21 September 2010

What Were They Thinking? (part 6)

In Part 5, we looked at how General George Washington informed his troops about what they'd be hearing from the Continental Congress, in July 1776. It's a fine public statement: very matter-of-fact, and straightforward.

But what were his thoughts about the events leading up to the Revolution? Here are excerpts from several letters he wrote in 1774.

The [British] ministry may relay on it that Americans will never be taxed without their own consent; that the cause of Boston--the despotic measure in respect to it, I mean--now is and ever will be considered the cause of America...*

He replied to a correspondent who argued that "a humble and dutiful petition to the throne" would produce the desired results from the King:

Have we not tried this already? Have we not addressed the Lords and remonstrated to the Commons? And to what end? Did they deign to look at our petitions? Does it not appear, as clear as the sun in its meridian brightness, that there is a regular, systematic plan formed to fix the right and practice of taxation upon us? ... Ought we not, then, to put our virtue and fortitude to the severest test?**

He later told the same correspondent:

...the Parliament of Great Britain have no more right to put their hands into my pocket, without my consent, than I have to put my hands into yours for money ... As ... I observe that [the British] government is pursuing a regular plan at the expense of law and justice to overthrow our constitutional rights and liberties, how can I expect any redress from a measure which has been ineffectually tried already? ... Shall we, after this, whine and cry for relief when have already tried it in vain? ...
I am convinced, as much as I am of my existence, that there is no relief but in their [the British government's] distress; and I think, at least I hope, that there is public virtue enough left among us to deny ourselves everything but the bare necessaries of life to accomplish this end. This we have a right to do, and no power upon earth can compel us to do otherwise till they have first reduced us to the most abject state of slavery that ever was designed for mankind.***

And finally, in a letter to an old friend who had served under him in the French and Indian War:

It is not the wish or interest of that [Massachusetts] government or any other upon this continent, separately or collectively, to set up for independence. But this you may at the same time rely on, that none of them will ever submit to the loss of those valuable rights and privileges which are essential to the happiness of every free state, and without which life, liberty, and property are rendered totally insecure.
These, sir, being [the] certain consequences which must naturally result from the late acts of Parliament relative to America in general,and the government of Massachusetts Bay in particular, is to be wondered at ... that men who wish to avert the impending blow should attempt to oppose it in its progress, or prepare for their defense if it cannot be diverted?****

Most of the founders (excluding a few firebrands) were of the same mind; it's pretty clear that, while hoping desperately that a war could be avoided, Washington clearly saw no realistic alternatives by 1774.


*Ltr to George William Fairfax, 6/10/1774
**Ltr to Bryan Fairfax, 7/4/1774
***Ltr to Bryan Fairfax, 7/20/1774
****Ltr to Capt. Robert Mackenzie, 10/9/1774



Previous posts:
Part 1
Part 2

Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

2 comments:

Jenny said...

Longer response (tangentially) over at my place, but I think there's something serious here.

The core of it is I think buried in our own human nature, wherein we seek a tribal identity. Once we shifted from thinking of ourselves as aggrieved British subjects and began thinking of ourselves as injured Americans - the entire context of the argument shifted.

I need to think on the implications of that, but I think you've hit a vein of prime ore here.

Rev. Paul said...

I believe you're correct; and I also believe that injured American paradigm shift was the tipping point. It changed the question from "What else can we say to the King/to Parliament to make them see things our way?" to "How much more of this are we going to let them shove down our throats?"