Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was going to scan my paper on Washington, but my scanner is so old it won’t even light up anymore. But I will here some of my conclusions.
On July 21, 1775 Washington reported to John Hancock that he was organizing the army into divisions and brigades to promote order, regularity and discipline. However, Washington did not mention his efforts to Congress again until February 9, 1776 and this report was one of failure. Washington’s troops remained undisciplined to the point that they often neglected their equipment so Washington had to ask Congress for new equipment. Washington elaborated in his February 9, 1776 letter that his troops were still undisciplined because they had too much power over their officers. As Washington’s failure to defend New York City showed later in 1776 his efforts to discipline and train his army were an utter failure.
Throughout the latter half of 1775 expiration of enlistments was a constant headache to Washington, but Washington again showed his incompetence as a military leader. He reported on September 9 that enlistments were about to expire. But it wasn’t until November 28 that Washington was able to begin taking re-enlistments and this was possible only because he agreed to grant furloughs at the rate of 50 concurrent furloughs per regiment. So instead of pressing the siege of Boston- which presented a chance to end the war immediately, Washington intentionally weakened the army and thus prolonged the war. For all of Washington’s supposed ability to inspire his troops, he was utterly unable to inspire them when his inspiration could have had the greatest effect. The 50 furloughs per regiment in the face of a besieged enemy show that Washington was not commanding his troops, but rather his troops had him at their mercy.
On September 7, 1775 Washington reported to Congress that he was expecting 7 tons of lead and 500 guns. But Washington never reported to Congress that these supplies arrived. So where did they go? Then on December 4 he told Congress he needed gunpowder and that the lack of powder was keeping him from taking action against the British. He still didn’t have the needed powder come February 26, 1776.
All during the Boston campaign Washington intentionally moved his troops closer to the enemy despite the fact they didn’t have enough guns and powder. And then he even divided his army and ordered Benedict Arnold to invade Canada during the winter with an under-supplied army whose troop enlistments were about to expire. Only a reckless fool would use such a strategy.
In short Washington knew nothing about administering an army.
As a strategist Washington was an utter failure. For most of 1775 he had the British army under siege in Boston- except for Boston harbor. According to Washington’s reports to Congress British ships freely entered and left Boston harbor. He did nothing to prevent the British from being re-supplied; he did nothing to strike at the British fleet and he was glad when the British escaped. Washington did plan to place artillery on Dorchester Heights and this would have put the British fleet at his mercy. But when he learned that the British were planning to evacuate Washington postponed his deployment, telling Congress that the delay would give him more time to move his army to New York City in preparation for the expected British invasion there. But Washington actually did not make any effort to move his army before the British had left Boston.
To me, Washington got more out of what he had to work with than almost any general in our history. Remember, he had little actually military training or experience, and the troops he led were almost a joke by any contemporary standard. In fact, when he took over, there really wasn't much of an American army except on paper and even less of a civilian government. Logistically, we had next to nothing in the way of men, material or money. And he was up against what was then the premier professional army in the world backed by the strongest civilian government and economy in existence.
Despite that, he managed to raise the siege at Boston by the strategic placing of artillery on Dorchester Heights. His retreat from New York was masterful when we could have lost our entire army. The victory at Trenton was little short of miraculous and he followed that up with another victory at Princeton, both under almost appalling circumstances. I doubt anyone else could have held our army together at Valley Forge. At Monmouth, one of the biggest set-piece battles of the war, he fought the British to a stand-still. And of course, he led the ultimate victory at Yorktown.
I agree Washinton made a bunch of mistakes and lost more than he won. He was hardly perfect as a general. But in the long haul, where it matters, he was almost the sole reason we were able to hold our own militarily. Personally, I can't think of any general who did more with less.
Washington and John Adams are probably the only two indespensible of the Founding Fathers. Without those two, I don't see any way we win our indenpendence.
Without Jefferson, we would have had a different country. One with less freedom....like 2011.
Thats my 02.
Sam Adams was a lot more indespensible than John in the earlier years. Sams job was about done by the time Johns job was getting started. Sam being a revolutionary, John a statesman.
If you cherry pick through Washington's career and then list only negative things, then of course the thesis "near total failure" radiates validity.
The proper way to evaluate the man is to list all of his qualities, all of his triumphs and failures, and decide if the good outweighs the bad or the bad outweighs the good.
I think that most of us are familiar with Washington's inspirational value to the Continental Army, his unselfish willingness to serve his nation in whatever capacity it asked of him, his taintless and incorruptable character while in public service....but none of that seems to have been a factor in your analysis.
Quote:
So instead of pressing the siege of Boston- which presented a chance to end the war immediately, Washington intentionally weakened the army and thus prolonged the war
I would also seriously question the idea that an accelerated recapture of Boston would have in any manner ended the War. How would that have caused the Brits to have given up?
You also seem to be unaware of the standoff conditions which existed during the siege of Boston. The Brits had sent a message stating that a bombardment of their ships would be the cause for them to put Boston to the torch when they evacuated. They blackmailed their way out of Boston. Washington restrained his artillery in order to save the town and save the lives of the Bostonians.
Without Jefferson, we would have had a different country.
Personally, I can't think of a more overrated founding father than Jefferson. At least from the point of being necessary for the winning of our independence, that is. And even in setting up our government. If Jefferson had never lived, we still would have won our independence. The same cannot be said of Washington or John Adams. And Jefferson wasn't even in the country when we drafted the Constitution.
(Heck, even his main claim to fame is overrated. Jefferson wasn't really saying anything in the Declaration of Independence that others weren't saying, albeit not as eloquently. And at the time, the Declaration was mostly an after-though. Moreover, the final draft wasn't all Jefferson. There were lots of amendments, additions and deletions by others.)
I agree Sam Adams had a valuable place in winning our independence. (And one that puts Jefferson far in the shade.) But while Sam got the ball rolling, it was Washington and John who put it over the goal line.
Interesting story about how indispensable John Adams was. When a negotiated truce was a real possibility, the British had only one name on their list of those who would not be pardoned. And it wasn't Jefferson, or Sam Adams or even Washington. It was John Adams. The British knew very well who their main adversary was.
Personally, I can't think of a more overrated founding father than Jefferson. At least from the point of being necessary for the winning of our independence, that is. And even in setting up our government. If Jefferson had never lived, we still would have won our independence. The same cannot be said of Washington or John Adams. And Jefferson wasn't even in the country when we drafted the Constitution.
(Heck, even his main claim to fame is overrated. Jefferson wasn't really saying anything in the Declaration of Independence that others weren't saying, albeit not as eloquently. And at the time, the Declaration was mostly an after-though. Moreover, the final draft wasn't all Jefferson. There were lots of amendments, additions and deletions by others.)
I agree Sam Adams had a valuable place in winning our independence. (And one that puts Jefferson far in the shade.) But while Sam got the ball rolling, it was Washington and John who put it over the goal line.
Interesting story about how indispensable John Adams was. When a negotiated truce was a real possibility, the British had only one name on their list of those who would not be pardoned. And it wasn't Jefferson, or Sam Adams or even Washington. It was John Adams. The British knew very well who their main adversary was.
I often wonder how exactly things come to be overrated. Except through high ratings.
The Declaration of Independence was essentially a re-write of a 1774 position paper by Samuel Adams...as you alluded to.
You make several valid points. I happen to be a huge Jefferson fan.
Poor Sam....talk about not getting the respect he deserves.
I was going to scan my paper on Washington, but my scanner is so old it won’t even light up anymore. But I will here some of my conclusions.
The primary issue I have with the following is that it cherry picks precise moments, takes them out of context and attempts to portray them as a definitive condemnation. If anything Washington's greatest triumph early in the Revolution was the fact that he kept an army in the field at all.
Quote:
On July 21, 1775 Washington reported to John Hancock that he was organizing the army into divisions and brigades to promote order, regularity and discipline. However, Washington did not mention his efforts to Congress again until February 9, 1776 and this report was one of failure. Washington’s troops remained undisciplined to the point that they often neglected their equipment so Washington had to ask Congress for new equipment. Washington elaborated in his February 9, 1776 letter that his troops were still undisciplined because they had too much power over their officers. As Washington’s failure to defend New York City showed later in 1776 his efforts to discipline and train his army were an utter failure.
The "army" that Washington took command of in 1775 following Bunker Hill was nothing more than a collection of various militia regiments. The vast majority of the troops had no military experience or training whatsoever. They served at their own leisure with virtually no compensation.
Further, the majority of officers that were not of the general staff were simply appointed and in some cases elected by their own men. The men did have great latitude as they were simply serving of their own free will. If there officers wanted to impose something upon them that they did not like, they could simply pack up and head home.
This remained an issue until regulars were recruited and the army itself received adequate training at Valley Forge under von Steuben.
Quote:
Throughout the latter half of 1775 expiration of enlistments was a constant headache to Washington, but Washington again showed his incompetence as a military leader. He reported on September 9 that enlistments were about to expire. But it wasn’t until November 28 that Washington was able to begin taking re-enlistments and this was possible only because he agreed to grant furloughs at the rate of 50 concurrent furloughs per regiment. So instead of pressing the siege of Boston- which presented a chance to end the war immediately, Washington intentionally weakened the army and thus prolonged the war. For all of Washington’s supposed ability to inspire his troops, he was utterly unable to inspire them when his inspiration could have had the greatest effect. The 50 furloughs per regiment in the face of a besieged enemy show that Washington was not commanding his troops, but rather his troops had him at their mercy.
He was unable to extend or accept re-enlistments as there had been no decision in Congress made as to how these troops would be compensated for their service. This period marks the beginning of a transition from a primarily militia based force to "regulars". The 50 concurrent furloughs were granted as to allow the militia which was mainly composed of farmers the opportunity to go home to attend the harvest and prepare for the following planting season. Had Washington failed to grant this request, his army may have simply dissolved with the vast majority failing to return.
Washington repeatedly pushed to assault the city through various means before the enlistments would expire at the end of the year, but the militia officers and his own appointments always advised against it and so the siege stood. It is unknown what effect an assault would have as the British were in worse shape than the Americans at that point. The refusal of the officer corp and militia to press an attack led to Washington's plan to place artillery on Dorchester Heights and threaten the harbor which was the only lifeline the British had.
In terms of his men controlling him and not vice versa, this was true. Again, he was a Virginia planter commanding a force of New England militiamen. His primary tool in his dealings was using the support of Artemus Ward who was widely respected by the New England troops. However, Ward was cautious as were most of the militia leaders.
Quote:
On September 7, 1775 Washington reported to Congress that he was expecting 7 tons of lead and 500 guns. But Washington never reported to Congress that these supplies arrived. So where did they go? Then on December 4 he told Congress he needed gunpowder and that the lack of powder was keeping him from taking action against the British. He still didn’t have the needed powder come February 26, 1776.
Who knows exactly what supplies he was referencing. Supplies were coming in ad hoc from all over and the Americans were also capturing some British equipment such as the stores and armament from the schooner Lee that ran aground. However, lead and guns aren't much use without powder.
When Washington first took command of the army in July 1775, his first request was for poweder. Unfortunately, none was readily available. It took until the end of 1776 for Washington to receive 90% (about 2 million pounds) of the powder he requested in July 1775. The powder was stripped from store houses and manufactury were established, but the bulk of the powder was actually sent by France in several covert shipments.
Quote:
All during the Boston campaign Washington intentionally moved his troops closer to the enemy despite the fact they didn’t have enough guns and powder. And then he even divided his army and ordered Benedict Arnold to invade Canada during the winter with an under-supplied army whose troop enlistments were about to expire. Only a reckless fool would use such a strategy.
Washington continually tightened the noose around Boston in order to keep the British at bay. He also used his rifleman to great extent to harass the British. His plans were solid in order to do something to keep the British penned in and allow the under supplied Americans to resist a possible counter attack if it came. The extension of the trench lines around Charlestown Neck was done in response to various British raids and the Dorchester Heights were fortified to give the Americans an advantage over the British with their artillery from Ticonderoga. Outside of that, the trench line itself remained as it was from when Ward first established it, it was merely strengthened and improved.
The invasion of Canada was approved by Congress (in an attempt to get the French Canadians to revolt) and involved units from NY and CT that were under the ultimate command of Philip Schuyler. The entire main forace was militia and departed from Ticonderoga. Washington was asked by Massachusetts to provide an additional column under Arnold and Washington obliged, sending less than 5% of his troops to assist. While the ultimate invasion failed, it did keep British Canada out of the war until the 1777 Saratoga campaign. Without the attack it would have been possible for British forces under Carleton to retake Ticonderoga and with the assistance of the Iroquois sowe havoc in NY.
Quote:
In short Washington knew nothing about administering an army.
Probably not, but he wasn't an incompetent fool either.
Quote:
As a strategist Washington was an utter failure. For most of 1775 he had the British army under siege in Boston- except for Boston harbor. According to Washington’s reports to Congress British ships freely entered and left Boston harbor. He did nothing to prevent the British from being re-supplied; he did nothing to strike at the British fleet and he was glad when the British escaped. Washington did plan to place artillery on Dorchester Heights and this would have put the British fleet at his mercy. But when he learned that the British were planning to evacuate Washington postponed his deployment, telling Congress that the delay would give him more time to move his army to New York City in preparation for the expected British invasion there. But Washington actually did not make any effort to move his army before the British had left Boston.
Washington completely lacked ANY artillery capable of striking at Boston or the fleet until Knox arrived with the cannon from Ticonderoga in early 1776. He made great strides to limit the British to nothing but what supplies could be brought in from the sea. The British army in Boston was starving and suffering from scurvy and smallpox. They ran out of wood and were tearing houses apart to build fires.
Washington repeatedly pressed for an assault on the city, but the militia commanders wouldn't acquiesce instead settling on the plan to fortify Dorchester Heights. Once the Heights were fortified the Americans opened fire on the city and following the arrival of additional guns, began firing on the British fleet. This forced the British hand and they planned a later aborted attempt to assault the Heights, but ultimately settled to withdraw.
A group of prominent Bostonians sent a letter to Washington informing him of the intent of the British to fire the entire city if the evacuation was interfered with. Washington rejected the letter at face, but did acquiesce to allowing the British to leave unharassed under the threat of the total destruction of Boston.
After a week of preperation and waiting for favorable sailing conditions, the British finally departed. American privateers did intercept several supply ships during this period and also several ships from the convoy that departed Boston.
The Americans cautiously entered the city since they knew there had been a smallpox outbreak and confirmed the British had left. Two weeks later on April 4th Washington set out with the bulk of the army for NYC.
Sorry, but your cherry picking is a very poor condemnation and lacks any study of the actual events surrounding his statements and what went on. It also shows a poor grasp of the reality of war in that period and the time to make things happen. It may have been an interesting high school term paper, but it lacks any real substance.
If only Obama had been around back then our country could have been spared such inadequate leadership.
Please, not this crap. Not every thread HAS to make a gratuitous invocation of modern politics. Please have the continence to keep that waste in the forums that are its designated latrines.
A good case can be made as the OP has that Washington had many failings as a military leader. In 1775, the New York campaign was absolutely disastrous for the Continental Army. Washington was literally chased out of New York and most of New Jersey. The Continental Army suffered heavy losses and several thousand troops surrendered to the British forces. Washington was unsuccessful in 1776, defending Philadelphia from the British and lost the Battle of Brandywine.
The reality was that when Washington assumed control of the Continental Army he hadn't been involved in armed combat for years. His last real fighting occurred during the French and Indian Wars a decade before when he served under General Braddock. Nevertheless, Washington was head of the Virginia Militia at the outbreak of hostilities against the British. Washington was known and respected throughout many of the colonies as a military man, planter, and politician. Virginia was the colony at the time with the largest population and Washington seemed the most logical choice to head the Continental Army.
Most of Washington's "incompetence" or defeats that you speak of occurred early in the conflict. What Washington demonstrated was an ability to learn from his mistakes. To give some examples, he used the winter of 1777 in Valley Forge to train his forces to act more like professional soldiers. The raid his troops pulled off against the Hessians during Christmas of 1776 was a solid victory that demonstrated the American forces could take a beating and still keep fighting. The siege of Yorktown in 1781 against British General Cornwallis was a masterpiece of planning that involved coordination of American land forces as well as the French Navy.
Washington is not to be blamed for things that were beyond his control. He was continually denied adequate supplies and reinforcements when he requested them. The Continental Congress was powerless to do more than simply make requests to the thirteen states to take action. It had no power to enforce its legislation. One historical document I have never forgotten is a copy of letter that has been preserved from Washington to the Governor of New York. Washington literally begs the Governor on his hands and knees for supplies and men to continue the Revolutionary War. This document really shows how pitiful and weak the first government we created under the Articles of Confederation was.
One fact so many seem to lose sight of is that the British Army and Navy were the very best in the world at that time. The British used their absolute control of the sea through their Navy against us and if there forces had been numerically greater in 1776, they might have squashed the revolution than and there. It is hardly surprising that Washington would have lost a few battles against this army.
Washington's military record during the Revolutionary War is a mixed record. There were both major defeats and victories. However, Washington realized that if the former colonies could keep on fighting eventually the British would have to give up. After their defeat at Yorktown, the British finally realized that the expense of keeping America as a colony was simply too great and negotiated the Treaty of Paris.
To the OP: I enjoyed your post and its an interesting point of view. I don't believe its very well thought out though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
