Getting Away with Murder: The Tragic Story of
George Washington at Jumonville Glen
Jacob Blosser
History 673
20 April 2000
High in Western Pennsylvania’s Allegheny Mountains, lie the unmarked graves of ten
men killed by George Washington. On 28 May 1754, twenty-two year old Washington, then a
Lieutenant Colonel in the Virginia militia, attacked an unsuspecting group of French
ambassadors, killing ten men. This unwarranted, peacetime attack caused an international
sensation and helped to precipitate the French and Indian War.1 While the attack at Jumonville
Glen was a major topic of conversation in the 1750’s, it has since floated into historical
obscurity. In light of Washington’s later Revolutionary successes, many historians have
conveniently forgotten his embarrassing conduct at Jumonville Glen. Still others have justified
and excused his murder of ten French ambassadors. In their recent book, George Washington:
The Man Behind the Myths, noted scholars William Rasmussen and Robert Tilton, point out that
“Washington somehow escaped fault” for his actions in the skirmish.2 Indeed, most students are
unaware that long before he was the hero of Yorktown, George Washington was the murderer of
Jumonville Glen. Largely forgotten today, the skirmish of Jumonville Glen was George
Washington’s darkest hour. Twenty-one years before he donned the buff and blue continental
uniform that made him famous, George Washington killed ten French ambassadors during a time
1
This term refers to the period of both declared and undeclared hostilities between France and England from 17541763. In Europe, the term Seven Years War was used to describe the period of declared hostilities between the two
great rivals from 1756-1763. Historians also refer to the war as the Great War for Empire. Because British North
Americans commonly called the event the French and Indian War, that term is used throughout this paper. The
French and Indian War was fought in several theatres around the world, causing historians to refer to it as the first
global or world war. While war was not formally declared until 1756, the 1754 skirmish at Jumonville Glen marked
the beginning of a period of undeclared hostilities between France and England. Excellent sources of information
on the French and Indian War include, the website 1755: The French & Indian War: http://web.syr.edu/~laroux/, the
Digital History Website for the French and Indian War: http://digitalhistory.org/, and Franck W. Brecher’s work
Losing a Continent: France’s North American Policy, 1753-1763. (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1998).
2
William M. S. Rassmussen and Robert S. Tilton, George Washington: The Man Behind the Myths.
(Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999), 53. Perhaps the best single volume biography of Washington,
Rasmussen and Tilton’s recent book is filled with beautiful color photographs and excellently crafted prose. A fine
source for a cursory view of Washington’s life.
2
of international peace. An examination of this sadly forgotten battle reveals that Washington
truly was “first in war” long before he was “first in the hearts of his countrymen.”3
In the two and a half centuries since the incident, two distinguishable schools of
historians have arisen to address the battle. The first, and by far the largest group, praised
Washington for his attack on the French. Relying upon Washington’s own lengthy justification
for the attack, these writers viewed the skirmish not as murder but as an act of justifiable war.
Ironically, the first writer to assert Washington’s justification was a Frenchman. Writing in
1778, More de Pontgibaud described Washington as a man incapable of murder. Washington,
according to the Frenchman, was “the most beautiful and noblest character in the known world.”4
Fifty years later, historian Jared Sparks echoed Pontgibaud in his book, The Writings of George
Washington. After analyzing the attack, Sparks concluded, “any competent officer would have
taken the same action.”5 In 1931, Washington biographer Rupert Hughes succinctly stated,
“Washington was right” to attack the French. Recently, historians Rasmussen and Tilton agreed
with Hughes when they described Washington’s attack as “a heroic accomplishment.”6 Since
1778, many Washington scholars have condoned and even applauded the attack at Jumonville
Glen.
3
From Harry Lee’s famous eulogy of Washington delivered before a joint session of Congress in 1800. According
to Lee, Washington was “first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen.” For more information
on Harry Lee, see The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress:
http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp
4
More de Pontgibaud, “First Meeting with Washington,” in George Washington as the French Knew Him, ed.
Gilbert Chinard (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1940), 30. Pontgibaud was a close friend of George
Washington. Born into the French nobility in 1758, Pontgibaud migrated to the United States in 1778 to aid
Washington and his rag-tag Continental Army.
5
Jared Sparks, The Writings of George Washington, in Rasmussen and Tilton, 54.
6
Rasmussen and Tilton, 54.
3
Rather than praise Washington’s actions, other historians chose to forget them. A
second historiographical approach was to conveniently forget the event. Writing in 1965, noted
historian James Thomas Flexner, explained why some historians have neglected to cover the
skirmish. “If this has too often been overlooked,” Flexner wrote, “it is because the light thrown
backward by his later accomplishments has been allowed to gild over how grievously
Washington blundered.”7 Choosing to focus more on Washington’s successes rather than his
failure at Jumonville Glen, many historians overlooked the event. Many followed William
Roscoe Thayer’s example. Thayer’s 1931 book, George Washington, completely glossed over
the incident, dismissing it as a “slight skirmish.”8 Nearly seventy years later, Robert Leckie
wrote similarly. In his 1999 treatment of the French and Indian War, Leckie mentioned the
skirmish only as a “hasty…attack.”9 The most egregious example of historical neglect, however,
came in Howard Swiggett’s 1951 biography of Washington. Aptly titled The Great Man,
Swiggett’s work made no mention of the “great man’s” involvement at Jumonville Glen. Sadly,
many Washington biographers focused more on the victorious Washington of Yorktown rather
than the less heroic Washington of Jumonville Glen.
While historians have been quick to applaud Washington or to forget the incident, few
have attacked the young Virginian for his actions at Jumonville Glen. Indeed, no AngloAmerican historian has ever questioned Washington’s peacetime killing of ten French
7
James Thomas Flexner, George Washington: The Forge of Experience, 1732-1775 (Boston: Little & Brown,
1965), 106.
8
William Roscoe Thayer, George Washington (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1931), 15.
9
Robert Leckie, A Few Acres of Snow: The Saga of the French and Indian Wars (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1999), 310.
4
ambassadors.10 The few books that blame Washington for the attack have been written in French
by Quebec historians. Rarely translated into English, these books have been received by a very
limited audience. The flavor of these books is blatantly acidic. The passage of two hundred and
fifty years has not dulled the outrage of many Quebecois.11 Many of these books not only
condemn Washington but also attempt to crucify him for his attack at Jumonville Glen. In his
1913 book Anciens Canadiens, novelist turned historian Philippe Aubert de Gaspe referred to the
skirmish as an “atrocious murder.”12 Twenty years later Georges Robitaille, a Roman Catholic
priest, echoed Gaspe’s sentiments by violently attacking Washington for his role in the skirmish.
One reviewer later referred to Robitaille as “more a pamphleteer than a historian.”13 Perhaps the
most conservative book written by a French Canadian on the skirmish, was Jean Claude Dube’s
1979 Jumonville Affair. Dube, a Quebecois who wrote in English, compiled a great deal of
evidence against Washington but failed to draw any conclusions against him. Reviewer Nathan
B. Golub later wrote of Dube’s work, “Regrettably there still remain unanswered questions.”14
This paper attempts to answer many of those questions. Unlike the majority of previous
scholarship, which has condoned or forgotten the incident, this paper analyses the tragic skirmish
at Jumonville Glen and George Washington’s role in it.
10
The author has conducted and continues to conduct a rather exhaustive and often obsessive search for materials
to contradict this statement. At present, he cannot find one Anglo-American author that seriously chastised or found
fault with Washington’s conduct at Jumonville Glen.
11
For numerous political and social reasons many Quebecois, or residents of Quebec, are resentful of their AngloCanadian provincial neighbors. Numerous Quebecois even wish to secede from Canada. Many residents of Quebec
trace this animosity toward their Anglo neighbors to the British involvement in Canada that began in 1763.
Naturally, they are not pleased with people like Washington who helped to hasten British rule.
12
Jean Claude Dube, The Jumonville Affair (Philadelphia: National Park Service, 1979), 36.
13
Ibid., 36.
14
Nathan B. Golub, “Letter to National Parks Superintendent at Fort Necessity,” July 11, 1979.
5
The 1754 skirmish at Jumonville Glen was a small part of a larger conflict between two
Imperial giants. While officially at peace, in the spring of 1754, England and France were
moving ever closer to war. Unlike previous conflicts, the friction between the two great rivals
came not in Europe, but in the forests of the New World. Located in the “no man’s land”
between British North America and French Canada, the fertile Ohio River Valley15 proved to be
the crossroads for both French and British imperial ambition. Claimed by both the English
colony of Virginia and the French province of Quebec, the valley was viewed by both rivals as
an important location for expansion.16 For more than a century these two rival claims lay
dormant while settlers steadily populated Virginia’s Tidewater and Quebec’s fertile Saint
Lawrence River Valley. However, as available cropland became increasingly scarce, colonists in
Virginia looked north and their counterparts in Quebec looked south.17
Virginia was the first of the two rivals to act on her claims to the Ohio Valley. In 1748, a
group of prominent Virginians met at Williamsburg and formed the Ohio Company. The
purpose of this joint-stock company was to draw settlers away from the crowded Tidewater and
into the fertile western lands. The shareholders, which included some of the most prominent
residents of the colony, expected to make a large profit from their western speculation.
15
In 1754, the Ohio River Valley comprised present-day western Pennsylvania, northern West Virginia and
extreme eastern Ohio. Pittsburgh, at the confluence of the Ohio, Allegheny and Monongehela Rivers was the
geographic center of this region. For a visual representation, see the map on page 26.
16
The British claimed the Ohio Valley belonged to the colony of Virginia by virtue of a royal charter given in
1609. The French, who based their claim on the expeditions of seventeenth century explorer Rene Robert de La
Salle, believed the valley formed the Southern boundary of the province of Quebec. For more information on early
claims to the Ohio Valley see 1755: The French and Indian War: http://web.syr.edu/~laroux/.
17
For a more detailed look at the role of the Ohio Valley in the French and Indian War see Thomas C. Agostini’s
Master’s Thesis, The Seven Years War in the Ohio Valley (Harrisonburg: JMU, 1993).
6
In 1749, the company employed noted frontiersman Christopher Gist18 to build a store in the
valley, thus further opening the region to settlement. By 1750, increasing numbers of Virginians
left their homes in the crowded east and ventured into the Ohio Valley.19
Reports of English movements in the valley greatly alarmed the French. France viewed
the region not only as an important area for colonial expansion but also as a pivotal
transportation link between Quebec and French settlements on the lower Mississippi. In 1749
the governor of New France, Celeron de Bienville, attempted to protect this valuable region by
burying a series of lead plates throughout the Ohio Valley. The French hoped that the
demarcation of their territory by these plates would stop English intrusion into the valley.
Unfortunately for Bienville, the English ignored the markers. In 1752, a new governor, the
Marquis de Duquesne,20 launched a more direct approach to claim the Ohio Valley. With the aid
of his chief Engineer, Joseph-Gaspard Chaussegros de Lery, Duquesne constructed a series of
forts from Montreal southward into the Ohio Valley. By the winter of 1753, the French had an
armed force ready to claim the valley.21
18
In 1749, Christopher Gist (c.1706-1759) was the most accomplished frontiersman in British North America. He
had traveled extensively throughout the South and West into parts of Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky. Gist was
well-versed in Indian languages and was befriended by numerous tribes. In addition, he kept incredibly detailed
records of his voyages, which are of great use to historians. Christopher Gist also has the unique distinction of
saving Washington’s life on at least two separate occasions. For more information see Don Marshall Larrabee’s: A
Reprint of the Journals of George Washington and his Guide.
19
John R. Alden, George Washington, a Biography (Baton Rouge: Louisiana University Press, 1996), 15.
20
Ange de Menneville, Marquis Duquesne (c. 1700-1778). A heroic naval officer, Duquesne was named Governor
General of New France in 1752. He lost favor with the French court and was removed in 1755. For more
information see The Canadian Encyclopedia and the Dictionary of Canadian Biography.
21
Hayes Baker-Crothers. Virginia and the French and Indian War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928),
17.
7
The construction of French forts in the Ohio Valley incensed Robert Dinwiddie,22
Lieutenant Governor of the colony of Virginia and a founding member of the Ohio Company.
Unsure of how he should react to the French incursion, Dinwiddie wrote his superiors in London
for advice. Earl Holdernesse, the British Secretary of State, ordered Dinwiddie to “obtain the
withdrawal of the encroaching French and Indians by warnings.” Under no circumstances was
the governor to use violence, because “the two nations were officially at peace.”23 In compliance
with the government’s wishes, Governor Dinwiddie dispatched a twenty-one year old Virginia
militiaman named Washington to warn the French out of the Ohio Valley. In November 1753,
twenty-one year old George Washington set out on an arduous five-hundred mile trek to Fort Le
Boeuf,24 the French outpost in the valley. After three months of traveling through “vast
quantit[ies] of snow”25 and weather that was “continually freezing,”26 a weary Washington
returned to Williamsburg. The news he brought to Governor Dinwiddie shocked the colony.
Not only did the French refuse to leave the valley, but they also planned a major spring campaign
22
Robert Dinwiddie (1693-1770). Born in Scotland and trained to be a Glasgow merchant, Dinwiddie spent most
of his life as a customs official in the Caribbean. After serving the crown in Bermuda (1727-43) and Barbados
(1743-51), Dinwiddie was offered the prominent position of Lieutenant Governor of Virginia. He served as
governor from 1751 until 1758 when he asked to be replaced. For more information, see The Official Records of
Robert Dinwiddie, edited by R.A. Brock.
23
Baker-Crothers, 18.
24
Located just fifteen miles south of Lake Erie in present-day northern Pennsylvania, Fort LeBoeuf was the
southernmost French outpost in 1753. It gained the name Le Boeuf (Beef Fort) because of the great amount of
buffalo in the region. For more information on Le Boeuf see Don Marshall Larrabee’s A Reprint of the Journals of
George Washington and his Guide.
25
George Washington, “Journal Entry 21 November 1753,” in George Washington: Writings, ed. John
Rhodehamel (New York: Library of America, 1997), 17.
26
George Washington, “Journal Entry 23 December 1753,” in Rhodehamel, 32.
8
to enlarge their present holdings. According to Washington’s report, if the French were not
stopped immediately, the fleur de lis27 would soon fly unimpeded from Quebec City to the shores
of the Ohio.
Immediately after Washington’s return, Dinwiddie organized an expedition into the Ohio
Valley to counter the French claim. Strictly adhering to Lord Holdernesse’s orders, this party,
led by Captain Robert Trent, was ordered not to attack the French. The Virginians were to
construct Fort Pitt to protect against further French incursion.28 Shortly after Trent left
Williamsburg, Governor Dinwiddie began to organize a second expedition. Comprising five
companies of Virginia militia and led by Joshua Frye,29 this larger second expedition was to give
aid to Trent in the construction of the fort and to provide a larger English military presence in the
Ohio Valley. It was this second expedition that interested young George Washington the most.
Less than two weeks after he returned from his winter journey to Fort Le Boeuf,
Washington wrote a letter to Richard Corbin, a leading commander in the Virginia militia. In his
letter, Washington expressed his ambitious desire, “to be ranked among the chief officers of this
expedition.” Revealing both his youthful impetuosity and ambition, Washington blatantly asked
Corbin to “mention [him] at the appointment of the officers.” The young man further mentioned
his desire to be appointed Lieutenant Colonel, a rank that would effectively make him one of the
principal leaders of the expedition. When Corbin acquiesced, an excited Washington wrote, “I
27
Flag of the Kings of France, replaced by the modern Tricolor during the French Revolution.
28
Baker-Crothers, 18. According to legend, Washington himself suggested the location of Fort Pitt to Governor
Dinwiddie. The fort was located at the forks of the Ohio (the confluence of the Allegheny, Monongehela and Ohio
Rivers), the site of present day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
29
Sadly, Colonel Joshua Frye is forgotten by history. An astute academic and professor of Mathematics at
William and Mary, Frye left his books in 1754 to pursue a military career. In the spring of 1754 Governor Robert
Dinwiddie commissioned him a Colonel in the Virginia militia and gave him command of the second expedition into
the Ohio Valley. Sadly, Frye made a better teacher than a soldier; in May he was thrown from his horse near Wills
Creek (present day Cumberland, Maryland) and died shortly thereafter.
9
flatter myself that…with my own application and diligent study of my duty, I shall be able to
conduct my steps without censure.”30 Thrilled with his appointment, the ambitious young
Lieutenant Colonel rode to Williamsburg to receive Governor Dinwiddie’s orders.
Dinwiddie’s orders to Washington were explicit, “You are to act on the defensive.” The
young Virginian was ordered to do nothing that would provoke an Imperial war between France
and England. Dinwiddie ordered Washington to “take Possess’n of all the lands the back of our
frontier settlem’ts to the River Ohio…and if any foreign force appear to interrupt them, he must
send to them to retire; but if they persist, to prevent their building of forts, he is in that case to
repel Force by Force (emphasis added).”31 It is important to note the inclusion of the phrase “he
must send to them to retire.” In accordance with the wishes of the British government, Governor
Dinwiddie ordered Washington to warn the French to evacuate the valley before firing upon
them. There is no evidence to suggest that Washington disagreed with these orders; rather, it
appears that he readily accepted them. On 2 April 1752, Washington left Williamsburg to aid
Captain Trent and to represent English interests in the Ohio Valley.
Before Washington could reach the valley, however, the French struck. On 19 April,
Washington received a frantic message from Trent urging him to come “with all possible
diligence, because a corps of 800 French are hourly expected.”32 Unfortunately, bad roads
combined with spring rains slowed Washington’s advance, and he was unable to reach the
English fort in time. On 20 April, Ensign Edward Ward, Trent’s second in command, informed
Washington that a French force of “more than a thousand men” had overwhelmed and seized
30
George Washington, “Letter to Richard Corbin, 28 January 1754,” in Rhodehamel, 34-35.
31
Robert Dinwiddie, “Letter to Lord Holdernesse 12 March 1754,” in The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie,
ed. R.A. Brock (New York: AMS Press, 1971), 94.
32
George Washington, “Journal entry 19 April 1754,” in Contrecoeur’s Copy of George Washington’s Journal, ed.
Donald H. Kent (Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1952), 12.
10
Fort Pitt. The French, descending the river in more than “60 boats and 300 canoes,”33 demanded
and received Trent’s surrender. Pleased with his bloodless conquest, French commander ClaudePierre Pecaudy de Contrecoeur renamed the half-finished English bastion Fort Duquesne in
honor of the Governor of New France. With the fall of Fort Pitt, the French dominated the Ohio
Valley.
The seizure of Fort Pitt changed the nature of Washington’s mission. Despite his orders
to “act on the defensive,” Washington now felt justified in taking the offensive. According to
historian Charles Ambler, in his book Washington and the West, the young Virginian viewed the
French advance as an act of war and perceived the intruders as “the enemies of his country.”34
Describing Washington’s mood after the fall of Fort Pitt, Washington biographer, Woodrow
Wilson, wrote “No one in the Virginian Camp doubted that there was war already or dreamed of
awaiting the action of diplomats and cabinets overseas.”35 For Washington, after the fall of the
English fort, war was a “fait accompli.”36 In reality, despite the French seizure of Fort Pitt, war
did not exist between England and France, and Washington was still under Dinwiddie’s strict
order to “act on the defensive.” Nevertheless, five days after the surrender of Fort Pitt,
Washington called a council of war. The journal kept by the young Lieutenant Colonel during
the campaign reveals that at the meeting “it [was] decided to advance…in order to be within
reach of the enemy.”37 According to Rasmussen and Tilton, despite his strict orders from
33
Ibid., 15.
34
Charles H. Ambler, Washington and the West. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1936), 68.
35
Woodrow Wilson, George Washington. (New York, Harper Brothers, 1924), 74.
36
Ambler, 66. From the French, fait accompli means – already started, already begun.
37
George Washington, “Journal Entry 23 April 1754,” in Kent 16.
11
Dinwiddie, Washington felt “compelled to take the offensive.”38 Indeed, in a letter written in
late April, Washington wrote of his great desire “to attack the French [to] put us on an equal
footing with them.”39 During the month after the fall of Fort Pitt, Washington bivouacked in the
Great Meadows well to the South of Fort Duquesne, near present day Uniontown, Pennsylvania,
and waited for an opportunity to attack.
From his encampment in the Great Meadows, Washington frequently sent out “part[ies]
on horseback…to go scouting,” in an attempt “to get news of the French, of their strength, of
their movement, etc.”40 Each day the reports he received from his scouts became bleaker and
bleaker. On 17 May, Washington recorded the arrival of “two Indians…who come from the fort
of the French.” The Indians reported that the French were “using all their forces” to finish Fort
Duquesne. Furthermore, the Indians speculated that within weeks the French would have over
sixteen hundred men with which they could “defy the English.”41 On 24 May, Washington’s
principal Indian ally, the Seneca chief Half King,42 reported that the “French army is going to
meet [you]…be on your guard against them for they are resolved to strike the first English they
meet.”43 These reports greatly alarmed Washington and he began to build a small fort in the
Great Meadows to guard against a French attack.
38
Rasmussen and Tilton, 52.
39
George Washington, “Letter to Robert Dinwiddie 25 April 1754,” in Rhodehamel, 37.
40
George Washington, “Journal Entry 25 May 1754,” in Kent, 24.
41
George Washington, “Journal Entry 17 May 1754”, in Kent, 21.
42
The Seneca chief Half King (or Tanacharison) was Washington’s trusted Indian ally at the skirmish of
Jumonville Glen. Unlike many of the Native Americans in the Ohio Valley, the Half King vehemently hated the
French. His hatred of the French stemmed from his belief that French troops had killed, boiled and eaten his father.
The Half King died shortly after the skirmish at Jumonville Glen, believing that the French had bewitched him for
his involvement in the massacre. Information on the Half King is extremely limited and scattered throughout a
number of sources. For more information see Charles Ambler, 86, and Robert Leckie, 275.
43
George Washington, “Journal Entry 24 May 1754,” in Kent, 23.
12
At the same time, further to the north, the French feared an English attack. In 1756,
French soldier Jacob Nicholas Mouceau published a book describing his experiences in the Ohio
Valley. While the book, entitled Memoire Contenant le Precis des Faits…,44 definitely
represents a strong French bias, it nevertheless accurately depicts the actions and fears of the
French army at Fort Duquesne. According to le Precis des Faits, commander Contrecoeur at
Duquesne, believed that “a considerable body of forces was marching towards him.”45
Mouceau’s assertion is supported by Contrecoeur’s statement on 23 May, “The Indians give out
that the English are in their march to attack us - which we cannot believe since we are at
Peace.”46 Alarmed by steadily increasing reports of a nearby enemy force, on 23 May
Contrecoeur dispatched a small force led by Ensign Joseph de Jumonville. This group of thirtyfive men was ordered to scour the woods and discover the location of the English camp. Like
Governor Dinwiddie’s orders to Washington, Contrecoeur explicitly ordered the young
Jumonville to remain on the defensive. Wishing to “keep up that Union which exists between
the two Crowns,”47 the French commander ordered Jumonville to find the English camp and
deliver a summons to the commanding officer. The summons ordered the English to leave
French territory at once. Similar to Washington’s warning, the summons explicitly stated that
the French would resort to violence only after the English rejected their ultimatum. This
44
The entire title when translated is: Memorial Containing the Summary of the Facts, with Supporting Documents,
to Serve as Reply to the Observations Sent by the Ministers of England to the Courts of Europe. It is often known
by the shorter title, le Precis des Faits (the summary of facts). To save both room and confusion, this paper uses the
shorter title.
45
Jacob Nicholas Mouceau, Memorial Contenant Le Precis des Faits… (Philadelphia: James Crattin, 1757), 21.
46
Claude-Pierre Pecaudy de Contrecoeur, “Orders to Monsieur Jumonville,” in Mouceau, 117.
47
Claude Pierre Pecaudy de Contrecoeur, “Sommation de Jumonville,” in Papiers Contrecoeur et Autres
Documents Concernent le Conflit Anglo-Francais sur l’Ohio de 1745 a 1756, ed. Fernand Grenier (Quebec: Les
Presses Universitaires Laval, 1952), 130.
13
summons effectively made the Jumonville party, a group of ambassadors whose mission was
more diplomatic than military.
Four days after Jumonville left Fort Duquesne, Washington’s Indian scouts discovered
the French party in a “very obscure place surrounded with rocks.”48 Fearing that the French “had
bad hearts”49 and intended to attack the Virginians, the Indians raced to Washington’s camp.
Arriving just after sunset on 27 May, the scouts informed Washington of the location of the
Jumonville party. Alarmed by their close proximity to his camp, Washington set out
immediately to confront the French. The young Lieutenant Colonel marched at the head of forty
militiamen throughout a night he later described as, “as dark as it is possible to conceive.”50
After a march of more than eight hours, the exhausted Virginians arrived at the camp of the Half
King, Washington’s trusted Indian ally. After holding a council of war with several Indian
warriors, it was decided as Washington later wrote, “to strike jointly.” From the Indian camp,
several scouts marching “in Indian fashion” 51 led the Virginians “down into a gloomy hollow”52
where Ensign Jumonville and his soldiers were encamped.
In his 1946 work George Washington, the Image and the Man, noted historian W.E.
Woodward wrote that Washington’s attack was “immediate . . . without [any] preliminaries.”53
Washington himself described the suddenness of the attack. In his journal entry for 28 May, he
wrote, “We carried out our arrangements to surround them [and] . . . had advanced quite near
48
George Washington, “Letter to Robert Dinwiddie 29 May 1754,” in Kent, 43.
49
Ibid., 45.
50
Ibid., 43.
51
George Washington, “Journal Entry 28 May 1754,” in Kent, 25.
52
Ibid., 24.
53
W.E. Woodward, George Washington, the Image and the Man (New York: Liveright Publishing Company,
1946), 62.
14
them . . . when they discovered us. Then I gave my men orders to fire.”54 French soldier Jacob
Nicholas Mouceau, who was present at the attack, collaborated Washington’s version in his 1756
book, le Precis des Faits. According to Mouceau, in the early morning of 28 May, the French
were “surrounded by a Number of English and Indians.” Like Washington, Mouceau stresses the
suddenness of the surprise attack. “The English,” Mouceau wrote, “quickly fired two Vollies,
which killed some soldiers.”55 It is important to note that neither version mentions that
Washington warned the French. All primary sources, including Washington’s own journal,
agree that the young Virginian disobeyed Dinwiddie’s order and did not “send to them to retire.”
According to both Washington and Mouceau, the attack began abruptly and without warning.
While Washington and Mouceau agree on the surprise nature of the attack, they disagree
on how the skirmish progressed. Washington’s journal and his later letter to Governor
Dinwiddie56 relate that the skirmish lasted less than fifteen minutes, during which they “received
the entire fire of the French.”57 According to Washington, his men remained in line of battle
some distance from the enemy and “fir’d briskly till they [the French] were defeated.”58 In a
later letter to his younger brother Jack, Washington boasted of the orderliness of the attack, “[I
was on] the right wing [which] was exposed to and received all the Enemy’s fire.”59 His mention
of “wings” implies that the Virginians launched an orderly, typically eighteenth century assault
against the French.
54
George Washington, “Journal Entry 28 May 1754,” in Kent, 25.
55
Mouceau, 22.
56
Washington’s account of the battle is preserved in two primary sources. Washington wrote his first account in
his private journal on the evening of 28 May, just hours after the battle. The second account was written in a letter
to Governor Dinwiddie on 29 May 1754. The two accounts are complimentary and differ only in level of detail.
57
George Washington, “Journal Entry 28 May 1754,” in Kent, 25.
58
George Washington, “Letter to Governor Dinwiddie 29 May 1754, in Rhodehamel, 47.
15
Mouceau, however told a different tale; in his book, le Precis des Faits, he mentions that
after the initial English volley, Commander Jumonville signaled for a cease-fire. According to
Mouceau, upon Jumonville’s signal, the “English surrounded the French officer.” After all the
officers had gathered close enough “to hear,” Jumonville read aloud his summons to the enemy.
“As it was [read] the second time,” Mouceau wrote, “the English assassinated him.”60 This
account of English troops leaving their orderly battle lines and coming into the French camp,
contradicts Washington’s account of a more distant, orderly engagement. Moreover, Mouceau
did not write his account until 1756, two years after the battle. Nonetheless, some evidence
exists to support the Frenchman’s claims. While Mouceau’s account did not appear in print until
1756, the journal of a French engineer at Fort Duquesne proves that the account was circulating
as early as 1754. On 19 June, less than three weeks after the attack, Joseph-Gaspard
Chaussegros de Lery recorded in his journal the report he had heard of the skirmish at
Jumonville Glen. According to de Lery there was a lull in the battle during which the English
approached Jumonville and killed him in cold blood. “My God!” De Lery wrote passionately,
“they gave him several blows with a hatchet.”61 While De Lery was not at Jumonville Glen, his
journal entry reveals that Mouceau’s “lull” theory was accepted as early as June 1754.
The French were not the only soldiers to contradict Washington’s view of an orderly
attack. One of Washington’s own officers, Adam Stephens later challenged his commander’s
view of the story. In a September 19, 1754 article published by the Pennsylvania Gazette,
59
George Washington, “Letter to John Augustine Washington 31 May 1754,” in Rhodehamel, 48.
Mouceau, 22.
60
61
Joseph-Gaspard Chaussegros de Lery, “Journal Entry 19 June 1754,” in Grenier, 58.
16
Stephens claimed, “We advanced as near as we could with fixed bayonets . . . our bayonets gave
us advantage over them.”62 Stephens’ account supports Washington’s claim that the Virginians
had marched “through a heavy rain”63 the night before. Wet with rain, their gunpowder would
have been of little use to them, necessitating the use of the bayonet. Further supporting
Stephens’ claim is the fact that the Virginian’s suffered only one casualty, compared to the ten
men lost on the French side. If the Virginians had truly stayed in a line of battle and “received
the entire Fire of the French” as Washington proudly claimed, then one would expect their
casualties to be comparable with the French losses. If, however, Washington’s men used the
bayonet and had “the advantage,” as Stephens claimed, the casualties would be understandably
lower on the English side. According to Stephens’ account and the low number of casualties
sustained by the Virginians, it can be inferred that the engagement was characterized not by the
orderly, distanced fire Washington described, but by close hand-to-hand combat.
If the two armies were as close as Mouceau and Stephens described, why didn’t the
French call out to Washington, warning him of their ambassadorial status? From all available
evidence, it appears that they did. It is important to note that every French survivor of the battle
claimed that Jumonville attempted to warn the Virginians before the battle began. Among the
most outspoken of the French soldiers was Captain Jacques-Pierre Drouillon a member of
Jumonville’s staff. In a letter to Governor Dinwiddie, Drouillon claimed that before the English
opened fire, the French called to them to “come to our cabin that we might confer together.” The
captain wrote that the French wanted to present their summons to the Virginians; unfortunately
62
Adam Stephen, The Pennsylvania Gazette, 19 September 1754.
63
George Washington, “Journal Entry 28 May 1754,” in Kent, 25.
17
they did not have an opportunity to do so. According to Drouillon “instead of taking the
opportunity [to confer] . . . he [Washington] fired upon us.”64 Washington vehemently denied
these claims in both his journal and in his letter to Governor Dinwiddie. In fact, in his letter to
the governor, written a day after the battle, Washington devoted only two sentences to describing
the skirmish and one and a half pages to justifying his actions. In his lengthy justification,
Washington urged Dinwiddie to “give no ear” to the “smooth stories”65 of the French. The
young Lieutenant Colonel vehemently denied that he had ignored a French warning. “They
pretend,” an angry Washington wrote, “that they called to us as soon as we were discovered.
This is an absolute falsehood . . . [for] I should have heard if they had done so.”66 The fact that
Washington wrote “I should have heard,” further adds credence to the accounts of Stephens and
Mouceau. Geographers have long described Jumonville Glen as a “depressed glen rimmed
round with rock.”67 Washington, himself, described the location as “a very obscure place
surrounded with rocks.”68 The discharging of one flintlock rifle, let alone forty, in such a low
place would cause a tremendous amount of noise. If Washington’s attack had been the orderly
exchange of fire that he described, it is very unlikely that he could have heard anything above the
noise. The fact that he suggested he could hear, implies that his troops either used the silent
bayonet or there was a lull in the battle as Mouceau described. The close proximity of the two
armies, combined with two accounts of a French warning reveals the likelihood that Washington
heard and ignored the pleas of the French.
64
Jacques Pierre Drouillon, “Letter to Governor Dinwiddie,” in Dube, 32.
65
George Washington, “Letter to Robert Dinwiddie 29 May 1754,” in Rhodehamel, 47.
66
George Washington, “Journal Entry 28 May 1754,” in Kent, 26.
67
Bliss Isely, The Horseman of the Shenandoah, (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1962), 69.
68
George Washington, “Letter to Robert Dinwiddie 29 May 1754,” in Rhodehamel, 43.
18
Regardless of whether the French warned Washington of their ambassadorial status
before the battle, they produced their summons as soon as the English guns fell silent. An
infuriated Washington immediately rejected the French summons. He confided to his journal,
“The summons is so insolent, and looks so much like bragging that if two men had come to bring
it openly, it would have been an excessive indulgence to have suffered them to return.”69
Washington was slightly less vitriolic when he wrote Governor Dinwiddie. In his letter, the
Virginia commander called the Frenchmen “spies” four times and referred to their summons as
an “absurd . . . pretext.” According to Washington, Jumonville and his party were not
ambassadors, but spies sent out to “reconnoiter the country.” By labeling the Frenchmen as
spies, Washington felt his attack was justified. In his lengthy justification to Governor
Dinwiddie, the young Lieutenant Colonel reasoned that Jumonville’s party was too large to be an
ambassadorial retinue. Furthermore, according to Washington, ambassadors did not “skulk” in
the woods as Jumonville’s party had done.70 Washington’s justification not only convinced
Dinwiddie, but also More de Pontgibaud, Jared Sparks, and many other later historians. Relying
on Washington’s justification, and largely ignoring the accounts of Stephens, Mouceau, and
Drouillon, historians have condoned and justified Washington’s actions. Perhaps the most
egregious example of this historiographic acceptance was historian Charles Ambler’s treatment
of the event. In his 1936 book, Washington and the West, Ambler wrote, “Washington was
within the bounds of his instructions and doubtless thought he was discharging his whole
duty.”71 In truth, Washington was not “within the bounds of his instructions.” His attack at
69
George Washington, “Journal Entry 28 May 1754,” in Kent, 26.
70
George Washington, “Letter to Robert Dinwiddie 29 May 1754,” in Rhodehamel, 44-45.
71
Ambler, 66.
19
Jumonville Glen directly contradicted his orders from Governor Dinwiddie. Regardless of
whether he felt justified in the attack or not, Washington was under strict orders to “act on the
defensive.” His inability to carry out these orders resulted in what historian Rupert Hughes
termed, a major “international wrangle.”72
As soon as news of Washington’s attack reached Williamsburg, a cunning Governor
Dinwiddie wrote the Lords of Trade in London, “This little skirmish was by the . . . Indians. We
were auxiliaries to them as my orders to the commander of our forces was to be on the
defensive.”73 Unfortunately, for Dinwiddie, the British government did not believe his lie. By
the time they received the governor’s letter, news of Washington’s attack had already spread to
Europe. Three days after the skirmish, a weary Jacob Nicholas Mouceau arrived at Fort
Duquesne. Mouceau, who had deserted the French ranks as soon as the English attacked,
informed the French garrison of the skirmish.74 Contrecoeur, the commander of the French fort,
promptly informed Governor Duquesne in Quebec, who related the events to the court at
Versailles. According to one historian, “news of the death of Jumonville shook”75 the royal
court. In historian W.E. Woodward’s words, the event caused “a great commotion in France.”76
72
Rupert Hughes, George Washington: The Human Being and the Hero (New York: W. Morrow & Compnay,
1926-1930), 117.
73
Robert Dinwiddie, “Letter to the Lords of Trade 18 June 1754,” in Brock, 206.
74
Jacob Nicholas Mouceau was one of two French soldiers who ran at the sound of the English guns. The other
deserter, whose name is lost to history, was killed by Mingo Indians before he could return to Fort Duquesne.
75
Writers Program of the WPA, Pennsylvania: A Guide to the Keystone State (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1940), 595.
76
Woodward, 63.
20
Even aging King Louis XV admitted that Washington’s attack “aroused considerable
discussion.”77 Historian Charles Ambler notes, “for his . . . attack on the Jumonville party . . .
Washington was subjected to severe criticism, possibly the severest of his early career.”78
Nowhere was this criticism sharper than in France. The French government called the attack
“treacherous”79 and complained loudly to the British ambassador that Jumonville had been
“foully assassinated.”80 While French politicians contemplated war with England,81 writers
penned poems and ballads commemorating Jumonville’s “martyrdom.” Voltaire described the
event as “the canon shot fired in the wilderness…that set Europe in a blaze.”82 Another less
eloquent writer claimed that, “the assassination of Jumonville is a monument of perfidy that
ought to enrage eternity.”83
Across the English Channel, the event was greeted with equal scorn. The British
government was not pleased at Washington’s apparent neglect of orders. The Earl of
Albermarle, a leading member of the House of Lords commented, “Officers and good ones, must
be sent to discipline the militia and to lead them.”84 Historians Rasmussen and Tilton point out
that while most Englishmen applauded Washington’s courage, many doubted the military
77
Guy Fregault, Canada and the War of Conquest, trans. Margaret M. Cameron (Toronto: Oxford University
Press, 1969), 31.
78
Ambler, 65.
79
Dube, 35.
80
Henry Cabot Lodge, George Washington (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1895), 1: 72.
81
The final political result of the attack at Jumonville Glen was a general mobilization of both French and English
troops. As early as 1755 both Imperial rivals had moved armies into the Ohio Valley.
82
Flexner, 92.
83
Ibid., 107.
84
Rasmussen and Tilton, 38.
21
competency of a man who attacked French ambassadors without warning. The concern over his
leadership abilities came to a head when a letter written by Washington appeared in a London
newspaper. The letter, written to Washington’s brother John, three days after the battle,
contained a seemingly harmless account of the skirmish. What was harmful, however, was the
young Lieutenant Colonel’s inclusion of a postscript. The final phrases of his letter sent Britain
into peals of laughter and ruined what little reputation Washington had left. “I heard the bullets
whistle,” the young Virginian wrote, “and believe me there was something charming in the
sound.”85 Responding to Washington’s naïve comments, British writer Horace Walpole,86
dubbed Washington the “brave braggart.”87 Walpole was not the only Englishman surprised by
Washington’s naïve attitude; George II reportedly responded to Washington’s postscript with the
quip “he would not say so, if he had been used to hear many.”88 While the English did not
consider Washington a murderer, they thought he was vainly naïve and incompetent.
News of Washington’s attack at Jumonville Glen was more warmly received in British
North America. According to Rasmussen and Tilton, “most Virginians saw no fault in his
actions . . . rather he was praised for his valor.”89 Historian Bliss Isley points out that the
incident so pleased the colony that “in Virginia men talked of little else.”90 Indeed, late in the
85
George Washington, “Letter to John Augustine Washington 31 May 1754,” in Rhodehamel 48.
86
Horace Walpole (1717-1797) was the son of noted British Prime Minister and powerbroker Sir Robert Walpole.
Although, the younger Walpole followed in his father’s political footsteps, he is most famous for his literary
achievements. A great man of letters, Walpole pioneered the gothic novel with his 1765 publication of the Castle of
Otranto. Unmarried all his life, Walpole devoted his time to literary and artistic pursuits, he died in 1797.
87
Nathaniel Wright Stephenson and Waldo Hilary Dunn, George Washington (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1940), 94.
88
Thayer, 18. To Washington’s credit, historian William Thayer points out that King George’s response “was one
of the few feeble witticisms credited to the Hanoverian Kings.”
89
Rasmussen and Tilton, 38.
90
Isley, 72.
22
summer of 1754, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a resolution applauding Washington
for his bravery at Jumonville Glen. The resolution read in part, “Ordered: That the thanks of this
House be given to Colo. George Washington . . . and the Officers under his command . . . for
their late gallant and brave behavior in Defense of their Country.”91 Virginia was not the only
colony to applaud Washington for his actions at Jumonville Glen; newspapers throughout the
colonies printed glowing reviews of Washington’s attack. On 24 July, the Boston Gazette
reported that “Washington gave [the French] a proper reception.”92 According to a 13 June
article in the Pennsylvania Gazette, Washington was not only a hero, but he was also a kind
judge. After the French had “flung down their arms and begg’d for quarter,” the Gazette
reported that Washington prevented the blood thirsty Indians from “doing further mischief.” The
Gazette recorded that rather than allow the Indians to kill the captured French soldiers, he “at
length persuaded them” to let the soldiers live.93 While in Europe he was reviled for his brash
attack, in British North America, Washington was declared a hero.
In contrast to his later achievements, Washington’s actions in Jumonville Glen were far
from heroic. Washington’s disobedience of Dinwiddie’s orders to “act on the defensive,”
resulted in a sudden peacetime attack against a small group of French ambassadors. This brash
act seems to contradict the popular mythology behind a man who is the “Father of his country.”
Indeed, historians are far more comfortable with the cool, experienced commander of Yorktown,
rather than the bayonet wielding Washington of Jumonville Glen. As a result, for over two-
91
Rasmussen and Tilton, 55.
92
Boston Gazette, 24 July 1754.
93
Pennsylvania Gazette, 13 June 1754. For more information on newspaper coverage of the French and Indian
War see David A. Copeland, “Fighting for a Continent: Newspaper Coverage of the English and French War For
Control of North America, 1754-1760,” Early America Review 1, no. 4 (spring 1997). The article is also available at
http://earlyamerica.com/review/spring97/newspapers.html
23
hundred years the true story of the event has remained hidden. While some historians have
eagerly condoned the incident and others have pushed it under the carpet of history, no AngloAmerican historian has taken Washington to task for his actions at Jumonville Glen. Based on
the available evidence it appears that George Washington disobeyed his orders by attacking a
small party of French ambassadors during a time of peace. Furthermore, it can be concluded that
Washington attacked without warning and employed guerilla tactics. Finally, it appears likely
that the French called to Washington, warning him that they were ambassadors and asking him to
call off the attack. The young, ambitious Virginian did not heed these cries. While, after the
skirmish, Washington’s actions were greatly scrutinized in both England and France, this
scrutiny has faded with the passage of time. The hero of Yorktown has now completely
overshadowed the murderer of Jumonville Glen. Historians Rasmussen and Tilton are correct in
their statement that “somehow Washington escaped fault” for Jumonville Glen.
After the skirmish, Washington rarely mentioned Jumonville Glen and with the passage
of time, his contemporaries forgot about the affair. In 1780, one year before Yorktown, an older,
wiser George Washington referred to the skirmish at Jumonville Glen with eloquence and grace.
“To rectify past blunders is impossible,” he said, “but we might profit by the experience of
them.”94 In the mountains of Western Pennsylvania lie the unmarked and forgotten bodies of ten
men killed in the greatest of Washington’s “past blunders.”
94
George Washington, “Letter to Fielding Lewis 6 July 1780,” in The Quotable George Washington, ed. Stephen
E. Lucas (Madison: Madison House Publishers, 1999), 32.
24
Illustrations
(Cover Illustration: Detail of George Washington by Charles Wilson Peale, 1772. Courtesy of
the National Park Service and the Fort Necessity National Battlefield Site:
http://www.nps.gov/fone/fonehome.htm)
Two Modern Views of Jumonville Glen, Courtesy of the National Park Service’s
Jumonville Glen Site: http://www.nps.gov/fone/jumglen.htm
Modern View of Jumonville Glen, courtesy of from Colonial Era Photos:
http://www.mohicanpress.com/mo08020.html
25
John Mitchell: Amerique Septentrionare. Paris 1756.
This map depicts both French Canada, British North America and the Ohio Valley.
Henry Popple: A Map of the British Empire in America. London, 1733.
This map depicts the hotly contested Ohio Valley.
Maps courtesy of the David Rumsey Collection
www.davidrumsey.com
26
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Boston Gazette, 24 July 1754.
Contrecouer, Claude-Pierre Pecaudy de. “Orders to Monsieur Jumonville.” In Memorial
Contenant Les Precis des Faits…, by Jacob Nicholas Mouceau, 117. Philadelphia: James
Crattin, 1757.
Contrecoeur, Claude Pierre Pecaudy de. “Sommation de Jumonville.” In Papiers Contrecoeur
et Autres Documents Concernent le Conflit Anglo-Francais sur l’Ohio de 1745 a 1756,
edited by Fernand Grenier, 130. Quebec: Les Presses Universitaires Laval, 1952.
Dinwiddie, Robert. “Letter to Lord Holdernesse 12 March 1754,” In The Official Records of
Robert Dinwiddie, edited by R.A. Brock, 93-98. New York: AMS Press, 1971.
Dinwiddie, Robert. “Letter to the Lords of Trade 18 June 1754,” In The Official Records of
Robert Dinwiddie, edited by R.A. Brock, 205-207. New York: AMS Press, 1971.
Drouillon, Jacques Pierre, “Letter to Governor Dinwiddie,” In The Jumonville Affair, by Jean
Claude Dube. 32. Philadelphia: National Park Service, 1979.
Lery, Joseph-Gaspard Chaussegros de. “Journal Entry 19 June 1754,” In Papiers Contrecoeur
et Autres Documents Concernent le Conflit Anglo-Francais sur l’Ohio de 1745 a 1756,
edited by Fernand Grenier, 58. Quebec: Les Presses Universitaires Laval, 1952.
Mouceau, Jacob Nicholas. Memorial Contenant Les Precis des Faits… Philadelphia: James
Crattin, 1757.
Pennsylvania Gazette, 13 June 1754.
Pennsylvania Gazette, 19 September 1754.
Pontgibaud, More de. “First Meeting with Washington.” In George Washington as the French
Knew Him, edited by Gilbert Chinard, 26-30. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1940.
Washington George. “Journal Entry 21 November 1753.” In George Washington: Writings,
edited by John Rhodehamel, 17-18. New York: Library of America, 1997.
Washington George. “Journal Entry 23 December 1753.” In George Washington: Writings,
edited by John Rhodehamel, 31-32. New York: Library of America, 1997.
27
Washington George. “Letter to Richard Corbin 28 January 1754,” In George Washington:
Writings, edited by John Rhodehamel, 34-35. New York: Library of America, 1997.
Washington, George. “Journal Entry 19 April 1754.” In Contrecoeur’s Copy of George
Washington’s Journal, edited by Donald H. Kent, 12. Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission, 1952.
Washington, George. “Journal Entry 23 April 1754,” In Contrecoeur’s Copy of George
Washington’s Journal, edited by Donald H. Kent, 12. Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission, 1952.
Washington, George. “Letter to Robert Dinwiddie 25 April 1754,” In George Washington:
Writings, edited by John Rhodehamel, 35-38. New York: Library of America, 1997.
Washington, George. “Journal Entry 17 May 1754,” In Contrecoeur’s Copy of George
Washington’s Journal, edited by Donald H. Kent, 21-22. Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission, 1952.
Washington, George. “Journal Entry 24 May 1754,” In Contrecoeur’s Copy of George
Washington’s Journal, edited by Donald H. Kent, 23. Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission, 1952.
Washington, George. “Journal Entry 25 May 1754,” In Contrecoeur’s Copy of George
Washington’s Journal, edited by Donald H. Kent, 24. Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission, 1952.
Washington, George. “Journal Entry 28 May 1754,” In Contrecoeur’s Copy of George
Washington’s Journal, edited by Donald H. Kent, 25-27. Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission, 1952.
Washington. George. “Letter to Robert Dinwiddie 29 May 1754,” In George Washington:
Writings, edited by John Rhodehamel, 40-46. New York: Library of America, 1997.
Washington, George. “Letter to John Augustine Washington 31 May 1754,” In George
Washington: Writings, edited by John Rhodehamel, 47-48. New York: Library of
America, 1997.
Washington, George. “Letter to Fielding Lewis 6 July 1780,” In The Quotable George
Washington, edited by Stephen E. Lucas, 32. Madison: Madison House Publishers, 1999.
28
Secondary Sources
Alden, John R. George Washington, a Biography. Baton Rouge: Louisiana University Press,
1996.
Ambler, Charles H. Washington and the West. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
1936.
Baker-Crothers, Hayes. Virginia and the French and Indian War. Vol. 1. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1928.
Dube, Jean Claude. The Jumonville Affair. Philadelphia: National Park Service, 1979.
Flexner, James Thomas. George Washington: The Forge of Experience, 1732-1775. Boston:
Little & Brown, 1965.
Fregault, Guy. Canada and the War of Conquest, trans. Margaret M. Cameron. Toronto:
Oxford University Press, 1969.
Hughes, Rupert. George Washington: The Human Being and the Hero. New York: W. Morrow
& Compnay, 1926-1930.
Isley, Bliss. The Horseman of the Shenandoah. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1962.
Leckie, Robert. A Few Acres of Snow: The Saga of the French and Indian Wars. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1999.
Lodge, Henry Cabot. George Washington. Vol. 1. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1895.
Rassmussen, William M. S. and Robert S. Tilton. George Washington: The Man Behind the
Myths. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999.
Stephenson, Nathaniel Wright and Waldo Hilary Dunn. George Washington. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1940.
Thayer, William Roscoe. George Washington. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1931.
Wilson, Woodrow. George Washington. New York: Harper Brothers, 1924.
Woodward, W.E. George Washington, the Image and the Man. New York: Liveright
Publishing Company, 1946.
Writers Program of the WPA, Pennsylvania: A Guide to the Keystone State. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1940.
29