We do not honor Washington and his Continental Army in the way that we honor Robert E. Lee or Ulysses S. Grant. We don't marvel at his military genius, as we do for Lee or Grant, or thrill to the battles that he won. While we have Civil War reenactments that recreate the battles in every detail except for the killing. The Revolutionary War just doesn't inspire that sort of devotion. Part of it, I assume, is that no one wants the play the British. But the other reason is that it would be embarrassing. Washington's Continental Army lost most of the battles it fought. Yes, granted, it won the Battle of Trenton and inspired the famous patriotic painting above. But the Battle of Trenton is not exactly one that bears reenacting. Instead of facing off in a fair fight, Washington's army sneaked up on the Hessians while they were holding a Christmas party, which seems like rather dirty pool. He contributed much of he planning to the turning point Battle of Saratoga, but was not present to command. And although he was, of course, present for the decisive (for some reason) Battle of Yorktown, but the French played a major role in that.
So what do we honor Washington and his Continental Army for? The place name most people think of when it comes to Washington and his army is Valley Forge, which was not a battle at all, but a winter encampment. We remember and honor Washington and his army for enduring cold, hunger and disease and sticking together. It is entirely appropriate that we should honor them in that way. In every war before the 20th Century, more soldiers died of disease from squalid conditions than were killed in battle. And besides, battle takes up only a small part of any army's time. Procuring food and shelter are much more of their ongoing existence. And, although there were many desertions, for an army to be barefoot in the winter and not know where its next meal was coming from, but not to desert en masse, or to mutiny, or take to uncontrollable looting really is an important achievement.
But we honor George Washington not just for holding together a starving and freezing army. We honor him having an army often unpaid and desperate for supplies and an incompetent government seemingly incapable of providing them and still respected civilian control of the military. He never marched his army against the Continental Congress to oust these blunderers and get things done. And when his army, angry over still not being paid, finally did mutiny, Washington sympathized with their grievances, but talked them down anyhow.
And, of course, he was honored not only in the U.S., but throughout Europe for not using the prestige that accompanied him as military hero to become a military dictator, but retired to Mount Vernon and returned to politics only as an elective civilian rule, and only for two terms. George III is quoted as saying, "If that is true, he's the greatest man of our age." Reading over the notes from the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debates, it has become clear to me that, contrary to what I was taught in school, no one at the time was the least bit worried about a hereditary monarchy. What they feared was a military dictatorship. One need look no further than France just a few years later to see that such fears were well justified.
So yes, by all means, let's honor our veterans. But let's not turn honor into idolatry. And let's remember that in the end, our army can protect freedom only by deferring to civilian leadership, however unworthy it may seem.
No comments:
Post a Comment