1776: Washington burns NYC

masteroftheveiledthreat

Banned
At a time in 1776 George Washington realised his army needed to evacuate
NYC. He wanted to burn it. Congress talked him out of it.

What would have happened if he did?

Especially how would this have affected public opinion amongst Americans not already committed to the Loyalist cause?
 
Sevarics

Sevarics

Probably turn some of them to the Loyalist cause because it shows the Patriots to be somewhat more barbaric than previously thought. At the same time, it would probably contribute to a slight slowing of NYC's growth if the entire city were destroyed.
 
Alex Richards

Alex Richards

Donor
It probably polarises the situation. More people probably go loyalist who wavered OTL, while it could also galvanise the British to swifter action wrt Philadelphia and the South. Philadelphia may be burned in retailiation (destroy the political hub of the rebellion) or may be spared as OTL to point out the contrast in behavior.

Divisions between Washington and others probably intensify in this situation. Arnold may defect earlier, as may some others outraged at Washington's actions. The burning may slow down the army, leading to capture, but even if not the likelyhood of subsequent defeats means that Washington may be stripped of his position. Even if not, Washington as president would be more controversial.
 

masteroftheveiledthreat

Banned
Alex Richards said:
It probably polarises the situation. More people probably go loyalist who wavered OTL, while it could also galvanise the British to swifter action wrt Philadelphia and the South. Philadelphia may be burned in retailiation (destroy the political hub of the rebellion) or may be spared as OTL to point out the contrast in behavior.

Divisions between Washington and others probably intensify in this situation. Arnold may defect earlier, as may some others outraged at Washington's actions. The burning may slow down the army, leading to capture, but even if not the likelyhood of subsequent defeats means that Washington may be stripped of his position. Even if not, Washington as president would be more controversial.
Click to expand...

I got this information from reading "George Washington's military genius" by Dave Richard Palmer. Aparently Nathaniel Greene came up with the idea. Seems kind of dumb to me. But hell, to say I know NG's and GW's business better than they?
 

masteroftheveiledthreat

Banned
Alex Richards said:
It probably polarises the situation. More people probably go loyalist who wavered OTL, while it could also galvanise the British to swifter action wrt Philadelphia and the South. Philadelphia may be burned in retailiation (destroy the political hub of the rebellion) or may be spared as OTL to point out the contrast in behavior.

Divisions between Washington and others probably intensify in this situation. Arnold may defect earlier, as may some others outraged at Washington's actions. The burning may slow down the army, leading to capture, but even if not the likelyhood of subsequent defeats means that Washington may be stripped of his position. Even if not, Washington as president would be more controversial.
Click to expand...

Also, everybody, see this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_New_York_(1776)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top