President John Jay.

I'm just looking to spark a discussion here.

Let's suppose for a moment, that in America's first General Election in history, in 1788-89, George Washington and John Adams prove unable or unwilling to seek office. Washington's health may have failed him, as he had been horribly afraid it would for a long time. John Adams may have been caught up in a scandal, or just been too distraught by whatever knocked Washington out of the race to be regarded as an effective candidate.

Even so, there are still six major Federalist candidates, and at least one Anti-Federalist on the ticket. Competition is fierce without Washington to unite the Electors. The election comes right down to the wire, but eventually it becomes obvious that Mr. John Jay, a Federalist from New York, has just barely managed to win. He will be the first President of the United States.

What happens now?

Nobody? Eighty people view the thread, but nobody types so much as a word? I'm shocked. I didn't known John Jay was quite so boring.

Well, he WAS rather boring.
But seriously, Mr. Jay is one of my favorite Founding Brothers. Honest to a fault, hard working and opposed to slavery. His most serious flaws were a hightened sense of vanity (which he shared with several other Founding Brothers like John Adams) and an apparent lack of a sense of humor.
One major drawback to his becoming President in 1789 is that as Secretary of Foreign Affairs for the Confederacy he had seroulsy outraged the South during his negotiations with Spain concerning navigation rights on the Mississsippi River. Jefferson and Madison considered Jay a Northerner first who would sacrifice the interests of the South and the West.
A more likely way for Mr. Jay to become President is for Adams to withdraw from the race for VP (because of his vanity). Jay would then be the Northern Federalist consensus candidate for VP.
I do not see Jay being a more activist VP then Adams (and Adams might make a better first Chief Justice because he would be less bothered by riding the circuit).
Following two terms by GW, Jay would probably squeek out a narrow victory over TJ in 1796. Jay is likely to be even more anti-French and more pro-British than Adams so the Quasi War with France might be a real war.
However, Jay got along much better with Hamilton than Adams so there might not be a split in the Federalist Party. Jay also might have been more cautious about infringments on civil liberties so the Federalists might have avoided the self created trap of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
However, I do not see the cautious, and yes, dull, Mr. Jay being any more able to stop the rising tide of Jeffersonian Republicanism than Mr. Adams was.
All in all, a good man who would be remembered as a mediocre President.

Your obedient servant,
AH

I see. So, a decent, upright man who history would remember with a collective "meh" in future generations? I can see that maybe happening.

My own idea was based on the Electoral College counts, and how he seemed to be behind Washington and Adams, so I was wondering if that might translate into a victory for him if neither of those men was in his way.

Thank you for your two cents. Anybody else?

A decent, upright man as first president would be remembered as a hero, not as a "meh".

I imagine the main problem would be that he would fight pretty hard to abolish slavery, which is going to antagonise the south.

Socrates said:

A decent, upright man as first president would be remembered as a hero, not as a "meh".

I imagine the main problem would be that he would fight pretty hard to abolish slavery, which is going to antagonise the south.

Click to expand...

Poor choice of words. Not intentional.

Yeah, the Southern politicians likely would have trouble with him if he pushed hard to curtail slavery. I know he tried twice in the New York Legislature, but basically he hit a wall when none of the anti-slavery voters could reach any agreement as to what rights freed slaves should have.