When George Started A War

[Subdeacon Joe]

On the night of May 27, 1754, Lt. Col. George Washington led a party of Virginia soldiers out of an encampment in the Ohio Valley. The conditions were horrid—a night “as black as pitch,” as the young commander recorded in his journal. An unceasing rain made the dark woods even more impervious to the soldiers and warriors.

 

Quote

Historians have long identified this skirmish in the woods as the spark that ignited the French and Indian War. But there’s an untold dimension to this story, as I discovered several years ago, digging through colonial papers in the British National Archives. This evidence, previously unreported, suggests that the man who would become America’s first president might have been more complicated a leader—and more culpable for starting a seven-year-long global war—than history has led us to believe.
 

The French and Indian War is one of those conflicts we learned about in history classes, but we tend to be hazy on the details. That’s partly because it all took place a generation before the Revolutionary War, a time most Americans don’t think much about. It’s also because the name is a bit confusing: It was a conflict between British and French colonists, with Indian nations as allies on both sides. Back then, the colonists on the Atlantic seaboard were still loyal to Britain. French influence extended far inland, and it was starting to expand into the Ohio Valley, edging into Pennsylvania. The British had more people and resources, but the French had access to important waterways, including the Great Lakes and the Mississippi. As the French philosopher Voltaire wrote around the time of the Jumonville affair: “So complicated are the political interests of the present times that a shot fired in America shall be the signal for setting all Europe together by the ears.”

At that time, the Indians in the Ohio Valley were still independent and powerful, and both sides needed them as military and trading partners. The French had cultivated a broad network of Indian alliances by the 1740s. In response, the British tried to inflate the power of the Six Nations—the Iroquois Confederacy that dominated much of the Northeast. In particular, they elevated an Ohio Iroquois leader named Tanaghrisson, treating him as a spokesman for all the Ohio nations. The British dubbed Tanaghrisson the “Half King.” Yet he didn’t actually speak for all the Ohio Indians. He’d come on the scene only in the late 1740s and his role was never recognized by the French, who thought him “more English than the English.”

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-young-george-washington-started-war-180973076/#pIpviaYiJ00FvbPL.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

 

[Trailrider #896]

We are probably all lucky that Maj. Ferguson, inventor of the breechloading Ferguson rifle was killed at the Battle of King's Mountain.  Had he lived, and been able to convince the British army to adopt his rifle design,  when the Revolution started, George Washington might have been in more trouble than his ill-equipped troops could have handled!

[Utah Bob #35998]

6 hours ago, Trailrider #896 said:

We are probably all lucky that Maj. Ferguson, inventor of the breechloading Ferguson rifle was killed at the Battle of King's Mountain.  Had he lived, and been able to convince the British army to adopt his rifle design,  when the Revolution started, George Washington might have been in more trouble than his ill-equipped troops could have handled!

The British army was, dare I say, a bit conservative. They were married to the Brown Bess and were convinced it was the best in the world. Like the US Generals in the Civil War they would have been horrified at the thought of those scurvy foot soldiers wasting ammunition.

Volley fire and then give em cold steel was their strategy. That philosophy endured even when the 1903 was adopted. They insisted on a magazine cut off switch so the rifle could only be fired single shot until otherwise ordered.  Even the semi-auto Garand was initially conceived with a 20 rd box magazine. The brass rejected it. Troops would fire too much ammo and lose valuable magazines.

[Trailrider #896]

2 hours ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

The British army was, dare I say, a bit conservative. They were married to the Brown Bess and were convinced it was the best in the world. Like the US Generals in the Civil War they would have been horrified at the thought of those scurvy foot soldiers wasting ammunition.

Volley fire and then give em cold steel was their strategy. That philosophy endured even when the 1903 was adopted. They insisted on a magazine cut off switch so the rifle could only be fired single shot until otherwise ordered.  Even the semi-auto Garand was initially conceived with a 20 rd box magazine. The brass rejected it. Troops would fire too much ammo and lose valuable magazines.

Yes, and when the M-1 finally got the 20 rd. magazine, White gas system and (at the option of the officers) full-auto capability, it only lasted a few years as the M-14.  So then they went to another selective-fire with 20 rd mag at a smaller cartridge, etc. 

You are probably right, though...the Brits wouldn't have gone for the Ferguson, except maybe in limited quantities issued one or two to a squad, like a SAW, if that.  OTOH, the Fergie did good for one of Louis L'amour's characters!

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

1 hour ago, Trailrider #896 said:

Yes, and when the M-1 finally got the 20 rd. magazine, White gas system and (at the option of the officers) full-auto capability, it only lasted a few years as the M-14.  So then they went to another selective-fire with 20 rd mag at a smaller cartridge, etc. 

You are probably right, though...the Brits wouldn't have gone for the Ferguson, except maybe in limited quantities issued one or two to a squad, like a SAW, if that.  OTOH, the Fergie did good for one of Louis L'amour's characters!

 

Did someone mention Garands and Fergusons...?  

 

Both fun ~ the Garand is MUCH easier to clean!