Welcome back to SNAFUBAR!
Here at SNAFUBAR, we take stories from military history and particular moments of U.S. military mishaps and make them accessible to a wide range of audiences. The histories we will look at will make clear the degree to which the U.S. is a warful nation, contrary to the myth of a peaceful nation forced into combat. And we’ll try to clarify the degree to which we romanticize and fetishize the military while not really providing the support that service members need for their time in, or for their return.
This is the third episode in our three part series on George Washington entitled “The French Empire Strikes Back.” We discuss the fallout from the Battle of Jumonville Glen, which eventually leads to the Battle of Fort Necessity. We’ll detail the trials and tribulations Washington faced as a 22 year old Lt. Colonel during the Battle of Fort Necessity. This battle marks the beginning of the Seven Years War (1754-1763), a conflict of (literally) global proportions. How did this all happen, and how did a 22 year old George Washington find himself up against 700 French and Native American troops? Tune in to find out! We hope you enjoy the show!
SNAFUBAR is hosted by Sara Hart, Chair of the Applied Humanities Department at Cal Poly Humboldt, and Jeff Crane , Army Veteran, Environmental Historian, and Dean of the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at Cal Poly Humboldt.
Research and writing for the show by Liam Salcuni and Roman Sotomayor. SNAFUBAR is produced by Abigail Smithson and brought to you by the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at Cal Poly Humboldt.
Works Cited:
Anderson, Fred., Andrew Cayton. The Dominion of War: Empire and Liberty in North America,
1500-2000. Penguin Books, 2004.
“Celeron Plate.” Virginia Museum of History and Culture. Accessed August 5th, 2025.
https://virginiahistory.org/learn/celoron-plate
Chernow, Ron. Washington: A Life. Penguin Books, 2011.
Dinwiddie, Robert. “Robert Dinwiddie to George Washington.” January, 1754. In Founder
Online, National Archives.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/02-01-02-0031
Diwiddie, Robert. The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie, Lieutenant Governor of the Colony of
Virginia, 1751-1758. Edited by R.A. Brock. Virginia Historical Society, 1883. HathiTrust. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001689940
“Early Life.” George Washington’s Mount Vernon. Accessed May 25th, 2024.
https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/washingtons-youth
Gerring, Brian. “La Petite Guerre and American Indian Irregular Warfare: Siblings, But Not Twins.”
The Journal of the American Revolution. 2020. Stable
url:https://allthingsliberty.com/2020/12/la-petite-guerre-and-american-indian-irregular-warfare-
Higginbotham, Don. George Washington and the American Military Tradition. University of
Georgia Press, 1985.
Holten, Woody. Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution. Hill and Wang, 2008.
Hunter, William A. “Tanaghrisson (Deanaghrison, Johonerissa, Tanacharison, Tanahisson,
Thanayieson) (the Half King).” Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 3. University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003-. Accessed March 7th, 2025. https://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/tanaghrisson_3E.html.
“Jumonville Glen Skirmish." George Washington's Mount Vernon. Accessed September 30th, 2024.
Lewis, Thomas A. For King and Country: The Maturing of George Washington, 1748-1760. Harper
Collins, 1993.
Lopenzina, Drew. Red Ink: Native Americans Picking Up the Pen in the Colonial Period. State
University of New York Press, 2012
“Tanaghrisson, The Half-King.” Fort Necessity National Battlefield, National Park Service. Accessed
March 5th, 2025. https://www.nps.gov/people/tanaghrisson-the-half-king.htm
Washington, George. “Expedition to the Ohio, 1754: Narrative.” In Founders Online, National
Archives. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/01-01-02-0004-0002. In The Diaries of George Washington, vol. 1. 11 March 1748 – 13 November 1765. ed. Donald Jackson. University Press of Virginia, 1976, pp. 174–210.
“Washington and the French and Indian War.” George Washington’s Mount Vernon. Accessed May
30th, 2024.
Washington, George. “George Washington to Robert Dinwiddie.” March 20th, 1754. In Founders
Online, National Archives.https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/02-01-02-0039
Washington, George. “George Washington to Robert Dinwiddie.” May 18th, 1754. In Founders Online,
National Archives. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/02-01-02-0050
Washington, George. “George Washington to Joshua Fry.” May 29th, 1754. In Founders Online,
National Archives.
Washington, George. “George Washington to John Hancock.” September 25th, 1776. In Founders
Online, National Archives.https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-06-02-0305
Washington, George. “Remarks, 1787–1788.” 1787-1788. In Founders Online, National Archives.
Washington, George. The Papers of George Washington. Colonial Series, vol. 1. ed. W. W. Abbot.
University Press of Virginia, 1983, pp. 172–173. “IV., 1786.” Founders Online, National Archives. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/02-01-02-0076-0005.
>> Dwight D. Eisenhower: You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade.
>> John F. Kennedy: The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it.
>> Douglas MacArther: Only the dead have seen the end of war.
>> Dwight D. Eisenhower: We will accept nothing less than full victory.
>> Sara Hart: You're listening to SNAFUBAR by Cal Poly Humboldt.
>> Jeff Crane: Welcome back to SNAFUBAR, listeners. This show looks at stories from military history and particular moments of US military blunders with added context that can be used by and is accessible to a wide range of audiences. The histories we will look at will make clear the degree to which the US is a warful nation, contrary to the myth of a peaceful nation forced into conflict.
>> Sara Hart: That's right. And we'll try to clarify also the degree to which we romanticize and fetishize the military while not really providing the support that service members and veterans need for their time in or for their return.
>> Jeff Crane: That is correct. I'm Jeff Crane, historian and dean of the College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences at Cal Poly Humboldt. I am a peacetime veteran. My dad was a wartime combat veteran in the Vietnam War. And my research as an historian frequently focuses on the environment in the West along with military history as related to political, social change, and trauma, and moral injury.
>> Sara Hart: Right, and I am Sara Hart. I teach in the humanities here at Cal Poly Humboldt and I am also the daughter of a Marine combat veteran. Jeff, I suppose you're the son, identifying as a son of a Vietnam --
>> Jeff Crane: Navy veteran.
>> Sara Hart: -- Navy veteran. My father was also a combat veteran in Vietnam. Besides being colleagues, Jeff and I are friends who have a shared interest in informed and accurate telling of history, especially when it comes to war. And both of us have deep investment in veterans' issues.
>> Jeff Crane: I think this is how we connected, isn't it?
>> Sara Hart: I think so.
>> Jeff Crane: Originally?
>> Sara Hart: Yeah.
>> Abigail Smithson: And I'm just going to jump in and introduce myself. I'm Abigail Smithson, the producer of this show.
>> Jeff Crane: Ooh, Abigail. Whoo-hoo!
>> Abigail Smithson: And I'm here to laugh when it is appropriate and to learn the whole time no matter what you're saying, so thank you so much.
>> Sara Hart: And to heckle.
>> Abigail Smithson: And to heckle. I think that's -- that is appropriate.
>> Jeff Crane: Not only is she the producer but she's a decider. But like she takes out some of my very best jokes.
>> Abigail Smithson: I am the editor-in-chief.
>> Sara Hart: Let's record our best jokes are removed.
>> Jeff Crane: All right, so guess what? We are picking up today with a third and final installment of our series on George Washington, Episode 3, "The French Empire Strikes Back." If you're just turning into the show -- okay, start over. If you're just tuning into the show and missed our first two episodes on Washington, check out our podcast of the same title which can be found on most platforms. And you might be wondering what's so special about George Washington, founding father, first president of the United States. We probably know all that. But what is less known is his shaky introduction to military operations. His observations on good and bad leadership styles and orders that molded him into the military commander and political figure he would become.
>> Sara Hart: That's right. And also, Jeff, George Washington plays an instrumental role in forming the United States Army, the country's first national military institution. He's really a strong advocate for this during the days of the American Revolution. And so for a podcast on American militarism, Washington is sort of a must so that, you know, we can get a better understanding of and have some fun exploring American military traditions. And all the snafus, mistakes, or mishaps of the military sort.
>> Jeff Crane: So many, yep. So, so far, we've explored the early years of Washington as a surveyor and loyal subject of the British Empire, charting the development of his early career and what -- a part of a very long military career. In the last episode, we left you with quite the cliffhanger, the aftermath of the Battle of Jumonville Glen.
>> Sara Hart: Dun, dun, dun.
>> Jeff Crane: Dun, dun, dum.
>> Sara Hart: This is where our writer/researcher, Liam, would love for us to have some clever "Star Wars" banter.
>> Jeff Crane: Because we're not "Star Wars" people, are we?
>> Sara Hart: Not quite as much. I can hang with the "Star Wars."
>> Abigail Smithson: We're not meeting him halfway on that.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah.
>> Sara Hart: We're really not, but "The French Empire Strikes Back." That's a good title and we have Liam to thank for that.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, so let's set the scene here a little bit. Washington and company move on what they believe is a French spy unit prime to pounce on the unsuspecting English. When the two parties confront each other, a firefight erupts in the night, in the rain, in the shadows, in the forest. This was Washington's first taste of combat at the Battle of Jumonville Glen and this probably was not what he was expecting, to say the least.
>> Sara Hart: Right, and this he will learn. Expect the unexpected.
>> Jeff Crane: Well, you know, there's a great Mike Tyson quote.
>> Sara Hart: Oh, I love Mike Tyson.
>> Jeff Crane: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face." I'm sure battle is even much worse than that, right?
>> Sara Hart: That's perfect.
>> Jeff Crane: That's a good metaphor for what happened to Washington. We will never know the full extent of what happened in 1754 at Jumonville Glen, but one thing's for certain. The French were furious that an officer was killed and they would not let this death go unchecked. Washington and his militia, anticipating a French counterattack, scrambled to their home sweet home, the amazing, the unconquerable Fort Necessity.
>> Sara Hart: The five-star retreat, the luxury. No, it was none of these, listeners, as you'll remember, and, I mean, a different name might be, I don't know, Fort Sir Dinwiddie, you should have never have given me this commission, these bad orders. It probably wouldn't fit on a banner, but.
>> Jeff Crane: How about Fort what was I thinking when I demanded this position? Yeah, so not to let down any ancient history enthusiast, but Fort Necessity was no intricate, complex, Roman fortification or even really anything compared to other forts in American military history. The 53-foot diameter structure --
>> Sara Hart: Whoa.
>> Jeff Crane: -- was constructed in the middle of a boggy meadow, the Great Meadow.
>> Sara Hart: Great. Right, so really this is a supply line or the point -- a significant point in a supply line. And --
>> Abigail Smithson: I'm just going to jump in. Can we paint a picture of what a boggy meadow looks like for our listeners?
>> Sara Hart: It's wet. There's probably mosquitoes.
>> Jeff Crane: Boggy meadow. So yeah, your feet are sinking as you march or charge, right? You're getting wet.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah. How would you prop your rucksack up enough to sleep even without ending up in a puddle?
>> Jeff Crane: If you dig a trench in a [inaudible] position and it fills with water, particularly as the rains come in. Just not -- and you're at a low point. There's a hill with a forest above it, right? It's not, you know, forts should be at high points, right?
>> Sara Hart: High ground, deep well.
>> Abigail Smithson: Would it be mostly yellow or mostly green up [inaudible]?
>> Jeff Crane: It depends on the season. This is early summer, so it would still be green, probably pretty, lots of songbirds.
>> Sara Hart: Pretty from the hills above.
>> Abigail Smithson: [Inaudible] flowers?
>> Sara Hart: Maybe some flowers.
>> Jeff Crane: [Inaudible] flowers.
>> Sara Hart: I'm thinking bugs.
>> Jeff Crane: You know, maybe a rabbit or two, mosquitoes.
>> Sara Hart: Leeches.
>> Abigail Smithson: Oh, okay.
>> Jeff Crane: Actually, in this area, this era, malaria was still very common, so also malaria.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah, so the bugs were like a death threat on their own.
>> Abigail Smithson: Okay.
>> Sara Hart: It's not comfortable. This is not the Marriot.
>> Abigail Smithson: I think boggy is just such a cute word. I mean, yeah, bog.
>> Sara Hart: A bog. Yes, bogs, and supply lines, and don't put your supply line in the middle of a bog. I mean, these are issues that we will continue to explore in future episodes.
>> Abigail Smithson: Classic.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah. So Washington hoped British reinforcements would be on the way to fend off the French. This was, in his mind, to be Washington's first victory. And letters dispatched to Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, Robert Dinwiddie, and his frontier confidant, Joshua Frye, Washington demonstrated the urgency of the present situation. Quote, "This is, therefore, to acquaint you with a necessity there is for a --" reinforcement. He wrote reinforce it. "Which I hope you will detach immediately," unquote.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah, I bet he hopes.
>> Jeff Crane: Geez.
>> Sara Hart: I mean, there really was a need for reinforcements. This was -- this is Fort Necessity and this was all coming together now where there was the necessity of stopping the French. What about, "I fubared" and here come the French with their 220-canoe navy?
>> Jeff Crane: And all the Indian allies.
>> Sara Hart: And all the Indian allies that the British did not have. And remember, folks, Washington is British, at this point, and there's just a real big sense that he's gotten himself into some deep morasses, deep bogs, and needs extrication. There is some need here. So, I mean, it's easy to poke fun at this crude structure, but really, this is par for the course in terms of wilderness fortifications. I mean, he was -- he did not have an easy go of it. Washington and his men are building forts in the middle of the Ohio country. They're hauling in their materials and supplies. The remoteness of the fort from any major city posed a great challenge for both French and British scrambling for control of the region. I mean, it was hard. You have to do it all.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, and a fort is actually oftentimes just a trigger point for conflict, right?
>> Sara Hart: Yeah.
>> Jeff Crane: And so it's like, you know, we built this fort here knowing that the enemy needs to, you know, it's like American troops in Germany during the Cold War was a trigger. For if the Soviets invaded, we could respond with nuclear weapons, right? So in this case, we're going to build this fort and we're going to see if we can provoke the French to do something. Guess what?
>> Sara Hart: It worked.
>> Jeff Crane: It worked. So yeah, they did overextend themselves, but Washington, like so many historians have described, demonstrates great resolve and bravery in the face of imminent danger. So we're, you know, we're teasing a little bit. We're talking about his mistakes, but let's keep remembering these other strengths of his that will strengthen over the course of his life. While we point out errors, we want to continue to flag other crucial strengths and characteristics of George Washington. They are central to who he is and his later success providing he can survive the mistakes coming.
>> Sara Hart: We'll see.
>> Jeff Crane: Spoiler alert, he does.
>> Sara Hart: Oh, good.
>> Jeff Crane: So in this letter to Joshua Frye, he continues. This is May 29, 1754, assuring Frye, quote. "If there does not come a sufficient reinforcement, we must either quit or leave and return to you or fight very unequal numbers. Which I will do before I will give up one inch of what we have gained," unquote. That's tough talk right there.
>> Sara Hart: That's bold. "I will fight back."
>> Abigail Smithson: Fighting words.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah, right? "I'm not giving up an inch." This was --
>> Jeff Crane: Remind the listeners, he's, what, 21?
>> Sara Hart: Yeah, how old is he? He's early-20s, 21, 22.
>> Abigail Smithson: I remember when I was like that when I was that age.
>> Sara Hart: Sure, I'll give up not a single inch, like me and all my army. This is really a crucial point in the series of developments that lead to the conflict we're heading towards. Just too much was riding on his military career to see the British lose their foothold in the ORV or Ohio River Valley. Washington was prepared and really demonstrated that with or without reinforcements, his men would engage the French. He made this clear to Colonel Joshua Frye. He wasn't giving up.
>> Jeff Crane: Sadly, Colonel Frye would die from a sudden fall from his horse traveling to the British encampment.
>> Sara Hart: Aww.
>> Jeff Crane: Two days after receiving Washington's letter.
>> Sara Hart: No help he's going to be.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah. It's a tough life. It's a tough place. It's the harsh reality frontier operations. The terrain, the weather, the wildlife. Circumstances could change in an instant, a theme that we will revisit in other episodes. And so Washington is immediately elevated to colonel, a post that usually paid handsomely, maybe not surprising that we know where this is going, listeners. Maybe not surprisingly, he was in a bit of a kerfuffle with Lieutenant Governor Dinwiddie about pay.
>> Sara Hart: Always. Always about pay. This guy, I mean, it's fairly amazing that in the midst of everything else, he's consistent on this. He is dealing with like he is dealing with foreign policy disasters, unprepared troops, finishing a fort, an impending French attack, and all the while, he's in negotiation for his pay. But, you know, that really does help is the consistency of this helps us to understand Washington a little bit.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah. There's no understanding Washington without knowing the degree to which he was obsessed with his reputation status and recognition, right? He would spend his whole life tending carefully to this reputation and it was crucial to his successes, as well. So at the same time Washington and his militia were scrambling to reinforce Fort Necessity, he's in a dispute with Lieutenant Governor Dinwiddie over his pay. The particular point being that he was being paid less than royal British officers. And so hard not to be a little sarcastic in viewing and responding to the line he wrote Dinwiddie about this. As it rings with the emotional clamor of a man of courage also desperate for recognition, desperate for success.
>> Sara Hart: Emotional clamor. We have Liam, our writer, to thank for that one. Emotional clamor.
>> Jeff Crane: That's a good line.
>> Sara Hart: It is.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, it turns out Liam's a good writer. All right, so here's the line, quote. "But let me serve voluntarily. Then I will, with the greatest pleasure in life, devote my services to the expedition without any other reward than the satisfaction of my country. But to be slaving dangerously for the shadow of pay through woods, rocks, mountains, I would rather prefer the great toil of a daily laborer and dig for maintenance. Than serve upon such ignoble terms," unquote. [Inaudible], right? So I wonder, do you think Dinwiddie was maybe a little annoyed at this?
>> Sara Hart: I mean, I -- it would be hard not to be. I think I might be annoyed, too. I don't know. Jeff, you can probably speak to managing egos a little bit as a dean. Do you do this, occasionally?
>> Jeff Crane: I am going to use the Fifth Amendment here as is my right as an American citizen, at least for now. We all know administrators are humble, eager to serve the common good.
>> Sara Hart: Right, right.
>> Jeff Crane: So we definitely adhere to the ideology of republican virtue, so which does not mean the Republicans [inaudible].
>> Abigail Smithson: Say more about that republican virtue.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, republican virtue was an ideology that was created after the revolution. Because everyone was like, "We won a war. Now what do we do?"
>> Sara Hart: Yeah, right?
>> Jeff Crane: And the fundamental idea is that you sacrifice your personal interest, you dedicate your talents and your skills to the health and survival of the republic. Something we're desperately in need for right now, right?
>> Sara Hart: Yeah. Balancing the individual striving for revolutionary zeal and freedom for the -- with the need of the common good in the republic you established through your revolution.
>> Jeff Crane: And it was, I mean, it was such an important, powerful ideology, they even had this term republican mothers. Who did not have a role in the public sphere but their job was to raise and educate good citizens who would grow up to have, you know, republican virtue, right? So we say that, we're not being flip. It's a real thing, right? So Washington is obsessed. Thanks, Abigail. Yeah. Washington is obsessed with status, wants to prove himself as a means to propel his career as a military officer and a gentleman. He saw himself as an established member of the landowning gentry. He's close but not completely there, yet. He also takes an insult to status very seriously, i.e. British royal soldiers versus colonial troops. Whereas he's critical of militia, Washington, he's also insulted by the superior attitude and rank of British royal troops. Also, the ranking system meant that a captain in the regular British army outranked Washington as a lieutenant colonel in the colonial militia.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah, that's not right.
>> Jeff Crane: That, you know, chaps his to tuchus, right?
>> Sara Hart: Tuchus.
>> Jeff Crane: Washington would be salty about this all the way until the Revolutionary War breaks out. And frankly, pretty much all the militia that served in this war had a pretty bad attitude about the British military, as did the British military about colonial troops.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah. I can see that.
[ Music ]
>> Jeff Crane: If you are just joining us, welcome to the SNAFUBAR. I'm Jeff Crane and I'm here with Sara Hart. Today, we are discussing the early military career of George Washington. This is the third and final installment of our Washington series. And we turn to the battle of Fort Necessity, one of Washington's early combat experiences. Operations against the French cascaded into a fubar, leaving Washington with lifelong lessons to learn from after the battle. Let's find out how this unfolded. There's a broader point to be made here that helps us understand Washington and also the imminent but not inevitable Revolutionary War. The arrogance of and treatment of British colonial troops by the regular British military created a great source of tension that would be well-remembered by people on both sides. Also, the regular British military was so unimpressed by British colonials, they made the mistake of assuming they could not fight effectively. Which would inform their willingness, maybe even eagerness, to go to war to suppress the rebellion beginning in 1775.
>> Sara Hart: Right. I mean, that's huge. And just for the clarity sake for those of us who maybe aren't super in the know, when we say a regular army, we're not necessarily talking about like an army that didn't have any odd fellows in it. We're like talking about a trained --
>> Jeff Crane: They had plenty of odd fellows.
>> Sara Hart: They had plenty of odd fellows, but this is like a trained and uniformed -- this is a phrase that means trained, uniformed official army.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, so let's paint the picture just a little bit, right? The soldiers in the regular British military were from lower class economically. They were trained. They were involved in multiple operations. And warfare back then was really, you know, you marched into a field. You assembled into a line and you fired at another troop that was like 40 feet away. Because muskets were notoriously inaccurate. And so that takes training and experience, which militias did not want to fight like that, right?
>> Sara Hart: Yeah, so this is the difference with the militia as opposed to a regular army. They all have odd fellows but the militia are more ragtag, untrained, likely ununiformed.
>> Jeff Crane: Right.
>> Sara Hart: Right.
>> Jeff Crane: And not -- and in particular, not to beat a dead horse here, but being able to stand a position while taking fire, and to reload, and then to fire takes extensive training, and discipline, and experience.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah, and so the difference between the training, discipline, and experience of the regulars and the militia help to foment a lot of the --
>> Abigail Smithson: What are we fomenting? Come on. What are we fomenting?
>> Sara Hart: The -- there's a word for it. There's a word for it.
>> Jeff Crane: You lost me.
>> Sara Hart: I did. No, I lost my own word. What's the -- what I'm talking about is the like they didn't like each other.
>> Jeff Crane: Right.
>> Sara Hart: The disrespect.
>> Jeff Crane: Disrespect.
>> Sara Hart: Foments a lot of the disrespect they had for one another, and the tension between --
>> Jeff Crane: And snobbishness.
>> Sara Hart: Snobbishness, judgment, the tension between the two.
>> Jeff Crane: Well, British soldiers -- British regular soldiers felt superior to colonial militia. And, you know, battle cow pens in the southern campaign Revolutionary War, they would actually use that because the reputation of the militia was that they would break under a disciplined attack. They faked a break and then, you know, there's over pursuit and they used that against them, but anyways. All right. We definitely wandered off there.
>> Sara Hart: Sorry. Thank you. Okay.
>> Jeff Crane: So we're not at the Revolution just yet, right?
>> Sara Hart: We're not there. We're pre-revolutionary tensions and misunderstandings from this conflict inform the run up to the Revolutionary War. The British thought it would be easy to beat the revolutionaries based on their experience with colonial troops or militias from this conflict. And the colonialists resented and remember their treatment at the hands of the British regular military officers. So it was easily inflamed when tensions began to increase in later years.
>> Abigail Smithson: We could say that the disrespect was fomenting that whole --
>> Sara Hart: Was fomenting the whole time.
>> Jeff Crane: Let's say fomenting as much as we can.
>> Abigail Smithson: Like in a cauldron.
>> Jeff Crane: Well, I mean, you know, maybe not to get into contemporary events too much. But when you put occupying troops in communities and they are both arrogant and they use force, it does create a lot of civil disturbance. And that's what happened. That's what led up to the war was the occupation of Boston by British regular troops. Okay, so we had a little sidebar there, but that's why you come to the show, right?
>> Abigail Smithson: It's not just a SNAFUBAR. It's a sidebar.
>> Sara Hart: SNAFU sidebar.
>> Jeff Crane: SNAFUBAR sidebar. You're welcome. Okay, so we're not at the Revolution just yet. Washington desired to support the Empire. This is critical. He is proud to be a British citizen. We cannot emphasize that enough and he wants to be recognized in this role supporting the British Empire. But things need to work out at Fort Necessity. At this point, we just have to remember that all resentments aside, he's a committed and loyal British citizen and he is prepared to take on the French with or without reinforcements. And that great quote.
>> Sara Hart: Mm-hmm. He'll do it. He won't let go one inch. And so it begins, the Battle of Fort Necessity. Here's how this went down.
>> Jeff Crane: So it begins.
>> Sara Hart: So it begins.
>> Jeff Crane: At a time, 1754, 9:00 in the morning, July 3rd. French forces under the command of Louis Coulon de Talloy.
>> Abigail Smithson: God, we're missing Liam right now.
>> Jeff Crane: [Inaudible] I'm doing my best.
>> Abigail Smithson: No offense.
>> Jeff Crane: Proud father to the American public education system. He's the half-brother of the slain French envoy at Jumonville Glen and he attacks Fort Necessity. So, again, to, you know, this time it's personal, right? The French force numbered 600. The French were accompanied by 100 Native American allies made up of the Wyandotte, Nipissing, Algonquin, Odawa-Shawnee, and Abenaki tribes. Who let out terrifying cries of war just before they engaged the fight. A firefight broke out immediately.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah, and context-wise, just like the soundscape. I imagine that these militia folk, you know, they've never been in a position to hear Native war cries before, not like this. It must have been terrifying, like a total reminder that they were definitely in for it, outnumbered, outgunned. You know, and also, the half-brother of the slain French envoy at Jumonville Glen is there. The French are really raring for a fight.
>> Jeff Crane: They really are and it's truly personal, right? The French forces had significant advantages. This was a French detachment of 700 soldiers going up against a weary British troop numbering no more than 300. If you recall from our previous episode on Washington, there were some challenges to rallying people to join the fight. However, Washington and other officers were able to gather a force to Dinwiddie's liking. It just took longer to muster together troops of as Washington tells us, quote, "self-willed, ungovernable people." You remember how he feels about militia. But they are still vastly outnumbered.
>> Sara Hart: Self-willed, and ungovernable, and outnumbered. And, you know, and not to mention, Washington and his men spent the prior weeks reinforcing Fort Necessity, adding entrenchments around the fort. It is exhausting. They're exhausted.
>> Jeff Crane: They're exhausted, right. They're probably demoralized.
>> Sara Hart: They're hungry.
>> Jeff Crane: When the forces come out of the woods, they're going to be like, "Oh, why did I do this?," right? So and let's add a little more to the picture. Washington lost the support of Tanacharison and his men.
>> Sara Hart: Who we talked about in former episodes, previous episodes, listeners. Tanacharison was known by the British as the half-king and had been a really significant, important ally for Washington.
>> Jeff Crane: Right, and we also pointed out that he basically was manipulating Washington for his own political goals for his people. But Tanacharison departed the Great Meadow in fear the French retaliation posed a threat to his friends and family. He later revealed his true sentiments stating that, quote, "French acted as great cowards and the English as fools," and, unquote. And then he -- Tanacharison, quote. "Had carried off his wife and children as did other Indians before the battle began because Colonel Washington would never listen to them but was always driving them to fight by his directions."
>> Sara Hart: Geez, and this is like this points once more to Washington's youth in this moment. He's not taking the council of an older, much more seasoned warrior more aware of the surroundings. He's kind of an insecure young man.
>> Jeff Crane: Like insecure older men.
>> Sara Hart: Kind of like insecure older men. They're not super-great at listening to others, sometimes, so.
>> Jeff Crane: Wait, did you just say something?
>> Sara Hart: I didn't say anything.
>> Jeff Crane: You're talking about --
>> Sara Hart: So Tanacharison --
>> Jeff Crane: I want to talk.
>> Sara Hart: Anyway, Tanacharison got the heck out of Dodge. That's what happened.
>> Jeff Crane: All right, so there's a great quote from "The Dominion of War." I've used this book to teach, and it's by Fred Anderson and Andrew Caton, quote. "Tanacharison soon realized that he had overestimated a man whose value as an ally was in fact nil. As much an innocent in war as diplomacy, Washington refused to take advice on matters in which the half-king was far more experienced than he. The stockade that Washington named Fort Necessity and Tanacharison dismissed as --" and this is Tanacharison quote inside a quote, "'--as that little thing upon the meadow,' unquote. Was so obviously indefensible that the half-king gave up and left along with his followers," unquote, before the attack on July 3, 1754.
>> Sara Hart: I mean, I just love that. He was innocent of -- innocent in war as in diplomacy. Like that's where our Colonel Washington is.
>> Jeff Crane: And also arrogant.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah, and also arrogant. So he should have retreated, right? I mean, that's kind of what we are going to look back on this and say in this dire situation, everything is expendable, even allies, human beings. Tanacharison knew this. It's not the first time these empires have put their own interests before the welfare of the Native American peoples whom they sought as allies. Also, the state of Washington and his men, I mean, they were just a mess. They're exhausted, about to face a fresh, much larger detachment. Washington would not have the much needed support of his Native American allies in all of this.
>> Jeff Crane: One thing Washington would learn by the time he commanded the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War was the power of a well-timed retreat. He retreated so many times during the Revolutionary War. I mean, he lost more battles than he won, if I remember correctly. The French forces had multiple advantages for sure, such as a much greater degree of maneuverability and the high ground. The French utilized the treaty line for cover, giving them ample protection and the ability to fire volley after volley down at the miserable soldiers in their tiny and muddy fort, their wet bog.
>> Sara Hart: Their boggy meadow.
>> Jeff Crane: And Washington, in 1786, wrote a personal account of the Battle of Fort Necessity, including details of the French position advantage. Washington wrote the French, quote, "From every little rising tree stump, stone and bush kept up a constant galding fire upon us."
>> Sara Hart: Galding. Galding sounds like scalding, a scalding fire. Maybe it's just a typo on Washington's part. This is from the original source letter, folks, and who knows what they were writing. There's another word, galling. That could apply. It means mechanical wear, galling does. Did you know this? Form of adhesion. Here we have a dictionary definition for you, listeners. Galling. "A form of adhesion and friction wear where a metal seize, tear, and form lumps often happening with bolts and threads." That's pretty good.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah. I mean, I looked it up because I was curious, but, you know, it went from like typo to actually what an interesting use of a word, right?
>> Sara Hart: Yeah.
>> Jeff Crane: If we was writing galling, yeah.
>> Sara Hart: And we use it more figuratively or adjectively these days. This is how we recognize it, like, "Oh, so galling." It's irritating, or chafing, or chapping. That really chaps his toches. It's galling. Yeah, but whatever word he meant. It is a super-interesting choice. Whatever word he meant, it translates to something like bad.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah.
>> Sara Hart: yeah.
>> Jeff Crane: So, yeah, galding isn't a word. We looked it up in OED and cited only one use in 1684, so definitely a typo. We're going to go with galling here, right? This is the worst scenario to be in, cut off from reinforcements and supplies. Native allies have fled. The British are pinned down in the confines of their flooded trenches in the fort. French are picking them off from higher ground in the forest. So either a large detachment of reinforcements would arrive to counter the French advance or the British would be overrun. This is what's going to happen.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah.
>> Abigail Smithson: Ooh, what is going to happen?
>> Sara Hart: Here we go. I mean, maneuverability on the battlefield is something that we think about here. We recognize it's just so important. And what does it mean? Washington can't reposition his men. He can't maneuver. It's wet. It's getting wetter. They're like fish in a barrel. They're stuck inside the fort. If they were to make an advance, the French could easily envelop the British from their most assailable flank, whichever that was, you know? In other words, the French could overwhelm the British on either side of the fort. They had a lot of options. Army Lieutenant Colonel Michael A. Hamilton breaks down maneuverability for us into three categories and we'll see that none of them really work for Washington here. You can either maneuver to seek position advantage.
>> Jeff Crane: Nope, no.
>> Sara Hart: Maneuver to exploit enemy weakness.
>> Jeff Crane: Nope, no.
>> Sara Hart: Not an option. How about if you maneuver to avoid enemy strength? Nah, no. Washington's men are pinned down. They really are like fish in a barrel. It's raining. It's getting wetter. Getting shot at by the French and by the Native Americans. And it's a bog. It's not -- it's less cute, right?
>> Jeff Crane: Bog fight, baby bog fight.
>> Abigail Smithson: Wow, a new take on a old classic.
[ Music ]
>> Jeff Crane: Welcome back to SNAFUBAR. I'm Jeff Crane and I'm here with Sara Hart. We have just been discussing some of the complications George Washington encountered during the Battle of Fort Necessity. Unfortunately, formal surrender would be the only way out for the young military officer, the only surrender of his career, I might add. And on July 4th, of all days. Let's dive into how this went down. Despite no clear sign of reinforcements, Washington and his men fought bravely. After hours of fighting, a tremendous rainstorm rolled in over the battlefield. Washington reflected on this in his account of the battle, writing that, quote. "There fell the most tremendous rain that could be conceived, filled our trenches with water," unquote. So imagine that, listener, if you're, you know, you're in a battle and now this happens, too. As the trenches began to fill with water, Washington realized their extra supplied ammunition was completely soaked, right?
>> Sara Hart: Not keeping their powder dry.
>> Jeff Crane: Nicely done, nicely done. And the British were exposed to enfilade fire by the French. Enfilade fire is when you're at the end of a line and you can shoot down the line and you don't even need to be accurate because your bullets are definitely going to hit somebody. As opposed to shooting say from the front or back of a line. So think of like 100 people straight in front of you. You just start shooting and you're going to hit a target. British rifles stopped firing, munitions box is flooded, salt meat running low, morale plummeting. Fighting lasted over ten hours, so I think we ought to give them some credit, right, until around 8:00 PM, when du Valier, the French commander, offered a truce to the battered British.
>> Sara Hart: Gosh. That was kind of him. Getting caught in a rainstorm when you're exposed to the elements. I mean, it was July, but they still had to be just pretty miserable. I, too, think that this had to be pretty traumatizing for Washington and the militia. You know, today, if we were looking at a battle like this, ten hours in the pouring rain with limited access to even your ammunition because of the conditions. Today, we'd be talking about post-traumatic stress, maybe even moral injury. Let's hear some more about how these negotiations unfolded.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, and you can't just drop moral injury like that, Sara, you know, because that's one of my favorite topics. It's also Sara's. And one of the foundations for moral injury in war is [inaudible], which is what they have, in this case, being betrayed by your leadership. But we're going to stay focused here and keep on with this story.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah. Too much to discuss in that area.
>> Abigail Smithson: I love how excited you guys get about moral injury.
>> Sara Hart: I know. It's a little dark, right?
>> Abigail Smithson: It's fun to see, yeah.
>> Sara Hart: It's a little dark.
>> Jeff Crane: It's dark, yeah.
>> Sara Hart: Okay. Tell me more about Washington.
>> Jeff Crane: No, let's do moral injury. I think the reason we get excited about moral injury is not so much that we appreciate moral injury. It's that it's a topic that's not discussed when we talk about the impact of war on those who actually serve. And it's ignored by those who want to war and those who won't do anything for those veterans on the backend. It's a fundamentally crucial issue for a country that's always at war.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah, and it's a lens through which civilians, that is nonmilitary folks, can really see their own participation in a national project and the way that their beliefs align or don't with their behavior. I think it's really widely usable. It's very specific and powerful when it comes to understanding those who have served in military context and it's also super-powerful for understanding our own role.
>> Jeff Crane: So like if you're in the Battle of the Bulge and you're going to have PTSD because of constant artillery fire, and not enough food, and freezing. But you understand that you're there for a good reason which is to defeat Nazis, [inaudible] PTSD. If you're in a battle in which there's no reason for the fighting, the order is bad, you're being treated as expendable, then you have PTSD and also moral injury. And I think with Jonathan Shay and "Achilles in Vietnam," they just used that concept, so yeah. This is one of the reasons we connected, right, Sara?
>> Sara Hart: Yeah.
>> Jeff Crane: Is around this topic.
>> Abigail Smithson: And I think, I mean, for me, of course, I'm familiar with the term but it's also so important and fascinating to hear you unpack it, especially in the context of the specific events that we're looking at. And really, you know, it gets at why we're doing the show to begin with.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah, this wouldn't have been something that we talked about in term -- or contemporaries talked about in terms of Washington's experience, of course, you know. I mean, it wasn't until 2025 that this entered the diagnostic statistical manual, moral injury. So it's very like it's been bandied about since Jonathan Shay and was writing 30, 40 years ago, but it's something that we can still see and uses a lens on the past.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, absolutely, and thanks, Abby. I appreciate those comments. So back to the negotiations. This was far from a smooth series of -- what has been smooth so far?
>> Sara Hart: Nothing.
>> Jeff Crane: Okay. So for one, the huge rainstorm made communication nearly impossible.
>> Abigail Smithson: Did the bog get wetter?
>> Sara Hart: The bog gets wetter.
>> Jeff Crane: The bog gets wetter. Just imagine them walking through the squelching mud. Their feet are soaked.
>> Abigail Smithson: The leeches are out.
>> Jeff Crane: Leeches are out. Clouds of mosquitoes swarming you, right? Washington's translator, Jacob van Braam, a captain in the Virginia regiment, noted the sound of the rain made it difficult to understand the French commander's terms. Back and forth, van Braam trudged through the soaked and mud-torn boggy meadow delivering correspondence.
>> Abigail Smithson: Oh, what a guy.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah. As a result of the heavy rainfall, the articles of capitulation, surrender, were committed to a piece of parchment. The parchment soaked and smudged due to the rainfall, was almost impossible to read.
>> Abigail Smithson: Oh, my God.
>> Jeff Crane: On July 4, 1754, yes, you heard that right, listeners, July 4, 1754, George Washington surrendered Fort Necessity to du Valier, the only surrender of his military career. We bolded that. All he had worked for and what he's prepared to die for was ruined in a matter of moments.
>> Sara Hart: I mean, that's incredible, 22 years to the day before the independence party that would leave us with hot dogs and potato salad. I'm guessing they had none of that on this Fourth of July.
>> Jeff Crane: But they had fireworks. Yeah, the French took two prisoners and claimed Fort Necessity for themselves. The British were allowed to take some provisions and the few horses they had and vacate the area immediately.
>> Sara Hart: Right, so it's not all bad. They get some provisions, they get a few horses, cue the Charlie Brown sad walk music.
>> Jeff Crane: We're showing our age, right? Walking down with your head down like you walk all the way back to Eastern Virginia or Pennsylvania. The French, to Washington's distaste, refused to let him depart with their swivel guns. The swivel gun was designed for naval use to sweep the deck of enemy ships at close range with what's called grape, which is small pieces of like lead that are connected like think of a cluster of grapes. It's meant to tear up sails and cut the rigging on ships, so it's a naval ammunition, and it had little impact on the outcome of the Battle of Fort Necessity.
>> Sara Hart: But it's the principle.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, right? I mean, you -- "We're going to take your weapons." That seems reasonable if you win. So those were retained by the French and transported 50 miles north of Fort Duquesne. When it was all said and done, the French burned the fort to the ground. But it gets even worse. Unbeknownst to Washington, the articles of capitulation he agreed to indicated that the French officer slain at Jumonville Glen was assassinated, not simply killed as an outcome of the skirmish. The word being assassiner. I guess I'm saying that right. No idea. To this end, by signing this, Washington took responsibility for the assassination of a French officer, a diplomat, essentially, because that's, you know, a diplomatic mission.
>> Sara Hart: That's bad news for the British forces and the British diplomacy mission. And to be fair, these negotiations, I mean, we just blew kind of threw it, but they were complicated. There were stormy conditions. The paper, the parchment, is getting wet. It's staining. The choppy translations provided by van Braam, who was not a trained negotiator. And, you know, also a 22-year-old had just held off a French troop for over ten hours, so he's definitely exhausted. He's probably not thinking clearly and, you know, still the terms of surrender painted Washington as the culprit for the murder of a French officer. And maybe he should have paid just a little more attention to that detail.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah.
>> Sara Hart: So, oops.
>> Jeff Crane: Ruh-Roh. Oh, sorry. Ruh-Roh.
>> Sara Hart: Ruh-Roh.
>> Jeff Crane: In a matter of minutes, Washington signed a document affirming that he assassinated a French officer, a diplomatic courier, while under orders of the British Empire. This became the French Empire's casus belli or justification for war against the British. Washington's reputation took a hit internationally after the events of Fort Necessity. Not only did the British lose their foothold in the region but now the French were preparing a declaration of war against the British Empire. In France, he was the subject of approbation and criticism. Also, remember that he had been a celebrity before in Great Britain. Now he is known internationally in a much more negative sense. So, again, cue the Charlie Brown sad walk music. He's trotting along the rain-soaked path back to Will's Creek on the outskirts of the Great Meadow.
>> Sara Hart: Right, and he had good reasons to be bummed. I mean, he recorded 30 dead and 70 wounded. That's 100 casualties but there were also reasons to hold his head high. He had fought bravely for, you know, throughout the ten hours of the battle all over the battlefield, bullets whizzing around him. He clearly, I mean, he's young, at this point, so he didn't know this yet, necessarily. He clearly had a taste for combat. He understood how a leader risking their own life and limb was crucial for troop morale. He showed real valor in a losing effort. Still though, bad loss.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah. No, absolutely. These are all great points. Thanks, Sara. From there, Washington made his way to Winchester, Virginia. On July 11th, Washington set off for Williamsburg to inform Dinwiddie of his defeat. Neither Washington nor Dinwiddie could have imagined the chain reaction this would have across the British and French Empires globally.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah, totally. I mean, a little imagination, they might have imagined it. Like if you kill a French officer, maybe some stuff's going to go down in the imperial zone. But something to point out here is that Washington's surrender marks the beginning of the French and Indian War.
>> Jeff Crane: Are you saying he started the French and Indian War?
>> Sara Hart: I'm saying that he started the clash of French and British Empires. You know, on a global level, this conflict is called the Seven Years' War.
>> Jeff Crane: Why are you picking on Washington so much?
>> Sara Hart: I mean, he started a world war, a clash of empires. The world over would feel the reverberations of this clash, from North America, to the Caribbean, to the port city of Pondicherry in India. The French and British Empires would fight one another to weaken their competitor's overseas possessions and to expand their own. And not to mention, the British would dump money into the French and Indian War, running massive deficits. And then they would tax the American colonies to cover those debts without representation in parliament. Sound familiar?
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah.
>> Jeff Crane: [Singing] Yankee Doodle went to town riding on a pony. Stuck a feather in his cap and called it --
>> Sara Hart: [Singing] Called it macaroni. What does that mean?
>> Jeff Crane: Running deficits to conduct a war? I have no idea. Is that [inaudible] something?
>> Sara Hart: I don't know what that's like. We should take a break.
[ Music ]
>> Jeff Crane: Welcome back to SNAFUBAR. Thanks for joining us. Today, we are taking a deep dive into George Washington's early career as a military leader. As it turns out, things aren't going quite as planned. After the surrender of Fort Necessity on July 4,1754, Washington and his weary band of Virginia militia made their way back to Williamsburg. The British may have lost the battle but not the war. We're about to discuss how this event had a profound impact on shaping Washington's attitude on troop morale, training, and the importance of a well-trained standing army. As historians, we do enjoy finding the sources and causes for events. You can draw a pretty direct line from this conflict to the American Revolution, taking into account some pretty bad political decisions by the British along the way. Though the defeat of Fort Necessity left Washington bitter, he never forgot the mistakes and miscalculations he made there. There was something he used to say, and I'm paraphrasing, quote, "An error discovered is one-half remedied," unquote. That epitomizes the approach that helped make him so successful.
>> Sara Hart: Right. Washington took the lessons from his early military career with him, enabling him a degree of preparedness and foresight that would stay with him during the Revolutionary War. He'd be especially hesitant to rely too much on militia because of their inexperience, their lack of preparation. During the Second Continental Congress, Washington attended in his military uniform and implored Congress to adopt a standing army and not rely on a militia, right? And he's showing up in shiny buttons and things to be like, "Look how good this looks, right?"
>> Jeff Crane: And maybe he's saying, "Put me in charge."
>> Sara Hart: Yeah, "Maybe put me in charge. Don't I look the part, right?" In a letter to John Hancock, that John Hancock --
>> Abigail Smithson: Oh, the original, I mean, the one.
>> Sara Hart: The one.
>> Abigail Smithson: The John Hancock.
>> Sara Hart: In a letter that he wrote to John Hancock dated the 25th of September, 1776, Washington writes this, and it's a little lengthy, folks. Go with me.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, it's worth it.
>> Sara Hart: It's worth it, okay. "To place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff."
>> Jeff Crane: Oof. That's pretty powerful.
>> Sara Hart: That's not nice. "Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life, unaccustomed to the din of arms, totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill. Which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves when opposed to troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in arms, makes them timid, ready to fly from their own shadows. Besides, the sudden change in their manner of living, particularly in the lodging, brings on sickness in many, impatience in all. And such an unconquerable desire of returning to their respective homes that it not only produces shameful and scandalous desertions among themselves, but infuses the like spirit in others. Again, men accustomed to unbounded freedom and no control cannot brook the restraint which is indispensably necessary to the good order and government of an army."
>> Jeff Crane: Nice. Nice reading, Sara.
>> Sara Hart: End quote. Yeah, that was my Washington. Did you like that?
>> Jeff Crane: That was really well done. One of my favorite things about teaching history is having students work through primary sources, see how they respond. This is a great find, Liam. Thanks for plugging this into our script. And I think, you know, there's a few things going on here. He's talking about how they're not prepared. He's talking about how they want to return home. It's good to remember, too, that, you know, people are -- men are joining the military but they don't know how protected their families are. So when they hear about war occurring in their communities, they want to go home to take care of their families. But he is making a compelling case for a standing military, a professional army. There's a case against that, right?
>> Sara Hart: Yeah. Yeah, there's a bias against professional armies because of historical examples that they were all familiar with like Cesare. And the loyalty of professional armies to strongmen who overthrow governments, right? This fear of the impact of the professional military on civilian government is one of the reasons the US has always really dramatically demobilized after war until World War II and since. And it's a reason to be really concerned with current political events any time you see standing militaries in domestic spaces.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, we demobilized until World War II and now we have a regular standing large, large military.
>> Sara Hart: The lines are getting blurred right now in I think important ways that we don't know the impacts of, so.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, it's a little scary, and people may not know, but that, you know, Cesare and his army that was loyal to him, they were -- that was the reason for the end of the Roman republic. And the launch of the Roman Empire. I mean, there's more to it than that, but that is a legitimate fear. Washington would have more opportunities to learn and grow as a capable leader. One year after the Battle of Fort Necessity, he was an aide-de-camp to General Braddock, British General Braddock, leading a 3,000-man expedition west towards the Great Meadow and Fort Duquesne. He observed in Braddock an experienced military professional with great courage but also a man of short temper who grew easily frustrated and refused to change his mind once set. It sounds kind of like what Katakaris [assumed spelling] had to say about Washington, right?
>> Sara Hart: Yeah.
>> Jeff Crane: An example -- he was an example of rigid British military professionalism who was also critical and condescending towards colonial authorities for not providing militia and supplies.
>> Sara Hart: Right, and, I mean, he's heading back -- Washington here is heading back to the Great Meadow.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, what does that feel like?
>> Sara Hart: Like you're going back, right? "Hey, let's go back to the bog, you know?"
>> Abigail Smithson: Who ever said that?
>> Sara Hart: Well, here he goes, and the whole while he's watching, it had to feel a little like a vision -- watching a vision of himself from a year before making mistakes. He had to be able to see a little bit of his own rigidity in Braddock.
>> Jeff Crane: I think the great leaders have a level of self-awareness that many people don't. So that's entirely possible.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah.
>> Jeff Crane: And he's like, "Oh, so that's what that looks like. I don't want to be that person."
>> Abigail Smithson: Maybe he talked about it with his therapist or someone.
>> Sara Hart: Maybe he talked about it with his therapist.
>> Jeff Crane: So, yeah, he learned to not behave like General Braddock and the other British officers [inaudible]. There is an old Confucian quote and it said you can learn from the wise man and the fool. And, you know, the wise man, you emulate what they do, and the fool, you don't repeat their mistakes. That's a terrible paraphrasing of Confucius.
>> Sara Hart: It's basically what Confucius said.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, basically. But as he's returning to Fort Necessity, traveling through the forest, he's also reflecting on what he'd experienced. And he's learned the importance of what was called in the colonial era, quote, "Indian warfare," right, which is what the French and Indians had used against the British at Fort Necessity. And he tries to convey this to Braddock and he's ignored. Braddock was contemptuous of the idea that, quote, "Indian warfare," unquote had any chance against British professional soldiers. Much like they'll feel about the, you know, the colonial militia and fighting force when they, you know, in 1775. So he conducts a typical campaign with long trains, supply lines, bridges, clearing of roads, cutting down trees, wagons of grain, all that. Men and horses dying of exhaustion, working too hard, moving deeper, and deeper, and deeper into territory controlled by the French and their Native allies. And I think it's safe to say that we know some wars where we would be very -- it is safe to say that we have taken a similar approach in conflicts like say Vietnam and Afghanistan, yeah.
>> Sara Hart: Mm-hmm, where embedded insurgent forces using irregular warfare might have been something we could attend to the methods of?
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, I was going to be vague but we're all full-grown adults, right?
>> Sara Hart: So, I mean, this reminds me of something that we're always hearing and saying here. The only ability is adaptability. I think it works in this context.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, and spoiler alert, the British did not adapt in this particular case. At the crossing of the Monongahela River, the French and Native American forces launched a surprise attack and routed the British. Roughly 40 French and Native Americans died to almost 500 British. This is like the scale of Agincourt, right?
>> Sara Hart: Yeah.
>> Jeff Crane: Think of like epic battles historically. Five hundred British died, roughly 1,000 casualties for the British. They're defeated badly by a force one-third their size. Washington, who had been suffering from dysentery and severe hemorrhoids, was all over the battlefield that day. Two horses were shot from underneath him. There were four bullet holes in his clothing. Native Americans there remembered him from years later from observing him on that battlefield. It was a crucial moment in military valor and learning for him. And his service was such that upon dying, Braddock gave him his ceremonial sash and two pistols. And Washington carried that sash with him through his later campaigns.
>> Sara Hart: I bet it was a nice sash, but two horses shot from underneath him, four bullet holes in his clothing, and still the guy keeps going with, what, dysentery, hemorrhoids? He's not -- the man is not comfortable. So Washington is not a perfect person. No one is but this instance really shows us some bravery, some diligence.
>> Jeff Crane: He demonstrates valor, courage, learning, and he's receptive, and adaptive, and this would be critical to his success later in life.
>> Sara Hart: Totally. Braddock's example was a lesson in the importance of adapting to the changing circumstances of a military campaign in a lot of, you know, let's see. Study, reflection, adaptation, innovation. Jeff, are these the hallmarks of a liberal arts education? Check out Jeff's other podcast, folks, if you'd like to hear some episodes in the streaming zone.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, it's called, "Yeah, I Got an Effing Job With a Liberal Arts Degree." Yeah, you know, and actually, you know, back then what they're studying is history, classics, literature, right? So he's, you know, he's a liberal arts guy, for sure. So thanks for the shout out, Sara. I appreciate it. Because he knew that the war could not be won by militia in 1757, in 1758, he becomes totally focused on building a professional army using an aggressive campaign of training and discipline. While he did this, according to "The Dominion of War," quote. "He studied the leading military manuals of the day, especially Humphrey Bland's 'Treatise of Military Discipline.' And read such classics as 'Caesar's Commentaries' and asked his officers to do the same," unquote. I actually taught Bland's book once in a military history class with my colleague, Andrew Borne [assumed spelling].
>> Sara Hart: Humphrey Bland.
>> Jeff Crane: It's dry reading.
>> Sara Hart: It's coming back, man.
>> Jeff Crane: Flanking movements and such. But he worked hard to both establish his authority and build esprit de corps. He had learned the need for this the hard way. Later, he also knew that the Continental Army would serve as a symbol of the Revolution. You know, the Revolution where we can't say nation yet because nobody knew what would emerge politically. But Washington knew and argued, getting back to our point where he shows up at the Second Continental Congress in his uniform, that they needed a professional, full-time military. Both strategically and on the battlefield, but also as a symbol as the emerging nation.
>> Sara Hart: Right, symbolically. Now no doubt that harsh conditions at Fort Necessity coupled with Washington's men's inexperience left an indelible impression on the young Washington. He's not just against militia for the sake of disagreement. He's been there before. He knows what it's like to see men who are ill-prepared for combat submit to the grueling circumstances of war. Washington is calling for a standing army, a real national army prepared for the unimaginable challenges of war through training. Able to forego the comforts, able to go to war knowing what they're getting into, knowing what it might look like to risk it all.
>> Jeff Crane: You know, I've been listening to this podcast called "Script Notes." It's about writing screenplays and this would actually make a great movie because it's all about the art of the primary character and how they change, right? And he's gone through such dramatic change in just a couple of short years. He's one person in the beginning and he's a different person at the end, right? So let's see if we can do that and get a movie made. I'll head down to LA and get some movie people.
>> Sara Hart: Okay, work on that.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, so in the end, what is our story? What have we learned? Washington was an aggressive and ambitious young man, striving --
>> Sara Hart: Striving.
>> Jeff Crane: Striving for respect and economic success. In that sense, he was happy to serve British imperial ambitions and participated eagerly in settler colonialism that destroyed Native life and communities. His experience before and during the French and Indian War, filled with so many SNAFUBAR moments, helped him become the great military and political commander that he became. Because, one, he managed to survive, and two, he learned from his mistakes and continued to grow throughout his life.
>> Sara Hart: I mean, survival, it makes such a difference to learning, right? And his lessons. He respected what was called Indian or what we now call guerilla warfare and he learned to plan for it. He learned not to get trapped in a fixed location.
>> Jeff Crane: Yeah, the Battle of Long Island is the first major battle with the British military. They get their butts absolutely kicked. They are trapped on a beach and the British come to collect the surrender the next morning. They're like, "Oh, he's buggered. He's gone." They crossed the water during the night, and back to Washington's qualities and characteristics, Washington's on the very last boat.
>> Sara Hart: Oh, look at that.
>> Jeff Crane: I think they saw him rowing away. The British officers were furious. That's not gentlemanly warfare, right?
>> Sara Hart: Right, waving at them from the boat.
>> Jeff Crane: So he definitely learned the value of retreating and preserving your army. And that's one of the things he does very well in the Revolutionary War is he retreats tactically to keep his army intact for the moment that he needs to win, right?
>> Sara Hart: Yeah, that's a real shift. And, you know, strategic retreats would really be a hallmark of Washington during that Revolutionary period. There's also, you know, getting checked on his eagerness for distinction and recognition. He learns a little bit there, too, right? I mean, this nearly cost him his life at Fort Necessity. No doubt he reserved -- his reserved and modest temperament as the first president was formed from these earlier life experiences. He starts out a little, you know, arrogant, maybe.
>> Jeff Crane: Sure.
>> Abigail Smithson: As many of us do.
>> Sara Hart: As many of us do.
>> Jeff Crane: I wasn't. When I was young, I wasn't.
>> Sara Hart: We've all grown out of it.
>> Abigail Smithson: Who among us?
>> Sara Hart: Who among us? But there's something else, right? So why focus on Washington for this, you know, for this here on the SNAFUBAR? From the lessons he learned, he knew the troops needed to train and fight in a conventional manner. It's no secret that he was a strong proponent for the creation of a standing army. And in this way, he was -- he is, was, and remains inextricably linked to the history of the United States military.
>> Jeff Crane: And the history of our political successes and the, you know, emergence of a series of states which then leads to the creation of a nation through a constitution, right? And, you know, and then later on in 1791 or '93, that he's going to lead forces against the Whiskey Rebellion.
>> Sara Hart: Oh, the Whiskey Rebellion.
>> Jeff Crane: He put the uniform on, again.
>> Sara Hart: Yep.
>> Jeff Crane: And suppress, you know, a revolt. He also understood that military leaders needed to respect civilian leaders if they wanted support for their soldiers, right? Logistics and supplies matter. So like his officers serving with him in Pennsylvania at Valley Forge, they would get really angry because they couldn't get civilians to provide them with enough food. And they wanted him to take more draconian measures and basically just take it. And he pushed back against that because of the need to sustain those relationships and not inflame the civilians against you. And the civilian population had to be cared for, as well, in order to maintain troop morale and stability.
>> Sara Hart: Yeah. Those supply lines had to be kept fluid and happy. You know, and there's one more reason we choose to focus on Washington here on the SNAFUBAR. Today, countries around the world like to mythologize a pristine narrative about their history and America's no stranger to that. It's a surprise for a lot of our listeners that the early career of Washington, his character, his temperament is actually really far from pristine. It's nowhere near perfect. And, you know, it turns out he was human. What's more, he demonstrates a very human characteristic, you know, an admirable one of learning from his mistakes. History is a way for human beings to learn about ourselves. Washington not only motioned for a standing army, he served as really the inaugural SNAFUBAR man.
>> Jeff Crane: Oh, my God. Is that Liam? Did Liam come up with that?
>> Abigail Smithson: Yes.
>> Sara Hart: It's in all caps, folks, the inaugural SNAFUBAR man of American myth and militarism. So thank you all for tuning in to this week's episode here in the SNAFUBAR.
>> Jeff Crane: I'm Jeff Crane.
>> Sara Hart: And I'm Sara Hart.
>> Abigail Smithson: And I'm Abigail Smithson.
>> Sara Hart: And we'll see you next time.
>> Jeff Crane: We are Team SNAFUBAR.
>> Sara Hart: Team SNAFUBAR. You've been listening to SNAFUBAR, a Cal Poly Humboldt production brought to you by the College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences. Our team includes me.
>> Jeff Crane: And me.
>> Abigail Smithson: Abigail Smithson, producer.
>> Liam Salkuni: Liam Salkuni, writer, researcher.
>> Roman Sotomayor: Roman Sotomayor, writer, researcher.
>> Abigail Smithson: You can find more information about SNAFUBAR on khsu.org.
[ Music ]
Produced at Cal Poly Humboldt.