close enough case that I can make it believable with the butterflies and their offspring. Paine is dead, the chaos of the AoC-period was worse, and Philadelphia nearly broke down. When Washington spins it as stability and service I can see it being attempted.

Why would they create a hereditary monarchy and put a man on the throne who had no son? No reason not to allow the House to elect one.

Actually I can see why Washington is a good candidate for lack of heirs. Those opposed may use the succession to bring forward the idea of an elected monarchy by revising the constitution. They likely hope that this will allow the monarchy to be weakened post Washington, hopefully with the country more stable.

For others they might be planning to make a play for the Throne themselves. The constitution probaly has a succession clause that will be brought up in the next part. After all Washington is not a young man and with no sons there will be a dispute on what is to be done.

Likely the decision will be that upon his death an election will be held to select a new king and establish a new Dynasty. Or perhaps the election will occur while he is still alive to designate an heir apparent?

The Prince of Manhattan perhaps?

Speaking of titles I see nobles will exist in this kingdom? Just life peers or will you be featuring hereditary baronets?

Well Washington did have heirs, just not heirs of his body. My reasoning is that the only person that stood a chance of pulling this off was Washington, anyone else it would be seen as a power grab. Washington doesn't want to do it, thats why people trusted him to do the job. Also, I like Herr Frage's explanation and incorporate that as well. ;) Yes, their is a succession clause and it will be explained in the next part.

I hadn't done Prince of Manhattan, but now I just might, I like that title. I had been planning "Prince of Appalachia."

A very small hereditary nobility will exist and a life peerage system will emerge in the future, chivalry orders will be created almost immediately, by the way. While people are willing to try a king, they still aren't keen on a nobility. At the get go only a few of the founding fathers (Adams, Hamilton, Madison, and Arnold) (Jefferson will be offered one, but turn it down), along with an heir for Washington will be created. The caveat being that, as I said in the previous portion, all new patents of nobility must be approved by the House. It will also come to be seen in the reverse (based on a Supreme Court Case), that is, the House can strip a person of a title.

Mr. Angel,

I applaud your attention to detail and your excellent writing style. You are obviously a student of the history of this period. I believe that you have correctly made a more bloody Shays Rebellion the main POD for your timeline. In TTL, Shays Rebellion and the anti-creditor events in Rhode Island were deeply disturbing to men of property all over America and helped drive the move to a stronger Union. Your Shays Rebellion would certainly strengthen that movement.
Having thus praised your interesting work, I must take issue with your fundamental premise. Even with a bloody Shays Rebellion showing the need for a stronger central government and the absence of a radical Tom Paine agitating for pure Republicanism, I cannot see the Philadelphia Convention seriously considering a heriditary monarchy, Washington supporting it or the state conventions adopting it. I can certainly see the events you so ably portray leading to a stronger Federal government; perhaps with Madison's original idea of a Federal veto over State statutes, a longer serving (possibly for life during good behavior as proposed by Hamilton?) President and a permanent national military establishment. But a monarchy. . . no.
Mason, Henry, Jefferson, Clinton, Sam Adams and many other anti-Federalists would literally die in the last ditch before they would allow the establishment of a heriditary monarchy. They almost succeeded in defeating TTL's Constitution because it "squinted towards monarchy" . Think how much easier their job in the closely contested conventions of Massachusetts, New York and Virginia would have been with a real monarchy to attack. And, despite the dramatic scene you have so well writtien, I do not see Washington changing his fundamental, and oft expressed, views that a monarchy was not acceptable for either him or the country. I can see Washington making the case for the ideas of Madison and Hamilton which would result in a much stronger central government.
I will read with interest your further posts on your Kingdom of America, but for me it will be fascinating, but implausilbe speculation.

Your humble servant,
AH

Thank you for your kind words and I hope that you will continue to be a reader. As I said above, I agree it is a tad bit implausible from out situation, but I believe I have given it the best chance at establishment and survival. Further, the men that you spoke up (with the exception of Adams), will prove to be a Loyal (or not so loyal in the case of Henry) Opposition and will argue for more democracy. The OTL Democratic Republicans (I'm going to come up with a new name) will adopt, instead of a states-rights platform, a democratic platform, they will even succeed to a point. With Paine gone, and the butterflies multiplying who knows...
 
Interesting, I knew Paine was very influencial, but not quite this much. I like the premise, and Shays Rebellion in a TL is something I've rarely seen. However I'd have to agree with with Alexander about a monarchy; still I'd like to see where this is going. Goodwork.:)
 
While I am no expert on the history of the period, I think this is more plausible than some make it out to be. A monarchy based on enlightenment ideas, and a constitutional "enlightened despot" may be acceptable to the Americans. I like where this is going.

But don't you think he should be the Emperor? An emperor harkens back to those of Rome and its ideals, and I think that as the American Republic looked to Rome, so should the American Empire.
 
Part three

(Excerpted from Building Liberty: America from 1787 to 1805 by Dr. Reginald Harper and General Sir Colin Fitzhugh, GCO, DSO, Columbia University Press, KoA)

While the United States of America may have approved the Constitution and created the Kingdom of America, the people, in their infinite wisdom divided the first Congress roughly evenly between pro- and anti- royalty. While no official political parties existed in the country at this point, these were their roots. The pro-royalty faction supported rapid industrialization and centralized authority under the King. They quickly came under the unofficial leadership of Hamilton, who used his relationship with King George to advance their programs. The anti-royalists, under the guidance of Jefferson, did not oppose the creation of the monarchy, however, they did seek to limit its power and thought Congress and the states should do the ruling. They further opposed the rapid industrialization of the country and were much more agrarian.

The 1st Congress was an extremely busy and active one, however. The Congress voted a royal allowance of $25,000 a year, approved ten amendments to the Constitution to act as the Declaration of Rights, and took up the issue of the Royal Army and Royal Navy. The Senate, further approved George I’s cabinet of Thomas Jefferson as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Alexander Hamilton as Minister of the Treasury, and Edmond Randolph as Secretary of Justice, and Henry Knox as Minister of War. The House, meanwhile, approved a number of patents of nobility submitted to them by King George, including Duke of New York for Hamilton, Duke of Connecticut for Benedict Arnold, and 1st Earl Madison for James Madison. Thomas Jefferson was offered the title Duke of Virginia, but turned it down. Instead, it was given to Henry Lee III.

King George, was equally busy, both with domestic and foreign issues. Shortly after taking the throne, he named his young step-grandson, George, his heir and asked Congress to create a title for him befitting his place; the Congress chose to create the title Prince of Manhattan. He signed the Judiciary Act of 1789 that created a seven person Supreme Court [1] and divided the country into a number of Royal Circuit Courts that were then further divided into Royal District Courts. He also signed the Royal Capital Act [2], which authorized the King to appoint three commissioners to locate an appropriate place to build a capital for the country.

Domestic Issues

The Royal Capital Act would prove difficult to wrangle, however. The lingering feelings of states’ rights remained and MCs from all over the country bartered and threatened in an attempt to get the capital located in their state or, more locally, within their district. At the same time Hamilton and his pro-royal supporters were attempting to push through a plan for the Royal Government to assume state debt. In an agreement between Hamilton and Jefferson, the New York MCs would support locating the capital along the Potomac River in exchange for Virginia’s MCs supporting the assumption of debt. As a result, both parties got what they wanted. Hamilton got his debt assumption and Jefferson got his southern capital. The capital, named the Royal District of Columbia, or Columbia RD, would take ten years to design and build. Interestingly enough, George I would be the only monarch America has had not to live in Columbia.

Another early domestic struggle was the establishment of the financial and economic foundation of the country. Hamilton had succeeded in assuming the debt of the states, he then proposed, in 1790, the creation of a Royal Bank to mint currency, handle government finances, issue financial notes, and handle the debts. At the same time, Hamilton also proposed a series tariffs and taxes on liquor to finance the debt. The Royal Bank and Finances Bill was, again, a highly contentious bills. King George intended on maintaining neutrality, even though he favored Hamilton’s plans. In the end, George used his influence and support to pass the Bank Bill.

These early disputes between Jefferson and Hamilton further divided the pro- and anti-royalist factions of the government. In fact, by 1791, Hamilton and Jefferson were bitter enemies, disagreeing with one another and eventually leading to Jefferson’s resignation as Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

The military was also a major topic of debate in the first session of Congress and within the court of King George. Shays Rebellion was still fresh in everyone’s mind and no real debate existed that a Royal Army would exist, it was just a matter of how big it would prove to be and whether the militias would remain. King George remained silent on the size and militias; however he stated that he desired a united military, trained at a single military academy, and composed of regiments with members from all the states believing that it would help unify the country. Some pro-royalist elements of Congress proposed funding for a Royal Army, totaling fifteen regiments, three cavalry, two artillery, and ten infantry, ending the militia system all together, and establishing a Royal Military Academy. Anti-royalist elements of Congress were appalled by the proposal and countered with their own proposal with a small Royal Army, composed of five regiments, and strengthening the militias with common training and procedures.

The King would again intervene to guide a compromise through Congress. The Royal Military Act created funding for a Royal Army of ten regiments, seven infantry, one cavalry, and two artillery regiments. It further authorized the founding of the Royal American Military Academy at West Point. It required all males between the ages of 18 and 45 to enroll with their state militias and authorized the King to call up the militias for Royal service in times of war, insurrection, or crisis. It also gave the King, as commander-in-chief, authorization to sign commissions and issue promotions. King George would use this last power to appoint Benedict Arnold, 1st Duke of Connecticut, as commander of the army and commissioned him as General.

The second Congress, sat in March 1791, was dominated by the pro-royalist faction of government. However, that did not stop King George from vetoing his first bill, largely a symbolic gesture to ensure that it would be used in the future. The only other notable legislation sent by Congress to the King was the Fugitive Slave Act, which was signed by the King and made it illegal to help an escaping slave. Hamilton issued a report on manufactures, but it was largely shelved by Congress, which instead of issuing moderate tariffs and subsidizing industry chose to enact only higher tariffs.

In March 1793, the 3rd Congress was sat and, for the first time, the anti-royalist faction would have a clear majority. Lord Madison resigned as speaker following this election [3], being replaced by Fredrick Muhlenberg, a leading anti-royalist from Pennsylvania. The only two major pieces of legislation they passed was the Royal Navy Act of 1794, which founded the Royal Navy and authorized the construction of six heavy frigates, and Naturalization Act of 1795, which established the procedures to citizenship for immigrants. They failed, however, to curtail the powers of the King, largely because of 1794 would prove to be a year in which American became embroiled in two domestic military conflicts, one of which was peacefully ended and one that wasn’t.

The Whiskey Rebellion broke out in 1794, but had been building since 1791 and the passage of taxes on liquor. Since the tax was passed, farmers across the country, who used to brew the whiskey, had been harassing Royal tax collectors and refusing to pay. The Rebellion came to a head in western Pennsylvania, just south of Pittsburgh, when a group of protesters was shot at by a tax collector named Mathew Henderson, the protestors then returned fire, killing Henderson. News of the violence spread quickly, both by the farmers and among the government. Shays Rebellion had been less than a decade before; as a result the King was keen on stamping out this rebellion as quickly as possible. King George declared Martial Law in Pennsylvania, called up the Pennsylvania and New York Militias and order General Arnold to assemble the 1st Foot Guards Regiment, known as Washington’s Life Guards, and 1st Royal Hussars Regiment. By October of 1794, King George was camped in western Pennsylvania with approximately 14,000 men. Only twenty-five men were every found by the Royal Army, and of those men only three were ever tried. It did serve as precedent and exercise of Royal power, however, over the states and people. Further, and perhaps unintentionally, pushed Pennsylvania in the anti-royalist camp and become an important area for the Democratic Party (when it officially developed) and its successors.

The second military conflict was the culmination of the “Northwest Indian War” that had been smoldering in the Northwest Territory since the 1780s. The Native American tribes in the territory had been attacking and fighting with the colonists and militias in the region following encouragement and material support from the British, who still occupied forts in the region contrary to the Treaty of Paris. In 1790, prior to the Royal Military Act, King George ordered Secretary Henry Knox to put together an operation to end the raids. Knox ordered General Josiah Harmar and 1,400 men to march into the territory and suppress the Native American, who, by this time, were lead by the Little Turtle, Blue Jacket, and Tecumseh. Unfortunately, the Native Americans slaughtered the militia men as a result of poor leadership and poor training. Of the 400 men actually sent by Harmar to engage the Native Americans, only 130 returned [4].

When word of the defeat reached the King in Philadelphia, he was upset and angry. King George believed that Native Americans were equal to white people, just their culture was inferior. He supported measures to treat Native Americans equally under the law, including paying Native American fair market value for their land and punishing those who violated Native rights under Royal Law, and integrate them into American culture. In fact, the Chickasaw people had already begun integration into American culture. At the same time, however, the King demanded order and would not tolerate rebellion. He, therefore, during the summer of 1791, ordered General Arthur St. Clair, the Royal Governor of the Northwest Territory, to prepare a more vigorous offensive. However, while the Royal Military Act had been passed, the Regiments were still being raised. As a result, the force of approximately 900 militiamen marched into the wilderness and camped near Fort Recovery.

On November 4, at dawn, a force of nearly 2000 Native America warriors attacked for American force and inflicted casualties near 70%. The King was again angry at the result of the offensive. Nonetheless, during the winter he attempted to send two envoys to the Native American in an attempt to reach a peace. Both were killed. The King was determined to end these raids and opposition to the rightful government.

In late 1793, he ordered General Anthony Wayne to take command of two infantry regiments, the Queen’s Own Rifle Regiment and 1st Royal Grenadiers, and 1st Royal Artillery Regiment and prepare them to face the Native American forces. Finally, during the late spring of 1794, General Wayne decided his forces were ready and marched them into the Northwest Territory. Blue Jackets forces attempted to attack Wayne’s force, again near Fort Recovery. This time, though, the American forces repelled the warriors and forced their retreat. Wayne pushed deeper into the Territory and engaged the Native Americans at the Battle of Fallen Timbers on August 20, 1794.

The Native forces, numbering around 1500, had taken shelter along the Maumee River, near where several trees had been uprooted. The battle itself was short and utterly decisive. The Natives were unprepared for the attack and some were at nearby Fort Miami, a British controlled Fort, getting supplies. As a result, the Native Americans were quickly routed and fled to Fort Miami only to find the gates had been locked by the British. As a result of the battle, the Native American forces largely surrendered, and in 1795, signed the Treaty of Greenville. As a reward for his service, General Wayne, was named 1st Baron of Greenville.

The Treaty was arguable more gentle on the Native Americans than it could have been, and helped lay the ground work for future peaceful relations with the Natives. The Native Americans had to cease all hostilities with white settlers, recognize America as the rightful rulers of the Northwest Territory, cede their land to the government, agree to be removed from the area, and release all prisoners. In return, America would assist relocating the Native American population north of the 42 degree north, to what would become the Indiana Territory, a separate territory, with a separate governor, a pardon to all warriors, and $25,000 in supplies and medicine. The treaty would go on to be the impetus and precedent for future treaties with Native American populations.

It was also, in 1795, where political parties were officially formed. The 4th Congress saw the Royalist Party, formed from the pro-royalist faction, and Democratic Party, formed from the anti-royalist faction, sat. The Democrats maintained the majority in the House of Representatives while the Royalists maintained dominance in the Senate.

Two states were also admitted to Kingdom, during this time. In 1792, Kentucky was admitted as a state. While in 1796, Tennessee was admitted to the Kingdom. Both were carved out of territory ceded to the Royal Government in the years following and would become strongholds of the Democratic Party.

The last major domestic issue faced by the Royal Government under King George I occurred on May 1st, 1796, when tragedy and calamity struck. Fifteen year old Prince George was thrown from his horse and killed while riding outside of Philadelphia. King George and Queen Consort Martha were upset, having lost another family member. Additionally, the monarchy would be thrown into chaos. Serious questions over succession and the future of the monarchy developed. King George I had no more male heirs and some members of the Congress would even recommend his abdication so that Congress could vote on a new Monarch. The small remaining contingent of Republicans attempted to take advantage of the tragedy, but were universally condemned and vilified even further. He consulted with Rufus King, the Secretary of Justice, about his options for a new heir. They both agreed that the Constitution said only a direct relation could inherit [5], however there was no prohibition other than that. Therefore, on June 8th, 1796, he named his twenty-year old step-granddaughter Elizabeth Parke Curtis Arnold his heir and named her Princess of Manhattan. King George naming a woman caused some uproar, but enough of the wives of leading officials supported the measure, combined with King George giving her his blessing, and her recent marriage to General Benedict Arnold’s eldest son [6] rendered the objections a passing fancy.

Princess Elizabeth would take immediate steps to prepare to rule, including taking a leading role in debating the pros and cons of a war with France. She began learning from her grandfather and other leading officials. She was also deeply in love with her husband and took great pains to include him, a Royal Army officer like his father, in the day to day affairs of government.

Foreign Issues

…(continued in the next segment

[1] – OTL it was six.
[2] – OTL Residence Act of 1790
[3] – Madison is much more pro-royalist, however by modern terms would be considered an independent
[4] – Much worse than OTL
[5] – The Constitution provided that an heir could only come from the direct family, hence parent to child or sibling to sibling. Anything beyond that required a joint election by Congress. This, they believe, would prevent some foreign monarch.
[6] – OTL she married Thomas Law, here she met and married Benedict Arnold VI, who was eight years her senior
 
Another wonderful installment.

Clearly the monarch as expected has come to embody central authority, with those who support centralization being pro and the statres rights griups being anti.

Good show at addressing the less ostemtacious events that are actually key to shaping history.

I wonder if unlike OTL were Washington is the only POTUS to lead troops into battle he will insread set a precedent for nintweenth century kings to take an active role in the military. It seems more likely since the House of Arnold is poised to take power via marriage.

Glad you did not go with your original idea of Prince of Appalachia. If I a mnot mistaken the region was held in low regard at the time. The prized territories were Transappalachia between the mountains and the Mississippi.

For subduing the Native American rebellions I found an image in my head. As part of acknowledging American overlordship the war leaders would have to kneel before a painting of King George I.

The Fugitive slave act was a surprise. I see you are not going for some utopian angle. I womder if the ATL equivalent of the civil war will be a Republican secession of free states. With a southern Capital and the Royal family as slave owners I could see radical abolitionism overlapping with republicanism.

Queen Elizabeth I, quite the name to live up too. I look forward to seeing her reign.

Columbia eh? As another way to honor Washington the Royal Palace could be named Washington Palace.
 
While I work on Part 4 I thought I would give a little few little interludes. So here is the first, the list of monarchs and their families for the Kingdom of America. Note, their are some spoilers so if you don't want to have clues as to the future, don't read this.

Note 1: The dates next to ruler in parenthesis are years they ruled.
Note 2: The names under are children

House of Washington
George I (1787 – 1799)

Elizabeth (born: 1776) (1799 – 1831)
Married Benedict Arnold VI, 1795
--George Alexander Born: 1797
--Elizabeth Hanna Born: 1800
--Benedict Daniel Born: 1805 (King Benedict I of Canada)
--John Phillip Born: 1807

House of Arnold
-George II (born: 1797) (1831 – 1859)
Married Lady Anne Kinloch Lee 1820
--George Alexander Born: 1824 Died: 1840
--Anne Mary Born: 1826 (married to Lord Edmond Motier de La Fayette, 1st Earl of Fayetteville)
--John Benedict Born: 1828
--Elizabeth Parke Born: 1829

-John I (born: 1828) (1859 – 1896)
Married Lady Louisa Catherine Adams (born: 1831) 1849
--George Benedict Born: 1851
--John Robert Born: 1855

-George III (born: 1851) (1896 – 1901)
Married Princess Marie of Battenburg (born: 1852) 1871
--George Benedict Born: 1872
--Alexander Phillip Born: 1877
--Julia Louisa Born: 1880
--Elizabeth Hanna Born: 1881
--John Charles Born: 1885
--Catherine Marie Born: 1887

-George IV (born: 1872) (1896 – 1938)
Married Princess Margaret of Prussia (born: 1872) 1892
--Marie Elizabeth Born: 1895
--Margaret Catherine Born: 1898
--George Alexander Born: 1900 (daughter, Margaret Marie, marries Heinrich II of Germany)
--Victoria Sophia Born: 1904 (marries Henry IX)

-George V (born: 1900) (1938 – 1986)
Married Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia (born: 1901) 1924
--George Phillip Born: 1926
--Margaret Alexandra Born: 1930
--John Phillip Born: 1933
--Alexander Nicholas Born: 1935 (Tsar Alexander IV)

-George VI (born: 1926) (1986 – 1995)
Married Lady Catherine Grey (born: 1929) 1950
--no surviving children

-John II (born: 1933) (1995 – 2002)
Married Princess Maria Pia of Sardinia (born: 1934) 1956
--John Phillip Born: 1960 Died: 1994 (car crash)
Married Princess Isabella Francisca Born: 1959 Married: 1983
--George Phillip Born 1987
--John Alexander Born 1990
--Isabella Victoria Born 1991
--Anastasia Marie Born: 1962

-George VII (born: 1987*) (2002** - present)
* – grandson of John II
** – mother as regent from 2002 to 2009 (entered majority in 2005, but delayed active participation until he finished college)
 
(Excerpted from Building Liberty: America from 1787 to 1805 by Dr. Reginald Harper and General Sir Colin Fitzhugh, GCO, DSO, Columbia University Press, KoA)

At the same time King George I was dealing with building the country domestically, he was securing the nation’s status abroad. This mainly consisted of balancing relations with the various European countries and keeping America out of the wars that raged there. He was largely successful until 1797 with the XYZ affair and the ensuing Franco-American War of 1798 and 1799. Some have argued that this conflict began, in large part, because by then King George I was mostly bed ridden meaning [1] that Princess Elizabeth, Prince Benedict, and the Royalist Party officials were largely in control.

The French Revolution (1789-1792) was the first major foreign policy issue to grip King George I’s reign. France declared itself a Republic in 1792, executed King Louis XVI in 1793, and then declared war on all of Europe. The Democrats, led by Jefferson, wanted to support France, based off of their previous support for America and the cause of liberty. The Royalists, meanwhile, urged caution and wanted the King to declare neutrality. The King ultimately did declare neutrality in the conflict, though fighting against both France and Great Britain at different points. However, while the Neutrality Proclamation was issued in 1793, the King did grant asylum and citizenship to Gilbert du Motier, the Marquis de Lafayette and his family [2].

Lafayette was greeted with warmth and compassion from all portions of the Kingdom and took up residence outside of Philadelphia and becoming an official advisor to the King. Lafayette’s grandson, Edmund, would go one to be the husband of King George I’s great-great-granddaughter, Anne Marie and be given the title Earl of Fayetteville, a town named after his grandfather. Even later, Edmund’s and Anne Marie’s descendant, James became the ruler of Panama as Prince of Panama.

Also in 1793, Great Britain announced it would not comply with the Treaty of Paris and withdraw from the frontier forts until America repaid all debts to Great Britain. In response, King George I lobbied for and got the Royal Navy Act of 1794 passed by Congress, which authorized the construction of six Heavy Frigates, the Constitution, Constellation, Congress, America, Chesapeake, and Courageous. He then ordered these ships to begin protecting American shipping. At the same time, he appointed Edmund Randolph, King George I’s new Secretary of Foreign Affairs to oversee affairs with Britain and France.

King George I also sent Lord John Adams, 1st Earl of Quincy, to Great Britain in 1794 to negotiate a new treaty with Great Britain to rectify a number of issues including the occupation of forts, compensation for seized property including slaves taken during the Revolution, reopening of trade in the West Indies, borders, and Native Americans.

Lord Quincy managed to negotiate the Adams Treaty in London and bring it back for approval. In the Treaty, Britain agreed to vacate the forts, repay American ship owners, end support for Native Americans, and end the impressments of soldiers. In return, America guaranteed the debts owed to the British if they cannot obtained in court, establish two joint boundary commissions, and agree not to hire any British citizens to serve as sailors on American ships (this would largely be ignored and unenforceable). Lastly, Adams, a committed Royalist, dropped the slavery issue.

The Treaty was controversial when Adams returned to America, and played a large role in solidifying the Democratic Party. The Democrats, still supportive of France and critical of Britain, attempted to rally public opinion and block the passage of the bill. The Royalists, meanwhile, aided by the King who lent his prestige, countered with a better public relations campaign and managed to get the Treaty passed in the Senate. Interestingly enough, the King did not submit the Treaty to the Senate until it was sure to pass.

The Adams Treaty also increased tensions with France, who increased the seizure of American shipping. In response Congress passed, and the King signed, the Royal Navy Act of 1796, which authorized the further construction of six more frigates and purchase of a number of private ships converted to warships. In 1797, King George I sent Charles Cotesworth Pinkney, John Marshall, and Elbridge Gerry to France in an attempt to negotiate a peaceful end to conflict. Instead, the Americans were told that in order to even begin negotiating a treaty, a series of bribes and loans would have to be given. The negotiators were outraged and left immediately. Back in America, the event, reported in 1798, known now as the XYZ Affair, caused even more outrage, which the Royalists took full advantage of.

King George I had been ill since early 1797 and the day to day affairs of the government to Princess Elizabeth (who had just recently given birth to Prince George), Prince Benedict, and Alexander Hamilton. As a result, the Royalists gained a firm upper hand in the government. When French ships began seizing American vessels outside of Boston Harbor, in June of 1798, a letter was sent to Congress, signed by King George I asking for a declaration of war. While there is no doubt that the letter, was in fact signed by the King, some have questioned whether he knew what he was signing or whether he was mislead as to the events that had been occurring.

In 1798, France and its allies were at war with Great Britain. It is important to note, that while the Franco-American War occurred at the same time as the French Revolutionary Wars, specifically the War of the Second Coalition, it was an independent conflict and Great Britain and its allies played no role in supporting the Kingdom of America. France only had minimal territory left in the Caribbean. However, they had signed the 2nd Treaty of San Ildefonso with Spain creating an alliance between the two states to fight Great Britain. Spain controlled the land west of the Mississippi, in the Louisiana Territory and New Spain, and to the south, in Florida. While Spain was under no obligation to support France in its war with America, they chose to and declared war on America in early 1799, two days after King George I died.

Death of King George I and the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth

America has never had a powerful and popular King as it did when King George I ruled the country. When he died on February 14, 1799 [3], the outcry of sadness was deafening. Despite the fact that the war had just expanded with the entry of Spain, the entire country stopped. A huge state funeral was held in Columbia, even as construction was occurring on Congress and the royal residence, which would be named Washington House in honor of the late King. Dignitaries from around the world led their own people in mourning, even in France where the King was remembered as a liberator. The King would be buried in outside of Mt. Vernon, his plantation, and remain the only monarch of America to this day not buried in Royal Oak Cemetery, in Alexandria Virginia.

One week after King George I was buried, his step-granddaughter, Elizabeth Parke Curtis Arnold, was crowned Queen Elizabeth. Following tradition the Chief Justice of the Kingdom of America, William Patterson, crowned her Queen Elizabeth, By the Consent of the Congress and People of America, Queen of America, Protector of the Constitution and the Rights of Man. She also followed the tradition established by her grandfather and gave a coronation speech. In that speech, she promised to follow her grandfather’s example and continue to serve the country to the best of her ability. She also warned those that would attempt to call her weak, or the pawn of the Royalists, that she would be the one to rule and she would be no persons “gentle flower.” Finally, she re-affirmed her commitment to the war and called on all Americans to unite with her and defeat the French (she would learn later that the Spanish had entered the war).

[1] – King George becomes ill earlier largely due to the continued stress of ruling the country
[2] – Lafayette and his family never get captured and manage to escape to the KoA
[3] – Earlier death than OTL, see [1]
 
King of Canada? Prince of Panama? These indicate that I will like where this is going.

Looks like the Kingdom stands to conquer Florida and perhaps the delta.

So George I will be the most powerful?

The House of Arnold certainly seems distinguished. They are going to get another American Throne. And they will at least nbe pretenders the Russian throne.

Good to see Marquis Lafayette getting a better ending. I wonder if Napoleon will become Emperor ITTL. He would likely be seen as following in George I of America's foosteps.
 
Wonderful updates! I'm glad to see that the Native Americans will be treated better ITL, at least that's what I gathered so far. I'm curious though does the KoA have the same flag as the US or do they have a different flag?
 
Top