George Washington, Staying in Character
Weekend Edition Saturday, February 17, 2007 · In 1777, Gen. George Washington and his troops faced British and Hessian soldiers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. He issued a firm order that no matter how barbaric enemy armies might be, he would not abide any such behavior in his own troops.
Since Shrub fancies himself a student of the history of great men, maybe he ought to read how great men behaved (more here). And since NPR helpfully provided a sound clip, the illegitimate National Command Authority won’t have to move his lips while reading.
Frontier Former Editor 
NPR?
I thought he took care of those guys–gutted their budget and appointed a czar to ensure that NPR is as fair and balanced as Fox News?
Comment by Metro — February 20, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Ah, class and character! That’s the very thing that attracted me to my wife when I first met her — a sense of class, character, an attractive demeanor and an air that said autonomous individual rather than vulgar follower.
It’s attractive in a person of the opposite gender and it’s attractive in leaders of all genders.
Comment by Paul — February 20, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
actually i just want abe lincoln to talk to him. and i want him to tell him…go watch a show tonight….
Comment by anna — February 21, 2007 @ 5:36 am
So, FFE
are you suggesting that it’s OK to kill a Hessian or a fellow American in the British Army, so long as you are polite about it
The American Revolutionary War is a mystery to me – it could so easily have not happened – even Benjamin Franklin seemed to think the Stamp Act was reasonable, at least when he was in Inglaterra
What would have happened if Washington & his Revolutionary mates had done nothing in 1776, avoiding the Revolutionary War, which killed so many folk and drove (?)100,000++ American citizens to Canada to seek escape from Washington’s “Freedom” (or Tyranny as they might have expressed it)
If Washington had read and understood his Mahan, wouldn’t he have concluded that the United States would get its independence, but without the killing … and would this have avoided the sanguinary conflict of the Civil War (600,000 + died – a strange freedom for them)
After all, Canada soon got its practical independence without the bloodshed, except when in 1812 the Yankees invaded a Country where they were not welcome
Your obedient servant etc
G E
Comment by G Eagle Esq — February 22, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Methinks, Meinheer Eagle, that you’re making too much stew from one collosal squid here.
I suspect FFE’s point is that although Al-Q et al are not known for gentle treatment of those they capture, this is no excuse for (for example):
Suspending habeas corpus.
Authorizing (and then afterward legalizing) torture.
Exempting the fighters you face from the Geneva conventions.
Etc.
Etc.
Ad nauseum.
Washington clearly felt that if he did nothing in 1776, that Middle America would be a serfdom of Ingleterra in 1976. And he and some large number of colonists, felt that that was a fate worth fighting against–and possibly losing. In fact, without the aid of France, and England’s home-theater war worries, they would have lost.
George W. Bush’s variegated and debunked excuses for starting the Iraq war boiled down to “’cause I wanna!” As does his rationale for torture.
Comment by Metro — February 22, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
M. Eagle and Metro, thank you for outlining quite neatly the whole issue.
Addressing the main points of both gentlemen’s essays:
Washington was a product of the New World colonial view of prototypical manifest destiny (though nowhere near as repellent as the final version that crescendoed during the Polk administration) and of the Crown colonial militia mentality among landowner/officers. It is helpful to remember that, when assessing Washington’s views toward Canada, Washington served on the British side during the French and Indian War, and helped create the phenomenon known as British Canada.
When it comes to Washington’s motives regarding treatment of enemy combatants, one should acknowledge that he recognized the limitations of his control over a polyglot assembly of state militias and their respective views on post-battle etiquette. I refer you to the Green Mountain Boys and Francis Marion for examples of that divergence.
On the other hand, Washington certainly controled his own segment of Continental forces and recognized from both a moral and analytical standpoint the benefits of showing basic battlefield mercy even if his opponents varied on that point.
And, ultimately, there is rather little difference between the British reaction in the NPR case study and that of American and other European armies in similar colonial scenarios. Washington’s reaction, however, stands head and shoulders above the reactions of his revolutionary contemporaries throughout history.
And, when it comes to the United States and its forays into Canada, it is also helpful to remember that Washington was dead and therefore had little tempering influence after 1799.
As for the American Revolution’s legacy in the subsequent two-plus centuries, I believe my prior references to this nation’s institutional and cultural schizophrenia more than adequately describe my position on that matter.
I don’t think it’s particularly OK to kill anyone, but once the situation has degenerated to that point, we have to hang on to some basic shred of decency to climb out of that particular circle of hell.
Now THAT’s a three-way debate, boys!
Comment by Frontier Former Editor — February 22, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
Monsieur M & FFE
All points well-made – interesting about Washigton contributing to the creation of British Canada
Like Lord Durham, I view the American Revolution with sadness & regret
It is something that could and should have been avoided, but for the breath-taking stupidity of the British Government, which seemed to have an unerring & relentless ability to [censored] and mess things up
… and it seems that after its “Revolution” America was still very “British” in its culture
eg where did the Americans learn their cultural arrogance from, along with English
eg “unpleasantness” towards Native Peoples
eg aggressive expansionism Westwards across the American Continent (or in our case India & later the Boer Republics and before that Ireland, where even our best & most well-meaning Administrators blundered in teh 1845 famine)
However, let us not forget all the good things that America (& Britain) have contributed and continue to contribute
Your obebt servt etc
G E
Comment by G Eagle Esq — February 22, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
M. Eagle and M. Metro,
Huzzah! Huzzah!
Comment by Frontier Former Editor — February 23, 2007 @ 1:27 am
I learn so much by reading my blogroll. Total respect, gentlemen.
Comment by raincoaster — February 23, 2007 @ 7:53 am
Yeah Rain, and all I do to your blog is bring bad jokes >B^D>
Guess I’d better start acting like an adult, eh?
Comment by Frontier Former Editor — February 23, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
i still want lincoln to tell him to go to a theater…but the history lessson will suffice for now.
Comment by anna — February 23, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
Do you correspond with Garry Trudeau?
Check out the strip for February 25th.
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/
Comment by Metro — February 25, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Metro,
While I have not yet had the pleasure of correspondence with M. Trudeau, I read somewhere once that he is a modelbuilder as am I.
Perhaps we will soon ‘connect’ and talk shop on at least two different levels, eh?
Comment by Frontier Former Editor — February 25, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
Anna,
See my post regarding theatre tickets on your blog. Lincoln would just have arrested Shrub on grounds that he threatened the Union in wartime. How appropriate . . .
Comment by Frontier Former Editor — February 25, 2007 @ 6:38 pm