George Washington and the Revolutionary War: A Historiography
referring to the victory of the Continental Army against the British after the battle of Yorktown. After Yorktown, Washington went back his beloved Mount Vernon where he believed he would live out the rest of his life having already made his contributions to public service. In his reflections over the events of the Revolution, Washington was afraid that his role in the war would overshadow the contributions of his countrymen and supporters. Washington was prophetic in his predictions of grandeur. Washington remains the center of many varying historiographic studies two hundred years after Washington’s service in the Revolutionary War.
Robert E. Jones’ book, George Washington: Ordinary Man, Extraordinary Leader, looks at Washington’s enduring character in the face of obstacles to help rally the country to victory. Washington served as the General of the Continental Army from the years 1775 to 1783. Jones portrays Washington as a tireless, ambitious, driven, proud, and insecure General who often doubted himself but helped propel the United States of America to become the strong republic that it came to be after the Revolution. Jones believes Washington’s civic disposition and civic actions helped the young republic develop a backbone and reputation “Since he had assumed command, he had often acted as if the colonies were already independent, and by so doing he helped to bring about Congresses’s decision” (Jones, 2002, p. 52). The decision Congress made was the ratifying the Declaration of Independence.
Washington was very conscientious of perceptions and reputations and made sure to uphold and respect United States authority while forging new traditions. Washington helped the United States become the republic that was envisioned by his peers (the Founding Fathers) and a republic with credibility in the eyes of foreign powers. An example Jones points out is Washington’s refusal to take the position of General until the authority of Congress dictated it, “Washington was also insisting on a recognition of the Continental Congress’s rights to confer his commission” (Jones, 2002, p. 54). Jones makes his case that Washington acted on behalf of the Congress and the people by cementing the authority of the new government. By waiting for an official confirmation of office, Washington provided validity and honor to the new government.
Jones examines the incredible leadership of the Continental Army by Washington and how his leadership helped the United States find its roots while facing many opposing factors that threatened the republic. Washington faced military inadequacies of the continental militia. The General faced trained mercenaries from Germany who fought for the British and strong imperial British soldiers. Washington’s soldiers were flighty, panicky, and anxiety ridden. Washington had to contend with the fact that his army was not a comparable match with the trained soldiers of Europe. Washington showed off his great leadership capabilities while commanding his group of “rag tag” soldiers. Jones states of Washington’s military capabilities, “George Washington was not one of history’s great general, but he was one of its great military leaders” (Jones, 2002, p. 90). This statement cements Washington as an archetype of America representing potential and perseverance, therefore guaranteeing a connection with future generations of Americans.
Washington had a quality that all great leaders possess; the ability to motivate people. Jones states of Washington’s leadership, “The contribution he made to the American victory was in the quality of his leadership” (Jones, 2002, p. 64). One way Washington motivated his men was through his authority. Before Congress approved of such a measure, Washington guaranteed all men in the Continental Army an additional ten dollars for an additional month’s service (Jones, 2002). Jones’ view of Washington demonstrates a leader who always served his men for the greater good “In accord with his Stoic values, he was serving the coin he regarded above all others- the good opinion of his fellow citizens-and anything that menaced this payment would always provoke a strong reaction from him” (Jones, 2002, p. 71). Washington did not wait for orders or permission from Congress. Washington acted on instinct and kept his army together. Washington was insightful enough to understand what needed to be done in order to survive and he acted on what he knew to be true. Washington used his authority when he took provisions from farmers (farmers were paid) to fuel the army during the harsh winters they faced. The little things Washington did were vital to keeping the weary soldiers going during uncertain times in the early months of the war.
Washington’s sense of character, tradition and honor is studied by Jones. Jones believes that Washington’s character affected the development of the United States. Washington was dedicated to the authority and credibility of the United States republic, which was shown when Washington refused a letter from British General Sir William Howe (Jones, 2002). Howe did not address the letter correctly and Washington refused to accept the correspondence until Howe finally changed the letter and addressed Washington as “His Excellency, George Washington” (Jones, 2002). Washington was very conscientious of the titles U.S. officials used and addressed as because the correct identification reflected validity of the new republic. When Howe refused to address Washington correctly he was refusing the authority and validity of the United States.
The codes of honor during the period of revolution and change in the late 1700s required respectable titles and recognition. The title of “His Excellency, George Washington” was an indication that the British had to finally take the United States seriously as a nation. The title that Washington had so diligently waited for helped validate the existence of the young republic, “Thus, he became instantly a symbol of the unswerving determination of Congress to resist British policy at any price” (Jones, 2002, p. 43). Jones believes Washington’s actions and persistence helped the young nation become a strong republic.
Don Higginbotham studies Washington during the late 1770s and early 1800s in his book George Washington: Reconsidered. Higginbotham’s interpretation of the same time period is different than Jones’ interpretation. Jones argues that Washington was a civic minded leader whose actions and motivations were centered on the belief in republicanism and the early United States. Higginbotham explains the colonial military tradition George Washington was following during his years in the continental army and believes that tradition rather than patriotism was the driving force in Washington.
Higginbotham shows how prevalent the tradition of the militia was in colonial literature, war stories, state constitutions, and public consumption and approval (2001). Higginbotham concludes of Washington’s feelings toward the militia tradition “He knew that in colonial America there was an enormous gap between the theory and the reality of the militia” (2001, p. 43). Jones’ book addresses the inadequacies of the Continental Army but does not give a sufficient alternative to formulate a different theory of why Washington performed so well. In Higginbotham’s eyes, Washington’s traditions pushed him towards success and pride for his work; not his faith in his fellow man.
Higginbotham attributes Washington’s strong leadership style to the professionalism embedded in Virginian military tradition. Unlike Jones’ portrayal of Washington as a soldier’s soldier, Higginbotham paints a different picture of Washington. Higginbotham describes Washington’s professionalism as follows, “Yet Washington notwithstanding the Peale portrait and the Braddock campaign, does not lend himself to any personification of the American militiaman” (2001, p. 42).
Professionalism is attributed to Washington’s persistent behavior. The letter from Howe that Jones describes as being an example of patriotism would be viewed differently by Higginbotham. Higginbotham would argue that because it was not addressed correctly in professional military form, the letter would have been rejected regardless of civic ideas, “Washington, like other Virginians and indeed like colonials elsewhere, preferred to be addressed by his military title” (2001, p. 39).
Higginbotham argues that Washington liked to be addressed by his military title simply because that was the tradition of his fellow Virginians (Higginbotham, 2001). This conviction of tradition can be seen in Charles Willson Peale’s painting of Washington in 1772 where the General wore his old blue and red uniform, which he later wore during the convening of the Second Continental Congress in 1775 (Higginbotham, 2001). Washington was very concerned with the values and traditions of military life and upheld those traditions at all costs.
Contrary to most learned accounts of Washington’s battles and soldiers, Higginbotham contests that the leader did not have a great affinity for his men. Higginbotham states of Washington’s concerns, “Privately, and to Congress, he was far more skeptical of the virtues of the ordinary soldier,” which contradicts Washington’s status of the great republican (Higginbotham, 2001, p. 169). Higginbotham argues that Washington believed that disciplining the men would be a great obstacle because of their raw passions and unreasoned emotions (Higginbotham, 2001). Arriving in Boston in 1775 Washington was shocked at the behavior of the militia and believed that the people of New England were too republican and democratic (Higginbotham, 2001). Jones’ study tells of a great everyman who was one and the same of his men. Higginbotham argues the complete opposite; Washington not only believed he was different, he believed in a hierarchical structure of soldiers.
Historian Douglas Southall Freeman’s view of Washington mirrors Don Higginbotham’s believe that professionalism was the most important characteristic of Washington’s military career. Freeman’s view of the General portrays a leader who was serious, hard working, and strict Freeman highlights one story to demonstrate the divergence of character for Washington to show lightheartedness during his military planning, “News of this feeling in the occupied city amused even Washington” (1951, p. 2). Freeman argues that Washington was a constant professional.
Freeman does not include Washington’s personal motivations for actions like Jones and Higginbotham. Freeman writes assumingly that strategy, winning, planning, and retention of troops to be the most important motivators for Washington’s actions during battle in the war. Freeman’s biography is very straightforward and assumes Washington to be a leader driven to win. Washington is viewed as a constant disciplinarian, “A considerable part of the Commander-in-Chief’s orders on disciplinary matters dealt with camp sanitations and with the protection the houses, the trees and the gardens of citizens” (1951, p.86).
Freeman’s biography focuses on Washington’s strategic abilities and planning. When Washington smiled it was out of character because he is portrayed as a man with intensity and drive. Washington is also portrayed as a resourceful leader who always adapted to his situation, “Washington, as always, made the best of what he had and of what he could not change” (Freeman, 1951, p. 204). This resourcefulness is also another symbolic attributes many American signify to be uniquely American.
Despite the different views on Washington as an American and leader, all historiographies agree on the merit of his leadership. Washington is viewed as a model citizen in Jones’ biography. Higginbotham views him as a model soldier and Freeman views him as a master planner and statistician and leader. Regardless of the different interpretations of the motivations and characteristics of George Washington, he helped to legitimize and found a new nation.
