Childress Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 Washington kept his bedraggled army together against daunting odds. He showed tenacity and fortitude. He started the War with virtually no established logistics, officer corps, or standardized training. And once victory achieved, he resigned his commission and returned to his farm like Cincinnatus. But, as a commander, Washington's essential value lies in the mythological realm a matter he cultivated like a modern press agent. He grew prickly when his strategic and tactical decisions were questioned, something that happened often during his lifetime. This includes Lafayette who idolized him.Controversy over Washington's military record:http://boards.straightdope.com...He fought fourteen battles and won four. He failed to grasp the strategic importance of Yorktown until the last moment, he had to be pushed into action. Yet he took credit for the success of the campaign. Amid the squalor and deprivation of his troops, he lived like a prince. Read Chernow or Ferling on the subject. However, both biographers consider Washington a great-souled leader, the Essential Man. Debate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 (edited) Childress, Don't recall where I read it, but I saw something a long time ago about the earliest part of Washington's military career. According to what I saw, Washington's actions resulted in starting the French and Indian War! Here are some links on the matter. The first is somewhat tame. Note well the source, though.http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/french-indian-war/ten-facts-about-george-washington-and-the-french-indian-war/ This one is scathing, among other things revealing Washington's singular unfitness to command because of a complete lack of military training!http://ploddingthroughthepresidents.blogspot.com/2013/12/did-george-washingtons-colossal.html Regards, John Kettler Edited November 21, 2016 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 Washington was no Napoleon. But the latter ended up on a tiny island surrounded by bickering courtiers. Washington founded a nation. His strengths were high intelligence and shrewd insight into human nature. He proved himself the master of the political chessboard if not the military one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Childress, People tend to forget the George Washington I described. Indeed, most know nothing of him then, but pretty much everyone knows the apocryphal story of Washington cutting down the cherry tree, a fable which was written by Parson Weems. I ought to know, for I had to did it up to its very roots while in college. Fortunately, for the cause of the United Colonies, Washington dramatically improved following his most inauspicious disastrous beginnings! I think, too, its fair to say that had England not been at war with France, things almost certainly have ended with lots of people here with greatly elongated necks. Also, few people realize that France spent herself into bankruptcy supporting our cause while already in full-blown war around the globe. That bankruptcy resulted in some excitement in France in 1789. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 6 hours ago, John Kettler said: Also, few people realize that France spent herself into bankruptcy supporting our cause while already in full-blown war around the globe. That bankruptcy resulted in some excitement in France in 1789. Are you sure about those dates? If by global war you mean The Seven Years' War, that ended in 1763 with the failure of France to curtail the expansion of the British Empire. It was about a decade and a half before France got involved in the American Revolution. I have always wondered how much of that was driven by a desire to embarrass and hinder the English. The animosity between Britain and France is deep and long-standing and was not entirely healed at the end of WW II. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted November 22, 2016 Author Share Posted November 22, 2016 (edited) On 11/20/2016 at 11:35 PM, John Kettler said: According to what I saw, Washington's actions resulted in starting the French and Indian War! Yep, a world war in fact. A litany of follies: http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/french-indian-war/ten-facts-about-george-washington-and-the-french-indian-war/ Responding to the defiant French, Lt. Governor Dinwiddie ordered the newly promoted Lt. Col. George Washington and approximately 160 Virginia militia to return to the Ohio country in March of 1754. Dinwiddie wanted Washington to "act on the defensive," but also clearly empowered Washington to "make Prisoners of or kill & destroy…" all those who resisted British control of the region. The rocky bluffs at Jumonville Glen (Rob Shenk) Eager to send their own diplomatic directive demanding an English withdrawal from the region, a French force of 35 soldiers commanded by Ensign Joseph Coulon de Villiers de Jumonville camped in a rocky ravine not far from Washington's encampment at the Great Meadows (now in Fayette County, Pennsylvania). Accompanied by Tanacharison, a Seneca chief (also known as the Half-King) and 12 native warriors, Washington led a party of 40 militiamen on an all night march towards the French position. On May 28, 1754, Washington's party stealthily approached the French camp at dawn. Finally spotted at close range by the French, shots rang out and a vigorous firefight erupted in the wooded wilderness. Washington's forces quickly overwhelmed the surprised French force and killed 13 soldiers and captured another 21. Washington later wrote of his first military engagement with a certain amount of martial enthusiasm. "I fortunately escaped without any wound, for the right wing, where I stood, was exposed to and received all the enemy's fire, and it was the part where the man was killed, and the rest wounded. I heard the bullets whistle, and, believe me there is something charming in the sound." Both sides claimed that the other fired first, but what neither side disputed was that this event deep in the American wilderness helped spark a war that would ultimately spread to places as far away as Europe, Africa, and India. Edited November 22, 2016 by Childress 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Well, according to Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years'_War) the Anglo-French skirmish played an extremely small part in starting the war. However, once it got going and the British and their allies were mostly winning, the British were willing to take advantage of the situation to oust France from North America. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.