Washington was shocked that those closest to him were spies for Britain. Do you think he was naïve?

Washington was shocked that those closest to him were spies for Britain. Do you think he was naïve or were people presumed to be more honorable in the 18th century?

Probably he was, but he may have thought that those closest to him had been vetted by others to determine if they were any threat. I suppose he also would have thought that a soldier in the fight against British rule would not be conspiring against him.

I think that he was naive, that he initially assumed that those around him, especially those closest to him held the same high standards that he did.

As a man of honor, I think Washington believed others to also be honorable. He trusted those men with his safety and his life. Perhaps that was a naive belief.

Very naive. Washington’s strong ethical and moral code led him to expect the same of others. This expectation turned out to be misplaced.

Being such a moral man, he did expect others to subscribe to the same mindset, a little naive but also able to elevate others to his own ideal is the sign of a leader.

Washington's own moral code and intolerance for those who did not meet his standards was seemingly ingrained into his mindset. The fact that others do not adhere to those standards was hard for him to accept. I think that the reality blindsided him. He adjusted and worked around it as best he could, oftentimes imposing strict rules on the troops.

I think he was aware that spies were out there. He was aware that even Benjamin Franklin and his son had different loyalties. I am not sure if naive is the correct word to label Washington because it's almost impossible to KNOW enemy's agents have infiltrated your side. As the book quotes "espionage is important; but so is counterespionage.".

Washington was a Virginian of a certain station. He saw honor as fundamental to life. He also was not very experienced in war. I don't think he was naive as much as I think he found it a learning curve to understand others were not as driven by a moral compass with the desire to live an honorable life.

Initially, I thought Washington perhaps placed too much trust those who selected the members of his Life Guard. Washington’s criteria for for his guard focused more on physical characteristics (height, cleanliness, neat, spruce, etc.) Chernow’s book on Washington noted Washington could read people well. This makes me wonder whether Washington’s focus on the physical presentation resulted in assumptions that someone who physically appeared like him had to be trustworthy.

No. Washington was not naive- but underestimated the value of counterintelligence. In the age before computers, telephone etc, where it is easier to investigate a person - there really wasn’t a method for investigating a person’s background before hiring. Washington had to rely on his own judgment

I don’t think Washington was naive but he may have been unaware of how desperate men were and that they were being offered money and food at a time when they had nothing.

I think he was somewhat naive. He believed that people should have the same standards and moral compass as he did. He did not like to think poorly of others.

I do think he was naive. He was a man of great moral character and ethical standards and he assumed that most people, especially those closest to him, held themselves to the highest standards.

I don't necessarily think Washington was naive. I think he had a certain sense of honor and what it meant to be a military man and he expected as much from others.

Washington was human and most people believe others think the way they do, share similar beliefs and values. Washington lived his life and made decisions based upon an extremely strong ethical and moral code. I believe he mistakenly believed others did the same. .

We generally think those people closest to us and those we interact with the most are "like us" and hold similar opinions and ethics. I think Washington's willingness to believe those around him held the same opinions was an indication of his newness to politics - so yes, I do believe he was naive. It must have been a rude awakening to realize not everyone around him was a supporter.

No, not naive. Why would he distrust his closest guards or housekeeper? But even if they had been well vetted, some people, even the most trusted, are susceptible to bribery. Furthermore, the colonists’ cause didn’t appear to have much chance of success, and people may have been concerned for their own well-being.