Washington's Road (Nemacolin's path) the First Chapter of the Old French War — Themes and Context

Washington did when his ignorant interpreter betrayed him to the intriguing French commander; you march with Braddock's thin red line to that charnel ground beyond the bloody ford--you stand at Braddock's grave while the army wagons hurry over it to obliterate its sight from savage eyes.

Explain it as you will, our study of these historic routes and the memorials which are left of them becomes, soon, a study of its hero, that young Virginian lieutenant-colonel. Even the battles fought here seem to have been of little real consequence, for New France fell, never to rise, with the capture of Quebec. But it is not of little consequence that here a brave training school was to be had for the future heroes of the Revolution. For in what did Washington, for instance, need a training more than in the art of maneuvering a handful of ill-equipped, discouraged men out of the hands of a superior army? What lesson did that youth need more than the lesson that Right becomes Might in God's own good time? And here in these Alleghany glades we catch the most precious pictures of the lithe, keen-eyed, sober lad, who, taking his lessons of truth and uprightness from his widowed mother's knee, his strength hardened by the power of the mountain rivers, his heart, now thrilled by the songs of the mountain birds, now tempered by a St. Pierre's hauteur, a Braddock's rebuke, or the testy suspicions of a provincial governor, became the hero of Valley Forge and Yorktown, the immeasurable superior of St. Pierre, Dinwiddie, Forbes, Kaunitz, or Newcastle.

For consider the record of the Washington of 1775, beneath the Cambridge elm. Twenty-one years before, he had capitulated, with the first army he ever commanded, after the first day's battle he ever fought. He marched with Braddock's ill-starred army, in which he had no official position whatever, until defeat and rout threw on his shoulders a large share of the responsibility of saving the army from complete annihilation. For the past sixteen years he had led a quiet life on his farms. Why, now, in 1775, should he have had the unstinted confidence of all men in the hour of his country's great crisis? Why should his march from Mount Vernon to Cambridge have been a triumphal march? Professor McMaster asserts that the General and the President are known to us, "but George Washington is an unknown man." How untrue this was, at least, in 1775! How the nation believed it knew the man! How much reputation he had gained, while those by his side lost all of theirs! What a hero--of many defeats! What a man to fight England to a standstill after many a wary, difficult retreat and dearly fought battle-field! Aye--but he had been to school with Gates and Mercer and Gladwin, Lewis and Boone, and Stephen, on Braddock's twelve-foot swath of a road in the Alleghanies!

It was more than a century ago that George Washington died at Mount Vernon. "I die hard," he said, "but I am not afraid to go." Motley's true words of the death of William the Silent may be aptly quoted of Washington: "As long as he lived, he was the guiding-star of a whole brave nation, and when he died, the little children wept on the streets."

If, as Professor McMaster has boldly said, "George Washington is an unknown man," it is not, as might be inferred, because the man himself was an enigma to his own generation, or that which immediately succeeded him; it is because the General and the President have been remembered by us, and the man, forgotten. If this is true, it is because our school histories, the principal source from which the mass of the people receive their information, are portraying only one of the fractions which made the great man what he was. It is said: "He was as fortunate as great and good." Do our school histories inform the youth of the land why he was "fortunate" to the exclusion of why he was "great and good?" If so, George Washington is, or soon will be, "an unknown man."