"Was Washington Insubordinate?" Topic

During Forbes' march on Fort Duquesne during the French and Indian War, a dispute broke out between Forbes (who was believed to favor a route across Pennsylvania) and Washington (whose Virginians favored the Braddock Road, created during the earlier expedition). As described in Osprey's Tomahawk and Musket (from the Raid series), some claim that Washington's efforts amounted to insubordination.

Do you agree?

he was the surveyor of the land before the war. His counsel was disputed which was an infringement of his honor. I am surprised a duel did not occur.

No

No

I'd suggest that, in assessing a long-ago quarrel between the Future Father of the Country and a general whose reputation for arrogance and incompetence knows few peers, most American wargamers will answer "No".

In fact, if Washington had seized Braddock's hat, urinated in it, jammed it back on the general's head and kicked him in the gonads at the same time, they'd still say "No".

As for me, I have no idea. It probably didn't happen that way.

I am surprised a duel did not occur.

Fight!
Fight!
Fight!

Didn't Washington take down Napoleon on one of those scientific TV shows? Of course, he was fourteen inches taller and had sharpened wooden teeth.

Braddock wouldn't stand a chance, because we instinctively know he was a spoiled poltroon in a powdered wig, riding in a sedan chair, carrying a pomander.

That traitor Washington was so deplorable I patriotically accept ANY accusation made against him!

A wise leader will solicit the opinions of his subordinates when circumstances allow – especially if those subordinates have any kind of first hand experience.
A wise subordinate will make his opinion clear and accept the decision of his superior.

I cannot tell whetherr the advice crossed the line into insubordinance

In fact, if Washington had seized Braddock's hat, urinated in it, jammed it back on the general's head and kicked him in the gonads at the same time, they'd still say "No".

It also would be a *lot* easier to get American students to read history books.

Events like that have happened throughout history, but good luck finding any mention of them in our sanitized history textbooks.

"but good luck finding any mention of them in our sanitized history textbooks."

But that's what the History Channel is for. There, the kiddies can be nailed down, with their cell phones held under lock and key, and they can be forced to watch the "fun interesting" version, involving lots of (embarrassingly low-budget) explosions, endless speculation on which flamethrower would have been better to stop Hannibal at Cannae, and whether Nostradamus indeed predicted the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecy that foretold the arrival of Vampires at Waterloo.

Sigh. It's good to see my friends having fun on this thread.

Actually though, Washington got along great with Braddock; George volunteered as an aide and a member of Braddock's military 'family' on the Monongahela campaign. Washington sucked up hard to Braddock, because he hoped the General would recommend him for a King's commission and sponsor Washington's army career. George must have been devastated when Braddock was killed – think of all that ass-kissing gone to waste!

Braddock took the Virginia route to the Forks of the Ohio. That's why it's called the Braddock Road. That choice of route may be one of the reasons Braddock's expedition failed. Forbes took the Pennsylvania route, and succeeded in taking Fort Duquesne. Forbes was one canny Scotts sumgun. Forbes' choice of route, and lack of favor for Washington may have been one of the reasons Washington resigned his Provincial commission, gave up hope for an army career, and eventually rebelled.

He's a rebel and he never, never does any good!
He's a rebel and he never, never does what he should!
Just because he doesn't do what everybody else does,
That's no reason why I can't give him all my love!
He is always good to me,
Always treats me tenderly,
He's my rebel, don'tcha know,
He's my rebel, don'tcha know,
He's good! He's good to me!

Well, he was pretty insubordinate to his Royal Sovereign…
-Kle.

They all wore powdered wigs, so there!

"Well, he was pretty insubordinate to his Royal Sovereign…"

A fault shared by the entire 'murican nation to this day. But it's just a phase.

If Martha Washington was washing George Washington's washing while Washington was on his way to Washington, how many 'w's are there in all?

None, if his washing was his y-fronts

None.
Old joke.

HOW did the question of his being insubordinate to FORBES become his being insubordinate to BRADDOCK? Maybe the posters were watching the UN-historical Channel, and read the question too fast to take the actual question in.

Washington obviously had no reason to be insubordinate to Braddock; Braddock followed the "Braddock Road," after-all. As to the the Forbes Expedition, one VERY good reason Forbes might have wished to try another approach to the objective was that the Braddock expedition had failed. I'd suggest not trying another approach would have been akin to the Allies suggesting that just because the attack on Dieppe was a disaster in 1942, that was no reason to not try a direct assault on Le Havre in 1944. Ooopps….

Washington being a Virginian, it is on the other hand understandable that he would urge the expedition be "tried again" up Braddock's Road. After-all, it would mean significant logistical contracts going to Virginians (in Alexandria & vicinity). Regrettably, the new expedition was being supplied out of Philadelphia. Ooopps! Even Washington would have had to bow to the inevitable at that stage. Who was going to be so pig-headed as to propose the added expense of shipping supplies down the Bay and up the Potomack, before then going overland on Braddock's Road? No doubt a certain Philadelphia native may also have been lobbying that a new military road cut west from the frontier base at Carlisle would help open Western PA to settlement, as well?

Finally, by the Articles of War, one is only "insubordinate" if one fails to salute and follow orders once the CinC has made his decision… Prior to that, one may "give advice" and even disagree… so long as one remembers to say "Sir!"

PS: None. The wives were all back home with their sacks, cats, and kittens. And it even begs the question, was the MAN even going to St. Ives? All you said was YOU were going to St. Ives. And anyway; the town in Cornwall, or the one in Cambridgeshire? ;-)

Bradddock was not a bad general, though his actual battlefield experience was thin. He worked marvels getting as far as he did. His uniform and military reforms would all be copied later in the war, and again in the Rev War.

Washington had a vested interest in using the Braddock Road and claiming the area for good ole VA, and he was also a member of the Ohio Company – and at the time, had few prospects of inheriting anything from his family (Mt. Vernon and surrounding lands). He also probably didn't see the sense in re-inventing the wheel by building another road thru PA either.

He moved his regiments when ordered and while a pain in the butt pushing his views – he did what he was ordered. .Curious that Rene doesn't bring up how fed up Forbes and Bouquet were with St. Clair

Now what Rene probably should address was the complete incompetence of the French and Canadian military over-reach to even try to hold on to the Ohio Valley, along with the massive corruption of both French and Canadian officials.

Old joke.

I resemble that remark. Oh jeez, I did it again, didn't I?

Now what Rene probably should address was the complete incompetence of the French and Canadian military over-reach to even try to hold on to the Ohio Valley…

They were doing well for a while, and had the support of the native population. If the Royal Navy had not been able to cut off New France from metropolitan France, and starve New France of supplies and reinforcements, they might have succeeded.

It does not matter if he was insubordinate.
The only question is: "Was he right?"

Yea or nay, it all depends on who you ask.

"I'd suggest that, in assessing a long-ago quarrel between the Future Father of the Country and a general whose reputation for arrogance and incompetence knows few peers, most American wargamers will answer "No""

Mex Jack, right Father of the Country wrong general. The question was about Forbes. That said GW enjoyed cordial relations with both Braddock and Forbes -as to that hat thing unless there is some bizarre/masonic rite that involves voiding one's bladder into a hat then who knows what happened on campaign.

On a more prosaic note Washington had land interests (as did many of the Virginian offciers) in the route followed by the Braddock road plus that route would have favoured Virginia's interest. The boring truth is there was not much in the way of fodder for the draught horses along that road, whereas the one finally chosen (the 'Forbes road') had much better grazing. Forbes knew both the logistic issues and Washington's/Virginia's land interests. Forbes would seem to have made the right choice.

Was Washington insubordinate – I very much doubt it, not his style at all.

Zippy:

The French/Canadian plan seemed more dependent on British incompetence/ignorance of the land than anything else. The ties the French established with the Ohio Indians were late in the game as British trade goods were better and cheaper than French ones.

The fact the French won over Braddock was dumb luck, and can in part be chalked up to the limited time Braddock's army had to train for actual combat as opposed to marching where they were supposed to go during the summer (Fort Niagara).

If Loudoun had favorable winds, there is no reason to believe the war would not have advanced a year or so along the time line. Once Britian resolved to take the continent there was little the French could do to stop them. The colonies were simply to big for the French to conquer or stop from growing, as the British found out a two decades later.

Bah Humbug!
Washington was not a gentleman.
No gentleman would resign his commission and then rebel against his rightful Leige King and benevolent government.

Even that scoundrel Rogers of Rogers Rangers (dodging courts and bailiffs) would not take up the sword against his own King. it being against the very idea of someone holding Kings Commission.

So anything GW said would be insubordinate by sheer nature.

Hey GW…? Games workshop or G'dubbya???

"If Loudon had favorable winds…" You make valid points historygamer, but I'll still argue that the Royal Navy laid the foundation for the victories that the British Army won in the Seven Years War, all around the world.

Mal, George Washington never held a Royal commission. His commission was from the Governor of Virginia. As a Provincial Colonel, every King's Captain outranked George. If he had achieved his goal of a Royal commission (And half-pay! Half-pay forever…) he might have stayed loyal.

Save your wrath for Charles Lee.

Mal, George Washington never held a Royal commission.

So…that just proves my point. If Rogers could get one George was obviously not a gentleman!

" Even that scoundrel Rogers of Rogers Rangers (dodging courts and bailiffs) would not take up the sword against his own King"

Mal,

I seem to recall Rogers dallied with the rebels initially before being granted a provincial commission. So maybe not a paragon of the Royal cause?

Zippy,

There were many officers on half pay who sided with Congress (Lee, Montgomery, Gates, Gridley – all positively relinquished it on taking up arms) so not necessarily a given that GW would have remained loyal in 1775 had he been a half-pay man.
Z

Funny how Washington ended up parters in a land speculation group from Virginia that ended up owning a large chunk of land in the Ohio area.
Of course the road Washington proposed would have enormously helped this group of land speculators from Virginia. Washington was looking out for his own interests at this time too.

Roberts had special talent as a scout/frontiersman which Washington did not have. No regular ranger groups (key word is regular) were ever formed on the PA/VA frontier.

I am not sure what really happened to all those Royal land grants, but Washington did end up owning property in present day western PA after the war. I know Congress turned over the property from the proprietors during the war, but how all the claims were ejudicated is another matter. I know Congress also handed out a lot of land in exchange for service in continental units, but a lot of that land was bought up for pennies on the dollar after the war. Perhaps George bought some up as well, I am not sure.

link

This explains a bit more. He couldn't have been too insubordinate, given the reward the crown gave him for his services.

As to Washington being a traitor – traitors are only on the loosing side, he won…

Until Mel Gibson makes the movie nobody should make any comments because we simply don't know what realy happened .