George Washington is not selected as commander of the Continental army?

Hello guys, I have not been posting for about a week, but I wanted to pose a question about the revolutionary war, and ask, what if George Washington was not selected as commander of the continental army? What if John Hancock or someone from the northern colonies had been chosen? I pretty much can tell that the war would've gone different, but I wonder if the southern colonies would've been more loyal to England without Washington at the helm?
 
Hello guys, I have not been posting for about a week, but I wanted to pose a question about the revolutionary war, and ask, what if George Washington was not selected as commander of the continental army? What if John Hancock or someone from the northern colonies had been chosen? I pretty much can tell that the war would've gone different, but I wonder if the southern colonies would've been more loyal to England without Washington at the helm?
Why John Hancock? I can't recall him ever having any military service. I guess Charles Lee would be the obvious alternative, Gates might of been considered for the job later but he wouldn't really be a serious candidate at the beginning. Maybe Henry Knox.
 
IIIC Washington was uniquely qualified and experienced for the CO of the CA: he had held larger commands than any other American, been the only American on British staffs and had a wide variety of campaign experience with success and failure.

Who was second in this regard?
 
One of the genius things John Adams did was nominate a Southerner to lead the Continental Army to bind the South to the revolution.

If a northern leader is chosen the South may feel left out.

Hancock wanted the job and thought he would get it as he was one of the money people in the North responsible for getting the war started.

Perhaps Lee would be chosen, or Gates? Maybe when they blow it Washington then has to step in and take over.

Becomes known as "The Man who Saved the Revolution".
 
IIIC Washington was uniquely qualified and experienced ... been the only American on British staffs ...

Not entirely true. Gates, among others had experience with the British army. But Washington did have more experience. He led two Virginian militia attempts to reach what is now know as Pittsburg, accompanied Braddocks failed effort & briefly took command after Braddocks death, then was on the staff of yet another army sent to the Allegheny/Mongahelia rivers confluence. After the end of the Seven Years War Washington remained a Colonel in the Virginia Militia and for seven (?) years was uncharge of the frontier defense. That experience, administering and operating a series of small forts and what amounted to large combat patrols around the year, while dealing with budgets, the Virginia legislature, militia morale, farmers and frontiersmen, and politics in general was way ahead of what Gates & the others had.
 
Not entirely true. Gates, among others had experience with the British army. But Washington did have more experience. He led two Virginian militia attempts to reach what is now know as Pittsburg, accompanied Braddocks failed effort & briefly took command after Braddocks death, then was on the staff of yet another army sent to the Allegheny/Mongahelia rivers confluence. After the end of the Seven Years War Washington remained a Colonel in the Virginia Militia and for seven (?) years was uncharge of the frontier defense. That experience, administering and operating a series of small forts and what amounted to large combat patrols around the year, while dealing with budgets, the Virginia legislature, militia morale, farmers and frontiersmen, and politics in general was way ahead of what Gates & the others had.

Yes, Gates may be a candidate but he was so far behind Washington that it would be an odd choice. In particular Gates was British, had war service in America but went home after the war and only returned to America to live in 1769. This cannot compare with Washington, who was all American ( sounds like a cringe but I think it would be extremely important ), a delegate to the continental congress, an important businessman as well as by far the most experienced military officer available. This would engender a level of trust from the American leaders that Gates could not hope to match.
 
I believe one of the big factors for Washington being named Commander was that he was one of the wealthiest men in the colonies. Knowing full well it isn't an academic source per se, but Cracked made a comment about Washington that basically went "he may not have been an 18th Century Batman, but he was definitely Bruce Wayne". Paraphrasing of course, but when you're a fledgling rebellion with empty coffers, you want to make sure that you have the backing of enough people who do have plenty of money who can keep the war effort going in a pinch. This on top of all the other qualifications he had going for him in the first place. Quite frankly, it's very fortunate for the US that Washington didn't remain a loyalist or that he didn't simply subsidize his own private army and just took power.

There's another thread here about whether OTL is wanked to get where it is now. This is pretty wanky. In nearly any other situation throughout history, a man like Washington with his resources, experience, and connections would have seized power or looked to protect his own. Having him on the side of the Revolution was a near godsend.
 
I think Charles Lee would be a big choice. He served for the British and Polish and was pretty well established in the colonies.
 
Would Lee or Gates been able to pull together the militia at Boston after the British evacuation? They weren't so much an army as a bunch of guys with guns standing on the same real estate. Would they be able to pick out and use the Greenes and the Knoxes? Gates and Lee were both on record as having little use for colonial soldiers.
 
I believe one of the big factors for Washington being named Commander was that he was one of the wealthiest men in the colonies. ... but when you're a fledgling rebellion with empty coffers, you want to make sure that you have the backing of enough people who do have plenty of money who can keep the war effort going in a pinch. ...

The role of the Pennsylvania Quakers in instigating and underwriting the revolt is another little essential but little understood factor.
 
Top