Talk:George Washington/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Opening Lines

The opening lines say that Washington is ranked with Lincoln as the greatest presidents; however, when you follow the link, you see the cumulative rankings put FDR above Lincoln. Shouldn't the three be mentioned together?

--L.A.F. 01:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Personal Information" section

Also, the connection between the subsections in that section is very loose. What should we do? Should we scrap the main section, and turn the subsections into sections? Or should we turn them all into sections, and put a section POV tag on the main section (but that's obviously not a permenant solution)? Personally, I would turn other subsections into sections, boil the main section down, and cite any examples of praise lauded upon him.

Please discuss. --Trevdna 23:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you people insist on keeping the 20 lines of mush in this section? Just say that Washington was a man of great integrity. Do you have a problem with this? What's wrong with you?

Washington was a man of great personal integrity, with a deeply held sense of duty, honor and patriotism. Courageous and farsighted, he held the Continental Army together through eight hard years of war and numerous privations, sometimes by sheer force of will. At the end of the war he relinquished power even though his immense prestige might have allowed him to attempt a military dictatorship.

The preceding, previously unsigned comment by 65.40.127.120

This does not conform to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Please read guidelines before bashing people here. --Trevdna 05:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree this section, as written, violates NPOV. It does make the important point, found nowhere else in the article, that one of GW's most significant contributions to history was his relinquishment of power. This was due to not only his true belief in the revolution, but also that he personally would rather have been at Mount Vernon than anywhere else. This section should be boiled down and the salient points about this character should be ascribed to sources, both contemporary and later. Tomcool 02:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The article correctly states that Oney Judge escaped from Philadelphia. Hercules, Washington's chef, also escaped to freedom from Philadelphia. (dh)

Presidency section

The "Presidency" section in this article is very poor. I notice that there exists an article called Washington Administration that contains information that was once located here, but was forked off. Other presidents don't seem to have similar duplication of articles. President Bush has an article called George W. Bush administration, but it is about the people that make up the government, not a general article about his presidency. He does have separate articles with detailed info on his First Term and Second Term. But the early Presidents don't seem to have separation of articles like this. For Washington, I think all this information can be located in the main article. The Washington Administration article contains whole sections that are duplicated in the main article. The non-duplicated info should be merged back here. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how many votes were cast by the electoral college, but how could the presidency have been gained unanimously, while the runner up received 34 votes?

At this time, electoral college members simply wrote two names on their ballots. The person with the most votes was president and the person with the second-most votes was the vice-president. Washington was on all of the ballots, and John Adams came in second place, so he became vice-president, the effective "runner-up" of that time period.

Personal qualities

Because this section was flagged, I added some words to make it about how people viewed Washington's qualities over time. If there is an American ethic, Washington was often the role model used to teach that ethic. In other words, his personal qualities continued to affect history long after his death - much more so than other leaders.

Trevdna, I think you are right that the section still needs much work. Didn't have time to do much except modify the first 4-5 sentences. --Ej0c 15:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that examining Washington as a slave holder necessarily means that one is looking for, or emphasizing "weaknesses" in his character. It's just scholarship.

It's a matter of priority. Surveys of textbooks and standards these days show no evidence that Washington, Jefferson, et al were people to loook up to, and lots of emphasis that they and all leaders past or present should not be trusted or emulated. 'Twasn't always so; and the evidence doesn't prove that we are better off for the change. --Ej0c 20:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you have your priorities mixed up. The point is not to worship Washington but to understand him.

Ran across this quote today. It begs to the question, but I haven't time at the moment to work it in. "His Example is now complete, and it will teach wisdom and virtue to magistrates, citizens, and men, not only in the present age, but in future generations, as long as our history shall be read." John Adams (message to the U.S. Senate, 19 December 1799) --Ej0c 14:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Major presidential acts

Did he really authorize electronic wiretapping of terrorists?

Surely, yes. Questioning this fact would insinuate that the current leaders of the USA are incompetent. No layman gets the post of the Secretary of Justice, pal. --Keimzelle 12:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way this is true. This page should not be used for any current presidential political rhetoric, but rather for information on George Washington.

What, if somebody could ask Alberto Gonzalez to verify his sources? Then, Benjamin Franklin has been investigating electric charge even before Washington was inaugurated, so the possibilities to detect electric fields and thus wiretapping phone lines existed at the time. --Keimzelle 18:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A more relevant questions is what level of control did Washington exercise over information traveling across his battle lines? Did he authorize his soldiers to stop people and search them for messages that might compromise his mission? I suspect he did. That sort of thing was and is routine for military commanders of all ages and led to the development of encryption. Any comparison with the contemporary issue of wire taps must be made on the basis of evaluating control over information transmission across battle lines. Though today's battle lines are more blurred and information transmission has become more complex, the fundamental issue remains the same. Someone transmitting information across a battle line should have no expectation of privacy. It shall be interesting, now, to see how the courts end up defining a battle line. Is a database with suspected terrorists names sufficient to define friend from foe? The U.S. Supreme Court tends to err on the side of caution during a conflict, and Al Qaeda has left us no doubt that the conflict continues. Rklawton 03:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Section inaccuracies

There are many errors in the section on GW in the Revolution. I have tried to fix some of it but do not have the time for the complete revision this section needs. Burgoyne lost at Saratoga in 1777, not 1778. His invasion was part of a three-pronged strategy to seize the Hudson, not a two-pronged strategy involving an attack on Philadelphia, which the article claims. Howe was supposed to march north in support of Burgoyne, but he didn't.

Washington was not promoting independence in 1775; almost nobody was pushing for independence at that early stage.

It is absurd to say that in 1778 "It now seemed likely that the British would never re-conquer the new nation." Another absurdity: "After 1778, the British made one last effort to split apart the new nation, this time focused on the southern states. Rather than attack them there, Washington's forces moved to West Point in New York." Two of GW's top generals, Lee and Greene, were fighting in the South. The "author" of this section seems not to have heard of the battles at Charleston, Savannah, King's Mountain, Cowpens, Guilford Courthouse.

The section on the cherry tree story is all wrong. If you're going to write about this you should look at Marcus Cunliffe's introduction to the Weems biography, which has a long and serious consideration of the story, concluding that we can't discard it – it might actually have happened. And Washington didn't "chop down" the tree; he skinned the bark off it.

The preceding, previously unsigned comment by 65.40.127.120

Thank you very much for your concern - please feel free to improve this article as you see fit. It would be greatly appreciated if you could cite your sources when you make the corrections.

However, your firey temperament and careless throwing around of completely beligerant adjectives will not make you friends here on Wikipedia, and you will find that people don't wish to even listen to you when you attack them. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks before you continue to make personal attacks. --Trevdna 05:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one should keep a moderate tone, but it is difficult in the face of all these errors in such an important entry.

Trivia

(moved from article to Talk) Rklawton 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Masonic bible: NOTE: This claim has NOT been verified by any contemporary accounts. It first appears in books published in the late 1850s, and there are no other contemporary accounts of any president saying "So help me God!" or kissing the bible before the late 1800s. This appears to be merely an urban legend. (anonymous editor)

French and Indian War

What happened to the French and Indian War section? It was an important part of Washington's life and even had the year when he was married. This section needs to come back.

Agreed - how far back is it anyway? I checked March 16th & it's not there either --JimWae 20:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I find this section is far to kind to him with regards to the Fort Necessity/Jumonville incident. Washington's actions throughout that operation can be catagorized as foolish at best, and the article needs to present a more realistic interpretation of those events. Although he went on to redeem himself somehwat with Brock's expedition, Washington was far from a brilliant leader with regards to the forks of Ohio. It should at least be mentioned that although he did not understand writen french, he also chose to not take the time required to properly read the surrender document he signed. As a side note, as the military commander of the expedition at the point when Jumonville was killed, he was ultimately responsible for the murder or the prisoner. Simply blaming the indian allies is avoiding his responsibility in the matter.Easter rising 16:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

More infoshould be included on Jumonville's death. Yes the 'facts' have never been agreed upon, but as the commander of those soldiers, Washington was ultimately responsible for Jumonville's death. An act that amounts to at LEAST neglect of duty should not be glossed over as insignificant. I feel that in this article reference should at least be made to the fact that Jumonville, by most accounts WAS murdered by Washington's allies, so the claim that he assasinated Jumonville does not look like a total fabrication.Easter rising 12:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several accounts of how Jumonville died, and there's not room enough (nor reason) to go into them here -- that information belongs at the Battle of Jumonville Glen. That Washington was in charge when Jumonville was killed is enough information for an article on Washington's life -- some full-length biographies don't even discuss it much further.

And your notion that Washington "hastily" signed the surrender papers, and, according to a previous edit of yours, "did not bother to have translated", is complete fiction. Washington had the paper translated, negotiated adjustments to the document with the French, all told taking three hours before he agreed to sign it. Why he signed a paper that admitted to "assassination" is a whole other can of worms, again best discussed in the Jumonville article. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 14:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see why Washington (if we now agree upon 'knowingly') signed a paper admitting to 'assasination', it would be ommited from an article about his life.When the surrender was signed, Jumonville was already dead, ergo it has more to do with Washington's article than it does with his. However, I will concede that details of Jumonville's death should be disscussed on the Battle of Jumonville Glen page. My only issue then, is that if he did have the paper translated, the comment that it was in french and he could not read it is irrelevent, and only attempts to make it look as if Washington had the wool pulled over his eyes, when you admit that he knowingly signed the document. I would suggest that that phase be elliminated as POV.Easter rising 16:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The real historical debate is about the "knowingly". That is, did Washington understand that the document contained the word "assassination"? At least three theories have been suggested:

1. Washington's interpreter, Jacob van Braam, whose native tongue was Dutch and who spoke English poorly, gave Washington a poor verbal translation, mistranslating "assassination" as "killed". (This is probably the most widely accepted theory.)
2. Van Braam treacherously mistranslated the document on purpose.
3. Van Braam correctly translated the document, but Washington later lied about it so as to transfer the blame for the admission of "assassination" from himself to Van Braam.

There are other oft-cited mitigating circumstances as well: the flickering candlelight, the rain-soaked document, etc. This is all too much to go into in this article. Here, we should convey the basic, non-controversial information, and let readers click "Jumonville incident" for more if they want it. How much information we give here is the real question. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 16:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well argued. I will let the point go to rest. I would still suggest that the phrase in parenthesis that Washington did not speak french is superfluous. Its only goal is to convince the reader that the signing could not have been Washington's fault. It should be simply stated that he signed the document, and as you said, left to the "Jumonville incident" article to allow readers to peruse further info. Easter rising 17:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Humane" to slaves

I agree with the edits that keep the word "humane". It's accurate and concise. To word it longer is merely to grind an axe. It should remain humane barring new research coming out.Demaratus83 02:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Bsd987 02:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The only "humane" treatment of slaves is not enslaving them. There is no reason why what Washington advocated (milder punishments and lighter work-loads) should not be spelled out. Summing it up as "humane" is POV, and also less informative. Radgeek 18:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You should mind that pure factually listing is not the only virtue in an encylopedia article--eloquence and especially concise statments are also virtues. Additionally, you haven't proved citation for your more nuanced view. However, I propose a compromise that should satisfy both sides and not sacrifice accuracy or eloquence--"He publicly advocated a *more* humane treatment for slaves--milder punishments and lighter workloads for slaves--than some of his slaveholding contemporaries". How about changing it to that? I would, but my account has to age another day or so until I can edit this article. I should note, as an aside, that saying the only "humane" treatment of slaves is to not enslave them is point of view as well--it may be a rather popular point of view, but it's certainly a philisophical point of view, and not a matter of fact (look to Aristotle's _Politics_ for a different argument on slavery). I think "more humane" is accurate as well, since the facts you provide illustrates that it was "more humane". So, how about we try my compromise? Demaratus83 18:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware that many slavers believed certain forms of slavery to be "humane" to the slaves. I happen to think that they were mistaken about that (furthermore that it's bloody well obvious that they were mistaken). But that's not the central issue in this discussion. The central issue is that it's controversial whether any form of enslavement can be "humane," and given that it is controversial, it is POV for an article to describe what Washington advocated as "humane treatment." It is not POV to factually describe what he advocated rather than summing it up under the value-judgment of "humane treatment." Nor, for that matter, do I think this is either more eloquent or more concise to any significant degree (my edits involve a net increase of 8 words, not counting the phrase "publicly," which is concerned with the debate over whether his public advocacy matched up with his private treatment of the Mount Vernon slaves, as referred to in the following clause). That said, if you seriously think that concision is the issue of prime importance here, I especially don't understand your suggested compromise. It is longer than my description, and the only thing that it contributes is a further insistence on using the word "humane" (even if comparatively) to describe the treatment he advocated. But once the details of what he advocated have been spelled out, what further purpose does the word "humane" serve?

I also acknowledge that I haven't provided citations for the claim as to what he advocated; but then there was no citation before my edits for the claim that he advocated "humane treatment" (when the phrase was being used to designate the same thing as what I spelled out). If you think that this claim should be sourced, well, it probably should, and I'll do the work of looking up and providing a good source for it if it will help. But I don't think that my edits involve any special need for a source that wasn't already there beforehand. Radgeek 19:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I didn't intend to be mean by saying it needed to be cited. I wasn't intending to single you out, it was more simply that since we were on the issue of that section, a citation wouldn't hurt. I still think we should say "more humane", because it's factually accurate. Arguing for less wipping would be a "more humane" solution. Bringing into the argument the philisophical stance that we can't use the word "humane" at all becasue slavery is "never humane" is beside the point. While my solution is a bit more wordy, since we're going to be more wordy here, I think we should go with it; I think it'll help stop an edit war, and satisfy both sides, since it keeps in your additional information, and voices the fact that Washington's argument was for a "more humane" treatment of slaves. Demaratus83 19:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the "humane" edit and concur with Radgeek - there is no way to "humanely" keep slaves. That's a blatant contradiction. --ElKevbo 20:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It is only a blatent contradiction based on your moral values concerning slavery. "More humane" works perfectly fine. My compromise also avoids the edit war that is brewing over this. What he advocated was certainly "more humane" than the status quo. Simply dismissing that by saying that "there is no 'humane' way to treat slaves, so you can't use the world 'humane'" is a philisophical point, and not pertinent to this discussion. Explain in a different way that avoids this why "more humane" can't be used, and you might persuade me. At this point you're ignoring my points and keep repeating the same things. Demaratus83 21:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoah - slow down there. I'm neither "ignoring your points" nor "repeating the same things" (how can I repeat when that was my first post in this discussion?). I don't subscribe to moral relativism and disagree with an attempt to disassociate slavery from its inherent immorality. I completely disagree with your assertion that "[b]ringing into the argument...that we can't use the word "humane" at all becasue (sic) slavery is "never humane" is beside the point." It *is* the point.

Furthermore, I think the point can be made by omitting the word "humane." Using your suggested phrasing above, the phrase would then become: "He publicly advocated milder punishments and lighter workloads for slaves than some of his slaveholding contemporaries." That avoids the loaded "h" word and even has the benefit of making the phrase shorter and more concise. --ElKevbo 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That phrase can be summed up quite accurately as "more humane". It *is* more humane treatment. And I"m not advocating moral relativism. I'm advocating not banishing a word because of the ridiculous notion that to use it in any context of slaver is inherantly oxymoronic. It's not. You have to consider, when writing history, the standards and practices of the time, and not put in your own point of view. Given the standards and practices of the day, what Washington said was, in fact, more humane. What else would you call it? My objection is in thinking that using "more humane" makes it POV. It doesn't. While you can say that Washington was morally reprehensible according to our standards of today, to judge him that way is unfair--it's like convicting someone on a bill of attainder. Demaratus83 00:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Demaratus, if you're going to push the line that some slavers thought certain forms of slavery to be "humane" then you will also need to acknowledge that some slavers and writers on slavery (George Fitzhugh, to take one example) thought that harsher treatment of slaves was more "humane" to the slaves than milder treatment, because they believed that black people were naturally imbeciles, that milder discipline would encourage sloth and licentiousness, and thus that they needed a firmly enforced hierarchy to lead lives that were rewarding according to their station. Of course this view is ridiculous; the treatment of slaves that Washington publicly advocated was monstrous and inhumane (because it did, after all, involve enslaving them) but it was less inhumane than the treatment advocated by more militant slavers. But trying to sum up Washington's views with an explicitly evaluative term, which adds no information at all except for the comparative praise of Washington vis-a-vis some of his slaveholding contemporaries, involves you in POV issues just as much as plainly describing the treatment as "humane" did.

Since it makes the description of Washington's views more wordy while adding nothing at all other than a POV summation of his views, I don't see what the suggested compromise accomplishes.

I also think the claim that Washington doesn't deserve condemnation for willingly enslaving his fellow human beings is ridiculous. Slavery was as wrong then as it is today. Virtue and vice are a matter of what you do, not how you stack up in a competition with your neighbors. And stating that the "standards" of Washington's time condoned slavery only makes sense if you begin by supposing that only the standards that slaveholders believed in counted as the standards of his day (slaves, for one, had quite a different view of slavery at the time). But a long argument over cultural relativism isn't really the central issue here. The issue is whether or not to add an additional term that contributes absolutely no further descriptive information at all. Radgeek 01:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Putting in the article that Washington wanted milder punishments and lighter workloads for his slaves provides factual information that is both interesting and informative, and which is less vague than merely saying he was "more humane". That being the case, I'd argue you should include the full description of what he wanted, which in turn makes "more humane", redundant, regardless if it is correct or not. In short, stick with Radgeek's edit, which is more concise and informative than the other two mentioned possibilities. Gregorya 15:24, 23 March (GMT)

• For what it's worth, I would agree that "more humane" is an accurate summation of the statement being made; that there is only a point-of-view to be pushed by saying that "humane" must be used in its absolute, rather than its relative sense. The context makes sense of the relativism regardless of one's moral perspective. That said, I also agree that detailing Washington's instructions is more useful and less POV than any qualitative summary. --Dystopos 23:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad someone agrees that the word humane can be used. My proposed compromise seems to match this suggestion. I'm planning on implementing it as soon as I gain the ability to do so. If someone wants to paste this text in before me, go right ahead (minus the asterixs and quotes, obviously): "He publicly advocated a *more* humane treatment for slaves--milder punishments and lighter workloads for slaves--than some of his slaveholding contemporaries".Demaratus83 00:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a distortion of the consensus. Dystopos said the word seems accurate but redundant. I consider it inherently biased, unfit for the 'pedia unless it appears in a quote. Feel free to add any sourced quotes that speak of "humane treatment", although I don't know why this matters to you. Dan 17:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, it seemed unclear what part of the allegations came from what source. I've tried to clarify this, but I wish someone who knows the actual source(s) would explain. Dan 17:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm in the middle of Joseph J. Ellis' His Excellency (ISBN 1-4000-323-9), which is drawn almost completely from Washington's annotated letters. The author makes the point that Washington's attitude and behaviour toward his slaves was pretty much identical with any other Virginia planter: he thought of them as a "species of property".

His instructions concerning the criteria for purchasing new slaves expressed his detached attitude with unintended candor: "Let there be two thirds of them Males, and the other third Females....All of them to be straight Limb'd & in every respect strong and likely, with good teeth and good Countenances -- to be sufficiently provided with cloathes."...His views on slavery were typical of his time and class.

He was certainly solicitous of the health of his property, as unhealthy and unhappy slaves were not as productive. But "humane"? Certainly, at the stage in his life being described here, "there is no evidence of any kind of moral anxiety about owning other human beings." (Ellis, pp45-46) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not correct that Washington "publicly advocated much milder punishments and lighter workloads for slaves." He never said anything on that subject. If he did, we'd have the quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.125.49 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 April 2006

Your edit also lacks a source. --ElKevbo 22:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Source: Richard Parkinson, quoted in Wiencek, "An Imperfect God," page 349.

Two Technical Questions

Two technical questions. Jay's Treaty is listed as having been in force until the War of 1812. I was under the impression that it was only for ten years and expired during Jefferson's second term. I am also mystified by the claim that Washington refused his salary having never heard this before, in fact having heard the exact opposite. Washington was in fact a very hard nosed and effective businessman.--User:64.107.220.151 20 March 2006 ((sig added by Demaratus83 00:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)))

not sure about this, since I haven't read the major Washington biographies. Since they aren't outrageous claims, I say leave them until someone can find a source that contradicts them. Of course, if someone has read the books and is sure of this, chime in and make a fix. Demaratus83 00:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've only read that he refused salary as general for the War of Indenpendence, but did want to be reimbursed for 'expenses'.

~ender 2006-06-20 12:37:MST

This page has been vandalized: "he was a nigger hater kkk pride" appears near the beginning of the article. I am new to Wikipedia and unsure of how to remove this - none of the "edit" links show the offending text.

extended semi-protection

I can't understand why semi-protection of this article cannot be extended for a longer time. There are 20 edits today, consisting only in vandalism and reverts. What's the use of unprotecting this page after 3 days, having several days with 30 vandalisms+reverts per day, and then reprotect it again ?

Why not limit edits to registered users?

After all, if the duration of semi-protection is about the same than the duration for converting a new user to an "established" user, the "impossible-to-edit" effect is the same for a "good faith" user.

If editing was allowed to registered users only, even if they are new, this would allow a user with good faith to be able to edit it, and prevent at least 95% of the hooligans from making their stupid vandalizing edits. — MFH:Talk 20:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal Wealth

The article says he needed to borrow money to relocate to NY when he became President. Then it says he was perhaps the wealthiest American at the time, and even declined his presidential salary. We can't have it both ways. Is there something missing here? JackofOz 04:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wealth != Money.

Cash poor, but owned a lot of property. Constantly having cash-flow problems.

~ender 2006-06-20 12:39:MST

Farewell address

GW's Farewell address is mentioned about four times on this page in uncoordinated ways. Those references should be consolidated. -- Qwertypro3 23:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There should be some mention as to Alexander Hamilton's roll in writing the Farewell Address. There is significant evidence that he wrote either a large part or influenced much of the content.

A Christian or not a Christian?

First time editor here at Wikipedia, so pardon me if I screw up. I removed the following sentence from the religious beliefs section.

His step-granddaughter, Eleanor Parke Custis Lewis, and several others have said, however, that he was, indeed, a Christian.

I've noticed this before in the past and thought it was a bit off. Then I came across this quote taken from Positive Atheism...

"I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them." -- Eleanor "Nellie" Parke Custis Lewis, Martha Washington's granddaughter from a previous marriage, quoted from Sparks' Washingon, also from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 22

While the quote doesn't specifically say he wasn't a Christian, it might call into question whether "Nellie" is credible. Then again, it could just be an argument over what defines a Christian. Thomas Jefferson called himself a Christian, yet most Christians would probably call him a deist or an atheist. --Spark17 23:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC) -->

Welcome first time editor. One piece of etiquette is to "sign" your posting on the discussion pages, you can do this with four tildes (like this— ~~~~) or just click on the button that looks like a signature (the one between the W with the "NO" symbol around it and the dash looking thing; at least that's where it is on my browser), since this is your "first time" we'll go easy on you.

To the substance of what you wrote: True that the time of the founding fathers of the U.S. was less religious than many other periods in U.S. history, and it doesn't matter to me whether he was or was not a devout "Christian"; however, one of the principles of the Wikipedia is to find sources that not only verify the truth (or a consensus version thereof) but also to find sources that are reliable in and of themselves. Thus highly POV websites, newspapers, journals and such are often discounted as sources in that they themselves might have some political agenda for publishing the information that they do. The truth might be something similar, but often context is disregarded and or the words are twisted to mean something other than what was originally intended.

Hopefully I haven't served to obfuscate but rather to enlighten. Bottom line is that I don't call into question the veracity of what "Positive Atheism" said, but rather that they and/or Sparks himself might not be the best source, all things considered.

Again, welcome, have a look around, create an account, and dive in. We need all the help we can get. --Easter Monkey 16:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I had assumed it would add my name to the end automatically.

I agree with and understand what you are saying. I wasn't suggesting this quote from Positive Atheism be included though. There are far better quotes out there to explain Washington's religious beliefs and how he kept them to himself. However, I think the quote I presented disputes the notion of the section I removed from the article. Without "Nellie", that leaves the several others. Who are these several others? What did they say? What did they mean? If that section were to be re-admitted, I would think a source would be appropriate. Even if the quote I presented came from a potentially questionable source, I would imagine that's better than not knowing where it came from. --Spark17 23:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree on this point: I don't think it was a less religious time. I just think that, the history of religious persecution which led to the establishment of the colonies in the first place being fresher in their minds than it is in people's minds today, they simply weren't as nosy and outspoken about their faith as people are today. Today, faith is worn on the sleeve - or the bumper sticker. It is something that people shout into your face: "I'm (whatever denomination)! You'd better be, too, or there's something wrong with you!" In Washington's time, a person's faith was part of their private life, and prying into it would have been a significant faux pas. Cheers, Kasreyn 09:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This[1] appears to contain the "source" - she never says he was a Xian tho' --JimWae 22:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the article was better with the line. You say that Washingtons grandaughter isn't a reliable source but then you quote positive atheism like it is somehow more credible. I think the article was written very well before. I think the sentence definitely needs to be reinstated immmediately. Most people dont believe that he was a flat out deist and nobody can be 100 percent certain. Most people do believe that Washington was a Christian so to not even address Christianity and just state he was a deist takes away from the credibility of the article. Also positive atheism has been known to post many false quotes and take them out of context plenty of times. I also agree with Kasreyn. Just because people were private about their faith it doesn't mean they were not religious. People were private about their faith back then and didn't wear it on their sleeve to get votes. Bottom line if you can't prove that he was a deist and there are valuable arguments saying that he may have been a Christian both sides need to be presented.

This is user, LewisVine, first time editor. I've looked up the quote mentioned above on "Postive Atheism" and found it was taken out of context. Editor of "The Writings of George Washington", Jared Sparks, sent a letter to George Washington's granddaughter, Nellie Lewis, inquiring as to whether her grandfather was a Christian. She responded (the quote you mention is in bold italics [and is clearly taken out of context]; quotes affirming his Christianity are in bold):

"Sir,

I received your favor of the 20th instant last evening, and hasten to give you the information, which you desire.

Truro Parish [Episcopal] is the one in which Mount Vernon, Pohick Church [the church where George Washington served as a vestryman], and Woodlawn [the home of Nelly and Lawrence Lewis] are situated. Fairfax Parish is now Alexandria. Before the Federal District was ceded to Congress, Alexandria was in Fairfax County. General Washington had a pew in Pohick Church, and one in Christ Church at Alexandria. He was very instrumental in establishing Pohick Church, and I believe subscribed [supported and contributed to] largely. His pew was near the pulpit. I have a perfect recollection of being there, before his election to the presidency, with him and my grandmother...

He attended the church at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles [a one-way journey of 2-3 hours by horse or carriage]. In New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition [sickness]. The afternoon was spent in his own room at home; the evening with his family, and without company. Sometimes an old and intimate friend called to see us for an hour or two; but visiting and visitors were prohibited for that day [Sunday]. No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect. My grandmother, who was eminently pious, never deviated from her early habits. She always knelt. The General, as was then the custom, stood during the devotional parts of the service. On communion Sundays, he left the church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother.

It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o'clock where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the sun and remained in his library until called to breakfast. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. (Notice the context) I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, 'that they may be seen of men' [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].

My mother [Eleanor Calvert-Lewis] resided two years at Mount Vernon after her marriage [in 1774] with John Parke Custis, the only son of Mrs. Washington. I have heard her say that General Washington always received the sacrament with my grandmother before the revolution. When my aunt, Miss Custis [Martha's daughter] died suddenly at Mount Vernon, before they could realize the event [before they understood she was dead], he [General Washington] knelt by her and prayed most fervently, most affectingly, for her recovery. Of this I was assured by Judge [Bushrod] Washington's mother and other witnesses.

He was a silent, thoughtful man. He spoke little generally; never of himself. I never heard him relate a single act of his life during the war. I have often seen him perfectly abstracted, his lips moving, but no sound was perceptible. I have sometimes made him laugh most heartily from sympathy with my joyous and extravagant spirits. I was, probably, one of the last persons on earth to whom he would have addressed serious conversation, particularly when he knew that I had the most perfect model of female excellence [Martha Washington] ever with me as my monitress, who acted the part of a tender and devoted parent, loving me as only a mother can love, and never extenuating [tolerating] or approving in me what she disapproved of others. She never omitted her private devotions, or her public duties; and she and her husband were so perfectly united and happy that he must have been a Christian. She had no doubts, no fears for him. After forty years of devoted affection and uninterrupted happiness, she resigned him without a murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his eternal felicity [happiness in Heaven].

Is it necessary that any one should certify, 'General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?' As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, 'Deeds, not Words'; and, 'For God and my Country.'

With sentiments of esteem,

I am, Nelly Custis-Lewis":

You could not call him a deist if he indeed prayed, because prayer involves the petitioning of a God who is active in human affairs, not one who is merely the Creator. Some have said that the quote above which states that he left before communion indicates he was not a "real Christian." This, however, is refuted in the other quote noted in bold which states that he "always received the sacrament with my grandmother." The only sacrament which makes sense in the context of the letter would have been communion.

As such, the quote initially taken out of the article should be put back in, and further clear depictions of George Washington's faith added.

See "George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Ferdinand Andrews, Publisher, 1838), Vol. XII." ---LewisVine 2:52AM PST, 25 May 2006

I'm sure Positive Atheism would enjoy an e-mail pointing out which quotes are false or which are taken out of context (be sure to provide examples). They typically will point out false quotes whether it is of benefit or detriment to their position. Take a look at the Jefferson quote they show to be false.

Actually, some deists do pray. To quote from the Deism article on this website, "Many deists who do not believe in divine intervention still find value in prayer. They think of it as a form of meditation and self-cleansing, which can improve one's life and lead to one's efforts being more effective."

The part that was taken out is still misleading. I would suggest it would need to be revised to something like "His step-granddaughter, Eleanor Parke Custis Lewis, thought of him as a Christian" or something to that degree. I still see many of my points from above still standing, which I would suggest you read again. --Spark17 17:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"George Washington's conduct convinced most Americans that he was a good Christian, but those possessing first-hand knowledge of his religious convictions had reasons for doubt." (Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New York: The Free Press, 1987, p. 170.)

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

For the two links above, go to the relevant material on Washington.

For the record, I've always been under the impression that as Washington aged, he moved from whatever Christian beliefs he may have held (such as before the Revolution) to the Deism that was common for the day. --Spark17 04:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please reinstate the Eleanor Park Lewis line saying that she thought he was indeed a Christian? I think its ridiculous to not even mention that he was Christian and I dont see any logical reason for it to be removed. It will also take away from NPOV to not even explain it and most readers are just going to think the article was hijacked by pro diest liberals. I am telling you, if you want people to think he was a deist reinstate that line. People will be more inclined to believe it and you will please both sides. Why was it removed? Can someone please reinstate it? Washington was awfully pro Christian in his farewell address as well.

CongressRecords 08:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh goody, a sock puppet. --Spark17 17:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Many people of the time that he was close with thought of him as a Christian. It needs to be mentioned. I dont see why the line was removed. What was established about Eleanor Park Lewis? The article is a mockery to not even address the Christian POV. Reinstating the line is not saying he was a Christian it is just a viewpoint and that is all. I don't see what the big deal is. I think this article is pushing it. PostiveAtheism and infidels.org are NOT reliable sources.

I think what has been established is that Nellie thought he was a Christian. To re-insert the previous wording would be disingenuous, since Washington never "avowed himself to [Nellie] a believer in Christianity" and since Nellie admits, "I was, probably, one of the last persons on earth to whom he would have addressed serious conversation..."

I think this article could benefit from the insertion of two points. One, Washington's true religious beliefs are unknown as he deliberately kept them to himself (there is a Jefferson quote I find to be fitting if only I can locate a better "source" [his actual private journal]). Two, as I have written before here, I've always been under the impression Washington shifted from whatever Christian beliefs he held to the deism that was common for the period. Regarding Nellie, I think mention of her thoughts might be included and anyone else for that matter, but I have yet to see another "name" suggest he was a Christian.

Positive Atheism and Infidels.org are not the original sources for these quotes. Neither makes up these quotes out of mid-air, unlike WallBuilders. Also, the quote I originally got from PA is no longer a big deal. We found where the quote came from (see the Nellie letter link above) and Nellie never says he was a Christian. Please refrain from re-adding that disputed sentence. I have been hoping for a consensus before making any permanent changes. --Spark17 21:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nellie said that Washington was a Christian, just like Ambercrombie said that Washington was a deist. They are both opinions from two people who had a close relationship with Washington. It does not make what they say true. They represent both viewpoints and to remove one is unbalanced. The article is already swayed way in favor of deism and its really pushing it to move it further especially considering most people believe that he was a Christian. Personally, I think it is a joke to remove any Christian reference because even liberal scholars admit he was a religious man. It was only in the last decade where the deism attacks started to be popular. I think your point number one is good however I will quote you from point two:

Two, as I have written before here, I've always been under the impression Washington shifted from whatever Christian beliefs he held to the deism that was common for the period.

That is your personal opinion which clearly violates NPOV policy. We have to deal with facts. The removed line was instated in the article a long time ago and everything is in references. I did not put it but I assure you it is legitimate.

:It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o'clock where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the sun and remained in his library until called to breakfast. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, 'that they may be seen of men' [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].

She thinks he is a Christian in the same letter...

:Is it necessary that any one should certify, 'General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?' As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, 'Deeds, not Words'; and, 'For God and my Country.'

Washington proved to Nelly that he was a Christian through his deeds. It's still her POV just like it was Ambercrombies POV.

• Leaving aside momentarily what would go in the article, she believed GW to be a Xian - but much of what she presents as evidence is really neutral with respect to Xty/deism - It seems really more like she feels he needs to be defended from attacks that he was not Xian --JimWae 04:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

71.131.252.60, why do I have the feeling you are a troll and if not that, then perhaps a student of the Christian Nation mythologists? My apologies if you are neither. This issue has yet to resolve itself after over a month and it is starting to annoy me.

I agree with JimWae's assessment of Nellie's letter. She isn't proclaiming him a Christian. Hmm, "most people believe that he was a Christian." Also, "Personally, I think it is a joke to remove any Christian reference because even liberal scholars admit he was a religious man." So, you are saying if he wasn't a Christian and instead a deist, that would mean he wasn't a religious man? "It was only in the last decade where the deism attacks started to be popular." Deism attacks?

Regarding my second point, I wasn't advocating the inclusion of "my opinion" to this article. As far as his drifting from conventional Christianity to deism as he aged, this is something I have no reason to doubt. The evidence scholars use to assert he was probably a deist is his use of deist terminology throughout his writings (referring to Providence as a he, she, or it doesn't scream Christian to most). The only time he is know to have penned Christian sentiments is from a poem when he was 13 years old. Thus, it is safe to assume he was a Christian at one point in his life. When he actually transitioned from one to the other is unknown. Had he never made that transition (as you suggest) he would have been out of place among the other founders. Washington was not a stupid man. His personal library was known to contain the works of Thomas Paine, the writer of the Age of Reason, and there is no doubt Paine influenced him. After all, it was Paine's Common Sense that convinced him to support independence from the crown. This isn't to say he agreed with Paine on all religious matters, but the negative backlash received by Paine from AoR probably proved to be example enough to clam up further. Of course, if he had been a Christian, what reason would he have had to clam up?

And to finish, I found your previous edits to be quite enlightening. "What I am saying is Nellie said that Washington was a Christian..." and "Washington avowed himself to Nelly as a believer in Christianity. What is the problem? I don't see why it was removed. You misquoted the line." Hmm... The discussion page can be over-run with POV... the actual article can't. My apologies if any of the preceding comes across as incoherent... it is quite late. --Spark17 05:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, I don't mean to be insulting to anyone here, but we may be generating a new candidate for Wikipedia's page on "dumbest edit wars ever". Really, it's not that important what religious views Washington held. He's dead. It's widely accepted that, while some of them may have been Deists and some may have been Christians, the founders of the United States tended towards a belief in god (witness references to god in various documents such as the Declaration of Independence). This debate is really pointless and is looking like it's about to get ugly. Calm down. The question of Washington's religious beliefs is not particularly notable and it's certainly not worth getting all worked up over. Kasreyn 02:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is something I've wondered about myself regarding the notability of this topic. Perhaps the entire Religious Beliefs section inclusion in this article is unnecessary? Maybe the List_of_United_States_Presidential_religious_affiliations article would be a more appropriate outlet? As far as being a dumb edit war, I have been hoping for someone to bring forward some evidence for Washington's supposed Christian piety. It hasn't been forthcoming and I am thus frustrated. I think I should take a break from Wikipedia. --Spark17 02:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Tanacharison

Tanacharison did not commit suicide, as the article claims, but rather of "poor health." http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=35796

Fully Protected

For some reason this article on George Washington recieve vandalims at least once every day. Why? I have not the foggiest idea. Back on March 16, 2006 Wayward placed the article under semi-protection for about eight hours. Shortly after the Protection was lifted the vandalism resumed. On April 10, 2006, Eskog reinstitued the protection which last for four days. There was only one minor case of vandalism in that time on April 13th. On April 14, 2006, the protection was lifted by Splash. Little more then three hours later the vandalism returned and has continued every since.

I think the time has come to take a more drastic measure with this article. I think that the George Washington should be place on permanent protection from unregistered users since the usual vandal to this page. I would like to have the views of other editors to this article. Opinions? Please post responses here where they can be view by all interested in this article (Steve 21:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC))

A permanent semiprotect may be the answer. A lot of these high-profile articles tend to be fiddled with mercilessly by the high-school crowd who are bored and looking for something to do while chatting on MySpace. And believe me, I sympathize with the sheer amount of nonsense that these overpriviliged undereducated brats can cook up. On the other hand, there is a concern that these types of article are also the first articles to be worked on by new and unregistered good faith editors, and by blocking them, we may be shutting the metaphorical door in their faces. Pat Payne 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that this would be a good idea. In April, there were only two admin rollbacks on the article, compared to GWB's 50 rollbacks in less than ten days. If this article was more active, then permanent semiprotection might be effective, but for now, it is not needed. I looked at the history of this talk page instead of the article page. Permanent semiprotection in this case may be needed, but I would list it on WP:RFPP first. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I was going to post it on the WP:RFPP page. However, considering I was going to ask for permanent semiprotection to hear the opinions of other legitmate editors to the George Washington article. Along this line of thinking, I will wait for others to comment before I request a permanent protect. (Steve 15:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC))

• I think semi-protection would be appropriate. There are a number of articles on my watchlist that get hit over and over again-- Washington, Lafayette, the American Revolution, the Industrial Revolution and Napoleon are all frequent victims. I think that full protection would be over the top, though. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As Wikipedia has become a top 20 website (in terms of traffic, measured by Alexa), the sheer volume of edits has increased. This is starting to cause problems on some of our most prominent articles: even if only a small percentage of vandalism edits are not caught immediately, new edits happen rapidly enough that sometimes vandalism gets buried and must be laboriously corrected without reverting later valid edits. I'm not sure if George Washington fits in this category (yet) or not. Paradoxically, the more prominent articles (with lots of people watching them) are sometimes spending a greater fraction of the time in disrupted condition than less prominent articles, although you'd think it would be the other way around. Fairly soon, a number of articles will be in the same situation with respect to frequency of vandalism that George W. Bush was when the semi-protection policy was introduced (for that very reason), and semi-protection would probably be warranted on the same grounds. However, among a certain number of users and administrators there is immense resistance to the very concept of semi-protection, so it's problematic and the situation will probably have to get a great deal worse before anything is done. -- Curps 20:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I counted the number of vadalisms to this site recently. As of right now, today there's been 7, yesterday was 24, the day before 17, then 13. At this rate, that's about 120 per week, which I think constitutes out of control. So semi-protection is certainly warranted. My overall opinion is that all of Wikipedia should be semi-protected, and that a user name be required for any edits. There really should be some accountability; most of us want this to be a legitimate source, and it's not much fun working on reverts all the time rather than things that genuinely need fixing or fine-tuning.Civil Engineer III 20:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• This will never be enforced i.e. the whole Wikipedia is semi-protected and one must create an account to edit. This has been proposed so many times but Jimbo said no. We can semi-protect this article for the period of time due to constant vandalism. I strongly support this move to semi-protect it, frequent vandalisms here disrupts editing. --Terence Ong 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm curious about that. Kaiwen1 has a poll going on this subject. Could you link me to a source for Jimbo's statement so I could bring it to Kaiwen1's attention? Kasreyn 04:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please add links io and oc Wikis

io:George Washington ; oc:George Washington. Thanks.(a collaborator of both wikis)

Done. --K

Lead portrait

Washington portrait

Lets keep the lead photo of Washington by Rembrandt Peale over Washington by Gilbert Stuart.

Peale's portrait captures Washington in greater detail and is available in high resolution.

It portrays Washington in uniform as the iconic figure he has become as demonstrated by the Apotheosis_of_Washington recognizing that he was not only the 1st President but was first the commander of the army established in 1775 that won the independence declared on July 4, 1776. Incidentally Washington was under commission as Lt. Gen at his death.

Factoid vault

Because everybody knows at least one piece of trivia about Washington, minor (and arguably insignificant) factoids sometimes find their way into this article. Since biographies of Washington often run into multiple volumes, everything interesting about him can't be in this article; our purpose here, of course, is to write an encyclopedia article, not collect trivia. Therefore, following is a list of factoids removed from the article which seem to be of too minor interest to belong in an encyclopedia article. Adjust as you see fit.

• Washington became a volunteer firefighter in Alexandria, Virginia. In 1774, as a member of the Friendship Veterans Fire Engine Company, he bought the first fire engine and gave it to the town. The engine can be seen today at the Friendship Veterans Fire Engine Company Museum in Alexandria.
• He established a distillery there and became probably the largest distiller of whiskey in the nation at the time, producing 11,000 gallons (42,000 l) of whiskey and a profit of $7,500 in 1798.
• Washington was a cricket enthusiast and was known to have played the sport, which was popular at that time in the British colonies.
• Through his father's family, Washington was a direct descendant of King Edward III and William the Conqueror of England. . A cousin of George Washington was Lieutenant General Jakob Freiherr Von Washington Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath.
• George Washington loved ice cream and reportedly spent approximately $200 on it during the summer of 1790. He reportedly owned the first ice cream freezer in the colonies.
• The most famous man of his day, George Washington received hundreds of guests to his home every year. In 1798, 677 visitors passed through Mount Vernon. Washington compared his home to a "well-resorted tavern".
• Washington is a playable leader of the American civilization in the PC game Civilization IV alongside Franklin Roosevelt.
• Washington was considered to be the finest horseman of his day. One of his favorite horses was named Nelson.
• Washington grew hemp, which was a common crop at the time used for fiber production, specifically to make rope.
• His family had originated in, and taken the name of, the town of Washington, Tyne and Wear, a short distance from Newcastle upon Tyne in North East England. In the 1500s, they moved to Sulgrave Manor in the county of Northamptonshire.
• Because of Washington's involvement in Freemasonry, some Masonic lodges maintain publicly visible collections of Washington memorabilia, most notably, the George Washington Masonic Memorial in Alexandria, Virginia. The museum at Fraunces Tavern Museum in New York City includes specimens of Washington's false teeth.
• Americans often refer to men in other nations considered the "Father of their Country" as "the George Washington of his nation" (for example, Mahatma Gandhi's role in India).
• In the first Presidential inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution. Before taking his oath of office, a local Masonic Bible was hurriedly borrowed on which to take the oath. Upon completing the oath, Washington leaned over and kissed the Bible.
• An attempt was made to kidnap George Washington while he was commander-in-chief of the army during the American Revolution. The governor of New York, William Tryon, and the mayor of New York City, David Matthews, both Tories, were involved in the plot, as was one of Washington's bodyguards, Thomas Hickey. Hickey was court-martialed and hanged for mutiny, sedition, and treachery, on June 28, 1776.
• He participated in the laying of the cornerstone of the U.S. Capitol Building as a Freemason. He was Master of Alexandria Masonic Lodge and was buried with Masonic honors. He was even suggested for the position of General Grand Master of Masons in America (which he did not pursue). It is generally accepted that if he would have taken the position that the individual state grand lodges would have united into one Grand Lodge of the United States.

"everything interesting about him can't be in this article; our purpose here, of course, is to write an encyclopedia article"

Is there a page limit? Are we short of paper? Cost over-runs? Why can't wikipedia be complete?

~ender 2006-06-20 12:45:MST

Washington kept diaries much of his life. Those are public domain, so we could conceivably list, day by day, everything he ever did in order to be "complete". But, of course, our purpose here is to write an encyclopedia article, not collect trivia. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 21:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

was George Washington virtuos or calculative

After watching a show, a friend and I began debating this question for about 4 hours. My position is that Washington was a Virtuous leader. I base my argument on the act of justice, temperance, prudence, and courage that he displayed in the management of the army. These acts were exemplified by denying power, once his duty was done. (For example, leaving after 2 term as president) While my friend argues, Washington was not virtuous because these acts were calculated to gain power. He would not accept Kingly power, because he saw mistakes in the English Monarchy especially in its actions with the American colonies. The second part of his argument is Washington’s intentions. Since the acts of virtue require good intentions not cold intentions, Washington could not have been a virtuous leader. The debate continues… (please leave sensible agrument points)Nicasa 07:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to debate such things -- this page is for discussion about writing the article on Washington. Your might try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities instead. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 09:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Washington and Slavery

I wonder about this sentence:

In 1778, while Washington was at war, he wrote to his manager at Mount Vernon that he wished sell his slaves and "to get quit of negroes"—a plan prompted by the economic inefficiency of slavery—but since he had resolved not to sell slaves without their consent, nothing came of this idea.

This seems unneccessarily vague. Is it implied that Washington could not sell his slaves because they refused to go? That is the most likely inference I can draw from the wording used above. I have a hard time believing it, though. Could the exact reasons for Washington's failure to divest himself of slaves be made more clear?

Furthermore, is the following claim sourced?

Washington rotated his household slaves between Mount Vernon and Philadelphia so that they did not earn their freedom, a scheme he attempted to keep hidden from his slaves and the public.

At the end of the paragraph is a reference link, but I don't know how much of the paragraph is sourced by it. Does anyone know? Kasreyn 02:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've completed a second revision of that section, which hopefully clears up these issues. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 20:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Washington's Swearing

I think it should be mentioned how Washington swore a lot and didn't react well under pressure. In the famous scene "Washington Crossing the Deleware", he was quoted as saying to one of his mates, "Henry, sit your fat ass down. You're going to tip the boat!" Just thought I'd say something... Lordofallkobuns 08:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That quote was from the TV movie The Crossing. It was a lame attempt to make Washington more colorful. --24.152.209.63 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the amusing misconceptions people have about that painting is that Washington was doing something unusual by standing. But the painting isn't particularly accurate; the boat would have been a high-sided, flat-bottomed boat, and all of the passengers would have been standing for the short crossing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple things wrong with that painting. Prince Whipple likely wasn't present at the time, the use of the wrong flag, etc. Oddly enough, the ice is said to be quite accurate. --24.152.209.63 17:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The quote was from The Crossing (film), and Jeff Daniels (playing Washington) was speaking to Henry Knox. I don't know if that was a total fabrication by the writers or if that quote was taken from some other account of the crossing. --rogerd 16:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember watching it on the history channel and during a break in the film a historian said the Daniels' portrayal was accurate except for that line. --24.152.209.63 17:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that line was originally from Howard Fast's novel The Crossing, which has invented, anachronistic dialogue, and usually makes Knox (one of Washington's best officers) into an oafish butt of fat jokes. There are more plausible stories of Washington swearing (especially at the Battle of Monmouth), though historians regard some of these as apocryphal. Maybe the worst he said was calling General Charles Lee a "damned poltroon." By the way, the originator of this topic was wrong to say that Washington didn't react well under pressure: although he did let his temper fly now and then, he was generally cool during the war despite being under immense pressure. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 20:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Indian views of Washington

Ran across a factoid that Indians (Iroquois) called Washington "Burner of Towns", during the war of Independence, his written orders (regarding their towns) were: "The immediate objects are the total devastation and destruction of their settlements" - food destroyed, and people turned out into winter, etc. Unfortunately I don't have a primary source document for this...
~ender 2006-06-20 12:23:MST

A bit of a myth that he got that name during the Revolution. First got the name "Town Destroyer" during the French and Indian War, perhaps meant as a compliment at the time. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 21:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing the Revolutionary Army

When he was put in charge of the New England Revolutionary Army he found it:

• racially integrated (Armed Negros! my word!)
• egalitarian
• officers elected by the rank and file

He immediately ordered:

• all blacks out of the amry
• new officers to be chosen by their superiors
• a raise in officers' pay (interesting in that he wasn't recieving pay himself... kickbacks?)
• the use of flogging for discipline

ie: all standard to the British Army (his pet dream).

The army protested, and he caved on racial intergration, but refused to give up the rest. And thus half the army went home.

~ender 2006-06-20 12:23:MST

He also killed Kenny. -K