The Tactics of Persistence: George Washington and the Virtues of Military Expediency - Assignment Example

The Tactics of Persistence: George Washington and the Virtues of Military Expediency ______________ _______________ _________________ Date Crs# Name The Tactics of Persistence: George Washington and the Virtues of Military Expediency What did you learn from your “ride” with a great military leader? I learned that it was guile, resourcefulness and personal courage that made Washington a leader willing to take risks and utilize tactics that ran counter to military convention. History offers few examples of military leaders whose abilities were truly commensurate with the epic times in which they lived. Julius Caesar came to power at a time when Rome’s civil wars had severely weakened its political establishment. Napoleon’s rise coincided with a transformative period of revolution and socio-economic turmoil in Europe. Eighteenth-century America was, in its way, a place of opportunity for a leader with vision and, perhaps, a sense of his own place in history. By comparison, George Washington’s rise to fame was slow and measured, even painful. Yet the lessons in persistence and courage the Virginian learned during his early years served him well when controversy and unimaginable hardship threatened to undermine the desperate venture upon which he and his fellow American colonists’ staked their very lives. As an officer in the French and Indian War, Washington suffered, and survived, defeat and disgrace. That resiliency of character which saw him through the blackest days of the Revolution made Washington a remarkably adaptable tactician, a quality often overlooked by historians who prefer to emphasize his personal charisma and courage in battle. 2 What did you learn about yourself by riding with a great military leader? I learned that it was Washington’s capacity for reflection that enabled him to consider all viewpoints and lay aside his own ego in fashioning a strategy that could defeat the British Army.In 1800, Massachusetts Congressman Fisher Ames’ eulogy spoke to the personal characteristics that Washington exhibited early in his military career. He exhibited “a maturity of judgment, rare in age, unparalleled in youth. Perhaps no young man had so early laid up a life’s stock of materials for solid reflection, or settled so soon the principles and habits of his conduct…”.1 These were not idle statements offered up in the spirit of “purple prose.” Washington exhibited the “principles and habits” of which Ames spoke during his early years, having commanded Virginia troops at the age of 21 in the French and Indian Wars. The native of Westmoreland County owed this opportunity to the influential Fairfax family, and by 1755 it was readily apparent that Lord Fairfax’s faith in the young man was well-founded. It was the 23-year-old Washington who averted disaster at the Battle of Monongahela during Braddock’s War. Overwhelmed by a combined French-Indian force, the British fell back in disorder after Braddock was killed and were on the verge of being destroyed piecemeal until Washington, at great personal risk, rode to the forefront and rallied the British/American forces.2 This would become a familiar scenario on many battlefields of the Revolutionary War. In 1758, Washington led Virginia militia in the British expedition to take Fort Duquesne. Washington was discredited after his troops were involved in a “friendly fire” incident, the Virginians and a British regiment mistaking each other for French troops. It was a testament to Washington’s prestige that his misfortune in the campaign of 1758, was not enough to put an end 3 to his military career…though it would be 17 years before he would again lead troops in the field. When it came time to face off against the British army, the lessons Washington learned during his service in the Virginia and Ohio back countries would serve him well. Did your ride provide you with some useful insights into the challenges of leadership and command styles? Yes, I learned that Washington’s exploits in America’s war for independence earned him the admiration of some of the world’s greatest generals, such as Napoleon, who considered him an inspiration as a battlefield leader, a man whose troops followed him without question. It is important to understand those who influenced Washington in order to appreciate his belief that war is a means to a purely political end. Historians and students of America’s revolutionary era often marvel that Washington, who held supreme power after the British surrender, voluntarily resigned and left Congress to the business of running the new country. Washington had clearly internalized many cautionary tales from ancient Rome. “The political lessons of an overambitious Caesar were not lost on him. Like other thoughtful students of Roman history, Washington realized that by refusing to lay down his sword – Caesar, a general and a father to the Roman people – had in fact used it against his own political children.”3 Rejecting Caesar’s example, Washington determined to follow the path of Cicero, the great orator and advocate of the Roman republic, and Cincinnatus, the farmer-general who saved Rome then returned to farming.4 4 Washington the tactician It has been argued that Washington’s military experiences during his service in the Virginia militia led him to abandon the standard European “line of battle” tactics that were aimed at massing fire. “Although he would later advocate semiflexible formations and tactics in combat with Indians, his sense of how to fight regular troops remained thoroughly orthodox.”5 It is interesting that in a war often fought in heavily wooded terrains with guerrilla tactics, the Americans’ commanding general should have remained faithful to tactics that would appear to have favored the British, who generally had superior firepower. Throughout the Revolutionary War, Washington remained convinced that American soldiers fought best utilizing the classic European model.6 This, after all, was the discipline that von Steuben had used to train the beleaguered Continental troops at Valley Forge. Ultimately, Washington became convinced that tactics were secondary to a sufficient and reliable means of supply; training; and good troop discipline. For Washington, tactics also came second to an effective command structure, but this was a factor upon which Washington could not always rely. The Battle of Monmouth, fought in June 1778, provides the best example of a near-disastrous command-level failure, and also one of the finest instances of Washington’s battlefield leadership. Monmouth was one of the few times in the war’s early stages when the American forces equaled those of the enemy, and yet General Charles Lee, to whom the order of battle had been entrusted, quickly gave way and ordered a general retreat. In an action that recalled his bravery at Monongahela some 23 years earlier, Washington took over from Lee, restored order and personally formed a line of battle from 5 which the Americans could reengage the British. Considering how nearly the day was lost, it was a remarkable display of determination and sheer panache on the part of Washington, who repeatedly exposed himself to enemy fire in an attempt to restore his troops’ courage. Alexander Hamilton later commented on how the commander had “brought order out of confusion, animated his troops and led them to success.”7 The war against the British was fought in a variety of physical environments, requiring the Americans to adapt in order to remain an effective fighting force. Some have argued that this adaptability to the requirements of landscape and circumstance is what made Washington an effective tactician. As has been noted, he was a product of the military culture of the age, remaining faithful to the traditional European mode of warfare. But his experiences in the wilderness taught him that flexibility was key to military success in America. The Christmas attack on the Hessian encampment at Trenton, a victory many believe saved the American cause, was a masterstroke of mobility and surprise dictated by circumstance and driven by absolute military need. Taking advantage of dark and a winter snowstorm, Washington took the greatest single gamble of his career, crossing the ice-choked Delaware River and marching through the night to fall on Rall’s unsuspecting Hessians. Washington split his forces during the night, sending General Sullivan’s force along the River Road, enveloping the bleary enemy troops, who were subject to withering American artillery fire. Having ignored a warning the previous night that they might be attacked, Rall had not concerned himself with posting sentries. The Hessian colonel was so confident that he had 6 ignored an order from General Cornwallis to build defensive earthworks outside of town.8 The sleeping encampment was virtually defenseless and quickly fell to the well-disciplined American troops. Washington, utilizing the storm and the cover of the forest nearby, employed what had by then become his army’s trademark hit-and-run modus operandi and disappeared into the New Jersey countryside before Cornwallis’ well-equipped army, stationed just 20 miles away at New Brunswick, could respond.9 What did you learn about sources (both primary and secondary)? I learned to be judicious with the identification and selection of sources, both primary and secondary. On the whole, primary sources provide direction and a “big picture” sense of how to deal with a particular historical subject. Concerning Washington, the difficulty lies in the fact that there is much about Washington’s personal life that remains an enigma. As such, it is important to choose carefully when selecting secondary sources, which often provide spurious information, or worse, uninformed conjecture. I learned that it is wise to use primary sources not only as a means to structure and direct a research project, but also as a source for secondary information. Conclusion Some military historians have argued that Washington was, at best, a mediocre tactician. An objective assessment of those oppressive conditions under which he labored must lead one to the conclusion that he rarely had the opportunity to display his skill as a battlefield tactician, at 7 least not in the sense of the accepted European “set-piece” battle. Chronically under-supplied and under-provisioned, Washington was constantly challenged to improvise, to adapt his available resources and manpower to the needs of the moment and, above all, to impose his own personality and courage in the achievement of those hard-earned victories that led to his fame and his country’s independence. As such, he should be regarded as a resourceful military genius who virtually willed his army to victory. 8 References Ames, F. Selections from Fisher Ames’ Eulogy of George Washington. 8 February 1800(14). Chadwick, B. (2005). George Washington’s War: The Forging of a Revolutionary Leader and the American Presidency. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc., pp. 18-19. Clary, D.A. (2011). George Washington’s First War: His Early Military Adventures. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, pp. 163-64. Laver, H.S. & Matthews, J.J. (2008). The Art of Command: Military Leadership from George Washington to Colin Powell. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, p. 61. Lengel, E.G. (2007). General George Washington: A Military Life. New York, NY: Random House, p. 27. Morrison, J.H. (2009). The Political Philosophy of George Washington. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 81. Read More