WI: Washington dies at Duquense

WI: Washington dies at Duquense (1755)

I've been reading for a bit but a new poster - what would the effects be if Washington died during the Braddock expedition? Here's some of my questions:

1. Assuming everything else surrounding the Revolution go forward as OTL, who leads the army?
2. Could the Continental Army still win independence?
3. What would be the political aftermath, if the Americans still win independence? (in OTL, Washington is eventually elected President after the states form a more perfect union, and he establishes a limited executive and earlier turns down a Throne)
 
Last edited:
Not to bump so soon, but the reason I ask is because Washington is interesting. He's not necessarily the central figure in the course of the revolution, but it's hard to picture what would have happened without him.
 
Some possible answers

1. Nothing is certain but probably Gates or Arnold
2. The Revolutionary Army was so lucky and Washington himself certainly was so without him probably the 1776 revolution fails. It then depends on how soon after 1776 it fails. The earlier it happens the more reasonable the British would be. Any end after 1780 would probably mean continual rebellions until the Colonies get independance but there wouldn't be a USA as OTL
 
The US was incredibly lucky with Washington. The US as it is today wouldnt exist without him.

He was a decent general, one of the better of the ones available to the US at that point. But he wasnt great. No, his real importance was his character. He was a man who could talk congress into providing almost sufficient resources, which a less politic man couldnt; was a good enough general not to lose too many men too often; he could talk soldiers into staying in the army when their terms were up, despite the excrable supplies provided by congress; and he could be trusted to use the army for its stated purpose - independance, not to build a power base for himself and/or lead a coup; and the modern powerful presidency that the US has would never have passed if everyone hadnt known Washington would be the first one and set precedent.
 
I know one man changes history is out of fashion but without Washington I just cannot see the revolution succeeding. Gates was a hidebound semi-competant general and although Arnold was nearly as lucky as Washington he would have ended up seizing control and bypassing congress as he was at the very least self agrandising. In that case the British might well have seemed the leser of two evils. Is there anyone else who could have stepped up to the plate?
 
I know one man changes history is out of fashion but without Washington I just cannot see the revolution succeeding. Gates was a hidebound semi-competant general and although Arnold was nearly as lucky as Washington he would have ended up seizing control and bypassing congress as he was at the very least self agrandising. In that case the British might well have seemed the leser of two evils. Is there anyone else who could have stepped up to the plate?

When thinking of this scenario, I imagined some situation wherein Israel Putnam was in command for the first year, eventually replaced by the haplessly inept and cowardly Charles Lee, who had ambitions for Washington's position anyway. Lee in command of the military would be disastrous; he might lose the entire army in New York. Perhaps it survives long enough for Benedict Arnold to take command, leading to the scenario envisioned by you.

In a less disastrous scenario, perhaps Henry Knox becomes commander in chief in the second or third year of the war, though no Washington might butterfly Knox into insignificance.

Someone I haven't seen mentioned is Philip Schuyler, who was a senior military official by 1775 and participated in the planning of the invasion of Canada. On the same token, Richard Montgomery could have been been given the position and not died in Canada.
 
Top