TIL that George Washington had the phrase "the ends justify the means" painted on his carriage. That's an honest if unsettling bumper sticker for a President.
"Those who act virtuously in every way, will certainly come to grief by those less virtuous." - Machiavelli.
Anyone reading Washington's May 31st 1776 letter to his brother, John Augustine Washington ( https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-04-02-... ) will note similarities if not references to Machiavelli in the 2nd paragraph as GW describes Britain ("...She is capable of the most delusive Arts...") and as he describes the weakness of certain members of Congress ("... feeding themselves upon the dainty food of reconciliation...")
So, although Machiavelli never said, "The ends justify the means" or "exitus acta probat", its not surprising that Washington - an avid reader and student of political/military thinking - would arrive at the same conclusion as Machiavelli; namely that acting out of necessity is a virtue, when the alternative is the loss of human rights or a return to what Hobbes described as the "State of Nature".
He felt Congress was kidding itself about alternatives to independence, and GW had the difficult task of motivating an entire army to stay the course.
There's no evidence he read Machiavelli. His library of about 1200 titles has no Machiavelli. But, it would be tough to escape the concepts by association. Hamilton for example did read Machiavelli.
Sure but this is a motto on the coat of arms. Fond as he was of the arms, making too much of the motto seems like wishful over-interpretation, to me.
'Washington, realpolitik-y pragmatist' is a perfectly sensible argument to make, I just don't think some verbiage on his carriage had much to do with it, one way or the other.
Imagine, "The ends justify the means", emblazoned on Air Force One now, or on Lincoln's Carriage during the Civil War, or in the 2016 Presidential election for that matter. Its rare realpolitik is openly acknowledged and endorsed in the United States. Its pretty significant.
I'm not really seeing it. It's a motto on an old coat of arms. This is like saying 'imagine some random immaterial thing in 1775 being really important in 1861 or 2016'. I can imagine it but assigning some profound meaning or significance to it seems like a bit of a retcon.
> he didn't 'instigate' the war of American independence
No, of course not, that was King George III :)
George Washington played a large role though.
> In May 1769, Washington introduced a proposal, drafted by his friend George Mason, calling for Virginia to boycott British goods until the Acts were repealed.
> Washington regarded the passage of the Intolerable Acts in 1774 as "an Invasion of our Rights and Privileges".
> As tensions rose in 1774, he assisted in the training of county militias in Virginia and organized enforcement of the boycott of British goods instituted by the Congress.
Right, Washington was upset about what he felt was British overreach. He 'regarded' things, as you quote. But he was no instigator or radical. Those were elsewhere, I don't think it's sensible to say 'Washington played a large role'. He played almost no role in that.
I've always found it odd that some people don't consider tough decisions like those admirable. To me, the point is George Washington was able to make tough decisions---which unarguably harmed many people---in order that the nation succeed in the future.
I think reasoning along the lines of "this decision negatively affects X group in an immediately unjust way, therefore it shouldn't be done" is naïve and conceited. People who use this type of reasoning are either knowingly playing the "I'm more moral than you" card and incidentally causing a net worse situation in the future, or they are just naïve and don't understand that local immorality can lead to net positives in the future.
Or they've seen too many times when "it's for the greater good" is used to justify something that turns out to be more evil than the good that comes from it.
I'm not arguing that hard decisions aren't necessary. I'm saying that aren't as necessary as sometimes claimed, and should be viewed with some skepticism.
It wasn't an a or b proposition, and the notion that it was is revisionist bunk.
Slavery was more important to the southern economy, but slavery existed in New York as fully legal until phaseout began in 1799. It wasn't eliminated until the 1820s.
Monied interests in most states/colonies would have have permitted the loss of their property without compensation.
Slavery was already occurring, so NOT splitting from Britain was ALSO a decision to allow it to occur.
Many wanted the split from Britain to cause slavery to end. Nobody was proposing that it begin. Southern colonies insisted that they were going to continue slavery. If the north agreed to leave slavery unchanged, they would go along with the split, allowing other changes, and they would keep slavery. If not, they would not cooperate, there would be no split, no other changes, and they would keep slavery. Either way, slavery would remain unchanged.
The decision to leave slavery unchanged did not "allow slavery to occur".
I don't either, he saw the writing on the wall of how those people rationalized their practice of dehumanizing individuals with religion and abstractions and the enterprisers that would take advantage of it
I don't know if it's properly historically true but I've seen several explanations claim it's intended as a statement of support for the Revolutionary war, something along the lines of the "just" outcome making the means ("war/rebellion") acceptable. IE I guess it's supposed to imply that "fit/just" ends make their means more so than just any end.
I'm no scholar of Ovid, but even in your interpretation, the actions under consideration aren't seen as particularly defensible in and of themselves. Rather, they're acceptable when viewed from a certain perspective. Probably most actions are like that, but the pride evinced in this dictum should be reserved for actions that are self-evidently ethical, rather than relatively so.
This is true, although you can tell a lot about someone's character by whether they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to take the low road, vs. going straight to it and being proud of themselves for doing so.
No idea which bucket Washington fell into though, just a tangential observation.
