The second long-term pattern in his thinking about slavery was a relentlessly realistic insistence that ideals per se must never define his agenda; indeed, he associated an idealistic agenda with sentimental illusions, like the belief that American virtue was sufficient to defeat Great Britain in the war....Try to reconcile that with this—Washington setting an historic precedent in surrendering his sword.
The fact is the American Revolution was not just political. It included an implicit moral revolution. The new moral code implied was that of rational selfishness. As such, Washington was wise to reject the idealism that kept the world in slavery and darkness for centuries. America's practice of slavery was part of that ancient legacy that had to be addressed and Washington struggled with it, as Ellis reports.
In the end, American virtue did defeat the British. A new ideal—the virtue of rational selfishness—drove the American force. It is secondary that not all Americans shared that ideal. What was crucial was that the leading thinkers —the Founding Fathers—embraced the ideal, with Washington chief among them, literally and figuratively.
So, although I disagree with Ellis' ethical orientation, I admire and appreciate his work in his biography of Washington. I got to see Washington as the great, real man he was, not just some impassive face perched on a mountain. I got to see how fitting it is that he is the father of our country—a deeply principled, intelligent, moral man of action.
At the same time, I am grateful to Ayn Rand for arming me with the ideas necessary to navigate around the kind of conventional errors Ellis makes in his review and analysis of Washington's life. My respect and admiration for Washington is all the richer and more personal.
No comments:
Post a Comment