Friendly Fire - Who found the French first?
That night of 12 Nov 1758 saw 2 battles. The first battle was fighting the French and their Indians. The other is when Washington's and Mercer's men collided into each other, mistaking the other for the enemy.
Who found the French first? And who caught Richard Johnson?
Richard Johnson was English. He was caught fighting for the French team. He was caught along with 2 other French siding Indians.
He was caught on 12 Nov 1758, outside Loyalhannon (later officially dubbed Fort Ligonier 1 Dec 1758).
He was interrogated by Forbes and his information changed a major decision from the night before 11 Nov 1758.
That prisoner's information changed a decision to delay their advance until Spring to a decision for full speed ahead NOW !!
We wonder who's men caught him.
Washington's? Or Mercer's?
Compare two historians:
Douglas Southall Freeman
claims Washington's men met the French first. He claims GW "held" the prisoner, which doesn't necessarily mean his men "caught" the prisoner.
Douglas R Cubbison
claims Mercer's men met the French first and caught the prisoner.
Then there's one more person's take on it:
George Washington
claims it was Mercer, 30 years after the event.
Douglas Southall Freeman,
in his multi volume biography of George Washington in Volume 2, Pages 357-359, published 1948 by Charles Scribner's Sons, wrote:
On the 12th of November, the outposts sent word that the enemy again was approaching Loyal Hannon.
Forbes immediately had the drums beat the general assembly and, when the men formed ranks, he sent Washington off in person with 500 of the Virginia troops to pursue the French, who were assumed to be making another raid on the cattle and the horses of the British.
Behind Washington, George Mercer was to proceed with another 500 men and was to try to surround the enemy.
Washington proceeded briskly and in the late afternoon, at a point about three miles [others have said 2 miles or 1 mile] from camp, came upon a party of French and Indians around a fire.
Cubbison:
[[[ Jim Moyer's blog note:
Douglas Southall Freeman uses Washington's accounts.
But Cubbison uses Captain Bullitt's memoir.
Cubbison states,
"As Captain Thomas Bullitt's account unabashedly states,
Washington lost control
of the situation
and his column
collided with Mercer
instead of the
French and Indians. "
[ But didn't Washington leave first?
According to General Forbes he ordered
Colonel Washington with 500 men out first.
Then he ordered out Lt Col George Mercer with 500 men.
Could it be assumed he ran into the French first?
Then Mercer's men leaving afterwards
ran into Washington's men?
These leading questions are what
Douglas Southall Freeman must have thought.]
Cubbison continues,
"Although
at least Mercer made contact
with the French
and held his own in the contest,
capturing three prisoners in the process,
the French were able to slip away,
and the Virginian columns
ended up engaging
each other in the dark."
-- source Page 154 of The British Defeat of the French in Pennsylvania, 1758: A Military History of the Forbes Campaign Against Fort Duquesne: by Douglas R. Cubbison.
That Mercer made contact with the French first, appears to be supported by Washington, who wrote a remembrance of this event almost 30 years later. Click on quote here. ]]]
Back to Douglas Southall Freeman:
Douglas Southall continues his point of view:
In a quick exchange of musketry, one of the alien soldiers was killed.
By closing in quickly on the others, who undertook to flee,
the Virginians captured a white prisoner and two Indians.
Washington held these prisoners near the fire
and awaited developments.
Presently, through the growing darkness,
a considerable force was observed .
Almost at the same instant, both sides delivered a volley.
Men fell, the wounded cried out.
From the approaching troops there likewise game shouts Officers yelled their orders — and yelled in English.
The men were Mercer’s own Virginians were firing mto the ranks of their friends.
Each side had mistaken the other for French.
As soon as the grim mistake was realized, the men lowered their guns and turned to the care of their wounded.
The toll was heavier than in any action Washington had witnessed after Braddock’s defeat. One lieutenant was dead, thirteen other soldiers had been killed, twenty-six had been wounded . 183
The enemy, disappearing in the darkness, might say mockingly that he did not need to attack the English they would kill one another. It was for Washington an experience so unhappy that he never wrote of it , 164 but some of his comrades remembered it. Twenty years later, a British officer was to record, “The very first engagement in which he ever was concerned , 105 was against his own countrymen ” [Footnote 168]
Sources:
From Douglas Southall Freeman's Young George Washington, Volume 2, Pages 357-359, published 1948, Charles Scribner's Sons
Page 154 of The British Defeat of the French in Pennsylvania, 1758: A Military History of the Forbes Campaign Against Fort Duquesne: by Douglas R. Cubbison.
Founders Online Footnote:
.
Questions, Assumptions:
Lots of Questions.
Do we assume Washington's 500 men left first, because Forbes gave the order to Washington?
Did Washington then order out Mercer's 500 first?
Or, if Washington's men out first, maybe they did not find the French first.
And since GW was of higher rank maybe he was given custodian of this important captive after Mercer's men made the capture.
Historian Douglas Southall Freeman relied more on GW without those remembrances GW wrote 30 years later.
Historian Cubbison relied more on Capt Bullitt.
The bias of GW is to protect his name. The bias of Bullitt is a long running competition with GW. Bullitt and Adam Stephen teamed together through the 1760s and 1770s and 1780s against both GW and George Mercer for the land promised by Dinwiddie in his 1754 Proclamation.
These are small questions though.
Does it matter who found the French first? Or who caught the Prisoner first? Or who started the Friendly Fire? Or how many miles from Loyalhanna? Or how many killed and wounded?
Did it change the course of history?
No.
We're still curious though, just to know the record.
What Matters then?
What mattered was what that captured Englishman, Richard Johnson, had to say.
Only the day before on 11 Nov 1758, the War Council of officers, the only one ever arranged by Forbes during this entire expedition, had decided unanimously to delay the advance until Spring.
But this prisoner's report changed all that.
The two Indian captives backed his report.
And it seemed more believable than the last captive's report. The last one captured a month ago from the last attack on Loyalhanna bragged how large the French force was at Fort Duquesne.
But with the French Fort Frontenac fallen (a lifeline to Fort Duquesne) and the Easton Peace Treaty, this new report of weakness seemed more credible.
Only 12 days after the capture of Richard Johnson, smoke was spied over Fort Duquesne and reports of abandonment.
Had Forbes' army decided to stay in Loyalhanna and not approach, would the French have abandoned their Fort Duquesne?
They didn't abandon it right away after the Easton Indian Peace Treaty Oct 26, 1758.
They didn't abandon it right away after their lifeline Fort Frontenac had fallen August 27, 1758.
That's it.
That's Our Lead Story.
There's always more.
Skip around.
Read bits and pieces.
Compiled and written by Jim Moyer 2/25/2018, 10/4/2018, 10/9/2018, 10/10/2018, 11/10/19, 11/13/2022, 11/15/2022, 11/20/2022, 12/4/2022
Table of Contents
Friendly Fire - Where did it happen?
Forbes Version
of the Friendly Fire
doesn't state who found the French first or who captured the prisoners.
Importance of this letter:
1. It’s contemporary.
2. Gives a count of killed and wounded.
3. Notes that prisoners were captured in a skirmish with the French before the Friendly Fire
4. The capture of one white prisoner changed Forbes mind for giving up on the expedition for the Winter.
Forbes’s report to Gen. James Abercromby
on 17 Nov 1758:
“Two hundred of the ennemy
came to attack
our live Cattle and horses on the 12th—
I sent 500 men to give them chace
[Colonel George Washington's 500 ?]
with as many more to Surround them,
[Lt Colonel George Mercer's 500 men?]
there were some killed on both sides,
[Between the Virginians and the French]
but unfortunately our partys
fired upon each other
in the dark
by which we lost two officers
and 38 private kill’d or missing.
[Friendly Fire occurs after the skirmish with the French]
Wee made three prisoners
[One white prisoner, Richard Johnson, and 2 Indians allied to the French]
from whom wee have had
the only Intelligence
of the Enemys strength,
and which if true
gives me great hopes”
[ A War Council on 11 Nov 1758 voted to delay advancing until Spring. But on 12 Nov 1758, interrogation of a prisoner changed the decision to full speed ahead]
(James, Writings of Forbes, 255–56).
Notes in brackets [ . . . ] are Jim Moyer's notes, the author of this blog.
Sources:
Founders Online Footnote:
“Orderly Book, 12 November 1758,” Founders Online, National Archives, Footnote 1 one https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/02-06-02-0106. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Colonial Series, vol. 6, 4 September 1758 – 26 December 1760, ed. W. W. Abbot. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1988, pp. 120–123.]
Friendly Fire story
.
General John Forbes info:
Commanders in Chief of North America
James Abercrombie
Thomas Bullitt's Version
William Marshall Bullitt edited a memoir reportedly left by Thomas Walker Bullitt which includes this account of the tragic encounter: “
Two detachments from Colonel Washington’s regiment (one commanded by himself)
were out upon the frontiers endeavoring to surprise a detachment of French troops from Fort Duquesne (now Fort Pitt),
but instead of falling in with the French,
they met themselves (the day being remarkably dark and foggy);
each party mistook the other for the enemy,
and a very warm fire was immediately commenced on both sides.
Captain Bullitt was one of the first who discovered the mistake,
and running between the two parties,
waving his hat and calling to them,
put a stop to the firing.
It was thought and said by several of the officers,
and among others by Captain Bullitt,
that Colonel Washington did not discover his usual activity and presence of mind upon this occasion.
This censure thrown by Captain Bullitt upon his superior officer gave rise to a resentment in the mind of General Washington which never subsided”
Sources:
(Bullitt, My Life at Oxmoor, 3–4).
Founders Online
5th paragraph of footnote 1
Thomas Bullitt's ancestor who edited his memoir:
Washington's 3 versions:
Version 1
Below is excerpt from Founders Online:
GW’s Orderly Book,
Camp at Loyall Hannon Novr 12th 1758.
1 Colo. 1 Lt Colo. 1 Major 5 Caps. 15 Subs. 20 Serjts 20 Corpls & 400 Private Men .
to March to morrow morning at reveille
beating to the Ground
where the Skirmish
was this Evening
and to Carry a proportion
of Spades
in Order to Enter the Dead Bodies.
End quote.
Terse.
“a proportion of Spades in Order to Enter the Dead Bodies”
Noting only what needed done –
not what was done,
not observing what had happened.
.
Version 2
GW Limited Version
28 November 1758
GW does not mention this tragic incident of Friendly Fire when he writes to Fauquier on 28 Nov but he does mention the “three Prisoners who providentially fell into our hands.”
As an aside, those prisoners provide valuable intel. This information convinces General Forbes to proceed instead of taking a break for the rest of the winter. In fact, 12 days after The Friendly Fire Incident, the Forbes Expedition claims the site of the abandoned Fort Duquesne.
.
Source: Founders Online footnote:
.
GW writes from a camp at Fort DuQuesne
to Lt Gov Fauquier
28 November 1758.
” . . . and desertion of their Indians:
of these circumstances we were luckily informed,
by three Prisoners
who providentially fell into our hands
at Loyal-Hannan,
at a time when we
despaired of proceeding;
and a Council of War had determined
that it was not advisable to advance
beyond the place above-mentioned,
this season.
But the information above caused us to march on without Tents or Baggage, with a light train of artillery only; with which we have happily succeeded . . .”
Source:
VERSION 3
30 Years after the incident:
Douglas Southall Freeman did not see these Remembrances of Washington.
They were written by GW circa 29-30 years after the event in 1787-1788.
This was claimed on Page xii of “Washington Remembers, edited by Fred Anderson, who wrote “Crucible of War” on the French and Indian War and its worldwide reach.
On page xiii, Fred Anderson writes:
"The "Remarks' are Washington's unedited private thoughts, not intended for public consumption.
In them, he comments on a draft biography prepared by his close friend, David Humphreys.
The, readers will find three voices in the text:
Colonel Humphrey's biographical passages, which appear as italics in the notes,
General Washington's comments on the Humphrey's text,
And Martin West's end notes."
Martin West was Fort Ligonier's Director.
On page 24 of “Washington Remembers, edited by Fred Anderson,” Washington is quoted, as instructing his only authorized biographer and former aid de camp, Colo. David Humphreys:
“…that the whole of what Is here contained may be returned to G.W., or committed to the flames.”
Washington refers to himself in 3rd person as G.W. and discusses 2 skirmishes at Loyalhanning, one with the enemy and one between his group and George Mercer’s.
Somewhere between the top of the page showing Chestnut Ridge and Laurel Hill the French were discovered and the Friendly Fire happened after that.
“Previous to this, and during the time the Army lay at Loyalhanning a circumstance occurred
which involved the life of G.W. in as much jeopardy as it had ever been before or since.
the enemy sent out a large detachment
to reconnoitre our Camp, and to ascertain our strength; in consequence of Intelligence that they were within 2 miles of the Camp
a party commanded by Lt Colo. Mercer of the Virga line
(a gallant & good Officer) was sent to to dislodge them between who a Severe conflict & hot firing ensued which lasting some time & appearing to approach the Camp …
it was conceived that our party was yeilding the ground upon which G.W. with permission of the Genl called (for dispatch) for Volunteers and immediately marched at their head to sustain,
as was conjectured the retiring troops, led on by the firing till he came within less than half a mile, & it ceasing, he detached Scouts to investigate the cause & to communicate his approach to his friend Colo. Mercer advancing slowly in the meantime —
But it being near dusk and the intelligence
not having
been fully dissiminated
among Colo. Mercers Corps,
and they taking us,
for the enemy
who had retreated approaching in another direction
commenced a heavy fire
upon the releiving party
which drew fire in return
in spite of all the exertions of the Officers one of whom & several privates were killed and many wounded before a stop could be put to it.
to accomplish which
G.W. never was in more imminent danger
by being between two fires,
knocking up with his sword the presented pieces.”
Linger on that last line: ” being between two fires, knocking up with his sword the presented pieces.”
Source:
End quote of Page 23 from George Washington’s Remarks chapter in “George Washington Remembers, edited by Fred Anderson.”
Another Source:
.
BACKGROUND
The artist Charles Willson Peale painted this portrait of GW during the 1787 Constitutional Convention to fix the weak Articles of Confederation.
The picture shows GW how he looked in 1787 when he wrote the “Remarks” quoted above.
Charles Willson Peale is the same artist who also painted the first known picture of George Washington in 1772 wearing a French and Indian War uniform.
See the fascinating story on both that 1772 painting and the artist Charles Willson Peale.
Compiled and written by Jim Moyer 2/25/2018, 10/4/2018, 10/9/2018, 10/10/2018, 11/10/19, 11/13/2022, 11/15/2022, 11/20/2022, 12/4/2022
.
.
.
.
Founders Online versions
Founders Online Footnote:
Footnote 1.
Summary of Versions
Two contemporary accounts of this skirmish near Loyalhanna are quite different,
and both are even more different from GW’s post-Revolutionary recollections of the event both as he recorded them in 1786 and as they were reported subsequently by someone else.
And more different still from all of these is the secondhand account recorded in a memoir written by a relative of Capt. Thomas Bullitt.
The earliest and briefest of the contemporary accounts is Forbes’s report to Gen. James Abercromby on 17 Nov.:
“Two hundred of the ennemy came to attack our live Cattle and horses on the 12th—I sent 500 men to give them chace with as many more to Surround them, there were some killed on both sides, but unfortunately our partys fired upon each other in the dark by which we lost two officers and 38 private kill’d or missing. Wee made three prisoners from whom wee have had the only Intelligence of the Enemys strength, and which if true gives me great hopes” (James, Writings of Forbes, 255–56).
The Pennsylvania Gazette (Philadelphia) printed an account of the incident on 30 Nov. 1758:
“On the 12th Instant, Colonel Washington being out with a scouting Party, fell in with a Number of the Enemy, about three Miles from our Camp, whom he attacked, killed one, took three Prisoners, an Indian Man and Woman, and one Johnson, an Englishman (who, it is said, was carried off by the Indians some time ago from Lancaster County) and obliged the rest to fly: That on hearing the Firing at Loyalhanning, Colonel [George] Mercer, with a Party of Virginians, was sent out to the Assistance of Colonel Washington, who, coming in Sight of our People in the Dusk of the Evening, and seeing them about a Fire the Enemy had been drove from, and the two Indians with them, imagined them to be French; and Colonel Washington being under the same Mistake, unhappily a few Shot were exchanged, by which a Lieutenant, and thirteen or fourteen Virginians, were killed.”
GW does not mention this tragic incident when he writes to Fauquier on 28 Nov. about the success of the campaign except to refer to the “three Prisoners who providentially fell into our hands.” Nor does he allude to it anywhere else in his surviving correspondence.
However, nearly thirty years after the event, in 1786,
GW wrote, without referring to his papers, an account of this skirmish and its unfortunate aftermath outside the post at Loyalhanna on the evening of 12 Nov. 1758.
According to GW’s recollections as set down in his “Remarks” on a few pages of David Humphreys’s proposed biography of Washington, it was he who was sent to rescue Mercer, not Mercer to rescue him.
“During the time the Army lay at Loyal haning,” GW wrote probably in August 1786,
“a circumstance occurred wch involved the life of G. W. in as much Jeopardy as it had ever been before or since the enemy sent out a large detachment to reconnoitre our Camp, and to ascertain our strength; in consequence of Intelligence that they were within 2 Miles of the Camp. a party commanded by Lt Colo. Mercer of the Virga line (a gallant & good Officer) was sent to dislodge them between whom a severe conflict & hot firing ensued which lasting some time & appearing to approach the Camp it was conceived that our party was yielding the ground upon which G. W. with permission of the Genl called (for dispatch) for Volunteers and immediately marched at their head to sustain, as was conjectured the retireing troops. led on by the firing till he came within less than half a Mile, & it ceasing, he detached Scouts to investigate the cause & to communicate his approach to his friend Colo. Mercer advancing slowly in the meantime—But it being near dusk and the intelligence not having been fully dissiminated among Colo. Mercers Corps, and they taking us, for the enemy who had retreated approaching in another direction commenced a heavy fire upon the releiving party which drew fire in return in spite of all the exertions of the Officers one of whom & several privates were killed and many wounded before a stop could be put to it. to accomplish which G. W. never was in more imminent danger. by being between two fires, knocking up with his sword the presented pieces” (privately owned manuscript).
In May 1818 William Findley
published his recollections of a conversation with GW in Philadelphia which included the following paragraph:
“Since I am in the way of writing about Washington, I will add one serious scene through which he passed, which is little known, and with which he concluded this conversation. He asked me how near I lived to Layalhana old Fort, and if I knew a run from the Laurel Hill that fell into the creek near it. I told him the distance of my residence, and that I knew the run. He told me that at a considerable distance up that run his life was in as great hazard as ever it had been in war. That he had been ordered to march some troops to reinforce a bullock-guard on their way to the camp—that he marched his party in single file with trailed arms, and sent a runner to inform the British officer in what manner he would meet him. The runner arrived and delivered his message, but he did not know how it was that the British officer paid no attention to it, and the parties met in the dark and fired on each other till they killed thirty of their own men; nor could they be stopped till he had to go in between the fires and threw up the muzzles of their guns with his sword” (Niles’ Register, 1st ser., 14 [9 May 1818], 179–80).
William Marshall Bullitt edited a memoir
reportedly left by Thomas Walker Bullitt
which includes this account of the tragic encounter:
“Two detachments from Colonel Washington’s regiment (one commanded by himself) were out upon the frontiers endeavoring to surprise a detachment of French troops from Fort Duquesne (now Fort Pitt), but instead of falling in with the French, they met themselves (the day being remarkably dark and foggy); each party mistook the other for the enemy, and a very warm fire was immediately commenced on both sides. Captain Bullitt was one of the first who discovered the mistake, and running between the two parties, waving his hat and calling to them, put a stop to the firing. It was thought and said by several of the officers, and among others by Captain Bullitt, that Colonel Washington did not discover his usual activity and presence of mind upon this occasion. This censure thrown by Captain Bullitt upon his superior officer gave rise to a resentment in the mind of General Washington which never subsided” (Bullitt, My Life at Oxmoor, 3–4).
According to the newspaper account,
and confirmed by Forbes in his letter to Abercromby
and by GW in his letter to Fauquier,
the three prisoners under questioning
revealed that the French garrison at Fort Duquesne was “very scarce of Provisions, as well as weak in Men.” Persuaded of the truth of this report, Forbes moved promptly to mount a rapid march on Fort Duquesne (see Orderly Book, 14 Nov.).
2. As soon as he decided to move against Fort Duquesne, Forbes sent Col. John Armstrong ahead with the Pennsylvanians to build the first encampment, or post, for the rest of the army that was to follow (see Bouquet to GW, 16 Nov., n.2).
Forbes Expedition Stories:
See all the links to those stories
The Postmortem on Forbes
Friendly Fire
Friendly Fire Bad - Prisoner Good!
Friendly Fire - Who found the French first?
Friendly Fire - Where did it happen?
Would Forbes' Chaplains talked of Guy Fawkes Day?
How Little Carpenter left the Forbes Expedition
Andrew Lewis hostage
Oct 12, 1758 attack on Loyalhanna
Batmen on Forbes Expedition
Court Martials at Reas town
Sept 14, 1758 Grant's Defeat
Reas town & Loyalhanna (later as Forts Bedford & Ligonier)
GW for the Road not Taken
Cherokee Conjurers right near Fort Duquesne
Cherokee during and after leaving the Forbes Expedition
Washington runs for election just as Forbes Expedition gears up
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
