George Washington believed military discipline was crucial to the effectiveness of a military force. He became interested in military discipline when he served in the Seven Years’ War, and further expanded his knowledge on the subject. As commander-in-chief, he prioritized military discipline to ensure proper training. In the eighteenth century, the phrase military discipline referred to all aspects of training in the army as opposed to primarily a juridical function.
Military Discipline in the Seven Years’ War
In learning about military discipline, Washington followed the common practice at the time for those who sought officer status, rigorous study. Under this approach, Washington read broadly from many of the military texts and histories available at the time, which he added to his growing personal library.1 He was aided in this endeavor by the fact that the eighteenth century witnessed a massive expansion in the number of military works in print. Washington supplemented the knowledge acquired through reading with discussions of veteran officers. At first these conversations were with his older brother Lawrence, who had served in the siege against Cartagena. Later, it was with Major General Edward Braddock during that officer's ill-fated march to the Monongahela.
Once he held his own command, Washington sought to impose military discipline on the troops of his own Virginia provincial unit. In doing so, he aimed to hold himself to the “strictest discipline” of behavior.2 Washington petitioned regularly for military laws to be enforced, noting, “; I conceive there needs few arguments to prove the difficulty of keeping Soldiers under proper Discipline; (who know they are not legally punishable for the most atrocious Crimes).”3 But also reminded those in the colonial government that in order to uphold these standards the needs of soldiers such as clothing should be met. His professionalized his unit to an extent that he sought, on two occasions, to have his unit placed on the British service.
Military Discipline in the Continental Army
Later, when he took command of the Continental Army, Washington again labored to place the force in a state of training and organization that resembled the British Army. His first step in this case was to impose strict attention to subordination within his forces. He wrote various general orders about maintaining military discipline within regiments. On one such instruction he ordered, “The officers have now an opportunity of attending to the discipline of the troops—Every day when the weather permits, the corps are to be turned out and practiced in the most essential exercises, particularly in priming and loading, forming, advancing, retreating, breaking and rallying—No pains are to be spared to improve the troops in these points.”4
Washington lamented when he believed military discipline was not being maintained, and made efforts to court martial offenders, especially in the officer core. To ensure that regiments maintained his training standards, he appointed the position of Inspector General, and subsequent Sub-Inspectors.5 He believed short enlistments also contributed to this problem, as men did not have the adequate time to be trained or left the army before the benefits of their training could be fully realized.
Washington relied on others well-trained in military strategy and military discipline, such as Henry Knox, Marquis de Lafayette, and Baron von Steuben to train a more effective army. Steuben brought experience from the Prussian Army to his American service, and coordinated army-wide standards to Washington’s approval. Under Washington’s instruction, he wrote manuals for drilling American soldiers titled Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops in the United States. Steuben was instrumental in the training received by soldiers while encamped at Valley Forge. Washington praised his efforts, “I am perfectly satisfied with the conduct of the officers who have acted as your assistants—and think that the army has derived every advantage from the institution under you, that could be expected in so short a time.”6
Views on Military Discipline After the American Revolution
After the war, Washington argued the need for a trained, standing army in order to protect the new nation. He cautioned that too large of a force could threaten other’s liberties, but believed the United States required defenses. He proposed that once debts from the Revolution had been settled, the country could allocate for a standing army and “building and equipping a Navy, without which, in case of War we could neither protect our Commerce, nor yield that Assistance to each other, which, on such an extent of Sea-Coast, our mutual Safety would require.”7
Lastly, as President, Washington hoped in his new role that he would be able to create a professional army that could defend the nation. He believed that part-time soldiers were not equipped or trained enough to meet the country’s security needs. He believed a regular army and military academies to train officers were necessary, but these efforts never came to fruition in his presidency. However, through his emphasis on the professionalization of the Continental Army through discipline and training, he laid the foundation for the future of regular, armed forces in the United States.
Jim Mc Intyre Moraine Valley Community College, revised by Zoie Horecny, Ph.D., 28 April 2025
Notes:
1. “List of Books at Mount Vernon, 1764,” Founders Online, National Archives.
2. “Address, 8 January 1756,” Founders Online, National Archives.
3. “From George Washington to John Campbell, Earl of Loudoun, 10 January 1757,” Founders Online, National Archives.
4. “General Orders, 12 October 1777,” Founders Online, National Archives.
5. “Circular to the Brigade Commanders, 19 March 1778,” Founders Online, National Archives.
6. “From George Washington to Major General Steuben, 18 June 1778,” Founders Online, National Archives.
7. “Washington’s Sentiments on a Peace Establishment, 1 May 1783,” Founders Online, National Archives.
Bibliography:
Cox, Caroline. A Proper Sense of Honor: Service and Sacrifice in George Washington's Army. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004.
Martin, James Kirby and Lender, Mark Edward. A Respectable Army: The Military Origins of the Republic, 1763-1789. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1982.
Higginbotham, Don. George Washington and the American Military Tradition. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1985.
______________, "The Military Institutions of Colonial America: The Rhetoric and the Reality," Tools of War: Instruments, Ideas, and Institutions of Warfare, 1445-1871, ed. John A. Lynn. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1990.
Lockhart, Paul Douglas. The Drillmaster of Valley Forge: The Baron de Steuben and the Making of The American Army. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books, 2008.
