For one thing, neither of the two men really had much sway by the time of Newburgh - and Newburgh was less an attempt to establish a putsch and military dictatorship and more an attempt by one faction of Congress to pressure another faction into cooperation. The more critical actors here were Robert Morris, who was one of the few men who could have bankrolled any attempt at changing the status quo by force, and influential army commanders such as Alexander McDougall who had the position and authority among the rank and file to lead a serious challenge to authority.
What if George Washington died in Yorktown?
- Thread starter ordepthe
- Start date
What would be needed for Gorham's proposal to crown Henry of Prussia as King to work? It could certainly satisfy the desires of those hoping to see a more centralized government.
The only thing that could make it accepted by the broad swath of the population would be some sort of catastrophe that discredits republican government. Otherwise a large percentage of the people and several states would resist.
The Newburgh Conspiracy may not have initiated a military dictatorship itself, but it would've set an extremely dangerous precedent by legitimizing military intimidation as a political tool. It's not hard to see how that could evolve into other later schemes, such as forced dissolutions of Congress or coerced resignations. That's unfortunately the route many other fledgling republics of the time followed.
Gonna be honest, I refuse to believe that Washington was the only high ranking military commander that would have stuck to his republican principles in the face of the Newburgh conspiracy
unprincipled peter
Donor
Many Latin (and later, 20th century) dictatorships had in common a limited number of power points (major economic/strategic geography) within the country. They were warlord, semi feudal, leaders who overpowered other warlords in the country. There was very limited democratic experience, with a one percent power/99% peasant structure. The USA is a far different situation. There are multiple, geographically dispersed, power points. There is a history of democratic process, and the goal was to increase the role of democracy (unlike the Latin nations, where any espousal of democracy was a wink, wink, nod towards it, while using it to gain/control power). In most of the colonies, there was a strong middle class.
A military dictatorship is possible. The number of circumstances necessary to see it succeed make it highly unlikely, in my opinion.
A military dictatorship is possible. The number of circumstances necessary to see it succeed make it highly unlikely, in my opinion.
You are 100% right. Many, if not most, of the generals would have stuck to their republican principles. The problem is there was no one so universally revered that they could kill a conspiracy to march on Congress just by putting on their reading glasses.
The main issue was the Continental Congress refusing to pay soldiers, which is literally one of the cardinal sins of any government established by soldiers. Almost anyone could have swayed the men to march on the Congress in exchange for pay, and they might not be even wanting to instill a military dictatorship or break up Congress, but when you go the route of military force, things invariably escalate.
The turfing of the Continental Congress probably wouldn't lead to a military dictatorship of the fledgling United States, but it would kill a single centralized nation pretty dead. The Continental Congress was usually ignored by the States under the Articles of Confederation, and they had little ability to enforce laws on the US overall. While this isn't a warlord era, you effectively end up with a dozen little petty republics and maybe a few associations of states who are all feuding about one thing or another. No one state really has the power to enforce its will on the others, and only a charismatic leader could have convinced the soldiers to stay under arms to bully all the other states into line, but even then, would New England and the South really have seen any reason to work together on the issue, or would a nascent dictator have instead desired control over one area of the US in exchange for being left alone by the others?
Absent the unifying factor of the British, there could indeed be reasons for the various states to go their own way.
I don't think the conspiracy necessarily needs to even succeed in gaining power, but only scatter the Congress to the point where individual states think that they're better off going it alone.