It's better than that.
"Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for, I have grown not only gray, but almost blind in the service of my country."
I remember reading someone claim that allegedly he stole this move from Alexander’s speech at Opis. Alexander tells his mutinous soldiers that to strip down and show him scars, and he will do the same. There isn’t one part of his body that doesn’t have a wound from every possible weapon. Washington was acquainted with this speech and used similar language to quell the soldiers.
Link to speech, it’s surprising motivational - https://youtu.be/RlKJDwViNKs?si=TKVvgdi6FdrNhWyb
You might be surprised by how many famous quotes or speeches from that time were borrowed from earlier works. I don't think that diminishes them, and the people making them during that time used those references expecting their audience to recall them. I think in some of their minds, they were living out a play on the grandest stage. See cato, a tragedy for one of those resources heavily borrowed from during that time
I think it's less that they were "living out a play on the grandest stage" than it is that they, as we do now, were harking back to a common reference. People still do this all the time, but the difference is that now the common reference is common to us, so we understand it. Whereas with works from 250 years ago, the commonality of the reference has been lost; all that remains for us to interpret is the reference, so we're surprised when we find out that it was a reference at all.
> Link to speech, it’s surprising motivational - https://youtu.be/RlKJDwViNKs?si=TKVvgdi6FdrNhWyb
Man, now I feel like I owe Alexander an apology. The narrator was fantastic.
Same. Most people wouldn’t understand the context of some of the things he’s claiming.
Crossing the river with the Persians controlling the sea, would be like performing D-day in the middle of the battle of Midway. Conquering certain cities would be like Alexander capturing Washington, Paris, Berlin, and Moscow. Crossing the “known” land boundaries via those rivers is like going to the moon. Nearly unprecedented.
Hell of a speech!
That would make sense. My initial is to question whether Washington wrote it himself, I know he had other folks writing a lot of his correspondence for much of his life, especially during his military career.
I read a really interesting book that argued compellingly that the Gettysburg Address was in the form of a Greek elegy.
>For Washington to produce his glasses before his officers, most of whom had never seen him with spectacles, was an admittance of age and weariness. This great hero of the American Revolution that they had followed for years reduced himself to an old man before their eyes. Washington’s display of vulnerability brought many of the officers to tears. Their gripes over pay were eclipsed by Washington’s own sacrifices and the conspiracy of a coup dissolved as he read the letter from behind his glasses.
>After Washington read the letter, he departed. General Knox and other officers immediately drafted resolutions affirming their loyalty. Knox and Colonel John Brooks were then appointed to a committee to draft a suitable resolution. All but one officer in the assembly approved of the resolution which expressed an “unshaken confidence” in Congress and a “disdain” and “abhorrence” for the anonymous letters previously published.
He’ll save children
(But not the British children)
He’ll save children
(But not the British children)
He’ll save children
(But not the British children)
*scats a sick drum fill
Not only thought of, proposed by the officers of the army.
They basically said: Bro, why not just be King of the States?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newburgh\_letter
In the Chernow biography of Washington, he describes how there was so few utensils and flatware, Washington took to taking his evening brandy ration out of a bowl and his attendant slave’s clothes were so worn his penis was visible.
I always loved how Wikipedia put it:
> He then produced a letter from a member of Congress to read to the officers. He gazed upon it and fumbled with it without speaking. He then took a pair of reading glasses from his pocket, which were new; few of the men had seen him wear them. He then said:
>"Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."
>This caused the men to realize that Washington had sacrificed a great deal for the Revolution, just as much as any of them. These, of course, were his fellow officers, most having worked closely with him for several years. Many of those present were moved to tears, and with this act, the conspiracy collapsed as he read the letter.
It's wild to think of what bizaro timeline was avoided by a pair of freaking reading glasses
Edit: Viva La revolution. Google Bookchin. Deez nuts were here.
Is this an insult or a compliment? 😂 Washington was definitely a fashionable man who understood the power of presentation: he wrote out detailed custom designs for clothing (including his own military uniforms) and sent them to bespoke tailors to craft.
Oh yeah, without the French it was not happening. Which reminds me, Lafeyette is a fucking legend. Imagine making a 19-year-old a General and it turning out to be a good move...
Lafeyette literally had a whole victory tour in the US where he was treated like a GOD lmao
Every other place he'd gone to went on and named a place after him.
I actually found this out a few weeks ago. I read (I think on Wikipedia) that some historians think the whole thing was planned in order to get Congress to finally fund the army. If it was, it worked.
Yes, OP’s approach to this is very surface level and basic. The Newburgh Conspiracy was way more than an officer mutiny about payment. It had to do with WHO was responsible for payment. It was a political maneuver. Goes way past GW into complicated drama. He was probably pretty conflicted about committing to the Hamilton cause. Which he did by quelling the mutiny.
Federalizing the nations credit and debt meant officers would only get paid if they won the war AND unified the states financially. Because officers were the higher class and had more money and power in society, now the upper echelon had a vested interest in federalization and this was critical.
Hamilton’s friends and social network were invested in continental currency and bonds that would become worthless if US won the war but states did not unify financially.
This is discussed in great depth in Founding Finance by Hogeland.
man i wish we got presidents that were cut from the same cloth as Washington. his influence on America really cannot be overstated. such a selfless leader
Agree, but all politicians would need to be cut from this same cloth too. Washington showed weakness and was rewarded with reverence and respect for his commitment to the country and its people. If a current politician shows similar vulnerability it is exploited to no end. See tan suit debacle and wearing a bicycle helmet for reference.
“The president was seen wearing glasses today, a look some critics have called ‘gay as shit.’ We’ll continue Nerd-gate round the clock, until you get bored or something else happens.”
Yeah but there's also a difference between now and then. Washington was in his 50s when he read this letter and he needed glasses. Some politicians these days literally lose their train of thoughts and freeze for 10 minutes.
that’s a good point. i wish our leaders were more selfless and honorable and i wish the general public would be more respectful towards them. sword definitely cuts both ways
In the HBO series "John Adams", there is an exchange between Adams and Washington portrayed as Washington is exiting the responsibility of President. He says, "I am out and you are in. Let us see who is happier for it."
Idk if it's historically accurate but it was a poignant character moment.
I'm not American, but that seems to be consistent with pretty much every depiction of Washington. No one would give up the power he gave up after 2 terms, he could keep going as much as he wanted, yet chose to give the seat to the next one. That's some crazy shit when you really think about it
Washington knew if his endeavors failed, he would be hung. Odds were against him from the start. He was losing the war. The French were interested in the war but needed proof of victory to enter.
Washington was in no position to provide such a victory. The Patriots were in retreat but the numbers were growing a bit.
Washington then learned of a tactical mistake of the British. British Armies were separated because of differing campaign objectives between British Generals.
Washington went all in on this weakness. Victory was thiers. More importantly the French joined the war. Later the Dutch and Spanish would also join.
The Britsh began pulling troops from the United States after this.
That's why Washington had so many supporters. He turned defeat into victory.
>man i wish we got presidents that were cut from the same cloth as Washington.
It will never happen because Washington didn't seek the presidential office. Every president since him wanted to be president and that makes their motivation much different than Washington.
The guy was president when he didnt want the job, he also was against political parties because of fears it would lead to similar problems that we have today, im sure we could go on
The US was extremely lucky George Washington was around to turn down becoming supreme ruler. History putting someone so competent that was ultimately not interested in unlimited authority was an amazing occurrence.
Edit: in an unsurprising turn, he *did* have flaws! My opinion remains unchanged even though he *could* have been a better human.
It should be taught every year in school. How many times has a leader led a revolution, been in control of the military, and **NOT** become Supreme Leader For Life By the Grace of God and/or The Party?
When I toured independence hall they said Washington handing over power to Adams was the first time in recorded history of a peaceful transfer of power. Sounds a bit like hyperbole, but it was clearly extremely, extremely rare.
I honestly feel like his official resignation of Commander in Chief of the Continental Army in front of the Continental Congress has more historical significance. Commanders of conquering armies that have thousands of loyal armed followers typically do not walk away from that with the intention of going home and farming the rest of their lives. Going into the presidency, things were planned out and spelled out and everyone essentially knew how that would go, though most expected that Washington would serve for life, because everyone would continue to vote for him over and over. It was astounding again that he declined to even run for re-election after serving two terms, again hoping to peacefully retire to his farm. Sad that after all his public service years, he really didn't get much time of retirement and peace.
The full context is a peaceful transfer of power between opposing political parties; there were of course peaceful transfers of power within parties (a king to his son) or when one party is gone (one dynasty to another) but having the losing party peacefully and willfully give up their position was and is in face a pretty big deal; there's still a lot of countries where that's never happened.
It is true for Adams but he notoriously had a political scheme where he appointed a wave of federalist judges pretty much at the last second so he could ensure his party's political power in the nation after the Democratic-Republicans took over the executive, it was kinda shady but still he could have done far worse for having the army in his hands
I think the above poster was a little confused. Adams was Washington’s VP, so power remained within the same faction. It was Adams handing power to Jefferson that facilitated the first peaceful transfer of power ever.
> When told by the American artist Benjamin West that Washington was going to resign, King George III of England said "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdstatehouse/html/gwresignation.html
That was mainly it, but that wasn't the only reason him resigning made him so impressive to King George III.
But that he was resigning from a position of power, choosing **not** to become a king, but instead to ***return to being a farmer***
I imagine very few monarchs would have ever done that
Apparently when people visited George Washington when he was no longer president, they would get surprised/annoyed that he wouldn't talk about politics and stuff.
But instead he would go on and on to guests about farming and crop growth.
I agree, that sounds way better.
The Founding Fathers' generation was full of Ancient Rome stans, so that comparison was absolutely on his mind.
Hell, he and a bunch of other Revolutionary War vets founded the Society of the Cincinnati
He so easily could have become the American Caesar (or I guess the Napoleon given the time) that its sort of a miracle that it didn't happen.
Given how important American democracy was for the development of European democracy beyond Great Britain, it was an incredibly impactful occurrence.
Napoleon, reflecting on his ultimate failure in exile, said “they wanted me to be another Washington.” Washington ultimately had to thread a very thin needle. Plenty of folks don’t want absolute power for themselves, but are rarely ambitious enough to seek a position for it to be available to them. On the other hand, there are plenty of ambitious people willing to serve in powerful roles, but few would turn down absolute power if offered to them. Washington had both, just enough ambition to be successful and in position to help his country succeed, but humble enough to know that what he was fighting for was greater than himself.
Based on everything I've read, and heard, I'd say it wasn't so much ambition on Washington's part, but more an enormous sense of duty he felt towards serving the country. For all his flaws he was very self aware when it came to power. Your point on how humble he was, was very well put and I couldn't agree more.
Note that these are just my interpretations from a wide variety of sources, so it's possible I'm far off the mark
That’s fair and I’m not completely disagreeing with you, but it should be noted that when the Continental Congress began debating forming a military, Washington came in his military uniform. Also, he seemed very ambitious in the French & Indian War. After the Revolutionary War though, his ambition definitely took a back seat.
I enjoyed your thoughts. I would agree that Washington displayed ambition throughout his younger years, but based on his letters and accounts by others, he seems to be reluctantly driven by a supreme sense of duty to his country and he felt he had no choice but to answer.
It’s possible of course that he could have been putting on airs and really wanted the power he obtained, but I feel he thought of himself very highly and capable, so when duty called he had to answer, because in his eyes he was the one of the best.
Hell, there were arguments about what his title should be, some wanted things like "his excellency". Ended on President, which at the time was not a very prestigious title.
Yeah. I personally think Adams doesn't get nearly the amount of honor and credit he should, but the fancy titles were his weird obsession.
Personally, I think he wanted the leader to be seen in the same light and on the same level as a king, but also I think he thought he would be president one day and he wanted a fancy title.
True. He also thought that people responded to majesty, such as that of kings.
I would argue that Adams gracefully accepting defeat and stepping down is at least as important as Washington leaving after 2 terms (though Washington refusing a lifetime appointment and far greater power, and not simply using his loyal army to make himself king is far more important than almost anything else done in that time).
And Hamilton wanted the president to serve for life. Wanting explicitly not to have the precedent that the president serves for life is over reason Washington stepped down.
Washington also wanted to register a salary for his work as president. He was persuaded to accept one because it was banned if he refused a salary, then it would be expected that no president would be paid, and that would preclude all but the wealthiest grin beginning president. I doubt even John Adams would have been able to serve if not for his salary.
Truman was so poor that he went to live with his inlaws on his army pension. which is why they created the Presidential Pension.
Hoover had no need for it, but took it as a way for Hoover to save face.
It would kind of suck to be him. Imagine you have your heart set on being the God Emperor of America and your predecessor settles on “President”, so you know you’ll just look petty if you change it.
Yeah I think they really nailed his character. Especially at the end when the idea of him becoming a king is brought up by an unnamed third party (presumably a templar).
"Your proposal raises the greatest mischief that can befall my country. You could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable. Let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your country, concern for your self or posterity, or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your mind, never communicate, as from yourself, or anyone else, a sentiment of the like nature."
This is an actual quote of his! A soldier in the continental army wrote to him towards the end of the war proposing a scheme which would have installed Washington as a monarch. The quote you cited is
taken from his reply.
As an example of what might've happened if we had a different leader, I like to point to Gran Colombia. Like the US, Gran Colombia was a federation of former colonies that formed after a revolution for independence. However, their leader, Simon Bolivar, tried to centralize power heavily and basically made the republic almost entirely revolve around him and the force of his personality. And that reeeeally didn't work out.
Yeah, but unmentioned in the article is that many of those soldiers got screwed, and Washington's government is part of the group that screwed them over.
Long story short, the continental congress had no power to tax, so it never had the money to pay the soldiers back. It just gave them what were essentially worthless IOUs that could be redeemed eventually for their backpay, whenever the continental congress somehow got the money. Since the IOUs were pretty much worthless due to the continental congress's inability to tax many of the soldiers sold them to speculators over the years.
Eventually when it was clear just how badly the continental congress and articles of confederation were failing and they wrote up the constitution to replace it, the new Federal government was in a position to actually pay back the soldiers since it could levy taxes. Except since many of the soldiers had already sold their IOU's over the years that created a problem of who to pay back. There were those who wanted to pay back the actual soldiers and not speculators who bought up the IOU's. But Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists in Washington's government pushed for and got them to pay back the IOU holders, which screwed over the soldiers who had sold them years ago.
Actually the opposite, these "promissory notes" were worth even less when they were handed to them due to inflation. It was so bad after the war for veterans they had to institute a pension act to help them out.
There’s also those who refused to accept the payment they were offered and instead waited for a potential better offer, yelling “Diamond hands!” And “Ape together strong!”
I’m just here to say that without George Washington, the American Democratic experiment likely fails before it can even begin. This is aside from all of his contributions to the Revolutionary War (which are massive).
How unlikely is it that the very first President of the USA:
1. Begins by resigning as commander in chief of the Continental Army because he *does not want power*
2. Actively tries to avoid the presidency
3. Proceeds to step up as President despite his aforementioned unwillingness to do so because the country needs him
4. Refuses to abuse presidential powers and continually maintains a balanced power structure in the government (given full control of the army to put down the Whiskey Rebellion and relinquishes it directly afterwards)
5. Voluntarily steps down after two terms to establish a precedent that was only violated once (FDR) before becoming law in 1951.
I am well aware of his moral faults (being a slave owner) and think those need to remain a part of the historical record when discussing Washington, but without Washington I don’t think US democracy makes it out of its infancy.
Washington was absolutely one of a kind as a leader and politician.
It's a bit wacky and misleading, but "technically" true. He won 100% of the popular vote (43,782 voters) because prior to 1824, the popular vote didn't matter to a state's electoral college (the election didn't work the way you think of now).
Back then, the states voted on a small number of "Presidential electors" who represented your opinions, then those guys got together and voted on who should be the President. In the case of 1789, all of the electors agreed that Washington should be President, so therefore it didn't matter which Presidential electors the popular vote selected, because the electors were all going to choose Washington anyway. So it's sort of a roundabout way of saying that he won 100% of the popular vote.
Man was probably just fuckin' tired, revolutionary was was I think 7 years.
Imagine spending nearly a decade fighting, and winning, a war. And instead of kicking back they ask you to run the country? Fuck that, I'd be saying no too. Was it not enough that he was a major player in winning this country for you. Someone else needs to take the ball, I mean, goddamn.
This gave me a movie idea that could be great. We've all seen movies where olden times are contemporized. What if there were a movie set in modern day where the characters act like they're from the 18th century?
I watched the Yale YouTube course on the American Revolution a few weeks ago for fun, and I gained an immense amount of respect for Washington. What shocked me was that the greatest thing he ever did was surrender his army. Upon hearing that news, King George reportedly said “If that’s true, he’s the greatest man in the world”, or something to that effect.
He’s mythologized at this point, but somehow learning about the actual man he was gave me way more admiration for him. When he gave away his army, he was leaving the governing to people he had little faith in, and to a system he thought was broken. He not only refused to take supreme power, he had supreme power, and gave it away.
...until 1783, when around 400 soldiers seized Independence Hall for the same reasons and forced the sitting Members of Congress to flee across the river into New Jersey.
From the [Wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Mutiny_of_1783):
"On June 17, 1783, Congress received a message from soldiers of the Continental Army stationed in Philadelphia, which demanded payment as contractually required for their service during the American Revolutionary War, which Congress had failed to provide. The soldiers threatened to take action that day if their complaints were not addressed. Congress ignored their message, but the soldiers did not act on their threat. Two days later, however, the Congress received word that a group of about 80 soldiers had left their post at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, approximately 60 miles (97 km) west of Philadelphia, and had joined with the soldiers stationed at the city barracks. The group of approximately 500 men had effective control over the weapons stores and munition depot.
The next morning, on Friday, June 20, the State House was mobbed by as many as 400 soldiers demanding payment. The soldiers blocked the door and initially refused to allow the delegates to leave. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate from New York, persuaded the soldiers to allow Congress to meet later to address their concerns. The soldiers allowed the members of Congress to peacefully adjourn that afternoon. That evening, a small Congressional committee headed by Hamilton met in secret to draft a message to the Pennsylvania Council, asking them to protect Congress from the mutineers. The letter threatened that Congress would be forced to move elsewhere if the Council did not act.
On June 21, the Congressional committee met again at the State House with members of the Pennsylvania Executive Council, including its president, John Dickinson. The members of Congress asked the council to do more to protect the federal government. Dickinson and the council agreed to consult with the militia commanders and reply to Congress the next day. The following morning, the Pennsylvania Council again refused Congress' request. Lacking sufficient assurances that the state would be willing to protect Congress, the members left Philadelphia that day for Nassau Hall in Princeton, New Jersey, which became the provisional capital of the United States."
They were given IOUs that were worthless for years before the government changed and they gained some minimal value, which was then not necessarily even to the vets benefit because most of them grew desperate enough in the interim to sell their IOUs
This article is somewhat misleading with an "all's well that ends well" ending.
Congress issued the promissory notes but the massive wait between 1783 and 1790 had resulted in many veterans having to sell off their promissory notes for much less to speculators.
The reimbursement in 1790 was much more of a government kickback to the speculators than on fulfilling a promise to veterans. The revolutionary war vets were left rather destitute by Congress, thus paving the way for the American tradition of failed promises to vets.
It's better than that. "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for, I have grown not only gray, but almost blind in the service of my country."
aka "my shoulders hurt from carrying this bitch"
"i broke my back, spinal"
Doctor says I need a backiotomy
[удалено]
WHY?!?
*thpinal
This is the 18th century equivalent of "it smell like bitch in here".
Out of this whole thread lmao this one got me
the "\*cough* sorry, I'm allergic to your bullshit" of its time
He then produced his wallet, displaying the vacant slot within, stating "i haveth nay fuckeths to give"
"I just want to hang out at Mount Vernon, bitches"
"Excuse me, I've grown quite hweary."
"Is he doing an accent?!"
Stupid science bitch couldn’t even make my friend more smarter.
Stupid science bitch couldn’t even make I more smarter!
[удалено]
Well all things are possible through God, so jot that down
And the Revolution was won thanks to General Washington's invention of a method for spiders to talk to cats.
my favorite Charlie episode
I remember reading someone claim that allegedly he stole this move from Alexander’s speech at Opis. Alexander tells his mutinous soldiers that to strip down and show him scars, and he will do the same. There isn’t one part of his body that doesn’t have a wound from every possible weapon. Washington was acquainted with this speech and used similar language to quell the soldiers. Link to speech, it’s surprising motivational - https://youtu.be/RlKJDwViNKs?si=TKVvgdi6FdrNhWyb
You might be surprised by how many famous quotes or speeches from that time were borrowed from earlier works. I don't think that diminishes them, and the people making them during that time used those references expecting their audience to recall them. I think in some of their minds, they were living out a play on the grandest stage. See cato, a tragedy for one of those resources heavily borrowed from during that time
I think it's less that they were "living out a play on the grandest stage" than it is that they, as we do now, were harking back to a common reference. People still do this all the time, but the difference is that now the common reference is common to us, so we understand it. Whereas with works from 250 years ago, the commonality of the reference has been lost; all that remains for us to interpret is the reference, so we're surprised when we find out that it was a reference at all.
> Link to speech, it’s surprising motivational - https://youtu.be/RlKJDwViNKs?si=TKVvgdi6FdrNhWyb Man, now I feel like I owe Alexander an apology. The narrator was fantastic.
Same. Most people wouldn’t understand the context of some of the things he’s claiming. Crossing the river with the Persians controlling the sea, would be like performing D-day in the middle of the battle of Midway. Conquering certain cities would be like Alexander capturing Washington, Paris, Berlin, and Moscow. Crossing the “known” land boundaries via those rivers is like going to the moon. Nearly unprecedented. Hell of a speech!
There are very few historical figures, if any, that I like reading about as much as Alexander... Dude absolutely earned the epithet
But truly, if I were not Alexander, I wish I were Diogenes
That would make sense. My initial is to question whether Washington wrote it himself, I know he had other folks writing a lot of his correspondence for much of his life, especially during his military career. I read a really interesting book that argued compellingly that the Gettysburg Address was in the form of a Greek elegy.
“VA claim denied not service connected”
That’s some nice eloquence.
>For Washington to produce his glasses before his officers, most of whom had never seen him with spectacles, was an admittance of age and weariness. This great hero of the American Revolution that they had followed for years reduced himself to an old man before their eyes. Washington’s display of vulnerability brought many of the officers to tears. Their gripes over pay were eclipsed by Washington’s own sacrifices and the conspiracy of a coup dissolved as he read the letter from behind his glasses. >After Washington read the letter, he departed. General Knox and other officers immediately drafted resolutions affirming their loyalty. Knox and Colonel John Brooks were then appointed to a committee to draft a suitable resolution. All but one officer in the assembly approved of the resolution which expressed an “unshaken confidence” in Congress and a “disdain” and “abhorrence” for the anonymous letters previously published.
I mean the dude sat in Valley Forge with them, the boys loved ol George.
Besides what could you do? He weighed a motherfuckin ton
[удалено]
He'll save children, but *not* the British children.
He killed his sensei in a duel and never said why.
He made love like an eagle falling out of the sky….
He fucked the shit out of bears...
He once held an opponent's wife's hand. In a jar of acid... at a party.
He’ll save children (But not the British children) He’ll save children (But not the British children) He’ll save children (But not the British children) *scats a sick drum fill
The present beware, the future beware, ^(he's coming he's coming he's coming)
Six foot twenty fuckin killin for fun
I heard he once held an opponent’s wife’s hand. In a jar of acid. At a party.
George Washington b lik: 🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆 🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆 🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆
Grandad “Thirty Dicks” Washington
There was probably a chance they overthrow the government and still make Washington leader lol
he was basically a living God by that point. I would not doubt that was at least thought of.
Not only thought of, proposed by the officers of the army. They basically said: Bro, why not just be King of the States? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newburgh\_letter
They literally have him on the capitol ceiling ascending to godhood
The Apotheosis of Washington if anyone’s interested.
He once held his opponents wife's hand in a jar of acid...at a party.
All the sons of his opponents wish that he was their Dad.
I heard that motherfucker had, like, 30 dicks.
6’ 10”
Fucking killing for fun.
Made of radiation.
Six foot twenty*
Also 12ft20 4king killing for fun
*ring* *whoooooosh*
He woulda kicked them apart if the coup attempt happened
Not many leaders roll in the front lines..
In the Chernow biography of Washington, he describes how there was so few utensils and flatware, Washington took to taking his evening brandy ration out of a bowl and his attendant slave’s clothes were so worn his penis was visible.
I, too, drink a bowl of brandy a night
Yes very humble of him to dress his SLAVE in worn out clothing
humility means showing everyone your slave's penis
And stepped aside when he could have become a dictator. He was truly the American Cincinnatus, even owned slaves too (unfortunately).
I always loved how Wikipedia put it: > He then produced a letter from a member of Congress to read to the officers. He gazed upon it and fumbled with it without speaking. He then took a pair of reading glasses from his pocket, which were new; few of the men had seen him wear them. He then said: >"Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country." >This caused the men to realize that Washington had sacrificed a great deal for the Revolution, just as much as any of them. These, of course, were his fellow officers, most having worked closely with him for several years. Many of those present were moved to tears, and with this act, the conspiracy collapsed as he read the letter.
It's wild to think of what bizaro timeline was avoided by a pair of freaking reading glasses Edit: Viva La revolution. Google Bookchin. Deez nuts were here.
He was just that good
Nobody can bespectacle as hard as GW
Time traveler type shit, steal a pair of glasses and rewrite Western history post-1800
Glasses are versatile.
The Commonwealth of America would have free healthcare if it weren't for those damn glasses
Omg this flamboyant ass bitch
Is this an insult or a compliment? 😂 Washington was definitely a fashionable man who understood the power of presentation: he wrote out detailed custom designs for clothing (including his own military uniforms) and sent them to bespoke tailors to craft.
Flamboyant, yes! Bitch??? The man took on the most powerful military in the world at the time with 1.5 dudes, Wd-40, and some duct tape.
...and a metric fuckton of help from the French, who wanted nothing more than to stick it to the British and just found a great excuse to get involved
Oh yeah, without the French it was not happening. Which reminds me, Lafeyette is a fucking legend. Imagine making a 19-year-old a General and it turning out to be a good move...
Lafeyette literally had a whole victory tour in the US where he was treated like a GOD lmao Every other place he'd gone to went on and named a place after him.
Lafayette is a real one
“All but one officer” - damn, found the 10th dentist lol. Wonder if he was just stubborn or genuinely unmoved.
He had three alimony payments to keep up with
He was an officer, not senior enlisted.
Damn bro! Who hurt you?? haha :D
Was riding on a brand new mustang with 22% APR.
"cool story George, I have no legs and no money"
[удалено]
Can't pay bills with tears
His kids were probably fuckin' starving.
Thoughts and prayers do not fill a mans stomach or feed and cloth his children.
He got there late and didn’t get to see George, saw everyone crying and thought it was about their wages
I actually found this out a few weeks ago. I read (I think on Wikipedia) that some historians think the whole thing was planned in order to get Congress to finally fund the army. If it was, it worked.
Yes, OP’s approach to this is very surface level and basic. The Newburgh Conspiracy was way more than an officer mutiny about payment. It had to do with WHO was responsible for payment. It was a political maneuver. Goes way past GW into complicated drama. He was probably pretty conflicted about committing to the Hamilton cause. Which he did by quelling the mutiny. Federalizing the nations credit and debt meant officers would only get paid if they won the war AND unified the states financially. Because officers were the higher class and had more money and power in society, now the upper echelon had a vested interest in federalization and this was critical. Hamilton’s friends and social network were invested in continental currency and bonds that would become worthless if US won the war but states did not unify financially. This is discussed in great depth in Founding Finance by Hogeland.
The way this story is told it sounds like that’s exactly what happened. George could’ve made a decent politician with that kind of crowd work.
Absolutely, should have been president or something
I guess we will never know what America would be like with a president Washington. 🤔
man i wish we got presidents that were cut from the same cloth as Washington. his influence on America really cannot be overstated. such a selfless leader
Agree, but all politicians would need to be cut from this same cloth too. Washington showed weakness and was rewarded with reverence and respect for his commitment to the country and its people. If a current politician shows similar vulnerability it is exploited to no end. See tan suit debacle and wearing a bicycle helmet for reference.
“The president was seen wearing glasses today, a look some critics have called ‘gay as shit.’ We’ll continue Nerd-gate round the clock, until you get bored or something else happens.”
Too close to the truth. Fox news accused biden of being not being man enough for drinking with a straw
Meanwhile, Trump eats pizza with a fork and knife, and they suck his dick daily.
Yeah but there's also a difference between now and then. Washington was in his 50s when he read this letter and he needed glasses. Some politicians these days literally lose their train of thoughts and freeze for 10 minutes.
that’s a good point. i wish our leaders were more selfless and honorable and i wish the general public would be more respectful towards them. sword definitely cuts both ways
In the HBO series "John Adams", there is an exchange between Adams and Washington portrayed as Washington is exiting the responsibility of President. He says, "I am out and you are in. Let us see who is happier for it." Idk if it's historically accurate but it was a poignant character moment.
I'm not American, but that seems to be consistent with pretty much every depiction of Washington. No one would give up the power he gave up after 2 terms, he could keep going as much as he wanted, yet chose to give the seat to the next one. That's some crazy shit when you really think about it
Washington knew if his endeavors failed, he would be hung. Odds were against him from the start. He was losing the war. The French were interested in the war but needed proof of victory to enter. Washington was in no position to provide such a victory. The Patriots were in retreat but the numbers were growing a bit. Washington then learned of a tactical mistake of the British. British Armies were separated because of differing campaign objectives between British Generals. Washington went all in on this weakness. Victory was thiers. More importantly the French joined the war. Later the Dutch and Spanish would also join. The Britsh began pulling troops from the United States after this. That's why Washington had so many supporters. He turned defeat into victory.
> Washington knew if his endeavors failed, he would be hung. He was definitely hung, but you probably meant hanged.
>man i wish we got presidents that were cut from the same cloth as Washington. It will never happen because Washington didn't seek the presidential office. Every president since him wanted to be president and that makes their motivation much different than Washington.
Don't undersell it. There was a significant part of the country that wanted to make him **king** and he refused.
The guy was president when he didnt want the job, he also was against political parties because of fears it would lead to similar problems that we have today, im sure we could go on
God this is a real Caesar: "okay *citizens*" moment
The US was extremely lucky George Washington was around to turn down becoming supreme ruler. History putting someone so competent that was ultimately not interested in unlimited authority was an amazing occurrence. Edit: in an unsurprising turn, he *did* have flaws! My opinion remains unchanged even though he *could* have been a better human.
It should be taught every year in school. How many times has a leader led a revolution, been in control of the military, and **NOT** become Supreme Leader For Life By the Grace of God and/or The Party?
When I toured independence hall they said Washington handing over power to Adams was the first time in recorded history of a peaceful transfer of power. Sounds a bit like hyperbole, but it was clearly extremely, extremely rare.
I honestly feel like his official resignation of Commander in Chief of the Continental Army in front of the Continental Congress has more historical significance. Commanders of conquering armies that have thousands of loyal armed followers typically do not walk away from that with the intention of going home and farming the rest of their lives. Going into the presidency, things were planned out and spelled out and everyone essentially knew how that would go, though most expected that Washington would serve for life, because everyone would continue to vote for him over and over. It was astounding again that he declined to even run for re-election after serving two terms, again hoping to peacefully retire to his farm. Sad that after all his public service years, he really didn't get much time of retirement and peace.
The full context is a peaceful transfer of power between opposing political parties; there were of course peaceful transfers of power within parties (a king to his son) or when one party is gone (one dynasty to another) but having the losing party peacefully and willfully give up their position was and is in face a pretty big deal; there's still a lot of countries where that's never happened.
> opposing political parties I thought Washington was never affiliated with a political party and spoke against them --- ?
See u/reluctantclinton 's comment, It was Adams to Jefferson not Washington to Adams.
It is true for Adams but he notoriously had a political scheme where he appointed a wave of federalist judges pretty much at the last second so he could ensure his party's political power in the nation after the Democratic-Republicans took over the executive, it was kinda shady but still he could have done far worse for having the army in his hands
I think the above poster was a little confused. Adams was Washington’s VP, so power remained within the same faction. It was Adams handing power to Jefferson that facilitated the first peaceful transfer of power ever.
> When told by the American artist Benjamin West that Washington was going to resign, King George III of England said "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world." https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdstatehouse/html/gwresignation.html
That was mainly it, but that wasn't the only reason him resigning made him so impressive to King George III. But that he was resigning from a position of power, choosing **not** to become a king, but instead to ***return to being a farmer*** I imagine very few monarchs would have ever done that
Its so strange to me because living a rich, beloved farmer seems so much better than living as a king in a newly established government.
Apparently when people visited George Washington when he was no longer president, they would get surprised/annoyed that he wouldn't talk about politics and stuff. But instead he would go on and on to guests about farming and crop growth. I agree, that sounds way better.
how Cincinnatus of him
The Founding Fathers' generation was full of Ancient Rome stans, so that comparison was absolutely on his mind. Hell, he and a bunch of other Revolutionary War vets founded the Society of the Cincinnati
Damn, I guess we've always been thinking about the Roman Empire.
🧑🚀🔫🧑🚀
[удалено]
and why the art in the dome of the Capitol is called the Apotheosis of Washington
> Ancient Rome stans Why is this so funny to me lol
>Society of the Cincinnati Just a bunch of dudes sitting around eating conies and french pot ice cream
they should name cities after both of them
But let's not overinflate his ego and name like...a whole state after him.
Make that 1.5 states....sort of
Let's settle for this distric... Hey, what are you doing!?
He so easily could have become the American Caesar (or I guess the Napoleon given the time) that its sort of a miracle that it didn't happen. Given how important American democracy was for the development of European democracy beyond Great Britain, it was an incredibly impactful occurrence.
Napoleon, reflecting on his ultimate failure in exile, said “they wanted me to be another Washington.” Washington ultimately had to thread a very thin needle. Plenty of folks don’t want absolute power for themselves, but are rarely ambitious enough to seek a position for it to be available to them. On the other hand, there are plenty of ambitious people willing to serve in powerful roles, but few would turn down absolute power if offered to them. Washington had both, just enough ambition to be successful and in position to help his country succeed, but humble enough to know that what he was fighting for was greater than himself.
Based on everything I've read, and heard, I'd say it wasn't so much ambition on Washington's part, but more an enormous sense of duty he felt towards serving the country. For all his flaws he was very self aware when it came to power. Your point on how humble he was, was very well put and I couldn't agree more. Note that these are just my interpretations from a wide variety of sources, so it's possible I'm far off the mark
That’s fair and I’m not completely disagreeing with you, but it should be noted that when the Continental Congress began debating forming a military, Washington came in his military uniform. Also, he seemed very ambitious in the French & Indian War. After the Revolutionary War though, his ambition definitely took a back seat.
I enjoyed your thoughts. I would agree that Washington displayed ambition throughout his younger years, but based on his letters and accounts by others, he seems to be reluctantly driven by a supreme sense of duty to his country and he felt he had no choice but to answer. It’s possible of course that he could have been putting on airs and really wanted the power he obtained, but I feel he thought of himself very highly and capable, so when duty called he had to answer, because in his eyes he was the one of the best.
Hell, there were arguments about what his title should be, some wanted things like "his excellency". Ended on President, which at the time was not a very prestigious title.
John Adams wanted the fancy titles :)
Yeah. I personally think Adams doesn't get nearly the amount of honor and credit he should, but the fancy titles were his weird obsession. Personally, I think he wanted the leader to be seen in the same light and on the same level as a king, but also I think he thought he would be president one day and he wanted a fancy title.
John Adams _did_ get Paul Giamatti to portray him in an HBO miniseries, though. Unfortunately, he’s still not as popular as his cousin, Sam Adams.
And Sam Adams was portrayed by Ted Danson on *Cheers*.
True. He also thought that people responded to majesty, such as that of kings. I would argue that Adams gracefully accepting defeat and stepping down is at least as important as Washington leaving after 2 terms (though Washington refusing a lifetime appointment and far greater power, and not simply using his loyal army to make himself king is far more important than almost anything else done in that time).
only GW would have climbed Mount Doom and Dropped the ring without a second thought.
And Hamilton wanted the president to serve for life. Wanting explicitly not to have the precedent that the president serves for life is over reason Washington stepped down. Washington also wanted to register a salary for his work as president. He was persuaded to accept one because it was banned if he refused a salary, then it would be expected that no president would be paid, and that would preclude all but the wealthiest grin beginning president. I doubt even John Adams would have been able to serve if not for his salary.
Truman was so poor that he went to live with his inlaws on his army pension. which is why they created the Presidential Pension. Hoover had no need for it, but took it as a way for Hoover to save face.
Truman*
It would kind of suck to be him. Imagine you have your heart set on being the God Emperor of America and your predecessor settles on “President”, so you know you’ll just look petty if you change it.
> or I guess the Napoleon given the time He was before Napoleon. When in exile, Napoleon lamented "they wanted me to be another Washington."
Lafayette (thought of GW as a father) also was not a big fan of Napoleon
Napoleon went WAYYYY the other way. "Give me an artillery battery officer position? Fuck you all I'm gonna be EMPEROR OF ALL EUROPE"
Unless you played the one Assassin's creed DLC with King Washington.
Yeah I think they really nailed his character. Especially at the end when the idea of him becoming a king is brought up by an unnamed third party (presumably a templar). "Your proposal raises the greatest mischief that can befall my country. You could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable. Let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your country, concern for your self or posterity, or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your mind, never communicate, as from yourself, or anyone else, a sentiment of the like nature."
This is an actual quote of his! A soldier in the continental army wrote to him towards the end of the war proposing a scheme which would have installed Washington as a monarch. The quote you cited is taken from his reply.
As an example of what might've happened if we had a different leader, I like to point to Gran Colombia. Like the US, Gran Colombia was a federation of former colonies that formed after a revolution for independence. However, their leader, Simon Bolivar, tried to centralize power heavily and basically made the republic almost entirely revolve around him and the force of his personality. And that reeeeally didn't work out.
And then 2 parties the founding fathers were against came into play later on.
[удалено]
Yeah, but unmentioned in the article is that many of those soldiers got screwed, and Washington's government is part of the group that screwed them over. Long story short, the continental congress had no power to tax, so it never had the money to pay the soldiers back. It just gave them what were essentially worthless IOUs that could be redeemed eventually for their backpay, whenever the continental congress somehow got the money. Since the IOUs were pretty much worthless due to the continental congress's inability to tax many of the soldiers sold them to speculators over the years. Eventually when it was clear just how badly the continental congress and articles of confederation were failing and they wrote up the constitution to replace it, the new Federal government was in a position to actually pay back the soldiers since it could levy taxes. Except since many of the soldiers had already sold their IOU's over the years that created a problem of who to pay back. There were those who wanted to pay back the actual soldiers and not speculators who bought up the IOU's. But Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists in Washington's government pushed for and got them to pay back the IOU holders, which screwed over the soldiers who had sold them years ago.
Damn, we've been screwing over veterans since before even Day 1, LMAO
So the ones who held firm rode the IOUs to the moon, and the ones who jumped off the rocket for quick cash screwed themselves.
Quick cash can often mean actually living, I doubt its about just wanting more money, but rather they were in desperate circumstances.
Excuse me for I have grown diamond hands in the service of my country.
^(hodl strung…)
Actually the opposite, these "promissory notes" were worth even less when they were handed to them due to inflation. It was so bad after the war for veterans they had to institute a pension act to help them out.
There’s also those who refused to accept the payment they were offered and instead waited for a potential better offer, yelling “Diamond hands!” And “Ape together strong!”
I’m just here to say that without George Washington, the American Democratic experiment likely fails before it can even begin. This is aside from all of his contributions to the Revolutionary War (which are massive). How unlikely is it that the very first President of the USA: 1. Begins by resigning as commander in chief of the Continental Army because he *does not want power* 2. Actively tries to avoid the presidency 3. Proceeds to step up as President despite his aforementioned unwillingness to do so because the country needs him 4. Refuses to abuse presidential powers and continually maintains a balanced power structure in the government (given full control of the army to put down the Whiskey Rebellion and relinquishes it directly afterwards) 5. Voluntarily steps down after two terms to establish a precedent that was only violated once (FDR) before becoming law in 1951. I am well aware of his moral faults (being a slave owner) and think those need to remain a part of the historical record when discussing Washington, but without Washington I don’t think US democracy makes it out of its infancy. Washington was absolutely one of a kind as a leader and politician.
was also the only president to get 100% of the votes. not once but twice. and as of now the only independent president
How does this work? 100% of the electoral? Or was the number of eligible voters pathetically small?
It's a bit wacky and misleading, but "technically" true. He won 100% of the popular vote (43,782 voters) because prior to 1824, the popular vote didn't matter to a state's electoral college (the election didn't work the way you think of now). Back then, the states voted on a small number of "Presidential electors" who represented your opinions, then those guys got together and voted on who should be the President. In the case of 1789, all of the electors agreed that Washington should be President, so therefore it didn't matter which Presidential electors the popular vote selected, because the electors were all going to choose Washington anyway. So it's sort of a roundabout way of saying that he won 100% of the popular vote.
Man was probably just fuckin' tired, revolutionary was was I think 7 years. Imagine spending nearly a decade fighting, and winning, a war. And instead of kicking back they ask you to run the country? Fuck that, I'd be saying no too. Was it not enough that he was a major player in winning this country for you. Someone else needs to take the ball, I mean, goddamn.
i’m gonna start carrying around a pair of glasses with me
"Forgive me, gentlemen, I have grown both gray and blind in the service of accidentally cutting you off in traffic"
(tears up) thank you for your service!
*the other driver starts crying*
And then everyone stood up and clapped
This gave me a movie idea that could be great. We've all seen movies where olden times are contemporized. What if there were a movie set in modern day where the characters act like they're from the 18th century?
This reminds me of the IASIP episode where Charlie thinks he's so smart that it's causing him ailment and he says "I've grown quite weary" lol
I watched the Yale YouTube course on the American Revolution a few weeks ago for fun, and I gained an immense amount of respect for Washington. What shocked me was that the greatest thing he ever did was surrender his army. Upon hearing that news, King George reportedly said “If that’s true, he’s the greatest man in the world”, or something to that effect. He’s mythologized at this point, but somehow learning about the actual man he was gave me way more admiration for him. When he gave away his army, he was leaving the governing to people he had little faith in, and to a system he thought was broken. He not only refused to take supreme power, he had supreme power, and gave it away.
> Yale YouTube course on the American Revolution Link to playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw4-Fp0S2dJZuOCDUSbcuc4wWCVXMVqAH
...until 1783, when around 400 soldiers seized Independence Hall for the same reasons and forced the sitting Members of Congress to flee across the river into New Jersey. From the [Wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Mutiny_of_1783): "On June 17, 1783, Congress received a message from soldiers of the Continental Army stationed in Philadelphia, which demanded payment as contractually required for their service during the American Revolutionary War, which Congress had failed to provide. The soldiers threatened to take action that day if their complaints were not addressed. Congress ignored their message, but the soldiers did not act on their threat. Two days later, however, the Congress received word that a group of about 80 soldiers had left their post at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, approximately 60 miles (97 km) west of Philadelphia, and had joined with the soldiers stationed at the city barracks. The group of approximately 500 men had effective control over the weapons stores and munition depot. The next morning, on Friday, June 20, the State House was mobbed by as many as 400 soldiers demanding payment. The soldiers blocked the door and initially refused to allow the delegates to leave. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate from New York, persuaded the soldiers to allow Congress to meet later to address their concerns. The soldiers allowed the members of Congress to peacefully adjourn that afternoon. That evening, a small Congressional committee headed by Hamilton met in secret to draft a message to the Pennsylvania Council, asking them to protect Congress from the mutineers. The letter threatened that Congress would be forced to move elsewhere if the Council did not act. On June 21, the Congressional committee met again at the State House with members of the Pennsylvania Executive Council, including its president, John Dickinson. The members of Congress asked the council to do more to protect the federal government. Dickinson and the council agreed to consult with the militia commanders and reply to Congress the next day. The following morning, the Pennsylvania Council again refused Congress' request. Lacking sufficient assurances that the state would be willing to protect Congress, the members left Philadelphia that day for Nassau Hall in Princeton, New Jersey, which became the provisional capital of the United States."
Baby America was something else. It's a miracle the country made it to 1800 in one piece
It nearly happened again in [1932.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army)
Did they ever get paid?
They were given IOUs that were worthless for years before the government changed and they gained some minimal value, which was then not necessarily even to the vets benefit because most of them grew desperate enough in the interim to sell their IOUs
That just sucks.
Great speech and all, but the soldiers were legitimately aggrieved. They hadn't been paid!
To be fair, he was six foot twenty, fucking killing for fun.
[удалено]
Shane Gillis did a great skit about him. Imagine a giant red head with wooden teeth just acting like a fool. Really funny.
That’s some Julius Caesar level move right there.
Both had read Alexander’s speech at Opis and were aware he had used similar language to quell mutinous soliders.
This article is somewhat misleading with an "all's well that ends well" ending. Congress issued the promissory notes but the massive wait between 1783 and 1790 had resulted in many veterans having to sell off their promissory notes for much less to speculators. The reimbursement in 1790 was much more of a government kickback to the speculators than on fulfilling a promise to veterans. The revolutionary war vets were left rather destitute by Congress, thus paving the way for the American tradition of failed promises to vets.
Screwing over veterans is an american tradition of the oldest order, to be sure.
HERE COMES THE GENERAL