What If George Washington Became King?

Summary

---

What If George Washington Became King?

Podcast: American History Hit
Host: Don Wildman
Guest: Michael D. Hattem (historian, author of The Memory of 76)
Date: October 23, 2025

Overview

In this thought-provoking episode, Don Wildman explores a fascinating counterfactual: What if America’s first president, George Washington, had become King George I? Joined by historian Michael D. Hattem, the conversation unpacks the political, cultural, and personal forces that shaped both the real and imagined contours of early American leadership—and what this “what if” can teach us about the unique DNA of the American presidency.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

The Myth of Washington’s Popularity and Presidency

• Unanimity and Reality: Washington was the only president ever unanimously elected, reflecting deep respect carried over from his Revolutionary War leadership. Yet, despite this elevated status, his presidency was highly contentious, and he was criticized, particularly by Jeffersonians for foreign policy and federal power.

  • Michael Hattem (06:01): “He did not have a fun time as president of the United States...his administration gives birth to partisan politics.”

• Washington’s Challenges:

  • Administered in a period rife with party conflict, especially between Hamilton’s Federalists and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans.
  • The Jay Treaty with England sparked division, highlighting struggles between restoring commercial ties with England or supporting France.

Precedent and the Two-Term Limit

• Stepping Down: The modern two-term presidential limit traces to Washington, although his decision to leave after two terms was not meant to become binding precedent—it was simply fatigue and a desire to return to private life.

  • Michael Hattem (13:31): “He didn’t leave office for the purpose of setting a two-term limit. He left because he was tired and wanted to go home.”

• Constitutional Ambiguity:

  • The 1787 Constitution gave the executive significant authority, more than one might expect given the antipathy towards monarchy.

The “King Scenario”—Could it Really Have Happened?

• The Newburgh Conspiracy (1783):

  • As the Continental Army became frustrated over unpaid wages, Col. Lewis Nicola wrote Washington suggesting he assume the role of king—a proposal rooted in English Civil War memory and the fear of a Cromwell-like takeover.
    • Michael Hattem (16:08): “Cromwell loomed large in colonial political culture...Cromwell was the specter hanging over. He was the threat...Would the American Revolution go the way of the English revolution in the 1640s?”
  • Washington definitively declined, emphasizing Republican virtue and civilian control of the military.

• The Glasses Moment:

  • In a now-legendary address at Newburgh, Washington’s vulnerability—putting on his glasses and remarking on growing old in service—moved his officers and defused potential insurrection.
    • Washington’s quote (30:06): “You’ll have to forgive me because I’ve grown old and blind in the service of my country.”

American Republicanism and Monarchy

• Republicanism’s Roots:

  • The idea of a republic was strong in American colonial political culture—unlike in England, where "republican" was used as an epithet.
    • Hattem (22:19): “There was a strong Republican thread that ran through colonial political culture that was not shared in England.”

• Not Anti-Monarchy?

  • The Declaration of Independence criticizes King George III, but not monarchy per se. Many colonists had already rejected parliament’s authority and maintained a nuanced relationship to the idea of monarchy.
    • Hattem (31:35): “There’s no anti-monarchical statements in the Declaration of Independence...we sort of read that into the Declaration because of the way that it’s focused on George III.”

The Cincinnatus Ideal

• Model of Virtue:
  • Washington looked to Roman history, especially Cincinnatus, the citizen-soldier who returned to private life after service—an anti-dictatorship model.
    • Hattem (36:03): “Cincinnatus is the model of a Republican leader...for Washington, he is insistent and set upon playing the role of Cincinnatus right from the moment that he assumes control of the army.”

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Washington's Reluctance & Precedents:
  • (13:31, Hattem): “He didn’t leave office for the purpose of setting a two-term limit. He left because he was tired and wanted to go home.”
• Republican Suspicion of Power:
  • (34:09, Hattem): “A person was a virtuous citizen in a republic by putting aside their own interests for the common good...the idea that power is corrupting of anyone. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
• Vulnerability at Newburgh:
  • (30:06, Hattem, relating Washington’s words): “You’ll have to forgive me because I’ve grown old and blind in service to my country.”
• Don Wildman on the meaning of Washington’s actions:
  • (51:05): “So much he wrote and so much in his behavior...is so informed by his true passion, which is, I did this for a reason. And it was to help create this country that is rooted in the power of the people.”

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Washington’s Mixed Popularity and Early Presidency: 04:55–08:12
• Role of Previous “Presidents” under Articles of Confederation: 09:45–10:16
• Why Washington Stepped Down—Myth vs. Reality: 11:05–13:35
• The Farewell Address and its Themes: 13:38–14:15
• The Newburgh Conspiracy Explained: 14:51–19:20
• Republicanism in American vs British Context: 22:14–23:41
• Monarchy as Norm and the Threat of Standing Armies: 26:55–28:00
• Washington’s Newburgh Address—The Glasses Episode: 29:01–31:13
• Was the American Revolution Anti-Monarchical?: 31:35–33:26
• Separation of Powers and the Roots of American Government: 34:04–35:49
• Cincinnatus as Washington’s Model: 36:03–37:39
• Counterfactual: Imagining the American Monarchy: 39:37–42:42
• The Problem of Succession—Who Follows King George I?: 42:42–43:19
• The Powers of the Presidency vs. The Monarch: 45:09–46:04
• What If Washington Had Stayed On?: 47:16–48:25
• Party Politics, Military Rule, and the Dangers of Power: 48:38–53:28
• Enduring American Vigilance & Civic Duty: 53:55–54:17

---

Takeaways & Reflections

• The “King Washington” scenario is almost unthinkable not because of tradition or politics, but because of the unique blend of republican ideals, Washington’s personal convictions, and his consciousness of history (Roman, English, colonial) that shaped American leadership.
• Washington’s deliberate restraint and his model of civic virtue didn’t just set a precedent—they established a culture of skepticism toward power and authority, and an ideal of public service rooted in humility.
• The conversation underscores the contingent nature of history and why understanding these crossroads—real or imagined—helps explain the development of American republican government and national identity.
• As Hattem concludes (53:55):
  “It’s not guaranteed that [authoritarianism] will never happen. Part of our civic duty as American citizens...is to be on guard against that and to be vigilant.”

---

For anyone curious about how America avoided a monarchy—and why that matters for our understanding of power, leadership, and citizenship—this episode is essential listening.

---

Transcript

[Ryan Reynolds]

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now I don't know if you've heard, but Mint's Premium Wireless is $15 a month. But I'd like to offer one other perk. We have no stores. That means no small talk. Crazy weather we're having.

[Michael Haddam]

No, it's not.

[Ryan Reynolds]

It's just weather. It is an introvert's dream. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment.

[Commercial Announcer]

Of $45 for three month plan $15 per month equivalent required. New customer offer first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com hey, what's up?

[Mario Lopez]

It's Mario Lop. Back to school is an exciting time, but it can also be overwhelming and kids may feel isolated, a vulnerability that human traffickers can exploit. Human trafficking doesn't always look like what you expect. Everyday moments can become opportunities for someone with bad intentions. Whether you're a parent, teacher, coach or neighbor, check in, ask questions, stay connected. Blue Campaign is a national awareness initiative that provides resources to help recognize suspected instances of of human trafficking. Learn the signs and how to [e-mail] blue campaign.

[Mayra Amit]

A Mochi moment from Mark, who writes, I just want to thank you for making GLP1s affordable. What would have been over $1,000 a month is just $99 a month with Mochi. Money shouldn't be a barrier to healthy weight. Three months in and I have smaller jeans and a bigger wallet. You're the best. Thanks, Mark. I'm Mayra Amit, founder of Mochi Health. To find your Mochi, visit joinmochi.com Mark.

[Commercial Announcer]

Is a Mochi member, compensated for his story.

[Don Wildman]

It's April 30, 1789. It's quite the scene today here on Wall street outside New York's American Coronation Hall. The stately structure with its pediment and columns shrouded in red, white and blue is backdropped to a marching band. Moving up the block towards Broadway, a teeming crowd has gathered, held back by a phalanx of soldiers in tri cornered hats. The atmosphere is giddy and confused. No one's ever witnessed what's about to ensue inside the hall. The archbishop checks his notes, the throne is dusted yet again, and the royal jeweler does a last polish of the crown before placing it atop its blue velvet cushion. Everyone's nervous, but none more so than the man who will soon be king. King George I. King George Washington of America. Hello all. Don Wildman here. This is American history. Hit it is among the bedrock notions of Our nation enacted into law that an American president cannot serve more than two elected terms in office. After two, it's over, no questions asked. So says the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution as approved by Congress March 21, 1947, ratified by the states four years later in 51. At that point, 75 years ago, it was on the books. Two terms. That's it. Thing is, all this roots from a pretty grand assumption that our founding father, George Washington, had made it so that he deliberately, magnanimously stepped away from the presidency in 1797 after his two terms were up. Thus setting a precedent for presidents for all time. Or at least until FDR came along and flouted the unwritten rule by being elected four times. In reaction to that dynasty, Congress passed the 22nd, and enough of the nation agreed. And here we are. So this assumption, what did George Washington really say? Was this self imposed term limit as deliberate a precedent as popular understanding suggests? Or was it made so by generations that followed? And what if he'd stayed on for another term or another? Indeed, what if our first president had instead been our first king, King George I? And what sort of kingdom might Washington have ruled? It's a worthy question when you consider the norm in those days was monarchy, and had been for centuries. And today we'll entertain all this with historian Michael Haddam, author of the timely book the memory of 76, a Revolution in American History finalist for the 2025 George Washington Prize, and Past and Politics and Memory in the American Revolution. Michael is currently the Associate Director of the Yale New Haven Teachers Institute. He previously joined us here to discuss Paul Revere's Ride so many moons ago. Hello, Michael. Thanks for turning up again.

[Michael Haddam]

Thanks for having me.

[Don Wildman]

Today's a counterfactual where we ask a question many of us are anxiously revisiting these days. If George Washington had decided otherwise and remained in office beyond his two terms, how might he have formed a different idea of the presidency than we have today? Indeed, what if Washington was king? You ready for this conversation, Michael?

[Michael Haddam]

Absolutely. Let's do it.

[Don Wildman]

Honestly, I expected this to be a much simpler conversation, but no sooner did I circle in on this subject and there are so many implications. It's such a useful thing for understanding the government we actually got. So let's start there with the Washington presidency. Few facts. George Washington only president ever to win every state in the union. I mean, there are only 13, so it's not a fair comparison, but it does speak to his. His popularity. Not sure there's ever been a President with such universal support among his. His populace. Did he earn this as president, or was this left over from the war?

[Michael Haddam]

That's a great question. I think it is largely left over from the war. It's. It's often forgotten just how contentious Washington's administrations were.

[Don Wildman]

Yes, that's really true.

[Michael Haddam]

Right. I mean, he did not have a fun time as president of the United States. It's in his first administration when the first party system emerges and all the animosity between Hamilton and Jefferson. So basically, his administration gives birth to partisan politics in the United States. And then, of course, the highly contentious Jay treaty with England in the 1790s. And that becomes one of the biggest points of dispute between these two new parties. The Federalists, who really wanted to restore the relationship with England for commercial purposes primarily, and the Democratic Republicans of Jefferson, who wanted to maintain the alliance with revolutionary France. So there's a lot of going on, and Washington is not especially popular figure in the 1790s for large portions of the United States.

[Don Wildman]

In what way? What do people have a problem with?

[Michael Haddam]

I mean, Democratic Republicans, people who. Who lean towards Jefferson's side, you know, had deep reservations and significant critiques of the Washington administration, first for its. The way that it was purporting to take a neutral stand on the war between Britain and France. But then, of course, the Jay treaty doesn't seem to reinforce that notion. So there is a sense among a lot of Americans that the Washington administration is saying one thing and doing another. And that's not something that we always associate with George Washington. Right. And then, you know that Washington's close relationship with Hamilton and his support for the Hamiltonian program.

[Don Wildman]

Right.

[Michael Haddam]

Of a national bank, of the growth of the Treasury Department and the support for manufacturing over agriculture. This is not music to the ears of many Americans. And in the end, yes, a lot of that is driven by Hamilton. But Washington is president, and he takes a good brunt of that criticism.

[Don Wildman]

We just consider him in such holy terms. But this man goes from fighting a war, eternal, impossible war, and then lands in this presidency that's never been tried before, and everybody around him is fighting with each other. It's all forming itself. And it's come out of this previous time that nobody ever talks about when they refer to this time. You know, you have the Articles of Confederation, which was basically a document or a form of government that sort of took the Federals out of it. The whole idea was to have as little bit of the federal government as possible in this new land. And very quickly, people in the Government realized this is just not going to work.

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah, yeah. Washington was one of those people. After the conclusion of the war, the confederation Congress had very little power or authority and certainly really didn't have any authority to raise revenue. And that's a real sticking point for a lot of people who would go on to become supporters of the new Constitution. And it's really a big motivation behind the convention in the first place is the need for a stronger federal government and especially one that could raise revenue and hopefully one that would be able to put a bit of a brake on what many people considered the sort of runaway state legislatures which were granting all kinds of debt relief because of the post war recession. So, you know, all those things are drivers for the new Constitution and Washington agrees with all that.

[Don Wildman]

And we had presidents before Washington. Under the Articles of Confederation, there were literally US Presidents. They were more like today's vice presidents. They were kind of like in charge of the Congress and they only lasted for one year and then it was on a rotational basis. How many were there? There were like six or eight of them. Right?

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah, there were, there were. Yeah, there were at least half a dozen.

[Don Wildman]

Yeah, exactly.

[Michael Haddam]

Of which John Hancock was one early on.

[Don Wildman]

Prominent men.

[Michael Haddam]

But they were presidents of the Congress.

[Don Wildman]

Yeah. They knew that they didn't have that kind of role that anything had. Now this kingly role that we have today.

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah.

[Don Wildman]

Washington's the first to sign the U.S. constitution. Eventually the capital city is named after him. I'm speaking to the popularity of this man at the time, even though he's in the midst of everything you're talking about. So as his second term winds up, and I have to remind myself, was he elected into his first term or was he named? I forget.

[Michael Haddam]

No, he was elected. Yeah, but it was a. But it was a unanimous election.

[Don Wildman]

Right, right.

[Michael Haddam]

I mean, in a sense that he was effectively named because there was no real opponent and it was a sort of fait accompli.

[Don Wildman]

Yeah, exactly. So as his second term winds up in 1796, 97. He's been in office since 1789. Two terms, eight years. Just like today, he's making his decisions about the future. No one seriously expects him to step aside. Right. I mean, that would be kind of absurd. Yeah.

[Michael Haddam]

Well, on the one hand, he'd already set this precedent. He'd already set a precedent that he was the kind of person who was willing to step aside. And I think we can talk about that because if we talk about Washington becoming king or not becoming king, it's worth talking about some of the reasons why he didn't become king, but that go a little bit deeper than just the immediate politics of the 1790s. But as the, as the second administration is winding down, Washington is tired.

[Don Wildman]

Yeah.

[Michael Haddam]

You know, he, like you said, he's been in this office for eight years. It's been a contentious eight years. He doesn't, he doesn't leave office necessarily feeling especially good about the job that he did. Although, you know, he's consistently ranked so high on, you know, historians polls of presidents. But you know, I think he was, he had a lot of regrets or reservations about, you know, how the, how this new government and new nation had got its start under his watch.

[Don Wildman]

Well, he's also deeply involved in creating this Constitution. So he's got to be wondering how this is all going to work out. He wants to see this thing happen.

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah. I mean, the thing about the Constitution, you might ask, you know, for Washington to have become king, there would have had to have been a different Constitution. Right. But maybe not necessarily, or maybe not as much as we might think. Right. The power granted to the executive in the Constitution is, is actually really significant and not especially what you might expect. If you think back to the sort of historical characterizations of the colonists and the, and these early Americans, you know, as being sort of anti. Monarchical. They gave the executive a lot of authority. Right. And part of the reason for that was there wasn't wide expectation that Washington was going to be this executive. Right. Maybe not permanently, but they expected that he was going to be the first. And of course, being the first, you are the one who sets a lot of, you know, unwritten precedents and things like that. And that goes to the two terms of leaving. But he didn't leave office for the purpose of setting a 2, 2 term limit. Right. He, he left because he was tired and he wanted to go home.

[Don Wildman]

Yeah.

[Michael Haddam]

Right. He was done with New York and Philadelphia and he, and he wanted to go home to Mount Vernon.

[Don Wildman]

So much of this is, is rooted in the, in the farewell address that he.

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah.

[Don Wildman]

Issues through the papers. He never addresses anybody with this. It's a letter really, and it's one that's primarily written by Alexander Hamilton and previously written by James Madison after the first term, like they all thought they had to address the people. And so Washington signs off on this. Of course he's part of this. He does the final edits, it's his speech. But this is really where he articulates his hopes and dreams for the country. And mostly it's about how do you stay out of foreign entanglements and not have parties and all sorts of things?

[Michael Haddam]

And not have parties. Right.

[Don Wildman]

And he doesn't really talk about his role or the role of the presidency that much.

[Michael Haddam]

Right, right.

[Don Wildman]

There's a telling event that happens in Newburgh, New York, March 1783, which is the culmination of so much that's afoot in the war that is now coming to a close or at the end of the revolution. We're nine years and a constitution away from George Washington becoming president. Just to put you in the frame of time Articles of Confederation have taken effect. The event that I'm talking about actually starts kind of a year earlier with a letter. It's written by someone named Colonel Louis Nicola. May 22, 1782. He is writing to George Washington about a contentious issue within the troops.

[Michael Haddam]

Right.

[Don Wildman]

The army is not happy. And this is going to play out to really demonstrate how Washington is going to be effective in dealing with the politicians that are around him and so forth. Can you explain this event for us?

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah. So, okay, so Louis Nicola was an officer.

[Don Wildman]

Yeah. Rabble rouser.

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah, a rabble rouser. He was born in Ireland, actually. And he writes this letter in 1782amidst long standing resentment on the part of the army, both the officers and the rank and file, the regular soldiers. That in no small part has to do with the fact that Congress was very delinquent in paying the army. Right. They had been less than attentive, let's say, in supplying the army, you know, in some sense they did what they could. But you know, without the power to tax, you know, the Continental Congress and then later the Confederation Congress, there was little that they could do really to raise money except ask states for money. Requisitions. They were called, and the states did not have to comply. And so there is this real resentment growing. And if we think about the context, it's, you know, 1782 and, you know, the Yorktown has already happened.

[Don Wildman]

Yeah.

[Michael Haddam]

So the last major engagement of the war, you know, is almost a year in the, you know, in the rearview mirror. And so there's this period of sort of stasis that happens between Yorktown and the Treaty of Paris in 1783. And what you have is you have the Northern army, which is encamped at Newburgh, New York. You know, these soldiers are sitting around and kind of stewing on this resentment. Right. Against the Congress. And Nicola writes this letter in 1782 expressing his dissatisfaction with Congress, especially over the lack of payment for the troops. But he Also calls on Washington to assume the role of king. Right. And I think the important thing to understand about that, there's a lot of historical context that goes into. Into understanding the significance of that kind of request. Right. If we think back to the most famous among the colonists and the Americans would have been Oliver Cromwell. Right. I mean, Cromwell was the Puritan leader of the parliamentary forces in the English Civil wars in the 1640s and 1650s. And Parliament was reacting and fighting against the tyrannical abuses of Charles the First. And when the war is over and the war against the crown was won and Charles the First was. There was a regicide, Cromwell assumes this role that he called the Lord Protectorate. Right. He's basically assuming the kind of dictatorial powers that Charles the First had, but he's doing it in the name of the people and in the name of this Puritan revolution. And so Cromwell loomed large in colonial political culture because British history, English history, was the colonist history up until the Revolution. We know that Washington had a biography of Cromwell, and we can assume that he read a very famous. The most famous history of the Civil wars, which was by Lord Clarendon, who had actually been a participant in the event. And he had been a revolutionary on the side of Cromwell until he sort of took this unprecedented step, and then he became effectively a royalist and supported the restoration of the monarchy. And so, you know, Cromwell loomed large in the memory of the colonists. And interestingly, in New England, he was a quite popular figure in the 17th century. Up until about the early 18th century, he was quite a popular figure because he was the Puritan revolutionary, and New Englanders really identified with him strongly. But as the political culture changed in the early 18th century and sort of became more Whiggish, I guess you could say, his sort of stock began to decline. But for a while, he was a popular figure. And so everybody had. Cromwell was the specter hanging over. He was the threat that was hanging over the American Revolution. Would the American Revolution go the way of the English revolution in the 1640s?

[Don Wildman]

Of course. Well, it speaks to how fragile the notion of republicanism was for Americans, because, like we said I mentioned before, monarchy is the norm. And so as soon as you run into contentious problems and whatever kinds of national problems there's going on, people are naturally, you know, we even do it today. You want a strong man, you want a strong central leader to take care of this problem. My father used to say this all the time. A beneficent dictator is the best ruler there could possibly be. Unfortunately, there's no such thing, he would say to me. Yeah. I'll be back with more American history after this short break.

[Michael Haddam]

Hey, what's up?

[Mario Lopez]

It's Mario Lopez. Back to school is an exciting time, but it can also be overwhelming, and kids may feel isolated, a vulnerability that human traffickers can explain exploit. Human trafficking doesn't always look like what you expect. Everyday moments can become opportunities for someone with bad intentions. Whether you're a parent, teacher, coach or neighbor. Check in, ask questions, stay connected. Blue Campaign is a national awareness initiative that provides resources to help recognize suspected instances of human trafficking. Learn the signs and how to [e-mail].

[Ryan Reynolds]

Blue Campaign Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless and if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should 1. It's $15 a month.

[Don Wildman]

2.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Seriously, it's $15 a month. 3. No big contracts.

[Don Wildman]

4.

[Ryan Reynolds]

I use it. 5. My mom uses it. Are you, are you playing me off? That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront.

[Commercial Announcer]

Payment of $45 per three month plan $15 per month equivalent Request new customer offer first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra.

[Mayra Amit]

See Mint mobile.com emoji moment from Mark, who writes I just want to thank you for making GLP1s affordable. What would have been over $1,000 a month is just $99 a month with Mochi money shouldn't be a barrier to healthy weight. Three months in and I have smaller jeans and a bigger wallet. You're the best. Thanks Mark. I'm Myra Ammis, founder of Mochi Health. To find your mochi moment, visit joinmochi.com.

[Commercial Announcer]

Mark is a Mochi member, compensated for his story.

[Fidelity Representative]

Building a portfolio with Fidelity Basket Portfolios is kind of like making a sandwich. It's as simple as picking your stocks and ETFs, sort of like your meats and other topics and managing it as one big juicy investment. Now that's pretty good. Learn [e-mail] baskets Investing involves risk, including risk of loss Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC Member NYSE SIPC.

[Michael Haddam]

When we talk about republicanism, you know we're talking about essentially a non monarchical.

[Don Wildman]

Yeah.

[Michael Haddam]

Form of government. Right. You can have all kinds of different republics. But you know there was a strong Republican thread that ran through colonial political culture that was not shared in England and it probably because people in England, the English civil wars were the was, were was an event in the past that they were embarrassed by and they did not really want to remember or commemorate that. And that's why they put all of their, you know, all of their memorial energy into the Glorious Revolution.

[Don Wildman]

Right.

[Michael Haddam]

Which supposedly, you know, reset the balance between the Parliament and the king. But in the colonies, there was this long standing Republican thread, maybe less so in Virginia, which was kind of known as a Royalist colony in the mid 17th century, but just generally speaking. And you know, republican was an epithet in 18th century England. And they use those kinds of terms when, certainly when describing New Englanders during the 1760s and 1770s, but also the colonists. And, you know, they would say that, you know, they're, they're aiming for independence, these Republicans, you know, so it's, it's, it's, it's a, it's a strong distinction between how a Republican was perceived in England versus in the colonies.

[Don Wildman]

Yeah. And so that's where this all leads with this letter. Almost a year later, March 1783, there's a secret meeting this moment. We're talking about in Newburgh, the Continental army officers who are impatient for payment and assurance of pension from the Congress, both of which, who knows if they're ever going to get, discuss their grievances amongst senior officers of the army. And it's all considered a lead up to what would be a coup d' etat against the Continental Congress. And their idea is to name Washington as monarch. That's what Louis Nicole is suggesting, right?

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah. I mean, it gets more complicated by the time that you get to 1783, because Horatio Gates is involved.

[Don Wildman]

Right.

[Michael Haddam]

So Gates is sort of Washington's rival general, going back, you know, really to the, to the, almost to 76, 77. And, you know, what happens in the camp at Newburgh is, you know, the talk about the Congress and about payment. Part of the reason they were getting even more upset was because Congress had recently passed a resolution effectively promising half pay to retired soldiers, and yet they hadn't paid any of it. So you have these soldiers who are not getting paid, but also have precedent set now for they're probably not going to get their pensions either. Right. And so this is, you know, just further stirring up the resentment. And it kind of gets kicked off with another, another sort of letter written by Major John Armstrong, who is the, the assistant or the aide de camp to General Gates, you know, and, and he's basically calling on the soldiers. He's criticizing Washington because Washington had been taking a very moderate tone when it came to these issues. You know, one of the most striking things about Washington's leading of the Military during the revolution was his relationship with Congress. Right. He has a very deferential relationship with the Congress. He is very careful about maintaining that, not giving any signs of dissatisfaction with the Congress. And there are people in the Congress who are worried that Washington might pull a Cromwell. Right. And. But he, he never gives any hint of that. And he has been constantly now for years telling his men, you know, relax. You know, Congress has a lot to deal with. But they're, you know, they're going to take care of you. Don't worry. You know, I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that they, they take care of this. And the soldiers by 1783, you know, they, they want Washington to be more forceful.

[Don Wildman]

Yeah.

[Michael Haddam]

You know, and stop being so conciliatory and deferential. And this address by Armstrong essentially says that if Washington won't do that, if Congress won't comply with paying the army, then the army should collectively threaten to either disband, just disband, leave, which would basically mean the country was unprotected, or they should state their willingness to refuse to disband after the peace treaty is signed.

[Don Wildman]

Yeah.

[Michael Haddam]

And that is almost worse. Right. Because there is a long standing fear in. In Anglo American culture and throughout the colonies and into the new nation of what was called a standing army. Right. A standing army is a permanent army.

[Don Wildman]

Yes.

[Michael Haddam]

And this is one of the things that Charles the First tried to do is to raise a standing army. Armies were supposed to be raised when there was war, and they were raised from the militias of the counties or of the colonies. Right. And when that war was over, then those men went back home, they went to their farms or whatever. There was no such thing as a professional soldier. And a standing army was a threat to liberty, Republican liberty, because. Because it could be marshaled against the citizens or against the government in a time of peace. And so that threat by the soldiers to refuse to disband is basically. Is a really serious threat. It's basically threatening a military takeover.

[Don Wildman]

Exactly. It's a very classic scenario here. When faced with the crisis, the military wants to step in, or some of it does. He stands there in this room. I mean, let's just frame this. Exactly. There is a room and everybody's in it. You can go visit that building today in Newburgh, N.Y. and Washington stands there and he addresses the situation. The characterization of this moment is important because here's this guy who has, you know, remarkably carried this entire war on his shoulders throughout the entire length of it. And people think these Soldiers think of him in a sort of, I don't know, sacred way, I suppose, or they certainly look up to him a lot. He stands there and decides to address this by first taking out his glasses and putting them on. And in this very human moment, they see a frailty to him, you know, a normal human characteristic. He can't see the paper he's reading off of. And it is this choice that he makes, I guess, for necessity, really, that really kind of underscores the moment. How does he address this in a persuasive way?

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah. So essentially what happens is Washington gets wind of this address in the camp and he calls for a meeting. But a few days later, he wants to let things calm down a little bit because the letter was quite inflammatory. And so he holds this meeting. And he shows up at this meeting, this is in March of 1783. And the main thing that he does is he reads this letter from a delegate to Congress. I forget his name, basically talking about how he was going to try to lobby his fellow members in the Congress to take care of the payment issue and all of that. And so Washington wanted to show there are people in Congress who are lobbying on your behalf. And then to read that letter after his main sort of address, he takes the letter out and he takes his glasses out, and he's supposed to have said something like putting on his glasses. He says, you'll have to forgive me because I've grown old and blind in service to my country.

[Don Wildman]

There you go.

[Michael Haddam]

And it's the combination of the glasses and seeing a moment of vulnerability, really, in their leader, but also this allusion to a very Republican kind of civic virtue that he kind of encapsulates in that single statement, you know, that, that. I mean, the myth of, of the Newberg address is that the. The soldiers start weeping in the room. You know, that's the story as it's often told.

[Don Wildman]

I'm weeping right now, as you're telling me.

[Michael Haddam]

It's a quite moving moment. And whether, regardless of the mythologization of it, you know, it is a really moving moment. And it's. It's undoubted that it. That it had a significant impact. It really did diffuse the situation, certainly among the soldiers, maybe Gates, Gates's most hardcore supporters, especially among the officers. But the soldiers were, you know, felt. Look, we've been. We've. We have also gotten old in the service of our country side by side with this guy. And he didn't need glasses when I first saw him.

[Don Wildman]

Right.

[Michael Haddam]

You know, kind of thing and that moment really disarmed the so called Newburgh conspiracy.

[Don Wildman]

Does George Washington here, I mean, I've already mentioned, he doesn't mention it in the Farewell Address. Does he mention it elsewhere? Like now that he doesn't believe in kingship or that kind of thing, that there's something special going on in this country that's really tough to make work, et cetera, et cetera?

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah, I mean maybe not in, in those exact words. I think it was an unspoken assumption that Washington did not believe in, well, I should say didn't believe in monarchy necessarily. In fact, I think it's part of the, it's part of the reason that people don't often think about why, about the possibility of Washington having become king is because there is a sort of popular misunderstanding about the revolution, that it was an anti monarchical revolution. Just because it's, just because it's a republican revolution doesn't necessarily mean it was an anti monarchical revolution. If you read the Declaration of Independence, it's got a lot of criticisms of George iii, Right. But the reason that it's, it's only criticizing George III and not Parliament is because in the previous years it had become accepted amongst colonists that Parliament had no authority over the colonies. So they had already basically dismissed Parliament's authority over them. And so the reason that the Declaration focuses on George III is because the Crown was the colonists last remaining connection to Britain. And so that's the relationship that now, that's the political band that now has to, that's the final political ban that needs to be cut in order to establish independence. And we have read the Declaration in such a way that you know, that it implies that the revolution was anti monarchical. But there's no anti monarchical statements in the Declaration of Independence. It's not saying, you know, monarchy is a horrible wrong form of government. The Declaration doesn't say anything like that. Yeah, Thomas Paine says that in common sense, you know, and that's very popular. But the Declaration doesn't say that. And you know, so we, we, but we sort of read that into the Declaration because of the way that it's focused on George iii.

[Don Wildman]

What I think is so effective about Washington in this moment and in general the beginnings of this country is the, is the real cynicism about power. I mean you have to control power. And that's how Washington really plays this. And that's where we get the phrase separation of power, the very basis of this Constitution. That if you concentrate too much power in one area or one person, you're going to have corruption, you're going to have this thing go wrong, which is going to undermine your whole idea of individual rights, which is the new, you know, enlightened idea of civilization, that every human being has rights instead of just certain of us.

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah.

[Don Wildman]

And that's the source of so much of what his perspective, I guess.

[Michael Haddam]

Yes, yes, absolutely. I mean, you know, republicanism in the colonies was, it was a, it was a specific strain of English republicanism. Some people call it radical republicanism, some people call it classical republicanism, but basically it went back to these opposition writers in the, in the 17th century. And, and basically what they took from these guys and what stuck in the colonial political culture was this concern about power. Right. A person was a virtuous citizen in a republic by putting aside their own interests for the common good. And the root of this idea is the idea that power is corrupting of anyone. Anyone who has power, it will corrupt them. Just that old phrase, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Colonists absolutely believe that. And a part of, also part of being a virtuous citizen meant that you had to be constantly vigilant, constantly on watch for this kind of corruption. And that's, you know, that's a big part of it. When you read stuff that the colonists are writing in the 1760s and 1770s, they're pointing out that we are seeing the kind of corruption that we have always feared. In the Parliament.

[Don Wildman]

Yes.

[Michael Haddam]

In the Ministry. Right. And it, it almost takes on a sort of conspiratorial tone. And, you know, and that, that, that has become a sort of, you know, long standing feature of American politics.

[Don Wildman]

Well, we also, after the revolution. Yeah. We also have in the 1700s, the neoclassical thing. You know, we're all looking back to Rome at this point.

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah.

[Don Wildman]

There's a big awareness of that and how Rome was one thing when it was a republic and then it was another thing when it became a dictator.

[Michael Haddam]

Absolutely. Yeah. That's another. That's just as big a warning story as the English revolution.

[Don Wildman]

Right.

[Michael Haddam]

And Washington, I mean, you know, Caesar is the prime example of that. But the Roman figure who, who maybe had the most sort of purchase certainly on Washington was Cincinnatus. Right. Who is this Roman citizen. He was a member of the Senate here and there, and in the 450s BC he is approached by the members of the Senate to assume the role of a dictator, basically because Rome, the Roman Republic, had a, had a mechanism for dealing with emergencies, which was to appoint a temporary dictator. Right. And there was some military emergency, a Roman army was in trouble. And, and so they appoint Cincinnatus dictator and he takes over the army and, and he goes and, and takes care of what he has to take care of in, in terms of rescuing the, the Roman army and whatnot. And then, and then he comes back and famously relinquishes the office of dictator and goes back to his farm. And in fact, he actually did this twice. Right. And that Cincinnatus is the model of a Republican leader, certainly in Washington's mind. And for Washington, he is insistent and set upon playing the role of Cincinnatus. Right from the moment that he assumes the control of the army in 75, he constantly has Cincinnatus on his mind as his role model.

[Don Wildman]

Wow. Well, in a way, maybe those Nurburgrees were asking him to do this all temporarily. I mean, that could have been part of that idea.

[Michael Haddam]

Well, that's true too. But of course, Cromwell is an example of it's very rarely temporary. If we think about Cincinnatus, we've sort of enshrined him in American culture. He's the source of the name of the city of Cincinnati, Society of the Cincinnati, which is the sort of hereditary organization for descendants of officers and soldiers of the Continental Army. So his importance to Washington has sort of led to his memory sort of being sprinkled around American culture.

[Don Wildman]

I'll be back with more American history after this show. Short break.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless. And if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should. One, it's $15 a month. Two, seriously, it's $15 a month. Three, no big contracts. Four, I use it. Five, my mom uses it. Are you, Are you playing me off? That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a [e-mail] Upfront payment.

[Commercial Announcer]

Of $45 for three month plan. $15 per month equivalent required. New customer offer first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees, extra CMN emoji moment from.

[Mayra Amit]

Sadie who writes I'm not crying. You're crying. This is what I said during my first appointment with my physician at Mochi because I didn't have to convince him I needed a GLP one. He understood and I felt supported, not judged. I came for the weight loss and stayed for the empathy. Thanks, Sadie. I'm Mayra Amit, founder of Mochi Health. To find your mochi moment, visit joinmochi.com.

[Commercial Announcer]

Sadie is a Mochi member, compensated for her story.

[Don Wildman]

The counterfactual let's just entertain this for a bit. It's interesting to consider because it really does. If it went this way, we ironically and maybe sadly would become England again. We'd basically go right back to a parliamentary situation. You'd have to have House of Commons instead of the House of Representatives, House of Lords instead of the Senate. All of this is, of course, what much of this is based upon. The Cabinet would be ministers, not secretaries, all answering directly to the President, which is another one of these concentrations of power not approved by Congress. The courts would be royal courts, as they are, and royal justice. Of course, all this has been moderated in modern times over in England. But. But so much of this would be the situation that we'd have, you know, a minister of the. Of the. Whatever they call him, Exchequer or something would be.

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah.

[Don Wildman]

Would be Alexander Hamilton. It's a funny idea.

[Michael Haddam]

I mean, but. But think about it. I mean, a lot of what you're talking about is. Is just terminology.

[Don Wildman]

Yes.

[Michael Haddam]

The main difference, I mean, you know, House of Commons, House of Representatives is not fundamentally different. They have a lot of the same charges. They were popularly elected. The main difference would be the House of Commons, you know, the House of Lords. The House of Lords was made up of nobility. Yeah. People with landed titles. Now, you don't have that in the United States. And even if Washington wanted to become king, there was never going to be any political will to establish a nobility or landed title. So you probably still would have ended up with something like the Senate. You know, I don't know. It's hard to think about what would be different. There's two scenarios in which Washington could become king. Right. One is, in theory, he could have asserted for the creation of essentially a kingly office at the Constitutional Convention and become king by constitution, or he could have become king by refusing to leave office.

[Don Wildman]

Right.

[Michael Haddam]

In 1796. So there's different ways that this could happen, and both of those have, I think, different implications. But I think it's the second one that people tend to think of most. If we think of this possibility.

[Don Wildman]

Well, it just reminds us that this is quite normal to consider at the time, because it's the normal way things have been. It's what generations before have been used to. What's happening now is not just brilliant men coming along to change things and fighting to do it, but also there's ideas in the era that have been there for 100 years now, you know, and that's all going to play out in Europe. It takes a lot longer for things to dismantle in Europe by 1848 into the year of revolution in Europe, everything's falling apart. It starts with the French and all that happens. Nonetheless, let's say that took hold here. It's a fun little thing to consider, the hereditary thing. So say Washington is king and who's going to be his? Whose follow up? He's going to die in 1790, 1800 or something. He has no heirs because he's without children. And so who's going to become this guy? If you look at the trees?

[Michael Haddam]

Well, he had stepchildren. His male stepchild was. Was Jackie Custis, who was a. Who was not the most diligent of students. He was, you know, Washington wasn't especially proud of a lot of what Jackie did, but Jackie ended up dying in 1781 anyway because he wanted to be at the battle of Yorktown. And he eventually died of camp fever shortly after.

[Don Wildman]

So it's crazy to consider this, but there is through that tree, you end up with Robert E. Lee, you know, because Martha Dandridge is married, she's Martha Washington, and the Dandridge tree goes down to Robert E. Lee.

[Michael Haddam]

That's right.

[Don Wildman]

So he could very well, he could have been a prince at some point and this whole thing. But actually, that's a really interesting part of this, because this is the thing that kings can do that our situation could not address throughout that whole antebellum period. Had you had a king. Well, you know, all things can go wrong, but presumably you have someone who's above the fray, you know, who. Who concentrates power. So he can. He or she can. Can inflict this upon situations such as we have right now, you know, where you have division and partisanship. And that's the idea of this.

[Michael Haddam]

I mean, yeah, but that's a more 17th century notion of monarchy. Because the monarchy in England after the Glorious Revolution was a quite neutered monarchy. Right. The Hanoverians who come after you know, come in the 18th century, the Hanoverian monarchs, because of the revolutionary settlement in England after the Glorious Revolution, where all this power is given to parliament and the prerogative of the king is diminished. I mean, it's such that the king actually technically retained a veto over parliamentary legislation, but no Hanoverian monarch ever dared to use it. Right. Because it would. Because of what that would imply, even though they technically had the prerogative to do that. So, you know, the example of the monarchy for most colonists and Americans who, you know, gone through the revolution in recent times was not a powerful monarchy. And in fact, that's what they were asking for in some sense in, in the early mid-1770s when they were sending these petitions to King George to say, please intervene with Parliament, exercise your veto over the coercive acts. And of course, George III was never going to even consider doing that.

[Don Wildman]

He saw what happened to his predecessors.

[Michael Haddam]

Absolutely head chops off. And so they had a, you know, they had seen, they had experience of not. Not an especially powerful monarchy, which is what makes the executive that they end up creating in the Constitution all that much more striking that because of the powers that it's given. In fact, there's a quote, I don't know if it's apocryphal or not, but about King George who saw the Constitution and said he basically has more power than I do, you know, so. And there was that, that was a sense in England, you know. And it's also why one of the reasons why there was such a resistance against the Constitution amongst anti federalists, because of this powerful executive.

[Don Wildman]

I. Bite your tongue, Michael. King George I would not have been neutered.

[Michael Haddam]

I mean. Well, I don't think that would have been the case. I think if we had had it here, he would have ended up. Definitely would have ended up having more prerogative than George III did.

[Don Wildman]

Absolutely. Well, that's your point exactly. The Constitution actually vests the presidency with a huge amount of power. We're seeing that play out. And that is what gets tested over the next 200 years is the increasing power and expansion of the executive branch through the powers of the presidency. We're seeing current events you call executive power executive order. That is expansion of power. And we're seeing it play out even as we speak. Yeah, but let's look backwards. They couldn't have taken the Articles of Confederation and just rewritten them, could they? This is a big constitutional conversation.

[Michael Haddam]

But I mean, in some sense that's what they did at the convention.

[Don Wildman]

Okay, yeah, you're right.

[Michael Haddam]

You know, I mean they, they didn't re. They. They drafted something from scratch. But you know, so, I mean, in some sense I think that it's. I think the more likely scenario is because there's, there's. There's not. There's no will for monarchy. Certainly in the 1780s for sure, they just wanted a stronger federal government that could tax, basically. But you know, when you get to the, the, the 1790s, I think the more likely scenario, if there was. If it could be likely at all, you know, was about Washington perhaps staying on.

[Don Wildman]

Yep.

[Michael Haddam]

Right. And then, you know, yes, Washington has no heirs, so Then you have to ask, well, if Washington just stayed on, what would. What would happen? What happens after that? Because there is no air. Right. I mean, I think that you probably basically the party struggle of the 1790s and 1800s would have be. Would have become a struggle over the throne. Right. And we have precedent for that. We have Anglo American precedent for that. Because in 1688, the. The, you know, James II abdicated the throne, but because he was run out, basically. And then Parliament said we have the right to. To appoint a new king from an entirely different family line. Right. So the choice of king, of Washington's successor would have ended up having. Probably having to come down to Congress. Right. And, you know, by if. If Washington, depending on how long Washington held on, I mean, he ends up dying in 1799. But, you know, there's a huge turn happening politically in 1799 and 1800.

[Don Wildman]

Yeah.

[Michael Haddam]

Towards the Democratic Republicans. You know, and this is really the sort of the culmination of the conflict between these two. You know, you can. You can't even imagine, I don't think, like, what that fight might have looked like.

[Don Wildman]

I love to see this through, that the general that was George Washington becomes the president. And so much of his psychology is a military officer's mindset and the sense that, you know, you have to empower your soldiers to fight. You can't just tell them what to do. They have to want to do it. And the same goes for the citizens of this country that he's helping to birth. And that's going to be the ultimate separation of power. The power that rests with the people is going to keep things in balance. So he's basically saying by stepping away in his farewell address, the unity of government, which I'm quoting, which constitutes you one people, is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence. God, it just kind of chokes you up, doesn't it? It's an incredibly clear perception of why this all matters.

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah.

[Don Wildman]

And it's so much the father figure, really.

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah. I mean, that's, you know, as clear a statement of popular sovereignty as you're going to get. And it's. And it's interesting how we, you know, his use of the term independence because he's, you know, on the one hand, he's not just talking about, you know, independence from European conflicts and whatnot. Right. But. But he's talking about, you know, you're, in some sense, your individual independence too. Right.

[Don Wildman]

But it's also gonna be your Americans, you're not just Virginians, you're not just New Englanders. It's this idea of Americanism as a real thing that needs discipline and needs practice. You've really gotta work at it.

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah. I mean, that's part of the Republican tradition, but also for Washington, some sort of sort of allude to a sort of argument about how the first Americans were the Continental army soldiers. Right. Because all through the war, there's still these distinctions and differences and animosities between people from different states and different regions. But the Continental army is really the first time when ordinary Americans from all different parts of the country come together and have a vision of something that's bigger than just any individual colony that have. They're the first ones to have a sort of sense of national identity. Right. And Washington is at the heart of that and making that happen. So, you know, in some sense, you know, he is at the. He is at the heart of the beginning of an American national identity, just as the. As the leader of this Continental Army.

[Don Wildman]

Yeah. Well, it's. The point of this counterfactual, really, is to find out how absurd it was from Washington's perspective. I mean, there's so much. So much he wrote and so much in his behavior. Newburgh crisis. All of this is so informed by his true passion, which is, I did this for a reason. And it was to help create this country that is rooted in the power and the people. It's. It's an amazing thing. So that's why it's. You know, you can't put a crown on this guy because it's just. He just wouldn't take it. But that says. Speaks volumes to how brilliant this man really was at that time.

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah. And I mean, how singular.

[Don Wildman]

Yeah.

[Michael Haddam]

Right. I mean, all around him in the 1790s is, you know, this partisan politics is. Is rising and. And emerging, you know, and he was never, you know, partisan politics was one of his biggest, you know, fears. It's one of the things that he disliked the most, you know, and so, you know, he held. He held firm on that. And I. I think it's that all of that is part of the reasons why it's. People don't often think about the possibility of what if Washington had become king? Because even if you don't know a lot about Washington, it kind of just sounds ridiculous. Right? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the one thing we were talking about, you know, if we were talking about going forward a little bit, and I think he absolutely would have thought this or had this in mind when he pondered the possibilities. But let's say Washington had stayed on as president, he's still fundamentally remembered as the military leader of the revolution. Right. So it still would be the Cromwell dynamic of a military leader taking, you know, having control of the government that might have set a precedent that then might have, you know, produced many more situations like that through American history where, you know, there's a, you know, whatever kind of war there is, a successful general, you know, then sees it as their, their right, you know, or their, their entitlement to then take over the, the government.

[Don Wildman]

Yeah, right.

[Michael Haddam]

And that's what had happened in the past. So I don't. There's not, there's no reason really to think that that wouldn't have continued to happen. And we might have seen, you know, a secession of, of military monarchical dictatorships.

[Don Wildman]

Well, these days, when we have so much controversy to do with the executive branch, I often find myself saying to friends and family, you know, hey, there's a lot in the bank here. You know, there's a lot in the bank in American history that, that flouts that idea that we're going to end up with an authoritarian dictator. But, but, you know, you always worry and that's, that's. It's a crisis that has to be addressed over and over again, which is really what George Washington was, was all about. These guys were brilliant. I'm sorry it sounds corny to say it, but they really were.

[Michael Haddam]

I mean, you know, and they would have said, you know, that it's, it's, it's not, it's not guaranteed that that will never happen. And part of our civic duty as American citizens, just like it was for the colonists in the 1760s and 1770s, is to be on guard against that and to be vigilant.

[Don Wildman]

And to be vigilant and know your history. Excuse me.

[Michael Haddam]

Absolutely.

[Don Wildman]

And start with this man, Michael Haddam, author of the book memory of 76. Read it this year. My goodness, 250 is coming. It's called the memory of 76. The revolution in American History. What is the George Washington Prize? I didn't even know that existed. The 2025 George Washington Prize.

[Michael Haddam]

Yeah, it's. Well, it's been around. It's been around for maybe 20 years. It's the, it's co. Sponsored by Mount Vernon, a gilder Lehrman Institute for American History and, and Washington College. And it's actually one of the biggest book prizes in the country.

[Don Wildman]

There you go.

[Michael Haddam]

The award is $50,000 and this man wrote it.

[Don Wildman]

Thank you so much, Michael. We'll see you again.

[Michael Haddam]

Thank you. Don.

[Don Wildman]

Hey, thanks for listening to American History hit. You know, every week we release new episodes, two new episodes dropping Mondays and Thursdays. All kinds of content from mysterious missing colonies to powerful political movements to some of the biggest battles across the centuries. Don't miss an episode by hitting like and follow. You help us out, which is great, but you'll also be reminded when our shows are on. And while you're at it, share it with a friend. American History hit with me. Don Wildman so grateful for your support.

[RecycleOn Representative]

From the Cascades to PDX to your kitchen, we recycle like we live here. That's why governments, brands and recycling companies are all joining together to bring change to make recycling better. As in trusting that your recyclables is end up in the right places to be made into new things and having brands help fund the cost of recycling. You can find the Latest updates at recycleon.org Oregon From Mount Hood to the bin under your desk, together we can do this.

[Commercial Announcer]

Bring your creative passion and purpose together through 11 immersive online art and design programs at Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design. From interior design to illustration, Creative Futures Start here. Visit remcadmcad.edu.