Talk:Battle of Fort Necessity

Fort Outhouse?

During this time period an outhouse was called a 'necessity'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BradMajors (talk • contribs) 06:55, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Almost: the term for an outhouse was usually "necessary". —Kevin Myers 17:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Greamt Meadows → Battle of Fort Necessity — Typo — Kieran4 (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• More than a typo, but support as common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

French vs. Canadian

Perhaps User:Varing can present evidence from reliable sources supporting the idea that none (zero, zilch, nil) of the soldiers in this action came from metropolitan France, and that all of them were born in Canada, New France (and not in Acadia, Newfoundland, French Louisiana, or Ile Royale, since Canada != New France). Not all of the troupes de la marine were necessarily colonials. (This is a valid question with respect to Battle of Jumonville Glen, by the way.) Please be prepared to address this in detail for every F&I War article you do this to. Magic♪piano 21:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is particularly germane here, since Lengel, the primary source cited for the action, does not use "Canadien" (implying all of the troops are colony-born); he calls them "French and Canadian". link Magic♪piano 21:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

From W. E. Eccles, France in America p. 200. The Canadian settlements were to receive the same treatment as had the Scottish Highlands after Culloden, in which Wolfe had played an active part. Upon first landing on the Île d'Orléans he had issued a manifesto ordering the Canadian people not to assist the enemy, warning them that if they took up arms in defense of their homeland they would be punished with fire and sword, treated as Indians, who Wolfe had earlier declared merited extermination. He took no account of the fact that every Canadian male between fifiteen and sixty was a member of the militia, and thus had to obey orders of his officers and fight the invader. We are not talking about French people here, but Canadians and Canadian militiamen. Furthermore, there has been too much hype about New France. Let's face it, France had two functioning colonies, Canada in the North and Louisiana in the South. If everything were under New France, Louisiana would have participated in the war, in which it did not. As for Acadia and Newfoundland, they were lost at the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. The île Royale experience did not live up to expectations, and it was easily taken over by New Englanders in 1748. So if not for the Canadians and her native allies, the war would have been lost much sooner, since France never put up much effort to keep it's North American colonies. England tried hard to give Canada back for Guadeloupe in the Treaty of Paris of 1763, but Choiseul would have no more of Canada, nor of Louisiana for that matter. Let's just get history correct! Nothing more!--Varing (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, let us get the history correct. Let us do so by correctly reporting what historians and authors of reliable sources tell us. You have added things to this article (and possibly Battle of Jumonville Glen) that now appear to come from sources that do not say what you have added. Thus, you must indicate, via inline citations, at least in each of the places I have marked in this article, from what source you have learned the precise composition of the described forces that merit the use of the terminology you added. Unless we have documentary record stating that, for example, Villiers' force consisted only of colony-born militia and troupes de la marine, we cannot say they were "Canadien" or "Canadian". The troupes de la marine were (according to the WP article, not currently sourced) not exclusively native-born; this is part of the history you want to get correct, yes?

The Troupes de la marine and the Compagnies Franches de la Marine seem to be two name for the same regiment and redundant articles in Wikipedia. The Troupes de la marine/compagnies franches de la marine were not exclusively born in Canada as stated here : Les soldats des troupes de la Marine n’ont pas fait seulement que passer en terre d’Amérique, 597 se sont mariés et un certain nombre s’y sont établis. Québécois et Français ont la possibilité de connaître ceux de leurs ancêtres qui sont venus en Amérique lors de la guerre de Sept Ans pour y demeurer temporairement ou en permanence.And here : À la fin du conflit, une partie des effectifs des Compagnies franches retourna en France pour servir dans d’autres régiments du roi. La plupart des soldats décida néanmoins de rester en Nouvelle-France et de reprendre leurs occupations.UltimaRatio (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the people of New France were French subjects. It is not an error to call them "French". It may be imprecise, but it is not wrong. Magic♪piano 03:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, all Americans fighting against the British during the American Revolution were British subjects and should be treated as such, and no Virginia or other colonial militamen existed. You make a big deal of New France in wikipedia, when in fact Canada and Louisiana were more often referred to at the time in France and in Great Britain. Once again, you failed to read the original version of the Quebec Act of 1774 where only Canadian subjects are referred to, and you paid no heed to the Canadian department formed by the Continental Congress, or the writings of W. E. Eccles.

Furthermore, France did not exist as a Republic at the time but as a Kingdom, like the UK. People did not refer to themsleves as Frenchmen but as Normans, Britons, Picards, etc., depending on which province they came from, just like Scottish, Welsh, Irish, etc., in the United Kingdom. It is thus normal for 2nd and 3rd generation Canadians to refer to themselves as Canadians, and for the British Parliament in the Quebec Act to refer to them as Canadians as well and not French subjects.--Varing (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Varing, your comparison with the American Revolution is totally biased and irrelevant : The British loyalists fought the colonial independentists. Both were British but one side fought to become independent, to become American. The French canadians during the French and Indian War didn't fight against the French, to found a new canadian nationality, but against the British, as faithful subjects of the King of France.

Your contributions are simply incorrect because:

• That was not a war between Americans and Canadians, but between the British and French colonial empires. If you call "Canadian ", the French colonials, then you should call the British colonials "Americans". And Sir Dinwiddie should be called American colonial administrator (which is a pure nonsense), rather than a British colonial administrator (which is factually right). And the French and Indian war should be considered as an American victory and a Canadian defeat ??? That's nonsense.

British colonials were called Americans. The war actually started because of Canadian colonials and American colonials fighting for the Ohio Valley. The two European powers, France and Great Britain got caught up in the war. But at the Treaty of Paris, Great Britain realized the error they had made, and tried in vain to give Canada back to France.

• You can not prove that all the French involved in the war were born in Canada.

I never said that, only the first two battles.

• You have no source for asserting that the French considered themselves as Britons, Normans or Canadians before 1789. This is a pure invention from you.

Many historians such as Jacques Lacoursière and Marcel Trudel have mentioned this fact.

• "French Canadian" is an awful anachronism since in 1754, there was no such thing as the "French Canada", nor "British Canada" there was just "Canada" which was an entirely French colony.

I wrote Canadien not French Canadian.

• Your argument about The Quebec Act of 1774 is anachronistic (it occurs 20 years after the Battle of Fort Necessity) and irrelevant as it comes at a time where the French settlers where no more French but British subjects.

It is proof that the British viewed the people as Canadian and not French.

• The entire English-speaking historian community refers to this war as the "FRENCH and Indian war", not to the "FRENCH-CANADIAN and Indian war", implying that this war opposed French and Indians to British.

It is known as the Seven Years War by many historians, French and Indian War is American terminology, as MagicPiano mentioned.

Your contributions are totally inacurate and unsourced and shall be reverted. UltimaRatio (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

They will be sourced, and don't be such a redneck about it. Inaccurate has an extra c.

Varing's comparison is indeed irrelevant. It would "not be wrong" to call both sides of the ARW British subjects, at least until 4 July 1776 (or earlier depending on when each state declared independence) since they were technically such. However, it would be grossly misleading (for fairly obvious reasons) and imprecise, since we generally know who was on which side in an action, and how they referred to themselves. I still have no idea what the relevance of 1770s-era terminology has to do with this action, and why Varing insists on bringing it up. I'm willing to give Varing time to come up with sources that address the issues s/he's introduced to this article, but I'm somewhat doubtful s/he will succeed. Chartrand specifically mention French soldiers (presumably troupes de la marine, since this predates the arrival of metropolitan regulars) in both Jumonville's and Villiers' parties. Ruth Sheppard describes how some of the units (including metropolitan troops after their arrival in 1755) came to include Canadiens, and like Chartrand she equivocates on the composition of both Jumonville's and Villiers' forces; she also notes that the marine forces had metropolitan French in their units. I could probably go on, but now it's Varing's turn.

BTW "French and Indian War" is primarily American terminology (and not apparently British or even Canadian usage); see discussion at top of French and Indian War. Magic♪piano 13:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a world war, spreading as far as India, known as the Seven Years' War. Somewhere here I read the 'Canadians' and 'Virginians' were caught up in the war. Not true - Dimwiddie had orders from England (fairly sure from Newcastle) to secure the Ohio River Valley for the Ohio Land Company. France wanted to use the rivers to secure a means of linking New Orleans with their northern holdings. It was very much a war between super-powers over colonial holdings. See this source, for example [1] Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are two sources speaking about Canadian troops. The first is from the most detailed and frequently cited source from Mémoire du Chevalier de la Pause:

On land in North America, now that hostilities had begun in earnest, but still without a declaration of war, the British did not fare so well. Braddock, at the head of 2,200 men, British regulars and colonial troops, got his army over the mountains and within a few miles of Fort Duquesne - by itself no mean feat. In an almost forlorn hope Captain Daniel de Beaujeu led 108 Troupes de la Marine, 146 Canadian milita, and 600 Indians to oppose him. The ensuing clash was a disaster for the British. The Canadian and Indian forces took cover on the forested flank of the enemy, encumbered by siege arillery and a vast wagon train. The measured British volleys had little effect against the concealed foe. The Canadians and Indians advanced close. Noting that the British ranks reloaded to ordered drum beats, they picked off the officers and drummers.

The second is from Nos racines, T.L.M. Inc, 1979, p 458. Washington, writes W.C. Eccles, gave order to fire. The Canadians managed to escape as rifle shots hit their weapons. But they were powerless. Ten Canadians were killed, one was wounded, and the others except one were taken prisoners. Washington and his men retire and abandoned the cadavers of his victims to the wolves. Besides Jumonville, the other Canadians killed were; Deroussel and Caron from Quebec City, Charles Bois from Pointe-Claire, Jérôme de Lapraire and L'Enfant from Montréal, Paris from Mille-Isles, Languedoc and Martin from Boucherville, and the drummer, LaBatterie.--Varing (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The first source does not address this event, it is referring to Edward Braddock's 1755 affair. The second refers to Jumonville Glen. I grant that the named individuals are Canadians; how about the rest of the force? And how about Villiers' force? Contrecoeur's? You claim all of these are "Canadien" and do not have any metropolitan French. I've already cited sources above (in addition to those already in use in the article) claiming all three of these forces are mixed. Magic♪piano 16:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a fuller bibliographic record, with ISBN or OCLC number, for Nos Racines. There are many works with that name, and I am unable to locate a record in online catalogs for the specific work you describe.

Also please note that just because one work says "Canadian", your job is not finished. You must also demonstrate that the other sources claiming the contrary (Lengel, Chartrand, Sheppard) are wrong. Is this a task that Nos Racines is useful for? (As I said above, I'm reasonably sure I can find even more sources that contradict this one.) Magic♪piano 19:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a problem for User:Varing: Ensign Drouillon, captured by the British, was a member of the troupes de la terre (not marine or provincial militia). According to Chartrand (p. 84), he came from France in 1752. Contrecoeur's report (link to English translation) also lists "cadets", which would presumably not be militia. Furthermore, contra your assertion above that the 1774 Quebec Act somehow means we should use "Canadian" to discuss something 20 years before then, Washington, Dinwiddie, and Gist referred to their opponents as "French". Can we put this to rest please? No one is denying that French colonials were involved in the fighting, but saying that we therefore must refer to the British opposition as "French Canadian", "French and Canadian", "French and Canadien" at all times is somewhat absurd. Magic♪piano 20:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You're the one being absurd! You refuse to talk about Canadian colonials and Canadian militiamen, but in your article about the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga, you mention American spys, American Patriots, Green Mountain Boys, but you never refer to them as British colonials or British militiamen. You therefore say one thing and do the opposite. You're two face! Furthermore, what does a guy living in Boston know about Canada or anywhere else in the world. Everyone knows that you are only taught American history in your country.--Varing (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Your condescension is noted. Also noted is that you are apparently unable to deal with facts presented by non-American historians. (Chartrand is French Canadian, and Sheppard is British].) You are also wrong about my unwillingness to talk about Canadian colonials and militiamen. I will note by way of example that the version of the Jumonville Glen article that passed GA last November (significantly worked on by me) contains plenty of references to "Canadien". (By the way, what a "guy living in Boston" knows is that he is within one hour's drive of a dozen or so high-quality university libraries that have public access, and one of the best public libraries in the world. He also knows how to use them, and Google Books, and variety of other scholarly sources. If I can't locate books you vaguely identify, it's probably your fault.) Magic♪piano 13:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You also do selective reading and listening, I wrote to you this from the very beginning, and you dare come back with the Quebec Act of 20 years later: From W. E. Eccles, France in America p. 200. The Canadian settlements were to receive the same treatment as had the Scottish Highlands after Culloden, in which Wolfe had played an active part. Upon first landing on the Île d'Orléans he had issued a manifesto ordering the Canadian people not to assist the enemy, warning them that if they took up arms in defense of their homeland they would be punished with fire and sword, treated as Indians, who Wolfe had earlier declared merited extermination. He took no account of the fact that every Canadian male between fifiteen and sixty was a member of the militia, and thus had to obey orders of his officers and fight the invader. Wake up, we are talking 1759!--Varing (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You also wrote this about the Siege of Fort St. Jean: The fall of Fort St. Jean opened the way for the American army to march on Montreal, which fell without battle on November 13. General Carleton escaped from Montreal, and made his way to Quebec City to prepare its defenses against an anticipated attack. Why American army, why not British? It is 1775 and the Continental Congress has not proclaimed independence yet.--Varing (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If you take issue with the language used in American Revolutionary War articles to refer to the combatant sides, feel free to open a discussion on the MILHIST discussion page. Magic♪piano 13:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

break

Varing if the sources used say French, then we have to say French. It's that simple. Most of the sources I've read about the battle at Fort Necessity say French, and I've read plenty. Moreover we have to use the best scholarly sources available, not sources that we want to use to verify a point we want to make. However, I will pick up some books at the library tomorrow and check what it says about Canadian militia. If I remember correctly, Fort Duquesne was left with very few men because in winter the French soldiers retreated to Quebec and in fact many rotated back to France with new troops and supplies arriving each year for a spring campaign. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That's because we have allowed for too long certain American historians to distort the reality of the situation. You have been reading American historians and not Canadian ones. Furthermore, the Canadian colonists and her Native allies were pretty much left to themselves at the beginning of the war. Once it started, France sent 3,000 men, but no more than 6,000 were sent in all towards the end of the war, compared to 18,000 Canadian militiamen. On the other hand, the British colonists had 22,000 men and Britain sent 60,000 men for the war effort. (A 4 to 1 advantage)

Even to this day Americans have the audacity to call Canadians Frenchmen, as if the 100 year old Montreal Canadiens never existed. Don't judge all of history by American historians alone. Just because one speaks English, it does not make him an Englishman. At the battle of Yorktown, there were 5,500 German soldiers, about half on the British side and half on the American and French side, but no one talks about them. You will then tell me you have to go with what historians have written. Are they all right? Two wrongs don't make it right!--Varing (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't read Siege of Yorktown all of the way through, did you? Talk about ignorance...

Yes, we have to go with what historians have written. This is a core Wikipedia policy, along with verifiability. If historians don't support your position, you are unfortunately out of luck. So, where, according to your sources, is M. Drouillan from, and what (English) language do they use to describe a force that includes him? Magic♪piano 13:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I read your the article, wanted to make sure you were listening, Mr. Insult! Furthermore, this is Pure Racism on your part! You can write down American colonists instead of British, but you cannot write down Canadian colonists. No, they have to be French. Do you call African-Americans Blacks too, Mr Racist!--Varing (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your non-answer to the question is noted. What do we call a force that includes M. Drouillan? I don't think we can use "Canadian" or "Canadien" because he's not from Canada. Magic♪piano 21:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What about the Germans living in Canada and in the Canadian militia, they were French too? Ever heard of the La Sarre Regiment?--Varing (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Were they in this action? If not, why bring them up here? (Feel free to bring them up on the talk pages of actions involving that regiment, or at Talk:French and Indian War.) In the meantime, the terminological question awaits... Magic♪piano 17:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your question about M. Drouillan, your right in the fact that he is not Canadian, but you have to look at the bigger picture, (the forest from the trees). If you have 35 or 50 soldiers, and the vast majority are Canadian, then you name them by the majority rule. If however, the vast majority are French, with a some Canadians and Indians, then call them French. However, example in the case of the Battle of Fort William Henry, where there were 3000 French soldiers, 3000 Canadian militiamen, and 2000 Indians. It's not a bad idea to mention all three, especially considering what the Indians did at the end of the battle. Tell me this, if you have read intensively at the Boston colleges about this period in history, who really killed those Canadians at Jumonville Glen, the Virginia militiamen or the Indians? The scalping was definitely the latter's work.--Varing (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Varing, please try to understand that according to WP policy it's irrelevant whether 35 of 50 soldiers were Canadian. All that's important, again according to WP policy, is what the sources say. If the sources say the Virginians did the scalping at Jumonville, then the article would have to reflect it. If the sources say the Shawnee did the scalping then the article would have to reflect it. The rest, as far as WP is concerned, is not important. I don't see this conversation going anywhere. I don't have a copy of O'Meara at the moment, but if anyone does, can it be confirmed whether he says French or Canadian so the article can be fixed accordingly. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your American sources, not Canadian ones. What about what I wrote earlier about W. E. Eccles, he is an English writer, and he mentions Canadians a lot throughout his book on France in America. Oh ya, America is not only USA but all of North America.--Varing (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a link here to the book with a specific page discussing Fort Necessity Battle. Anything else should go in other pages. I'm happy to look at any sources but they have to be focused on the topic. BTW, the scalping question was a good question - I've actually read varying accounts of that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:49,: 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's nice to see that Varing was actually able to answer the question in a reasonable and civil tone. Although his suggestion ("majority rule") has some merit, Truthkeeper88 is nearer to what (at least I think) WP policy says: we write what relevant sources say. If Varing believes the sources used are not representative, he is certainly welcome to bring the perspective of sources he thinks we do not have access or inclination to use. (Just so you know, Varing, Eccles France in America is in a library 1/2 mile from my house -- my current limitation to crutches is keeping me from going there. It also has possibly relevant works by Fregault and Lanctot.)

That said, there are three different forces whose composition is in question in this article:

1. The force that evicted the British and built Fort Duquesne
2. Jumonville's force
3. Villiers' force

All of these are mentioned here, and need to be properly characterized. Truthkeeper asked about access to O'Meara: it's in a different library, about 1 1/4 mile away. Google Books gives some access. Taking these in order:

1. his description is not accessible to me
2. p. 86: "28 picked men, an interpreter, some cadets, and two officers"
3. p. 93: 500 "seasoned troops" organized by Contrecoeur, to which Villiers added "130 Indians and 20 French soldiers" and was given command

O'Meara routinely refers to the British opponents as "French" but also doesn't appear to differentiate marines from provincials in this timeframe.

William Fowler, in Empires at war goes like this:

1. p. 36: Contrecoeur is a "veteran Canadian soldier"; he has 600 "men"
2. p. 41: Jumonville has a "thirty-man patrol"
3. p. 45: Villiers has "500 men"

Fowler's description of the Jumonville affair is flawed -- he basically follows Washington in his narrative, and does not mention Monceau, the Canadian who escapes, by name.

Briefly looking at Anderson's Crucible of War, he also tends to be vague. Perhaps Varing will now favor us with a similar breakdown of these forces as presented by Eccles or other sources of his choosing. Magic♪piano 01:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Magicpiano. Personally I think O'Meara's book is the best, though a bit dated. I can get it tomorrow from my local library and also see what else is available - we have quite a comprehensive section on the French and Indian war. I seem to remember O'Meara using the term 'French' and as long as the article is sourced to him then we have to use his term, per policy. I agree that if Varing can bring something else forward that is of merit, it's worth having a look at it. Also agree that Anderson tends to be vague at times. I'll pick that up as well, anyway, while at the library. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for taking time to examine this more closely. I will on my part do my best to provide you with authors who wrote about the two events, but do not appear in the WP articles. I apologize to Magicpiano for being a bit rash in the beginning. Unlike what many people think, french speaking Canadians and Frenchmen have never been that close (Even the pronunciation and many words are different). Montcalm often wrote to the French King that the war was a lost cause and a Canadian affair. On his final battle at the plans of Abraham, he quickly engaged battle with a majority of Canadian and Indian troops. According to European rules of war at the time, he could have waited longer, allowing time for his 4000 elite French soldiers to take part. No one knows what he was thinking, but he couldn't wait to finish the war and go back home to France. So, what do you think: a) He deliberately threw in the Canadian militias and Indians knowing that they would lose. Upon the first volley of fire, the Canadians hit the ground causing confusion and panic in the ranks. The battle lasted 20 minutes. b) He quickly engaged battle to avoid Wolfe from preparing a siege of the walled city. But here, he would have had to bring cannons up upon the high plateau surrounding the city. However, it is said that Murray made the same mistake the following year when he came out of the city with his troops and lost to Lévis. After waiting a while for reenforcements, British ships arrived and Lévis exclaimed, France has abandon us. Even Voltaire wrote at the time. Why bother with the barn on fire when your house is on fire, making reference to Canada and France during the Seven Years War.--Varing (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

O'Meara

I have O'Meara and as I remembered, he's quite specific.

• de Villiers (Jumonville's brother) arrived at the Point to Fort Duquesne with 20 Frenchman. (page 72) At the time Contrecoeur had with him 600 men at the forks of the Ohio (and I'm willing to believe some of these were Canadian militia but O'Meara isn't explicit about it). (p. 72) Contrecoeur was reinforced with "200 troops" under Lt. de Carqueville. (p, 72)
• Joseph Coulon de Jumonville left Ft. Duquesne with "28 handpicked men" on May 23rd. These included officers, interpreters and cadets. (page 86)
• A single "Frenchman" name Mouceau survived the attack at the glen. A Memoire of the account based on Washington's --Varing (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)captured diary was published in Paris and sent to courts throughout Europe. (p. 88)
• de Villiers left to avenge his brother with his "20 French soldiers". At that time (June 26) Ft. Duquesne had a garrison of 1000. Contrecoeur intended to send "500 seasoned troops" against Washington. de Villiers asked to lead and permission to do so was granted. (p. 92)

I think if we follow this language we're fine. Apparently the troops with Jumonville were French, the troops with de Villiers were French, the garrison at the Fort probably included French troops, Canadian irregulars and Indians. But since O'Meara doesn't mention Canadian militia specifically we can't add that in. Once we've agreed we can change the language accordingly.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is not necessarily a correct assumption that (to pick one) Jumonville's force did not include Canadiens. In fact, we know (because Contrecoeur said so in his report) that the one escapee, Monceau, was Canadien, as were a number of the dead (see Varing's quotes above). This is (as I see it) the nub of Varing's linguistic objection: just because an author says "French", doesn't mean the force is "French from France". I'm willing to believe that historians such as Eccles, Fregault, and Lanctot (Canadian historians all) will provide nuance that American historians don't. This is not to say we can't use the shorthand "French" in to refer to mixed forces -- this is what most English-language histories use, and all of these forces were fighting under a French flag. But we should correctly report the most precise force composition we can find.

More sources: Eccles, in the DCB entry on Jumonville, calls Jumonville's force "Canadian" -- thus, at least there, he is as technically wrong as O'Meara in his characterization of the force. Nester (an American), in The Great Frontier War calls them "French". Magic♪piano 00:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as we use the language in the sources. While I was at the library I pulled all the books on the incident, but O'Meara's account really is one the better ones. I wouldn't mind using terms such as "men" and 'troops' and 'soldiers', leaving out the designations. Clearly Jumonville and de Villiers are French, but if different sources refer to Mouceau as either French or Canadien, it should simply say "one man survived the attack" or something like that. Anyway, since I have O'Meara at hand, I'll probably spend a little time tidying and expanding the page in the next few weeks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This source (a 19th century history of Pittsburg) has some interesting commentary on the fate of the prisoners Washington took. Most of the officers taken were eventually sent to England; in all of the primary materials it includes extracts of, none of them enumerate the rank and file of Jumonville's detachment. Villiers' is almost certainly a mixed French/Canadien/Indian force.

Jumonville and Villiers were both born in New France, serving as officers in the marines. (Stated in WP entries, probably confirmable in their DCB entries.)

(this time I remember to sign :) Magic♪piano 00:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, quite a lot of information and primary sources are available through the University of Pittsburgh and various museums in Pittsburgh; in fact O'Meara used much of that information in his book. I'm surprised at how bad the article on Fort Duquesne is, given the information available. Anyway, yes, I think de Villiers left Fort Duquesne with French, Canadian and Indian forces. But, again, we need to have a specific source telling us that. I do have Christopher Gist's diary somewhere around. Will look for it and see what he had to say, if anything. I also have a facsimile of Washington's diary, but not sure if it covers this period or only the trip to Ft. le Beouf and back to Williamsburg. We do have to be careful, though, about using primary sources with so many secondary sources available. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

William Kingsford (amateur 19th century Canadian historian) does not really describe Jumonville's force, but says the complete listing of his detachment is in primary source materials. I have also seen a snippet of Lanctot's history that suggests this. Magic♪piano 01:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am amazed with all the good work that the two of you have done! I was out working all day, and after I came home, to my surprise, I find this interesting conversation. There seems to be two sides to this issue, like one medical study outdoing the other one. If you added all the French historical articles of the events by Canadien historians, you would be overwelmed by the fact that Canadien soldiers are almost always used in comparison to French soldiers. After all, Jumonville and de Villiers were both born in Canada, as so many of the soldiers involved in these two battles. If it was not for the fact that France entered the war after that, and that the bulk of the troops before France sent it's first 3000 men were Canadien, I would not object to Truthkeeper's remarks. But even after France entered the war, it was 3 Canadian soldiers for every French soldier. Unlike when Great Britain sent her massive aid in 1757, for a total of 60,000 men, it was the opposite, 3 British soldiers for every American soldier. When Magicpiano quotes Eccles, I find Eccles to be fair play, he mentions Canadian troops and American ones. He could have said French colonials, British colonials, British or French militiamen, etc, but he used the term American and Canadian to best differentiate who the participants were. I uphold this view because it makes it clear to the reader who the participants really were. How would you like if historians today would refer to George Washington as the first British President in the United States? I believe in making it clear to the readers at WP, not just repeat word for word what some historians have said, and others have not. Race is objective. My wife is Vietnamese, but many people say she is Chinese. Then, when we are in Northern and Eastern Canada, she draws attention because she could easily be Innuit, Innu, or MicMac. I even pay no tax on goods because of this, or get free gasoline on top of what I paid for. So, what does that tell you Gentlemen?--Varing (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: Food for thought! Speaking of First Nations, they don't like to be called Indians in Canada. The Innuits would hate you to call them Eskimos; the Innus would hate you to call them Montagnais, and the Wendats don't like to be called Hurons. Yet, in many history books you run across the previous terminology. But at WP, because everyone contributes, I have noticed that the First Nations are very sensitive about what we write about them. In many old French text books, the word Sauvages Savages, would often appear to relate to the North American Indians. Well, guess what, the Canadian and Quebec Governments have asked for the word Sauvage to be replaced in many school textbooks.--Varing (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't access the Eccles link for some reason, but if that's acceptable to the two of you, then I'm happy to find some peace here. Re, the Native Americans, I did cringe when I wrote Indians - probably better to identify the tribes if possible. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

One more quick last thought - O'Meara seems to believe de Villiers and Jumonville were born in France. It is difficult to reconcile the sources, so we just have to be careful about making sure statements are cited properly. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at this, and there are many who state he was born in Canada, or New France. [2] or [3]. As for de Villiers, [4] or [5] By the way, Verchères, Quebec, is where Madeleine de Verchères, who was only 14 at the time, prevented an Iroquois raid on her village in 1692. The men having left the village hunting, Madeleine and other women, made stuffed mannequins with the men's clothing to give the appearance of many men in the fortified village. She and the women fired their rifles occasionally to prevent the Iroquois from attacking. That both Jumonville and de Villers are born in this old village, is very plausible. If ever I am in Verchères, I will go look at the birth registry and let you know!--Varing (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

PS:Did you know that Calixa Lavallée was also born in Verchères, and that he served in the US Civil War with the North. Later, he would compose O Canada, Canada's National anthem; just as Francis Scott Key composed that of the US during the Civil War period.--Varing (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Eccles and even more sources

Just so Varing doesn't get too excited about Eccles and his use of "Canadian", in The Canadian Frontier, 1534-1760, he (1) doesn't identify the composition of Jumonville's party, and (2) routinely refers to the British opponents as "French". He is equally vague about Villiers' force. Contrecoeur's construction force is 800 "troops and militia". link

Another Canadian source to look for would be George Stanley's New France (which does not appear to be widely available outside Canada). French Canadian Gustave Lanctot in History of Canada: From the Treaty Utrecht to the Treaty of Paris, --Varing (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)1713-1763 says Jumonville went with "30 Canadians". American Francis Jennings, Empire of Fortune, uses "French", as does Fred Anderson (although in Crucible of War he calls Jumonville's force "men").

It seems to me the preponderance of correspondents are equivocating, and use "French" in a generic sense of "French speaking" (or "under French flag"), rather than "from France". It's clear the force was of mixed composition -- we have citable sources saying there are "French from France" and "French from Canada" in these parties, but none have yet given an "order of battle" breakdown of any of the three forces. This indicates to me that (1) the force should be properly characterized as mixed French/Canadian (and Indian for those of Villiers and Contrecoeur), and otherwise referred to in descriptions of the action as "French". Magic♪piano 16:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to help close this, I would be okay with the usage of a mixture of Canadian/French or French/Canadian for the forces that particiated in the Battle of Fort Necessity. However, since we know where the slain soldiers came from at Jumonville Glen, I retain an all Canadian regiment. Whether one was not of the 30-35 involved is of little importance. In respect for those that died, it is important that they retain who they were.--Varing (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We still don't know (in a verifiable way) that the entire force of Jumonville was colonial, considering the equivocation going on amongst the sources, and we also need fidelity to the words used by those making reports (e.g. we have to use "French" when Washington wrote "French"). It is certainly proper to acknowledge the dead appropriately. I have made an edit I consider tentative to Battle of Jumonville Glen. It needs work, in particular a full citation to either the original Eccles or the Nos Racines which is quoting Eccles. (I'd still like a catalog number or at least author/editor information for Nos Racines since I am unable to locate in online catalogs a work matching your exact description. Is it Lacoursiere?) Magic♪piano 21:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nos Racines is Jacques Lacoursière and Hélène-Andrée Bizier. I have the full collection, 12 volumes. I see they are selling for 45 dollars a book. I paid 100 for all 12 last year. It seems that they are unavailable on line. You never mentioned historians François-Xavier Garneau and Lionel Groulx, and both wrote Canadian and not French in their history books. If this is to be the case, then guys like George Washington deserve to be called British. If Americans cannot respect the fact that these men were truly Canadian, then the word American should not exist in that time period. Anyways, hundreds of millions of Latin Americans consider themselves American too, because they live in North, Central and South AMERICA. They call Americans in Spanish Estadounidenses (United Staters), just like if Canada had been called United Provinces, we would be United Provincers. In Portuguese Estadunidenses and in France Etats-Uniens. So even the word american is wrong in the majority of languages.--Varing (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"If Americans cannot respect the fact that these men were truly Canadian." Umm, [citation needed], for two things:

"that these men were [all, or even mostly] truly Canadian"

"If Americans cannot respect the fact"

I resent the second accusation: substantiate my (or other editors') lack of respect, or retract it. Magic♪piano 02:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Garneau uses "French" to describe Jumonville's force, and "Canadian" to describe Villiers'. Magic♪piano 02:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Garneau in original French does the same. Magic♪piano 02:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Marcel Trudel, in l'Affaire Jumonville (abridged English translation in JSTOR; I will email PDF if requested), calls Jumonville's force "French", except for the "Canadian Monceau". Magic♪piano 03:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Martti Kerkkonen, Peter Kalm's North American Journey (Studia Historica, I, Finnish Historical Society, Helsinki, 1959), pp. 109-110 New comers to Canada from France were much struck by the urbanity and by the simple dignity and courteous manners of the Canadian habitants. Peter Kalm, who toured both the English colonies and Canada in 1748-1749, found Canadian society much the more agreeable of the two. He wrote: The difference between the favour and politeness which is my lot here and that of the English provinces is like that between heaven and earth, between black and white. After leaving Canada he wrote: The people there, even the common man, are much more polite than the people in the English provinces, and especially compared to the Dutch... The difference was as great as if one had gone from the Court to a peasant's house.--Varing (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Americans view the world with thick tinted glasses. If you do not agree with them, you are wrong and they are right. In 262 years, not much has changed between Canadian society and the American English one!--Varing (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Americans like Marcel Trudel, Francois-Xavier Garneau, and George Wrong are all wearing blinkers. You're not arguing with me, you are arguing with Canadian (including French-Canadian) sources. Magic♪piano 12:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Mr. Controversy himself, Marcel Trudel. The guy had to leave University Laval because he wrote that the religious orders during the time of the colonies had used Natives as slaves. Really, I often stayed to work for the nuns and brothers and I never considered it slavery. He is a turncoat, a traitor, a Benedict Arnold, (although Arnold had good reasons to join the British). He doesn't believe in the Canadian soldier's version or the Indian's version. According to him, the Natives killed the soldiers. So why does Washington mention the whistling of bullets in his journal. Well he died in January and cannot be controversial anymore.--Varing (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How nice that you have an opinion. Unfortunately, your opinion (and mine too) doesn't determine what we say in Wikipedia, reliable sources do. Here's another (North) American for you: Raymond Litalien refers to Jumonville as an "officier français" (not an "officier Canadien"). link Magic♪piano 19:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're going around in circles here. We've shown plenty of sources, and yet they are never quite right. Here's one that gives a brief history of the de Villiers family. Jumonville and his brothers were born in Verchères. de Villiers had with him a force of Algonquin and Nipissings when he left for the Battle of Fort Necessity. Jumonville had with him a force of French men. The majority of sources are saying French. (pages 224-225). The sources may not be right, but according to WP we have to stick with was can be verified using reliable sources. I think I might ask another editor to have a look at this conversation for yet another opinion. Also am placing a notification on the talk page that this is not a forum to keep us focused. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Because there are as many articles mentioning Canadians as that mentioning French. Look at this: [6] and [7] and[8].--Varing (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The first two are reference books and we have better scholarly sources. The third is good but also says that de Villiers had with him a French force. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We cannot even agree that Jumonville and de Villiers where born in Verchères, Canada. How many historians think twice about writing French or Canadian! When it comes time to Virginians, Americans, Colonials, there is no problem.--Varing (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a source, linked above, that tells us they were born in Verchères, so that's fine, and it can be used in the article. Should also be added to their individual articles if not already done. That said, the source identifies them as French. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's abundantly clear that the Coulon brothers were French Canadian (as was Contrecoeur); their DCB entries should be seen as definitive on this subject. Any sources that say otherwise are just being sloppy, and we shouldn't follow them on that detail. Magic♪piano 22:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been to the library and seen Eccles France in America and Canadian Frontier. Varing, despite quoting elsewhere from these works, has never favored us with a detailed description of how Eccles described the forces of Jumonville and Villiers. According to my notes, he used "French" (pages 181 ff) to describe these forces. For the opposition to Braddock, he is highly specific (page 184, quoted by Varing above): 108 marines, 146, militia, 600 Indians. In the foreword he specifically describes the marines as being recruited in France. In Canadian Frontier (page 163) he says 500 "men" (out of 800 "troops and militia") evicted Trent's building party, and (page 164) Jumonville's party was 33 "men". He also uses "men" to describe Villiers' force.

I also had a look at Fregault's Histoire de la Nouvelle France. He refers to Jumonville's force (page 103) as a "detachement Canadien" and Villiers' as "500 hommes". Lanctot (History of Canada, in translation) calls Marin's construction party "1,600 regulars and militia", Jumonville's "30 Canadians", and Villiers' "600 French and 100 Indians". Magic♪piano 20:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Source summary

The score I have (counting up most of the sources mentioned in this discussion):

The force of Jumonville described as:

• Nothing specific: Sheppard, O'Meara, Kingsford, Eccles (Canadian Frontier)
• French: Nester, Fleming, Garneau, Trudel, Wrong, Arthur et al, Bell, Litalien, Eccles (France in America)
• French and Canadien/Canadian: Chartrand
• Canadien/Canadian: Eccles (via Lacoursiere in Nos Racines), Eccles (DCB Jumonville), Lanctot, Fregault

The force of Villiers described as:

• Nothing specific: Eccles (Canadian Frontier)
• French: O'Meara, Nester, Wrong, Eccles (France in America), Fregault, Lanctot
• French and Canadien: Sheppard, Kingsford (to describe force, thereafter French)
• Canadien: Garneau

The demographic breakdown of these historians (as far as I am aware):

• French Canadian: Garneau, Trudel, Litalien, Chartrand, Fregault, Lanctot
• English Canadian: Eccles (born UK, spent most of his life in Canada), Wrong, Kingsford
• American: O'Meara, Nester, Fleming, Arthur et al, Bell
• UK: Sheppard

I've deliberately omitted Americans who are widely available: Fowler, Anderson, Parkman, and Jennings. I've also omitted Lanctot (French Canadian), because I haven't seen the full text. Updated. Magic♪piano 21:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I will furthermore point out that Fleming (the above-linked History of Pittsburgh), reprints translated extracts from a number of journals and documents. These include:

• Villiers referring to the Fort Necessity force as "French" link
• Pierre Pouchot (who was not present) describing the Fort Necessity force of Villiers as "French" link
• the terms of capitulation at Necessity refers to the return of "French and Canadian" prisoners taken by Washington link

These are all obviously translations. I invite Varing to locate reprints of French originals if he wishes to dispute these observations. (Varing is of course always welcome to bring additional sources to the table.) Magic♪piano 22:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work! I am pleased with the progress. I will do all I can to locate the reprints of French originals and bring additional sources to the discussion. Thank you for your preceverance. It's turning out to be more of an asset than a nuisance. Although Truthkeeper does not want this to be a forum, I must add that 250 years or so later, it is important that we make this important distinction. France abandoned Canada and Canadians. It was the British that gave us our freedom, language rights, and religious rights. The Quebec Act of 1774 is as powerful to us as the Declaration of Independence is to you. The British Parliament and the King ackowledged us as a people and have been a good ally ever since. When a group of Canadians took over the government in New Orleans and proclaimed an Independent Louisiana, France did not recognize them, and one year later, they were arrested and shot by the New Spanish government in Mexico City. On the French side of wikipedia, don't think I don't have heated discussions with the French. They cannot come back to claim what they never wanted. It was their Napoleon that sold Louisiana for practically nothing, doubling the size of the US. When they come to Canada, they are warned to expect a greater difference between them and us, than between them and their neighbors the Germans.--Varing (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Eccles in Canadian Frontier does mention something specific on page 160. At Quebec, Duquesne was making plans to hold the headwaters of the Ohio with forces sufficient to repel any attempts the English might make to occupy the area. In the spring of 1753 he sent 300 Troupes de la Marine, 1700 Canadian militia, and some 200 Indians to Lake Erie under the command of Captain Pierre-Paul de la Malgue, sieur de Marin, a tough of the west born, as Duquesne put it, with a tomahawk in his hands. Marins orders were to construct a road from Lake Erie to the headwaters of the Ohio and to establish forts at strategic points in the area. The expedition built and garrisoned Fort Presqu'île, began a wagon road to the head of the Rivière aux Boeufs, then hauled supplies over it to build a fort there and another to be named Fort Duquesne further on at the forks of the Ohio. Now from this, we know that the forts were guarrisoned mainly by Canadians. Remember that Jumonville had been despatched from Fort Duquesne.--Varing (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

From Canadian Military Heritage Gateway, we have the following statement: These events had further repercussions when Captain Louis Coulon de Villiers of the Navy troops arrived at Fort Duquesne with reinforcements on the following June 26 and learned of the death of his brother. He was given command of a corps of some 600 Canadian militiamen and soldiers, as well as 100 Amerindians, and set out in pursuit of the American volunteers. Arriving at the site of the ambush, he interred the scalped, unburied bodies of the French, and then carried on with his pursuit. The Americans were not as skillful as the Canadians at disappearing into the woods, and so they took refuge in a little fort, aptly named Fort Necessity (near Farmington, Pennsylvania). Here Coulon de Villiers caught up with them on July 3. After a heavy exchange of fire, which killed 100 Americans, Washington capitulated. Coulon de Villiers then demonstrated great moderation, allowing the man whom he considered his brother's murderer to return home over the Allegheny Mountains. Notice that de Villiers was given command of 600 Canadian militiamen.

Careful. "600 Canadian militiamen and soldiers" can be parsed two ways: is it 600 Canadian (miltiamen and soldiers) or 600 (Canadian militiamen) and soldiers? I don't know which is correct... One of these sources I think gives a detailed breakdown of militia vs. marines, but that doesn't tell us the composition of the marines. I think it dangerous to assume that the marines were exclusively (or even majority) Canadian on the basis of two historians' claims (one of whom, Garneau, is fairly old), and the fairly well-documented statements that the marines' typical rank and file were recruits from France. Magic♪piano 21:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Although the act of surrender signed by Washington admitted the attack that had killed Jumonville and the usurpation of French territory, the Americans showed no inclination to respect this signature and the conditions of surrender when it came to occupying the new territories. The strength of the Virginia Regiment was increased to 700 men and three independent companies of reinforcements arrived from New York and South Carolina. In late 1754, these troops were stationed east of the Allegheny Mountains in order to prevent any French incursions. These repercussions of the "Jumonville incident" aroused another diplomatic storm in Europe, but in reinforcing their defences rather than attacking, the Americans once again admitted their inability, from a strictly military point of view, to take on the Canadian forces. Once again Canadian forces are mentioned.--Varing (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Varing, This is very informative. I'm happy to start editing the article, adding the information we have. Can you give source information, or links for the above. Also, I don't know why I can't access Eccles - does one need database or library access for it? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Canadian Military heritage site is [9]. Eccles Canadian Frontier is [10]--Varing (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For purposes of comparison, does Eccles ever use the word "French" to refer to forces prior to the arrival of the troupes de la terre in 1755? (For example, some military engineers active in New France were troupes de la terre sent over.) He could be just as sloppy in his use of "Canadian" as other historians are in their use of "French".

Eccles writes for example during the period of 1752: The governor general at Quebec, Galissonière, decided that a show of force was needed to bring the Indians to their senses. He dispatched an expeditionary force of Canadian militia, some Troupes de la Marine, and a small party of Mission Iroqouis and Abenakis, some 230 men in all. To lead the expedition, he chose a Canadian, Pierre-Joseph céloron de Blainville, a regular officer with years of experience as commandant in the west. With him went other experienced Canadian officers, as well as Father Joseph-Pierre de Bonnécamps to serve as chaplain and secretary. Father Bonnécamps' duties included writing a description of the area traversed and preparing maps, because the French still had only a very imperfect knowledge of the region. In the last sentence, he is quoting someone, but cannot know who! When he writes, it is clear that he is not being sloppy and uses the term Canadian whenever applicable.--Varing (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to edits being made here or at Battle of Jumonville Glen, as long as the other editors involved assume good faith and can civilly express disagreements over those edits with out resorting to edit warring or insults. If someone objects to an edit, it should suffice to revert it once (if at all), and then discuss the objection on the relevant article's talk page. I'm particularly concerned that quotations and paraphrased reports use "as reported" language. For example, Christopher Gist reported a party of 50 French in the area to Washington, even though some or all may have been Canadian; this means we have to use "French" when we describe his report. (We also have to use "50", which is also incorrect given what is known of Jumonville's force.) Does this make sense? Magic♪piano 21:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I normally write about literature and what I do is attribute critics directly by writing "such and such writes that .... " I think that's the way to go about this. First I'd like to go over the article carefully and copyedit if necessary and then insert the information, attributed to the sources. The Gist account is a good example - it would be nice to have that in, cited to him, and then another sentence explaining that he was incorrect cited to someone else. I do agree that we need a 1R rule here. If anything is reverted, after the first time it needs to be hashed out on the talk page. Finally, I think some of the information we have here might actually make its own section, or at least a note - that some historians refer to the forces as French and others as French-Canadian and still others as Canadian. Am not certain about that until I get in and start editing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Not well received by all

Despite good Franco-Indian relations, British traders became successful in convincing the Indians to trade with them in preference to the Canadiens, and the planned large-scale advance was not well received by all. The reason for this was that they had to provide them with the goods that the Anglo-American traders had previously supplied, and at similar prices. This proved to be singularly difficult. With the exception of one or two Montreal merchant traders, the Canadians showed a great reluctance to venture into the Ohio country.

For a non-historian, this passage is difficult to parse. — MaxEnt 10:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

'only surrender'

"the only surrender of his military career."

This is a fairly meaningless factoid from a flimsy source, namely the Mount Vernon website ("Ten Facts About George Washington and the French and Indian War"), the text of which, curiously, asserts no such claim.

Clearly if Washington had personally surrendered at a later point in his career, his significance as a historical character would have been radically altered and we would not be discussing him in this vein.

Moreover, it is not entirely true since, in addition to his numerous battlefield defeats and retreats, the surrender of Fort Washington on New York Island in November 1776, a debacle for which Washington was responsible although he was not himself caught within the defences, arguably represented one of the worst defeats in the War of independence after the surrender of Charleston in 1780.

I suggest the article would have more authority without this additional piece of biographical 'puff' JF42 (talk)

 JF42 (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)