‘First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.’ HENRY ‘Light Horse Harry’ LEE.
Clearly early Americans were going gaga over General Washington¹. But why? I’ve read things about the guy over the years. He was okay. But I found nothing in his resume that made him fantastic.
Oh, and I have to tell you. Thirty-five years ago, 1987, when the USA was celebrating the US Constitution’s two hundred year anniversary, they brought up this obscure fact, on one of the many TV specials of the time. Washington had the thickest thighs of all the Founding Fathers. Is that true? And is that the reason? Or at least part of the reasons?
¹ In Jeff Smith’s The Frugal Gourmet Cooks American Smith brings up the fact Washington is more correctly addressed ‘General’. What he did as general was far more important. And even as president he was addressed that.
I’d say that the biggest thing he did, was to step down after eight years. If he’d wanted to, he could have been king. But he chose not to.
Now, what’d he do that made him so popular that he could have been king? That, I’m less clear on. Certainly, he was a skilled general, but I don’t know if that’s enough to account for it.
Washington may not have been a great tactical general, but his strategic vision is why the US was able to avoid defeat long enough for the French to see that helping us was in their best interests. Keeping the Continental Army as an effective fighting force was essential.
As president, he set the standard for the position. It was his insistence that he be addressed as “Mr. President.” He stood for the primacy of the Federal government in the Whiskey Rebellion. He left the office after two terms, a precedent that was not challenged for over 150 years, and then codified into law. He created the executive branch, including the cabinet.
Compare his resume to any other American leader in the 18th Century. There were philosophers, firebrands, propagandists, and a whole lot of lawyers, but like most societies enthralled by democracy, there was precious little leadership…except for Washington. It’s a lot easier to rally around a person than an idea.
Among many other things, Washington sacrificed his own comfort, family obligations, and personal financial stability for the good of the country. One example being that he really did not want to endure a second term as he was near bankruptcy from neglecting his estate for so long. He acquiesced because the nascent United States needed him.
This book had a profound effect on me and cemented Washington, in my mind, as a true American hero:
I’ve thought of reading that before. Thanks for the reminder.
The real reason his profile is so high in the U.S. is ordinary patriotism. The primary military and civil founder of any country is liable to be looked on highly by people who have a more or less average tendency towards pride in their country. Unless such pride is completely unjustified, I think that’s reasonable.
I just finished reading a biography of the founder of my state, William Penn. He was far from perfect. Especially considering the violent and intolerant society in which he grew up, there is a lot to admire in him. I have no issue with our school-children being given a generally favorable picture of Penn. Same for Washington, even though one was a pacifist and the other a general.
George Washington was the only sitting US president to personally lead federal troops, to put down an insurrection during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.
We needed to create a national mythos…Washington was a good candidate (along with some of the other Founders) to create that mythos around. He did some awesome things. He did some not so awesome things (start the French and Indian War for instance). Much of what is generally known about his is made up fantasy from Parson Weems and creating that national identity.
Not true. Grant led union troops in several battles during the Civil War, and in at least one (Belmont) he was literally at the front of the line commanding his troops and giving orders. He narrowly missed being shot himself when his horse was hit from rife fire while he was in the saddle.
As mentioned, he was the one who, having been in the position to just take over, established the precedent that he would abide by the rules. In the early 1800s there was a strong interest among writers to contrast that to Cromwell and Bonaparte.
Also, (a) he did not have to bother with (publicly) doing the work of a common politician, and (b) had had the added good sense to die less than three years into retirement – thus (1) becoming an obvious eligible candidate for elevation to Great Father Figure by contrast with the still-living other founders who by then were on each other’s case and still had years or decades of accumulating blemishes and enmities ahead of them; and (2) becoming the safe choice to get the Great Father Figure standing, there being no longer a risk of him deciding he’d rather pull a Caesar/Napoleon, and in the process also preempting anybody else wanting to claim the Great Father Figure mantle.
