PDA

View Full Version : Assassins Creed III - George Washington



Firenze-Paladin
04-24-2012, 05:53 AM
Noticed in ACII that in the third clue from Subject 16 that George Washington has the Apple of Eden. Curious to see if they (Ubisoft) will be consistent with this and designate him as a Templar in ACIII - whatever role he potentially has in the story.

SlowBlo
04-24-2012, 06:27 AM
Noticed in ACII that in the third clue from Subject 16 that George Washington has the Apple of Eden. Curious to see if they (Ubisoft) will be consistent with this and designate him as a Templar in ACIII - whatever role he potentially has in the story.

He seems like the main 'quest giver' to Conner judging from some of the trailers, but it would make an AMAZING twist. I was actually thinking they would do that with Leonardo Da Vinci since he was 'suspected' to be a Templar. The result though (ACII/ACB) was still pretty surprising.

Deltasparkz
04-24-2012, 07:04 AM
Oh yeah.
it also shows Gandhi with a PoE

misterB2001
04-24-2012, 08:09 AM
Noticed in ACII that in the third clue from Subject 16 that George Washington has the Apple of Eden. Curious to see if they (Ubisoft) will be consistent with this and designate him as a Templar in ACIII - whatever role he potentially has in the story.

So by your rules, anyone who has a PoE is a Templar?

Altair, Ezio & Desmond all had one.......holy crap, they must be Templars too!


Or in a less sarcastic way......maybe good old GW holding one doesn't necessarily mean he's a Templar?

BBALive
04-24-2012, 09:30 AM
Noticed in ACII that in the third clue from Subject 16 that George Washington has the Apple of Eden. Curious to see if they (Ubisoft) will be consistent with this and designate him as a Templar in ACIII - whatever role he potentially has in the story.

Just because he had a PoE doesn't mean he's a Templar.

dxsxhxcx
04-24-2012, 01:57 PM
I would like to see GW as a templar too (but we should only discover he is a templar at the very end of the game 5~10 minutes before it ends, when we don't have more time to stop him), not because we know he had an apple, but because it seems that he'll interact a lot with Connor (assumption), I would like to see him using the Assassins to achieve their goals without Connor and the others noticing, IMO this would be a great plot twist... the Revolution being something made by the templars to put their hands on their own country, it looks like something templars would do...

freddie_1897
04-24-2012, 03:40 PM
i hope he isn't a templar, as weird as it might sound i'd rather someone else was like charles lee.

what i hope happens is Charles Lee sends Connor on loads of missions, and one of them is to assassinate a british captain, but when he tries to assassinate him the captain dodges and reveals he is an assassin, and is also Connors father, and Charles Lee is a templar who has being using Connor this whole time.

freddie_1897
04-24-2012, 03:42 PM
I would like to see GW as a templar too (but we should only discover he is a templar at the very end of the game 5~10 minutes before it ends, when we don't have more time to stop him), not because we know he had an apple, but because it seems that he'll interact a lot with Connor (assumption), I would like to see him using the Assassins to achieve their goals without Connor and the others noticing, IMO this would be a great plot twist... the Revolution being something made by the templars to put their hands on their own country, it looks like something templars would do...

i can imagine a few people getting annoyed about that because George Washington was and is considered a hero. making him a Templar might anger some people

LightRey
04-24-2012, 03:45 PM
I doubt he'll be a Templar. He's a close ally of Connor. If he is one he'll have to betray him at some point.

ShadowRage41
04-24-2012, 03:55 PM
i can imagine a few people getting annoyed about that because George Washington was and is considered a hero. making him a Templar might anger some people

That is possible. but honestly from my perspective it's just a game. a work of fiction based on historical events. So there is nothing to be angry about, the Hashishin did not evolve into the noble AC universe Assassins. People need to try and keep in perspective the game is a work of fiction, however the story unfolds and enjoy it for what it is. I mean when you throw in historical events that are of importance to people. things could potentially get testy... But if people would try and see it for what it is, there should be no issues or complaining. Because it's a work of fiction

freddie_1897
04-24-2012, 05:38 PM
That is possible. but honestly from my perspective it's just a game. a work of fiction based on historical events. So there is nothing to be angry about, the Hashishin did not evolve into the noble AC universe Assassins. People need to try and keep in perspective the game is a work of fiction, however the story unfolds and enjoy it for what it is. I mean when you throw in historical events that are of importance to people. things could potentially get testy... But if people would try and see it for what it is, there should be no issues or complaining. Because it's a work of fiction
it might just be a game, but there will always be someone who runs away from the pack

dxsxhxcx
04-24-2012, 05:41 PM
i can imagine a few people getting annoyed about that because George Washington was and is considered a hero. making him a Templar might anger some people

they already said that Jesus in the game isn't what he is suppose to be (based on the christian belief) and we still have AC games being made, I don't see how this can be a problem, if some americans can't see the difference between a game and reality they should grow up, or don't even play the game if this possibility would make them so angry...

Abeonis
04-24-2012, 05:42 PM
As this topic is covering something we already have a thread for, I will just re-post what I said there:

I feel I should point out that just because George Washington was a Freemason (who in AC lore are a branch of the Templars) does not mean Washington himself was a Templar. The vast majority of Abstergo's employees are not members of the Templar Order, in fact, most don't even know of their existence, despite the fact that Abstergo is the Templar front organisation in the 21st Century.

In closing; whilst it is entirely possible that George Washington was a Templar, his membership in the Freemasons and/or his coming into possession of a Piece of Eden at one point in his life does not prove beyond all doubt that he was.

masterfenix2009
04-24-2012, 05:44 PM
The point of a plot twist, from my perspective, is to surprise you. George Washington as a Templar.......not surprising.

freddie_1897
04-24-2012, 05:46 PM
The point of a plot twist, from my perspective, is to surprise you. George Washington as a Templar.......not surprising.
thats how i feel, as weird as it is, i think it'd be cool to discover all the Freemasons were actually Templars, except for George, he was there tool

SquarePolo27
04-24-2012, 09:19 PM
[QUOTE=freddie_1897;8268795] but when he tries to assassinate him the captain dodges and reveals he is an assassin, and is also Connors father,/QUOTE]

http://static.moviefanatic.com/images/gallery/i-am-your-father.jpg

Couldn't resist :D

---

To be honest, I doubt that GW would be a templar. It would be a nice plot twist, but he seems like a character that would be the Machiavelli, etc.

PhonedZero
04-25-2012, 04:31 AM
thats how i feel, as weird as it is, i think it'd be cool to discover all the Freemasons were actually Templars, except for George, he was there tool

Almost right, all modern Templars are Freemasons, but not all Freemasons are Templars,

Firenze-Paladin
04-25-2012, 08:46 AM
One it just an observation about Washington - and if Ubisoft would maintain continuity form ACII (all the historic individuals from the specific clue in ACII are all tyrants, Queen Elizabeth & Napoleon). However he was a slave owner who raped his slaves. He allowed slavery to continue despite a direct conflict with the Declaration of Independence (all men are created equal....). Though at the end of the day this is a fictional story as pointed out by others. The USA would seem to be Templar run with opposers assassinated, e.g. Lincoln & Kennedy within the theme of the story to date

POP1Fan
04-25-2012, 09:59 AM
One it just an observation about Washington - and if Ubisoft would maintain continuity form ACII (all the historic individuals from the specific clue in ACII are all tyrants, Queen Elizabeth & Napoleon). However he was a slave owner who raped his slaves. He allowed slavery to continue despite a direct conflict with the Declaration of Independence (all men are created equal....). Though at the end of the day this is a fictional story as pointed out by others. The USA would seem to be Templar run with opposers assassinated, e.g. Lincoln & Kennedy within the theme of the story to date

THIS ! Washington was no hero, he was a racist hypocrite.

BeCk41
04-25-2012, 10:17 AM
Washington wasn't a bad guy, he was a nice person and good president, if they make him out to be a Templar then that's just bad taste... besides he didn't even want to be president of the United States so cut him some slack, if anyone's a Templar, it would have to be Benedict Arnold (http://www.historycentral.com/Revolt/arnold.html). xD

MasterSimaYi
04-25-2012, 08:28 PM
I just feel the need to point out that there is absolutely nothing said on whether or not the Freemasons are Templar-affiliated in AC lore. They may be theorized to be a modern front for the Templars in real life, but you've got to take into account that in real life the Templars weren't a centuries-old organization striving for world peace via absolute power over mankind. At least, I'm quite sure they weren't...

Also, if George Washington is revealed to be a Templar at the end, while the game ends in 1783 and Washington died in 1799, that would mean there will be absolutely no closure brought to that subject. Which I would find quite bad.

freddie_1897
04-25-2012, 08:40 PM
I just feel the need to point out that there is absolutely nothing said on whether or not the Freemasons are Templar-affiliated in AC lore. They may be theorized to be a modern front for the Templars in real life, but you've got to take into account that in real life the Templars weren't a centuries-old organization striving for world peace via absolute power over mankind. At least, I'm quite sure they weren't...

Also, if George Washington is revealed to be a Templar at the end, while the game ends in 1783 and Washington died in 1799, that would mean there will be absolutely no closure brought to that subject. Which I would find quite bad.
they said that their was one bit of history they had to alter but they explain why at the time

Will_Lucky
04-26-2012, 02:47 PM
Washington could be a Neutral in all of it, he ganis the POE through as of now unknown cir****tances and realises he can use it to advance his/Americas agenda and uses it for that purpose but isn't connected to the Templars. For all we know he could be like Da Vinci, an ally of the Assassins but not willing to fully join.

There have been neutrals who have weilded the POE over time for their own purposes such as Savonarola, he was the enemy of both Assassins and Templars yet used the Apple for his own purposes.

LightRey
04-26-2012, 03:05 PM
As this topic is covering something we already have a thread for, I will just re-post what I said there:
Which was wrong. It is unknown in AC lore whether Freemasonry is connected to the Templars.

Abeonis
04-27-2012, 08:58 AM
Which was wrong. It is unknown in AC lore whether Freemasonry is connected to the Templars.
Perhaps, but the point of my comment in relation to the OP's arguement was not.

StarBucket
05-03-2012, 05:15 PM
Could it simply be that Washington was a double agent? History remembers him as a Freemason/Templar...which is exactly as he wanted it.

OriginalMiles
05-03-2012, 05:18 PM
Could it simply be that Washington was a double agent? History remembers him as a Freemason/Templar...which is exactly as he wanted it.
Wouldn't that be rehashing Lucy, but in the opposite?
Anyway, If it turns out in the end that he was a Templar all along, it would be just like Al Mualim.
I hope he's just an ally, not a Templar or an Assassin.

StarBucket
05-03-2012, 05:23 PM
Wouldn't that be rehashing Lucy, but in the opposite?
Anyway, If it turns out in the end that he was a Templar all along, it would be just like Al Mualim.
I hope he's just an ally, not a Templar or an Assassin.

Yeah, good point. That way they could play with his frustration over being torn between two forces. As long as they make Alexander Hamilton or John Adams a Templar jerk, I guess I'll be cool with it.

MaKaVeLiTL
05-03-2012, 06:09 PM
I don't think he was a Templar, the game is set between 1753 and 1783, Washington died in 1799. I don't think Connor would have let him live if he'd betrayed him or something and turned out to be a Templar.

dxsxhxcx
05-03-2012, 07:41 PM
I don't think he was a Templar, the game is set between 1753 and 1783, Washington died in 1799. I don't think Connor would have let him live if he'd betrayed him or something and turned out to be a Templar.

IMO make the grand master of the templars survive his confront with the assassins would be something different for the game, if every single assassin was successful in his/her mission during his/her time they wouldn't be "losing" the battle during the modern days, if Connor don't be able to defeat the grand master of the templar Order this wouldn't make him less cool for me...

freddie_1897
05-03-2012, 08:17 PM
IMO make the grand master of the templars survive his confront with the assassins would be something different for the game, if every single assassin was successful in his/her mission during his/her time they wouldn't be "losing" the battle during the modern days, if Connor don't be able to defeat the grand master of the templar Order this wouldn't make him less cool for me...
something different? your forgetting about Rodrigo Borgia

POP1Fan
05-03-2012, 08:40 PM
I think he is going to be for Connor like Lorenzo to Ezio.

dxsxhxcx
05-03-2012, 08:43 PM
something different? your forgetting about Rodrigo Borgia

lol... I forgot about him... but we were able to see how his life ended in ACB what I was suggesting was let the grand master live and don't show in the game how he died...

tarrero
05-03-2012, 08:51 PM
I think he is going to be for Connor like Lorenzo to Ezio.

Yeah, or also similar to King Richard the Lionheart. And well, the fact he possessed a POE does not automatically turn him into a templar, some people tend to forget that.

Calvarok
05-04-2012, 04:23 AM
IMO make the grand master of the templars survive his confront with the assassins would be something different for the game, if every single assassin was successful in his/her mission during his/her time they wouldn't be "losing" the battle during the modern days, if Connor don't be able to defeat the grand master of the templar Order this wouldn't make him less cool for me...
The modern state of the order is due to Daniel Cross's assassination of the Assassin's Mentor. Remember, these events are hundreds of years apart. The advances made by Ezio against the Templars have negligible impact on Connor's era's Templar/Assassin conflict.

Azurefeatherfly
05-04-2012, 05:07 AM
lol... I forgot about him... but we were able to see how his life ended in ACB what I was suggesting was let the grand master live and don't show in the game how he died...

I think we have had enough loose ends and cliffhangers in this franchise so far. This is the absolute end to Desmond's journey and therefore if we are to move away from Desmond and his ancestors, there must be closure for Desmond himself and his ancestors. Connor is an assassin that kills in the name of Justice, I cannot imagine how he would allow a Templar to lead a country for eight years let alone walk free for nearly two decades after the Revolution.

masterfenix2009
05-04-2012, 05:59 AM
I think we have had enough loose ends and cliffhangers in this franchise so far. This is the absolute end to Desmond's journey and therefore if we are to move away from Desmond and his ancestors, there must be closure for Desmond himself and his ancestors. Connor is an assassin that kills in the name of Justice, I cannot imagine how he would allow a Templar to lead a country for eight years let alone walk free for nearly two decades after the Revolution.It would take Connor a very long time to kill George Washington. It took Ezio five years to simply kill Emilio Barbarigo.

dxsxhxcx
05-04-2012, 12:16 PM
The modern state of the order is due to Daniel Cross's assassination of the Assassin's Mentor. Remember, these events are hundreds of years apart. The advances made by Ezio against the Templars have negligible impact on Connor's era's Templar/Assassin conflict. you may be right about Daniel, but there's no way to know how much what Ezio did in the past will affect Connor, if you take a closer look at Ezio, his Order was somehow closely related to Altair order by Marco Polo, son of Niccolò Polo who had contact with Altair... and was the Polo's money who made possible for Domenico Auditore to build the Villa and was also Marco who made possible for Domenico to become an Assassin...



I think we have had enough loose ends and cliffhangers in this franchise so far. This is the absolute end to Desmond's journey and therefore if we are to move away from Desmond and his ancestors, there must be closure for Desmond himself and his ancestors. Connor is an assassin that kills in the name of Justice, I cannot imagine how he would allow a Templar to lead a country for eight years let alone walk free for nearly two decades after the Revolution.

IMO this wouldn't be a loose end (if well made of course), yeah, it would be a little weird if he knew who the grand master was and let him live but there might be many things that could make harder for Connor and the Assassins to kill GW, the fact that he became president in 1789 is one of them...

but I suggested that thinking in only one game for Connor, so we won't know what will happen later in his life after AC3, so if we don't have more games with Connor, IMO would be perfectly possible for them to let the Grand Master live by the end of the game and if the Grand Master was GW, then it would be even easier to do that because we know what he did after that since he is a real person, so it wouldn't be a loose end (at least not more significant than the rest of Connor's life)...

OriginalMiles
05-04-2012, 01:13 PM
If he does turn out to be a Templar, Connor shouldn't kill him, that way it make the perfect reason for why the Assassins started to lose, the Templars are in power, and Connor couldn't kill GW, and the Templars started to win.

dxsxhxcx
05-04-2012, 02:19 PM
If he does turn out to be a Templar, Connor shouldn't kill him, that way it make the perfect reason for why the Assassins started to lose, the Templars are in power, and Connor couldn't kill GW, and the Templars started to win.

like I said before, I believe not every Assassin was successful in his/her mission, Altair and Ezio were, or at least that's how it seemed to me, it would be interesting see the Templars win this time, even if Connor achieve a lot doing whatever he'll do, but at the end the game pass the message that even with all his effort the templars did better this time, IMO something like this would make him more cooler as a character, it would make him look more human and not an invencible super hero...

kudos17
05-04-2012, 02:43 PM
Washington wasn't a bad guy, he was a nice person and good president, if they make him out to be a Templar then that's just bad taste... besides he didn't even want to be president of the United States so cut him some slack, if anyone's a Templar, it would have to be Benedict Arnold (http://www.historycentral.com/Revolt/arnold.html). xD

Oh no, he was not. He was polite and intelligent - these things do not make a nice person. He was actually rather harsh and mean. But he was arguably a good president because of it, and an even better general.

Also, I'd like to think that the American Revolution is really a sort of rebellion in the Templars. Maybe the seperate "Freemasons" group split in an argument over the PoE, their use, their location? I don't know (I really need to read up more on the Freemasons' involvement with the AC lore) but that would be my off-the-hat guess.

freddie_1897
05-08-2012, 03:36 PM
Oh no, he was not. He was polite and intelligent - these things do not make a nice person. He was actually rather harsh and mean. But he was arguably a good president because of it, and an even better general.

Also, I'd like to think that the American Revolution is really a sort of rebellion in the Templars. Maybe the seperate "Freemasons" group split in an argument over the PoE, their use, their location? I don't know (I really need to read up more on the Freemasons' involvement with the AC lore) but that would be my off-the-hat guess.
actually he was considered a bad general as well, he was a good talker and made excellent speeches but wasn't actually a good general.

and BeCk41, even if he was a nice president, that shouldn't stop ubi from making him a templar, Ubi is good at giving famous people a secret life and GW could easily be a templar, a nice templar at that.

MasterSimaYi
05-08-2012, 08:39 PM
I just want to give my input on this. In REAL life, which does not mean AC lore, the Freemasons are BELIEVED to be a modern day Templar organization, but that isn't factual.

If you want to have George Washington as a Templar because he was a Freemason, you have to take a few things into consideration. Firstly, in real life the Templars weren't a centuries-old order that was manipulating mankind and trying to control it to create a New World Order. They were just the Knights Templar, a knightly order.

The Templars in AC want peace for mankind via control over them, and don't believe that the people are capable of their own actions and decisions; they have to be guided. The Templars see themselves as those protectors of humanity, who aim to guide and steer them towards peace. They weren't greedy, mad, evil, bad, or anything like that. They have their beliefs just like the Assassins do. The Assassins believe that people are in fact capable of making their own decisions, and belief that with free will mankind will lead itself towards peace. They don't involve themselves with the affairs of the people or actively support them, but their task is to eliminate the Templars and anyone else who would take away the people's freedom. Both are open-minded towards religion and don't actively practice any religion or religious belief.

Now, if you take a look here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#Principles_and_activities - you will see that the ideologies of the Freemasons are nothing alike those of either the Templars or Assassins, only that "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" kind of relates to the Assassins' beliefs. Now, I don't think you can just call someone a Templar in AC because he was a Freemason in real life. That's just too easy and shallow.

It isn't relevant how George Washington was as a person, whether he was nice or mean, or warm or harsh. George Washington and the other revolutionaries fought for the freedom of the colonists. After they claimed their independence, they made a democracy and held elections on who would become the President of the United States. The Templars heavily oppose democracy, while the Assassins support it. The Templars frequently rigged elections to install their own guys as Presidents, like Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush. If George Washington was a Templar as well, I also don't think that he would fight to make America independent from the British Empire, when the Templars want to unite humanity under their own banner. My own interpretation to this whole thing may be completely off the mark though, but this is just my two cents. I personally don't see Washington and the other revolutionaries as Templars or Assassins, but I see the Freemasons as an independent organization that most likely had connections to the Assassins, at least during the American Revolution. I can definitely see the Illuminati as Templars, though, as cliché as it may sound, but I can't see it differently. It may be worthy to add that Washington became warning and distrustful of Illuminism by the time the French Revolution was raging on.

---------

About what you guys are saying about if Washington would be a Templar and Connor doesn't finish with him: Connor confronting and possibly killing Washington wouldn't just serve the purpose of having a happy ending, but I think it's primarily about closure. Ezio confronting and sparing Rodrigo in AC2 brought at least a lot of closure to the game; imagine if Ezio somehow couldn't get to Rodrigo and that's how the game ends. A lot of fans would be disappointed. Ending a game with complete failure is never satisfying. And also, when you guys talk about "the Assassins are losing the war" in modern times I assume you mean by 2012. That has nothing to do with whatever happened in the 18th century, or the 19th or 20th centuries. That's due to the Great Purge initiated by the Templars in 2000. Nearly all Assassins worldwide were exterminated and the remaining ones were forced to operate in small teams, while still slowly reducing in number. Read the Deluxe Edition of Assassin's Creed: The Fall for more info on that, or the article on "The Great Purge" on the Wiki.

LightRey
05-08-2012, 08:48 PM
I just want to give my input on this. In REAL life, which does not mean AC lore, the Freemasons are BELIEVED to be a modern day Templar organization, but that isn't factual.

If you want to have George Washington as a Templar because he was a Freemason, you have to take a few things into consideration. Firstly, in real life the Templars weren't a centuries-old order that was manipulating mankind and trying to control it to create a New World Order. They were just the Knights Templar, a knightly order.

The Templars in AC want peace for mankind via control over them, and don't believe that the people are capable of their own actions and decisions; they have to be guided. The Templars see themselves as those protectors of humanity, who aim to guide and steer them towards peace. They weren't greedy, mad, evil, bad, or anything like that. They have their beliefs just like the Templars do. The Assassins believe that people are in fact capable of making their own decisions, and belief that with free will mankind will lead itself towards peace. They don't involve themselves with the affairs of the people or actively support them, but their task is to eliminate the Templars and anyone else who would take away the people's freedom. Both are open-minded towards religion and don't actively practice any religion or religious belief.

Now, if you take a look here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#Principles_and_activities - you will see that the ideologies of the Freemasons are nothing alike those of either the Templars or Assassins, only that "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" kind of relates to the Assassins' beliefs. Now, I don't think you can just call someone a Templar in AC because he was a Freemason in real life. That's just too easy and shallow.

It isn't relevant how George Washington was as a person, whether he was nice or mean, or warm or harsh. George Washington and the other revolutionaries fought for the freedom of the colonists. After they claimed their independence, they made a democracy and held elections on who would become the President of the United States; a democracy. The Templars heavily oppose democracy, while the Assassins support it. The Templars frequently rigged elections to install their own guys as Presidents, like Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush. If George Washington was a Templar as well, I also don't think that he would fight to make America independent from the British America, when the Templars want to unite humanity under their own banner. My own interpretation to this whole thing may be completely off the mark though, but this is just my two cents. I personally don't see Washington and the other revolutionaries as Templars or Assassins, but I see the Freemasons as an independent organization that most likely had connections to the Assassins, at least during the American Revolution. I can definitely see the Illuminati as Templars, though, as cliché as it may sound, but I can't see it differently. It may be worthy to add that Washington became warning and distrustful of Illuminism by the time the French Revolution was raging on.
This a hundred times over.

MasterSimaYi
05-08-2012, 09:04 PM
Just noticed the amount of mistakes I typed out in my post... dammit, sorry! Horrible ADD getting the better of me, thinking too many things at the same time...

Serrachio
05-09-2012, 11:16 AM
Just noticed the amount of mistakes I typed out in my post... dammit, sorry! Horrible ADD getting the better of me, thinking too many things at the same time...

Isn't there some cryptic message that says something along the lines of "They brought the Apple across the sea to the new lands", and since America was newly discovered back then, it could imply that the Freemasons were Assassins or an affliate of them, which would explain why George Washington and some of the other revolutionaries are allies to Connor, and would explain why George had the Piece of Eden on his Presidency.

MasterSimaYi
05-09-2012, 11:25 AM
Isn't there some cryptic message that says something along the lines of "They brought the Apple across the sea to the new lands", and since America was newly discovered back then, it could imply that the Freemasons were Assassins or an affliate of them, which would explain why George Washington and some of the other revolutionaries are allies to Connor, and would explain why George had the Piece of Eden on his Presidency.

I thought that some time ago too, but I could never find anything like that. This is all that is shown in that particular Glyph in relation to George Washington: http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101021095305/assassinscreed/images/8/86/Glyph_2-3.jpg The Assassins and Templars were already spreading to the New World in the early 16th century, circa 1503. I fail to see how that would imply that the Freemasons are Assassins or affiliated to them. As I said above, the Freemasons' ideologies are too different for them to actually be Assassins, I reckon.

LightRey
05-09-2012, 12:20 PM
I thought that some time ago too, but I could never find anything like that. This is all that is shown in that particular Glyph in relation to George Washington: http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101021095305/assassinscreed/images/8/86/Glyph_2-3.jpg The Assassins and Templars were already spreading to the New World in the early 16th century, circa 1503. I fail to see how that would imply that the Freemasons are Assassins or affiliated to them. As I said above, the Freemasons' ideologies are too different for them to actually be Assassins, I reckon.
Once again I completely agree.

Abeonis
05-09-2012, 01:05 PM
Isn't there some cryptic message that says something along the lines of "They brought the Apple across the sea to the new lands", and since America was newly discovered back then, it could imply that the Freemasons were Assassins or an affliate of them, which would explain why George Washington and some of the other revolutionaries are allies to Connor, and would explain why George had the Piece of Eden on his Presidency.
I strongly remember that line being mentioned somewhere as well (which, if all three of us remember it, most likely means it was said, somewhere).

MasterSimaYi
05-09-2012, 01:19 PM
I strongly remember that line being mentioned somewhere as well (which, if all three of us remember it, most likely means it was said, somewhere).

I think that somebody may have added it as speculation to the Wiki a long time ago, back in mid 2010 or so. May need some more looking in to. However, there is apparently a Piece of Eden located in the Philadelphia/Boston area, so perhaps it is the same one as George Washington possessed.

OriginalMiles
05-09-2012, 07:02 PM
Honestly, does it matter if he was a Templar or not?

MasterSimaYi
05-09-2012, 08:57 PM
Honestly, does it matter if he was a Templar or not?

Yes.

FIREFLYWYO
06-06-2012, 12:15 AM
[B]
I find it funny that so many (mostly non-Americans and young Americans) have a complete misunderstanding of George Washington. Some of you have knocked him for owning slaves, others have said that he was a mean individual and a a bad a general.

However, the question is, how many of you have actually READ a book on the American Revolution or on George Washington outside of a general history course?
Have any of you read Ron Chernow's book on George Washington or the McCullough's "1776"? How about A.J. Languth's "Patriots: The Men who Started the American Revolution"? Anyone read Thomas Flexner's work on George Washington?

George Washington may not have had the battlefield expertise of Benedict Arnold (before he turned traitor), Horatio Gates, or Nathaniel Greene, but his ten days following the Battle of Trenton and his Battles at Princeton, whether the Americans had won the war or not, would have been hailed as significant military actions worthy of study. Additionally, Washington was great at evading British Armies in the field, and keeping them alive when it appeared that the American Revolution might falter and flounder. Add to all of this that the American Army was in it's infancy, recieved very little training (prior to Von Steuben), was faced with budget problems from the fledgling Continental Congress, and that the soldiers who fought with Washington often ebbed and flowed with the seasons due to the agrarian nature of the country at the time.

Oh, and don't forget that the British Army was the most powerful army in the world, well organized, supplied by British shipping, and the best trained in the field.

As for Washington being "mean", like any general tasked with keeping an untrained army in the field in the face of such tremendous problems and disparities, Washington could be strict, yes, but he is not just the stern faced individual that we see on the dollar bill. It was said that Washington did not smile because he was embarrassed by his teeth but that, in camp, he knew the men under his command, would gamble, play dice, and could cuss the paint off the wall (at times) contrary to our contemporary vision of him. It was said that he was a charitable man, enjoyed dancing, adored his older brother (who died when George was young), and a very honest individual.
In fact, one of Washington's standing orders for his army was that they would not "pillage" the countryside and that any goods they borrowed or used from locals was to be catalogued and recorded so that individuals could be compensated by the Continental Congress at a later date.

Note: The quote of from the Marquis De Lafayette in the trailer just released at E3, was from the young Frenchman who served in the American Revolution, under Washington, who was basically the son that Washington never had, with Washington becoming a father figure.

In fact, Washington's men were very loyal and dedicated to him as both a leader and a general. When hostilities ended after Yorktown, it is said that Washington's men, who clambered for back pay, wanted to march on Congress. In January, 1783, a group of Washington's officers went to the Congress at Philadelphia to demand that the soldiers be paid at least three years in back pay. Some men in Washington's army pressed Washington to lead the army to Philadelphia and declare himself a king and create strong central government (Hamilton). Washington warned Congress of the army's discontent but wanted no part of it and in the ensuing days since the delegation went to Philadelphia he sat with much consternation and worry, planning what he would do next. The whole country waited with baited breath about Washington's next move and leaflets were soon spread asking about Washington, "Can he be a friend to the army?" "Can he be a friend to this country?"

In March, 1783, Washington ordered his men to quit meeting secretly and formenting disconent. Finally, in Newburgh, New York, Washington finally confronted the army and tried to dissuade them. As Washington spoke, by accounts, his men stood emotionlessly. Washington ended his speech by pulling out a letter from a Virginian Congressman who spoke of how the nation owed the army a great debt and has Washington read, it is said that he faltered, reached into his pocket, and pulled out a pair of specatcle (glasses for you teenagers out there) and said softly "Gentlemen," Washington said, "you must pardon me. I have grown gray in your service and now I find myself growing blind." For Washington, who for the last eight years had shared every hardship with his men, who had not seen his home since he was made Commander in Chief of the Army, his men, it is said, began to tear up and they voted with Washington to end their distrust of Congress and allow Washington to be their continued spokesman. After that, he returned to Mt. Vernon to go back to being a farmer.

Later on, as you know, if any of you have seen John Adams, (youtube the Washington's inauguration) you'll see there is a reason why the Founders chose him as the first President. When the monarchies of Europe heard that Washington chose to be a President rather then a King, there were shockwaves in the courts of Europe.

As for slavery and the Founding Father's many of them had great distate for it (Washington included). During the War, Washington began to stop the selling of his own slaves as he began to see it as a cruelty to break up families which (for Virginia at the time) was an extraordinary gesture that few planters never practiced. At one point, Washigton even considered getting out of the business of slavery all together. However, for those of you who practice what we historian's call "presentism" (placing your moral values on the past which diservice history and the context of which others lived) you should also note that Virginia had strict laws regarding manumission of the slaves (freeing them) until after the War.

Oh yeah, and slavery was never ended because it would have essentially DESTROYED the nation that they had just won. Some things just weren't possible no matter how much WE, living in the MODERN ERA with 20/20 EYESIGHT, would like to think.

Washinton stated: "I never mean ... to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this Country may be abolished by slow, sure and imperceptible degrees." To a friend he wrote: "there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see some plan adopted for the abolition" of slavery." In 1797, Washington is reported to have told a British visitor: "I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union, by consolidating it in a common bond of principal." He told Edmund Randolph, according to Thomas Jefferson's notes, that if the country were to split over slavery, Washington "had made up his mind to move and be of the northern."

As for the Founding Father's in the years after the Revolution there was already a growing discussion about slavery which was becoming increasingly disasteful in the North. You've heard of the 3/5 compromise right? Yes, I'm sure you kids have because your teachers (erroneously) stated that the Founders meant to say slaves were considered as only 3/5 of a person. Well, guess what kiddos, the 3/5 compromise was actually a means of curbing slave interests in the South who wanted to count slaves as full citizens for means of appropriating MORE slave holding representatives in Congress which, as you all know (I hope!) is decided by population. Therefore in counting as slave as only 3/5 the population, the Founders stopped overwhelming representation of the South and slave holding interests.

Lastly, Washington was the ONLY slave holdng Founding Father to free his slaves after his death. (Jefferson pondered it)

Oh, and don't forget that in 1789, the Northwest Ordinance (heavily influenced by Jefferson), banned slavery from the territories to the west (except those who already had slaves when the ordinance passed.

And that my friends is only a tiny bit of who George Washington was.

For those of you who want to rail about the Founders and slavery: This is from Historian David Barton's website and written in 2011.
You might actually be suprised to read how many of the Founders were actually abolitionists or who had abolitionist sentiments

FIREFLYWYO
06-06-2012, 12:16 AM
.[/B]Even though the issue of slavery is often raised as a discrediting charge against the Founding Fathers, the historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by, the Founding Fathers; slavery had been introduced to America nearly two centuries before the Founders. As President of Congress Henry Laurens explained:

I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence. . . . In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule ["do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12]. 1
Prior to the time of the Founding Fathers, there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery. John Jay identified the point at which the change in attitude toward slavery began:

Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority . . . of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it. 2
The Revolution was the turning point in the national attitude–and it was the Founding Fathers who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, many of the Founders vigorously complained against the fact that Great Britain had forcefully imposed upon the Colonies the evil of slavery. For example, Thomas Jefferson heavily criticized that British policy:

He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [that is, he has opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade]. 3
Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . .

. . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. 4
Further confirmation that even the Virginia Founders were not responsible for slavery, but actually tried to dismantle the institution, was provided by John Quincy Adams (known as the "hell-hound of abolition" for his extensive efforts against that evil). Adams explained:

The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. 5
While Jefferson himself had introduced a bill designed to end slavery, 6 not all of the southern Founders were opposed to slavery. According to the testimony of Virginians James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Rutledge, it was the Founders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who most strongly favored slavery. 7

Yet, despite the support for slavery in those States, the clear majority of the Founders opposed this evil. For instance, when some of the southern pro-slavery advocates invoked the Bible in support of slavery, Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress, responded:

[E]ven the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years, . . . but . . . gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever. 8
Many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves as British citizens released them in the years following America’s separation from Great Britain (e.g., George Washington, John ****inson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph of Roanoke, and others). Furthermore, many of the Founders had never owned any slaves. For example, John Adams proclaimed, "[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave." 9

Notice a few additional examples of the strong anti-slavery sentiments held by great numbers of the Founders:

[N]ever in my life did I own a slave. 10 John Adams, Signer of the Declaration, one of only two signers of the Bill of Rights, U. S. President

But to the eye of reason, what can be more clear than that all men have an equal right to happiness? Nature made no other distinction than that of higher or lower degrees of power of mind and body. . . . Were the talents and virtues which Heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges? . . . No! In the judgment of heaven there is no other superiority among men than a superiority of wisdom and virtue. 11 Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration, “Father of the American Revolution”

[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. 12 Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration

As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they may build up the system of the government on the broad, strong, and sound principles of freedom. Curse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery].13 John ****inson, Signer of the Constitution; Governor of Pennsylvania

I am glad to hear that the disposition against keeping negroes grows more general in North America. Several pieces have been lately printed here against the practice, and I hope in time it will be taken into consideration and suppressed by the legislature. 14 Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration, Signer of the Constitution, President of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society

That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of happiness, the Christian religion teaches us to believe, and the political creed of Americans fully coincides with the position. . . . [We] earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery – that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage and who . . . are groaning in servile subjection. 15 Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration, Signer of the Constitution, President of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society

That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and perhaps impious, part. 16 John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Original Chief Justice U. S. Supreme Court

The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration [curse] should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. 17 Thomas Jefferson

Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts . . . by agreeing to this duty. 18 Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress; Signer of the Declaration

I have seen it observed by a great writer that Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us, who profess the same religion practice its precepts, and by agreeing to this duty convince the world that we know and practice our truest interests, and that we pay a proper regard to the dictates of justice and humanity! 19 Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration, Framer of the Bill of Rights

I hope we shall at last, and if it so please God I hope it may be during my life time, see this cursed thing [slavery] taken out. . . . For my part, whether in a public station or a private capacity, I shall always be prompt to contribute my assistance towards effecting so desirable an event. 20 William Livingston, Signer of the Constitution; Governor of New Jersey

[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master. 21 Luther Martin, Delegate at Constitution Convention

As much as I value a union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade [slavery]. 22 George Mason, Delegate at Constitutional Convention

Honored will that State be in the annals of history which shall first abolish this violation of the rights of mankind. 23 Joseph Reed, Revolutionary Officer; Governor of Pennsylvania

Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. 24 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration

The commerce in African slaves has breathed its last in Pennsylvania. I shall send you a copy of our late law respecting that trade as soon as it is published. I am encouraged by the success that has finally attended the exertions of the friends of universal freedom and justice. 25 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration, Founder of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, President of the National Abolition Movement

Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery]–Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. 26 Noah Webster, Responsible for Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution

Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law. . . . The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all. 27 James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice

[I]t is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others . . . and take away their liberty by no better means than superior power. 28 John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration
For many of the Founders, their feelings against slavery went beyond words. For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first anti-slavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. In fact, when signer of the Constitution William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:

I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. 29
Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts began abolishing slavery in 1780; 30 Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; 31 Vermont in 1786; 32 New Hampshire in 1792; 33 New York in 1799; 34 and New Jersey did so in 1804. 35

Additionally, the reason that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a Congressional act, authored by Constitution signer Rufus King 36 and signed into law by President George Washington, 37 which prohibited slavery in those territories. 38 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]. 39
The truth is that it was the Founding Fathers who were responsible for planting and nurturing the first seeds for the recognition of black equality and for the eventual end of slavery. This was a fact made clear by Richard Allen.

Allen had been a slave in Pennsylvania but was freed after he converted his master to Christianity. Allen, a close friend of Benjamin Rush and several other Founding Fathers, went on to become the founder of the A.M.E. Church in America. In an early address "To the People of Color," he explained:

Many of the white people have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, [and] are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal. 40
While much progress was made by the Founders to end the institution of slavery, unfortunately what they began was not fully achieved until generations later. Yet, despite the strenuous effort of many Founders to recognize in practice that "all men are created equal," charges persist to the opposite. In fact, revisionists even claim that the Constitution demonstrates that the Founders considered one who was black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another falsehood. The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; rather, it was an anti-slavery provision to limit the political power of slavery’s proponents. By including only three-fifths of the total number of slaves in the congressional calculations, Southern States were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress.

Based on the clear records of the Constitutional Convention, two prominent professors explain the meaning of the three-fifths clause:

[T]he Constitution allowed Southern States to count three-fifths of their slaves toward the population that would determine numbers of representatives in the federal legislature. This clause is often singled out today as a sign of black dehumanization: they are only three-fifths human. But the provision applied to slaves, not blacks. That meant that free blacks–and there were many, North as well as South–counted the same as whites. More important, the fact that slaves were counted at all was a concession to slave owners. Southerners would have been glad to count their slaves as whole persons. It was the Northerners who did not want them counted, for why should the South be rewarded with more representatives, the more slaves they held? 41 Thomas West

It was slavery’s opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South. 42 Walter Williams
Why do revisionists so often abuse and misportray the three-fifths clause? Professor Walter Williams (himself an African-American) suggested:

Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers’ ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists. 43
While this has been only a cursory examination of the Founders and slavery, it is nonetheless sufficient to demonstrate the absurdity of the insinuation that the Founders were a collective group of racists.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more information on this issue see George Washington, Thomas Jefferson & Slavery in Virginia, The Bible, Slavery, and America's Founders, Black History Issue 2003, Confronting Civil War Revisionism, and Setting the Record Straight (Book, or DVD).