Tag: george washington

The Treatment Was Worse Than the Disease

On December 12, 1799, George Washington returned to Mount Vernon after several hours on horseback in snow, hail, and freezing rain. The next day he developed a sore throat and hoarseness, and in the early morning of December 14 he awoke struggling to breathe and swallow. Doctors were called, and what happened next is now one of the most talked-about medical cases in American history.

Washington did not lack medical care. In fact, he received a lot of attention from three skilled physicians, who used the treatments they thought best for someone as sick as he was, such as repeated bloodletting and other methods meant to reduce inflammation and restore balance. Late that night, Washington died.

Even now, more than 200 years later, we are not sure exactly what disease killed Washington. Some experts have suggested acute bacterial epiglottitis, severe pharyngitis, peritonsillar infection, or other causes of upper-airway blockage [1]. What is clear is that Washington lost a large amount of blood, by most estimates about 80 ounces, through repeated bloodletting while he was already very sick. His doctors did not mean to harm him. They thought removing blood would control the inflammation, but it made him worse. Their actions followed a long-standing medical tradition, supported by accepted theories, experience, and the authority of many generations of doctors.

It is easy to look back at this story and feel superior because of our modern knowledge. Today, we understand things like oxygen delivery, blood volume, shock, infections, airway care, IV fluids, antibiotics, and advanced life support. Washington’s doctors did not have this knowledge. But calling them primitive misses the real point. They were trained doctors using the best knowledge they had to try to save their patient. The real question is not why doctors in 1799 believed bloodletting would help. Instead, we should ask which treatments we use today with the same confidence that future doctors might find hard to believe.

Keep reading

George Washington Waged a War of Attrition

George Washington did lose more battles than he won early on losing New York was his worst. Nevertheless, his overall record shows he understood that winning the war mattered more than winning every battle. He was seriously outnumbered. Once he understood that all he had to do was NOT lose!  He waged a war of attrition. He understood that maintaining a major force on foreign soil is a major logistical disadvantage. I have warned, that Iran is waging a war of attrition.

Washington may not have been formally educated in a university, that did not mean he was unread. He apparently read Roman history intensely. He was a brilliant strategist. His strength was in seeing the “big picture” and maintaining the army’s very existence. He embraced a “Fabian Strategy” of avoiding large, decisive battles that could destroy his army, instead choosing to fight smaller engagements and retreat when necessary to preserve his forces.

The Fabian Strategy was developed by Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, a Roman statesman and general, during the Second Punic War (218-201BC). Fabius was appointed as dictator of the Roman Republic in 217BC, following devastating military defeats by the Carthaginian general Hannibal. To counter Hannibal’s superior military skill and strength, Fabius devised a new approach.

His core tactic was to refuse to engage Hannibal’s army in a major, decisive battle, as Hannibal had proven superior in such confrontations. Instead, Fabius employed a strategy of harassment and attrition. He kept the Roman army close to Hannibal’s forces, shadowing their movements while sending out smaller detachments to attack foraging parties and disrupt supply lines. This was what Washington adopted.

Fabian also ordered residents in the path of the Carthaginian army to burn their crops and take refuge in fortified towns, denying Hannibal the resources his army needed. This cautious approach allowed Rome time to recover its strength. It was initially unpopular with the Roman public, who saw it as cowardly, but after another Roman army was annihilated at the Battle of Cannae in 216BC, the value of his strategy was recognized, and it was adopted again.

Keep reading

George Washington, Father of the Country, Killed by Doctors

The grim circumstances behind the death of George Washington (1732-1799), America’s first president and popularly known as the Father of the Country, are not wholly unknown. The details have been reported by historians for more than two centuries.

What’s strange about this dry biographical knowledge is that it is not reported with shock and alarm and hence never conveyed to popular culture with lessons for our lives. This is because Washington’s physicians were following standard protocols when they bled him to death.

The facts: Washington came down with a throat infection. Three doctors, all convinced of the settled wisdom of the healing arts deployed since the Middle Ages, participated in draining blood from his body, to the point that they took 5 pints or fully half his blood, while giving him an enema on top of it all.

They literally drained the life out of him, not from malice but simply by following the established protocols as recommended by the best physicians at the time.

To invoke a popular phrase, where is the outrage? Nineteenth-century biographies reported the details but celebrated Washington for his bravery in enduring the treatment, then called phlebotomy, which was considered the best science.

John Marshall’s (later Justice) famous early biography, published in five volumes from 1804 to 1807, simply says:

“Believing bloodletting to be necessary, he procured a bleeder who took from his arm twelve or fourteen ounces of blood, but he would not permit a messenger to be despatched for his family physician until the appearance of day. About eleven in the morning Doctor Craik arrived; and perceiving the extreme danger of the case, requested that two consulting physicians should be immediately sent for. The utmost exertions of medical skill were applied in vain. The powers of life were manifestly yielding to the force of the disorder; speaking, which was painful from the beginning, became almost impracticable: respiration became more and more contracted and imperfect, until half past eleven on Saturday night; when, retaining the full possession of his intellect, he expired without a struggle.”

Necessary. Medical skill. Protocols. Best Practices. Standards of Care. Death. No one knows why: just a yielding to the forces of disorder.

Keep reading

SHOCKING: Even Mt Vernon Staff Unfamiliar With Genocidal Nazi Duke’s History & Tour Of America In Spring 1940; He’s Listed As A “Famous” Visitor On Their Website!

At Armed Forces Press, we just ran a feature last month aiming to raise awareness about the historically buried and shocking British royal / Nazi duke trip across the US in Spring 1940, with hundreds of American elites visiting him at events, while the US was still neutral in WWII. That article links to a documentation webpage with seized and declassified US and Nazi German intelligence. Awfully, it was put forth that after WWII, it was not only that the Duke of Saxe Coburg and Gotha was a big Nazi, but he was also associated with the policy to exterminate the mentally ill and physically disabled.

Shockingly, over the weekend in a web search, I stumbled upon that Mt. Vernon, the treasured home of George Washington in Virginia south of DC, listed this genocidal duke among their selected “famous” visitors, with no further text.

A number of people around me also found this deeply disturbing.

I sent these two emails to a number of their senior staff members including their historian CEO, SVP of fundraising (development), library director, chief curator, VP of education, and VP of media / comm, to make sure this would receive administrative attention.

Keep reading

War Powers: The True History of George Washington and the Indian Tribes

Supporters of unilateral executive war power want you to believe presidents can make all kinds of decisions about war and peace because, as they tell the story, George Washington engaged in military conflicts with Native Americans without getting authorization from Congress. 

They’re either ignorant or lying – or both.

The Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress. Many people think this power is limited to issuing some kind of proclamation or document, but declaring war is a much broader concept. During the founding era, it was understood as the power to change the condition of things from peace to war.

The Constitution delegated this power to Congress because the founding generation didn’t want a single individual making such a significant decision. James Madison explained it this way:

“The separation of the power of declaring war, from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived, to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.”

But according to most people on both the left and the right today, the Constitution leaves all kinds of wiggle room for the president to take military action on his own authority. To support this narrative, they claim George Washington unilaterally engaged in military action against American Indian tribes without any congressional authorization.

This narrative doesn’t stand up to the facts. Not even close.

Keep reading