Reflections on the American Revolution: The Generals Part II of III

By: Dan McLaughlin (Diary) | January 31st, 2013 at 04:11 PM | 5  

 

How did America win its independence? In Part I of this essay, I looked at the population trends, foreign alliances, and equipment and weather conditions under which the American Revolution was fought. Let’s add some thoughts on the leaders of the principal combatants: the American and British generals. The American command was far from perfect – but the war could have turned out very differently if the American side had not had the advantages of leadership it did, first and foremost the singular character of George Washington........ 

Any history of the Revolutionary War has to consider the unique leadership of George Washington. 43 years old when he assumed command, Washington came to the war with combat leadership experience from the French and Indian War, training as a surveyor that prepared him well to deal with maps and terrain, a decade of active fox hunting that had made him an excellent horseman, and experience in the Virginia House of Burgesses that had educated him in practical politics. 

Physically, Washington was a man of great strength, vigor and endurance and almost supernatural good luck. Washington’s robust constitution survived smallpox, diphtheria, multiple bouts of malaria, pleurisy, dysentery….. To Read More…..

My Take - Over the years I have read a great deal of Washington; about his weaknesses and his strengths.  What drives me crazy are the so-called historians who rave about this man.  Washington was a man with great natural leadership qualities and in my opinion he was the only man in the colonies who could have held the Continental Army together, and the only man who could have kept them in check when the Continental Congress decided to cheat them out of their pay.  

 But Washington was not a good tactician nor was he a competent strategist, but he was smart enough to recognize that.  In my mind it is clear that Washington always put the success of his mission far ahead of himself.  That is a sign of true leadership.    

This is an honest and valuable recitation of the facts that doesn't place him on planes which he did not exist nor does it diminish his character, except to note that he was a bit of a snot.   This does bring into perspective between those who really were the contributors that brought about a successful revolution, and those who so much has been written.  

This is a good read, and please make sure to read the comments.  I also didn't remember the back slapping situation that way either.  There is so much more to be said about this time, the people, the heroes, the villains and most importantly the details and facts that no one seems to know.  I would liked to have seen weekly installments that went into greater detail about the events and the characters. 

I find it fascinating at how many people tell me they hate history but will sit and listen attentively while I talk about it.  Why?  Because it is taught badly.  History shouldn't only be read; it should be recited by someone who knows the facts and 'tells' the story because he loves the story.  That is what history is.  A great story!  And the education system no longer has great storytellers, or lovers of history.