WI Benedict Arnold had not Changed Sides

Sorry for reposting this but the old thread name was so long it was pissing me off.

What if...

In March of 1760, a one-year-old girl named Margaret Shippen, a member of a wealthy family in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, drowns while being bathed by the family servant. Butterflies over the next decade and a half are negligable. Then, things get interesting.

Eighteen years later, the commandant of Philadelphia following the British evacuation, a man by the name of Benedict Arnold does not meet a nineteen-year-old socialite (Margaret Shippen) and does not spend a year ensconsed in the extravagent lifestyle of the wealthy Loyalist families of Philadelphia.

Although still rather bitter from the lack of recognition he got for his involvement at the Battle of Saratoga, Arnold is not in need of money (to pay for his OTL social festivities) and, thus, never begins his correspondence with Sir Henry Clinton.

Come the spring of 1780, Horatio Gates, retired to his farm, is overlooked by George Washington for the new command of the Army of the South (AoS). Looking around, Washington selects a man regarded by Gates as a "pompous little fellow." The new commander of the AoS? None other than General Benedict Arnold.

Arnold is grateful for the well-deserved recognition and, happy for the first time in years, heads south to meet with his new army. When Washington died in a freak fall from his horse in July of 1780 and Nathanael Greene assumed command of Washington's Army of the North (AoN), things really became even more interesting for the young republic.....


Now what happens?
 
POD Prob

While a POD of Arnold staying loyal is good, Can we keep George, Its not nessacary to kill him too. :mad:
 
Excactly how good a soldier was Arnold, what resourses did he have, and what was He up against. 1780, ?didn't the Brits basically control Georgia & south Carolina? He has one Year to fush the British out of Ga, & SC, and take Fla. [the british used Fla. to launch their southern Campain.
 
DuQuense said:
While a POD of Arnold staying loyal is good, Can we keep George, Its not nessacary to kill him too.

No, I think it's more fun to shove him out of the picture. With Arnold taking command and GW living, the war won't go too differently.

About Arnold, he was one of the better soldiers in the American army. He would have faced the same forces faced by Gates in August of OTL. Where Gates lost, I imagine Arnold would have succeeded as Gates was a shitty general. Following that, who knows. It couldn't have gone better that in OTL under Nathanael Greene simply because, in OTL, Greene won every battle afer Gates' loss at Camden.
 
I'll be back

OK then the Question is what was the relation between Green and Arnold, ?how well would they have cooperated.? And ?how well would their stratagies mesh? ?would there be one campaign aimed at trapping the brits in the middle? Or ?would we have two seperate wars?
 
Greene and Arnold knew each other and had worked together before in the north. I've never read anything indicating animosity between the two (like between Arnold and Gates). But, then again, Arnold had a gift for creating enemies. I think that, at least in the beginning, they work work well together. One thing that's important to mention: Arnold HATED the French.
 
SOILER SPOILER SPOILER
Although this isn't the POD, "Crossroads of Destiny" by H. Beam Piper is set (you find out at the end) in a TL where Washington was killed at Germantown and Arnold became the "Father of His Country".
 
Washington vs Arnold

Washington left the presidency voluntarily. Arnold might have been a better general, (or not), but would Arnold have stepped down after eight years and set a precedent that Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc, did not dare set aside?
 
Top