Is there any validity to the argument that George Washington abused his Revolutionary War expense account?

Alright, Amtrak's internet is KINDA functional, so let's give this a shot.

I suppose you're asking this question, directly or indirectly, because of George Washington's Expense Account, by Marvin Kitman, Pfc (Ret.). There are a few HUGE red flags here before we even open the book's cover. The first is the credit the author gives himself - (Pfc. Ret). To retire from the military, one has to serve at least 25 years. To serve that long without being advanced beyond the rank of Private First Class means that a person is barely competent to tie his shoes, and probably not qualified to interpret a 200 year-old expense account in its historical context. More likely, Kitman was appropriating the title to show some degree of military qualification, in an admittedly ridiculous and humorous way - he only served two years during WWII, and as such cannot properly call himself "retired." Kitman apparently only has a BA (in what?), and this book is published by an obscure popular - as in non-academic - press. Not a great start for his historical bona fides all around.

One thing that I doubt Kitman accounted for is the social expectations for a man in Washington's position in the eighteenth century. Washington was both in supreme command of his country's military and himself one of the richest men in Virginia in an age where conspicuous consumption defined public life. Washington was responsible for supporting himself, his staff, and his slaves in a style that befitted not only his peers in the colonies, but aristocrats of equivalent rank in the British and French armies. Anything less would make him look amateurish and unprofessional, the two things Washington did not want his army to be.

A particular quibble seems to be amount of money Washington spent on alcohol. In context, these numbers don't seem odd at all. Alcohol consumption was generally higher than modern standards during the 18th century, and Washington was entertaining in some capacity or another most nights. During at least the 1780-1 and 82-83 winter encampments, he dined nightly with the previous day's officers of the day. (Officer of the a position that rotated among officers for managing the guards and generally administering the routine business of the army). Quiet meals where Washington dined alone would have been uncommon, and even then Washington still had to pay for the care and feeding of whatever slaves he had with him at the time.

You can view Washington's account book for yourself through the Library of Congress here. You'll note that writeup of accompanying expense report mentions that Washington gave Congress a favorable exchange rate between dollars and pounds sterling, in which the book was partly kept, and Congress still gave him more money that he was asking for. Also note that Washington paid spies out of his own pocket, rather than a separate fund the military had set aside.

Considering all this, I am led to believe that only an amateurish misreading of General Washington's expenses could create the idea that his lived too fat off the public dime during the war.

In addition to the Library of Congress' expense report, also drawing from the Diary of William S. Pennington, which was published by the New Jersey Historical Society in the early 1900s.