From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Mon Aug 26 2002 - 13:19:45 MDT
In a message dated 8/26/2002 1:59:00 PM Central Standard Time,
mlorrey@yahoo.com writes: Washington's greatness wasn't from his battlefield
experience, since his win loss record was decidedly on the losing side. His
greatness came from his refusal of dynastic ambition, in refusing to serve
more than two terms.
I think there was possibly one other factor. But in a sense "his
refusal of dynastic ambition" was that factor playing out to its logical
conclusion. I have read that as the war approached there was no other man in
the colonies whose character was immaculate enough that a sufficient number
of people would trust him as Commander in Chief of the American Army.
I once read a story about him that I have always liked very much.
Someone said that as a young man he wanted the kind of career he eventually
had. This one writer said that he also wanted to be popular with the women
of his age. However he was supposedly such an awkward guy around women that
he knew he was never going to achieve his aim.
He trained himself to lead men, to be athletic, to be so extremely
fair with all subordinates that he was trusted. He also worked to stand so
high in his male contemporary's eyes that he reflected well in the eyes of
the women. In addition it is said he was a natural athlete and as such
learned to dance very well.
You know, maybe all of the above is an argument showing at least one
benefit to learning history -- at least for all us awkward guys that have
enough dexterity to learn to dance.
Ron h
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:25 MST