The American Monarchy

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Let's start with what I like. The initial invasion of the Vermont Republic by New York had to be done in a manner that could be plausibly denied because under the Articles of Confederation (Article VI Clause 6), war required either the consent of Congress or an actual invasion  (Vermont was recognized as an independent country at that time, and even sent ambassadors to Philadelphia.)  Of course, when the Green Mountain Boys retaliate, New York would have been free to declare war without consulting Congress.

Now for what I don't like:

The problem with selecting George as monarch is that he has no heirs and unless he dumps Martha, will have no heirs.  Am impending succession crisis when he dies is likely to forestall any effort to name him monarch.

Why would Washington have gone up to the Hudson Valley to negotiate? He wasn't a diplomat and he knew his limits in that area.

Solution:
Bring back home a man well respected as both a person dedicated to the rule of law and who had spent close to a decade as a diplomat: John Adams.

House of Adams
1. John I (1789-1824)
2. John II (1824-1848)
3. Charles I (1848-1886)
4. John III (1886-1894)
5. Charles II (1894-1915)
6. Charles III (1915-1954)
7. Charles IV (1954-1999)
8. Charles V (1999- present)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Could be, just pointing out that the obviousness of it might well cause opinion to be against a onstitutional monarchy if Washington's successor is unknown.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, Washington did adopt John Parke Custis from Martha's previous marriage, and adopted John Parke Custis' son George Washington Parke Custis as his own after John P. Custis' death. George Washington Custis grew up with Washington, and was treated like his son. Plus, if George Custis becomes King, that opens up the possibility of a certain famous Southern general marrying into the royal family in the 1800s.

A Swedish solution (ala Charles XIV) to the problem.   Just so long as nothing so hackneyed as the adopted kings forming an alliance to rule the world between them happens.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hamilton as the first PM?  Simply not going to happen, indeed, just as he was not elected to Congress in our time line, he might not even be a Senator.   Even if Hamilton were a Senator, John Adams was too well respected for anyone other than him to have had a serious shot at the position, even if Hamilton formed a formal party earlier than in our time line.  It might even have the curious effect of having Jefferson and Adams unite for a time in opposition to the brash young Hamilton, altho I think Hamilton would be too shrewd as to force Adams into exiling him from the government, at least at first.

Washington's fondness for Hamilton is likely to lead him towards using him as a shadow PM or maybe even working to replace Adams with Hamilton, so I don't discount the idea of Hamilton being PM someday, especially since the time line you've laid out makes it unlikely he will be entrapped by Maria Reynolds.

Also I strongly doubt that even with the lengthy delay of one and a half years (as opposed to half a year in our time line) between the ratification of the Constitution and the first elections that all thirteen states would have ratified by then.  Rhode Island will at the least delay for the same reasons as in our time line, and Vermont with its universal suffrage might well refuse to enter a Kingdom.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I can't help but think that with America having gotten a King before the French got rid of theirs that there should be some butterflies in the French Revolution.  For instance, with the Americans in the process of adopting a king, Louis XVI might have been less anxious about what the Estates-General might do and might well have supported the Third Estate in its demand that the Estates meet and vote together (as was already the case in a number of provincial assemblies).  It would not take much in the way of butterflies to have affected the course of the French Revolution.  (For example, Louis XVII and his mother Marie-Antoinette might be living in exile in Vienna, if you don't wish to disturb what you've already written.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To Arms!

Repel the Yankee invaders who would trample our liberties as they did before when they forced us to flee our homes for our safety!

God Save the REAL King George, and may he defend Canada from the godless puppet of Napoleon who calls himself King of America!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I can't see the British abandoning Canada that quickly.  Deciding to concentrate first on defeating Napoleon, I can see, but not abandoning Canada altogether.  Or does your five year civil war imply that there wil be a Third Anglo-American War once Napoleon has been sent on his merry way to St. Helena or even Elba?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I do hope that the King of Rome does not end up marrying into the House of Washington as well.  The Houses of Washington and Bonaparte are already close enough and we do not need to imitate the bad example of Europe by having our royals marry their first cousins.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wonder if the 39 year old Philip Hamilton (assuming his death at age 19 in an 1801 duel has been butterflied away) is ready to take his place on the national stage, either to revive the Royalists or to finish them off once and for all.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm disappointed that the Anti-Masonic Party or whatever this timeline's equivalent is does not get to claim the honor of holding the first national convention.  Still, the Whigs are the best choice for the honor.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Some quibbles about the map that I would have made earlier had I not been unfortunately absent for a couple of weeks.

There is no reason for Texas to extend all the way to the Rio Grande in this timeline.  The casus belli in our timeline was a fight between Mexican and American troops in disputed territory.  Hence Texas had to extend to the Rio Grande in order to justify that war.  With the decision to not annex the states of the Republic of the Rio Grande can justify making the southern border of Texas be the Rio Grande, but the border between Chihuahua and Texas should be farther east.  At least as far as the Pecos if not farther east, since on Mexican maps before Texan Revolution, Chihuahua is shown as including the entirety of the Pecos River drainage system.

The boundary between New Mexico and both Chihuahua and Texas could also use some adjusting, as originally El Paso (and Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua which was the original El Paso) was part of Nuevo Mexico, as was the Texas panhandle north of the Red River.

The final quibble is that with no Gadsen Purchase in this timelime, the northern border of Sonora should have remained at the Gila River, making Yuma and Tucson part of Sonora in this timeline.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Except neither Texas nor Mexico complied with the Treaty and it was never ratified by Mexico.  Plus the equivalent treaty never occured in this timeline as far as I can tell.  Besides, I'm not quibbling too much about the southern border of Texas, just the western ones, which the OTL Treaties of Velasco made no mention of Texas' western boundary, just that the Rio Grande was to be the southern one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My only complaint is what's happening in the rest of the world?  Is there a German Empire yet?  What's going on in Mexico?  Do the Bourbons still reign in France or was/is there a Second French Empire?  Considering that the level of potential foreign intervention in the Civil War hinges on these question, it needs answering.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Bump! I want to see a really fat and slovenly king!

Then wait another century for King Elvis!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

More map quibbles, I'm afraid.  Unless there is a Colorado Territory, the western border of Nebraska makes no sense.  Even with a Colorado Territory, I'd imagine that given the cession of Oregon to the British, the northern border of Colorado would be 42N instead of 41N.  Lastly, there was an unofficial Jefferson Territory in much the same area, so perhaps naming the territory after Jefferson or Hamilton in this time line would prove of interest.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It needs a cooler name than the Civil War.  The War of the American Succession would be much better.  Why let the Spanish and Austrians have all the fun?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Good as always, though I have a few minor quibbles with how you decided to change the borders in the south.  West Florida would more properly go with the combined Mississippi-Alabama  (or at least the portion in those states in OTL).  Also, moving the western portion of North Carolina that is part of the Tennessee Valley into the state of Tennessee would help give Tennessee more of a non-pro-slavery population.  (At the county level, this would include all the counties on the border, plus Buncombe and Henderson and all counties west of that, and Allegheny County.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Did the Snake River purchase go through or did only negotiations begin?  Given the Panic of 1886, I figure the British will want to be paid in gold which the government will be a bit short of.

Same with the four new states, did the Senate approve Robert II's proposals?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Surely a rugby style football of some sort (even if not the same as OTL American football) would be preferable to most Americans over the effete soccer style?   In any case, whatever football code is adopted in this timeline, I can't see it becoming a serious competitor to base any earlier than whenever the Great European War starts.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ah yes, the future states of Vancouver Island, Oregon, and North and South Columbia.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One minor quibble.  Why was New Mexico renamed Arizona?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd imagine that the Society of the Cincinnati has in this timeline acquired some additional characteristics of nobiliity, but Lief has been largely silent on that point.  Certainly nothing with status much beyond that of today's European nobles.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1) Regarding Arizona: I assumed that the territory of New Mexico wouldn't have been named New Mexico had it not been bordering the country of Mexico, which it isn't in this timeline.

New Mexico or more precisely, Nuevo Mexico got that name because it was the name given to it in 1598 while it was still under Spanish control.  Santa Fe was established as the capital of Nuevo Mexico in 1610, making it the State capital of the United States that has the longest continuous history as a capital.  Since the name predates the existence of an independent Mexico by over two centuries, I can't see it being lightly tossed aside.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Or we might end up staying out altogether.  With Britain having to worry about the United States from the start, she might choose to forego a continental war.  Another possibility is that if Germany feels she has a strong naval ally in the United States, she might choose to not build up her own navy.  Also if Britain plays a defter diplomatic line, she might well be able to keep the Ottomans neutral or even bring her into the family of Entente powers instead of having her join the Alliance.  Then there's the fact that if the U.S. and Britain go to war, Mexico and Colombia are likely to join the British side if they think the U.S. is losing.  Indeed, seeing what happens if the U.S. is on the losing side in the Great War would be very interesting.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's a bloody shame that such a great leader could be so racist. I guess Wilson is sort of a Sanger-type figure. Was a great visionary, but racist as hell.

Wilson was not a great leader.  In fact, I consider him to be the worst president who served two full terms.  W's worst moments over the past seven years have been when he acted in the tradition of WW.