I'm in South Dakota!

@talk72000,

That's a staw man, i didn't say that Washington was an American officer in the period 1753-1758, when he was an officer of the Virginia militia, not the British army.

1 Reply

Oh, by the way, you're displaying more of your ignorance.

Quote:

The King's Royal Rifle Corps was raised in the American colonies in 1756 as the 62nd (Royal American) Regiment to defend the thirteen colonies against attack by the French and their native American allies. (emphasis in the original source)

Source at Wikipedia

0 Replies

Quote:

On June 9, additional troops from Washington's Virginia regiment arrived from Wills Creek bringing his total force up to 293 men. Five days later, Captain James McKay arrived with his Independent Company of regular British troops from South Carolina. Shortly after making camp, McKay and Washington entered into a dispute over who should command. While Washington held a superior rank, McKay's commission in the British Army took precedence. The two ultimately agreed on an awkward system of joint command. While McKay's men remained at Great Meadows, Washington's continued work on the road north to Gist's Plantation.

Source at About-dot-com's Military History section.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

While it would be fun to say that is was to get to the other side, the truth is that he wanted to attack Trenton, New Jersey. He crossed it on 24 December and attacked on 25 December 1776 taking the Hessians by surprise. The Hessians surrendered, making the battle at Trenton the first American victory in the Revolutionary War.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_George_Washington_cross_the_Delaware_River#ixzz1QFwPDHQD

Quote:

The Battle of Trenton
Battle: Trenton

War: American Revolution

Date: 25th December 1776

Place: Trenton, New Jersey on the Delaware River

Combatants: Americans against Hessians and British troops

Generals: General George Washington against Colonel Rahl.

http://www.britishbattles.com/battle-trenton.htm

I notice now there is revision at work to change the date toDecember 26 as it looks bad on George Washington. Just the way Americans treat History. Henry Ford said " History is bunk".

0 Replies

As though only Americans practice revisionism. None of that alters that you confused the battle of Trenton with the Battle of Princeton which took place a week later. Now you've got your little lacy panties in a bunch, and are desparately attempting to divert attention from your display of ignorance. No battle took place at Princeton on December 25, or December 26, 1776. A battle did take place at Princeton on January 3, 1777.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I said near Princeton.

1 Reply

I've looked it up online as well as offline - nearly all history book give the 26th as the actual date of the battle.

However, the plate on the Battle Monument ...

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Jawohl!

0 Replies

@talk72000,

The point, which you are avoiding, is that there was no battle at Princeton on December 25th or 26th, but there was a battle there on January 3, 1777. Trenton and Princeton were the two key battles by which Washington secured New Jersey as winter quarters for his army, and removed the English and the Germans from that state, with the exception of a small strip near New York. Students of Washington's military career are aware of this, even if you are not. It is considered his best campaign.

This is all of a type with your idiotic insistence that he was a British officer, which he was not. You just display your ignorance, and get nasty about it when that is pointed out to you. You are the one who needs to head to the library.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

The entire notion that Washington enriched himself through the war, by any means, is an absurdity.

Then why did you introduce the notion ? I didnt .

Quote:

a constant (and what ought to have been a needless) worry of his was to find ways to feed, clothe and equip his army

Of course not wanting to hang for a traitor had nothing to do with his enthusiasm .

Quote:

The silliest part of such a claim, though, is the sheer ignorance of American history.

You and I have had this discussion before....only Americans (Mexicans, Canadians, USAns, Chileans, Peruvians, etc know about the history of the USA...it is physically impossible for anyone else to know . You base this ridiculous assertion on your not knowing enough of your own history...if you dont know of it then it doesnt exist, right ?

Answer the question seeing you have such esteemed authors on the subject...how was Washington paid and how much was he paid ? Or will you be in hiding again ?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

I haven't claimed to an historian of any description

And rightly so... we agree you have no academic claim on historical matters .

Quote:

a result of the fact that he was never given a commission in the British Army.

So tell us, oh great one, what is the difference between a Queens Commission in a territorial army and the regular army ?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

You should educate yourself about how to get a commission in the British Army and thus become a British officer before accusing others.

Thats good advice, Walt, will you be following it yourself ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

That's what I usually do - cross-checked my infos here with wikipedia, Britannica, Kenneth Davis and two German books.

My bad that I didn't look it up better.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Not to worry...but do you know the difference now between a commissioned officer in the territorial armies and the regular army during this time period ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

I'm not sure: are the Oxford History of the British Army and the Center of Military History (United States Army) acceptable source in your eyes?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

are the Oxford History of the British Army and the Center of Military History (United States Army) acceptable source in your eyes?

Only if they agree with me... Wink

why, what do they say ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
are the Oxford History of the British Army and the Center of Military History (United States Army) acceptable source in your eyes?
Only if they agree with me... why, what do they say ?

For instance that George Washington wasn't a commissioned officer but his (half-) brother Laurence.
Besides those sources, you can read it online in William M. S. Rasmussen: George Washington-- the man behind the myths, Univ of Virginia Press, 1999 (via Goggle books).

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Bit late replying, somehow I missed it . So what was his status or are you saying he wasnt in the British Militia or the Continental Army ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Bit late replying, somehow I missed it . So what was his status or are you saying he wasnt in the British Militia or the Continental Army ?

I do know that my English isn't the best.

When I wrote:

For instance that George Washington wasn't a commissioned officer but his (half-) brother Laurence.

... I did just want to say that according to all sources George Washington wasn't a commissioned officer.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Ionus wrote:

Bit late replying, somehow I missed it. So what was his status or are you saying he wasnt in the British Militia or the Continental Army ?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I do know that my English isn't the best.
For instance that George Washington wasn't a commissioned officer but his (half-) brother Laurence.
... I did just want to say that according to all sources George Washington wasn't a commissioned officer.

If I remember, George Washington was commissioned in the Royal Militia
in the rank of Colonel (not in the regulars),
whereas his older brother Lawrence Washington, was a war hero,
commissioned in the Royal Navy.

David

0 Replies

I'm in South Dakota!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know