The True George Washington [10th Ed.]Ford, Paul Leicester
History
The True George Washington [10th Ed.]
Ford, Paul Leicester
Generals -- United States -- Biography; Presidents -- United States -- Biography; Washington, George, 1732-1799
Undoubtedly this leaning on others and the want of decision were not
merely due to a constitutional mistrust of his own ability, but also in
a measure to real lack of knowledge. The French and Indian War, being
almost wholly “bush-fighting,” was not of a kind to teach strategic
warfare, and in his speech accepting the command Washington requested
that “it may be remembered by every gentleman in the room, that I this
day declare with the utmost sincerity I do not think myself equal to
the command I am honored with.” Indeed, he very well described himself
and his generals when he wrote of one officer, “his wants are common to
us all—the want of experience to move upon a large scale, for the
limited and contracted knowledge, which any of us have in military
matters, stands in very little stead.” There can be no question that in
most of the “field” engagements of the Revolution Washington was
out-generalled by the British, and Jefferson made a just distinction
when he spoke of his having often “failed in the field, and rarely
against an enemy in station, as at Boston and York.”
The lack of great military genius in the commander-in-chief has led
British writers to ascribe the results of the war to the want of
ability in their own generals, their view being well summed up by a
writer in 1778, who said, “in short, I am of the opinion … that any
other General in the world than General Howe would have beaten General
Washington; and any other General in the world than General Washington
would have beaten General Howe.”
This is, in effect, to overlook the true nature of the contest, for it
was their very victories that defeated the British. They conquered New
Jersey, to meet defeat; they captured Philadelphia, only to find it a
danger; they established posts in North Carolina, only to abandon them;
they overran Virginia, to lay down their arms at Yorktown. As
Washington early in the war divined, the Revolution was “a war of
posts,” and he urged the danger of “dividing and subdividing our Force
too much [so that] we shall have no one post sufficiently guarded,”
saying, “it is a military observation strongly supported by experience,
‘that a superior army may fall a sacrifice to an inferior, by an
injudicious division.’” It was exactly this which defeated the British;
every conquest they made weakened their force, and the war was not a
third through when Washington said, “I am well convinced myself, that
the enemy, long ere this, are perfectly well satisfied, that the
possession of our towns, while we have an army in the field, will avail
them little.” As Franklin said, when the news was announced that Howe
had captured Philadelphia, “No, Philadelphia has captured Howe.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account