The final chapter of Rebels & Redcoats -- an amazing book that tells the story of the Revolutionary War through contemporary letters and journals -- looks at the twilight of the war, an uncertain period between Lord Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown in Oct. 1781 and the end of 1783. That chapter should be required reading for all Americans. Those two years marked an extraordinary period in our history during which all that had been fought for -- self-determination vs. authoritarianism -- lay in the balance. It is no exaggeration to say one man had the power to tip this balance.
In 1783, George Washington was at the height of his popularity, revered as a demi-god by much of the nation for defeating the British. He was also in charge of what was now the most powerful military force in North America and in possession of near dictatorial powers granted to him by Congress. And yet he decided to limit, and ultimately discard, that power, choosing instead to bolster Congress (and with it representative government) at a time when that body was weak, broke, and lacking the charismatic figures who had animated it in the days leading up to the Declaration of Independence.
We often forget the war did not end with Yorktown. Yes, the main British field force had surrendered and this shock had led to the fall of the conservative government in London and a decision to enter into peace negotiations with the Americans, but those negotiations in Paris would drag on and on. Meanwhile, not all was well back in the former colonies. America's two most important seaports, New York and Charleston, were still occupied by British troops, the British navy still controlled the sea lanes, and American loyalists -- some put the number who violently opposed independence at 100,000 -- were still agitating against British withdrawal; in places in the deep south loyalists were still under arms. If that wasn't enough, the United States was bankrupt, without enough funds even to pay its soldiers.
With no money in their pockets and no fighting to focus their energies, the soldiers got restless, as soldiers often do. In the spring of 1783 anonymous pamphlets urged the army to move against Congress in demand of back pay and redress of other grievances. The pamphlets struck a chord with the officers and Washington quickly had a crisis on his hands. He summoned his officers to attend a general meeting, at which he would not preside, to discuss the situation. Perhaps he hoped that in open discourse among themselves the officers would see their actions as dishonorable and step back of their own accord. When it was clear they would not, the General decided to address the meeting.
With no money in their pockets and no fighting to focus their energies, the soldiers got restless, as soldiers often do. In the spring of 1783 anonymous pamphlets urged the army to move against Congress in demand of back pay and redress of other grievances. The pamphlets struck a chord with the officers and Washington quickly had a crisis on his hands. He summoned his officers to attend a general meeting, at which he would not preside, to discuss the situation. Perhaps he hoped that in open discourse among themselves the officers would see their actions as dishonorable and step back of their own accord. When it was clear they would not, the General decided to address the meeting.
Washington made it clear to the officers that any revolt of the army would not have his sanction.
"Let me entreat you, gentlemen, on your part not to take measures which, viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained; let me request you to rely on the plighted faith of your country and place a full confidence in the purity of the intentions of Congress," he said.
As proof of those intentions, Washington read aloud a letter he had recently from a congressman expressing unqualified support for the army. While the letter showed the officers Congress was not opposed to the army, it was the manner in which Washington read the letter that proved decisive.
According to Major Samuel Shaw, who was in the hall, "His Excellency, after reading the first paragraph, made short pause, took out his spectacles, and begged the indulgence of his audience, while he put them on, observing at the same time that he had grown grey in their service and now found himself growing blind. There was something so natural, so unaffected in this appeal as rendered it superior to the most studied oratory. It forced its way into the heart, and you might see sensibility moisten every eye. The General, having finished, took leave of the assembly."
"Let me entreat you, gentlemen, on your part not to take measures which, viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained; let me request you to rely on the plighted faith of your country and place a full confidence in the purity of the intentions of Congress," he said.
As proof of those intentions, Washington read aloud a letter he had recently from a congressman expressing unqualified support for the army. While the letter showed the officers Congress was not opposed to the army, it was the manner in which Washington read the letter that proved decisive.
According to Major Samuel Shaw, who was in the hall, "His Excellency, after reading the first paragraph, made short pause, took out his spectacles, and begged the indulgence of his audience, while he put them on, observing at the same time that he had grown grey in their service and now found himself growing blind. There was something so natural, so unaffected in this appeal as rendered it superior to the most studied oratory. It forced its way into the heart, and you might see sensibility moisten every eye. The General, having finished, took leave of the assembly."
That ended the rebellion. The officers voted their support of Washington and Congress, repudiated the pamphlets, and meekly went back to their quarters.
Washington again showed his respect for civilian government a few months later. On November 
25th, 1783, the British evacuated New York City for their ships and Washington entered the town to great fanfare at the head of his army. The imagery of a victorious general leading his army into a great city as citizens cheer the lifting of tyranny is a familiar one. Castro entering Havana in 1959 or DeGaule entering Paris in 1944 both come to mind. But, unlike those two, and most of the other examples throughout history, Washington did not hold onto his power. On December 4th, the very day the last British warships finally cleared Sandy Hook, Washington called his officers together at Fraunces Tavern to take his leave of them and, by his example, remind them that they, too, should lay down their weapons and return power to the elected representatives of the people. (See image, right, of Washington being hugged by portly Gen. Knox.)
25th, 1783, the British evacuated New York City for their ships and Washington entered the town to great fanfare at the head of his army. The imagery of a victorious general leading his army into a great city as citizens cheer the lifting of tyranny is a familiar one. Castro entering Havana in 1959 or DeGaule entering Paris in 1944 both come to mind. But, unlike those two, and most of the other examples throughout history, Washington did not hold onto his power. On December 4th, the very day the last British warships finally cleared Sandy Hook, Washington called his officers together at Fraunces Tavern to take his leave of them and, by his example, remind them that they, too, should lay down their weapons and return power to the elected representatives of the people. (See image, right, of Washington being hugged by portly Gen. Knox.)He then made his way south to officially resign his commission before Congress, at that time sitting in Annapolis. On December 23rd, before the very Congressmen whose necks he had saved from his own army a few months earlier, Washington said, "Having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the great theater of action, and bidding an affectionate farewell to this august body under whose orders I have so long acted, I here offer my commission and take my leave of all the employments of public live."
He took from his breast pocket the piece of paper that had commissioned him commander-in-chief in the summer of 1775 and handed it to the President of the Congress. He then mounted his
horse and headed for Mount Vernon (right), keeping his promise to Martha to be home by Christmas.
horse and headed for Mount Vernon (right), keeping his promise to Martha to be home by Christmas.I write this not simply to remind everyone of Washington's greatness. Rather it is an attempt to think about how leaders deal with their own power, and, by extension, how the nation as a whole handles power.
Over the past eight years, we have seen the power of this nation more often than not wielded in an awesome, unilateral, and unsatisfactory manner. President Bush has held immense power over these years. I would argue that power has been used in a manner in which his predecessor (and I mean Washington, not Pappy Bush) would not approve. Congress gave Washington near dictatorial powers to prosecute the rebellion but he used these powers lightly and relinquished them immediately. Oftentimes, the actions of President Bush, on the otherhand, have appeared to be one continually trying to expand executive power at the expense of individual rights: illegal wiretapping of US citizens, extraordinary renditions, indefinite detention, torture, and dubious signing statements that reserve the President's right to ignore the will of Congress are some examples that come to mind. On the international front, at a time when the power and wealth of the United States is unchallenged President Bush unilaterally launched an unnecessary war, walked away from treaties, and insisted US soldiers be held immune from prosecution before the international court.
Washington, on the other hand, showed us that the true sign of great leadership is the necessity of limiting one's power precisely when it is at its height. As general, and later as president, he chose to step aside at the very moment when he held the most power.
Now, back to those presidential twins apparently separated at birth, George W Bush and Harry 
S Truman. While Bush may like to compare himself to his plain-spoken mid-western predecessor, I would argue that the only thing the two have in common is low approval ratings and a love of fishing (see left). Truman, like Bush, was a war president but he chose to use the extraordinary power America likes to give its war leaders in vastly different ways.
S Truman. While Bush may like to compare himself to his plain-spoken mid-western predecessor, I would argue that the only thing the two have in common is low approval ratings and a love of fishing (see left). Truman, like Bush, was a war president but he chose to use the extraordinary power America likes to give its war leaders in vastly different ways.In 1945, when Truman took office, the United States held supreme military and economic power in the world; as World War II ended, the US was the only one of the five victorious nations with any strength left. What course did Truman take at this time of unprecedented US 
economic, political, and military dominance in the world? Did he launch a "preemptive" war of regime change against the Soviet Union, as some counseled? Did he thumb his nose at international organizations? Did he increase spending on weapons systems? Did he hold enemy combatants in concentration camps while delaying their trial for years on end? Did he authorize surveillance against US citizens? Did he send his soldiers on tour-after-tour of duty far from home?
At the very height of US dominance in the world, Truman attempted to subjugate America's power wherever possible in the furtherance of peace. Truman hastened the establishment of the global governing structure envisioned by Roosevelt and Churchill: the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Court in the Hague, the International Monetary Fund. He launched the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe (at huge cost to the United States) and also embarked on costly rebuilding in Germany and Japan in the belief that keeping other nations in penury would not be helpful to the United States in the long run. On the domestic front he brought the troops home quickly, championing enforcement of the GI bill and then integrated the military. He understood that for the possessor of unrivalled power, the most important way to further democracy is to impose limits on power. In his own way, Truman was following the precedent started by George Washington.
economic, political, and military dominance in the world? Did he launch a "preemptive" war of regime change against the Soviet Union, as some counseled? Did he thumb his nose at international organizations? Did he increase spending on weapons systems? Did he hold enemy combatants in concentration camps while delaying their trial for years on end? Did he authorize surveillance against US citizens? Did he send his soldiers on tour-after-tour of duty far from home?At the very height of US dominance in the world, Truman attempted to subjugate America's power wherever possible in the furtherance of peace. Truman hastened the establishment of the global governing structure envisioned by Roosevelt and Churchill: the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Court in the Hague, the International Monetary Fund. He launched the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe (at huge cost to the United States) and also embarked on costly rebuilding in Germany and Japan in the belief that keeping other nations in penury would not be helpful to the United States in the long run. On the domestic front he brought the troops home quickly, championing enforcement of the GI bill and then integrated the military. He understood that for the possessor of unrivalled power, the most important way to further democracy is to impose limits on power. In his own way, Truman was following the precedent started by George Washington.
History is going to ask a lot of questions of President George W. Bush and I expect his answers will be found wanting. For all he did in his eight years, I believe he will be most harshly judged for his attempts to expand executive power at the expense of Congress and the Judiciary and for his decision that fundamental civil rights (of citizen and foreigner alike) should take a back seat to security concerns.
At precisely the moment when President Bush had the support of the entire nation and much of the world, at a time when he could have asked for and received almost anything, he chose to grab more power, to make a mockery of Congress, and trample on the rights of his own citizens. Oh, and let's not forget he also chose this time to unleash the most powerful military the world has ever seen in the conquest and ham-fisted occupation of a 3rd rate power.
He forgot Washington's fundamental lesson that humility in the possession of great power is the highest calling of leadership.
At precisely the moment when President Bush had the support of the entire nation and much of the world, at a time when he could have asked for and received almost anything, he chose to grab more power, to make a mockery of Congress, and trample on the rights of his own citizens. Oh, and let's not forget he also chose this time to unleash the most powerful military the world has ever seen in the conquest and ham-fisted occupation of a 3rd rate power.
He forgot Washington's fundamental lesson that humility in the possession of great power is the highest calling of leadership.
No comments:
Post a Comment