I tried searching this topic, but couldn't find any info on it. Lets say in one of the battles Washington was involved in, maybe at the defense of Fort Necessity, Washington is killed. What impact would this have on Colonial American, British, and American history. He seems to be acknowledged as a unifying force for both the northern and southern colonies during and AFTER the Revolutionary War. Would the conflict go as it did in OTL? Is there anyone who could fill the imposing boots Washington occupied during that conflict and keep the US together after the war/Articles of Confederation?
WI: George Washington killed in the French and Indian War?
- Thread starter Drunk Gracchus
- Start date
I read in David McCullogh’s John Adams that John Hancock thought that he was going to get the nod to be commander in cheif of the army. He certainly could’ve led the country through the 1780’s but had poor health and died in 1793. Wether he could’ve won the Revolution is up for debate. Sometime in 1779 he nominally led some troops in Rhode Island but they were defeated.
However, I think that Artemas Ward would probably get the nod. He was commander of the army before Washington was appointed so he’d probably become Commander.
However, I think that Artemas Ward would probably get the nod. He was commander of the army before Washington was appointed so he’d probably become Commander.
Wouldn't Hancock's character naturally be "suspect" by some of his colleagues in the Continental Congress? He did have the reputation of being a smuggler by some. Whether he was an actual smuggler, or not seems to be unknown. I agree that Artemas Ward probably would have carried over. Although I don't know if he would have been the unifying force since Ward was a Massachusetts man.
From what I understand Hancock was only unliked by a few men. I see what you said about Ward not being able to unify the army. Maybe Charles Lee, I know he actively sought the nomination. He had a pretty good resigme and he served in the British and Polish Armies. But as we would see later in the War he Mande many stupid decisions and the war with him at the head would probably not be won. If he has one good Battle it would go to his head and he’d quickly become quite unpopular.
Let's say Hancock is appointed and history follows a relatively similar path to OTL, in that the British still lose due to supply concerns and Hancock, deservedly or not, becomes President in a rough parallel to Washington. I can see two results of this:
1. Hancock, being a Boston merchant, is almost certainly an alt-Federalist rather than Washington's strange metapolitical position. Thus, BotUS gains more presidential support faster, and might become a de facto institution by the time Jefferson or someone similar takes power.
2. If Hancock dies in office in 1793, it sets a *terrible* precedent. Even if there isn't a succession dispute--which there might be due to the uncertainty of Presidential succession at the time--the precedent is now one of Presidents serving for life for better or, more likely, for worse.
I see your point but I doubt many figures in American history would have had much success in winning elections indefinitely. As we've seen, staying popular enough to get re-elected is very difficult. Most presidents exit their second terms with low approval ratings.
Assuming a similar timeline to OTL, Hancock is elected in 1788 and reelected in 1792, unless term lengths are butterflied. No third term would be necessary, he would die less than a year into his second if the time of his death weren't changed.
And as the point @Droman raised about Benedict Arnold, popularity is going to matter a lot more than tactical prowess.
In 1785 Hancock resigned as Governor because of ill health. Maybe after a first term he’d resign because I’d imagine it would ruin his health faster.
I would agree on whoever the Congress first appoints, but should they appoint someone like Lee at first and Lee fail so utterly that he has to be replaced, I could see the Congress choosing based off tactical prowess out of desperation. We all know Arnold is ambitious.
Deleted member 9338
Without Washington would there be a Hamilton to eventually fix the Treasury?
If we have Ward and Lee, might as well throw in the names of the other two major generals for consideration: Philip Schuyler and Israel Putnam
I'm currently reading about this topic. One thing that is clear, is that once the Continental Congress decided to create a Continental Army in 1775, the command had to go to a Virginian or at least a Southerner. That was non-negotiable. Washington actually got the command pretty much by default.
To the extent the British government had a strategy for dealing with the Americans in the 1770s, it was to convince the other colonies that the disturbances were a New England only affair of little concern to the rest. It might be an interesting POD for a discussion if this had been the case (but probably the revolt would have been crushed within a couple of years). The other colonies rallied to New England, and Congress legislated that the army that the New Englanders were raising to fight the British (and by the way they started mobilizing in 1774) was the "Continental Army". But to maintain this pretense, the commander had to not be from New England.
At the time Virginia was also the wealthiest colony, and I think the largest or at least the second largest in population, and along with New York the most strategically located. It was not an accident that the two battles that settled the war were fought in New York and Virginia.
However, it wasn't just that the army could not be commanded by someone from New England. It couldn't be commanded by a New Yorker either. That is because New York at the time was fighting boundary disputes with every New England state except for maybe Rhode Island. Repeated attempts to have Philip Schuyler lead New England soldiers proved to be failures.
This rules out Hancock and Ward (Massachusetts), and Arnold and Putnam (Connecticut), plus Sullivan (New Hampshire) and Greene (Rhode Island) as well as Schuyler (New York) and there is really only one candidate left if Washington is not around, who IOTL was Washington's second in command.
And that is Charles Lee, who not only had no ties to either New England or New York, but who owned a farm in Virginia. Charles Lee commands the Continental Army if Washington is not available.
To the extent the British government had a strategy for dealing with the Americans in the 1770s, it was to convince the other colonies that the disturbances were a New England only affair of little concern to the rest. It might be an interesting POD for a discussion if this had been the case (but probably the revolt would have been crushed within a couple of years). The other colonies rallied to New England, and Congress legislated that the army that the New Englanders were raising to fight the British (and by the way they started mobilizing in 1774) was the "Continental Army". But to maintain this pretense, the commander had to not be from New England.
At the time Virginia was also the wealthiest colony, and I think the largest or at least the second largest in population, and along with New York the most strategically located. It was not an accident that the two battles that settled the war were fought in New York and Virginia.
However, it wasn't just that the army could not be commanded by someone from New England. It couldn't be commanded by a New Yorker either. That is because New York at the time was fighting boundary disputes with every New England state except for maybe Rhode Island. Repeated attempts to have Philip Schuyler lead New England soldiers proved to be failures.
This rules out Hancock and Ward (Massachusetts), and Arnold and Putnam (Connecticut), plus Sullivan (New Hampshire) and Greene (Rhode Island) as well as Schuyler (New York) and there is really only one candidate left if Washington is not around, who IOTL was Washington's second in command.
And that is Charles Lee, who not only had no ties to either New England or New York, but who owned a farm in Virginia. Charles Lee commands the Continental Army if Washington is not available.
It seems most people agree that Charles Lee would at least initially command the army. How does this bode for the colonials against the British? AFAIK he screwed the pooch and was subsequently court martialed in OTL. he also had a preponderance for demanding money when Washington didn't, which made some sense, since Charles Lee left his property in England. I imagine he's going to demand even more pay since he'd be taking the top job.
unprincipled peter
Donor
Washington was part of that perfect storm that created the US. A right man at the right time. The success of the revolution was not pre-ordained, and could easily have gone the other way. But, in a world where Washington hasn't been part of the equation post seven years war, he doesn't have to be the only right man. Someone else may well have stepped forth and achieved what Washington did, and been just as much a statesman, and thus been canonized in the annuls of history, leaving us to proclaim that no one other than Mr X could have done the job. Or, someone else could have done better, taking greater chances and whomping the Brits earlier, saving a lot of lives and the French a lot of money. When France jumped into the fray, they expected a quick victory, with continued patriot aggressiveness. Instead, the patriots settled in with a strategy of fighting not to lose and eventually the Brits would give up. Maybe an alt commander pursues that aggressive strategy and wins, which ends the revolution earlier.
Or, the right man for the job didn' that aggressive strategy loses, ending the revolution earlier, except the outcome isn't as happy for the Patriots.
Or, the right man for the job didn' that aggressive strategy loses, ending the revolution earlier, except the outcome isn't as happy for the Patriots.
I take two issues with unprincipled peter's points.
First, there really were not many native born Americans around at that time with military experience. Native born Americans only fought against the Indians, or as sort of auxiliaries to the British as Washington did. Since the POD is Washington being killed on Braddock's expedition, instead of not going in the first place, you can't even replace him with some other Virginia militia officer. This is why the Continental Congress gave jobs to so many foreign adventurers like Lee in the first place. They really had no other alternatives until competent American officers, who generally had no military experience prior to the war, emerged during the war, and there were not that many of these either.
Pretty much Washington, whose Seven Years War experience was not even that impressive, was their only option. The alternative was bringing in a non-American adventurer.
Second, and this is not as germane to the discussion, but Washington really wanted to wage a more aggressive campaign after 1778 and in particular he wanted to attack New York. Keep in mind that in 1778, the British withdrew a good part of their forces from North American and evacuated every place they held except for New York, Canada, and Florida (there were some attempts to get another invasion of Canada underway that Washington was in no position to help that fell through for one reason or another). But he needed the French navy. For sound strategic reasons, the French Navy focused on the West Indies and in supporting the Spanish in Gibraltar/ the Western Mediterranean.
After 1778, the war became a global war between the British on the one hand, and the French and Spanish (and Dutch and Mysore) on the other and North America was one of the more secondary of the secondary theaters. The only thing Washington could have improved on his OTL performance was to trust Arnold less and to get Congress to give back pay to the army, in other words, not much. Before 1777, a more competent commander might have improved the army's supply situation from what it was not not gotten knocked around as much in the 1776-7 battles, particularly around New York, but I don't see where the Continental Congress could have found that person. It certainly wasn't Charles Lee.
First, there really were not many native born Americans around at that time with military experience. Native born Americans only fought against the Indians, or as sort of auxiliaries to the British as Washington did. Since the POD is Washington being killed on Braddock's expedition, instead of not going in the first place, you can't even replace him with some other Virginia militia officer. This is why the Continental Congress gave jobs to so many foreign adventurers like Lee in the first place. They really had no other alternatives until competent American officers, who generally had no military experience prior to the war, emerged during the war, and there were not that many of these either.
Pretty much Washington, whose Seven Years War experience was not even that impressive, was their only option. The alternative was bringing in a non-American adventurer.
Second, and this is not as germane to the discussion, but Washington really wanted to wage a more aggressive campaign after 1778 and in particular he wanted to attack New York. Keep in mind that in 1778, the British withdrew a good part of their forces from North American and evacuated every place they held except for New York, Canada, and Florida (there were some attempts to get another invasion of Canada underway that Washington was in no position to help that fell through for one reason or another). But he needed the French navy. For sound strategic reasons, the French Navy focused on the West Indies and in supporting the Spanish in Gibraltar/ the Western Mediterranean.
After 1778, the war became a global war between the British on the one hand, and the French and Spanish (and Dutch and Mysore) on the other and North America was one of the more secondary of the secondary theaters. The only thing Washington could have improved on his OTL performance was to trust Arnold less and to get Congress to give back pay to the army, in other words, not much. Before 1777, a more competent commander might have improved the army's supply situation from what it was not not gotten knocked around as much in the 1776-7 battles, particularly around New York, but I don't see where the Continental Congress could have found that person. It certainly wasn't Charles Lee.