The History Book Club discussion

I don't mean to get all bloodthirsty on the group, but the same retaliatory idea (your troops do X, we will do Y to Mr. Private Prisoner of War) was still out there, no? But then, it might not have been such a great idea for American prisoners of war....)

I was surprised to read the section in which Washington more or less loses it and decides to charge the British all on his own. I think of Washington as so controlled, so not giving away his feelings on anything. This shows that anyone can be pushed too far!

Thanks Mary Ellen and Jodi. I think GW would be the first to say, yep, Congress gave me such a headache. The states were not living up to their bargian, because they wanted to protect their own borders. It must have been very frustrating.

In the book, GW is seen as rushing into the line of fire. He was lucky he didn't get killed. You wonder if it was anger (he had a bad temper) due to a botched commander that pushed him to the front line or a method to inspire his troops.

On retaliation, there is this quote:

An eye for an eye leaves the world blind

Gandhi

Of course, Gandhi was long after Washington. Mahatma Gandhi

Great quote, and Martin Luther King also adopted that practice.

You definitely see how both sides struggle in a movement or revolution...how long do we use "eye for an eye" vs. more harsher tactics.

I think GW wanted to avoid using mistreatment, but discovered war was messy.

Don't forget to cite Gandhi for us:

Mahatma Gandhi

Martin Luther King Jr.

Bryan wrote: "Great quote, and Martin Luther King also adopted that practice.

You definitely see how both sides struggle in a movement or revolution...how long do we use "eye for an eye" vs. more harsher tact..."

I didn't know he had written a book. BTW, it's Gandhi not Ghandi

Oops, fixed, thanks for catching the typo. He wrote quite a bit, his most famous one:

by Mahatma Gandhi

Jodi wrote: "Mary Ellen,

If your remark was in response to my post, I apologize for my poor word choice (meddling rather than micromanaging). I agree wholeheartedly with you that a president with too much powe..."

Jodi, my post was primarily in response to the characterization of Congress as "meddling" in the book itself.

It was interesting looking at the desire of Washington to burn NYC and how he was being kept on a short leash by Congress but gradually they gave him more and more latitude until he was finally allowed off his leash all together. New York was certainly not one of Washington's finer moments even though he did manage to stave off defeat by escaping when the British believed him all but crushed. There was also the matter of the comparison of the British soldier with the soldiers of Washington's Army and how while demographically they were very similar, logistically the British soldiers were much well off particularly during the New York Campaign in 1776. The Americans were cold and starving and suffering from sickness meanwhile the British in New York were living it up so to speak. Another feature that was interesting was George Washington's initial hesitance toward smallpox inoculation because it would permit it to spread quicker and put many of his men out of commission for awhile and possibly into British hands should the British attack. It was ultimately his wife Martha along with other factors that brought Washington around to the positive aspects of inoculation.

Thanks, David. I do wonder if GW had his way to burn NYC, what would change and how would the city change. (I suspect not much regarding the city.)

GW really worked the "hit and run" tactics very well.