WASHINGTON'S POLITICAL COURAGE
The folks at Red Eye did not print this column. They said Red Eye readers were not interested in history. For those of you who are....enjoy.
***
The upcoming Fourth of July celebration is as much a tribute to George Washington as it is to our independence.
Washington was hailed as a hero for his courage in battle, and even considered divine by some. But the question remained---would he be as courageous as a leader of a nation? This is where many turned on Washington. Here's the political battle that you never got to in your high school history class....and it is one that features storylines, parallel to the ones in today's headlines from the nation's capitol that bears his name.
What many people don’t realize is that by the end of his life, many people despised Washington. Just ten years from the end of the Revolution, war veterans were toasting to his speedy death. Why? There were some who wanted another war with Britain, to evict them from the new frontier (now the Midwest) where the Brits were teaming up with certain Native American tribes to attack settlers.
Washington knew his young nation was not ready to fight a sequel against the Red Coats, and wanted to cut a deal known as the Jay Treaty. The terms were very favorable to the British and Washington wanted to keep it secret . according to the book Presidential Courage, by presidential historian Michael Beschloss.
“ A lot of Americans found that treaty humiliating and they said they wanted Washington dead or impeached,” Beschloss said. “ But what Washington was trying to say of later presidents is, 'Your job is just not to be popular. You've got to make tough decisions the same as I do.'”
Word of the treaty leaked and people protested everywhere. When Alexander Hamilton tried to defend the treaty in front of New York City Hall, people threw rocks at him and bloodied his face.
Beschloss quotes Washington:
Washington found it embarrassing for Britain “to see the people of this country divided” with such “violent opposition” to “their own government.”
The showdown in Congress came in 1796. John Adams predicted that both sides would “bite like savages and tear like lions.”
And then, a Federalist named Fisher Ames would change history. He had been very sick, and presumed near death. People gasped as he limped onto the House floor. Without notes, he delivered a speech that has become one of the most powerful in American history. He acknowledged that this bit of diplomacy was far from perfect, but better than the alternative.
“You are a father? The blood of your sons shall fatten your cornfield! You are a mother? The war-whoop shall make the sleep of the cradle! While one hand is held up to reject this treaty, the other grasps a tomahawk…I listen to the yells of savage vengeance and the shrieks of torture.”
90 minutes later, he fell back in his chair. Both sides weeped.
(Beschloss notes that one Congressman told Ames he should’ve ended his speech by dropping dead. Never again would he have ‘an occasion so glorious.’ )
The House voted. It was a 49-49 tie. The tiebreaker would be Republican Frederick Mulenberg, a pastor from Pennsylvania. Republican opponents of the Jay treaty could taste victory. But Muhlenberg shocked everyone by supporting the Federalist treaty. He committed political suicide (and his brother-in-law nearly killed him when he stabbed him after the vote.)
Washington’s political courage paid off, and perhaps inspired lesser-known representatives to show courage as well.
“The old man had the thankless job of dispelling many Americans’ illusions that they had the strength to stand up to the British once again,” Beschloss wrote. “Like a prophet, he warned that the country must not prematurely embarrass itself in war.”
This is what made the founding fathers great---not simply spewing patriotic quotes to polish their image, but through their wisdom, they were able to persuade the masses that certain sacrifices would be better for all of us, in the long run.
It seems today, there is a vaccum of vision. Politicians can’t make a decision without consulting polls. Politicians want to be loved, and more importantly, reelected. But, in time, their names will be lost for the ages, and history will secure only those whose courage defends their convictions to advance America’s story of freedom and liberty.
MORE Q & A with Michael Beschloss
LP: The presidents you profile all "win" in the end. You mentioned in the on-air interview that you couldn't assess President Bush's courage for another 20 years, when historians would have a better perspective on the war on terror. But isn't it possible to still demonstrate courage in a losing battle?
MB: It sure is possible to demonstrate courage in a losing battle, but I'm using the term "Presidential courage" to specifically mean the kind of bravery that is used to advance a cause that later Americans admire. For instance, Woodrow Wilson lost in his effort to get the U.S. into the League of Nations, but we admire the fact that he tried -- it might have saved the world from Adolf Hitler.
LP: Is it supposed to be a 'given' that the presidents you profile in the book became winners because of their wisdom or vision? Is there any room for just plain dumb luck and if they were lucky, does that diminish their accomplishment?
MB: Luck is always a big factor in a President's accomplishment, as it is for all of us. For example, if General Sherman hadn't conquered Atlanta before the 1864 election, giving Northern voters the sense that they were close to Civil War victory, Lincoln would have lost. But if a President doesn't have courage and wisdom, luck won't help much.
LP: I wonder what good courage is, if you do not have wisdom and instinct as a foundation. Is there some common thread among these presidents in their vision or wisdom that separates them from other presidents?
MB: You're right -- guts without wisdom and instinct don't help much either. Nixon had guts to bomb Cambodia in 1970, but in retrospect it wasn't very smart, because it widened the hopeless Indochina War. The other common thread in these Presidents is this: everyone I write about, except John Adams, got reelected or regained popularity. The reason is that each had the ability to persuade Americans that they were doing the right thing. Lincoln, for instance, told Northern voters, "You might not like my promise to free the slaves -- but it has attracted 200,00 African-Americans from the South to the North, where they are helping the Union war effort. If we lose them, we'll be defeated."
Comments
Good article. Why does it not surprise me that Red Eye readers are not interested in history?
Posted by: Yikes | June 29, 2007 9:28 AM
Larry-good article! I think that your last question sums up the problems of today's politicians, and current administration in particular. Argh, if only we could return to the days of Washington's political integrity and wisdom.
Posted by: sandy | June 29, 2007 10:53 AM
Great article, Larry. Maybe if more people took the time to read this type of work, we would not have to be subjected to endless days of a Debutante's "ordeal in Jail.
Posted by: Annette Evans | July 5, 2007 2:54 PM