Who do Americans consider the Father of the Country?
George Washington, of course. But is it George Washington the man or George Washington the myth?
Today is February 22. Washington was born on this day nearly 300 years ago (1732). Every school child in the country learns at an early age that Washington was the first president of the United States and that he is often referred to as the Father of the Country.
Father of the Country
Interestingly, Washington was actually referred to quite often during his lifetime and immediately after as the Father of [His] Country.[1] This almost suggests that as its father, the country is his in a more directly possessive way. He was not merely the head of the new republic but had also sired the country in some metaphorically generative sense.
Washington was the clear choice as commander of the Continental force that would fight for independence from the British monarchy. Though he had military experience that had come during the French and Indian War, another significant reason for his selection by the Continental Congress was the fact he hailed from Virginia, thus ensuring the South’s participation in the war that had, until that time, mostly confined itself to Massachusetts.[2] Despite significant challenges and major losses, Washington emerged victorious and secured the fledgling country’s independence. At the end of the war, Washington laid down his sword and returned to his home in Virginia content to spend the rest of his days in peace on his own land. This willful abdication of his military commission and stature earned him the distinction of being known as “the American Cincinnatus.”[3]
Several years later duty called again. Urged by his peers, he traveled to Philadelphia for the 1787 Convention. The group of state delegates elected Washington as the Convention’s president. The gravitas associated with Washington ensured that the Convention’s bold maneuver, presenting the draft of an entirely new constitution rather than proposed modifications to the Articles of Confederation, was taken seriously.[4]
To the surprise of absolutely no one, Washington was elected the first president. He served for two terms and then voluntarily surrendered power, much as he had done with his military officership. He then returned to Virginia. Washington had served as the model for the new office of American presidency and then served as the example of the smooth transfer of power to the next duly elected executive.
Washington earned his place in history as the Father of the Country. As has been stated by others, he was without a doubt the “indispensable man” in American history.[5]
Mythos
If we have sufficiently established that Washington is indeed the Father of the Country, what exactly does that mean? Are we sure that Washington the man is the Father of the Country? Or is it the myth of the man?
To even address this issue, we must first dispel a common misconception. We often view the term myth in an overly reductive way. We interpret it as referring to a fictitious story. In that sense, myths cannot be true in any historical sense and any enlightenment derived from them can only be lifted allegorically.
But the concept of the myth is far broader than that. Our word myth comes from the ancient Greek idea of mythos, which doesn’t surrender the idea of truth as easily as our modern notion of the concept.[6] Myths are not necessarily false just because of their supposed lack of historicity. Their value is far more transcendental. True stories are then often deliberately expanded to emphasize certain features. These stories are meant to communicate truths of certain virtues or events but in a way that permits their telling to remain more unfettered in expression.
This often happens with historical figures as well. It’s human nature to revere those that came before us and laid the foundations of the institutions we hold dear. As kids, we probably heard the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. Maybe at the time, we were told the story as if it were true and only later learned that the event itself almost assuredly never happened. In this case, the felling of the tree as a particular event that either happened or didn't happen, is deemed less important than communicating the character virtues of Washington. While no one would endorse teaching inaccurate history to children, myths often blur the lines between the binary true/false construct we naively wish to attribute to stories. Myths exhibit the most power when neither he who tells the story, nor he who hears the story, feels compelled to rigidly demarcate between true and untrue.
An excellent encapsulation of this idea is presented by Forrest McDonald in his preface to The Presidency of George Washington.
“…my account of Washington’s presidency may leave the reader mystified by the man’s virtual deification in his own times. The solution to the mystery is here, however, if the reader will approach the story in a proper spirit. To be an American in the last decade of the eighteenth century was to be present at the crucial myth-making time in the infancy of the Republic; it was comparable to being a Roman in the age of Romulus and Remus, or a Greek in the age of the Olympians. Thucydides and Herodotus, it is said, invented history by distinguishing what “could be proved to have happened” from that which could not be so proved. The former we call history; the latter we call myth. Here we are dealing with a myth that happens also to have been true, for George Washington, in his own lifetime, was self-consciously both more than a mere man and less than a man: his people craved a myth and a symbol, and he devoted his life to fulfilling that need.”[7]
I agree with McDonald. I believe that we need to take a more sophisticated view of myth and its value, but I also acknowledge that there are fields in which the unadulterated truth must reign. Police investigations, court rooms, and scientific laboratories operate on data and evidence. An understanding of myth can enrich our view of history, but in this case, myth serves to supplement and not supplant history.
The Man or the Myth
Problems arise when we fail to understand the relationship between myth and history. I often wonder if many of our problems can be viewed through this lens of confusion.
What does this have to do with George Washington?
When we as Americans collectively look back on the Father of our Country, are we revering the man as he was? Or are we, perhaps unintentionally, looking back not on the man but on a constructed image of the man?
I think that as a society we tend toward the latter. That’s dangerous. The danger is not because myth is inherently bad but because people fail to draw the important distinction between myth and history. To be sure, there are more myths dealing with the Founding of the republic than just those tied to Washington. As humans, however, we tend to look first to people and therefore it is entirely appropriate to start with Washington and the associated mythic imagery. Washington serves as the face and icon of the country.
Historically, I think that is correct. Mythically, I think it is also correct. What I think is incorrect is failing to understand the difference between the two.
My Encounters with Washington
I have held a deep reverence for George Washington my entire life. I readily admit that this respect was more for the myth than the man for a long time. The problem is that at the time I did not know I was confusing the two. My appreciation for him has grown more nuanced as I’ve learned more about him, while also learning to draw the necessary distinctions between man and myth. I always identified with Washington in some ways but also admired him in the ways in which I could not personally identify. He was a southern cavalier gentleman. He was a military leader. He was universally admired by his peers.
I, too, am a Southerner. I was also a military man. For many years I served as an officer in the U.S. Army. As a battalion commander, a small statuette of Washington adorned the corner of my desk in my office. By that time in my life, I more easily understood the distinction between man and myth and understood that his place on my desk was an acknowledgment of both.
The mythos surrounding George Washington is important. It’s part of our collective cultural memory. It enriches our understanding of our Founding Fathers’ virtues. As long as we understand that it is myth, it remains valuable. It just needs to be separated from the man of flesh and blood who committed errors (even some large ones in my view) like all of us. This same view should extend to history in general. Americans have a strong tendency to mythologize our Founding without realizing that we’re doing so. This in turn leads to a fabled view of where we stand presently.
I admire and respect George Washington the man. I appreciate the mythic aura that surrounds him as well. But I do think we need to understand the separation between the two.
This nuanced distinction should extend to all our history as well.
Citations:
[2]. Douglas Southall Freeman, Washington, abridged by Richard Harwell, (New York: Touchstone, 1968), 219.
[3]. Ron Chernow, Washington: A Life, (New York: Penguin Group, 2010), 444, 453–54. Washington’s voluntary relinquishment of power was often compared to a similar action by Cincinnatus after saving Rome.
[4]. Ibid., 516–7, 521–3, 529–31, 542–3.
[5]. James Thomas Flexner, Washington, The Indispensable Man, (New York: Back Bay Books, 1974).
[7]. Forrest McDonald, The Presidency of George Washington, (Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas, 1974), xi.
A play-by-play of Egg Bea's thoughts as she reads the article:
1) Who do Americans consider to be the Father of the Country? - The thought of Jay Leno's late night on the street interview segment came to mind and so did the answers Johnny Appleseed, Jesus, Mel Brooks. Basically, everyone but the correct answer. Laughed and laughed and laughed some more, then laughed again. That was always my favourite part of the show. My most favourite time was when he showed a picture of a giraffe and one guy called it a Gaylord, I never laughed so hard in my life. Priceless.
2) Washington was born nearly 300 years ago. -. Wow! Imagine if that bitch were still alive? Seriously, imagine. Can't actually do that at the moment because it would take up the rest of the day and I'd never finish the article. I should bookmark the article and delve into that later, maybe write something. And moving on. Americans go on and on about this Washington guy, albeit, a lot of wrong info but they still go on and on. We'll see how Brad makes out, here. Anyway, I hear about him every year whether I like it or not. Not that I mind too too much I'm just pointing out that they seem slightly obsessed with the issue. Now, I realize if an American reads this it may come looking for a fist fight depending on how intensely they may feel about it, but after some conversation I think cooler heads would prevail once they came to the understanding that I mean no harm. I just find it fascinating.
3) Mythos - I hear what Brad's saying here and entwining for affect can reap many benefits. The problem arises when someone holds it so close that it blocks out the sun, so to speak. For affect, acceptable but should be peppered correctly so as not to enforce to strong of a misnomer. When you combine the misnomer with the other thing I was referring to in section two it creates moments so wrong it hurts. Like the time a guy had Lincoln confused with Washington...that conversation took some verbal force to get through. But we worked it out. All smiles.
4) That was an entertaining read, I quite enjoyed my time. We'll see if I can get to exploring the question about Washington still being alive.
5) If anybody does end up happening along my comment please take it as it is meant to be, light hearted commentary. We all make mistakes (you can tell by my spelling, punctuation and grammer issues) but if we help each other along we'll get to that better place we're all looking for.
6) Have a nice day.