 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A study of web searches by K-12 students shows that "George Washington" is #5 in popularity: 1. games; 2. dogs; 3. animals; 4. Civil War; 5. George Washington; 6. Holocaust; 7. Abraham Lincoln; 8. multiplication; 9. math games; 10. weather; 11. frogs; 12. fractions; 13. planets; 14. sharks; 15. plants, [ source: "What Do 'Games, ' 'George Washington' and 'Sharks' Have in Common? They Can All Be Found on New Rankings of the Most Frequently Searched Keywords by K-12 Students" T H E Journal Volume: 35. Issue: 6. 2008. p. 12] Rjensen (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- That is why it is important to be as accurate as possible. To be honest, most of this is news to me on Washington and the Ohio Company. I do not have a clear picture on what the Ohio Company's intentions were with Native Americans. Archaeological evidence of Native Americans living in the Ohio Territory during the 1750's could give some insight into Ohio Company. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a fine article but I think the first line downplays the contributions of Jefferson, Adams etc. by saying that Washington was also the dominant POLITICAL leader during 1775-1797. He was President, of course, but others were equally important in charting the political course of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashujo (talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- he appointed Jefferson and Hamilton and supervised them, and selected Adams also.They were not "just as important" until after GW left the scene in 1797. Rjensen (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I could go either way on this. He was excedingly popular and of course president, but I'm not sure how very dominant he was, per the phrasing of the passage. Reliable sources concede that he was the obvious chioce for president, but that may not be because he was a dominant political figure. Of course, as always, what do the sources say about him being a dominat political leader? That should be the standard in which this discussion is based.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- You get to be dominant by a) controlling the army (1775-83), the Constl convention (1787) and the civilian government (1789-97); b) controlling the #2 and #3 and $4 people (Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton) and c) being first in war and first in peace and first in the hearts of the voters. Rjensen (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe there should be something mentioned that George Washington and his family were invested in the Ohio Company. Washington worked as the Ohio Company's surveyor. In essense the Ohio Company, a Virginia corporation, went to war with the French. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- GW's association with the Ohio Company is already mentioned, including at least some of the conflicts of interest concerning the military activities of 1753 and 1758. The company's role in the start of the F&I war is best left for other articles, because the intermingling of corporate and government interests is complicated. If you think more detailed coverage relative to GW's role is needed, go ahead and add it to George Washington in the French and Indian War.
- It's also a stretch to say GW "worked as the Ohio Company's surveyor". The only place I've seen this said is Barbara Mann's book (George Washington's War on Native America); it's a gross misstatement of his role in the 1753 and 1754 expeditions, and is not found in conventional F&I war histories. (An earlier version of this article made this claim, but I removed it after analyzing the sources.) Magic♪piano 16:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input in the article. The main opening does say "exploitation of Western lands". The 1754 map made by Washington, in my opinion, clearly shows he surveyed the land. That is why I mentioned Washington himself was invested in the Ohio company by the survey. I was unaware that there was just one source that claimed Washington surveyed for the Ohio Company. The question is was he paid by the Ohio company in any way. I am fine with the way the article is written as it is. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- GW's notations on the map (the box at upper left) indicate (to me anyway) a military, not commercial, purpose. It's not like he's formally surveying tracts of land for acquisition or sale (or even making notes about choice spots), unlike what he did earlier for Lord Fairfax and Culpeper County. I've not seen any conventional bio or F&I War history claim he was ever employed by the company to do survey work. Magic♪piano 17:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- If I correctly remember historian Philander Chase's article "A Stake in the West: George Washington As Backcountry Surveyor and Landholder" (in George Washington and the Virginia Backcountry, 1998), there's no evidence that Washington did any surveying for the Ohio Company, though he could have completed some surveys for the company that have been lost. You can find the occasional historian who says that Washington was a surveyor for the Ohio Company, but those historians may be unaware that there's no documentary evidence of this. Barbara Mann's book is a non-mainstream interpretation, with possible factual errors as Magicpiano suggests; it should be used with caution, if at all. Also, Washington was not a shareholder in the Ohio Company (he was too young when that venture was started), though I guess he might have inherited or controlled shares after the death of his brother. —Kevin Myers 05:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- What mark makes this a military map? I looked in the upper left corner. Some survey of the territory would be necessary to make the map, in my opinion. For accuracy I have looked on Google Maps and found that the Washington map actually shows where present-day Pittsburgh is located. I understand that there should be more then one source. It is accurate to state that Washington's family was invested in the Ohio Company. Land tracts in the Ohio country were given to veterans of the Revolutionary War. What is unclear to me is the difference between the Virginia militia and the Ohio Company? Was the Virginia militia the Ohio Company? If not, then where was the separation? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- GW's comments noting the French fort construction make it primarily a military map; a map for commercial purposes I would expect to have comments about the quality of the land, and so on. A contrast might be made between this expedition and one he conducted in 1770 to scout territories awarded as prizes for F&I war service (one source describing that trek is Randall, p. 246; he also describes the 1753 expedition in some detail, p. 75).
- The Virginia Regiment was the military arm of the Colony of Virginia; GW held a commission from the Royal Governor, Robert Dinwiddie, and was formally acting in 1753 under orders that ultimately came from the Crown (Dinwiddie was ordered to send the message; GW was the messenger he sent). The Ohio Company was a land investment company whose investors were wealthy Virginians, including Lawrence Washington (and thus GW after his death) and Robert Dinwiddie. This sort of conflict between private and public interests was somewhat common in the 17th and 18th century. Magic♪piano 17:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- The opening was changed from "exploitation" to "settlement". The Native Americans settled the Ohio country. Washington went to war with the Native Americans in order to give white people the opportunities to own land. Wikipedia should address this issue in someway. The word "settlement" implies that no one was living on the land at the time. This is misleading the reader. In my opinion "exploitation" or "land speculation" are more accurate words to describe the Ohio Company. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- "settlement" means to build farms, forts and villages, which was what the Ohio Company proposed to do and did do. Their relations with Indians was a different issue. Most Indians in that areas were nomads and did not build pernmanent settlements; for example, there were no Indians living in Kentucky at the time. Rjensen (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Iraquois villages were burned by the British under Washington during the French-Indian war. They were living in the area and Washington had them removed. I am not excusing Iraquois hostilities, however, it would be a lie to say Native Americans were not living in the Ohio territory at the time. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- The article says there were Indians there. The RS (like Chernow) typically use "settlement" for the mission of the Ohio Company. Obviously the vast territory had space enough for hundreds of different settlements--the issue was political control, since the Indians were allies of the French and the French wanted to keep the British out.Rjensen (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have read the article and there is mention of controversy with the Ohio Company and Washington. There is also mention of Washington waged war against the Native Americans, however, the bulk of the fight was against the Iraquois villages. I had thought these had been deleted. The article is fair. I apologize. There is no lie in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Consider instead the term "settler colonialism". But Cmguy is right: the removal of indigenous peoples is an appropriate topic & reputable sources support it, though more during & after the Revolution. Rjensen will be aware that Washington's policies constituted "Indian removal" through the purchase of land & military force - not limited to Ohio. There were indigenous peoples living on lands in the west, especially the Ohio area. #1 They weren't quite "nomads" (though some did move a bit), which implies they didn't have an attachement to the land so their title to it was questionable. #2 The term "vast space" implies the false idea those were "empty" lands; they were not devoid of humans, nor were ther just "a few" in big empty spaces. Those last 2 arguments do not have a lot of support today.
- In Ohio territory things heated up after the Revolution precisely so that whites could take that land & settle there, which by definition meant removal of the tribes further west or just outright removal. The indigenous groups fought to preserve title to their land, fishing & other industries & were very attached to the land regardless of the type of housing they used; this directly involved Washington. It's also related to settlements Cmguy777 mentioned because it's about "title" & legal ownership, still in litigation today in some instances. Ebanony (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is my opinion on the matter. We currently do not have a time machine to go back and find out who and where the people lived in the Ohio Territory during the 1750's. However, something should be mentioned on the actual people in the area, rather then just calling them Indians. This article is on Washington and should concentrate on his military actions against these natives both during the French Indian War and the Revolutionary War. Virginia expansionism best describes the situation rather then the term "settlements". I would only call them "settlements" if the natives were in agreement to the expansion. The central question is whether Washington profited from killing the Iraquois or natives who lived in the area? There may be no answer to that without any written evidence. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- We know where the indigenous peoples lived; there were plenty in the Ohio area. Some historians before the 60's spoke about "a vast wilderness" and "just a few people"; recent scholarship doesn't support such pov's. I agree & I'd object to calling them "Indians", since they were "indigenous" (native to the continent before settlers) & there's no need to repeat such insulting terms.
- Don't worry too much about the term "settlers". More important is that Washington ordered some of their towns to be destroyed (other areas like NY) resulting in civilian deaths; & for the purpose of getting land. Later on his Sec of War discussed military actions against those in the Ohio area (1790's) and how to remove them.
- As to profiting, Washington was a land speculator & wanted to get specific lands at the time of the 1763 conflict (went along with the rank as payment for service if I recall correctly), but I'm not sure there's a direct link between his military action & his investments (one could check). You can find a bit on these topics - just use reputable sources. I'm in agreement with you for covering this topic. Ebanony (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The Iraquois Natives may have been expansionist themselves in the 1600's pushing out or killing other tribes in the area. If settlement in this matter means having the militia kill Native Americans to allow whites to start towns then I suppose that is an applicable term. However, I do not object to using the word settler or settlement in the Western Lands as long as Native Americans are mentioned or discussed in the article. The article does mention Washington went to War with the Native Americans. There is no way to know if Washington profited from the sale of Ohio Territory land, only speculated. Archaelogical evidence, rather then a time machine, could help give context in terms of Native Americans living in the area. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- The focus of anything here has to be related to Washington; Washington did profit from his land holdings, but I don't recall the details of the 1763 years well enough to be quoted on it (I'd have to check); but we do know the facts, they're there if you want to check them. Speculated means "land speculator", and Washington was one of the biggest in that. Perhaps you could see the term "Town destroyer" and the destruction of towns Washington ordered Sullivan to do in 1779 of Seneca, Mohawk & Cayuga tribes. See David Stannard & other historians. Ebanony (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the Sullivan Expedition only targeted Indian villages in upstate NY and maybe adjacent areas of PA; did GW own (or speculate in) land in this area (either before or after the expedition)? Magic♪piano 03:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- MagicPiano is right, it's not linked to Ohio; Cmguy seems interested in dealings w/ indigenous peoples, though. I'm unaware of any holding in NY being linked to the 1779 campaign. As to Ohio, Washington's correspondence on "utter extirpation" of the people & US actions being "more destructive to the Indian natives than the conduct of the conquerors of Mexico and Peru" - this in the context of removing them from the Ohio area in 1790's.Ebanony (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- To be clearer, those quotes are from Henry Knox, and refer not to Ohio but to the "utter extirpation" of Natives in the East, before the creation of the United States. Knox was urging the Washington administration to adopt a more humane approach to Indian relations than what had been done in the past. This approach was fully supported by George Washington but not, of course, by the American frontiersmen who wanted Indian land. Horsman's Expansion and American Indian Policy, 1783-1812 is still a useful academic work on this topic. Washington, by the way, never profited from his western land speculation, though it was not for a lack of trying. He could never find enough settlers to lease his land or buyers willing to pay a good price. There was simply too much land, and it was too far from the East to be managed by distant landlords like Washington. People squatted on Washington's land and refused to pay rent, or they settled somewhere else and made their own claims. His unprofitable western land claims did pass to his heirs, some of whom managed to get some value out of the land. —Kevin Myers 05:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- One part refers to Knox in 1794 in the east, but the other to Knox west in the Ohio area: "to establish a right to the lands claimed by the Indians...will require the constant employment of a large body of troops, or the utter extirpation of the Indians." Also, I didn't say Washington made personal profit from 1779; all officers stood to gain land in 1763 war if I recall as part of enlistment. Anyway, MagicPiano is right; the article is already too long. (note* comment edited to reduce size) Ebanony (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I added that Washington was sent to secure the royal land grant from George II to the Ohio Company. The Iraquoi were initially allies with the British. Other native tribes fought back and were successful against the British. This should be mentioned briefly in the article. There was no one way slaughter. In fact, the British settlers were terrified of the Native Americans and sought refuge on the East coast. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- If the Iroquois did not fight with (or against) GW, there is no need to mention them here; we have a whole article about the war for that sort of information. I'll also note that the section on the F&I war here is getting kind of long; it is now nearly the length of the section on his presidency. Details (like native scare tactics) should be put in George Washington in the French and Indian War, and only really pertinent things should be here. Magic♪piano 19:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph reads really good. I believe Rjensen captured the essense of the F and I War. I changed the word "successful" to "organized" in the Braddock section. Unless someone can define a retreat militarily as "successful" please let me know. Let's face it, the British got a whoopin. Washington was not terrorized by the Native Americans. From the source I gave that was deleted, it was the Native Americans who struck fear in the British, not the French. The French relied heavily on Native Americans during this war and that is why the F and I war lasted 7 years. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- thanks. Washington worked hard to get Indian support and he did get some (especially from his friend "Half King" who was with GW on several combat actions), but the French worked even harder and had far more Indians on their side.Rjensen (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe the British tried to get the Cherokees from the south involved. Washington's link to the Ohio Company has been inferred indirectly. That is fine. As long as there is some mention that the British or Virginians and French wanted this land, that is good. The more research I have done reveals that the Native Americans fought back. It would be accurate to say the French were allies with the Indians rather then vice versa, according to the research I have read. The article is looking much better. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be getting at something that historians sometimes fail to grasp: that the Natives actually had an agenda (multiple and contradictory agendas in fact). The Half-King might be the most misunderstoond Native American in history: Washington wasn't trying to get his support as much as the Half-King was trying to get the British to support the Ohio Indians' rebellion against the French! But Virginia's support was too little, too late, and the French regained influence over the rebellious Natives. This is much too complicated to even hint at in this article, of course, but I mention it in case other editors find it useful in other areas. —Kevin Myers 11:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- The French were always vastly outnumbered by the British in the west so they depended on Indian allies. Note that the British did drive the French out of the Ohio region in 1758 and then became firm allies of most of the tribes (which indeed remained loyal to Britain in the American Revolution--as a result they were defeated and lost their lands ). Rjensen (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Almost right. Don't forget the step in between: with the French gone, the Ohio Indians then tried to get rid of the British in 1763 (Pontiac's War). The British put down the rebellion and then used their connections with the Iroquois to disposses the Ohio Indians (the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768). The Ohio Indians hated the Iroquois League as much as they hated the British, calling the Iroquois "slaves of the white people". The Ohio Indians worked to unite western tribes against the British in the early 1770s, even making peace with the hated Cherokees, their traditional enemies. The outbreak of the American Revolution gave Ohio Indians and Cherokees another opportunity to try to drive out the Europeans; they weren't allies of the British as much as they were co-belligerents.
- What this means in the context of George Washington is that the usual "whites vs. Indians" characterizations aren't accurate. Washington's relations with Natives varied by nation and whether he was, at the time, pursuing a British, Virginian, or American policy. —Kevin Myers 13:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is accurate to say the Native Americans had their own independant agenda during the F and I war. I believe that the reader should decide whether Washington was justified or not justified in battling the Native Americans and that Wikipedia needs to be neutral on that controversy. Washington was invested in the Ohio Company and was financially motivated to kill the Indians. Washington at the same time was protecting the Virginia colonists from Indian attack. The Indians had tribal motivations for looting and killing the British. This should indirectly be inferred in the article rather then directly. I just wanted to show in the Article that the Natives fought back and were successful during the Braddock campaign. Neither the British, French, or Indians were innocent in the F and I War. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Washington was invested in the Ohio Company and was financially motivated to kill the Indians' the logic is flawed. The goals of the Virginia Company were peaceful settlement and friendly trade with the Indians. The Company signed the Logstown treaty with the local Indians to gain their agreement, and GW worked together with those Indians (esp Half Chief) who supported the British. The moral issue of whether it was wrong for the French, British or Indians to go to war is not an encyclopedic argument. (At the time they were all warlike societies, with not much pacifism apart from the Quakers and Moravians.)Rjensen (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- If I am mistaken in logic then I stand corrected. I believe Washington wanted peaceful settlement with the Natives as you mentioned, however, if peace could not be obtained then war was the alternative. Washington was finanically invested in the Ohio Company after his brother Lawrence died leaving him the Washington family estate. The French and Indians occupied the territory given to his family by George II through a lawful charter. I am not saying Washington did anything illegal. He was rightfully given, through a ten year charter, the land in the Ohio Territory by George II. The Ohio Company had to occupy the land to validate the royal charter. Washington, I believe, had to protect this investment by going to war. The ten year charter was running out of time. Going to war means killing Indians or the French. I have know doubt that Washington loved Half-King's people and had sympathy for them. According to historian Shelby Little, Half-King made the following statement to both the French and to Washington himself "BUT TO COME, FATHERS, AND BUILD HOUSES UPON OUR LAND, AND TO TAKE IT BY FORCE, IS WHAT WE CANNOT SUBMIT TO". Half-King, in my opinion, revealed the intentions of the French and British. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- a) none of the biographers says that GW had any financial interest in the Ohio Company; b) at age 21 he was not a decision maker. He was asked by Lt Gov to go on a very important diplomatic mission to tell the French to leave, and he did so. It was Paris and London that made the decision to fight for the Ohio Valley. Rjensen (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. It looks (based on some Google Book searching) like Lunsford Lomax (another company investor) bought Lawrence Washington's share from the estate; not sure if this is mentioned in any of GW's biographies. Magic♪piano 22:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Washington, the Lees, the Fairfaxes, even Governor Dinwiddie himself, held shares in the [Ohio] Company..." Reference: Shelby Little (1929), George Washington, pages 9-10. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
section break
Is it possible that scholarship has advanced since 1929? link Magic♪piano 22:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- yes -- no one repeats the notion that GW had shares--Little assumed falsely that he inherited his brother's shares. Since 1950 we have multiple primary sources that say . Lunsford Lomax purchased Lawrence's shares. There were 40 shares available and Lawrence had two. 1) Mercer Papers; 2) Mason papers 3) "George Washington was not one of the Executors of Lawrence Washington. He did not participate in the sale of his (LW's) two-fortieths share in the Ohio Company. The proceeds of the sale did not go to George Washington." secondary source 1959. Rjensen (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK. There is evidence that he did not [inherit] shares in the Ohio company. That is good research Rjensen. That helps allot. Thanks. It appears that Washington then was not fighting for his own personal wealth during the F and I War. Little mentioned that "Fortunately a good many Burgesses besides Lawrence Washington were stockholders in the Ohio Company and Virginia proceeded to arm, whereupon Lawrence had his young brother appointed adjutant-major with a salary of £150 a year." (page 7). Was Washington paid by the Ohio Company or the Virginia Commonwealth? Could Washington himself bought shares in the Company? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- the adjutant job was a government job on Virginia payroll; GW kept very good account books--but no biographer mentions his buying any shares. Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've never seen mention of GW getting paid by the Ohio Company for anything. The only survey work he did in the Ohio Country that I'm aware of was for war service land grants (the grants are mentioned in the article now, but details of his activities around them are not). Magic♪piano 02:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Small point: Washington didn't actually survey those land grants. He went to the Ohio Country in 1770 to pick the land that would later be surveyed (the Seneca chief Guyasuta even directed him to some of the best lands), but Washington was by then beyond the social rank of a mere surveyor. You will find a few historians who get the details of the 1770 trip wrong and call it a surveying expedition. —Kevin Myers 13:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Historian John Ferling said, "Washington had few equals as a land jobber...[Washington] had also invested in two companies with claims to western lands, the Ohio Company that Lawrence had helped establish, and the Mississippi Company, which had been awarded title to a vast empire between the Wabash and Mississippi Rivers. However, Washington's bounty lands constituted the great majority of his Western lands." Reference: Ferling (2000), Setting the World Ablaze, page 45. The sources for Ferling's statements are Papers of George Washington:Col Ser 7:43, 211, 219-25, 437; 8:218, 283; Thomas P. Abernethy, Western Lands and the American Revolution (1937), page 48; Published in New York. Ferling is a respected historian. He is saying that Washington invested in the Ohio company. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good detective work! Ferling's citation to Volume 7 of the GW Papers covers January 1761 – June 1767, so GW invested AFTER the battles the text describes--the French had withdrawn from the Ohio Country in 1758. Rjensen (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. OK. GW did invest in the Ohio Company after he had the Native Americans killed or eradicated from the land. Is that a technical or signifigant difference? Ferling mentioned that Dinwiddie as an incentive to fight during the F and I War offered land to soldiers who fought in the War, this would have given Washington 15,000 acres of land. In my opinion that is a financial incentive for fighting in the War. However, did Washington ever sell this land to settlers? The Proclamation of 1763 forbid Ohio Company investors from settling lands West of the Appalachian Mountains. The ultimate question is whether GW realized any profit from the sale of his lands in the Ohio country. Although financially motivated to obtain land did he acutally realize a profit? Was the awarding of land a financial incentive to fight in the F and I War? In my opinion it was. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, GW did not have "the Native Americans killed or eradicated from the land." He eradicated the French, and was friends with the Indians. The plan of the Ohio Companty at all times was to get Indian permission (which they did) and set up trading posts. The 1763 Proclamation was moved west by the Brits and was never actually enforced. Rjensen (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why does the article make this statement: "[Washington] led his men in brutal campaigns against the Indians in the west; in 10 months his regiment fought 20 battles, and lost a third of its men."? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I added the first version of that. A campaign in which your men suffer 30% casualties is brutal on your men. (what the Indian casualties were is not known) GW's mission was to defend civilian settlements against raids by hostile Indian war parties. I think there's an assumption that an Indian who raids and kills does so for honorable good motives --maybe God gave him the land--and a Virginian who fights back does so for low pecuniary gains.Rjensen (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have never contended the Native Americans were innocent when it comes to violence. I just wanted to know if Washington in fact killed Indians or ordered Indian villages to be burned. If this is so it should remain in the article. I believe it is futile to get into the question over who made the first shot and, as you alluded previously, the justification for the war should not be debated in Wikipedia. I don't believe that Washington, personally, had any hatred towards Native Americans. Anglo settlers lived in terror of Native American attack and protected themselves with physical force. I agree with you that Virginians had a right to self protection , however, I would add that Native Americans have a right to self preservation. What I do believe should be put in the Article is that Washington received 15,000 acres for his own choosing by Dindwiddie for his services in the F and I War. Is (Are) there any objection(s) to putting this information in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Washington was indeed fighting and presumably killing the Indians in the war; none of the biographers (Chernow, Freeman, Lengel) mention his ordering any villages destroyed. (He did order make those orders during the Revolution.) Rjensen (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, Washington was fighting on the defensive in the F&I War at this time; he wasn't anywhere near Indian villages between the Braddock and Forbes expeditions. The only real offensive operation he ordered was the Sandy Creek expedition of 1756, headed by his subordinate Andrew Lewis, which amounted to nothing. Contrary to Cmguy777's simplistic "whites vs. Indians" understanding of the war, this campaign was a cooperative effort between Washington's soldiers and Cherokees under Ostenaco. —Kevin Myers 21:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
So what if he killed Indians? So what? Wasn't that his duties as an Army officer to kill the enemy? Weren't Indians killing settlers? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 21:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- First of all I am aware of the complicated F and I War. The Cherokee support, although highly significant, to the British I have read was precarious and limited. "So what if Washington killed Indians?" I was not questioning Washington's duty as an officer in killing the enemy. I have made no judgement on Washington killing Indians. You might be forgetting my original concern was Washington killing Indians for profit. He did in fact invest in the Ohio Company in the 1760's and he was rewarded 15,000 acres of land by Dindwiddie after fighting in the F and I War. If this is historically accurate, then this information should be put it in the article. The Indians have names. The French were supported by the Ottawas and Potawatomis. The Delawares were basically independant in the F and I war acting on their own special interests, however, they disliked the British for supporting the Iroquoi. It would be good to put in the article that this war "paralyzed" the colonies of Virginia and Pennsylvania by Native American raiding parties and that Washington acted defensively in addition to offensively. Basically, this F and I war was a large scale attempt by Native Americans aided by the French to stop British settlements and destroy the colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I'm lost. Just what actual text does Cmguy77 want added? Maybe we should talk about just that. Rjensen (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Here is what I want added:
- Washington was awarded or promised 15,000 acres of land for his services in the FI War by Dindwiddie.
- The Ottawas, Potawatomis, and Delawares reaked havoc with the British colonists for many years. From what I am reading it was the Indians in the FI War who did much of the damage and created terror with the British colonists, not the French.
- Dindwiddie himself critisized Washington for ambushing and killing 10 French soldiers who were on a negotiation mission saying "Washington's conduct was in many ways wrong." The French soldiers were carrying a letter to Dindwiddie in the same manner Washington brought a letter to Fort Le Boeuf. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- well that makes sense. 1) Yes. Note that Washington fought hard for rewards for all the veterans--it was common then--and today!--to give veteran benefits for military service. The lands were purchased from the Cherokees & finally granted in 1772 on the Kanawha River. (The lands were granted for service in the Ft Necessity Campaign of 1754) [Freeman 183-4, 188] 2) No. the French in most cases were leading the Indian warriors on the raids as part of their war against Britain--this is a topic for the F&I article and the Virginia article, not the GW article; 3) No. Dinwiddie and GW were feuding by 1757--D's complaint was not in that ambush context (which happened years earlier). Rjensen (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing Rjensen. With all do respect, are you saying GI's from the Iraq War are getting 15,000 acres of land for their services. A wife of a National Gaurdsman earning $19,000 a year deployed in Iraq had to apply for food stamps. I am just looking for fairness and balance in the article. I believe it is important to put the land reward in the article. In fact Washington ended up getting 20,147 acres of the best land in the valley. Washington had told other veterans that the land was hilly and unsuitable for farming. The soldiers felt "duped" by Washington for giving him the land. Why were Dindwiddie and Washington fueding? Why did Dindwiddie say many of Washington's actions were wrong? According to Ferling, Washington ambushed and killed 20 French soldiers who were were eating breakfast. This was French party to send a letter to Dindwiddie. This attack was before any hostilities broke out between the French and British. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Matthew C. Ward claims that from 1754 to 1758, "war parties of only a few hundred Indians, supported and supplied by the French in Canada, paralyzed Virginia and Pennsylvania, two of the most important British North American colonies, whose populations numbered in the hundreds of thousands." In fact it was the Indian warriors who caused the route during Braddock's campaign. You are correct that the French initiated much of the larger battles. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- As far as the Ohio Company goes Washington did invest after the FI war. Washington had land interests in Ohio, although it was during the 1760's. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Cmguy, the appropriate place to discuss Washington's FI war activities in depth is at George Washington in the French and Indian War. Things that get added here need to be balanced against the need to keep this article a reasonable length. Please consider how important the things you would like to add are with respect to other aspects of his life. The fact that he received a land bounty is already mentioned here; his role in acquiring better lands than other grantees can be delved into in depth in the other article. If what he did is ethically questionable, that might merit mention here; otherwise it's probably a non-issue. Magic♪piano 16:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- My main purpose was to find out Washington's interest in the Ohio Company. He did invest in the Ohio Company, but in the 1760's. However, Dindwiddie promised Washington 15,000 acres of land as an incentive to fight in the FI War. This is signifigant. I believe Washington's land holdings should be in a separate section. He had more land then any other founding father. The purpose of this article is to have the reader take a balanced view of GW. Military GI's from 1994 to 2009 have been on food stamps. Washington got over 20,000 acres in land. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I is not true that Dindwiddie promised Washington 15,000 acres of land as an incentive to fight in the FI War. Washington was already the adjutant Major of Virginia, he eagerly volunteered to take them the message to the French warning them away from the area, he was eager--too eager--to fight the French, and the land bounty was offered by the governor (to all who fought the French) only AFTER Washington returned, and there was difficulty in recruiting new volunteers. The veterans got their lands over 20 years later and it was not until the 1790s that GW received any income from his lands. The notion that he fought for money is ridiculous, as are comparisons with 2010 (by the way the Army gives big $$ and tuition bonuses for enlisting today).Rjensen (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Those are valid points Rjensen. The enlisted men today deserve livable pay and tuition bonuses. As of 2009 there were military families on food stamps. I am digressing from Washington. The land promised by Dindwiddie was a financial incentive to fight the war and was done to get more recruits. Although the land offer was given after Washington's return the promise was made and applied directly to Washington. If the British were victors, and they were, then Washington would get the land. In my opinion, that is an incentive to fight. However, I don't want to state my opinion in the article. Since Washington was not a member of the Ohio Company during the FI War nothing should be mentioned concerning Washington and the Ohio Company during the FI War. I consider this matter closed. The discussion has been good and informative. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose it is immaterial whether GW was financially motivated in the FI War. Since as has been mentioned Dindwiddie offered land to everyone. Dindwiddie offered the bounty land rather than Washington.Cmguy777 (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe the best cover photo for George Washington is his first military portrait by Peale. It shows him younger as a military hero. The current portrait is the one that resembles $1.00 bill portrait. By the way, where can one find the $1.00 bill portrait of George Washington. That would be good for the article. Washington wanted to be portrayed as a valiant war hero. Any consensus for change? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- For consistency purposes, his portrait of when he was president would be best, since this follows the logic set forth in all other presidential articles.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
He was the commander in cheif and president at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.35.241 (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- The Presidency of George Washington has the same photo. The military photo shows Washington's first portrait. The main article does not have to have the Presidential photo for Washington since the Presidential photo is in the P of GW article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
In the fourth paragraph, there is the phrase "again impeded teh war effort." I would suggest changing "teh" to "the" to conform to standard English.
75.18.172.134 (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Ross
- Fixed; thank you for pointing it out. Magic♪piano 18:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe this article's lead has become excessively long and hagiographical, without references. I would suggest reverting it to how it was around the time this article was most recently a good article nomination. Far more succinct, in line with quality standards. Sir Richardson (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- It needs to be trimmed, definitely. But I'm not sure it needs to be referenced per WP:LEADCITE DC T•C 22:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I had summarized the lede to three paragraphs. Apparently I was outvoted. I would add details to that lede and leave out enough information to get those intelligent Wikipedia readers attention. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I am reposting the three paragraph alternative lede:
- George Washington was the dominant military and political leader of the new United States of America from 1775 to 1797, leading the American victory over Britain in the American Revolutionary War as commander in chief of the Continental Army, and presiding over the writing of the Constitution in 1787. As the unanimous choice to serve as the first President of the United States, he developed the forms and rituals of government that have been used ever since, such as using a cabinet system and delivering an inaugural address. Acclaimed ever since as the "Father of his country", Washington has become a public icon of American military and civic patriotism.
- In Colonial Virginia, Washington was born into the provincial gentry in a wealthy, well-connected family that owned tobacco plantations using slave labor. His father and older brother home schooled Washington but both died young and Washington became attached to the powerful Fairfax clan. They promoted his career as surveyor and soldier. Strong, brave, eager for combat and a natural leader, young Washington quickly became a senior officer of the colonial forces, during the first stages of the French and Indian War in 1754. Washington's experience, his military bearing, his leadership of the Patriot cause in Virginia, and his political base in the largest colony made him the obvious choice of the Second Continental Congress in 1775 as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army to fight the British in the American Revolution. After the colonial victory over the British was finalized in 1783, Washington resigned from the military rather than become an American king, and returned to his plantation at Mount Vernon. This prompted his erstwhile enemy King George III to call him "the greatest character of the age."
- Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention that drafted the United States Constitution in 1787 because of his dissatisfaction with the weaknesses of Articles of Confederation. Washington became President of the United States in 1789 where he successfully brought rival factions together to create a unified nation. President Washington built a strong, well-financed national government that avoided war, suppressed rebellion, and won acceptance among American’s natural citizens. Washington's farewell address was a primer on republican virtue and a stern warning against partisanship, sectionalism, and involvement in foreign wars. Two years after his presidential term ended Washington died at Mt. Vernon in 1799, leaving America and the world a priceless legacy of liberation and nationalism.
- As has been mentioned before this lede is just a frame work. Rjensen mentioned details of how great Washington as a general was should be in the lede. Please feel free to edit. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- No the short lede does not do the job, and it is not necessary. For example thefre is only one sentence on his most important role as commander in the Revolution. Rjensen (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Here is the lede on August 24, 2010:
- George Washington (February 22, 1732 [O.S. February 11, 1731]– December 14, 1799)[1][2][3] served as the first President of the United States from 1789 to 1797,[4][5][6] and as the commander of the Continental Army in the American Revolutionary War from 1775 to 1783. His role in the revolution and subsequent independence and formation of the United States was significant, and he is seen by Americans as the "Father of Our Country".[5][6]
- The Continental Congress appointed Washington commander-in-chief of the American revolutionary forces in 1775.[7] The following year, the British were ousted and left Boston, lost New York City, and were defeated in Trenton, New Jersey by Washington's surprise crossing of the Delaware River. Because of his strategy, Revolutionary forces captured the two main British combat armies at Saratoga and Yorktown. Negotiating with Congress, the colonial states, and French allies, he held together a tenuous army and a fragile nation amid the threats of disintegration and failure. Following the end of the war in 1783, King George III asked what Washington would do next and was told of rumors that he would return to his farm, prompting the King to state, "if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world." Washington did return to private life and retired to his plantation at Mount Vernon.[8]
- Washington presided over the Philadelphia Convention that drafted the United States Constitution in 1787 because of general dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation. Washington became President of the United States in 1789 and established many of the customs and usages of the new government's executive department. He sought to create a nation capable of sustaining peace with their neighboring countries. His unilateral Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793 provided a basis for avoiding any involvement in foreign conflicts. He supported plans to build a strong central government by paying off the national debt, implementing an effective tax system, and creating a national bank. Washington avoided war and maintained a decade of peace with Britain upon signing the Jay Treaty in 1795, despite intense opposition from the Jeffersonians. Although never officially joining the Federalist Party, he supported its programs. Washington's farewell address was a primer on republican virtue and a stern warning against partisanship, sectionalism, and involvement in foreign wars. He was awarded the first Congressional Gold Medal with the Thanks of Congress in 1776.[9]
- Washington died in 1799 mainly due to treatment for his pnuemonia, which included calomel and bloodletting, resulting in a combination of shock from the loss of five pints of blood, as well as asphyxia and dehydration. Henry "Light-Horse Harry" Lee, delivering the funeral oration, declared Washington "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen".[10] Historical scholars consistently rank him as one of the greatest United States presidents.
longer lede
I am putting this lede in the talk page. I am going to put the August 24, 2010 lede in, however, information from this lede can be used to modify the older lede. Many items in this lede can be incorporated to make a modified lede.
George Washington (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799)
was the dominant military and political leader of the new United States of America from 1775 to 1797, leading the American victory over Britain in the American Revolutionary War as commander in chief of the Continental Army, 1775–1783, and presiding over the writing of the Constitution in 1787. As the unanimous choice to serve as the first President of the United States (1789–1797), he developed the forms and rituals of government that have been used ever since, such as using a cabinet system and delivering an inaugural address. The president built a strong, well-financed national government that avoided war, suppressed rebellion and won acceptance among Americans of all types. Acclaimed ever since as the "Father of his country", Washington, along with Abraham Lincoln, has become a central icon of republican values, self sacrifice in the name of the nation, American nationalism and the ideal union of civic and military leadership.
In Colonial Virginia Washington was born into the provincial gentry in a wealthy, well connected family that owned tobacco plantations using slave labor. Washington was home schooled by his father and older brother but both died young and Washington became attached to the powerful Fairfax clan. They promoted his career as surveyor and soldier. Strong, brave, eager for combat and a natural leader, young Washington quickly became a senior officer of the colonial forces, 1754-58, during the first stages of the French and Indian War. Indeed his rash actions helped precipitate the war.
Washington's experience, his military bearing, his leadership of the Patriot cause in Virginia, and his political base in the largest colony made him the obvious choice of the Second Continental Congress in 1775 as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army to fight the British in the American Revolution. He forced the British out of Boston in 1776, but was defeated and nearly captured later that year when he lost New York City. After crossing the Delaware River in the dead of winter he defeated the British in two battles and retaking New Jersey. Because of his strategy, Revolutionary forces captured two major British armies at Saratoga in 1777 and Yorktown in 1781. Negotiating with Congress, governors, and French allies, he held together a tenuous army and a fragile nation amid the threats of disintegration and invasion. Historians give the commander in chief high marks for his selection and supervision of his generals, his encouragement of morale, his coordination with the state governors and state militia units, his relations with Congress, and his attention to supplies, logistics, and training. In battle, however, Washington was repeatedly outmaneuvered by British generals with larger armies. In the New York campaign of 1776 and the Philadelphia campaign, General William Howe repeatedly flanked him, and eventually took both cities, although the British abandoned Philadelphia after France entered the war in 1778, and Washington forced a major inconclusive battle at Monmouth Court House during their march to New York. Washington is given full credit for the strategies that forced the British evacuation of Boston in 1776 and the surrender at Yorktown in 1781. After victory was finalized in 1783, Washington resigned rather than seize power, and returned to his plantation at Mount Vernon; this prompted his erstwhile enemy King George III to call him "the greatest character of the age".[11][12]
Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention that drafted the United States Constitution in 1787 because of his dissatisfaction with the weaknesses of Articles of Confederation that had time and again impeded the war effort. Washington became President of the United States in 1789 where he tried to bring brought rival factions together to create a unified nation. He supported Alexander Hamilton's programs to pay off all the state and national debts, implement an effective tax system, and creating a national bank, despite opposition from Thomas Jefferson. Washington proclaimed the U.S. neutral in the wars raging in Europe after 1793. He avoided war with Britain and guaranteed a decade of peace and profitable trade by securing the Jay Treaty in 1795, despite intense opposition from the Jeffersonians. Although never officially joining the Federalist Party, he supported its programs. Washington's farewell address was a primer on republican virtue and a stern warning against partisanship, sectionalism, and involvement in foreign wars. Washington had a vision of a great and powerful nation that would be built on republican lines using federal power. He sought to use the national government to improve the infrastructure, open the western lands, create a national university, promote commerce, found a capital city (later named Washington, D.C.), reduce regional tensions and promote a spirit of nationalism. "The name of AMERICAN," he said, must override any local attachments."[13] At his death Washington was hailed as "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen".[10] The Federalists made him the symbol of their party, but for many years the Jeffersonians continued to distrust him and delayed building the Washington Monument. As the leader of the first successful revolution against a colonial empire in world history, Washington became an international icon for liberation and nationalism. His symbolism especially resonated in France and Latin America.[14] Historical scholars consistently rank him as one of the two or three greatest presidents.
The birth and death of George Washington are given using the Gregorian calendar. However, he was born when Britain and her colonies still used the Julian calendar, so contemporary records record his birth as February 11, 1731. The provisions of the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, implemented in 1752, altered the official British dating method to the Gregorian calendar with the start of the year on January 1. Under the Articles of Confederation Congress called its presiding officer "President of the United States in Congress Assembled". He had no executive powers, but the similarity of titles has confused people into thinking there were other presidents before Washington. Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederation (1959), 178–9
Richard Brookhiser "George Washington, Founding CEO," American Heritage, Spring/Summer 2008. Johnson, Paul (2005). George Washington: The Founding Father. HarperCollins. p. 78. ISBN 0-06-075365-X. In London, George III questioned the American-born painter Benjamin West what Washington would do now he had won the war. 'Oh,' said West, 'they say he will return to his farm.' 'If he does that,' said the king, 'he will be the greatest man in the world.'
Brookhiser, Richard (1997). Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington. p. 103.
Marcus Cunliffe, George Washington: Man and Monument (1958) pp 24-26
- the August lede is poor -- leaving out all the work the editors did on the period before 1781 and telling more about his death agonies than his military career. Rjensen (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no mention that Washington owned slaves, protected slavery, or allowed only whites to be citizens of the United States. The POV in this article is not what is said, but rather what is left out. That is just an opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Any objections to putting the following in the opening?
- Washington, as President, protected the institution of chattel slavery by signing the Fugitive Slave Law and ensured that whites could be only citizens of the United States by signing the Naturalization Act. Diplomatically, Washington sent arms and financially funded French slave owners in Santo Domingo. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Rewritten:
- Washington, as President, ensured that whites could be only citizens of the United States and protected the institution of chattel slavery by signing the Naturalization and Fugitive Slave Acts. Internationally, Washington sent arms and financially funded French slave owners in Santo Domingo. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- The opening does mention that Washington had a "carreer" as a slave owner. Should owning human chattel be considered a "carreer", such as being a blacksmith or a newspaper publisher? Carreer in my opinion is a modern term. Washington was the MASTER of Mt. Vernon. As MASTER you told slaves what to do, where to work, when to pray. I am not sure carreer is the correct phrase to use, such as person A or B chooses a carreer in auto mechanics. This is just discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- The statement "owner of plantation that used slaves to grow tobacco for export" in my opinion is somewhat ackward. Washington, who was a successful farmer, changed to wheat crops and used the wheat to make whiskey. "Washington, owner of the profitable slave plantation at Mt. Vernon, grew tobacco and wheat for export." That is more direct and to the point, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Section break
The opening segment reads really good! The Fairfaxes were a huge influence on the young Washington. Stating that Washington's actions precipitated war rather then directly caused the war is good. Both the narration and context have improved. Thanks for all the help! Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Although Rjensen's work is quite good, the lead is still on the long side at seven paragraphs. Wikipedia:LEAD#Length recommends a maximum of four paragraphs. One comparison point: Suleiman the Magnificent, a feature article about an important monarch who ruled for 40 years with an impressive array of achievements, has a 3-paragraph lead (of which only one is of significant length). Magic♪piano 21:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I consolidated the lede to five paragraphs and dropped some links which appear later (we want beginning students to read the whole lead, or at least the first paragraph). The Washington bio should be compared with Wikipedia articles on Napoleon, Lincoln or FDR, all of whom have inspired thousands of RS. Rjensen (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can attempt to wittle it down to three paragraphs; however I would post here for approval. "Less is more". The opening should leave the reader captivated and wanting to learn more. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Three paragraphs
I got the opening to three paragraphs. I attempted to capture Washington's life essense and accomplishments. I left out the references, dates, and links in order to concentrate on narration. This is just a framework. The paragraphs can be modified.
- George Washington was the dominant military and political leader of the new United States of America from 1775 to 1797, leading the American victory over Britain in the American Revolutionary War as commander in chief of the Continental Army, and presiding over the writing of the Constitution in 1787. As the unanimous choice to serve as the first President of the United States, he developed the forms and rituals of government that have been used ever since, such as using a cabinet system and delivering an inaugural address. Acclaimed ever since as the "Father of his country", Washington has become a public icon of American military and civic patriotism.
- In Colonial Virginia, Washington was born into the provincial gentry in a wealthy, well-connected family that owned tobacco plantations using slave labor. His father and older brother home schooled Washington but both died young and Washington became attached to the powerful Fairfax clan. They promoted his career as surveyor and soldier. Strong, brave, eager for combat and a natural leader, young Washington quickly became a senior officer of the colonial forces, during the first stages of the French and Indian War in 1754. Washington's experience, his military bearing, his leadership of the Patriot cause in Virginia, and his political base in the largest colony made him the obvious choice of the Second Continental Congress in 1775 as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army to fight the British in the American Revolution. After the colonial victory over the British was finalized in 1783, Washington resigned from the military rather than become an American king, and returned to his plantation at Mount Vernon. This prompted his erstwhile enemy King George III to call him "the greatest character of the age."
- Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention that drafted the United States Constitution in 1787 because of his dissatisfaction with the weaknesses of Articles of Confederation. Washington became President of the United States in 1789 where he successfully brought rival factions together to create a unified nation. President Washington built a strong, well-financed national government that avoided war, suppressed rebellion, and won acceptance among American’s natural citizens. Washington's farewell address was a primer on republican virtue and a stern warning against partisanship, sectionalism, and involvement in foreign wars. Two years after his presidential term ended Washington died at Mt. Vernon in 1799, leaving America and the world a priceless legacy of liberation and nationalism.
- there is no need for leaving out so much info--for example, his great achievements as a general are all missing. The "four paragraphs in lede" is a guideline for much shorter articles, and it is not a hard and fast rule. Phrases like " a priceless legacy " will attract trouble. Rjensen (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think lead as Rjensen edited it is a decent length. However, it contains a very bad mischaracterization of the 1777 campaigns; it was Howe who effectively pinned down Washington, not vice versa. (Howe does not sail until after Ticonderoga falls. By the time Howe lands in Maryland in late August, Burgoyne is already in trouble (but doesn't know it), and Howe is in no position to help by his own doing, not by any action of Washington. After Ticonderoga, Washington sends part of his army north to help defend the Hudson, but doesn't know where Howe is going, and dithers as a result. He rushes south in August when he learns where Howe is going.) Magic♪piano 14:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- The article lede, in my opinion should leave the details in the article. From what I have read Washington practiced Fabian tactics. He split his army up while Howe took advantage. New York fell because of this tactic. Howe was an aggressive general for the British. Ironically, it was French intervention that brought victory to the colonies. I believe that some of the details in the lede should be edited, especially specific battle descriptions. I agree with MagicPiano that there should be criticism of Washington's tactics in the War. Maybe tactics is not what should be concentrated on in the article so much. Washington had the will to kill. That really is what makes a good General. He demonstrated this will to kill with the French in the F and I War. Washington, Grant, and Lee all had this "kill" quality in them. Bruce Catton discussed this quality in Grant and Lee. Maybe this should be talked about, but use the term "will to fight" rather then "will to kill". However, Fabian tactics should be discussed in the article. Washington was indecisive when making a decision and he split his army up when he should have kept it together. Those are justifiable criticisms. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Washington used Fabian tactics in part because he was almost always outnumbered, and he realized (despite calls in some quarters for decisive confrontations) that a war of attrition was much more likely to be successful. The division of his forces in 1777 was not a major division -- I believe he sent something like 2-4 regiments north, and he was forced to leave troops around New York when he went south. The troops sent north would probably not have materially affected the outcome around Philadelphia, although he would have liked to have Daniel Morgan's riflemen. BTW, I'm not criticizing Washington's tactics (although they rightly should be in the article); I'm pointing out that the description of what happened was very wrong, and what actually happened had little to do with Washington's actions. Burgoyne's eventual surrender was probably due more to the actions of Howe and Germain than anything other single cause.
- I've changed that bit of the lead to reflect his primarily defensive posture, and deal with the above-described problem. Magic♪piano 17:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with the argument that Washington primarily fought a defensive war of attrition. As Higginbotham says, "Washington was a fighter not a Fabian, as often portrayed". So where was this attrition? Certainly not at Brabdywine, Germantown or Monmouth, where GW took the offensive. Fact is How ruined the British strategy by a very bad strategic blunder (going to Philadelphia) where he was indeed held dowen by GW's attacks. Howe demanded Clinton send reinforcements, and neither Howe nor Clinton helped rescue Burgoyne. Howe did abandon Philadelphia with absolutely nothing to show for it, except the loss of an entire British army at Saratoga. Credit to GW for helping Howe to make the worst blunder of the war. Rjensen (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- GW was not on the offensive at Brandywine. He was so at Germantown and Monmouth (and Trenton and Princeton); how about 1778 (post Monmouth) to 1780? Clinton did eventually send forces north in 1777, but it was too little too late. I don't think Howe could possibly have reached Burgoyne in time to save him; he would have had to march the length of New Jersey and the navigable length of the Hudson (either 300 miles by land in hostile territory without a supply line, or by sea including a defended Hudson), in the month or so in which Burgoyne recognized he had a problem (when exactly Burgoyne thought he really needed help is a bit of an open question, but it certainly was the case by mid-September). All the cards were stacked against Howe being able to help; GW was but one of them. (And it wasn't Howe that abandoned Philadelphia; it was Clinton, after Howe resigned.)
- The attrition, IMHO, was in the British will more than it was in men and materiel, which were seriously taxed by the global aspects of the war. Magic♪piano 18:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am not sure it is doing any good to argue over tactics or who was the better general Howe or Washington. Fabian tactics should briefly be explained in the article. Howe did take New York. Washington split his army up rather then attack with the full force of one Army. These are facts. Let the reader decide if Washington blundered. We are not here to spoon feed the reader, but must allow the reader some intelligence to make reasonable historical assessments. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Who was a better general is not the question. The question is what GW's tactics and strategy were, whether they were driving or reacting to the actions of others, how effective they were, and how to best characterize them. (And Howe "split his army" too; he left something like 3,000 men in New York. Is GW not supposed to defend against them?) Magic♪piano 18:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed the question is who was the better strategist and the answer clearly is Washington. The Americans under Washington's overall command wanted to rip it world-class victory at Saratoga, while the British won nothing at Philadelphia. Washington helped Howe blunder by battling him at Brandywine, Germantown Etc.--so much so that Howe called for reinforcements from Clinton. Washington was in overall charge of American strategy--with the result that 1) one major British army was captured with momentous results; 2) the other British army did minor damage to the American cause. Result: great strategic victory for the Americans, with the commander in chief who designed the strategy getting the credit. In 1778-80, there was a war of attrition in the South, (under GW's s strategic command) but not in the North where GW and tactical command. Washington personally never fought a war of attrition. (Brandywine was not a war of attrition but an ordinary battle) Rjensen (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- The reality is that the French helped Washington defeat Howe. The question of Howe versus Washington is moot since the French intervened in the War to settle the matter. The two generals were not allowed to finish the matter on their own. This article is on GW and not a debate on who the best General is. It is clear Washington was a brilliant General who had the will to kill. Howe was older and lost his edge as a General. Rjensens points are valid, however, there was French military intervention. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, the French were not involved until after Howe resigned in spring 1778. The French played a major role in 1781, four years later.Rjensen (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- No question. Washington was the better General then Howe! Cmguy777 (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am not argueing Washington or Howes tactics. I am not saying splitting the army is good or bad. Wikipedia is not to judge how effective these tactics are. That could go into an endless debate that goes nowhere. The lede needs to focus on Washington, rather then Revolutionary War tactics. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would change the following:
- In the New York campaign of 1776 and the Philadelphia campaign, General William Howe repeatedly flanked him, and eventually took both cities, although the British abandoned Philadelphia after France entered the war in 1778, and Washington forced a major inconclusive battle at Monmouth Court House during their march to New York. Washington is given full credit for the strategies that forced the British evacuation of Boston in 1776 and the surrender at Yorktown in 1781.
- To this:
- Although the British initially took major colonial cities, Washington with the aid of French forces finally forced General Howe to surrender at Yorktown in 1781.
- The details should be put in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Tell me this was a slip. Howe? at Yorktown? Magic♪piano 21:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- No slip. Just a suggestion.
- Washington became famous because he won the war. That is why they made him president. How we won the war is a matter of overall strategy so his strategy needs a full summary in the lede. He does get the credit for the successful American strategy of 1777--no one else has ever been given credit, so it is not as if there is a dispute on the matter. Rjensen (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- First, some chronology: August 25: Howe lands in Maryland; September 11: Brandywine; September 13: Burgoyne cuts his supply line, crossing the Hudson; September 19: first Saratoga (Burgoyne already thinks he needs help, at least a diversion, by now); September 21: Paoli; September 25, Howe enters Philadelphia; October 4: Germantown; October 7: second Saratoga; October 17: Burgoyne surrenders.
- Do you seriously believe that Howe has any chance of helping Burgoyne, or that Washington thinks so? To say Washington is "pinning Howe down" when Howe wants be in Philadelphia is silly.
- Here's my understanding of Washington strategy for 1777: it was to react to Howe (wherever he went, assuming Washington could also get there in time to be useful) while also defending against the New York garrison and buttressing the northern army. (See e.g. Lengel pp. 215ff; quote on p. 218: "the commander-in-chief fretted through hours of 'constant perplexity and the most anxious conjecture'" because he did not know where Howe was going) Mind you, this grand strategy succeeded, but Washington had help from the enemy in its success, and that can't be omitted (Howe for going by sea; Germain for failing to clearly order Howe to coordinate in a timely manner with Burgoyne; Burgoyne made mistakes too, but they were minor in comparison). If Howe and Burgoyne had wanted to control the Hudson, they probably had the forces to do so, Hudson River defenses notwithstanding. Washington's most important strategic decision in 1777 was probably the one to send more troops (and Benedict Arnold) to the northern department, since they were instrumental in the failure of the Burgoyne and St. Leger expeditions. His strategic role in 1781 was much more significant (keeping the mutinies down, managing the French relationship, and deciding to abandon a desired attack on New York), but he also had help from the British (mostly the navy, but also communication issues in the British army brass), and the French (who made some important strategic decisions when planning the 1781 campaigns), in that win. Magic♪piano 21:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep the details and briefly mention criticism.Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- On the 3 para version--I copied it to Washington Monument article, which was using a blurb from the Park Service.Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Rjensen. Looks good. At least the three paragraph version got some use. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Howe, Washington, and Philadelphia
- The question is whether the American commander gets credit when his strategy is a total success and the enemy strategy is a massive failure. I think that usually is the way it works--the Americans get credit for winning at Midway and Leyte, for example. Burgoyne made lots of major errors. Howe did not want to be in upstate NY because Burgoyne would get all the credit, Howe was in Philly to get the glory of defeating Washington. That's why Howe was there--and if Washington had NOT been there, Howe would be back in NYC, where he could have helped Burgoyne. That is, Howe was chasing Washington--shades of Leyte Gulf! Rjensen (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, sure. [Citation needed], please provide a source linking this to Howe's writings. (I also somehow doubt members of Congress thought of the loss of Philadelphia as "total success".) Magic♪piano 22:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- RS were requested: here they are: 1) "General Howe was at least pinned down in Philadelphia and prevented from moving north to reinforce General Burgoyne." Ron Chernow - Alexander Hamilton (2005) - Page 100; 2) "For Washington's shift in position had whetted Howe's appetite for a major action when, if everything went right, he would finally accomplish what he and his brother's policies had denied him the previous year: the destruction of the Continental Army." John Buchanan, The Road to Valley Forge: How Washington Built the Army That Won the Revolution (2004). Page 206; 3) regarding Howe: "Is likely that he was as jealous of her going as Burgoyne was of him and that he was not eager to do anything which might assist his junior up the ladder of military renown." John Richard Alden, the American Revolution 1954 page 118; 4) "It was Burgoyne's whole show, and consequently he [Howe] wanted little to do with it. With regard to Burgoyne's army, he would do only what was required of him (virtually nothing). Higginbotham, The War of American Independence 1971 Page 180. 5) especially useful is Max M. Mintz, The Generals of Saratoga 1990 chapter 10 emphasizes the intense rivalry between Howe and the other British generals. Rjensen (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Rjensen, are you suggesting no criticism of Washington's military strategy during the Revolutionary War is necessary in the article? Why was the French military needed in 1778 and 1781, since Washington "won the war"? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was looking for supporting quotes from Howe (or relevant contemporaries), not from historians.
- 1: Chernow clearly doesn't understand the chronology, the impracticality of Howe being able to support Burgoyne at that late date (Clinton wasn't even able to move far enough to help Burgoyne from NYC at that date), or the fact that Howe wanted (based on copious communications with Germain) to be in Philadelphia. (No, he's not God; like other professional historians, he is, in this instance, demonstrably wrong about something.)
- 2: Buchanan appears to be referring to the June 1777 maneuvers in New Jersey (it's in a nearby library, I may be able to get it this weekend). There is much speculation over why Howe did those (he played that aspect of the campaign very close to the chest), but his campaign target for the season was clearly Philadelphia, not Washington. This is abundantly clear in his communications with Germain.
- 3: Alden's quote does not support your case that Howe was somehow fixated on Washington.
- 4: Higginbotham's quote does not support your case that Howe was somehow fixated on Washington.
- 5: I'll look for Mintz; it's not in any handy libraries.
- David Martin, The Philadelphia Campaign (Google preview partially readable), discusses Howe's evolving plans for 1777. They are remarkably devoid of fixation on Washington, and remarkably fixated on Philadelphia. He doesn't seem to try to psychoanalyze Howe, and he presents much of what passes between him and Germain between December and April. Magic♪piano 04:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Magicpiano tells us that he is interested in original research into primary sources when he says I was looking for supporting quotes from Howe (or relevant contemporaries), not from historians. That policy is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia rules. we are to report ONLY what the reliable sources say--the reliable secondary sources. The RS clearly indicate that Howe was psychologically hostile to helping Burgoyne, was eager for a victory over Washington in 1777 that had been denied him in 1776; and as Chernow says, "General Howe was at least pinned down in Philadelphia and prevented from moving north to reinforce General Burgoyne." The notion that Magicpiano knows more about the American Revolution than Chernow is silly on its face, and violates Wikipedia rules on using RS.Rjensen (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Rjensen should acquaint himself with the rules in more detail before casting accusations about others violating them.
- First: did I suggest that what I asked you to provide should be placed in the article? If not, accusations of OR or misuse of RS are misplaced. I asked you to provide them here, on the talk page, so that we can see what is actually recorded from contemporary sources about what Howe felt, and how the sources you use actually reach the conclusions they do. Plenty of historians actually quote their subjects of interest and their contemporaries; this should not be hard to do.
- Second: articles have quotations from primary sources all over Wikipedia; indeed, the lead of this article currently contains one. They do need to be used in context, but it is not necessarily a violation of RS or OR.
- Third: The notion that Chernow (or you, or me) cannot be wrong is also silly on its face. Authorities get things wrong all the time; if, as claimed on your user page, you are a historian, you should know this. Although Chernow might know more about the revolution than I, it's not like I'm making sh*t up; I've touched every battle and campaign article about events before mid-1777 here (reading from a fairly wide array of sources), to their significant benefit. The chronology of events alone renders Chernow's assertion of "pinning down" as silly, because even Clinton's movement (initiated in early October) was unable to help Burgoyne. I've also provided a source indicating Howe's primary interest was Philadelphia, not Washington. Hiding behind a cloak of authority is not helping you; do address these points.
- Fourth: The RS you have provided thus far don't support Howe being "eager for a victory over Washington in 1777". The facts surrounding his attitude about Burgoyne are not relevant to this discussion; do please stay focused. Magic♪piano 22:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Magicpiano says he's read a lot of stuff --which ok but but he fails to actually cite any RS for his claims, which I think afre incorrect. In his last post he argued that The RS you have provided thus far don't support Howe being "eager for a victory over Washington in 1777 The facts surrounding his attitude about Burgoyne are not relevant to this discussion. As to the first point we have a very explicit statement by Buchanan about Howe in 1777: "Howe's appetite for a major action when, if everything went right, he would finally accomplish what he and his brother's policies had denied him the previous year: the destruction of the Continental Army." John Buchanan, The Road to Valley Forge: How Washington Built the Army That Won the Revolution (2004). Page 206. As to the second point, all historians have linked the campaign and tried to explain why Howe went after GW and ignored Burgoyne's need for help. Howe's attitude is the central issue. Mintz finds that Burgoyne believed that Howe was "duty bound to meet him at Albany". Howe wrote to Burgoyne on July 17 that Howe's army would stay close to Washington: "My intention is for Pennsylvania, where I expect to meet Washington, but if he goes to the northward contrary to my expectations, and you can keep him at bay, be assured I shall soon be after him to relieve you." (Mintz p 164). In other words, if GW stayed in the Philadelphia area, then How would stay in Philadelphia as well and not go to Burgoyne's aid.Rjensen (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- If Howe was so eager to go after Washington, why didn't he do so earlier (like during the winter months of early 1777)? (And why do historians criticize Howe for his less-than-aggressive tactics in the New York campaign?) Your quotes don't communicate any sense of eagerness, nor do they address the obvious problem: why is Howe going to Philadelphia when that is not where Washington is? If Howe is happy to be in Philadelphia (whether it's because he expects GW to follow, or because he wants to take the city whether GW follows or not is irrelevant), how is GW pinning him down? GW is near Philadelphia because that's where Howe is, not vice versa. Furthermore, for reasons that the chronology makes obvious (regardless of Howe's desire or lack thereof to help Burgoyne, and readily visible to anybody with a reasonable command of those basic facts, plus the average marching speed for a period army), neither is in a position to help the action in the upper Hudson. This is what makes Chernow's "pinning down" statement so silly. (I should have some quotes for you in a few days on my view of Howe's goals.)
- Your analysis of Howe's July 17 writing is flawed. Howe is writing from Sandy Hook, before either army has moved from northern New Jersey. He's obviously expecting GW to follow him to Philadelphia, so "staying in the Philadelphia area" is wrong. The risk to Burgoyne was that GW would head north from the New York area instead, a move that Howe would not actually be able to counter, since he was at sea. (This almost happened; GW was beginning to move troops northward when he learned Howe was in the Chesapeake and not heading for Charleston or somewhere else.)
- Martin, The Philadelphia Campaign, p. 29: "On July 16, Howe sent a confused message to Germain that showed just how cloudy the general's thinking was. If Washington moved north "preventing a junction between this and the northern army', as he appeared to be doing, there would be no cause for alarm. Howe would simply reinforce Clinton's reserve in New York, and Washington would 'no further affect my proceeding to Philadelphia.'" Eager for Washington? I think not. Magic♪piano 18:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Having acquired a copy of Buchanan, why am I not surprised that Rjensen has misinterpreted him? He leaves off the beginning of the sentence, stripping away some important context. Allow me to quote Buchanan more fully (emphasis added to show part Rjensen left out): "For Washington's shift in position had whetted Howe's appetite for a major action when, if everything went right, he would finally accomplish what he and his brother's policies had denied him the previous year: the destruction of the Continental Army." Umm, what "shift in position" is this? Why, Washington's decision in May 1777 to move from Morristown to Middlebrook. Buchanan is discussing Howe's desire to capitalize on a tactical change in the landscape, not some sort of overarching strategy to "get Washington" or even stay close to him. Furthermore, Buchanan is directly contra that idea, pointing out that Howe is focused on Philadelphia (pp. 198-199).
- To deal with Chernow's silly "pinning down" quote, here's some correspondence. On August 12, while at sea, Howe receives a dispatch from Germain, in which the latter repeats the expectation that Howe will support Burgoyne. Howe pens a response on August 30. According to Pancake, 1777: The Year of the Hangman (1977), p. 167, Howe's response is that he will be unable to help Burgoyne because of "the prevailing disposition of the inhabitants [of Pennsylvania]", i.e. the lack of Loyalist support. Unfortunately, Pancake does not quote more of the letter relevant to this point, but it does show that Chernow's idea that Howe would even contemplate helping Burgoyne after Germantown is wrong. Magic♪piano 19:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Howe and Philadelphia
- Ketchum, Saratoga, p. 81: Howe writes to Germain on December 20 (when Washington is near Philadelphia): he is "persuaded the Principal Army should act offensively on that side [i.e. Philadelphia], where the enemy's chief strength lies." (This idea is clearly invalidated by later events, since Washington is no longer near Philadelphia after Trenton and Princeton.)
- Gruber, Ira, The Howe Brothers in the American Revolution, p. 183: mid-January 1777 [i.e. in wake of Trenton and Princeton], Howe feels he needs a decisive victory over the Continental Army, proposes a combined land-sea attack on Philadelphia.
- Ketchum, p. 61: April 6, Howe is building pontoon bridges; Washington (then at Morristown) assumes these are for the Delaware.
- Ketchum, p. 104: April, Howe writes to Germain and Carleton of decision to go to Philadelphia by sea. [Washington is not near Philadelphia]
- Mintz, Generals of Saratoga, p. 117: Howe writes on May 17: "I propose to invade Pennsylvania by sea ... we must probably abandon the Jerseys" [funny, that's where Washington is]
- Ketchum, p. 257: quoting Ketchum: "Clinton came ashore [in New York] on July 5, convinced that nothing could possibly warrant an advance on Philadelphia, unless there was a chance to lure Washington's army into a general action. And the chances of that, he believed, were nil." Quoting Clinton: "all attention should be given to Hudsons River, & Philadelphia left to the last", the rebels "will not risk a general action."
- Ketchum, p. 259: quoting Ketchum: "Howe clearly regarded the conquest of Philadelphia as the sole task of his army that summer." and "His current opinion was that the rebels would not defend Philadelphia." Ketchum goes on to note Clinton's disagreement with this assessment.
- Gruber, p. 200: "So preoccupied was Howe with the invasion of Pennsylvania that he provided only the most meager cooperation between his troops and Canada." [didn't note specific context, but I believe this is in reference to activities in spring 1777]
Discuss. Magic♪piano 22:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of getting involved into this heated debate over "Howes desire" for victory over Washington, I will interject a few insights. Ferling described Howe as lethargic and a pessimist who always saw the "glass half empty". Howe was an older general who had grown cautious and languorous. After Bunker Hill, Howe avoided trench warfare. Ferling states that the young Howe in the F and I war was "daring and intrepid". Ferling stated concerning Howe "...the British army was in the hands of a general who was incapable of the energized behavior that could have decimated the Continentals." Ferling's source for Howe was "Ward, War of the Revolution, 1:261." Ferling stated that historians George A. Billias and Troyer S. Anderson give a favorable review of Howe as a general.Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Historian Bruce Lancaster gives more insight into Howe and Washington. After Howe captured Philadelphia, Washington attacked on October 3, 1777. Howe stated, "For shame, Light Infantry!...it's only a scouting party!" He said this to rally his troops. According to Lancaster, "Howe made no serious effort to hit Washington's army..." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- everyone knows Howe stayed in the Phily area. The question is why when he was urgently needed in upstate NY to help Burgoyne. we have as possibles: he was too lazy; He disliked Burgoyne; he needed a victory of his own over Washington. In any case, he said he wanted to fight Washington and the RS say Washington by staying in the Phily area kept Howe in the Phily area. Rjensen (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a great thesis, until you examine to chronology and the average marching speed of an army (things not requiring an advanced degree to notice, regardless of what a single RS says). Even Clinton couldn't help Burgoyne, and he was closer than Howe. Magic♪piano 22:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe something missing in the discussion is that the Continental Army at the Battle of Germantown on October 3-4, 1777 lacked food and ammunition. Howe was well supplied and had bayonets. If Ferling was correct, Howe, did not have the "edge" to fight since he had grown cautious in old age. The experience at Germantown showed that Washington was determined to fight. I would not say Howe was lazy. He did take a two forts after the Battle of Germantown in the Delaware area. If the RS says he stayed in Philadelphia because of Washington, then that is what Wikipedia should say. From a generals point of view, Howe would not tell his troops that he was scared of Washington or lacked the edge to fight. He had to dismiss Washington in public to keep his British and German troops from retreating under attack. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- If Howe did not have the edge to fight then he was not as good a general as Washington. Howe did not lose any battles--he failed to win when he had huge advantages. Of course it was Germain's job to get rid of such a general, and germanin failed as he did in so many ways. So Washington was better than Germain. GW was also better than Burgoyne and Cornwallis (they surrendered)--so that leaves Clinton as the only British general left. Clinton never did defeat GW and was outsmarted when he did not realize GW and the French had gone to Yorktown. Rjensen (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Cornwallis was probably the best of the British generals; his surrender was the result of many failures, most of which were not of his own construction (the will o' wisp of Loyalist support; Clinton had no real plan in 1781; and the navy failed him at the critical moment). The fact that his reputation (unlike those of Clinton and Germain) survived the surrender, apparently without significant problem, attests to this. Washington was the best of the Americans, and seems to have had Cornwallis' number at Trenton and Monmouth. Magic♪piano 22:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is my opinion that to deminish the British generals as a bunch of patsies, also deminishes the greatness of Washington as a General. Washington took on Britain the first super power since the Roman Empire. Howe, Cornwallis, and Clinton were formidable opponents, however, Washington was the better general. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you could regard the British of 1775-1783 as a superpower, or at least, if Britain was - France was too (3 x the population, a larger economy, control of the world's most valuable colony Saint-Domingue and pretty much the dominant diplomatic power of Europe during the era). Who was the better General is more of a subjective question. IMHO it's worth bearing in mind that Washington never won a single battle against, let alone captured, the main British army during the war. Most general books I've read about him praise him more for his perseverance and adminastrative/political skills in the face of so many setbacks and defeats rather than being exceptionally gifted as a tactical or strategic general. Presumably this is just a general discussion rather than a suggestion that Washington was the better general be included in the article? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Could Washington have won without French military support? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Washington and New York
Ferling critisized Washington for splitting the Continental Army. As had been mentioned before, Ferling is a respected historian. Can Ferling's work be cited on the Washington article? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
