Did the “Father of Wisconsin” almost kill the Father of our Country twenty years before the Revolutionary War?

The answer seems to be “no,” but just hang on a second.

I'm going to skip ahead a little, then come back. Read this:

...a group of Wisconsin men had almost killed the man who would one day become America's greatest hero and first president!

That's M. Richard Tully writing in his book "A Man Called Baraboo." I first mentioned it in this post:

in 1755, (Charles) Langlade led a force of Native Americans against a British force in Pennsylvania. I read about this in M. Richard Tully's book, "A Man Called Baraboo:"

In 1755, war would once again break out between the French and English colonists. Charles de Langlade, who supported the French cause, collected members of several Wisconsin tribes - the Ottawa, Ojibwa, and Potawatomi - and attacked British General Braddock at the Monogahela River in Pennsylvania on July 9, 1755. Braddock was mortally wounded, and a 23-year-old Major named George Washington barely escaped with four bullet holes in his coat and two horses killed under him - a group of Wisconsin men had almost killed the man who would one day become America's greatest hero and first president!

Charles Langlade was the son of a French fur trader and an Ottawa woman, who became a military leader and early settler in what is now Green Bay. He’s known now as the “Father of Wisconsin.”

Obviously, Tully didn’t suggest that Langlade himself fired any of the rounds that very nearly hit George Washington, so I’m more than happy to suggest it myself. It's just too juicy to ignore. At least one of those bullets must have come from Langlade’s rifle.

Except, wait a sec:

“Leutze depicts a single French Canadian figure standing on a rock – perhaps meant to be the French Ottawa officer Charles-Michel Mouet de Langlade, who later claimed to have orchestrated the entire battle, at which he was probably not even present. (Preston, pg. 2)

That’s an excerpt from David Preston’s book “Braddock’s Defeat,” which goes into minute detail about the Battle of the Monongahela. According to Preston, Langlade wasn’t even there!

None of the contemporary French records on the Ohio Valley... contain any reference to Langlade, who was a commissioned officer in 1755 (an ensign) and would have been quite well known to senior French officers because of his involvement in the action against Pickawillany in 1752. (Preston, pg. 158)

Well, dammit.

But wait! In his bibliography, Preston comments:

“One may posit that Langlade may have been present, based on the fact that Langlade was verifiably at Michilimackinac on May 25 and August 18, 1755, and records do not reveal his location between those dates.” (Preston, pg. 390)

Well, by God, let’s posit it, then!

To go into far too little detail, the battle was basically thus: a body of French regulars and Canadian militia standing in front of the British forces, while several groups of Indians worked their way along the flanks and beat the hell out of the British. It would have been one or more of these groups - about half of which were Ottawa, Ojibwa, and Potawatomi (Preston, pg. 149) - that killed Braddock and put holes in Washington’s clothes.

Those groups each had a French or Canadian officer embedded in them, according to Preston, which is problematic:

• Why would the French still embed another officer in Langlade's group if Langlade, a commissioned officer himself, was there?
• But if Langlade was the embedded officer, why wouldn’t their records show it?

We can question whether the records we have are accurate, and whether there are other records not available to us today, and of course, we will. Because “The Father of Wisconsin almost killed the Father of our Country” is just too good a story to pass up.

Now, to provide myself with some cover: Tully didn’t say Langlade himself may have shot at Washington. Tully said “a group of Wisconsin men” did. So.

According to Preston, the French force included 600-700 natives (Preston, pg. 234) including Ottawa, Potawatomi, and Ojibwa, Sac, and Fox, (Preston, pg. 149) which, I believe, means there were several hundred fighters with ties to what became Wisconsin.

Caveat: Preston says those Ottawa and Potawatomi were probably settled around Detroit at the time, (pg. 150) because he just doesn’t want me to take any pleasure in this. More research might help me understand better where all these tribes were located at that time, and maybe sometime I’ll do that.

Still, even if Langlade wasn't there, there's a better-than-50% chance that the bullets came from Wisconsin-related rifles.

But I'll still keep believing Langlade was one of them.

Addendum: none of this explains why Langlade is called "Father of Wisconsin." Further study will be performed.