Was any one individual caught up in a movement as broad and multifaceted as the revolutionary struggle really irreplaceable? John Adams, one of the men who proposed Washington as patriot commander in chief, thought not. Historians have long grappled with similar questions about the Father of His Country. Absent Washington, could other patriots have led the rebel armies to success? Aside from Flexner, the formal literature directly addressing the question is actually quite small.
Historian John Ferling, a distinguished Washington scholar, has hedged a bet on the issue. While they find him human and with his share of vanity, ambition, and fallibility—he could be vindictive to anyone who crossed him—there is a broad consensus that Washington possessed a rare combination of military, patriotic, administrative, leadership, and political attributes unmatched by any other American commander.
Significantly, Lengel holds that Washington brought unity to a cause that local disputes and contending personalities well might have fractured; he also points out that Washington was lucky—a trait no one less than Napoleon considered an essential component of a successful general. That Washington was. The question is fraught with too many intangibles. The same is true of related questions: If the rebel commander in chief was truly indispensable, under what criteria can we make such a claim?
And how did one man rise to and maintain such stature amid an event so extensive and complex in scope and of such long duration eight years of conflict! Still, we have to ask these questions—Washington was and is too important and intrinsically interesting a figure to do otherwise. That is, what individuals do, especially in critical situations, matters; and thus the actions of individual men and we would now add individual women can dramatically shape the directions of history.
This is not the place to deal with the Great Man idea in its entirety, but if we are to use it to test Washington—and Washington to test the theory—some Great Man basics are in order.
At first glance the idea seems little more than common sense, but in fact the Great Man has been a matter of controversy.
In support of his argument Carlyle cited the lives of Luther, Muhammad, Rousseau, Cromwell, Napoleon and others he considered in the heroic category. Still, they believed key individuals in the case of Woods, strong and intelligent monarchs had a profound and primary influence on the course of history. The Great Man in all its forms, however, quickly drew the fire and ire of determinist thinkers. In the s British philosopher and evolutionist Herbert Spencer caustically dismissed Carlyle.
Before he can remake his society, his society must make him. That being the case, no one man could be indispensable; John Adams would have agreed. Strict determinists, doctrinaire Marxists in particular, will concede only that individuals might nudge the course of history one way or another—or impede or accelerate events to some minimal extent—but never appreciably change the immutable laws of historical development. There was also a middle ground. Thus over the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the determinist view, doctrinaire or not and Annales historians, Robinson, and Beard were not , tended to eclipse the Great Man.
The rise of the likes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini compelled a renewed focus on the role of individuals in history—for good or ill. Among other advocates the Great Man received a searching endorsement from political philosopher Sidney Hook — In his study The Hero in History , Hook takes roughly the same ground as Rappoport; but Hook argued more forcefully that history followed no predetermined course, and like Rappoport he insisted that at critical junctures individual decisions could turn the path of the future.
No doubt the elegance of the original Russian suffered in translation. The more stable a political entity or society, the less influence an individual is likely to have; functioning bureaucracies, ministries, and generally contented populations have little need of heroes.
Strong figures, however, can exert considerable influence when political stability is weak and unstable and events are in flux. Should Lenin have not managed to come back to Russia from Switzerland. Grinin avoided American examples in testing his theory; had he done so, Washington would have been an obvious candidate. We need to trace this evolution. The first was military. Washington had an accomplished record as a Virginia officer. As a young man he had made his share of mistakes during the French and Indian War one of them started the war ; but he had kept the Virginia Regiment in the field for years and had learned the basicsof senior command on the job.
In Washington boasted a colonial military reputation and a degree of name recognition beyond most of his contemporaries; it would be difficult to name an American his equal in this regard. The Virginian was a surer bet. The second point was political. Congressional delegates had little in common beyond annoyance with imperial policies; they were not united in what to do about them even as the shooting started in Massachusetts.
This was a dangerous way to conduct a war. John Adams, among others, knew that New England could not carry on alone. Adams also believed the war effort would fail without Americans acting in concert, and he thought a southern commanding general would foster the necessary unity. Washington, with his military background, was the obvious southerner; and the hope was that his appointment would cement the southern colonies, especially critical Virginia then the largest colony , to the patriot cause.
In some measure it did, although such things are difficult to gauge with precision. However, in that his appointment was popular and helped achieve the necessary political purpose, it marked the first time the Virginian served in what hinted at an indispensable role—that of a rebel symbol of unity.
That full role lay in the future; for the present at least he was in a position to directly influence the course of events around Boston. Any cachet Washington gleaned from his new commission was lost on much of the army then gathered outside Boston. The new general had yet to prove himself, and his efforts to tighten army discipline proved unpopular with many of the unruly volunteers.
Respect for Washington grew as he put his stamp on the army, but there is little to indicate his rank and file thought him indispensable even after he compelled the Britishto evacuate the city.
Over officers and men saw little to encourage adulatory views of their commander. That he was the glue holding the patriot war effort together was recognized only in hindsight. In a moment of crisis a forceful personality can direct the course of events, and it is no exercise in hero worship to credit Washington with dedication, decisiveness, and steady leadership in a dark hour. In private correspondence the general conceded the gravity of the situation in late December , even admitting the rebel cause teetered on the brink of collapse.
Publicly, however, he carried on. His efforts to rally men and resources and stage the brilliant Trenton and Princeton operations proved a tonic for patriot morale. His victories gave impetus to the Whig rising in the New Jersey countryside, dismayed the British, and kept the rebel effort alive.
They also sent his own popularity soaring, and Washington deserved the accolades. Only he could have engineered the revival of patriot fortunes. There was no one else: Lee was a prisoner of war and had shown little cooperation anyway; pleading illness, Gates had absented himself from the army just before Trenton; and neither Greene nor any other Whig general was up to independent command at this stage of the conflict.
Petersburg in Subsequent events revealed Washington in the same light. Trenton and Princeton did not end the revolutionary crisis. For the moment key patriot institutions were ineffectual. After granting the commander in chief almost dictatorial power, Congress had decamped to Baltimore. He also dabbled in light industry such as weaving and fishing. All of these ventures were aimed at making his plantation more self-sufficient, thus minimizing his business ties to England.
Several hundred slaves labored at Mount Vernon. As Washington turned to crops that were less labor intensive than tobacco, he had more help than he needed. However, although he could pursue greater profits by minimizing labor expenses, he almost never sold or moved a slave to another property unless the slave wanted to leave.
As he approached middle age, Washington expressed increasing qualms about the practice of slavery. By the mids, colonial resentment of British rule was widespread. To replenish its coffers that were drained for the war with the French, London imposed taxes on the colonies. Moreover, to force compliance, England established punitive laws against the colonials.
Americans, who had no say in British parliamentary decisions, voiced their disdain for these tariffs that had suddenly raised the prices on necessities such as tea. As the controversy grew hotter, more British troops poured into the colonies, which only compounded the problem.
Generally, the southern colonies were less openly defiant toward England during the early stages of the independence movement. Like most Virginians, the master of Mount Vernon was slow to warm to revolutionary fervor, hoping that the British would end their oppressive ways. But a series of English provocations—the closure of Boston Harbor, new taxes, the shooting deaths of five colonials in an altercation with Royal troops, the abolition of the Massachusetts state charter—made Washington a firm believer in American independence by the early s.
He was one of the first leading citizens in Virginia to openly support resistance to English tyranny. In , the Virginia legislature voted him one of seven delegates to the First Continental Congress, an assembly devoted to resistance to British rule—interestingly, a thirty-one-year-old Virginian named Thomas Jefferson finished out of the running.
Washington joined the majority of the assembly in voting for new economic reprisals against England. In April , electrifying news came from the North. Local militias from towns around Boston had engaged British troops at Lexington and Concord. When Washington rode to the Second Continental Congress a month later, there was talk that he might be named commander of all the colonial forces.
Washington, his confidence weakened by the misadventures against the French and Native Americans, resisted the appointment. But he was the natural choice for several reasons: he was still considered a hero from the French and Indian War; at forty-three, he was old enough to lead but young enough to withstand the rigors of the battlefield; and northerners hoped a general from Virginia would help draw the reluctant South into the conflict.
Above all, the leadership and charisma of the tall, quiet, stately Virginian was unsurpassed. Washington did not attend the congressional session that took the vote for the army's command. He was the last of its members to know that he had been chosen—by a unanimous vote.
He refused a salary and told the Congress, "I beg it may be remembered that I, this day, declare with the utmost sincerity, I do not think myself equal to the command I am honored with.
In accepting command of colonial forces, George Washington had crossed a deadly serious line. He was a traitor, and if the rebellion failed, he would soon find a rope around his neck. Any military expert would have given the Continentals little chance. After all, King George's army was the best-trained, best-equipped fighting force in the Western world. The matchless Royal Navy could deliver an army to any shore and strangle enemy nations by blockade.
England's forces were commanded by career soldiers who were veterans of wars all over the globe. In sharp contrast, the colonial force staring them down was less of an army than a large gang. Its soldiers came and went almost at will.
The officers leading them had little command, let alone fighting experience. Furthermore, in the colonies, support for the rebellion was far from firm. Washington's first duty was to turn this unruly crowd into a real army by instituting disciplinary regulations.
To facilitate his efforts, he urged the Continental Congress to provide enough money to pay for longer enlistments for his soldiers. But when New Year's Day dawned in , much of his army had gone home because their enlistments had ended. Washington first commanded American forces arrayed around Boston. Using cannon captured by Henry Knox from Fort Ticonderoga and heroically transported miles to Boston, Washington fortified a high point overlooking the city.
Unnerved by the colonials' sudden tactical advantage, the British withdrew from Boston by sea. Washington, however, had no illusions that his enemy was finished. The question was where they would strike next. By spring, it was plain that the British plan was to seize New York. It offered several advantages including a large port, the propaganda value of holding one of the rebels' biggest cities, and a route by which troops could be delivered to the American interior via the Hudson River.
Washington moved to stop them. By August, 30, troops marched on Washington's force. On their first engagement late that month, much of the Continental army either surrendered or turned and fled in terror. On September 15, the British landed on Manhattan, and again Washington's troops ran away. Enraged, he shouted at them, "Are these the men with whom I am to defend America?
But by November, the British had captured two forts that the Continentals had hoped would secure the Hudson River. Washington was forced to withdraw into New Jersey and then Pennsylvania. The British thought this signaled the end of the conflict and dug in for the winter, not bothering to chase the Americans.
Washington now realized that by trying to fight open-field, firing-line battles with the British, he was playing to their strengths. On Christmas Day, he led his army through a ferocious blizzard, crossed the Delaware River into New Jersey, and surprised an enemy force at Trenton.
A few days later, he took a British garrison at nearby Princeton. These actions were less large-scale battles than they were guerrilla raids. Nonetheless, these minor victories gave his army confidence, brightened the spirits of the American people, and told the British that they were in for a long and bitter struggle.
The Revolution's third year was its turning point. This victory convinced the French that the Revolution was winnable for the Americans.
They began to consider an alliance with the colonial rebels—partly to get back at an old enemy, England, and partly to share in prizes from raids on British ships. At the same time, the English embarked on an unfortunate military strategy that included an invasion of the southern colonies, which subjected them to guerrilla warfare.
For Washington, however, was a profoundly trying year. He lost two major battles with the British and failed to keep them from taking Philadelphia, home to the new nation's government, which was forced into hiding. In response to such a loss, an attempt was made by some in Congress and the army to oust Washington as commander. The winter of saw his army camped in freezing, wretched huts at Valley Forge.
One of the army's doctors summed up the conditions in his diary: "Poor food—hard lodging—cold weather—fatigue—nasty clothes—nasty cookery—vomit half my time—smoked out of my senses—the devil's in it—I can't endure it.
By springtime, things began to improve as the army drilled hard and marched out of Valley Forge a more disciplined fighting force. In May , the French agreed to an alliance with the Americans, sending troops, munitions, and money. By mid, 6, French troops were fighting alongside the Americans.
In the film, Hanks played Andrew Beckett, a gay attorney who is unjustly fired from his Bernhard Goetz, who shot four young Black men on a subway car the previous day, flees New York City and heads for New Hampshire after becoming the central figure in a media firestorm. The crew and captain of the U. The ship, and its man crew, was seized by North Korean warships on January 23 and charged with intruding into North Korean waters.
On December 23, , the Missouri Department of Health and the federal Centers for Disease Control CDC inform residents of Times Beach, Missouri that their town was contaminated when the chemical dioxin was sprayed on its unpaved roads, and that the town will have to be Live TV. This Day In History. History Vault. World War II. Colonial America. Sign Up. Art, Literature, and Film History.
0コメント