Talk:George Washington/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Washington's ambition and reputation

Following the earlier discussion, I've done a little more digging. There is, to quote from p. 67 of Longmore's The Invention of George Washington, "...the myth of Washington as reluctant politician" and that "His biographers, taking his words at face value, have perpetuated that myth". My feeling is that, in places, this article - by its tone, specific assertions (some very subtle, others less so) and ommissions - also helps perpetuate that myth.

Washington's ambition is well attested in reliable sources, including:

• Ferling, The First of Men: A Life of George Washington: "But there was another side to Washington, a dimension far less laudable. He seemed in the grip of a disturbing and unattractive obsession with his own advancement. No amount of protestation that he soldiered only for patriotic reasons - and he made that claim regularly - is quite convincing" (p. 58);
• Ferling, The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon: "The real Washington burned with ambition: ambition for his country to be sure, but also for renown, power, wealth and success" (p. 6);
• Henriques, Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington: "George Washington was profoundly ambitious and eager for honor and glory, and his life cannot be accurately understood without grasping these fundamental and absolutely essential facts" (p. 2);
• Henriques then quotes Longmore: "Throughout his life, the ambition for distinction spun inside George Washington like a dynamo..." (p. 1);
• Shogun, George Washington: Foundation of Presidential Leadership and Character (edited by Fishman, Pederson and Rozell): "It would be foolish to claim that Washington possessed no personal ambition at all..." (p. 60);
• Rhodehamel, George Washington: The Wonder of the Age: Washington "avidly sought high office" and "The love of fame was the greatest gift a good man could give his country. George Washington would consume his life in the quest for such living honor..." (p. 25).

To be clear, the sources generally agree "it was not really power that Washington wanted". His ambition was for "...the kind of fame that meant a lasting reputation as a man of honor...Ambition in this formulation was not a selfish motive, but a willingness to sacrifice one's own happiness for the welfare of the many" (Rhodehamel, pp. 24-25)". Shogun, pp. 59-61, also offers an interesting contrast to Ferling's somewhat negatively framed assessment with a discussion of Washington's more "laudable" subordination of "personal ambition and concern with honors to serve a greater cause".

The article is, however, remarkably quiet on the subject of Washington's ambition. It touches on the subject only twice, in the "Second term" section as an accusation levelled at him by his oppoenents, and in the "Historical reputation and legacy" section as, appropriately enough, "unacknowledged ambition" (and even that is "mingled with self-doubt"). Instead, we read:

• How Washington "desired to live the life of wealthy planter aristocracy" in the "Early years (1732–1752)" section;
• That he was "appointed" to the position of adjutant in 1752 (a somewhat passive rendering which obscures the fact that he "angled" for the position (Longmore, p. 17), wrote to Dinwiddie "pressing his case" (Rhodehamel pp. 28-29), and gained the position "through politicking" (Lantzer in Fishman et el, p. 36));
• How Washington was "apprehensive" as he took the field the first time against the British and "anxious" with "painful sensations over leaving the 'domestic felicity' of Mount Vernon" immediately prior to taking office for the first time as president; both subtly painting a picture of a reluctant public servant;
• That Washington "did not wish to involve himself in the nation’s post-war politics" prior to the Constitutional Convention; a quite definitely unsubtle assertion of reluctance (and a misrepresentation of the source, as has already been pointed out, more than once).
• Freeman's assessment, in the "Historical reputation and legacy" section, of Washington's character, in which Washington's ambition is conspicuous by its absence (and the source, Washington's Crossing, focuses only on one particular stage of the Revolutionary War, so citing it in the context of Washington's general historical reputation is taking that assessment out of context);
• Chernow's assertion in the same section that Washington was "burdened by public life" (and this is another example of quoting out of context; Chernow is writing about the first presidency, not a general appraisal of Washington's reputation that placement in this section tends to imply).

On a related theme, there is enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant discussing, in the "Historical reputation and legacy" section, Washington as modern-day Cincinnatus, including his own part in consciously cultivating that image specifically and the image generally of being a reluctant public servant. These sources include:

• A section in Morrison's The Political Philosophy of George Washington titled "Washington and Cincinnatus" (p. 84)
• Lantzer's chapter, Washington as Cincinnatus: A Model of Leadership, in Freeman et al's George Washington: Foundation of Presidential Leadership and Character;
• Wills's book Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment. I don't have access to this work, but in The Founders and the Classics: Greece, Rome, and the American Enlightenment, the author writes, "Garry Wills has suggested that George Washington not only took notice of the Cincinnatus analogy, but worked consciously to promote it." (p. 70);
• Longmore notes in a footnote on p. 297, "GW genuinely did love farming, but occasionally he described this interest to make it fit his image as the Cincinnatus of the West." I have also previously quoted Longmore's assertion of Washington's "intentional shaping of his public and historic self" (p. ix). As noted above, Longmore is considered enough of an authority to be quoted by Henriques.
• Longmore is also included amongst "[arguably] the best Washington scholarship of the last fifteen years or so" which deals with "the intellectual dimensions of Washington's public image, including his part in creating it" (my emphasis) by Higginbotham in his 2001 work George Washington Reconsidered (pp. 3-4).

Given their non-trivial appearance in the sources, these themes should really receive better, more balanced coverage in the article than they currently do, per WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and the FA criteria 1b (comprehensive), 1c (well-researched) and 1d (neutral). Factotem (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

"He seemed in the grip of a disturbing and unattractive obsession with his own advancement."

No shit, Sherlock. How else would a minor scion of the gentry rise to the highest military and political offices? By stroke of luck? His life would be good example for a Novus homo outside the context of Roman politics. See:http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100240795 :

• "‘new man’), term used in the late republic in various related senses: for the first man of a family to reach the senate, where he normally remained a ‘small senator’; in a special sense, for such a man actually to rise to the consulship; and for the first man of a senatorial family to reach the consulship. The first of these achievements was not very difficult, provided a man had at least equestrian standing, some military or oratorical ability, and good connections. The last also was far from rare: it was thus that the nōbilēs were constantly reinvigorated. But few men rose from outside the senate to a consulship, and the commonest use of the term characterizes this rare achievement. It took unusual merit and effort and either noble patronage (e.g. that of the Flacci for Porcius Cato (1)) or a public emergency, as in the cases of Marius and Cicero."
• "The novus homo become consul contrasts with the nobiles (the ‘known’ men) as per sē cognitus (‘known (only) through himself’). He has to win his own connections and clientēlae (see cliens) to balance those inherited by the nobiles. Hence a typical pattern of career and outlook develops, best seen in Marius and Cicero, about whom we know most. During his rise the novus homo prides himself on his ability and achievements and tends to compare them with those of the founders of noble families, as contrasted with their degenerate descendants. But Cicero is not a reformer of the system. After rising to the top, he aims at defending the order in which he has risen and gaining recognition as an equal from his social superiors. Some (e.g. Cato, in part through longevity) more or less succeed in this; others (e.g. Marius and Cicero) are never quite accepted. But they never favour the advancement of other new men." Dimadick (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

"How Washington was "apprehensive" as he took the field the first time against the British"

I think you fail to see the context here. The Continental Army relied on volunteer soldiers, often with little prior experience and limited military training. It never had more than 17,000 soldiers. And it was going to face the British Army during the American Revolutionary War, which had 48,000 soldiers in 1775, professional training (by the standards of their time), and several officers who were veterans of previous wars and campaigns.

Worrying that your military faction will fail to achieve victory, says nothing about a man's personal ambitions and aspirations. It merely means that no easy victory is available to him. Dimadick (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue is why this detail is considered important enough to state in the article, but his ambition for such rank, which attracts much more attention in the sources, is not. Like I say, some of the ways in which this article appears to perpetuate the myth of Washington's reluctance are subtle. Factotem (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

BTW, the source provided to support the assertion of apprehensiveness states, "As Washington and his party pushed northward, his mind was occupied with the situation awaiting him in Boston." An occupied mind is not necessarily an apprehensive mind. It then goes on to state, "A decade later he admitted that he wasn't sufficiently 'at ease' to observe closely the countryside through which he passed. He felt beleagured by the social duties thrust upon him as he passed through an unending succession of towns and endured ritual greetings from their leading citizens." I'm not even sure that being insufficiently at ease can be equated with apprehensiveness, and in any case it's ambiguous whether he was ill at ease due to the impending confrontation with the British forces at Boston or because of the social duties that beleagured him on his way there. Factotem (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Washington was a wealthy land investor. He took on the British Empire. He was President for two terms. He was General for eight years. He was a slave owner and used slaves on his plantation. He married a wealthy widower. That is evidence of ambition. He shuffled slaves in Philadelphia to bypass the slave law. Reluctant ambition is double speak. You are either ambitious or not. The article does not fault Washington's ambition nor should it. Apprehensiveness could be considered a character flaw. I don't see any apprehensiveness in Washington's career as general. He was head of the army for eight years. These are just my opinions. Washington was not a secluded monk in a monestary. I have been to Mount Vernon. I would say that was the house of an ambitious man. There is nothing wrong with that. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that his ambition was a fault, or that the article should present it as such. I'm pointing out that his ambition is covered in the sources, but this article, instead of exploring that aspect, largely ignores it and is often flawed in the few instances where it is touched upon. That is a fault, because there has been a tradition in some sources of portraying Washington as a reluctant public servant. This article needs to be vigilant that it does not, inadvertantly or deliberately, by commission or omission, favour that tradition. Factotem (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Copyedited Factotem (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• It really takes no stretch of the imagination to understand why Washington would be "apprehensive" marching to Boston with undisciplined militia, poorly equipted, and going up against one of the mightiest and well trained armies in the world, for his first time. —- One which just won a victory at Bunker Hill. Once again, it seems we're embarking on one of those debates where we can't agree on which shade of grey to use in the narrative. This was one of the problems we had in the last review. i.e.Highly subjective opinions pointing in ten directions. Best to concentrate on FA criteria and outright errors in regards to the sources. I'm not seeing any, still. Once again, if specific statements need to be dealt with we should propose an actual alternative, and back it up with two sources. i.e.If we're going to challenge a given statement/source it would seem appropriate that the existing source be challenged with at least two alternative sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it does take a source that states Washington was apprehensive before such a statement can be added to the article, and interpreting the source currently provided that way is stretching it. And to continue your analogy, our job is to present all shades of grey as they are painted in the sources, not decide which shade of grey is the correct shade to use. That is part of the FA Criteria, which is why I ended my post by referencing them, and which, to spell them out as they pertain to this issue, require an article to "neglect no major facts or details" (1b), be a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (1c) and present "views fairly and without bias" (1d). And on what policy do you base the requirement for "at least two alternative sources" before an existing source can be challenged? Factotem (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Cmguy777, overall. All the sources point to Washington as a man of great ambition, which is really nothing unusual for one with leadership ability. However, I would also point out that one can be reluctant to act, in the face of various risks or other difficulty, and still be ambitious. The issue is certainly not a two-dimensional one, but can and is often involved, depending on circumstances. Here also, if a given statement needs to be addressed, there should be an actual proposal as an alternative, backed up by at least two alternative RS's. This way we avoid a lot of opinionated talk and let the sources be the main determining factor when changes are proposed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

If "all the sources point to Washington as a man of great ambition", then why is this aspect so neglected in the article? Why, in the few places where it is touched upon, either explicitly or implicitly, as identified above, is it covered in such a one-sided way (and in some cases by a misrepresentation of the sources)? Factotem (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

If there is a gap or distortion in the coverage of reliable sources, then the willing editor should offer the appropriate addition or alteration to the article including the reference therefore. Hoppyh (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding Washington's ambition — this is sort of self evident, given all of his pursuits, before, during and after the revolution. We should be careful as to how we make any proposed statements when it involves yet another subjective idea. i.e.Ambition, by itself, is not a factual event. By simply describing factual events the intelligent reader can get an idea about Washington's ambition without our trying to say so in concrete wording, esp when there are many dozens of sources to consider. If we get into one of those debates where someone claims some sources are wrong, others are not, we will be getting into yet another long drawn out opinionated debate over shades of grey. Imo, it's best to let the facts speak for themselves where ambition is concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree also with Cmguy777. We need to avoid potential chicken-and-egg circuitry here. Does an honorable man act out of honor or in order to achieve it? Does it matter? As Friday would say, “Just the facts, ma’am.” Let the RS lead the way. Hoppyh (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Which is precisely why I was very careful to provide plenty of sources, nearly all of which are already listed in the article's bibliography, in support of my case. And I notice that with the exception of a puzzling post about novus homo in the Roman Republic, the relevance of which escapes me, none of the responses so far have made any reference whatsoever to reliable sources. Factotem (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

One reliable source is Chernow (2010). Chenow says Washington was ambitious, but he held it in check (p 185), he was in denial of his own ambitions, and that he had self doubts (p 547). Cmguy777 (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ferling (2000) says Washington had "propulsive ambition," (p 16) and he was "activated by human and self-centered aspirations." (p 107). Cmguy777 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Using Chernow (2010) and Ferling (2000) sources, I would just say Washington was ambitious, without any qualifications. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Factotem "No references to reliable sources"? As I mentioned, we let the established facts reveal Washington's ambition, which is generally understood, all supported by reliable sources. Didn't think I needed to cite specific RS's in that regard. I agree with your contention that more could be said in the article about Washington's ambition, however, only inasmuch as Washington's ambition was rather apparent and something to speak of. So long as we keep such references in general terms there would be no opinionated 'grey area' to deliberate over. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Turns to Longmore, p. 67: "Here began the myth of Washington as reluctant politician...His biographers, taking his words at face value, have perpetuated that myth." Turns to article, "Constitutional Convention" section, and sure enough: "Washington did not wish to involve himself in the nation’s post-war politics...". You seem quite happy for the article not to address directly the ambition that drove Washington to seek office, preferring instead to "let the established facts reveal Washington's ambition", but found it necessary to be explicit on this issue when it comes to portraying Washington as a reluctant politician. This is just the most egregious example of how this article perpetuates that myth; do you really not see this? Factotem (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

While we're here, and with reference to your earlier statement about still not seeing outright errors in regards to the sources, I'm now pointing out for the fourth time that your citing of this statement to Ferling, p. 266 is a misrepresentation of the source. Nowhere on that page does Ferling state anything that can be interpreted as a reluctance to be involved in the nation's post-war politics. Ferling is listing reasons why Washington was reluctant to attend the Constitutional Convention specifically. Those reasons are rooted not in Washington's disinclination to be involved in politics, but in his doubts about the legality of the convention, his recognition of others' reservations about its intent and his concern for the impact his attendance would have on his reputation. In particular, Ferling discusses Washington's concern about the image presented by his participation in a convention that would create the office of chief executive, a position he anticipated taking. A man concerned about how his election to president will be perceived is hardly the sign of someone who was reluctant to involve himself in the nation's post-war politics. Factotem (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

On the same subject, your defence of the assertion that Washington was apprehensive as he took the field against the British is not convincing. I find it odd that you feel it necessary to be explicit about such detail in the first place, given your stance about not explicitly discussing Washington's ambition, and anyway, as explained, the source does not directly support the assertion. Factotem (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Cmguy777 and Hoppyh. I've no objections about mentioning Washington's ambition in general terms. Just have reservations about attaching subjective text to this basic idea, given the dozens of sources out there. e.g.The young Washington was especially ambitious when he was trying to establish himself during the French and Indian War and went through various lengths in that effort, with appeals to Dinwiddie and the Virginia House of Burgesses for that chance. Dinwiddie responded because of Washington's connections with the Ohio Company and others, while he appreciated his enthusiasm and the fact that he was a seasoned outdoors man, given his extensive surveying experience out there in the wild. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting great tracts of narrative on the subject of Washington's ambition; a short paragraph in the "Historical reputation and legacy" section discussing Washington's passage into history as modern-day Cincinnatus, his ambition and how he managed it, would sufficiently reflect the sources. I'm urging caution, given that there has been a tradition of Washington as reluctant politician, that this article, where it does touch upon the subject, implicitly or explicitly, does not fall into that tradition. Factotem (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I added a simple sentence that Washington was ambitious without qualification. The sentence was retracted. Chernow was the reference. Ferling and Chernow both mention Washington was ambitious. It is not clear why it was retracted ? I had put it in where Washington was elected office in the personal life section. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ambition & reluctance

• It's common knowledge among historians and such that Washington was an ambitious land speculator, demonstrated by his surveying and land purchases, which we cover in the text, per sources. Washington was also ambitious early on in his military career, i.e.during the French and Indian War. This is also demonstrated by his actions and appeals in his effort to get a command, which we can further delineate in the text if need be. Just before and during the Revolution he was still driven by his business interests, naturally, but came into the Revolution for the same reason everyone else was -- injustice towards the colonies. After the Revolution, Washington was still ambitious in terms of business, nothing unusual, but mostly wanted to return home. If we are going to add a definitive statement(s) about ambition it should be in general terms, (in context, per business, military, politics), supported by sources, and with consensus. As I said, I've no objections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• There is plenty of evidence that supports the idea that Washington was reluctant to pursue a political life after a long and bloody war. Quite simply, he longed for being with his wife at home, managing his plantation, a prospect that's supported by numerous sources, and I'm assuming there are also plenty of letters and diaries to this effect. Washington had to be prodded by Madison, Hamilton and others to attend the Constitutional Convention, where he just sat there in silence, mostly, and again, when it came time to securing the right man for the nation's first president. We can't just assume that Washington was putting on this prolonged and elaborate act, deceiving friends and contemporaries, and that many sources over the years just spun this idea out of thin air. That he also relinquished command, and later refused a third term, sort of cements the idea that Washington was reluctant after the Revolution. We will need concrete evidence, supported by sources, not trendy speculation, to even consider the idea that Washington was not reluctant when it came to politics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Trendy speculation"? I've provided sources in the initial post. I will also again quote Longmore, p. 32, writing in the context of Washington's appointment to command of the Virginia Regiment in 1755: "Four tactics emerge here that would reappear in Washington's later, more sophisticated and subtle performances at the times of his appointment to command the Continental Army, his selection as delegate to the Constitutional Convention, and his two elections to the presidency. He carefully regards appearances; how will his audience perceive and interpret his conduct? He protests his inadequacy. He avoids actively soliciting the job. And finally, by making the offer come to him, rather than promoting himself, he increases his influence and authority." (my emphasis). Your sources? Factotem (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There appears to be a resistance to adding Washington was ambitious to the article. I added it but is was repealed. Double speak ? Washington ran a slave plantation. He owned African people perpetually in theory. We can't seperate his slave ownership. We like to make Washington a simple farmer, but did he ever plow the field ? Cincinnatus plowed. It allowed him to be a general and be President. I gave sources of Chernow (2010) and Ferling (2000) for Washington's ambition. Washington was out of war and politics for a time, but that does not mean he was not ambitious. I think this article should reduce a psychological evalutation. The answer is just to put in a simple statement that Washington was ambitious. I have been to Mount Vernon in 1988 and his estate in Virginia. It's a beautiful mansion set above the Potomac. It is the home of a wealthy planter. Here is the reality. Had Washington not been ambitious, there would be no United States of America. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Factotem — All you've really presented is Longhorn's speculation based on events that can be interpreted a number of ways. i.e. "He carefully regards appearances; how will his audience perceive and interpret his conduct?" Yes, this would seem likely if Washington was going to accept a nomination and present himself before an anticipating public, with high hopes, regardless if he was ambitious or reluctant. Otoh, I've cited very compelling evidence, covered by a multitude of sources, including Madison and Hamilton's efforts to get Washington to serve as a delegate at the Constitutional Convention, the relinquishing of command after the war, and refusing a third term, not to mention his wife waiting for him to return to a home he loved. It would seem this latter prospect would be among the main reasons for Washington's reluctance to return to the calamity of public life. Nothing amazing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I've already pointed out, with a 2001 source, that the work of Longmore, who was Professor of History at San Farncisco State University, is included amongst "[arguably] the best Washington scholarship of the last fifteen years or so". On what basis do you dismiss his work as speculation? And I'm sorry, but without referencing sources, your "compelling evidence" is nothing more than your opinion. Do you plan to address those errors in sourcing I identify above? Factotem (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Cmguy777 — Well said.  Regarding ambition, you will get no resistance from me so long as we cover this in terms of established facts, and in context, given the situation, be it business, military or political, bearing in mind that we cover events that most intelligent readers will see as ambition, and/or reluctance, as the case may be. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

All that needs to be said is Washington had ambition. He kept it in check, but he had ambition. Maybe it could be mentioned in the French and Indian War section. I have read nothing to mention Washington was reluctant. I just don't think we need to psychoanalyze his ambition. He wasn't a Napoleon or Julius Ceasar, but he had ambition. His ambition seemed to show itself the most while he was fighting in a war. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggested narrative

The following narrative, which might best be placed as a sub-section in the "Historical reputation and legacy" section, gives an idea of how the Cincinnatus legend might be covered. This is, I think, necessary, given the frequency with which that legend appears in the sources. The related issue of GW's ambition is covered in the second para with a narrative that attempts to cover the salient points of this nuanced issue in a balanced way, with reference to reliable sources.

Cincinnatus of the west

Historian Gordon S. Wood concluded that "the greatest act of [Washington's] life, the one that gave him his greatest fame, was his resignation as commander-in-chief of the American forces." It was an act that earned Washington widespread acclaim and a place in history as the Cincinnatus of the west, a reference to Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, the Roman military leader who, according to legend, relinquished power and returned to his farm after defeating Rome's enemies in the 5th century BC. Washington's relinquishing of power played to an image of a man disinterested in politics, and he was eulogized after his death as a man who "took on authority only when his countrymen asked him to do so", "wielded 'power without ambition'" and was "a patriot devoid of personal ambition". Washington was aware of the legend of Cincinnatus, and Garry Wills suggests that Washington consciously promoted the analogy. The historian Paul K. Longmore makes a similar claim, writing of Washington's "intentional shaping of his public and historic self".

That Washington was ambitious is well attested in the sources, though it was fame and honor that he sought, not power. Ferling argues Washington's alleged lack of ambition was a fable that had begun during the Revolutionary War. Longmore argues that the "myth of Washington as reluctant politician" began earlier, at the time of Washington's appointment as commander of the Virginia Regiment in 1755. Washington had actively sought and then gained the position of adjutant in the Virginia militia in 1752 through politicking. By 1755, according to Longmore, Washington had learnt to be careful of his reputation, avoid soliciting the job and instead make the job offer come to him. This was, Longmore asserts, a tactic Washington would employ in his subsequent military and political appointments. Ferling speculates that Washington's concern over being perceived as grasping for power was one of the reasons why he was reluctant to attend the Constitutional Convention. Ferling also characterises Washington's reluctance to accept the presidency as theater, a show designed to reinforce the image of someone who did not seek power for himself. In contrast, Washington was "burdened by public life" by the time of the first presidency, according to Chernow. This view is supported by the historian Peter R. Henriques, who speculates that the ageing Washington, his reputation and fame assured, was genuinely reluctant to take up the presidency. Factotem (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Above you have just coincidentally confirmed my concern about this commentary. All of the sources are referred to as having variously “argued, concluded, claimed, asserted, suggested, speculated,” etc. etc. I don’t see the value added, other than to their book sales. Hoppyh (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

As required by policy. Factotem (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I added that Washington was incisive and ambitious using Chernow 2010 in context of the Revolutionary War. Chernow used the expression "ambition in check." I quoted Chernow. How ambitious Washington was is subjective. There were two periods of retirement where is was on his slave plantation, although after the French and Indian War he was elected to office. I don't believe he held office until he was elected President after the American Revolution. There are times when Washington was out of office or not fighting in a war. He certainly was ambitious, but there seem to be breaks in the ambition. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hoppyh — Agree, with so many varied opinions, coming up with a 'one-size-fits-all' statement regarding ambition and reluctance is almost futile. At best, we can say, perhaps in the Legacy section, that historical opinion regarding Washington has sometimes varied over the years but that most concede that his ambitions were tempered with a measure of reluctance, depending on situation, using Wikipedia's voice. However, it hardly seems like making such an average statement is necessary, as it could apply to almost anyone. Looking for ways to compromise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Factotem — If Longhorn cites no evidence and offers opinion only, his claims are entirely speculative. There is always a measure of speculation when talking about facts, but with no reference to specific facts all we have is opinion to go on. Many historians have noted Washington's relinquishing of power, reluctance to attend the Constitutional Convention, declining a third term, etc, as evidence of his reluctance to pursue politics or hold on to power. What facts does Longhorn offer that would counter or negate that evidence? What facts does he offer that would even suggest that Washington was just scheming, deceiving friends and contemporaries and pretending to be reluctant? Appreciate your research above, but all we can really say regarding ambition and reluctance is that historical opinion varies greatly, as you've demonstrated for us. As was said, we should let the facts speak for themselves, and where opinion is concerned, confine our coverage accordingly, per the situation involved. We certainly can't say Washington's reluctance is a "myth", per Longhorn, esp with no compelling (or any) facts to base this opinion on. Out of the sources you offered above it seems that Chernow and Henriques, who agrees with Chernow, are the most accurate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

We certainly can write that Washington's reluctance is a myth per Longmore, because that is what Longmore, a professor of history at San Francisco State University, has written, in a book published by the University of Virginia Press, a book with 76 pages of citatations and a selected bibliography that runs to 15 pages. That's basic Wikipedia policy. I will ask again, on what basis do you dismiss his work as speculation? BTW, his name is Longmore, not Longhorn as you keep writing. Factotem (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

And the reason why I specifically wrote that Henriques speculated as he did is because what he actually wrote was, "While one of course cannot read Washington's mind, my sense is that he was genuinely reluctant to become president in 1789...". Now that is self-confessed speculation. And you know what? We're still perfectly within our rights as Wikipedia editors to state that Washington was genuinely reluctant to become president per Henriques, because that's what a Professor of History Emeritus at George Mason University and member of the Mount Vernon committee of George Washington Scholars has written, in a book published by the University of Virginia Press, i.e. a source every bit as reliable as Longmore. Factotem (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, 'Longmore' is a noted historian and has published via a noted publisher -- just like many dozens of other biographers have – no need to wave that flag. My basis for skepticism about his "myth" claims is quite simple. Once again, he offers no concrete evidence, like a letter, or some event that explicitly demonstrates this "myth" idea. Because of the numerous biographers for Washington, if we were going to make any such claim, we would have to say it's Longmore's opinion. This would open the door to all the other opinions. This is a biography, not a Historiography. We can make general claims in the Legacy section, and cite with a couple of sources, but this is not the place to outline historical opinion by name, and we certainly don't want to cherry pick various opinions, not that you have. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Longmore is a reliable source; it's enough that he writes of the myth for us to be able to include it in the article. That's Wikipedia policy, and not something any editor can second guess. I've now also added Ferling's statement about Washington's reluctance to accept the presidency being theater. Factotem (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

No "myth" has been established for lack of facts that reasonably establish this idea, yet you refer to it as established fact. Once again, we can not highlight one historian's opinion without including at least several other opinions. As said, the article is not a Historiography. Other than general statements, according to many sources, we should just present the established facts and let readers determine if Washington's aspirations are something of a "myth", that is, if they are so inclined. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

1. The established fact is that both Longmore and Ferling discuss the reluctant politician myth. That you personally don't agree with them, that you dismiss their positions as opinion rather than fact, is entirely irrelevant, a personal opinion that no editor, neither you nor I, is permitted to introduce into an article.

2. That other reliable sources don't agree with them does not mean we should choose which viewpoint to favour, it means we should present both viewpoints in a balanced and neutral way. That's one of the three core content policies of Wikipedia that we are all obliged to abide by.

BTW, "Washington did not wish to involve himself in the nation's post-war politics..." and "According to historian Ron Chernow, Washington was in part 'burdened by public life'..." are both cases where this article currently introduces one historian's opinion without including any other opinions (in the first case, by misrepresenting a source that eight pages later actually asserts that Washington's reluctance to accept the presidency was theatre). Factotem (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what "concrete evidence" Chernow provides to support his "burdened by public life" statement. Factotem (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• A. The trials and calamity of the Revolutionary war. Many historians speak about Washington's dismay with politicians and such, during the French and Indian war, and esp during his experience at Valley Forge where he was pitted against state politicians who largely ignored his appeals for funding for badly needed supplies, for openers. All along, Washington was left with a bad taste in his mouth in his dealings with squabbling and self-serving politicians. Politics is something he overall did not aspire to. He assumed the presidency out of a sense of duty, given that there were so many politicians, and others, about with less than national interests in mind at the close of the revolution, and did so with much reluctance, understandably. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• What sort of proposal (statement) did you have in mind in regards to this "myth"? And what other opinions would you include along with it so at too keep the narrative balanced and neutral? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The suggested narrative I posted above. Alternatively, removing all references to Washington's reluctance to serve in public office might be a viable solution. Factotem (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• You are proposing that we remove all reference to reluctance based on one biographer's say so, one who doesn't cite particular facts, events, letters or quotes to substantiate his speculation. Also, let's not confuse ambition for honor and glory with any ambition for political involvements and political office. Once again, Washington relinquished command, and then had to be prodded by Madison and Hamilton to attend the Constitutional Convention where his involvement was negligible, and then again prodded to run for office. After his second term he refused a third. In terms of political pursuits that doesn't sound altogether ambitious. Again, ambition and reluctance factor into Washington's life at different times and regarding business, military and political involvements. Again, we simply can't employ one statement, or say nothing all the way around, without ignoring many sources, including Longmore. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• If anything we can say, in the Legacy section that Washington's ambition towards a political career is disputed by some historians. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Cmguy777 — Appreciate your effort here, but imo your last edit is so neutral it doesn't amount to much either way. As I said, Washington's ambition and/or reluctance varied, depending on what period of his life was involved and on given circumstances. Given this wide variance, and all the sources out there, it's almost futile trying to come up with one statement that covers all of these aspects. In regards to honor, this was very important to military leaders. In fact hundreds of them fought duels to defend their honor. Without honor, at least in those days, you could not command respect, let alone lead men into battle or govern a nation. Not that you have, but we should be careful and not try to define Washington's effort to gain and protect his honor as something unusual or amazing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

My edit was meant as a compromise. I disagree that "it doesn't amount to much either way." I used Chernow's term "ambition in check," in quotes. In fact, I think it is one of Chernow's finer words in his book. I don't think the article should push Washington's "reluctance." That is getting into psychology and speculation. Maybe Washington had self doubts because of a strict overbearing mother. He was general for 8 years. He was elected to office three times during is life. That does not really show a reluctance. Let's say Washington was reluctant. Is that a character flaw ? Again, we are getting into phsychology attempting to analyze an 18th Century figure through 21st Century standards. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's a fair compromise and I've no inclination to remove it. It just seems like this statement is so average that it could apply to almost any statesmen or military leader, and that it almost seems pointless. Again, appreciate your effort at compromise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

IMO, The less we get envolved in these conclusary statements the better. One man’s reluctance is another’s passive aggression. Hoppyh (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we need, apparently, a simple proposal statement regarding Washington's ambition/reluctance regarding his political aspirations. I've offered one. As Cm' mentioned, we are attempting to read Washington's mind and inclinations, so it's best to make an all encompassing statement where historian's varied opinions are concerned. Let's do this so we can move on. Time for proposals. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I will start the ball rolling here: The biographical study of Washington, which is vast and deep, offers that same dimension of theories as to his approach to leadership. Some authors see in Washington the noblesse oblige, with a proclivity to reluctance toward leadership and humility, while others prefer the portrayal of an ambitious man, sensitive to outward appearances. The sources can be said to reveal Washington as a mythical figure in every sense—some employ the more colloquial meaning of myth, and feel he has been characterized by widely held but false beliefs, while others favor the more amiable sense of a myth, that of a man steeped in a tradition which seeks to fully describe the early history of a people. This is a poor beginning I am sure, and of course it needs the sources. Hoppyh (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Attributing opinions to "some authors" or "sources" will attract criticism as weasel words, unless there are actually sources that specifically state "Some authors..." etc. Factotem (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The voice of Wikipedia in this article should distinguish among Washington’s “ambitions” in three principle ways: he was (1) personally self-seeking, (2) financially calculating, and (3) aspirational to worthy public service (which in his time, in addition to being scandal-free from self-proclaimed triumphalist adultery and illegal financial self-dealing causing the collapse of various enterprises for sundry violations of law, -- also then required a public persona of seeming “reluctance” to assume positions of prominence so as to eschew personal gain, as sourced).

Ambition-1, Washington was personally self-seeking that was evident two elements as a colonial Virginian. Washington was driven by a “propulsive ambition”, as sourced:

a) social climbing from petty gentry into the social circle of the Northern Neck Lord Fairfax set, cemented with his marriage to Martha Dandridge; and b) personal financial security associated with owning and operating a slave plantation, first in tobacco, then in wheat along with a grain mill and a distillery.

Ambition-2, Washington was financially calculating to do well for himself by doing good for others, an “ambition . . . for wealth” as sourced, his main play for the brass ring:

a) his accumulation of land as a surveyor and soldier with land grants in compensation, b) his patenting additional lands as a partner in land development corporations, the Potomack Canal and the Dismal Swamp Canal to profit from land sales to Virginian settlers for their independent family farms — rather than either amassing great expanses for himself as did Lord Fairfax or Robert “King” Carter, creating an ever-enlarging class of disenfranchised tenants and white hirelings — nor did Washington “get rich quick” by reselling to land speculators as did Robert Morris (only to bankrupt again),

d) personally investing in private improvements in river navigation, canals, and roads related to his westerly and uninhabited properties, and e) promoting Virginia General Assembly investment in Virginian river navigation, canals and roads.

Ambition-3, Washington was aspirational to worthy public service (really sort of like the myth and history of Cato and Cincinnatus as taught to late Virginia colonials, you see), to develop the internal discipline, military training and political skill-set to gain lasting fame in public offices so as to advance the general welfare of all Virginians. Washington “wielded power without [personal] ambition”, as sourced:

1. As a colonial: a) frontier expeditions as a surveyor, b) election into his self-selecting church vestry government (boundary disputes, poor relief, orphan care), c) training and command of troops in battle as a Virginia militia officer, and d) election to the House of Burgesses.

2. In the Revolution and thereafter: a) election to the General Assembly, b) selection by the Assembly to the Continental Congress, c) selection by Congress as Commanding General and sustained over challenges by Lee and Gates, d) election to the General Assembly in 1787 from Fairfax to the Federal (Constitutional) Convention. — And, in the Early Republic, unanimous Electoral College selection as President in 1788 and 1792.

3. As an emancipationist: a) train and employ his slaves as independent wheat farmers, b) emancipate them all with the consent of a financially secure wife Martha, c) provide them all with financial independence by endowing them family farms, first in the 1790s as sourced, and then again in his will after providing for wife Martha, d) pass along to his emancipated family wheat farmer freedmen his established exchange networks with wheat dealers in the Bahamas as well as in other Caribbean British, French, and Spanish colonies.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems the question/controversy was whether Washington's "reluctance for office" and his "Cincinnatus of the West" resignation were designed to promote him as a political candidate. Was Washington sincere, self-motivated, or both? To me it is difficult to understand the motivations of any historical person. I could understand putting a Longmore reference in a note. It is pretty common for politicians to present a good front to get elected. On the other hand, there is a danger of assuming Washington's intentions. The less said on the matter the better. We need to leave room for the reader to make their own decisions on Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Very well put, Pal. Hoppyh (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal or none?

Yes, it seems a few historians have attempted to shroud what are simple ideas, i.e.ambition and reluctance, with a lot of 'mystery'. As a military, and later, a political leader, Washington of course had to guard his honor, as most leaders have always done. In terms of business, he was ambitious, naturally. In politics he had mixed feelings. While wanting to advance a strong republican government, he was, at the same time, reluctant to do so, given the sort of environment he would have to deal with, and because he wanted, after a long war, to return to his wife and plantation, which was in need of repair from years of neglect during the war. After all, why wouldn't he be reluctant to leave his wife and home behind and go into politics? Seems like easy math. I agree, we should just present the facts, and leave historians with their speculations and book sales, or whatever else may be motivating them. As a compromise I was willing to simply say some historians debate Washington's reluctance, but since there is nothing that nails that theory down, I can live without such a statement at the same time and would be, at this point, satisfied if we simply presented the established facts, letting readers make up their own minds. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Then you'll also remove the statement, "Washington did not wish to involve himself in the nation’s post-war politics" from the Constitutional Convention section as well? Factotem (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Factotem. A neutral statement would be, Washington "was not involved in the nation’s post-war politics until the Constitutional Convention." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree, assuming this is not piecemeal. Hoppyh (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ferling, 2009, on p.266 said that the greatest effort for the nationalists "was expended on persuading Washington to attend" the Constitutional Convention, and that "No one thought it would be easy to get Washington to Philadelphia". These are established facts, not opinions, as compared to Longmore's opinion that Washington was 'not' reluctant, with no definitive or compelling facts to support it. This is not a tit-for-tat contest, and we should not exclude facts because we're not including an unsubstantiated opinion, advanced by one historian. The proposal was for a general statement about varied historical  opinion,   such that it is, regarding Washington's political reluctance. In the section I added that Washington had to be persuaded to attend, with no mention of "reluctance", covered by the existing citations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I edited the text in good faith. It is true Washington was urged by Henry Knox and James Madison. I added that to the edit. Do we really need to analyze the psychology of Washington ? Washington wanted people to urge him to attend. He delayed a few months to gain more attention. Even Chernow admits this. That is not out of the ordinary. Chernow page 523 said Washington encouraged "the perception that he was following rather than leading events." Chernow also said Knox appealed to Washington's "vanity and patriotism." But that is psycho-babel. It is best to say Washington was urged to go to the Constitution convention. We don't need to mention he was reluctant. Is being reluctant to lead a character flaw ? Do we really want to push the reluctance view ? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Ferling also gives on p. 266 the reasons why the Nationalists had to persuade Washington to attend the Constitutional Convention, not a single one of which is because Washington was reluctant to become involved in politics. To claim otherwise is WP:SYNTH. Factotem (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Insert : This is why I didn't include the word "reluctance", so your reference to SYNTH is inappropriate and weasel like. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually my reference to WP:SYNTH was more mistaken than inappropriate. What I actually meant was WP:OR. "Weasel like"? Seriously? Factotem (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay fine, but even so, there's no OR going on here, and again, I was mindful enough not to include the verb "reluctant", even though there are sources that cover this, and what should be obvious, given the circumstances Washington was faced with after the war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

So far, I have been the only one to provide a reliable source that directly supports the assertion that Washington was reluctant to become involved in politics (Henriques 2008, p. 49, referring specifically to the first presidency). No-one else has, not in the statement that appeared in the article, as I've just pointed out for the sixth time now, and certainly not in any of the discussion here. Factotem (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Edited to add the one source that directly supports Washnington's political reluctance. Factotem (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that statement and it's mis-representative sourcing has finally been removed. Thank you for that, at least. The current reference to urging, whilst factual, inevitably begs the question, "Why did Washington have to be urged?", thus opening the door once again to WP:POV. The most neutral presentation is not to touch on this detail at all, and simply begin with Washington's arrival. Factotem (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The rejection of Longmore's work based on claims that it is not cited (despite the book's 75 pages of citations) and that it consists only of opinion and speculation – claims that are rooted on one editor's personal opinion and not supported by any reference to reliable sources – has absolutely no basis in any Wikipedia policy. I have raised the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard. Factotem (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Edited to clarify Factotem (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Any discussion of Washington's political reluctance must accommodate all significant viewpoints. That's policy, a "fundamental principle of Wikipedia", "one of Wikipedia's three core content policies" and "non-negotiable". Factotem (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree the most neutral narration is to have Washington's arrival to start the section. We have to put that he was a chosen delegate. I don't think it is a good thing to push the "reluctance" issue. That may not be a compliment. It might mean that Washington was reluctant to be a leader, and had to be prompted into leadership. He actually declined the delegation but was persuaded to go by Henry Knox and James Madison. It is ackward to add in a summary article the motivations of any political leader. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course, that he was chosen delegate is a non-controversial fact. POV-pushing is not always blatant; if this article states the non-controversial fact that he had to be persuaded, but does not then go on to clarify why he had to be persuaded, then the article is subtly favouring one point of view over the other. To avoid any suspicion of POV, we either leave out that he had to be persuaded, or we explain why he had to be persuaded. You're right, it is awkward to cover motivations of a politician in a summary article. If we do attempt that, we must be mindful of the policy on POV. Personally I think Wikipedia should be explaining the nuance of complex issues, but not mentioning it at all is a reasonable compromise. Factotem (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't find any source that says the date Washington was chosen to be a delegate by the Virginia legislature. I think it best just to start at his arrival to the Convention. It is very confusing. He was chosen, then he declined, then he chose to go. His reluctance seems more like a Founding Father soap opera, in my opinion. We should avoid this in the summary narration. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I read in Ellis's American Creation that Washington was selected as delegate without his knowing, then left in place whilst he deliberated so as to encourage others to attend. Not sure if that gave dates, though. Don't have a copy myself; was looking something up in the local library. Factotem (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Facts do not take a back seat to opinions. We can highlight the various opinions, regardless if they are unfounded, in the legacy section. Also, one opinion does not outweigh multiple opinions, and is not necessarily a "significant viewpoint". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Cmguy777: since yesterday you began making changes in the middle of the discussion. Now you are removing well sourced facts. It is well established, and sourced, that Washington had to be persuaded by Madison and Knox to attend the convention, yet you keep removing this information. Again, I did not include the word "reluctance". Please stop the edit warring. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It takes at least two editors an edit war to make. Factotem (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's not forget that it takes one editor to initiate that edit-war with a revert, and it becomes an issue when that editor exceeds the 3RR, esp when it's brought to his attention before it gets there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Insert: Gwillhickers. You started the edit war. You readded disupted and unconfirmed information. When was Washington chosen the Virginia delegate ? When did Washington send in his declination letter ? When did Knox and Madison convince Washington to go, before or after his declination letter. Are you saying Washington was a weak willed leader who needed convincing ? That is disputed information. There were other reasons why he was reluctant other than his farms. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Correction, you initiated the process with this edit, removing well sourced facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Correction: You readded disputed information. [1]. You have not answered my questions. You even just admitted the information was disputed.[2] You are disrupting the natural edit flow of this article per discussion. Are your edits designed to make Washington look like a weak leader ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to get tacky. You were the one who initially removed well sourced facts in the middle of the discussion. I restored them. Thank you. Again, I've no objections about mentioning the dispute among some historians about Washington's reluctance. This doesn't necessarily mean he was weak-willed. It can also mean vigilance, cautiousness, intelligence, etc. After reading the entire Revolutionary War section, anyone coming away from the article thinking Washington was "weak-willed" wasn't paying attention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

If it is so vital to our understanding of Washington to state that he had to be persuaded to attend the Constitutional Convention, then the reasons why he had to be persuaded should also be stated. Factotem (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as this is the Washington biography, its central role is to depict Washington the person. May I remind you that you were the one who initially thought this issue was important, with your focus on Longmore. And why not mention that Washington was reluctant, given surrounding circumstances? Is it so vital that we not say this? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that the nuances of Washington's reluctance should be discussed in this article. And it is a nuanced issue, with differing points of view expressed in reliable sources. It should be represented with a neutral point of view, without favour or misrepresentation. Do you agree that if the fact that Washington had to be persuaded to attend the convention is stated in the article, the reasons why he had to be persuaded should also be stated? Factotem (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree! — Washington wanted to remain home after the war. When he had finally arrived at the Convention he exclaimed to Madison that his estate was in need of repairs and that he had not the money to do it with. Also, "In his 1793 circular letter to the states he had solemnly pledged that he would not reenter politics." Also, he feared the convention itself in "that it would initiate a sequence of events that would pull him away indefinitely from Mount Vernon."<Chernow, p.521, 2nd prgh>. Madison had to urge Washington to attend because his presence would "enhance the Convention's credibility and attract delegates from other states".<Chernow, p.521, 3rd prgh>. Washington went so far as to write a letter to Gov. Edmund Randolph on Dec. 21 formally declining the appointment to the convention. When Madison found out he again urged Washington, asking him to keep the door open "in case the gathering clouds should become so dark and menacing as to supersede every consideration but that of our national existence and safety."<Chernow, p.521-522> There's more. Washington brooded about his dilemma all winter long and made numerous appeals to Madison, Knox, John Jay and Humphreys."<Chernow, p.521-522> There's still more. Read these couple of pages thoroughly. On p.523, it covers how Washington was torn between remaining at home or trying to save the Union by attending the convention, which he had serious doubts over. The idea that Washington's reluctance is something of a "myth" is not at all based in facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• For those of you without the Chernow and Ferling publications in hand, here is a Mount Vernon article, sourced by Chernow and Ferling. Note the 2nd and 5th paragraphs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Here is an article by Ron Chernow, entitled George Washington: The Reluctant President. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• As I said before, Washington was reluctant to attend the convention largely because he wanted to manage his estate after the long war.

"Did you know? George Washington was initially reluctant to attend the Constitutional Convention. Although he saw the need for a stronger national government, he was busy managing his estate at Mount Vernon, suffering from rheumatism and worried that the convention wouldn't be successful in achieving its goals." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Reluctant delegate ?

Washington was reluctant because he said he would not run for office, which he ended up President of the United States, after the Convention. He also said he would not attend the Cincinnati meeting, so that could cause dissention when Washington went to the Convention. Washington also said he was in ill health. All of this is cited in Chernow (2010) pages 520-521. The current version makes Washington look like a lackey to his subordinates Knox and Madison who were using Washington's prestige to bump up the clout of the Virginia delegates. When was Washington chosen delegate ? When did he decline ? When did he accept ? No dates are given. To say Washington was a reluctant office seeker is speculative at best. I had removed this information until the matter could be resolved in the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Chernow and Ferling, two of your favorite sources, say differently. You need to read p. 521 a bit more carefully, and then continue on to pp.522-523. Washington had every reason to be reluctant. See my reply to Factotem above. Chernow also wrote an article, linked to immediately above, entitled, George Washington: The Reluctant President. You should read it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

What date was Washington made a delegate by the Virginia legislature to the Constitutional Convention ? That is the key to this narration. So far I have found no sources that mention this date. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

According to our George Mason article it was in December 1786. I no longer have that biography of Mason, as I recall, it's a library book. But if you can't find it in Washington bios, trying to approach it through his fellow Virginia delegates might be useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

In response to this post by Gwillhickers above, the myth that we're discussing here relates to Washington's reluctance to become involved in politics. It's important to make the distinction between this and his reluctance to attend the convention, something that failed to be done when this article asserted that "Washington did not wish to involve himself in the nation’s post-war politics...". Factotem (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Focusing on that myth first, some historians, such as Longmore, have concluded that Washington's reluctance was political sophistry, a show of disinterest designed to reinforce an image of one who, according to Ferling (p. 274), "did not seek power for himself, but who only acted to answer his country's call", and thereby "increases his influence and authority" (Longmore, p. 32). Factotem (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Even Chernow recognises this. He writes in the first paragraph of the chapter we're citing (I have the e-book edition with different page numbering), "Whenever his reputation was at stake, [Washington] studied every side of a decision, analyzing how his actions would be perceived. Having learned to accumulate power by withholding his assent, he understood the influence of his mystique and kept people in suspense." Factotem (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

On Washington's canvassing of his friends that you mention, Chernow writes, "In soliciting opinions, [Washington] again preferred to give a passive appearance to active decisions, making it seem that he was reluctantly borne along by fate, friends, or historical necessity, when he was actually shaping as well as reacting to events. This technique allowed him to cast himself into the modest role of someone answering the summons of history." Factotem (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

On Washington's long deliberation ("brooding", as you put it), Chernow writes, "Wisely, Washington had allowed the issue to percolate for months, encouraging the perception that he was following rather than leading events." Factotem (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

In the context of Washington finally agreeing to attend, Chernow writes, "...but he patently had to convince himself and the world of his purely disinterested motives. Now he could proceed as if summoned from self-imposed retirement by popular acclaim." Factotem (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

With the exception of protesting inadequacy, Chernow's account affirms Longmore's analysis of Washington's political MO, which Longmore states on p. 32 of The Invention of George Washington as, "He carefully regards appearances; how will his audience perceive and interpret his conduct? He protests his inadequacy. He avoids actively soliciting the job. And finally, by making the offer come to him, rather than promoting himself, he increases his influence and authority." Factotem (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Turning to the specifics of Washington's reluctance to attend the Constitutional Convention, Chernow references Washington's 1783 pledge not to reenter politics, but does not explicitly state this as a reason for Washington's reluctance to attend the convention. Though I think it's still fair enough to reference that pledge in the article, the specific reasons as stated by Chernow are:

• As Cmguy777 has pointed out, Washington had already declined, for reasons which included private business and poor health, to attend a meeting of the Society of the Cincinnati scheduled for the same time as the convention. He could not therefore attend the convention "without being caught in an embarrassing lie". According to Chernow, Washington said to Madison on November 18 that "Were it not for this dilemma...he would certainly attend an event so vital to the national welfare.";

• As an aside, it seems that Washington's real motive for declining to attend the Cincinnati meeting was his increasing discomfort with a society "that threatened republican principles", but used business and poor health as reasons for not attending out of fear of "insulting his fellow officers". Hence the "embarrassing lie" referenced above. If I've read that right, then it speaks volumes for Washington's willingness, as Chernow writes, to "cloak the real reason behind an apparent one";

• The fear of failure and the "disagreeable predicament" that it would place "a person in my situation" in;
• Questions about the legality of the convention. Factotem (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

To Chernow's list we can add Ferling's assessment of the reasons why Washington was reluctant to attend, provided on p. 266 of The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon:

• Concern for his reputation and the negative impact being associated a convention that turned into a fiasco would have on it (which I think is the same as Chernow's reference to fear of failure);
• Concern about people's suspicions that the convention would lead to the destruction of the states and the erosion of the changes achieved by the revolution;
• Concern about not being seen as "grasping for power" by attending a convention that would create the office he anticipated being asked to occupy. Factotem (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

All of the above are important issues that I think could usefully be covered in all their nuanced complexity by the article. Alternatively, given that this is a summary biography, we could just begin that section with Washington's arrival in Philadelphia (on May 13, according to Chernow, not May 9 as stated in the article). Factotem (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Finally, it's perfectly acceptable to also reference Washington's concern that the convention "would initiate a sequence of events that would pull him away indefinitely from Mount Vernon". However, Chernow begins that sentence with, "He may also have hesitated to attend...". This clearly marks Chernow's statement as his opinion, so can we please put an end to the dismissal of Longmore's work as speculation and accept that his opinions can also be discussed, with attribution, in this article? Factotem (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

This is why I removed that Washington had to be convinced to go by his subordinates. This is disputed. It is unknown the real reasons for Washington's reluctance and his acceptance of going to the Convention while declining to go to the Cincinnati meeting. We don't even know the exact date he was chosen to go to the Convention. December 1786 really is not good enough for this complicated issue. He declined to go in a letter, but then apparently decided to go. It really makes no sense. It makes Washington look indecisive and weak willed. From reading Chernow, my impression is that Washington was relectant, because he just did not want to lead the nation. He had to have his subordinates give him a pep talk. He kept making excuses not to go. Since this is all disputed information we should not put it in the article, until some compromise can be reached. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

December 4. See here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. That is a great find. At least there is a framework to work with. So from December 4, 1786 to May 27, 1787 that is the time frame to work with. I think it is possible for some edit to be put in the summary article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed compromise edit

• "On December 4, 1786 Washington was chosen to be a delegate to the Constitution Convention held in Philadelphia. On December 21, Washington, due to incompatible circumstances, formerly declined to attend the convention in a letter to Governor Edmund Randolph. After James Madison urged Washington to "keep the door ajar", Washington remained indecisive concerning going to the convention. On May 28, 1787, after encouragement by Henry Knox, Washington submitted a letter to Governor Randolph he would attend the convention. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Washington did not say why he declined. Neither should the article. I think this is the best compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Insert : Once again, your response assumes the article mentions, or will mention, the idea of "reluctance". No one is proposing that the article say Washington was reluctant, only that we outline some of the existing circumstances, established facts, well sourced, which Factotem had requested when I said "Agree". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

It's perfectly legitimate to discuss what historians write about why he declined, but I take your point. I'm not sure what "incompatible circumstances" means, and don't think readers will understand that either. How about:

On December 4, 1786, Washington was selected as one of the delegates to represent Virginia at the Constitutional Convention scheduled for the following May in Philadelphia. He had reservations about the convention and initially declined the appointment. James Madison requested Washington "keep the door ajar", and Washington officially remained a delegate "contrary to my request". After discussing the issue with Madison, Humphreys, Knox and Jay, Washington confirmed on March 28 his intention to attend the convention after all.

It covers all the same points you make, and even makes it clear that Washington's name remained on the list of delegates against his will. It stays well away from the 'reluctant politician' issue and points to issues with the convention itself as the reason for his declining the appointment. It also stays more faithful to the source's discussion of the advisory role his associates played in his eventual decision to attend (Chernow writes that Washington "canvassed" Madison, Humphreys, Knox and Jay, not that they had to persuade him, and Humphreys even thought that Washington should not attend). Factotem (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Insert : - Yes, that Humphreys maintained that Washington should not attend the Convention would indeed add to the reasons why Washington was reluctant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The second version is alright. I don't think he was officially a delegate until he confirmed. I would say Washington's "delegate status remained open." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Chernow quotes Washington saying in a letter to Jay, "My name is in the delegation to this convention, but it was put there contrary to my desire and remains there contrary to my request". Factotem (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

This has gotten way too involved considering that we do not mention "reluctance", nor why. All we have done is include important historical facts, and important historical relationships, i.e.Madison, Knox, et al. . We have reliable sources that outline the circumstances Washington was faced with after the war, and we also have Ferling and Chernow who indeed say Washington was reluctant. Regarding Washington being a reluctant President, Chernow devotes an entire article on this topic alone. In regards to Longmore, all we have is an opinion, with no compelling facts to give it weight. By comparison, there is a litany of definitive facts, outlined and sourced above, giving weight to the idea that Washington was not very eager to jump into the world of politics. As Factotem suggested we can outline a few of the reasons, given by sources, that Washington was faced with without saying whether he was reluctant or not, once again, leaving the readers to make that determination for themselves. This is more than a fair compromise, considering there are notable reliable sources that come right out and say that Washington was indeed a reluctant politician.
Again, Washington had pledged in a circular letter to the states that he would not reenter politics after the war. This all by itself would give him much pause. If anything this should be among the things we add to the narrative, giving context to the idea that Washington had to be persuaded, by many, to attend the convention and pursue politics and the national interest. We might also mention that Washington had to leave a plantation in dire need of repair, with huge debts hanging over his shoulders, when he embarked for Philadelphia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

What is wrong with historical facts ? There should be no need to push reluctance. I don't think it is a compliment. It makes Washington look petty and weak. Washington did not want to go to the Convention. That is not reluctance. A reluctant leader is not a good reflection on Washington's character. Washington more of a leader figure than a politician. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

We can’t go wrong sticking with unadulterated facts. Hoppyh (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Cmguy777, there is nothing "wrong with historical facts". In spite of all the reasons Washington had to remain at home, he attended the Convention, anyway. This makes him look strong and committed to national interests. Where are you getting "petty and weak" from? Apparently you are only considering (very) few of the facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• On p.520, 1st prgh, Chernow outlines Washington's reluctance and describes his state of mind with this very word :

Never was my embarrassment or hesitation more extreme or distressing," he wrote. Deep questioning was typical of Washington's political style. Holding himself aloof, he had learned to set a high price on his participation, yielding only with reluctance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Hoppyh. I added some important facts, major details, that we should open the Constitutional Convention section with, just before we mention Madison's and Knox's efforts to persuade Washington to attend. This adds comprehensiveness as to why Washington had to be persuaded to attend the convention. Again, we have deliberated long enough over something that really is quite simple. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The premise or myth is that Washington was a man of valor because he was reluctant to hold office. My view is based on the Chernow book. Why would a warrior leader like Washington have to consult with his subordinates about going to the Constitutional Convention ? That sounds weak or indescisive. Leaders should proactive or don't have to be pushed to do things. He wanted to be known as a follower ? Washington said he did not want to go. As long as there is a compromise, that is what counts for now. Hopefully this compromise can add some stability to the article. I don't think it should be said Washington was reluctant to hold office. Just state the facts. Let the reader decide. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

This is what has been done. Facts only, letting the reader decide. However, I fail to see the harm in mentioning reluctance, or hesitation, given the circumstances. It shows Washington as a human being, not a heroic icon. Before there was concern over hagiography. Now we're showing Washington as a man with simple, and not so simple, concerns, yet look at the fuss. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact that this talk p. argument has gone on the way it has is proof enough that the article should strictly be limited to facts and statements made by GW and other actors. We have no place inserting your preferred images of the man. Hoppyh (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Cmguy777, once again you removed some major details covering Washington's situation before going to Philadelphia. He just didn't discuss matters with Knox and Madison, they, along with nationalists, labored to convince him to go. You also removed Washington's pledge to the states not to reenter politics. This is hardly a compromise. Please accept what the sources explicitly say. We have included facts only and have left any opinion ie."reluctance", out of the text, since exclusion of this (well sourced and obvious idea) is so terribly important to you for some reason. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I give up. You win Gwillhickers. No matter the compromises it always has to be your way. You can paint whatever picture you want of Washington, disregard editor input. I fight no more. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The current version simply uses more words to repeat the original "Washington did not wish to involve himself in the nation’s post-war politics" assertion. I've already discussed in detail in this TP section why I think that is pushing a WP:POV. I had hoped to help this article on its way to featured status, but it's clear that nothing I say on this and other issues I see with the article will sway the development of this article. Please, before bringing this article to FAC again, seek the peer review that was suggested after both last year's failed attempts and the help of a copy-editor. Good luck. Factotem (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Cmguy777 — It's not about getting my way, it's about not ignoring major details and a common consensus among historians, much of which is covered by two historians you held up when you said, on Dec.26, "Chernow and Ferling are Washington's best sources for this article".It's also about not letting the odd opinion of one historian, unsubstantiated by clear facts, be used as an excuse to exclude major details which easily explain a reluctant Washington. There are very many facts that more than substantiate this idea, including the fact that Washington's health was beginning to fail before he decided to attend the Convention.   (Randall, 1997, pp.432–433 also explains Washington's overall situation well.)  It's very difficult to sit still and watch these things be relegated to "myth". I am generally satisfied with the section as it reads now, per Hoppyh and TVH's last edits. However, since the months preceding and involving the Constitutional Convention are a significant turning point in Washington's life I am not opposed to further coverage, so long as we present the basic facts in summary style. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Factotem — You have been a tremendous help with getting the article in shape, esp during the last review. Don't let a disagreement over one issue lead you to assume your words were not considered. They were, and for quite a while, causing the lot of us to dig into this one issue more than it has before around here. There are just too many basic and reasonable facts to ignore, presented by notable sources, explaining why Washington was reluctant to politics. Had Longmore presented compelling facts that substantiated why Washington may have 'not' been reluctant they would have been welcomed, but they were never forthcoming evidently. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Tell me about the selection of GW “though not by the Gen. Assembly.” Were they not in session or something? Also, (unrelated) while I am pinging you, I’d be grateful if you’d look at Gessner Harrison up for GA NOM. Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: I’ll take your inquiry as a point of information. I wrote an edit, “Though not 'in' the General Assembly” — not ‘by’ the G.A. — because — in the session October 16, 1786 - January 11, 1787, the two elected Delegates from Fairfax County were George Mason (who was not present in Richmond), and David Stuart. The state Senator for Fairfax and Prince William was Henry Lee (Leonard 1978 “General Assembly Register”, p.161-162).

The Act of Assembly causing a Virginia delegation to be authorized to officially represent Virginia in the Philadelphia Convention specified, that “sundry individuals” capable of “valuable councils” in the Philadelphia enterprise, should be allowed for appointment by the General Assembly to the delegation for the Philadelphia Convention — even though they were otherwise Constitutionally barred because they were not members of the General Assembly — including those “restrained by peculiar circumstances from a seat in that assembly” (Elliot, “Debates”, p. 30) — that is, George Washington of Fairfax County.

The General Assembly then subsequently appointed George Washington of Fairfax County at the head of the Virginia delegation to the Convention of 1788 in both the House of Delegates and in its Senate on recommendation of the joint committee, -- "though not in the General Assembly", perhaps better put, "though not currently seated in the General Assembly". Sorry for any misdirection.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that enlightenment. Perhaps we should incorporate that info in the new note which Gw has inserted. Hoppyh (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: Aside: This morning I took a shot at streamlining the narrative and re-ordering images at Gessner Harrison . . . please follow behind me to make sure I did not misrepresent the article research . . . Thanks for the opportunity to contribute (I got an MBA from James Madison University in my checkered career as an educator; at Harrison Hall there, I had a class on the second floor about 40 years ago). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: I am grateful for your help. I was sure you’d be interested in the guy...my GG grandfather. My daughter graduated from JMU...and son from GMU. Cheers. Hoppyh (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Salute to both of you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

"did not vote for adoption" ?

Point of order: It is not clear how the article in the “Constitutional Convention” subsection — can support a representation from Alden 1996, p. 229 — that Washington “did not vote for adoption [to ratify the Constitution at Virginia’s Federal Convention of 1788], since he foresaw his resulting nomination as president”. — Because, Washington was not seated at the Virginia “Federal [Ratifying] Convention” — the two delegates there from Fairfax were David Stuart and Charles Simms (Leonard 1978 “General Assembly Register”, p.172),

Therefore, the assertion attributed to Alden is mistaken. Not only did Washington NOT “not vote for adoption”, he certainly endorsed the Philadelphia Convention’s work, because he lent his reputation to the enterprise, a) by serving as its presiding officer — for the publicly enacted purpose of proposing “alterations and further provisions” to amend the existing Articles of Confederation, and “extending the revision of the federal system to all its defects”,

--- and then because b) Washington wrote the cover letter from the Convention forwarding their proposal to Congress for it to further endorse the proposal by forwarding it to the several states, — as authorized by Acts of the twelve “sovereign” state legislatures in their sending delegations to the Philadelphia Convention in the first place. —

--- and that express intent, publicly made by Acts of the several state legislatures, was confirmed unanimously in Congress, Friday, September 28, 1787, including NH, MA, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA, NC, SC, and Mr. Ross alone voting for GA, -- and that includes representatives from two states voting under the direction of state legislatures that had previously resolved to require all states agree to amendments to the Articles before giving up commercial and other state powers: both New Hampshire and North Carolina (others agreeing to a change if agreed to by nine states in the Articles' Continental Congress):

“That the laid report, with the Resolutions and [Washington’s] Letter accompanying the same, be submitted to the several Legislatures, in order to be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, in Conformity with the Resolves of the Convention, made and provided in that Cafe.” Documents of the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1779, at the Library of Congress online. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Insert : @TheVirginiaHistorian: your link above to the Documents of the Continental Congress... came up as "not found". Typo? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: The same thing happened to me. I copy-pasted the link(s) above, hoping to capture the site. I actually attended a six-hour seminar fifteen years ago at the Library of Congress that was sponsored to orient some 30 DC metro teachers (Northern Virginia, DC and nearby Maryland) to use the LOC online sources. I note that there have been three or four subsequent "updates" to the search functions, formats and filing systems. I did not then, nor do I now, grasp how to negotiate through the LOC online tables of contents and indexes (indices?).

At a University of Chicago site, from a search on an extended ten-word quote from the Congressional Act that I copied text from the LOC source, I found: The Founders' Constitution — Volume 4, Article 7, Document 15. You MUST further click on the link provided on the resulting linked page.

There you will find source documents indexed by each element of the Constitution, by article and section. Article 7., providing for the ratification of the Constitution, its establishment and its government’s commencement is found supported by among some 17 documents, including Number 15 that cites Jonathan Elliot's "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution".

Another LOC source is imaged on a page available at the LOC website at Elliot's Debates. . . but I DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE, yet once again, this year, as in previous years, whether or not you, or I, or any reasonably well educated reader, will ever again replicate, in this instance, as in so many others, the haphazard and erratic "seek and find" bread-crumb trail among the URLs found in online LOC sourcing . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I thought that the answer to your earlier "link" question may actually be The United States in Congress assembled, Friday, September 28, 1787. I think that you can nearly get there, but it is a "struggle", as they say. The following is an account of the search process, taking a little over an hour, just FYI:

The Library of Congress advertises online that it has “Digital Collections”. It works!

On that page, there is a collection named A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774-1875. “Beginning with the Continental Congress in 1774, America's national legislative bodies have kept records of their proceedings. The records of the Continental Congress, the Constitutional Convention, and the United States Congress make...Collection Items: View 637 Items”. Link does NOT work!

On that page is a scroll-over black box, “Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention”. The four headings begin with “Journals of the Continental Congress. Link does NOT work!

On that page, under “Journals of the Continental Congress”, there is a section entitled “Related Information”, with a link to Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789. It works!

— At this point the format changes as though it were coded by a different contractor at a different time than the previously linked bread-crumb trail.

On that page, at the top, there are three tabs, “About this Collection”, “Collection Items”, and “Articles and Essays”. At Collection Items, there is a list that includes “Collections” and “Book/Printed Material” in an arbitrary and capricious manner for the first 25 of 325 items. Item 2 at this viewing is a collection, “Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789”. It works!

This page is the same page as before, we have navigated a perfect circle of confusion and misdirection, yet again.

On that page, at the left column, there “Teaching Resources”, Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789 - For Teachers. It works!

On that page, the third subsection is “Special Features”, including To Form a More Perfect Union: An Introduction to the Congressional Documents. Link does NOT work!

This page is the same page as before, we have navigated a perfect circle of confusion and misdirection, yet again.

Scrolling down the left column, there is a subsection, “Contributor” that includes United States, Continental Congress, boasting 212 items. It works!

On that page, the collection items can be sorted by date. The seventeenth item, an item of “Book/Printed Material”, is a broadside of a Congressional proclamation, “The United States in Congress assembled, Friday, September 28, 1787 : ... Congress having received the report of the convention lately assembled in Philadelphia, resolved unanimously, that the said report, with the resolutions and letter accompanying the same, be transmitted to the several legislatures, in order to be submitted to a convention of delegates …” -- Link DOES NOT work!

Good luck! TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It has been quite some time ago, but that Alden error is mine I am sure. Hoppyh (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove “suppress state democracies”

Without objection, I will delete the recent edit “who wanted to suppress state democracies” in the “Return to Mount Vernon” sentence, “In September 1786, nationalists, who wanted to suppress state democracies, assembled a convention at Annapolis and requested that Congress reform the constitution.” -- “Democracy” was a politically correct euphemism used by “conservatives” who wished to fund a national government, to refer to the self-serving colonial-chartered land oligopolists in control of all thirteen state legislatures that had not funded even 10% of the national governments expenses -- legislatures controlled in every case by large land-owners who would not fund the national government that was agreed to by Revolutionary War state legislatures seeking independence, liberty and democracy.

According to the sourced reference from Taylor (2016): “Conservatives lost confidence in state governments as too responsive to public opinion, as ‘too democratic’. Although no state, save Pennsylvania, was particularly democratic, conservatives did not like to compromise when their property was a stake.” But Taylor in this reference carelessly misapprehends the concern of the “conservatives” who sought to finance a national government as agreed to by the “sovereign” states in Congress during the Revolutionary War. (A measure to directly tax imports at state ports failed in Congress, but the provision would later be adopted in the proposed Constitution Article I, Section 8 (along with Section 10 forbidding states to lay import taxes) reported from the Philadelphia Convention meant to “remedy all deficiencies” in the Articles of Confederation, as the enacted statutes authorizing state delegates to attend there proclaimed in broadsides at the time.)

While the state legislatures reluctantly began to pay their property-owner citizens the interest due on the U.S. bonds that they held (Maryland 1782, Pennsylvania 1785), the state legislatures did not finance the federal government interest due to others, such as foreign creditors in France, Spain and the Netherlands (nor would they pay their apportionments due on outstanding loan principle).

As of 1783, the states had paid on average 0.7% of their Congressional apportionments totaling $11.2 millions. Several states had not complied with the first Articles tax formula based on “buildings and improvements”, and when Congress offered an alternative basis, only four of the required thirteen had agreed to a basis of population “modified” with three-fifths slaves counted in the total by 1784. The Continental Congress respectfully suggested to the state legislatures that “[Congress] are of the opinion it should be commended” to state legislatures that they might agree to one or the other basis, perhaps as soon as their next session convening, Congress prayerfully petitioning that state legislatures consider applying payments to previous apportionments on one basis or the other, depending on whichever basis they did choose, if they might should so kindly please do so, so as to meet the "necessity" of federal government funding, apparent to all of good will in the published Grand Committee Report, as respectfully submitted.

Concerning U.S. finances 1781-1783 inclusive, three states had paid in nothing (DE, NC, GA), and NH 0.6%; four states between 6.0-7.5% (NY, PA, MD, VA); three 12.0-15.4% (MA, CT, NJ); Rhode Island at 23%, and South Carolina at 60.9%. — see Grand Committee Report of 1783: arrears of interest on the national debt at the Library of Congress, Digital Id: bdsdcc 09601 http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.rbc/bdsdcc.09601.

The “conservative” concern was NOT suppression of “democracy” (it was to establish a republic with its authority in every branch arising from the people voting in every state, "to preserve the blessings of liberty"). At Philadelphia, conservatives required all money bills to originate in the House of Representatives, to be elected by the widest suffrage allowed in each state, — and there was to be no religious test for federal officers of any description -- to expand the “democracy” of the U.S. legislation — despite most “sovereign” states at the time restricting state officers by legislated religious tests to align with the “established religions" sanctioned by the various propertied oligarchs (until Virginia first enacted a Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786, and others followed after the adoption of the religious tolerance — agreed to by the states — in the “conservative” U.S. Constitution). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Taylor (2016) page 373: "Contrary to modern belief, the founders did not intend to create a national democracy. Instead, they designed a national republic to restrain state democracies, which thy blamed for state woes." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarification edit: "In September 1786, nationalists, who feared state democracies had descended into anarchy, met together at Annapolis and requested that Congress reform the constitution." Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

1) In 1788, there were no "state democracies" among the thirteen United States, as the Taylor source attests: "Although no state, save Pennsylvania, was particularly democratic . . ."

2) No "modern scholar" we can reference in a WP:reliablesource asserts that "the framers intended to create a national democracy" because they were first republicans who sought a popular basis for national government (having failed to do so in their respective states), to secure and sustain a national feeling among the people by "consent of the governed" over time, for their posterity. There is no point in Wikipedia writing in an uneducated internet WP:POV fabrication as a sort of straw man meant to mislead the reader as to the "nationalist" political philosophy, congressional maneuvering, and home state constituency.

3) The nationalists supporting the proposed Constitution were not "conservative", in the sense that they were seeking to maintain state status quo dominance by large landowners -- they were not, not socially, economically, nor politically.

a) Nationalists sought a meritocracy of "natural talents" as opposed to hereditary privilege, advocating widespread education among non-elites and an abolition of great landowner primogeniture.

b) Nationalists sought economic development and prosperity among merchants, artisans and manufacturers by advocating for company incorporations, financing banks, and internal improvements for the express purpose of replacing the great landowner (that is, the "conservative") strangle-hold on local state economies.

c) Nationalists primary statewide political support came in the cities and on the frontier, from artisans, day-laborers, free blacks, and family yeoman farmers -- scattered among great landowner tenant farmers, sometimes independent family farmers without the acreage to qualify to vote would make a sort of consortium of their lesser acreage, and delegate one of them to vote as representing the qualifying expanse of improved land -- acceptable to the Virginia "gentry" because it was property that was their legitimate basis for representation, not population.

4) Nationalist political support in the states came from frontier regions that were mal-apportioned in the state legislatures as much as 16:1 according to Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia", and also, even more so -- in the incorporated cities such as Richmond, Norfolk, Alexandria, and Fredericksburg. It is the nationalists who required legislature apportionment among the states by population in the proposed Constitution (modified of necessity by adding three-fifths of slaves to embrace SC and GA in the Union), instead of the apportionment basis adopted everywhere by great-landowner oligarchs in the states -- representation by assessed property value alone. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Revised edit: "In September 1786, nationalists, who feared the new republic had descended into anarchy, met together at Annapolis and requested that Congress reform the constitution." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Closer, but more accurately, "In September 1787, nationalists, fearing that the new republic might descend into anarchy and invite either foreign intervention or a division into three competing confederations along the Atlantic coast, sent delegates from four states to Annapolis. They requested that all thirteen state legislatures send delegates to a Philadelphia convention the following May, to reform the national constitution, and to make 'further provisions' to correct the Articles' defects, transmit their report to Congress, and secure ratification by the states." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Aside: In Virginia, nationalists successfully expanded the electorate for a one-time only vote, to choose delegates to the Virginia Ratification (Federal) Convention. The expanded franchise was extended to veterans from Virginia militias and the Continental Army who had served during the Revolutionary War without the property requirements required in the Virginia Constitution. Sovereignty of the people, much more like the people than the electorate before and after, for once and only once. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we could shorten the "Return to Mount Vernon" section edit to: "In September 1787, nationalists, fearing that the new republic might descend into anarchy and invite either foreign intervention or a division into three competing confederations along the Atlantic coast, sent delegates from four states to Annapolis. They requested that all thirteen state legislatures send delegates to a Philadelphia convention the following May, to reform the national constitution."

Then in the next "Constitutional Convention" section, note that the purpose of the Philadelphia Convention, as expressed by 1) the Annapolis Convention, 2) Congressional notice to the states of the Philadelphia Convention, 3) Acts of State Legislatures appointing delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, and 4) Congressional resolves forwarding the Philadelphia Convention Report of the proposed Constitution to the State Legislatures for their convening State Ratifying Conventions.

"Washington arrived in Philadelphia on May 9 as a Virginia delegate with the express purpose as called for in Congress and enacted by the General Assembly, to “[revise] the federal constitution” with “all such alterations and further provisions” as might be required to improve the Articles, then “reporting . . . to Congress”, and “when agreed to by [Congress], and duly confirmed by the several states”, the revised national constitution was to be begun." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Bringing Shays Rebellion forward

@Cmguy777: Thank you for bringing the centrality of Shays' Rebellion to the fore in the "Return to Mount Vernon" section.

Interestingly, the retired Major General Benjamin Lincoln, who commanded the 3,000 Boston merchant-funded militia from eastern counties -- the force that actually closed with, dispersed, and captured rebels -- was elected the first president of the Massachusetts Society of the Cincinnati, three years before on June 9, 1783. — See the Massachusetts Cincinnati Society’s webpage, viewed January 25, 2019.

I made a few copy edits at the Benjamin Lincoln article -- to make corrections, align chronology, add narrative, provide sources and reposition images with caption edits.

There might be some additional reliable sources that editors here know of referencing Lincoln-Washington correspondence about a) Shay's Rebellion, b) Washington attending the Philadelphia Convention after declining the national Society of the Cincinnati meeting, and c) the progress of state convention ratification, especially that of Massachusetts (from January 9 to February 5, 1788, one of the top three populous states, the sixth to ratify after Georgia and Connecticut) which was a pretty dicey affair for the nationalists -- including political stunts in the convention to alter timing of votes and caucus alignments -- that would substantially enhance and improve the Benjamin Lincoln article, in my view. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Shays' Rebellion was what insipired the Constitutional Convention. I thought that should be emphasized with the photo. Since this is a summary article, the link to the article, is helpful. Washington was mentioned in the Shays' Rebellion ariticle. I am not that familiar with Benjamin Lincoln. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Washington had already believed that a Constitution was needed.  [Add : Washington's advocacy for a national Constitution and his critical referral to the Articles of Confederation as a "rope of sand" was made in a letter to Henry Knox, February 28, 1785, more than a year before Shays' rebellion.]  Shay's rebellion was simply the last straw, demonstrating the need for strong central government, with a Constitution, and served as sort of a catalyst to get the ball rolling. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Washington had made efforts to revise some of the rules of membership for the Society of the Cincinnati, but the state societies largely ignored what had been passed at the last national meeting of the Society. This prompted Washington, along with urging from some of the nationalists, not to attend the next national meeting of the Society which was held just before the Constitutional Convention, resulting in a low attendance. <Flexner, 1974, p.201;  Randall, 1997, pp.432–433> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we are on the same page here. The Society could be expanded but again this is a summary article. This is just my own opinion. I think Shays' Rebellion might have awakened the General or stirred his will to fight. He was not going to let a farm hand overturn the Revolution. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

No need to say much more about the Society, only that Washington wanted to revise some of the rules about hereditary membership, coverage of which is presently stuck in a footnote, and that his attendance at the national meeting conflicted with his attendance at the Constitutional Convention. Summary style is well understood, but we have this guideline about 'page length' which some editors regard as rigid policy, forcing the lot of us to cover important facts in outline form, rather than in a comprehensive capacity that the history buff and the serious student will appreciate.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Washington's military retirement

Cmguy777, you say you don't want to fight, but once again you deplete parts of the narrative to outline form and remove major details. The account was already in summary style. Your last edit hardly captures Washington's sentiment. He felt he was retiring withing himself. Simply saying he "happily resumed his planter lifestyle", hardly touches on this. Randall and Flexner (and Dalzell, 1998, Mt. Vernon historian) thought it appropriate to quote Washington at this significant turning point in his life. You also removed the important fact that Washington was now feeling his age, as indeed he had health issues before going to the convention. You also removed the part where Washington specifically says he was tired of public life. Covering Washington's feelings here is best expressed with his own words. And we know Washington was a common citizen, but the statement you removed said more than this, revealing that Washington was now giving deep thoughts to his present status. This is not "flowery language" but the words of a tired and weary individual, and leads into the next section which helps the reader to better understand why Washington was reluctant to leave Mount Vernon and pursue politics. Section tile change was good, along with your opening statement and last paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. You can re-add the letter. I am not stopping you. You don't need my blessing to do so. This is a summary article. It is not a book. Nothing was wrong with the information already in the article. I just summarized it. My edits are not done in stone. I am not refuting any information previously provided in the section. The terms "feeling his age" is very subjective. Remember he went on to serve two terms as president. I thought the language was flowery or hagiographic in content. Why make Washington look like he is in a retirement home: "tired and weary individual ? " He was weary of fighting a war for 8.5 years. Yes. And no. I don't want to fight. I want to freely edit. Cooke 2002 was my reference source along with Taylor (2016). I thought the letter was not needed. It could be used in a book, but this is not a book. All I tried to do was say more with less words. The article conveys Washington happily return to Mount Vernon. That is not disputed. All I was doing was trying to more importantly link Washington with the Constitutional Convention. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we are not writing a book, but we are not writing an outline either, and should try to give the readers a good narrative, with comprehensive writing. There is nothing "hagiographic" about Washington's words. i.e.He was tired and longing to return home. Among other things he specifically mentions "retiring within myself" and wanting to leave public life. However, our article doesn't say "tired and weary". Quotes are commonplace in Wikipedia articles, and this is a classic quote involving a major turning point in Washington's life. Again, your other edits are good, in fact, the section title change was highly called for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is suppose to be written second or third person. Washington is a first person source. I believed, and this was my opinion, was that the hagiography was making Washington look like an invilid at a retirement home. I don't know the extent of his illnesses, but he seemed to manage a large slave plantation, while he ran the rapids on the Potomac river in canoe. Does that sound like an ailing individual ? Don't get me wrong. I am happy with your edits Gwillhickers. I think the article is progressing much better and I appreciate your edits in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, at this late date you must know that primary sources are allowed, so long as we don't try to advance any new or unusual idea in the process, which we haven't. ( "Policy : Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.")  Besides, the quotes come from several secondary sources. All we've done is quote Washington, while refraining from terms like tired, weary, reluctant, etc. However, we would be right to use these terms, as such terms are all used by the sources and don't suggest anything unusual or amazing, given the circumstances and point in time in Washington's life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Cm', thanks for expanding the section. There is much to be told at this transitional point in Washington's life, and that of the young and unstable nation. The only thing that moved Washington to leave his wife and his long awaited repose at his home at Mount Vernon was the fate of the nation, which he was convinced that, without a Constitution, would collapse into discord, where all the efforts of the Revolution would have been in vain. It seems further expansion might be needed here. Many thanks, once again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

In a summary article there needs to be enough information for the reader to make a neutral assessment of Washington. I had expanded the section mainly to link to the next section. He had been at Mount Vernon over two years before leaving to the Philadelphia Convention. He was not immediately uprooted. He canoed the rapids of the Potomac. That in itself is interesting. He does not sound too sick to me. Was Washington heroic for leaving Mount Vernon, sacrificing his time with his wife, to attend the Philadephia Convention? Let the reader decide. Again, from what I have read in Chernow, Washington looks indecisive. He had to consult. He is concerned about his image. He initially declined. The nation was falling apart under the Articles of Confederation. That is true. It would be good to mention Shays Rebellion briefly for context. It is not really clear to me why Washington hesitated. The less said on that matter the better. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Several definitive reasons were mentioned here in Talk as to why Washington was reluctant to attend the convention. i.e.His promise to the states not to reenter politics, tending to his plantations in need of repair, leaving his wife and home, his distaste for politics, health, etc. In spite of his reluctance, he finally attended anyway, fearing that without a Constitution the union would become unstable and ultimately dissolve. This is really nothing that needs much analysis. Also, we need to keep major details in the text, presented in context, along with mention of major players like Madison and Knox. The Washington biography should highlight major relationships and dealings more so than battle tactics and such. Let's not take something simple and try to turn it into something cryptic, all over again, and simply say what the majority of sources say, as we've done. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the apparent need to push the agenda of Washington's reluctance. Health and Cincinnatus have been mentioned. Chernow (2010) is the source. Okay. That makes Washington a promise breaker. Distaste for politics is debatable. Washington never listed any reasons specifically for his declining. Did you read his letter to Governor Randolph December 21, 1786. No reasons are given. All these reasons are speculations from various sources. You have made an emphasis on a first hand source. I will leave it at this. I don't want to continue this talk. Letter to Governor Edmund Randolph George Washington Mount Vernon December 21, 1786. It is best to move on to other things. But this primary letter does not mention any specific reasons. And in my opinion, neither should we, since George Washington did not do so. Let's continue to improve the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

There's no "agenda" being pushed. Thanks for that. We simply mention major details as the sources have. If the readers are inclined to speculate about a "promise breaker", etc, they are free to do so. We can't leave out major details for fear of someone run away with their imagination. People inclined to assume the worst about Washington are going to do so anyway. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

IMO, The two quotes in the return to Mt. Vernon are redundant and excessive to a point...”walks of life”...”scenes of life”...”paths of life.” Hoppyh (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Major and unstable changes

Washington's desire for a Constitution that unified the states had nothing to do with "American expansion". His main concern at that point in time was stability for the existing nation, not "expansion". Also, Washington's words best describe his present state of mind after the revolution far better than any of the changes made. There was no "clarification" introduced. All the changes, and unstable editing, need to be discussed on a per item basis. If anyone is insisting we'll then need a clear consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Why was Washington working for the Potomac Company to make a canal from the Potomac to the Ohio ? Expansion. What I fixed was that Washington really was not in retirement. He went on a 680 mile trip. He slept outside in the rain. Does that sound like an aging man convalescing at Mount Vernon ? Washington also took over handling much of the overseeing at Mount Vernon in 1785. Edits can be fixed. I would not call the article unstable. There was a blocked quote. Very little to nothing mention about a 680 mile trip. I was following Chernow 2010 who discussed the 680 mile trip. This can be worked out. A stable federal governement would induce westward expansion. Let's not get mired in a talk page argumention. My edits were done in good faith to improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Joel Achenbach (2004) The Grand Idea: George Washington's Potomac and the Race to the West Cmguy777 (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• The Potomac Company Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association Cmguy777 (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"In 1784, Washington again journeyed to the West, both to inspect his lands and to explore the shortest river routes for inland navigation. Since easterners were pouring into the Ohio country at a rapid rate, Washington believed it was vital to ensure that these settlers did not establish deep trading relations with either the Spanish or British. Washington believed the development of the Potomac would provide commercial benefits while also helping to create a strong political Union." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"Washington helped establish the Potomac Company, working to create cooperation between Virginia and Maryland in developing the Potomac River. It was the company's goal to develop links between the Potomac, James, and Ohio Rivers via networks of roads, canals, and locks in order to expedite the transportation of produce and people between the East and the West."Cmguy777 (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't need to have editor discussion or your permission to make edits Gwillhickers. You took out my edits. I had supplied Chernow (2010) references. It seems that the only edits allowed are the ones you give permission too. That makes improving this article very difficult. The current version is simply unacceptable. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• You need to have a consensus if you insist on repeatedly removing the same well sourced contributions of other editors. Discussing differences of opinion among fellow editors is something that's referred to as common courtesy.
• Re: "expansion". Your statement said, "In line with his vision of American expansion, Washington was convinced that the Articles of Confederation, ratified earlier in 1781, was a weak foundation for the country". Once again, at this point Washington was concerned about stabilizing and unifying the states with a national Constitution -- yet you began the paragraph with visions of "expansion", as if this was the primary reason why Washington was critical of the Articles of Confederation, something he was critical of since before his disappointment with them at Valley Forge, before there was even an established nation. Now here you are in Talk with yet another take on "expansion". It's very difficult working with you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The current version needs to be changed. Why else was Washington president of the Potomac Company? It was for American expansion and trade from East to West. The quotes make Washington look as if he is in a retirement home. He was not. He crossed the Appalacian Mountains, ran the rapids, and slept in the rain. But you insist on the block quote Gwillhickers. You removed signifigant information on Washington's 680 mile trip. That is obstructionism. The current edit makes Washington look like an invalid at the Mount Vernon retirement home. Not the case at all. I provided Chernow (2010) references. Those were also rejected by you. No edits are perfect. Other editors can improve edits. That is the natural course. It is about working together, not tearing each other apart in the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Again, you introduced the idea of "expansion" in the same breath you wrote about Washington's concern for a Constitution in the face of the weak Articles of Confederation and an unstable Union. "Expansion" was the least of his concerns at this critical and unstable point in time, but the readers wouldn't know that the way you had things 'arranged'. This will be the third time I've had to spell this out for you. Also, "invalid" is just your impression, as is your take on Washington's quote after he retired from the army after a long war that kept him away from home. You need to learn how to represent matters more accurately. If you have issues with the facts you need to take up matters with Chernow, Ferling, Flexner, etc. Washington wanted to retire, but this doesn't mean he chose to while away the days in a rocking chair. He wanted to tend to personal affairs also.

editbreak1

If you want to add points of context regarding Washington's trip west to inspect his lands, that would be nice. The quote and other facts are not preventing you from doing so and do not contradict these things. Restoring well sourced facts and context is not "obstructionism". You need to represent matters here in Talk, and in the text, more accurately and refrain from further accusations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• I added a point of clarity covering Washington's desire to retire from military life while still wanting to tend to personal affairs, per Flexner, 1974. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This feels like the millionth time I have had to mention editor ownership of the article towards you Gwillhickers. You appear to be the sole authority on Washington and an expert on every source. You disregard the Chernow references to Washington I put in the article. Don't spell anything out for me Gwillhickers. You talk to me like a boss. You are not my boss. You overemphasize Washington's age and retirement. The Potomac Company had everything to do with American expansion. You are ignoring Chernow (2010) and the sources I gave above. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

More accusations. I've not overemphasized Washington's age and retirement anymore than the sources, and Washington himself, per his own words, have. "The Potomac Company had 'everything' to do with American expansion"? Actually it was about trade with the Indians and competition with New York, and the French, bringing goods 'into' Virginia, Once again, you attempted to inject the idea of "expansion" at a time when Washington's main concern was uniting the states into a unified nation. Please don't try to tell us what we can clearly read for ourselves. Edit history doesn't lie. Last, your idea of "ownership" flies in the face of the fact that I've always edited in accord with reliable sources and have gone along with a clear consensus. Tired of the accusations and the petty disgruntled BS substituted for honest debate. If you want to add context to Washington's personal pursuits after he retired no one is stopping you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

No one is stopping me ? You did Gwillhickers. I have been indirectly accused of "major and unstable changes." I made edits that were deleted. I summarized that Washington was happy to be a private citizen. We don't need quotes in a summary article. Making the canal was part of westward expansion. It would make it easier for settlers to move west. The book above says "Race to the West." That means Washington wanted Americans to go west. Washington wanted a federal government to keep the states from making treaties with the French, British, and Spanish. Who was in control of treaties? Washington and the State Department. Who captured most of the Ohio Country ? President Washington. I think your main objection is for me not to take out the block quote. That seems to be a sticking point here. I don't want an edit war. You did not even give my edits a chance for other editors to look at. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Correction. I was "stopping" you from repeatedly removing my well sourced edits, and took exception when you tried to lump in "expansion" with Washington's concern for unifying the nation. My reference to "nobody is stopping you" pertained to adding context to Washington's personal pursuits. Apparently you're more concerned about covering "expansion" than you are about Washington's retirement. You're the one who has created the issue with Washington's quote by twice removing it and subscribing your narrow interpretation to it, ignoring surrounding circumstances. (i.e.GW sounds like an "invalid", etc). If you want to cover Washington's personal pursuits and his Western interests, please do so in accord with reliable sources. Washington's quote is not preventing you from doing this. Once again, you should try to represent matters more accurately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the colonists were settling the Ohio Country. Isn't that expansion ? Wasn't the Potomac Company an expansionist enterprise ? The Canal was to aid Americans move west. A central government would unify the colonies and prevent Britain, Spain, and French influence while America expanded west. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Bering in mind that even the American Indian was an "expansionist" in relation to competing tribes. Best to be mindful of trigger words that play on modern day stigmas, a mindset whose only picture of the past has been passed on via their TV set, and activist types, who often twist history to justify their own racism. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Another editor with a mission?

As anyone may have noticed, we've just had a lot of lengthy details added about Washington's treatment of runaway slaves, etc, by a single-purpose editor whose apparent preoccupation is making one-sided statements about slavery in various Washington articles, and writing about black activists, etc) sometimes adding redundant material or highly opinionated statements. References used are obviously one sided and opinionated as evidenced in this opening statement found in this hit piece with its repeated condemnations of Washington, typically leaving out important context. i.e.Slaves who fought for the British and captured were returned to their masters, not shot for treason as would any white colonist who turned and fought for the other side. I've already removed one redundant statement in the Slavery section about the Fugitive Slave Act, already covered in the Second term section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Harry Schenawolf (2015) is a reliable source. We can't deny that Washington owned slaves and that he was Commanding General of the Continental Army. I toned down the narration. The section is not supposed to be a blog nor an attack on Washington. No white colonists were shot for treason by the British. One or two British or American officers may have been hanged for spying. We need to keep in information on the American slaves that were told they would be given freedom, but were reenslaved, should be in the article. That does not look well for Washington, in my opinion. He did demand the British return runaway slaves. But again, as long as the tone is kept passive, that information should be kept in the article. Let's not judge the intentions of editors too quickly. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Schenawolf uses highly divisive language, and leaves out surrounding circumstances during a very unstable and transit period. No one around here has ever even attempted to deny that Washington owned slaves. There are many "reliable sources" out there, so as Wikipedia editors, we must evaluate all the sources and come up with an average picture of events that occurred during the 18th century. The 18th century. As always, we need to be mindful of things presented, sometimes completely out of context. Again, slaves were returned to their owners, or if you prefer, "re–enslaved". Whites were shot for siding with the enemy. Thanks for your recent edits, which, I have to admit, came as sort of a surprise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I am not sure what whites have to do with this. There were no white slaves. Siding with the enemy? Patriots, British, British loyalists, Indians, and Blacks all had casualties, or were killed, in the Revolutionary War. Are we talking casualties, deaths, or re-enslavement? The re-enslavement is not the controversy. It is the fact that Washington broke his word to the slaves who were promised their freedom for serving in the U.S. military. That is the controversy. Schenawolf is a source at times seems to be all over the place, but I focus on what Washington actually did or did not do. I don't think we can get around Washington breaking his word to the re-enslaved black soldiers who were by law suppose to be freed after their service. That is my understanding. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The slaves in question were fighting for the British and were captured. It would seem Washington had hardly promised these individuals their freedom. As for the blacks who fought on the American side, do we know if it was Washington's decision to break a promise, since he originally put the matter of blacks in the military before Congress? Was it his idea to offer them freedom? When was the official promise made, and by whom? Was it a national proclamation, a General Order, or just a word of mouth affair? i.e.Is there a legal document, letters, newspaper broadside or other such written evidence covering this controversial proposal? What are the surrounding circumstances? Was it more practical just to return them to their plantations? What about the problem of freed slaves with no resources to care for themselves. Where would they go if not back to their plantations where they were given food and shelter? It would seem a man like Washington would have given much thought to these realities, which is why he submitted matters to Congress in the first place. Schenawolf is not at all clear on these matters and sounds like he's writing for a naive high school audience. Also, Schenawolf's tone is obviously one of anger and condemnation, as is quite obvious right from the beginning, so we will need corroborating citations for anything controversial or highly questionable he has to offer. Unfortunately he sounds like another Finkelman, only worse. We should look to Chernow and Ferling, for openers, to see what they have to say about all of this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It was required by law that the black soldiers be freed. All Washington had to do was give the order to free them. The British refused to give back the escaped slaves that had fought for them. Chernow addressed the latter. Basically Congress lied to the slaves. The blacks that were freed by the British stayed in Nova Scotia. Congress also made the army whites only after the Revolutionary War. It would not be until the Civil War when the army was integrated again. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This is just a cursory response, as matters stated by Schenwolf obviously need further scrutiny, esp since there is so much he is leaving out of the picture. He doesn't even mention Billy Lee, Washington's companion-"slave", who had proven himself in Washington's eyes, and who convinced him that Africans were up to the task of soldiering.<Chernow,, p.494-495> Why didn't Washington give the order to free slaves who had fought, if indeed matters were that simple? Is there a definitive account about Washington not complying with Congress, i.e.breaking the law?? Chernow? Ferling? Weiencek? According to Chernow, the general sentiment amongst the troops was over slaves fighting their battles -- and there were concerns about handing out firearms to 1000's of slaves. Seems these were reasonable considerations during this time. Admittedly, I am not completely familiar with all the accounts in this area, but we certainly can't make conclusions based on someone like Schenwolf. There is simply too much he doesn't even mention, including Billy Lee, Washington's insistence that slaves families not be broken up, his care and support for many slaves that were not needed on his plantations, his personal attendance to sick slaves, small pox innouculations, etc. Having said that, we must say what the sources say, but we're going to need more than the simplistic and divisive accounts from the likes of Schenwolf before we do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe Schenwolf is a reliable source. The issue is historians do not cover this issue very much. One source may have said the British officer who refused Washington's plea to turn over slaves who fought for the British had the moral hand. I agree more clarification is needed. But there is the reality of the situtation itself is that blacks who fought with Washington, promised freedom by Congressional law, were not given freedom. Is this Washington's finest hour? No. Money was an issue because slaves were viewed as property and worth money. We can't make excuses for Washington. He was commander in chief. He was the only one at that time who could enforce Congressional law. How Washington treated his own slaves has nothing to do with enforcing Congressional law to free the slaves promised freedom. Historically the British continued to have legalized slavery until 1833. We don't want, at this point, to view British people as enlightened abolitionsists. The non return of black British soldiers was more humanitarian than abolitionism. More clarification is needed. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No one is "making" excuses for Washington. All we need are the established facts, As said, Schenwolf obviously speaks in an angry and condemning capacity. That by itself makes his website account less than reliable. Let's not assume Schenwolf has reinvented the wheel in this area. Am currently looking into other sources, including Chernow, Ferling, Randall, Flexnex and Wienceck. I hardly think Schenwolf is in possession of knowledge, facts, they are not aware of. Again Washington submitted matters to Congress. Are we trying to say Washington blew it all off all by himself, with no cosultations from his many advisers, and went so far as to break the law? Yes, more clarification is needed. Something's missing here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure how we can say Schenwolf "speaks in an angry and codemning capacity." More clarification is needed. Black soldiers fighting for America were legally promised freedom. They were put back into slavery. Washington was in charge. There needs to be more detail on the matter. Schenwolf does not supply this. I don't know whether he was angry. Do biographers ignore this because it does not reflect well on Washington, I don't know. I don't know where Schenwolf got this information. All this article needs is more detail and less opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No one said anything about covering Schenawolf's attitude in the text. Yes, as you mention, he leaves some very important details out of the equation. Weincek, 2003, p.248, however, mentions that a fair number of slaves were promised freedom after the war if they fought for their masters, but it was individual masters who broke their promises. Washington never had any of his slaves fight his battles – nor did he have the authority to order masters to set their slaves free, simply because he was the commander of the military, not a dictator over civilian life. Also, Wiencek says nothing about Washington making any such promise, so when Schenawolf says Washington did nothing, he conveniently doesn't tell you that Washington was not in a position to do anything. He also doesn't tell you that simply setting a slave free in the 1700's with nothing but a pat on the back was almost like a death sentence, esp for slaves with wives and children. Unfortunately accounts like Schenawolf's don't provide the naive modern reader this perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Washington had the authority to implement Congressional law. He put down rebellion in the army. He had control over civilians. It was a money issue. The slave owners would have lost money. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. Washington was not a dictator over civilians during the war. Do you know of sources that say otherwise in clear terms? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Return to Mount Vernon

This section could be written better. It deviates from summary style with the personal quote similar to an essay. I don't want an edit war. Why not work together. The narration needs improving and is confusing. The section seems to be a list of excuses rather than a summary. These are my opinions. I had tried to summarize this section before, but edits reverted. There is no need for a battle. Editor input would be helpful. We can work in a collegiate manner to get this section fixed. I had thought about tagging this section for neutrality, but hopefully thought it could be worked out in the talk page. Washington's 680 mile trip could be emphasized. He was somewhat like a proto mountain man crossing the Appalacian Mountains, sleeping in the rain, and running the rapids of the Potomac. More emphasis is needed on Washington strapped for cash and he was a rent collector. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Quotes, some of them quite long, are commonplace throughout Wikipedia, and their inclusion doesn't automatically negate summary style. You've expressed these opinions several times now. The section only relates the important facts. i.e.Washington's promise not to reenter politics, his famous quote, covered by many sources, his state of mind, health, debts, etc. Fail to see why you're so obsessed with this section. Time to drop the stick and move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Obsessed ? Gwillhickers you are the one that is so protective of this section that emphasizes Washington's reluctance. Another editor pointed this out to you concerning emphasizing Washington's reluctance. You over turned my edits. I have tried to work this out in a talk page, but right now this seems futile. Is this your section ? Just say so. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Please – all I've done overall is restore your deletions and have responded to your complaints, such that there were, (i.e.makes GW look like an "invalid", etc) and here you are now, trying to make the same highly opinionated issues all over again. Many sources say Washington was reluctant, and there are numerous facts that obviously support that idea. Yet to appease any nay-sayers, we're not using that term. i.e.Still not happy? Yes, 'obsessed' seems to be the appropriate term at this point, so please don't carry on as if none of us can't remember past yesterday, once again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not obsessed. I just enjoy editing on Wikipedia. The edits I made were sourced by Chernow, who does not supply your blocked quote. Chernow narrates in a summary fashion. He does not emphasize Washington's reluctance. Are you saying Chernow is not worthy of inclusion into this article ? Another editor also mentioned reluctance was being over emphasized in a previous discussion. You can't put editor bias into the article narration. All I wanted to do was put in Chernow as the main source of this section. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Once again, we don't even use the word "reluctance" and only outline surrounding circumstances, as presented by numerous sources, thank you. How many times must this be recited for you? Also, the edits in question involve your repeated deletion of my contributions, and in particular, Washington's quote, covered by numerous sources. And since you brought up Chernow regarding reluctance, you once again have misrepresented his accounts, as he indeed brought this idea to center stage, at least twice:

"Never was my embarrassment or hesitation more extreme or distressing," he wrote. Deep questioning was typical of Washington's political style. Holding himself aloof, he had learned to set a high price on his participation, yielding only with reluctance.<Chernow, p.520, 1st prgh>

Also, let's not forget the dedicated article Chernow wrote about Washington's reluctance. George Washington: The Reluctant President Again, you carry on like we can't remember (very) recent debates, and for some reason keep repeating the same debate over and again. Unfortunately you require more attention and repeated explanations than all other editors combined. This repetitious discourse and refusal to listen is disruptive, esp since there are no pressing issues or errors involved, and is beginning to look like arm-wrestling – I'm not the one who initiated and made the repeated contentions, then, or now, with this new section here in Talk. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The Chernow article has to do with Washington's presidency or Inauguration, not the Constitutional Convention or the Articles of Confederation or Washington's return to Mount Vernon. Chernow does not use the block quote. This is not about Washington's presidency. It is about his return to Mount Vernon and should be about his 680 trip. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Once again, Chernow p.520, mentions reluctance in Washington's relation to the convention. Washington was still reluctant when it came to filling the office of the presidency. Once again, numerous sources cover the quote, and rightly so, as explained several times. Once again, we don't mention "reluctance" in the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Both the Return and Convention sections are written poorly and not FA standards, in my opinion. More of a hodgepodge of information that emphasis reluctance. The natural course is to allow an edit change and then allow other editors to build on that change. I have tried to make improvements but these were dismissed without allowing other editor input. I only started this section to achieve a compromise, but I don't think, Gwillhickers, from your tone in this talk there will be any. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

editbreak4

We already have a compromise, as explained. By rights we should come right out and say Washington was reluctant, as there are certainly enough facts, and sources, to substantiate this idea. The section is fine and relates key events, and issues, in natural order, per multiple sources. No work is 'perfect' in everyone's eyes, even Pulitzer prize works. Are you suggesting more context? Genuine improvements are always welcomed, but you and I have mulled the issues over long enough. I suspect other editors are waiting for us to give it a rest. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The sections are not well written. There is too much emphasis on reluctance. The word is not said but it is strongly implied. It is the same thing as saying the word. The section does not present Washington as he was. Too much emphasis on his transistion to Mount Vernon. Not enough information on his 680 mile trip, running the rapids, sleeping in the rain, for the Potomac Company, and to collect rent. Not bad for someone in their 50s. More needs to be written on what Washington did at the convention. Too much theorizing. The sections read like essays rather than summary style. The quote needs to replaced by summary. It is not needed. Washington was happy to be out of military service. That is all that is needed to be said. A compromise would be to remove the quote. I did that, but you over turned it Gwillhickers. My edits are not perfect, but they did not need to be overturned. Will you remove the quote ? That is the sticking point here. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

While there is always room for improvement, the section is well written and contextual. You've only thrown this contention in after all your repetitive arguments didn't stand up to scrutiny. You are free to interpret the facts as you wish. If they suggest Washington was reluctant it's only because he was. Somehow you find this amazing or some sort of wild stretch and would rather remove this and merely say Washington was "happy" to leave the military. This is your idea of "compromise" – to ignore Washington's spoken sentiment and what the sources have well covered? Once again, the only thing I "overturned" was your reverts of my edits.
You spoke of adding more coverage about the canal project and trip west more than a week ago, but have not added anything in this area, even after I said such context would be nice. Once again, the famous quote you are so opposed to marks a major turning point in Washington's life, and is covered by numerous sources. Since this is the Washington biography it is more than appropriate that we use Washington's own words to reflect his state of mind directly after the war. The quote is qualified by a following statement, that Washington wanted to retire, but wasn't ready to "relax in stillness" and wanted to attend to neglected personal affairs. Please don't ask me to recite this again. Once again, I've no objection with further coverage about the canal, trip west, etc. Please excuse the less than friendly tone, but you alone have kept this discussion going around in the same circle for quite some time now. If no one responds you interpret this as 'no objection' and make contested edits anyway, as you've done several times before. Compromises have already been extended to you, with no mention or reluctance and a willingness to add more context about the trip west, canals, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

No objection ? Then why was that information deleted. None of my edits were kept except Christmas Eve. And again, it comes down to the "famous quote". Chernow (2010) does not use this quote. We are letting the readers interpret a quote rather than second or third person source. That is not an FA standard. The quote was replaced that Washington happily returned to Mount Vernon free of military responsibilities. There is no need for the quote. I started this discussion for a compromise. It is difficult to edit around a blocked quote, that sticks out like a sore thumb, when another editor has said reluctance is being over emphasized. Washington got back to Mount Vernon. He was strapped for cash. He went on a 680 mile trip accross the Applalacian Mountains to collect rent. He was president of the expansionist Potomac Company. That is the real Washington that is not being presented. The present version makes Washington look wimpy and undecisive in my opinion. The quote can be referenced, but it is not needed in the narration. There probably is not need for further discussion. I suppose and hope this can be worked out in the edit process. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

"Wimpy"? Washington had made sweeping promises to the states not to reenter politics. There was also concern for his neglected wife, and neglected plantations. He was tired and weary of public life after a long and bloody war, the sentiment of which is intimately communicated by his own words, and appropriate for a biography about the person. There were many things he had to take into consideration, which has been explained to you several times. You are still repeating things. I've only restored the quote. You added nothing about the trip west, or the canal, so I fail to see how these items were ever deleted in the first place. If I removed any such content by oversight, please point this out in edit history and accept my apologies. We have the quote, and surrounding context -- plenty of it. You are free to add further context, and don't need my permission. Please don't presume that you did, or do, simply because I restored my edits. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I made changes. I kept part of the blocked quote. Yes. He was not wimpy. He went on a 680 mile trip. I did mention that he reported fatigue in his diaries, noted by Chernow 2010. He also did not exercise alot. He had a lot of visitors and wrote many letters. My edits might not be perfect but I believe have improved the article. I am here to compromise. The letter to Layfayette was good, so I kept the essential part in the narration. Sleeping outside in the rain traveling over the Appalacian Mountains sounds more like a Mountain Man. That is what I wanted to portray. He was in his 50s but his age was catching up with him. You have no need to apoligize Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Most of your additions were good, but you removed some key context e.g.as expressed within the quote, esp the part about "retiring withing myself". This intimates Washington's state of mind explicitly. As explained, this is a major turning point in Washington's life and a block quote format is called for regarding this famous and definitive quote – one which many sources thought important enough to include in their biographies. Block quotes are commonplace throughout Wikipedia and are very often employed where important and definitive quotes are used. It's the only one in the entire biography. Hope this is no longer an issue for you. Thanks for expanding the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"Retiring within myself" ? Chernow does not use the quote. What does that mean ? Washington never really retired and he never really went on a lot of walks as said in his letter. Readers can misinterpret what he meant. He was busy meeting people and writing letters. I knew the quote would be the stickler. It is a primary source. Washington was a tough guy who slept outside in the downpour. That is what Chernow wanted Washington to be viewed. He was a rent collector and businessman. I kept part of the quote. Was not good enough. A major turning point in his life ? That is debatable. He went back to something he loved farming. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Since you seem to be so stuck on one source, Chernow, he uses the word "reluctance", in his Washington biography, and in a dedicated article. Shall we use this term in the Return to Mt. Vernon and Presidency sections? I am confident that the reader with average intelligence will understand the term "retiring within myself", esp since the quote is surrounded by clarifying statements and context. This is the way Washington felt after a long war, naturally. Once again, this doesn't mean he was ready to sit on his front porch and watch the world go by. Once again, he wanted to tend to personal interests. This has been explained many times now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Chernow also says Knox appealed to Washington's patriotism (American) and vanity. Should the article say Washington was vain  ? I don't know what page number Chernow uses the word "reluctance." Chernow (2010) should be the hub book source for the article. Chernow does not use the block quote that is in the article. There are really too many sources used in the article. In my opinion that would make the article less stable. I have no idea what "retiring within myself" means. I don't think readers do either. Another issue as a side bar is Washington not wanting a salary as President, but rather paid expenses, may not have been altruistic, since Washington could charge the government for everthing as an expense. That is why Congress gave Washington a salary. It was cheaper. However. I can drop the stick. Changes were made to the article. We probably don't need to continue the talk. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Insert : Cmguy777, we can not cherry-pick the sources to suit your opinion. Now you're complaining about too many sources, this from someone who has added more sources than almost all editors combined, simply because they don't support your opinion. Easy to see. All the points have been gone over numerous times, so it sort of seems you have other issues and are only arm-wrestling with editors when you don't get your way. Also, the page number where Chernow uses the word "reluctance" has been posted here in Talk, twice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Chernow ranks #1 as a lively writer. In my opinion He does not rank highly as a scholar. Freeman's multivolume biography takes that honor, and numerous others are much more aware of the scholarly debatres and problems than Chernow. (eg Elkins & McKitrick, Ellis, Ferling, Fischer, Grizzard, Higginbotham, etc.) I agree with review in Journal of American History = "Chernow’s insights and engaging prose make this book an excellent choice for any student or general reader of American history." (ie Wikipedia readers). In terms of historiography he is not up to par except I think on the slavery issue. Rjensen (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Freeman (1948) might be a little dated, but I am sure it is a scholary work. My idea for this article is having an anchor source and a few other book sources. I don't have the Ferling biography on Washington. There are a lot of words in Chernow and sometimes I feel I have to read through the prose to find the history. All that needs to be presented in this article is the real Washington, not the myth. It seems money and status was a high priority for Washington. He never was in poverty, except maybe at Valley Forge, but it seems he sometimes financially struggled. The only mystery for me is why Washington chose to lead a rebellion against the British King, Army, and Navy. I have not read any biography that really answers that. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

you put your finger on Chernow's problem. He is very good on GW's personality but mediocre on what the revolution was all about and why Washington cared so much about it. Rjensen (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I dunno.. Chernow commits numerous chapters to Washington, "The General", (Chapters 16–37). Like most sources, no one covers all the details. As I'm sure you realize, this is why it's good to have as many sources as is practically possible – esp sources like Freeman. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

editbreak2

Cmguy777, We have presented "the real" Washington according to many sources -- not any "myths". Also, Freeman's monumental multi-volume work is the result of many years of extensive research and has set the tone for many biographies that followed, including that of Chernow, who lists Freeman in his bibliography. I was more than a little surprised to read that you are still in the dark over why Washington fought the revolution, common knowledge, covered by virtually all the sources, new and old, which only leads me to wonder what you're doing here writing about Washington. With this rather revealing admission, along with your desire to remove sources that don't support your opinion, and asking questions that are clearly answered above, you make it almost impossible not to take the editor to task and concentrate on content and sources. At this point we should be moving on and spot-checking the cites and sources. This was one of the issues brought up by reviewers, before we got sidetracked, ad nauseum, on issues that are rather obvious and supported by numerous sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers My main source for Washington is Chernow (2010) and for his presidency is Cooke (2002). I have the Ferling (2001) edition Setting the World Ablaze. I have no desire to remove sources. I said that I believe the article is over sourced and that there should be a central book, i.e. Chernow (2010) as a hub source, to connect other sources. Having multiple sources could affect the integrity of the article. Where an editor could put in this view from this author because the editor agrees with the author. Let's say there is a book highly critical, or website, of Washington, then that editor can use that, for the editors own purpose. Vice versa. Since there is no controlling editor in this article, then, I can't take another editor to task. Why did Washington fight against England, his mother country ? I don't think the article adequately addressed this. Editors should have a right to ask questions in the talk page. A Republican form of government seems to be the main issue. Did Washington want to control American destiny, not King George III and Parliament ? After the Revolutionary War, he seemed to go back to the same lifestyle he had prior to the Revolution. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

editbreak3

You're calling for an overhaul of the bibliography, and related citations, and seem to care little about the comparison reading, along with all the substitutions involved, not to mention the numerous debates that would result, while you never have outlined any real problem with our selection of sources. All you've really done is assert the idea that too many sources is somehow wrong. Many articles have numerous sources and don't rely on one source too heavily. Also, no one said you can't express opinions. My contention is that you've ignored reasonable explanations, repeatedly, and the sources used to support them. Now it seems you want to appoint Chernow as the lead source, as if he's automatically better than the rest. Also, if you can provided additional information as to why Washington fought in the revolution, somehow overlooked by all the sources, that would be amazing. Truthfully, I just see this as jumping from one issue to another without coming to terms with any of the discussions you've dragged out. Same old hat. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

All I have done was assert my opinions. Please don't speak for me. I never called for an overhaul of the bibliography. That is completely false. I believed too many sources could affect the stablity of the article. I never said "somehow wrong." I suggested Chernow (2010) as the hub source, not lead source. Maybe more clarication is needed why Washington fought in the Revolution. I am not sure why this conversation continues. I thought we had compromised on the Return to Mount Vernon section. Let's move onto other things please. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, speaking for myself, I’ve been away from the article for a week or so. Of course, I had made a lot of copy edits which I believe were acceptable for the most part, and also reduced the content by about 10%. You two have succeeded in reversing that trend quite measurably. Yes, we should not be bound by quantitative measurements here, but you are trending in the wrong direction guys. The article is unwielding for the typiCal FA reviewer, much less the average reader. Hoppyh (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hoppyh — The average reader can assimilate what they are capable of, but we should not present the facts, and the narrative, in a manner that will undermine the interests of the history buff and the serious student. We should speak up to the readers, not down to them, not that this is your intention. I have reservations about any reviewer who is not up to the task of reviewing an article that involves Washington in his life, and his many involvements at this critical point in American history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Cmguy777 — you spoke of too many sources and using Chernow as the primary, or "hub", source. How do you propose to effect this without removing/replacing many of the sources and citations, and avoiding all the debates that would be involved? If you want to substitute sources, let's start by replacing all the web-site and other sources you've introduced, if you must. Again, you have not outlined any reason why we must involve ourselves in this potential calamity when there is no pressing, or any, reason to do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Gwillhickers We have been over this ground before and needn’t do so again at length. Suffice it to say that I would not support an FA nom of the article in its current state. Hoppyh (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Insert : Hoppyh, at one point four of us nominators were on the same page as to the length and depth of the narrative, one that had to cover numerous topics that didn't require a reader to hop to a dozen different articles to get a good picture of the subject. It's unfortunate that we have to put the concerns of a couple of past reviewers over that of the readers, which hopefully is everyone's primary concern. We have trimmed much text out of the article, while preserving most of the context, even through there are numerous FA's whose prose length far surpasses that of this article. Don't know how much more context we must remove to make everyone happy, if indeed further deletions will actually do this. See my suggestion below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I gave up trying to work on this article due to the ceaseless back-and-forth combat and relentless tweaking between Cmguy777 and Gwillhickers. The two of them have adamantine senses of ownership on this article which is strangling the life out of it. —Dilidor (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

First. It was a suggestion to have Chernow as a hub source. There was no intention of throwing out the other sources. Possibly replacing some references with Chernow. Second. I don't have any ownership of this article. I encourage all editors to work together to get this article to FA. I encourage compromise. I encourage more editors involved in discussion. I do not own this article. Cmguy777 (talk)

Web references possibly can be reduced or replaced by book source references. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Dilidore, I will concede to the obvious that Cmguy777 and myself have prolonged discussions, in the Talk page, but neither of us have ever edited against consensus. Speaking for myself, most of my contested edits are in an effort to restore unjustified deletions, esp when supported by numerous sources. The article has been reduced in size greatly, while context has been added at the same time. I fail to see how anyone has "strangled the life" out of it, so let's not take 2+2 and try to come up with 100 here. As a general piece of advice to all, existing issues should be resolved (help would be nice) before other ones are introduced. Drive by finger pointing doesn't help. -- (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I have been around here enough to qualify as more than a "drive-by" editor—IMO, Dilidor NAILED IT. This article remains a GA, and we know what the G stands for. Hoppyh (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions to get the article to FA and have offered one below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Archive box

I believe we could benefit from the addition of an Archive box to facilitate search of the talk archives. I made an attempt at it but it is above my paygrade. Hoppyh (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: – Talk archives can usually be searched via the search box near the top of the Talk page, and this Talk page used to have one, but somehow it disappeared. Will look into how/why this was removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed - For some reason the archive search box was removed back in November with this edit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Commas

@Dilidor: Agreed. Always glad to get your expertise. On a more worthy topic, since it may quite apply here, I would love to get your advice/tips on the proper use of the comma. Hoppyh (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What in particular are you asking about? I prefer the traditional serial comma in lists, if that's what you have in mind, but it's not a rule on Wikipedia. Is that what you're wondering about, or something else? —Dilidor (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That is one issue...so you prefer the Oxford comma, I take it. I also have a bit of a problem with their use in phraseology. I sometimes wonder if we tend to over use them, e.g. My friend, Jack, is a nice guy.

I just reviewed your exchange about the use of the comma in the month, day, year format. This is a great example of comma confusion. I agree with you about the omission of the comma in that instance. I have recently read of the late Charles Krauthammer’s self-declared “war on commas” in his own writing. As a loyal fan, I am influenced also by his view. Hoppyh (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely that commas are widely overused. Your example is a good one; is your friend's name Jack, or are you addressing me as Jack? Omitting the commas makes it clear that your friend's name is Jack. The official date formatting is another prime example, but getting it changed is like combatting city hall, so I let it go. —Dilidor (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Reader poll

It seems suggestions for improvement are needed. In an effort to deal with all the varying opinions among editors, perhaps a reader poll should be the basis on which we edit.

For example. Reader poll;

Is this article;

• Too short and lacking details needed for a comprehensive narrative
• Just right, with enough details, but not too wordy
• Too long and frequently overly tangential

We could place a banner at the top of the article asking readers to participate in the poll here on the Talk page. To get a good profile of reader opinion the poll should last at least a couple of weeks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not sanctioned—see WP:PNSD. The appropriate method is WP:RFC Hoppyh (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

That article generally pertains to polls among editors, and even then, there are cases for appropriate notification. The article you linked to is not black and white and doesn't categorically condemn polling. Also, the RfC page pertains to "concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content" and doesn't address reader polls, though that would be another way to approach the controversy over page length, esp since there are a good number of FAs that are much longer than this one. In any case, I've seen reader polls in the past, but have to admit, haven't seen any in awhile. If such polls are not allowed, then fine, but I haven't been able to find this specific information. Trying to help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not say polling was condemned, I said it was not sanctioned, which it is not, as RFC is. And yes, this does indeed concern “disputes, policies, guidelines or article content" Good luck with RFC! You would do well to make an expressed commitment to follow consensus. Hoppyh (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I've always gone along with a clear consensus, albeit sometimes reluctantly, esp when it involves depleting the narrative and reducing the article to near outline form, and esp when done so just to make things easier for reviewers. Many reviewers have never made issue with the length of an article that covers many different topics, as is evidenced by a good number of existing FA articles much longer than this one. Seems to me if WP allows a long article for a rock star it should be able to see its way clear for someone like Washington. We should give the readers what they want, and it seems some reviewers need to be be more in line with that concern. Never heard of a history buff or the serious student complaining about a book being too long. I suspect the same holds true for information in an encyclopedia. We can submit an inquiry to RfC, regarding page length, – i.e. a guideline, not an unyielding policy – but I would still like to explore the prospect of getting reader's opinions first. Since we are here for the readers I am hoping we are at least willing to learn about and make their concern our top priority. Haven't found info that addresses reader opinion specifically, and again, there used to be such a forum in some of the high-traffic articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There used to be a reader feedback tool, that I found useful. I guess my concerns would be two, how do you contact a representative sample of readers, and how do you convince FAC that the results are useful and should be respected. Most readers do not know of the talk page, or so it seems.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Even if those quandaries could be solved, we still have the philosophy that WP is not a democracy. The bottom line I believe is that the editor that has done the most editing here has an unyielding view of the article's appropriate scope. Right or wrong, it is apparently the prevailing force at this time, yet not adequate for FA, fortunately so in my own current view. Hoppyh (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Does this all have to do with enlarging the article narration ? Is that why the reader poll is needed ? FA standards are already on Wikipedia and we need to abided by any FA reviewers comments to get to FA. Also we should not a reader poll to enforce any editor's opinions. How about this ? Editors work together to get Washington FA. Compromise. Present Washington how he really was with out hagiography or caustic narration. Present a neutral article for the readers. I don't believe a reader poll is needed. It might make things more divisive than already is. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment; I believe there is little interest on the part of reviewers because of the expansive scope being enforced. Their views are also not sufficiently regarded (see above). I suspect the poll is an evasion myself. The stranglehold on the article has proven itself beyond compromising. Hoppyh

• Reader's concerns. Yes, it was my obvious hope that, if there was a call from the readers for a longer and more comprehensive article that we might respond to their wishes, just in case anyone is concerned about that sort of thing. It was a straight forward proposal, calling for a notice at the top of the article with a link to a survey here in Talk. It's a little disappointing to see this idea brushed off as something of little consequence. We should be writing to satisfy readers, which for history articles, are largely history buffs and students, not to be writing simply to make things easier for reviewers who are not up to the task of reviewing a very complex subject. Readers are why we are here.

• Article size. We shouldn't get carried away over the notion that this article is freakish in its size, esp since it's much smaller than many others, FA articles included. I'm not the only one who has been making contributions, and if it's assumed I contribute the most, this shouldn't be anything to be taken to task for. And, btw, you're welcome. No one is preventing others from making edits.

• Reviewers. They are editors just like the rest of us, not supreme authorities, and their opinions vary just like ours. Anyone can appoint them self as a reviewer. They are not above honest debate on various points. I have added a few items over the weeks, but overall I have gone along with a major reduction in article size since the last review. However, we can't expect the article to remain at a given size for the rest of time, not allowing editors to make further contributions. Expecting that they all abide by our wishes will require that a few like minded editors police the article, which is a form of group ownership.

• Talk. In regards to the recent activity here in Talk, I have made numerous appeals ( 1, 2, 3, 4, etc, etc ) to end the belabored discussion, to "give it a rest" and move on. During this time I was dealing with repeated reverts of a famous and simple quote covered by numerous sources, while also dealing with one issue after another being introduced before existing ones were resolved. Somehow this was overlooked when I was lumped in with Cmguy777 in regards to this "stranglehold". Our activity has not prevented anyone from making edits.

• I'm going to refrain from making major additions in the text and confine my work to spot-checking the cites and sources - something that reviewers said needed to be done long ago, and which I was busy doing, while also making requests that others concentrate in this area, up until the this episode with Cmguy777 and myself was dragged out. With all the concern for honoring reviewer's suggestions, I've not seen anyone else spot-checking the cites since the last review. It was one of the major things preventing the article from getting to FA, btw. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Here is a plausible abstract of your comments immediately preceding:

• You have defined the audience to whom editors are responsible—history buffs and serious students, not others, including reviewers, who are incapable of understanding this complex subject.

Insert — I've always maintained that the readers are "largely" history buffs and students. I never even hinted about "not others". Also, I didn't say reviewers are incapable of understanding a complex subject, I merely maintained that we should not write the narrative as though they might be, as was suggested by one of the reviewers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• As the greatest, but unappreciated contributor here, you find the recommendation for a smaller article to be freakish—a mere notion, made by editors who have edited less, at their own choosing, and who therefore have no right to complain about your preference.

Insert — Another notion. I've never even suggested that other editors have "no right to complain". That is ridiculous. Also, it wasn't I who referred to myself as the greatest contributor here, and given all the time and research I have given to the article I don't appreciate the inference that this is somehow wrong.

• Reviewers are not experts, and while you may attempt to give them some say, you will not allow them to prevent you from editing this article to your own liking. And yes, you do own the article, but this is entirely beneficent to WP.

Insert:" — "Not allow" is entirely your notion. I've gone along with reviewers more often than not. Much more. That I debate various points from time to time is any editor's privilege.

• You are forever frustrated dealing with other editors who refuse to yield to your preferences for the article, but the suggestion that you have a stranglehold over the article is nonsense.

Insert : — The only thing I am "frustrated" with is the endless debate where I have made numerous attempts to end by presenting many sources to back up points of contention and urging that we "give it a rest", "drop the stick" and "move on". And yes, "stranglehold" is hyperbole, weasel speak used to prop-up otherwise unsubstantiated accusations. Again, the disagreements between Cmguy777 and myself did not prevented others from chiming in (which could have ended the Talk sooner), nor has it prevented anyone from making edits, as your latest round of (welcomed) edits demonstrates.

• You are now going to concentrate your work on cites and sources, because no one has responded to your direction that this be done, even though this was a primary objection of reviewers. Hoppyh (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Last : — Three people, including yourself, responded to that idea, for better or worse – and none of the reviewers mentioned anything about a reader poll. Obviously half the problem with these debates is caused by editors who can't keep their line straight during a discussion, while piling on still more issues. Now, I'm going to concentrate on spot-checking the cites and sources because this is what two reviewers said needed to be done to get to FA. —— Thanks for your comments. There is much you haven't mentioned or even acknowledged. No matter, we should get back to work. If I should restore an item of context, or do something you don't approve of, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't carry on as if I was 'Attilla the Editor'. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Like Dilidor above, several editors have abandoned their efforts here due to your posture I described above (see archives) and, under your dominion, an FA is not in this article’s future. I do applaud your effort–––Happy Valentine’s Day, Hun! Hoppyh (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You're opening comments are not exactly fair. The article has been coming along with edits also made by yourself, Cmguy777 and others. In spite of our occasional reverts, some warranted, neither Cm' or myself ever had an all out edit war, or anything close to it. I like to think the bulk of his, and my, edits were improvements. In any case, I will make efforts to contain the Talk but sometimes it gets a little difficult for reasons outlined. I'm hoping my 'Talk partner' will make the same effort. As mentioned, much of the talk could be averted, from the start, if others chimed in, offered compromises, etc. Btw, your closing comments are much appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Allied victory

It seems to me everyone is putting in their version of Washington and this causes edit conflict. Every editor or historian has some bias. Just acknowledge bias. Editors work together for FA. The French-American forces defeated the British. Louis XVI played a prominent role. Now the lede says Washington did it all on his own. This is not true. Washington may not have wanted the French to help, but he needed them, and their navy and gold to win the British. I believe it is prominent enough to be in the lede. Yorktown was a French-American operation. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Hoppyh (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Hoppyh. Yes. It was an allied victory. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the revolution was something of a miniature world war, as the British employed the Hessians (Germans), Canadians and the Indians, while the Americans were allied with the French. Yes, it was an allied victory. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the World War can be emphasized in the article. Here is an interesting article : The American Revolution Was Just One Battlefront in a Huge World War Alice George (June 28, 2018) website: Smithsonian.com Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Has there ever been a war in the history of the world that did not involve alliances? This is a real splitting of hairs to quibble over whether it was an American victory or an allied victory. —Dilidor (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I could not agree more; hair splitting has resulted in a lot of minutiae and tortuous narrative throughout the four corners of the article. All attempts to thwart this have been futile, which explains the absence of a number of editors who otherwise specialize in presidential articles. There will be no FA here while this continues. Hoppyh (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"Maybe the World War can be emphasized in the article."

Why? We already have a detailed article on the American Revolutionary War, explaining the complex alliances and the various co-belligerents. In summary:

• Thirteen Colonies/United States. Its allies were the Vermont Republic, the Kingdom of France, and the Spanish Empire. The main co-belligerents were the Dutch Republic and the Kingdom of Mysore. Native Americans which sided with this faction included the Oneida people, the Tuscarora people, the Catawba people, the Lenape, the Chickasaw, the Choctaw, the Mahican, the Miꞌkmaq (until 1779), the Abenaki, the Cheraw, the Seminole, the Pedee people, the Lumbee, and the Watauga Association (which included European settlers).
• The British Empire. Its allies were the Electorate of Brunswick-Lüneburg (in crown union with Great Britain at the time), the Landgraviate of Hesse-Kassel, Hesse-Hanau, the Principality of Waldeck and Pyrmont, the Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, the Principality of Ansbach, and the Principality of Anhalt-Zerbst. Native Americans which sided with this faction included the Onondaga people, the Mohawk people, the Cayuga people, the Seneca people, the Miꞌkmaq (after 1779, since they switched sides), the Cherokee, the Odawa, the Muscogee, the Susquehannock, and the Shawnee.
• We also have the First League of Armed Neutrality, an alliance of European states which opposed British naval blockades and searches, without taking part in the war. The League was led by the Russian Empire and kept the Royal Navy preoccupied on various fronts. Dimadick (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You testify well to the beauty of the sub-article structure of WP. Unfortunately, the lead editor here has foresaken that long ago. Hence we have an unwieldy article. Hoppyh (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Dimadick. The emphasis on a World War could be stated in one sentence. There is no need for coverage of the totality of the American Revolution worldwide. That is in the dedicated article. Practically speaking adding a sentence on a World War will add neutrality to the article. I am not proposing a coverage of the whole world wide war in the entire article, possibly just a sentence that would name American and British allies. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggested sentence: The American Revolutionary War was world-wide, that included the Patriot-French-Spanish alliance against the British-German alliance. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I really shouldn't have brought up the idea of a "world war" - it was just sort of a way to highlight, here in Talk, the fact that there were a couple of alliances made among the belligerents. The American Revolution was hardly a world war in the general sense of the term. This latest proposal would almost make it seem as if the Revolutionary War was not primarily an American-British war. The Americans had help from France, while Britain had help from Germany (i.e.Hessians, for the money they had to pay them), and of course there was money coming in from various other places, for their own reasons, but the bulk of the war efforts were American and British. After all, it was the Americans who were fighting for their independence and the British fighting to retain their sovereignty over the colonies. It seems the edit Hoppyh has made, mentioning an "allied" effort, is well enough, but we should definitely not go so far as to refer to the American Revolution as a "world war". Most if not all the established and notable sources don't, and I'm not very impressed with the web-site article by A.George who only makes sketchy associations to the French and Indian war, which was not a war for American independence. It was a war between Britain and France over control of the northwest territory many years before -- a completely different cause. Even the Civil War involved alliances, but it also was hardly a world war involving full scale warfare among the various other countries involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"but we should definitely not go so far as to refer to the American Revolution as a "world war". " Too late. The main article world war already covers it, in a list with other wars spanning multiple continents. In its case, the theatres of the war were North America, Gibraltar, the Balearic Islands, India, Africa, the Caribbean Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Indian Ocean. Part of the reason why I view the North American theater as a sideshow. Dimadick (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"Even the Civil War involved alliances, but it also was hardly a world war involving full scale warfare among the various other countries involved. " What does the English Civil War have to do with this topic? Dimadick (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Evidently the criteria for calling a given war a "world war" is quite lose. Unless a good number of alliances are involved in actually fighting the war, for their own pressing reasons, the American Revolution should not be referred to as a "world war". Are you also suggesting that we refer to the American Civil War as a "world war"? The criteria being proposed here would suggest we should. To say "'The American Revolutionary War was world-wide" is very obtuse and misleading, suggesting to the (completely) ignorant reader that some of the battles were fought in Spain, Norway, Italy, Russia, Poland, the Netherlands, Turkey, Iran, etc. They don't refer to  World War One  as such for nothing, as most of the above countries had committed significant amounts of troops, etc, in that war. Unless there is a clear consensus, based on reliable sources who refer to the American Revolution as a "world war", in no uncertain terms, we should not refer to the American Revolution as a world war simply because a few other countries besides France were remotely involved. We already mention "allies", France and the Hessians. This should be more than adequate to present a clear picture of the situation involved, imo-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

England declared war on the Dutch Republic in 1780 for supplying the Americans and French. Sounds like a World War to me. All I suggested was a one sentence emphasis. We have to go by modern research for FA. Nothing in detail. A one sentence mention would add neutrality, reliablity, and stability to the article. Nothing fringe here. Book source: edited by David K. Allison, Larrie D. Ferreiro (2018) The American Revolution: A World War Cmguy777 (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• If we subscribe to such loose criteria then we should really change the title of  World War One  to  World War 'Twelve', or some such number. The blurb promoting Allison & Ferreiro's 272 page book says that it "argues" the popular opinion. We should stick to popular opinion, per reliable sources. We can't go by one source when it is not supported by the greater bulk of established sources. Though the Colonists and Britain got 'help' outside their own realm, the Revolution was not what's considered a "world war", and claiming that it was is very misleading as to the scope of that war. We provided enough details to give an accurate picture as to the extent of the war. The readers are free to consider the Revolution as any other sort of war, if they are so inclined. If sources like Chernow, Ferling, Flexner and Freeman referred to the Revolution as a "world war", specifically, I would have no further objection, though I'd still feel the term would be very misleading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• In the lede of the generic World War article it says — "World wars span multiple countries on multiple continents or just two countries, with battles fought in many theaters." The Revolution was fought in one theater, entirely on American soil and in American rivers and harbors, with help from France. The Hessians were a fractional group from Germany who were paid for their services. Germany did not declare war on the colonies, nor did France declare war on Britain during the Revolution. In World War Two, for example, the U.S. declared War on Germany, Italy and Japan. Germany declared war on Poland, France, Britain, Russia, the U.S., etc, etc. Britain declared war on Germany and its allies. Japan declared war on the U.S., Britain, China and the Philippines. That war was fought, literally, around the world.  Last, the American Revolutionary War article defines the war as the "American War of Independence", and doesn't even suggest that that war was a "world war". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Your dispute is with David K. Allison and Larrie D. Ferreiro (2018) The American Revolution: A World War. It is modern research. The natural course of editing is to add modern research to an article for stability. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Capture of Sint Eustatius (February 1781) British capture Dutch colony. Dutch were supplying slaves and gunpowder to Americans in rebellion against England. The American Revolution: A World War page 112 Cmguy777 (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• France entered the war in 1778 and the French Navy immediately fought the British Navy in many parts of the world. This is what led up to the Peace talks in 1783. The American Revolution: A World War page 52 Cmguy777 (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Spain entered the war in 1799 and the Spanish Navy and French Navy coordinated attack on British Navy. The French used Dutch naval bases. The American Revolution: A World War page 52-53 Cmguy777 (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC:::

I don't think any modern sources really dispute that in 1778 the conflict previously confined to British America became a world war with the entry of France, Spain and the Dutch (as well as the developing Indian situation). Even sources that don't cover the international war in detail do acknowledge it. As has been discussed at the American Revolutionary War article, its hard to adequately cover the complexity of the war. But its not disproportionate to refer to an Allied victory in this article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Cmguy777 : The Revolutionary War ended in 1783. The incidents you outlined above occurred in 1799 and 1778, while the British capture of the dutch colony in 1781 occurred on an island in the Caribbean and involved a separate war, over trade disputes. Alice George and Ferreiro bring nothing new to the table except new opinion, while the facts remain the same. World Wars One and Two involved numerous countries who had declared war and were actually at war, all around the world. Comparing the Revolution to these wars by calling it a "world war" is really a stretch at best, leading the uninformed reader to think that the battles of the Revolution occurred in other countries. As I said, if Chernow, Ferling, et al specifically refer to the American War for Independence as a "world war", we can go from there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Lord Cornwallis : I agree – it's enough that we mention the allied victory in the narrative, while the Revolutionary War article itself refers to the Revolution as the War for American independence -- not a world war. In fact, referring to matters as an "allied victory" can be a little misleading, as such a statement gives equal weight to the American effort and the French effort. Perhaps we should clarify such statements, per due weight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A world war after all

Randall, 1997, p.350, claims that the Revolution became a world war when France signed a "treaty of alliance with the United States", thus declaring war on England. It seems we have enough sources to refer to the Revolution as such, but we should do it appropriately, as Randall has done. Even though Chernow, to be fair to the discussion, doesn't refer to the Revolution as a world war, he doesn't say it wasn't either. I still feel the term is misleading, so we should take appropriate measures to present the idea in context. i.e.The revolution became a world war when France signed a treaty. We should also mention the treaty by name in an appropriate passage in the narrative, not as a stand alone isolated statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Since the war is not thought of as a world war in the popular sense, query whether a descriptive term might be warranted to anticipate the inevitable questioning/criticism . Perhaps add "in principle" at the end of the sentence? Hoppyh (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. Perhaps we should say, "... escalating the revolution into a type of world war. First I'd like to go through a few more sources. A year later France signed an alliance with Madrid, which brought Spain into the war,<Ferling, 2009, p.195> but this didn't materialize into anything to speak of as far as Spain's actual participation on American soil was concerned, as that treaty was aimed at protecting Spanish shipping on the other side of the Atlantic. In fact, maybe it's best we don't bother to mention Spain, as we seem to be getting away from Washington here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This article should not be bound by World War I and World War II articles. I had put the Revolutionary War was worldwide. That goes around saying World War. Honestly, the term World War could confuse the readers. I would put the conflict was worldwide. I would also add that Spain became an American allie in 1779 and the French and Spanish combined their navies. An act of God may have helped Washington too. There was a hurricane that destroyed the British naval fleet in the Caribbean. Not sure what year. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Great Hurricane of 1780--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Spain defeated the British fleet in the Atlantic. I would say that was a contribution. Also the French-Spanish Navies and French Army had planned to invade England from the English Channel. The French Army was posted on the coast. It was a divergent to keep the British Navy on the alert. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

"...should not be bound..."? – Cmguy777, I don't understand this opening sentence. Above you were advocating that we refer to the Revolution as a world war, holding up Alice George and Ferriero as your sources. I had originally said the term "world war" could be confusing and you ignored that. Now you're agreeing. However, the term "world wide" could be just as misleading as "world war" if not presented in context, which we have.
I've no objection of mentioning that France and Spain combined their navies, with one statement, however. The Spanish navy isn't mentioned in the Siege of Yorktown article. One minute your pushing reduction in article size, the next you're promoting expansion with a tangential topic not really involving Washington much. Coverage of Spain's activity on the other side of the Atlantic is best done in a dedicated article, not the Washington biography, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I do think this is another example of overbroadening the article. Having said that, I have taken the world war label out—I don’t think anyone is set on it. As an afterthought, it also seems apt because GW never took his direct command of forces beyond the nation’s shores. Hoppyh (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned, we seem to be getting away from Washington. However, it seems we should at least mention the treaty with France, in that it amounted to a French declaration of war against Britain leading to "a type of world war", but that should be it. No need to get into Spain, who was more concerned about protecting their interests, with the help of France, at Gibraltar, than crossing the Atlantic and fighting for the American cause. If there is a consensus, I think we should keep the previous phrase. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Yes. It was a world war. Upon further reflection, and from your comments, the term worldwide would be appropriate rather than World War, 20th century terminology. Spain needs to be mentioned as an American allie. French-Spain combined navies outnumbered the British Navy by 44 percent. So in that sense the U.S. allied navies were superior to the British. All of this aided Washington and the Patriots. I am even for mentioning the 1780 hurricane. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

"A type of world war" seems better. World war is the term Randall and others use, and qualifying it as "a type of world war" lets the reader know it was not in the same proportions as that of WW I & II. 'World wide' seems more general and misleading, implicating the idea of combat across the entire globe. We can mention Spain as an ally, but nothing more, as they were hardly on the American side of the Atlantic and had their own interests, almost exclusively, at heart. The Hurricane? I dunno. You know me, I'm all for context and extra details, within practical limits for a biography. Let's hear from the others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend against the use of the term world war because it presents as many questions as answers. If compelled to use the term, maybe use it in a footnote? Hoppyh (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Worldwide is not misleading. It is a compound word that means spanning the world. What is a type of world war? That is confusing and undefined. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, the idea of world wide more than suggests "spanning the world". The Revolution itself was fought entirely on American soil. Everyone knows what a world war is, and qualifying the idea as "a type of world war", should not pose any confusion for the reader of history within the existing context, imo. We have at least three sources that mention world war in the context of France's treaty/declaration of war. After all we've discussed, shall we just say nothing about the scope of the Revolution? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. France and Spain are on the European Continent. Ships are on the oceans, not land. Britain took over Sint Eustatius in 1781. You don't have to have battles fought in other places to have a World War. The only alternative then is to call it a world war and go by modern research. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

As said, the British takeover of Saint E. involved a separate war, over trade disputes with the Dutch. It was suggested that we qualify the term world war with the phrase "in principle". "A type of world war" seems equally adequate. "American soil" I thought at this point would be understood as to include American coastal waters, rivers and harbors. Let's say 'something' comprehensive here. Yes? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

IMO, we are indeed generating confusion needlessly for the reader. I say we drop the “worldwide” and the “world war” entirely. Hoppyh (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The British took over of Saint E. because the Dutch traded gunpowder and slaves to the Americans. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Now we have both “world wide” and “world war”, neither of which is informative IMO. Also IMO now we have redundant references to the French alliance. Hoppyh (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Cmguy777, your last edit in the Brandywine, Germantown, and Saratoga section was redundant, because in the following Valley Forge and Monmouth section we already had a statement that covers this. However, the idea of a world war, "in effect", is also a good choice of words, and qualifies the statement.  Hoppyh orginally suggested a world war "in principle". I suggested "a type of world war". You added "in effect", a world war. All three qualifiers are more than adequate. I removed one of the redundant statements however, and left "in effect" in the phrase. In the context that France made a treaty of alliance with the Americans, thus declaring war on Britain, I would think this would be all quite self explanatory to most, if not all, the readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That depends Gwillhickers. The French and Spanish may have attacked the British fleet. That would have really helped the Washington and the Patriots. Not to mention the hurricane. This gives the reader better context why the British withdrew from New York. It might answer why the war extended into 1783. There is a lull in the narration. Why didn't Yorktown victory immediate end the war ? I am not sure the reader can infer that from the article. Why did the war extend into 1783 ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Battle of the Chesapeake was a naval battle between the French and British. That would be part of a world war. How many other naval battles were their between the French-Spanish-American alliance and the British ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

We are getting away from Washington and really have belabored this issue long enough. We have already been criticized for doing this. You are heaping a lot of questions on one statement that has little to do with the validity of the term, your words, we use. If you don't know why Yorktown didn't immediately end the war, world war, or otherwise, I would recommend that you read up on it. You should also learn that the section already says the Siege of Yorktown ended just the major fighting -- not all fighting. e.g. There are several reasons why the fighting didn't immediately stop, as is already explained in the section. The hurricane also has nothing to do with the validity of the statement we use. No one said the Battle of Chesapeake didn't have anything to do with the Revolution, or the so called world war. Reminder, we employ the term "world war", at your insistence also, but in a qualified manner. Overall, however, emphasis should be on a Revolutionary war and Washington. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"In effect" sounds fine to me. Obviously the international situation after 1778 had an impact on Washington and the strategic situation in America. Clinton had to abandon Philadelphia and strip America of British troops to send to the more crucial Caribbean theatre, limiting scope for major offensive operations. In turn Washington became increasingly dependent on co-operation with the French fleet and expeditionary force to launch attacks on the British, most famously at Yorktown. Even in 1782 he believed a final battle for New York would take place, for which French help would be essential.

So, a bit of context on the international situation is important to give background on Washington's options and activities. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Lord Cornwallis (any relation?) Yes, the British had their hands full in a number of theaters, including their own coastal waters, Gibralter and the Caribbean. In terms of a biography about Washington, any context you can add in these areas would be welcomed, so long as it ties in with Washington's involvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"Why didn't Yorktown victory immediate end the war ? " Please read the main article on the Yorktown campaign. It secured American contror of Virginia, but military campaigns continued in the Province of New York (still under British control) and the Carolinas. The British defeat caused a political crisis back in Great Britain, as more people became convinced that there was no way to achieve victory in this war:

• "When the news reached London on November 25, Lord Germain described the reaction of Lord North to the news: "he would have taken a ball on his breast. For he opened his arms exclaiming wildly as he paced up and down the apartment, during the few minutes, 'Oh God! It is all over!'" King George was reported to receive the news with calmness and dignity, although he later became depressed as the news sank in, and even considered abdication. The king's supporters in Parliament were depressed, and the opposition elated. A resolution calling for an end to the war was introduced on December 12, and failed to pass by a single vote. Lord Germain was dismissed in early 1782, and the North administration fell shortly afterward. Peace negotiations followed, and the war was formally ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783." Dimadick (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)