h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Jordan,

Firstly, congrats on the Scrabble entry.

Secondly, I'm reading about George Washington for a seminar on Friday (it's a module on heroes) and I was hoping to get your take on something I read.

"it is no exaggeration to say that, but for George Washington, the office of President might well not exist... I suggest that the Americans of the Revolutionary generation, given their fear and distrust of executive authority, would not have been willing to make the presidency part of the Constitution at all had not Washington been available to fill the office."

What do you think?

PS. We don't appear to have an edited entry on Washington. Feel up to a challenge?

Oh, I am so sorry I missed this thread Usually a thread title like this would catch my eye right away.
I wrote an entry on Washington actually, but it was quite bland. I may approach the task in the near future. I was thinking of going back to the Presidents.

As for that quote, I'd say it's mostly accurate. The Founding Fathers of the US absolutely made the office of the Presidency with Washington in mind. He was the singular figure of the Revolutionary generation - he was elected *unanimously* by the electoral college, an amazing feat. In fact, it was generally assumed that he would hold the office until he died, which isn't what ended up happening.

I think it's fair to suggest that without Washington, the executive would not be as powerful, but there would be an office of the President or some other executive, I think. The Framers of the Constitution weren't coming up with the concept of separation of powers on their own, after all... merely filling in some of the details. The concept of a separation of powers calls for an Executive branch, and before the Constitution came about, there was a very weak Executive "President" under the Articles of Confederation (See A4350610). So if I had to guess, I'd say Washington was important in allowing the Founders to be comfortable in vesting *so much* power in one man.

*note - here is where I go off on a rant about Washington and American history, feel free to stop reading here*

One question I've wondered about is what would have happened if Washington never was? There were some talented Generals who fought on the American side of the Revolutionary war, and it's possible that they could have risen to the same prominence as Washington... I'm thinking of General Horatio Gates especially as well as Nathanael Greene, Henry Knox and even Benedict Arnold. But all of those men had certain weaknesses which Washington didn't possess. Gates was an egomaniac, Greene was young and brash, Knox was brilliant but overweight and generally unimpressive and Benedict Arnold... well he wasn't the most trustworthy fellow.

Washington really didn't have any of these flaws and problems, which is amazing to me. Perhaps the bigger question is whether a United States of America would have ever existed without Washington. I would tend to say no, the US wouldn't exist without him. For one thing, he was a competent general and helped win American independence. Then, he presided over the Constitutional convention, which made the American states into a truly united country. Then his steady hand set the nation off to a strong start in its first 8 years.

I've been criticized in PR threads for subscribing to a Great Man view of history, and maybe I do, but jeez, it's amazing to me how much one person can really affect the lives of millions of people and the entire course of history, for better or for worse. George Washington was one, Alexander the Great was another. I don't think that any other US President approaches Washington in his impact. FDR is probably second, then Lincoln, then Teddy Roosevelt and then Lyndon Johnson.

And having said all this about Washington, what's most interesting to me is that he managed to be so influential and important just by showing up. He really wasn't very intelligent, and I don't think he would have been interesting to talk to. He was competent, but not brilliant. He dominated any room he was in and was universally respected, but for really very trivial reasons. Some of his contemporaries half jokingly attributed his influence to his height - he was about a head taller than most other people. If early America had been a true meritocracy, Washington wouldn't have approached the top. John Adams was much more intelligent, Madison had bigger, better ideas, Jefferson and Hamilton were more brilliant, Franklin was more charismatic... the essential reason Washington was the singular figure of the early Republic was that somebody needed to be! And he certainly looked the part. Now, if it wasn't Washington, it would almost certainly have been someone weaker and more flawed, so it's a good thing. Horatio Gates certainly would not have lent his prestige to the Constitutional Convention, and it wouldn't have taken place.

Conclusion If not for Washington, there probably wouldn't be a Constitution and possibly not an independent country. There probably would have been another central figure of the Revolution (my guess is it would have been another general) but who knows what would have happened with a mere mortal in that place?

I always miss messages posted in my message centre, so no worries.

Thanks a lot for your response. Your view of Washington's character, competence but lack of brilliance, and physical attributes playing a part certainly concurs with what I've read.

"I've been criticized in PR threads for subscribing to a Great Man view of history, and maybe I do, but jeez, it's amazing to me how much one person can really affect the lives of millions of people and the entire course of history, for better or for worse."

The Great Man view isn't in vogue historically, in fact it's quite old-fashioned, but I do have to agree. Obviously there are many other factors, but it's very interesting to consider what history would be like without men like Washington, Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon etc etc.

I do hope you do write an entry on him one day - if anyone deserves one...

I may write an entry on him. It would probably end up being a longwinded three parter like my treatment of Columbus, JFK and Lincoln though If I can think of write an entry about Washington that would be interesting to read, I'll make another attempt at it (see an aborted attempt at the topic here - A10028503).

Problem is, Washington isn't anywhere near the top of the pile in terms of interesting of American figures. Alexander Hamilton, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and James Madison are the tops in terms of interesting historical personalities and lives (to me, anyways). But then, I haven't written a pure biography for the Guide in over two years, come to think of it Wow...

It looks like a good start to me.

About time you write another biography, then, surely?

Actually, I just went out to the book store and used a Christmas gift card to buy a couple of biographies - both written about people already adequately covered in the Guide

There's a reason I haven't been writing biographies, surely. I like history when it tells a story, and while biographies are essentially stories, it takes planning and a certain angle to get them to come off as a story to the reader. The last biography I managed was about John Adams, and I think I used a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson as a frame through which to view his life story. It's not much of a challenge to simply write a list of facts about a person.

Biographies aren't my favourite entries to write either. Alexander the Great is my third. One of mine is a living person, which I probably won't do again.

I've done a few living people. John Glenn, but he's quite old. And some retired baseball players. So it's not created a big problem for me. None of them have done anything interesting in years

You managed to shame me into another biography. It's in progress here - A32513474 Thomas Jefferson

Actually, it had very little to do with you. I just liked this quote so much 'My friend, you and I have lived in serious times' that I thought it would make a nice opener for an entry. And since the hardest part of an entry for me is the first sentence, that made it quite easy

I'm rubbish at introductions and conclusions in general, to be honest.

I'm going to choose it's all down to me.

Y'know, it occurred to me that with your entry on Cincinnatus, my entries on Jonathan Dayton, Christopher Columbus and the Connecticut Western Reserve and Rich's entries on Spanish history, the origins of every major Ohio city is now covered by the Guide Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland and Toledo. How very exciting.

Thanks for prompting me for a biography. The Jefferson one is done now, all but the proofreading, and I think it's one of the better biographies I've written, if not the best. It was fun for me to write, because I don't actually like Jefferson much and there's a lot about him that most people don't know (and if they didn't they wouldn't respect him quite so much - and I'm not talking about his activities with slaves).

Well then, I shall have to read it.

F48874?thread=5620872
Now I've written three plain biographies in a short period. Look what you've done

I'll have to badger you some more, methinks.