[Zen653]

So....the man you charge with blood on his hands because he wouldn't give up the cause for which he was fighting, never had the authority to make such a decision, did he?

In practice, didn't the Continental Congress defer to Washington on most of his major requests?

So, at bottom, your complaint about Washington is that he failed to be a cowardly, disobedient traitor.

He wasn't a coward, but he was certainly a traitor to England. Washington isn't much different than Jefferson Davis in that regard.

That puts "blood on his hands?"

No, it merely makes his condemnation of foreign conflict seem less than genuine.

He was a whole lot smarter than you give him credit for Zen. Unlike the whack job right wing religious zealots you worship, GW had the wisdom and good sense chose not to involve religion with politics and you question his faith? His attendence at church is none of your business anyway.

If my tone somehow conveys that I'm upset by Washington's lack of religiosity, that's not at all my intent. To the contrary, I find it remarkable that he and most other early presidents had the courage to truly separate church and state. I find it baffling that our early leaders understood secular governance better than our current ones. Usually as countries industrialize, they move further away from religion. We seem to be the exception.