This is an archive of past discussions about George Washington. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It may be a reminder that not everyone who reads this Wikipedia article is a U.S. Citizen. From Graham Beards comments, in my opinion, it might be that the British, possibly Canadians, today still view Washington as a "rebel" leader, rather than a patriot. I think the slavery section is good, maybe hyper critical, but that might help get Washington to FA. British, Canadians, and Americans share this article. Maybe someone like Coemgenus could hop on board and help get Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
We should be adding the facts without concern about any biases that may be harbored by readers from any given country. Many feel King George was a tyrant born with a silver spoon in his mouth and looked down on anyone, included his own countrymen, who was not of "royal" blood, and who sent the greater bulk of his army and ships clear across the Atlantic ocean to America just so he could continue collecting taxes -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. Right now we should not be concerned with George III being a tyrant. We need to get George Washington to FA. I have only mentioned a reality that the article is shared by British, Canadians, and Americans. I have asked for Coemgenus to help out or give any suggestions for the article. To be honest, the French King Louis XVI of France helped America get started, sending money and French troops, that helped Washington and America. There have been some descent Kings, Queens, Emperors, or Empresses in history. But that is off the subject. In my opinion there may be some hard feelings towards Washington by British and Canadians held today. Graham Beards view brought that to the forefront. The British viewed Washington as a "rebel". Would it help to briefly discuss that in the article ? That might help. But then again, Wikipedia is controlled by the sources, and should not be controlled by political opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
"Many feel King George was a tyrant born with a silver spoon in his mouth and looked down on anyone, included his own countrymen" To be fair, George III/"Farmer George" is one of the monarchs in British history who have attracted the most debate among historians, with multiple positive and negative assessments of the man and his reign. Our article barely scratches the surface of that debate:
"George III was dubbed "Farmer George" by satirists, at first to mock his interest in mundane matters rather than politics, but later to contrast his homely thrift with his son's grandiosity and to portray him as a man of the people. Under George III, the British Agricultural Revolution reached its peak and great advances were made in fields such as science and industry. There was unprecedented growth in the rural population, which in turn provided much of the workforce for the concurrent Industrial Revolution. George's collection of mathematical and scientific instruments is now owned by King's College London but housed in the Science Museum, London, to which it has been on long-term loan since 1927. He had the King's Observatory built in Richmond-upon-Thames for his own observations of the 1769 transit of Venus. When William Herschel discovered Uranus in 1781, he at first named it Georgium Sidus (George's Star) after the King, who later funded the construction and maintenance of Herschel's 1785 40-foot telescope, which was the biggest ever built at the time."
"George III hoped that "the tongue of malice may not paint my intentions in those colours she admires, nor the sycophant extoll me beyond what I deserve", but in the popular mind George III has been both demonised and praised. While very popular at the start of his reign, by the mid-1770s George had lost the loyalty of revolutionary American colonists though it has been estimated that as many as half of the colonists remained loyal. The grievances in the United States Declaration of Independence were presented as "repeated injuries and usurpations" that he had committed to establish an "absolute Tyranny" over the colonies. The Declaration's wording has contributed to the American public's perception of George as a tyrant. Contemporary accounts of George III's life fall into two camps: one demonstrating "attitudes dominant in the latter part of the reign, when the King had become a revered symbol of national resistance to French ideas and French power", while the other "derived their views of the King from the bitter partisan strife of the first two decades of the reign, and they expressed in their works the views of the opposition". "
"Building on the latter of these two assessments, British historians of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, such as Trevelyan and Erskine May, promoted hostile interpretations of George III's life. However, in the mid-twentieth century the work of Lewis Namier, who thought George was "much maligned", started a re-evaluation of the man and his reign. Scholars of the later twentieth century, such as Butterfield and Pares, and Macalpine and Hunter, are inclined to treat George sympathetically, seeing him as a victim of circumstance and illness. Butterfield rejected the arguments of his Victorian predecessors with withering disdain: "Erskine May must be a good example of the way in which an historian may fall into error through an excess of brilliance. His capacity for synthesis, and his ability to dovetail the various parts of the evidence ... carried him into a more profound and complicated elaboration of error than some of his more pedestrian predecessors ... he inserted a doctrinal element into his history which, granted his original aberrations, was calculated to project the lines of his error, carrying his work still further from centrality or truth."
"In pursuing war with the American colonists, George III believed he was defending the right of an elected Parliament to levy taxes, rather than seeking to expand his own power or prerogatives. In the opinion of modern scholars, during the long reign of George III the monarchy continued to lose its political power, and grew as the embodiment of national morality.". Dimadick (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The intention of this section was to simply show the number of views that occurred on the 4th of July. I suspect the Washington biography receives more viewers on any given 4th of July than it ever will when featured on the WP front page, so in light of that, and some recent behavior, I am in no particular hurry to go through a review again. Perhaps someday. In any case, we have corrected many citation and sourcing issues and have clarified and added several important points in the narrative. This is most important to the readers, our top priority, hopefully.
The above discourse demonstrates how various peoples opinions can vary, depending on national biases, racism -- on both sides of the fence, or how badly they've been stigmatized with half truths and outright distortions, typically spewed by the media, activists, etc. This is why it's very important to include as many facts into the narrative as is practically possible. Having said that, the article already says:
However, this may only have been an act of diplomacy by a defeated king. I still agree with Dimadick that we should include a statement, a couple of sentences perhaps, about the relationship between Washington and King George, just before and during the Revolution, keeping in mind that the article should be kept under 100k of prose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Ha, ha...I’m worn out with working on GW, and you all are over here messin’ with George III, whose already an FA. Where DO you get the energy? Oh well, I’m probably just creating more work for you anyway. Hoppyh (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Point well taken -- and many thanks for your tireless efforts. The article could use clarification on the relationship between Washington and the king, but other than that, I've no desire to expand on the topic with anymore than a statement, perhaps in the American Revolution, section, cited with at least two noted and reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
There were two Kings involved, possibly more, in the American Revolution. George III and Louis the XVI. Both may have assumed Washington as some sort of "Chess" piece and America was the Chess board. That is just my opinion. The alliance with France, actually helps Washington's legacy. That makes him more than just a British "rebel". Louis the XVI gave America recognition. The United States relied heavily on the French Navy. At Yorktown in particular, was a French seige victory. Washington's army was not as advanced and underfunded. I think adding more European perspective would help George Washington get to FA. Louis the XVI reputation was wiped out by the French Revolution. His help to America may have gotten lost in history for awhile. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
"Louis the XVI reputation was wiped out by the French Revolution." He did not have much of a reputation even before the revolution. While he wanted to pass significant reforms, Louis' authority was repeatedly undermined by his indecisiveness, and by his lifelong tendency to be shy and timid.:
"Louis-Auguste was overlooked by his parents who favored his older brother, Louis, duc de Bourgogne, who was regarded as bright and handsome but who died at the age of nine in 1761. Louis-Auguste, a strong and healthy boy but very shy, excelled in his studies and had a strong taste for Latin, history, geography, and astronomy and became fluent in Italian and English. ... The strict and conservative education he received from the Duc de La Vauguyon, "gouverneur des Enfants de France" (governor of the Children of France), from 1760 until his marriage in 1770, did not prepare him for the throne that he was to inherit in 1774 after the death of his grandfather, Louis XV. Throughout his education, Louis-Auguste received a mixture of studies particular to religion, morality, and humanities. His instructors may have also had a good hand in shaping Louis-Auguste into the indecisive king that he became. Abbé Berthier, his instructor, taught him that timidity was a value in strong monarchs, and Abbé Soldini, his confessor, instructed him not to let people read his mind."
"While none doubted his intellectual ability to rule France, it was quite clear that, although raised as the Dauphin since 1765, he lacked firmness and decisiveness. His desire to be loved by his people is evident in the prefaces of many of his edicts that would often explain the nature and good intention of his actions as benefiting the people, such as reinstating the parlements. When questioned about his decision, he said, "It may be considered politically unwise, but it seems to me to be the general wish and I want to be loved." In spite of his indecisiveness, Louis XVI was determined to be a good king, stating that he "must always consult public opinion; it is never wrong." "
"Radical financial reforms by Turgot and Malesherbes angered the nobles and were blocked by the parlements who insisted that the King did not have the legal right to levy new taxes. So, in 1776, Turgot was dismissed and Malesherbes resigned, to be replaced by Jacques Necker. Necker supported the American Revolution, and he carried out a policy of taking out large international loans instead of raising taxes. He attempted to gain public favor in 1781 when he had published the first ever statement of the French Crown's expenses and accounts, the Compte-rendu au Roi. This allowed the people of France to view the king's accounts in modest surplus. When this policy failed miserably, Louis dismissed him, and then replaced him in 1783 with Charles Alexandre de Calonne, who increased public spending to "buy" the country's way out of debt. Again this failed, so Louis convoked the Assembly of Notables in 1787 to discuss a revolutionary new fiscal reform proposed by Calonne. When the nobles were informed of the extent of the debt, they were shocked into rejecting the plan. After this, Louis XVI tried, along with his new Controller-General des finances, Étienne-Charles de Loménie de Brienne, to force the Parlement de Paris to register the new laws and fiscal reforms. Upon the denial of the members of the Parlement, Louis XVI tried to use his absolute power to subjugate them by every means: enforcing in many occasions the registration of his reforms (6 August 1787, 19 November 1787, and 8 May 1788), exiling all Parlement magistrates to Troyes as a punishment on 15 August 1787, prohibiting six members from attending parliamentary sessions on 19 November, arresting two very important members of the Parlement, who opposed his reforms, on 6 May 1788, and even dissolving and depriving of all power the "Parlement," replacing it with a plenary court, on 8 May 1788. The failure of these measures and displays of royal power is attributable to three decisive factors. First, the majority of the population stood in favor of the Parlement against the King, and thus continuously rebelled against him. Second, the royal treasury suffered crippling financial destitution, in which it was incapable of sustaining its own imposed reforms. Third, although the King enjoyed as much absolute power as his predecessors, he lacked the personal authority crucial for absolutism to function properly. Having become unpopular to both the commoners and the aristocracy, Louis XVI was, therefore, able to impose his decisions and reforms only for very short periods of time, ranging from 2 to 4 months, before revoking them." Dimadick (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Washington
We seem to be getting away from the Washington biography here. All we need do is mention any relationship between Washington and any king involved, in simple and definitive terms. At this point we should be seeing simple proposals for the article. With all due respect for the time and effort put forth here, this is not the place to post myriad details about Parliament, angered nobles, etc. We should focus on any major details that tie in directly with Washington, per actual article improvement. Also, we add the established facts without any regard for any particular perspective or POV, American or European. This is one of the ways we maintain objectivity and neutrality. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Proposals outlining Washington - King George relationship
Finding direct references from Washington towards the King, and vise-versa, so far is a bit difficult. After the British attack on Falmouth, MA, in Oct. 1775, where they burned 300 homes to the ground, Washington referred to the general British leadership in London as having "diabolical designs"<Chernow, p. 208–209> but this isn't exactly something that addresses the King, but perhaps Parliament and/or Lord North. Still searching for specific references. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
We’d be wise to focus on the long slog ahead of us, indeed already behind us, and make the best use of our time here. It may be sooner or later, but at some point each of us will reach our GW limit, and we will have had enough and will move on. Carpe diem, guys and girls. Hoppyh (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hoppyh, I agree but but evidently some would rather discuss endless tangential details rather than to square off with actual proposals and article improvement, so we can move on with other pressing issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Cmguy777, The article already acknowledges that Louis XVI and France was an American ally, while we were looking for the relationship between Washington and his enemy, King George during the Revolution, which the article doesn't acknowledge. How does your talk tie in with Washington and article improvement? What are you proposing for the article? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The British considered Washington a rebel. In reality he was an allie with France. It is about neutrality of the article. It is not just "article improvement", it is about getting George Washington to FA. That is the goal. More European perpective would be good for the article. I added a source and a reference when Louis XVI allied with the American Patriot Colonists in 1778. Something should be said on George III of England and his alliance with the German states. Perspective. The Holy Roman Empire was involved in the American Revolutionary War. The Hessians were under the Holy Roman Emperor. George III August 23, 1775 Proclamation acknowledged the patriots as rebels. It should be included that the British viewed Washington as a rebel. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Getting the article to FA involves article improvement. Washington was indeed a Rebel and perhaps the term should be spelled with an upper case 'R'. In any case, let's try to stay focused on specific proposals. I'm really interested in the things that Dimadick and yourself have covered, but we should get down to specifics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
"The Hessians were under the Holy Roman Emperor." A bit of a misconception. At the time, the Holy Roman Empire was decentralized, and the empire consisted of hundreds of autonomous states; each with its own government. Most of the Hessians were specifically employed by the Landgraviate of Hesse-Kassel and by Hesse-Hanau, and the local rulers leased their troops to the British. William of Hesse-Hanau was dependent on British subsidies, and Frederick II, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel made a profit from leasing out his troops.:
"During the 17th and 18th centuries, it was a fairly widespread practice for smaller principalities to rent out troops to other princes. However, the practise was carried to excess in Hesse-Kassel, which maintained 7% of its entire population under arms throughout the eighteenth century. Frederick hired out so many troops to his nephew, King George III of Great Britain, for use in the American War of Independence, that "Hessian" has become an American term for all German soldiers deployed by the British in the War. Frederick used the revenue to finance his patronage of the arts and his opulent lifestyle. The architect Simon Louis du Ry transformed for Frederick II. the town of Kassel into a modern capital." "Dimadick (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The Holy Roman Empire existed until 1806 and yes it was a loose confederation. Hesse-Kassel was part of that confederation and directly subject to the Holy Roman Emperor. Landgraviate of Hesse-Kassel. There was a family relationship (nephew) between Frederick and George III. The main point is that 8,000 German soldiers were on American soil rented to fight for King George III. It was not just British troops. Did Washington directly attack the Hessians ? And yes. The term Rebel or Rebels should be capitalized. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
"Did Washington directly attack the Hessians ?" Who do you think Washington was fighting in the Battle of Trenton (1776)? No British forces were involved, only Hessians under Johann Rall. And this was only the first battle that comes to mind, since I had to re-read the article a few months back. Dimadick (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Capitalizing "rebel"
On what basis are you capitalizing "rebel"? Is there a text that does so? In the U.S., "Rebel" means a member or supporter of the Confederate State of America, or a Southerner. YoPienso (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
On what basis is there not to capitalize "rebel". Gwillhickers mentioned it should be capitalized. It just means one held in Rebellion. The Confederacy, a country that no longer exists, does not have a monopoly on the word Rebel. Is there a trademark or copyright on the word ? King George III capitalized the word Rebellion in his 1775 August 23 Proclamation. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
That's just an example of antiquated English; note that all the nouns are capitalized, along with the possessive pronoun "ours." That is no basis to capitalize "rebel" in this article. YoPienso (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Yopienso is obviously correct -- many words are capitalized there. As the biography mentions, Washington was opposed to the idea of being referred to as a rebel. In any case, I said "perhaps" 'rebel' should be spelled with an upper case 'R', in response to the idea that the term was used in a derogatory sense by the British, and today, by various individuals so inclined. It was sort of a tongue-in cheek response -- sorry I didn't make that more clear. 'rebel' is not an official title. There's a section for this topic? Let's move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Look. King George III capitalized Rebellion and capitalized Traitor. I gave a photo of the Proclamation. The word looks to be in bold print. Antiquated English ? This is a historical article. The American Revolution took place in the 18th Century. How dare we have antiquated English. Unless there is a copyright infringement on the word Rebel vs rebel, than either can be used in the article. George III said "Traitor" in the Proclamation. As far as I know, no American was hanged for treason or for being a rebel, or a traitor. Washington hanged a few people, one was a British spy André. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Once again, terms like 'rebel' are not official titles and subsequently are not capitalized, just as we don't capitalize words like radical, liberator or revolutionary, regardless if some king happened to do so on one occasion hundreds of years ago. For some reason you're hung up on the term. Suggest you conduct a survey and see if anyone will take your above wanderings seriously much longer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
So then we are using presentism for words, but not for slavery. That is acceptable ? Should we incorparte slang such as dudelike wowthat was cool. Why y'all are gangin' up on me ?Cmguy777 (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not a trademark or a copyright or anything, but the capitalized term Rebel is specifically used in American English to refer to supporters of the Confederacy. Just as the capitalized term Patriot is used specifically to refer to supporters of American independence in the Revolutionary War. --Khajidha (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The term 'Patriot' occurs in the biography a fair number of times. However, it's presently spelled with both upper and lower case letters. Are we sure this is an official term, warranting uppercase spelling in its first letter? On its surface it would seem not. In any 'case', we need to spell the term consistently, per Article Improvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Ferling, in his various works, as far as I can tell, doesn't capitalize the term patriot. In Fischer's Washington's Crossing (of the Delaware), he uses both upper and lower case, depending. e.g. In one instance he refers to "Colored Patriots", p.485. Washington, in his writings, per Fitzpatrick's 39 vol work, consistently spelled Patriot with an uppercase letter, but of course Washington wrote with an American bias. This would seem to be a matter of editor's discretion, and consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it actually refers to patriotism here. Patriot (American Revolution) is one term used for a political faction of colonists who supported republicanism during the American Revolution. Other terms for the faction were "Revolutionaries", "Continentals", "Rebels", or "American Whigs". Their ideology was in part influenced by the Whigs and their political agenda: "opposition to absolute monarchy", "supremacy of parliament over the monarch", "support for free trade", "Catholic emancipation", "abolition of slavery", and "expansion of the franchise (suffrage)". Dimadick (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It's probably best to stick to terminology that was used contemporaneously—Patriot and Loyalist, in the Revolutionary War context. The Brits no doubt referred to Patriots as "rebels," but the article is largely from an American perspective. Capitalizing them helps to distinguish twixt Patriot as a person and patriotism as a concept. Also, as mentioned above, "rebel" risks confusion with the Civil War usage. —Dilidor (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia English is shared by American, British, and Canadians (English language). It should be edited neutral from George Washington' s perspective. The British military perspective is that Washington was a rebel, i.e. King George III's proclamation. The American perspective is that Washington was patriot. Since Ferling is a source and does not capitalize "patriot" then neither should the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
A George Washington perspective would not exactly be neutral (this is not to say his account would be less than truthful). It would appear that in most cases the term patriot should be spelled with a lower case letter. In cases where the term is used as, or in, a title, however, it could be denoted with an upper case letter, as Flexner did when he referred to "Colored Patriots". Though this may not have been an official title for these men, it is a formal address, even a salute, to these individuals, which would be acknowledged by the upper case spelling. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I did not say a "pro" or "con" view of Washington. I meant that Washington needs to be the main focus of the article. Washington as "patriot" ? The Democratic-Republicans under Jefferson did not honor Washington with a marble monument. Washington was not viewed as a "patriot", but as a pro-Federalist, pro-British, anti-French political opponent. It took 76 years for Congress to federally fund and complete the building of the Washington Monument. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
"it is a formal address, even a salute, to these individuals" We are not talking about heroes here, just a bunch of secessionists. And the term "patriot" did not mean anything nice in the 18th century: "In Britain at the time, the word "patriot" had a negative connotation and was used as a negative epithet for "a factious disturber of the government", according to Samuel Johnson." [1]Dimadick (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Heroes is beside the point, and we are not concerned how the British felt about patriots, any more than we are concerned about how the American's felt about the British when we are spelling various terms. I've checked a good number of sources, and Uppercase is used when the term takes on title form, be it official or formal, and in one case exclusively, just as Middlekauff-2015, Lillback-2006, Chernow-2010, Alden-1993, Fischer-2004, Wiencek, 2013, Humphreys-2006 and others have done. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Light at the end of the tunnel?
Many improvements have been made to the biography since the last FA nomination. Imo, an article so considered should be judged on its content and comprehensiveness foremost, and which should account for 90%+ of its eligibility. Comments are needed in regards to the prospect of an other nomination. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
The biggest hurdle seemed to be the sources and references. I have been trying to add a more European perspective with George Washington. There still may be lingering hard feelings about the Revolutionary War in Britain and Canada, as Graham Beards demonstrated. I have been going through the article trying to get it to be the most accurate as possible. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanx Cm'. Let's remember, as long as we stick to the facts, and not embellish any particular POV (not that we have) we will get over any (perceived) hurdles, which IMO, we have overall. Is there anything in particular that you feel the biography falls short of in this regard? Once again, here in Talk, we need to speak in terms of specifics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know the specifics since the FA review was not specic in detail, except in terms of sources and references, and one sentence. I am only guessing, but it may help Washington to be presented as Patriot, Rebel, and Beligerent in some manner. I am making this assessment because of Graham Beards negative view of Washington. It would help to make the article accurate as possible in the Revolutionary War sections. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
We should only concern ourselves with objective and unbiased assessments. Yes, as usual, the review wasn't specific in terms of the narrative. Unfortunately subject knowledge is not a requirement for an FA reviewer, which is why most reviewers only concern themselves with grammar style, MOS, citation syntax, etc. While I greatly appreciate their efforts, I'm not alone in this observation. Listed at the top of the FA criteria page are the requirements that the article be "well written" and "comprehensive", and as such these things should be given top priority. These ideas were almost entirely ignored. At this point we need to hear about any specific issues that need our attention concerning the narrative, per facts, per sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
The review seemed to only concentrate on consistent citations, one or a few sentences concerning well-written, and neutral was addressed by Graham Beards negative comments concerning Washington. The Length of the article was addressed somewhat, but without any specifics of what section(s) needed to be reduced. It is was only a partial FA review, not a complete one. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
You guys missed the point, which was that the narrative wasn't up to FA standards. One specific example was given of a systemic flaw. Here's another one: "George Washington's legacy remains among the two or three greatest in American history, as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, hero of the Revolution, and the first President of the United States." YoPienso (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Historical reputation and legacy. You can search a page for a certain word or phrase: 1. Press Control and F. 2. Type the word or phrase in the little box that comes up. 3. Click on the little arrows to go up or down; hitting Enter goes down. But identifying one poorly written sentence isn't sufficient; there are many more. And then, it's not just sentences but paragraph flow and structure. YoPienso (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but a legacy is about a person's influence after death, not about what positions they held during life. YoPienso (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Insert : — Yes and how does the sentence in question not conform to that idea? The prior version, and now the new, say the same basic thing! Seems as if we're inventing issues where none really exist. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I found the sentence. It took 85 years after his death for Congress to finish and dedicated his memorial. Prior to the Civil War, his unfinished monument was an embarassment to the nation. It was private citizens who started the monument in the 1830s, not the federal government. He was not popular among the Democratic-Republican party. Maybe the best thing to say is that his presidency ranks high among historians. Initially his legacy was neglected. Right now. This is all semantics. No need for an edit war. Shearonink's edit looks acceptable. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Cmguy777 — I agree, the edit is fine, but there was nothing really wrong with the sentence in question in the first place. The current edit says the same basic thing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Yopienso — Many points were addressed, then and now, so when you say we "missed the point" such broad-brushed claims in the process misses several points itself. To be able to determine if the entire narrative is up to standards, above average subject knowledge is required — a point that seems to be 'not gotten' yet. Some of the grammar was not perfect but this should be a (very) minor consideration compared to content and comprehensiveness, which has been added in an in depth capacity from numerous and noted reliable sources by several editors with much more than a passing familiarity with the subject. I am sure we can always snipe at an item here or there, but I will continue to reject the sweeping claim that the narrative overall was or is not up to speed, esp when it comes from someone with a lot of sour grapes in his belly. (no inference aimed at you) Making improvements seems to be an endless effort, and one can always, again, find a minor item to snipe at. But at this point we need to iron out not only the small stuff discussed here, but any major issues, which no one as yet seems to have brought to the table, just the usual and highly opinionated claims about "structure", "flow", and other shades of grey. We need to hear about any specific items involving real errors in grammar and/or facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Shearonink — thanks for your edit. As I said, making improvements can be an endless effort, and of course some editors will never be happy evidently, esp when it comes to judging the work of other people. It seems the biggest critics are always the ones that contribute the least. Easy. In any case, let's continue to iron out the real issues as most of us have been doing. Again, thanks for your help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Hoppyh — thanks for your tireless and continuing efforts on making improvements in grammar, etc, these past couple of months. Hopefully the day will come when the narrative will be appreciated by all of us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
My pleasure - since I am concentrating on the narrative - if anyone sees an area that they don’t think reads too well, let me know and I will look at it. Keep at it folks, and remember, if we turn on one another, we’re dead, like the Brits, then and now, God bless ‘em. Hoppyh (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Washington allowed his household slaves to go into town and visit the theater, among other such things.{{sfn|Chernow|2010|p=759 with edit summary "Rmv theater; this was taken out of context. It refers to a few favored slaves who accompanied the President to the capitol, Philadelphia." YoPienso (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The first passage was rewritten. The source you referred to in edit history does mention winter, along with Sundays, Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost off, with about two hours off for lunch daily, which for some reason wasn't added. These things are important and reflects on how Washington treated the greater population of slaves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Am having difficulty incorporating a cite web template with the SFN citation. It doesn't link up for some reason. If anyone knows how to remedy this it would be appreciated. In the mean time I simply included the Mount Vernon URL address into a conventional citation. Will also look for this idea in other existing sources. Help here would also be appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
These people were slaves 24 hours a day, until Washington set his slaves free in 1799. In my opinion Washington's freedom will is an important part of the section. The section should not make slaves look as employees of Washington. We have to remember the slaves who worked in the grain fields, not just his house slaves or slaves at the President's House in Philadelphia. The Slavery section should not hold up George Washington to get FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
We include the facts and say what the sources say. Every time we add something that isn't negative you sound disappointed. The only thing that will hold up the FA is belaboring the facts and ignoring important details covered by reliable sources, not to mention the lengthy debates over simple ideas. FA criteria holds that we present the topic in context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
It's "double speak" in the article. Slavery should not be written as if the Africans were free persons employed by Washington or were citizens of the commonwealth or had any rights, such as going to the theater, or time off from work. They were subject to whippings and deporation when not productive or had run away. He believed slavery was immoral but did not say a word against it. That is the double speak. Why did he not free his older slaves when he was alive ? Is there evidence prior to his 1799 will that Washington believed slavery was immoral. He enjoyed the material benefits of slavery. That is sourced by Ferling. Washington 1799 will is very imporant and positive. That was put in its own paragraph and added to the lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
"These people were slaves 24 hours a day, until Washington set his slaves free in 1799. In my opinion Washington's freedom will is an important part of the section. The section should not make slaves look as employees of Washington." Slave status does not mean that we should ignore their working conditions. The article on Thomas Jefferson and slavery does examine how Jefferson trained, evaluaded, or provided for his slaves.:
"Jefferson, in his Farm Book journal, visually described in detail both the quality and quantity of purchased slave clothing and the names of all slaves who received the clothing. In a letter written in 1811, Jefferson described his stress and apprehension in regard to difficulties in what he felt was his "duty" to procure specific desirable blankets for "those poor creatures" – his slaves."
"Some historians have noted that Jefferson maintained many slave families together on his plantations; historian Bruce Fehn says this was consistent with other slave owners at the time. There were often more than one generation of family at the plantation and families were stable. Jefferson and other slaveholders shifted the "cost of reproducing the workforce to the workers' themselves". He could increase the value of his property without having to buy additional slaves. He tried to reduce infant mortality, and wrote, "[A] woman who brings a child every two years is more profitable than the best man on the farm." "
"Jefferson encouraged slaves at Monticello to marry at Monticello. He would occasionally buy and sell slaves to keep families together. In 1815, he said that his slaves were "worth a great deal more" due to their marriages. Married slaves, however, had no legal protection or recognition by the law; masters could separate slave husbands and wives any time desired."
"Jefferson worked slave boys ages 10 to 16 in his nail factory on Mulberry Row. After it opened in 1794, for the first three years, Jefferson recorded the productivity of each child. He selected those who were most productive to be trained as artisans: blacksmiths, carpenters, and coopers. Those who performed the worst were assigned as field laborers."
"According to historian Lucia Stanton, Jefferson authorized his overseers to use physical violence against slaves, though probably not as much as some of his neighbors. James Hubbard was a slave in the nailery who ran away on two occasions. The first time Jefferson did not have him whipped, but on the second Jefferson reportedly ordered him severely flogged. Hubbard was likely sold after spending time in jail. Stanton says children suffered physical violence. When a 17-year-old James was sick, one overseer reportedly whipped him "three times in one day." Violence was commonplace on plantations, including Jefferson's. According to Marguerite Hughes, Jefferson used "a severe punishment" such as whippings when runaways were captured, and he sometimes sold them to "discourage other men and women from attempting to gain their freedom." Henry Wiencek cited within a Smithsonian Magazine article several reports of Jefferson ordering the whipping or selling of slaves as punishments for extreme misbehavior or escape."
"The Thomas Jefferson Foundation quotes Jefferson's instructions to his overseers not to whip his slaves, but noted that they often ignored his wishes during his frequent absences from home. According to Stanton, no reliable document portrays Jefferson as directly using physical correction. During Jefferson's time, some other slaveholders also disagreed with the practices of flogging and jailing slaves." Dimadick (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
This article is on George Washington, not Thomas Jefferson. The slaves were not worked 24 hours. The slaves were only free when their masters manumitted them by a deed. They could not leave the plantations unless permitted by their masters. I don't think slaves were allowed to marry formerly and their families could be broken up at any time. I can express opinions in the talk page, but not put them in the article. Slaves were subject to whippings. I don't think white indentured servants were treated as bad. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Some racist/slavery/historical reputation sources...
Cmguy777, no one has said the slaves were not slaves 24 hours a day, and no one has said that the slaves were free, so there's no need to keep blowing that horn. We haven't said anything the sources don't say. If anyone is getting the impression that slaves were free they need to read the section more carefully and not obsess when they come across items where the slaves were actually treated like humans. e.g. Washington didn't split families up, and was feeding and housing many more than he could use. If this for some reason sticks in anyone's craw then I'd suggest they do a little soul searching and ask themselves why. We say what the sources say and present the topic in context, per FA criteria. Once again, as was done with the flag issue, this issue is being hyped and inflated for no good reason, as if someone had their heart set on portraying Washington in the worst possible way, ignoring important context. It's bad enough that we had a reviewer with a flagrant anti-American/Washington bias, I'm hoping that as contributing editors we are above such obsessions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
"What's your point wrt this article?" Did you even read my comments? I am pointing out that in the article on Jefferson we are covering the working conditions of his slaves. Why should we not do the same for Washington's slaves? Dimadick (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Assuming you are addressing me, I too made an analogy to how Jefferson treated his slaves, so I'm not clear on your message here. We already say that slaves worked from dawn to dusk, mention the time they had off, etc. If you would like to add specifics, I've no objections just so long as they are presented in context and backed up by RS's. Let's keep in mind that the section is getting a bit large, so we should make efforts just to add short, yet comprehensive, statements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, Dimadick. Nobody was saying we should ignore the slave's working condition. I was there at TJ when Gwillhickers and Cmguy777 were doing the same thing as here at GW: the former pretending (or deceiving himself) that being a slave wasn't all that bad, and the latter intent on telling how much the slaves suffered. YoPienso (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: This is in response to your response above, time-stamped 04:27, 2 July 2018. The source that doesn't mention winter is Ferling, p. 46, cited after the sentence from which I deleted the final phrase. Ferling, p. 46, doesn't mention white farmers, but does say "Washington decreed that his chattel were to labor from daybreak until dark, and to be 'diligent while they are at it.'" Other quotes from that page:
"He . . . compelled his laborers to work hard . . . Nor did he indulge his bondsmen. He retained physicians and hired midwives, but his slaves dwelled in poor housing, which even Washington acknowledged to be more humble than the accommodations of the lowliest free laborers, and the chattel were given exiguous allotments of clothing."
"When a slave was too idle, Washington directed his manager to 'give him a good whipping.' He also sanctioned the flogging of female slaves. An English traveler, who visited several plantations in Virginia, believed that Washington treated his slaves 'with more severity' than any other planter he had observed."
Ferling mentions on that same page how one person who did business with Washington regretted it. We need to show his authoritarianism and shrewdness.
Wrt your changes in the sentence about shorter hours in the winter, we would be just as true to the sources if we wrote, "Washington forced his slaves to toil for fourteen hours a day in the heat of summer, and still required eight hours of labor during the winter cold, with only time to eat." I think we should find a middle ground. YoPienso (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
"Washington forced his slaves to toil for fourteen hours a day" In the context of the era, this is not that bad. An eight-hour day was one of the major demands of organised labour for most of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th-century, because working conditions during the Industrial Revolution were pretty bad.
"It [the social movement] had its origins in the Industrial Revolution in Britain, where industrial production in large factories transformed working life. The use of child labour was common. The working day could range from 10 to 16 hours, and the work week was typically six days a week." ... "Women and children in England were granted the ten-hour day in 1847. French workers won the 12-hour day after the February Revolution of 1848."
"In the United States, Philadelphia carpenters went on strike in 1791 for the ten-hour day. By the 1830s, this had become a general demand. In 1835, workers in Philadelphia organised the first general strike in North America, led by Irish coal heavers. Their banners read, From 6 to 6, ten hours work and two hours for meals. " Dimadick (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
We are not here to compare the work hours during the Industrial Revolution with those of slaves. Workers in the Industrial Revolution were not slaves, were allowed to marry legally, and were allowed to find other employment, and to move, or migrate to other countries, nor were their children born into slavery. We need to just state the facts and let readers make their own opinions concerning George Washington and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
And I agree we are nor here to twist words "double speak" to make slavery less demanding or cruel than it was. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Yopienso — I added the idea about working no more than free farmers did, as they too worked from dawn to dusk. I am wondering if farmers could afford to take two hour lunches in the middle of their work day and were able to take every Sunday off. Probably not. This is the perspective some people, for some reason, choose to ignore. I removed the comment about working no longer than white farmers, even though that's true. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Cmguy777 — There is no "double speak" in the article, and we are not here to make slavery seem more cruel than it was, which in the overall picture, was not, considering the amount of work they did, the care that was afforded them and the alternatives that existed in the 1700's. Families, the elderly and children were provided for; there was not enough work to keep all slaves busy, yet they were kept on, their families never split up, and provided for regardless. They were not overworked, which was a common practice. I've come across a good number of other items where Washington took many measures to care and provide for slaves. His diaries are filled with accounts where Washington summoned doctors to treat sick slaves. He had them all inoculated for small pox,<Chernow, p.111> something that many common farmers could not afford for each member of their families. Washington instructed his overseers not to work slaves in bad weather. It rains in Virginia at least once a week, while Winters are usually freezing and snow or sleet storms are common. I'd like to add these things also, but as I said, the section is getting a bit large. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for removing "Like most white farmers of this era." Doubtlessly many white farmers worked as hard as the slaves did, but they were free, which made all the difference, and they enjoyed a higher standard of living. See Wiencek 123-25, where he tells what pitifully few clothes GW gave his slaves. Quotes from Wiencek:
"Within months their clothing must have been reduced to mere rags." And they weren't allowed to mend them, because they had no patches. When they stole sacks to use for mending, GW put an end to that. Nor did he supply enough blankets, and he made them use their sleeping blankets as tarps for yardwork.
". . . the black children had no clothes at all--none--and it was already winter."
"One sees by that that the conditions of our peasants [in Poland' is infinitely happier."
And please read p. 349 for more on clothing and for GW's demeanor towards his slaves, but above all, please read p. 350, about the slaves' inadequate housing. We cannot believe or imply that the slaves' lives weren't really so bad; they were terrible. However, the point of this section isn't to convince people that slavery was cruel; its purpose is to tell how GW treated his slaves in a slave-owning culture. YoPienso (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Insert : We are getting mixed accounts, you are citing one of the conflciting acounts. i.e. Not that of Niemcewicz, whose account was just the opposite. We already say in the article that the accounts are contradictory, and we represent both views, so we must look to other factors to get a more clear picture of Washington's attitude and care of slaves. Wiencek on page 319 specifically says that the slaves at the executive mansion were "well treated, well fed and well clothed". He also says on this page Washington "barked" orders at slaves, but he addressed the white servants in the same manner. On the plantations Wiencek, p.349 says clothing and such were distributed to slaves according to their work. Housing was poor, but then slaves were allowed to make improvements and such, but obviously didn't in some cases. It's a little difficult to believe that someone who looked after so many slaves, was mindful of keeping families together and keep on more slaves than were needed on the plantations, and who gave them medical attention and small pox inoculations would let slaves go so neglected. I don't see slave life, whose work day was comparable to farmers, except for two hour lunches and many days off, as any picnic. However, I don't really see it as something "terrible" either. Maybe by our modern day standards it was. We have to consider also that if life was so terrible, runaway salves would have been commonplace and a frequent problem. It wasn't. It was an exceptional problem, mostly with young restless males like 'Tom'. If there is anything else you would like to add to the section about this I am opened to suggestions, per reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I've added context describing Washington's neglect regarding clothing and his rather inconsiderate idea that slaves use their own blankets to gather leaves. This needs to be factored into the overall picture, which certainly isn't a two dimensional one. -- Gwillhickers (talk)
Gwillhickers. We should not be having any controversies concerning slavery and George Washington. Graham Beards, a reviewer, was critical of Washington. We want to get Washington to FA. Your statement shows your POV "we are not here to make slavery seem more cruel than it was, which in the overall picture, was not, considering the amount of work they did, the care that was afforded them and the alternatives that existed in the 1700's." You are entitled to your opinion. Is this the real reason ? Since slavery was cruel that would make Washington a cruel person ? Is that why we are to make less slavery less cruel to make Washington less cruel ? This article needs to present slavery as it was, not presented to make Washington look better or worse. The article should not say Washington was cruel, kind, or a "nice guy". Cmguy777 (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
If I haven't made myself clear, I think we should steer midway between Gwillhickers' and Cmguy777's views. I'm quite sure slavery was much worse Gwill admits, but I think Cmguy veers into presentism. Slavery was cruel, but Washington wasn't a cruel man. He was demanding and imperious; he was aloof and unsmiling; he was courageous and expected others to be; diligent, productive, and punctual--and expected others to be. But he was no Simon Legree. I don't think I would have liked him on the personal level (nor he me), yet I greatly admire and respect what he did for the USA. On p. 47, Ferling calls him "solid, proud, forceful, potent, and combative." Ellis, in His Excellency," ascribed to GW "the most ambitious, determined, and potent personality of an age not lacking for worthy rivals." That's the personality we must portray. [Emphases added.] YoPienso (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Yopienso, thank you, very much, for your fair minded comments. I believe we have presented the middle ground. Washington, while an owner of slaves, shouldn't be lumped in with some of the absolute horrors that occurred to Africans, not that you've asserted such. In exceptional incidents, some slave owners cut the toes off of run away slaves, and this is the sort of thing that dominates the proverbial headlines. However, such atrocities were not limited to slave owners and slaves in those days. (Wiencek, 2003, is a must read.) No one is saying slaves at Mount Vernon where on some sort of picnic, but in the 1700's their livelihood was not much different than the life many "free" men had to endure, who never had Sundays and holidays off, or benefited from needed medical attention. This is the only perspective I have ever stressed. In light of all the things that Washington did to accommodate slaves, in many instances, in spite of occasional "whippings", this perspective can not be ignored. I am hoping that the context I have added to the narrative to this effect hasn't given such an impression. Unfortunately, many media minded and naive people can't objectively rise above the stereotypes that were injected into the collective American psyche during the 20th century, and which have been parroted and persist today, as we've recently witnessed here. Yes, Washington was "solid, proud, forceful, potent, and combative", per Ferling. He sometimes spoke to slaves in this capacity, yet he often addressed fellow officers, soldiers and various politicians in the same manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I am not veering off into presentism. We need to allow the reader their own opinion of Washington and slavery. Making slavery less cruel than it was is a form of presentism. The article does not say Washington was cruel nor for that matter judge Washington for owning slaves. We should avoid apologetics for slavery in the article and take a neutral view. I think there is modern apologetics for slavery in the article. All that is needed is to present slavery as it was during Washington's lifetime. No apologetics. No presentism, pro or anti slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
As you've demonstrated several times now, you obviously feel that anything that isn't negative is 'apologetc'. Presenting the facts and saying what sources say is not appologetics, so please stop trying to stigmatize such efforts with such presentist slurs. Also, GB has demonstrated not only an acute bias against Washington, but for the U.S., and as such he is only suited to help out with citation issues and such, if that. This has already been brought to your attention, so please come to terms. When the article is resubmitted for nomination we will need to insist on neutral and objective reviewers. Also, as a contributing editor you should make efforts to approach the article in a more neutral and less than presentist manner and not scoff at what reliable sources say every time something less than negative is added. Your cooperation will be appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Presentism ? Personal accusations don't help. Remember this article was tagged with neutrality issue. And again. I don't have to be approved by you to make any edits. I have said time and again that the article should avoid presentism and apologetics. I removed the mulatto slave overseers because there was not enough information on them. Were they subject to whippings and being sold ? Their children were born slaves, not freemen. Making Washington look like a benevolent slave master makes his will look a little less important, the will that set his slaves free. Remember Washington was not popular during Jefferson's presidency. The promised memorial/monument paid for the federal government did not occur until 1876. In my opinion, Washington was a firm slave owner, treating his slaves similar to his soldiers. He was a demanding person with a temper. His 1799 will, in my opinion makes Washington a great man, not his slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hoppyh, thanks for improving narrative flow, etc. You have not "trampled" the context of the narrative, at all. We can not ignore the fact that many modern day, complacent and naive 'TV viewers' have been subjected to years of conjecture and half truths, not to mention complete distortions, from activists, various politicians and the 'friends of America' crowd. e.g. The idea that Washington sometimes cursed at slaves often creates a completely different impression than saying he cursed at soldiers, politicians and such. Presentism. Everyone has a temper, but given the facts in all aspects of the biography, Washington was not exceptional in this capacity. Hopefully the section will communicate this perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
"Remember Washington was not popular during Jefferson's presidency."
Washington was already dead by the time Thomas Jefferson started his term in office. And he disagreed with Washington's de facto Federalist policies. He did not even bother to attend Washington's funeral: "Jefferson had always admired Washington's leadership skills but felt that his Federalist party was leading the country in the wrong direction. Jefferson thought it wise not to attend his funeral in 1799 because of acute differences with Washington while serving as Secretary of State, and remained at Monticello."
Jefferson was also highly critical of both of his predecessors' administrations and his agenda included major reforms, in part reversing their decisions:
"Upon assuming office, he [Jefferson] first confronted an $83 million national debt. He began dismantling Hamilton's Federalist fiscal system with help from Secretary of Treasury Albert Gallatin. Jefferson's administration eliminated the whiskey excise and other taxes after closing "unnecessary offices" and cutting "useless establishments and expenses". They attempted to disassemble the national bank and its effect of increasing national debt, but were dissuaded by Gallatin. Jefferson shrank the Navy, deeming it unnecessary in peacetime. Instead, he incorporated a fleet of inexpensive gunboats used only for defense with the idea that they would not provoke foreign hostilities. After two terms, he had lowered the national debt from $83 million to $57 million.
Jefferson pardoned several of those imprisoned under the Alien and Sedition Acts. Congressional Republicans repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which removed nearly all of Adams's “midnight judges" from office." Dimadick (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. You argue against presentism, but not a word against apologetics. I argue against both. Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, and John Adams, for that matter, were suppose to make a memorial to Washington, a marble monument in the Federal City. Nothing was made. Washington and Jefferson were not communicating with each other because of the Quasi-War. The Washington Monument was funded and built by Congress 1776 under the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, and was not completed until 1884, and dedicated in 1885. Article improvement could mention that Washington was forgotten by Congress until 1876. It took about 85 years after his death before his memorial was completed. He was a forgotten president. His first tomb got raided. He was finally interred in marble in 1837. It might help to mention that politics got in the way of Washington's monument. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The presentist notion that confuses facts, and what reliable sources encompass, with "apologetics" (v. condemnations) has been addressed several times now. If you would like to add any missing and important details about the tomb and the monument feel free. Reminder: We are at 98k of readable prose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
It may not reflect well on Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe in my opinion. Pierre Charles L'Enfant had designed Washington D.C. for the Washington monument. No monument was made for Washington in the Federal City during their presidencies. Washington, like it or not, was forgotten, for the most part, until the 1830s. John Q. Adams tried to get a Washington monument funding, but failed. The first monument to Washington was 1827 in Maryland. John Adams, interestingly did not do anything to fund a Washington Monument. It took 84 years for the for the Washington Monument to be completed after Washington's death in December 1799. Gwillhickers, you are welcome to edit the Post-presidency of George Washington article. It has been overhauled and redone. It needs more work. Your editing would be appreciated. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
He wasn't forgotten! Politics, social trends, war, and finances were problems in building a monument, but public esteem for Washington didn't flag during the early 19th century. The question wasn't of whether to honor him, but how. Was he first and foremost a member of the Southern planter elite? That group claimed him, but other Americans saw a far broader appeal. Should he look like a Roman? a warrior? a god? an American? These were the questions people couldn't agree on.
Monument Wars by Kirk Savage explains this in pp. 35-60. Remember that the government didn't move to Washington D.C. until after GW died. Naming the capital for him was a great memorial, btw. It was still unfinished when the British took it in the War of 1812. "Nowhere were these [political and cultural] contradictions more magnified than in the project for a national monument to George Washington. Deciding on a fitting monument to the republic's founding figure engaged the deepest questions about what kind of republic he had founded." --p. 36
The abstract of a 1991 paper by sociology professor Barry Schwartz, "Social Change and Collective Memory: The Democratization of George Washington" says, "Between 1800 and 1865, Americans remembered George Washington as a man of remoteness, gentility, and flawless virtue . . ."
Antonio Canova sculpted a fine statue of GW that was commissioned in 1816, unveiled in 1821, and destroyed in a fire in 1831. But there was a problem: it was "a public symbol of planter-aristocratic rule by the political elite of a slaveholding state [North Carolina]" that served as "a marble embodiment of their own right to rule." Remember, America was still a republic then, not a democracy. Most citizens couldn't vote, and U.S. representatives were elected by state legislatures, not by the voting public. More here.
Franklin and Washington were on the first two U.S. postage stamps--that's a memorial.
There were immediate plans to bury him in style in the Capitol; Adams asked Martha Washington if she would agree. Notice how early and often politicians tried to get this done: "President Adams communicated her response to Congress on January 8, 1800, but action on the resolution of 1799 was stalled for years by wrangling in Congress about the cost and what type of memorial was most appropriate. The issue of fulfilling Congress’s resolution was raised in the House by Representative Henry Lee of Virginia in 1800, Representative Benjamin Huger of South Carolina in 1816, and a young Congressman (and future President) James Buchanan of Pennsylvania in 1824. Buchanan noted, “the man who was emphatically first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, has been sleeping with his fathers for almost a quarter of a century, and his mortal remains have yet been unhonored by that people, who, with justice, call him the father of their country.” Despite such exhortations, additional resolutions proved fruitless. By late 1829, Capitol architects had begun considering plans to complete a crypt for Washington’s remains beneath the Rotunda. As the centennial of Washington’s birth approached in 1832, Congress renewed its appeal to the Washington family to transfer the patriarch’s remains from Mount Vernon to the Capitol. . . John A. Washington['s] [...] disapproval effectively settled the issue: Washington’s remains stayed at Mount Vernon and his intended Capitol crypt remained empty." Also see Washington's Tomb (United States Capitol).
Yopensio. From the time of Washington's death to the dedication of the Washington monument it took 85 years, 2 months, and 8 days. That is a substantial bit of time. It would have been nice had Jefferson's crowning achievement in office was the marble memorial to Washington. Did not happen. Jefferson, who was President for 8 years, and the Democratic-Republicans, did nothing to honor Washington, because of Washington's ties with John Adams and the Federalist Party. Washington's will was published that freed his slaves. There was a period from 1800 to 1827 when Washington was not getting the credit he deserved. It was not until the 1830's was their a revival of interest in Washington. What matters is results. It was a Republican President Ulysses S. Grant in office and a willing Congress in 1876, who finally took over, paid for, and built the Washington Monument. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
You are missing some of the construction problems for the Washington Monument.:
"Construction of the monument began in 1848, and was halted from 1854 to 1877 due to a lack of funds, a struggle for control over the Washington National Monument Society, and the intervention of the American Civil War. Although the stone structure was completed in 1884, internal ironwork, the knoll, and other finishing touches were not completed until 1888."
"Construction continued until 1854, when donations ran out and the monument had reached a height of 152 feet (46.3 m). At that time a memorial stone that was contributed by Pope Pius IX, called the Pope's Stone, was destroyed by members of the anti-Catholic, nativist American Party, better known as the "Know-Nothings", during the early morning hours of March 6, 1854 (a priest replaced it in 1982). This caused public contributions to the Washington National Monument Society to cease, so they appealed to Congress for money."
"The request had just reached the floor of the House of Representatives when the Know-Nothing Party seized control of the Society on February 22, 1855. Congress immediately tabled its expected contribution of $200,000 to the Society, effectively halting the appropriation. During its tenure, the Know-Nothing Society added only two courses of masonry, or four feet, to the monument using rejected masonry it found on site, increasing the height of the shaft to 156 feet. The original Society refused to recognize the illegal takeover, so two Societies existed side by side until 1858. With the Know-Nothing Party disintegrating and its inability to secure contributions toward building the monument, it surrendered its possession of the monument to the original Society on October 20, 1858. To prevent future takeovers, Congress incorporated the Society on February 22, 1859."
"Interest in the monument grew after the Civil War. Engineers studied the foundation several times to determine if it was strong enough. In 1876, the Centennial of the Declaration of Independence, Congress agreed to appropriate another $200,000 to resume construction."
"Construction resumed in 1879 under the direction of Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Lincoln Casey of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Casey redesigned the foundation, strengthening it so it could support a structure that ultimately weighed more than 40,000 tons. The first stone atop the unfinished stump was laid August 7, 1880 in a small ceremony attended by President Rutherford B. Hayes, Casey and a few others. The president placed a small coin on which he had scratched his initials and the date in the bed of wet cement at the 150-foot level before the first stone was laid on top of it. Casey found 92 memorial stones ("presented stones") already inlaid into the interior walls of the first phase of construction. Before construction continued he temporarily removed eight stones at the 150-foot level so that the walls at that level could be sloped outward, producing thinner second-phase walls. ... The building of the monument proceeded quickly after Congress had provided sufficient funding. In four years, it was completed, with the 100-ounce (2.83 kg) aluminum apex/lightning-rod being put in place on December 6, 1884. The apex was the largest single piece of aluminum cast at the time, when aluminum commanded a price comparable to silver. Two years later, the Hall–Héroult process made aluminum easier to produce and the price of aluminum plummeted, though it should have provided a lustrous, non-rusting apex. The monument opened to the public on October 9, 1888." Dimadick (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Keeping context
@Hoppyh: Appreciate your efforts to condense some of the text but in a few cases some definitive context was being diminished, which I've been restoring. Unless completely redundant we should make efforts to retain as much context as possible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: No problem at all; we have sort of a "dance " we have to do here between the flow and the substance. I will try my best to stay off my partners' toes and ask your pardon when I do.Hoppyh (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanx. Good faith edits need no pardon. I restored one of your edits btw, which involved something that was redundant and rightfully removed as you originally had done. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Dilidor: I agree with your view that there is excessive detail in some instances. I have been treading lightly in my own copy editing out of deference to other editors’ views about context. I personally think, with respect to FA considerations, this is overstated. I believe it is a result of good faith, in-depth research which has gone to the esoteric in some cases. That said, I am not a FA reviewer. In any case I welcome your time here. Hoppyh (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hoppyh: Thanks for the encouragement and for joining in the under-appreciated ranks of copy editing. I recognize that the excessive detail is a result of the enthusiastic and well-researched efforts of others, so I'm trying to be very light-handed in excisions. Nonetheless, there are places where some of the minutia needs to be cut. —Dilidor (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Lead section
I have been copy editing the lead in keeping with the general guideline, limiting the lead to four paragraphs. How do we want to approach this in preparation for FAC? My survey of the current POTUS FA's indicates only Grant and Garfield are above 4. A couple are under. See WP:LEADHoppyh (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
It would seem that the Washington biography is its own article and doesn't necessarily have to follow the style of other articles. In fact, in terms of the lede, the Washington biography should be an article that sets the tone for other large biographies of exceptionally famous figures in history. I would treat the lede here according to what ever is best for this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Johann Rall
Sonething is rather off with the article. It mentions Johann Rall participating in the Battle of Princeton (January 3, 1777).
Rall was mortally wounded in the Battle of Trenton (December 26, 1776) and died on December 27. Why do we have him active about a week following his death? Is there a conflation between the battles? Dimadick (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. This is the sort of thing, specific issues, I was hoping we would uncover and fix in this rather long and involved biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
#/media/File:George_Washington_statue.JPG){kind=link}
#/media/File:George_Washington_Greenough_statue.jpg){kind=link}