He was very good at retreating (and this is not meant as a backhanded insult, he was capable of keeping the army together in situations where you'd expect it to disintegrate), mediocre at everything else.
>Successfully keeps his army together to outlast the enemy and accomplish their objectives
Literally all you need for a war like that.
Deifying Washington is absurd of course, but every culture needs some role-model to serve as an example of Good Citizenship TM. Washington's real claim to fame is setting the standards for how a President should conduct himself and appear (humble, assertive, forgiving, peacefully stepping down and transitioning to an elected successor)
Pic related is baron von steuben, AKA the father of the american army.
He took the retarded militia that washington idealized with his 2nd amendment dumbassery and carefully explained to him that this liberty war was bullshit and he should train them all to fight like prussians.
If it wasn't for that man you'd all be drinking tea with crumpets.
What? Washington never idealized any militia and the 2A didn't even fucking exist when the Independence War was going on.
Washington himself spoke AGAINST militias and called them a "broken staff". Georgie was 100% in favor of a professional standing army, and he was not relevant in drafting the 1787 Constitution so the 2A has fuck all to do with him.
>He took the retarded militia that washington idealized with his 2nd amendment dumbassery and carefully explained to him that this liberty war was bullshit and he should train them all to fight like prussians.
German Benevolence once again proved it's undoing
>So he was just figurehead?
The constitution does not give us as many instructions as originalists want us to believe. It did not define the role of the president, the supreme court, or the congress as directly as you think. Washington created the blueprint for the presidency with his actions; the rules we expect presidents to follow today are mostly based on convention created over centuries, beginning with Washington and following through with the presidents who wanted to trace his footsteps.
It depends. Certain parts of the Constitution are elucidated on in the Federalist Papers but some other parts are a little more vague. For example the Founders never wrote much about the 1st Amendment and things like the "fire in a crowded theater" principle were filled in later.
what's interesting is that the commerce clause has been one of the most historically abused parts of the Constitution despite the fact that James Madison made perfectly clear what it was intended to do, which was not what Democrats since 1937 think it does
Also they did not specifically state what "cruel and unusual punishment" is so that has been a bit elastic. In the strict sense one could claim it literally means "you can't be pulled apart by the King's horses for treason" but usually it's been interpreted as more than just physical torture.
the constitution was crafted with Whig ideology in mind, that's what the Virginian dynasty was, a bunch of people that thought that pre-norman invasion anglo saxon england was a paradise, maybe that's why they created an agrarian state.
the law was largely in the people's hands, that's what Sheriffs are in anglo culture, locally elected keepers of the peace and really the only punishable crimes were thievery and murder. Culture took care of the other things, like adultery. You can see glimmers of it in settler culture and events like the "wild" west where you couldn't rob a bank because the whole town would hear about it and kill you
>the law was largely in the people's hands, that's what Sheriffs are in anglo culture, locally elected keepers of the peace and really the only punishable crimes were thievery and murder. Culture took care of the other things, like adultery. You can see glimmers of it in settler culture and events like the "wild" west where you couldn't rob a bank because the whole town would hear about it and kill you
to be fair that is still true in most of the world. in Africa for example thieves or child rapists get tied to a stake, doused with gasoline, and set on fire by the townsfolk.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
right, but anglo culture used to be about the sword and in the US the sword became the gun. if everybody has a crossbow and is trained with it or a spear, you're not going to fuck around with them. The same goes for criminals, if you know the guy whose chickens you're about to steal is really good with a bow and if he caught you it's legal for him to shoot you, probably. Since punishment by the local authorities was a scalping and removing bits of your fingers
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Unironically using Africa as a positive example for literally anything
There were no organized police departments in the US until the NYPD was founded in the 1840s. Federal law enforcement was limited to a handful of US Marshals.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Federal law enforcement was limited to a handful of US Marshals
The Secret Service was started after the Civil War to tackle counterfeiters however that was it until the Prohibition era.
>the law was largely in the people's hands, that's what Sheriffs are in anglo culture, locally elected keepers of the peace and really the only punishable crimes were thievery and murder. Culture took care of the other things, like adultery. You can see glimmers of it in settler culture and events like the "wild" west where you couldn't rob a bank because the whole town would hear about it and kill you
to be fair that is still true in most of the world. in Africa for example thieves or child rapists get tied to a stake, doused with gasoline, and set on fire by the townsfolk.
There were no organized police departments in the US until the NYPD was founded in the 1840s. Federal law enforcement was limited to a handful of US Marshals.
The destruction of this is what actually killed America
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>No you can't have some form of centralized policing and law enforcement >We need country bumfucks with zero training and resources to just kill people
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
t. desperate glownagger
>We need country bumfucks with zero training and resources to just kill people
isn't that what you guys did at Waco?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>NOO I NEED TO LYNCH naggerS
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
This is a guy who lives in a safe all-white community and has never come within 50 miles of a black 'hood.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Cops Le bad because they won't let me start a race war
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>No you can't have some form of centralized policing and law enforcement >We need country bumfucks with zero training and resources to just kill people
in the lynching era towns mostly had organized police forces, what happens is they did nothing about blacks getting lynched or even joined in
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
well it was usually that the negros were obviously guilty so why bother
>humble >forgiving
Until some hillbillies don't want to pay your whiskey tax >assertive
Lmao as if that wasn't the norm >stepping down and transitioning to an elected successor
Nothing new really, there were dozens of republics in europe that did this. Venetians, swiss, genoans, etc.
>Until some hillbillies don't want to pay your whiskey tax
Humility has nothing to do with upholding the State's authority, he wasn't forcing them to worship his individual character.
He also pardoned members of the Whisky Rebellion, hence the forgiving but still assertive (i.e not a pushover cuck) >as if that wasn't the norm
There was no established norm for how the President of the USA should act, it was literally a newborn country with a new made up office to try and fill the gap that the King had left. >dozens of Republics in Europe that did this
Yes, and? We are talking about the USA, Washington was setting standards for former British people used to a Monarch with Divine right, he wasn't Venetian or Genovese.
rebellions always happened on the fringes of society where the settlers had to suffer raids from injuns. It's pretty uniform across the 13 colonies that the "hillbillies" eventually lost their shit having to deal with whatever governance their colony had while also fighting indians
There's a pretty famous indian murderer from virginia who carved his name in the mountains to commemorate his solo crusade against them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Wetzel >He became renowned for an ability to load his rifle while sprinting (perhaps by using smaller shot than other frontiersman as well as for always holding a few bullets in his mouth), and which probably saved his life several times during raids >The most famous incident turning public opinion against him involved the Seneca Chief Tegunteh (whom American soldiers called "George Washington" for his upright character), who had traveled to Fort Harmar, near present-day Marietta, Ohio in 1788.[11] Wetzel ambushed, shot and scalped Tegunteh on an isolated path; the dying chief survived long enough to identify his attacker. Wetzel readily admitted the deed on November 6 to Colonel Josiah Harmar, bragging “I´ll shoot ‘em down like the worthless dogs they are long as I live,” but escaped by sprinting away through the woods, and when recaptured two weeks later, clubbed his jailer with his chains and escaped again before trial; when captured in mid-December near Maysville, Kentucky and taken to Fort Washington (now Cincinnati), a 200-man mob led by Kenton threatened the peace and Harmar released Wetzel.
That's the brilliance of him. He called himself uninterested in politics at all. Rather than it being some trait of success for the US it was something presidents after him sought to emulate despite being elected from political parties. The day presidents (and politicians as a whole) stopped behaving like him (who was so schooled in etiquette people called him a model american) was the day everything went to shit for the US
He seemed to have almost wizard-like powers throughout the war. Whenever he needed a snow blizzard, it happened, whenever he needed dry, sunny weather, it happened, and he was shot at numerous times without anything more than tears in his clothing.
he wasn't the best field tactician but he managed to keep his army together and fighting even in apparently hopeless circumstances. also he had a modest demeanor while some other generals were pompous egomaniacs.
Speakint of his strategie, He has to be credited for his only true success: he never engaged British forces in a big field battle with the entirety of his Continental army, surely knowing he would have been wiped out. As for his personal character, he obviously was more charismatic than amy other revolutionary Commander (with the exception maybe of Nat Greene?)
What's his base-stat-total?
Well yea the american army was absolute dogshit before that prussian took over
0 in everything, 100 im freemasonry
He was very good at retreating (and this is not meant as a backhanded insult, he was capable of keeping the army together in situations where you'd expect it to disintegrate), mediocre at everything else.
>Successfully keeps his army together to outlast the enemy and accomplish their objectives
Literally all you need for a war like that.
Deifying Washington is absurd of course, but every culture needs some role-model to serve as an example of Good Citizenship TM. Washington's real claim to fame is setting the standards for how a President should conduct himself and appear (humble, assertive, forgiving, peacefully stepping down and transitioning to an elected successor)
As far as I understand, he did not keep the army together, others did all the work.
So he was just figurehead?
Pic related is baron von steuben, AKA the father of the american army.
He took the retarded militia that washington idealized with his 2nd amendment dumbassery and carefully explained to him that this liberty war was bullshit and he should train them all to fight like prussians.
If it wasn't for that man you'd all be drinking tea with crumpets.
What? Washington never idealized any militia and the 2A didn't even fucking exist when the Independence War was going on.
Washington himself spoke AGAINST militias and called them a "broken staff". Georgie was 100% in favor of a professional standing army, and he was not relevant in drafting the 1787 Constitution so the 2A has fuck all to do with him.
The practice of not keeping a large peacetime army was the norm in the US until WWII.
it was over by the civil war
It's complicated.
USA was certainly imperialist, but it did held back
Not a large one, but still a standing and fulltime one. The British also had small land forces, that doesn't mean they were militia.
America has a lot of foreign fathers of X
The last Prussian army never fought a war and peacefully disbanded itself.
>He took the retarded militia that washington idealized with his 2nd amendment dumbassery and carefully explained to him that this liberty war was bullshit and he should train them all to fight like prussians.
German Benevolence once again proved it's undoing
>So he was just figurehead?
The constitution does not give us as many instructions as originalists want us to believe. It did not define the role of the president, the supreme court, or the congress as directly as you think. Washington created the blueprint for the presidency with his actions; the rules we expect presidents to follow today are mostly based on convention created over centuries, beginning with Washington and following through with the presidents who wanted to trace his footsteps.
It depends. Certain parts of the Constitution are elucidated on in the Federalist Papers but some other parts are a little more vague. For example the Founders never wrote much about the 1st Amendment and things like the "fire in a crowded theater" principle were filled in later.
what's interesting is that the commerce clause has been one of the most historically abused parts of the Constitution despite the fact that James Madison made perfectly clear what it was intended to do, which was not what Democrats since 1937 think it does
It may be that Gibbons v. Ogden was the first misuse of the commerce clause; Clarence Thomas believes it was, anyway.
Who is retarded enough to fall for the random exclamations of a stranger without a thought about what he's saying?
Also they did not specifically state what "cruel and unusual punishment" is so that has been a bit elastic. In the strict sense one could claim it literally means "you can't be pulled apart by the King's horses for treason" but usually it's been interpreted as more than just physical torture.
the constitution was crafted with Whig ideology in mind, that's what the Virginian dynasty was, a bunch of people that thought that pre-norman invasion anglo saxon england was a paradise, maybe that's why they created an agrarian state.
the law was largely in the people's hands, that's what Sheriffs are in anglo culture, locally elected keepers of the peace and really the only punishable crimes were thievery and murder. Culture took care of the other things, like adultery. You can see glimmers of it in settler culture and events like the "wild" west where you couldn't rob a bank because the whole town would hear about it and kill you
>the law was largely in the people's hands, that's what Sheriffs are in anglo culture, locally elected keepers of the peace and really the only punishable crimes were thievery and murder. Culture took care of the other things, like adultery. You can see glimmers of it in settler culture and events like the "wild" west where you couldn't rob a bank because the whole town would hear about it and kill you
to be fair that is still true in most of the world. in Africa for example thieves or child rapists get tied to a stake, doused with gasoline, and set on fire by the townsfolk.
right, but anglo culture used to be about the sword and in the US the sword became the gun. if everybody has a crossbow and is trained with it or a spear, you're not going to fuck around with them. The same goes for criminals, if you know the guy whose chickens you're about to steal is really good with a bow and if he caught you it's legal for him to shoot you, probably. Since punishment by the local authorities was a scalping and removing bits of your fingers
>Unironically using Africa as a positive example for literally anything
There were no organized police departments in the US until the NYPD was founded in the 1840s. Federal law enforcement was limited to a handful of US Marshals.
>Federal law enforcement was limited to a handful of US Marshals
The Secret Service was started after the Civil War to tackle counterfeiters however that was it until the Prohibition era.
The destruction of this is what actually killed America
>No you can't have some form of centralized policing and law enforcement
>We need country bumfucks with zero training and resources to just kill people
t. desperate glownagger
>We need country bumfucks with zero training and resources to just kill people
isn't that what you guys did at Waco?
>NOO I NEED TO LYNCH naggerS
This is a guy who lives in a safe all-white community and has never come within 50 miles of a black 'hood.
>Cops Le bad because they won't let me start a race war
in the lynching era towns mostly had organized police forces, what happens is they did nothing about blacks getting lynched or even joined in
well it was usually that the negros were obviously guilty so why bother
I know.
I am non-American LDS Church member who took class on American history at Brigham Young University - Idaho
>humble
>forgiving
Until some hillbillies don't want to pay your whiskey tax
>assertive
Lmao as if that wasn't the norm
>stepping down and transitioning to an elected successor
Nothing new really, there were dozens of republics in europe that did this. Venetians, swiss, genoans, etc.
>Until some hillbillies don't want to pay your whiskey tax
Humility has nothing to do with upholding the State's authority, he wasn't forcing them to worship his individual character.
He also pardoned members of the Whisky Rebellion, hence the forgiving but still assertive (i.e not a pushover cuck)
>as if that wasn't the norm
There was no established norm for how the President of the USA should act, it was literally a newborn country with a new made up office to try and fill the gap that the King had left.
>dozens of Republics in Europe that did this
Yes, and? We are talking about the USA, Washington was setting standards for former British people used to a Monarch with Divine right, he wasn't Venetian or Genovese.
>Until some hillbillies don't want to pay your whiskey tax
Thomas Jefferson got rid of the excise tax a few years later anyway so they ultimately won.
Chimpouts actually do work as far as getting your way. Late 60s radicals, BLM, Bundy Ranch, etc.
rebellions always happened on the fringes of society where the settlers had to suffer raids from injuns. It's pretty uniform across the 13 colonies that the "hillbillies" eventually lost their shit having to deal with whatever governance their colony had while also fighting indians
There's a pretty famous indian murderer from virginia who carved his name in the mountains to commemorate his solo crusade against them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Wetzel
>He became renowned for an ability to load his rifle while sprinting (perhaps by using smaller shot than other frontiersman as well as for always holding a few bullets in his mouth), and which probably saved his life several times during raids
>The most famous incident turning public opinion against him involved the Seneca Chief Tegunteh (whom American soldiers called "George Washington" for his upright character), who had traveled to Fort Harmar, near present-day Marietta, Ohio in 1788.[11] Wetzel ambushed, shot and scalped Tegunteh on an isolated path; the dying chief survived long enough to identify his attacker. Wetzel readily admitted the deed on November 6 to Colonel Josiah Harmar, bragging “I´ll shoot ‘em down like the worthless dogs they are long as I live,” but escaped by sprinting away through the woods, and when recaptured two weeks later, clubbed his jailer with his chains and escaped again before trial; when captured in mid-December near Maysville, Kentucky and taken to Fort Washington (now Cincinnati), a 200-man mob led by Kenton threatened the peace and Harmar released Wetzel.
That's the brilliance of him. He called himself uninterested in politics at all. Rather than it being some trait of success for the US it was something presidents after him sought to emulate despite being elected from political parties. The day presidents (and politicians as a whole) stopped behaving like him (who was so schooled in etiquette people called him a model american) was the day everything went to shit for the US
He seemed to have almost wizard-like powers throughout the war. Whenever he needed a snow blizzard, it happened, whenever he needed dry, sunny weather, it happened, and he was shot at numerous times without anything more than tears in his clothing.
To be fair, he was pretty mediocre even as a military commander
he wasn't the best field tactician but he managed to keep his army together and fighting even in apparently hopeless circumstances. also he had a modest demeanor while some other generals were pompous egomaniacs.
Speakint of his strategie, He has to be credited for his only true success: he never engaged British forces in a big field battle with the entirety of his Continental army, surely knowing he would have been wiped out. As for his personal character, he obviously was more charismatic than amy other revolutionary Commander (with the exception maybe of Nat Greene?)
I'm Sorry for my spelling, but my non-english smartphone changes every english word i texted