Jump to content

Talk:Mount Vernon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Tagging this for wikification

The reasons seem fairly obvious. Also, the huge opening paragraph perhaps needs other editing and/or breaking up as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I took a crack at it. It probably needs to be broken up in sections still. Carl Lindberg 05:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move from Mount Vernon (plantation) to Mount Vernon, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've requested that this article be moved to Mount Vernon for three reasons. One this is a Presidential Home, much like Monticello and Sagamore Hill. Two, it is in line with other famous homes like the two previous, Graceland of Elvis Presley and Neverland Ranch of Michael Jackson for example. Three, Washington's estate is most likely the most requested search for that name. I moved the original Mount Vernon material to Mount Vernon (disambiguation), which is in line with many other cases of disambiguation pages. --Northmeister 04:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No fly zone

Is it true that Mount Vernon plantation is a no fly zone because low-flying planes landing at Reagan could cause vibrations enough to damage the house? FinalWish 19:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a no-fly zone (see here and here). I'm not sure of the reasoning, but that sounds reasonably likely. Carl Lindberg 02:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in article?

The "History" section states 'In 1860, the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union, under the leadership of Ann Pamela Cunningham, acquired the mansion and a portion of the land for $200,000, rescuing it from a state of disrepair and neglect.' While the "Touring" section states 'The Mount Vernon Ladies' Association purchased Mount Vernon from the Washington family in 1858 and opened the estate to the public in 1860.'

So, was the year 1858 or 1860? AndyMcKay (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have the book "Mount Vernon, A Handbook" published by the MVLA, and they state that the estate was conveyed to them by John Augustine Washington in 1858. GeorgeIIIFan (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Will of Nicholas Spencer

I posted this earlier, but it was deleted. I do feel, though, that the will of Col. Nicholas Spencer, born at Cople, Bedfordshire, England, is useful because in it he makes provisos for the inheritance of the Spencer portion of the grant at Mount Vernon. This is Nicholas Spencer's ancesty [1], and here is the will that set in motion the developments that would eventually see the Washington family take full control of the land at Mount Vernon [2]. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the second link (from the New England Historic and Genealogical Register) also gives an interesting history of the long relationship in England between the Washington and Spencer families, one which would be transposed to the New World -- with mixed results.MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is a bit more on the brothers Spencer, Nicholas and Robert, and their close friends the Washingtons. Nicholas would settle in Virginia, where he attained high office. His brother Robert Spencer settled first in Virginia, but ultimately in Talbot County, Maryland.[3]MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
What may be most interesting is that the Mount Vernon tract probably came into the possession of the Washingtons and the Spencers by patent of Lord Culpepper, Governor of Virginia, due to an apparent kinship between the Spencers and the Culpeppers.[4]MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Col. Nicholas Spencer was Secretary of Virginia and Acting Governor in 1683. Contemporaneous records show Spencer exerted a great deal of influence in the new colony.[5]MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Distillery cite

I replaced the external link in the cite about Washington's distillery from a blacklisted personal site to the DISCUS site that rebuilt the distillery. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Aug 1#About 400 links to the two sites of one individual for more information. Flowanda | Talk 01:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

comments about hemp

The given link (which is to an advocacy site) is a little better than the typical hit that google finds for the quote, since it mentions the use of hemp for paper (ignores rope, etc). I found no reliable sources for the quote itself - only uses in advocacy. Tedickey (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Since when has the American Chronicle been an advocacy site? You can always find the same info at www.mountvernon.org which says "Textile production was vital to achieving self-sufficiency at Mount Vernon. Washington practiced selective breeding of sheep to produce better quality wool, grew flax and hemp for making linen cloth and rope, and experimented with cultivating cotton and silk."--Alf melmac 17:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a section in which confusd me where it states that lawrince had died but then in the next paragraph it saysthat he had just turned 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adria60 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I did read the article (not something I'd use as a source). Perhaps there's some source that doesn't immediately raise objections from the average reader. Tedickey (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've already included the source I stated above. I understand this comment (and probably the others that George made in writing to the estate overseer [or whatever the job title was] about the subject) would be used by advocacy sites, regardless of the original usage George had in mind, but I do not consider this source to be in any way objectionable (mind you I'm not "the average reader" so I wouldn't have a clue if "they" find it so) but I will search more and see if this and the other known comments from him about hemp are available on-line from other sources.--Alf melmac 18:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The Colorado Hemp Production Act of 1995: Farms and Forests without Marijuana by Thomas J. Ballanco gives this exact line, with the same date (1794), as the lead quote on its first page. The note he uses there describes this as being written by George Washington to "Mt. Vernon's gardener", which he finds reprinted in Chris Conrad's 1993 book, Hemp, Lifeline to the Future.
Do you want that ref to be used instead of the American Chronicle or as well as?--Alf melmac 19:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I suppose finding a neutral source on hemp is about like finding a comparable source for poppy seed. Tedickey (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
here is a link which gives a more neutral comment Tedickey (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
another 00:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
another - point being that there are two types of sources which mention Washington and hemp: (a) sources which state that he was using industrial hemp which is distinct from THC, and (b) sources promoting legalization of marijuana which make no distinction. Whether (a) is true or not is hard to assess - there are lots of (b), but on the other hand, I didn't notice any thoughtful notes among those... Tedickey (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, the first link you give uses the word "marijuana" - note where we redirect that to - to Cannabis (drug), although it does go on to say "the crop was grown mainly for its industrial value as hemp and for soil stabilization". AFAIK George only used the word "hemp" - if it didn't have that I'd be happy using that, but the one I most recently put in I think is scholarly (;p) enough - but getting to the point, the quote is sufficiently noted and either the two together or the first should suffice for you removing the "dubious" tagging of the quote.--Alf melmac 07:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The newer cites are improved, but Steve Hammons' commentary is still an issue. Tedickey (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I will adjust the line and remove that cite. Thanks.--Alf melmac 14:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thanks Tedickey (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a 1765 Washington letter here, which indicates he had started growing flax and hemp that year, and was wondering what prices he could get in London for them, trying to gauge if it was worth the effort to continue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

stamps

I've changed the date of the second stamp from 1955 to 1956 reflecting the source on the article I linked to. I neither know nor care to know enough about philately to know how reliable the source is in the linked article. ϢereSpielChequers 10:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Can't make sense of the lead

The lead tells us that Washington came into possession of Mount Vernon in 1754, but the very next sentence tells us that he began to build Mount Vernon in 1757. Is that first sentence referring to the estate rather than the house, as in "He came into possession of the Mount Vernon estate in 1754, but did not become the sole owner until 1761"? Malleus Fatuorum 15:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Lawrence was George's half-brother...when Lawrence died, George leased the plantation from Lawrence's widow, starting in 1754. George started to greatly expand the plantation home in 1757 and he then inherited the plantation outright upon the widows death in 1761. I'll find you some book sources later...here's a reliable web source.--MONGO 15:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
So would it be more accurate to say that George Washington extended the mansion between 1757 and 1778 rather than that he built it? Or did he demolish the existing building and start over in 1757? Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Just going off what I have read and heard, the existing mansion was built around the original structure, and the original front facade was integrated into the expansion. Therefore the existing mansion is not a Georgian Style, with either side of the front facade being a mirror image of each other. Basically, Washington had both sides greatly widened, as well as the back extended and removed the old roof.--MONGO 16:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems: "....n 1757, Washington began the first of two major additions and improvements to the house. The second expansion was begun shortly before the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. On those occasions he entirely rebuilt the main house atop the original foundations, doubling its size each time."  Giano  19:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, and the first section says: "The present house was built in phases from 1757 on, by an unknown architect, on the site of the Washingtons' former farmhouse." In other words: Washington built anew on a former site, but kept expanding over a period which is why the finished product is not totally uniform and harmonious.  Giano  19:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
That sounds more like what I should have stated...he kind of had a smaller house and kept building on to it. Very pleased to see you and Malleus taking this article on.--MONGO 20:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
It's obviously an iconic building, so I'm wondering why nobody else has taken it on. Are Giano and I fools rushing in where angels fear to tread? Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to see if I can get User:Acroterion to chime in as he's well versed in National Register of Historic Places articles. I think Giano and you are better suited to work on this article since anything Washington is somewhat venerated in the states so it would be better to get an outside perspective with you two as the main editors, that and both of you are better writers than I by a wide margin.--MONGO 23:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
As a rebel, probably not quite so venerated over here. I think we may have some sourcing issues though, that hopefully you may be able to help with. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Will do what we can. Give me a few days and I'll track some book sources.--MONGO 00:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Commentary and sourcing

Since MONGO's asked me to comment, I'll offer what I can. To me, Mount Vernon's significance lies in its association with George Washington, rather than any fundamental architectural merit. There are dozens of statelier, grander, better-composed houses within a fifty-mile radius. Mount Vernon was like a lot of the less grand houses that were assembled in bits and pieces, with old parts pulled down and new parts added over a period of years and composed as circumstance would allow and as Washington's means improved. I think there's value, as MONGO notes, in an overhaul by non-Americans to bring a more detached perspective: there was a great deal of hagiography associated with Washington in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and it can be hard to sift. We have Mount Vernon to blame for a lot of Federal-era houses that were updated in the early 20th century with flat-roofed porches and spindly columns to look more like Mount Vernon.

As is the case with a lot of the oldest and most historically important houses that were among the first to be listed as landmarks or on the NRHP, the National Register documentation on Mount Vernon is perfunctory [6] and essentially unresearched, and I'd approach anything written before maybe 1980 with some caution.

I'm ashamed to admit that, despite living not terribly far away from Mount Vernon and having passed by dozens of times, I've not been there. However, I've been aware that there's been a great deal of scholarship and fairly rigorous archaeological investigation at Mount Vernon in the past 40 years, and there ought to be good sources. I'll have a look around and see what I can find. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit like saying that Blenheim Palace is only really significant because of its association with the Duke of Marlborough? Malleus Fatuorum 02:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Only if you discount Vanbrugh. No architect of that caliber was associated with Mount Vernon, and apart from the previously mentioned spate of anachronistic porches, Mount Vernon's made little impression on architecture in the States. The estate is interpreted and managed to focus on Washington, in contrast to the management and interpretation of Monticello, which is as much concerned with design as it is with Jefferson. Put another way, I would resist over-interpreting the architecture, as Mount Vernon was not so much composed as assembled.
The official website has a great deal of specific information on the dates of construction of various parts of the house [7] (look under the Mansion section. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
"Put another way, I would resist over-interpreting the architecture, as Mount Vernon was not so much composed as assembled. The exact same point could be made about many historic buildings; Little Moreton Hall springs to mind, put together over the span of 100 years. Malleus Fatuorum 06:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The architectures is a problem: when I rewrote the page and tidied it up last month, the kindest way I could describe the architecture was 'a loose Palladian style' - which it is. The segmental colonnades linking two wings to the main block were an obvious attempt to give a Palladian air to what otherwise looked like a hotch-potch farmhouse - the large full-length porch/protico I would guess was a similar exercise to hide the asymmetrical façade behind it. I think the present architecture sections says about all it can without over-emphasising its poor quality or pretending it's something that it's not. The page now needs a moderate length interior section and then concentration on Washington's life at the estate.  Giano  09:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with both of you: Little Moreton Hall is a medieval equivalent, and "loose Palladian style" is a reasonable description that doesn't overdo it or try to over-tidy the patchwork. Washington's life at the estate, the plantation's development, the present interpretive emphasis, and perhaps a discussion of the estate's status as a shrine to Washington (which changed over time) are what should be emphasized, with some triage on peripheral details. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems we're all agreed then on what needs to be done? Malleus Fatuorum 12:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I think so. I'll see what I can find for decent sources. Mount Vernon's on the list of places to visit for Mrs. A and myself, and if you have any specific requests for photos, we'll get there some time this summer, I hope. Maybe River Farm too: we were there for a wedding a few years ago, but it was evening and I didn't get any useful pictures of the place. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I think Giano is spot on in the architecture description. Mount Vernon was still a very large home with 7,000 sq ft (650 m2) of living space, and especially so in the era it was built, but it is nothing compared to Blenheim, which is far more impressive than even the large plantations to the south of Mount Vernon such as Carter's Grove and Westover Plantation.--MONGO 15:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It would appear that one authoritative source for the mansion which details the major rooms of the home, at what time the house sections were completed and how, is by Dalzell, George Washington's Mount Vernon: At Home in Revolutionary America, which I see is already referenced once in the article. Google books allows a peak at the first chapter but thats all....but that does give an overview of the rooms. here is chapter one and the preface.
  • Joseph Mancas' George Washington's Eye: Landscape, Architecture, and Design at Mount Vernon, indicates that the house was built around the existing 1.5 storey home, that the original home was integrated into the current one...so I'm at a loss as to whether the existing home replaced the old one or the original home was merely twice expanded, doubled each time it was expanded....more info, scroll down to chapter two--MONGO 17:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone provide sources for the first two paragraphs of the George Washington (1732–1799) section? Malleus Fatuorum

Sure...working on it...after the article is well populated with refs, we can them get them formated to the same style. I tend to use the full ref in the text, but you probably have a better way of doing it...mine seems out of date.--MONGO 17:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
You lob 'em in and I'll sort 'em out. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Interior section

I have written a brief interior section, I think it's a about the right length, I'm not really that comfortable writing up interior decoration as its too easy to start sounding like a travel guide or glossy magazine. I've probably relied too heavily on the Mount Vernon site; however, I don't think I have violated any copyright. Some people may feel that every room, antique chair and table should be mentioned, but looking at the furniture, while its very nice and fine, it does not look all that super-special - every two bit stately home open to the public in Europe has something similar and we've more or less agreed to concentrate on the George Washington aspect rather than the 'stately home' side - so I have kept it very general, brief and light. If anyone for the GA wants to extend or alter it - that's fine with me too.  Giano  11:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that looks fine. The lack of significant art or furnishings means all that need be done is indicate what period the stuff is from. Section is sufficient as you have it.--MONGO 18:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Lawrence Washington

Looking all over, I cannot find references that back up most of the section on Lawrence Washington. The last two paragraphs in that section have been in the article for several years at least and have remained unchanged. My estimation is that they are peripheral to the focus of the article anyway and suggest the section be condensed signiificantly.--MONGO 16:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Best to get rid of the unreffed stuff then. It's hard to believe that such a place is not better documented; I would not expect to find much on it here, but in the USA? I though this was the most famous "home" in America.  Giano  13:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Dates

First built in 1735 by Augustine Washington for or on behalf of Lawrence Washington and named Little Hunting Creek. The name was changed to Mount Vernon by Lawrence Washington about sometime after Lawrence returned from the Caribbean...in honor of Admiral Edward Vernon.[8] It may have been named Mount Vernon sometime around 1743...[9]--MONGO 05:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the actual plantation

A plantation is much more than a "house" or "house and grounds". It's an operating farm with a lot of aspects of self-reliance and some size to it. Make sure the overall plantation is covered. Any field trip to a plantation gives one the feeling of visiting more than a house.

Need a good map (draw one) that shows the grounds and different things on them. If ness show how the boundaries changed over time and differentiate modern structures from historic. The old map of Washington's is not really viewable.

TCO (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  • That's a very good point, but I am afraid all improving work on this page has come to a sudden and rather unnecessary halt as the driving force, User: Eric Corbett, has been banned for a month - he called an idiot an idiot; but I'm sure your suggestion will be worked upon if he decides to return. Thanks.  Giano  21:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Tomb of Washington

There is something in the article I do not understand..it says that the original tomb is near the river and that the body was later moved to the current location...I have been there....the family crypt where George Washington was buried is located directly behind the house well above the Potomac...I suppose this is a minor point however Mt. Vernon is located on top of the hill [ Mt ] that runs along the river...it is a long walk and a steep descent to the water from there the point being the original grave was nowhere near the river. Also the tour guide told us that the reason George and Martha were laid outside the crypt where they remain to this day as in the photograph..was because when they built the tomb they measured it wrong and they couldn`t fit the coffins in the door. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a pretty good description which tallies with the Wikipedia article here [10] a rather authoritative source. I would take the wrong measurement story with a pinch of salt; it was not unusual at the time to demolish bricked up entrances to inter a coffin in a vault, so a too small door would have been no deterrent - anyhow, they managed to get the other coffins through the door. I have read somewhere (I will try to find it) that the sarcophagi were placed outside the vault because they would have discoloured and deteriorated in the dank interior vault, but I doubt that too. Such expensive tombs were not meant to be hidden away; it's most likely that they were placed there to allow people to pay a more visable homage/respect to Washington.  Giano  17:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The old tomb is on the cliff overlooking the river; to me that is "near the river" or "along the river", at least in relation to the rest of the grounds (and particularly relative to the newer tomb). I don't think the description is incorrect... I don't read it as implying the tomb is directly on the shore. But if someone wants to change to "overlooking" or similar to better imply it is up on the cliff, I wouldn't see a problem with that either. I will confirm the tour guides do use the story of the coffins not fitting in the door; unsure of the story's veracity though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I cannot believe that a tomb is designed for a national hero without bothering to check if he will fit into it before its finished, and even if that were likely they would just have enlarged the door or plonked him into a smaller coffin. One wonders sometimes from where these tour guides are hired.  Giano  08:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Copy of Mount Vernon in Paris, France

In 1931 the Sears Roebuck company was given a contract by the US Government to make a full scale kit-house replica of the main building at Mount Vernon for the Paris Colonial Exposition. The building still stands in Paris to this day. It might be worth a mention.

See: "The House that Sears Built--in Paris". Sears Homes of Chicagoland. September 28, 2012. Retrieved October 16, 2013.

Graham1973 (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Mount Vernon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mount Vernon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Slavery

Why is there only a brief mention or limited discussion of slavery in the article ? Washington freed over 160 of his slaves in his will in 1799. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

See George Washington and slavery, and Sarah Johnson (Mount Vernon).Jweaver28 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Vernon/Archive_1&oldid=1128924908"