|
|
 |
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
The Daily Signal
How George
Washington’s Sterling Character Set an Example for the Ages
Richard Lim
December 23, 2017
For most Americans, the 23rd of December has no particular significance.
But an extraordinary event happened on that day in 1783 in Annapolis,
Maryland, that stunned the world. Gen. George Washington stood before
the Continental Congress in Maryland’s State House and resigned his
commission as the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army.
It changed the American republic forever.
Washington had served as commander since 1775. Throughout eight
grueling years of war, he led his soldiers through glorious triumphs
and crushing losses.
His ragtag group of farmers and shopkeepers was outnumbered by a
superior British force. It had been ravaged by disease and starvation.
Several times, it was on the verge of dissolution—after the disastrous
defeat in New York City in 1776 and during the brutal winter at Valley
Forge. But, with the help of the French military, Washington kept his
army together, and he emerged from the war with the devotion of his men.
Washington’s task was to fight an asymmetric war against the more
powerful British Empire. In that respect, his task was not unique.
History is full of examples of weaker powers fighting, and even
defeating, a stronger power.
What made Washington’s mission unique was that he was leading a
large-scale republic conceived under a revolutionary principle; namely,
that all men were created equal and that governments exist to secure
their God-given rights. The Americans were embarking on a new
experiment to prove whether this revolutionary belief could become a
reality.
For the Americans, it wasn’t just about winning the war. It was also
about how they would win.
The Americans were fighting against British tyranny, against what they
considered to be a corrupt and centralized system that deprived them of
their natural rights and taxing them without their consent.
They were used to governing themselves through Colonial legislatures
that checked any centralizing tendencies. But winning wars often
requires centralizing authority and raising taxes. And armies, by
necessity, often resort to violating the rights of civilians during
wartime, such as confiscating property and arresting citizens suspected
of treason under military courts.
Washington had the unique challenge of winning the war consistent with
revolutionary principles.
Many observers around the world doubted that such a vast republic could
be created. Sure, there were republics in Italian city-states or in
Dutch provinces, but the American Colonies were themselves the size of
entire countries.
How could they be governed without a strongman? How could so many
interests be held together without breaking out into anarchy? After
all, the Greek and Roman republics both turned into dictatorships, and
the vast majority of states around the world were ruled by monarchies.
Even if Washington won the war, surely he would end up having to rule
as a dictator. If the American Revolution would not be defeated on the
battlefield, it would be defeated in principle.
Washington would be tempted several times by the allure of power. By
1782, some within Washington’s army doubted the Revolution would
succeed. Many of the soldiers were suffering because neither the
states, nor the Continental Congress was willing to raise the funds
necessary to pay them.
The government was just too weak—or simply unwilling—to pay the
soldiers. To some Americans, this exposed a defective weakness in the
republican government. One man, Col. Lewis Nicola, wrote a letter to
Washington in May 1782 suggesting that “strong arguments might be
produced for admitting the title of king”—that Washington take
monarchical power.
Washington responded forcefully to Nicola, saying he viewed such
thoughts “with abhorrence, and reprehend with severity.” He then
ordered Nicola “to banish these thoughts from your mind.”
But many in the army continued to think that strong measures should be
taken. By March 1783, several officers participated in a plot in army
encampments in Newburgh, N.Y., to threaten the Congress, perhaps by
refusing to disband after the war ended.
Although Washington sympathized with his men, he knew that disobeying
the civilian government would destroy the very principles he had been
fighting for. In an emotional speech to his officers, he pleaded with
them to “express your utmost horror and detestation of the man who
wishes … to overturn the liberties of our country and … open the
[floodgates] of civil discord, and deluge our rising empire in blood.”
With that, the plot ended and the tenuous civil control over the
military held.
That brings us to that fateful day, Dec. 23, 1783. The Treaty of Paris
had been signed, and the United States was all but independent.
Washington arrived at the State House in Annapolis around noon. As he
faced Thomas Mifflin, president of the Continental Congress, Washington
declared, “I have now the honor of offering my sincere congratulations
to Congress and of presenting myself before them to surrender into
their hands the trust committed to me, and to claim the indulgence of
retiring from the service of my country.”
One witness, James McHenry, wrote, “It was a solemn and affecting
spectacle; such [a] one as history does not present. The spectators all
wept.” Washington ended “by commending the interests of our dearest
country to the protection of Almighty God.” At this, McHenry wrote,
“his voice [faltered] and sunk, and the whole house felt his
agitations.”
Washington then drew out his commission and handed it over to Mifflin.
He then headed home, back to Mount Vernon, arriving there on Christmas
Day 1783 as a private citizen. The image of a man surrendering power in
a time of kings and emperors stunned the world.
American painter John Trumbull, in Europe at the time, observed
that the act “excites the astonishment and admiration of this part of
the world.”
“’Tis a conduct so novel, so unconceivable to people, who, far from
giving up powers they possess, are willing to convulse the empire to
acquire more,” he said.
Upon learning of Washington’s resignation, King George III himself
remarked, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”
Recent political scandals are only confirming the widespread belief
that our politicians, at all levels, abuse the power they have. For
many Americans, abuse of power seems to characterize our system,
whether it is the institutional mechanisms that ensure the repeated
election of career politicians or the revelation of their personal
indiscretions.
At a time when faith in our leaders is at an all-time low, it is easy
to forget that we were founded largely through the work of a man who,
when tempted with absolute power, refused to take it.
It’s no longer in vogue to study the virtues of our statesmen. We live
in a cynical age, in which it sells far more books that “uncover”
America’s sins, rather than celebrate its greatness. And the
“sophistication” of moral ambiguity sells far more than the
“simplistic” affirmation of character.
Washington was not a perfect man, but his story reminds us about a time
when virtue was valued and extolled. In the words of Daniel Webster,
“American has furnished to the world the character of Washington. And
if our American institutions had done nothing else, that alone would
have entitled them to the respect of mankind.”
In an age crying out for character, it’s time to rediscover the example
Washington set for us on Dec. 23, 1783.
Read this and other articles at The Daily Signal
|
|
|
|
