What a way to start and what a time to start. "Father of the Country" is such a cliche, that it is easy to forget just how extraordinary Washington truly was. It is also fascinating to review his approach to the Presidency and how drastically different it is from today's view of the office.
The text I chose was Joseph Ellis' His Excellency: George Washington and the man that he describes is a force of nature. Washington was physically imposing (he was 6' 3" at a time when that was a gigantic height; by comparison, Alexander Hamilton was 5' 7") and seemed to be impervious to death. There is story after story of Washington riding into a hail of bullets during the Revolution with the calm confidence of one who believes he cannot be killed. He was also an unquestioned leader of men and there can be no doubt that his personal commitment was the single most important factor in keeping the underpaid, underfed and under-equipped Continental Army together until the British would blunder in to the trap at Yorktown. I confess to finding myself tearing up when reading about the privations endured by the Army during the lean years following Saratoga, sufferings that struck me deeply because I know that many of my ancestors on my mother's side (12 in all) were suffering there with him. It is an everlasting testament to his character and strength that those men, after suffering so much to follow him, loved him with a devotion that is deeply moving. And it is in this aspect of his character, his ability to endure and to remain the last man standing until victory was his, that Ellis locates the source of much of Washington's greatness.
In peace, Washington's decision to lay down his sword and commission at Annapolis and allow the new country to grow under civilian government is another testament to his unusual personal strength and honor. When compared against any other revolution in world history, the bloodless developments after success and the Treaty of Paris stand virtually alone. It was in large part due to personal loyalties and devotion to Washington that the tumultuous period of his Presidency was bloodless and calm. In a very literal sense, he simply "presided" over the government and held himself above the existential debate that was playing out in the new federal government. There is no doubt that Washington was a devoted Federalist and that Hamilton was his man, but he was also a close friend of Jefferson (at least until Jefferson betrayed him and began to insult him behind his back) and he let the eternal debate between local and federal government play out in a peaceful manner. Over 200 years later, it is still being played out today.
Inevitably, one must confront the fact that Washington was a slave owner and that he did not free his slaves until after his death (and after Martha's death for those slaves that were part of her dowry). Towards the end of his life, he was acutely aware that his slave ownership (he stopped buying slaves early on) was antithetical to the cause for which he had spent so many years of difficulty. One is struck by the chances lost. For example, during his first term, a petition from a group of Quakers appeared before Congress to introduce the gradual abolition of slavery. Normally this would not have been taken up seriously as even the anti-slavery northern delegations knew that the issue could tear the young government apart. This petition, however, was signed by Benjamin Franklin, the only other Revolutionary figure with a stature equal to Washington's. One must wonder what might have happened had Washington signed his name to it as well. But Washington believed the new government could not survive such a divisive measure and let the moment pass.
If you are only familiar with the general outlines of the Washington story, it is well worth going back and reading it in full. I was surprised at how moved I was by the story, by Washington and by the reminder of how incredible and extraordinary, in the most literal sense of the term, the American achievement was between 1775 and 1799.
5 comments:
What impressed me most about GW was his ability to recognize and acknowledge his mistakes even after repeating them. In letters quoted in the book "1776" he reflects on dividing his Army more than once against better advice not to. He was also a man of his word and let conscripts leave the Army when their hitch was up even though politicians in Philly were urging him not to let'em go.
Absolutely. He almost blew the whole game by trying so hard to hang on to New York City, against the wise advice of his officers. After that near-disaster, he listened to them and admitted he was wrong.
He was just an incredible man.
BTW, I don't know if you subscribe to HBO, but they have a Tom Hanks produced 7 part mini series teed up to start this weekend titled
"John Adams" starring Paul Giamati as the man himself based on the book. It's going to be amazing!!!
Near disaster? New York was a total disaster. Tough spot to defend.
I always loved Jefferson, I guess because of the things he's famous for writing, but the more I read about these guys the less I like him.
The slavery thing is tough to get around, some would say you can't get around it. Elliot Ness (whose carrer has similarities to Elliot Spitzer) was asked, legend has it, what he would do when Prohibition was repealed. He is said to have said that he'd probably take a drink. The 'enlightened' attitude toward slavery that chaps like Washington and Jefferson had was a sort of along those lines, a polar opposite type way. They knew it was wrong, but since it was accepted, it was sort of "hell, why not..."
Jackson -
The total disaster would have been the encirclement and capture of the entire Continental Army. I agree that the battle was a disaster, but if Washington had not seen sense in time, he could have lost the whole war in the first year.
Post a Comment