George Washington: How he Developed and Recognized those around him – Part 2

George Washington played a key role in the lives of many people. In this two-part series we look at how he recognized talent and developed a number of younger men during his life. In part 2 of 2, we look at how Washington developed Henry Knox and Alexander Hamilton, and conclude with 5 key take-aways. Michael Wilhelm explains.

If you missed it you can read part 1 here.

Alexander Hamilton in the uniform of the New York Artillery. By Alonzo Chappel.

The Portly Bookseller 

Henry Knox was born on July 25, 1750. Knox was raised by a single mother and received only a fifth-grade education. Needing to go work to help support the family, he eventually became a bookstore owner in Boston called The London Bookshop. It was in his bookshop that he read the works that would teach him about artillery, thus beginning his preparation for his role in the Continental Army. Knox taught himself to reach French because the French army was the acknowledged leader in artillery siege tactics during that time. He met and immediately fell in love with Lucy Fluckner, who came from aristocratic and Loyalist stock. They married in July 1774. They would have an extremely happy marriage with the exception that 10 or their 13 children died young. He left to join the Revolution at age 25. 

After arriving at Cambridge, Washington used his eye for talent to appoint both Nathanael Greene and Henry Knox to significant roles within the new Continental Army. Washington would describe him as “a big, fat, garrulous, keenly intelligent” man. Knox would serve as chief of artillery through the majority of the war. Probably Knox’s chief claim to fame during the war came quite early. During the siege of Boston, Knox conceived a plan for bringing the cannon from Fort Ticonderoga to bear on the British occupying the city. Fifty-nine of Fort Ticonderoga’s cannons equaling over 119,000 pounds of brass were mobilized by Knox and his men. The trek to Boston was a trip of over 300 miles. He and his men even used sleds where the snow made this the easier way to keep moving. With the deploying of the cannon over Dorchester Heights, the British knew they had no choice but to evacuate the city. 

After the war, it was Knox who proposed the idea of the Society of the Cincinnati, a hereditary organization for the descendants of those who fought in the American Revolution. The Society still has 3,900 members and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. Knox would continue to serve in Washington’s inner circle as the country’s first Secretary of War from 1789-1794. He would assist Washington in the nation’s dealings with the Native American tribes and oversee the establishment of the U.S. Navy. His dwindling financial prospects forced his retirement from government. He retired to the territory of Maine and built a home called Montpelier. He briefly considered coming out of retirement during the Quasi-War with France during the Adams administration. However, when he discovered that Alexander Hamilton would outrank him in the new army, he refused to serve. This is one particular instance when Washington appears to be particularly tone-deaf and out of touch. The relationship seems never to have recovered from the strain. Knox would be honored by the nation by having Fort Knox named in his honor. He died October 25, 1806.[1]

The Clerk from Nevis 

Alexander Hamilton was born in the West Indies in either 1755 or 1757 on the island of Nevis. His illegitimacy would at times make him a target for his political enemies. He was abandoned by his father in 1766. His mother died two years later. He began working as a clerk at a trading company at age 11. He came to some public attention in 1772 after the publication of his description of a hurricane that hit the island. Locals raised money for him to be able to go to America to pursue an education. He studied at King’s College, which is now Columbia University. Before joining the Continental Army, he had defended the Continental Congress’ embargo of British goods in a pamphlet called, “A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress.” 

He was commissioned to lead an artillery company in the Continental Army and fought in the Battles of Trenton and Princeton. In 1777, he joined Washington’s staff as an aide-de-camp. It was while on Washington’s staff that he showed the ability to think and express the General’s thoughts for him. This made him much depended upon by “His Excellency.” Hamilton could be thin-skinned and imperious. It is likely a testament to Washington’s skill in being able to handle troublesome personalities that they worked so well together, so long. He was so prickly an individual, Jane Freeman states that Hamilton was involved in ten affairs of honor before the duel with Aaron Burr that ended his life.[2] However, he would leave Washington’s staff peeved over a clash when he had kept Washington waiting. Though the true reason may have been that Hamilton had been pressing for a battlefield commission. Washington would assign him to an artillery regiment at the battle of Yorktown in which by all accounts, he fought heroically. 

Hamilton had married into the wealthy Schulyer family when he wed Elizabeth. They would have eight children together. The Schulyer’s were part of the New York aristocracy, so Hamilton passed the bar and set up his law practice in New York. He attended the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. He argued for such a strong central government based on the British model that it is likely that he influenced very few people there. After the Convention had done his work, he collaborated with James Madison and John Jay to produce the Federalist Papers to argue for the ratification of the new Constitution. Though Washington had not taken a very active part in the debate, he had become convinced both through his service in the American Revolution and his own observations of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, that a new Constitution with some teeth was necessary. He would use his influence to encourage the writers to do their work and lauded the completed effort. Washington waited in the wings with some trepidation regarding the result of what would be the fate of the Constitution. Though all were nearly unanimous in agreement that if the Constitution were ratified, Washington would be the first president. A number of the delegates from Philadelphia contended that the office of president would not be nearly so powerful if this were not the prevailing expectation. 

Peacemaker

On April 30, 1789, Washington was inaugurated as president. He would bring in one of the most talented Cabinet’s the government would ever see. This is true even if one considers only his choice of Secretary of Treasury and Secretary of State. Both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson would serve in the Washington administration during his first term. It appears that both men seemed to take an immediate dislike to each other. Washington took pains to play peacemaker between them. Jefferson seemed to feel that Hamilton was evil incarnate. However, the reason for this is almost comic in its irony. Jefferson felt that Hamilton had monarchial inclinations. That if he were allowed to succeed, the common people would be eaten up by aristocracy. So, the illegitimate clerk from the West Indies was the champion of banking and wealth interests, while Jefferson, the slave owner, saw himself as the champion of the common man and untainted by his privileged upbringing. To make matters worse, when it came to financial matters such as the creation of the national bank and the assumption of state debts from the American Revolution, Washington backed Hamilton. Jefferson soothed himself with the thought that if he was not duped or out of his mind, Washington would never have done such a thing. 

Though he perhaps would want to dispute the point, it is almost certain that Hamilton would have been a footnote in history had he never come under the tutelage of Washington. Washington appears to have been self-assured enough that neither Hamilton nor Jefferson as talented as they were could intimidate him. Yet, through his association with Washington, Hamilton was able to unleash his monumental talents and prodigious energies on the young nation’s most fundamental questions. His association with Washington opened doors for Hamilton in both the public and private spheres. Indeed, it is worth pondering that the one thing that Hamilton and Jefferson seemed to have been in absolute accord upon was the indispensability of Washington to the fledging county when both wished to resign from the government. 

Washington would call upon Hamilton once again when he finally decided to retire and made certain that those in influence understood, this time there would be no changing his mind. Washington had asked Madison to help with a valedictory address toward the end of his first term. At that time, several advisors had stressed that the young nation would not survive without Washington as the helm. Very much against his wishes, Washington put the address away for another day. However, after the criticism that he has drawn from the Jay Treaty and the Democratic-Republicans during his second term, he would not be moved. First, Washington kept some of the original document in what would become known as his Farewell Address. This made it clear, as just as a reminder, Washington was not leaving just because things had gotten tough, he had just gotten to the point that he was going to do what he had wanted to do for some time. Second, he contacted Hamilton (Madison along with Jefferson had by now gone over to the opposition) for help with the document. This has caused some to question who is the actual author of Washington’s Farewell. On this point, James Madison writes, “arguing that Washington’s friends and allies ‘ought to claim for him the merit only of cherishing the principles and views addressed to his Country, and for the address itself the weight given to it by his sanction; leaving the literary merit, whatever it be, to the friendly pen employed on the occasion; the rather as it was never understood that Washington valued himself on his writing talent, and no secret to some that he occasionally availed himself of the friendship of others who he supposed more practiced than himself in studied composition.”[3]

Madison is certainly correct. Indeed, this is the pattern that is found throughout Washington’s public career. Washington found others who were practiced and more learned than himself and relied on them to express his thoughts for him. This same pattern holds here. Hamilton is the penman but the ideas belong to Washington. The printer who published the Farewell Address for his newspaper (it was never given as an address) noted that Washington was making correction to the text even as it was going to press. This was another collaboration in a lifetime of collaborations by the shrewdest player on the national and international stage. After Hamilton’s death on July 12, 1804, his beloved Elizabeth championed his authorship of the Farewell Address both to rehabilitate her husband’s reputation and enhance it. However, even at that time, those who knew Washington and how he had worked were never convinced. Hamilton referred to Washington when he stated, “’Perhaps no friend of his has more cause to lament on personal account than myself’ he told an associate, saying that Washington had been, ‘an aegis very essential to me.’”[4] Such was a profound understatement. Without Washington, what would we know of Hamilton?

Tying the Ends Together 

1.     It must be admitted that over a lifetime that lasted sixty-seven years, there were ups and downs, and outright failures. Even among the men we considered there were those who caused Washington more headaches than others. Yet, once Washington had moved someone into his inner circle, it took a great many grievances for them to be removed. This patience is not something that Washington is much known for in many of the biographies that have been written. Yet, it does appear to exist, at least to the extent that if he had decided that a young man had potential, he seemed willing to take the long road to see that potential fulfilled. This patience did not even always carry over to those closest to Washington. Indeed, the evidence seems to suggest that Mrs. Washington had no patience with Hamilton whatsoever. In fact, she named a feral cat known around the presidential residence Hamilton. Washington seems to have seen Hamilton’s talent as worthy of a wide berth in his personal life. 

2.     Joseph Ellis gives a wonderful illustration of Washington’s leadership style. “All major decisions were collective occasions, in which advisers, like spokes on a wheel, made contributions, usually in written form. But in the end the final decision, to include the final choice of words, came together at the center, which was always Washington.”[5] In context, Ellis is referring to the writing process of the Farewell Address. However, this image helps to illustrate Washington’s method of making decisions throughout his entire public career. He trusted those that he put in position and expected them to provide him with the best information that they had. In Cabinet proceedings, the different department heads reported on decisions that needed to be made. There was a place for debate and argument. Washington expected that those who espoused a position voice it forcibly. Yet, when he had made a decision and the government or army had moved in a direction, he expected debate to be at an end. In this he was at times, disappointed. This is how he expected it to work in any case. 

3.     Those who came under the tutelage of Washington in a number of cases owe to him their place on the historical stage. He had an eye for talent and he seemed to enjoy using it. From Greene to Knox, to even the Marquis de Lafayette, Washington believed in giving responsibility and then letting others fulfill it. There were times that this led to disappointing results, but in the long run he was often proved right. Thomas Jefferson would find fault with his education, but even he had to admit that Washington’s reasoned conclusions were usually accurate to a remarkable degree. There are very few in the Revolutionary generation who are known to us that were not influenced, assisted, or in some promoted by Washington. It was in many ways, his generation. 

4.     This line of inquiry and investigation brings to the fore an aspect of Washington that our generation often misses, though his generation took it for granted. This involves his personal magnetism. People were drawn to Washington. He was considered by his generation a natural born leader. He was a hit with the ladies, with whom he enjoyed flirting and dancing. Graceful was a word that often described his movements among his contemporaries. What explains this separation of opinion? It likely has to do with the deification that began to occur with the persona of Washington even during his lifetime. You may revere a god but it is difficult to be attracted to one if you are mere mortal who will never measure up. He seems distant and unknowable. Perhaps it is time to attempt to recover at least a glimpse of Washington as his generation saw him. Even a stern a critic of men and the times as Abigail Adams echoed the words of the Queen of Sheba after she had met Solomon, “I felt the half had not been told me.”[6] Why do we still study, write, and think about Washington? Because the half has not yet been told, indeed. 

5.     Finally, it is perfectly true that this line of thought could have been extended much farther. Fans of the Marquis de Lafayette are perhaps disappointed that he did not rate discussion. However, there are some within Washington’s circle who were well on their way before meeting him. Lafayette is, in my view, a case in point. In addition, I have not mentioned the relationship that Washington had with James Madison. These are just two examples of others who might have been included here. I leave these and others for those whose interest has been sparked to pursue. I am sure that I will likely do some of this myself.

Much ink has been spilled over the life of Washington and yet, this will continue to be the case. It is such a stimulating conversation. 

What do you think of George Washington’s ability to develop young men? Let us know below.

[1] General biographical help received at knoxmuseum.org/Henry-Knox/ 

[2] History.com/topics/American-revolution/Alexander-Hamilton 

[3] Avlon, John. Washington’s Farewell: The Founding Father’s Warning to Future Generations. Simon & Schuster, New York: 2017, p. 225. 

[4] Chernow, ibid, p. 811. 

[5] Ellis, Joseph J. Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. Alfred A. Knopf, New York: 2000, p. 150. 

[6] Chernow, Ibid, p. 195.

George Washington: How he Developed and Recognized those around him – Part 1

George Washington played a key role in the lives of many people. In this two-part series we look at how he recognized talent and developed a number of younger men during his life. In part 1 of 2, we look at who influenced Washington when he was young, and how he developed Joseph Reed and Nathanael Greene. Michael Wilhelm explains.

A 1772 portrait of George Washington by Charles Willson Peale.

Boyhood and Background 

George Washington was born on February 22, 1732, according to the New Style calendar. His parents were Augustine Washington and Mary Ball Washington. Washington was the oldest child born to the union. Augustine had been previously married to Jane Butler. They had four children: Butler (1716), who died in infancy, Lawrence (1718), Augustine, Jr. (1720) and Jane (1722), who died in January 1734 or 1735. Jane Butler Washington died on November 24, 1729, one-month sigh of her 30th birthday. Augustine and Mary were married on March 6, 1731. They had six children: George (1732), Betty (1733), Samuel (1734), John Augustine (1736), Charles (1738), and Mildred (1740). Mildred was the only child of their marriage not to reach adulthood. Lawrence and Augustine Jr. were away at Appleby Grammar school in England, where their father had also been educated. Augustine was not among the elite of the Virginia gentry, yet he had established his family well beyond the reach of poverty by the time of his death. He died on April 12, 1743 at the age of 48 at Ferry Farm. His death was a strange foreshadowing of Washington’s own death near the turn of the century. This event changed Washington’s own prospects at a classical education that his older half-brothers had enjoyed. 

Washington had a somewhat strained relationship with his mother. Though when one reads the evidence, it appears that part of the problem may have been that they were a great deal alike. Mary Washington was by all accounts not someone with whom to trifle. Mary was tasked due to the death of her husband with the management of Ferry Farm, the raising of five children aged five to eleven, and the supervision of the household slaves.[1] “The hypercritical mother produced a son who was overly sensitive to criticism and suffered from a lifelong need for approval. One suspects, in dealing with this querulous woman, George became an overly controlled personality and learned to master his temper and curb his tongue.”[2] His mother, though widowed at 35, would never remarry and make her way in a world where her success was deemed as improbable. George, for his own part was always deferential to his mother but seemed later in life to avoid her if at all possible. His letters were addressed to her as “Honored Madame” and yet, one searches in vain for a word of love or affection from him directed toward her. The man who was known for seeking to always do his duty seemed to learn this trait in his relationship with his mother. 

A Surrogate Father 

“Quite naturally, George turned to older men as sponsors and patrons, cultivating the art of ingratiating himself with influential figures.” [3] The first of these older men that Washington turned to was a natural choice, his older half-brother Lawrence. Lawrence was 14 years Washington’s senior. He also had some advantages that Washington would never be able to enjoy. The first and probably the one that Washington felt most keenly was education. Lawrence had received a classical education, whereas the younger George had to contend himself with the basic grade school curriculum, though he appeared to excel at math. Lawrence served in the War of Jenkins’ Ear (1739-1748) under Admiral Edward Vernon. Vernon would later lend his name to Lawrence’s estate. After his service, Lawrence married Anne Fairfax of Belvoir. This marriage meant that Lawrence had moved into the high society of the Virginia gentry. “It was through his brother’s steadily growing influence and powerful connections that George Washington was able to start getting a foothold in a world that otherwise would have been completely unattainable to him.”[4]

Washington so admired his brother that he desired to follow him into service in His Majesty’s Royal Navy. In fact, Washington seems for years to be on a mission to follow in his brother’s footsteps. Yet in this desire, he was to be disappointed. Mary Ball Washington did not like the idea of her son going off to sea at such a young age (he was about 15). Mrs. Washington would even enlist the help of her brother, Joseph Ball. Answering her letter, Ball stated his view of the young Washington’s prospects in the Navy. His uncle observed that in service they would, “cut him and staple him and use him like a Negro, or rather, like a dog.”[5] His desire being scuttled, Washington turned to surveying. One might well wonder how different American history might have been if George Washington had ended up serving on a ship in His Majesty’s Service. 

During his time in the Navy appears to be when Lawrence contracted tuberculosis. He was seeking relief from the disease in a warmer climate, prompting him to invite Washington on a trip to Barbados in late 1751. While there, one of the most serendipitous events of Washington’s life occurred though it likely did not appear to be such at the time. Washington contracted smallpox and was laid up for some time with it. However, upon his recovery, he was also immune for life from one of the most virulent killers of the 18th century. 

Because Lawrence Washington died in July 1752 from tuberculosis, it can be easy to underestimate the effect he had on his younger half-brother. However, that influence was immense. Lawrence enabled Washington to enter into a level of society he had heretofore never known. His relationship with Lord Fairfax and indeed, the entire Fairfax family sets his life on a different course. It is through the Fairfax family that Washington comes to the attention of Lieutenant Governor Robert Dinwiddie. It is by following in Lawrence’s footsteps that Washington will eventually become Adjutant General in the Militia of Virginia as well as a member of the House of Burgesses. It also through provisions by Lawrence in his will and the deaths of Lawrence’s widow and his infant daughter, that Washington inherits his beloved Mount Vernon. It is not a stretch to begin to trace through Washington’s interaction with the young men that he would encounter throughout his life this tendency. Washington sees a man with talent and draws that man into his circle. It is a pattern that repeats itself over and over. It becomes most pronounced his military family during the American Revolution.

A Penman and Quartermaster 

Joseph Reed was born August 27, 1741. He graduated from The College of New Jersey (later Princeton) and completed his law studies in London. He would meet his wife, Esther de Berdt while there. They would have five children. He had at first hoped for a reconciliation between the colonies and England. He would join the Continental Army in 1775 with the rank of Lt. Col. “Aware of his own limited formal education, Washington selected college graduates who were ‘Pen-men’ as aides, whose facility with language assured that the grammar and syntax of his correspondence was worthy of ‘His Excellency.’”[6] These young men would make up part of his military family and in some cases become as close to Washington as anyone ever would. “His most trusted aides—Joseph Reed was the first, followed by Alexander Hamilton and John Laurens later in the war—became surrogate sons who enjoyed direct access to the general in after-dinner sessions, when Washington liked to encourage conversation as he ate nuts and drank a glass of Madeira.” [7] During the early stages of the war, Reed is shown to have held Washington’s confidence in a profound way. He served both as Washington’s secretary and Quartermaster of the Army. Washington even showed himself distressed when Reed departed camp to attend to his law practice. “’At present my times is so much taken up at my desk that I am obliged to neglect many other essential parts of my duty,’ he pleaded to Reed. ‘It is absolutely necessary therefore for me to have persons that can think for me as well as execute orders.’”[8]

Unfortunately, Reed gave Washington reason to question his estimation of his character, if not his abilities. Reed began to harbor doubts about Washington’s ability as a general. He then proceeded to allow these doubts to be known to certain others, but in particular, General Charles Lee. Lee was second in command of the Army but had always thought he should have been first. He was eccentric and quixotic, never far removed from his company of dogs. Reed confided in a letter to Lee that Washington seemed to be unable to make up his mind in instances and at Long Island had failed to countermand Greene when circumstances called for it. Reed then included a secret codicil in a letter from Washington to Lee. In this secret message, Reed had suggested that Lee and some others should go to Congress and form a new plan for the Army. Washington was being undermined by his own secretary. Washington uncovered what Reed was doing when he inadvertently opened a letter Lee had sent to Reed. He was deeply hurt by this betrayal. Washington explained to Reed that he had opened the letter because it was their manner of doing business due to the nature of his office. Washington simply sent the letter ahead to Reed after letting him know that he had read it. The uncertainty that must have gripped Reed would have been torturous. It took some time for the relationship to be restored, but Washington did allow Reed to remain with him. Though in restoring the relationship, Washington made it clear that what bothered him the most is that Reed had not felt free to share his doubts with him. 

Reed would go on to be elected to the Continental Congress. In addition, he would be elected as President of Pennsylvania twice (the office is nearest to that of governor of the state). Reed, who it will be remembered, at first desired reconciliation with England was accused of traitorous correspondence with them. It was not until after this death that he would be cleared. It may be because of these accusations that he took such a hardline stance against Loyalists. Slavery was abolished in Pennsylvania while he was president. Reed had moved on from his dependent relationship toward Washington, but he never forgot whom has caused his star to rise. He suffered from poor health and died on March 5, 1785.[9]

The Bookworm from Warwick 

Nathanael Greene was a voracious reader who built a massive library on a number of subjects but especially military strategy and history when it appeared that the situation with Great Britain was moving toward war. Greene was raised in a family of practicing Quakers, which caused him some difficulties given his martial activities. Ezra Stiles, future president of Yale University, was responsible for Greene’s early education. He would marry Catherine (Caty) Littlefield in July 1774. The happy couple would have 5 children together. When he joined the Kentish Guards of the Rhode Island militia he was expelled by the Quakers. Greene had had a limp from birth and this limited his advancement in the Guards, though he had been instrumental in their founding. After Lexington and Concord, the Rhode Island Assembly chose Greene as one of the commanders of their three regiments. Thus, he was promoted from private to brigadier general in less than a year. 

It was Greene’s organizational skills that brought him to the attention of George Washington. In August 1776, he was promoted to Major General. He would become Washington’s most trusted advisor and one of his closest friends. He would be appointed Quartermaster in 1778, a position he would hold until the summer of 1780. It was his monumental task to supply the Continental Army with virtually no money to accomplish this. Washington preferred to make decisions with the input of his military family. So, he would call councils of war to discuss strategy and attempt to make decisions from consensus. This was at one and the same time one of Washington’s great strengths and striking weaknesses. At pivotal moments in the New York campaign, Washington made suggestions or followed incorrect advice and put the army in jeopardy. One striking instance of this, was involving the decision to defend or abandon Forts Washington and Lee. Washington had an unenviable task. Though he felt that New York was indefensible with the force that he then possessed, he had been ordered by the Continental Congress to defend it. Though Greene had at first felt they should burn and abandon the city, he had informed Washington that the forts could be defended. Washington listened. However, with their command of the water, the British has very little trouble overrunning the defenders at both forts. Greene took responsibility for the disaster. This was in Washington’s eyes how one kept in his good graces. Do your best, but when you fail, admit it and take responsibility. The relationship barely hit a bump.

When the southern campaign began to heat up in the latter years of the war, Washington appointed Greene head of the Southern Army replacing Horatio Gates. Greene began a hit and run strategy against Cornwallis, with an emphasis on run. Greene, with his understanding of supply, made it his objective to push Cornwallis farther and farther away from his supply. Greene also waited to engage until he had handpicked a patch of ground that he was ready to defend. The ground in question was known as Guilford Courthouse. Greene set his forces in three defensive lines near the farm of Joseph Hoskins straddling both side of New Garden Road in what is now Greensboro, NC. The militia that made up most of Greene’s first line fired one shot at the advancing British and began to run. This has led to speculation that had they not run so quickly, that the result of the battle might have been much different. However, though technically a defeat for the American forces, the battle of Guilford Courthouse was certainly an unmitigated disaster for the British. The 2nd and 3rd American lines with the help of experienced Continental soldiers fought fiercely. In fact, at the American 3rd line, Cornwallis gave the order to fire grapeshot into the mass of soldiers, even though it was a certainty that his own men would be hit. The casualty report for the British was that they had lost 25 percent of their force either killed or wounded. Charles James Fox told the British Parliament that, “Another such victory would ruin the British Army.”[10] This more than anything may be Greene’s legacy. He greatly increased the cost of victory. It proved to be a cost they soon decided that they no longer could pay. It is far from coincidental that Guilford Courthouse occurred only 6 months before the final major battle at Yorktown. It can be stated that the stars aligned so that Cornwallis had been boxed in for the climatic battle. Yet it should be acknowledged, that much of Cornwallis’ desperation was engineered by Greene and his ragtag force. 

On the Greene Monument that stands where the 2nd American line was positioned at Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, there are two testimonials to him and his contribution at the battle. The first comes from his friend and mentor, George Washington: “It is with a pleasure to which friendship alone is susceptible to that I congratulate you on the glorious end you have put the hostilities in the southern states.” This from Cornwallis: “Greene is as dangerous as Washington. I never feel secure when he is in my neighborhood.”[11] Washington had technically not “discovered” Greene. The Rhode Island Assembly had done that. But Washington certainly made Greene a national rather than a regional figure. Their relationship was based on a mutual respect and a trust that honestly, did not come easily for Washington. He believed Greene had earned it. Though he would have much preferred to keep Greene near him just in the interests of friendship, there is reason to believe that promoting Greene to head of the Southern Army may have been Washington’s best decision of the war. Unfortunately, much like Joseph Reed, Greene did not long survive the war. He died in Georgia at a plantation gifted to him by that state on June 19, 1786. He was likely a victim of sunstroke. Washington would help Caty with the care and education of her children. It remains an unanswerable question of history what role Greene might have placed in the future career of Washington had he been alive to see it.[12]

This brings us to basically the halfway point of the current analysis. Both Reed and Greene were privileged to a side of Washington that many did not see. He was capable of depth in regard and concern, as his relationship with both men attests. Nor was this all. In the second installment, we will examine two more younger men whom Washington would recognize as talented and capable. He would open doors for them as he opened doors of opportunity for this penman and his general.  

Now, read part 2 on how Washington developed and recognised those around him here.

[1] Chernow, Ron. Washington: A Life.  New York: The Penguin Group, 2010. 

[2] Ibid, p. 11.  

[3] Ibid, p. 10. 

[4] mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/lawrence-washington.

[5] Ellis, Joseph E. His Excellency: George Washington. New York: Alfred K. Knopf 2004. p. 9.  

[6] Ibid, p. 80. 

[7] Ibid. 

[8] Chernow, p. 217. 

[9] General Biographical information from revolutionary-war.net/joseph-reed/. 

[10] https://www.dwhike.com/History/Revolutionary-War/Guilford-Courthouse-NC/

[11]https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=h2DOyPQP&id=6F184706B907B23588B8ED6A8E795DDFFB4D0415&thid=OIP.h2DOyPQPKmFkOTnVw9GsQgHaFH&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2f4.bp.blogspot.com%2f-vJLOZMiLKsM%2fUjPK-LaGw-I%2fAAAAAAAAEaM%2f-SaxUStXPdo%2fs1600%2fGuilford%2bCourthouse%2bGreenes%2bStatue.jpg&exph=1104&expw=1600&q=Battle+of+Guilford+Courthouse+Statue&simid=607987878111478537&ck=0F1C3CF0207680D2F19DA6DFB6D94CA0&selectedIndex=8&ajaxhist=0

[12] General biographical help received at ehistory.osu.edu/biographies/nathanael-greene 

The Most Important Reason for the American Revolution? How the French and Indian War Gave Birth to America

The French and Indian War (1754-1763) was fought in the modern-day USA between British America, France, and their Native American allies. It was truly a war for control of what was to become America, but its effects were longer lasting. Here, Ian Craig explains the importance of the war for the birth of the American nation.

A depiction of George Washington during the French and Indian War. By Charles Willson Peale.

It is hard to overlook how one war essentially led to the birth of a new nation.  However, the French and Indian War did just that.  Since the founding of the first permanent settlement of Jamestown in 1607, the British colonies in America were left to govern themselves with little interference from the British crown.  This continued even as the Pilgrims landed in New England in 1620.  The Mayflower Compact then symbolized America’s earliest form of democracy.  As more came to America to pursue a new life, the original thirteen colonies began to form stretching along the entire east coast of North America except for Florida and Canada.  For their part, the British government demanded very little from the American Colonies.  They wished only for the resources that America had to offer and spent little time in directly governing the colonies.  This concept has come to be known as salutary neglect.  Because of this, the American Colonies were left to create governments of their own which seemingly allowed for more participation and rights for their citizens.      

Then in 1651, Britain passed the Navigation Acts that forbade the American Colonies from trading with other nations besides Britain.  Goods exported from America were to be on British ships only.  However, the earliest versions of the Acts were not heavily enforced allowing trade to continue as it had for decades. Representing early attempts of Britain to exert its rule over the American Colonies, the Navigation Acts would not be fully enforced until 1750 when it became clear that large-scale smuggling had occurred.  In 1764, the year after the French and Indian War ended, the Navigation Acts were enforced even further.  Revisions of these acts represented early examples of how the British would impose their will on their colonies but demonstrates how this was not enforced until after the French and Indian War came to an end.  What would follow would be a series of tax acts designed to pay off the debt from the war at the expense of the American Colonies.[1]

The French in America

In 1754, when the war began, colonists in America demanded that the British government send troops to protect them. For years, their growth west had interfered with not just the Native Americans, but also the French who had laid claim to most of the interior.  The constant clash between these groups along the frontier led to war, one that would determine control of most of North America.  That same year, the colonial governor of Virginia sent a young George Washington to secure an area on land at the junction of the Ohio River.  His orders were to build a fort that could serve as a deterrent to the French.  However, when Washington arrived, he realized that the French had beat him to it and that he was vastly outnumbered.  Washington then took a calculated risk - although small in number, he attacked the French fort and retreated to build a makeshift fort called Fort Necessity. When the French counterattacked, Washington was forced to surrender but was later released as a warning to the British. This small skirmish made the British government realize the full threat of the French in America.

In 1755, the British sent Major General Edward Braddock to America in an effort to put a stop to French expansion. Braddock was appointed as commander-in-chief of all British forces in America with the sole mission of securing British dominance.  Although supported by the colonists, this action brought a considerable number of British soldiers to America.  This was only the beginning of British military expansion in the American Colonies. Braddock and the British government led by Prime Minister Thomas Pelham-Holles, the Duke of Newcastle, believed that a quick and swift attack on the French holdings along the Ohio Valley would prevent French reinforcements and end any future skirmishes.[2]  But, this would not be the case.  Braddock arrived in Virginia determined to take direct control of operations with the cooperation of the colonial governors.  He called for a meeting of the governors of New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.  This was a point in which British dominance began to reign over the American Colonies. Instead of asking for the governors’ cooperation he demanded their assistance and did not take their consul.  Instead, Braddock was infuriated with their continuing to trade with French Canada and their lack of true in interest in the military campaign.  He also opposed a plan by Massachusetts’ governor William Shirley that would have helped his cause greatly.[3]

Ambush

When Braddock left Virginia in the summer that same year, he had some 2,000 British regulars along with provincials from the colonies.[4]  His direct mission was to capture Fort Duquesne which was built on the same spot that George Washington had been the previous year, at the junction of the Ohio and Monongahela Rivers.  In addition, Braddock was to use the same path that Washington used along with Washington himself as his aide-de-camp.  Washington was there to provide guidance, as he knew the land and what to expect from the French and their Native allies.  However, Braddock ignored most of the advice that Washington gave and proceeded through the route cautiously, but also made too much noise.  The falling of trees for bridges and the clearing of forest gave notice to the French.  On the afternoon of July 9, 1755, Braddock’s army fell into an ambush of a combined French, Canadian, and Indian force.[5]  The battle that ensued was almost complete chaos.  Braddock’s troops were not prepared for the guerilla tactics of the French and her native allies.  Troops fired in all directions in an effort to gain control, Braddock himself tried in vain to control the situation, but was fatally shot.  Despite trying to hold their ground, the British troops, although greater in number, were forced to retreat.  General Braddock was buried in an unmarked grave in the mists of the retreat as to not allow the Natives to rob his grave.  The survivors of the battle hurried back towards Fort Cumberland. Some 500 British soldiers were killed while only a small number of the French force was.  Braddock’s defeat left a large stain on Britain’s attempt to eliminate French control in the American frontier.  It also led to a new British policy which would bring further government control to America.[6]   

Realizing that Britain had fallen into an all-out war with France over control of North America, the Duke of Newcastle’s government along with King George II needed time to build up their forces.  Britain underestimated the French resolve and the type of warfare demanded in North America. It wasn’t until 1757 under the direction of a new Prime Minister, William Pitt, did Britain’s strategy in America change.  All the while, under the direction of Lord Loudoun, the new commander in America, troops and supplies were steadily increasing in America.[7]This led to further tensions between the colonies and the British.  For his part, Loudoun established an embargo in trade between the individual colonies. His reasons were to prevent trade with Canada, however it backfired, and he was forced to lift the embargo.  But the damage had already been done as it hurt American commerce.[8]

Lasting Effects

As the war continued despite several setbacks in the British strategy, America felt the power of the British government.  In 1761, the Writs of Assistance case was presented to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. During the 17thcentury, Britain had allowed its courts to issue writs in order to search merchant vessels.  During the height of the war, British officials began to suspect smuggling from many colonial merchants.  With that, under the law, Writs of Assistance could be issued to search a ship’s cargo. This only angered the colonists further as many believed that once the war was over, the British would leave and everything would return to normal.[9]When the war came to an end in 1763 with the Treaty of Paris, Britain was proclaimed the victor gaining much of the land once controlled by the French.  Britain was also the dominant power in all of North America.  Despite the colonists’ wish that the British would leave, troops remained in the major cities and along the frontier.  

After winning such a costly war, Britain wanted to capitalize on its newfound conquest.  It had no intention of letting the colonies be alone again.  Later in 1763, after Pontiac’s War (a skirmish with the Ottawa chief Pontiac which left the British surprised again) King George III issued the Proclamation of 1763.  It barred colonists from moving west across the Appalachian Mountains to end confrontations with the Native Americans.[10]This single act was one of the causes of the American Revolution.  This was because many colonists were upset that they had fought for the right to colonize that land only be told that they could not by their own government.  At the same time, the British government had assumed a considerable debt in protecting the American colonies.  It was decided that the American colonies should help pay for the debt and in 1764, the first tax was passed.  The Sugar Act essentially took away the right of trial by jury if a merchant failed to pay the tax.[11]In addition, the government prevented the colonies from printing or coining their own money.  This was done to standardize the system, but in reality it led to colonial trade becoming stagnant as money was taken out of circulation. These efforts were opposed by the colonies because they believed that the British government did not have the right to tax them without their consent.  Due to the fact that they did not vote for Members of Parliament, it did not have the right to tax them.  This became the standard defense as many saw themselves slaves to the taxes of Parliament.

Revolution

In 1765, when the Stamp Act was passed, the colonists began to see the true intentions of the British government. After protesting the Act which led to riots in August of that year, the Stamp Act was repealed in 1766.[12]  However, in the years that would follow, several other Acts were passed and impressed upon the American Colonies including the Townshend Acts.  By 1776, the American Colonies had had enough of British control and declared independence.  Despite this, without the French and Indian War and its outcome, American independence might not have come.  The increased number of troops and supplies sent to America, along with British generals who refused to collaborate with the colonial assemblies, helped to spark an American hatred for its own government.  When the war ended, Britain severely underestimated America in thinking that it could tax them as it did the other colonies without conflict.  Its policy was no different than what it had done throughout the empire; however, its long absence in American affairs weakened its ability to truly govern the colonies.  So when the war came and ended, America was given a dose of reality to the true nature of the British Crown allowing it to seek independence and to be born as a new nation.

What do you think the most important reason was for the American Revolution? Let us know below.

[1]The American Revolution, “The Navigation Acts.” Our American Revolution, http://www.ouramericanrevolution.org/index.cfm/page/view/p0096(accessed Sept. 29, 2019). 

[2]Walter R. Borneman, The French and Indian War: Deciding the Fate of North America (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006), 40-41. 

[3]Ibid, 47. 

[4]Ibid, 48. 

[5]Ibid, 51. 

[6]Ibid, 55. 

[7]Ibid, 84. 

[8]Ibid, 85.

[9]Robert J. Allison, The American Revolution: A Concise History(New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). 

[10]Ibid, 5. 

[11]Ibid, 6. 

[12]Ibid 8. 

What Do Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Oprah Winfrey Have in Common? A Little Help from George Washington

George Washington was not only the first US President and a key figure in the American Revolutionary War… Here, Cyrus A. Ansary(author ofGeorge Washington: Dealmaker-In-Chief Amazon US| Amazon UK) argues that Washington’s economic approach and entrepreneurial mind was key in the years after independence and plays a role to this day in America.

George Washington’s inauguration for his first term as president on April 30, 1789.

Steve Jobs, who put the iPhone in the pockets of millions of Americans, owed more to George Washington than he could have ever imagined. So do Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, multimedia maven Oprah Winfrey, Mattel’s Ruth Handler, and countless other enterprising Americans who have been among the top 1%. The American culture of entrepreneurship and famously strong economy that encouraged and nurtured their successes did not sprout into being by sheer happenstance. It was the first US President who painstakingly laid the foundation for the entrepreneurial culture to take root in America.

Encouraging Entrepreneurs

What most of us remember about George Washington’s legacy from history class probably has mostly to do with the Revolutionary War or his unassailable character—not his role in creating the foundation of a flourishing U.S. economy. In fact, many writers and historians assume that Washington knew little or nothing about economics, and attribute the early successes in the field to Alexander Hamilton. As Washington’s Treasury Secretary, Hamilton performed brilliantly in refinancing the nation’s debt structure and creating a national bank. President Washington’s economic blueprint for the country, however, was far broader in scope and modern America owes quite a lot to his strategic vision for the United States.

Stifled by British imperial policies while growing up, George Washington developed a vision of an economic model for the fledgling United States that was based on his own professional experiences. In his private life he was a serial entrepreneur and dealmaker long before those terms were even invented. He drew from those experiences upon becoming President to create laws, policies, and practices designed to create a flourishing entrepreneurial society. To achieve it, he had to overcome serious opposition from many quarters, including from within his own administration. In addition, he also had to deal with the substantial obstacles placed in his path by foreign adversaries. He persevered because he was keenly aware of the unfairness of the British system and understood why and how it had to be changed.

Washington’s Approach

Washington, however, never formally laid out his economic philosophy in the colonial equivalent of a white paper, as the last thing on his mind was to consciously devise a new economic theory. That kind of thinking, then and now, has generally been the province of academics. Washington’s approach was pragmatic, based on his experience working under British colonial rule and seeing very clearly what did not work. He knew that eliminating corruption, dismantling the roadblocks to business formation, fostering a stable national culture, establishing a respected federal judiciary, promoting the availability of private credit, and other similar measures had to happen in order to create a flourishing economy.

During Washington’s tenure in office American society in fact achieved a remarkable transformation, as evidenced by the creation of new commercial enterprises, the general prosperity in cities and towns, the active trade of the United States, and the growing demand for U.S. government debt. The system worked so well that, even with the built-in delays for such a program to mature and bear fruit, the nominal GDP of the United States during the last decade of the 18th century soared by an average of 9.78% per year, enabling the country to catch up with mighty Great Britain in output per capita only 20 years later.

The Impact of Washington’s Economic Approach

Washington’s actions are even more striking when you consider how far the country has come since then. Today the U.S. economy accounts for a large share of global output and provides the basis for our very high standard of living at home. The dollar is the preeminent currency for trade and finance in the world, and investors flock to the U.S. from other lands to pursue interest in our markets. Aside from the resilience and strength of the American economy, its propensity to produce life-changing innovations and technological breakthroughs is an inspiration to others.

Whether or not you’re in the 1% of wealth in the US, we all owe a debt to our first President’s socio-economic vision, which was far more comprehensive than is often credited. His extraordinary ingenuity and his unyielding determination in seeing his vision take root are directly responsible for the foundations that have allowed our economy to flourish. George Washington is, therefore, not only the father of our country, he is also the architect of our special and highly successful economy.

George Washington: Dealmaker-In-Chief will be available on February 18, 2019 in Trade Paperback and eBook at bookstores nationwide and online retailers includingAmazon US| Amazon UK.

Cyrus A. Ansary has an economics degree from American University in Washington, D.C., and a law degree from Columbia University in New York. He also studied French history at the University of Paris.  Ansary was Chairman of the Board of Trustees of American University for almost ten years, after serving as a member of that board for eighteen years. He is now Chairman Emeritus. The university annually awards the Cyrus A. Ansary Medal to a civic or corporate leader selected by its Board of Trustees. In 2014, Mount Vernon awarded the Cyrus A. Ansary Prize for Courage and Character to President George H.W. Bush.

Ansary was also a trustee of the Krupp Foundation in Essen, Germany, a member of the Woodrow Wilson Council in Washington, D.C., a trustee of the Washington Opera Society, and a trustee of the Wolf Trap Foundation in Vienna, Virginia. He was a member of the Life Guard Society of George Washington’s Mount Vernon, and is now an emeritus member. Ansary is a member of the Economic Club of Washington, D.C., the Economic Club of New York, the National Association for Business Economics, the CFA Society of Washington, D.C., and the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. He is a member of the bars of Maryland, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Supreme Court. He has been listed for decades in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in the World.

To connect with Ansary, please visit his LinkedIn Profile and Facebook Page.

The 1755 Battle of the Monongahela: Was it Due to George Washington’s Blunder?

The Battle of the Monongahela took place on July 9, 1755, in the early part of the French and Indian War. In the battle British – and British American – forces battled against French, Canadian, and Native American forces. And the battle took place in part due to a blunder by George Washington. Bill Yates explains.

A depiction of the British general, Edward Braddock, who led British and British American forces in the battle.

Major General Edward Braddock was tired. Born in 1695, in Perthshire, Scotland, he joined the military as a member of the Coldstream Guard at age 15. For 45 years he dutifully followed orders and fought for his king. Yet, on the steamy hot morning of 9 July, 1755, the immense physical and emotional strain of command wore heavily on his body (1).

July 1754 - Controversial Terms of Surrender

Just the year before he had equaled and surpassed his father’s rank when appointed Major General, and named Commander-in-Chief of all British forces in North America (1). His mission was to clean up a military mess created when a then unknown 22-year old major named George Washington attacked a French patrol. The brief skirmish ended with 13 dead Frenchmen and 21 captured. The French however claimed the men were not on a patrol but a diplomatic mission and as such considered the British action an unprovoked act of war (2/3). 

Concerned the French troops located at Fort Duquesne (now Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) would retaliate Washington had a circular palisaded (wooden stake) fort hastily built. He christened it Fort Necessity, and sent word for reinforcements noting; "We might be attacked by considerable forces". By mid June, Washington’s force totaled over 400 men backed with supplies and nine small cannons or swivel guns (4). 

On the morning of 3 July, 1754, Washington received word a contingent of 600 French troops and 100 Native Americans were advancing on the fort. Now promoted to the rank of colonel Washington moved his men from the fort and into entrenchments he had previously dug. The ensuing pitched battle lasted to nightfall, with the British suffering far greater casualties (4). 

Sometime around 8 p.m. the commander of the French force, Captain Louis Coulon de Villiers, requested a truce to discuss the terms of Washington's surrender. It was one of the articles within these terms that the French used for great political gain, and may be noted as the beginnings of both the French Indian War, and the Seven Years War - wherein a clause within the signed terms proclaimed Washington was guilty of assassinating a French officer. Washington later denied the accusation stating the translation he was given was not "assassination", but instead "death of" or "killing". While the truth of the officer’s death is lost to history, the French used Washington’s signed statement as propaganda to great advantage in creating alliances against the English in the upcoming Seven Years War (4). 

February 1755 - Arrival

Major General Braddock stepped on Virginia soil in February, 1755. He was accompanied by two regiments of soldiers, supplies, and an overabundance of British arrogance. Braddock displayed a disdain for the traditions, customs, and colonists themselves. His orders specifically allowed him to demand appropriations from the colonists. And, he expected little objection or resistance to his Imperial seizure of goods, supplies, and soldiers from which he took freely. It may be said Braddock looked upon the British colonists as second-class citizens, and undertook a laissez faireattitude towards American possessions. He completely failed to realize how passionately the colonists would cling to the idea of diffused sovereignty. And, to an extent he and his subordinates, through their haughty, supercilious, condescending and downright aggressive attitudes, actions and policies began to sow the seeds of discontent that would unite the Americans to come together and form a new nation twenty years later (5).

It may be noted his haughty attitude was not the biggest blunder Braddock made. He chose the resource light Virginia as his launching point for a long campaign into the Ohio valley, he squandered native alliances - which he saw little use for, and he brought with him a massive baggage train with vast numbers of burdensome and resource draining followers (5). 

May 1755 – The Trip Begins

Braddock began his ill-fated trip on 29 May. He brought with him as a guide and aid Colonel George Washington and 2,200 troops. His mission was part of a four-pronged attack. He was to take Fort Duquesne and then proceed north and take Fort Niagara, establishing British control over the entire Ohio territory. He however soon encountered numerous problems. Scornful of the Native populace, he didn’t understand the need to recruit them and had only 8 Mingo guides. The road he chose was too narrow for the massive amount of people, supplies, and equipment, which meant it needed to be constantly widened so the artillery and supply wagons could transverse it. Soon, Braddock became frustrated with the lack of progress and split his troops in two. Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Gage, would lead the “flying column” of 1,300, while he remained with the slower force containing the cannons and supply wagons (5).

As the remote Fort Duquesne had always been lightly manned the British believed they would be in for an easy victory. They even began to talk amongst themselves that the French would evacuate or run away when they saw the might of the British army advancing towards them. However, what the British didn’t know was that the French were anticipating such an attack and had fortified the fort with 1,600 men (5). When scouts reported the British were approaching Claude-Pierre Pecaudy de Contrecœur, the Canadian commander of the fort, dispatched 108 Troupes de la Marine, 146 Canadian militia, and 600 Native Americans led by Captain Daniel Liénard de Beaujeu to meet them (6). 

Here may be noted the massive error Braddock made when his disdain for the Native populace stopped him from recruiting more - as they could have advised him of the tactics which were going to be used against them. This was the hunting ground for the 600 Natives aligned with the French. Thickets, dense shrubs, and mature trees surrounded the higher ground they controlled, while the British found themselves in a lower open forest. In a short time the familiar Native hunting grounds turned into a killing field (6). 

The Battle

Under heavy fire what was left of the flying column went into full retreat, quickly running headlong into the slower heavier force. While greatly outnumbering their attackers the British were caught off guard by their fleeing countrymen. And, the ensuing accurate shots fired by the combined French, Canadian, and Native forces sent them into a panic. The narrow road did not allow the British cannons any effectiveness and deepened the dread in the men. Seeing his troops in disarray Braddock rode forth to rally his troops. His bravery inspired the remaining British officers who stepped into the open in an effort to create defensive lines. They made themselves easy targets but the men steadied and formed together (7).

The British lines began to hold, returning disciplined and deadly shots (7). As the battle ensued elements of the combined French forces circled around and attacked the wagons, and the 19-year old future American icon Daniel Boone barely escaped. A Wagoner under the command of Captain Hugh Waddell, Boone escaped by cutting his wagons and fleeing (8).

Three hours into the battle a musket ball ripped through Braddock’s lung. He limply fell to the ground and was dragged away. With Braddock mortally wounded and the officer corps decimated, the British, believing they were about to be massacred, fled. The Natives refused to follow. And, instead began scalping and looting the bodies (7).

In Retrospect

This is now considered one of the British Army’s worst hours. Braddock died four days later. Of the 2,200 troops, 456 were killed and 422 were wounded. The bravery of the officer core felt the worst casualties; wherein of 86 officers, 26 were killed and 37 wounded. Conversely the French noted light casualties. The lessons learned changed the methodology of how the British would conduct future warfare (7).     

A side note may be referenced in that there are persistent rumors that during the retreat Braddock’s men buried a considerable treasure in the form of payment to settlers for goods and supplies and payroll for the men equaling in today’s value $750,000. While to date this has not been proven we do know Colonel Thomas Dunbar had the wagons burned, destroyed the supplies, and buried the cannons (9). French records do not show gold as spoils of the battle (7), which may lead one to believe it to be nothing more than rumor. Yet, before deciding we may also note that after the battle colonists of the area refused - and were at times forced – to provide supplies to the British. Their reasoning was they “never received payment after Braddock's accounts were lost on the Monongahela” (10).

What do you think of the Battle of the Monongahela? Let us know below.

References

(1). N.A.. (2018, July 9). Edward Braddock British Commander. Encyclopedia Britannica. Online: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-Braddock 

(2). N.A.. (2013, Sept 22). The Braddock Campaign. Fort Necessity National Battlefield Pennsylvania. National Park Service. Online: https://www.nps.gov/fone/braddock.htm

(3). N.A.. (2012, March 31). Jumonville Glen. Fort Necessity National Battlefield Pennsylvania. National Park Service. Online: https://www.nps.gov/fone/jumglen.htm

(4). N.A.. (2015, Feb 26). The Battle of Fort Necessity. Fort Necessity National Battlefield Pennsylvania. National Park Service. Online: https://www.nps.gov/fone/battle.htm

(5). Anderson, F.. (2000).  Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America: 1754-1766 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000).

(6). Eccles, W. J.. (1990). France in America. Michigan State Press. 

(7). Hadden, J.. (1906). Sketch of Thos. Fausett: The slayer of Maj. Gen. Edward Braddock, who fell in the disastrous defeat in the battle of the Monongahela in the French and Indian war, July 9, 1755. Monthly Bulletin of the Carnegie of Pittsburgh. Vol. II 1906.  

(8). Wallace, Paul A. W. (1 August 2007). "Daniel Boone in Pennsylvania". DIANE Publishing Inc.

(9). McLynn, Frank (2004). 1759: The Year Britain Became Master of the World. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.

(10). Hazard, ed., Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, 8:282, 85. Parsons to Weiser, 0an.] 1757, Weiser to Peters, Nov. 17, 1757, Conrad Weiser Papers 2:67, 105, HSP. Stevenson to Bouquet, 31 May, 1757,Louis Waddell et al., eds., The Papers of Henry Bouquet, 6.

One of a Kind? The Humility of George Washington

War history centers on some of human history’s most renowned and respected generals, those who commanded domineering and revolutionary armies: Alexander the Great, George S. Patton, Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, and George Washington to name a few. Legendary generals are marked by their extraordinary military strategy, ferocity, bravery, and of course, commanding presence. However, a trait in one commanding general stands out and separates him from others. We explain below.

George Washington and the Marquis de Lafayette at Valley Forge. By John Ward Dunsmore, 1907.

Continental Army Commander

Historians have frequently observed Washington’s dedication to American Independence which Washington admirably referred to as “our glorious cause.” He accepted the title as commander of the Continental Army without pay. Washington was one of the richest men in Virginia, if not the colonies. Had he wanted to, Washington would certainly have had the means to remain in the comfort and security at his home of Mount Vernon or toured the country Washington fought for during his service in the French and Indian War – Great Britain.

His leadership proved brilliant, especially in 1777-78 at Valley Forge during a bitterly cold winter. Of the 11,000 soldiers stationed at Valley Forge, hundreds would perish from disease. General Washington endured alongside his men. American military historian Edward G. Lengel describes his leadership during this “sacrificial” as he took “great care in seeing that his soldiers were well housed.”

While his leadership skills were exceptional, his military strategy was not. Alexander the Great is famous worldwide for his monumental empire, as he was never defeated in battle, and as he overpowered King Darius of Persia through deception. The Continental Army suffered more losses than victories under General Washington. However, the source of his triumph was his ability to rally supporters around “our glorious cause” through reminding them of their patriotic contributions. Washington understood the need to explain the “why” aspect of the fight for independence before addressing the “what” or “how” aspect. Washington was convinced, but not boastful.

David McCullough, author of John Adams, wrote that General Washington listened to the advice of his war council and messengers that reported to him which he used to avoid more catastrophic mistakes, proving that Washington continued to look after the lives and wellbeing of his men.
As a leader, Washington accomplished one of the most tremendous feats an under-trained and under-resourced ragtag militia could muster against a worldwide empire.

Political Office

On September 3, 1783, Great Britain formally acknowledged the independence of the United States with the signing of the Treaty of Paris, bringing the prolonged eight years of war to an end. At the moment of this monumental victory, Washington was at the peak of his power, a time at which most conquering generals in past human history would have appointed themselves as dictators. For example, not too many years after 1783, Napoleon Bonaparte led successful campaigns during France’s revolutionary wars and rendered himself emperor after the French monarchy was overthrown.

When the war ended, King George III asked his envoys about Washington’s activities. He was told Washington retired from public life, back at his home of Mount Vernon. George III couldn’t believe it; he leaned back in his chair and said, “If this be true, then George Washington must be the greatest Man in the world.”

After five years of comfort as a Virginian farmer, Washington once again recognized the need of the people for a leader to guide the nation in its infancy. The veteran general would serve his country as the first president of the United States from 1789-1797. He dressed in civilian clothes despite being encouraged to wear his military uniform as he felt it would resemble a military dictatorship – at the time much of Europe was, or was soon to be, under such rulers. He rebuked the title of “His Majesty,” simply preferring to be called “Mr. President.” Only serving two terms in office, Washington recognized that position was more impactful than his name and he would set an example for future presidents. In his farewell address, Washington utilized his language to humanize himself as a reminder that he is flawed and vulnerable like everyone else, yet devoted to building a nation future generations could thrive in.

At the end of his presidency, Washington told his friends and colleagues, “Gentlemen, if you wish to speak to me again, it will be under my own Fig and Vine.”

What do you think of George Washington? Let us know below.

References

https://davidmschroeder.com/2015/03/26/5-secrets-of-george-washingtons-leadership/

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2015/02/17/what-made-george-washington-great-leader.html

https://conantleadership.com/3-leadership-lessons-learned-from-george-washington/

https://sdrostra.com/jim-sills/the-sublime-humility-of-george-washington-we-still-stand-on-the-shoulders-of-this-human-giant/

https://www.fastcompany.com/3018516/benjamin-franklin-george-washington-and-the-power-of-humility-in-leadership

http://eskify.com/10-greatest-military-strategists-history/

Did you know about the many US ‘presidents’ before George Washington?

As of November 2017, the United States of America had 45 presidents - well technically 44 people as Grover Cleveland was president twice - but there have been 45 presidencies since 1789. But have you ever thought about who ‘ran’ the United States before George Washington took office in 1789? The US called for Independence from Great Britain in 1776. Doing the math, there were 13 years between the Declaration of Independence and George Washington’s term as president, although the early ‘presidents’ began even earlier… Jennifer Johnson explains.

A portrait of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart, 1797.

The Start of a New Nation

For many American colonists, declaring Independence from Great Britain was a surprise. Due to treason laws, the men who became known as the Founding Fathers, met in secret while determining how they would fight for independence from the Mother Country. And they knew that once independence was declared, it would be a fight to the finish. Therefore, there was a lot that transpired after the Declaration of Independence, namely the American Revolutionary War. However, even with the US at war with Great Britain, someone still needed to oversee the newly formed United States. So, who could that be? Step forward, the President of the Continental Congress.

Before we get too far into who the presidents before George Washington were, it is important to note that the Presidents of the Continental Congress and the Presidents of the USA ended up with different responsibilities. One reason for this is America, at war with Britain, was not truly independent until the 1780s. Even during the different presidencies of the Continental Congress, responsibilities changed. And one of the biggest differences was the term in office. There were many presidents for short periods before George Washington. The Continental Presidents could stay in office until they resigned or Congress felt a new president was necessary - at least before the Articles of Confederation were agreed.

The Early Continental Presidents

Peyton Randolph is known as the first President of the Continental Congress, or Continental President.  He was given this title in September 1774 when everyone in Congress voted for him to be so. However, in October 1774, Henry Middleton became the second Continental President for about a week, after which Peyton Randolph took over again, this time for a little under a month due to poor health.  Once Randolph resigned a second-time due to his health and headed back to Virginia to be with his family, one of the most famous Founding Fathers took over, John Hancock. Hancock stayed on as president until October 1777. John Hancock did not even step down as Continental President when Peyton Randolph came back for a period of time, though many felt Hancock should have in order to let Randolph assume his responsibilities. Unfortunately, all this debate ended when Peyton Randolph passed away suddenly of a stroke in October 1775. This means that John Hancock was the first President of the Continental Congress to preside under the US after the Revolutionary War broke out and after independence was declared. Henry Laurens was the fifth Continental President and served from the time Hancock stepped down until December 1778. Laurens was succeeded by John Jay, who served until September 28, 1779.  The seventh Continental Congress President was Samuel Huntington, who served from the date John Jay stepped down until a couple months after the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781. 

Continental Presidents Under the Articles of Confederation

Once the Articles of Confederation were ratified by all of America’s 13 states, the responsibilities of the Presidents of the Continental Congress began to extend. Thomas McKean was the first Continental President to hold his full term under the Articles of Confederation, lasting from July 1781 to November of that year. John Hanson was the ninth and lasted a year in office, from November 5, 1781 to November 4, 1782.  Then it was the turn of Elias Boudinot from New Jersey, who was in place until November 3, 1783. The eleventh Continental President was Thomas Mifflin, who served as president until June 1784. Unfortunately for Mifflin, he had a tough short term as Continental President as General George Washington resigned in December 1783 and then Mifflin had the challenge of trying to get enough delegates from the states so Congress could ratify the Treaty of Paris. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia was the twelfth and resided in office from November 30, 1784 to November 4, 1785.  The thirteenth was once again John Hancock, who filled the position from November 1785 to June 1786. After Hancock’s second term as Continental President, Nathaniel Gorham took over from June 6, 1786 until November of that same year. The last two Continental Presidents were Arthur St. Clair, who was in office from February to November 1787, and Cyrus Griffin who was president until November 1788.

George Washington becomes President

The famous first President, and truly first president with the title and responsibilities of the President of the USA, took office in 1789 and served two terms as president, until 1797. As the majority of Americans know, George Washington is one of the most famous and heavily researched of all the United States’ presidents. However, Washington was in many ways not truly the first president of United States of America as an independent country. 

Let us know what you think of the article below…

References

"Continental Presidents." Continental Presidents ***. Accessed October 5, 2017. https://www.landofthebrave.info/continental-presidents.htm.

History.com Staff. "John Hancock." History.com. 2009. Accessed October 8, 2017. http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/john-hancock.

"Peyton Randolph: The forgotten revolutionary president." National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org. Accessed October 5, 2017. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/peyton-randolph-the-forgotten-revolutionary-president.

"President of the Continental Congress." Wikipedia. October 07, 2017. Accessed October 14, 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Continental_Congress.

"Thomas Mifflin." Wikipedia. October 06, 2017. Accessed October 14, 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Mifflin.

Was George Washington really a drug addict?

A multitude of myths and legends surround first US president George Washington. Some of these turn out to be true - but surely the first American president wasn’t a drug addict? Simone Flynn assesses how George Washington used drugs and drank alcohol to determine the myth and the reality…

Washington as Farmer at Mount Vernon by Julius Brutus Stearns, 1851. But did Washington's activity on his Mount Vernon estate include excessive drug or alcohol consumption?

My name is George Washington and I’m a laudanum addict – maybe.

In a spoken word section of The Fugs song “Wide, Wide River” (from the 1968 album “It Crawled Into My Hand, Honest), the singer/speaker bemoans, a “supposedly democratic system, where you end up always voting for the lesser of two evils? I mean, was George Washington the lesser of two evils? Sometimes I wonder...”

By modern standards we’ve long known that Washington, the father of the US, was not perfect. For one thing, he was a slave owner. He may have been an adulterer. And, according to some sources, he may have been a drug addict or an alcoholic. The tricky aspect of assessing these claims are that, like much of his life, it’s sometimes hard to separate the reality from the myth - although the well-known cherry tree myth seems unequivocally to be the latter!

The evidence pointing to Washington as being a possible addict is:

1.     Washington grew hemp, which like marijuana contains THC (but much less)

2.     After his two terms as president, he opened a whiskey distillery at his plantation home at Mount Vernon

3.     Washington seemed fond of Madeira, a fortified Portuguese wine, and complained that he thought his servants were drinking it up

4.     Washington was known to consume laudanum, an addictive substance

Scant evidence?

While Washington was upset about how much Madeira his servants might be drinking, it was the outrage of a rich person upset over being taken advantage of by the help, not an alcoholic worried about his stash. The distillery, too, wasn’t for personal consumption (at least not primarily) but as a moneymaking enterprise.

And while he drank a lot, at alcoholic levels to modern sensibilities, so did the other Founding Fathers. At the last meeting of the Continental Congress, enough alcohol was consumed for each delegate to have more than two bottles apiece to themselves. And alcohol such as hard cider was served with most meals, including breakfast, in part because water often wasn’t safe.

The hemp use isn’t particularly damning either, as hemp then was used mainly for rope, paper and other commercial purposes, not recreational drug use, and there’s no documented and little circumstantial evidence that Washington smoked its flowers.

Washington’s laudanum consumption is another matter. Laudanum, a mixture of opium tincture and alcohol, was a widely used medicine at the time, an analgesic and nostrum used for many maladies and ailments. It was cheaper than simple booze because it was considered medicine, so not subject to alcohol taxes. Although it retains some legitimate uses, such as for diarrhea, laudanum is highly addictive, especially if used more often or in greater doses than prescribed. Back then, it might have been as casually abused as other opiates and opioids today. Until 1868, laudanum was pretty much unregulated, and it wasn’t until the early 20th century that its risks were well known.

Washington needed laudanum because of his famously ‘wooden’ teeth, which were actually made of real teeth, both human and animal, and carved ivory (probably from hippopotamus tusks). They were so ill fitting that they caused him constant pain. The belief that they were wooden may be because they would become stained and cracked, thus resembling wood grain. Washington had only one remaining tooth to anchor his dentures.

Many other notable people have been known for or suspected of laudanum addiction over the centuries including poets Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley, John Keats and Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and authors Charles Dickens, Wilkie Collins and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

If Washington was addicted to laudanum, it wasn’t for the purpose of getting high, or even coping with the stress of being the Revolutionary War hero and first President of the United States (talk about pressure). Washington took laudanum for intense pain. He was at worse a high-functioning addict who accomplished a lot and lived to age 67 after suffering from smallpox, tuberculosis and other life-shortening disabilities before the invention of penicillin. That’s quite an achievement.

Please share your thoughts below…

Links

http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/22/george-washington-boozehound

http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/cherry-tree-myth/

http://www.projectknow.com/a-complete-guide-to-the-us-presidents-and-their-drug-and-alcohol-use/

http://georgewashington.si.edu/portrait/face.html

Simone Flynn blogs about addiction, recovery, mental health, and wellness. She has asked us to link to a rehabilitation center here.

George Washington & Spy Rings in the American Revolution

Today we have an excerpt from George Washington’s Secret Spy War: The Making of America’s First Spymaster by American Revolution historian, John A. Nagy (available here US) | (here UK).

This is the story of how America was really won. Using George Washington’s diary as the primary source, historian John A. Nagy uncovers the never-before-known history of how Washington was not just the first president but also America’s first spymaster. Nagy reveals how Washington first dabbled with espionage in the French and Indian War. Ultimately, it is this expertise that leads to the defeat of the British - they weren’t just outplayed, they were out spied: from double-crosses to doubly shady characters. Nagy unearths the surprising true stories behind numerous spy rings on both sides of the war.

Below we share an excerpt from the book.

Chapter 4: Pools of Blood

Washington was always concerned about spies. They were a constant problem except when the armies were on the move. He knew he could not stop all of them, so feeding them false information was his next best defense. With that in mind on December 12, 1776, he told Colonel John Cadwalader of the Philadelphia Associators of the Pennsylvania militia, “Keep a good look out for spies; endeavor to magnify your numbers as much as possible.” It was a ploy he would use over and over again in creating false troop information, inflating the size and giving the wrong location of his forces for spies to discover and take back to enemy headquarters.

Washington in December of 1776 was desperate to know what the British were doing. Spare no pains or expense to get intelligence of the enemy’s intentions, Washington told Cadwalader. He had also told General James Ewing, “Spare no pains nor cost to gain information of the enemy’s movements and designs. Whatever sums you pay to obtain this end I will cheerfully refund. “He also advised Brigadier General Philemon Dickinson to spare no pains or expense to obtain intelligence, and all promises he made or monies advanced would be acknowledged and paid. Three days later Washington was still desperate for information and again was encouraging Cadwalader to get intelligence of the enemy’s intentions.

Dickinson, who was at Yardley’s farm in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, advised Washington on the 21st of the information he was able to collect from two people who had come out of New Jersey on what was going on in New Brunswick, and from a person from Crosswicks regarding boats at Lewis’s Mill. A slave from Trenton told of boats being built a mile from town. Dickinson told Washington he was going to increase the amount he was offering to $15 or $20 for someone to go as a spy to Trenton and return. “People here are fearful of the inhabitants betraying them.” On the 24th he was able to secure someone to take the risks and he got him across the river into New Jersey. He was due back the next morning, at which time he was going to be provided with a horse to get to Washington.

On the morning of December 31, 1776, while at Crosswicks, one of Cadwalader’s spies, who was identified only as “a very intelligent young gentleman,” had just returned from the British camp at Princeton some sixteen miles distant. He identified the number and locations of British and Hessian forces in the town. He said “there were about five thousand men, consisting of Hessians and British troops—about the same number of each. . . . He conversed with some of the officers, and lodged last night with them.” As part of a disinformation campaign, Washington had previously instructed that the numbers of American troops were to be magnified. The spy complied with these instructions by saying that Washington had 16,000 men. However, they would not believe that Washington had more than 5,000 or 6,000. The spy reported, “They parade every morning an hour before day [break]—and some nights lie on their arms—An attack has been expected for several nights past—the men are much fatigued, and until last night [were] in want of provisions—when a very considerable number of wagons arrived with provisions from [New] Brunswick.” He provided a crucial piece of information: the enemy was not expecting an attack from the east, as there were “no sentries on the back or east side of the town” facing the water, thus leaving the town unguarded. The spy also provided enough detailed information for a map, which was made by Cadwalader, showing the enemy’s positions at Princeton.

Washington and the army re-crossed the ice-choked Delaware and returned to New Jersey on December 29. The artillery was unable to cross till the 31st due to the ice. When assembled at Trenton, Washington’s forces numbered 6,000 men and forty cannons. However, enlistments were expiring and soldiers would be going home. The army was going to evaporate before his eyes. Washington appealed to his men to stay in service for some promised bonus money. On December 31, Robert Morris in Philadelphia sent Washington the sum of 410 Spanish milled dollars, 2 English crowns, 10½ English shillings, and one half a French crown, amounting to 155 pounds, 9 shillings, 6 pence in Pennsylvania currency, or 124 pounds, 7 shillings, 8 pence lawful money, which is the value in gold and silver. Buoyed by the combination of victory at Trenton and money from Morris, most men stayed.

After Washington’s victory at Trenton, British General Cornwallis returned to New Jersey from New York City. He assembled a force of 8,000 at Princeton, leaving 1,200 at Princeton under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Charles Mawhood of the 17th Regiment of Foot. On January 2, he took his remaining forces, which included twenty-eight cannons, and marched toward Trenton and Washington’s army. When he reached Maidenhead (now Lawrenceville), he detached Colonel Alexander Leslie of the 64th Regiment of Foot with 1,500 men. He ordered them to stay there until the next morning. As soon as Washington heard that Cornwallis was on his way to attack him, he detached men to skirmish with the approaching British forces in a delaying action. Due to the American resistance it was not until late in the day when the British army finally reached Trenton. It was the second time in eight days that the Americans would engage the enemy.

The Americans were encamped on the east side of a bridge across the Assunpink Creek. The British advanced in solid columns onto the bridge. The Americans fired in unison and the British fell back. The British regrouped and charged the bridge again. This time the Americans fired a cannon into the redcoats and they fell back once more. After regrouping they moved onto the bridge. This time the American cannons fired antipersonnel canister shot, which is like a shotgun blast of small pellets. The bridge was littered with the dead. A soldier described the scene: “The bridge looked red as blood, with their killed and wounded and their red coats.” The firing and the killing continued till sunset when Cornwallis called off the attack. He planned to take the bridge the next morning and then crush Washington and the Continental Army. Both sides were exhausted and the soldiers on both sides were ordered to rest.

It was brought to Washington’s attention that the British could cross the creek farther down at Philip’s Ford and turn his flank. He would have been caught between the British forces and the Delaware River. It would have been a repeat of the Battle of Long Island. This time he could not escape by crossing the Delaware, as he had crossed the East River before, as his vessels were farther upstream. He did not have the time for them to be brought to his rescue. Later the British quietly, under the cover of darkness, began moving 2,000 men in the woods into position to cross Philip’s Ford in the morning.

Washington had received Cadwalader’s spy’s intelligence on the enemy situation at Princeton. The unknown spy provided great detail of the British fortifications. This would be the rare occasion that Washington acted on a single spy’s intelligence, as there was no time to get corroborating intelligence. Because of the desperate situation, he could not stand pat. He had to do something or be destroyed.

He hurriedly called a council of war. It was decided to slip away during the night and surprise the British at Princeton. The Continental Army’s military and personal baggage was sent south to Burlington. The artillery was wrapped in heavy cloth to quiet the noise. Five hundred soldiers were left at Trenton with two cannons. Some were assigned to tend the campfires to keep them burning. Others were to make noise digging with picks and shovels to convince the British that the American army was going to make a stand and was reinforcing its position preparing for the British attack at Philip’s Ford. The soldiers who were left as a distraction were to sneak away during the night and catch up to the Continental Army before dawn. The army, as silently as possible, slipped away beginning at 2 a.m. while the British watched the light from the American camp- fires. For some of the men it would be their third night march in a row in the cold and extreme darkness. They were slowed by the task of getting the artillery over stumps in the frozen, rutted road. After crossing the new bridge, Washington split the army into two units just as when he approached Trenton a week earlier.

Unfortunately, just like a week earlier, they were arriving later than intended and lost the cover of darkness.

Thirty-four-year-old Rhode Islander General Nathanael Greene took the smaller column of soldiers and went west to take control of the main road from Princeton to Trenton. They were to keep the enemy at Princeton from escaping and block any reinforcements coming to the aid of those at Princeton. General John Sullivan of New Hampshire commanded the main body of the army of 5,000 men. They went to the right along the Saw Mill Road.

Cornwallis had ordered forty-seven-year-old Lieutenant Colonel Charles Mawhood to bring the 17th and 55th British Regiments of Foot along with some artillery to Trenton to join his army in the morning. Mawhood marched out from Princeton at about five in the morning. While on the march he sighted the main American army under General Sullivan. He immediately sent a rider to warn the 40th Regiment of Foot in Princeton of the advancing Americans.

Mawhood decided to attack with 450 men the main American army. Brigadier General Hugh Mercer’s 1,500 men of Greene’s division made the first contact with Mawhood’s men in William Clark’s orchard. Lieutenant William John Hale of the 45th Regiment of Foot wrote that the American volley was “a heavy discharge, which brought down seven of my platoon at once, the rest being recruits, gave way.” He continues, “I rallied them with much difficulty, and brought them forward with bayonets.” The two sides matched volley for volley. Pools of blood glistened on the ice-covered field. Mawhood saw an opportunity and ordered a bayonet charge against the American riflemen, who did not have bayonets. Brigadier General Mercer’s horse was hit and down Mercer went as he ordered a retreat. His men safely retreated but Mercer fell into British hands. He fought with his sword and was bayoneted many times and would die several days later. His men retreated right into Colonel John Cadwalader’s Pennsylvania Associators as they were trying to deploy. Washington came on the field and rallied the men, riding on a white horse within seventy-five feet of the British line. He made a very easy target but somehow came through the battle without a scratch. More American units came onto the field, some with bayonets drawn.

The British fired a volley that went over the heads of the Americans. Washington with the army under control then ordered a platoon to fire as it marched forward. Washington was turning their flank and was about to attack the British rear as well as the front and flank. The circle was closing. The British decided their only course of action was either to fight and be cut to pieces or retreat through the only way still available. Mawhood sent the artillery back to Princeton in an effort to save them. The 55th Regiment of Foot took up position south of the town at a place called Frog Hollow. They were outnumbered 10 to 1. They did some delaying actions, falling back to new defensive positions. This bought the British some time to remove as much of their supplies and artillery out of Princeton as possible and take them to safety in New Brunswick. When the American army was within fifty or sixty feet of the British defenses and ready to charge, a British officer with a white handkerchief on the point of his sword asked for a truce in order to surrender. General Sullivan accepted his surrender.

Some of the British forces that were in the town took shelter in Nassau Hall, which was the main building for the College of New Jersey (now Princeton). Alexander Hamilton had some cannons brought to the front of Nassau Hall and fired at the building. When some Americans broke open the front door, the British waved a white flag through one of the windows and surrendered. The Americans had defeated the British regulars and were now in control of the town. As soon as Cornwallis realized the Americans had slipped away during the night, were now behind him, and he was in an unsupported position, he and his troops headed back to Princeton.

The British payroll chest of £70,000 lay just sixteen miles up the road in New Brunswick guarded by a skeleton force. It was a great prize but Washington’s men were exhausted. Some had not had any rest for two nights and a day. From the best intelligence Washington was able to get, the British were so alarmed at the possibility of an attack at New Brunswick that they immediately marched there without halting at Princeton. This al- lowed Washington to take his men unmolested another thirty miles past New Brunswick to the safety of an encampment in the Watchung Mountains in and around Morristown.

The increase in the morale of the public and the troops was meteoric. The mood went from the despair of expecting Philadelphia to fall to the British juggernaut, which had ridden rough- shod over New York and New Jersey, to euphoria over the two American victories. William Hooper, a Continental congress- man from North Carolina, best described the change in the public morale and the heady confidence in Washington and the Continental Army after the victories at the Battle of Trenton over the Hessians and the Battle of Princeton over the British.

Excerpted with permission from George Washington’s Secret Spy War: The Making of America’s First Spymaster by John A. Nagy. Published by St. Martin’s Press. Copyright 2016. Book available here US | here UK.

American Revolution History - Episode 5 - Sweet, Costly Victory

How did the American Revolution reach its fascinating end?

In episode 5 of the American Revolution History podcast series, you will find out!

Join us for FREE and find out!

The Siege of Yorktown by Auguste Couder

We follow on from episode 4 in our series on the American Revolution, World War, and finish the story of how America became a nation. In this episode we look at the events that led to the American Revolutionary War ending. We shall see how the battle for the Southern colonies came to a close, and the amazing events around Yorktown, Virginia. Then there were the battles that continued to take place around the world that were linked to the conflict. And the aftermath.

You must be a site member to listen to this episode. It is FREE to join – just click the link, type in your email, click the button, and then check your email inbox!

Click here now!

Want to find out what else you get when you join?

Click here to find out.

George Levrier-Jones