# Did George Washington lead troops from the front? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 5, 2014, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441 "2014-07-05T23:44:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/1 "2014-07-05T23:44:22Z")
The new piece of … documentary called **America** , by Dinesh D’Souza, posits “what would have happened if there was no America.” Its premise apparently begins with George Washington being shot in battle (though the trailer shows us nothing about what the film is really about). But Washington is shown riding a horse, saber drawn, galloping into battle in the front of his troops. Did Washington ever lead from the front? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/2 "2014-07-06T00:33:35Z")
Yes, several times he had near calls with being shot. At Princeton he was leading from the front and rallied his troops around him, with a large British formation not too far away and essentially nothing in between him and the barrage of bullets they fired–it was simple luck he wasn’t hit or killed. Washington actually ordered his men to fire at the British while he was still in between them and the British formation, and guns of that time producing so much smoke as to obscure what was going on one of Washington’s officers was essentially certain Washington was dead–he was between two formations firing at each other. But when the smoke cleared he was still on his horse and unscathed. Washington was regularly near the front in battle, he didn’t typically fight in the trenches but he didn’t shy away from the front, either. This wasn’t atypical of generals in this era of warfare as they would often want to be near key points of action to shout commands if necessary. The General that Washington served under during the F&I War was killed basically because of that, and in that war there is tale that Washington had two horses shot out from under him. Benedict Arnold lost a leg and I believe had several horses shot out from under him while leading an army of Continentals. Being a general in this time period wasn’t akin to today where they sit way back at some command center. And it tended to be more involved than in the Civil War when the generals typically were not in the front but observing as much as they could with spyglasses and such to direct large troop movements. But most American Revolutionary War battles would not rate w/Civil War battles, the formations were much smaller and thus there was more sense to the generals being in the thick of it. Lee would have been too narrowly focusing his attention if he had done the same during a major Civil War battle. [Most civil war battles were small too, but several were very large and famous.] ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/3 "2014-07-06T00:50:25Z")
Washington relieved an incompetent General and personally took charge at the Battle of Monmouth. There’s a famous painting. [![](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monmouth#mediaviewer/File:BattleofMonmouth.jpg) ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monmouth#mediaviewer/File:BattleofMonmouth.jpg) > **[Battle of Monmouth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monmouth)** > > The Battle of Monmouth, also known as the Battle of Monmouth Court House, was fought near Monmouth Court House in modern-day Freehold Borough, New Jersey on June 28, 1778, during the American Revolutionary War. It pitted the Continental Army, commanded by General George Washington, against the British Army in North America, commanded by General Sir Henry Clinton. > It was the last battle of the Philadelphia campaign, begun the previous year, during which the British had inflicted two major defeats... ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/4 "2014-07-06T00:54:17Z")
Also bear in mind that the Revolutionary War largely featured muskets rather than rifles. Accuracy beyond very short range was not good, and the chance of getting killed by a sniper wasn’t very high. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/5 "2014-07-06T01:15:53Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Being a general in this time period wasn’t akin to today where they sit way back at some command center. And it tended to be more involved than in the Civil War when the generals typically were not in the front but observing as much as they could with spyglasses and such to direct large troop movements. But most American Revolutionary War battles would not rate w/Civil War battles, the formations were much smaller and thus there was more sense to the generals being in the thick of it. Lee would have been too narrowly focusing his attention if he had done the same during a major Civil War battle. [Most civil war battles were small too, but several were very large and famous.] Actually, the American Civil War was notable for the number of generals who were killed. Generals actually had a higher death rate per capita than privates. A hundred and twenty-four generals were killed during the war (compared to only forty out of a much larger pool in World War II). It was a combination of a command system that still required generals to lead their troop in person on the battlefield with new weapons that made that battlefield much deadlier. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/6 "2014-07-06T01:55:16Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Yes, several times he had near calls with being shot. At Princeton he was leading from the front… when the smoke cleared he was still on his horse and unscathed… Yes, one of his officers actually took off his hat and covered his eyes, he was so sure he was going to see Washington shot from the saddle. When he peeked again, he was amazed to see the general unharmed after volleys from both sides. An earlier thread that may be of interest: [Was Washington a good general? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=532183) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/7 "2014-07-06T03:52:13Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Actually, the American Civil War was notable for the number of generals who were killed. Generals actually had a higher death rate per capita than privates. A hundred and twenty-four generals were killed during the war (compared to only forty out of a much larger pool in World War II). > > It was a combination of a command system that still required generals to lead their troop in person on the battlefield with new weapons that made that battlefield much deadlier. I wasn’t really talking about people whose rank had the word “General” in it per se, but persons who lead large independent military forces. Washington was C-in-C of the entire Continental Army, it was extremely atypical for a General of that rank to be exposed to direct fire in the ACW. The only real generals of that rank were McClellan, Halleck and Grant on the Union side and Lee at the end of the war on the Confederate side. But even commanders of major forces like the Army of Northern Virginia (Lee) or the Army of the Tennessee (Sherman) didn’t typically lead from the front. The Civil War featured over 2m persons at arms and a much different organization, typically the forces that Washington had direct command over would constitute anywhere from a Regiment (lead by a Colonel) or a Brigade (lead by a Brigadier General) in the ACW, and some rare instances where he had more forces than that (Yorktown at the end for example, but that was a long siege.) There were Generals that were leading from the front at Gettysburg but these were guys who were leading their Brigade into battle, Meade and Lee were absolutely not walking into the thick of it with their cap on their sword. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/8 "2014-07-06T04:58:47Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > But even commanders of major forces like the Army of Northern Virginia (Lee) or the Army of the Tennessee (Sherman) didn’t typically lead from the front. Well, [Lee attempted it](http://www.civilwarhome.com/leetorear.htm) several times. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/9 "2014-07-06T05:35:01Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The only real generals of that rank were McClellan, Halleck and Grant on the Union side and Lee at the end of the war on the Confederate side. But even commanders of major forces like the Army of Northern Virginia (Lee) or the Army of the Tennessee (Sherman) didn’t typically lead from the front. How about Albert Sidney Johnston, commander of the Army of Mississippi? He was the highest ranking field general in the Confederate Army - he was senior to Lee. And he was killed in the Battle of Shiloh leading his troops. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/10 "2014-07-06T20:19:21Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > How about Albert Sidney Johnston, commander of the Army of Mississippi? He was the highest ranking field general in the Confederate Army - he was senior to Lee. And he was killed in the Battle of Shiloh leading his troops. I’d say that was atypical, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/11 "2014-07-06T23:10:32Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I’d say that was atypical, yes. By your narrow standard, anything done by a general was atypical. If you choose to ignore all of the brigadier generals, major generals, and lieutenant generals, you’re left with only seven Confederates who held the rank of full general. (The Union army never appointed anyone higher than the rank of Lieutenant General during the war. And only Grant and Scott were promoted to that rank.) The Confederates appointed eighteen Lieutenant Generals during the war. And three of them - Jackson, Polk, and A.P. Hill - were killed in combat. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/12 "2014-07-06T23:18:02Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > By your narrow standard, anything done by a general was atypical. If you choose to ignore all of the brigadier generals, major generals, and lieutenant generals, you’re left with only seven Confederates who held the rank of full general. (The Union army never appointed anyone higher than the rank of Lieutenant General during the war. And only Grant and Scott were promoted to that rank.) > > The Confederates appointed eighteen Lieutenant Generals during the war. And three of them - Jackson, Polk, and A.P. Hill - were killed in combat. Right–I pointed out what I meant by the term General, I was not using precise language and I feel I’ve cleared up what I meant subsequently. You are correct, the number of Washington-comparable Generals in the ACW is very low precisely because these are the very top layer of command. But I’ve already listed some of the Union Generals I feel meet this definition, and it wasn’t limited to Grant and Scott. I see no reason to further argue about what I meant when I made my first post, since I’m the final authority on matters such as that. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/13 "2014-07-06T23:27:38Z")
Not only did Washington lead from the front during the Revolution, [he did so as sitting President, against the Whisky Rebellion](http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/whiskey-rebellion): > [@](#): > > President Washington sought to resolve this dispute peacefully. In 1792, he issued a national proclamation admonishing westerners for their resistance to the “operation of the laws of the United States for raising revenue upon spirits distilled within the same.” > > However, by 1794 the protests became violent. In July, nearly 400 whiskey rebels near Pittsburgh set fire to the home of John Neville, the regional tax collection supervisor. Left with little recourse and at the urgings of Secretary Hamilton, Washington organized a militia force of 12,950 men and led them towards Western Pennsylvania, warning locals “not to abet, aid, or comfort the Insurgents aforesaid, as they will answer the contrary at their peril.” > > The calling of the militia had the desired effect of essentially ending the Whiskey Rebellion. By the time the militia reached Pittsburgh, the rebels had dispersed and could not be found. So, he was not exposed to the same peril as during the Revolution, but I would think that is the last time a sitting President personally led military forces. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/14 "2014-07-06T23:36:30Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I would think that is the last time a sitting President personally led military forces. No. Acting on the Washington precedent, James Madison took personal command of the Militia when the British were attacking the capital in 1814 despite having never been in the military or led troops before. After the war, people realized it would be better to make Commander-in-Chief a policy-making role rather than a direct command. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/15 "2014-07-07T00:51:44Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > …(The Union army never appointed anyone higher than the rank of Lieutenant General during the war. And only Grant and Scott were promoted to that rank.)… Winfield Scott was brevetted to lieutenant general in 1847, but never fully promoted to that rank. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > …So, he was not exposed to the same peril as during the Revolution, but I would think that is the last time a sitting President personally led military forces. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No. Acting on the Washington precedent, James Madison took personal command of the Militia when the British were attacking the capital in 1814 despite having never been in the military or led troops before. After the war, people realized it would be better to make Commander-in-Chief a policy-making role rather than a direct command. Yes, Madison was at the disastrous 1814 Battle of Bladensburg, Md. And yet there is one more example which turned out much better: Lincoln, dissatisfied by McClellan’s failure to attack Norfolk, Va. in early 1862, personally went ashore onto Confederate territory from a small boat and picked where U.S. forces should land. He then gave the order for the attack to take place. ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/16 "2014-07-07T01:26:22Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > in early 1862, personally went ashore onto Confederate territory from a small boat and picked where U.S. forces should land. He then gave the order for the attack to take place. Interesting, I did not know that. I knew that Lincoln was present during the Battle of Fort Stevens, and came under direct fire, but I don’t know whether he gave any orders to anybody on that occasion. [http://www.nps.gov/cwdw/historyculture/president-lincoln-under-direct-fire-at-fort-stevens.htm](http://www.nps.gov/cwdw/historyculture/president-lincoln-under-direct-fire-at-fort-stevens.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/17 "2014-07-08T18:13:56Z")
From all I’ve read, Lincoln did not give orders at Ft. Stevens, but just observed the Confederate attack (and was brusquely ordered to take cover - by some accounts, by a young Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.). ---
**Author:** ![SandyHook](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@SandyHook](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SandyHook)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2014, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/18 "2014-07-09T01:26:07Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > How about Albert Sidney Johnston, commander of the Army of Mississippi? He was the highest ranking field general in the Confederate Army - he was senior to Lee. And he was killed in the Battle of Shiloh leading his troops. I was at Shiloh recently and at the spot where Johnston was killed. When he was shot he was actually observing the battle from some 4-500ish yards back from the fighting. While plenty close enough I don’t think it could be counted as leading from the front. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2014, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/19 "2014-07-09T02:01:50Z")
Check out Chernow’s biography of Washington. Washington’s physicality (when he wasn’t sick) along with his extreme “physical courage” were a big part of his appeal. Even the Indians were impressed. Here’s an excerpt from early in his military career, 1755: > [@](#): > > Braddock handed Washington two directives: to send another party up the exposed hill and to retrieve two lost cannon. With exceptional pluck and coolheadedness, young George Washington was soon riding all over the battlefield. Though he must have been exhausted, he kept going from sheer willpower and performed magnificently amid the horror. Because of his height, he presented a gigantic target on horseback, but again displayed unblinking courage and a miraculous immunity in battle. When two horses were shot from under him, he dusted himself off and mounted the horses of dead riders. One account claimed that he was so spent from his recent illness that he had to be lifted onto his second charger. By the end, despite four bullets having torn through his hat and uniform, he managed to emerge unscathed. > > One close observer of Washington’s heroism was a young doctor and future friend, James Craik… He watched Washington’s exceptional performance that day with unstinting admiration: "I expected every moment to see him fall. His duty and station exposed him to every danger. Nothing but the superintending care of Providence could have saved him from the fate of all around him. > [@](#): > > Washington’s derring-do even fostered a lasting mystique among the Indians. A folk belief existed among some North American tribes that certain warriors enjoyed supernatural protection from death in battle, and this mythic stature was projected onto Washington. Fifteen years later he encountered an Indian chief who distinctly recalled seeing him at the battle by the Monogahela and told how he had ordered his warriors, without success, to fire directly at him. The chief had concluded that some great spirit would guide him to momentous things in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2014, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441/20 "2014-07-09T02:24:29Z")
> [@SandyHook](#): > > I was at Shiloh recently and at the spot where Johnston was killed. When he was shot he was actually observing the battle from some 4-500ish yards back from the fighting. While plenty close enough I don’t think it could be counted as leading from the front. I don’t think so. This map shows the location of the battlelines and where Johnston was when he was shot by a Union soldier. As you can see he was around two hundred yards from the enemy line and leading an attack when he was shot. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-george-washington-lead-troops-from-the-front/692441.md?page=2)