The Founding Of The United States

In search of truth, the mysterious, and bizarre. Gary rules here.
Forum rules
Civil discussion appreciated. No Spam...
User avatar

Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 91147
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

Re: The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 130534Unread post Blue Frost »

The North needed all the help it could get with the incompetent leadership the first few years of it.


Of course I talk to myself. Sometimes I need expert advise, and a good conversation.

User avatar

Topic author
Gary Oak
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 7155
Joined: June 25th, 2012, 5:32 pm

Re: The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 132811Unread post Gary Oak »

On Thomas Jefferson's Birthday, Here Are His Most Prophetic Statements

Tyler Durden's picture
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/13/2016 18:27 -0400

On this day, 273 year ago, one of America's most visionary founding fathers - Thomas Jefferson - was born. To celebrate his birthday, we are sharing a small sample of some of his most prophetic quotes which are perhaps more relevant today than they have ever been in the history of the United States.

On liberty - Thomas Jefferson letter to Isaac Tiffany, April 4, 1819

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

On banks as the biggest threat to liberty - Thomas Jefferson letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816

If the American People ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. The issuing power of money should be taken from the bankers and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies.

On the dominion of banks - Thomas Jefferson letter to James Monroe, January 1, 1815

The dominion which the banking institutions have obtained over the minds of our citizens...must be broken, or it will break us.

On central banks - Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, June 22, 1803

This institution (Bank of the U.S.) is one of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution... an institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government."

More on central banks - Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, June 19, 1802

The monopoly of a single bank is certainly an evil.

On printing money - Thomas Jefferson letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816

The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

On the threat of banks - Thomas Jefferson letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816

The system of banks which we have both equally and ever reprobated, I contemplate as a blot in all our (state) constitutions, which, if not corrected, will end in their destruction."

On member of Congress owning stocks - Thomas Jefferson letter to Gallatin, June 22, 1803

My wish was to see both Houses of Congress cleansed of all persons interested in the bank or public stocks; and that a pure legislature being given us, I should always be ready to acquiesce under their deliberations, even if contrary to my own opinions; for I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority, honestly expressed, should give law."

On the "bank mania" and "moneyed aristocracy" - Thomas Jefferson letter to J.B. Stuart, May 10, 1817

The bank mania is one of the most threatening of these imitations. It is raising on a monied aristocracy in our country which has already set the government at defiance, and although forced at length to yield a little on this first essay of their strength, their principles are unyielded and unyielding.

On the threat from moneyed corporations - Thomas Jefferson letter to George Logan, November 12, 1816.

I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

On paper money and precious metals- Thomas Jefferson letter to John Eppes, 1813

The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals... it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted.

And, a just as critical recpirocal letter by John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, August 25, 1787

All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation. ”

On the need for a "little rebellion now and then" - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government.

* * *

And while it may not be his birthday, here are two bonus quote from James Madison, from June 28, 1787:

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

And on the encroaching power of unchecked government - June 7, 1788

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-1 ... statements

User avatar

Topic author
Gary Oak
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 7155
Joined: June 25th, 2012, 5:32 pm

Re: The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 133344Unread post Gary Oak »

I found this article a bit interesting. I do believe that the constitution was made to keep America as free as possible and to hinder as much as possible the elite from doing what they always do.

Time Travel Back to Shot Heard 'Round the World

Lest we forget, this country was forged out of a concerted desire to free the shackles of the British Empire, so that colonies could chart their own course for individual state governments. If only people understood this historic fact. Since so few are familiar with the actual cornerstones of the America Revolution and the latest generations know even less, the indoctrination from government schools has stripped out the quest for knowledge of what made America different. Consider a virtual reality time travel back two hundred and forty-one years to the start of the most important revolution of all times.



The Sons of Liberty were not traitors, they were freedom fighters. The Tory loyalists were not simply Englishmen, they were Monarchists committed to the British Empire. The minutemen at the Old North Bridge in Concord viewed themselves as Englishmen, but knew that their mother land lost sight of respecting their subjects inalienable rights of heritage, who populated the new world.



Stand abreast with the Lexington Massachusetts farmers as the echo of the first crack of defiance was heard throughout the globe. The significance of the “Shot Heard Round the World” is nicely summed up by Chuck Baldwin. He submits that these “two elements of American history are lost to the vast majority of historians today: 1) it was attempted gun confiscation by the British troops that ignited America’s War for Independence, and 2) it was a pastor and his flock that mostly comprised the “Minutemen” who fired the shots that started our great Revolution.”



The phrase itself originates in Ralph Waldo Emerson's Concord Hymn, 1837 and relates to the start of the American Revolutionary War:



By the rude bridge that arched the flood,



Their flag to April's breeze unfurled;



Here once the embattled farmers stood;



And fired the shot heard 'round the world.



Missing in the narrow vision of public awareness and worldly experience, the current culture totally fails to appreciate exactly what composed this revolution. Most of political discourse revolves around reforms of the basic institutions, evolutionary changes to the existing system, or incremental replacement of the present order.



In order to be “politically correct” or to succumb to threats from penal punishment, non violent alternatives are the only acceptable options suited for dialogue. Lost in this modern day docile compliance culture is that muskets, rifles, shot and powder proved to be the means of meeting military force with counter citizen weaponry.



Also, and much more important is the legacy that preachers of the Christian religion formed the spiritual and moral legitimacy for the revolution.



As part of this time journey back to the Green Dragon Tavern, engaging and plotting the methods and tactics of defiance would meet the likes of Samuel Adams, Dr. Joseph Warren and Paul Revere. The Committee of Correspondence expanded and communicated the loose unity that developed around the opposition to the continued despotism from the English Crown.



Investigating the true meaning of our national origin requires a serious honesty that admits the internal conflict, which has always existed among competing factions, continues to the present. In The Significance of the American Revolution, which presents two ways of viewing the nature of the conflict, and lays out the dilemma.



“The ideas of the Revolution have been most often depicted as a triumph of the social contract/natural rights theories of John Locke. Correct so far as it goes, this characterization passes too quickly over the continuing importance of Calvinist dissenting Protestantism, which from the Pilgrims and Puritans on had also stood for the ideals of the social contract and the self-governing community. Lockean intellectuals and the Protestant clergy were both important advocates of compatible strains of liberalism that had flourished in the British North American colonies.



Scholars have also argued that another persuasion contributed to the Revolution: "republicanism." Republicanism, they assert, did not deny the existence of natural rights but subordinated them to the belief that the maintenance of a free republic required a strong sense of communal responsibility and the cultivation of self-denying virtue among its leaders. The assertion of individual rights, even the pursuit of individual happiness, seemed egoistic by contrast. For a time republicanism threatened to displace natural rights as the major theme of the Revolution. Most historians today, however, concede that the distinction was much overdrawn. Most individuals who thought about such things in the 18th century envisioned the two ideas more as different sides of the same intellectual coin.”



A very different approach looks to explain the class distinctions that linger to this day, portrayed in Completing the America Revolution.



The Two American Revolutions



We've been taught to believe that there was only one American Revolution, a struggle to throw off the tyrannies of Great Britain. And relative to that revolution, we're conditioned to believe that the heroes were revolutionary patriots such as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Sam Adams, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Otis, the Sons of Liberty, and the Committees of Correspondence.



But in reality there were two American Revolutions:



· The revolt against British oppression by Americans



· The revolt against wealthy American merchants and financiers by working class people of America



Now if you were transported to colonial life in your time machine, what would you find?



What Was Colonial Life Really Like?



In Colonial America, the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting much poorer. In 1687 in Boston, the top 1% owned about 25% of the wealth. By 1770, the top 1% owned 44%. In those same years, the poor--those who owned no property--represented 14% in 1687 and 29% in 1770.



In the various colonies the wealthy merchant class introduced property qualifications for voting in order to disenfranchise the poor and protect their own privileges:



· In Pennsylvania, white males had to have 50 pounds of "lawful money" or own fifty acres of land.



· The result was that only 8% of the rural population and 2% of the urban population of Philadelphia could vote



This class outlook for evaluating the nature of the American Revolution is not part of the usual curriculum for national assimilation into an endowment of fidelity towards the political system. However, with the popular explosion of collectivism, the vast population experiencing diminished economic opportunities looks to an all powerful government to provide their next meal.



Because of this adverse condition, the misguided FEDERALISTS peons rely on a central government for subsistence, while never gaining any actual political power. The essay, A Constitution Flawed from Inception explains how the American Revolution was betrayed by the Hamiltonian elites, because they simply wanted to mirror the British Empire at the expense of the minutemen, who fought the battles for a revolutionary Republic.



“Did the U.S. Constitution really break with the king and a constitutional parliament, or did it simply guarantee that a charade of popular franchise, would replace one form of legalism for another set of contrived judicatory rule? The structure for a central government was above all meant to exert a limited role and scope. Individual States would remain self-governing, with different functions and jurisdiction; within a larger union. An imaginative vision, but examine the reality.



As difficult as it is for traditional conservatives to admit, their sacred document could not craft an enlightened human nature. Those who seek to become instruments of governance only perpetuate the error of creating an office that leads to an imperial president and an omniscient judiciary. Even under a Jefferson presidency, MARBURY v. MADISON (1803), became a land mark case establishing the practice of judicial review by federal courts over acts of the other two branches of government. The dream died as the court appropriated the ultimate say. Brute force and deadly coercion gain dominance within the executive, and manifested its culmination with Lincoln’s war of Northern Aggression. So much for viable sovereignty embodied in individual will. The clash of cultures produced the authoritarianism of a central government, because the U.S. Constitution created a model that encouraged the empowerment of a presidency.”



Transportation back to 1775 allows understanding of the reasons for the battle against King George III. If you overstayed your welcome and lingered around for another twenty-eight years, you would witness the failure of the American Republic experiment.



Time never stands still. That resolute which reverberate at Lexington and Concord, no longer rings true. Emerson's poem may have made famous the mythos of Liberty or Death, but the fact of the matter, by the time he penned the verse the Federal government dismantled the essence and spirit of the revolt.



Today what is heard and seen across the globe is a tyrannical New World Order, controlled by globalist elites and technocratic Tories that are many times worse than the madness of King George III. The psychoses that created and maintain the American Empire have become the ultimate treachery and sell out of the principles of the American Revolution.



Travelling to the past is much more romantic than braving the universal oppression of the future. Reserving a ticket to ride the bull of this “reign of terror” imperium from a betrayed dream is no substitute for a nation based upon individual liberty.



SARTRE – April 19, 2016
- See more at: http://www.batr.org/terror/041916.html# ... xJX5p.dpuf

User avatar

Topic author
Gary Oak
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 7155
Joined: June 25th, 2012, 5:32 pm

Re: The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 139067Unread post Gary Oak »

Rare Thomas Jefferson letter railing against England discovered in attic trove

Thomas Jefferson

It pays to check those musty old boxes in your attic.

An unidentified family in the Deep South made the discovery of a lifetime when they found a letter written by Founding Father Thomas Jefferson in which the third president extols the virtues of American independence and hails victory in the War of 1812.

“As in the Revolutionary War, [the British] conquests were never more than of the spot on which their army stood, never extended beyond the range of their cannon shot,” Jefferson wrote in the letter, penned at his Monticello home on Valentine's Day, 1815. "We owe to their past follies and wrong the incalculable advantage of being made independent of them. . . ”


“We must sacrifice the last dollar and drop of blood to rid us of that badge of slavery...”

- Thomas Jefferson

The letter, a response to one from U.S. Ambassador to France William Crawford, was found in a box tucked away in the family's attic among other heirlooms. The Raab Collection, a Philadelphia dealer of historical documents, is selling the letter on behalf of the family. The asking price is $325,000.

“This kind of letter is only seen up for sale once a decade, if not once a generation,” Nathan Raab told FoxNews.com. “You just never see this for purchase by the public. These types of letters that are owned by direct descendants are usually donated to private collections.”

The wide-ranging, four-page letter puts into sharp relief Jefferson's well-chronicled dislike of the British.


Related Image


jeffersonlettercomp
Expand / Contract

A recently discovered letter penned by Thomas Jefferson in 1815 is worth an estimated $325,000. (The Raab Collection)


“We must sacrifice the last dollar and drop of blood to rid us of that badge of slavery, and it must rest with England alone to say whether it is worth eternal war, for eternal it must be if she holds to the wrong.”

Jefferson noted future president Gen. Andrew Jackson’s seminal victory at the Battle of New Orleans -- the final battle of the War of 1812 -- that led to America’s victory.

“It proved. . . that New Orleans can be defended both by land & water; that the Western country will fly to its relief . . . that our militias are heroes when they have heroes to lead them on,” he wrote.

Jefferson also comments on Napoleon’s demise and how it eventually worked to America’s advantage.

“[His] downfall was illy timed for us,” he said. “It gave to England an opportunity to turn full handed on us, when we were unprepared. No matter. We can beat her on our own soil . . .”

Rabb told FoxNews.com the letter is a rare treat for historical buffs and others.

“It’s a powerful and evocative reminder of our Founding Fathers,” he said. “To read about the country’s independence from the pen of Thomas Jefferson is incredible.”

The letter was put up for sale on Monday -- exactly 190 years after Jefferson's death on July 4, 1826.

Perry Chiaramonte is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter at @perrych

User avatar

Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 91147
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

Re: The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 139069Unread post Blue Frost »

Nice find, and I hope it goes to auction, and maybe a Museum gets it. The national Archive, or Smithsonian would be a great place for it.
Of course I talk to myself. Sometimes I need expert advise, and a good conversation.

User avatar

Topic author
Gary Oak
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 7155
Joined: June 25th, 2012, 5:32 pm

Re: The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 139070Unread post Gary Oak »

The British must have been horrible to the colonists to make them hate them so much. I like the British though and do have many very good British friends.

User avatar

Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 91147
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

Re: The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 139073Unread post Blue Frost »

The Brits made themselves unwelcome, they had a right to commandeer, and take what they wished, beer lodging, this, and that.
If they needed it they took it.
They even took men for the navy, and kids also so it wasn't so nice for some.
Then the half penny tax on tea, just an excuse.

The bad part is the taxes, land confiscation/eminent domain, spying that goes on today.
We are not free, and need to fix what government we have now maybe with another revolution. Foreigners run the country enjoying our labors.
Of course I talk to myself. Sometimes I need expert advise, and a good conversation.

User avatar

Topic author
Gary Oak
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 7155
Joined: June 25th, 2012, 5:32 pm

Re: The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 139486Unread post Gary Oak »

I do believe that Alaska is far better off by being part of the USA. Alaskans were saved from the remaining tsarist years, the horrible Stalin years and the rest of the communist eras and then from the mafia dominated Russia of today. It certainly would have been very dangerous for the world if Russia had Alaska during the cold war. It is very cool that there is still towns that speak the old tsarist Russian of yesteryear. I would really like to check that town out.


Tracing Alaska's Russian Heritage

From onion domes to tsarist-era Russian dialects, evidence of the Russian colonialism remains


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/al ... 49/?no-ist

User avatar

Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 91147
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

Re: The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 139488Unread post Blue Frost »

WOW, not seen anything on Russia owning Alaska in Decades. Most people I bet don't even know we bout it for like 7 million dollars from them, it they know at all we did.
Of course I talk to myself. Sometimes I need expert advise, and a good conversation.

User avatar

Topic author
Gary Oak
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 7155
Joined: June 25th, 2012, 5:32 pm

The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 160407Unread post Gary Oak »

Could it be that Obama went and got a degree in constitutional law for the "globalists" so that he would be an expert in getting around the American constitution ? He certainly wriggled around the American citizenship amendments very effectively to the huge detriment of the USA.

The Constitution: on Being a Citizen and Person

Governments have a rule they like to enforce. Defining the standards for citizenship is fundamental to the organization of society. The State has emerged as the final arbitrator for disputes, especially conflicts between the 'person', and the government. But is any person a citizen? The wording within the U.S. Constitution on this topic is clear and indisputable.

Amendment IV: Section 1 - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." From the outset, it should be obvious that persons who were not born and have not completed the naturalization process, are not considered to be a citizen. When arguments are offered up that the Constitution defines a person to include both natural and artificial persons, the courts have departed from the original meaning, and have greatly expanded their interpretation.

So you ask what are the differences among a person, persons and an artificial person or persons? Well, to our surprise a person is: "in law, an individual or incorporated group having certain legal rights and responsibilities". A natural person is a human being, while an artificial person is often a corporation. And the artificial version can be either a singular or plural person. Confused yet?

Well that is just the result that the legal system intends. Now the application of these distinctions becomes even more inconsistent. The Fourteenth Amendment has been held to mean that the phrase "no person" in the equal protection clause includes both natural and artificial persons; see 118 U.S. 394, 396. But the same term in the Fifth Amendment's "privilege against self-incrimination" clause applies to only natural persons. It seems that the corporation does not have the personal privilege because it is an artificial person; see 201 U.S. 43.

Now go back and read again the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, and consider its intent and meaning. Any reasonable 'person' will conclude that a citizen is an individual, born or naturalized. Right? What is interesting is that the artificial person or corporation, enjoys the advantage of the equal protection and due process of the government, but does not have the same responsibilities of the individual citizen.

We should not be surprised that the interests of money, influences the meaning of the law. That is basic human nature. But what is significant is how far we have come as a culture, in ignoring the idea of the 'social contract' that was central to nineteenth century classical liberalism. There are those who are avid to extend the terminology of 'person' to anyone who inhabits our shores. Legal or illegal aliens, fit their definition. Even foreign nationals that reside outside our borders, are deemed to be protected under our Constitution. At what point does the absurdity of the artificial incorporation meet the inclusion of the non-native person?

What is the significance of these rights and protections, that we hold dear; if they defy the meaning of language? If a foreign national falls under the broadest viewpoint of interpreting the Constitution, why does the unborn not enjoy the same protection because of their inhabitancy within the confines of the womb? Is that border so foreign that it is excluded from the approved list for immigration?

Let's bring some common sense back into the debate. The reason that governments enshroud citizenship on individuals, is to empower the jurisdiction of their laws over each 'person'. Protecting rights of individuals, is seldom a consideration, but becomes a necessary inconvenience. For laws to be observed, more than force is required. People must accept the justification, fairness and agree that the codes are valid. When the law is allowed to defy reality, and substitutes inane distortions of meaning, we all suffer as part of the society.

By birth we do not choose our country of origin. That is a decision made by families and offen dictated by circumstances. But we all have the right to seek admission as an applicant to become a citizen of another country. Since the world is organized by governments, it is most difficult to renounce any citizenship, as a practical matter. Therefore, every government decides who they will consider and invite, to become a naturalized citizen. Some may object to this obstacle to free migration, but this is the reality of the modern world.

If the Constitutional status of 'person' was broadened to all inhabitants on this planet, our nation would no longer exist as an example for others to admire. So why are the powers that rule, so bent upon self implosion, with the rush to advance amnesty for illegal aliens?

If the due process concept is so sacred to the advocates of personal rights, why are they so intent upon destroying the Liberty of natural born citizens, in their quest to impose their vision on the rest of us? Extending U.S. protections to non citizens, ensures that disrespect for our laws will increase. The fourteenth amendment, as it has been applied, has never been the best that the Constitution has offered our society. Those who live to confuse the law, serve their interests, at the expense of ours. Citizenship to them means special standards for different citizens. If we are unwilling to define a person with exactness, we will never be able to agree upon the rights and responsibilities of every citizen.

Allowing the courts to sort this all out, is pure madness. It is your responsibility to defend the meaning of the law, even if the lawyers tell you it is off limits. Solutions are only possible, if errors are illuminated. Are you a 'PERSON' up for the task?

SARTRE - December 9, 2001

Today the discredit of words is very great. Most of the time the media transmit lies. In the face of an intolerable world, words appear to change very little. State power has become congenitally deaf, which is why --but the editorialists forget it --terrorists are reduced to bombs and hijacking.

- John Berger

http://batr.org/view_/120901.html

User avatar

Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 91147
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 160413Unread post Blue Frost »

About all he did was break the law, and did everything counter to the constitution. I would bet he failed that course, and didn't give a care if he did go against it.
The Republican party did nothing but cater, and act like brats for a public spectral letting him get his way legal, or not. They even followed along helping him.
Obama guilty, or not is not the only one, both parties are guilty of treason against the people, and against foreign powers.
Hillary, and Obama both might have been the top people, but the people under them followed suit, and helped just like the SS generals that hung after WW2.
McCain, McConnell, and many more are as guilty along with Bush before Obama that paved the way for a lot of it.
Of course I talk to myself. Sometimes I need expert advise, and a good conversation.

User avatar

Topic author
Gary Oak
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 7155
Joined: June 25th, 2012, 5:32 pm

The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 160798Unread post Gary Oak »

George Washington’s Hard Death Shows the Limits of Medicine in His Time

He’s one of the United States’s most revered figures, but his last hours were plagued by excruciating illness


When George Washington left office at 65, he was the picture of health—at least for a man of his age living in the 18th century.


Related Content
A Rainbow Shines Anew in National Portrait Gallery’s Iconic George Washington Portrait
This Nineteenth-Century Genealogist Argued Norse God Odin Was George Washington’s Great-Great-Great... Grandfather
In a Groundbreaking Exhibit at Mount Vernon, Slaves Speak and History Listens

Less than three years later, he was dead of a sudden illness that was centuries away from being treatable.

By all accounts, George Washington’s final hours were painful and frightening, though he had been healthy just days before and hadn’t sustained any grievous injuries. His death, which took place “a little more than 30 months into his retirement,” writes Howard Markel for PBS News Hour, illustrates how suddenly illness could strike even the most wealthy–and how little doctors were able to do about it.

The weather was pretty miserable on December 12, 1799: Freezing rain, snow and hail poured down on Washington, then 67, and his employees and slaves. The former president spent most of the day on horseback working outside, and he was wet when he came in late for dinner. He was proud of his reputation for punctuality and didn’t take the time to change before sitting down to the meal, writes Markel.

The next day, he “did not go out as usual,” writes White McKenzie Wallenborn for the Washington Papers, “for he had taken cold and complained of a severe sore throat.” “He was suddenly overcome by what is believed to have been a rare throat infection,” writes historian Christine A. Smith. “If the diagnosis from our contemporary perspective is correct, without antibiotics he could not have survived regardless of the treatment.”

Even as late as 1900, before the advent of antibiotics, Americans “could primarily expect to die from pneumonia, influenza, tuberculosis, gastrointestinal infections, heart disease and cerebrovascular disease (strokes.)” Additionally, superstitions of the late 1700s held that wet hair and clothes actually caused colds, a belief that still persists.

Aware of this, the sick Washington got his affairs in order. In July of that year, writes Smith, he’d written a new will arranging what would happen to his “great wealth,” after he died: “the huge amount of real property, numerous investments, material goods and 124 slaves at the Mount Vernon farms.” He ensured that Martha Washington, his wife, had the relevant will in her possession.

By 3 am on December 14, he was really sick and he had feverish chills. When the sun came up, writes Wallenborn, his secretary “found the General breathing with difficulty and hardly able to utter a word intelligently.”

Two remedies for his congestion were tried that day: a mixture of molasses, vinegar and butter and a gargle of vinegar and sage tea. He couldn’t take either and nearly died of suffocation while attempting to using them. Over the course of his illness, writes Wallenborn, he’d been bled more than once–another common remedy of the time–and lost about five pints of blood. He died that night, between ten and eleven p.m., having been healthy only two days prior. Although Smithsonian has written about the difficulty of diagnosing historical figures, based on accounts of his symptoms, Wallenborn, who is a medical doctor, believes that he had acute epiglottitis, “a severe, rapidly progressing infection of the epiglottis and surrounding tissues that may be quickly fatal because of sudden respiratory (airway) obstruction by the inflamed structures.”

Whatever it was, Washington’s death was terrifying, painful and undignified. However, unlike many other people during this period, he was treated by not one, but three doctors, as well as attended by servants and slaves and his own family. He was also old for his time, and had enjoyed a long, full life. He was buried on December 18, 1799, at Mount Vernon, his plantation.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... c3FmQJv.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

User avatar

Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 91147
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 160812Unread post Blue Frost »

I never was sold on George, I know a bit much I guess about him.
His doctors likely helped kill the man, they overused leeches, and mercury on the man which helped kill him. Might have got an Illness from the leeches as well, some do carry bad stuff.

By the way Washington agreed to not take money as president, but what rarely is told is how he spent, and wasted the tax payers money on parties, and other stuff while others did without.
Of course I talk to myself. Sometimes I need expert advise, and a good conversation.

User avatar

Topic author
Gary Oak
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 7155
Joined: June 25th, 2012, 5:32 pm

The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 160816Unread post Gary Oak »

I was under the impression that he was a great leader and man.

User avatar

Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 91147
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 160821Unread post Blue Frost »

He was I guess, but there was much better, Washington was just tall, and a figurehead in my view though with a lot of luck.
Washington wasn't good on tactics, wasn't a good general, but his height, and charisma made the man.

One I thought was a better general, and is very looked down on was Benedict Arnold. To bad he got sick of the politics, and unearned praise for Washington, and turned on us.
Of course I talk to myself. Sometimes I need expert advise, and a good conversation.

User avatar

Topic author
Gary Oak
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 7155
Joined: June 25th, 2012, 5:32 pm

The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 161549Unread post Gary Oak »

I knew a lot of this but on all the topics that I did know I learned a lot of details plus a lot of new stuff that I didn't know. For example the presidents that died n July 4 ! It obvious who is in charge of both Obama and JUstin Trudeau. I hope that Donald TRump is not part of their plan. II do believe that the Philippines leader Duterte is probably quite independant of their control. I will have to watch this again.

Vatican Secret Societies Jesuits and the New World Order


User avatar

Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 91147
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 161746Unread post Blue Frost »

I'm not watching that long video :unsure: But I think since the founding of the Catlick church that it has been for nothing but control over mankind.
They are really powerful, and in with the most powerful people in the world.
Constantine believed it was all for control, and made it that way to get the hearts of the people. He saw in his life how religion could become universal across borders.
Of course I talk to myself. Sometimes I need expert advise, and a good conversation.

User avatar

Gary Oaktree

The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 161749Unread post Gary Oaktree »

Blue frost, I do think that you will not regret watching this video. Yes I know it's long but it's a real eye opener

User avatar

Gary Oaktree

The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 161750Unread post Gary Oaktree »

Blue frost, I do think that you will not regret watching this video. Yes I know it's long but it's a real eye opener

User avatar

Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 91147
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

The Founding Of The United States

Post: # 161766Unread post Blue Frost »

I don't have time when other things need done, and watched. I think I know most of it anyhow, and it's the same story for a lot of places.
Of course I talk to myself. Sometimes I need expert advise, and a good conversation.

Quick Reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
   
Post Reply