On this date in history, 1799
- Thread starter Tom McAndrew
- Start date
Insisted that he not be laid to rest until 3 full days had passed because he was fearful that he may be buried while still alive.
But a horrible person according to many in today’s society. Such a shame.
I recall reading that Washington was responsible for the POTUS being referred to as "Mister President." Some wanted a much more regal title with pomp, etc, and he toned it down since that's what the US was trying to get away from with England. His humility has served as well. "Mister President" is perfect. "Mister" is a title everyone gets and "President" is simply the name of the office.
He could have been something like America’s first king. Thankfully, he did what was best.
A free republic is sadly not the desire of most people.
A free republic is sadly not the desire of most people.
So true, Pres. Washington was the right man, at the right time at the right place. Without him, we are still drinking tea at 2:00 p.m. daily. A remarkable man, gifted beyond measure, wise beyond understanding.
The story is far more complex than what you have indicated. I'll provide a very abridged version of the story.
The Senate had a committee to try to come up with something to call the President. They seemed to be leaning toward a longer, or more formal expression. In large part, they wanted to distinguish between presidents of colleges, or the fact that many governors were called "President of XYZ (their respective state)." John Adams, who as Vice President presided over the Senate, was convinced that foreign governments would not respect the United States if its leader did not have a formal title used to address him. He pretty much got the Senate to agree, but he overplayed his hand by trying to win too many minor aspects of the weeks of debate, and ended up alienating many Senators who agreed with his overall concept on needed a formal title for the President that showed respect.
James Madison felt that a long title would be a mistake, and he convinced the House or Representatives of such. They felt that the Constitution specified the position as "President of the United State of America," so Mr. President should be the phrase used to address the President.
George Washington was somewhat unsure how to proceed with this issue, but his instincts were more aligned with with Madison and the House. The Senate ultimately agreed to what the House had decided, so Mr. President has been the protocol ever since. Martha helped to solidify the practice, as for the balance of George's 1st and all of his 2nd term as President, she called him Mr. President in public settings.
In defense of the early leaders in the United State, after the Constitution was ratified in 1788, it fell to the first President and the first Congress to flush out all the details about how to run a government. As they were starting from scratch, and the Constitution only provided a high level outline of the government, they really did have to labor through scores of things that are now taken for granted.
For additional info, I'd recommend, The First Congress: How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government, by Fergus M. Bordewich.
Very interesting Tom. I wasn't familiar with all the details accomplished at that point in time. To have an intact document is a testament to their careful consideration and their brilliance. There were a lot of personalities to be juggled, a remarkable feat.
What an idiotic statement.
Historians are constantly examining aspects of historical figures that have not been studied, or have been papered over, in earlier studies. Some of the more recent studies do take a closer look at some of the imperfections of George Washington.
The reexamination of historical figures, and the acknowledgment that they, like every other person that ever lived, are not perfect, and that they made mistakes, does not make the historical figure terrible. It simply shows a more realistic version of the figure.
That some may focus solely on the imperfections is no more a valid evaluation than those that cling to an idolized evaluation of the same individual. Most people are smart enough to discount the outliers on either side of the spectrum. Others seem to get hung up on one side of the outliers, and make sweeping statements about them.
Not idiotic at all....to think that people are just saying these historical figures were imperfect is idiotic. Some people want to erase them from history. Nobody is idolizing them, but saying they were great Americans is not wrong just because they had imperfections. Judging people of the past based on today’s standards is just stupid and that’s what many people do.
And take down the statues of Lincoln, Jefferson, and all the rest or we will.Take down the Washington Monument or we will!
I like to say without him we are singing “God Save The Queen” today
As a historian, I want to agree with Tom’s view. For much of our existence, I believe he would have been correct. But sadly, I would now side with AWS’s opinion. To blame? Our faltering public education system.
Tom knows his history, that’s for sure. I just think he’s giving people too much benefit of the doubt in this case. Let me know when they start renaming buildings named after Kennedy and FDR, then I’ll agree people are just looking at their imperfections.
Every time I see this quote I think of A Little Rascals episode. One of the young rascals is asked by the teacher to recite Henry Lee’s famous quote about Washington and he states:
”First in war, first in peace and last in the American League”
Tom is certainly an expert historian - one that I rely upon for sound opinions and reading recommendations. I want to agree with him. But I hear and agree with your opinion on the cancellations - the evidence is deep and undeniable. It is a slippery slope we are on and one that will be difficult to exit.
1799 was also the year of the great buffalo slaughter in central PA. Buffalo were never very numerous in central Pennsylvania, but the last remaining sizable herd was pretty much wiped out during that harsh winter.
Sad that these great beasts were exterminated.
Sad that these great beasts were exterminated.
Tom, have always wanted to ask you how you felt about seeing statues of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and other being torn down by mobs but I knew how you try to avoid politics so never did. When you started this thread I again thought about posing that question but deferred once again not wanting to dirty a thread commemorating this great man. But now that this has become imbedded in this thread would you mind discussing how you react to those ugly scenes?
You obviously have great respect for these men and have spent considerable time studying them and honoring them. Has to be gut wrenching to see what has come about.
You obviously have great respect for these men and have spent considerable time studying them and honoring them. Has to be gut wrenching to see what has come about.
If you are into early American history, the formation of our goverment and those involved, there is a museum directly below the Jefferson Memorial that is actually fairly informative. I spent sometime going through it. It really made me thing we need to take most of the members of Congress and force them to visit and take notes with the hope their governance might improve.
yeah, you are taking this into areas that should be avoided.
personally, this is much to do about nothing. There are statues, plaques, counties, schools, etc. named after Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. Washington and Lincoln are two of the greatest Presidents in US history. Jefferson isn't at their level, and presents a lot of complications for anybody that evaluates him. But as the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, his prominence in US history is not going to be reduced at any point in the future.
One statue of Washington, one statue of Jefferson, and one statue of Lincoln were torn down. All there were removed by mobs in Portland. IMHO, anybody that draws any broad conclusions about these actions is making a big mistake. Mobs do a lot of dumb things, and the removal of those statues was pretty stupid. I don't expect that you'll see broad-based repeats of removals of other statues of Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln.
Appreciate your response as I know how much you want to keep this site apolitical. Rather argue or debate any more here I will leave it at ‘Thank you’.
Tom, I assume you'll have an ON THIS DATE IN HISTORY, 1770 for tomorrow. If not, I will. Do you know what happened 250 years ago on December 16th?
I'm certainly well aware of what happened, and will likely have a post about it.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
FB Recruiting Penn State commit visting Ohio State this weekend- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley