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
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 Topic: George Wahingtons reputation
    Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 18:53

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

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.

So Washington didn't realize he was signing a document claiming he was responsible for the "assasination" of Jumonville? 

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 21:29
Originally posted by DukeC

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

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.

So Washington didn't realize he was signing a document claiming he was responsible for the "assasination" of Jumonville? 

Supposedly not.  Washington's education was not formal, and obviously did not include French.  The French aristocratic officer took advantage of those colonial bumpkins and their commander.

 



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: 15-Dec-2005 at 14:21
Washington obviously didn't hold a grudge, as the French became America's best ally during the Revolutionary War.
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: 15-Dec-2005 at 19:58
Also this document made its way back to Britian where as you can imagine it had a not so positive affect.
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: 15-Dec-2005 at 20:04
Goerge Washingtons religion was indeed christian. The "strange" religion you have probably heard that he was involved in was the Freemasons. The Masons supposedly believed they were the descendants of the Knights Templar who were themselves "masons" which constructed such things as cathedrals etc... they were also allowed to roam about "freely" so hence -freemasons. They did I believe have a secret initiation but both groups are considered shady although they have done many great things for humanity. They have even been reffered to as satanists by the ignorant.

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: 16-Dec-2005 at 11:18

Originally posted by arch.buff

Goerge Washingtons religion was indeed christian. The "strange" religion you have probably heard that he was involved in was the Freemasons. The Masons supposedly believed they were the descendants of the Knights Templar who were themselves "masons" which constructed such things as cathedrals etc...

In fact the English masons at least trace themselves back to the builders of Solomon's Temple. The Knights Templar are also named after Solomon's Temple (aren't they?) so they have that in common, but my remembrance (my father was a mason together with many of my family) is that the English masons don't see themselves as descending from the kinghts (though there may be some lodges that do), more as a collateral branch

they were also allowed to roam about "freely" so hence -freemasons. They did I believe have a secret initiation but both groups are considered shady although they have done many great things for humanity. They have even been reffered to as satanists by the ignorant.

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: 16-Dec-2005 at 14:38

 Gw might not act so good in the problem of slavery. But as compared with other people at the same time, he Native American policy was not so cruel. Of course, he also encourged people to move west, and stressed for the importance of western expedition. But he never want to eliminate the Native American. he knew people would keep on to go west, he encourged NAtive American to learn the lifestyle of white, settling down and practing farming. He through this was the only way for Native American to survive. I think he really eanted to help them. Of he sent troops to attack Indian tribes.But when Blue jacket and this tribes were crushed in Fallen Timber, General Wayne still let then to hunt and fish in their former hunting ground. I think Wayne follow the political will of GW, since Gw never want to eliminate the indian.GW never impose a very cruel Indian policy as Jackson didi.also, he didi not have any negative view on Jewish people. He even borrow money from Jewish banker in order to support the army during the revolutionary war.

leung
Back to Top
bradcorazon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2006 at 02:45

George Washington's legacy is simple. 

Was he a perfect man?  Not even close, but who is? 

Was he a great General?  Not even close. 

Was he a great speaker?  Not even close.

Was he an educated man? Not even close.

This is exactly why he is so amazing.  Despite all that was against him and the other revolutionaries, he still won the day.  Washington defeated the greatest army of his time.  He was at the head of a Republic that was unique to any other.  Not even Rome or Greece were able to make a Republic work like these men did.  Joseph Ellis, a Pulitzer Prize winning author even mentions how Washington and the other Founding Fathers were so scared that they would meet with failure just like the Romans and Greeks did when they formed a Republic.  BUT THEY DIDN"T FAIL!!!  By some miracle Washington won the war, won the Republic and won immortality.

Does any leader compare to Washington?  Not even close.

Could any other man been able to do what Washington did?  Not even close.

Call me bias, but Washington is truly unique.  He overcame mountains!!!

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: 01-Mar-2006 at 06:42
Originally posted by bradcorazon

George Washington's legacy is simple. 

Was he a perfect man?  Not even close, but who is? 

Was he a great General?  Not even close. 

Was he a great speaker?  Not even close.

Was he an educated man? Not even close.

This is exactly why he is so amazing.  Despite all that was against him and the other revolutionaries, he still won the day.  Washington defeated the greatest army of his time. 

Even the British wouldn't claim that. The British army has never been the 'greatest of its time'. The navy is a different matter.

The decisive battle of the War of Independence was the Battle of Chesapeake Bay, when, for once, the French Navy beat the Royal Navy, stopping the British from reinforcing or supplying Yorktown, which therefore fell to the mostly French besiegers.

Barbara Tuchman, one of the best American historians, wrote "The outcome [of Chesapeake Bay] was in fact to be the turning point of the war and, it might be said, of the 18th century."

From a more abstract point of view of course, wars are not won by single battles. That the Revolution was ultimately successful (for the thirteen colonies) was mostly due to the concentration of British commercialy interests on saving Canada and, more importantly still, the Caribbean colonies from the French, plus a considerable amount of sympathy for the revolutionaries at home in Britain, and some general incompetence at senior political levels.

Washington's post-war political role is of course a different matter.

 He was at the head of a Republic that was unique to any other.  Not even Rome or Greece were able to make a Republic work like these men did.  Joseph Ellis, a Pulitzer Prize winning author even mentions how Washington and the other Founding Fathers were so scared that they would meet with failure just like the Romans and Greeks did when they formed a Republic.  BUT THEY DIDN"T FAIL!!!  By some miracle Washington won the war, won the Republic and won immortality.

Does any leader compare to Washington?  Not even close.

Could any other man been able to do what Washington did?  Not even close.

Call me bias, but Washington is truly unique.  He overcame mountains!!!

Yep, you're biassed.

Back to Top
bradcorazon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2006 at 16:53

Duh!!!!

Of course I favor Washington!  Thats what makes me full-blooded American and proud of it.  Everyone has their opinions on the guy.  I totally respect those who believe he wasn't as influential or important, but I will forever  believe they are wrong. 

No matter how you slice it, the Colonists never should have won that war, but they DID!  That makes Washington & Co. great in my eyes

 

Back to Top
Illuminati View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 949
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2006 at 22:28
George Washington was the key behind the Revolution. Tactically, he not a great general, but people have to remeber, it takes a genius ADMINTISTRATOR to win a war. Washington's decisons won the war. His decision to relieve Gates. His decison to put Greene in charge of the southern campaign. His giving the okay to ally with the French (which was not a popular move).These decisons among with others won the war. Battle tactics are not all that goes into a general.

The truth is, the British were easily one of the best, if not the single best land army of the time. They had supereior training and equipment, and had generals like Cornwallis. No one in their right mind would have bet on a colonist victory. A big part, was incompetence in the British command also. Mainly based on the fact taht they drastically underestimated the colonists.

No matter how you want to look at it, Washington lead an army too victory against alot of odds.

Washington was also a major pacifist after the revolution was over. He stayed out of all the fighting in Europe during the French revolution.  He blatantly refused to take sides in a big way. He had a fond hatred of partisanship. And then there's the point about him refusing to take the position of King/authoritarian.

The battle of Yorktown was not jsut a fluke victory, It was sheer genius. General Clinton had expected the amercicans to take New York, and ordered Cornwallis to move there. Cornwallis disobeyed orders and went to Yorktown. Washington attacked Yorktown, which was the opposite of what Clinton expected. The French fleet halted the British fleet and a force of 13,000 americans and 3,000 french besieged Yorktown successfully, fought off Cornwallis's unsuccessful counter-attack and forced him to surrender. THe British were so embarassed that Prime MinisterLord Frederick North resigned after Cornwallis's surrender.

In my mind, Washington is the icture perfect revolutionary. He fought respectably and for noble reasons. He did not become absolutist like Cromwell or Napoleon. He remained true to his ideals, and most importantly avoided war at every turn while he was in office.
Interesting side fact: Washington was in possession of the key to the Bastille when he died


Edited by Illuminati
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: 02-Mar-2006 at 06:03
Originally posted by bradcorazon

Duh!!!!

Of course I favor Washington!  Thats what makes me full-blooded American and proud of it.  Everyone has their opinions on the guy.  I totally respect those who believe he wasn't as influential or important, but I will forever  believe they are wrong. 

No matter how you slice it, the Colonists never should have won that war, but they DID! 

Thanks to the French. With a contribution from the Dutch.

 That makes Washington & Co. great in my eyes

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: 02-Mar-2006 at 06:50

Originally posted by Illuminati

George Washington was the key behind the Revolution. Tactically, he not a great general, but people have to remeber, it takes a genius ADMINTISTRATOR to win a war. Washington's decisons won the war. His decision to relieve Gates. His decison to put Greene in charge of the southern campaign. His giving the okay to ally with the French (which was not a popular move).These decisons among with others won the war. Battle tactics are not all that goes into a general.

The truth is, the British were easily one of the best, if not the single best land army of the time.

You're kidding, no?

 They had supereior training and equipment, and had generals like Cornwallis.

That was part of the problem. Cornwallis's tactics at Yourktown were disastrous. If he had moved early enough, when he still outnumbered Lafayette, the surrender could almost certainly have been avoided. But he shirked the battle, waiting for the navy to come and rescue him.

 No one in their right mind would have bet on a colonist victory. A big part, was incompetence in the British command also. Mainly based on the fact taht they drastically underestimated the colonists.

British command was undoubtedly incompetent. How do you justify saying that and also saying Britain had the best army in the world? For about the only time in the 18th and 19th centuries British naval command was also barely competent (on the northern station).

Yes the British in general probably underestimated the colonists, especially in the early stages, but they were much more concerned with the wider war, which, from a British viewpoint, was more a continuation of the long-running conflict with France, Spain and Holland over colonies that were fruitful sources of raw materials than a quelling of a rebellion.

About the only thing Britain was interested in getting from America at the time was tobacco.



No matter how you want to look at it, Washington lead an army too victory against alot of odds.

Washington was also a major pacifist after the revolution was over. He stayed out of all the fighting in Europe during the French revolution.  He blatantly refused to take sides in a big way. He had a fond hatred of partisanship. And then there's the point about him refusing to take the position of King/authoritarian.

The battle of Yorktown was not jsut a fluke victory, It was sheer genius. General Clinton had expected the amercicans to take New York, and ordered Cornwallis to move there. Cornwallis disobeyed orders and went to Yorktown. Washington attacked Yorktown, which was the opposite of what Clinton expected. The French fleet halted the British fleet and a force of 13,000 americans and 3,000 french besieged Yorktown successfully,

The 3,000 figure is the number of French reinforcements that were brought by De Grasse, to add to the 5,000 or so French troops.already there, at that point still commanded by Lafayette, since Rochambeau was with Washington at Chester (and with at least a further 1,200 French troops there, since that many were sent down from Head of the Elk in barges together with 800 Americans).

There do seem to have been about 15,000 men in the combined Franco-American forces, but the majority were French. And, perhaps above all, the actual siege and taking of Yorktown was a highly technical professional affair, dependent very much on French staff plus I suppose the experience of von Steuben. But the American commanders had no experience of this kind of warfare.

fought off Cornwallis's unsuccessful counter-attack and forced him to surrender. THe British were so embarassed that Prime MinisterLord Frederick North resigned after Cornwallis's surrender.

In my mind, Washington is the icture perfect revolutionary. He fought respectably and for noble reasons. He did not become absolutist like Cromwell or Napoleon. He remained true to his ideals, and most importantly avoided war at every turn while he was in office.
Interesting side fact: Washington was in possession of the key to the Bastille when he died

 

Back to Top
bradcorazon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 15:52

BRAVO!!!  WELL SAID ILLUMINATI!

Long live "His Excellency" George Washington!!!!!

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: 06-Mar-2006 at 10:56

My American friends, you should realize that in every country, history is taught with a bias. In particular, moments that defined a nation, such as the American Revolution, will never be presented objectively in a clasroom setting and in most books you'd find in bookstores. Views that are contrary to the mainstream interpretation are dismissed out of hand, argued fiercely against, or simply not read. A good way to get a balanced view of things is to read books written by a foreign historian or even books written by historians of the other side. You can then combine the two views and get a better idea of the truth.

I find that in the American view of things, the French contribution to the American Revolution is either neglected or diminished. I think that without the French Navy and the French troops who tipped the balance in the Americans' favor, the war would have been won by the British. Just think of how badly the war went before the French intervention... I find it quite ironic nowadays when Americans who dislike the French start to make historical arguments such as "we saved their ass in WW2", or accuse the French of being cowards, without taking into account that quite possibly, the US owes its existence as a nation to the French...

Anyway, back to Washington, I reiterate my position that he was a lousy general, but a brilliant politician. His greatest merit was not defeating the British, but becoming a symbol which kept the colonies together during a very difficult time. I would say that in many ways, his reputation as a great man was invented in order to make him a great man.

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
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 11:29

About the only thing Britain was interested in getting from America at the time was tobacco.

There was much more to it than that, the American colonies were immensely profitable trading partners with Britain proper and the colonies.  To give an example, I read that half of all of England's ships were constructed in the American colonies.

Member of IAEA
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: 06-Mar-2006 at 12:43
Originally posted by Genghis

About the only thing Britain was interested in getting from America at the time was tobacco.

There was much more to it than that, the American colonies were immensely profitable trading partners with Britain proper and the colonies.  To give an example, I read that half of all of England's ships were constructed in the American colonies.

Profitable to whom?

Too much of the profit from transatlantic trade was going to Americans for British liking. IN fact too much of the profit from north-south trade between the colonies and the Caribbean was also going to Americans.

I don't know what you mean by 'England's ships'. Certainly the Royal Navy was building its ships at home (or, preferably, seizing them from the French since the French were better ship designers).

It is true that the colonies were a considerable source of naval stores, since home-grown forests were running out. But I was thinking of cash crops, which is also what the average merchant was thinking about - and therefore the average politician.

In particular, cotton and sugar had not yet developed as important crops.

 

 

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: 06-Mar-2006 at 13:00

We should not forget the American colonies role in providing food for the Carribean sugar-producing islands, which were veritable cash machines for Britain. The colonies were a corner of one of the triangle trades setup by the British, the other one in the Atlantic being setup between the Carribean, Africa and Britain.

I believe that the other cash crop in the colonies which wer to become the US was indigo.

On an interesting side note, it has been shown that the average GDP per capita of the colonies was higher than that of Britain. As I remember from Bruadel's Civilization and Capitalism (3rd volume), the American GDP/capita was about $275 in the 1770's (in 1960's dollars), as opposed to Britain's 225 or so. In a sense, the American colonists felt that they were subsidizing Britain with their taxes.

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
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 08:41
Originally posted by Decebal

We should not forget the American colonies role in providing food for the Carribean sugar-producing islands, which were veritable cash machines for Britain. The colonies were a corner of one of the triangle trades setup by the British, the other one in the Atlantic being setup between the Carribean, Africa and Britain.

I believe that the other cash crop in the colonies which wer to become the US was indigo.

On an interesting side note, it has been shown that the average GDP per capita of the colonies was higher than that of Britain. As I remember from Bruadel's Civilization and Capitalism (3rd volume), the American GDP/capita was about $275 in the 1770's (in 1960's dollars), as opposed to Britain's 225 or so. In a sense, the American colonists felt that they were subsidizing Britain with their taxes.

And of course the British felt the colonists weren't paying their fair share of that major government expenditure - defence. Against the French and the Dutch and the Spanish as well as the Indians. Yet they were getting all the privileges associated with being able to trade freely with other parts of the Empire (though there were some restrictions placed on that).

The feeling that the American colonists were getting rich at the expense of the mother country was one reason why so many people were happy to see them have to fend for themselves.

 

Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2013 at 16:48
Thread locked. suspected spam bot target.

CV
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

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 0.110 seconds.