Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedGeorge Wahingtons reputation

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Direct Link To This Post Topic: George Wahingtons reputation
    Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 19:51

When skimming thru the "Genisis" thread I couldnt help but notice a quote that read "George Washington's reputation doesnt impress me". Well, not a lot of people (especially Americans) would agree....to say the least. But the quote for me sparked an epiphany for a new thread that should involve the first President and slavery.....a very touchy subject.

I have copied and pasted a partial reading taken from the text, which I would recommend reading in its entirety for it is extremely informative and interesting. The author takes a very impartial and unbiased approach. The reason I have copied the paragraphs in which I did is to support my view on the subject. I believe George Washington had a very complicated and complex view towards slavery which actually evolved thru the years clearly towards abolishment. There was just one problem, Wahington was busy with another issue....the unification of the union. This was infact far more of an important issue in Washington's eyes, just as it was for the other founding fathers. They all feared that if slavery was to be challenged that the union would be seperated before it was really even unified. It is clear that a unified nation was of top importance. Another view Wahington held was when and if slavery was to be abolished that it should be done in a timely, proggresive process. In other words he didnt believe that slaves should just be set free. He believed in educating them first. There is some great info. on the site, I encourage all to read it.

 

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

In a conversation with British actor, John Bernard, Washington came close to explicitly racist language in justifying fighting for freedom while maintaining slavery: "This may seem a contradiction, but it is neither a crime nor an absurdity. When we profess, as our fundamental principle, that liberty is the inalienable right of every man, we do not include madmen or idiots; liberty in their hands would become a scourge. Till the mind of the slave has been educated to perceive what are the obligations of a state of freedom, the gift would insure its abuse."

 

There are, however, in the vast record of his correspondence no explicit statements by Washington that blacks were innately inferior to whites. Even in GW's rather negative quote to the actor Bernard, GW did not doubt that the mind of the slave could be educated to receive the gift of freedom - just as he believed whites could lose the gift. Earlier, he had warned that if the Americans did not resist British tyranny they would become "as tame and abject slaves as the blacks we rule over with such arbitrary sway." In other words, whites and blacks could both become equally abject slaves or be able to enjoy liberty. As Joseph Ellis notes, GW "tended to regard the condition of the black population as a product of nurture rather than nature - that is he saw slavery as the culprit, preventing the diligence and responsibility that would emerge gradually and naturally after emancipation." Speaking of blacks in general he asserted since they have "no ambition to establish a good name, they are too regardless of a bad one." The point - slaves had no opportunity to win respect and earn good reputation - hence their lack of "ambition" and the inferior quality of their work.

 

When the black poetess, Phillis Wheatley sent General Washington a flattering poem, Washington responded, thanking her for the "elegant Lines," adding that he was undeserving of such praise. He added he would "be happy to see a person so favourd by the Muses, and to whom nature has been so liberal and beneficent in her dispensations." [She did meet him later at his headquarters]

 

After some initial hesitation, GW backed the use of black troops in the American army and came to recognize their utility for the American cause and may well have been impressed and moved by their courage and dedication. He used black overseers on his plantation farms, and for a brief time in the 1780's all 5 overseers at his Mount Vernon farms were black. Davy, for instance, a mulatto slave trained as a cooper, managed Washington's Muddy Hole farm for many years. Washington considered him a capable overseer. He wrote, "Davy carries on his business as well as the white overseers, and with more quietness than many." Although he distrusted Davy's honesty regarding livestock, he was willing to overlook that shortcoming because of Davy's other contributions. For his efforts as overseer, Davy was rewarded with special quarters, two or three hogs at killing time, and other privileges.

 

When he was in need of good workmen, Washington made clear he believed they could be of any race or religion. "I am a good deal in want of a House Joiner and Bricklayer, (who really understand their profession) and you would do me a favor by purchasing one of each, for me. . . If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews or Christian of an Sect, or they may be Athiests."

 

In 1768, GW hired 4 whites to assist his 4 black cradlers [wheat mowers] and the following year he considered hiring as few white cradlers as possible & instead confining hired white labor to the task of raking & binding - i.e. he countenanced placing whites in subservient positions to a set of specialized black mowers. [Morgan]

 

We might wish that GW had been more sympathetic to the plight of his bondsmen and bondswomen, [He seemed to accept the myth that many slaves were happy and content]; that he might have better understood why they were often idle and why they regularly engaged in theft; that he had better understood that no matter how well they were treated, they were justified in running away. Nevertheless, it is still important to remember the times in which he lived and the way that he had been brought up. I think it is noteworthy that he never explicitly argued in favor of innate black inferiority, demonstrated little "Negrophobia," and never succumbed to favoring large-scale colonization of blacks overseas.

 

Influenced by the rhetoric of the American Revolution and constant contact with anti-slavery men from the northern colonies and states, George Washington became increasingly critical of the institution of slavery. Tracing the details of his changing views and the reasons for it may not be possible, but there can be no denying the change. He became increasingly eager to see slavery put on the path toward ultimate extinction, although he cautioned, "Time, education, and patience were needed" in the struggle.

 

A careful perusal of his post-war and presidential correspondence produces many such examples. Let me share with you a few of them.

 

"I never mean (unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it) to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by slow, sure, and imperceptible degrees."

 

After Lafayette purchased in 1786 a plantation in Cayenne to carry out his scheme of emancipating slaves, Washington praised the Frenchman: "Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country," he wrote, "but I dispair of seeing it. . . . To set the slaves afloat at once would, I really believe, be productive of much inconvenience and mischief; but by degrees it certainly might, and assuredly ought to be, effected."

 

"I wish from my soul that the legislature of this state could see the policy of a gradual abolition of slavery. It would prevent much mischief."

 

" No man desires more heartily than I do [the end of slavery]. Not only do I pray for it on the score of human dignity, but I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union." [And by the way, GW made clear that if slavery caused a break up of the union, he would cast his lot with the North!]

 

"The unfortunate condition of the persons whose labour in part I employed, has been the only unavoidable subject of regret. To make the Adults among them as easy & comfortable in their circumstances as their actual state of ignorance and improvidence would admit; and to lay a foundation to prepare the rising generation for a destiny different from that in which they were born, afforded some satisfaction to my mind, and could not I hoped be displeasing to the justice of the Creator."

 

These quotes, and others that could be given, while heartfelt, must be understood in context or one might reasonably conclude that the first President was an abolitionist. It is important to note that virtually all of GW's anti-slavery quotes were expressed in private correspondence or conversation. During his lifetime, the General never took a public stance against slavery or called for its end. If his growing opposition to slavery was genuine and internalized, why did he not take a more public stand against it and use his unparalleled prestige in the cause of human freedom? This was a calculated decision by the President. It was a matter of priorities. A critic might write, "the only true policy is justice; and he who regards the consequences of an act rather than the justice of it gives no very exalted proof of the greatness of his character," but George Washington knew it was not that simple. In Roger Wilkins words,

He was "politically shackled by the grating chain [racism and slavery] that snaked through the new republic and diminished every life it touched."

 

The President made the creation and unity of the new nation a more important priority than attacking slavery. To be honest, in his mind there was no contest. While he was convinced slavery must eventually be eradicated, he was convinced that an early attack upon it would undermine and destroy his beloved union before it could be properly established. While we can't run the film through to see what would have happened if a major effort had been mounted against slavery by Washington and other leaders in the early years of the republic, virtually all of the founders - and most historians - agree it would have led to the breakup of the union. Joseph Ellis in his new book, Founding Brothers, makes clear that NO ONE in authority in the new federal government was thinking about doing that and believed an effort to do so seemed diametrically opposed to remaining a united nation. George Washington was a "rock-ribbed realist." The establishment of a permanent union under the new Constitution was extremely challenging and difficult but possible. He well understood the remarkably profound affection his countrymen held for him was crucial to attaining that goal. To dissipate that affection on a quixotic crusade attacking slavery held no appeal for the Master of Mount Vernon. Nevertheless, Washington also recognized his ownership of slaves posed a potential threat to his honor and to his historical reputation, matters of the utmost importance to him.

 

Washington faced this issue head on in his final statement on slavery in his remarkable last will and testament that he wrote completely by himself during the summer before his death. Very significantly, in what was essentially his last act, he freed all of his personal slaves in his will (by law, he could not free those belonging to his wife and the Custis estate). Additionally, he provided for their education as well as declaring those old slaves and children without parents "be comfortably cloathed and fed by my heirs." [The estate made the last payment in the early 1830's for a coffin]. Pushing education for his former slaves when it was frowned upon sent a strong statement to his countrymen, present and future. To stress the importance he placed on his decision, which he put near the beginning of his long will, immediately after making provisions for his beloved wife, the President particularly enjoined his executors "to see that this clause respecting Slaves, and every part thereof be religiously fulfilled."

 

Critics note that Washington only freed his slaves at his death, and even then postponed the emancipation until after his wife's death.

Personally, I think it is true that GW's solution was not really a very good one but his options were severely limited. Since his slaves had intermarried with the Custis slaves, he postponed the date of their emancipation until after Martha died. He did so to avoid what he called "the most painful sensations" - i.e. some family members would be free and others would not. [By law Martha could not free the Custis slaves even if she wished to. They were for her use during her lifetime, but were to be passed on to the Custis heirs upon her death.] Of course, this delay was strictly for Martha's benefit. Those "painful sensations" would happen eventually when the emancipation of GW's slaves was effected. Martha would simply not have to witness them. Nevertheless, Martha, apparently fearful of her own life, freed Washington's slaves before her death. Abigail Adams wrote that Martha told her that "she did not feel as tho her Life were safe in their hands."

 

It is I think both interesting and revealing that a man as thoughtful and careful as GW came up with a solution about freeing his slaves that his wife ultimately came to believe endangered her life! This once again simply points out slavery's corroding characteristics. The reason GW's solution was not very good is because there simply was no good solution available, try as he might to find it. "For those who are tempted to criticize GW for not initiating an emancipation policy for the entire nation, it is instructive to see that he could not even effectively free 124 men, women, and children on his own plantation in northern Virginia." [John Riley]The institution of slavery was more than a match for any individual, even an individual as capable as GW.

 

When, Thurgood Marshall, America's first black Supreme Court justice, was asked how he wished to be remembered, he said, "He did the best he could with what he had." One might argue that George Washington did the best he could considering the circumstances in which he found himself. Of all of the founding fathers, only George Washington actually freed his slaves. In the words of one scholar, "it was the last and greatest debt he owed to his honor." Not only did he free them, but he also rejected explicit racist language concerning innate inferiority of blacks and did not dismiss the idea of free blacks living in the United States in harmony with whites. Interestingly, his views were in contrast to Thomas Jefferson on all three points. A fourth point of contrast might be mentioned. "There has never been a credible tale of George Washington taking advantage of a slave sexually."

 

And if Washington did not use his great prestige to publicly attack the institution of slavery, he used that same prestige to firmly establish a permanent union for the United States based on a government dedicated to human freedom. He was not able to complete everything he might have wished to do, but he left us a united nation and the tools to do so. Given the real world situation he faced and the crippling impact of slavery and racism on individuals as well as nations, George Washington's example of at least partially outgrowing the racist society that produced him can still inspire and encourage.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwslav.htm

By Peter R. Henriques

Back to Top
Jay. View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 24-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1207
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 19:53
Great article, and opinions arch.
Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava
Only Unity Can Save the Serb
Back to Top
Jay. View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 24-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1207
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 19:53
Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava
Only Unity Can Save the Serb
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 20:05

Yes, I believe I was the one responsible for the initial comment that sparked this thread. I think that George Washington is a figure of mythic proportions for the Americans, but his actual merits have been exaggerated or simply misplaced. Americand tend for example to view Washington as a great general who disliked politics. In reality, he was a rather mediocre general, with an exceptional flair for politics. I think that his reputation in the US is due largely to the fact that was the one figure that was acceptable to the various factions in the wake of the American Revolution as a choice for a leader. Many of his character flaws were overlooked, and he became a figure that was larger than life. On the question of whether I believe that this was well deserved I am a lot less enthusiastic than Americans, who typically learn about him in school and are preached that he certainly deserved that mythic status.

Incidentally, the comment that sparked my own comment on Washington was "George Washington could never lie".  As I am very skeptical of politicians in general, and Washington was a fine example of this category of people, I couldn't resist taking a jab at that affirmation. Take it for what it's worth.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 20:57

Can you elaborate why you think he is perceived as "mythical"?

He is not seen as some form of God in the US, if that is what you think. Truth is he was just an all around good guy with good moral and ethical values, not to mention he was our nations first leader........not as easy job if you ask me.

A man that overcomes oppresion and graspes freedom no matter the cost and in doing so with such a high regard to morals and ethics, is going to be honored. Especially by those today who take advantage of the freedom provided thru strifes that he and his fellow "Americans" endured.

I wish i could compare him to someone but there isnt such a prominent figure in Canadian history that I am aware of.  <This statement is not meant to be offensive, I truly do not have anything against Canada or Canadians, I actually have a close friend who is Canadian. I just am not as educated in Canadian history as I am in US history. 



Edited by arch.buff
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Dec-2005 at 05:48
Originally posted by arch.buff

Can you elaborate why you think he is perceived as "mythical"?

He is not seen as some form of God in the US, if that is what you think. Truth is he was just an all around good guy with good moral and ethical values, not to mention he was our nations first leader........not as easy job if you ask me.

A man that overcomes oppresion and graspes freedom no matter the cost and in doing so with such a high regard to morals and ethics, is going to be honored.

You're answering your own question, when you write 'A man that overcomes oppression and grasps freedom no matter what the cost'. Essentially that is the Washington myth. (And incidentally, a myth is not necessarily false.)

Britain has just finished celebrating the 200th anniversary of the death of a similar mythical figure in Horatio Nelson.

Especially by those today who take advantage of the freedom provided thru strifes that he and his fellow "Americans" endured.

I wish i could compare him to someone but there isnt such a prominent figure in Canadian history that I am aware of. 

Wolfe?

Does Wolfe count as Canadian?

<This statement is not meant to be offensive, I truly do not have anything against Canada or Canadians, I actually have a close friend who is Canadian. I just am not as educated in Canadian history as I am in US history. 

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Dec-2005 at 06:27
Originally posted by Decebal

Yes, I believe I was the one responsible for the initial comment that sparked this thread. I think that George Washington is a figure of mythic proportions for the Americans, but his actual merits have been exaggerated or simply misplaced

I remember reading in early high school of how Washington supposedly studied 14 hours per day as a young man. I, with my ingenuous and slightly gullible nature that permeated my early adolescence, gulped this down wholesale and thought it very inspiring. While George has his very notable merits, as I got older I realised a godd deal of his mystique was simply embellishment. 14 hours? Well these days I thankfully know better



Edited by Constantine XI
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Dec-2005 at 10:26
Originally posted by Constantine XI

Originally posted by Decebal

Yes, I believe I was the one responsible for the initial comment that sparked this thread. I think that George Washington is a figure of mythic proportions for the Americans, but his actual merits have been exaggerated or simply misplaced

I remember reading in early high school of how Washington supposedly studied 14 hours per day as a young man. I, with my ingenuous and slightly gullible nature that permeated my early adolescence, gulped this down wholesale and thought it very inspiring. While George has his very notable merits, as I got older I realised a godd deal of his mystique was simply embellishment. 14 hours? Well these days I thankfully know better

Washington certainly had an interesting career, and was an enormous figure in the birth of the United States.  That he had character flaws should not detract from that....as if we all do not.

I would not be too resentful that your (and all of our) adolescent school books reflected "acceptable" (dare I say proto-politically correct?) bias.  Social and political conventionality are large determinants of what gets published in school texts, and what pupils get to read when they are very young.

Read about Washington now.  We are all old enough to separate the "national myth" from reasoned analysis.  That can be based upon different interpretations of events and documentation.  Aren't we all wannabe historians?

 

Back to Top
El Pollo Loco View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 89
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Dec-2005 at 11:18
I was quoting what he said in the story about him choping down his fathers tree.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Dec-2005 at 15:11

Originally posted by El Pollo Loco

I was quoting what he said in the story about him choping down his fathers tree.

 Oh yeah....."I cannot tell a lie."  Apocryphal I think.

Come on, every kid, even back then, knew it was always better not to get caught doing something.

Back to Top
Emperor Barbarossa View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Dec-2005 at 19:51
Originally posted by gcle2003

Wolfe?

Does Wolfe count as Canadian?

I think you mean James Wolfe. I do not think he would because he was born in England and he even fought at the battles of Dettingen and Culloden before the Seven Years' War.



Edited by Emperor Barbarossa

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 05:13
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa

Originally posted by gcle2003

Wolfe?

Does Wolfe count as Canadian?

I think you mean James Wolfe. I do not think he would because he was born in England and he even fought at the battles of Dettingen and Culloden before the Seven Years' War.

Yes, but his victories in Canada - Louisburg, Quebec - effectively settled the future of Canada, especially since they set up conditions for the taking of Montreal after his death.

I just wondered whether Canadians thought of him as Canadian - after all many Canadians were born in Britain.

Back to Top
tommy View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 13-Sep-2005
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 545
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 13:45

 In China, people respect GW very much. it was because even he control the army, he did not want to be king or dictator. In the long history of China, when a leader control the army. he would  get the throne, then he passed it to his son.In ancient legends, some political leaders would pass the throne to other good person, but this was the legends.And these legendary kings become  the ideal examples. So inthe eyes of the chinese people,GW brought back an ancient legend, so chinese respect him so much,even throght that he was a holy man. Chinese may neglect the problem of slavery, because many chinese holy men also holging slaves, or did not oppose the system . So in the mind of the chinese, slavery was not a problem, it could not prevent Gw to be a ideal leader, or a holy man.I am Chinese, i respect Gw too, but I think we should consider the problem of slavery when we evaluate his reputation.

In my opinion.every person has his or her own weakness, including GW.Slavery was his weakness.He cannot free his slaves.at least before his dead, or his wife dead. If he free his slavs,he could not operate his farm. Gw loved freedom, but ,ah, I believed that he cared money too.But he promised to free his slaves after his and his wife dead,this was a  great progress in the deep south of United states.

Although  before his dead, he did not free his slaves, but since of his middle age,he never sell slaves.some other founding fathers could not do this, even Jefferson could not do this

leung
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 16:13

Washington was a complex man. He had a great deal of personal ambition to start with and eventually that turned into ambition for the nation as a whole. His actions in the mid 1700s helped start the Seven Years War between France and Britain. To pay for the costs of that war Britain raised taxes creating unrest in the colonies which led to the Revolutionary War.

Not a great military leader, Washington was able to work the complex political situation at the time to his advantage.

Much is made of Washington refusing to assume absolute power in America after the revolution. The fact is if he had tried, he would have faced another revolution.

On Washingtons' death, Thomas Jefferson who had been a political opponent eulogized him as a "Perfect Man". 

 

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 20:17
Originally posted by DukeC

Washington was a complex man. He had a great deal of personal ambition to start with and eventually that turned into ambition for the nation as a whole. His actions in the mid 1700s helped start the Seven Years War between France and Britain. To pay for the costs of that war Britain raised taxes creating unrest in the colonies which led to the Revolutionary War.

Not a great military leader, Washington was able to work the complex political situation at the time to his advantage.

Much is made of Washington refusing to assume absolute power in America after the revolution. The fact is if he had tried, he would have faced another revolution.

On Washingtons' death, Thomas Jefferson who had been a political opponent eulogized him as a "Perfect Man". 

 

DukeC:

Don't give George too much credit for starting the Seven Years War.  That pot boiler was as much a continuation of the succession wars as was WWII a resumption of WWI.

Geo just went to the head waters of the Ohio to "persuade" the French to leave Ft. Duquesne (i.e., it was a reconaissance to see how strong they were, and how they would be reinforced).  This whole thing about the Ohio Company and opening up the Ohio valley to settlement, and if France or the English colonies were going to get it, had very little to do with the European politics of the SYW.

                                                   ***********

I think he was a very good military leader.  He certainly understood that after Boston his "army" could not stand against the British and Hessians, but that he had to conduct an ongoing strategic withdrawal in the main theater, and hope for results up the Hudson R. to prevent the colonies being cut in two.  The F & I War had shown him this.

Also, he knew he had to play for time until France and/or Spain might aid the new united colonies.  Part of that was just keeping the armies together through some very difficult years until Saratoga.  Military leadership is not always the "oblique order" of Frederick the Great.

                                                  **********

Absolute power hardly seemed likely as a possibility for any leader given the political mentality that resulted in both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, and the great lack of commanded armed forces in the country.  It is hardly likely as well that Washington harbored those thoughts.

George Washington was not a "perfect man."  That was eulogy not fact.  However, he was man enough for the two jobs he did.  The right man at the time, and a great historical figure.

 

 

 

 

  



Edited by pikeshot1600
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 01:28
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Don't give George too much credit for starting the Seven Years War.  That pot boiler was as much a continuation of the succession wars as was WWII a resumption of WWI.

Geo just went to the head waters of the Ohio to "persuade" the French to leave Ft. Duquesne (i.e., it was a reconaissance to see how strong they were, and how they would be reinforced).  This whole thing about the Ohio Company and opening up the Ohio valley to settlement, and if France or the English colonies were going to get it, had very little to do with the European politics of the SYW.

 

My understanding of the incident is George Washington killed a French officer in an ambush and the French considered this to be murder. This in turn led to increased tension between the French and English which touched off the war. It's possible the histories I've read have blown this out of proportion.

Back to Top
tommy View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 13-Sep-2005
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 545
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 02:38
Friends from canada ,us,qnd luxembourg,may I ask you a question/May you discuss the religious belief of Gw.I read an article long time ago, it stated taht GW was not a Christian. Some people say that his religious belief was strange, some people even say that he had the connection with some secret  religious  societies.May you discuss this ?
leung
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 12:59

Originally posted by tommy

Friends from canada ,us,qnd luxembourg,may I ask you a question/May you discuss the religious belief of Gw.I read an article long time ago, it stated taht GW was not a Christian. Some people say that his religious belief was strange, some people even say that he had the connection with some secret  religious  societies.May you discuss this ?

Here's a link to an article about GW's religious beliefs.

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/religion/religiongw.html

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 13:51

Originally posted by tommy

Friends from canada ,us,qnd luxembourg,may I ask you a question/May you discuss the religious belief of Gw?

Since I guess Luxembourg means me, I don't really know enough about it to comment.

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 15:39
Originally posted by DukeC

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Don't give George too much credit for starting the Seven Years War.  That pot boiler was as much a continuation of the succession wars as was WWII a resumption of WWI.

Geo just went to the head waters of the Ohio to "persuade" the French to leave Ft. Duquesne (i.e., it was a reconaissance to see how strong they were, and how they would be reinforced).  This whole thing about the Ohio Company and opening up the Ohio valley to settlement, and if France or the English colonies were going to get it, had very little to do with the European politics of the SYW.

 

My understanding of the incident is George Washington killed a French officer in an ambush and the French considered this to be murder. This in turn led to increased tension between the French and English which touched off the war. It's possible the histories I've read have blown this out of proportion.

Duke:

Please see this link for some explanation of the "Fort Necessity" incident:

www.fortnecessity.org

When Washington asked for terms and surrendered to the French, the Articles of Capitulation intimated (in French of course) that Captain Joseph Coulon de Villiers, Sieur de Jumonville had been "assassinated" by the Virginians.

These articles had been prepared at direction of Capt. Louis Coulon de Villiers (Jumonville's brother).  A propaganda coup perhaps?  A mistranslation of the language?  Who knows?

The American war actually began the following year (1755) when British regulars arrived to neutralize Fort Duquesne (Pittsburgh).

 



Edited by pikeshot1600
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.