What would George Washington think about what the United States became?

[lpetrich]

That's a question that I once saw on Quora, and that seems to me an interesting challenge. One can construct similar challenges about other historical figures and other nations, but I'll stick to this one for now.

One has to avoid making such historical figures in one's likeness. They lived in a different time and often a different place, they may not have known as much as we do, and their attitudes and values were likely very different from present-day ones. But with that in mind, I will try to get a picture of what George Washington was like. He owned slaves, and he tried to hang on to them. To some people, that is an automatic disqualifier, but I will continue. He was, IMO, much like Dwight Eisenhower, someone who got into office because he was a war hero, and someone who was a sort of one-nation conservative, someone who wanted to avoid drastic change, but someone who wanted his nation to be a good place for all its citizens. He disliked factionalism and political parties, he disliked massive deficit spending and standing armies, and he disliked foreign entanglements and military adventures. In part because they cost a *lot*.

He had some technical skill: he was professionally a surveyor. But he wasn't as much a thinker as Thomas Jefferson. He was also a horse fancier.


First about science and technology.

He'd be pleasantly surprised at how present-day technology makes a surveyor's job much easier. Like being able to take a picture and then measure it. And being able to get a computer to calculate trigonometric functions for him - those functions are necessary for going between angles and distances. And having lots of data at one's fingertips, like lots of map images.

He'd also be pleasantly surprised at cars. Faster, stronger, more capacious, easier to idle, no need to rest, ...

 

[lpetrich]

Now to political and social issues.

As to factionalism, he'd be disappointed in how his nation got divided into free and slave sates, and how that led to a war that killed more Americans than any other war.

He would not have liked how his nation got involved in wars and distant lands - and became committed to protecting distant nations.

I don't think that he would have liked the Federal Government getting into the pension business or the medical-insurance business. But I think that it would be out of pragmatic reasons, like not wanting to make the Federal Government need a lot of taxes or saddle it with a lot of responsibility, like with military adventures. I also think that he would have concluded that he and his fellow Constitution writers didn't think over the Commerce Clause very carefully.

He would have been pleasantly surprised at how "Papists" have stopped being considered politically loyal to the Vatican. For a long time, they were, and in 1928, opponents of Al Smith used a picture of the Holland Tunnel to illustrate the sort of connection between him and the Vatican. Then in 1960, JFK pledged that he won't be taking orders from the Vatican in political issues, and more recently, with the likes of Nancy Pelosi, the issue never comes up.

He would have been startled at how far both women and American blacks have come. Like Maxine Waters, a black woman who has been in the House of Representatives for 30 years. He would have chuckled at how there are now enough women in politics for women to squabble with other women. Like Hillary Clinton suspecting Tulsi Gabbard of working for Russia and TG retorting that HC is the "queen of warmongers" and "the embodiment of corruption". But he'd be happy that HC and TG aren't dueling. Though when he learns of TG's military service, he'd suspect that TG would have an edge over HC if they did duel.

He'd also note Nancy Pelosi squabbling with four congresswomen, but after Trump bellows that they ought to go home and fix their homeland, NP and then make nice to each other. Like NP going on a trip with Ilhan Omar, and posing with AOC looking all buddy-buddy and saying that families always have disagreements.

About AOC, I think that she'd remind him of Thomas Paine, with her working-class background and radical politics and eloquence.

 

[laughing dog]

That's a question that I once saw on Quora, and that seems to me an interesting challenge. One can construct similar challenges about other historical figures and other nations, but I'll stick to this one for now.

One has to avoid making such historical figures in one's likeness. They lived in a different time and often a different place, they may not have known as much as we do, and their attitudes and values were likely very different from present-day ones. But with that in mind, I will try to get a picture of what George Washington was like. He owned slaves, and he tried to hang on to them. To some people, that is an automatic disqualifier, but I will continue. He was, IMO, much like Dwight Eisenhower, someone who got into office because he was a war hero, and someone who was a sort of one-nation conservative, someone who wanted to avoid drastic change, but someone who wanted his nation to be a good place for all its citizens. He disliked factionalism and political parties, he disliked massive deficit spending and standing armies, and he disliked foreign entanglements and military adventures. In part because they cost a *lot*.

He had some technical skill: he was professionally a surveyor. But he wasn't as much a thinker as Thomas Jefferson. He was also a horse fancier.


First about science and technology.

He'd be pleasantly surprised at how present-day technology makes a surveyor's job much easier. Like being able to take a picture and then measure it. And being able to get a computer to calculate trigonometric functions for him - those functions are necessary for going between angles and distances. And having lots of data at one's fingertips, like lots of map images.

He'd also be pleasantly surprised at cars. Faster, stronger, more capacious, easier to idle, no need to rest, ...

He'd also like the new dentures.

 

[lpetrich]

He'd also like the new dentures.

 George Washington's teeth - he had four sets of dentures in his life. None of them were made of wood, but instead from ivory, human teeth, brass, and gold.

He would certainly appreciate modern dentistry, like present-day plastic dentures and tooth implants. One makes a tooth implant by drilling a hole in the bone at where the new tooth will be and then putting in a metal post. The bone heals around the post, and one can then put a crown on the outer end of the post. A crown is a sort of fake tooth or fake tooth surface.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think Eisenhower is a good match. But Washington was also a business person, so he would have had a bit of Trumpo in him on that score. But he would have despised Trumpo because of Trumpo's greed, cowardice and divisiveness.

 

[lpetrich]

I think Eisenhower is a good match. But Washington was also a business person, so he would have had a bit of Trumpo in him on that score. But he would have despised Trumpo because of Trumpo's greed, cowardice and divisiveness.

I think that he would find Trump extremely repulsive. Vain, egotistical, shallow, venal, boorish, lecherous, you name it. Someone who ended up with enough bankruptcies to make it hard for him to get financing, and then got bailed out by some Russian oligarchs.

Boorish? In his teens, GW copied 110 rules of civility and manners: George Washington's Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior @ Foundations Magazine Trump's campaigning he would have found gross, with insults like "Lyin' Ted" and "Low-Energy Jeb" and comments about a female candidate's appearance.

 

[lpetrich]

 Burr–Hamilton duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton in 1804.

George Washington might think of that when he thinks of Hillary Clinton vs. Tulsi Gabbard.
Hillary: "You called me a corrupt warmonger!"
Tulsi: "You called me a Russian agent!"
Either one: "Let's settle it. Let's have a duel."

 

[Politesse]

Everything's legal in New Jersey.

 

[Patooka]

The biggest thing that would astonish Washington is that all soldiers get paid regularly, even if the government is shut down.
That and the whole Black President/women can vote thing.

 

[repoman]

I think Eisenhower is a good match. But Washington was also a business person, so he would have had a bit of Trumpo in him on that score. But he would have despised Trumpo because of Trumpo's greed, cowardice and divisiveness.

I think that he would find Trump extremely repulsive. Vain, egotistical, shallow, venal, boorish, lecherous, you name it. Someone who ended up with enough bankruptcies to make it hard for him to get financing, and then got bailed out by some Russian oligarchs.

Boorish? In his teens, GW copied 110 rules of civility and manners: George Washington's Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior @ Foundations Magazine Trump's campaigning he would have found gross, with insults like "Lyin' Ted" and "Low-Energy Jeb" and comments about a female candidate's appearance.

Or maybe Israeli oligarchs through Jared. Is this why he is making decisions as well? If you are gonna talk about stuff that is not proven...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/07/business/jared-kushner-israel.html

 

[lpetrich]

The biggest thing that would astonish Washington is that all soldiers get paid regularly, even if the government is shut down.

The Newburgh Incident: George Washington Stops A Mutiny - over Continental Army soldiers not getting paid.

That was a reason for adopting the Constitution, with its Federal Government being much stronger than the Continental Congress. Including having the power to tax. GW even suppressed a tax revolt in his Presidency: the Whiskey Rebellion.

I think that he'd feel pleased that the government that he helped create has been stable enough to pay all its soldiers over its history. As to the recent government shutdowns, I think that he'd think that those are childish temper tantrums.

That and the whole Black President/women can vote thing.

What I'd pointed out earlier - Obama the mulatto president and Maxine Waters's long career.

 

[lpetrich]

I've thought of a simple summary of the culture shock that George Washington (1732 - 1799) would suffer from.

 Maxine Waters

• She is black
• She is a woman
• She spent all of her non-DC life in US states that did not exist while GW was alive: Missouri and California
• She spent more than half of her life in elected office
• She is now head of a Congressional committee, the House Financial Services Committee
• She has lived to great age, and she has continued to be professionally active to the present day

Her career:

• 1938: Born in St. Louis, MO
• 1961: Moved with her family to Los Angeles, CA
• Worked in a garment factory and was a telephone operator
• 1966: Was an assistant teacher in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles
• Enrolled in Los Angeles State College, now California State University Los Angeles
• 1971: Bachelor's degree in sociology
• 1973: Chief deputy of City Councilman David S. Cunningham Jr.
• 1976: Elected to the California State Assembly
• 1990: Elected to the US House of Representatives

As of this year, 2020, she is 82 years old and she has been in public office for 44 years.

I added "non-DC" because DC was founded while GW was President.

 

[lpetrich]

Let's see what Missouri and California were like when George Washington was alive.

Back then, Missouri was a part of the Louisiana Territory. It extended from present-day Louisiana to present-day Montana. France had it from 1699 to 1762, when it was ceded to Spain. France got it back in 1800, and the US bought it in 1803 for $15 million (1803 dollars). The Louisiana Purchase was very controversial, with some people calling it unconstitutional, but it expanded US-claimed territory by a factor of 2.

In 1812, Louisiana was admitted to the nation as a state, with the territory north of it being renamed the Missouri Territory. The Territory of Arkansas was carved out of it in 1819, and the State of Missouri admitted in 1821.

-

St. Louis was founded in 1763 by some French settlers. It has a prehistory of being a Cahokian mound-builder center over 900 - 1500 CE.

-

Turning to California, the first European-descended claimants were from the Spanish Empire, and I don't have good dates for that. It was part of the province of Alta California, the northwestern part of the Spanish Empire of North America. When Mexico became independent, Alta California came with it. The United States conquered that territory as a result of the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848, the territory of California was carved out of it, and it was admitted as a state in 1850.

-

El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles (The Town of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels) was founded in 1781, and its name was eventually shortened to Los Angeles ("The Angels").

 

[Politesse]

Turning to California, the first European-descended claimants were from the Spanish Empire, and I don't have good dates for that. It was part of the province of Alta California, the northwestern part of the Spanish Empire of North America. When Mexico became independent, Alta California came with it. The United States conquered that territory as a result of the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848, the territory of California was carved out of it, and it was admitted as a state in 1850.

California was being settled more or less simultaneously with the War of Independence; Spain established her presence via a series of fortified churches built along the coastal highway that constituted the primary trade route in the region, which they renamed the Camino del Oro probably in reference to the golden-colored mustard flowers visible all along its length. The first new "mission" settlement (really more like a combined church, fort, and work camp) was established in 1769, the same year that Washington made his debut into Virginian politics and a reconnaissance expedition made its way north the same year to plan future encampments. By 1776, the Spanish presence had extended all the way up to the site of modern San Francisco, with the original Church of San Francisco de Asis beginning construction that October. These settlements had no provincial status until 1804, however, several years after Washington's passing. Alta California Province only existed for thirty-two years in total, the first seventeen under the rule of New Spain. As practical rule of the Californias collapsed, both Alta and Baja were redefined as a combined semi-autonomous territory, as situation that lasted another decade but was dissolved by the Bear Flag Revolution simultaneous to the Mexican-American War.

It is worth noting that this province was also considerably smaller than the territory that was later declared a U.S. state, and the territory claimed initially by the U.S. was noticeably smaller than the modern state. Most of "California" as it is now recognized was beyond the reach of any European power in Washington's time, and remained that way until the 1840-1875 conquests of the United States herself. Political control varied across this geographic space, from powerful city-state like chiefdoms up what is now Northern California, to thinly distributed foraging band communities on her southern deserts. Ethnographers and historians have defined about one hundred languages indigenous to the state. Nearly half a million people lived within the region generally, and California is considered to be a unique culture-area, one of the ten macro-regions used by anthropologists and archaeologists to describe North American cultures and the only such region to bear the same name as a modern state.