The American Spectator

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.15.10 @ 7:11AM

A wonderful article in more ways then one. Washington was also known for his honesty as were many of the founding fathers.

Contrast that to our current President who is a pathological liar, and our crop of current politicians who, as opposed to starting their own businesses, would rather tax your efforts, and our dilemma is obvious.

Copyleft| 2.15.10 @ 7:44AM

There's a reason people don't know as much about Washington as the other founding fathers... because Washington didn't really do as much!

Adams was the great thinker of the group. Madison was the father of the Constitution. Jefferson wrote the Declaration. Washington? Pretty much a war-hero figurehead with nothing to contribute intellectually to the principles of the Revolution or the founding of the new nation.

Profiteering through moonshine and slaves... no wonder the Spectator admires him!

Ryan| 2.15.10 @ 8:08AM

Wow. An amazing oversimplification that completely misses the point.

Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 2.15.10 @ 10:50AM

Copyass: George didn't have a chance to help write the Declaration of Independence (1776), because he was already up in Massachusetts (1775), trying to turn a bunch of ragged civilians into an Army, that was attempting to take on the greatest Army in the World (at that time).

Now Madison may have been the Father of the Constitution, but George Washington was the President of the Constitutional Convention Asswipe!! And he was single handedly, the main reason, why all of the States participated in the convention in the first place, he was the only man in the young Nation that could bring everybody together.

You are a complete ass!!

Paullini| 2.15.10 @ 11:26AM

Wow, Copyleft, a little revisionist aren't we?

S.L. Toddard| 2.15.10 @ 11:55AM

"Pretty much a war-hero figurehead with nothing to contribute intellectually to the principles of the Revolution or the founding of the new nation."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18t.....ashing.asp

Old Soldier| 2.15.10 @ 12:06PM

That dscribes you as well - minus the war-hero part.

S.L. Toddard| 2.15.10 @ 1:48PM

Zing!

Louis Jenkins| 2.15.10 @ 12:26PM

Dear Copyleftist:

Washington knew that as long as he kept an Army in the field, no matter how small or tattered, the war for independence would continue. How many times did he lose a battle or just come out even? But he kept trying in the face of adversity. If it hadn't been for his stubborness our nation wouldn't even exist. And though it doesn't justify slavery, if it hadn't been for slavery there would be no blacks living in freedom. The fledgling nation, Washington, and the blacks all paid their due for freedom and independence.

Sue| 2.15.10 @ 5:23PM

Let's see: GW as administrator implemented most all of the rules, procedures, and protocals that our government needed to run effectively. I think that's quite an accomplishment and today, I don't see anyone individual capable to organizing a new government and running it. Today they have to have 50 czars (not constitutional) a cadre of personal assistants, an airplane, a helicopter, a live-in chef, makeup artists, clothing designers, personal secretaries for their wives, and on and on.

Oh, I yearn for the "olden" days and a couple who devoted so much of their lives and fortunes to America.

Patrick| 2.15.10 @ 8:24PM

There is term for people such as Copyleft. It's called, "Stuck on Stupid".

It took a character and a force of will to fight and defeat the British, outmanned, outgunned, with little money, resources, or even ammunition. It took guts and cunning in great and equal measure to break the British Imperial will. It took determination to outlast the deadly winter at Valley Forge. It took honor an humility to resign from his commission as commander-in-chief, humility that not leftist scum could even attempt to produce. These qualities that far exceed even the imaginations of those of whining, puling, snot-nosed worms such as Copyleft.

Were it not for the perseverance and resourcefulness of General George Washington in the Revolutionary War, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison would not have been presidents of their own, nor figures of any renown whatsoever. A revolutionary intellectual, no matter how righteous or brilliant, swings on a rope without the honor of men of war.

Further, George Washington was not a moonshiner, that is someone distilling alcohol illicitly. It is a foul and perverse coward who spreads calumnies upon the characters of those unable to defend their honor.

Lastly, it seems that Copyleft is as illiterate as he is uncouth, as is any who dares to measure a man's character anachronistically from a state of ease and comfort he has certainly not earned by the sweat of his own labors. I suggest a thorough re-reading of the second last paragraph and the linked site before carelessly condemning a national hero.

Alan Brooks| 2.15.10 @ 10:36PM

CopyLeft,
If Jesus Himself came back to Earth, you would deconstruct Him.
But if it makes you happy, you're a better dude than he was, alrighty?

Stuart Koehl| 2.16.10 @ 10:12AM

It is so easy to underestimate Washington, as a military leader, as a politician, as a president, and especially as a thinker.

Liberals are easily impressed by rhetoric and facile appearances. That is why Jefferson impresses them so much: he was America's first intellectual poseur, which make him one of their own. Adams was a true intellectual, but like many intellectuals, he had only limited ability to translate his ideas into effective action. Madison was a superb legislative technician, but a perambulating disaster as a chief executive. Copyleft omitted Hamilton, very much a practical man of affairs for all that he had that degree from Kings College (now Columbia University). He contributed more to the success of the early Republic than any other man--except Washington.

All of these men, brilliant as they were, did not have what it took to lead a new nation through the travails of the Revolution and the first tentative steps towards establishing an effective government under the Constitution. All of them also made the mistake of constantly underestimating George Washington, as a result of which, he still towers above all of them. He remains what Thomas Flexner called him: "The Indispensible Man".

Copyleft pooh-poohs Washington's stature as war leader, but let's be perfectly clear--one man, and one man only, held the Continental Army together from 1775-1783, and without the Continental Army there would be no United States of America.

More remarkable still is how Washington used his power as undisputed leader of the army. Examine how cannily he handled the incipient rebellion of the officer corps during the Newburgh Declaration crisis. Look at how he resigned his commission and returned to Mount Vernon after the Treaty of Paris. We take this for granted, yet 227 years on, such a resignation of power remains very much the exception: almost all of Washington's European contemporaries thought he would make himself a king or a dictator (Jefferson could never accept that Washington wanted to be neither). When George III heard what Washington had done, he remarked that if it was true, then Washington was the greatest man who ever lived. The near-contemporary example of Napoleon Bonaparte stands in stark contrast.

When Washington became President, he had no examples to follow, no precedents to observe. He was blazing a new trail. He had to flesh out the bones that the Constitution provided for the establishment of the Republic. He was the one who set the rules for the relations between the branches of government, of how to formulate policy, and more importantly, how to implement it. He managed to hold together fractious regions and interests and created a sense of national identity. And when he had served out two terms, he did something utterly unexpected--he retired to his farm.

Washington was deeply concerned that he not die in office, which would create the impression of an quasi-hereditary succession. It was important, he felt, that the Chief Executive voluntarily lay down his powers so that his successor would be freely elected. The precedent of serving a maximum of two terms was so spectacularly strong that it stood in persisted down to the 20th century, and was overturned only by a man who, in so many ways, demonstrated himself to be the antithesis of Washington. And so abhorrent was FDR's third and fourth terms that, in their aftermath, we amended the Constitution to ensure it would never happen again.

Almost all of Washington's peers underestimated his shrewd and pragmatic intelligence. They had all been classically educated at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, William & Mary, or Kings College; Washington was self-taught. But Washington had led a hardscrabble life, and was well educated in the school of hard knocks, from his initial experiences as a frontier surveyor, to militia officer and Indian fighter, to plantation farmer, to Commanding General to President. Washington was keenly aware of the defects in his formal education, and was constantly learning.

That might explain why he, almost alone of his Virginia contemporaries, died rich and solvent (as opposed to Jefferson, who was constantly in debt and forced to sell off assets to forestall bankruptcy--no wonder Liberal adore Jefferson).

Washinton's early farming experience at Mount Vernon convinced him of the unsustainability of the tobacco economy. He "diversified his portfolio" early on, growing wheat and other food crops, as well as hemp for rope making, and established not just a distillery (in a land without roads, whiskey was one way of converting crops into portable--and literally liquid--assets) but also a fishery. He tried to make Mount Vernon self-sufficient by establishing his own mill (which ground flour not just for himself, but for neighboring plantations), making his own clothing, fabricating his own tools and furnishings. He was among the first Americans--let alone Virginians--to realize that America need not be dependent on Britain, or subscribe to the mercantilist theory.

Washington was also a very scientific farmer. He avidly devoured the latest treatises on crop rotation, tilling and fertilization. He sought out new varieties of seeds and tested them in his greenhouse and fields. And as a result of his hard work and research, he prospered mightily.

About those slaves. Like his Southern contemporaries, he was a man of his time. Growing up, he took slavery for granted--it was a fact of life. As a slave owner, Washington was exceptionally humane, among other things keeping slave families together even at financial cost to himself.

Like a number of his Southern contemporaries, such as Jefferson, he gradually became convinced that slavery was immoral and incompatible with the principles of the Revolution to which he had pledged "his life, his fortune and his sacred honor".

Unlike Jefferson--and Madison, and Monroe--he actually did something about it, and in his well considered, pragmatic manner, too. Some people suppose he should simply have manumitted his slaves immediately, but such suggestions do not take into account the realities of the time, including the inability of those slaves to find work or integrate into the society around them (there were no large communities of free blacks in Virginia). Past attempts by some idealistic planters to free their slaves en masse had failed miserably for exactly that reason. In addition, most of the Mount Vernon slaves did not belong to George, but to Martha Washington, as part of her dowry, and George was legally prohibited from alienating her property. He also suspected that she would survive him, and needed to provide for her well being after his death.

Therefore, he began a comprehensive and long term program that would end with all the Mount Vernon slaves being freed and provided with the ability to make a living. He started schools and training in trades and crafts. He set aside land. He built up cash reserves to pay off creditors for loans secured with slaves (a little known but true fact--most slaves were actually owned by the Northern banks that held the mortgages on Southern plantations; had all the slaves been freed, it would have caused a financial panic in the North).

Upon Martha Washington's death, all the slaves of Mount Vernon were indeed freed according to Washington's plan.

He may not have been the cleverest, or the most eloquent, or the best educated of the Founders, but in every way imaginable, he was the wisest and most honorable of them all.

Denigrate and underestimate him at your peril.

Christopher Holland| 2.21.10 @ 11:01PM

A stock standard liberal view of the world - self righteous and patronising. What you really want to say is these knuckle dragging morons in the flyover country aren't thankful that the intellectual elite wants to do their thinking for them.

Washington didn't care for being an intellectual. What he was concerned about was being a responsible, honourable man with courage and integrity. He had more leadership qualities in his little finger than an army of liberal intellectuals. That is why his face is on Mount Rushmore and you and your kind are deservedly anomynous.

Now stick your patronising intellectualism up your arse.

stu.reed| 2.15.10 @ 8:33AM

copyleft--are you serious? or just stupid?
Absolutely Clueless.

Alan Brooks| 2.15.10 @ 10:39PM

Why doesn't CopyLaugh tear Madison to pieces ae well?:
"Madison was a runt, and my ...you know... is bigger than his was."

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.15.10 @ 8:39AM

I just love the twerp's post above. (copymarx)

If that doesn't give one a belly laugh. then one is truly ignorant...I'm talking about romping a young puppy on a new carpet ignorant.

Would someone please explain to the twerp that every single "founding father" looked up to Mr. Washington as the "doer" in the group?

Richard Baker| 2.15.10 @ 8:55AM

Someone above truly shows their ignorance. A classic case of peeing in the punchbowl. GW was a most amazing man for his or any time. I recommend reading Douglas Southall Freeman's 7-volume biography about his life. The activities mentioned in the article are all recounted in this biography. Growing up 26 miles South of DC in Lorton, Virginia and attending Mt. Vernon High School in Alexandria, one still gets the influence and spirit of this remarkable American. GW, RIP.

Stuart Koehl| 2.16.10 @ 10:14AM

I actually prefer Flexner's multi-volume biography. The more I learn about Washington, the more deeply in awe I become. Had he not existed, we would not be here.

donserge| 2.15.10 @ 9:09AM

One thing missing in the article is that for the past 50+ years liberals have tried to portray Washington as a "deist" when an objective reading of history would credit him as being a Christian who believed in the Biblical Trinity.

Stuart Koehl| 2.16.10 @ 10:18AM

Hard to do, considering his life-long association with the Anglican church. Right down the road from me stands the historic Falls Church, in which young Mr. Washington was a vestryman. It was George Washington who insisted that the plan of the new Federal District that became, um, Washington, DC, should have space reserved on the highest point of the city for a great church. On that land, known as Cathedral Heights, now stands the magnificent National Cathedral. Washington was also instrumental in the drafting of the Northwest Ordinance, which in the new territories provided for land to be reserved for not only a school, but a church as well. The founders as a whole--and not just Washington--understood that education and religion were both essential to the survival of a free people.

Nick in Virginia| 2.15.10 @ 9:10AM

"copyleft" is obviously an 0bama supporter: 0bama is the perfect example of an "intellectual" who would wither and die in mere weeks if he had to fend for himself. He can't do anything on his own, never has and never will.

One thing that 0bama is doing, though, is proving that it doesn't take an intellectual to be President, it just takes someone who knows how to get things done properly.

GB| 2.15.10 @ 9:22AM

I figure you all probably know this but the "twerp" above does all of this on purpose. His comments are made to get everyone upset. I'm not upset I'm just laughing. What a tool.

Anthony| 2.15.10 @ 9:23AM

We need to cut Copyleft a bit of a break; he apparently has gotten his impression of Washington from the History Channel which recently ran a "history" of Washington that rivals the NY Times when it comes to Leftist dogma when discussing our Founders.
Almost every action of Washington was portrayed as having been arrived at from either incompetence, luck, recklessness, or, when it came to romance, the cunningness of a cheating fortune hunter.
As is the wont of the Left, in its inability to control itself, it actually made Washington out to be a truly remarkable Renaissance Man, when it described an episode in which Washington saves his troops from the British, due to his ability to forecast a frost that would allow his mud laden artillery to be freely transported once again.
History lesson of the day for Copyleft; read Flexner's "Washington: The Indispensable Man", you might actually learn something.

Sue| 2.15.10 @ 5:26PM

To Anthony: You are absolutely right. I recorded the program and thought about having my home-schooled charge watch it. I watched it first; listed the inaccuracies, then watched it with her and cleared up all of the issues.

What was a mediocre "documentary" ended up being a great history lesson for her.

Stuart Koehl| 2.16.10 @ 10:25AM

Let's be honest--Washington was blessed with more than a fair share of luck. Dozens of times he should have died (look at his hairs-breadth escapes at Braddock's defeat, Princeton, and Monmouth). At Boston, New York, Trenton, Princeton, Monmouth and elsewhere, providential events intervened to prevent catastrophic defeat. Indeed, Washington used the word "providence" repeatedly as a shorthand for divine intervention in the affairs of men. And when I look at our history myself, I can think of no better word.

A man was once recommended to Napoleon Bonaparte as "a good general". "I don't want to know if he is good. Tell me if he is lucky". History is replete with good generals who ended up losing because of random events; war, politics and much else is prone to the whims of chance. But a man who can make the dice fall his way, a man who is "lucky", can retrieve the situation.

Of course, mostly the make their own luck by being able to think on their feet and exploit the opportunities that chance casts up. Washington had that kind of luck in abundance.

Richard Baker| 2.15.10 @ 9:25AM

Nick in Virginia:
Even though I live in Florida now, I still celebrate February 22 as GW's birthday. Nuts to this President's Day nonsense. Where are you from in Virginia?

DaveS| 2.15.10 @ 9:45AM

No country without Washington; no Union without Lincoln. The benefits accruing to the citizens of this country is surely extended to many more both within and beyond its borders and reach. Washington, as is Lincoln, is at least taught from one perspective or another throughout the world. Lincoln is on the five-dollar bill because, fairly, Washington occupies the one-spot. May the arrangement endure.

S.L. Toddard| 2.15.10 @ 1:53PM

"No country without Washington; no Union without Lincoln."

That is factually false. Had Lincoln not conquered our neighbors to the south there would still have been a Union. The important difference is that, had Lincoln not conquered the Confederacy, that Union would have remained a voluntary one (albeit with less states party to the compact) in keeping with the Constitution and the principles of self government, rather than the one we have now, in which the southern states were smashed into submission, denied the inalienable right to self government, and forced at gunpoint to subservience to Washington - in direct contradiction to the ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

Ray| 2.15.10 @ 2:03PM

Nice speculation, but it's rather devoid of an understanding of history, specifically military history at the time of the Civil War. Had the Confederacy won, they would have conquered the remaining "Union" states and forcibly added them to the Confederacy.

DavidS is right: No Lincoln, no Union.

S.L. Toddard| 2.15.10 @ 2:22PM

"Had the Confederacy won, they would have conquered the remaining "Union" states and forcibly added them to the Confederacy."

That's really quite silly and hysterical (not to mention utterly ahistorical), but more importantly it's not relevant. I was not speculating that, had the Union lost its war of conquest against the Confederacy, that *then* we would remain a constitutional republic. I am merely noting the historical fact that had Lincoln not prosecuted the war against the south, those states still party to the compact would have remained party to a *voluntary* union - and one which no longer exists. That's merely an uncontroversial statement of fact.

But I'm curious - what evidence is there of a Confederate plot to conquer the entirety of the Union and to "forcibly add (those states) to the Confederacy"?

DaveS| 2.15.10 @ 5:55PM

At least your responses can be read without a required coffee break.

Alan Brooks| 2.15.10 @ 11:15PM

Toddard,
The South and North DESERVEd each other.
Northerners foisted 19th century wage slavery on the South, the South tried to grab (at least) a few slave states to the West.

The mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind.

Alan Brooks| 2.15.10 @ 11:19PM

" 'Union' states"

Toddard can't get what you meant? What a pettifogging anal-retentive the Todd is.

Cabermon| 2.15.10 @ 10:45AM

Facinating and informative article. We know so little about Washington's business ventures probably because business and commerce aren't as interesting to most historians as politics and invention.

You've got to chuckle at spellchecker errors (my quotation marks). I wonder what color the flowers were?

"The mill produced about 278,000 pounds of 'flower' per year, branded with the Washington name, sold throughout the colonies and exported to England and as far away as Portugal."

GregA| 2.15.10 @ 12:09PM

The horror, the horror of liberal revisionist history… the deplorable way that those of the humanist ilk attempt to sway the minds of the young, as well as the uninformed, regarding the foundations of this once great and Christian nation. I would suggest to all, a careful reading of “Miracle at Philadelphia” by Catherine Drinker Bowen. Especially, in light of this article and subsequent posts, take note of the descriptions of Washington by his colleagues. Throughout the world, he was known as “the greatest character in America.” Unlike our current pretender and most predecessors, Washington, with a true sense of modesty and Christian character, “lamented his want of qualifications and called on God to help.” Franklin said of him that he concentrated on the large points “…knowing that the little ones would follow of themselves.” Washington was a “doer” and a quiet thinker.

There are those that suggest that our current POTUS is far superior to all other Americans, living or dead, mostly because he is a Constitutional scholar and an intellectual. There is absolutely no evidence of either: no published research and a blatant disregard for the document that Washington’s quiet, Godly leadership helped to create.

Louis Jenkins| 2.15.10 @ 12:32PM

Absolutely correct. We're told how brilliant the Pretender n Chief is, but were's the documented credibility? But I have to admit his teleprompter is pretty smart.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.15.10 @ 12:41PM

Heh, Louis...his teleprompter needs a "disgrontifier" in Rush's terms.

Corpes man......heh heh heh

S.L. Toddard| 2.15.10 @ 1:54PM

Heh.

PCC| 2.15.10 @ 2:01PM

God Bless George Washington, the Father of our Country.

"First in War, First in Peace, First in the Hearts of his Countrymen."

Amen.

Stuart Koehl| 2.16.10 @ 10:27AM

The immortal words of Henry "Light Horse Harry" Lee, father of the inimitable Robert Edward Lee.

Ray| 2.15.10 @ 2:06PM

Washington was a very remarkable man, in so many ways. I wish I would have learned more about him in school, other than the tale of the Apple Tree and, recently, his ownership of slaves.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.15.10 @ 4:09PM

Hi Ray.

I was very fortunate. I learned a lot about George Washington...in school...and at home.
(ps: in my memory it was a cherry tree...but no matter.)
He was honest with himself, Roy!

Mike| 2.15.10 @ 4:16PM

This would be a good time to note that the Founding Fathers were among the elite in the states.

Were they alive today, they would be out of favor.

Stuart Koehl| 2.16.10 @ 10:57AM

They would never have considered the possibility of a "revolt of the elites", which is what we witness today--the natural leaders of society staking out positions antithetical to the long-term survival of the society. Another name for it is "la trahison des clercs".

Louis Jenkins| 2.15.10 @ 4:38PM

If you read Washington's Farewell Address you will see a lot of advice that we're not following this day and age. I'll have to admit, it is good advice. Use a search engine and find it.

Part of George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796

“As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate.”

Thom| 2.15.10 @ 5:23PM

Washington’s life during and after service to the Colonies and this Nation embodied one of the founding concepts that we see so little of today. That concept being, to serve and return home to private life and live under the laws one has helped create. Even Adams, the lawyer had to manage and maintain other business affairs throughout his life. While still practiced at the state level in my home state this concept is almost completely void at the National level and the downside of this is plain to see by anyone with objective eyes.
A man like Washington or just about anyone of the Founders would find it difficult to make a living in today’s climate given the interaction of government in business matters. The shear regulatory cost that Washington would have to overcome with his businesses on his own land would either discourage or bankrupt most of his business ventures today. You can’t be a practitioner of free enterprise without the freedom to do so.
If more politicians honored the original concept of service and went home to start, run businesses not related to lobbing government and lived under the laws they have helped put in place I suspect a lot more people like the Founders would be found in our history books rather than the myths we have today. Most people don’t understand the causes of the American Revolution and buy into simplistic sound bites like “taxation without representation”. We have representation today? Even one of Martha’s slaves had a market value and was something to be protected but a subject has neither. If more of the people seeking political office were of the spirit of the Founders and less of those that would be King, even for a day we would be better off as a Nation.

Michael Tomlinson| 2.15.10 @ 5:24PM

King George III said George Washington was, "the greatest man alive." He was right.

Washington was America's greatest President and the man who kept us from being like the failed "democracies" of Latin America (a fact failed White House occupant Barack Obama {pronounced O' Bama for all you corpsemen} is trying to remedy).

DaveS| 2.15.10 @ 5:57PM

George 3 said this IF Washington could pull off the upset. He did, so the phrase stuck.

Stuart Koehl| 2.16.10 @ 10:29AM

No, George III made the remark after hearing that Washington was going to step down as General-in-Chief of the Continental Army. George III did not believe it--no man with that kind of power would relinquish it voluntarily. Napoleon certainly did not.

J.C.Eaton| 2.15.10 @ 7:08PM

No with all due respect, that's not why he said it. He was told that Washington was of a mind to refuse the opportunity to become the King of America, and like Cincinnatus, give it all back and return to his home. "George IIIremarked'If he does that; he is a god, the greatest man in the world." Every one of the Founders knew it....even Franklin, who gave him his prized possession, a crabapple walking stick."Presumably to help the General on his walk into immortality." Best,

Stuart Koehl| 2.16.10 @ 10:31AM

Then there was John Adams' complaint that, when the history was written, he would be forgotten: "Benjamin Franklin smote the ground with his lightening rod, and up sprang George Washington on his horse; they then proceeded to win the cause of American independence entirely by themselves".

Conservative Bob| 2.15.10 @ 7:40PM

As we consider the magnificent gift given to us and all generations since his service at our founding by Washington and his fellows we must not deny the debt of honor imparted with it to us, to pass in tact the freedoms we have enjoyed to our posterity.

Michael Tomlinson| 2.15.10 @ 7:48PM

Conservative Bob well said.

Larry Linn| 2.15.10 @ 8:49PM

“Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.” Thomas Paine
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." - Thomas Jefferson
“Lighthouses are more helpful than Churches”, Benjamin Franklin

Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 2.15.10 @ 9:21PM

“I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.” Thomas Paine

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." Thomas Jefferson

"the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth--that God governs in the Affairs of Men." Benjamin Franklin

What's your point Larry? Hate religion? Don't think the Founders believed in God? Who cares what you think, Larry!!

"There are no atheists in foxholes." attributed to the Reverend William T. Cummings

What do you think of that one Larry?

Sally| 2.15.10 @ 11:01PM

If they were true Christians they would have banned Muslins from holding office here. What do you say to that!

Stuart Koehl| 2.16.10 @ 10:32AM

That you are rather stupid.

GregA| 2.15.10 @ 9:21PM

Is this your homework, Larry? I suggest you look back into these archives where we, at length, discussed taking the religion quotes of the Founders out of context.

philfl63| 2.15.10 @ 8:59PM

Yes, thank you author for pointing out the evils of Washington's slavery. Those poor people were brought here from their paradise in Africa. The slaves who were on Washington's plantation were themselves enslaved by their black brothers in Africa (they were either kidnapped, shanghaied, or captured in raids or inter-tribal wars). Or they were descended from slaves who had already been working on the plantation. They were clothed, fed, taught trades and given employment (since everything in those days was done/made by hand), treated when ill (since slaves were a huge investment) and eventually freed when Washington passed away. Of course, there was also this little thing called indentured servitude which was enforced by arrest and imprisonment if not fullfilled. There were more indentured servants than slaves at that time, and they were all white. Also, the descendants of those slaves inhabit our country today. They could still be in AIDS-ridden Africa starving, ignorant, and hacking each other to death.

philfl63| 2.15.10 @ 10:58PM

I can suck my own cock sometimes

bob s| 2.19.10 @ 5:50PM

vulgar perverted slob.

Obie Wan| 2.16.10 @ 12:01AM

No question George Washington was an ambitious guy with a sense of confidence in himself, that showed not only in his early surveying and military service in the French and Indian War, but as the article states, his industry at his Mount Vernon estate. However anyone who has read biographies of Washington see's someone who grows from a man who shows up at the Continental Congress wearing his old military uniform (hint-hint), to a leader who willed his rag tag army to stay together knowing full well a breakup of the army would have been the end of the Revolution. I believe he accepted the Presidency the way a lot of us feel about going to the dentist, something needed for the overall good, but not something to do with any great joy. At the end of the day I believe George Washington gave a lot more to our country then he took and compared to other world leaders,before,during, and after his time,we certainly could have had a lot worse !!!

Evdokim| 2.16.10 @ 1:36AM

so interesant information

hd dizi| 12.14.10 @ 10:13PM

i like site.. thank you editoring

loveseats for small spaces| 3.5.11 @ 7:23AM

Good history which I've never know before.

出会い| 7.21.11 @ 3:47AM

itumomiteimasu

IBCBET| 8.1.11 @ 12:30AM

For many Americans, and indeed quite a few scholars, George Washington has been little more than just the face on Mount Rushmore​ and the one-dollar bill. ibcbet 888 IBCBET ibcbet ทางเข้า

Puma x Alexander McQueen| 8.13.11 @ 12:02AM

is good

Travel Thailand| 8.29.11 @ 6:21AM

I believe he accepted the Presidency the way a lot of us feel about going to the dentist, something needed for the overall good.