As one does on July 4th, I was thinking about the American Revolution. Specifically, about the commander of the Continental Army, George Washington himself. From all accounts, Washington was not a quixotic man. He wasn't the sort to throw away his life and his fortune in a doomed cause. (Unlike his admirer and relative by marriage, Robert E. Lee, who consciously and deliberately did just that.)
What this means is that Washington must have thought he could win. Right from the start, when he accepted command of the rebel army in 1775, he evidently saw a path to victory. He knew the terrain, better than most people (he was a surveyor, after all). He had first-hand knowledge of how both British and Colonial troops performed in the field — and he had seen British commanders in action, both winning (Forbes) and losing (Braddock). He knew that by accepting command he was ensuring the British would hang him if they won. He must have seen a way to do it.
But since he never seems to have written down a Master Plan to beat the British, we don't know what it was. Did the Revolution play out as Washington had foreseen? Or was he constantly improvising and rolling with the punches? Probably a little of both, I suspect. The scale of their response to the Revolution may have surprised him (the British threw almost twice as many men into fighting the Continentals as they had sent during the French and Indian War), but he adjusted.
It's a pity Washington never wrote his autobiography. I'd love to know more about his thoughts — and the existence of a self-portrait in his own words would have done a lot to damp down the endless cycle of building-up and tearing-down his reputation has undergone for two centuries and counting.
Anyway: thanks, Mr. Washington!
Well put. I think he may have underestimated the Brits at first, then invented his hit & move strategy. Bringing in the French was crucial, & wr owe that mostly toe Franklin & Jefferson methinks.
Posted by: Gregory Benford | 07/06/2018 at 01:30 PM