Did George Washington really exist?

Hang on one cotton picking moment, or at least enough time for you to read through this post before continuing your President's Day festivities. The above question is a perfectly serious one and, although many have been indoctrinated by our “history, “government” and “civic” teachers to unflinchingly believe the opposite, there really isn't that much evidence for the so-called “First President's” existence.

I know, that was a lot of quotation marks for one paragraph, but keep tracking with me.

George Washington is a very popular man in today's economy. His Google rating is 168 million (168 million and one once this page gets indexed), which is more than Jesus Christ and Muslim prophet Mohammed combined. If old George were still alive today he would have trademarked his name and would be making a mint on sponsorships. His name recognition would be so strong and his heroism so unquestioned that he could be elected to any political office without even lifting a finger.

Washington has attained a position of virtuous prominence so puissant that students are marched through his etiquette guide as if it were scripture and told of his many luminary deeds, like being shot six times during a fight with Indians. His size is described as unnaturally large, several heads above anyone else and his strength, as the history books tell it, is paralleled only by today's juicing weight lifters. His physical characteristics are impeccable; the man is flawless.

But what if we are being scammed? What if, for the last two hundred odd years of American existence, the noble Washington of Valley Forge lore was just a legend intended to inspire weary colonists when it looked as if the war was a lost cause? What if history has been fooled by an elaborate hoax and we now celebrate a man who never existed and whose birthday, in remembrance of which federal employees take today off from work, is a total fabrication?

Let's start with the “Cherry Tree” episode, in which young George chopped down his father's prize Prunus Avium and then refused to lie about his actions. Despite the fact that young George held a (little) hatchet and his father was unarmed, Washington supposedly repented his sin veraciously. Now how likely is that? How many six year olds would own up to their mistakes immediately in front of a steamed parent? How many six year olds have the strength to cut down a large cherry tree? How many six year olds have a little hatchet?

And then there is Martha the supposed wife of George Washington. Despite the fact that we have no photographic evidence of her existence and the paintings that claim to portray her always vary in some key feature (compare this, this and this), we insist on believing in her existence. Anyone could have written the letters she allegedly shared with her contemporaries and her children could easily have been mothered by another. History paints Martha as a quiet saint, but so much of her life must be assumed and pieced together from Washington's “writings” that there is no way we can really know anything about her. If anything, Martha Dandridge Custis Washington is an argument for the hoax theory.

The testimonial evidence collected by historical clubs in Virginia is some of the strongest evidence cited by Washington believers. But these letters and census papers are so easy to fake and usually contain more hearsay than actual testimony.

If Dan Rather could fake Bush's National Guard documents, than Washington's contemporaries could fake those letters.

Consider Mount Vernon, arguably the only physical evidence of Washington's existence. The 5,000 acre estate has been well maintained since Washington's supposed “death” in 1799, but the property has brought the federal government significant revenues as millions of visitors, guided by the hoaxed life of a fake hero, make pilgrimage to the rustic property. Each year, through entry fees and concession stand revenues, Mount Vernon ushers financial resources to the equivalent of 1,257 taxpayers (FCN guesstimate) into treasury coffers.

The Washington scam is very profitable, indeed.

Mount Vernon, as a place, does nothing to support the existence of George Washington. No where did he make a distinctive mark or do something with the land that no other man could have done. Sure, the walls are a disgusting green and blue color, but the First President doesn't have a corner on eccentricity. Anyway, saying that a man's home is proof of his existence is paramount to saying that his used toothbrush proves he once had teeth. Anyone can make a home; anyone can use a toothbrush.

As far as testimonial evidence is concerned, to date, no live person has stepped forward claiming to have actually met George Washington. If someone actually knew the guy and could recount a conversation with him, don't you think he would be doing a perpetual talk show circuit?

Have any of you ever seen George Washington? Maybe a member of the faithful FCN few has first person proof of the man's life. Have you ever touched the man or do you blindly believe the word of your history textbook without really pursuing the truth? Have you actually researched the claims of those who believe in George or do you take their assertions for granted?

As Americans, we are given two options: 1) Believe that Washington really existed without sufficient evidence to prove that as fact or 2) Refuse to believe he really exists until the evidence satisfies the burden of proof.

Here at FCN, we are in the latter camp. You guys can go on gnostically believing in the “American Hero” who did the impossible during the Revolutionary War and was so humble that he rejected a position as king of America or you can see the light and reject baseless stories until they are proven true. You can allow yourself to wear the blinders of revisionist history or step out into the light and realize the truth.

Some folks need a Washington story, a tale of a strong political leader who valiantly beat the odds, in order to survive and face their own challenges. To even get up in the morning they must believe in the nonsense their culture feeds them. They believe that the moon is made of green cheese, they believe that gullible is not in the dictionary and they believe that George Washington really lived.

As sensitive Americans, we are, and ought to be, extremely sensitive to those who believe in Washington. The belief is made understandable by a culture that accepts it and we should be tolerant and sympathetic of the hoaxed, even if the data are overwhelmingly against them.

As far as today and President's Day celebration goes, maybe we can devote this day to John Adams, the second President. and thus grant the three-day weekend an aura of legitimacy. Although, the evidence for Adam's existence is pretty shaky as well...