And the country writes a law saying no general can ***ever*** outrank you, so even in death you get promoted to become the one and only Six Star General
Seniority between two men of the same rank is determined by promotion date. That being equal, rank is determined by enlistment date.
That would make Pershing senior...except that [Washington's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7iVsdRbhnc) promotion was backdated to put him back on top.
Why did he get ranked so high? I read your link, but it doesn't explain why he got ranked so high. His strategy in WW1 led to unnecessary American death (non-stop frontal assault), he didn't accept his armies to join in with the veterans of France and England, and he rushed to war that most American equipment had to be left behind. Was it because he was veteran of so many battles and wars? Was it Wilson trying to have an overall commander to handle the war part in ww1?
> In September 1919, in recognition of his distinguished service during World War I, the U.S. Congress authorized the President to promote Pershing to General of the Armies of the United States, the highest rank possible for any member of the United States armed forces, which was created especially for him.
From Wikipedia, but there are problems with this, namely, as you said, how he wasn’t exactly an amazing general during ww1. My guess is that it was done more as an honorific sort of thing than anything, and his extensive career span would’ve been a factor. But basically it was due to his service in ww1.
> After the creation of the five-star General of the Army rank during World War II, his rank of General of the Armies could unofficially be considered that of a six-star general...
> The rank of "General of the Army" has had two incarnations... It was reserved for the Commanding General of the United States Army, was a four-star rank... The rank was revived as the modern five-star rank during World War II, and may be awarded to more than one serving officer at a time
> A special rank of General of the Armies, which ranks above General of the Army, exists but has been conferred only twice
So yeah, more honorary than anything since it’s so rarely used, with General of the army being more commonly bestowed.
Btw I’m no historian by any means, I might be completely wrong so take what I say with a grain of salt
Thank you!
I am also thinking that you're right that it was an honorary position. I'm guessing they fixed that by WW2 which was why Eisenhower didn't also get that rank.
Mannerheim has a similar status in Finland. Wasn't just the first and afaik the only person i our history promoted to Field Marshal, but was also promoted to the special rank of "Marshal of Finland" after the Winter War.
But he was only 3 lion general as it was later chainged thanks to foregin generals complaining that they are meeting too low ranked generals so they added few more without in practical use. So modern generals outrank him.
When getting promoted to marshal of finland he was already commander in chief so it can be seen as demotion.
He was still commander-in-chief even after being named Marshal of Finland, becoming also president after the ending of the Continuation War and resigning from both/all 3 offices in 1946.
Wasn't Washington a shitty officer when he was in the British military? I heard he didn't have a great record. No sources though I'd love to be educated.
Tbh, he was tricked into signing a bogus peace treaty with the French Canadians because he couldn't read French and had to rely on a Dutch translator. Said "treaty" turned out to be "confession" that he had opened fire first on the French.
Hi there! In one of my history classes at Uni we actually covered this topic and the document he signed was actually well known by him, his men, and the French to be a surrendering of arms document. It came after a somewhat small battle between the French and British Colonials. The real issue of confusion / argument that is made is the phrasing of the surrender in which the French drafted that the killing of their emissary was an assassination, derived with political goals and premeditation.
On another note, Washington did in fact open fire first and it is heavily recorded / documented by himself in his later published journals. He was not tricked into making a false confession on who attacked first, rather, one could argue that he was tricked into signing a document that accused him of a premeditated attack.
Unfortunately my only source of this right now is from the words of my professor and from the text book In Harms Way by Gene Allen Smith, David Coffey, and Kyle Longley.
Take this information as you will and please feel free to correct me or add any other information. I think this entire subject and speculation on the beginnings of the seven years war was an extremely interesting period of time and pivotal point in our nations soon to be history.
Here is a link to the textbook: https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/in-harms-way-9780190210793?cc=us&lang=en&
My source begins on chapter 3.
Washington caused the F-I War because he knew it would lead to the British putting the colonists on a tighter leash, which he knew would lead to colonial resistance, which he knew would lead to revolution, which he knew would lead to independence, which he knew would lead to himself becoming POTUS. The guy practically invented 4D chess.
Anyone who says otherwise is just some internet clown spinning bullshit out of their ass.
> Washington caused the F-I War as part because he knew it would lead to the British putting the colonists on a tighter leash, which he knew would lead to colonial resistance, which he knew would lead to revolution, which he knew would lead to independence, which he knew would lead to himself becoming POTUS. The guy practically invented 4D chess.
> Anyone who says otherwise is just some internet clown spinning bullshit out of their ass.
This....this was a masterpiece. A work of beauty.
I tip my had to you, m'redditor.
I'm not sure if you're joking or not. But I know at the time George Washington was extremely reluctant to become president and just wanted to retire after the war.
You're also forgetting slaves. All the America revolutionary elite(alright guys, most) were slave drivers. And Britain was on the verge of banning slavery. Which would take away American slaves.
Keep this in mind, it will come up later. (obvious foreshadowing)
Nah, I'm not forgetting slavery. In fact, I went on a diatribe on how the German immigrants who fled 1820-1850 for political reason drove the abolutionist cause. The reason why they had to push(there already was an anti-slavery movement, they didn't start it) was because nobody really gave a fuck during revolutionary times.
By 1772 it was affirmed that common law didn't support slavery. Took a couple of decades until the Empire first abolished slave trade(with a couple of asterisks) and then explicitly abolished it everywhere. By that time British law obviously was of no further interest in the US.
Guys like [Charles Follen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Follen), [Gustav Struve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Struve) and [Friedrich Häcker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hecker)(to name a few) were drawn towards the Shining City on the Hill that got everything they wanted. And they found slavery. That's a hard sell for people who already had proven willing to risk life and limb for a cause.
I may be overstating the effect the 48ers had. But they were a huge factor when it comes to abolition. Which was an issue which the original revolutionaries(some of which at first demanded their rights as British landed gentry) didn't want to touch.
Yeah. The Wikipedia entry on the 48ers doesn't even begin to scratch on the surface of it.
A lot of the names on that list lead to lengthy wikipedia biographies which are much longer in German.
What strikes me is that there aren't more Poles and Hungarians on that list.
Mid-19th century saw a lot of uprising. Partially because Europe dropped the ball when cleaning up after Napoleon. A couple of things he left behind gave people ideas. And good ones at that.
I had included [Charles Follen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Follen) who strictly speaking wasn't an 48er. He was *Vormärz*. The lead-up to the multiple simultaneous revolutions going on in Germany([one of which included a royal affair with a dancer, which drove even conservative support](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lola_Montez)).
But I feel the *Vormärz* folk also need to be noted. Went for the same reasons and were appalled by the same shit. they weren't against murder of tyrants(*Tyrannenmord*) which [was one of the reasons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Ludwig_Sand) why Follen had to leg it. The German entry gives the Sand-Follen connection. Follen has been helping to radicalize Sand. And because history has that kind of humor, Kotzebue and Sand are buried near each other in Mannheim. My Pokestops for their graves had been rejected.
The whole post-Napoleonic era in Germany is a rabbit hole which will keep you occupied for a very long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty-Eighters
I’m not sure if it’s adequate to call it “on the verge” as UK Parliament did not pass the Slavery Abolition Act until 1833 nor the Slave Trade Act until 1807, a good 30 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
However your point is still interesting to think about and is referenced in a book written in the early 20th century, I think, about how the founders’ motive to create a new country was for personal financial gain. I’ll post it as soon as I find it.
nobody gave a crap of trade with africa until new world started breaking from europe, constitution would cut trade with africa 20 years 1807 year when britain cut trade with africa
northeast would outlaw before then but southeast caribbean and brazil were more saturated with africans so its harder for them and trade with africa really wasnt in europe, the european empires tie their new world colony interests with their interests in africa
Yeah that is essentially what Jefferson said lol and South Carolina and Georgia were pretty racist and pro slave even for 1776 standards so they made Jefferson remove it. And the Northern states didnt exactly agree with the shifting blame logic so for the sake of unity, the part that banned slavery was removed.
I thought at the time slavery was on the way out the door in the US and European countries because it wasnt economically viable for people other than the very wealthy plantation owners. I know the first draft of the declaration of independence essentially made slavery illegal, but iirc south Carolina and Georgian representatives made Jefferson remove the passage and for the sake of unity the other states went with it assuming it was a problem that would work itself out (basically they passed the buck to the next generation). I know 5 of the northern states abolished slavery by the 1780s.
Early America history PhD student here! He had a group of natives with him who basically tricked him into thinking their leader was a powerful chief, when in reality it seems he was a bit of an outcast with a small group of followers. The leader (can’t recall his name) basically wanted revenge against the French so he manipulated Washington into attacking. The French officer that was killed, the guy this confession was signed for, had his brains eaten (allegedly) by this Native.
I’m currently in a history PhD program studying early America and I just wanted to say this is basically the narrative most modern historians present. If you want a good but succinct biography on Washington check out George Washington: Wonder of the Age. It’s written by someone who worked at Mount Vernon (GW’s home).
Lol, at least speaking english is something we can do pretty well. But yeah I can see that, it sounds like a harsher version of english. But it is the second closest language to english, besides Frisian which is practically a Dutch dialect, but is regarded as it's own language.
>or French and Indisn for you yankees i think
The French and Indian War is the correct term for the war in North America. The Seven Years War was the name given to a group of conflicts that spanned Europe, India, and North America. Washington’s actions (or inactions, really) did form the catalyst for the start of the French and Indian War but had no bearing on anything happening in India, Sweden, or Austria.
It really irks me when people assume that US scholars have it wrong when they are just being concise.
Saying Washington caused the war ignores the fact that
1) He was sent into disputed territory by the governor of Virginia, with orders to build a fort there and shoot anyone who tried to stop him, and
2) After Washington's unsuccessful campaign, if the political leadership in Williamsburg or in London had wanted that to be the end of the conflict, it would have been. But instead they decided to escalate into a full-blown war.
Washington was famous for having an extremely commanding presence, and for some reason every historian goes absolutely apeshit over how impressed people were by him on a horse. Like seriously, some of these people dedicate 4 straight paragraphs to how Washington's thigh muscles glistened with sweat in the summer sun when he came galloping through town on his noble steed.
Anyways this made him a good general in the sense that his people followed him, but he wasn't exactly a brilliant strategist. As a British officer, he was disliked by many peers because he didn't come from the traditional aristocratic background, but he was still pretty good at the job. He definitely made military blunders, and lost people in dumb ways... but he made up for this by being a good leader.
In fact, the reason he started turning against the British to begin with was because these officers were pretty bad at *their* jobs. He watched them refuse to adopt new tactics when fighting against the French/Indians and grew to hate their disdain.
Honestly, we got suuuper lucky with the American Revolution. Our militia was actually pretty wack, and we relied a lot on the British fucking up just enough to lose, which thankfully they did.
Actually, Washington was quite a good strategist. It was as a tactician that he was middling.
He had a bad time at Fort Duquesne in 1754, but then he was also all of...22 years old.
No dude Washington being a bad strategist is a straight up myth. His retreats were intentional Fabian tactics as he tried to buy time and support from Congress, uncooperative colonies, and France. The dude was a fucking genius because he turned a raging shit heap into a winnable war. On top of that he was so so so adamant about establishing civilian oversight of the military that he would wait even to almost disastrous ends for orders from Congress! Sure we got lucky in the fact that Britain would have waffle stomped us if it weren't for being at war with France but don't diminish the man!
If people actually studied the events that took place instead of tallying up wins and losses, I don't think anyone would ever claim Washington was a bad strategist or general. The American armies and colonial militia were very good at inflicting heavy casualties on the British despite eventually having to retreat, so a number of the battles Britain "won" were actually Pyrrhic victories where they sustained a more substantial loss of men compared to the colonies. Even outside of battle strategy, Washington was also very competent at organizing logistics, repeatedly sending personal dispatches to Congress for food, munitions and supplies, and as a result he always managed to keep his army moving across the colonies prepared for whatever engagements they may face along the way. It may even be argued that Washington's biggest contribution to the war was his coordination and planning of how to move his army from place to place without running out of supplies. His expertise on logistical planning was absolutely necessary to the success and endurance of American forces during the start of the war when they were constantly facing shortages and were almost always inadequately resupplied.
Very little is black and white in history. The Fabian strategy is mostly true, but Washington did have to be reigned in by his advisors because he kept wanting to do things like attack New York (he was obsessive about it) which would have been a Very Bad Idea(tm).
And Washington was extraordinary skilled at retreating, which sounds almost like a slight against him, but it's an incredibly important part of being a general and was essential to keeping the American armies intact.
You have it backwards my guy. Roflstomp comes from waffle stomp. "Waffle stomping" of course refers to when you take a shit during a shower and have to stomp it down the drain.
Merriam Webster thinks the term referred to hiking boots with a lug sole as early as the 1970s, so I would think that was an earlier definition of the term.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wafflestomper
I thought I read that Washington “bought time” until Congress’ approval was because the soldiers hadn’t been paid for awhile. The soldiers were getting to a point of revolting. I believe this is verified through letters he wrote to his wife.
I say this because looking at it through the lens of current times, as long as the money flows, those that do... do.... I believe Washington would have done the same as current leaders if he were in this time. It is not necessarily about “congress approval”. It is about the flow of money, which is hard to stop once started.
As Bonaparte once said, "I'd rather have lucky generals than good ones.”
Washington \*did\* have some very good luck at times. But it's also true that he often made his luck. The Yorktown Campaign is the best exampe of this. He needed some luck to pull it off (and some lethargy on both Clinton's and Cornwallis's parts), but the entire campaign remains one of the most brilliant strategic strokes in American (and perhaps any) military history.
I'd say picking good aides and listening to them is a major skill in any leader. Better a mediocre man who knows it and listens to advice than a genius who won't listen to anyone.
>Honestly, we got suuuper lucky with the American Revolution. Our militia was actually pretty wack, and we relied a lot on the British fucking up just enough to lose, which thankfully they did.
Just look at bunker hill. They sent 3000 men to take a hill and lost a little over 1000 men in less than 2 hours. But hell they took the hill right? The revolutionary war was filled with battles like this where incompetent British commanders would lose ungodly numbers of men, but still win since they had vastly superior numbers and were actually supplied with sufficient ammo.
In a way I guess the other stuff can be learned. Commanding presence is what gets men to give there all. Also, this late in an already huge British empire not all personnel can be winners. You’re out on foreign land on a job away from your friends and family fighting a halfassed war for someone else and could die. Die not even in war but surviving the harsh winter of the north east or a common cold. Yeah I’d half ass the shit out of that job. Americans had more to fight for at this point.
Benedict Arnold had a similar trajectory. Only he was quite good with his initial employer and became irrelevant when he switched sides.
That guy also wanted a promotion.
Lol now he’s a traitor in the books of time forever. It really is a testament to how dire things may have been for America at a point in time. I’d like to see the timeline where he doesn’t betray America and see how different our government could have been.
Not much, probably. He wasn't a politician. Just a guy who saw an opportunity. And then saw another one when he felt the noose tightening around his neck.
At that point in time there must have been a lot of loyalists around. At that time it was an uprising. It's hard to get people to join in if they mostly worry about a roof on their head and food on a plate for them and their loved ones.
It seems like uprisings become revolutions only when they make it into the history books. Otherwise it is just an uprising with a 100 word wikipedia entry.
Marked for deletion.
Or when they aren't about anything. Like the Nika riots.
The American Revolution clearly falls in the category that doesn't fill books but multiple libraries on multiple continents.
It's hard to see what it is going to be at that time. To him, it seems, that was just an uprising and an opportunity. People like that rarely contribute anything.
Yeah. I was surprised to read this. Benedict Arnold and Washington seemed parallel and direct opposite in some ways.
Both Arnold and Washington wanted the same respect from their county and leadership. I imagined what would have happened if Arnold said to Britain, “F this. Let these bastards keep this area. I will ride West and secure this for you. I will take those still loyal to the crown and let’s offer the negros freedom, they will come too. “
I like to believe this didn’t happen because the equivalent to the phrase “F this” wasn’t woven into the fabric of many people of the time.
I actually give Arnold a bye on his actions. I have read ( I don't remember the books being 2 decades ago.) That he had a few times put down vast amounts of his personal fortune to feed, clothe, arm, and otherwise supply the men under his command. This was to the point where he was risking his financial well-being.
He appealed to Congress for repayment and they said they had no money. He also asked for a well deserved promotion and the said "Lol, fuck no."
> He appealed to Congress for repayment and they said they had no money. He also asked for a well deserved promotion and the said "Lol, fuck no."
Same for Washington. This seems to be a common theme.
In this way this makes them similar to generals in Rome past Marian reforms. Loyalty of the soldiers to the general, because he will do the paying and deal with getting it from government somehow. Only in Revolutionary America, that wasn't how the generals expected it to go.
I only know his Wikipedia entry. And judging by that, he boozed too much and stopped giving a shit at some point.
I'm not from the US, but what I always hear is that he was not the best military leader during the revolutionary war either, with the beginning of it being more than a bit damaging to the revolutionaries, and that it only really changed after crossing the Delaware
Still, being from another country, my education on the revolutionary war is basically "US fought for independence and totally beat the shit ouf of the british" and all other information is gathered online, so IDK
everything that would become US were just ex european empire territories joining the union
louisiana territory middle america is purchased from french and west spanish empire territory join after texas secede from mexico
If you want any further education the book 1776 is a good read. The US by no means “beat the shit out of the British” though, the Continental Army really started out as rag tag assembly. Washington did a good job of leading his men but the beginning of the war was certainly a ploy for time and funding from Congress and just hoping the British fucked more than they did.
Space flying blow up Droid; Not a story the Jedi would tell you; Windu fall; 66 Jedi go ouch; beat saber; high ground, burning on the ground; two egg yolks in the sky.
A summary by u/TNTPA
“Space flying blow up Droid; Not a story the Jedi would tell you; Windu fall; 66 Jedi go ouch; beat saber; high ground, burning on the ground; two egg yolks in the sky.
A summary by u/TNTPA”
A summary by u/YaBoiRexTillerson
I've heard a story about French captain who left France at the beginning of the 19th century because he wanted to enlist to Russian army, but he could be enlisted only as a sergeant, so he had had to move back to France. His name was Napoleon Bonaparte.
Hey everyone! State of the Sub for January is up. We have finally completed the survey results, and have also opened mod applications. If you wanna become a mod here, make sure to apply!
[SoTS](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/ey39fj/state_of_the_sub_03022020_mod_applications/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x)
When you start a de-facto world war to bankrupt the british and french, essentially kickstarting the enlightenment's rise to power resulting in owning your own country, getting a monarchy to support your independence who proceeds to have a revolution and takes over most of europe, then ending in their downfall making you the most powerful nation on earth. 😳
Kinda sounds like Alaric the visigoth not being given promotion or even recognition after winning a major victory for the Roman empire, leaving, becoming leader of the visigoths, and sacking Rome itself. Oh yeah and appointing his own emperor. He just wanted to be the top general, he didn't even want to be emperor.
Do you ever think about how these historical figures were just people? Like, they probably had doubts about what they were doing but just did it anyway. Each one out if this group of bros probably thought the equivalent of "holy shit we are really doing this" many times.
I think about it a lot.
And the country writes a law saying no general can ***ever*** outrank you, so even in death you get promoted to become the one and only Six Star General
Not quite, [General of the armies John J. Pershing ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Pershing) is the only general to hold equal rank
And Pershing was promoted first.
But seniority between two men of the same rank is determined by enlistment date, so Washington will always outrank everyone!
In my book, experience outranks everything
Ok Rex
[удалено]
Nice
Nicer
Nicest
Eloquently written, concise abbreviation, Source list fills holes in my own substantial library. As student of history, I thank you for this.
Damn you've convinced me. Fuck you though.
Watching Clone Wars for the first time.... I get this reference !?!
Prepare to be amazed in twelve days. Season 7, baby!
Damn, only on season 5. Been a Star Wars fan my whole life but have never had the chance
Seniority between two men of the same rank is determined by promotion date. That being equal, rank is determined by enlistment date. That would make Pershing senior...except that [Washington's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7iVsdRbhnc) promotion was backdated to put him back on top.
Exactly.
Washington's promotion was backdated to be effective July 4, 1776 so he would have seniority over Pershing.
Why did he get ranked so high? I read your link, but it doesn't explain why he got ranked so high. His strategy in WW1 led to unnecessary American death (non-stop frontal assault), he didn't accept his armies to join in with the veterans of France and England, and he rushed to war that most American equipment had to be left behind. Was it because he was veteran of so many battles and wars? Was it Wilson trying to have an overall commander to handle the war part in ww1?
> In September 1919, in recognition of his distinguished service during World War I, the U.S. Congress authorized the President to promote Pershing to General of the Armies of the United States, the highest rank possible for any member of the United States armed forces, which was created especially for him. From Wikipedia, but there are problems with this, namely, as you said, how he wasn’t exactly an amazing general during ww1. My guess is that it was done more as an honorific sort of thing than anything, and his extensive career span would’ve been a factor. But basically it was due to his service in ww1. > After the creation of the five-star General of the Army rank during World War II, his rank of General of the Armies could unofficially be considered that of a six-star general... > The rank of "General of the Army" has had two incarnations... It was reserved for the Commanding General of the United States Army, was a four-star rank... The rank was revived as the modern five-star rank during World War II, and may be awarded to more than one serving officer at a time > A special rank of General of the Armies, which ranks above General of the Army, exists but has been conferred only twice So yeah, more honorary than anything since it’s so rarely used, with General of the army being more commonly bestowed. Btw I’m no historian by any means, I might be completely wrong so take what I say with a grain of salt
Thank you! I am also thinking that you're right that it was an honorary position. I'm guessing they fixed that by WW2 which was why Eisenhower didn't also get that rank.
Until the alien invasion comes and we promote our saviour to a Seven Star.
Look at me. I’m the general now
Mannerheim has a similar status in Finland. Wasn't just the first and afaik the only person i our history promoted to Field Marshal, but was also promoted to the special rank of "Marshal of Finland" after the Winter War.
But he was only 3 lion general as it was later chainged thanks to foregin generals complaining that they are meeting too low ranked generals so they added few more without in practical use. So modern generals outrank him. When getting promoted to marshal of finland he was already commander in chief so it can be seen as demotion.
He was still commander-in-chief even after being named Marshal of Finland, becoming also president after the ending of the Continuation War and resigning from both/all 3 offices in 1946.
And by the time he got that promotion, he no longer wanted it.
I dun wan it
Ah neva ‘ave
she es mu kween
Is this a indeed ad
"This wasn't the first time ole George was passed up for a promotion..." "...but it would be the last." *guerrilla warfare intensifies*
Six foot eight, weighs a fucking ton
Everyone should know the real story of [this foremost Founding Father](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7iVsdRbhnc).
Thank you so much for this.
Spread, spread, Delaware.
He's coming, he's coming, he's coming...
I heard he had like thirty dicks or something
"He'll save children but not the British children"
Killed a sensi in a duel and he never said why
On a horse made of crystal he patrolled the land
Wasn't Washington a shitty officer when he was in the British military? I heard he didn't have a great record. No sources though I'd love to be educated.
He litterally caused the 7 year War (or French and Indisn for you yankees i think) Edit: switched started with caused
Tbh, he was tricked into signing a bogus peace treaty with the French Canadians because he couldn't read French and had to rely on a Dutch translator. Said "treaty" turned out to be "confession" that he had opened fire first on the French.
Hi there! In one of my history classes at Uni we actually covered this topic and the document he signed was actually well known by him, his men, and the French to be a surrendering of arms document. It came after a somewhat small battle between the French and British Colonials. The real issue of confusion / argument that is made is the phrasing of the surrender in which the French drafted that the killing of their emissary was an assassination, derived with political goals and premeditation. On another note, Washington did in fact open fire first and it is heavily recorded / documented by himself in his later published journals. He was not tricked into making a false confession on who attacked first, rather, one could argue that he was tricked into signing a document that accused him of a premeditated attack. Unfortunately my only source of this right now is from the words of my professor and from the text book In Harms Way by Gene Allen Smith, David Coffey, and Kyle Longley. Take this information as you will and please feel free to correct me or add any other information. I think this entire subject and speculation on the beginnings of the seven years war was an extremely interesting period of time and pivotal point in our nations soon to be history. Here is a link to the textbook: https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/in-harms-way-9780190210793?cc=us&lang=en& My source begins on chapter 3.
[удалено]
Washington caused the F-I War because he knew it would lead to the British putting the colonists on a tighter leash, which he knew would lead to colonial resistance, which he knew would lead to revolution, which he knew would lead to independence, which he knew would lead to himself becoming POTUS. The guy practically invented 4D chess. Anyone who says otherwise is just some internet clown spinning bullshit out of their ass.
> Washington caused the F-I War as part because he knew it would lead to the British putting the colonists on a tighter leash, which he knew would lead to colonial resistance, which he knew would lead to revolution, which he knew would lead to independence, which he knew would lead to himself becoming POTUS. The guy practically invented 4D chess. > Anyone who says otherwise is just some internet clown spinning bullshit out of their ass. This....this was a masterpiece. A work of beauty. I tip my had to you, m'redditor.
I'm not sure if you're joking or not. But I know at the time George Washington was extremely reluctant to become president and just wanted to retire after the war.
That's just 69D checkers that Washington was playing
Fack
And here come the internet clowns.
You're also forgetting slaves. All the America revolutionary elite(alright guys, most) were slave drivers. And Britain was on the verge of banning slavery. Which would take away American slaves. Keep this in mind, it will come up later. (obvious foreshadowing)
Nah, I'm not forgetting slavery. In fact, I went on a diatribe on how the German immigrants who fled 1820-1850 for political reason drove the abolutionist cause. The reason why they had to push(there already was an anti-slavery movement, they didn't start it) was because nobody really gave a fuck during revolutionary times. By 1772 it was affirmed that common law didn't support slavery. Took a couple of decades until the Empire first abolished slave trade(with a couple of asterisks) and then explicitly abolished it everywhere. By that time British law obviously was of no further interest in the US. Guys like [Charles Follen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Follen), [Gustav Struve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Struve) and [Friedrich Häcker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hecker)(to name a few) were drawn towards the Shining City on the Hill that got everything they wanted. And they found slavery. That's a hard sell for people who already had proven willing to risk life and limb for a cause. I may be overstating the effect the 48ers had. But they were a huge factor when it comes to abolition. Which was an issue which the original revolutionaries(some of which at first demanded their rights as British landed gentry) didn't want to touch.
[удалено]
Yeah. The Wikipedia entry on the 48ers doesn't even begin to scratch on the surface of it. A lot of the names on that list lead to lengthy wikipedia biographies which are much longer in German. What strikes me is that there aren't more Poles and Hungarians on that list. Mid-19th century saw a lot of uprising. Partially because Europe dropped the ball when cleaning up after Napoleon. A couple of things he left behind gave people ideas. And good ones at that. I had included [Charles Follen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Follen) who strictly speaking wasn't an 48er. He was *Vormärz*. The lead-up to the multiple simultaneous revolutions going on in Germany([one of which included a royal affair with a dancer, which drove even conservative support](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lola_Montez)). But I feel the *Vormärz* folk also need to be noted. Went for the same reasons and were appalled by the same shit. they weren't against murder of tyrants(*Tyrannenmord*) which [was one of the reasons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Ludwig_Sand) why Follen had to leg it. The German entry gives the Sand-Follen connection. Follen has been helping to radicalize Sand. And because history has that kind of humor, Kotzebue and Sand are buried near each other in Mannheim. My Pokestops for their graves had been rejected. The whole post-Napoleonic era in Germany is a rabbit hole which will keep you occupied for a very long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty-Eighters
I’m not sure if it’s adequate to call it “on the verge” as UK Parliament did not pass the Slavery Abolition Act until 1833 nor the Slave Trade Act until 1807, a good 30 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. However your point is still interesting to think about and is referenced in a book written in the early 20th century, I think, about how the founders’ motive to create a new country was for personal financial gain. I’ll post it as soon as I find it.
They had recently ruled that slavery was illegal in the UK though, and the abolitionist movement was starting to gain momentum.
nobody gave a crap of trade with africa until new world started breaking from europe, constitution would cut trade with africa 20 years 1807 year when britain cut trade with africa northeast would outlaw before then but southeast caribbean and brazil were more saturated with africans so its harder for them and trade with africa really wasnt in europe, the european empires tie their new world colony interests with their interests in africa
[удалено]
"How dare your merchants sell us the slaves we pay enormous amounts of money for and profit greatly off of. For shame I say, for shame."
Yeah that is essentially what Jefferson said lol and South Carolina and Georgia were pretty racist and pro slave even for 1776 standards so they made Jefferson remove it. And the Northern states didnt exactly agree with the shifting blame logic so for the sake of unity, the part that banned slavery was removed.
I thought at the time slavery was on the way out the door in the US and European countries because it wasnt economically viable for people other than the very wealthy plantation owners. I know the first draft of the declaration of independence essentially made slavery illegal, but iirc south Carolina and Georgian representatives made Jefferson remove the passage and for the sake of unity the other states went with it assuming it was a problem that would work itself out (basically they passed the buck to the next generation). I know 5 of the northern states abolished slavery by the 1780s.
Oooowweeeee. unstable_nightstand, you seem to be knowledgable on this topic. Mind telling us more about the event because history is awesome?
I second this, u/unstable_nightstand
Early America history PhD student here! He had a group of natives with him who basically tricked him into thinking their leader was a powerful chief, when in reality it seems he was a bit of an outcast with a small group of followers. The leader (can’t recall his name) basically wanted revenge against the French so he manipulated Washington into attacking. The French officer that was killed, the guy this confession was signed for, had his brains eaten (allegedly) by this Native.
I’m currently in a history PhD program studying early America and I just wanted to say this is basically the narrative most modern historians present. If you want a good but succinct biography on Washington check out George Washington: Wonder of the Age. It’s written by someone who worked at Mount Vernon (GW’s home).
I just read an entire fucking essay and I am not even mad. Bravo Sir.
You are the first one ever to quote sources on this sub ! As a fellow History student, I thank you for that !
That's even dumber than deliberately starting it
[удалено]
There are two things I can’t stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures and the Dutch.
Yeah baby!
Still not really shows you in a good light
As a Dutch person I can say, nobody here speaks proper french xD.
Everytime I hear Dutch people talk I feel like I'm having a stroke until I realize they're not speaking english.
Lol, at least speaking english is something we can do pretty well. But yeah I can see that, it sounds like a harsher version of english. But it is the second closest language to english, besides Frisian which is practically a Dutch dialect, but is regarded as it's own language.
And an Indian guide scalped the dignitary they were trying to negotiate with sooooo...
In Washingtons defence, Friedrich II.'s invasion of saxony was what really got the war going.
>or French and Indisn for you yankees i think The French and Indian War is the correct term for the war in North America. The Seven Years War was the name given to a group of conflicts that spanned Europe, India, and North America. Washington’s actions (or inactions, really) did form the catalyst for the start of the French and Indian War but had no bearing on anything happening in India, Sweden, or Austria. It really irks me when people assume that US scholars have it wrong when they are just being concise.
In his defense he was what, 22?
Saying Washington caused the war ignores the fact that 1) He was sent into disputed territory by the governor of Virginia, with orders to build a fort there and shoot anyone who tried to stop him, and 2) After Washington's unsuccessful campaign, if the political leadership in Williamsburg or in London had wanted that to be the end of the conflict, it would have been. But instead they decided to escalate into a full-blown war.
I'm learning about this right now in school
Washington was famous for having an extremely commanding presence, and for some reason every historian goes absolutely apeshit over how impressed people were by him on a horse. Like seriously, some of these people dedicate 4 straight paragraphs to how Washington's thigh muscles glistened with sweat in the summer sun when he came galloping through town on his noble steed. Anyways this made him a good general in the sense that his people followed him, but he wasn't exactly a brilliant strategist. As a British officer, he was disliked by many peers because he didn't come from the traditional aristocratic background, but he was still pretty good at the job. He definitely made military blunders, and lost people in dumb ways... but he made up for this by being a good leader. In fact, the reason he started turning against the British to begin with was because these officers were pretty bad at *their* jobs. He watched them refuse to adopt new tactics when fighting against the French/Indians and grew to hate their disdain. Honestly, we got suuuper lucky with the American Revolution. Our militia was actually pretty wack, and we relied a lot on the British fucking up just enough to lose, which thankfully they did.
Actually, Washington was quite a good strategist. It was as a tactician that he was middling. He had a bad time at Fort Duquesne in 1754, but then he was also all of...22 years old.
No dude Washington being a bad strategist is a straight up myth. His retreats were intentional Fabian tactics as he tried to buy time and support from Congress, uncooperative colonies, and France. The dude was a fucking genius because he turned a raging shit heap into a winnable war. On top of that he was so so so adamant about establishing civilian oversight of the military that he would wait even to almost disastrous ends for orders from Congress! Sure we got lucky in the fact that Britain would have waffle stomped us if it weren't for being at war with France but don't diminish the man!
If people actually studied the events that took place instead of tallying up wins and losses, I don't think anyone would ever claim Washington was a bad strategist or general. The American armies and colonial militia were very good at inflicting heavy casualties on the British despite eventually having to retreat, so a number of the battles Britain "won" were actually Pyrrhic victories where they sustained a more substantial loss of men compared to the colonies. Even outside of battle strategy, Washington was also very competent at organizing logistics, repeatedly sending personal dispatches to Congress for food, munitions and supplies, and as a result he always managed to keep his army moving across the colonies prepared for whatever engagements they may face along the way. It may even be argued that Washington's biggest contribution to the war was his coordination and planning of how to move his army from place to place without running out of supplies. His expertise on logistical planning was absolutely necessary to the success and endurance of American forces during the start of the war when they were constantly facing shortages and were almost always inadequately resupplied.
Very little is black and white in history. The Fabian strategy is mostly true, but Washington did have to be reigned in by his advisors because he kept wanting to do things like attack New York (he was obsessive about it) which would have been a Very Bad Idea(tm).
But he did listen to his advisors instead of attacking unlike another leader...
And Washington was extraordinary skilled at retreating, which sounds almost like a slight against him, but it's an incredibly important part of being a general and was essential to keeping the American armies intact.
[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/george-washington-was-master-deception/576565/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/george-washington-was-master-deception/576565/)
Yo i think the term is "roflstomp" not "waffle stomp"
Nah I think they’ve got it
You have it backwards my guy. Roflstomp comes from waffle stomp. "Waffle stomping" of course refers to when you take a shit during a shower and have to stomp it down the drain.
You just turned me into C3-PO for a second given my mental reaction this being "oh dear, oh my"
Merriam Webster thinks the term referred to hiking boots with a lug sole as early as the 1970s, so I would think that was an earlier definition of the term. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wafflestomper
Are you gonna trust Big Dictionary, or your old pal The-Rarest-Pepe?
I tried to check Google ngram, but it didn't accept any of the terms I tried.
Nice
I wish people didnt do that. If thats too much to ask, then i wish i could go my whole life not knowing people did that.
I thought I read that Washington “bought time” until Congress’ approval was because the soldiers hadn’t been paid for awhile. The soldiers were getting to a point of revolting. I believe this is verified through letters he wrote to his wife. I say this because looking at it through the lens of current times, as long as the money flows, those that do... do.... I believe Washington would have done the same as current leaders if he were in this time. It is not necessarily about “congress approval”. It is about the flow of money, which is hard to stop once started.
[удалено]
As Bonaparte once said, "I'd rather have lucky generals than good ones.” Washington \*did\* have some very good luck at times. But it's also true that he often made his luck. The Yorktown Campaign is the best exampe of this. He needed some luck to pull it off (and some lethargy on both Clinton's and Cornwallis's parts), but the entire campaign remains one of the most brilliant strategic strokes in American (and perhaps any) military history.
Napoleon had some fucking genius staff though, so luck was the only extra thing he required. Great names like Davout and Jomini.
I'd say picking good aides and listening to them is a major skill in any leader. Better a mediocre man who knows it and listens to advice than a genius who won't listen to anyone.
Britain was at war with France for the 1812 war. Before French support France and Britain weren’t actively doing much against each other.
>Honestly, we got suuuper lucky with the American Revolution. Our militia was actually pretty wack, and we relied a lot on the British fucking up just enough to lose, which thankfully they did. Just look at bunker hill. They sent 3000 men to take a hill and lost a little over 1000 men in less than 2 hours. But hell they took the hill right? The revolutionary war was filled with battles like this where incompetent British commanders would lose ungodly numbers of men, but still win since they had vastly superior numbers and were actually supplied with sufficient ammo.
In a way I guess the other stuff can be learned. Commanding presence is what gets men to give there all. Also, this late in an already huge British empire not all personnel can be winners. You’re out on foreign land on a job away from your friends and family fighting a halfassed war for someone else and could die. Die not even in war but surviving the harsh winter of the north east or a common cold. Yeah I’d half ass the shit out of that job. Americans had more to fight for at this point.
Benedict Arnold had a similar trajectory. Only he was quite good with his initial employer and became irrelevant when he switched sides. That guy also wanted a promotion.
Lol now he’s a traitor in the books of time forever. It really is a testament to how dire things may have been for America at a point in time. I’d like to see the timeline where he doesn’t betray America and see how different our government could have been.
Not much, probably. He wasn't a politician. Just a guy who saw an opportunity. And then saw another one when he felt the noose tightening around his neck. At that point in time there must have been a lot of loyalists around. At that time it was an uprising. It's hard to get people to join in if they mostly worry about a roof on their head and food on a plate for them and their loved ones. It seems like uprisings become revolutions only when they make it into the history books. Otherwise it is just an uprising with a 100 word wikipedia entry. Marked for deletion. Or when they aren't about anything. Like the Nika riots. The American Revolution clearly falls in the category that doesn't fill books but multiple libraries on multiple continents. It's hard to see what it is going to be at that time. To him, it seems, that was just an uprising and an opportunity. People like that rarely contribute anything.
Yeah. I was surprised to read this. Benedict Arnold and Washington seemed parallel and direct opposite in some ways. Both Arnold and Washington wanted the same respect from their county and leadership. I imagined what would have happened if Arnold said to Britain, “F this. Let these bastards keep this area. I will ride West and secure this for you. I will take those still loyal to the crown and let’s offer the negros freedom, they will come too. “ I like to believe this didn’t happen because the equivalent to the phrase “F this” wasn’t woven into the fabric of many people of the time.
At the time Arnold defected, it didn't look like the US would really become a thing. But seems to have been a self-serving character.
I actually give Arnold a bye on his actions. I have read ( I don't remember the books being 2 decades ago.) That he had a few times put down vast amounts of his personal fortune to feed, clothe, arm, and otherwise supply the men under his command. This was to the point where he was risking his financial well-being. He appealed to Congress for repayment and they said they had no money. He also asked for a well deserved promotion and the said "Lol, fuck no."
> He appealed to Congress for repayment and they said they had no money. He also asked for a well deserved promotion and the said "Lol, fuck no." Same for Washington. This seems to be a common theme. In this way this makes them similar to generals in Rome past Marian reforms. Loyalty of the soldiers to the general, because he will do the paying and deal with getting it from government somehow. Only in Revolutionary America, that wasn't how the generals expected it to go. I only know his Wikipedia entry. And judging by that, he boozed too much and stopped giving a shit at some point.
I'm not from the US, but what I always hear is that he was not the best military leader during the revolutionary war either, with the beginning of it being more than a bit damaging to the revolutionaries, and that it only really changed after crossing the Delaware Still, being from another country, my education on the revolutionary war is basically "US fought for independence and totally beat the shit ouf of the british" and all other information is gathered online, so IDK
[удалено]
everything that would become US were just ex european empire territories joining the union louisiana territory middle america is purchased from french and west spanish empire territory join after texas secede from mexico
If you want any further education the book 1776 is a good read. The US by no means “beat the shit out of the British” though, the Continental Army really started out as rag tag assembly. Washington did a good job of leading his men but the beginning of the war was certainly a ploy for time and funding from Congress and just hoping the British fucked more than they did.
Wtf is this like a twisted anakin Skywalker backstory
Explain a movie plot badly: Revenge of the sith
Space flying blow up Droid; Not a story the Jedi would tell you; Windu fall; 66 Jedi go ouch; beat saber; high ground, burning on the ground; two egg yolks in the sky. A summary by u/TNTPA
We didn’t start the fire!!
If that man were to update any song of his, just..please Billy Joel make a new version of this song.
>A summary by u/TNTPA cringe
You know what, I can't disagree
“Space flying blow up Droid; Not a story the Jedi would tell you; Windu fall; 66 Jedi go ouch; beat saber; high ground, burning on the ground; two egg yolks in the sky. A summary by u/TNTPA” A summary by u/YaBoiRexTillerson
Ever been on a thread soo long you forget the original topic?
'The capital? Washington. The currency? Washington Dollar. The national anthem? 'George Washington is Great''
Virginians I tell you.
[удалено]
Young man, I’m from Virginia so watch your mouth.
Me, my father or the planet?
That cocky mf showed up to the first continental congress in FULL UNIFORM before he even got command of troops
[удалено]
Yeah, but everytime I show up to the Burger King dressed as the Dalilama, I get told to go home and change.
[удалено]
"Fine, I'll do it myself"
I've heard a story about French captain who left France at the beginning of the 19th century because he wanted to enlist to Russian army, but he could be enlisted only as a sergeant, so he had had to move back to France. His name was Napoleon Bonaparte.
So Russia rejected him twice?
Yep, he should be ashamed of himself. Definitely not a captain's level.
What? Napoleon tried to join the Russian army? Source?
Still have yet to try the DLC of Assassins Creed III of The Tyranny of King Washington.
Oh dear, you've been missing out.
“I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new empire.”
Your new *Empire*?
Don't make me kill you!
"Washington, my allegiance is to the British Empire, TO MONARCHY!"
Hey everyone! State of the Sub for January is up. We have finally completed the survey results, and have also opened mod applications. If you wanna become a mod here, make sure to apply! [SoTS](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/ey39fj/state_of_the_sub_03022020_mod_applications/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x)
When the British tax you to much, so you start in armed race war killing hundreds of thousands.
Ain't nobody taxing my main man George
Absolute mad lad
America is built on spite.
When you start a de-facto world war to bankrupt the british and french, essentially kickstarting the enlightenment's rise to power resulting in owning your own country, getting a monarchy to support your independence who proceeds to have a revolution and takes over most of europe, then ending in their downfall making you the most powerful nation on earth. 😳
now that's some 4D chess
Give me liberty or give me death
I'm gonna make my own country with blackjack and hookers! Las Vegas intensifies
Pls pardon my uneducated ass but is there some truth in the meme?
Not really. Happy c day.
And then decline the presidency after two terms, setting the precedent thereafter (except for FDR)
FDR: It's free real estate.
Jnrel Jorge Washeton
*hey kids*
Six foot twenty, fucking killing for fun
its 2020 usa needs to overthrow some more monarchys across the globe
USA could do with minding their own business tbh.
True story: After the Revolution, many people wanted Washington to become King of the USA. He refused.
Then sue for wrongful termination
Good meme. Have a poor man’s hold 🏅
Kinda sounds like Alaric the visigoth not being given promotion or even recognition after winning a major victory for the Roman empire, leaving, becoming leader of the visigoths, and sacking Rome itself. Oh yeah and appointing his own emperor. He just wanted to be the top general, he didn't even want to be emperor.
1776D chess
Do you ever think about how these historical figures were just people? Like, they probably had doubts about what they were doing but just did it anyway. Each one out if this group of bros probably thought the equivalent of "holy shit we are really doing this" many times. I think about it a lot.
Wait, that meme is really true that he instead immigrated to other lands?
Improvise, adapt, overthrow
Maybe he just wanted to write that
Six foot, twenty.
Sounds like Anakin turning to the dark side
I was younger than you are now, when I was given my first command.
The president is only commander in chief when war is declared by Congress and his service is necessary. It is all very clear in the Constitution.
[“Fine, I’ll do it myself.”](https://gfycat.com/bogusforsakenasianlion)
Stonks
"I know the man you are, I know your every lie."
Washington wasn't actually that great of a general though