"What If Arnold and Andre's West Point Plot Had Succeeded?" Topic

So I started to read "Revolution on the Hudson" by George C. Daughan which got me thinking (always a dangerous thing): what if Arnold and Andre's plot to turn the fortifications at West Point over to the British had succeeded?

Then what?

Where better to turn for answers than the AWI experts on TMP.

I know some (perhaps many) of you will say "it would have never worked." Please save the reasons why it would have failed for your footnotes. For purposes of this discussion, let's stipulate that:

1) the fortifications have been turned over to the British;

2) Arnold has "turned his coat" and is in command at West Point; and

3) a sufficient garrison of Crown forces, both ground and naval, is in place along the Hudson to defend West Point by the Fall of 1780.

Your move, General Washington.

I look forward to your replies. Thanks in advance.

Actually not your move General Washington since Washington and most of the High Command of the Continental Army and certainly the commanders in the North would have been in British Hands. Arnold's plan was not just to turn over the fortifications and garrison, but Washington as well.

I think Washington would have been released for several reasons.
One, his capture would have been dishonorable. Wash your hands of such perfidy! But keep West Point.
Second, the British didn't respect him all that much. After all, they turned Lee loose, didn't they?

But it would certainly have reopened the stagnant Northern theatre.

I'm not so sure, Capture Washington, Knox and the other Generals and a few thousand men and the Revolution is over (for all practical purposes).

Lee was exchanged. I don't think the Americans held a high enough ranking officer to trade for Washington.

I do think netting Washington and staff was a long shot, longer even than turning West Point over.

Forts seemed to fall willy nilly in the AWI, so my guess is the British guards would have gotten drunk one night and the fort retaken, then retaken again by the British, etc…

I disagree with Winston Smith. I suspect Washington and crew would have been hanged for high treason if captured.

I'd be interested to know on what evidence you base that assertion, given that Continental and Militia officers of all ranks were captured at different times. These included several signatories of the Declaration of Independence, both political and military, and all were treated as genuine prisoners-of-war (one later died, but from mouth cancer that pre-existed his incarceration). Charles Lee was defended by former colleagues in the British Army when politicians in Great Britain demanded he be tried for treason. There were occasional exceptions where folk were mistreated, but this was generally at a very low level of command, where there was insufficient oversight by senior officers.

While we're at it why don't we speculate what would have happened if he hadn't "turned". Or if he was killed at Quebec or during the Saratoga campaign – he would have been looked upon as a hero. He wasn't the only one who was alienated by congressional interference. (ie. Sullivan, Stark etc.)He just chose a different path than the others. (The wrong one of course.) Ah, politicians!

Don't know if it would have made much difference in the long run. It might have encouraged some loyalists to come out openly, but the if the war showed aything it was that te British controlled only the ground their troops occupied. Even capturing the rebel capital did nothing to stymie the rebel cause. IMHO things had gone too far for anything less than independence. The only thing that could have stopped it would have been a political settlement that allowed for colonial representatives in Parliament. I don't think ay single military success would have ended the war after 1777.

I agree with you Father Grigori: once the shooting started it was a long, slow slide to independence.