The Continental Congress appointed George Washington Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army on June 19, 1775. Washington did not think he was qualified for the job. It’s not like any other part of the Patriot resistance was ready for war.
Washington was off to lead a bunch of Massachusetts farmers who trained part-time. There were a lot of them, and they’d beaten the over-confident British at Lexington and Concord, but they weren’t much better than a rabble in arms. And there was no way to be certain they wouldn’t slouch back to their fields whenever it pleased them.
Congress authorized a new Continental Army along with commissioning Washington. That would be a few hundred riflemen from Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. They might be sharpshooters, but there weren’t many of them.
[RELATED: Before the Flag, the Fight]
Not that Congress could pay for a vast army. It authorized spending two million dollars, backed by their IOU. Washington had Congress’ commission, a store of funny money, and marksmen and militia he maybe could make an army of. He need not have dwelled on his own shortcomings as a leader.
His modesty was indeed a good reason to make him general. But Congress had other good reasons as well.
Washington hadn’t just been an officer in the French and Indian War. He’d been an officer of the Virginia Regiment, recruited hastily from the usual riffraff from 16 to 60, as well as more public-spirited volunteers. But Washington’s experience leading and training a motley of raw soldiers was especially useful as he headed to take command of the militia besieging Boston.
Then, too, Washington’s personal wealth was an extraordinary boon to the war effort. Washington said he would serve for no salary, merely asking for reimbursement for his expenses. But “reimbursement” actually was another gift from Washington to the Continental Congress—he paid out of pocket, to be reimbursed at a later point by Congress. Washington’s expenses in his first month included the first payments to set up America’s espionage network behind British lines. Washington, perhaps the wealthiest man in America, probably had better credit than Congress. Congress was literally in debt to Washington for his military services throughout the War of Independence.
Washington himself remarked that he was a politically useful appointee. This is true—a Virginian, a representative of the largest and richest colony, was a sensible political choice. It also eliminated squabbles about military merit: other would-be commanders-in-chief could comfort themselves that Washington owed his position to politics. Of course, this meant that Washington still would need to prove himself as a general—but that would have been true of his rivals as well.
Washington’s excellent character impressed all his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress. He looked a general. He did have as much military experience as anyone in America. But Congress ultimately had to gamble that he would grow in the job. Thank heavens the gamble worked out.
[RELATED: One Hill Sold, a Revolution Gained]
The billionaire Trump has some parallels to Washington. Certainly it helps that he had deep enough pockets to resist persecutors lawfare by his opponents. But I think the truer heirs to Washington are all the recruits to his administration.
These, after all, are the outsiders who never have been part of the bipartisan establishment. They are not raw recruits—those are the MAGA millions—but they are outsiders, colonial officers never allowed to command British regulars, sometimes wealthy men who stake their private riches for the nation’s good. By their thousands, they are ready to serve weary years, often far from home.
We have many Washingtons in Washington. Some also need to grow in their jobs. I think they will.
Follow David Randall on X, and for more articles on the American Revolution, see our series here.
Image: “Washington, appointed Commander in Chief” by Currier & Ives on Picryl
