Skip to comments.
George Washington Letter Found in Scrapbook
NY Times ^
| April 27, 2007
| KAREEM FAHIM
Posted on 04/27/2007 3:43:43 AM PDT by Pharmboy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
This is terrific...a rare find.
1
posted on
04/27/2007 3:43:45 AM PDT
by
Pharmboy
To: Pharmboy
does it clear up that 2nd Amendment quandary
2
posted on
04/27/2007 3:45:46 AM PDT
by
Flavius
("Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum")
To: indcons; Chani; thefactor; blam; aculeus; ELS; Doctor Raoul; mainepatsfan; timpad; ...

The Washington Family Coat of Arms
The RevWar/Colonial History/ General Washington ping list.
Freepmail me to get ON or OFF this list
3
posted on
04/27/2007 3:46:34 AM PDT
by
Pharmboy
([She turned me into a] Newt! in '08)
To: Flavius
Not this...but The General made it clear on several occasions about his feelings on firearms. He would be an NRA member if he was alive today.
4
posted on
04/27/2007 3:48:10 AM PDT
by
Pharmboy
([She turned me into a] Newt! in '08)
To: Pharmboy
How many times in the text does George advocate the need to “cut and run” and that “America is a loser”?
To: Pharmboy
Wow!
Sad we didn’t pay heed...
“The community at large must raise the edifice...”
Easy to say when the community isn’t suckin on the government hooters, not so easy now.
6
posted on
04/27/2007 3:49:51 AM PDT
by
djf
(Free men own guns, slaves do not!)
To: Pharmboy
no they would arrest him for wanting to win wars
7
posted on
04/27/2007 3:50:58 AM PDT
by
Flavius
("Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum")
To: steelyourfaith
Good question. History shows us just the opposite: he was fearless on the battlefield, and on at least one occasion he had to be led off the battlefield because he would have been either killed or captured if he continued to face the enemy (this was at the invasion of Manhattan at Kips’ Bay).
8
posted on
04/27/2007 3:59:26 AM PDT
by
Pharmboy
([She turned me into a] Newt! in '08)
To: Pharmboy
I also take exception to the way a lot of historians say that he had defeat after defeat, when it seems pretty clear to me that most of the time when he gave up ground he did so against forces with obviously superior numbers. And in the process of tactical withdrawal, he often inflicted more casualties against superior forces than he suffered.
He understood the limitations of his forces, and worked within that. He was, IMHO, much more adept strategically than is commonly believed.
9
posted on
04/27/2007 4:08:38 AM PDT
by
tcostell
(MOLON LABE)
To: steelyourfaith
Actually, George was somewhat of an isolationist and warned us not to get entangled in alliances with foreign nations.
10
posted on
04/27/2007 4:09:39 AM PDT
by
Westbrook
(Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it!)
To: Molly Pitcher
11
posted on
04/27/2007 4:15:16 AM PDT
by
Dog
To: Flavius
"does it clear up that 2nd Amendment quandary"Nope, but
It, however, can only lay the foundation the community at large must raise the edifice.
Gives fuel to the "living document" tactic for it's destruction.
Damn that Washington !
12
posted on
04/27/2007 4:16:07 AM PDT
by
knarf
(I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true.)
To: Westbrook
Actually, George was somewhat of an isolationist and warned us not to get entangled in alliances with foreign nations. It has generally been American policy to avoid foreign entanglements, but it is quite a different matter to cut and run (for some strange notion of political expediency) from an enemy that attacked us repeatedly over the years, finally culminating with an attack on our soil, all the while declaring that it is our armed forces who are the losers, eh?
To: tcostell
Could not agree more. Other positives: He was not afraid to decide on a bold stroke (for example, the first Battle of Trenton) and was an excellent judge of character (picking his aides very well) and, as noted, was fearless on the battlefield. Did he make mistakes? Yes—but his perserverance eventually made all of us winners.
14
posted on
04/27/2007 4:20:48 AM PDT
by
Pharmboy
([She turned me into a] Newt! in '08)
To: steelyourfaith
How many times in the text does George advocate the need to cut and run and that America is a loser? :) never, but he did complain that his soldiers didn't have enough equipment, supplies, and food. So maybe there were some "politicians" withholding monies because we were in a quagmire....;)
To: Pharmboy
16
posted on
04/27/2007 4:29:40 AM PDT
by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
To: Pharmboy
Washington included a postscript:
PS - Make sure we don’t get any carpetbaggers from Illinois/Arkansas/NY State. Your pal, GW.
To: Flavius
no they would arrest him for wanting to win wars Reid and Pelosi would have said that the 'war is lost' we have been fighting it for 8 years!
18
posted on
04/27/2007 4:40:14 AM PDT
by
fortheDeclaration
(For what saith the scripture? (Rom.4:3))
To: Westbrook
Actually, George was somewhat of an isolationist and warned us not to get entangled in alliances with foreign nations. No, he wasn't an isolationist, he understood that nations change alliances based on their own interests, as we did with France.
He expected the United States to become a world power, but did not want to get drawn into unnecessary wars until we had become stronger.
Our weakness in the war of 1812 showed how wise he was in this regard.
19
posted on
04/27/2007 4:44:13 AM PDT
by
fortheDeclaration
(For what saith the scripture? (Rom.4:3))
To: Nightshift
20
posted on
04/27/2007 4:51:35 AM PDT
by
tutstar
(Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or off.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson