DBWI: George Washington, British Traitor

[Etruscan-enthusiast35]

As we all know, George Washington would go on to become known as "the man who saved the empire" when he lead British forces to victory in the Yankee Rebellion. Now what I want to know is, what may have occurred if George Washington had come to sympathize with the rebel cause, and what events in his life might have had to change to prevent him from remaining a British loyalist?

Also, if Washington did become a traitor, what affects might this have on British and North American history in the long term, would the British be able to recover in time, would France have not collapsed due to the belief that their money and resources went towards supporting a lost cause, might slavery have taken longer to come to an end?

 

[Nivek]

rom remaining a British loyalist?

Maybe not getting the comission the virginia governator promised him for his heroics in the french and indian wars? he and others being send to london and studying alongside 'islander' was for him the way show how the empire mean for him

 

[Anarcho-Occultist]

That’s hard to fathom him doing. Washington was by all accounts as loyal as he was skilled-there’s a reason the Dominion named a province after him. I can’t see this happening without a Divine Alien Whale intervening.

If you want a rebel victory in the Yankee Rebellion that isnt DAW. It’d just be easier if you had Benedict Arnold’s original planned defection go off without a hitch rather than losing a third of the defecting force during his flip rather than rewriting Washington’s whole life.

 

[wcv215]

Hmm...fundamentally Washington’s talents were always based on superior resources. That’s not a knock on the man at all. He was easily the best strategic commander on the British side, and as good in the field as Cornwallis who would probably rate second.

But Washington was someone who just couldn’t function in a militia-driven rebel army. He heavily relied on a regular army, superior numbers, and most importantly drastically superior artillery. His plans were to complicated for their own good. See his five column envelopment of Philadelphia that had his soldiers not been so good would have ended in complete disaster. Again that’s not a knock, a commander should use the resources he has, but without them it would be harder to see Washington working out.

Now, all that said. Without Washington the British could have pissed away their chance of victory the same way they had pissed away every ounce of goodwill they had before the war. Washington has the unique position of being both a loyal soldier for the British AND being of impeccable character for the continentals. When he promised lenient treatment for the Congress and surrendered soldiers at Philadelphia he damn well meant it. No mass executions, no show trials. Washington always understood the continentals better than his superiors back home, and if he was on the other side I don’t see rapprochement coming.

More likely the British go back to their pre-war stupidity and the colonies become a bleeding ulcer that gets abandoned as being not worth the effort.

 

[Whiteshore]

Well, the lenient and moderate treatment of American rebels after the Yankee Rebellion would have probably been butterflied away, for starters as I highly doubt the British generals who would have taken Washington's role would not have treated the Yankee rebels with such leniency (many were allowed to quietly retire to the life of gentlemen farmers after pledging allegience to British).