"What If Washington Was Killed During The Revolution?" Topic

"Before the modern era, generals and admirals were almost always expected to direct their men on the front lines of the conflict. When the United States declared its' independence from the United Kingdom, General George Washington followed this rule to the letter. From Boston to Yorktown, the future president led his men through victory and defeat, holding the American Revolution together until peace was ultimately achieved with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

But what if he had died in a battle? The muskets of the time were notoriously inaccurate, so it was entirely plausible that a ball could have veered off course and hit him.

The Aftermath:

As we pointed out above, Washington was arguably the most important figure in the earliest days of the United States. The impact of his death would be felt in the American psyche, but the future of the U.S. would have arguably depended upon when it happened in the timeline.

If Washington was killed before the French entered the war in 1778, the fight for independence could have collapsed with him. While the Commander-in-Chief lost his fair share of battles, he also supplied the critical victories that were needed to keep the revolution going, such as those at Trenton and Princeton in the winter of 1776-1777. Since the support of the French ultimately led to American freedom, it would have been crucial for Washington to lead the push…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I believe that the rebellion would have been in serious trouble.

He was the unifying piece in an otherwise disjointed rebellion. His loss would have been catastrophic for the cause.

I agree with the above posters, depending on when Washington was killed. But at best after his death Congress might have been able to negotiate a settlement with England.

If Washington was killed later on in the war, say after France joined in. I think the war would still have continued as it did. The main issue would have been who ever became first President? Washington established the process and duties of the executive office. Then the peaceful transition of power to a new President. Depending on who would have become the first President in his place. I'm not sure they would have had the moral compass to establish the process like Washington did???

I admire Washington more than I can say, but even he was not equally indispensable at all times, so a lot depends on when. Early, maybe Charles Lee takes over? Mid-war, Benedict Arnold? Late war, maybe Greene?

The real trick was getting the army to stand down still unpaid and with the pensions reneged on.

Also I forgot, if not for Washington stepping in, what might have happened in March of 1783, The Newburgh Conspiracy???
Would the Office's and their men march on Congress??

Sorry.

Washington, "The Indispensable Man".

I was thinking Benedict Arnold also. Who knows he might have even been 1st President! How's that for an alternate reality? :)

The capital city of the United States would be probably be called something else.

Let's not forget that there were challenges to Washington's primacy as head of the Continental Army. Whilst he was a popular choice initially because he provided a "Southern dimension" to what was widely thought of (on both sides of the Atlantic) as a New England rebellion, there were other candidates at various times. After Saratoga and the defeat at Germantown, many saw Gates as an alternative C-in-C.

Similarly, and somewhat surprisingly, many of the French officers in America thought that Lee was very unfairly dealt with after Monmouth. Given Lee's friendly relationship with many British officers during his capture, I'm not sure if his promotion would have led to as aggressive a prosecution of the rest of the war as actually happened.

I'm not sure where people get the idea that Arnold would have been a contender as replacement C-in-C. Wasn't his main beef with Congress that he had been passed over for promotion? In addition to being too junior to succeed Washington, he also had far too many enemies both in the Continental army and in Congress.

Arnold had a lot of enemies. So did Patton. And Grant got no respect from the old Army. At some point, people decide they'd rather have someone who might win the war than someone they like.

Neal Smith, your alternate reality is an old H. Beam Piper short story. And no, I am NOT thinking of "He Walked Around the Horses."

I can--just barely--see us losing Washington early on and somehow struggling through. But I have a hard time imagining us surviving Granny Gates as CinC.

There is a lot of places he never would have slept. affecting the bed and breakfast industry of New England and Viginia

The single most important man born on the North American continent.

Neal Smith, your alternate reality is an old H. Beam Piper short story.

Crossroads of Destiny?

"As every schoolchild among us knows, General George Washington was shot dead at the Battle of Germantown, in 1777, by an English, or, rather, Scottish, officer, Patrick Ferguson—the same Patrick Ferguson who invented the breech-loading rifle that smashed Napoleon's armies. Washington, today, is one of our lesser national heroes, because he was our first military commander-in-chief. But in this other world, he must have survived to lead our armies to victory and become our first President, as was the case with the man who took his place when he was killed.

I folded the bill and put it away carefully among my identification cards, where it wouldn't a second time get mixed with the money I spent, and as I did, I wondered what sort of a President George Washington had made, and what part, in the history of that other United States, had been played by the man whose picture appears on our dollar bills—General and President Benedict Arnold." – jupiter.ai/books/zMpK

Arnold needed to be a favorite of some powerful man or faction to survive, let alone advance. It was Washington who toned down the results of Arnold's court martial. Arnold was personally obnoxious and defensive of his honor.
Popular belief had Gates winning at Saratoga.
Assume Washington is killed at Germantown, as above.
Arnold loses his protector. He doesn't even get to nurse his wounds in Philadelphia and meet the lovely Peggy Shippen.
With Washington dead and Gates the "winner" at Saratoga and probable CinC, Arnold is put on the shelf. Permanently.

By the way, I've read the rest of the link that Armand put up. He has a lot of similar amateurish articles. He's just a dude with a blog.

Well, which alternative realities are we talking about here?

It was at Brandywine Creek that Patrick Fergusson believed he might have drawn a bead on George Washington, before desisting; his sense of decency recoiling from shooting an suspecting target who presented no direct threat. Given that very shortly afterwards Fergusson himself received a shot through the right arm and was out of action for several months, he wasn't going to be sniping at any enemy officers at Germantown.

Just sayin'

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

Sometimes there are indispensable men-for the Revolution and after both Washington and Franklin were such.

Washington created the Continental Army, commanded it during the war, and from 1780 on he was deferred to by Congress and was de facto head of state. And when president of the Constitutional Convention, Article II was modeled on his character and he was chosen at the convention to be the first president.

Franklin was instrumental in getting the Declaration of Independence written and passed, and was a key member of the Constitutional Convention. During the war it was he who got the French alliance, without which the US could not have won.

Many of the foreign officers that were sent to the US during the war didn't work out too well. Duportail did, as did de Kalb and von Steuben. Many others did not, so their opinions on what happened to Lee were irrelevant.

Arnold had his own character flaws, one of which was a desire for riches. He was court-martialed for graft before he turned traitor and he had too high an opinion of his own worth.

Someone else would have rose to the top. Always happens. Very little changes to the war.

I kind of disagree about nothing changing, although I do tend to think that history is hard to change the wagon rut it is in.
Without Washington's moral rectitude, gravitas if you will, the Morristown mutinies could have ended with the Continental Army marching on Philadelphia and overthrowing the Continental Congress. Ditto the Newburg conspiracy.
George III said that what surprised him the most was that Washington served two terms and then stepped down.
Any number of his proposed successors could have exploited the mutinies and conspiracies to dictatorship. I'm looking at you specifically, Gates. (I may be prejudiced because of the actor who played Gates in The Indespensible Man miniseries.).

When Napoleon was First Consul and conducting the sweeping social and governmental changes that he and his administration were implementing, one of his officers asked him if he intended to step down when he was finished with his work.

He answered: 'Who do you think I am? George Washington?'

Someone else would have rose to the top. Always happens. Very little changes to the war.

Who?

What 'always happens' is that someone does assume command. But there was no one with the overall competence, leadership ability, and character who could do it.

And if Washington was no longer there, the war could have most definitely been lost.

I think the advance he led at Princeton is one the best stories

His loss cannot be analyzed in an divergent form. Event later in the war or after the war may or may not have still happened. Would commanders revolt under any other president. What about Hamilton? he had a very good military record and was well respected. Many other examples can be given as well.

Hamilton was too young and not experienced in command.

Alternative realities aside, when was Washington in real danger of being killed?

After the Kipp's Bay landings on Manhattan in September 1776, he is described as being so paralysed with rage and shame at the rout of his troops that he sat immobile on his horse as British troops approached, almost as if he was seeking death. Fortunately, he was led away before he was killed or captured.

At Princeton, Washington was in the forefront of battle and disappeared in a cloud of powder smoke as the opposing forces fired, his aides expecting to see their commander felled when the smoke cleared.

The story of his narrow escape from a rifle bullet at Brandywine Creek may have some basis in reality. After that action, was Washington ever again exposed to enemy fire (or friendly) with serious risk of injury or death?

How great was the threat of artillery 'overs' reaching the rear or of stray shots at Brandywine Creek or in later actions.

The general with the most political clout in the Continental Congress was Gates. After that, there's a sharp drop off.
Gates was a professional soldier, having been British not held against him. He was also widely credited with forcing a British Army to surrender at Saratoga. Read into that what you will.
After Gates, there is Charles Lee, and then there are a lot of regional favorites, but none with widespread support.
Benjamin Lincoln? Who?
His "replacements" might have character but little skill. Skill but little character. Or neither.

Gates did little or none of the fighting at the battles of the Saratoga campaign.

And he was both disastrously defeated at Camden and ran from the battlefield to boot.

Lee had been disgraced by his own conduct at Monmouth.

Yes, but Gates was a good politician and took all the credit. Who you gonna believe. Gates or Arnold, who nobody liked anyway?
As for Lee, Monmouth was in the future. So was Camden. We're talking about replacing a dead Washington, ca 1777.

Stark, had he not been such a curmudgeonly scrote and ruffled too many feather early on in the war, might have made a very effective leader. He seems to have had the confidence of both Continental and Militia/State subordinates, considerable pre-AIW experience, and no little ability.

It would have been a benefit to the whole world if he did. Maybe slaves wouldn't have had to suffer for another 90 years and the millions killed in Vietnam wouldn't have been.

Maybe slaves wouldn't have had to suffer for another 90 years and the millions killed in Vietnam wouldn't have been.

What?