Sons of the Father: George Washington and His Protégés

“My Favorite Officer”

George Washington might have considered November 16, 1776, the worst day in what had already been a very bad year. Happy memories of American victories around Boston faded in late summer and early autumn as British forces embarrassed the Americans on Long Island and then outmaneuvered them on Manhattan, turning the Continentals out of one position after another and compelling the abandonment of New York City. By late October, Washington ceded the rest of the island save a single post that bore his name. With its mate, Fort Lee on the Jersey shore, Fort Washington ostensibly commanded the Hudson River, and the Continental Congress regarded its preservation a matter of national interest. Washington harbored doubts about both the tenability and utility of the post—especially after several British ships successfully ran the gauntlet in early November. Although he favored abandoning the post, Washington left the decision to the local commander who, despite his relative inexperience, had become one of Washington’s closest advisors. Drawing on all of his eighteen months of active military service, this subordinate used the discretion granted him to reinforce Fort Washington—only to watch it fall to the British on November 16. It was the worst defeat the Continental Army had suffered since the beginning of the war, and it would not be surpassed until the fall of Charleston nearly four years later. Although casualties were relatively light (54 killed and twice as many wounded), the surviving garrison of nearly 3,000 men marched off to British prisons—incubators for disease from which only a third of them would ever emerge.1 The effects on morale were nearly as devastating as the loss of these precious troops, and Major General Charles “My Favorite Officer” George Washington’s Apprentice, Nathanael Greene John W. Hall 150 John W. Hall Lee aptly characterized the debacle as “a cursed affair.” In a characteristically blunt letter to Washington, Lee wailed, “Oh, General, why would you be overpersuaded by men of inferiour judgment to your own?”2 Lee did not need to be more specific. Clearly, the inferior judgment of which he wrote belonged to Washington’s eager apprentice, Nathanael Greene. Lee’s ulterior motives aside, the question deserves serious consideration, for it sheds light on one of the most important personal relationships of the American Revolution. The fiasco at Fort Washington might well have ended Greene’s brief but promising military career were it not for the reciprocal loyalty of two men upon whom the fate of the Revolution rested. Jealous or casual observers mistook the true nature of this relationship, charging Greene with sycophancy and supposing that Washington was too insecure to make his own decisions. Although uncharitable, such allegations were perhaps inevitable given the extent to which the two men depended upon one another. But what some perceived as an unhealthy relationship in 1776 and 1777, ultimately proved essential to the patriot cause. Indeed, Washington and Greene were as indispensible to one another as they were to American independence. Unfulfilled by his Quaker upbringing, Greene yearned for martial accomplishment , and he found in Washington an icon and mentor able to provide the affirmation he craved. In return, Greene provided Washington with the ideal lieutenant: he was competent, loyal, and—critically—less experienced than the commander in chief. In the Revolutionary milieu, these last two characteristics were inextricably connected. Typically, Washington’s staunchest critics were those who measured a man’s military worth by his experience (as Washington’s was fairly limited), and his most ardent supporters were those tyros likely to resent experience. Not coincidently, Washington surrounded himself with men of the latter sort, most notably the Marquis de Lafayette, Henry Knox, and Greene. These men, whom Lee denigrated as “dirty earwigs,” looked up to their commanding general when Lee and others would not.3 In the desperate and uncertain moments of the Revolution, Washington needed these loyal “sons” as much as they needed him. Hence, while Washington did not conceal Greene’s role in the “unfortunate affair” at Fort Washington, neither did he throw his loyal lieutenant to the baying critics .4 Instead, Washington continued to place Greene in positions of immense importance, culminating in his appointment to two of the army’s most critical posts: quartermaster general and command of the Southern Department. Subsequent events vindicated Washington’s faith in Greene, who proved not George Washington’s Apprentice, Nathanael Greene 151 only a masterful logistician...