The Ghost Of George Washington

Big P

Well-Known Member
Ghost Of George Washington


On a number of occasions, the ghost of George Washington is seen galloping across the battlefields of Gettysburg. Residents in the area say that his ghostly figure often appears on hot summer nights riding a beautiful white horse.

Perhaps the most well known sighting of the former first President was during the Civil War. A large number of Union soldiers were attempting to hold back the Confederates from taking over a strategic area when Washington materialized before them on a white horse. Dressed in uniform from the period of the American Revolution, Washington shouted "Fix bayonets! Charge!" The Union soldiers did just that and were able to achieve a full retreat from the Confederates.

Source: The Travel Channel





DC: SOME LOCATIONS IN EXCESS OF 30 INCHES;
BIGGEST STORM OF RECORD
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
That's odd since as a Virginian, Washington probably would have been a confederate sympathizer.
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
That's odd since as a Virginian, Washington probably would have been a confederate sympathizer.
What?!? Not a chance. He, like Lincoln, was ultimately for the preservation of a more perfect union. A statesman, through and through.


"The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon."

"I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery."

"If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War."

George Washington
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
Lincoln offered Robert E. Lee command of the union army. He declined because he could not bring himself to lead troops against Virginia. Had it been suggested to Washington in his day, that the federal government invade the south in order to force the southern states to emancipate slaves, I guarantee you he would have been on the other side, probably leading the southern army.

The union and the constitution "were" of great importance to Washington. And he would have been horrified by a federal government attempting to impose its will on states with force.
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
Lincoln offered Robert E. Lee command of the union army. He declined because he could not bring himself to lead troops against Virginia. Had it been suggested to Washington in his day, that the federal government invade the south in order to force the southern states to emancipate slaves, I guarantee you he would have been on the other side, probably leading the southern army.

The union and the constitution "were" of great importance to Washington. And he would have been horrified by a federal government attempting to impose its will on states with force.
Your history is all twisted homie...

The southern states seceded...that was unconstitutional, according to the Constitution. If you think it was a Constitutional action, prove it. Otherwise, you're wrong about Washington. Lincoln and Washington were peas in a pod. And Lincoln was right. Washington would have been on the side of right. :eyesmoke:
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member


Article IV

Section 3.

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.




The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
 

IAm5toned

Well-Known Member
i think that washington would have went the way of lincoln, and took the high road, just as he did with the whiskey rebellion. i dont believe he would have sacrificed the endeavours of his entire adult life, especially after valley forge and the first few years of the revolution following the retreat from the north, because some of the states couldnt support there economies without slavery. i just dont see it happening.

its definitly an interesting thought though, because washington, like many of the 'founding fathers' from the southern colonies were landholders with significant slave holdings so in a business sense many of them supported slavery and spent a great amount of money investing in it, but publically opposed or even denounced it. washington, jefferson, patrick henry, james monroe, richard henry lee and many others were known to keep slaves and treat them harshly at times. but in the public eye, things change. history tells us that-
...the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories. It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:

“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
-George Washington
history is full of contradictions... lol because almost a decade previously, the same general washington-

In 1784, five years before he became president of the United States, George Washington, 52, was nearly toothless. So he hired a dentist to transplant nine teeth into his jaw--having extracted them from the mouths of his slaves.
makes you wonder why his mouth is shut in all the paintings ;)

ps/edit-

on an interesting note, washington, one helluva horseman, was known to have kept two mounts during the period during the revolutionary war, named nelson and blueskin. neither were white.... lol his favorite horse, magnolia, was a chestnut arabian
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
Your history is all twisted homie...

The southern states succeeded...that was illegal, according to the Constitution. If you think it was a legal action, prove it. Otherwise, your wrong about Washington. Lincoln and Washington were peas in a pod. And Lincoln was right. Washington would have been on the side of right. :eyesmoke:
It was also an illegal action when we "seceded" (not succeeded) from Britain. You have to have your head up your ass to believe George Washington would have taken up arms against Virginia.
 

IAm5toned

Well-Known Member
he had no problems taking up arms and marching with 13,000 troops against western pennsylvania....
when counties in the area rejected a proposed tax on income dirived from the sale of whiskey, they voted to secede from the newly established union and start there own form of government.
i think the difference between lincoln and washington is that lincoln would have went in with guns blazing (as he did) and washington would be more prone to use force as a last resort. however i beleive washington would have acted in the best interests of the fed, even if it meant opposing his own state politically.
Whiskey Rebellion

The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 is regarded as one of the first tests of federal authority in United States history and of the young nation's commitment to the constitutional rule of law.
In 1790, the new national government of the United States was attempting to establish itself. Because the government had assumed the debts incurred by the colonies during the Revolution the government was deep in debt. During the 1791 winter session of Congress both houses approved a bill that put an excise tax on all distilled spirits. United States Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed the bill to help prevent the national debt from growing. Loud protests from all districts of the new nation soon followed. These protests were loudest in the western counties of Pennsylvania.
Acceptance of the excise tax varied with the scale of the production; large producers, who produced alcohol as a business venture, were more willing to accept the new tax. They could make an annual tax payment of six cents per gallon. A smaller producer, who only made whiskey occasionally, had to make payments throughout the year at a rate of about nine cents per gallon. Large producers could reduce the cost of the excise tax if they produced even larger quantities. Thus, the new tax gave the large producers a competitive advantage over small producers.
The smaller producers, who were generally in the western counties, had a very different perspective of the tax. To them the tax was abhorrent. The frontier farmers detested the excise because it was only payable in cash, something rare on the western frontier. Due to the great effort required to transport any product over the mountains back to the markets of the East, farmers felt it made much more sense to transport the distilled spirits of their grain rather than the raw grain itself.
The Whiskey Rebellion took place throughout the western frontier. There was not one state south of New York whose western counties did not protest the new excise with some sort of violence. Probably the biggest concern about the excise tax was the revenues from it would support a national government the western people felt was not representing them well. Their grievances involved resolving the Indian problems and opening the Mississippi River to navigation. "They were 'convinced that a tax upon liquors which are the common drink of a nation operates in proportion to the number and not to the wealth of the people, and of course is unjust in itself, and oppressive upon the poor.'" Without solving these problems the national government could expect no compliance to he excise law.
People in the West resisted the excise tax with different attitudes. Most simply refused to pay the tax while others rebelled with violence. Excise officers received most of the fury from the rebels. Each officer was to open an office in his county of operation. The easiest form of non-payment was to prevent the excise officer from establishing an office in the county. To do this, rebels threatened anyone who offered to house the excise office. More often than not, the excise officer received threats to his well being. These threats were usually enough to discourage the officer from staying and trying to collect the tax. When an officer was brave enough to stay, the residents who opposed the tax committed such humiliations as tarring, feathering, and torturing the offender. This usually convinced the excise officer to leave the area.
The residents of western Pennsylvania played a major role in the "Whiskey Rebellion." It was the violent reaction of the people in this area that compelled President George Washington to call 12,950 militia men to suppress the rebellion in 1794. The residents of western Pennsylvania not only threatened the excise tax collectors, they proceeded to carry out their threats. An angry mob marched on collector John Neville's house in Washington County, had a shoot out with him and his slaves, and eventually burned his home. Fortunately, Neville narrowly escaped the grasp of the crowd. Not only did this mob attack the tax collector but they also stole the mail from a post rider leaving Pittsburgh. The logic behind this action was to discover who in the local area opposed the rebels. This was a federal offense for which the rebels could be prosecuted. Their actions of civil disobedience should not be considered as totally without justification.
Since the people of western Pennsylvania felt they were not being well represented by Congress they decided to choose their own assembly. Each county was to choose between three and five representatives. These people were to bring the demands of their county to the assembly. Many of the representatives had ill feelings toward the national government. These people tried to push the residents of western Pennsylvania toward open insurrection. Men such as Hugh Henry Brackenridge and Albert Gallatin were the moderating force at these meetings and prevented the radicals from dominating the proceedings. Albert Gallatin's role was as a representative of the residents of Fayette County. As such he had to transmit the sentiment of the meetings even though he may have disagreed. Gallatin served as secretary and also delivered speeches that helped to pacify those radicals who were at the meetings. Often Gallatin delivered these speeches while radicals were in the crowd with their weapons in hand. Gallatin spoke about the mistake of open rebellion toward the government.
Unfortunately for Gallatin, the government officials did not differentiate between the moderates and the radicals who took part in these meetings. Participation brought guilt as far as those in the government were concerned. In 1794 the militia called by Washington marched to dispel the rebels in western pennsylvania. They also brought a list of names of participants that certain members of the Presidential staff wanted arrested. This list included Brackenridge and Gallatin. Twenty rebels were arrested. Fortunately, Albert Gallatin was not among them. Of the twenty rebels arrested, none were found guilty. The fact that he was included on the list of rebels caused Albert Gallatin in later reflections to call his participation in the Whiskey Rebellion his "only political sin."
By November 17, 1794 Hamilton wrotes to Washington from western Pennsylvania that "the list of prisoners has been very considerably increased, probably to the amount of 150. . . . Subsequent intelligence shews that there is no regular assemblage of the fugitives . . . only small vagrant parties . . . affording no point of Attack. Every thing is urging for the return of the troops." And on November 19, 1794 Hamilton notified Washington that the army "is generally in motion homeward," leaving behind a regiment to maintain order.
On July 10, 1795 Washington issued a pardon to those insurgents who were taken prisoner but were not yet sentenced or indicted. By this time, most had already been acquitted for lack of evidence.
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
he had no problems taking up arms and marching with 13,000 troops against western pennsylvania....
when counties in the area rejected a proposed tax on income dirived from the sale of whiskey, they voted to secede from the newly established union and start there own form of government.
i think the difference between lincoln and washington is that lincoln would have went in with guns blazing (as he did) and washington would be more prone to use force as a last resort. however i beleive washington would have acted in the best interests of the fed, even if it meant opposing his own state politically.
Don't lecture me about the whiskey rebellion. My family was in the area before the revolution and I grew up there. It was a mere police action. No deaths, no casualties. To use that as the basis for saying GW would have invaded Virginia ..... preposterous. But you go ahead and believe what you want.
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
It was also an illegal action when we "seceded" (not succeeded) from Britain. You have to have your head up your ass to believe George Washington would have taken up arms against Virginia.
That's right, you guys didn't "succeed". And you'd have to have your head up your ass to think you could speak so definitively for George Washington. Our first AMERICAN president. You "secession was just" and "Washington was, great, Lincoln was, wrong" freaks crack me up... By the way, why was it a constitutional action, "secession"? You skipped right over the meat and potatoes to try and slap my face. "Oh, but we did it too, you dummy!"

If you can't even answer the question without a lame attempt at a feint, why play?
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
he had no problems taking up arms and marching with 13,000 troops against western pennsylvania....
when counties in the area rejected a proposed tax on income dirived from the sale of whiskey, they voted to secede from the newly established union and start there own form of government.
i think the difference between lincoln and washington is that lincoln would have went in with guns blazing (as he did) and washington would be more prone to use force as a last resort. however i beleive washington would have acted in the best interests of the fed, even if it meant opposing his own state politically.
Good points. Except...

Lincoln did what he did with the greatest hesitation. He was a man torn, between fidelity to the Constitution, and war against his brothers.
 

figtree

Active Member
I saw the ghost of george washinton ride through my back yard last night! he waved at me when he rode past. I handed him a huge doobie and a bunch of seeds to help him out.
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
I "am" the ghost of George Washington. Can't you tell from the beak?
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
I saw the ghost of george washinton ride through my back yard last night! he waved at me when he rode past. I handed him a huge doobie and a bunch of seeds to help him out.


I saw the ghost of george washinton ride through my back yard last night! he waved at me when he rode past. I handed him a huge doobie and a bunch of seeds to help him out.

good thing you didnt share one with him,


those wooden teeth of his smell real nasty


should have made them out of ivory


 

Big P

Well-Known Member




your telling me this man would not kick virginias ass? he would probably have swung virginia to the Union side and split the state in two


lets think logically here, he would be king there if he was alive during the civil war and they would follow him to the depths of hell if he said it was right.
 
Top