Notes and Documents

Sympathizing with Sedition? George Washington, the British Press, and British Attitudes during the American War of Independence

Troy O. Bickham

THROUGHOUT the American Revolution, the press in Britain portrayed the commander of the rebel army as a model of citizen virtue and an ideal military leader. Most press reports supported the effort to crush the rebellion and considered the Continental Congress a den of self-serving scoundrels but heaped praise on George Washington, the American Cincinnatus. The general personified the dilemma that faced many Britons during the conflict: he was a quintessential English-American gentleman, despite being the enemy. He represented much of what the British Atlantic community thought admirable while commanding an army in a cause that many Britons believed would ruin the empire. He had fought for king and country in the Seven Years' War and had even served with a number of the British officers who commanded the king's troops during the War of Independence. He was not from New England and so was not tarred with the radicalism most Britons associated with the region and blamed for the outbreak of hostilities.1 Nor was he a professional soldier. Instead, Washington was a successful member of Virginia's planting elite, thus having much in common with the country gentlemen who dominated the House of Commons--more indeed than some of Britain's own military leaders. His letters, printed in the newspapers, revealed a devotion to politeness and civic virtue that alone would have won him admiration in any British county society.

1

In recent years, significant attention has been paid to Washington's image in colonial America and the newly formed United States.2 Yet little is known about how this early American hero was represented and discussed in Britain. Washington was ever conscious that his actions and demeanor would be heavily scrutinized and went to great pains to fashion himself as a gentlemanly citizen-soldier who had reluctantly left the comforts of private life to fulfill his duty to his country.3 The British press guaranteed that this agreeable presentation was broadcast beyond an American audience, and common Anglo-American attitudes, such as suspicion of standing armies and self-seeking men, ensured a favorable reception in Britain. The result was a complimentary notion of Washington that transcended British political divisions for the duration of the conflict. When an American-authored poem dedicated to Washington was reprinted in London in 1780, the dissenting Whig Monthly Review and traditionally Tory Critical Review expressed a rare consensus.4 They agreed that the poem was poorly written, and they praised its subject. Although the Critical Review described Bostonians as a wretched people "used to tarring and feathering those who have been so unhappy as to offend them," it described the rebel leader's character as "very respectable" and proclaimed "we have a high opinion of his hero." The Monthly Review concurred, describing Washington as "this modern Fabius"--a reference to the then well-known paragon of Roman republican virtue, Fabius Maximus.5

. . .