Brace yourself....
Alright here is the reasoning behind yesterday's post:
Keep in mind that this scenario could not have happened for one big reason: France would have pulled out of our alliance the when Washington took absolute power, and Britain would have come right back in....Barring this problem, here is the scenario.
During the revolutionary era, slavery was a common practice around the board, and a common rule for a monarch is that you NEVER divide your land in idealogy on purpose. Because Washington was himself a slave man, this statute would stand for the rest of the US. This practice turns to law and Martha's eldest becomes King at the end of Washington's life. Fearing resentment by the people for not being born in birthright to the throne, he would mimic his step-father whom the nation loved, yet again preserving the statute.
Now we move farther into the future, specifically to the northern states around the time of the implimenting of mass production, it is at this point when the king yet again has a hand in regulating the market for the sake of employment, in order to keep one man with hundreds of slaves from grabbing the monopoly, the status is regulated to keep the "little guy" in the game. Thus creating moderate sized sweatshop scenarios implimenting the slave trade.
And on to the good part, THE Industrial Revolution, and the mechanization of both agriculture and factory. An entire mass of laborers just became obsolete, and there are two options, government funded deportation for the mass, OR freedom through economic stress so that they may either apply their trade to the quality aspect of the market, or head west and try their luck on the frontier...do you really think a king would spend his own money on sending them elsewhere...no.
Keep in mind also with this scenario, the likelyhood of a Civil War would be very minimal under the monarchy, due to various reasons, many of which have no ties to slavery.
Thanks for listening...peace.
Keep in mind that this scenario could not have happened for one big reason: France would have pulled out of our alliance the when Washington took absolute power, and Britain would have come right back in....Barring this problem, here is the scenario.
During the revolutionary era, slavery was a common practice around the board, and a common rule for a monarch is that you NEVER divide your land in idealogy on purpose. Because Washington was himself a slave man, this statute would stand for the rest of the US. This practice turns to law and Martha's eldest becomes King at the end of Washington's life. Fearing resentment by the people for not being born in birthright to the throne, he would mimic his step-father whom the nation loved, yet again preserving the statute.
Now we move farther into the future, specifically to the northern states around the time of the implimenting of mass production, it is at this point when the king yet again has a hand in regulating the market for the sake of employment, in order to keep one man with hundreds of slaves from grabbing the monopoly, the status is regulated to keep the "little guy" in the game. Thus creating moderate sized sweatshop scenarios implimenting the slave trade.
And on to the good part, THE Industrial Revolution, and the mechanization of both agriculture and factory. An entire mass of laborers just became obsolete, and there are two options, government funded deportation for the mass, OR freedom through economic stress so that they may either apply their trade to the quality aspect of the market, or head west and try their luck on the frontier...do you really think a king would spend his own money on sending them elsewhere...no.
Keep in mind also with this scenario, the likelyhood of a Civil War would be very minimal under the monarchy, due to various reasons, many of which have no ties to slavery.
Thanks for listening...peace.