the rebel side. To him they were intriguing rascals, hypocrites,
cowards, with sinister designs to ruin the Empire. But he was forced to
admit that they fought well and faced death willingly.

In time Washington gathered about him a fine body of officers, brave,
steady, and efficient. On the great issue they, like himself, had
unchanging conviction, and they and he saved the revolution. But a good
many of his difficulties were due to bad officers. He had himself the
reverence for gentility, the belief in an ordered grading of society,
characteristic of his class in that age. In Virginia the relation of
master and servant was well understood and the tone of authority was
readily accepted. In New England conceptions of equality were more
advanced. The extent to which the people would brook the despotism of
military command was uncertain. From the first some of the volunteers
had elected their officers. The result was that intriguing demagogues
were sometimes chosen. The Massachusetts troops, wrote a Connecticut
captain, not free, perhaps, from local jealousy, were "commanded by a
most despicable set of officers." At Bunker Hill officers of this type
shirked the fight and their men, left without leaders, joined in the
panicky retreat of that day. Other officers sent away soldiers to work
on their farms while at the same time they drew for them public pay. At
a later time Washington wrote to a friend wise counsel about the choice
of officers. "Take none but gentlemen; let no local attachment influence
you; do not suffer your good nature to say Yes when you ought to say No.
Remember that it is a public, not a private cause." What he desired
was the gentleman's chivalry of refinement, sense of honor, dignity of
character, and freedom from mere self-seeking. The prime qualities of
a good officer, as he often said, were authority and decision. It is
probably true of democracies that they prefer and will follow the man
who will take with them a strong tone. Little men, however, cannot see
this and think to gain support by shifty changes of opinion to please
the multitude. What authority and decision could be expected from
an officer of the peasant type, elected by his own men? How could he
dominate men whose short term of service was expiring and who had to be
coaxed to renew it? Some elected officers had to promise to pool their
pay with that of their men. In one company an officer fulfilled the
double position of captain and ba