WI: Washington dies during the siege of Yorktown?

[Joe Hooker]

After thinking about it, I want to suggest a different direction for the divergence.

The Original Post suggests Washington dies early in the siege due to a freak accident. But what if he died later, and with a more heroic death? Suppose the siege goes as it does, but rather than seek terms of capitulation, Cornwallis instead tries to lead a desperate sally to break the Siege Lines, and manages to catch Washington's unit. Eventually the sally fails, but in the process Washington is cornered and killed. That could actually help Unite the American People, at least culturally but probably politically as well.

After all, in our Time Line Washington was many things; a War Hero, the "Greatest President Evar", the savior of the country, father of America, etc. In this Time Line, he is almost all of those things, but also Dies a Martyr, and if you think he was deified in our Time Line, imagine what's going to happen in this Time Line.*

You may actually get people to start joining the Continental Army en masse, to pay tribute to the Great Hero Washington's legacy, to see his dream carried through. Americans everywhere pay tribute to his Legacy, he who gave everything, even his life, to save Liberty.

And this isn't even getting into what could happen if he has, or is attributed, some profound, easily quoted Last Words, probably about passing the Torch of Liberty, long may it burn, united, in the dark or something similarly cheesy.

*Bonus Points if TTL Mormonism or equivalent literally deifies him Heavenly Kingdom style.

Okay, being a Mormon and known a bit about my religion, the way that'd work out is if the church was set up differently. Like having deification. Much like how the Catholics do Saint status. Now, the way OTL Mormonism views Washington is that he was a chosen spirit, specifically selected for the task of helping birth the nation in his capacity as General and statesman.

I must ask though, why does Mormonism get such a particular interest on these forums? It's not offensive or anything to me, I'm just very curious on why. Every where else I've been, it's one of the "best it be not spoken of" topics.

 

[JCVocke]

I do want to say I don't have much of a particular interest in or hatred for Mormonism, wasn't trying to be disrespectful.

That said, My guess (and I haven't been here long enough to really observe the interest you're talking about), is that it's primarily the fact that Mormonism is an extremely young religion, meaning with a POD just slightly far back you can justify turning it into anything you want. Thus extensive modifications to Mormonism have less of an "ASBish" feel to them.

Also, it is a uniquely American Religion (and that's why I brought it up).

Oh also it's another potential revolter state from the US.

 

[Mikestone8]

Washington established much of the presidence for what the President does. Let's say they still have something close to the Constitution set up. And they elect a President. Whoever this president is will influence how Presidents act for years to come. And if you have someone careless in power, it'll be bad news.

His role might be largely ceremonial - receiving foreign ambassadors and the like.

Maybe the Senate ends up with more clout than OTL, actually choosing judges and cabinet officers rather than just confirming them.

There might also be no veto on legislation. After all, iirc these early days were an era of "legislative supremacy" at State level, with governors typically having very limited powers, and the decision-making concentrated in the Legislatures. And at Federal level, the veto was little used until Andrew Jackson's time. It wasn't inevitable.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

This (underlined) is true. And a lesser man than Washington in that position would suck.

I think he did use his dictatorial powers to some limited extent, but I can't remember for sure. Certainly nothing even remotely abusive.

But the post-1781 United States doesn't need a dictator, it just needs good leadership. And I think the other Founders are up to it.

Now, I suspect there will be a lot more arguing and desperate compromises without an example of that sort of thing in the flesh, but it's not as if the other

But the idea that he, and he alone, held things together . . .

Washington was a lot of impressive things, but by 1781, he has held the Continental Army together through stuff that would break a less well lead army. He has served as a model of Republican virtue and principle.

Someone else, at this point, is not the same as a lesser man, or the years after 1796 would see things crumble.

Thats the point. He was the only person trusted enough, by everyone, to be handed the powers of otls presidency, to set the appropriate precedents. Without him, there just wouldnt have been as powerful a presidency allowed, and otls constitution would not have existed.

Would there be a constitution? Sure, but theres a very good chance it would be a direct descendant of the AoC, which didnt have a 'president of the united states'.
As for power of precedence, look at the role of speaker. In westminister systems, the speaker is chosen for impartiality, and is a neutral arbiter. In the us, the speaker is a partisan almost PM like figure - because thats how a very early speaker used the position.

 

[Elfwine]

Thats the point. He was the only person trusted enough, by everyone, to be handed the powers of otls presidency, to set the appropriate precedents. Without him, there just wouldnt have been as powerful a presidency allowed, and otls constitution would not have existed.

There's a huge difference between "OTL's presidency would not have existed" and "the US would crumble".

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

There's a huge difference between "OTL's presidency would not have existed" and "the US would crumble".

Very true. However, if the lack of washington keeps the sessions on amending the AoC focussed on that rather than getting all ambitious and drawing up a totally new constitution, which entirely possible, then youre stuck with a modified AoC. And THAT could well lead to the us failing apart in the long run.

 

[Joe Hooker]

Thats the point. He was the only person trusted enough, by everyone, to be handed the powers of otls presidency, to set the appropriate precedents. Without him, there just wouldnt have been as powerful a presidency allowed, and otls constitution would not have existed.

Would there be a constitution? Sure, but theres a very good chance it would be a direct descendant of the AoC, which didnt have a 'president of the united states'.
As for power of precedence, look at the role of speaker. In westminister systems, the speaker is chosen for impartiality, and is a neutral arbiter. In the us, the speaker is a partisan almost PM like figure - because thats how a very early speaker used the position.

I'm not sure they would have been able to push the AOC aside and bring forth the Constitution without Washington's there to go, "Yeah, let's get something new going." One's legacy can only go so far. Sure, there might have been an increase to the military, since Washington was a military figure that died in the war, and perhaps there would have only been the Continental Congress, and not a full-time Congress as there was made in OTL, since the Constitution set it up. There might never have been a central government.

Certainly the US never would have achieved prestige equal status with the other nations with the Congress and President.

 

[Joe Hooker]

I do want to say I don't have much of a particular interest in or hatred for Mormonism, wasn't trying to be disrespectful.

That said, My guess (and I haven't been here long enough to really observe the interest you're talking about), is that it's primarily the fact that Mormonism is an extremely young religion, meaning with a POD just slightly far back you can justify turning it into anything you want. Thus extensive modifications to Mormonism have less of an "ASBish" feel to them.

Also, it is a uniquely American Religion (and that's why I brought it up).

Oh also it's another potential revolter state from the US.

No, I wasn't saying you were being disrespectful or anything. I was just saying that it's curious. Has any done a TL where Mormonism takes over the nation and turns it into a Western Religious Power, much like the Holy Roman Empire or the Islamic Nations?

 

[Evan]

No, I wasn't saying you were being disrespectful or anything. I was just saying that it's curious. Has any done a TL where Mormonism takes over the nation and turns it into a Western Religious Power, much like the Holy Roman Empire or the Islamic Nations?

I haven't seen any quite like that, but check this index on the wiki.

 

[Corjomc]

Nathaniel F--king Greene.

And George Clark, not William.

Nathaniel Greene, a Northerner who won battles in the South, keeps the whole nation happy, bonus, he doesn't get sick and die from fever

 

[Athelstane]

Thats the point. He was the only person trusted enough, by everyone, to be handed the powers of otls presidency, to set the appropriate precedents. Without him, there just wouldnt have been as powerful a presidency allowed, and otls constitution would not have existed.

Would there be a constitution? Sure, but theres a very good chance it would be a direct descendant of the AoC, which didnt have a 'president of the united states'.
As for power of precedence, look at the role of speaker. In westminister systems, the speaker is chosen for impartiality, and is a neutral arbiter. In the us, the speaker is a partisan almost PM like figure - because thats how a very early speaker used the position.

George Washington was a walking butterfly machine like very few others in history.

Remove him earlier in the war, or before the war, and U.S. chances of independence drop very quickly. Even with Washington, we needed a remarkable amount of luck to pull it off. There were several important Founding Fathers. But none were quite so essential as George Washington.

Odds are that the U.S. and France still win at Yorktown. But even so Washington's death complicates matters. Benjamin Lincoln was the only American divisional commander, and the likely successor. Would Rochambeau and de Grasse have sufficient confidence in him to see the campaign through to the end? The earlier in the campaign that Washington dies, the greater the chance that they don't.

And that's just Yorktown. Washington had critical roles to play going forward. Whoever was given command of the army after might not set the example that Washington did in resigning in 1783, and the mutiny over army pay could have had very different results. There would be no Washington to give the Constitutional Convention anything like the legitimacy that it had. There would be *no one* with anything like Washington's prestige to be the first president - an office largely designed with Washington in mind. The chances of dictatorship or disintegration bulk much larger.

At the least, I think we can say that the United States, if it survived at all, would almost certainly look considerably different than it does for us.

 

[historyfelon]

Madison was the chief organizer of the Constitutional Convention..and he was only able to get most of the other states to send delegates because he promised them that Washington would attend...without Washington you have another Annapolis Convention.

 

[Elfwine]

What is with 'only Washington"?

As if none of the other Founding Fathers could agree on anything or with anyone.

I agree that you wouldn't get the OTL US and US presidency - but the choices are far more than just "OTL" or "disintegration/insignificance".

 

[Evan]

As if none of the other Founding Fathers could agree on anything or with anyone.

I agree that you wouldn't get the OTL US and US presidency - but the choices are far more than just "OTL" or "disintegration/insignificance".

Yes, there're definitely more choices. But, when you look at OTL, Washington did play a unique role as the only person who was sufficiently respected by everyone - not just the Founding Fathers, but state legislators and average ex-soldiers - that invoking him could usually get people to rise above factions and immediate self-interest. Like historyfelon just mentioned, the OTL Philadelphia Convention only happened because of him. Could the Federalists have gotten together another convention without him? Maybe, but quite possibly not, and we don't see any obvious routes.

 

[Elfwine]

Yes, there're definitely more choices. But, when you look at OTL, Washington did play a unique role as the only person who was sufficiently respected by everyone - not just the Founding Fathers, but state legislators and average ex-soldiers - that invoking him could usually get people to rise above factions and immediate self-interest. Like historyfelon just mentioned, the OTL Philadelphia Convention only happened because of him. Could the Federalists have gotten together another convention without him? Maybe, but quite possibly not, and we don't see any obvious routes.

There's a big difference between how invoking him could make a difference, and how him and only him could see them work together.

I suspect a Washington-less convention is going to be longer on arguments and tenuous compromises, and less of the OTL Federalists - but that's not the same thing as "no convention, no US".

He was one man. An extraordinary, well respected man - but just one. And I find a failure to see any other routes to say more for regarding Washington as some kind of super special figure than Washington actually having so much influence that it wouldn't matter.

I mean, let's take something that happened the year after he died OTL. Adams and Jefferson had a fairly bitter campaign over the election of 1800, but that doesn't mean that there were coups or minicivil wars.

 

[Athelstane]

What is with 'only Washington"?

As if none of the other Founding Fathers could agree on anything or with anyone.

I agree that you wouldn't get the OTL US and US presidency - but the choices are far more than just "OTL" or "disintegration/insignificance".

Washington is the essential man of the Revolution.

We could have survived the loss of any other Founder, albeit not without some cost. But without Washington, there's no United States.

If he dies at Yorktown, there's a better chance of some United States coming into being. But it would look very different. And it's far from clear to me how long it would last.

 

[Elfwine]

Washington is the essential man of the Revolution.

We could have survived the loss of any other Founder, albeit not without some cost. But without Washington, there's no United States.

If he dies at Yorktown, there's a better chance of some United States coming into being. But it would look very different. And it's far from clear to me how long it would last.

Washington is not the essential man of the Revolution. He's one of them, but not "the" man.

He lead the army, set a good example of Republican principles, and was widely respected. This is not grounds for treating him as the figure that made the US happen.

There was a US in being - or at least would be with a successful Revolution - by Yorktown. Somehow, the US managed to survive 1781-1787(Constitutional convention) with Washington at home for most of that period. You can treat that as a miracle, or you can treat that as a sign that maybe, just maybe, Washington wasn't a magical figure who turned inevitable chaos into the US.

 

[Athelstane]

Washington is not the essential man of the Revolution. He's one of them, but not "the" man.

He lead the army, set a good example of Republican principles, and was widely respected. This is not grounds for treating him as the figure that made the US happen.

There was a US in being - or at least would be with a successful Revolution - by Yorktown. Somehow, the US managed to survive 1781-1787(Constitutional convention) with Washington at home for most of that period. You can treat that as a miracle, or you can treat that as a sign that maybe, just maybe, Washington wasn't a magical figure who turned inevitable chaos into the US.

His most essential role was leading the Army in 1775-83. Without Washington, we lose that war. Zero doubt about it. No one else could have held it together. Even with Washington, we won the war by the skin of our teeth. It is in this sense, more than any other, that Washington was the essential man.

Once the war was won,there was obviously a United States, but what kind of United States would it become? Washington's resignation helped ensure that it would not become a dictatorship. Washington's shaping of the presidency ensured that it would become a balanced federal republic rather than a confederation destined for disintegration.

 

[Elfwine]

His most essential role was leading the Army in 1775-83. Without Washington, we lose that war. Zero doubt about it. No one else could have held it together. Even with Washington, we won the war by the skin of our teeth. It is in this sense, more than any other, that Washington was the essential man.

It might be true that without Washington we lose the war - I certainly can't think of anyone with his leadership-in-a-crisis skill/s except (on a small scale) George Rogers Clark, and if we count him - and at least for rating ability, we must - Benedict Arnold.

Once the war was won,there was obviously a United States, but what kind of United States would it become? Washington's resignation helped ensure that it would not become a dictatorship. Washington's shaping of the presidency ensured that it would become a balanced federal republic rather than a confederation destined for disintegration.

And the idea that Washington and only Washington could have done those things is where this goes from "Washington was amazing" to "And the Lord sent down George, His Angel, to lead the United States."

 

[Joe Hooker]

What is with 'only Washington"?

As if none of the other Founding Fathers could agree on anything or with anyone.

I agree that you wouldn't get the OTL US and US presidency - but the choices are far more than just "OTL" or "disintegration/insignificance".

However, it's easier seeing it not pulling through as smoothly. And something Washington brought to the new nation that not too many others did was a sense of brute force. During the Whiskey Rebellion, he marched forth at the head of an army to put it down. While he might not have wanted to be dictator, he certainly meant business.

Now, the other Generals might have been either too timid to do anything about the Rebellion, or not cared. And a government at that time strictly run by politicians might have been easier to compromise then one without a military figure in it's midst.