|
The revolutionary war | Perfidious America. Like many of his successors, America’s first president wrestled with the ethics of war. He almost lost. Economist, Dec 20, 2014.
www.economist.com/news/christmas ... wrestled-ethics-war
Quote:
“Charles Asgill was one of thousands of British soldiers captured at Yorktown.
After general Cornwallis surrendered in 1781: “That Britain was on the verge of giving up on its rebellious colonies was not then clear. It would be over four months before Parliament voted against pursuing the war further, and almost two years before the two sides concluded a formal peace treaty. British forces remained in control of New York, Charleston and other big cities, and skirmishes continued. Among the least willing to give in were the ‘loyalists’ or ‘refugees’—Americans who had sided with the British, and in many cases been dispossessed by the revolutionaries as traitors.
“Just why Washington resorted to this course is something of a mystery. Later in life, he falsely blamed his underlings—presumably because this was not conduct becoming of a gentleman. He was not only breaking his written undertaking at Yorktown, but also sullying the honour of the French generals who had signed their names with his. The terms of the surrender aside, his willingness to execute a prisoner for someone else’s crimes made a mockery of his lofty talk of Americans’ fine moral sentiments. * * * Washington, of course, is not the only general to have put expediency over principle in wartime, or to have resorted to flimsy rationalisations for doing so. To this day American politicians debate whether they should accord captured terrorists the same rights as other criminals, or whether the exigencies of unconventional warfare necessitate some relaxation of the rules of engagement: whether, in the defence of freedom, it is sometimes necessary to stoop to brutality—even, notoriously, to torture. Washington was wrestling with an age-old dilemma. But he was also perversely stubborn.
“There were 13 British captains among the prisoners in Pennsylvania (full disclosure: one of them, John Perryn, was your correspondent’s great-great-great-granduncle). They were summoned to the Black Bear Inn in Lancaster on May 26th, where the embarrassed General Hazen explained Washington’s orders. He asked them to nominate a victim, but they refused, on the grounds that the whole exercise was a violation of the terms of their surrender. So the general had their names written on pieces of paper and placed in a hat; 12 blank sheets were placed in another hat, along with one marked “unfortunate”. A drummer boy was instructed to draw a name from the first hat; another then picked a sheet from the other. Ten names and blank sheets were chosen. On the 11th draw, the unlucky lot was selected, along with Asgill’s name. One account maintains that Asgill, who had just turned 20, staggered with despair; only when a fellow officer hissed “Don’t disgrace your colours!” did he recover his composure. If anyone was behaving shamefully, of course, it was Washington.
“Washington ignored these pleas. ‘All argumentation on the subject is precluded on my part.’ * * * Yet his conscience appears to have been needling him; at any rate, he postponed the execution
Note:
(a) “humanity itself may shudder”
The “humanity” is defined as “the human race.” This will help you understand the pronoun is “it,” rather than “they.”
(b)
(i) argumentation (n): "DEBATE, DISCUSSION"
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argumentation
(ii) argumentation (n) "a less common word for argument"
www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/argumentation
(c) “Asgill’s family was tireless. His father, also named Charles Asgill, was a wealthy banker who had served as Lord Mayor of London in 1757. The coach he commissioned for his investiture gives a sense of his wealth and ambition: it cost £1,000, more than the vehicle used at the time for royal coronations, and was smothered with elaborately carved curlicues, garlands, scallop shells and cherubs, all carapaced in gilding. No subsequent Lord Mayor has ever thought to replace it; it is still in use today.”
(i) investiture (n): "the act of presenting with a title or with the robes and insignia of an office or rank"
www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/investiture
(ii) This is what the verb “invest” originally meant, whose etymology, according to the same dictionary: “from Medieval Latin investīre to clothe, from Latin, from vestīre, from vestis a garment”
|
发表于 12-21-2014 18:55:58
收藏
分享
支持
反对
楼主