George Washington Killed in Sept 1777

Gracie

Banned
Hi, this is my first post, I hope I'm doing this right.

There is a story that a British major named Patrick Ferguson who supposedly had a high ranking American officer (who was later to be believed as General George Washington) in his gunsight. However, Ferguson decided not to shoot because he was a career soldier who felt that killing ( unarmed?) officers of other armies was "impolite."

Please help me answer ALL of the following.

1. Do the Americans still win?

2. Who becomes Commander of the Army?

3. Does Benedict Arnold still turncoat (remember he got mad at GW)?

4. Who becomes the First President of the United States?

Any help is appreciated.
 
The Americans would still be likely to win, but only because of French, Spanish, and Dutch support. Also, George Washington was only one of may capable rebel military commanders and could be replaced.
 
Xenos,

Who do u think are those replacements for Commander of the Army
and President?

Potential replacements for Washington as C-in-C include: Horatio Gates, Charles Lee, and Henry Greene.

Furthermore, if you kill Washington in Sept. 1777, then you might affect the maneuvers that allowed Gates to beat Burgoyne in October. (for example, if Gates is called away to assume overall command).

Then of course there's whether or not Washington's replacement would surrender his commision in 1783-4. Between 1783 and 1787, there's a not zero chance that an army coup might seriously stimy the growth of constitutional governmnet.

If you manage to get to 1787 without incident, you have the big problem that before the Philadelphia Convention can even meet, they lack Washington's name. Presumably though, they have the name of whomever replaced him. However, since Washington's mystique was mostly forged between 1775-77 his replacement doesn't have the same aura. Probably the Constitution doesn't even include a single President; if it does, he's not C-in-C of armed forces. Big chance the convention fails, but that's contingent on much of the outcome of the foregoing so speculation would require working out a train of events from the start.
 
Potential replacements for Washington as C-in-C include: Horatio Gates, Charles Lee, and Henry Greene.

Furthermore, if you kill Washington in Sept. 1777, then you might affect the maneuvers that allowed Gates to beat Burgoyne in October. (for example, if Gates is called away to assume overall command).

Then of course there's whether or not Washington's replacement would surrender his commision in 1783-4. Between 1783 and 1787, there's a not zero chance that an army coup might seriously stimy the growth of constitutional governmnet.

If you manage to get to 1787 without incident, you have the big problem that before the Philadelphia Convention can even meet, they lack Washington's name. Presumably though, they have the name of whomever replaced him. However, since Washington's mystique was mostly forged between 1775-77 his replacement doesn't have the same aura. Probably the Constitution doesn't even include a single President; if it does, he's not C-in-C of armed forces. Big chance the convention fails, but that's contingent on much of the outcome of the foregoing so speculation would require working out a train of events from the start.

You mean Nathanial Greene, correct?

Anyway, here is a funny idea, with Washington dead, the congress may not assign Gates to fight in the north. Saratoga, was actually won in spite of Gates. So, if the credit goes to who it should of gone to in the first place, Arnold, you more then likely have Arnold get his generalship. Then when Gates fails, and with his lack of skill, he would of quickly. The US would of had to turn to the hero of Saratoga, Arnold, to lead the US army. Then if he wins the war, which is possible, he was the best general before he turned traitor, he would be remembered as the great leader.
 
You mean Nathanial Greene, correct?

Yup. Momentary brain freeze on his first name.

Anyway, here is a funny idea, with Washington dead, the congress may not assign Gates to fight in the north. Saratoga, was actually won in spite of Gates. So, if the credit goes to who it should of gone to in the first place, Arnold, you more then likely have Arnold get his generalship. Then when Gates fails, and with his lack of skill, he would of quickly. The US would of had to turn to the hero of Saratoga, Arnold, to lead the US army. Then if he wins the war, which is possible, he was the best general before he turned traitor, he would be remembered as the great leader.

Quite right about Gates and Arnold at Saratoga. Benedict Arnold as national hero of the USA, that could be interesting. I wonder if Arnold and Hamilton got along okay -- that could be downright dangerous. :eek:
 
Washinton was not a pivotal as a General in the A.R.W indeed you could say that he used the continental army to train himself up to speed, and it took a while. Others could have stepped up. The one thing that makes him the indespensable man IMO is that people trusted him, maybe because he was not active highly in politics. The other replacements would maybe have been better generals, but would perhaps generate jealousies and emnities that would lead to the same prolonged struggle.
 
Washinton was not a pivotal as a General in the A.R.W indeed you could say that he used the continental army to train himself up to speed, and it took a while. Others could have stepped up. The one thing that makes him the indespensable man IMO is that people trusted him, maybe because he was not active highly in politics. The other replacements would maybe have been better generals, but would perhaps generate jealousies and emnities that would lead to the same prolonged struggle.

I would disagree to some degree, in that as Washington is learning, so is the Army, and it is Washington's ability to win battles which is not makes him a good leader. What makes him important, and hard to lose is his Fabian strategy avoid major battles with Britian, and know that as long as the army is alive, the war goes on. Gates would have never gone with this plan, and for the others, well, there are really not that many world class generals in the US army. With the exception of Arnold, maybe Greene, and Morgan every general in the army was below the skill of Washington. Even then, the US would not put Arnold, Greene or Morgan in charge of the army in 1777, though, I could see Arnold coming into power, with Gates losing.
 

Gracie

Banned
Benedict Arnold, the first President of the US?

I thought about Benedict Arnold and why he turncoat.
I think in an alternate history, he becomes a hero of our side,
and has the possibility to become the 1st President.
But then, his personality might be such that he wants to be
the King of America.
 
Top