StarDestroyer.Net BBS

In the American Revolution, just before the battle of Brandywine in 1777, Patrick Ferguson may have had the opportunity to shoot George Washington with one of his rifles- (he noticed a " prominent Rebel officer") but declined to shoot as the man's back was turned.

If it had been Washington, and Ferguson had fired, (Presumably killing him) what are some ways that history may have been changed?

Washington was an intelligent man, competent general and powerful motivator, whose strategy of keeping his armies on the move and intact did more for the Colonial cause than any battlefield triumph barring Saratoga.

He also provided a means for the Colonies to unite behind him.

I suppose the question is: What would the American Revolution have been like had Washington been killed in 1777?

For example, Would Benedict Arnold still have turned traitor if he had more advancement opportunities?

My guess would be that, in the Revolution itself, nothing much would change. Washington got the credit but the war was decided by economic factors far outside the United States (not the least of which was the economic manipulations of the West Indies sugar producers). In fact, a good case could be made that the Thirteen Colonies could actually have gained independence without firing a shot.

The crunch point would come later when Washington was first offered a crown and then declined a third term as President. A lesser man might have taken either and that would have set the U.S. on a very different course.

On the other hand, a lesser man might not have built up enough credit with the other leaders of the Revolution for them to seriously propose crowning him king. Washington was a viable candidate for king precisely because he was the kind of man who wouldn't grab the office too eagerly.

Simon_Jester wrote:On the other hand, a lesser man might not have built up enough credit with the other leaders of the Revolution for them to seriously propose crowning him king. Washington was a viable candidate for king precisely because he was the kind of man who wouldn't grab the office too eagerly.

I don't think they thought that way at the time. Washington was the hero of the revolution even though he was simply in the right place at the right time. More or less anybody in that place and time would have come out with just the same level of credit and probably just as much of a hero. That means just about anybody could have been the first President. The U.S. got lucky with Washington; it could have done far worse and probably would have done if GW had got iced.

Without Washington around, Benedict Arnold might have risen higher in public esteem and never felt the need to betray the Revolution.

King Benedict I, by the Grace of God Sovereign Ruler of the Kingdom of America.

I would say that Benjamin Franklin was more important for victory in that it was mostly his reputation that tricked the french to wage war on britain. For without france's involvement I'd have to quote his excellency

Palpatine wrote:Soon the Rebellion will be crushed

I think that it safe to say that while Washington was replaceable, Franklin was not.

Stuart wrote: I don't think they thought that way at the time. Washington was the hero of the revolution even though he was simply in the right place at the right time. More or less anybody in that place and time would have come out with just the same level of credit and probably just as much of a hero. That means just about anybody could have been the first President. The U.S. got lucky with Washington; it could have done far worse and probably would have done if GW had got iced.

George Washington was really lucky too, there are alot of incidents where he was lucky to have survived. The one that comes to mind is Braddock's Defeat, where George Washington was present as aide to General Braddock and quite possibly was the man who lead the retreat after the Monongahela Expedition came to its disasterous end outside of Fort Duquesne. Washington's clothing was apparantly full of bullet holes and he very likely could have ended up like alot of the troops in Braddock's expedition; shoot dead and looted/scalped by French or Indian troops or later tortured to death by Indians on the current location of Point Park in Pittsburgh.

US constitution doesn't pass. His personal leadership was absolutely critical for its ratification.

Stuart wrote: I don't think they thought that way at the time. Washington was the hero of the revolution even though he was simply in the right place at the right time. More or less anybody in that place and time would have come out with just the same level of credit and probably just as much of a hero. That means just about anybody could have been the first President. The U.S. got lucky with Washington; it could have done far worse and probably would have done if GW had got iced.

Indeed, George Washington was in the right place at the right time. Amazingly enough, being in the right place at the right time is something he had in common with such lucky folks as John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough), Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington), Napoleon Bonaparte, Hannibal Barca, and a rather impressive list of all the other well-known gentlemen who had this incredible knack for showing up at the best possible place at the best possible time. No coincidence... they generally knew where that place and time were and planned out a way to get there.

Please excuse the facetiousness, Stuart, but your comment does sort of resemble "Washington wasn't skilled, just lucky." It is true that Washington was chosen partly for political reasons (the Continental Congress felt that a Virginian would be an ideal unifying figure) but it appears that there were few if any other credible choices. General Horatio Gates was an able enough general unless he had to do something important. Nathaniel Greene was a skilled commander but was also placed by Washington where his talents would be best-used. I'd think Benedict Arnold would probably have been the only other credible commander of the American forces based on his remarkable accomplishments when either in independent command or ignoring a fool of a general as in Saratoga. It's difficult to imagine him turning traitor without being constantly ignored in favor of cowardly incompetents (see the battles of Saratoga and Camden) like Gates.

On the other hand, anyone competent enough to win the Revolution in Washington's place would be the hero of the hour, as Washington was. So it's quite possible that they would be offered a crown, although it's certainly possible that they would not, as well. I don't know enough about the personality of, say, Benedict Arnold to know whether or not his peers would have seriously considered him for King of America.

Simon_Jester wrote:On the other hand, anyone competent enough to win the Revolution in Washington's place would be the hero of the hour, as Washington was. So it's quite possible that they would be offered a crown, although it's certainly possible that they would not, as well. I don't know enough about the personality of, say, Benedict Arnold to know whether or not his peers would have seriously considered him for King of America.

Nor do I, honestly. He obviously offended a prim and proper sort like Gates whereas Washington evidently had enough diplomatic sense to both get along with Gates and thwart Gates' attempt to get Washington replaced with himself. It's hard to say whether it takes more presence to rally faltering forces into a devastating counterattack or lead shoeless freezing soldiers across an ice-choked river to mount a surprise attack in the dead of winter. I am personally of the opinion that Washington could not have been replaced in the myriad roles that he served: head general of the war effort, president of the constitutional convention, and first president of the United States. Fortunately, we never had to find out what might have happened without George Washington because I fear that the results of no Washington would have been devastating, even more after the war than before.

I intuit that there was sufficient talent involved that the US would have muddled through, but I can't even come close to proving it. It would definitely not have helped, I agree.

Simon_Jester wrote:I intuit that there was sufficient talent involved that the US would have muddled through, but I can't even come close to proving it. It would definitely not have helped, I agree.

Well, yes, the US doubtless would have muddled through because it had an array of impressive intellects and extraordinary men but without a Washington who could command the reverence of his men such that they would be moved to tears by his being forced to put on glasses to read a letter, is it not probable that the Continental Army might have enforced their demands for payment at the tip of a bayonet? Could a less reverenced man than Washington (seen as the father of the nation) have refused to involve the United States in the French war against England while keeping the wildly pro-French sentiments of the Americans in check? How well might a Benedict Arnold have handled the insulting manner of "Citizen" Genet who was going up and down the coast encouraging Americans to ignore the central government and make war on England (who, by the by, also commissioned a woodcut of Washington being guillotined)? These are just a sampling of the issues that the 13 states would have had to confront without a Washington who had attained a larger-than-life status among his countrymen... and they don't even go into the influence of Washington getting behind James Madison's project to replace the Articles of Confederation.

Sorry about a long reply that looks a bit like me taking you to task (which is not my intention) but the scale of Washington's influence on post-war events is sort of difficult to properly convey.

I guess it boils down to one of those "great man vs. historical trend" debates. How much depends on having a very specific person in a specific place, and how much depends on having the right sort of people in the general vicinity?

In some cases, obviously a great deal: no Alexander the Great, no great Macedonian Empire and no Hellenic period in the Middle East. In others, the significance is not so obvious: take away Julius Caesar, and I think it's fairly likely that the Roman Republic would still have evolved into a de facto autocracy in time, since it was already well on its way to that point before Caesar was even born. Sooner or later, someone was bound to win the succession of civil wars between assorted Roman strongman-generals and set themselves up in the position Octavian eventually took.

I feel that Washington occupied a middle ground. Much of what he did could not have been done so well by anyone else, but I'm skeptical of the idea that it would not have been done at all.

Simon_Jester wrote:I guess it boils down to one of those "great man vs. historical trend" debates. How much depends on having a very specific person in a specific place, and how much depends on having the right sort of people in the general vicinity?

In some cases, obviously a great deal: no Alexander the Great, no great Macedonian Empire and no Hellenic period in the Middle East. In others, the significance is not so obvious: take away Julius Caesar, and I think it's fairly likely that the Roman Republic would still have evolved into a de facto autocracy in time, since it was already well on its way to that point before Caesar was even born. Sooner or later, someone was bound to win the succession of civil wars between assorted Roman strongman-generals and set themselves up in the position Octavian eventually took.

I feel that Washington occupied a middle ground. Much of what he did could not have been done so well by anyone else, but I'm skeptical of the idea that it would not have been done at all.

Naturally, there would have always been a first president after the war was won. But would he have been empowered by the unanimous vote of the electoral college the way Washington was? Would the alternative first president have ignored Genet until the ambassador had hoisted himself on his own petard? More importantly, since a viable consensus candidate may have been a Thomas Jefferson or James Madison who were both favorable towards France, would this alternative have resisted the allure of helping their Revolutionary War friends knife their foes in the back? It is quite true that the second-order counterfactual (events settle into their historical pattern in time) tends to show up but the first president of the United States was setting precedent which was a task fully as sensitive as Lincoln gradually assembling the scaffolding of slavery's demise under the watchful eye of an indifferent or hostile populace (making war to free the slaves was not initially popular in the Union). How Washington behaved in office, how he took the oath, how he spoke, how he left, the concepts he voiced... all of these came to define what was expected of the president. Despite the fact that America would have survived under a different man, the presidency would be a thing shaped by the beliefs and actions of that different man, making the office different than the one we have now.

I think another interesting debate would be the affects of WHEN Washington dies in alt history. He could credibly have been killed several times during his career before he because president; during the French and Indian war, on Long Island (which could have went even worse for Washington than historically it did if Washington had been unable to retreat), when Ferguson had a clear shot of his back, et cetera. The differences could be interesting.

A Washington death would probably see a lot of jockeying by the various politicians and generals to grab power, which could play into the hands of the British or French a few years later.

Stuart wrote:My guess would be that, in the Revolution itself, nothing much would change. Washington got the credit but the war was decided by economic factors far outside the United States (not the least of which was the economic manipulations of the West Indies sugar producers). In fact, a good case could be made that the Thirteen Colonies could actually have gained independence without firing a shot.

Overall I doubt there was talent enough to replace Washington at the time. Gates was a skilled administrator but Camden shows that he had no clue when it came to keeping his army intact as a fighting force. He was lousy on the battlefield and often ended up playing subordinates and other general off of each other. I don't think he had the charisma like Washington to hold the Army together by sheer force of personality. Arnold had his own issues involving ego and I doubt he had the patience to deal with the political maneuverings Washington undertook. And I can't see him managing the special relationships that Washington worked so well with the governors that proved so crucial.

Greene would be the best bet and at the time he was going down on his game....

Stuart: The crunch point would come later when Washington was first offered a crown and then declined a third term as President. A lesser man might have taken either and that would have set the U.S. on a very different course.

I would argue instead that the critical point would be March of 1783. If the Newburgh Addresses happen in some form and the officers decide to take the army and use it as a tool against Congress then representative government may suffer a deathblow right there. It was only a highly persona appeal by Washington in the Temple of Virtue that stopped the plot.