George Washington: A Descendant of Odin?(publicdomainreview.org)
publicdomainreview.org
George Washington: A Descendant of Odin?
http://publicdomainreview.org/2017/02/08/george-washington-a-descendant-of-odin/
66 comments
TIL that George Washington had the phrase "the ends justify the means" painted on his carriage. That's an honest if unsettling bumper sticker for a President.
"Those who act virtuously in every way, will certainly come to grief by those less virtuous." - Machiavelli.
Anyone reading Washington's May 31st 1776 letter to his brother, John Augustine Washington ( https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-04-02-... ) will note similarities if not references to Machiavelli in the 2nd paragraph as GW describes Britain ("...She is capable of the most delusive Arts...") and as he describes the weakness of certain members of Congress ("... feeding themselves upon the dainty food of reconciliation...")
So, although Machiavelli never said, "The ends justify the means" or "exitus acta probat", its not surprising that Washington - an avid reader and student of political/military thinking - would arrive at the same conclusion as Machiavelli; namely that acting out of necessity is a virtue, when the alternative is the loss of human rights or a return to what Hobbes described as the "State of Nature".
He felt Congress was kidding itself about alternatives to independence, and GW had the difficult task of motivating an entire army to stay the course.
Anyone reading Washington's May 31st 1776 letter to his brother, John Augustine Washington ( https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-04-02-... ) will note similarities if not references to Machiavelli in the 2nd paragraph as GW describes Britain ("...She is capable of the most delusive Arts...") and as he describes the weakness of certain members of Congress ("... feeding themselves upon the dainty food of reconciliation...")
So, although Machiavelli never said, "The ends justify the means" or "exitus acta probat", its not surprising that Washington - an avid reader and student of political/military thinking - would arrive at the same conclusion as Machiavelli; namely that acting out of necessity is a virtue, when the alternative is the loss of human rights or a return to what Hobbes described as the "State of Nature".
He felt Congress was kidding itself about alternatives to independence, and GW had the difficult task of motivating an entire army to stay the course.
https://www.americanheraldry.org/heraldry-in-the-usa/arms-of...
I don't think he was alluding to Machiavelli.
I don't think he was alluding to Machiavelli.
There's no evidence he read Machiavelli. His library of about 1200 titles has no Machiavelli. But, it would be tough to escape the concepts by association. Hamilton for example did read Machiavelli.
Sure but this is a motto on the coat of arms. Fond as he was of the arms, making too much of the motto seems like wishful over-interpretation, to me.
'Washington, realpolitik-y pragmatist' is a perfectly sensible argument to make, I just don't think some verbiage on his carriage had much to do with it, one way or the other.
'Washington, realpolitik-y pragmatist' is a perfectly sensible argument to make, I just don't think some verbiage on his carriage had much to do with it, one way or the other.
Imagine, "The ends justify the means", emblazoned on Air Force One now, or on Lincoln's Carriage during the Civil War, or in the 2016 Presidential election for that matter. Its rare realpolitik is openly acknowledged and endorsed in the United States. Its pretty significant.
I'm not really seeing it. It's a motto on an old coat of arms. This is like saying 'imagine some random immaterial thing in 1775 being really important in 1861 or 2016'. I can imagine it but assigning some profound meaning or significance to it seems like a bit of a retcon.
He instigated a revolution and led thousands of men to their gruesome deaths.
If that's not "ends > means", I don't know what is.
If that's not "ends > means", I don't know what is.
He was the top military leader and first president but he didn't 'instigate' the war of American independence.
> he didn't 'instigate' the war of American independence
No, of course not, that was King George III :)
George Washington played a large role though.
> In May 1769, Washington introduced a proposal, drafted by his friend George Mason, calling for Virginia to boycott British goods until the Acts were repealed.
> Washington regarded the passage of the Intolerable Acts in 1774 as "an Invasion of our Rights and Privileges".
> As tensions rose in 1774, he assisted in the training of county militias in Virginia and organized enforcement of the boycott of British goods instituted by the Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_in_the_Ameri...
No, of course not, that was King George III :)
George Washington played a large role though.
> In May 1769, Washington introduced a proposal, drafted by his friend George Mason, calling for Virginia to boycott British goods until the Acts were repealed.
> Washington regarded the passage of the Intolerable Acts in 1774 as "an Invasion of our Rights and Privileges".
> As tensions rose in 1774, he assisted in the training of county militias in Virginia and organized enforcement of the boycott of British goods instituted by the Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_in_the_Ameri...
Right, Washington was upset about what he felt was British overreach. He 'regarded' things, as you quote. But he was no instigator or radical. Those were elsewhere, I don't think it's sensible to say 'Washington played a large role'. He played almost no role in that.
That was the motto on the Washington family coat of arms before he was born. It's a quote from Ovid.
Letting South Carolina join the Constituion under the condition of enshrining slavery into it would be an example of the ends justify the means.
The conjoined colonies wouldn't have had any strategic advantage in their plans against Britain, without the South Carolina colony.
There were probably plenty of other less timeless decisions he had to make.
The conjoined colonies wouldn't have had any strategic advantage in their plans against Britain, without the South Carolina colony.
There were probably plenty of other less timeless decisions he had to make.
I've always found it odd that some people don't consider tough decisions like those admirable. To me, the point is George Washington was able to make tough decisions---which unarguably harmed many people---in order that the nation succeed in the future.
I think reasoning along the lines of "this decision negatively affects X group in an immediately unjust way, therefore it shouldn't be done" is naïve and conceited. People who use this type of reasoning are either knowingly playing the "I'm more moral than you" card and incidentally causing a net worse situation in the future, or they are just naïve and don't understand that local immorality can lead to net positives in the future.
I think reasoning along the lines of "this decision negatively affects X group in an immediately unjust way, therefore it shouldn't be done" is naïve and conceited. People who use this type of reasoning are either knowingly playing the "I'm more moral than you" card and incidentally causing a net worse situation in the future, or they are just naïve and don't understand that local immorality can lead to net positives in the future.
Or they've seen too many times when "it's for the greater good" is used to justify something that turns out to be more evil than the good that comes from it.
I'm not arguing that hard decisions aren't necessary. I'm saying that aren't as necessary as sometimes claimed, and should be viewed with some skepticism.
I'm not arguing that hard decisions aren't necessary. I'm saying that aren't as necessary as sometimes claimed, and should be viewed with some skepticism.
What's the hardest decision you've ever made?
Presumably, the decision whether to set up a new cryptic-hexadecimal greenbean account in order to ask a silly question on HN...
I don't think the ends of splitting from Britain in any way justified the decision of allowing slavery to occur.
It wasn't an a or b proposition, and the notion that it was is revisionist bunk.
Slavery was more important to the southern economy, but slavery existed in New York as fully legal until phaseout began in 1799. It wasn't eliminated until the 1820s.
Monied interests in most states/colonies would have have permitted the loss of their property without compensation.
Slavery was more important to the southern economy, but slavery existed in New York as fully legal until phaseout began in 1799. It wasn't eliminated until the 1820s.
Monied interests in most states/colonies would have have permitted the loss of their property without compensation.
Slavery was already occurring, so NOT splitting from Britain was ALSO a decision to allow it to occur.
Many wanted the split from Britain to cause slavery to end. Nobody was proposing that it begin. Southern colonies insisted that they were going to continue slavery. If the north agreed to leave slavery unchanged, they would go along with the split, allowing other changes, and they would keep slavery. If not, they would not cooperate, there would be no split, no other changes, and they would keep slavery. Either way, slavery would remain unchanged.
The decision to leave slavery unchanged did not "allow slavery to occur".
Many wanted the split from Britain to cause slavery to end. Nobody was proposing that it begin. Southern colonies insisted that they were going to continue slavery. If the north agreed to leave slavery unchanged, they would go along with the split, allowing other changes, and they would keep slavery. If not, they would not cooperate, there would be no split, no other changes, and they would keep slavery. Either way, slavery would remain unchanged.
The decision to leave slavery unchanged did not "allow slavery to occur".
> the decision of allowing slavery to occur
There was no such decision to be made (or at least no such decision on the table).
The decision was whether to have slavery-permitting states in the US, or slavery-permitting states outside the US.
There was no such decision to be made (or at least no such decision on the table).
The decision was whether to have slavery-permitting states in the US, or slavery-permitting states outside the US.
I don't either, he saw the writing on the wall of how those people rationalized their practice of dehumanizing individuals with religion and abstractions and the enterprisers that would take advantage of it
I don't know if it's properly historically true but I've seen several explanations claim it's intended as a statement of support for the Revolutionary war, something along the lines of the "just" outcome making the means ("war/rebellion") acceptable. IE I guess it's supposed to imply that "fit/just" ends make their means more so than just any end.
I'm no scholar of Ovid, but even in your interpretation, the actions under consideration aren't seen as particularly defensible in and of themselves. Rather, they're acceptable when viewed from a certain perspective. Probably most actions are like that, but the pride evinced in this dictum should be reserved for actions that are self-evidently ethical, rather than relatively so.
That interpretation is a classical definition of virtue and I would argue very consistent from Washington throughout history to Plato.
washington, washington, six foot twenty fucking killing for fun.
In case someone wonders where this is from -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7iVsdRbhnc
That has always been the case in geopolitics.
This is true, although you can tell a lot about someone's character by whether they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to take the low road, vs. going straight to it and being proud of themselves for doing so.
No idea which bucket Washington fell into though, just a tangential observation.
No idea which bucket Washington fell into though, just a tangential observation.
Obvious, however, for a militant revolutionary.
There is a lot you didn't know about Washington:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA
[deleted]
Odin? That rings a bell. Aha -- here it is, an essay defending the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles as a genealogical record compatible with the Genesis table of nations. It rang a bell because Odin is one of the persons in the tree.
http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch6.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch6.html
This reminds me of the one the myth that French are descendants of the Trojans [1][2][3]. That one has more credibility since in both instances French and Trojans got defeated and beat a retreat :)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francus
[2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9gende_de_l%27origine_tr... (more details but in French)
[3] http://atlantide.univ-nantes.fr/IMG/pdf/macmaster.pdf
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francus
[2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9gende_de_l%27origine_tr... (more details but in French)
[3] http://atlantide.univ-nantes.fr/IMG/pdf/macmaster.pdf
I was hoping some DNA analysis would show up in the article to show a provable family tree.
Provable is rather the key bit - like Washington, I too am apparently a descendent of Odin, through several branches of my once-aristocratic family.
I put no stead whatsoever in it, as it both assumes no bastardy or affairs, and that legendary genealogies are factual.
That said, it is fun to watch "Vikings" and go "he's my 37th great grandfather".
In fact, going by my DNA I have a sizeable chunk of west African in me - which appears nowhere in the family tree.
I put no stead whatsoever in it, as it both assumes no bastardy or affairs, and that legendary genealogies are factual.
That said, it is fun to watch "Vikings" and go "he's my 37th great grandfather".
In fact, going by my DNA I have a sizeable chunk of west African in me - which appears nowhere in the family tree.
This sort of thing was really popular in that period, and went along (and peaked) with romantic nationalism.
Probably Homo Sapiens, I gather.
This is similar to the Almighty Johnsons storyline.
[deleted]
Great. I cannot wait for nick cage in the thor-national treasure crossover.
I lived in new england for a while and this mythmaking culture around the founding fathers gets old very quickly. The US just isnt old enough to have mythical kings and gods. That went away when the US broke from the uk. These new myths are rather weak alongside those of europe or asia.
I lived in new england for a while and this mythmaking culture around the founding fathers gets old very quickly. The US just isnt old enough to have mythical kings and gods. That went away when the US broke from the uk. These new myths are rather weak alongside those of europe or asia.
> The US just isnt old enough to have mythical kings and gods.
Mostly because US-tradition has killed the concept of nobility.
US-based folklore and myth is on stuff like John Henry (wielded two sledgehammers to beat out a rail-engine at building railroads).
Modern-US folklore is about beings like "Spiderman" or "Batman". Mythical beings who roam the streets to try and make the world a better place.
I find it fascinating that the heroes of modern myth and legend are relatively small scale. US heroes / legends need to be about the people. Spiderman is always saving that old-lady who's crossing the street. Even Superman is mostly concerned about keeping "Metropolis" working. Batman may be rich, but he's a celebrated hero because he's otherwise an unexceptional person (compared to Superman or Wonder Woman anyway).
The US-based myths and legends are about the "every-day man". Its more about "you too can be a hero" sort of thing, as opposed to a literal being chosen by the gods to save and/or conquer the world (god-kings like Gilgamesh or even King Author: charged by the Christian god to find the Holy Grail... Jesus's cup from the Last Supper)
That sort of thing doesn't fly in the US. If you are an "ascended being" of some sort, you have to have humble beginnings as an every-day man (ex: Clark Kent was born and raised on a Farm... originally without any powers and therefore understands the issues facing normal men).
Indeed, the ascended god-king trope is almost a villain trope in US culture.
Mostly because US-tradition has killed the concept of nobility.
US-based folklore and myth is on stuff like John Henry (wielded two sledgehammers to beat out a rail-engine at building railroads).
Modern-US folklore is about beings like "Spiderman" or "Batman". Mythical beings who roam the streets to try and make the world a better place.
I find it fascinating that the heroes of modern myth and legend are relatively small scale. US heroes / legends need to be about the people. Spiderman is always saving that old-lady who's crossing the street. Even Superman is mostly concerned about keeping "Metropolis" working. Batman may be rich, but he's a celebrated hero because he's otherwise an unexceptional person (compared to Superman or Wonder Woman anyway).
The US-based myths and legends are about the "every-day man". Its more about "you too can be a hero" sort of thing, as opposed to a literal being chosen by the gods to save and/or conquer the world (god-kings like Gilgamesh or even King Author: charged by the Christian god to find the Holy Grail... Jesus's cup from the Last Supper)
That sort of thing doesn't fly in the US. If you are an "ascended being" of some sort, you have to have humble beginnings as an every-day man (ex: Clark Kent was born and raised on a Farm... originally without any powers and therefore understands the issues facing normal men).
Indeed, the ascended god-king trope is almost a villain trope in US culture.
But America does build temples dedicated to past presidents. These hold relics. The faithful go on pilgrimage to be near these relics. Ive seen people pray at these temples, but i assume for the dead president rather than at or to them. Nobody has yet suggested to me that they are literal saints. Important aspects of political life use these temples as backdrop, to imply that the dead president approves of the procedings. This is rather unique in the western world. The line between secular museum and religious temple blurs.
I dont think anyone prays at the batman museum.
I dont think anyone prays at the batman museum.
This isn't even limited to particular president-saints. I was amazed to see the presidential debate last year held in front of a larger-then-life backdrop of the US constitution. It felt like watching a cross-over between a pious ritual, and 'Better Call Saul's' sleazy law office on Breaking Bad.
We might as well just erect anthropomorphic statues of Truth, Liberty, Justice, and Columbia. Put 'em in a Charlie's Angels posed silhouette, and have a huge bald eagle flying over the lot.
It would be way better as a backdrop than an unsexy, non-badass old parchment.
And keep Ashcroft away from Justice's wardrobe.
It would be way better as a backdrop than an unsexy, non-badass old parchment.
And keep Ashcroft away from Justice's wardrobe.
But superheros are touched by the gods: they are blessed or cursed with magical powers, and then we read about their adventures. That's what makes them super. Their stories are human stories filtered through literally superhuman powers, in almost exactly the way that the myths of the old gods were. Some superheroes are the old gods!
It's also interesting to look at the stories about ordinary humans (although calling Bruce Wayne, a ludicrously wealthy and powerful financier even before he became super, 'ordinary' is a bit of a stretch): not so much today, I'll concede, but back in the 70s and 80s, US soap operas were things like Dynasty or Dallas, and were firmly set in the US nobility, i.e. the financial ruling class.
Meanwhile, back in the UK, a country where we still have a reigning monarch who is the head of the official state church, soap operas were things like Coronation Street and The Archers, about working class people doing frankly boring things...
It's also interesting to look at the stories about ordinary humans (although calling Bruce Wayne, a ludicrously wealthy and powerful financier even before he became super, 'ordinary' is a bit of a stretch): not so much today, I'll concede, but back in the 70s and 80s, US soap operas were things like Dynasty or Dallas, and were firmly set in the US nobility, i.e. the financial ruling class.
Meanwhile, back in the UK, a country where we still have a reigning monarch who is the head of the official state church, soap operas were things like Coronation Street and The Archers, about working class people doing frankly boring things...
> But superheros are touched by the gods: they are blessed or cursed with magical powers, and then we read about their adventures. That's what makes them super. Their stories are human stories filtered through literally superhuman powers, in almost exactly the way that the myths of the old gods were. Some superheroes are the old gods!
There's a gross difference between Gilgamesh (2/3rds god, 1/3rd man from his mother) and Superman.
Gilgamesh was a god-king who set of on adventure. He took what was his (aka: everything) and came back as a king.
In contrast, Superman was born into an adopted farm family and lived ~15 years without any superpowers. He's never seeked political power (and often when he does, its to his detriment. Like the time he got rid of all the nukes through the UN and then Doomsday attacked)
Even Bruce Wayne had to go through the period as a "normal joe" through the recent 'Dark Knight' movies. He gives up on his wealth and becomes a ninja... essentially. When he comes back to wealth-and-power, he's in better control over his own emotions and his fortune.
Green Lanterns are literally just normal dudes. Hal Jordan and John Stewart get rings from space aliens... but their connection to Earth and "normal people" is what make them exceptional Green Lanterns.
All of the popular American Superheroes are basically competing with each other to be more of the "average joe" than each other. Capt. America, Spiderman. Even Thor loses his powers and is forced to wander the Earth until he learns humility (aka: from being a normal person)
The only popular character I can think of as "Greek-god classic" is basically Wonder Woman. Everyone else is relatively unpopular (Aquaman, Nemor, Martian Manslayer) or even an underclass! (Mutants may have superpowers, but they are treated as a "lesser class" of people in virtually every X-men storyline).
Only in America would superheroes would the "underclass" get blessed with superpowers. Just saying.
Iron Man and Wonder Woman are the only exceptions I can think of. Iron Man is basically a counterbalance to the rest of the market however... being the rich asshole.
There's a gross difference between Gilgamesh (2/3rds god, 1/3rd man from his mother) and Superman.
Gilgamesh was a god-king who set of on adventure. He took what was his (aka: everything) and came back as a king.
In contrast, Superman was born into an adopted farm family and lived ~15 years without any superpowers. He's never seeked political power (and often when he does, its to his detriment. Like the time he got rid of all the nukes through the UN and then Doomsday attacked)
Even Bruce Wayne had to go through the period as a "normal joe" through the recent 'Dark Knight' movies. He gives up on his wealth and becomes a ninja... essentially. When he comes back to wealth-and-power, he's in better control over his own emotions and his fortune.
Green Lanterns are literally just normal dudes. Hal Jordan and John Stewart get rings from space aliens... but their connection to Earth and "normal people" is what make them exceptional Green Lanterns.
All of the popular American Superheroes are basically competing with each other to be more of the "average joe" than each other. Capt. America, Spiderman. Even Thor loses his powers and is forced to wander the Earth until he learns humility (aka: from being a normal person)
The only popular character I can think of as "Greek-god classic" is basically Wonder Woman. Everyone else is relatively unpopular (Aquaman, Nemor, Martian Manslayer) or even an underclass! (Mutants may have superpowers, but they are treated as a "lesser class" of people in virtually every X-men storyline).
Only in America would superheroes would the "underclass" get blessed with superpowers. Just saying.
Iron Man and Wonder Woman are the only exceptions I can think of. Iron Man is basically a counterbalance to the rest of the market however... being the rich asshole.
George Washington is still somewhat legendary, though, considering the cherry tree fable and the crossing of the Delaware.
But to get to mythical status he needs mystery. We know too much about the men. There is just too much written down about these guys for thor-like myths to develop. Napolion had "the king's touch" ... probably the last supernational power attributed to a leader of a western nation.
People were attributing miracles to the Pope as recently as 2015. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/pope.francis.shows.his...
Though I'll admit the Papacy is something of a special case as far as Western Leaders go.
Though I'll admit the Papacy is something of a special case as far as Western Leaders go.
“Of all the great national heroes and statesmen of history, Lincoln is the only real giant. Alexander, Frederick the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, Gladstone and even Washington stand in greatness of character, in depth of feeling and in a certain moral power far behind Lincoln. Lincoln was a man of whom a nation has a right to be proud; he was a Christ in miniature, a saint of humanity, whose name will live thousands of years in the legends of future generations. We are still too near to his greatness, and so can hardly appreciate his divine power; but after a few centuries more our posterity will find him considerably bigger than we do. His genius is still too strong and too powerful for the common understanding, just as the sun is too hot when its light beams directly on us.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.loa.org/images...
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.loa.org/images...
Yes, if I had to mythologize someone from US history, it would absolutely be Lincoln. The re-integration of the South after the war probably would have gone dramatically differently had he not been assassinated, and who knows what long-term impact that might've had.
Heck, we might still be a liberal democracy.
Heck, we might still be a liberal democracy.
Tragically, Lincoln made a liberal democracy out of a democratic republic. More tragically, Washington made a democratic republic out of a constitutional monarchy.
Yup, poor America. Imagine what could have been, if only they remained under a king.
Well, slavery would have ended 40 years earlier, among other things.
Not at all.
Slavery ended in the British Empire once Jamaica and Bardados became unimportant: trade competition with America, Industrial Revolution.
Slavery in America ended when economics of forced labor declined (but hastened 20 years by a civil war).
Slavery ended in the British Empire once Jamaica and Bardados became unimportant: trade competition with America, Industrial Revolution.
Slavery in America ended when economics of forced labor declined (but hastened 20 years by a civil war).
Yyyyeah... that's sweeping an awful lot of dirt under the rug.
No president [of the US] has ever been a saint, and no wartime president has even been righteous. The civil beatification is almost certainly some combination of propaganda and the pride we feel when our team's captain scores the winning point in the big game. Whenever one is assassinated for political reasons, the record is whitewashed, so as to paint the murderous opposition in a worse light.
Lincoln may have been personally against slavery, but he was not an abolitionist--strictly enforcing the fugitive slave act before the war. He was also segregationist--endorsing the deportation of all black people from the US. He may have freed [some of] the slaves, but many of those freed slaves had already been de-emancipated months earlier by Lincoln, when he reversed Gen. Hunter's emancipation order. Emancipation was, to him, strictly a military maneuver, to disadvantage the enemy. Slavery was not truly abolished until the 13th Amendment was ratified, a move first advanced by Rep. Ashley of Ohio. He may have been a skilled debater and orator, but he also raided and silenced newspapers. He may be a symbol of freedom now, but he also suspended habeas corpus, arrested the entire Maryland legislature, and forcibly deported a particularly annoying member of the legislature, the leader of the Copperheads, to the CSA.
But he also has an impressive-looking temple on the DC mall, so all that is forgiven and forgotten.
No president [of the US] has ever been a saint, and no wartime president has even been righteous. The civil beatification is almost certainly some combination of propaganda and the pride we feel when our team's captain scores the winning point in the big game. Whenever one is assassinated for political reasons, the record is whitewashed, so as to paint the murderous opposition in a worse light.
Lincoln may have been personally against slavery, but he was not an abolitionist--strictly enforcing the fugitive slave act before the war. He was also segregationist--endorsing the deportation of all black people from the US. He may have freed [some of] the slaves, but many of those freed slaves had already been de-emancipated months earlier by Lincoln, when he reversed Gen. Hunter's emancipation order. Emancipation was, to him, strictly a military maneuver, to disadvantage the enemy. Slavery was not truly abolished until the 13th Amendment was ratified, a move first advanced by Rep. Ashley of Ohio. He may have been a skilled debater and orator, but he also raided and silenced newspapers. He may be a symbol of freedom now, but he also suspended habeas corpus, arrested the entire Maryland legislature, and forcibly deported a particularly annoying member of the legislature, the leader of the Copperheads, to the CSA.
But he also has an impressive-looking temple on the DC mall, so all that is forgiven and forgotten.
You say that he opposed slavery personally, and it was eliminated in America during his term. What more can you possibly want from one man?
The article I linked was written by a Russian who never set foot in America.
That also could have been written by any 8th-grade child in America, though they would probably demonstrate less mastery of English in their essays.
Nobody--I repeat: nobody--ever taught us kids anything negative about Lincoln.
Nobody--I repeat: nobody--ever taught us kids anything negative about Lincoln.
That's kind of interesting. Is there a branch of the humanities that tries to predict which cultural icons will become mythologized over time? I fear 500 years from know people will start wars over ancient Chuck Norris memes.
It's more than that. Early American presidents, particularly Washington specifically and emphatically rejected attribution of divine or otherwise mysterious powers.
I know a bunch of people in Utah who would disagree with you.