Thread: George Washington

Originally Posted by astralis

he was a competent if not spectacular general, but it is his role as a statesman where he was unparalleled.

+1

Post war during the constitutional convention and later as the first president he remained supremely aware that his actions would dictate the actions of future American leaders so it was up to him to impart the dignity to the office others would occupy over time.

I remember a story where he was accused of having killed in cold blood a French officer sent as an emissary or something along that.

But for the man itself, always the same, difficult to differentiate from the myth built afterwards and the real man.

Originally Posted by zraver

The Jumonville incident, the officer was killed later and not by Washington but probably by an Indian. The French should not have been in Virginia. The French later claimed the group was an embassy not a military group but the French had built a fort on Virginia land so embassy or not (it was not under a flag of truce) it was a detachment from an invading force.

Joseph Coulon de Jumonville - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France and Great Britain were not in a state of war at the time. And the territory was contested.

Originally Posted by Oscar

France and Great Britain were not in a state of war at the time. And the territory was contested.

If your building forts on land claimed by someone else your committing an act of war.

Originally Posted by zraver

If your building forts on land claimed by someone else your committing an act of war.

The same could be said from the other side, but thats endless. The fact that he was in a gray zone and he did something that appeared as a war crime for one of the party involved.

He had a chance of taking over with the millitary over the U.S. but stood still by freedom, great man indeed.

Originally Posted by Oscar

The same could be said from the other side, but thats endless. The fact that he was in a gray zone and he did something that appeared as a war crime for one of the party involved.

The French- it was an ambush of an embassy
the English- the French opened fire first
The Indians- the French were planning an ambush of their own

What we do know

There is no record of a white flag
The French had moved large numbers of men and arms into the area
The only word that it was an embassy came after the fact
There is confusion if it was a scouting party or an embassy
No one in the historical record accuses Washington of actually shooting the officer or ordering the killing of the POWs.

Ahh yes Charles Lee, I guess he was the most respected/feared officer of the Continental Army by the British military at the time. One book that really increased my appreciation of Washington was 1776 by David McCullough. He portrayed the capture of Lee in a very interesting light. I guess some in Britain thought this would be a decisive blow that would begin the end of this rebellion. Rather the troops under Lee's command finally reinforced Washington, as he had been requesting for some time, thereby helping Washington, not to mention it removed a general that was acting more like an obstructionist than subordinate. You see some of that statesman that astralis mentions in how Washington treated and communicated with Lee.

I am no Washington expert, but I greatly admire his ability to hold the army together, by pure force of will and personality, in the early, dark days of the revolution. His later actions as President, rather than King George I of the USA, were striking.

Truly a great man.
I remeber as a kid in school we had a chapter on George Washington in our Moral Science subject.