Saturday, October 15, 2016

When Washington Was Third Party

June 15, 1775

Fresh off the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the rebellious American Colonies had entered into a conflict which most colonial citizens considered hopeless and pointless. Most colonial citizens were content to live under British rule. At the time, American’s were considered among the most wealthy and prosperous peoples in the world. The desire for independence and freedom was shared only by a small group of men and women who understood the evil of tyranny and blessings of liberty. In response to the impending conflict with the world’s mightiest empire, the Continental Congress created the Continental Army just one day before. With war just on the horizon, Congress had to answer one important question: Who would lead the Continental Army?

When analyzed from the perspective of disparity and bleakness that shadowed the Colonial cause, you would understand just how important this choice would be. After all, military failure wouldn’t just mean the end of an idealist social experiment. Failure meant a ruthless and unbridled retaliation from a powerful and unforgiving tyrant. If the colonial rebels were to lose the war, they would lose their land, their status, and even their own heads. Their success - their survival – depended entirely upon the Commander-In-Chief of the Continental Army.

Delegates to the Continental Congress nominated men whom they considered fit for the position. Most support coalesced around two candidates. The first of these two possessed an intimate knowledge of British military tactics. In fact, among all the nominees for the position, no one could boast more experience in terms of military service. When the war had become an inevitable reality, he defected from the Royal forces in order to volunteer his services to the colonies. His name was Charles Lee, and many, including himself, expected that he be named Commander-In-Chief of the Continental Army. Lee was erratic and unconventional. Historical accounts described his behavior as loutish and prideful. His language was coarse and boorish. Despite having some significant achievement, he felt a constant need to inflate his reputation with lengthy and exaggerated accounts. Still, he was highly decorated and willing to assume charge of the Continental Army – for a price of course.

The second candidate was the perfect contrast to the personality of General Charles Lee. He was a humbler man, perhaps too humble for the liking of some within the Continental Congress. Considerably more reserved and polished than Charles Lee, many thought him too hesitant, too indecisive, too “damnably deficient”. Nonetheless, support for George Washington was strong. Of the two nominees, Washington’s character fell most in line with the principles that the Continental Congress revered. On paper, the decision seemed illogical, maybe even suicidal. But in reality, there was not better man suited for the job.

History remembers George Washington as the lowly General who won the most hopeless war with the most hapless army. As for Charles Lee… I would wager you’ve never heard of the guy. In hindsight, the decision to elect Washington over Lee saved the revolution and cemented the cause of freedom in the American Colonies, and eventually the world. At the time, American’s needed to choose between the tyranny of the Crown, the crass leadership of Lee, or the principled leadership of Washington. Most chose complacency with the Crown, but for a small and principled group of men and women, the decision was made in favor of Washington. Thank God for principled decisions!

Tyranny & Lawlessness

Coarse & Boorish

Principles & Conscience

Where have we seen these three choices before?

When I consider the current race for American leadership, I can’t help but see the similarities between the choices we face now and the choices the founding fathers had to make too. Make no mistake, our situation does not look too promising. Turmoil, both foreign and domestic, seems to simmer hotter and hotter and no one knows exactly at what point things will come to a boil. The way I see things, we too must make a choice similar to the one made by the founding fathers and mothers: Do we choose the steady decay of personal liberty and freedom? Do we choose the lesser of two evils? Or do we choose principle and a clear conscience? Only one choice saved this nation in 1775. Only one choice will save it again.

Of course, this choice flies straight in the face of the “Now or Never” crowd. I have heard it over and over again. Even now, I am told to hold my nose and swallow the Trump nomination like the sour pill that it is. People that I once revered and respected have let out the cry “WIN AT ALL COSTS!” Not only do I find this strategy sad, it is downright repulsive. Those who believe and circulate this narrative belong in the laziest class of citizens. This belief is a sordid self-abnegation of your sacred civic duty to oppose tyranny and corruption. The logic dictates that if the bad candidate wins, your power stops at the ballot box. In essence, you say I give up! I give in! I give out!

This sentiment was best demonstrated in a recent conversation I was privy to regarding the concept of third party voting:

“Vote your conscience if you really think that is gonna make a difference for the world. Then tell your children the story of America and how she used to be the land of opportunity for free people…”

Do you notice the backwards assertion that America is a land for free people, yet voting with your conscience and free-will outside of bonds of a major party is unconscionable? Tell me again how much you value freedom of speech? Freedom of expression? Freedom to assemble? Such is hypocrisy beyond absurdity – reasoning beyond rationality.

I will vote my conscience. I guess in some ways my vote may not count, at least not in the sense that everyone else thinks it should count. I accept that. And when the time comes, I will explain to my kids that I voted on character, on policy, and on principle.

I will do this because I believe a time will come when I must make a bigger principled stand.

I will do this because I believe that my power as a citizen does no stop at the ballot box.

I will do this because I believe that I can help win over the hearts and minds of those who disagree.

I will do this because I believe my kids need to know that principles are important in any circumstance.

I will do this because I believe that I will have to provide an account of where I stood and with whom I stood.

Washington was the principled choice for his time, if not the popular choice. In the short term, it appeared as if he was indeed the wrong choice. The British delivered to the Continental Army one disheartening defeat after another. Many called for Washington’s dismissal. However, every time the cause of freedom teetered on the brink of disaster, Washington prevailed. He prevailed because he made principled choices that aligned with his conscience. Washington always lived to fight another day.

Even now, the cause of freedom does not hinge on a single battle. It doesn’t even end after several battles. America only ends when we cease to do battle – when we cease to fight against corruption, vileness, and tyranny, regardless of party or platform. My allegiance is not to person or party. My allegiance is to my conscience and my country


No comments:

Post a Comment