THE NEW ROAD

The correspondence included in the chapter preceding affords probably the utmost light that can be thrown today upon the reason of the making of the great Pennsylvanian thoroughfare to the Ohio. It cannot be affirmed, as has often been said, that Forbes was early prejudiced in favor of a Pennsylvania route; he never could have been such a hypocrite as to pen the words to be found on page 94. That his first plans were completely altered at the advice of Sir John St. Clair is very plain from his letters to Governor Denny (March 20) and to Colonel Bouquet (July 6); but up to the very last he leaves the question open, to be decided wholly according to the reports of the guides and explorers. It is difficult, however, to reconcile the words in Forbes’s letter to Bouquet of July 23, in which he states that St. Clair, when advising the Raystown route, affirmed “that he nor nobody else knew anything of the road leading from Laurell hill.” It is evident from this that Forbes originally expected to fall down to the Braddock road from Raystown, but that when once on the ground, with the distances clear in his mind, he was compelled to find a shorter road westward if there was one to be found. This is the only explanation of his immediate change of plan at St. Clair’s advice, knowing that St. Clair had found no route westward by Laurel Hill; it seems that St. Clair thought only of proceeding via Raystown to Fort Cumberland, as he affirmed in his letter of June 9 to Bouquet. St. Clair was undoubtedly right in deciding that the best course to Fort Cumberland from Philadelphia for the army was through populous Pennsylvania, and his understanding that the Braddock Road would be followed from that point would easily explain why he had provided forage at Fort Cumberland, which occasioned Forbes’s criticism in his letter of July 14. Indeed from Forbes’s letters of June 16, 19, and 27, it does not seem that he had any definite plan for the construction of a new road.

On the other hand Forbes very correctly doubted the advisability of using Braddock’s long route when his army was once gathered together along the road from Carlisle to Raystown. Bouquet stated his (Forbes’s) position very soundly when he said: “You cannot take the Cumberland until you are in a position to demonstrate the impossibility of finding another road, or at any rate the impossibility of opening one without risking the expedition by too great an expenditure of time.” Moreover, Forbes had a comprehensive view of the situation such as probably no one else had.

So far as Bouquet’s position was concerned, his correspondence shows that he was assiduous in carrying out Forbes’s directions; as to any conspiracy on his part to win Forbes over to the Pennsylvania route, as Washington insinuated, who can believe one existed after reading his letters? Bouquet very properly threw the burden of ultimate decision upon Forbes, as it was his duty to do; he sent him all the information which he could obtain, pro and con, concerning all routes; he sent Colonel Burd out, with his guides, in order to have testimony upon which he was sure he could rely; he urged Forbes to defer his decision of route until he (Forbes) could have a personal interview with Washington; he had Braddock’s Road partly cleared and plainly described it as needing “very little in the way of repair;” he never seems to have attempted to minimize the difficulties of making a new route or maximize those of the old; he continually urges the necessity of great caution in the selection of a route.

The motives which directed the movements of Sir John St. Clair during these months of controversy are quite beyond fathoming. It is easy to believe that the “new light,” which Forbes said Sir John had received “at Winchester,” made it clear that if he did not send the army over the southern route (Fort Frederick-Fort Cumberland) to Cumberland, it was possible that Forbes would never traverse Braddock’s Road at all. It is certain that upon Governor Sharpe’s and Washington’s arrival upon the scene, Sir John began to shower upon Bouquet letters advising the opening of the Fort Frederick-Fort Cumberland road; “and I believe from thence,” Forbes wrote of St. Clair’s meeting with Governor Sharpe, “proceeded to the opening the road from Fort Frederick to Fort Cumberland.” Indeed, it would be interesting to know whether it was not St. Clair’s suddenly raised clamor over the length of the Raystown route to Fort Cumberland (hoping to “drive” Forbes over the Fort Frederick route) that determined Forbes to ignore Fort Cumberland and push out on a new, shorter route to the Ohio.

Whatever were St. Clair’s reasons for such vacillating plans, it is sure he fell into disgrace in Forbes’s eyes. In addition to the upbraiding he received from the general’s own lips, Forbes wrote in his letter of July 14 that the wagons were the plague of his life and denied that St. Clair had taken “the smallest pains” or made the “least inquiry” concerning the matters he had been detailed to care for. Again, in Forbes’s letter to Bouquet of July 17 he says: “Sir John acknowledges taking some (kettles &c. from Pennsylvania troops) and applying them to the use of the Virginians &c. which is terrible.” In a letter previously quoted Forbes affirms that St. Clair—who was sent in advance of the army to settle the matter of route—“knows nothing of the matter.” Forbes’s wrath at St. Clair reached a climax before the end of August when he savagely declared that he suspected his “heart as well as the head.”[70]

And now as to Washington. His letters are typical of the young man to whom these western forests were not unfamiliar; they are patriotic and loyal. Though he was standing for election to the House of Burgesses in his home county, he had refused to accept a leave of absence to do his electioneering—which in no wise prevented his election. I cannot find any ill-boding prophecy in his letters, concerning the making of a new road westward from Raystown, which after events did not justify. He affirmed that Forbes could not reach Fort Duquesne by a new road before the winter set in; and no prophecy ever seemed more accurately fulfilled. For before Fort Duquesne was reached it was decided not to attempt to continue the campaign further. An unexpected occurrence suddenly turned the tide and Forbes went on—to a splendid conquest. But, nevertheless, Washington’s prophecy was, not long after it was made, found to have been that of a wise man. Had Forbes been one iota less fortunate than Braddock was unfortunate, Washington’s words would have come true to the letter. So much for his judgment, which Forbes ignored.

But Washington’s knowledge was limited, so far as the general situation of the army was concerned. Forbes’s expedition was one of three simultaneous campaigns; and the three commanders were somewhat dependent upon each other. At any time Forbes might be called upon to give assistance to Abercrombie or Johnson. Forbes was in constant correspondence with both of his colleagues; after Abercrombie’s repulse the prosecution of the Fort Duquesne campaign, it may almost be said, was in question. At any rate it was important to have open the shortest possible route of communication to the northern colonies where the other campaigns were being pushed; in case Fort Duquesne was captured a straight road through populous, grain-growing Pennsylvania would be of utmost importance; especially as Pennsylvania abounded in vehicles, while in Virginia they were scarce.

Washington thought only of a quick campaign completed in the same season as begun. Forbes, however, was not in eager haste and had good reason for moving slowly. As early as August 9 he wrote Bouquet: “Between you and I be it said, as we are now so late, we are yet too soon. This is a parable that I shall soon explain.” Three reasons appealed to Forbes for moving slowly, though it is doubtful if he intended moving as slowly as he actually did move: Frederick Post, the missionary, had been sent to the Indians on the Beaver asking them to withdraw from the French; the Indian chiefs were invited to the treaty at Easton, where their alliance with the French would, it was hoped, be undermined; winter was drawing on apace, when the Indians who were with the French would withdraw to their villages and begin to prepare for the inclement season.

One of the direct serious charges brought against Washington was that he did “not know the difference between a party and an army.” This is brought by Colonel Bouquet and I do not believe that he was in error or that the accusation can be proved unjust. Washington had had much experience, such as it was, in the Fort Necessity campaign, with Braddock, and on the Virginia frontier. But the Fort Necessity campaign was conspicuous as a political, not a military event. The force he led west did not number two hundred men. This was, surely, a party, not an army. Now, be it remembered, the great difficulty of leading any body of men, small or great, lay in provisioning them and feeding the horses. The larger the army the greater the difficulty—indeed the difficulty trebled as the number of men and horses was doubled. On those mountain roads the second wagon was drawn with much greater difficulty than the first. Again, a small body of men could, in part, be supplied with food from the forests; in the case of an army this source of supply must be ignored. In the case of Washington’s Fort Necessity campaign, how did his handful of men fare? They nearly starved—and capitulated because they did not have the food to give them the necessary strength to retreat. This was not Washington’s fault, for he, properly, left this matter with those whose business it was; but the experience certainly did not teach him how to handle an army.