Archiver > AMERICAN-REVOLUTION > 2003-07 > 1058383541

From: "lguzman" <>
Subject: Re: [AMER-REV] Mr Washington
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:25:41 -0500
References: <> <> <002201c34ba1$8672e380$1825a78e@rcbrooks>

The letter in question was addressed: George Washington, Esq., etc. etc.

It was the proper form of address to use when in doubt about what title to
use, but the letter was refused because it was not addressed to "General

For General Howe to have addressed the letter to "General" Washington would
have given legitimacy to the "rebel" army and his rank.

In writing about this time period, I have to be careful that my British
characters refer to Washington as "Mister Washington" and not "General


----- Original Message -----
From: "RC Brooks" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 8:52 AM
Subject: [AMER-REV] Mr Washington

> There is historical significance in the use of the phrase "Mr Washington"
> especially in the context of the war -- revolutionary -- civil -- or
> whatever adjective one choses to define the War of American Independence.
> As I recall, in July and Aug 1776 at New York there were a series letters
> between Washington and Vicount Richard Howe refused by both sides because
> the British refused to acknowledge the authority of Washington's
> as General and the Americans were trying to force the issue. The Journal
> Ambrose Serle (Lord Howe's secretary) provides a good, insider look at the
> politics.
> This old man and old Marine is not offended by the term "Mr" which then
> an honorarium (and today should be, too.)
> Bob Brooks ("Mr Brooks" was my father), retired on the downeast coast of
> Maine.
> ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ====
> List Administrator: Susan L. Willig

This thread: