04 December 2023
George Washington’s importance to the American Revolution, first as a member of the Continental Congress, then as the Commander of the Colonial Army, and finally as the first President of the newly formed United States of America, is predominantly common knowledge and has a basis of understanding in the minds of Americans. How Washington came to be the heroic Commander of American forces where he was able to exude his leadership abilities that would go on to propel him into the position of President, however, is far often unknown and seldom discussed outside of scholastic circle of the subject. George Washington’s leadership abilities and his own personal fortitude were developed significantly in the French and Indian War. This growth for Washington occurred throughout the War but was highlighted specifically during three different events that would leave a substantial impact on the man and would groom him into the leader he would become. These events were Washington’s first commissioned excursion into the Ohio River Valley to expel French forces leading to his first firefight with the French which was the first battle of the war, his loss at Fort Necessity, and General Braddock’s disastrous defeat. These events would have a profound impact on Washington and significantly build upon his original competencies to mold the man into the leader celebrated today.
George Washington’s military career began in 1753 when he was commissioned by Governor Robert Dinwiddie of Virginia to deliver a letter to the French Forces in the Ohio River country.[1] Before this time, Washington had worked as a surveyor and took part in the surveying of the Fairfax lands in the Shenandoah Valley and continued to work as a surveyor until he decided upon gaining military experience.[2] Upon gaining this commission as Major, Washington set off with a French interpreter and a few others on his quest to deliver his letter to the French commander in the Ohio Valley.[3] Washington was not aware yet that this expedition would have a substantial impact on decisions that he would make as commander of the Colonial forces during the Revolutionary War.
This first excursion of Washington into the Ohio River country had started growing Washington by allowing him to utilize many attributes that he had previously had at his exposal. While trudging through frequent rain and snow, Washington spent this time putting his surveyors background to use and analyzing the land amongst the rivers for a suitable location for a fort.[4] Moreso, while waiting for a meeting with Six Nation, the Iroqois league, leaders to council them on the letter he was to deliver, Washington came into contact with four French deserters and was able to ascertain, from them, where the French were building forts along with how man men they had to garrison these forts.[5] Washington also met with “Half King”, or Tanaghrisson, who was one of the Six Nation’s leaders, whom Washington requested information from about the French and their fort.[6] These early interactions are important in the making of George Washington as they show that for a very inexperienced officer, having just been commissioned, he was able to ascertain valuable information from people he had no prior experience with. This ability to work with new people, and people with differing goals, is pivotal to a leader and Washington was honing these skills very early in his career.
This meeting with Tanaghrisson would prove pivotal during Washington’s time in the Ohio country early in the French and Indian War. During this first meeting, however, Washington would learn that the Tanaghrisson and his tribes were severing ties with the French via the recitation of a speech that the Half King gave to the French.[7] Washington is also able to hold a meeting with the Native leaders of the area and inform them of the note that he is taking to the French and ask their assistance in the matter to which the Half King responds that they would indeed help Washington and to provide a guard for him.[8] This meeting provides a very significant exchange between Washington and Half King which would provide a gimps at the impact Half King’s falling out with the French when Tanaghrisson said to Washington, who was trying to expedite his journey, that “this is a matter of no small moment, and must not be entered into without due consideration.”[9] This establishes the importance of the falling out with the French on Half King’s side in his mind and this is related to Washington in the sternest of manners.
Following the meeting of native leaders, and some patient waiting on Washingtons end, he was finally able to set back out for the French fort with the Half King and a few others in tow and arrived on December 4th, 1753.[10] Upon arrival, Washington was greeted cordially and offered food and wine and along with his companions. Washington showed his resourcefulness in this situation and utilized the flow of wine in his French companions to ascertain their stance on the French in Ohio to which they told him that they held possession of all of Ohio and the river.[11] Washington exhibits the self-control in this situation that he was known for amongst the Virginian gentry and his mentor William Fairfax who helped propel Washington into the higher ranks of society.[12] By allowing the French to drink freely and listen, Washington was able to gain a significant amount of insight into the French movements, forts, and troop numbers in the area.
While at the French fort, Washington witnessed the powerplay between the French and the natives that escorted him. Washington knew that the French would try to get back into the good graces of the Half King and the Six Nations through gifts and kind words, thus he was anxious to begin the return journey and take the Half King with him.[13] Washington stayed in the fort and witnessed the end of the relationship between Half King’s Six Nations and the French then tried desperately to get the Half King out of the fort so he could not be persuaded to return to friendship with the French noting “I can’t say that ever in my life I suffered so much anxiety as I did in this affair.”[14] This is a very interesting aspect of Washingtons first foray into the world of military affairs as he tries to navigate truly international politics and scheming with no experience. Washington finally leaves the fort with the Half King declaring the French to officially be the enemies of his people and the Commander of the fort’s response to Governor Dinwiddie in his hand.[15]
The return trip for Washington is also very impactful to the leader that he would be and contains a possible foreshadowing of events that he would take part in during the Revolutionary War. Washington explains having to wade in the river multiple times while carrying the canoes after being slammed into the rock’s multiple times.[16] From here the trip got even worse. With weak horses and growing winter conditions to include rain and snow, along with a growing desire by Washington to get back to the Governor and provide his letter and findings, he set of to “prosecute my journey the nearest way through the woods, on foot.”[17] With one companion, Washington trudged through the harsh conditions towards home and fought off an Indian attack before coming to an impassable river due to ice that had only accumulated 50 yards from either shore.[18] In what would become a foreshadowing event in Washingtons life, he and his companion built a raft and braved the icy river before, inevitably, having to step off the raft and wade to shore in the freezing water.[19] Nearly 23 years to the day later, Washingtons fortitude would show itself in much the same manner as he crossed the icy Delaware River, on Christmas Day 1776, to attack the Hessians posted at Trenton.
While Washington’s experiences during his first official trip into the Ohio country certainly had an impact on him, there would be more events that would shape not only his leadership attributes but also his life. In 1754, Washington would be sent into the Ohio country again, this time to expel French troops who were pressing into the English territory and needed to be stopped.[20] The events which would occur on this expedition would set in motion the French and Indian War in the Colonies and have an international impact. It would also have a profound impact on a young George Washington.
Washingtons second expedition into the Ohio country was of slightly more importance than the first. As he was originally sent to convey a message to the French to remove themselves from British territory, he was now sent in to ascertain the status of a fort being held in the vicinity by the British army and to show a force between his troops, his reinforcements that were supposed to be arriving, and the Half Kings men who would be adding to their number.[21] Washington began his push into the Ohio country with his men and had received message that the Half King was marching to meet him with 150 men and also he had received intelligence that that there had been four French soldiers traveling the area under the pretense of hunting deserters but he suspected them of being spies.[22] This intelligence would play a significant role what would soon occur during Washington’s expedition.
Washington expresses the series of events in a letter to Robert Dinwiddie, Governor of Virginia, which, for all intents and purposes, kicked off the French and Indian War on May 28, 1754. Washington explains that intelligence had reported the Half King, who was marching to meet up with Washington’s forces, had discovered the prints of two Frenchmen crossing a tract and that he believed that the main French force was not far off, requesting Washington make haste to his position to strike the French as they believed the French were building an attack against them.[23] When Washington and the Half King meet they agreed to join forces and in seeking out the French and proceed to encircle the French forces resulting in the first combat of the French and Indian War.[24] Washington goes on to explain that the French commander of the troop was killed in the fighting and that the surviving prisoners claimed that they were emissaries which Washington does not believe, insisting instead that they were spies after his previous experiences with the French sending out spies.[25] Washington is vague in this letter describing how the fighting was conducted and spends much time insisting that the French were indeed spies and not an emissary to Washington to convey to the British to leave French controlled lands. While Washington himself simply states that there was a skirmish and relays the number killed and taken prisoner, other accounts exist that go further into detail.
According to the French, the commander of their forces, Jumonville, tried relating through and interpreter that they were on a diplomatic mission to expel the English from the territory, much like Washington had the last December during his first expedition into the Ohio country.[26] The French also claimed that upon this, Washington’s company ceased firing and surrounded the French while the French commander had his dispatch read, when without warning, Jumonville was shot in the head by one of Washington’s men.[27] This claim by the French is drastically different from Washington’s which was a very short explanation of the deaths and those taken prisoner, while not necessarily disseminating how those deaths occurred. Further clarification can be found by another of Washington’s party who did not take part in the battle but provided his version of events years later, John Shaw. Shaw’s account provides that following the initial volley of fire between the two forces, the French fell back but were immediately surrounded by the Half King’s warriors at which time the Half King buried his tomahawk in Jumonville’s head, then “took out his brains, and washed his hands with them.”[28]
If Shaw’s explanation is true, and it is certainly plausible due to several other eyewitness accounts, Washington was trying to cover up the true events for a reason. Washington was adamant that the French they had met in that first skirmish were indeed spies. He states so again in another letter to Dinwiddie on the 29th of May 1754 which he opens by stating “Since writing the other, I have still stronger presumption, indeed almost confirmation that they were sent as spyes, and ere order’d to wait near us till they were truly informd of our intentions.”[29] Washington goes on in this letter to implore Dinwiddie not to believe the stories that the French will tell him and that the French had indeed fired first, not attempting to read their dispatch or parlay.[30] The plausible answer is that Washington may have very well been intending to show Dinwiddie that he had not lost control of his combined English and Indian forces. To admit that Jumonville and his other injured men had been slaughtered by Half King and his men would admit that the newly commissioned Lieutenant Colonel had lost control of the situation and allowed prisoners to be slaughtered which would have rightly impacted his standing as an officer. If Washington truly lost control of the situation this would have likely had an extreme impact on him personally and established a desire to never let such a situation occur again, thus providing another experience that would mold him into the man who would lead a nation to independence.
The first skirmish that led to the death of Jumonville would only be the beginning of Washington’s troubles in mid-1754 and the beginning of the French and Indian War. On the same day that Washington wrote Dinwiddie to explain the events of the skirmish, he also wrote to Joshua Fry in a request for reinforcements, understanding from his conversations with the French prisoners that there was a large detachment in the area and that they would presumably be looking to for revenge as Washington put it “especially since we have began.”[31] Washington began preparing, however and within three days of the skirmish had intrenchments dug and a rough palisade being constructed in the great meadow where he had originally placed his hasty camp.[32] Washington shows an understanding that he had indeed started something that was a large scale event when he decided to confront the French troops that had been lurking near his camp. History will never know what would have occurred if Washington had not ventured out and engaged the French on the 28th of May 1754, but it certainly remembers what would happen after.
Throughout the early summer Washington continued to fortify his position at what he called Fort Necessity as he also dealt with issues of keeping his men disciplined, fed, and equipped.[33] On June 28, 1754 a Council of War was held with Washington’s officers and their native allies due to intelligence received stating that reinforcements had arrived at the French fort and that they were intent on attacking the English forces in response to the skirmish in May.[34] During the council it is discussed that with such a large enemy force heading their way, the English must return to Fort Necessity in the meadow or risk losing their native allies for the battle while also placing rougher country between them and the French instead of their current location at Mr. Gists residence.[35] With the French on the move, Washington new the state of his situation was dire.
On July 3, 1754 at about 11 am the battle for Fort Necessity began when an English sentry, having seen the large French force, fired his weapon, alerting the English that the French had arrived.[36] Washington ordered his men into their hastily formed fighting trenches to receive the French forces.[37] The battle appears, from Washington’s account, to be long and costly to his forces. The French with their superior force were content to fire volleys at the English from the tree line roughly 60 yards away, while the English returned volleys from their mud and rain sodden trenches.[38] This exchange of fire lasted until 8 pm at which time the French called for a parley.[39] This surprised Washington and his officers as the French had such a superior force they could have easily taken advantage of Washington’s men and overwhelmed them, but they capitulated after losing 30 men and treating another 70 wounded.[40] Washington would later discover that the French had lost a considerable amount of men, possibly 300, along with an important officer.[41] It was this loss that Washington contributed to the French desire for a parlay.[42]
The terms of Washingtons surrender of Fort Necessity were kind, considering the French had lost men in the first skirmish, with one of those being their commander. The Articles of Capitulation provided that Washington could leave with the entirety of his garrison, return to English controlled territory, and that his retreat would be unmolested by French forces.[43] Not only could they retreat unmolested, but they could also take all of their weapons, equipment, and belongings that they could carry, except for their artillery.[44] This is a substantial concession showing that the French allowed Washington and his men to surrender with honor, a concession that was not granted, or offered, to the French forces in the first skirmish. The most intriguing part about these Articles is that the French kept two hostages to guarantee the return of the prisoners taken during that first skirmish which the French called “the assassination of M. de Jumonville.”[45] This is a very important addition to the Article as it forced Washington, by signing his name to the document, ending the fighting, and saving his men, to admit that the English had assassinated Jumonville who was a French emissary to the English.
The battle for Fort Necessity would be the one and only time that George Washington would surrender throughout the entirety of his military career. The impact of this would surely had left its mark on Washington, not only losing as many men as he did but having to strike the British colors from the camp would have ingrained itself in the psyche of the man. While the admission of assassination would leave some stain on Washington, it was not magnified by the English military, nor was it explicitly pressed by the French. The experience gained by Washington as a Major during the first skirmish with the French and as a Lieutenant Colonel during the battle of Fort Necessity had a profound impact on him as he moved through his military career during the French and Indian War. These events would help to shape him into the leader he became. One more event would transpire, however, that would add even more definitive leadership and character attributes to shape the future General of American Colonial forces.
After the defeat at Fort Necessity, George Washington attached himself to General Braddock for his ensuing campaign through the Ohio country to expel the French forces which had defeated Washington the previous summer. To do this in a way that would allow him to serve and gain experience from Braddock, Washington joined as a volunteer aid to the General.[46] By doing this, Washington would not have junior British military officers appointed over him as a militia Colonel. Washington showed a desire to learn under Braddock for the furtherance of his military career, without creating issues within the command structure.
Washington’s time with Braddock as his aid had to have had a profound impact on his understanding of outfitting a large force. As he was in charge of the baggage, horses, tents, and other necessities for Braddock’s nearly 2,000 man force, this would have given Washington a great insight into the running of a large force.[47] An insight that would serve him well later in his life as the commanding General of colonial forces during the Revolutionary War.
Towards the end of June, while serving in Braddock’s company, Washington appears to have come down with some sort of ailment while also suffering from a slow-moving army that had to widen the road as it progressed into the Ohio country.[48] This sickness held Washington bedridden until July 8 1754 when he rejoined Braddock’s company in a covered wagon, still very week and on July 9 he attended to his General on horseback.[49] Washington expressed the events of that day to his wife, Mary, in a letter the following week, relating to her that the English force of around 1,300 was attacked by what he believed to be no more than 300 French and Indian, but the English Regulars were hit with such panic that they broke and fled, behaving “with more cowardice than it is possible to conceive.”[50] Washington would go to convey to his dear Mary the loss of life suffered by the English forces that included the majority of the officers and majority of Virginians, these numbers also included General Braddock himself.[51] As for Washington, he escaped unharmed “tho’ I had four bullets through my coat and two horses shot under me.”[52]
How Braddock’s forces came to meet such an end has been researched heavily and while the predominant story of the time came from Captain Robert Orme, other sources have emerged that shed further light on the tragedy.[53] Washingtons account lays the blame heavily on the shoulders of the Regulars who refused to obey orders and behaved with extreme cowardice, but this could easily be attributed to Washingtons frontier upbringing compared to the regulars of the British military and what he perceived as cowardice.[54] Many of the officer’s perceptions of the battle were the same, the troops failed to follow orders to stand their ground, breaking and running instead of fighting. This is a rather unfair assessment on the part of the officers, however, as most of Braddock’s regular forces were made up of draftees with no experience or Americans with little to no combat experience.[55] Other descriptions have surfaced, however that point the blame at General Braddock. These descriptions say that the entire force was to close together as they made their way through the wilderness which allowed them to fall back into each other, increasing the confusion and fear when the attack started.[56] The defeat of Braddock’s forces left an irreparable dent in the history of General Braddock, Washington was lauded for his efforts to turn the retreating forces.
Regardless of whom was to blame for the disaster, the regulars or the officers, this substantial defeat had to have left an impact on the psyche of George Washington. This theory was taken up in stories about Washington after the Revolutionary war in which Washington learned the importance of fighting like the Indians as his Virginians had in covering the retreat of the regulars during Braddock’s defeat.[57] Whether this is true or not, Washington certainly learned something from his short time with Braddock’s forces. This very easily could have included how to utilize the frontier in a fight, much like the Indians, though this was not common practice by Washington throughout the Revolutionary War.
From a small victory to a humbling surrender, and finally to a disastrous defeat, Washington’s early years in the French and Indian War provided experiences to the young officer that would certainly benefit him down the road. It can certainly be argued that Washington, unknowingly, started the war when he led his men to confront the French resulting in an exchange of fire and the first casualties of the war. This experience, however, introduced Washington to organized combat as a young Major and possibly to how important it was to maintain command and control over all forces that were assigned to him, including the Indians of the Half King. The surrender of Fort Necessity to the French forces also could have had a profound impact on Washington as he was forced to capitulate as it was in the best interest of his men. Even though this capitulation was an admission of guilt to the “assassination” of a French commander who claimed to be an emissary, Washington understood that to not accept this guilt meant the death of his men as he was severely outnumbered. Finally, Washington’s experience as part of General Braddock’s disastrous expedition against the French taught him the importance of discipline within the army to stave off panic while also possibly expressing to him the importance of irregular warfare as was exhibited by the French and Indians that day. All of these experiences imprinted on Washington lessons learned and had a profound impact on him becoming the General, leader, and hero that is celebrated in America today.
Notes:
[1] George Washington and Robert Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington Sent by the Honorable Robert Dinwiddie to the Commandant of the French Forces in Ohio, Vol. no. 1 (New York: Reprinted for J. Sabin, 1865), 9.
[2] David A. Clary, George Washington’s First War: His Early Military Adventures (Place of publication not identified: Simon & Shuster, 2011).
[3] Washington and Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington, 9-10.
[4] Washington and Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington, 10.
[5] Washington and Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington, 13-14.
[6] Washington and Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington, 14-15
[7] Washington and Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington, 15.
[8] Washington and Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington, 19-20.
[9] Washington and Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington, 20.
[10] Washington and Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington, 24.
[11] Washington and Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington, 25-26.
[12] Clary, George Washington’s First War.
[13] Washington and Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington, 27.
[14] Washington and Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington, 33.
[15] Washington and Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington, 34.
[16] Washington and Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington, 34-35.
[17] Washington and Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington, 36.
[18] Washington and Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington, 37.
[19] Washington and Dinwiddie, The Journal of Major George Washington, 38.
[20] Fred Anderson, Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766, 1st ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000), 16.
[21] Robert Dinwiddie to George Washington, 4 May 1754, in The Papers of George Washington, ed. Theodore J Crackel (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008)
[22] George Washington to Robert Dinwiddie, 9 May 1754, in The Papers of George Washington, ed. Theodore J Crackel (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008)
[23] George Washington to Robert Dinwiddie, 29 May 1754, in The Papers of George Washington, ed. Theodore J Crackel (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008)
[24] Washington to Dinwiddie, 29 May 1754.
[25] Washington to Dinwiddie, 29 May 1754.
[26] David Dixon, “A High Wind Rising: George Washington, Fort Necessity, and the Ohio Country Indians,” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid Atlantic Studies 74, no. 3 (2007) 11. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27778785.
[28] Dixon, “High Wind,” 12.
[29] George Washington to Robert Dinwiddie, 29 May 1754, in The Papers of George Washington, ed. Theodore J Crackel (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008)
[30] Washington to Dinwiddie, 29 May 1754.
[31] George Washington to Joshua Fry, 29 May 1754, in The Papers of George Washington, ed. Theodore J Crackel (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008)
[32] George Washington to John Augustine Washington, 31 May 1754, in The Papers of George Washington, ed. Theodore J Crackel (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008)
[33] John Carlyle to George Washington, 28 June 1754, in The Papers of George Washington, ed. Theodore J Crackel (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008)
[34] Minutes of a Council of War, 28 June 1754, in The Papers of George Washington, ed. Theodore J Crackel (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008).
[35] Minutes, 28 June 1754.
[36] Account by George Washington and James Mackay of the Capitulation of Fort Necessity, 19 July 1754, in The Papers of George Washington, ed. Theodore J Crackel (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008).
[37] Capitulation of Fort Necessity, 19 July 1754.
[38] Capitulation of Fort Necessity, 19 July 1754.
[39] Capitulation of Fort Necessity, 19 July 1754.
[40] Capitulation of Fort Necessity, 19 July 1754.
[41] Capitulation of Fort Necessity, 19 July 1754.
[42] Capitulation of Fort Necessity, 19 July 1754.
[43] Articles of Capitulation, 3 July 1754, in The Papers of George Washington, ed. Theodore J Crackel (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008).
[44] Articles, 3 July 1754.
[45] Articles, 3 July 1754.
[46] George Washington to Robert Orme, 15 March 1755, in The Papers of George Washington, ed. Theodore J Crackel (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008).
[47] George Washington to William Byrd, 20 April 1755, in The Papers of George Washington, ed. Theodore J Crackel (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008).
[48] George Washington to Robert Orme, 30 June 1755, in The Papers of George Washington, ed. Theodore J Crackel (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008).
[49] Memorandum, 8-9 July 1755, in The Papers of George Washington, ed. Theodore J Crackel (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008).
[50] George Washington to Mary Ball Washington, 18 July 1755, in The Papers of George Washington, ed. Theodore J Crackel (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008).
[51] Washington to Mary, 18 July 1755.
[52] Washington to Mary, 18 July 1755.
[53] Stanley Pargellis, “Braddock’s Defeat” The American Historical Review 41, no. 2 (1936) 255.
[54] Pargellis, “Braddock’s Defeat”, 255.
[55] Richard Hall, The Battle of the Monongahela: A Clash of Military Cultures, Atlantic Politics, Military Strategy, and the French and Indian War (Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016)
[56] Pargellis, “Braddock’s Defeat”, 257.
[57] Sylvia Neely, “Mason Locke Weems’s “Life of George Washington” and the Myth of Braddock’s Defeat”, The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 107, no. 1 (1999) 47.
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
Account by George Washington and James Mackay of the Capitulation of Fort Necessity, 19 July 1754. in The Papers of George Washington. ed. Theodore J Crackel. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008.
Articles of Capitulation, 3 July 1754. in The Papers of George Washington. ed. Theodore J Crackel. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008.
Carlyle, John to George Washington, 28 June 1754. in The Papers of George Washington. ed. Theodore J Crackel. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008.
Dinwiddie, Robert to George Washington, 4 May 1754. in The Papers of George Washington. ed. Theodore J Crackel. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008.
Memorandum, 8-9 July 1755. in The Papers of George Washington. ed. Theodore J Crackel. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008.
Minutes of a Council of War, 28 June 1754. in The Papers of George Washington. ed. Theodore J Crackel. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008.
Washington, George to John Augustine Washington, 31 May 1754. in The Papers of George Washington. ed. Theodore J Crackel. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008.
Washington, George to Joshua Fry, 29 May 1754. in The Papers of George Washington. ed. Theodore J Crackel. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008.
Washington, George to Mary Ball Washington, 18 July 1755. in The Papers of George Washington. ed. Theodore J Crackel. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008.
Washington, George to Robert Dinwiddie, 9 May 1754. in The Papers of George Washington. ed. Theodore J Crackel. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008.
Washington, George to Robert Dinwiddie, 29 May 1754. in The Papers of George Washington. ed. Theodore J Crackel. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008.
Washington, George to Robert Dinwiddie, 29 May 1754. in The Papers of George Washington. ed. Theodore J Crackel. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008.
Washington, George, and Robert Dinwiddie. The Journal of Major George Washington Sent by the Hon[Orable] Robert Dinwiddie to the Commandant of the French Forces in Ohio. New York: Reprinted for J. Sabin, 1865.
Washington, George to Robert Orme, 15 March 1755. in The Papers of George Washington. ed. Theodore J Crackel. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008.
Washington, George to Robert Orme, 30 June 1755. in The Papers of George Washington. ed. Theodore J Crackel. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008.
Washington, George to William Byrd, 20 April 1755. in The Papers of George Washington. ed. Theodore J Crackel. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, Rotunda, 2008.
Secondary Sources:
Anderson, Fred. Crucible of War : The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766. 1st ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000.
Clary, David A. George Washington’s First War : His Early Military Adventures. Place of publication not identified: Simon & Schuster, 2011.
Dixon, David. “a High Wind Rising: George Washington, Fort Necessity, and the Ohio Country Indians.” Pennsylvania History 74, no. 3 (2007): 333-353.
Hall, Richard. The Battle of the Monongahela: A Clash of Military Cultures. Atlantic Politics, Military Strategy and the French and Indian War /. [Switzerland] : Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
Neely, Sylvia. “Mason Locke Weems’s “Life of George Washington” and the Myth of Braddock’s Defeat.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 107, no. 1 (1999): 45-72.
Pargellis, Stanley. “Braddock’s Defeat.” The American Historical Review 41, no. 2 (1936): 253-269.
The Liberty Chronicles 
Leave a comment