|
Everybody then knew that Washington was the only real choice, including Washington, himself. Those people had just won their autonomy from a continental power, and in the process, had more or less 'nationalized' British holdings and shipping left behind, as well as the confiscation of Tory property. Those who were still loyal to the Crown were forced to emigrate to Canada.
Washington had been the military leader, and the person most regarded as the architect of the victory.
He was over six feet tall, very wealthy, in property and yes, chattel slaves of African descent. No log cabin for him.
The European powers expected to entreat with him. He was the only choice, for many reasons, not the least among them was that he was a Southerner of the planter class, the defacto American aristocracy and a Mason, a secret, men-only society that formed the template of any number of clones, like say Skull and Bones, and to which the majority of the Continental government, all men of similar background and character as Washington, belonged to.
It was also implicit that Washington could have commanded the loyalty of Revolutionary War veterans in the event of a counter-revolution.
Think of British officer Patrick Ferguson, inventor of the breech loading Ferguson rifle (boy, could Toussaint LÓverture have used some of those in Haiti!) seeing a 'big fellow on horseback' right in front of him, but refusing to shoot him in the back because the guy, who turned out to be Washington, was an officer, and 'gentlemen don't shoot other gentlemen in the back'.
That's the key here: those people are nothing like us. They were very formal and ritualized. Being a gentleman meant something a lot more elaborate than opening doors for women. It was about reputation and their concept of honor.
Think about the Hamilton and Burr duel. A gentleman was obligated to defend his honor unto death, and there were specific steps and rituals that had to be observed that were as convoluted and arcane as any Japanese tea ceremony. If they would have had the Internet then, and anonymous blogs were posted calling a gentleman a coward, you can be sure that he would have the backing of 'decent society' in calling the poster out and passing out the dueling pistols. You just didn't do that, back then, without understanding that there would be life-or-death consequences to pay.
The founders, Washington included, knew that they were making history. Washington knew that everything he did would become protocol; he had been a British officer, albeit a colonial, and he and his class knew on which side of the plate the oyster fork went.
I always imagined him careful to watch in which order he ate his dinner at state functions, so as not to inadvertently create a protocol that called for eating only a third of your meat, then sending it back, all because his dentures were killing him that day and it pained him to eat.
He knew as well as anybody, that they would probably start serving food on specially created china that had a decorative ruler worked in as the design, so people would know when they reached the Third Esteak. (sorry, couldn't resist)
An eighteenth-century gentleman would not jump and down and show an unseemly eagerness for political office; that would have been a terrible breach of manners and nothing a gentleman would do, whereas we now wonder what game Gore is playing.
Sniping on YouTube or critical blogging is pitiful influence as compared to what being President and Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces could accomplish for our country and our relationship to the rest of the world.
George Washington's biggest public relations coup was to refuse an implicit invitation to become dictator, instead, he used the office as a bully pulpit and made a big production about taking the opportunity to retire back to his farm (actually, a sprawling slave-worked plantation) as did Cincinnatus, the ancient Roman general he wanted his legacy to be associated with.
Who, in today's big money politics can even conceive of that? It seems, well, quaint, for lack of a better word.
However, does anybody think that he didn't still have an active hand, behind the scenes? If not with direct political power, at least with the kind of influence any fabulously wealthy elder statesman, who just happened to be the commanding general of the forces that booted out the colonial overlords? What influence would Carter do with Bill Gates' money? What would Eisenhower have done?
Unfortunately, this isn't the 18th Century, and our word 'gentleman' doesn't mean the same thing as it did then, so if Gore is trying to emulate Washington's 'reluctance' to aspire to political office, it's becoming tiresome.
Methinks he protests too much.
Gore has a grace period until the 27th of December; after that, he will become a liability to the Democratic Party by becoming, in effect, a third-party candidate. That would do a disservice to everybody, and guarantee a Republican victory. Does anybody have any doubts about that?
Focus time is coming up in a month and a half, folks, and whether you like the official candidate or not, everybody needs to get on the bus, and that includes Gore.
Trying to create some sort of cult of personality around the guy is not the way to go. You and I have our place and part to play and so does Al Gore. If he won't step up to the plate and fill the slot, then we need somebody in there who will, and he will then be obligated to endorse that candidate with all the political currency he has accumulated.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
