| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| James N. |
Posted - April 16 2012 : 4:19:57 PM
Subtitled His Early Military Adventures, George Washington's FIRST WAR is a new ( 2011 ) book on the beginning of George Washington's career as a soldier and is a welcome look at this often overlooked part of his life. Of course there's really nothing NEW here, as to be expected about someone so well-documented as our First President, but since his leadership in the Revolution and subsequent Presidency garner the lion's share of writings about him, this offers a chance to fill in more of the background. To anyone who has plumbed the depths of Freeman and Flexner, this will be familliar territory, but in recent memory only one other author has written on this particular phase, the decidedly inferior For King and Country by Thomas Lewis ( 1993 ).
David A. Clary does a good job of laying out Washington's early life up to his appointment as adjutant of one of Virginia's four militia districts in Nov., 1753. This leads to his comission by Lt. Gov. Dinwiddie as emmisary to the French in the Upper Ohio country, which of course in turn results in the eruption of the French and Indian War, which takes up the balance of the book. He uses frequent quotes from and references to period orders, letters, and dispatches written to and by the young commander of Virginia's Militia, detailing both his cooperation and frequent conflict with his subordinates and superiors like Gov. Dinwiddie and Generals Braddock, Lord Loudoun, and Forbes. Braddock's and Forbes' expeditions are well-described, as are Washington's parts in them. The book effectively closes in 1759 with Washington's retirement from the service and marriage to the widow Martha Custis.
Most interesting to watch is the development of Washington's "military" personality as well as his growth in skills and responsibilities. Clary frequently reminds the reader of Washington's youth and total lack of experience and fitness for so large a job. ( For readers of this Forum, the most interesting aspect would probably be the extent Washington's callow youth was "played" by the Iroquois "Half-King" for his own ends! ) Nevertheless, by combinations of agressiveness, guile, and abundent good luck he was able to not only survive but continue to rise in his chosen profession. Throughout, the problems he constantly carps on: lack of men, money, uniforms, supplies, arms and ammunition, and cooperation from equals or subordinates; frequent bad weather; personal illness; desertion; untrustworthy allies; etc., etc. all provide a foretaste of what will come later. Though Washington does not appear to advantage during this period, it is impossible not to come to the conclusion that through experiencing all this it served as the crucible that prepared him for the trials of the Revolution.
|
| 21 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - April 28 2012 : 11:59:17 AM
I don't know. I think Washington's hesitation falls under the old saying, "If nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve." |
| James N. |
Posted - April 28 2012 : 10:34:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by lane batot
That is true, F W. And another truth probably is that ANYBODY crazy enough to WANT that job, is, well-- CRAZY!!!
Returning us nicely to the original subject, Lane! Washington certainly didn't want either of his precedent-setting two terms but was persuaded by his many supporters who feared ( rightly, as has been shown above! ) that few-if-any others were equal to the job. After two terms he was more than glad to escape the increasingly ugly petty partisan politics and return to "the shade of his own vine and fig tree" on the southern shore of the Potomac. |
| lane batot |
Posted - April 28 2012 : 08:37:18 AM
That is true, F W. And another truth probably is that ANYBODY crazy enough to WANT that job, is, well-- CRAZY!!! |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - April 28 2012 : 01:23:10 AM
Why so surprised? Clinton won. Bush won. |
| lane batot |
Posted - April 27 2012 : 4:03:39 PM
Yeah, and before the shite got tossed into an electrical revolving cooling device, Edwards was predicted to have had a real chance at winning the presedential election! THAT is scary! |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - April 27 2012 : 10:59:50 AM
Edwards, - I never followed his bs, not worth my time, - but I find it amazing he's still in the public eye. To think of him as a (not our) U.S. President goes beyond mind boggling. - Good retort on herpes Lane. |
| lane batot |
Posted - April 27 2012 : 09:30:56 AM
Gawd. What an embarrassment to N. C.! We FINALLY got rid of Jesse Helms(may he rest in peace PLEASE! We don't need Jesse coming back to haunt us!!) and then this John Edwards disillusioning, disgusting mess. Sheesh! That reminds me of an old Jesse Helms joke. Apparently, many years ago(you young whippersnappers out there), the first outbreaks of herpes occurred in California. Jesse was running for office then, and won(alas), and the joke went; "Why did California get herpes, and North carolina get Jesse Helms?" and the answer is: "California got first choice!"...... |
| James N. |
Posted - April 26 2012 : 7:49:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by lane batot
I hadn't found anything as yet about George's donkey experiments. And I think that that story and discussion of political asses screwing around go perfectly together!
Lane,
You're most welcome; and speaking of which, maybe it's only a coincidence that John Edwards is currently on trial! |
| lane batot |
Posted - April 26 2012 : 2:05:26 PM
And HA! HA! James! Apparently our alloted computer time is synchronous today! And thanks for that story! I hadn't found anything as yet about George's donkey experiments. And I think that that story and discussion of political asses screwing around go perfectly together! |
| lane batot |
Posted - April 26 2012 : 2:00:37 PM
Definetely food for thought, Winglo, and no doubt a lot of truth to what you said--I never thought of things in quite that way before. But, for sake of discussion here, how would this change the fact that some lying, two-faced, immoral, selfish, greedy, crooked, stupid, whoremonging, dookie-heads were all that were running for that office? The only decent things I could see to do is vote for someone admirable that you WISH was running(like Mickey Mouse er the like), or don't vote for that pertikuler election. I suppose you could try to vote in the least worse, and hope, by the mind-numbing process of evolution that things might eventually improve...... |
| James N. |
Posted - April 26 2012 : 1:59:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by winglo
Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack the topic!
On the contrary - this was only a book review; any thoughtful addition such as yours should be most welcome, especially coming as it does from a voice we hear too seldom lately!
Back to another topic, since I don't expect Lane or anyone else to know exactly where to find the story of Washington's Royal Gift, it forms one of the droller incidents related in the chapter Farmer Washington of V.3 George Washington and the New Nation: ( 1783 - 1793 ) ( 1970 ) by James Thomas Flexner, the absolute best of the many biographies. The incident, largely culled from Washington's letters to Lafayette, is notable for revealing that, desipte all appearances to the contrary, George had a sense of humor, at least among his closest friends! Edited from Flexner:
...Washington was delighted with the physique of the animal, whom he named Royal Gift. The majestic jackass was not only "about fifteen hands high" but "his body and limbs very large in proportion to his height."...thirty-three eager fillies awaited the Spaniard's ministratations.
As the Spaniard repudiated bride after bride, Washington had flashes of rage in which he suspected that His Most Catholic Majesty had played a trick on him by sending him a damaged beast, but more often his reaction was mirth at the ridiculous denoument to all his efforts and hopes. He wondered to Lafayette whether the jackass was not being the perfect courtier by imitating the behavior of the elderly Spanish king: "His late royal master, though past his grand climacteric cannot be less moved by female allurements than he is, or, when prompted, can proceed with more deliberation and majestic solemnity to the act of procreation."
At other times, Washington speculated that, as an aristocrat, Royal Gift was superior to "republican enjoyments." He seemed "too full of royalty to have anything to do with a plebian race. Perhaps his stomach may come to him. If not, I shall wish he had never come from His Most Catholic Majesty's stables."...Washington tried an experiment...He introduced Royal Gift not, as formerly, to a mare but to a female ass borrowed from a neighbor..."Though in appearance quite unequal to the match, yet like a true female, she was not terrified at the disproportionate size of her paramour, and, having renewed the conflict twice or thrice, it is to be hoped the issue will be favorable."...Washington then discovered that if a she-ass were employed to rouse Royal Gift from his "slothful humors", and a mare quickly substituted, the jack would, although "slow in covering" be "sure". |
| winglo |
Posted - April 25 2012 : 6:52:50 PM
Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack the topic! |
| winglo |
Posted - April 25 2012 : 6:50:09 PM
As I see it, though, the problem with not belonging to or affiliating with either party is that those who are most likely to take that type of stand (i.e. not belonging to a party) are the ones who keep the parties from becoming extremist. If everyone who hates all the bickering just "backs out" of the parties we are left with a Republican Party that contains ONLY "tea party" members and a Democrat Party that contains ONLY "progressives." Those who think individually about each issue and tend to lean middle right sometimes and middle left sometimes are the best compromisers and keep the parties from becoming extreme. But, when those compromisers (and those who think like them) all back out because of bickering, you're only left with those who are extreme and they WON'T compromise. Therefore, nothing happens.
I would love to see someone run who is fiscally conservative, but doesn't alienate social liberals. (Instead of being taxed to death, I could keep more of my money and donate to social issues that I find important.) Imagine how many votes such a person would get. But the parties, without the "middle of the roaders" never nominate such people because you have to be all conservative or all liberal to get on the ticket. And each party counts on the fact that those who hate the bickering will just stay home, and that the majority of voters will be the extremists. So, choose not to vote for anyone if you like, but you're only making the problem worse by not letting us hear your voice. |
| lane batot |
Posted - April 24 2012 : 08:01:31 AM
AMEN, Monadnock Guide!!! I never have considered myself affiliated with any party particularly, and like George(glad to learn this about him! Thanks!) I HATE this stoooopid party bickering and mud-slinging--makes me not want to vote fer ANYONE! |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - April 23 2012 : 7:58:55 PM
George Washington was a "Federalist," although in his time, there weren't clear-cut political parties. Washington himself was set against any divisions brought on by political parties.
.
Founding Fathers: Political party affiliations
Political parties did not exist in 1789. Washington despised the idea of political associations, formed in such a way as to pit one group of citizens against another. In his farewell speech in 1796 he said:
[While speaking on the subject -- The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.]
"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
[Bold emphasis not in original text.] |
| lane batot |
Posted - April 23 2012 : 3:17:35 PM
I never read about the Spanish asses(interesting--I'll havta look that up!)--does that have anything to do with George being a democrat? |
| James N. |
Posted - April 18 2012 : 11:44:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by lane batot
War and politics? Those are George's MINOR contributions to America and history! His REAL purpose in the scheme of things, of course, was the importation and development of fine strains of HOUNDS!!!! Tally Ho!
Lane, don't forget the Virginia Thoroughbred horses bred to accompany those hounds! Now if only the experiment with the Spanish ASSES ( the Jack aptly named Royal Gift ) had been as successful... |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - April 18 2012 : 10:38:01 AM
Interesting thought Fitz, - but in spite of marrying rather well, (John Kerry comes to mind) I don't see today's politicians quite as dedicated to much of anything except extending their political careers. Washington quite while he was ahead, smart - not something most pols would consider today. |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - April 18 2012 : 10:13:08 AM
I think that George would fit in nicely with today's politicians. |
| lane batot |
Posted - April 18 2012 : 08:57:29 AM
War and politics? Those are George's MINOR contributions to America and history! His REAL purpose in the scheme of things, of course, was the importation and development of fine strains of HOUNDS!!!! Tally Ho! |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - April 17 2012 : 6:19:48 PM
It's been a long time since I read anything on Washington, - but as I recall, his early military career was not one of much success. However, his determination & devotion in life in general was unbelievable. If we only had true statesmen today, like Washington, who put the country before their own re-election & ambitions, this country would be in much better shape. |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
