Talk:Post-presidency of George Washington

Redundant article

Washington only lived two years after he finished his term of presidency, and other than taking sick and dying suddenly, not much happened, certainly not enough that warrants yet another article for Washington. This information is already covered in the Washington biography and would also work well in the Presidency of George Washington article. We are already asking the readers to hop around to numerous articles just to get a summary narrative on Washington. Now this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to tag this article. It has been done out of spite. This article was not even complete. Either remove the tag or delete the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not a redundant article. This article is being squashed before it can take off. That is against Wikipedia policy. And there is no cap on the number of articles for Washington or Wikipedia. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

There is enough information for this article: George Washington in Retirement By W. W. Abbot The Lowell Lecture Series, The Museum of Our National Heritage Lexington, Massachusetts, 5 December 1999 Readers will have a better understanding of Washington in is latter years. Two years and nine months is a signifigant amount of time. It is hard to believe Washington just did nothing. I would hope that this article would have time to develope. At least allow readers to see the article before giving it a tag. Gwillhickers, you might even enjoy editing it. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a snippet: "Washington did something else in the spring of 1799 that was as out of character as his earlier conniving with Adams’s cabinet and the barring from the new army men with Republican leanings. But this had quite different implications. In April and May he took a lead in the campaign in Virginia to elect Federalists to the new Congress. He persuaded Patrick Henry to run for the Senate. He encouraged Henry Lee to seek a seat in the House of Representatives. He wrote letters to, and got letters from, Federalist leaders in Virginia, including John Marshall, Bushrod Washington, John Tayloe, and David Stuart, about the political races around the state. They, and others, reported to him the results of the elections to Congress and to the state legislature. This was a radical departure for Washington." Abbott (December 5, 1999) Cmguy777 (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I had just started the lede section. The body of the article needs to be written. Why squash and article before it has been written ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I say we give it a few days, see where the article leads. The main page is long enough that a split can be warranted if this article becomes detailed enough. I've marked it as reviewed for now since it's in good shape - we can discuss the possibility of a merge after the article has been worked on a little longer. I think there is a lot of potential here. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Per my comment in edit history, if this article can achieve in depth coverage of Washington's retirement and final days, etc, this would be good, but presently I have reservations about using this article as an excuse to deplete the given section in the Washington biography that covers this important chapter in Washington's few final years. Good coverage of this chapter of Washington's life is important, and belongs in the Washington biography, foremost, regardless of coverage here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• Cm' you have seven days to get a DYK statement on the front page. Good luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

First. This article is independent of the George Washington article. It was to be used to move information from the Final days section of the Washington biography article. However, nothing needs to be transferred. It was not meant to be a mandatory transfer of information. Second. I believe this article can be "in depth" and should be. Third. I am not sure what a DYK statement is for the front page ? Is that part of the review ? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Something like this Did you know...during George Washington's post-presidency, he was appointed Lieutenant General by President John Adams in early July 1778. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like a good one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Semmendinger: — The article seems to be growing and approaching proportions where it will be an in depth account. In this event, merging with the Washington main article will be uncalled for. We already have a comprehensive summary of this important chapter in the main Washington biography. My reservations originally centered around moving (most of) this important chapter from that biography to here. Since we are close to nominating that article for FA, removing most of the content from this important chapter in Washington's life to this article would invoke FA criteria issues, as FA's are supposed to cover the topic in context, leaving out no major details, regardless of the existence of other articles like this one. The Washington article, like many other president's articles, is long, and rightfully so, as it covers his early life, pre Revolution years, the Revolutionary war and his two terms as president, not to mention his retirement, final days and legacy. At the George Washington main article, like we have with the Ulysses S. Grant article, most of us have agreed not to compromise on good writing and good coverage just to satisfy a page length number, keeping the readable prose under 100k. Of course the readers are our top priority. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with all that already. If you think I want to merge this page then perhaps my initial comment was unclear! By "review the possibility of a merge" that was directed to whoever put the "merge" template on the main article page. My thoughts was that this article would quickly turn into a solid stand-alone piece (which it has) and therefore a discussion to merge at a later date would be fallen through. I definitely did not mean to insinuate I wanted that merge to happen, I think this is a solid stand-alone topic. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Didn't mean to get long winded, but simply wanted to make clear the issues involved. Thanx for your time! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Refs

We seem to have a Cooke 2000 that's not listed in the bibliography. I'm thinking it meant to say 2002 and was mixed up with the other 2000 reference text - hopefully someone with access to this book can clear that up. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Article title change P to p

In the article title I had put Post-Presidency of George Washington. It needs to be changed to Post-presidency of George Washington. I am not quite sure how to change the title. The P in Presidency needs to be lower case p to match other post-presidency articles. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sudden illness and death section

The Sudden illness and death section could be expanded. A Medical Profile Of George Washington Rudolph Marx, M.d. August 1955 Volume 6 Issue 5 American Heritage This article goes into extensive detail. Washington's death was tortuous. Should this section be expanded ? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, by all means. This is a dedicated article for in depth coverage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a little bit sad and tragic too. The Founder of the Nation died suddenly of a streptococcus infection and by suffocation. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Same with Ulysses -- survived many battles, yet swept away by forces the mightiest of armies could not thwart. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Title change query error

The new title Post-presidency of George Washington has created a query error when finding out the viewership for the article. The old title Post-Presidency of George Washington is recognized by the query. Can this be fixed ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be working for Post-presidency of George Washington. Maybe it took a few days for the query to recognize the article name change. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Starting anew

The article is starting anew guided by Chernow 2010 biography, carely crafting words and avoiding direct sentence structures or words from sources. I would hope editors would allow the article to proceed. More thought and integrity are going into the prose. No pasting of texts. Just being bold. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I will let the first section settle a bit. I hope my edits receive the approvals of readers and other editors. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

More editor involvement request

It would help this article to have more editor involvment, input, or advise. I don't want this article to be a single editor article. Improving narration, context, and adding clarification would be helpful too. I am requesting more editor involvement for Post-presidency of George Washington article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Dream omen 1799

The dream omen myth 1799 was a myth or just made up. Moved information here.

"Sometime during the summer of 1799, Washington had a frightening dream, where he and his wife were sitting on their portico when an angel came down from heaven and whispered in Martha's ear. Immediately Martha turned pale, disappeared, and then Washington woke up. Afterward, Washington took this as an omen of his immediate death, and he took upon himself to make a new will, that would solve his dilemma over slavery once and for all." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Split portions

The scope of the article should be that portion of Washington's biography which begins after he leaves office and ends at his funeral, as per:

• George Washington#Retirement (1797–1799)
• Earlier discussions on Talk:Post-presidency of George Washington
• other articles and sections in {{US Presidents Post-presidencies}}.

The selection of structures currently enumerated in later sections of this article belong elsewhere. A bullet-point list at George Washington#Memorials with details in Legacy of George Washington and/or List of memorials to George Washington . jnestorius^(talk) 22:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that Washington's post-presidency ends with his death. His Library started in 2013 is a continuation of his post-presidency. This article does not focus on all of his memorials. This is more than a list article. This article gives a solid timeline of events that the reader probably just does not know. It would be detrimental to Washington's reputation just to make a list of memorials. This is a neutral article that presents major signifigant events after Washington's death. Then there is the Purple Heart. Soldiers who have died or injured are given the Purple Heart. Who started that legacy. George Washington. A lot of work has gone into this article and just to make it a list is insulting to the legacy of Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Almost three million people visit Mount Rushmore every year: Rushmore National Memorial. That is more than just a memorial on a list. Readers deserve to know the history of this monument. Washington is the lede president on the memorial. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• When the Washington Monument is open 800,000 people visit per year: Washington Monument Very signifigant. Washington's post-presidency did not end with his death. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• "The Washington Library, a 45,000 square-foot facility, holds Washington’s books and manuscripts, and many additional 18th-century books, as well as thousands of important 19th-century newspapers, manuscripts, and documents. It also serves as a scholarly retreat, creates educational outreach programs, and provides seminars and training programs with a special focus on Washington’s leadership." About the Library Washington's post-presidency is an active learning center at the Fred W. Smith National Library for the Study of George Washington. This deserves more than a mention on a list. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be difficult to merge the information in this article into the Legacy or List articles. I have tried to have only the most signifigant events after Washington's death. The 2013 Library showed that Washington's post-presidency continued into the 21-Century. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Two sections have been removed. I have added links to the Legacy and List articles at the top of the article. The Washington monument and Mount Rushmore, and the Washington presidential libary are important and signifigant to remain in the article. The reader has to know something went on between his death and the Presidentical library. I have focused on the most meaningful and by popularity. Another addition would be the Purple Heart, a badge that Washington invented. An estiated 1.8 million have recieved this award. The Purple Heart has Washington's portrait on the face. Also the reader should know it was not in use for 150 years. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Two sections removed compromise

I removed two sections for a compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

First monument 1827

Main article: Washington Monument State Park

Maryland's Washington Monument, in what is now inside the Washington Monument State Park, four miles (6.4 km) east of Boonsboro, was the first monument to be completed to honor George Washington, America's first President under the U.S. Constitution. The monument, a dry-laid stone tower, sits near the summit of South Mountain's Monument Knob, was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1972. The park is managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Town citizens began construction on the tower July 4, 1827, the tower stood at 15 feet (4.6 m) high on a base 54 feet (16 m) in circumference. Workmen later returned to complete the tower to a height of 30 feet (9.1 m).

Equestrian statue 1860

Main article: Lieutenant General George Washington (statue)

In 1853, Congress had commissioned the equestrian statue of Lieutenant General George Washington. It was created by artist Clark Mills, modeled and cast in bronze, at a cost of $50,000. The statue depicted Washington's victory at Princeton during the Revolutionary War. Mills wanted Washington to be seen personally leading his men, as he had done at Princeton, defeating the British forces. Mills believed that Washington leading his troops ensured the victory over the British. The statue depicts Washington at the battle scene, his horse is startled, while Washington looks sternly at his British foe. The statue was formally dedicated by President James Buchanan on February 20, 1860. The statue was placed at Washington Circle Park in Washington D.C. Mills' statue is said to be the most lifelike of Washington in existence. One year, one month, and twenty-three days later, after its dedication, the nation that Washington created, and feared could break up over slavery, plunged into a devastating Civil War, between the North and South, with Virginia, Washington's home state, joined to the Confederacy.

Comments

@Cmguy777: — sorry I didn't spot your responses until now.

• "I disagree with the premise that Washington's post-presidency ends with his death" — what in your opinion is the difference between "post-presidency" and a "legacy"? All the other links in Template:US Presidents Post-presidencies go either to a section of the biography article which end at the subject's death and burial, or else to an article in Category:Post-presidencies of Presidents of the United States, which is in categories Category:Later lives by individual and Category:Old age in the United States. The only one about a long-dead President is Post-presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, which ends with Grant's burial. The template excludes Abraham Lincoln etc who died in office, even though they have legacies. So it's not simply a "premise" that "post-presidency" ends with death, it's the Wikipedia convention observed with respect to all other Presidents.
• "It would be difficult to merge the information in this article into the Legacy or List articles" — that's not a reason to tack it on to the end of an essentially unrelated article. Maybe create a brand-new article Chronology of George Washington memorials if you see value in a WP:SUMMARY style annotated list of major monuments, as distinct from List of memorials to George Washington bare enumeration of all monuments
• "neutral article", "insulting to the legacy", "detrimental to Washington's reputation" — so it's a neutral article but removing it would be insulting? There are a huge number of articles in Category:George Washington; the three sections I object to are summaries of three of those, so removing them from here does not reduce the total information about Washington. Again, there is no article Post-presidency of Abraham Lincoln, not because Lincoln is unimportant but because he didn't have a post-presidency, having died in office.

jnestorius^(talk) 20:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Why then are there libraries dedicated to Presidents ? To honor their presidencies and to keep their presidencies active, not just thrown in the dustbins of history. How many Purple Hearts have been awarded ? Washington started the tradition. Mount Rushmore and the Washington monument continue Washington's presidency in the fact that they are testiment to Washington's popularity. In effect, those monuments are his post-Presidency. Not in depth as the main articles but not lost in the Legacy article. I believe there is room for inclusion in this article of monuments, Purple Heart, and legacy. Insulting for this article, only in the sense that the reader has no idea that Washington was honored by posterity other than a few links and the library. The reader deserves better. Also I think their is some editor disgression in what can be in the article. I have removed two sections. Post means after while legacy is his reputation. Post is a more general term. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

In fewer words, the neutrality of the article would be affected by ignoring Washington's legacy and/or monuments. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Post-presidency simply means after Washington's presidency. There is no time limit, nor is there any exclusion of monuments or legacy. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Lincoln had a post-Presidency. His body was trained around after his death used as Northern propoganda. There is the Lincoln Memorial and the Lincoln Penny. No there is not as much as other Presidents, no will, however, post simply means after. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation The Lincoln Presidential Library is part of Lincoln's post-presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

We may be in more agreement than disagreement. This article is neither a legacy nor memorial article, nor should it be. Maybe part of the article could be in a different format, but I believe the Washington Memorial, Mount Rushmore, Purple Heart, and Washington's presidential library should be mentioned in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I've requested a Wikipedia:Third opinion. jnestorius^(talk) 08:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi. I have never edited this article, nor am I an expert on the post presidency of George Washington. From what I have read, the edit dispute is on whether to include Washington monument,Mount Rushmore, and Fred W. Smith National Library for the Study of George Washington in this article. It is my expectation that an article about the post presidency of an individual would cover the period from their exiting office to their funeral and burial. Other information would be included in an article about the legacy of the individual. If I were looking for the information proposed to be added to this article, I would google "George Washington Legacy", or perhaps "George Washington memorials" but not "George Washington post presidency". There happens to be just such an article, Legacy_of_George_Washington, and a section Legacy_of_George_Washington#Monuments_and_memorials where the information could be placed. The Legacy article is less then 31KB, so there seems to be plenty of room to add these entries. I don't see why it would be difficult to merge the information in this article into the Legacy article. Certainly it seems to be just as easy as merging it into this one. There is a link to the legacy article from this page, so readers looking for such information can easily find it. -- Work permit (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Response: This article is far from complete. A background section needs to be added. The term "Post" means after. The article links above have already been added to this article. The Legacy article is a summary style article that briefly mentions the Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore. In fact it lists Mount Rushmore before the Washington Monument. There is no chronology timeline to that article. Adding all of this information would add seperate sections to the article ackwardly placed in without chronology. The whole Monuments and memorials section in the Legacy article would have to be redited. It is just a hodge podge of information. Aside from this. Why cover the funeral or his Washington D.C. memorial service ? Isn't the article continuing after his death ? The reader will be just left with a historical vacuum after Washington's death in 1799 and may falsely presume nothing happened after his death and he was forgotten by his country. He was somewhat after Jefferson was President. There is the issue of the Purple Heart. Is that a memorial to Washington, or a continuation of his military career and Presidency. I say the latter. The Washington Library needs to be mentioned. It is not a memorial. It is for studying Washington, keeping his Presidency active. In fact, that is why the legislation was enacted, to keep Presidents from the going into historical obscurity. I have a compromise. Why not add an "Aftermath" section ? The information on the two monuments can be reduced. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Two sections have been removed from the article. Information added to Legacy of George Washington article.

I made changes to article format and added an Aftermath section. Hope this works for now. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to say you have done a really splendid job on this article. It's well written, well structured, and a pleasure to read. The Legacy article is not nearly as well structured or written. I have no doubt if an editor as talented and dedicated as you put their mind to it, that Legacy article could be just as good. Of course, it's easy for me to opine because I don't have the time to actually do it :) -- Work permit (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Section not neutral

@Cmguy777: The newly created section Embattled reputation is not very neutral and runs at length about personal mishaps with individuals like Thomas Paine, Jefferson and Monroe, not about Washington's overall reputation. This section is contrasted by the Legacy section in the main (and other) article(s) and doesn't touch on the abundance of good points involving Washington's reputation. This needs to be remedied or the section might get tagged for lack of NPOV. The section is about Washington's reputation, not so much about his misunderstandings with a few selected individuals. e.g.Washington's Farewell Address was praised by much of the world, let alone by Americans, even to this day, yet the only thing said about the Address in the section was that it was "the loathings of a sick mind", an opinion of one disgruntled individual. Section is way out of balance, while the selected quotes pose serious due weight issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The section is adequately sourced by Ellis. The section is not about Washington's overall reputation. It says embattled. It is not agreeing with negative views of Washington. I agree that Thomas Paine's opinon is not neutral. But it shows that Washington's reputation started to be embattled by Republicans or anti-Federalists in his second term. The negativity festered into Washington's post-presidency. Jefferson and Washington were no longer friends or on speaking terms. Peter Carr, James Monroe, and Thomas Paine were instrumental in their attacks on Washington's reputation. Carr went so far as fraud and deception. This article is not complete. The Aftermath can cover Washington's positive information. This embattlement had the ramification of postponing Washington's memorial, not completed until 1885. The main point of this section is to show his reputation by Republicans or anti-federalists was embattled. The section is not complete. Washington does respond. I was going to put that in the article next. Before putting any neutrality tag please let me complete the section. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I changed the title added and deleted information to make the section more neutral. The section is not meant to be an assessment of Washington's reputation by historians. Paine and Monroe and the Republican press were critical of Washington. Monroe's attack particulary affected or offended Washington. It is not pretty and not meant to be. It was a continued feud between Federalists and Republicans, that Washington was inadvertantly drawn into. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with covering disagreements, controversies, resentments, and such between Washington, and whomever, but the section did include the idea of 'Reputation', and covering just the negative ideas, even going so far as to make the section title one sided, per 'embattled', made for a one sided assessment on that account. Now that you've renamed the section and are covering feuds and such this is not so much a problem -- to a point. Does the article commit just as much coverage of Washington's favorable associations in his post-presidential life? Seems to me there were many more of those than ones which were unfavorable. In any case, the section looks better, and written well, as it is, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I was going by what Ellis (2004) said. Ellis said Monroe called Washington a traitor. That is why I titled Embattled reputation. The affects of this feud did not help Washington's reputation. Caustic bickering over France vs England. A somewhat sad chapter in American history. I am all for putting in positive information on Washington's reputation in the Aftermath section. This article is far from complete. I don't want to feel like I am the only editor in this article. I have tried to find a historical summary of Washington's presidential reputation. Neither Cooke (2002) nor Ellis (2004) do so. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

There's always Chernow and Ferling. Chances are Monroe shot himself in the foot in terms of his own reputation by calling Washington, of all people, a traitor. I believe throughout history people at the top have always had to deal with various individuals trying to take them down a notch or two. Monroe, while ambassador in France, was outraged over the Jay Treaty. Washington recalled him because Monroe was now a disruptive influence in France. Livingston cautioned Monroe over his harsh words towards Washington. Washington later wrote, also, that Monroe was just putting on airs for the French by going through the motions of criticizing him over the Jay Treaty, which of course pleased the French at this time. i.e.Diplomacy in one of its many forms? Monroe's remarks were no doubt over being recalled, not so much over the Jay Treaty. Who can say for sure? Anyways, there's nothing wrong with being the only editor for a while, so long as one is doing a good job. Good luck with the coverage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I was going by Ellis 2004 on Monroe calling Washington a traitor. Monroe authored a lengthly book-pamphlet. I think the main contention was the Jay Treaty, somehow insinuated that Washington betrayed France over England, or that Washington failed to recognized the U.S. citizenship of Thomas Paine. Paine was arrested in France for being born in England. The Republicans dominated from Jefferson to Monroe a total of 24 years. There was no Washington memorial built. I added information to the Aftermath section. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• A View of the Conduct of the Executive, in the Foreign Affairs of the United States: Connected with the Mission to the French Republic, During the Years 1794, 5, and 6 James Monroe Cmguy777 (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)