Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
During the revolutionary war, after a battle, a British private had George Washington in his sights but did not shoot him. He believed it was unethical to shoot another in the back. What would the world been like today if this soldier had killed General George?
Personal opinion? Not much, if at all, different then things are today. George Washington was a leader; no doubt. However, he had his flaws and wasn't perfect. There were plenty of strong and, moreover, very willing leaders at that time, which would have stepped up and taken control.
A commander is only as good as his subordinate leaders and men. Washington didn't singlehandly when the war. Many others did that for him. Many of those leaders were better tactician's then he was and would have made a fine commander in chief. Washington is: Just a name.
There were any number of skillful statesman who could have taken over in Washington's place, but none would have left as graet a "footprint" on the nation's character.
Washington had a deep concern -- an obsession -- over his legacy, and his Freemasonic background provided him with any number of ways, particularly with regard to the founding and design of the new nation's capital city, to leave a mark which would last for centuries, yet not be readily apparent to those who did not look too closely. He succeeded, likely far beyond his expectations.
During the revolutionary war, after a battle, a British private had George Washington in his sights but did not shoot him. He believed it was unethical to shoot another in the back. What would the world been like today if this soldier had killed General George?
The story goes that it wasn't just some random private, but Captain Patrick Ferguson of Ferguson Rifle and Battle of King's Mountain fame. Ferguson, a Scotsmen, was widely considered the best shot in the British Army and was commanding a company of marksmen screening the British advance at Chadd's Ford during the Battle of the Brandywine. Ferguson saw an American officer and another officer dressed in a Hussar uniform (reportedly Count Pulaski) riding. He selected his three best shots and told them to take out the officers. He then had second thoughts and believed it to be wrong to shoot a man not presenting a threat and simply coolly going about his duties as an officer.
This article gives a good overview of the story and of Ferguson...
As for the what-if of Washington dieing to that marksman, it's difficult to know for sure. The incident took place at Brandywine in 1777. That winter was Valley Forge. While I would agree with the general consensus that Washington was not the most brilliant general of the Revolution tactically and strategically (though I think the en vogue idea that he was a "bad" general is not true either) he was far more then just a general.
Simply bringing it down to the exact scenario we need to consider what Washington brought to the table at the critical juncture that was Valley Forge...
1. He kept the army from simply up and deserting en mass when the enlistments expired.
2. He often purchased provisions and paid salaries out of his own pocket when needed.
3. He made the controversial decision to have the army inocculated for small pox.
4. He trusted and used von Steuben to reshape the army into a competent fighting force.
Those four things alone constituted the difference between make and break that winter at Valley Forge. I cannot think of another commander the Americans had that would have done what Washington did there. He virtually kept the army together through his own sheer will. While Washington could have been replaced on the battlefield he could not easily be replaced as the head of the army and a symbol of the revolution.
Overall the story of Washington is not one of battlefield success, but one of supreme leadership under dire circumstance to even keep the army in the field. It was his presence and what he stood for symbolically that made him indespensible to the cause. Once they emerged from Valley Forge it was once again Washington via his "surrogate son" Lafayette that was able to capitalize on the French assistance and involvement to prosecute the war to conclusion.
So, my what-if of Washington dieing at Brandywine is a dire one. Bereft of leadership and succumbing to the infighting among Washington's lieutenants for the overall command, the army simply breaks up over the winter of 1777/78. At that time there was no one who could have effectively taken over command of the entire army in Washington's stead. Charles Lee was a British prisoner and was of questionable capabilities. Artemas Ward had retired from the army and was too ill to continue on campaigns. Philip Schuyler had resigned after he was accused of dereliction of duty and replaced by Horatio Gates. Israel Putnam's stock had fallen tremendously after Bunker Hill and his capabilities were deeply questioned.
Horatio Gates was the only viable alternative and it was something that he lusted after. His battlefield abilities were even more questionable then Washington's. He acquitted himself well as an adjutant and organizer, but was not a popular leader among the men. Gates would have received the command given the extensive support he had among influential members of Congress and business leaders in New England as well as his supporters among some of Washington's generals. The problem is that as popular as he was in some circles he was equally hated in others. A Gates appointment could have easily led to a splitting of the efforts of the colonies with New England and the southern states taking different directions in the war. The choice of Washington as C-in-C was made carefully for many reasons, not the least of which was his place as an agreeable choice to ALL the colonies and his involvement galvanized southern support for the war.
My take is that without Washington the chance for success was minimal and that had nothing to do with his tactical or strategic abilities and everything to do with who he was.
Goat's fine essay above mirrors the sorts of things that I would have said on Washington's behalf, and his evaluation of the potential replacements strikes me as accurate.
I would add another factor to the equation. Among all the debts we owe Washington, one of the greatest was his complete never wavering submission to the authority of the Continental Congress. No matter how poorly he was treated, no matter how Congress neglected the needs of his army, no matter how often his officers or men suggested that they march on Philadelphia, oust the self interested delegates and install Washington as a dictator, Washington never once gave in to temptation. He never lost sight that part of what they were fighting for was a government of laws where the military was always subordinate to the civil authority.
And he must have been sorely tempted several times. Whenever his men were in revolt because they had not been paid for half a year, or had not been supplied with adequate clothing and food, Washington had to swallow his pride and appeal to the men's extraordinarily tested sense of devotion.
When the Continental Army was on the march from New York to Virginia and the campaign which captured Cornwallis's army, they passed through Philadelphia. When they reached the meeting house of Congress, Washington made a deliberate show of dismounting, walking up to the delegates who were waiting on the steps.....and saluting them, showing all deference and humility. He was sending a message to Congress, his troops...and dozens of future generations.
Washington was very much aware that everything he did, as commander of the army, and later as president, would be setting precedents. All that he set were done with the future in mind, never his present comfort or ego gratification.
I certainly cannot imagine the self promoting Gates concerning himself with the future in this manner, and I do not think that Nathaniel Green enjoyed the sort of stature that his precedents would have been recorded and adopted so readily.
Washington was the essential man in the success of our rebellion as has been well shown in the posts above. Without him the rebellion would probably have failed.
Christ knows how things would've worked out then though I doubt British rule would've then spread west to the Pacific as The United States did. Maybe there'd be an independent Indian state in the Old Northwest and a Spanish or French speaking nation west of the Mississippi.
Well said, gentleman. To me Washingtons genius was realizing that the army was the revolution. The British took cities & expected Washington to attack them to take them back. He knew this was merely terrority and he couldn't squander his army trying to take Philadelphia back. The army must be preserved.
But the original premise - would there be a USA today? Would Britian have merged us with Canada? Would the north American continent be a bunch of small squabling countries, as the British hoped to see?
Well said, gentleman. To me Washingtons genius was realizing that the army was the revolution. The British took cities & expected Washington to attack them to take them back. He knew this was merely terrority and he couldn't squander his army trying to take Philadelphia back. The army must be preserved.
But the original premise - would there be a USA today? Would Britian have merged us with Canada? Would the north American continent be a bunch of small squabling countries, as the British hoped to see?
There are some interesting and well researched articles on the "what if?" of an American loss:
There are a few good books on the topic as well. Richard Sobel's (professor of history and economics at Hofstra) For Want of a Nail is a pretty good alt-history and is written "history text book" style covering a period from 1763 to 1971. He basically takes the events of the Battle of Saratoga, changes the winner and then builds an entirely new world out of that single change to show what might have happened if the British won.
There are a few good books on the topic as well. Richard Sobel's (professor of history and economics at Hofstra) For Want of a Nail is a pretty good alt-history and is written "history text book" style covering a period from 1763 to 1971. He basically takes the events of the Battle of Saratoga, changes the winner and then builds an entirely new world out of that single change to show what might have happened if the British won.
I read this one some time back and while it has some interesting ideas, it suffers for:
A) Not being written as a novel. There are no characters or plotlines, it is written as though it is a text book of history, albeit one with the invented facts of the alternative timeline. It is not great literature.
B) Sobel falls into the annoying trap of assuming some constants while changing everything else. The same famous people get born decades after the point where everything changes, and that just could not happen. Change one thing and you change everything.
C) While the alternative events which follow the change are plausible, it is well to keep in mind that these are only specs of possibilities within an immense framework. Sobel never provides anything which would make the reader think that his scenarios were any more likely than any others.
I remember it as a dry read, I may not have finished the whole thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
