eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586 
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Mar 17, 2017 18:34:23 GMT
Discussion about the demographics of a larger, less prejudiced USA birthed the idea of Napoleon as a US President to realize it. Since I think it is a very interesting and cool idea, I feel appropriate to repost the scenario in its own thread for ease of reference.
Napoleon's parents immigrated to America just before or soon after he was born (not a real difference since he is going to be grandfathered as 'natural-born' by the Constitution either way) because of turmoil in Corsica. His father, being the lover of liberty he was, joined the Patriots and died an hero's death in the ARW. Some Founding Father with money and military connections (such as Washington and/or Hamilton) took him as a ward and protege, he was groomed as a promising young official and politician in the post-revolutionary generation and married into New England or New York elites. He performed very well as a general in some conflict America fought at the end of the 18th century (it might be the equivalent of the Quasi-War, or some Indian conflict; it does not need be a big war since impressive victories against Indians were enough to make OTL generals stars), reaped national fame, and was elected President in the early 1800s. As President and Commander-in-Chief, he won a stunning string of successes for America in the conflicts against Indians and European powers otherwise distracted by the French Revolutionary Wars. This expanded the borders of the USA to encompass all of North America (the task of properly assimilating Mexico and Central America in the Union being entirely manageable for his talents).
He foresaw the danger the blight of slavery represented for American democracy, and implemented a compromise that sent the USA down the path to gradual abolition. He picked Southern resistance in an equivalent of the Nullification Crisis he swifty suppressed as an opportunity to crush secession in the bud and enact compensated emancipation of slaves. He supported sending most freedmen to unsettled Western territories or less likely back to Africa as a solution to racial strife in the South. He developed US infrastructure, manufacturing, and education, and buillt up America as a strong, prosperous, and united nation. Since he was socialized as a liberal and republican (politically he was an Hamiltonian Federalist), he was happy with being a democratic President, although he gave the Presidency a very 'imperial' imprint. He did sponsor a few constitutional amendments to empower the Presidency, reinforce federal government, expand civil rights, outlaw secession, and ratify gradual/compensated emancipation of slaves.
Since he was very successful and extremely popular, the Americans were happy to keep him in office as long as he lived or was healthy and willing enough to run. If we assume for simplicity it was stomach cancer and not British poison to kill him, and TTL butterflies extend his lifespan significantly but not radically, he may get elected President first time in 1804 (when he would become elegible), keep getting re-elected five or six times, and die in office sometime in the 1820s. He goes into history books with even better a reputation than OTL, his fame as a general and statesman being unblemished by defeat or despotism and with the added laurel of being an hero of American democracy (albeit in a very 'imperial' version Jeffersonians loathed, but nothing his mentors and role models Washington and Hamilton, or Lincoln, TR, or FDR for that matter, would disapprove of) and the architect of emancipation. He becomes TTL's equivalent of Lincoln on steroids, or the next-generation Washington. He gets monuments in the US capital and his face on Mt. Rushmore next to Washington's (Jefferson is still quite revered as a Founding Father but his legacy is diminished and sidelined ITTL). Americans automatically quote Washington and Bonaparte in one breath when they speak of their greatest heroes and Presidents, and say "Washington fathered the country, Bonaparte raised it to greatness".
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,043
Likes: 49,444
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 17, 2017 20:09:58 GMT
Discussion about the demographics of a larger, less prejudiced USA birthed the idea of Napoleon as a US President to realize it. Since I think it is a very interesting and cool idea, I feel appropriate to repost the scenario in its own thread for ease of reference. Napoleon's parents immigrated to America just before or soon after he was born (not a real difference since he is going to be grandfathered as 'natural-born' by the Constitution either way) because of turmoil in Corsica. His father, being the lover of liberty he was, joined the Patriots and died an hero's death in the ARW. Some Founding Father with money and military connections (such as Washington and/or Hamilton) took him as a ward and protege, he was groomed as a promising young official and politician in the post-revolutionary generation and married into New England or New York elites. He performed very well as a general in some conflict America fought at the end of the 18th century (it might be the equivalent of the Quasi-War, or some Indian conflict; it does not need be a big war since impressive victories against Indians were enough to make OTL generals stars), reaped national fame, and was elected President in the early 1800s. As President and Commander-in-Chief, he won a stunning string of successes for America in the conflicts against Indians and European powers otherwise distracted by the French Revolutionary Wars. This expanded the borders of the USA to encompass all of North America (the task of properly assimilating Mexico and Central America in the Union being entirely manageable for his talents). He foresaw the danger the blight of slavery represented for American democracy, and implemented a compromise that sent the USA down the path to gradual abolition. He picked Southern resistance in an equivalent of the Nullification Crisis he swifty suppressed as an opportunity to crush secession in the bud and enact compensated emancipation of slaves. He supported sending most freedmen to unsettled Western territories or less likely back to Africa as a solution to racial strife in the South. He developed US infrastructure, manufacturing, and education, and buillt up America as a strong, prosperous, and united nation. Since he was socialized as a liberal and republican (politically he was an Hamiltonian Federalist), he was happy with being a democratic President, although he gave the Presidency a very 'imperial' imprint. He did sponsor a few constitutional amendments to empower the Presidency, reinforce federal government, expand civil rights, outlaw secession, and ratify gradual/compensated emancipation of slaves. Since he was very successful and extremely popular, the Americans were happy to keep him in office as long as he lived or was healthy and willing enough to run. If we assume for simplicity it was stomach cancer and not British poison to kill him, and TTL butterflies extend his lifespan significantly but not radically, he may get elected President first time in 1804 (when he would become elegible), keep getting re-elected five or six times, and die in office sometime in the 1820s. He goes into history books with even better a reputation than OTL, his fame as a general and statesman being unblemished by defeat or despotism and with the added laurel of being an hero of American democracy (albeit in a very 'imperial' version Jeffersonians loathed, but nothing his mentors and role models Washington and Hamilton, or Lincoln, TR, or FDR for that matter, would disapprove of) and the architect of emancipation. He becomes TTL's equivalent of Lincoln on steroids, or the next-generation Washington. He gets monuments in the US capital and his face on Mt. Rushmore next to Washington's (Jefferson is still quite revered as a Founding Father but his legacy is diminished and sidelined ITTL). Americans automatically quote Washington and Bonaparte in one breath when they speak of their greatest heroes and Presidents, and say "Washington fathered the country, Bonaparte raised it to greatness". Nice idea. So will this universe Napoleon rule until he dies of old age ore get shot by somebody who does not like him. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Mar 17, 2017 21:13:23 GMT
Discussion about the demographics of a larger, less prejudiced USA birthed the idea of Napoleon as a US President to realize it. Since I think it is a very interesting and cool idea, I feel appropriate to repost the scenario in its own thread for ease of reference. Napoleon's parents immigrated to America just before or soon after he was born (not a real difference since he is going to be grandfathered as 'natural-born' by the Constitution either way) because of turmoil in Corsica. His father, being the lover of liberty he was, joined the Patriots and died an hero's death in the ARW. Some Founding Father with money and military connections (such as Washington and/or Hamilton) took him as a ward and protege, he was groomed as a promising young official and politician in the post-revolutionary generation and married into New England or New York elites. He performed very well as a general in some conflict America fought at the end of the 18th century (it might be the equivalent of the Quasi-War, or some Indian conflict; it does not need be a big war since impressive victories against Indians were enough to make OTL generals stars), reaped national fame, and was elected President in the early 1800s. As President and Commander-in-Chief, he won a stunning string of successes for America in the conflicts against Indians and European powers otherwise distracted by the French Revolutionary Wars. This expanded the borders of the USA to encompass all of North America (the task of properly assimilating Mexico and Central America in the Union being entirely manageable for his talents). He foresaw the danger the blight of slavery represented for American democracy, and implemented a compromise that sent the USA down the path to gradual abolition. He picked Southern resistance in an equivalent of the Nullification Crisis he swifty suppressed as an opportunity to crush secession in the bud and enact compensated emancipation of slaves. He supported sending most freedmen to unsettled Western territories or less likely back to Africa as a solution to racial strife in the South. He developed US infrastructure, manufacturing, and education, and buillt up America as a strong, prosperous, and united nation. Since he was socialized as a liberal and republican (politically he was an Hamiltonian Federalist), he was happy with being a democratic President, although he gave the Presidency a very 'imperial' imprint. He did sponsor a few constitutional amendments to empower the Presidency, reinforce federal government, expand civil rights, outlaw secession, and ratify gradual/compensated emancipation of slaves. Since he was very successful and extremely popular, the Americans were happy to keep him in office as long as he lived or was healthy and willing enough to run. If we assume for simplicity it was stomach cancer and not British poison to kill him, and TTL butterflies extend his lifespan significantly but not radically, he may get elected President first time in 1804 (when he would become elegible), keep getting re-elected five or six times, and die in office sometime in the 1820s. He goes into history books with even better a reputation than OTL, his fame as a general and statesman being unblemished by defeat or despotism and with the added laurel of being an hero of American democracy (albeit in a very 'imperial' version Jeffersonians loathed, but nothing his mentors and role models Washington and Hamilton, or Lincoln, TR, or FDR for that matter, would disapprove of) and the architect of emancipation. He becomes TTL's equivalent of Lincoln on steroids, or the next-generation Washington. He gets monuments in the US capital and his face on Mt. Rushmore next to Washington's (Jefferson is still quite revered as a Founding Father but his legacy is diminished and sidelined ITTL). Americans automatically quote Washington and Bonaparte in one breath when they speak of their greatest heroes and Presidents, and say "Washington fathered the country, Bonaparte raised it to greatness". Nice idea. So will this universe Napoleon rule until he dies of old age ore get shot by somebody who does not like him. An answer to this statement, or any other discussion about the length of Napoleon's rule in this kind of scenarios, needs to address the thorny historical question if it was peptic ulcer and stomach cancer or British slow poison to kill him. If we pick the latter, we may indeed assume TTL Napoleon would live to old age. Then the issue becomes what kind of lifespan this likely meant for him. IIRC he suffered from no other potentially lethal or inabilitating disease, so it might indeed mean at least another decade of life, perhaps two. Given how much successful TTL assumes him to be, his personality, and since this was the Era of Good Feelings when partisanship declined and a wish for national unity prevailed, I may easily see him staying in office up to the late 1820s or early 1830s. Aferwards things get more questionable, because he might indeed get tired enough to retire, or the rise of Jacksonian democracy might galvanize opposition to him, or a mix of both. So perhaps 24-28 years of rule, followed by a decade of retirement as a venerated elder statesman before death. Then again, as you point out America has never wanted for lone-wolf extremists or crazies willing to kill even very popular presidents, so an assassination might occur at any time and we may pick whatever moment we feel appropriate for story reasons for it to occur. IOTL he showed considerable luck at dodging assassins, so I'd certainly set such an end to occur beyond his OTL lifespan, and when we can agree his life's work was basically done. Of course, such a martyr end would only make his legend grow even bigger. If we pick peptic ulcer and stomach cancer as the cause of his death, on one hand this kind of disease may have serious random variability in its occurrence, on the other hand his father died the same way, so he apparently had some genetic liability. On the gripping hand, different levels of stress may significantly affect the occurrence and severity of peptic ulcer that may often act as a precursor to this kind of cancer, ITTL Napoleon has the same kind of stressful job but he is more successful at it, so I'd assume he's bit less prone to ulcer, so he probably lives somewhat longer but not radically so, and dies sometimes in the mid-late 1820s. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,043
Likes: 49,444
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 17, 2017 22:34:35 GMT
Nice idea. So will this universe Napoleon rule until he dies of old age ore get shot by somebody who does not like him. An answer to this statement, or any other discussion about the length of Napoleon's rule in this kind of scenarios, needs to address the thorny historical question if it was peptic ulcer and stomach cancer or British slow poison to kill him. If we pick the latter, we may indeed assume TTL Napoleon would live to old age. Then the issue becomes what kind of lifespan this likely meant for him. IIRC he suffered from no other potentially lethal or inabilitating disease, so it might indeed mean at least another decade of life, perhaps two. Given how much successful TTL assumes him to be, his personality, and since this was the Era of Good Feelings when partisanship declined and a wish for national unity prevailed, I may easily see him staying in office up to the late 1820s or early 1830s. Aferwards things get more questionable, because he might indeed get tired enough to retire, or the rise of Jacksonian democracy might galvanize opposition to him, or a mix of both. So perhaps 24-28 years of rule, followed by a decade of retirement as a venerated elder statesman before death. Then again, as you point out America has never wanted for lone-wolf extremists or crazies willing to kill even very popular presidents, so an assassination might occur at any time and we may pick whatever moment we feel appropriate for story reasons for it to occur. IOTL he showed considerable luck at dodging assassins, so I'd certainly set such an end to occur beyond his OTL lifespan, and when we can agree his life's work was basically done. Of course, such a martyr end would only make his legend grow even bigger. If we pick peptic ulcer and stomach cancer as the cause of his death, on one hand this kind of disease may have serious random variability in its occurrence, on the other hand his father died the same way, so he apparently had some genetic liability. On the gripping hand, different levels of stress may significantly affect the occurrence and severity of peptic ulcer that may often act as a precursor to this kind of cancer, ITTL Napoleon has the same kind of stressful job but he is more successful at it, so I'd assume he's bit less prone to ulcer, so he probably lives somewhat longer but not radically so, and dies sometimes in the mid-late 1820s. And after his death they would make sure no president can be elected more than 2 terms in office. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Mar 17, 2017 23:30:57 GMT
And after his death they would make sure no president can be elected more than 2 terms in office. Quite possibly, and even likely, if incumbent fatigue causes enough backlash and his opponents come to control the Congress. On the other hand, he is going to be influential and charismatic enough he might easily erase Washington's precedent and set a new one of his own. It all depends on the lesson the American people learn from his precedent. They might come to think it is more efficient and democratic to let the people use the services of talented and experienced statesmen as long as they deem fit. Term limits have never been set for Congresspersons, so it might go either way. If the Democrats had kept control of the Congress after FDR died just a little longer, I bet the 22th Amendment would have never existed, and by now some other sufficiently popular, successful, and healthy President would have gotten a third term by now. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,043
Likes: 49,444
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 18, 2017 8:17:14 GMT
And after his death they would make sure no president can be elected more than 2 terms in office. Quite possibly, and even likely, if incumbent fatigue causes enough backlash and his opponents come to control the Congress. On the other hand, he is going to be influential and charismatic enough he might easily erase Washington's precedent and set a new one of his own. It all depends on the lesson the American people learn from his precedent. They might come to think it is more efficient and democratic to let the people use the services of talented and experienced statesmen as long as they deem fit. Term limits have never been set for Congresspersons, so it might go either way. If the Democrats had kept control of the Congress after FDR died just a little longer, I bet the 22th Amendment would have never existed, and by now some other sufficiently popular, successful, and healthy President would have gotten a third term by now. But does that mean he end the elections ore does he allow every 4 year to have elections to take place. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Mar 18, 2017 16:26:08 GMT
Quite possibly, and even likely, if incumbent fatigue causes enough backlash and his opponents come to control the Congress. On the other hand, he is going to be influential and charismatic enough he might easily erase Washington's precedent and set a new one of his own. It all depends on the lesson the American people learn from his precedent. They might come to think it is more efficient and democratic to let the people use the services of talented and experienced statesmen as long as they deem fit. Term limits have never been set for Congresspersons, so it might go either way. If the Democrats had kept control of the Congress after FDR died just a little longer, I bet the 22th Amendment would have never existed, and by now some other sufficiently popular, successful, and healthy President would have gotten a third term by now. But does that mean he end the elections ore does he allow every 4 year to have elections to take place. The Founding Fathers considered making the USA an elective monarchy, but it was discarded, and I do not think a Napoleon that was raised to hold them as mentors and role models would care to overturn that fundamental republican precedent. I think he would be content with being re-elected again and again. However it is quite possible he may support lenghtening the presidential term to 6 years among the constitutional amendments he sponsors. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,043
Likes: 49,444
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 18, 2017 16:38:54 GMT
But does that mean he end the elections ore does he allow every 4 year to have elections to take place. The Founding Fathers considered making the USA an elective monarchy, but it was discarded, and I do not think a Napoleon that was raised to hold them as mentors and role models would care to overturn that fundamental republican precedent. I think he would be content with being re-elected again and again. However it is quite possible he may support lenghtening the presidential term to 6 years among the constitutional amendments he sponsors. What about the Louisiana Purchase, with out Napoleon as French emperor to sell it to the United States, will the United States still be able to buy it. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Mar 18, 2017 18:20:40 GMT
The Founding Fathers considered making the USA an elective monarchy, but it was discarded, and I do not think a Napoleon that was raised to hold them as mentors and role models would care to overturn that fundamental republican precedent. I think he would be content with being re-elected again and again. However it is quite possible he may support lenghtening the presidential term to 6 years among the constitutional amendments he sponsors. What about the Louisiana Purchase, with out Napoleon as French emperor to sell it to the United States, will the United States still be able to buy it. OTL Napoleon's reasons to sell Louisiana to the USA as a French ruler were hardly unique to him, so the Directory (or whoever replaces them ITTL) may easily follow suit. On the other hand, if they don't do it timely enough, almost surely America goes to war with France to gain Louisiana, and given the state of affairs in Europe, wins it. Quite possibly, it happens as part of TTL's equivalent of the Quasi-War. As a matter of fact, ITTL it may well be general Napoleon the one that conquers Louisiana for America. 'Dashing Conqueror of New Orleans' would be an excellent selling point for his first Presidential campaign. After he becomes President and rebuilds US military to his high standards, he may pick fights with Britain and Spain as soon as an opportunity arises while they are distracted by the French Revolutionary Wars, and conquer the rest of North America. Basically it would be TTL equivalent of the War of 1812 and a (much earlier) Spanish-American War, or if you wish the Spanish-American Wars of Independence with a massive US intervention. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,043
Likes: 49,444
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 18, 2017 18:23:02 GMT
What about the Louisiana Purchase, with out Napoleon as French emperor to sell it to the United States, will the United States still be able to buy it. OTL Napoleon's reasons to sell Louisiana to the USA as a French ruler were hardly unique to him, so the Directory (or whomever replaces them ITTL) may easily follow suit. If they don't do it timely, almost surely America goes to war with France to gain Louisiana, and given the state of affairs in Europe, wins it. Quite possibly, it happens as part of TTL's equivalent of the Quasi-War. As a matter of fact, ITTL it may well be General Napoleon the one that conquers Louisiana for America. "Dashing Conqueror of New Orleans" would be an excellent selling point for his first Presidential campaign. After he becomes President and rebuilds US military to his high standards, he may pick fights with Britain and Spain as soon as an opportunity arises while they are distracted by the French Revolutionary Wars, and conquer the rest of North America. Basically it would be TTL equivalent of the War of 1812 and a (much earlier) Spanish-American War, or if you wish the Spanish-American Wars of Independence with a massive US intervention. Well if he can build up the United States army and navy before 1812, than the United Kingdom will not stand a change when war brakes out. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Mar 18, 2017 18:42:33 GMT
OTL Napoleon's reasons to sell Louisiana to the USA as a French ruler were hardly unique to him, so the Directory (or whomever replaces them ITTL) may easily follow suit. If they don't do it timely, almost surely America goes to war with France to gain Louisiana, and given the state of affairs in Europe, wins it. Quite possibly, it happens as part of TTL's equivalent of the Quasi-War. As a matter of fact, ITTL it may well be General Napoleon the one that conquers Louisiana for America. "Dashing Conqueror of New Orleans" would be an excellent selling point for his first Presidential campaign. After he becomes President and rebuilds US military to his high standards, he may pick fights with Britain and Spain as soon as an opportunity arises while they are distracted by the French Revolutionary Wars, and conquer the rest of North America. Basically it would be TTL equivalent of the War of 1812 and a (much earlier) Spanish-American War, or if you wish the Spanish-American Wars of Independence with a massive US intervention. Well if he can build up the United States army and navy before 1812, than the United Kingdom will not stand a change when war brakes out. Oh, if he becomes President in 1804, he would have ample opportunity to do it, also because the screw-up Jefferson did of the US military job and his lamebrained embargo would never take place, so he would have less to rebuild. Washington and Adams actually built up the US Army and navy to a decent standard, it was Jefferson that seriously screwed them up. A US military remade to the Grande Armee's standards, led by Napoleon, the Americans fighting on their home turf while the British are distracted in Europe... Britain does not stand a chance. A few years later, he may pick a fight with Spain about Florida, Cuba/Hispaniola, and Tejas, and conquer New Spain and the Greater Antilles. The Spanish could not even defeat creole revolutionaries, they do not have a snowball's chance in Hell against Napoleon and an American Grande Armee. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,043
Likes: 49,444
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 18, 2017 18:51:25 GMT
Well if he can build up the United States army and navy before 1812, than the United Kingdom will not stand a change when war brakes out. Oh, if he becomes President in 1804, he would have ample opportunity to do it, also because the screw-up Jefferson did of the US military job and his lamebrained embargo would never take place, so he would have less to rebuild. Washington and Adams actually built up the US Army and navy to a decent standard, it was Jefferson that seriously screwed them up. A US military remade to the Grande Armee's standards, led by Napoleon, the Americans fighting on their home turf while the British are distracted in Europe... Britain does not stand a chance. A few years later, he may pick a fight with Spain about Florida, Cuba/Hispaniola, and Tejas, and conquer New Spain and the Greater Antilles. The Spanish could not even defeat creole revolutionaries, they do not have a snowball's chance in Hell against Napoleon and an American Grande Armee. So you think Napoleon would win the 1804 presidential election against Thomas Jefferson, also Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution says that a person has to be 35 years to be able to run, if Napoleon decided to run for president he would not be 35 yet and therefore not able to run for president. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Mar 18, 2017 19:17:49 GMT
Oh, if he becomes President in 1804, he would have ample opportunity to do it, also because the screw-up Jefferson did of the US military job and his lamebrained embargo would never take place, so he would have less to rebuild. Washington and Adams actually built up the US Army and navy to a decent standard, it was Jefferson that seriously screwed them up. A US military remade to the Grande Armee's standards, led by Napoleon, the Americans fighting on their home turf while the British are distracted in Europe... Britain does not stand a chance. A few years later, he may pick a fight with Spain about Florida, Cuba/Hispaniola, and Tejas, and conquer New Spain and the Greater Antilles. The Spanish could not even defeat creole revolutionaries, they do not have a snowball's chance in Hell against Napoleon and an American Grande Armee. So you think Napoleon would win the 1804 presidential election against Thomas Jefferson, also Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution says that a person has to be 35 years to be able to run, if Napoleon decided to run for president he would not be 35 yet and therefore not able to run for president. If we keep his birthdate the same, he was born in August 1769, so in November 1804 he would be 35 and be eligible for President by a few months. I'm unsure if ITTL he would defeat Jefferson after one Democratic-Republican term, or TTL butterflies keep the Federalists in power longer (conquest of Louisiana in the Quasi-War and quite possibly a butterflying out of the Alien and Sedition Laws would be excellent reasons for it to happen). In the former case, if Jefferson is unable to claim the Louisiana Purchase as an achievement, and the Federalists stay united and competitive under Napoleon's leadership, Jefferson would be much easier to defeat. In the latter case, Adams would retire after two terms, and leave Napoleon be the Federalist candidate as the rising star of the party to counter the Democratic-Republican challenge. Or we may even delay Napoleon's first term to 1808, although in this case he shall labor more to undo the damage Jefferson did to US military and economy and prepare America to win the War of 1812. But I suppose he can do it, given his talents. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,043
Likes: 49,444
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 18, 2017 20:17:45 GMT
So you think Napoleon would win the 1804 presidential election against Thomas Jefferson, also Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution says that a person has to be 35 years to be able to run, if Napoleon decided to run for president he would not be 35 yet and therefore not able to run for president. If we keep his birthdate the same, he was born in August 1769, so in November 1804 he would be 35 and be eligible for President by a few months. I'm unsure if ITTL he would defeat Jefferson after one Democratic-Republican term, or TTL butterflies keep the Federalists in power longer (conquest of Louisiana in the Quasi-War and quite possibly a butterflying out of the Alien and Sedition Laws would be excellent reasons for it to happen). In the former case, if Jefferson is unable to claim the Louisiana Purchase as an achievement, and the Federalists stay united and competitive under Napoleon's leadership, Jefferson would be much easier to defeat. In the latter case, Adams would retire after two terms, and leave Napoleon be the Federalist candidate as the rising star of the party to counter the Democratic-Republican challenge. Or we may even delay Napoleon's first term to 1808, although in this case he shall labor more to undo the damage Jefferson did to US military and economy and prepare America to win the War of 1812. But I suppose he can do it, given his talents. If he wins the 1804 election, than wins the 1808 election he would be president in 1812, if he manged to win the war of 1812 than i see no problem of him getting elected for a 3rd term in office. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Mar 18, 2017 22:19:31 GMT
If we keep his birthdate the same, he was born in August 1769, so in November 1804 he would be 35 and be eligible for President by a few months. I'm unsure if ITTL he would defeat Jefferson after one Democratic-Republican term, or TTL butterflies keep the Federalists in power longer (conquest of Louisiana in the Quasi-War and quite possibly a butterflying out of the Alien and Sedition Laws would be excellent reasons for it to happen). In the former case, if Jefferson is unable to claim the Louisiana Purchase as an achievement, and the Federalists stay united and competitive under Napoleon's leadership, Jefferson would be much easier to defeat. In the latter case, Adams would retire after two terms, and leave Napoleon be the Federalist candidate as the rising star of the party to counter the Democratic-Republican challenge. Or we may even delay Napoleon's first term to 1808, although in this case he shall labor more to undo the damage Jefferson did to US military and economy and prepare America to win the War of 1812. But I suppose he can do it, given his talents. If he wins the 1804 election, than wins the 1808 election he would be president in 1812, if he manged to win the war of 1812 than i see no problem of him getting elected for a 3rd term in office. Indeed. Or perhaps better, he wins a third term in 1812 because America is at war and does not want to change a competent and successful leader. His decisive victory in the War of 1812 and conquest of British North America earns him a fourth term in 1816, and he prepares for war against Spain. A more aggressive US stance about claims on Florida, Cuba, Hispaniola, Tejas, and California, not to mention the Spanish-American wars of independence, causes the Spanish-American War to happen instead of the Adams-Onis Treaty in the late 1810s. He gets yet another term in 1820 because America is at war with or just defeated Spain. Bonaparte conquers and annexes Spanish North America, and helps the rest of Latin America win independence. The Andes and La Plata regions are probably outside US grasp in this age, but everything within a Gulf of Mexico coast would be within reach, so New Grenada at least would be within US sphere of influence after the war. Many creole revolutionaries, such as Simon Bolivar, took OTL Napoleon and the US as models, so if the Americans with Bonaparte at the helm come to them as allies and liberators they may easily get on very friendly terms indeed, and be interested in joining the American experiment as willing partners. So the USA immediately annexes the northern part of Spanish America (Florida, Greater Antilles, and northern New Spain), and sets up the rest in its sphere of influence as client-state or protectorate republics scheduled for eventual US statehood like OTL Texas (southern New Spain and New Grenada). The rest of Latin America probably turn out as US allies and trade partners if the USA provides them what help it can in their struggle for independence. By 1824, Bonaparte is the man that won America three wars and a continent, managed domestic politics very well, and they have grown accustomed to see in the White House for two decades, so they basically decide to let him in office more or less as long as he lives or he's willing to run. He spends the 1820s focused on domestic issues and nation-building: consolidating America's empire and bringing the Frontier forward, integrating new states and territories, developing US infrastructure, manufacturing, and education, keeping US military at an high level of efficiency and preparedness. The Nullification Rebellion to his tariffs alerts him to the danger of slaveholding sectionalism, drives him to implement a lasting solution to the slavery issue and crush the idea of secession in the bud, and gives him political opportunity to do so. |
|
