BEWARE POLITICAL ARROGANCE: FOOD FOR THOUGHT
George III figured colonists couldn’t survive without his protection and largesse. No need, thought he, to pay attention to constituent complaints or colonial media (such as it was). He could conduct – or appear to conduct - any outrage without consequence. No need, thought he, to heed investigators. When the colonists got too unruly, George III dispached arrogant generals to maintain his establishment and control insurrection. Lesser functionaries at the colonial level acted in the same arrogant manner.
British regulars thought they could capture Patriots Sam Adams and John Hancock at Lexington or Concord. Arrogant leaders considered the disparate Minutemen to be ignorant clodhoppers, certainly no match for the well trained (and well financed) regular establishment. History records that British General Gage was ordered to challenge in any way he deemed appropriate "this rude rabble without plan, without concert, and without conduct . . . unprepared to encounter with a regular force." Above all else, Gage was to strike hard with a crushing blow. But arrogance lost, like it usually does - 273 total casualties for the British and 95 for the American rebels at Lexington and Concord.
Later, General Sir William Howe was too arrogant to follow up his Pyrrhic victory at Bunker Hill. He failed to advance immediately on the American camp at Cambridge, which would surely have fallen - and would have ended the Revolutionary War at its inception. George Washington secured his ultimate victory because, time and time again, British arrogance failed to recognize reality, failed to take prudent action, and thereby lost the war.
My recent legislative business in historical Boston brought forth the foregoing historical musing: History has broad application; political arrogance eventually loses. Just food for thought.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home