There is no denying that a great deal of myth and lore surrounding George Washington and the creation of the American nation. Every country needs its creation legends; America is nearly unique because she is so young, and much of what occurred in the context of her formation is well-documented and well-known. George Washington himself has become something of a hero to the American people; an enduring symbol of the bravery and tenacity that was necessary to overthrow British rule and found an independent nation. He was, however, a reluctant leader, wary of the power he had been given and its ability to corrupt men; he proceeded forward out of necessity, but took consistent care to do what he believed was best for the future and longevity of the American nation.
Instead, the freedom that the colonists were primarily concerned with was an economic freedom-- the freedom from being taxed without representation by the British Crown (Brookheiser, 1996). The British Crown was imposing increasing taxes on the colonies, which were not represented in Parliament, and therefore had no recourse if or when the taxes were unfairly high. Washington, a veteran of multiple wars, was vehemently opposed to the changes in tax policy that the British Crown was opposing on the colonies. This resentment between the colonies and the Crown continued to grow, and eventually led to the Revolutionary War and the ultimate foundation of the United States of America (Brookheiser, 1996).
Washington's frequent correspondence with his wife, generals, and other individuals in his life is a gift to historians. In a time where many people were illiterate, he wrote carefully and clearly, often indirectly expressing realities and truths about the state of the war and the situations he found himself in. In one letter to his wife, Martha, he writes: “I am now set down to write you on a subject which fills me with inexpressible concern-- and this concern is greatly aggravated and Increased when I reflect on the uneasiness I know it will give you-- It has been determined in Congress that the whole Army that has been raised for the American Cause shall be put under my care, and that it is necessary for me to proceed immediately to Boston to take upon me the Command of it” (Washington et al., 1985, p. 3).
Washington demonstrates here that not only is he concerned about the well-being of his wife, but that he took the task he was given very seriously-- seriously enough to leave his family and go to Boston to become Commander-in-Chief, regardless of being a veteran of other wars and having earned his retirement. He was willing to put aside his own wants, needs, and necessities to do what he felt was best for the burgeoning nation, a selfless action that still reverberates in the American social and cultural psyche to this day.
However he may have framed the issue to his wife Martha, however, there is no doubting that Washington was prepared for war, and had been since the introduction of the Stamp Act in 1765 (Jenson, 2002). According to Jenson:
When Congress took charge of the unorganized army at Boston in June, 1775, its consensus choice for commander in chief was George Washington, age 45. His military experience totaled five years in the French and Indian War, when he became colonel in charge of all Virginia forces at age 23. Now a wealthy tobacco planter, slaveholder, and political leader of Virginia, he had the stature, the energy, and the bearing of leadership the Americans neededIn 1775-77, and again in 1781 he led his men against the main British forces. (Jenson, 2002).
It is a testament to the desperation of the American revolutionary forces that they should choose someone like Washington as a Commander-in-Chief; while he was a veteran, he had certainly not commanded forces of the size that they were asking him to command, nor had he participated in politics in recent years (Jenson, 2002). In fact, Washington was largely retired; he was a landowner and businessman, hardly the ideal choice for a Commander-in-Chief. Still, he took up the mantle, knowing that he had earned respect for his previous experiences in the military.
Washington himself, however, was not under the impression that he had the skill or experience to command the Continental army. “I have launched into a wide & extensive field,” Washington writes to his generals, “too boundless for my abilities & far, far beyond my experience-- I am called by the unanimous voice of the Colonies to the command of the Continental army: an honour I did not aspire to” (Washington et al., 1985, p. 16). He knew, however, that someone would have to take up the mantle of Commander-in-Chief; if he did not do it, then the Continental Army could very well disband and the revolution would be finished before it had even started. Although he was wary of taking on the responsibility, his letters demonstrate that he recognized that there was not other individual capable of taking the task.
According to the White House official history on George Washington, “When the Second Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia in May 1775, Washington, one of the Virginia delegates, was elected Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. On July 3, 1775, at Cambridge, Massachusetts, he took command of his ill-trained troops and embarked upon a war that was to last six grueling years” (“George Washington,” 2012). Not only was Washington ill-prepared to lead the troops, then, but the troops themselves were ill-prepared for war.
It is easy to look back today and see that everything would work out for the Americans during the Revolutionary War, but during the war itself and the years immediately afterwards, everything in America was in turmoil. Washington again took up a mantle he did not feel ready for-- that of President-- knowing that because he had acted as Commander-in-Chief during the Revolutionary War, he was something of an icon for the people as a whole (Cornwell, 2009).
Washington knew that even if the war was won, there would be more problems to solve, particularly economic and political problems. He foresaw that the newly-created nation would be faced with a series of issues that would be more divisive than the war itself had been (Washington et al., 1985, p. 17). The creation of a currency and the payment of troops was initially an issue that Washington dealt with; being a businessman and landowner himself, he understood the perils of economically-repressing his troops (Ferling, 2000).
In a letter to the Continental Congress, Washington writes, “I cannot help again repeating the Necessity of a Supply-- the Camp at Boston, from the best Account I can get from thence, is very poorly supplied” (Washington et al., 1985, p. 32). Here, Washington is discussing the availability of powder; however, he is similarly concerned about the state of the camps and the men who are stationed there. Even though the war is winding down and supplies are less necessary, Washington realizes the need for ensuring that the troops are well-supplied and well-stocked.
In the letters from Congress to Washington, immediately following the end of the war, Congress ordered Washington to do a few things. First, they ordered Washington to return to Congress as soon as possible, disbanding the army as he went (Washington et al., 1985, p. 21). Next, they asked him to fill the ranks of the officer who had been displaced by death or by retirement; then they allowed that anything they had not specified to be left to his personal discretion (Washington et al., 1985, p 21). Similarly, Congress specified that all the men who fought in the war would be properly compensated.
Historians suggest that Washington was quite strict on the concept of proper compensation for his troops. He was very concerned about the fate of the nation immediately following the war, and the potential for unrest and disillusionment that could surface if troops were not properly compensated (Cornwell, 2009).
One of the most interesting things about George Washington as an individual is his personal journey towards a revolutionary attitude. Washington never seemed to have any thirst for power, which is, perhaps, one of the reasons that he made such an effective leader and became such an ideal first president; however, he was quite adept at playing the political game when he deemed it necessary. According to the Miller Center for policy analysis:
Generally, the southern colonies were less openly defiant toward England during the early stages of the independence movement. Like most Virginians, the master of Mount Vernon was slow to warm to revolutionary fervor, hoping that the British would end their oppressive ways. But a series of English provocations—the closure of Boston Harbor, new taxes, the shooting deaths of five colonials in an altercation with Royal troops, the abolition of the Massachusetts state charter—made Washington a firm believer in American independence by the early 1770s. (“American President: George Washington: Life Before the Presidency,” 2012).
In short, Washington was not, perhaps, born to be a revolutionary; in fact, he seemed to be quite hesitant to become embroiled in the conflict at all. However, once the British Crown took action that he deemed ethically, morally, and socially irresponsible, he engaged in the struggle wholeheartedly, with no hesitation and complete effort.
Because Washington was slow to engage in the cause, his eventual acceptance of it was much more impactful than it would have been otherwise. Had he been more like the northern colonists, and very willing to engage in revolutionary activity from the beginning, his participation would have been much less impactful for the movement as a whole.
George Washington will always be a cultural icon for the American nation, but few people really understand the care and role that he took on when he accepted the mantle of Commander-in-Chief of the American armies. Washington had no way of guaranteeing that the American colonists would win the war; in fact, at that time, the British army was one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful in the world.
George Washington took on the job of Commander-in-Chief expecting no thanks, realizing that he had little knowledge and no real experience in the field of military strategy, but he accepted it anyway, because he felt that it was something that he was obligated to do. Once the war was won, Washington could have, once again, shied away from the limelight as he seemed to want to do, but driven by an admirable altruism, he accepted the presidency from the Continental Congress.
The end of the Revolutionary War was not the end of the problems for the American nation. Before the Constitution was written and ratified into law, Congress went through a variety of different issues and problems that helped form the law structure that still governs America today. However, Washington set the precedent for the presidency; it is because of him and his unwillingness to accept pomp and circumstance that the President is treated similarly to the average citizen.
References
Brookhiser, R. (1996). Founding father: Rediscovering George Washington. New York: Free Press.
Cornwell, R. (2009). George Washington: The father of the nation. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/presidents/george-washington-the-father-of-the-nation-1391109.html [Accessed: 6 Mar 2013].
Ferling, J. E. (2000). Setting the world ablaze: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and the American Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenson, R. (2002). “Military history of the American Revolution.” [online] Retrieved from: http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/am-rev.htm [Accessed: 6 Mar 2013].
Millercenter.org (2012). American President: George Washington: Life Before the Presidency. [online] Retrieved from: http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/washington/essays/biography/2 [Accessed: 7 Mar 2013].
Washington, G., Philander D. C., Twohig D., et al. (1985). The Papers of George Washington: Revolutionary War Series. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Print.
Whitehouse.gov (2012). George Washington. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/georgewashington [Accessed: 6 Mar 2013].
