George Washington's Greatest flaw

Long Island was a case which he could not have avoided. He could not possibly have supervised a line that extensive personally, so he quite naturally delegated authority. Lord Sterling and John Sullivan did not adequately pickett their positions on the American left, which had a flank "in the air," and for which it was therefore imperative to provide a wide patrol--but neither commander did so. Both Sterling and Sullivan were surprised in the morning when Cornwallis showed up on their flank and rear, and both fought as well and as long as possible. Sullivan was captured in the fight. Howe's decision not to assault the prepared positions at the western end of Brooklyn Heights can be debated, but, given that he did not, Washington's response was decisive, and effective--he evacuated the entire army overnight, something which it had never occurred to Howe might be done, and something for which the English did not immediately have a response.

After White Plains, Washington offered to Charles Lee, and Lee accepted, a large portion of the troops under Washington's command. Lee was responsible for Forts Washington and Lee, and it was his decision to throw into Fort Washington far more troops than could be accomodated there. Once again, Washington delegated, and did exactly a commander must do--having delegated authority, he provided all the resources he could to the man on the spot. Charles Lee got his job because of the high opinion which he held of his own abilities, something dubious of which he was nevetheless able to convince many members of Congress. Washington always subordinated his own decisions to those of Congress. Told to employ Lee, he did so, and he did it faithfully in the best manner he knew how.

In case you may not have realized, i do not subscribe to the common opinion of American historians that Washington lacked military skill. If one were to adduce a fault on his part, it would be that he was too much of a gambler--not that he was indecisive. I think many historians are small men and women who think to enlarge their stature by attacking someone justifiably seen as an historical giant.

Setanta and I are in agreement that Washington's skills as a commander during the Revolutionary War are generally far under rated. Almost any other commander would have thrown up their hands at the problems to be overcome and resigned. Washington did the best that he could with what he had, and prevailed. Here are a few of the problems to be overcome:

* Washington took command of a small disorganized, untrained milita facing one of the great armies of the time.
* The Colonies were not really united, disagreed on almost everything exept their own "right" to be the supreme decision-maker. The Contentintal Congress as a result was weak and was virtually unable to raise the money and supplies needed to keep even a small army in the field. Washington was almost on his own when it came to feeding, arming and even clothing his troops. Winter quarters came as near to defeating the army as the British.
* Washington's army remained untrained and was led by amature soldiers until Von Steuben became drill master in March of 1778. From Bunker Hill in June of 1775 until late in 1778, Washington was fighing professional soldiers with untrained, and poorly disciplined "troops".
* The Contenintal Congress was philosophically anchored to the idea that milita could/should be the backbone of the army. In practice they were the least disciplined, the first to run in a tight situation, and forever fighting amongst themselves. Even the tiny core of regulars that Washington was able to put together served short enlistments. Battles had to be faught on timetables, rather than opportunity, so as to have a sufficient number of men in the field. Desertions were common, and Washington sometimes was reduced to an army of as little as 4,000.
* The Continental Congress were relentless in their demands that Washington go onto the attack, though Washington knew that would be a disaster and remained strong enough to stick with a Parthian strategy. There was a plot among some of Washington's officers and certain members of the Congress to replace him (the Conway Plot), an unwelcome deverision, but Washington prevailed. To replace Washington with General Gates, a cowardly incompetent, would have been the height of folly.
* Washington had to coordinate a war that ranged from Canada to Georgia without modern communications or transportation. The British controlled the sea and with their larger available resources had it much easier to move troops and coordinate operations, though they often failed to take advantage their assets. Even within theater, Washington was operating out in the wilderness while the British occupied the main towns and roads.
* People tend to forget that Washington was fighting a civil war, and at least a third of the population remained loyal to the British King. Washington could never be certain that his army and plans might be betrayed to the enemy.
* The Revolution was the longest American war (1776-1783), and only the War of 1812 came as close to complete defeat for the nation. During those most trying of times, it was Washington who kept the army together and fighting. In those bleak periods when the Contenintal Congress might have thrown in the towl, Washington's presistence was fundamental to decisions to carry-on. Who but Washington could have inspired common soliders to endure the hardships, lack of pay, or even the appreciation of the nation, to continue to struggle against such great odds? Without Washingtons leadership of the army, it is likely that the French would have sat on their hands, and eventually attrition would have spelled the end of the Rebellion.

Washington took the meager resources available and hammered them into a victorious army, but it took time. Viva, Washington! First in War, First in Peace, and (forever should be) First in the hearts of his countrymen.

Okay, I think you looked into my question wrong. In no way whatsoever am I attacking Washington. George Washington was the key to the founding of this country and one of the greatest people to have ever lived.

My question was only what was other people's opinions on his greatest flaw. Everyone has flaws, and George Washington was no exception.

I still stick by what I wrote when I said he was indecisive (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

Long Island

Washington was indecisive about how to apportion the strength he had and ended up dividing his army. He did that because he was not certain where the British would exactly strike. He did that on the theory that he could move his men one way or the other over the East River, which he wasn't able to. Washington also kept "reshuffling" the command at Brooklyn by placing Israel Putnum over Sullivan. Greene had just been replaced by Sullivan days before. (Greene was sick so I know that was not indecisiveness, the rest may also have not been indecisiveness but it was bad for the morale of the troops) That may not be a reason for the way the Battle of Long Island unfolded but it certainly played a part.

Fort Washington

First of all, I believe Nathanael Greene had the overall command of Fort Washington and Fort Lee with Robert Magaw as the commander of Fort Washington. Charles Lee had been sent south to take charge of fortifying New York and the Hudson.

Because of Washington's indecisiveness on what to do, told Greene that he was "inclined to think" it wise to abandon the fort, but left the decision to Greene who was "on the spot." I believe that would be called indecisiveness. Washington failed to override Greene's judgement and make a decision of his own.

Joseph Reed, Washington's secretary and close friend, wrote a letter to Charles Lee of Washington's indecisiveness after the fall of Ft. Washington.

"I do not mean to flatter or praise you at the expense of any other, but I confess I do think it is entirely owing to you in the army, and the liberties of America, so far as they are dependent on it, are not totally cut off...You have decision, a quality often wanted in minds of otherwise valuable...Oh! General, an indecisive mind is one of the greatest misfortunes that can befall an army. How often have I lamented it this campaign. All circumstances considered, we are in a very awful and alarming situation--one that requires utmost wisdom and firmness of mind. As soon as the season will admit, I think yourself and some others should go to Congress and form the plan of the new army."

To which Lee replied:

"I received your most obliging, flattering letter--lament with you tha tfatal indecision of mind which in war is a much greater disqualification than stupidity or even want of personal courage. Accident may put a decisive blunder in the right, but eternal defeat and miscarriage must attend the men of the best parts if cursed with indecision."

Like I wrote earlier, Washington was a great person and a pretty good military leader. (The night occupying of Dorcester Heights and the night retreat were pretty amazing) But everyone has flaws.

Charles Lee was responsible for the two forts, and all of the defense of the northern portion of Manhattan Island. It is one thing to entertain a different opinion--it is another to get the facts wrong.

I find it hilarious that you put so much credence in the opinion of Charles Lee. I suspect that you and i will never agree on this.

Early in the Revolution, particularly at New York, Washington was much to deferential to the opinions of subordinated who proved to be incompetent. Putnam is an excellent example. Part of this deference was political but part of it was his feelings of inadequacy. New York solved that and the Washington of 1777 was a much different general thant that of 1776.

I was not necessarily putting credence on the opinion of Charles Lee. The point I was trying to make was what Joseph Reed said. Joseph Reed was Washington's closest confidante. Joseph Reed admired Washington to the point of forsaking (for lack of a better word) his law practice and family. Washington relied on him heavily. The fact that someone who looked up to Washington so much would write of his indecisiveness says something. When it comes to a man's character who lived 230 years ago, I rather rely on what people wrote about him who knew him and lived during that time period than on the dressing ups of history books written today.

Where did you get your information that Lee was in charge of the forts? I have researched and have not found anything that said that. From all my researching of documents and the such, Charles Lee was at North Castle, New York when the forts fell. During Washington's retreat to New Jersey, he wrote several letters "urging" Lee to cross the Hudson and join forces.

Does anybody else have an opinion?

The man didn't have a lot of faults as far as I can see from the vantage point of 250 years in the future.

You asked what was Washington's greatest flaw, and we answered with a list of his strengths. You didn't actually even reference Washington's military abilities, and that is what most of us focused on.

Washington had a terrible temper, but kept if tightly controlled. There are at least two good examples. When Charles Lee was given point command at Trenton, he failed to push forward aggressively. Upon encountering the British, he halted and the American troops faltered and began a pell-mell run for the rear. Washingon, astride a wonderful white horse, was livid. He stopped the retreating mob with the flat of his sword, and turned them back to face the British line. He then took command of the point and saved the day. That was the end of Charles Lee.

Charles Lee, no relation to Light Horse, had received military training in England and was good at self promotion. In the beginning many in the Continental Congress believed that Lee should have been the overall commander of the American army. Lee's jealousy of Washington was one of reasonably well-known, even at the time. Lee was captured by the British and spent some time with them before being ransomed in a prisoner exchange. Some have suggested that Lee was turned and returned to the American army as an agent for the British.

A second example of Washington's temper is his reaction upon arriving at West Pont to discover Arnold's betrayal. Washington had a high opinion of Arnold, and thought of him almost as a son. To Washington, Arnold's treason at of West Point, was a personal betrayal. Yet, he treated Mrs. Arnold with a kindness she didn't deserve. Maj. Andre was hanged, despite the pleading of many American officers, before Washington's anger cooled.

These are two well-know examples of Washington's temper, there are other examples less known today. One of Washington's intimates remarked (paraphrased because I'm too lazy to go and dig out the actual quote) "No one who ever witnessed Washington's temper, ever wanted to see such wrath again". Washington's temper was seldom on public display, but those who knew of it dreaded being in the vicinity during the storm before Washington recovered himself. Washington was well aware of how important it is to a commander to be seen having emotional control and confidence. Anger in a commander can easily shake the confidence of private soldiers. Soldiers desire almost above everything else a commander who has outsmarted all his opponents and is so in touch with the situation that he is never surprised.

Washington's sense of honor, noblese-oblige, and gravitas are oft-cited virtues. Washington too these virtues to the limits, and perhaps beyond. As a young man, Washington loved a party, to dance and flirt with the young ladies. At core he was said to be more at home with children than with adults, yet never had children of his own. Washington, the public man, was quite different. He wasn't just unsmiling because of his dental problems, he was a serious man who modeled himself on the noblest of Roman virtues. He had few inimates and intimidated most of those around him. His glance could shrivel the best intended act of intimate contact. At a party one of his officer bet that he had the courage to put his hand on Washington's shoulder, and the odds were against him. When Washington came into the room, the officer went up to Washington and laying a hand on his shoulder exclaimed what a splendid occasion it was. Washington, surprised, silently looked down at the hand on his person and walked away leaving the officer to collect his winnings. Not an approachable man at all. So Washington was a man who loved society, but cultivated a persona that isolated him from it.

Washington was a man who had a high regard from himself, and a tremendous drive to achieve social recognition. Washington came from one of the leading families of Virginia, but the family was relatively poor compared to other families. Washington wanted more. As a young man he sought military glory by becoming a British officer, but found that door closed to him for all practical purposes. As a surveyor, he was careful to note and mark-out for himself the best land he saw. As mentioned above he was well-liked by his peers, and would have been a catch for any of the fine young women of the colony. Washington chose instead a widow, Martha Custis, with small children. Martha's family had both standing, money and land, though she was always a bit on the short side and chubby. Once he came into a lordly estate, Washington felt that he had arrived. He loved Mt. Vernon and was constantly working out improvements to the house and land. He was an innovative farmer and seemed happiest working on his farm. Of course, Washington had slaves (mostly Martha's) and white workment to do the dirty work and heavy lifting. Though Washington didn't receive a salary for commanding the American forces, he did pretty well for himself by running up a pretty fair expense account. After the Revolution, Washington also profited nicely from government land paid to the veterans as bonuses for their efforts.

Washington was just a man, but what a man he was.

Teperehmi, my remarks about Washington are based on quite a wide reading on the revolution, literally hundreds of books. For the man himself, i recommend Thomas Flexner's George Washington in four volumes, and Douglas Southall Freeman's George Washington in seven volumes. For a "quick reference," i would advise getting and keeping (which latter i have failed to do) Flexner's one volume abridgement--George Washington: The Indispensible Man.

In addition to what Asherman has offered, i would point out the following. In his reference to the battle of Monmounth Court House (i know he wrote Trenton, but it is a small and understandable error), he stopped Lee in the road and demanded to know what had gone wrong. Lee temporized and hemmed and hawed, and Washington cut him short and began to curse him in the most extraordinary manner. Many of the troops stopped to see the fun (a favorite country boy's past time was to witness a good spate of cursing). Washington had been on edge since the night before. He had held a council of war, precisely because Lee (held in high esteem in Congress, until the battle of Monmouth) had returned to the army--but Washington despised councils of war, ever since his experience before Boston in December, 1775, when he was talked out of an attack. When Lee had advised against an attack, Washington had stated that an attack on Clinton's rear guard would take place without him in that event, since he did not intend to pass up the opportunity. He then gave the command of the attack to LaFayette. Lee came back in the night to insist upon the precedence of his rank, and demand conmand of the advance--to which Washington acquiesced. When he encountered Lee in the midst of the rout, he had already been fretting literally for hours, and his temper was on full boil before Lee had spoken a word.

After Long Island, Washington marched his army up Manhattan Island to the Harlem Heights. The English were in a position to land just about anywhere, but, of course, wanted the protection of their frigates when they did so. They chose Kip's Bay, and when they began to land, the only troops immediately available were local militia, who got a good look at the opposition, and threw down their arms and ran. Washington began to curse a blue streak, threw his hat down, rode back and forth over the hat, and then drew his sword and spurred his horse to charge the English. His aides, alerted by his behavior that he was "losing it," had closed in on him, and were able to ride up and grab the reins, leading him back. The English were so nonplussed by the spectacle, that no one fired at him.

Monmouth Court House, of course. This just the sort of error/misremembering that seems to be so much more common as I get older. I should also have remembered the Long Island example of how Washington's temper could get away from him.

I can also heartily endorce Setanta's recommendations on useful Washington books. Personally, I rather favor Freeman, but to each his own. There have been a number of Washington biographies, some of them so exhaustive that they will exhaust you just getting through a sinle volume. These sets can sometimes be found in second-hand book shops in really excellent condition and for very low prices. Everyone bought the sets, but found them so turgid that they were seldom thereafter opened. Now they look great on a shelf, and are still horribly dull reading. Isn't it strange that Washington, one of the most fascinating of our heros, has so few really good biographies, whereas that scoundrel Jefferson still seems to be on everyones lips.

Thank you, Asherman.

Setanta, I'll have to take a look at those books.

Either can be found at any good library (although you might need to use interlibrary loan for small libraries or branch libraries); the one volume Flexner can probably be found online, used and paperbound, for a reasonable price.

I'll definately look into that.

Judging from the characterization of Washington he kept his public persona dull and intimidating so it should be no surprise that juicy details of him are not available except that that he sired children with his slaves thus the number of black football players named Washington.

And of course he was America's only white man named Washington.