Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[Noncommunist]

To me it seems that for the most part, American society holds the Founding Fathers as the wisest men who ever lived. You would be stressed to find a politician who did not invoke them in a speech regarding the policies they are trying to push. People at the very least accept them as an appeal to authority. Which is bad, considering they made quite a few mistakes.

While there were some mistakes, the fact that they were able to establish a government that didn't work, and then peacefully remake a government that has functioned ever since seems pretty incredible. After all, how many other nations have been able to keep a continuous government for the past 236 years with a mere 26 amendments to their constitution?

Because to me, I see a bunch of people that are more than willing to apply "historical context" to slave owning Founding Fathers, but no one seems to apply the same process to their positive attributes due to the risk of diminishing what we hold as demi-god like.

Well, how would you say their context contributed to their ability to write the Articles of Confederation, peacefully abolish it, then write the current constitution? How many other cases have such peaceful trial and error situations occurred?

[gaelic cowboy]

Well, how would you say their context contributed to their ability to write the Articles of Confederation, peacefully abolish it, then write the current constitution? How many other cases have such peaceful trial and error situations occurred?

What about the American Civil War? seems pretty violent to me

[Noncommunist]

What about the American Civil War? seems pretty violent to me

But the government of the US itself wasn't close to being destroyed. Even if the south had won, the continuity of the US would have remained as the south was merely trying to separate rather than supplant the government.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why needs a system in order to make judgements? Do you have a system for telling whether a book or a piece of music is any good? Can you tell?

And more to the point, why act like "right" and "wrong" are some special end stage of judgement? All they are is a clumsy generalization. Do you have a system for deciding whether someone is callous, vacuous, nice, hateful, creepy, etc? We understand those things perfectly well. Attempts to awkwardly squash them into one category or another should be avoided.

A system OF Right and Wrong is a completely different thing to method for differentiating between them. If something is "right" it is right at any given time and in any given place. If what is "right" is mutable then you are talking about what is "accepted", not what is right.

It is perfectly possible to rank civilisations according to how "Right" you think they are, the trick is working out whether you are Right.

Was anyone saying Washington was perfect? I certainly wasn't.

Traitor, megalomaniac, political and social oppertunist and a mediocre and general and statesman. His main virtues were bull-headedness, the ability to transfer the same to his men and a general lack of material averice.

History judges him favourably because he won, and as a result he is a cult hero in the US. If he had lost he would just be a rebel militia officer piqued over his failure to secure what he most coveted, a regular commission.

[rvg]

Traitor, megalomaniac, political and social oppertunist and a mediocre and general and statesman.

That's quite a lot of epithets. How about some evidence to back them up?

[Strike For The South]

Washington has never gotten my juices flowing like Franklin or Madison

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's quite a lot of epithets. How about some evidence to back them up?

OK.

1. Traitor: This a no brainer, he was a British subject and a former Colonial Officer

2. Megalomaniac: Irrc he was convinced he was the only one who could beat the British, and even before War was declared he presented himself to the Continental Congress in uniform as their obvious (if not only) choice for Commanding General. There's also
no evidence he wouldn't have remained President were it not for extreme ill health. The idea that he deliberately served only two terms probably has more to do with later custom and chancer words of Geroge III. Either way, he had cemented his prestige and failing health in officer would not have enhanced it further.

3. Political a Social Opertunist: Another easy one, as a British subject in the Colonies Washington craved the validation of the Regular Commission, which would have placed him on equal standing to English and Scots Officers in the Colonies. With a regular Commission he would have been able to advance within the British Army on merit. He never recieved one, instead he was made Colonel of the Virginia Regiment.

4. Mediocre General and Statesman: Another no brainer, Washington won the war, but lost most of his battles. Given the home-logistical advantage his soldiers has he had only to hold the British off, and they had infrequent French support. Winning the war was no mean feat, but the Crown had to put more into it than the Continentals just to level the field. As a Statesman Washington was far less active than Jefferson or Adams.

None that means he wasn't the man who Beat the British or any kind of villain.

Like I said, perspective.

[rvg]

1. Traitor: This a no brainer, he was a British subject and a former Colonial Officer

This of course is a matter of perspective and opinion. Except that people who win are generally not dubbed as "traitors". They are called "revolutionaries".

2. Megalomaniac: Irrc he was convinced he was the only one who could beat the British, and even before War was declared he presented himself to the Continental Congress in uniform as their obvious (if not only) choice for Commanding General.

What's wrong with that?

There's also no evidence he wouldn't have remained President were it not for extreme ill health. The idea that he deliberately served only two terms probably has more to do with later custom and chancer words of Geroge III. Either way, he had cemented his prestige and failing health in officer would not have enhanced it further.

Considering that they pretty much begged him to run for the second term, he did even that very reluctantly. Furthermore, during the war there was a sentiment in the Continental Army to install Washington as king. They informed him of that and his reply was something along the lines of "considering it unthinkable that after spending so much time, effort and blood to fight one tyranny, we would replace it with another." So much for being a megalomaniac.

3. Political a Social Opertunist: Another easy one, as a British subject in the Colonies Washington craved the validation of the Regular Commission, which would have placed him on equal standing to English and Scots Officers in the Colonies. With a regular Commission he would have been able to advance within the British Army on merit. He never recieved one, instead he was made Colonel of the Virginia Regiment.

That was actually the whole reason for the revolution:the British Crown refused to treat us as equals, so we ditched it. Defending one's dignity is not political opportunism.

4. Mediocre General and Statesman: Another no brainer, Washington won the war, but lost most of his battles. Given the home-logistical advantage his soldiers has he had only to hold the British off, and they had infrequent French support. Winning the war was no mean feat, but the Crown had to put more into it than the Continentals just to level the field.

He led an army of ragtag civilians-turned-soldiers to confront a well trained, well supplied fighting force that had also enjoyed complete domination of the seas. Washington did extremely well in his situation.

As a Statesman Washington was far less active than Jefferson or Adams.

Que?