July 1, 2012
The notions of war and peace normally stand diametrically opposed, giving rise to strong ideological difference—but not at Dickinson. We appreciate complexity. How could this be? As always with a college of our age and venerable founding, the answer is located in history—specifically, in the words and actions of founder Dr. Benjamin Rush and namesake Gov. John Dickinson. My graduate-school mentor at Johns Hopkins University asserted that all contemporary ideas are but a reworking of 18th-century thought. Since my specialization was German literature and ideas of the 18th century, I was most pleased with this assessment.
Rush, an unflagging advocate of the American colonies’ separation from England, accepted unconditionally the use of military force to do so. In fact, he was appointed in April 1777 to serve in the Continental Army as surgeon general and saw action at numerous skirmishes. However, Rush’s embrace of war was not monolithic. Appalled by the deplorable conditions in which he found the medical service, he became embroiled with George Washington and one of his old professors, William Shippen (namesake of Shippensburg University), in accusations of poor management. When Washington and Congress sided with Shippen, Rush resigned his commission in protest.
But Rush was even more demonstrative in challenging the notion of war itself. Eric Cox ’54 describes the situation well in his essay:
"Rush … propos[ed] that our new federal government have a Department of Peace. He was quite specific as to its duties and how it should relate to the nation’s War Office. "He proposed that the secretary of peace be an educator and establish free schools in every city for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic and the doctrines of religion, including loving one’s enemies. As a condition of peace, he wanted the death penalty abolished to prevent the state from committing ‘murder in cold blood in any case whatsoever.’ Rush advocated that all aspects of a military culture be avoided, including military dress, parades and military titles.
John Dickinson, of course, was one of the earlier colonists to protest the oppression of Great Britain. Yet when it came to declaring war, he stumbled. Notoriously, he did not sign the Declaration of Independence—a document clearly acknowledged to be a direct step to war. To this day, his reasons for this are the subject of much scholarly debate. Often his Quaker heritage is cited, as is the notion that he simply believed that the Continental Army was not prepared for war and would lose against Great Britain. He also is noted as one who believed that talking could always avert war and was far more preferable. Yet, this same person who did not support war immediately joined the militia and rose to the rank of brigadier. In fact, he was one of the few members of Congress to have served in the Continental Army.
Emerson states, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today.”
Published July 1, 2012