Washington and Europe (Egyptian, influences, Great Britain, generals)

[krsheely]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Hint - I am one of only two people known to have negotiated with both George Washington and Napoleon.

who was the other? also what did Washington think of Napoleon and visa versa. Matter of fact what did most others in Europe think of Washington?

Also it seems as if Washington is one of few leaders of his stature that no one seems to have some beef with when it comes to remembering his history. Was he that squeeky clean good or is there more to it?

[NJGOAT]

The other was general Charles O'Hara who was Cornwallis' second in command during the southern campaign in the revolution and whose services Cornwallis retained during his later postings. They both negotiated directly with Napoleon over the terms of the Treaty of Amiens.

Napoleon thought very highly of George Washington and is claimed to have remarked that "his struggle was a struggle for all mankind."

As for what Washington thought of Napoleon, I have never read anything that quotes Washington directly on his thoughts. However, Washington died in 1799 some time before Napoleon really rose to prominence. However, there were many Napoleonic influences in America at the time. You need to remember that even though Napoleon styled himself an Emporer his original cause was that of the French Revolution and democracy. It is said that Napoleons Egyptian expedition inspired the obelisk as the choice of the Washington monument and that the Monroe White House was heavily influenced in decor and practices by Napoleon. America was also the country of refuge for Napoleons brothers after the wars and his great-nephew supposedly helped found the FBI.

Washington is generally viewed very favourably in Europe and a statue of him actually stands in Trafalgar Square (on a patch of earth from Virginia as Washington swore never to set foot in England). He wasn't perfect but most people believe his morals and manners were exemplary. After all, he was the man who refused to be king. As one of the first modern Republics, Washington is viewed as somewhat of a leader for all people and example of what a leader should be.

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Washington is generally viewed very favourably in Europe and a statue of him actually stands in Trafalgar Square (on a patch of earth from Virginia as Washington swore never to set foot in England). He wasn't perfect but most people believe his morals and manners were exemplary. After all, he was the man who refused to be king. As one of the first modern Republics, Washington is viewed as somewhat of a leader for all people and example of what a leader should be.

Though in his own country at least some of this was retrospective. Politics got very partisan in the early Republic and Washington came to be seen as an uncompromising Federalist. Istr that a Democratic-Republican newspaper rejoiced in 1797 that he was "to be reduced to an equality with his fellow-countrrymen".

It perhaps helped his reputation that he died before the election of 1800 and thus escaped involvement in the even fiercer partisanship of that year. Had he lived, and been persuaded to attempt a comeback, he might have won, but it wouldn't have been unanimous this time.

[Dd714]

You do realize that the period of Washington and the period of Napolean where about a generation apart right? Washington was dead and buried before Napoleon became emporer. Apart from that - you couldn't compare two generals that differ more in personality, goals, and objectives.

And then - are you asking what Europe thought of Washington the general at that time (the answer would be that he was probably little known outside of Britian) or Washington as president at that time? Or current views of Washington?

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Mikestone8

Though in his own country at least some of this was retrospective. Politics got very partisan in the early Republic and Washington came to be seen as an uncompromising Federalist. Istr that a Democratic-Republican newspaper rejoiced in 1797 that he was "to be reduced to an equality with his fellow-countrrymen".

It perhaps helped his reputation that he died before the election of 1800 and thus escaped involvement in the even fiercer partisanship of that year. Had he lived, and been persuaded to attempt a comeback, he might have won, but it wouldn't have been unanimous this time.

Very true. It is the little taught on period of American history. The colonies as a whole had very little in common between them, except their common enemy of Great Britain. As soon as the external threat was eliminated the issues came to the forefront and began even before the consitutional conventions. The struggle of Federalist versus Democratic-Republican was often more bitter then the battles of the Revolution. Many of these debates and issues would not be resolved until after the Civil War.

Washington as a whole has adopted a mythos within the U.S. that was certainly not shared by all during his lifetime. He was generally a very well respected man, but there were certainly a lot of people waiting for him to go quietly into the night.

The irony of creation of the American Republic as viewed from Europe is that they tend to focus on the U.S. as the culmination of Enlightenment philosophy and ideals from Europe that were eventually exported back, while U.S. education would have you believe that the entire system was something that Jefferson, Adams and Franklin dreamed up.